SANJIT KUMAR vs N/A on 30 December 2022

1. Sanjit Kumar Age- 40 Yrs. S/o- Lt. Dr. Prasad R/o- Flat no. B-53,Pocket-4, Kendriya Vihar, Sector-82, Noida- 201304, Gautam Budh Naghar, Uttarpradesh Presently working as Superintendent CCO CGST, Panchkula Haryana Group- B

2. Ram Kumar Prasad Age 54 years S/o- Lt. Gadadhar Prasad Sah R/o- Flat No - I-603, Vinda City Apartment Greater Noida (U.P.) -201310 Presently working as Superintendent CGST Audit-

Commissionerate, New Delhi Group-B

3. Vivek Malik Age-49 yrs S/o- Lt. Sh. M.R. Malik R/o- B-402 J S Gardenia Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh-201014 Presently working as Superintendent Panipat, Panchkula Commissionerate Group- B

4. Shyam Kumar Papneja, Age- 55 years S/o- Sh. Virender Kumar Papneja R/o- H. No. 800/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak-124001 Presently working as Superintendent Division Kirti Nagar,

CGST Delhi West. Group-B3

5. Vijay Kumar Age 41 Years S/o- Sh. Shreeram R/o- Greater Noida West Goutam Budh Nagar 201306 Presently working as Superintendent, Legal Cell, Cco, Panchkula, Haryana Group-B

…Applicant

(Through Advocate: Mr. Harpreet Singh)

Versus

1. Union of India

Through Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi- 110001

2. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Through its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi- 110001

3. The Principal Commissioner, (Cadre Controlling Authority) Delhi GST Zone, C.R Building I.P. Estate, New Delhi- 110001

(Through: Mr. L.C. Singhi, Advocate)

O R D E R (ORAL)

MA No. 3601/2022 Present MA has been filed by the applicant seeking permission of this Tribunal to file the present OA jointly. For the reasons stated therein, the MA is allowed. OA No. 3522/2022 By virtue of the present Original Application, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Quash and set aside letter dated 24.03.2022.

ii. Quash and set aside Letter bearing No. C. No.II-3

(78) CCA/Rev DPC Insp to Supt/2017/Pt-IV dated 29.04.20022.

ii. Consequently, direct the respondent to not to revert the applicants to the grade of Inspectors; and

iv. Award costs of the present OA in favour of the Applicants;

v. pass any other order/orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant presses for interim relief. The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicants have filed the present OA seeking quashing of the order dated 24.03.2022 (Annexure A/1) and 29.04.2022 (Annexure A/2), whereby a decision has been taken to uniformly implement the judgment dated 12.05.2016 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3405/2014 titled Pankaj

Nayan & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. to all similarly situated persons working under the respondents (Delhi Zone), consequences of which shall be the possible reversion of the applicants herein from the post of superintendent to the pos of Inspector. Attention has also be drawn to Annexure A/2 letter dated 29.04.2022 wherein the respondents have already cognizant of this consequent reversion.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that there is no urgency in the matter. Hence, no restraint order is required to be passed in favour of the applicants. He further places reliance on the decision rendered by this Tribunal in OA No. 3405/2014 titled Pankaj Nayan & Ors. Vs. Union of India upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 11277/2016 dated 17.01.2019.

4. On perusal of the impugned orders dated 24.03.2022 and 29.04.2022, it appears that they are internal communications between the departments. It has been pointed out that no individual order have been passed qua the applicants herein subsequent to Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2. Through MA No. 3921/2022, learned counsel for the applicant has placed on record letter dated 27.12.2022 by virtue of another MA 3906/2022, the

applicant is seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from taking any action against the applicants in the nature of altering/disturbing their status as Superintendents, till the final outcome of present O.A. It is also seen that in OA No. 3868/2022, wherein the applicants therein have also aggrieved by the same internal communication dated 27.12.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further highlighted that it is the net impact of mock exercise of review DPC for in-rem implementation of the decision in Pankaj Nayan (supra) with ZOC prepared as per Board’s letter dated 19.01.2022 final decision is yet to be taken.

6. As can be seen from the impugned orders that the respondents have yet to take a prima facie view in each individual’s case. Therefore, it would be expedient that the rules of principles of natural of justice would be met if before passing any order qua individual applicants insofar as their reversion is concerned in terms of the internal communications (Annexure A-1 and A-2), show cause notices are issued to them, which are necessarily required before passing any adverse Order(s) qua the applicant.

7. In the light of above with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the case, the OA is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to

make a representation against the orders/communications, if so advised, within a period of three days from today. On receipt of the same, the Competent Authority among the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, in a time bound manner, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representations from the applicants. Needless to say that the principles of natural justice be followed by issuing a show cause notice to individual.

8. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Order DASTI

( Manish Garg )

Member (J)

/daya/