Rishiraj Lalchand Yadav vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT on 12 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble ShriJayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial) The Applicant has preferred the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, being aggrieved by (i) Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure A/1), whereby he was appointed to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (“ACIT”) on regular basis against vacancy year 2019 instead of considering his entitlement against vacancy year 2016-17; and (ii) the order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure A/2) passed by the Respondent department rejecting the Applicant’s representation dated 26.12.2023, whereby he had challenged the determination of his seniority in the grade of ACIT and sought consideration for promotion against vacancy year 2016-17 on the basis of his deemed date of promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officer (“ITO”) with effect from 01.03.2004, accordingly, seeking following reliefs:- “(A) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023, to the extent that it pertains to seniority of the Applicant, as being illegal, arbitrary, null and void; (B) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 06.05.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, null and void; (C) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the deemed date of Applicant's promotion to ITO cadre as 01.03.2004 as per DPC dated 12.01.2004 in all seniority lists prepared by the Respondent department and grant seniority to the Applicant to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) as per the said date of promotion by placing the Applicant between Sr. Nos. 120 and 121 of Order No. 188 of 2022 dated 31.08.2022 against vacancy year 2016-17, with all consequential benefits;

PRATIK VYAS

:3: OA No.120/281/2025

(D) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this Application with costs and be pleased to quantify the costs; and (E) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The applicant initially joined the Income Tax Department as Inspector of Income Tax on 26.08.1996 as a direct recruit pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission against the vacancy year 1994-95. 3.1 A draft establishment list dated 06.01.2003 of the Inspectors working in the Gujarat Region as on 15.12.2002 was circulated by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, wherein the applicant’s seniority has been determined on the basis of his actual date of joining. Against which he submitted a representation dated 05.02.2003 (Annexure A-3) seeking correction of his seniority in accordance with the then applicable instructions contained in the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 03.07.1986. 3.2 Thereafter, a revised seniority list dated 25.03.2003 was issued, wherein the applicant was assigned the seniority of the year in which the vacancy had been intimated to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), i.e. 1995-96, subject to the outcome of OA Nos. 92/2003 and 184/2003 (Annexure A-4 refer). 3.3 The said OA Nos. 92/2003 and 184/2003 were decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal on 12.01.2004, holding that seniority of direct recruits was to be determined with reference to the date of their actual appointment. The said decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court on 17.08.2004 and was thereafter challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. N.R. Parmar & Ors. In the meantime, vide communication dated 22.02.2005 issued by

PRATIK VYAS

:4: OA No.120/281/2025

the Department of Revenue had similarly directed that the seniority of direct recruits and promotees would remain subject to the outcome of the said proceedings in the case of N.R. Parmar. 3.4 During the pendency of said proceedings in the case of N.R. Parmar before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicant herein was promoted as Income Tax Officer (ITO) on ad hoc basis on 03.02.2006, subject to the outcome of the proceedings in N.R. Parmar (Annexure A-5). 3.5 Thus, even at the stage of the Applicant’s promotion as ITO in 2006, the department itself did not treat the seniority issue as final and irrevocably settled. 3.6 On 27.11.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, reported in (2012) 13 SCC 340, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court interpreted the DoPT’s OM dated 07.02.1986, 03.07.1986 and 03.03.2008 and held inter alia, that for determining inter-se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, the relevant recruitment year was the year in which the recruitment process was initiated,and requisition was sent to the Staff Selection Committee against the relevant vacancies (Annexure A-6 to A-9 refer). 3.7 Pursuant to the judgment passed in N.R. Parmar (Supra), the DoPT issued OM dated 04.03.2014 laying down principles for determination of inter-se seniority in terms of N.R. Parmar (supra). In the specific context, of the Income Tax Department, the CBDT, issued advisory dated 06.06.2014 followed by advisories dated 29.09.2014, 07.11.2014 and 16.01.2015, for implementation of the said judgment and revision of seniority in the affected cadres by way of Review DPC (Annexure A-12 to A-14). 3.8 Pursuant to the aforesaid exercise, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, issued Order No. 38 (Gaz.) of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure A/16), whereby the applicant herein was deemed to have been promoted as ITO with effect from 01.03.2004, as per the recommendation of the DPC dated 12.01.2004, against vacancy year

PRATIK VYAS

:5: OA No.120/281/2025

2003-04. Thus, the applicant herein was granted promotion as ITO in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in N.R. Parmar. 3.9 However, in the meantime, on 01.09.2015, CBDT published All India Inter-se Seniority List of ITOs as on 01.01.2012 (“AIISL 2012”). The Applicant was placed at Seniority No. 1067 in the said list with his deemed date of joining as ITO considered as 27.11.2006. 3.10 Since the said seniority list in respect to the cadre of ITO i.e. AIISL 2012 was not prepared in accordance with the binding principles laid down in the case of N.R. Parmar (supra), therefore, being aggrieved by the non-implementation of the decision in N.R. Parmar, the Applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 5718 of 2017 as also other similarly placed officers have filed identical SCAs before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. It is stated that vide common judgment dated 28.07.2017 in SCA No. 4720 of 2017 (Mukeshkumar Mansukbhai Solanki Vs. Union of India & Ors.) along with connected matters including the SCA of the applicant herein the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, while allowing the said group of SCAs directed the respondents to finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO in accordance with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar and restrained the department from proceeding on the basis of the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority position and restrained them from making promotion to ACIT on ad hoc basis by operating the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list (Annexure A-17). 3.11 In compliance of the aforesaid common judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mukeshkumar M. Solanki Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Respondent CBDT revised All India Inter-se Seniority List of Income Tax Officers (ITOs) (“AIISL 2017”) and the same was published on 05.02.2018 wherein the Applicant was placed at Seniority No. 2746 with his

PRATIK VYAS

:6: OA No.120/281/2025

deemed date of promotion to the cadre of ITO as 01.03.2004 (Annexure A/18). 3.12 In the meantime, the applicant had already been promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) on ad hoc basis vide Office Order No. 196 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017 against vacancy year 2016- 17(Annexure A-19).

It is not in dispute that the Applicant’s promotion to the post of ACIT by way of the aforesaid order was based on the seniority determined in compliance of the decision in N.R. Parmar. 3.13 Thereafter, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ms. Veena Kothavale v. Union of India, 2018:DHC:542-DB, considered the question whether seniority which had already attained finality could be reopened on the basis of N.R. Parmar. By its judgment dated 22.01.2018, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the decision in N.R. Parmar would operate prospectively from 27.11.2012 and that the settled seniority lists drawn up till the date of the decision in N.R. Parmar should not be unsettled (Annexure A/20). The SLP filed against the said judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Diwakar Singh v. Union of India on 16.05.2018 (Annexure A- 21). 3.14 Relying on the decision of Ms. Veena Kothavale (supra), the CBDT issued Circular dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure A-22) withdrawing the earlier HRD advisories and AIISL 2017 and directing restoration of the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority position. By ignoring the clarification issued by the Department of Legal Affairs dated 13.11.2018 and the DoPT communication dated 06.12.2018 that the judgment in the case of Ms. Veena Kothavale is the judgment in personam and not in rem (Annexure A-23 to A-24 respectively). 3.15 Aggrieved by the said CBDT’s communication dated 27.05.2019, the applicant approached the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court by filing Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019 in SCA No.5718 of 2017, but the

PRATIK VYAS

:7: OA No.120/281/2025

proceedings were held not maintainable in the form in which they were filed, it was however Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 18.10.2019 clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on merits and the Applicant was at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as permitted under law (Annexure A-25), For better appreciation, the relevant portion of which are as under:- “3. The direction contained in group of petitions being Special Civil Application No. 5990 of 2017 and other companion matters were heard and disposed of by this Court on 28.07.2017, wherein, operative part inpara-11 reads as under : “11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions are allowed / disposed of with the following directions:

(1) That the Department to finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO within a period of 8 weeks from today without fail. The Department to complete the entire process of finalization of revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO within the period of two months from today, without fail and submit the compliance report before this Court in the present proceedings just on completion of above two months.

(2) As already ordered earlier till the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N R Paramr (Supra) is finalized and the cases of the respective petitioners are considered for promotion to the post of ACIT, as already ordered earlier the respondents are restrained from filling up the post of ACIT on promotion on ad hoc promotion by operating the select list pre- N. R. Parmar (Supra) decision.

(3) However, during the aforesaid two months it will be open for the department to grant ad hoc promotion on the post of ACIT in the meantime and till revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO is finalized, by operating the draft revised seniority list and thereby to consider the case of the respective petitioners for promotion to the post of ACIT on ad hoc basis, as was done in the case of applicant of OA No.376 of 2015 - Shri JatashankerMeena.

(4) In any case, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed and the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO be finalized within a period of two months from today as stated above, and immediately, thereafter case of the respective

PRATIK VYAS

:8: OA No.120/281/2025

petitioners be considered for promotion to the post of ACIT forthwith. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. No costs.”

4. The applicant has sought to assail the order dated 27.5.2019 on the ground that same is in violation of directions issued by this Court and contrary to principles laid down in case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. N. R Parmar & Ors. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 34 which lays down guiding principles.

5. We are of the considered view that the present proceedings being miscellaneous proceedings in a dispose of petition or direction would not be maintainable as the scope of Miscellaneous Civil Application, which is not either in the form of contempt petition under Contempt of Courts Act or a substantive petition requiring interpretation and declaration and therefore, this summary proceedings would not be permitted to be entertained. Hence, without opining on the merits of the prayers, this summary proceedings by way of Misc. Civil Application is disposed of as no case is made out to issue direction. However, this order shall not deter the applicant from taking out appropriate action and remedy available under law including filing substantive petition and/or any other proceedings that may be permissible under law.” (emphasis supplied) 3.16 In the meantime, on 19.11.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh v. Ningam Siro, reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, overruled the judgment passed in N.R. Parmar (supra), while clarifying that the judgment (i.e. K. Meghachandra Singh) would operate prospectively and would not affect inter-se seniority already determined on the basis of N.R. Parmar and that such seniority was protected. (Annexure A-26 refer). 3.17 In the meanwhile, one Mr. Prakash Chandra Chauhan filed OA No.295 of 2019 before this Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench being aggrieved with the respondents’ department preparatory action for granting promotion relying upon AIISL 2012 while ignoring AIISL 2017. The Tribunal was pleased to pass an interim order dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure A-27 refer) that if any promotion is made based on AIISL 2012, the same would be subject to the result of the said OA. Being aggrieved, the said Prakash Chandra Chauhan filed SCA No. 16209 of 2019 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. By its order dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure A-28 refer), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that AIISL 2012 was

PRATIK VYAS

:9: OA No.120/281/2025

no longer in existence since it was revised by AIISL 2017 and it accordingly restrained the respondents’ department from undertaking any exercise ignoring AIISL 2017 till the final disposal of OA No. 295 of 2019. Thereafter, the said OA No. 295 of 2019 came to be transferred to the Hon'ble Principal Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2021 (Annexure A-29 refer) and was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure A-30 refer). 3.18 In and around 2020, consequent to the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in MCA No. 1 of 2019 in SCA No. 5718 of 2017, the applicant filed OA No.236/2020 challenging CBDT's communication dated 27.05.2019 and seeking fixation of his seniority for promotion to ACIT in terms of N R. Parmar (supra). The above noted OA filed by the applicant along with a batch of similar applications were transferred to the Principal Bench of this Tribunal (Annexure A-31 and A-32 refer). The case of the applicant was renumbered as OA No.1752/2021 by the Registry of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. Ultimately by taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Meghachandra (supra) and the submission of learned counsel for the parties the Principal Bench of this Tribunal vide common Order dated 29.09.2021 remitted the matters to the department to prepare afresh seniority list at the earliest in light of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and accordingly disposed of the said group of OAs, including the OA filed by the applicant (Annexure A-33 refer).

3.19 It is stated that consequent to the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), the DoP&T subsequently issued OM dated 13.08.2021 withdrawing the OM dated 04.03.2014 with effect from 19.11.2019 (Annexure A-34), wherein clarification has been issued to the effect that inter-se seniority already determined under the said OM should not

PRATIK VYAS

:10: OA No.120/281/2025

be disturbed. CBDT reiterated the position vide communication dated 26.10.2021(Annexure A-35 refer) 3.20 On 14.12.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hariharan v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717, expressed doubts regarding the correctness of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and referred the matter to a Bench of five Judges (Annexure A-36 refer). 3.21 Meanwhile, CBDT issued Office Order No.294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 appointing the applicant to the grade of ACIT on regular basis against vacancy year 2019 in Level-10 of the Pay Matrix. The applicant had, however, already been working as ACIT on ad hoc basis since November 2017 pursuant to Office Order No. 196 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017. 3.22 Aggrieved by the aforesaid regular appointment against vacancy year 2019, the applicant submitted a representation dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure A-37 refer) contending that his ITO promotion ought to be reckoned from 01.03.2004, as reflected in AIISL 2017 and Order No. 38 of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015, and that consequently, he should have been appointed as ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17 and his appropriate placement between Sr. Nos. 120 & 121 in the office Order No. 188 of 2022 dated 31.08.2022 granting regular promotion to the 172 officers for the post of ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17 (Annexure A-38). When no reply was forthcoming, the applicant had also submitted a reminder letter dated 08.05.2024 seeking a response on his above representation dated 26.12.2023 (Annexure A-39). 3.23 As the said representation remained undecided, the applicant filed OA No. 475/2024 before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal. The said OA was disposed of on 11.11.2024 directing the respondents to consider and decide the said pending representation expeditiously and within three months (Annexure A-40).

PRATIK VYAS

:11: OA No.120/281/2025

3.24 Pursuant thereto, the respondents considered and rejected the applicant's representation vide the impugned order dated 06.05.2025(Annexure A-2)., principally on the grounds that, in view of Veena Kothavale (supra), the judgment passed in N.R. Parmar (supra) would operate prospectively from 27.11.2012 and that AIISL 2017 had been withdrawn pursuant to CBDT's communication dated 27.05.2019, and, therefore, the applicant's seniority determined as per AIISL 2012. In these circumstances, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the reliefs as quoted above.

4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply opposing the claim of the applicant to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder refuting the same. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

5. During the course of hearing, Shri Purav Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that in the instant OA, the applicant is assailing Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023, whereby he was appointed to the grade of ACIT on regular basis against vacancy year 2019 instead of vacancy year 2016-17, as well as the order dated 06.05.2025 rejecting his representation regarding fixation of seniority and his claim for appointment to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17, and argued that the impugned action of the respondents is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) and K. Meghachandra Singh. According to learned counsel, Applicant’s seniority was finally settled pursuant to the implementation of N.R. Parmar. In fact an Order No. 38(Gaz) of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 (Annex.A/16 refer) had specifically determined his deemed ITO promotion date as 01.03.2004 and AIISL 2017 had reflected the said position. Subsequently the Applicant had been promoted as ACIT on ad hoc basis against vacancy year 2016-17.

PRATIK VYAS

:12: OA No.120/281/2025

5.1 Learned counsel placed particular reliance upon paragraph 39 of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), submitting that although N.R. Parmar was overruled, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly protected inter-se seniority already based upon N.R.Parmar. The Applicant’s case, according to learned counsel, squarely falls within that protection because his seniority had already been determined and acted upon before 19.11.2019 i.e. the date of decision in K. Meghachandra Singh, in as much as the Respondents had, by giving effect to the decision in N.R. Parmar, published AIISL 2017 and promoted the Applicant to the post of ACIT on ad hoc basis against vacancy year 2016-17 by Office Order No. 196 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017. It was therefore submitted that even applying the principle of Veena Kothavale that settled seniority should not be unsettled, the Respondents could not unsettle the Applicant’s seniority once they had given effect to the decision in N.R. Parmar and the Applicant’s seniority was settled as per AIISL 2017. 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant had initially been selected for appointment as Income Tax Inspector against vacancy year 1994-95 and, after receiving the appointment letter, joined the department in August 1996. His seniority was initially fixed with reference to his actual date of joining. However, upon his representation, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, revised the seniority list on 25.03.2003 by granting seniority with reference to the year against which the vacancy had been intimated to the Staff Selection Commission. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as ITO on ad hoc basis vide Order No. 64 of 2005-06, though his seniority continued to remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings concerning the principles governing fixation of seniority. 5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in N.R. Parmar (supra), interpreted the Office Memoranda dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986 and held that, in the case of direct recruits, seniority was to be determined with reference to the recruitment year in

PRATIK VYAS

:13: OA No.120/281/2025

which the requisition for filling up the vacancies was made. Pursuant to the said judgment, the DoP&T issued the OM dated 04.03.2014 laying down principles for determination of inter-se seniority of direct recruits and promotees. The Central Board of Direct Taxes also issued an advisory dated 06.06.2014 clarifying that the issue of seniority in the Income Tax Department was required to be revisited in the light of N.R. Parmar (supra). 5.4 Learned counsel also submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid developments, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, passed Order No.38 (Gaz.) of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015, whereby, upon implementation of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) and the OM dated 04.03.2014, the applicant was deemed to have been promoted as ITO with effect from 01.03.2004 against the vacancy year 2003-04, on the basis of the DPC held on 12.01.2004. Learned counsel contended that the applicant’s seniority was thus revised by the competent departmental authorities themselves in implementation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5.5 Learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 4720 of 2017 and allied matters, wherein the applicant was also a petitioner, and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court specifically directed the respondents to finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITOs in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra) and restrained the respondents from filling up the post of ACIT on promotion by operating the pre- N.R. Parmar (supra) seniority list. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was promoted as ACIT on ad hoc basis against vacancy year 2016-17 and CBDT subsequently published AIISL 2017, wherein the applicant was shown at Serial No.2746 with his deemed date of joining as ITO as 01.03.2004. 5.6 Learned counsel emphasized that the respondents did not challenge the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and, therefore,

PRATIK VYAS

:14: OA No.120/281/2025

were bound to give effect to the revised seniority position. According to learned counsel, once AIISL 2017 had been prepared and published in implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) and the applicable departmental instructions, the respondents could not subsequently ignore the said seniority list while considering the applicant’s promotion to the grade of ACIT. 5.7 Learned counsel also submitted that subsequent reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Veena Kothavale (supra) for reviving AIISL 2012 and denying the applicant the benefit of AIISL 2017, was misplaced. In this regard, learned counsel contended that the said judgment had held that N.R. Parmar (supra) would operate prospectively and that settled seniority lists should not ordinarily be unsettled. According to learned counsel, however, the applicant’s seniority had not attained such finality as could attract the rationale of the said decision, since his seniority had throughout remained subject to the outcome of the litigation concerning N.R. Parmar (supra). 5.8 Learned counsel further submitted that the decision in Veena Kothavale (supra) could not have been mechanically extended to the applicant, particularly when the Department of Legal Affairs and the DoP&T had themselves communicated in November 2018 that the said judgment was in personam and not in rem. Learned counsel also contended that CBDT’s communication dated 06.06.2014 had specifically contemplated reconsideration of seniority in the Income Tax Department in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra) and that the said communication had not subsequently been withdrawn or cancelled. 5.9 Learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court dated 03.12.2019 in Prakash Chandra Chauhan v. Union of India, SCA No. 16209 of 2019, and submitted that in the said case, the Hon’ble High Court had specifically dealt with the controversy concerning AIISL 2012 and AIISL 2017 and had held that AIISL 2012 was no longer in existence, having been revised by

PRATIK VYAS

:15: OA No.120/281/2025

AIISL 2017.Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the respondents could not, in the face of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, proceed on the basis of AIISL 2012 while determining the applicant’s seniority for the purpose of promotion to the grade of ACIT. 5.10 Learned counsel also placed reliance upon various subsequent decisions of co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal passed after the decision in Veena Kothavale, including the (i) order dated 05.02.2019 passed by CAT, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 597 of 2018 (Dhirendra Kumar Bhakta v. Union of India), (ii) order dated 02.03.2018 passed by CAT, Bangalore Bench in OA No. 586 of 2015 (Rajiv Kumar Singh & Ors. v Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore) and (iii) order dated 17.01.2023 passed by CAT, Bangalore Bench in OA No. 170/00184/2022 (Vivekeshwar Sharan Varshney & Ors. v. Union of India) in support of his submission that a seniority list prepared and finalized pursuant to N.R. Parmar and acted upon will stand protected against subsequent administrative disturbance. 5.11 Learned counsel further contended that, even applying the principle stated in Veena Kothavale (supra) that settled seniority ought not to be disturbed, the applicant’s case stood on a different footing because his seniority had already been revised and reflected in AIISL 2017. Thus, according to learned counsel, once the applicant’s seniority had been settled pursuant to the implementation of N.R. Parmar (supra), the respondents could not thereafter unsettle the same by reverting to AIISL 2012. 5.12 Learned counsel also referred to the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), and submitted that the said judgment did not justify disturbance of the applicant’s seniority, which had already been determined in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra). According to learned counsel, the principle of protection of inter-se seniority already determined under N.R. Parmar (supra) was material to the applicant’s case.

PRATIK VYAS

:16: OA No.120/281/2025

5.13 Learned counsel then by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hariharan v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao (supra) submits that, although the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed doubts regarding the correctness of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and referred the issue for consideration by a Larger Bench, the Hon’ble Supreme Court nevertheless upheld the seniority list prepared in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra) and quashed the seniority list prepared contrary thereto. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the pendency of the said reference could not, by itself, furnish a justification for ignoring the applicant’s seniority as reflected in the revised seniority exercise. 5.14 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents themselves had, at different stages, implemented the principles of N.R. Parmar (supra) through revised seniority lists and review DPCs and that the applicant had consequently acquired rights flowing from such implementation. According to learned counsel, the applicant’s seniority was never finally settled on the basis of the pre-N.R. Parmar position and, on the contrary, the departmental record demonstrated that his seniority had been revised in accordance with the subsequent judicial and administrative developments. 5.15 Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the applicable legal position and failed to take into consideration the binding judicial pronouncements, the departmental seniority exercises and the applicant’s position in AIISL 2017. Learned counsel contended that Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023, insofar as it fixed the applicant’s appointment to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2019, was consequently liable to be interfered with to the extent of the applicant’s seniority and promotional entitlement. 5.16 On the above-noted premises, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 be quashed and set aside and that the applicant’s seniority be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra) and as reflected in AIISL 2017, with consequential

PRATIK VYAS

:17: OA No.120/281/2025

benefits, including appointment/promotion to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. Per contra, Shri Chirayu Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, opposing the instant OA submitted that the applicant has essentially reiterated the same grounds which were raised by him in his representation dated 26.12.2023. He also submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 475 of 2024 seeking consideration of the very same representation, and this Tribunal, vide order dated 11.11.2024, had directed the competent authority, namely, CBDT, to consider and decide the pending representation. Pursuant thereto, the CBDT examined the representation and passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 06.05.2025. According to learned counsel, the impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to be non- speaking or without consideration of the applicant’s grievances. 6.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant’s case has to be considered in the context of the seniority position which prevailed after the Department took a conscious decision, in consultation with the DoP&T and the Department of Legal Affairs, to implement the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) prospectively. The applicant’s claim for promotion to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17 proceeds principally upon AIISL 2017, whereas the said seniority list was subsequently withdrawn in the tear 2019 and cancelled ab initio by the CBDT. According to the Respondents, a withdrawn administrative list cannot form the foundation of a continuing right. 6.2 Learned counsel drew attention to the service history of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was initially promoted to the grade of ITO against vacancy year 2005-06 vide order dated 03.02.2006, subject to the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra). Consequently, his name was correctly placed at Serial No. 1067 in AIISL 2012 of ITOs.

PRATIK VYAS

:18: OA No.120/281/2025

Further, pursuant to the review DPC conducted in the Gujarat Region following N.R. Parmar (supra), the applicant was subsequently promoted to the grade of ITO against vacancy year 2003-04 vide Order No. 38 of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 and was accordingly placed at Serial No. 2746 in AIISL 2017. 6.3 Learned counsel, however, submitted that the aforesaid implementation of N.R. Parmar (supra) was subsequently reconsidered by the Department in view of the judgment dated 22.01.2018 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Ms. Veena Kothawale v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 2087/2016. According to learned counsel, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) was to be implemented prospectively with effect from 27.11.2012 and that settled seniority was not to be unsettled. 6.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid judgment dated 22.01.2018 in Veena Kothawale (supra) was subsequently upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.05.2018 passed in SLP Nos. 11905-11906/2018 filed by Diwakar Singh. It was on the basis of this legal position that the CBDT issued OM bearing File No. A- 35015/26/2018-Ad.VI dated 27.05.2019 (Annexure-R1 refer) withdrawing the earlier advisories dated 29.09.2014, 07.11.2014 and 16.04.2015 which had been issued for implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra). 6.5 Learned counsel submitted that, as a consequence of the aforesaid decision, AIISL 2017 was withdrawn ab initio and cancelled. It was specifically submitted that the withdrawal of AIISL 2017 was undertaken after consultation with the DoP&T and the Department of Legal Affairs. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicant could not claim any continuing right on the basis of a seniority list which had subsequently been cancelled and withdrawn ab initio. 6.6 Learned counsel further submitted that, in view of the prospective implementation of N.R. Parmar (supra), the applicant did not fall within

PRATIK VYAS

:19: OA No.120/281/2025

the purview of the said judgment for the purpose of disturbing his already settled seniority. According to the respondents, the seniority position which had been settled prior to 27.11.2012 was required to be maintained and could not be reopened on the basis of the subsequently withdrawn AIISL 2017. 6.7 Learned counsel also submitted that AIISL 2012 of ITOs, published by the CBDT as on 01.01.2012, remained valid and was being followed uniformly by the Department. The said list was the basis for promotions made by the Department and that the DPC proposals for vacancy years 2016-17 and onwards had been submitted to the UPSC on the basis of AIISL 2012. Consequently, the applicant’s regular promotion to the grade of ACIT vide Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023, at Serial No. 17, against vacancy year 2019, was made on the basis of the applicable AIISL 2012 seniority position. 6.8 Learned counsel therefore submitted that the applicant could not claim that he was entitled to be promoted as ACIT against vacancy year 2016- 17 merely because his name had appeared in AIISL 2017. The said list having been withdrawn ab initio, no enforceable right could flow from it. The respondents accordingly maintained that Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 was issued in accordance with the seniority list then validly operative and did not suffer from any illegality. 6.9 Learned counsel further emphasized that the Department had undertaken a comprehensive review of the implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) in consultation with the DoP&T and the Department of Legal Affairs. The competent authority thereafter took, inter alia, the following decisions: (i) The retrospective implementation of N.R. Parmar judgment for conducting review DPCs of all the DPCs conducted till 27.11.2012, are withdrawn ab initio. (ii) The cases of seniority already settled with reference to the applicable interpretation of the term availability, as contained in DoP&T OM dated 7.2.86/3.7.86 shall not be reopened. (iii) All India Inter-se

PRATIK VYAS

:20: OA No.120/281/2025

Seniority List (AIISL) of ITOs, 2017, circulated vide CBDT's letter dated 05.02.2018 ... [is] hereby cancelled and withdrawn ab initio. 6.10 Learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid decision was formally communicated vide letter dated 27.05.2019, whereby the earlier advisories issued by DGIT (HRD) on 29.09.2014, 07.11.2014 and 16.01.2015 were withdrawn. 6.11 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant’s reliance upon the CBDT advisory dated 06.06.2014, stating that the issue of seniority in the Income Tax Department would have to be revisited in compliance with N.R. Parmar (supra), was no longer tenable since the said advisory has been withdrawn by CBDT Circular dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure- R1) and submitted that the applicant could not derive any continuing right from the withdrawn advisory. 6.12 Learned counsel also disputed the reliance placed by the applicant upon the proceedings before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of Prakash Chandra Chauhan (supra). He submitted that the applicant had referred to the order dated 03.12.2018 in SCA No. 16209 of 2019 as granting an interim protection in favour of AIISL 2017. According to the respondents, however, the factual position concerning the connected proceedings before this Tribunal was material. 6.13 Learned counsel submitted that SCA No. 16209 of 2019 had been preferred by Shri Prakash Chandra Chauhan in connection with OA No. 295 of 2019. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had directed the respondents as follows:

“... we are of the view that the respondent shall be restrained from implementing any exercise or undertaking any exercise ignoring the seniority list of 05.02.2018, till the final disposal of the Original Application No.295 of 2019 pending before the Tribunal.”

Subsequently, OA No. 295 of 2019 was transferred to the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant therein, as is evident from order dated 08.02.2022 passed in the said OA. Learned counsel therefore contended that the interim protection

PRATIK VYAS

:21: OA No.120/281/2025

granted by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was co-extensive with the pendency of OA No. 295 of 2019 and, upon withdrawal of the said OA, the protection could no longer operate. 6.14 Learned counsel next placed reliance upon the applicant’s own earlier proceedings before this Tribunal, particularly OA No. 1760 of 2021 along with MA No. 2281 of 2021 wherein the applicant himself had raised the issue of implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) in those proceedings and that the Tribunal had adjudicated the matter vide order dated 29.09.2021. According to learned counsel, the applicant’s own pleadings in those proceedings assumed significance for determining the present claim. 6.15 Learned counsel referred to paragraph 3 of the Order dated 29.09.2021 and submitted that the counsel for the applicants therein had specifically contended that in the light of the subsequent judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), the seniority list prepared on the basis of N.R. Parmar (supra) was erroneous. 6.16 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant, having himself participated in the said proceedings and sought determination of his seniority in the light of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), could not now seek to rely upon the very seniority position based on N.R. Parmar (supra), which he had earlier challenged. 6.17 Learned counsel accordingly submitted that, in view of the applicant’s own stand in OA No.1760 of 2021 and the subsequent legal and administrative developments, his seniority as settled without applying N.R. Parmar (supra) was required to be treated as valid. Learned counsel contended that, consequently, AIISL 2012 remained applicable to the applicant and his regular promotion to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2019 vide Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 was lawful and consistent with the applicable seniority position, as the CBDT had duly considered the applicant’s representation dated 26.12.2023 and had rejected the same by a

PRATIK VYAS

:22: OA No.120/281/2025

speaking order dated 06.05.2025 wherein it has been observed that (a) The AIISL-2017, which supported his claim for higher seniority, has been withdrawn and is no longer valid. (b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the Parmar judgment is to be implemented only prospectively. (c) The Department is uniformly following AIISL-2012 for all promotion-related matters across all regions.” and (d) Entertaining Shri Yadav's request would constitute an exception to a settled legal and administrative framework and such an action is not administratively tenable. 6.18 Learned counsel submitted that these reasons demonstrate that the applicant’s representation was considered on its merits and rejected upon reasons germane to the controversy. 6.19 Learned counsel thus contended that the applicant’s claim essentially seeks revival of AIISL 2017, notwithstanding its cancellation and withdrawal ab initio, and seeks to reopen a seniority position which, according to the respondents, had already been settled in accordance with the applicable interpretation of the term “availability” under the DoP&T’s OMs dated 07.02.1986 and 03.07.1986. 6.20 Learned counsel also submitted that the Department had consistently followed AIISL 2012 for promotion-related matters throughout the country and that making an exception in favour of the applicant would disturb the uniform seniority and promotional framework followed by the Department. Therefore learned counsel contended that the applicant had no vested or enforceable right to claim promotion to ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17 merely on the basis of AIISL 2017, which no longer remained in force. 6.21 Learned counsel lastly submitted that the grounds raised by the applicant, including his reliance upon N.R. Parmar (supra), AIISL 2017, the subsequent judicial decisions and the departmental communications, had already been considered by the competent authority while passing the speaking order dated 06.05.2025.

