Sri Tirupathi Krishnaiah vs. The Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA)

PDF · subscribers
WP/9912/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01020182202606 April 2026Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the petitioner's grievance pertains to the fixation of pay, which is a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as the Income Tax Department is notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court noted that employees of such departments are expected to approach the CAT first to ventilate their grievances before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court found no good reason to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 226 in this instance, given the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The High Court reserved the petitioner's right to approach the concerned CAT for redressal of his grievance. The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri Tirupathi Krishnaiah, an employee of the Income Tax Department, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition sought a direction to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to consider his representations dated 27.10.2025 and 21.11.2025. These representations pertained to the fixation of pay pursuant to the revision of pay scales effective from 01.01.1996, in the context of the 5th Pay Commission. The petitioner cited an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, upheld by the Bombay High Court, and the Government of India's acceptance of this judgment for notional revision of pay from 01.01.1996 and monetary benefits from 21.04.2004 for Group-B officers in the Ministry of Finance. The Income Tax Department is notified under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner's grievance pertains to pay fixation and falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as per the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985? (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks a direction from the High Court to consider his representations based on a CAT order upheld by the Bombay High Court and accepted by the Government of India, which grants benefits related to pay revision. The petitioner relies on the CAT order and its acceptance by the Government. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, appeared before the High Court. The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court or the merits of the petitioner's claim, but their presence indicates opposition or a response to the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13447 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9912 OF 2026 Between: Sri Tirupathi Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Tirupathi Chinnaiah, Aged about 7g^years, RJo. Fiat No.102, Creative Sadan, D.No.8 -3-977112, Srinagar Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. ...pETtIoNER AND 1. The Prl. Chief Commissioner of lncome{ax (CCA), l.T.Towers, A-C-Guards, Hyderabad. 2. Cenlral Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Oelhi, Rep, by its Chairman. 3. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi, Rep. by Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPoNoENTS Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representations tiled by the Petitioner on 27t1O12025 and 2111112025 in the light of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench and upheld by Bombay High Court, and considering the acceptance of the said judgment by Government of lndia on the revision of pay notionally from 01-01-1996 and grant monetary benefits from 21-4-2OO4 onwards, relating to Group-B officers of Central Government working in Ministry of Finance, Govt. of lndia, and to pass orders at the earliest. : l E a

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VASANT KUMAR FOR SRI A.V.RAGHU RAM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER E / ,/

-=@7 ,/ fHE HONOURABLF] SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOURAI]LE SRI JIISTICE NARSTNG RAO NANDIK()NDA W.P.No.99l ) of 2026 Date:06.0{.2026 Betwcen: Mr.TiruPathi Krishnaiah And The pr.Chict Contqrissi6ner r-rf [tlcolnc .t ax (CCA)' t{ydcrabad and others ' I{espontlents ORDEIL' (pcr !lon hht '\rr 'lt'stit c' l'.5iit; Krxhv) I{card i\4r.K.Vasant Kttnliir' lLrarned counsel rcpresenting Mr.A.V.t{aghu I{atn- learned corrrlscl appears fbr the petitioneri l*is.D.Slpna RcdJl . lcarnetl litni"r i"'';ii-iiiig Counscl lor the Incomc Tax Departtnc-tlt. appcars fbr tc'sptttrtic::t I'Jos' l and 2 and Mr'N'Bhujanga Rao. learned l)cputy Solicitor (iencral of lntlia' appears tbr respondent No-3 and Pcrusctl ([tc rce ttr-rl ' Petitioner 2 1he prcsent is thl rvri" n':'ilt'rtt rthere the grievance of the petitionel sccllls I() be dispulil pcrtilitlillg t() thc fixation of PaY Pursuant to the revisiort of Pay scalc rvith e ilt'cl' iiorn 01'01'1996 in the coutse of implernentatiorr of 5'l' I'a)' Ccrtnttri:;sion l'he petitioner is an enrployee fiorn the lncotne 'l ar' l)epartrncnt' rvhich is otherwise' notified I)opartrncnt unclcr thc ;\dnl inislrativc 'lribunals Act' 1985' rvhore' the emplttvcc: trl tltc l-)cparttricttl !t;tr; trr t-rrst approach the Central

) Adrninistrativc TribLrnal veritilalrus tlrr:il gricvancc and only thereafter thel havc to approach the I Iiglr ( iorrrr invoking thc .iurisdiction urrder :\rtic lc 126 o ['Coustrtutiorr ol'lrrrlilr. l. A pcrusal of the plcadings lould also go to show, that in sinrilar circuutstances. thcrc [.lcing instances ol sinrilarly. placed persons havc alreadi, approachcit thc Ccntral Adntinistrativc-l ribunals in the dif lbrent statcs and in sornc (iits(.s. tltcrc arc cci.ain ordcrs passed. .1. In r ierr ol- the sarne. \\c (l() rrot {itrd an1 qood reas()n as to \\,hy this Courl should inroke the ertriroiilinar\ llo\\ er:i under Articlc 226 ol' thc Constilution ol Ind ia. -i. Rescrrrng right ol' tlrc pctilionrr to apDroach thc cilncerned Central Adrninistrati\ c 'l'ribunll lirr ., cntilitting his sricvarrcc. thc prescnt tt'rit pctition at this.iuncturc staitrl\ dispo:i.d ol. No order as lo costs. Miscel lancous appl ical ron: prtrxlin{t. i l- aiir . :rha i I stand closod. Sd/.AHMED ABOULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE cOPY/l SECTION OFFICER 1. The Prl. Chief Commissioner of lncome-tax rcCA), l.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes. Block, New Delhi To o 3. The Secretary, Unton of lndia, Ministry of Finan Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 4 One CC to SRI A.V RAGHU RAM, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, SENIOR SC INCOME TAX loPUCl 6. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies PSK,/PMK ,M, -@r

HIGH COURT DATED:0610412026 ORDER WP.No.9912 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,^t ) 'rt 3 0 APfi t026 i: '')i' ' ' \\'/ '.a,/ -'- // , ,:i() ')':;? u Qrsr.r;

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →