What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal directed the respondents to convene a review DPC and consider the employee's case for promotion, taking into account his previous service rendered before the transfer. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that qualifying service for promotion cannot be wiped out due to transfer.

An employee, transferred on compassionate grounds, sought promotion to Inspector. His previous service experience was not considered for promotion eligibility by the department. The employee filed an application before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether service rendered in a previous region prior to inter-charge transfer on compassionate grounds should be considered for promotion eligibility. Whether a person transferred at their own request loses qualifying service for promotion.

The Union of India vs E Lakshmi Ganesh | Karnataka High Court 2021

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8486 OF 2021(S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI - 110001 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA & GOA REGION QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHUBHA S, ADVOCATE) AND: E. LAKSHMI GANESH S/O SHRI E MOHAN KUMAR AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS TAX ASSISTANT

2 O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS C.R. BUILDING, NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 025 …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER BY WAY OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH BENGALURU IN O.A. NO. 170/00232/2020 AND 2.PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER(S), WRIT DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

The petitioner/Union of India before this Court has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 06.11.2020 passed in O.A.No.170/00232/2020 (E. Lakshmi Ganesh vs. Union of India, through the Finance Secretary).

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the respondent/employee joined the services in the Income Tax Department on 17.08.2016 as Tax Assistant and submitted a representation on 22.11.2017 for inter-charge transfer to

3 Karnataka and Goa region on compassionate grounds. No Objection Certificate was issued on 17.01.2018 and the transfer was subject to certain terms and conditions. He also gave an undertaking on 21.02.2018 abiding thereby accepting the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter dated 17.01.2018. He was transferred to Karnataka and Goa Region by order dated 02.04.2018 and he joined on 10.05.2018. He submitted a representation stating that he has put in qualifying service as Tax Assistant of three years and he has also passed Departmental examination entitling him for promotion to the post of Inspector keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Pratibha Rani and Others vs. Union of India and Others rendered in Civil Appeal No.3793/2019 decided on 10.04.2019. However, his case was not considered for promotion inspite of the fact that he was holding requisite qualifications. He has later on preferred an original application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in paragraphs 2 to 5 has passed the following order:

4 "2. At the very outset, Shri T.C.Gupta, learned counsel representing the applicant submitted that the issue involved herein is no longer res-integra and in terms of para-5 of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani & Others vs. Union of India & others, Civil Appeal No.3792/2019 (arising out of SLP(C) No.32988/2018) decided on 10.04.2019, to determine the applicant’s eligibility for promotion, the service rendered by him in the previous region prior to his transfer on compassionate ground is required to be taken into consideration. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that if the applicant’s previous service is taken into account by the respondents, then a review DPC is required to be convened to consider his case for further promotion. 4. Shri S.Sugumaran, learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, does not dispute the proposition of law that the service rendered by the applicant is required to be considered for determining his eligibility for promotion in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani(supra).

5 5. In view of the above, the Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to undertake an exercise of review DPC and consider the applicant’s case for promotion to the post of Inspector while taking into account the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani(supra). The whole exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal was justified in passing the aforesaid order, keeping in view the judgment delivered in the case of Pratibha Rani and Others (supra). The qualification prescribed for the post in question i.e., three years experience cannot be wiped out for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the next higher post. A person transferred at his own request certainly loses his seniority but does not loses the qualifying service required for promotion post. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the original application. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

The admission is declined.

No order as to costs.

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA

THE UNION OF INDIA vs. E LAKSHMI GANESH

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments