RAJVEER MINHAS vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

CWP/9071/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01100391201610 May 2016Bench: MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the period between the petitioner's personal hearing in October 2014 and the filing of the legal notice in March 2016, and subsequently until the date of the judgment, was not a reasonable time to decide on a compassionate appointment. The court emphasized that the petitioner has a right to know the status of his case. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to examine the petitioner's complaint and convey their decision on the legal notice, following the personal hearing, within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order. If the petitioner's case had merit for appointment, it was to be granted within the next month after completing any remaining formalities. The court also directed that if the petitioner requested a personal hearing and no decision had been taken, one would be granted, and a speaking order would be passed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajveer Minhas, was called for a personal interview on October 16, 2014, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit)-cum-Chairman Screening Committee for compassionate appointments. The petitioner claims to have appeared for the interview. However, he did not receive any communication regarding the consideration of his request or the outcome of the interview. Consequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice on March 18, 2016, which was received by the concerned authorities. The petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh seeking a decision on his compassionate appointment application.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have taken a reasonable time to decide on the petitioner's compassionate appointment application following his personal interview in October 2014 and subsequent legal notice in March 2016? 2. Whether the petitioner has a right to know the status of his compassionate appointment case? Assessee's Contention (Petitioner): The petitioner argued that an unreasonable amount of time had passed since his interview and legal notice without any decision being conveyed. He asserted his right to know the status of his case and sought a directive for the respondents to decide on his application. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's directions imply that the respondents were expected to respond to the legal notice and decide the case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP No.9071 of 2016 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9071 of 2016 Date of decision: 10.5.2016 Rajveer Minhas … Petitioner Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, ... Respondents Chandigarh & ors.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. SK Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral) 1. The petitioner was called to appear personally for interview on October 16, 2014 by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit)-cum-Chairman Screening Committee for compassionate appointments. The petitioner asserts that he appeared and was interviewed on October 16, 2014 in the office of the Chairman Screening Committee at Chandigarh. The petitioner laments that he has not heard from the Committee of any consideration on the request and the interview that followed. 2. The petitioner has served a legal notice on March 18, 2016, which has been received and sent to quarters concerned vide letter dated March 30, 2016 as is conveyed to the counsel for the petitioner at Mohali. 3. When the petitioner has been interviewed and his legal notice has been received complaining that no action has been taken or conveyed as to the result of the interview, this Court expects that a final MONIKA VERMA 2016.05.18 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.9071 of 2016 -2- decision should have been taken within reasonable time and conveyed to the petitioner. It cannot be said that period between personal hearing and legal notice and till today is reasonable time to take a decision on compassionate appointment. The petitioner has a right to know of the status of his case. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner and to convey the decision taken on the legal notice following personal hearing afforded at the end of 2014. Accordingly, the final decision be conveyed within one month to the petitioner from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner has a case on merits for appointment then the same be granted to him within the next one month after completion of any remaining formalities within the same time frame. In case the petitioner asks for personal hearing and the decision has not been taken so far, the same shall be granted and a speaking order passed 4. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)

JUDGE 10.5.2016 monika MONIKA VERMA 2016.05.18 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →