RAMESH CHANDER vs. THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2537/2025HC DelhiDLHC01010275202528 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) correctly disposed of the Original Application (OA) as the petitioner's grievance had been redressed by his promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court found that the petitioner, having accepted the promotion which was processed through the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), could not subsequently challenge the legality of the ACC process. The Court reasoned that allowing such a contention would require the petitioner to forego his promotion, which he had accepted. The Court also observed that the petitioner's insistence on a declaration of illegality appeared to be an 'ego issue' given that he had waived his claims for costs and interest. Therefore, the writ petition was deemed misconceived, and the CAT's decision was upheld. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramesh Chander, filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking promotion to the cadre of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. He also sought a declaration that the respondents' inaction was illegal, and claimed costs and interest. During the pendency of the OA, the petitioner was promoted as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax notionally with effect from March 19, 2021, for the panel year 2019. The petitioner accepted this promotion and agreed to forego his claims for costs and interest. However, he insisted on a decision regarding the legality of the respondents' actions in not promoting him earlier and processing his case through the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC). The CAT disposed of the OA, holding that the petitioner's grievance was redressed by the promotion and that no further adjudication was required. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the CAT's decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in disposing of the Original Application without adjudicating on the legality of the respondents' actions in not promoting the petitioner earlier and processing his case through the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), despite the petitioner having been promoted during the pendency of the OA? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the principles of administrative law and the scope of judicial review over promotion processes). Assessee's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a declaration that the respondents acted illegally in not promoting him earlier and in processing his case through the ACC. Revenue's Arguments: - The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the petitioner's grievance was redressed by his promotion, and therefore, the OA did not survive for further consideration. They also contended that the petitioner, having benefited from the promotion processed through the ACC, could not challenge that process. The High Court also noted that the petitioner's insistence on a declaration appeared to be an 'ego issue' after he had given up claims for costs and interest.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 2537/2025

Page 1 of 5

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2537/2025 & CM APPLs.11982-83/2025

RAMESH CHANDER

.....Petitioner

Through: Petitioner in person.

versus

THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Baldev Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, GP and Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

JUDGMENT (ORAL) %

28.02.2025

C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The petitioner instituted OA 3843/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal1, aggrieved by the fact that he had not been promoted to the cadre of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The prayer clause in the OA reads thus:-

“In view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above and the submissions, this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Direct the Respondents to promote the Applicant to the cadre of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

(b) Declare that inaction of the Respondents is clearly illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

1 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:04.03.2025 17:48:19 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2537/2025

Page 2 of 5

(c) Award suitable but exemplary costs to the Applicant for Respondents' forcing the Applicant to pursue the avoidable litigation and not allowing the just dues.

(d) Direct the Respondents to make payment of the dues along with interest at the rate of l 8%.

(e) Pass any other order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(f) Direct respondents to pay cost of litigation to the applicant.”

2.

During the currency of the aforesaid OA, the petitioner was promoted as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 19 March 2021, against vacancies of the panel year 2019. This promotion was made after processing of the file through the Appointments Committee of Cabinet2. The promotion order reads thus:- “F. No. A-32011/1/2020-Ad.VI Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes ****

North Block, New Delhi, The 27th March, 2024.

Office Order No. 88 of 2024

Consequent upon approval of the Competent Authority, Shri Ramesh Chander, IRS (Retd.) (90102) is, hereby, promoted to the grade of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) (level 15 in the pay matrix Rs. 1,82,200-2,24,100/-) for the panel year 2019 notionally w.e.f. 19.03.2021 i.e. the date of promotion of his Junior and until further orders.

(J S Malik) Under Secretary to the Government of India

2 “ACC” hereinafter Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:04.03.2025 17:48:19 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2537/2025

Page 3 of 5

Tel. No 011-23095474”

3.

In view of the promotion granted to the petitioner as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 19 March 2021, which was the date from which his junior had been promoted, prayer (a) in the OA did not survive for further consideration. This position has been accepted by the petitioner, who appears in person, both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court.

4.

Before the Tribunal, the petitioner also submitted that he was not pressing prayers (c) and (d) in the OA. As such, the petitioner also decided to forego his claims to costs and interests. The petitioner, however, insisted that the Tribunal passed a decision on prayer (a) and (b), which was for a declaration that the respondent had acted illegally, assumably in not promoting the petitioner as Principal Commissioner.

5.

The Tribunal has noted the said submission, but has held that it was not inclined to enter into the issue as the petitioner had already been promoted as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from the date from which he contended that he was entitled to such promotion. Accordingly, the OA filed by the petitioner stands disposed of by the Tribunal on holding that the petitioner’s grievance stands redressed.

6.

The petitioner has now approached this court by means of the present writ petition assailing the said decision.

Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:04.03.2025 17:48:19 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2537/2025

Page 4 of 5

7.

We have heard Mr. Ramesh Chander, who appears in person.

8.

Mr. Ramesh Chander, seeks a declaration that the respondent had acted illegally in not promoting him as Principal Commissioner. In fact, more precisely, what Mr. Ramesh Chander seeks, as ventilated by him before us is for a declaration that the respondent had acted illegally in processing his case through ACC.

9.

We fail to understand how such a stand can be raised. As a beneficiary of the promotion to the post of Principal CIT, with effect from 19 March 2021, which was after approval had been obtained by the ACC for the said promotion, it can clearly not lie in the mouth of the petitioner who now seek to contend that the case should not have been processed through the ACC.

10.

If the petitioner is to be permitted to raise such a contention, it would require him to forego his promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner, CIT.

11.

Moreover, the declaration the petitioner seeks from the Court, appears to be more of an ego issue than anything else.

12.

Having agreed to give up his claims for costs and interests, it defeats the comprehension as to what the petitioner is seeking to achieve by a declaration by the court in the terms that he seeks.

13.

We are in agreement with the Tribunal that nothing survived for Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:04.03.2025 17:48:19 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 2537/2025

Page 5 of 5

consideration in the OA and the Tribunal, therefore, correctly disposed of the OA as not surviving for further consideration.

14.

This writ petition is completely misconceived.

15.

In as much as the petitioner is appearing in person, we refrain from imposing costs.

16.

The petition is dismissed.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

FEBRUARY 28, 2025/sk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signed By:MEENU KALRA Signing Date:04.03.2025 17:48:19 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →