A copy of judgement of CAT, Ernakulam Bench has been procured and being published for the viewers for interpretation and discussion. Click here for judgement dated 15.12.2015
37 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Let CHQ put pressure on cbdt to hold dpc for acit immediately as CAT decision is nor adverse to it.
!!! Promotions!!! it is an activity, which is an Administrative Matter of the concerned state...The copy of the Judgement may be relevant to the concerned state jurisdiction alone...
CAT has given 3 months time so feel free for next three months, nothing wiil happen Kerala pr ccit will send seniority as per nrp to cbdt as per CAT order Cbdt will not send seniority list to upsc without nrp if cbdt send, upsc will return it to amend as per nrp No promotion before june 2016
At least now leaders of ITGOA must understand that without implementing NRP & revising seniority list of ITOs accordingly no further DPC can be held..... At least now ITGOA should insist on implementation of NRP & preparing final Seniority List of ITOs within 3 months i.e. time allowed by CAT Ernakulum....
The 3 day's festival of ITGOA is to be celebrated at Gohati from 21st,is it a festiwal all will collect at Gohati to mourn the failure of Present CHQ,all will mourn and than drink some Blackdog or Johny walker to comeover from this trauma and than again busy in monkey crawaling for no results
The Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 was concerned amongst others with the matter of applicability of quota rule and the date from which seniority can be reckoned in the case of direct recruits in the case of Military Engineering Service. It held as follows: "Shorn of all service jurisprudence jargon let us bluntly notice the situation that a primary school student when the promotee was a member of the service, barged in and claimed and got seniority over the promotee. If this has not a demoralising effect on service we fail to see what other inequitous approach would be more damaging. It is, therefore, time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct recruit, who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules, should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for some of the direct recruits in this connection urged that if at the time when the promotee was recruited by promotion, his appointment/ promotion was irregular or illegal and which is required to be regularised, any subsequent direct recruit coming in at a later date can seek relief and score a march over such irregular or illegal entrant. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view."
The Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 was concerned amongst others with the matter of applicability of quota rule and the date from which seniority can be reckoned in the case of direct recruits in the case of Military Engineering Service. It held as follows: "Shorn of all service jurisprudence jargon let us bluntly notice the situation that a primary school student when the promotee was a member of the service, barged in and claimed and got seniority over the promotee. If this has not a demoralising effect on service we fail to see what other inequitous approach would be more damaging. It is, therefore, time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct recruit, who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules, should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for some of the direct recruits in this connection urged that if at the time when the promotee was recruited by promotion, his appointment/ promotion was irregular or illegal and which is required to be regularised, any subsequent direct recruit coming in at a later date can seek relief and score a march over such irregular or illegal entrant. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view."
worthless itgoa more staff deprive from 7th cpc and lose of money per that 3000 thousand NRparma order 27/11/2012 more than three year can not implement
there are some who despite being well backgrounded intent to enjoy the fruit of reservation and to employ as a compassionate appointee. these are the demons of modern income tax department's society, identify them and get them ruled out from the department so that merit can persist.
Whay was the judgement cited above ignored while deciding NRP case?
What a court says is not always correct, like in the NRP case. But as per the existing law, either we have to follow a court's ruling or we have get the decision reversed by filing appeal against it.
Now since no appeal was filed by anyone in the NRP case, we have no option but to follow the decision. May be some time in future, in some other case, a different decision may come in the line of above decision and then we will again revise the whole seniority list.
ITGOA & ITEF both are victim for delay in promotion, in wb charge more than 50 SC/ST candidates were promoted as ITO in general quota wrongly, which needs to revert back, but ITGOA & ITEF saved them. Hence, more than 50 senior of general quota Insp. are suffering.
Not only in WB Charge, but most of the Charges this mistake has happened and the respective administrations are correcting the past mistake at present.
. The Apex Court in the case of N.K. Chauhan v. Union of India (infra) had held that a direct recruit cannot gel a seniority from the date earlier to his date of appointment.
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004 To, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), CHANDIGARH Subject: Fixation of inter-se seniority of DR and Promotee Income Tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOP&T in r/o OM dated 3.7.87 Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter F.No.CC/CHD/2003- 04/935 dated 4.12.2003 on the above subject and to say that the matter has been examined in consultation with DOP&T and necessary clarification in the matter is given as under: Point/querry raised Clarification Whether direct recruit ‘It is clarified by DOP&T 33 Page 34 inspectors should be given seniority of the year in which selection process initiated or vacancy occurred orotherwise that Direct Recruits’ seniority vis-à-vis the promotees is reckoned from the year in which they are actually recruited. DRs cannot claim seniority of the year in which the vacancies had arisen. The question of grant of seniority to DRs of the period when they were not even in service does not arise.’ 3. The representations may please be disposed off accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary to the Government of India”
Respected General Secretaery Do you know what Honble Supreme court said while disposing NRParmar DOPT has no power to clarify om dt 1986. But it has the power to amend or modify om dt 1986.If DOPt brings modification of Om dt 1986 it would solve the entire problem with a single stroke. pl go through the relevent para of judgement.
 The settled seniority position which has been in operation for several years cannot be unsettled. In this regard, pl see the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011 (7) SCC 743. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- We deem it appropriate to reiterate that in service jurisprudence there is immense sanctity of a final seniority list. The seniority list once published cannot be disturbed at the behest of person who chose not to challenge it for four years. The sanctity of the seniority list must be maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do so in order to do substantial justice. This is imperative to avoid avoidable litigation and unrest and chaos in the services.
The SC/ST candidates cleared betterment exams/general candidates marks as well as top in the seniority they will claim for promotion as General Category. In this regard, you may see the last promotion orders of the Board from ITO to ACIT. Nobody denied their promotion as per the Constitution of India.
As per information under RTI, 65 nos of promotion of ITOs of SC/ST have given promotion in UR quota from 2004-05 to 2010-11 who pass exam in SC/St category & not eligible in UR quota. A case is pending in Calcutta HC in this reg.
Then, the DPOT/ Board should implement the five member constitutional bench of Supreme Court ruling dated 15.07.2014 in the case of Rhotas Vs UOI which declared the betterment exams is illegal wef 1997 itself.
RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED UNIFORMINGLY ALONG WITH CATCH UP RULE JUDGEMENT AS RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT IS LAW OF THE LAND AND NRP IS NOW HISTORY.
Anonymous said... Respected General Secretaery Do you know what Honble Supreme court said while disposing NRParmar DOPT has no power to clarify om dt 1986. But it has the power to amend or modify om dt 1986.If DOPt brings modification of Om dt 1986 it would solve the entire problem with a single stroke. pl go through the relevent para of judgement.
Some promotees (st/st stenos) got promotion like direct IRS by unfair means like betterment. Now they will retire as CIT. It is right time to implement catch up rule to keep them at par of their general batchmate
Aaj bhi sc st ke prati manuwadion ki nakaratmak soch. SC st ki unnati nahi dekhi jati. General category se exam pass kar promotion lene par bhi aitraj. Manuwadi
You are ready to become a general candidate but are you ready to leave benefits of SC/ST for your children. You are opportunist. Jahan jyada fayada dikha wahi pahunch jate ho
Opportunist general category wale bhi hote hai, rajniti mein hi dekh lo. Aap logo ka to hamesha ek hi uddeshya ha SC /st ko dabao. SC st ko aage mat badne do.
Apne dam par koi bhi aage badh sakta hai. Damdar aadmi ko reservation ki jarurat nahi hoti. Promotion me reservation lekar bhi satisfaction nahi. आपके और अन्य सभी कर्मचारियों के बच्चों को समान सुविधाएँ मिलती है तो क्या आप उपेक्षित दलित बच्चों के लिए अपने सुविधाभोगी बच्चो का आरक्षण त्याग देंगे जिससे ज़रूरतमंद को ही आरक्षण का लाभ मिले
It may kindly be noted that comments published in this blog are the views of our readers. The administrator of this blog is not responsible in any way regarding the comments and opinions expressed here.
Viewers are requested to post relevant comments only and abstain from making any comment which can hurt any person or group.
37 comments:
Let CHQ put pressure on cbdt to hold dpc for acit immediately as CAT decision is nor adverse to it.
Time Game started.
Another batch of direct IRS will be recruited before ITO to ACIT promotion.
Yes Mr.2.11pm. But chq office bearers are interested in election of 2nd term. They won't show interest in dpc.
!!! Promotions!!! it is an activity, which is an Administrative Matter of the concerned state...The copy of the Judgement may be relevant to the concerned state jurisdiction alone...
CAT has given 3 months time so feel free for next three months, nothing wiil happen
Kerala pr ccit will send seniority as per nrp to cbdt as per CAT order
Cbdt will not send seniority list to upsc without nrp if cbdt send, upsc will return it to amend as per nrp
No promotion before june 2016
All credit goes to ITGOA for too much delay in promotion of ACIT
At least now leaders of ITGOA must understand that without implementing NRP & revising seniority list of ITOs accordingly no further DPC can be held..... At least now ITGOA should insist on implementation of NRP & preparing final Seniority List of ITOs within 3 months i.e. time allowed by CAT Ernakulum....
The 3 day's festival of ITGOA is to be celebrated at Gohati from 21st,is it a festiwal all will collect at Gohati to mourn the failure of Present CHQ,all will mourn and than drink some Blackdog or Johny walker to comeover from this trauma and than again busy in monkey crawaling for no results
please think of yhis judgement
The Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 was concerned amongst others with the matter of applicability of quota rule and the date from which seniority can be reckoned in the case of direct recruits in the case of Military Engineering Service. It held as follows:
"Shorn of all service jurisprudence jargon let us bluntly notice the situation that a primary school student when the promotee was a member of the service, barged in and claimed and got seniority over the promotee. If this has not a demoralising effect on service we fail to see what other inequitous approach would be more damaging. It is, therefore, time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct recruit, who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules, should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for some of the direct recruits in this connection urged that if at the time when the promotee was recruited by promotion, his appointment/ promotion was irregular or illegal and which is required to be regularised, any subsequent direct recruit coming in at a later date can seek relief and score a march over such irregular or illegal entrant. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view."
The Apex Court in the case of A. Janardhana v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 769 was concerned amongst others with the matter of applicability of quota rule and the date from which seniority can be reckoned in the case of direct recruits in the case of Military Engineering Service. It held as follows:
"Shorn of all service jurisprudence jargon let us bluntly notice the situation that a primary school student when the promotee was a member of the service, barged in and claimed and got seniority over the promotee. If this has not a demoralising effect on service we fail to see what other inequitous approach would be more damaging. It is, therefore, time to clearly initiate a proposition that a direct recruit, who comes into service after the promotee was already unconditionally and without reservation promoted and whose promotion is not shown to be invalid or illegal according to relevant statutory or non-statutory rules, should not be permitted by any principle of seniority to score a march over a promotee because that itself being arbitrary would be violative of Articles 14 and 16. Mr. Ramamurthi, learned Counsel for some of the direct recruits in this connection urged that if at the time when the promotee was recruited by promotion, his appointment/ promotion was irregular or illegal and which is required to be regularised, any subsequent direct recruit coming in at a later date can seek relief and score a march over such irregular or illegal entrant. We find it difficult to subscribe to this view."
worthless itgoa more staff deprive from 7th cpc and lose of money per that 3000 thousand NRparma order 27/11/2012 more than three year can not implement
More staff deprive from 7th cpc and lose of money per month 3000/- of each staff who is going to ITO promotion.
Military service dopt ke under aati hai kya?
there are some who despite being well backgrounded intent to enjoy the fruit of reservation and to employ as a compassionate appointee. these are the demons of modern income tax department's society, identify them and get them ruled out from the department so that merit can persist.
my words only for oppurtunist
Whay was the judgement cited above ignored while deciding NRP case?
What a court says is not always correct, like in the NRP case. But as per the existing law, either we have to follow a court's ruling or we have get the decision reversed by filing appeal against it.
Now since no appeal was filed by anyone in the NRP case, we have no option but to follow the decision. May be some time in future, in some other case, a different decision may come in the line of above decision and then we will again revise the whole seniority list.
ITGOA & ITEF both are victim for delay in promotion, in wb charge more than 50 SC/ST candidates were promoted as ITO in general quota wrongly, which needs to revert back, but ITGOA & ITEF saved them. Hence, more than 50 senior of general quota Insp. are suffering.
Not only in WB Charge, but most of the Charges this mistake has happened and the respective administrations are correcting the past mistake at present.
On the basis of which O.M they were promoted.
. The Apex Court in the case of N.K. Chauhan v. Union of India (infra) had held that a direct recruit cannot gel a seniority from the date earlier to his date of appointment.
New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004 To, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), CHANDIGARH
Subject: Fixation of inter-se seniority of DR and Promotee Income Tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOP&T in r/o OM dated 3.7.87
Sir,
I am directed to refer to your letter F.No.CC/CHD/2003- 04/935 dated 4.12.2003 on the above subject and to say that the matter has been examined in consultation with DOP&T and necessary clarification in the matter is given as under:
Point/querry raised Clarification Whether direct recruit ‘It is clarified by DOP&T
33
Page 34
inspectors should be given seniority of the year in which selection process initiated or vacancy occurred orotherwise
that Direct Recruits’ seniority vis-à-vis the promotees is reckoned from the year in which they are actually recruited. DRs cannot claim seniority of the year in which the vacancies had arisen. The question of grant of seniority to DRs of the period when they were not even in service does not arise.’
3. The representations may please be disposed off accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Under Secretary to the Government of India”
Respected General Secretaery
Do you know what Honble Supreme court said while disposing NRParmar
DOPT has no power to clarify om dt 1986. But it has the power to amend or modify om dt 1986.If DOPt brings modification of Om dt 1986 it would solve the entire problem with a single stroke. pl go through the relevent para of judgement.
 The settled seniority position which has been in operation for several years cannot be unsettled. In this regard, pl see the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2011 (7) SCC 743. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:-
We deem it appropriate to reiterate that in service jurisprudence there is immense sanctity of a final seniority list. The seniority list once published cannot be disturbed at the behest of person who chose not to challenge it for four years. The sanctity of the seniority list must be maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do so in order to do substantial justice. This is imperative to avoid avoidable litigation and unrest and chaos in the services.
NRP 1992 का case हैं इसलिए उपरोक्त case law काम नहीं आएगा
Demotion के लिए तैयार रहो
The SC/ST candidates cleared betterment exams/general candidates marks as well as top in the seniority they will claim for promotion as General Category. In this regard, you may see the last promotion orders of the Board from ITO to ACIT. Nobody denied their promotion as per the Constitution of India.
As per information under RTI, 65 nos of promotion of ITOs of SC/ST have given promotion in UR quota from 2004-05 to 2010-11 who pass exam in SC/St category & not eligible in UR quota. A case is pending in Calcutta HC in this reg.
Then, the DPOT/ Board should implement the five member constitutional bench of Supreme Court ruling dated 15.07.2014 in the case of Rhotas Vs UOI which declared the betterment exams is illegal wef 1997 itself.
NRP के साथ साथ catch up rule भी implement हो जाए तो अच्छा हैं अन्यथा बाद में बहुत सारे लोग demote होंगे
RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED UNIFORMINGLY ALONG WITH CATCH UP RULE JUDGEMENT AS RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT IS LAW OF THE LAND AND NRP IS NOW HISTORY.
RAJEEV MOHAN JUDGEMENT WALE LOG SAMAJ TO HAI NAHI, KUCH BHI BAT LIKH DETO HO. IT IS IRRELEVANT. FIRST READ THE JUDGEMENT ONLY THEN COMMENT.
Anonymous said...
Respected General Secretaery
Do you know what Honble Supreme court said while disposing NRParmar
DOPT has no power to clarify om dt 1986. But it has the power to amend or modify om dt 1986.If DOPt brings modification of Om dt 1986 it would solve the entire problem with a single stroke. pl go through the relevent para of judgement.
Dopt can not amend retrospectively.
Some promotees (st/st stenos) got promotion like direct IRS by unfair means like betterment. Now they will retire as CIT.
It is right time to implement catch up rule to keep them at par of their general batchmate
Aaj bhi sc st ke prati manuwadion ki nakaratmak soch. SC st ki unnati nahi dekhi jati. General category se exam pass kar promotion lene par bhi aitraj. Manuwadi
You are ready to become a general candidate but are you ready to leave benefits of SC/ST for your children. You are opportunist. Jahan jyada fayada dikha wahi pahunch jate ho
Opportunist general category wale bhi hote hai, rajniti mein hi dekh lo. Aap logo ka to hamesha ek hi uddeshya ha SC /st ko dabao. SC st ko aage mat badne do.
Apne dam par koi bhi aage badh sakta hai. Damdar aadmi ko reservation ki jarurat nahi hoti. Promotion me reservation lekar bhi satisfaction nahi. आपके और अन्य सभी कर्मचारियों के बच्चों को समान सुविधाएँ मिलती है तो क्या आप उपेक्षित दलित बच्चों के लिए अपने सुविधाभोगी बच्चो का आरक्षण त्याग देंगे जिससे ज़रूरतमंद को ही आरक्षण का लाभ मिले
Can someone please post a link to the Rajeev Mohan case as decided by the supreme court.
Post a Comment