PRATIK VYAS

:23: OA No.120/281/2025

6.22 Learned counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523, K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, (1986) 4 SCC 531, P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, to contend that seniority disputes must be raised within a reasonable time and settled seniority should not be disturbed after a long period. Therefore, learned for the respondents submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this OA. REBUTTAL TO THE STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS

7. In rebuttal to the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents, learned counsel for the Applicant by referring the averments in his rejoinder as well as his written notes of submission would submit that the stand taken by the Respondents proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the Applicant's claim for seniority is founded merely upon AIISL 2017. According to learned counsel, the applicant's claim has to be examined in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra), the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mukeshkumar Solanki (supra), and the subsequent judicial orders concerning AIISL 2017. The applicant's seniority was never treated as finally settled contrary to N.R. Parmar (supra); rather, it was expressly made subject to the outcome of the said litigation. 7.1 Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents cannot rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ms. Veena Kothavale (supra), in isolation and ignore the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and various Benches of this Tribunal which dealt with the effect of N.R. Parmar (supra) upon the seniority of Income Tax Officers. Learned counsel also contended that several decisions relied upon by the applicant, including those passed after

PRATIK VYAS

:24: OA No.120/281/2025

Veena Kothavale (supra), have directed application of the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra). 7.2 Learned counsel would also submit that the respondents cannot treat Veena Kothavale (supra) as having conclusively extinguished the Applicant's rights under N.R. Parmar (supra). Learned counsel would contend that the question whether the principle declared in N.R. Parmar (supra) could be applied retrospectively cannot be answered by simply referring to Veena Kothavale (supra), particularly when the applicant relies upon subsequent judicial pronouncements and governmental communications which, according to him, recognised the limited and case-specific operation of the said judgment. 7.3 Learned counsel would particularly emphasise that the rationale in Veena Kothavale( supra) for protecting settled seniority cannot be invoked against the applicant because his seniority had not attained such finality. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant's seniority was expressly kept subject to the outcome of the litigation arising out of N.R. Parmar (supra). Therefore, according to the applicant, there was no question of disturbing a seniority position, which had acquired finality and had to be protected on the ground of administrative certainty. 7.4 Learned counsel would next submit that the judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mukeshkumar Solanki v. Union of India (supra) assumes particular significance because the applicant himself was one of the petitioners therein. According to the applicant, the said judgment required the respondents to finalise the revised seniority list of ITOs in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra) and pursuant thereto, AIISL 2017 was published on 05.02.2018, wherein the applicant was placed at Serial No. 2746 with deemed date of joining as ITO as 01.03.2004. 7.5 Learned counsel, therefore, argued that once AIISL 2017 was prepared pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and the respondents did not

PRATIK VYAS

:25: OA No.120/281/2025

challenge the said judgment, the Department could not subsequently disregard the said seniority list merely by issuing an administrative circular. Learned counsel would contend that an executive instruction cannot nullify or circumvent a judicial direction and, consequently, the CBDT circular dated 27.05.2019, insofar as it sought to withdraw AIISL 2017, cannot be sustained, if it is found inconsistent with the binding judicial pronouncements. 7.6 Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents have incorrectly attempted to minimize the effect of the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Prakash Chandra Chauhan v. Union of India and the said order was passed subsequent to both Veena Kothavale (supra) and the CBDT circular dated 27.05.2019 and specifically dealt with the status of AIISL 2017. 7.7 According to learned counsel, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court made it clear that after implementation of N.R. Parmar (supra) and preparation of the seniority list dated 05.02.2018, the Department could not simply proceed as though the said list did not exist. The applicant relies upon the following observation of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court: “When N.R. Parmar (Supra) decision of Supreme Court in implemented and it has resulted into promulgation of the seniority list of 5.2.2018, there could not have been any direction in law for overlooking the same...”

The Applicant further relies upon the observation that there was “no scope of any controversy” regarding the seniority list dated 05.02.2018 and that the resultant seniority list was not to be disturbed on the basis of the subsequent ruling. 7.8 Learned counsel would submit that the aforesaid observations cannot be rendered nugatory merely because OA No.295 of 2019 filed by one Shri Prakash Chandra Chauhan was subsequently withdrawn. According to the applicant, the respondents' attempt to contend that the judicial order ceased to have any significance upon withdrawal of the proceedings amounts to reading into the order something which is not there.

PRATIK VYAS

:26: OA No.120/281/2025

7.9 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents themselves had challenged the aforesaid order by filing MCA No.1 of 2021 in SCA No.16209 of 2019, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on 10.01.2022. The applicant has placed the said order on record as Annexure A-48. 7.10 Learned counsel would thus contend that the respondents cannot now contend that the said decision was rendered wholly irrelevant merely because the original proceedings were subsequently withdrawn.

8. In response to the respondents' reliance upon OA No.1760 of 2021, originally filed as OA No. 236 of 2020 before the Ahmedabad Bench, learned counsel would submit that there was no admission whatsoever on behalf of the applicant that the seniority list prepared under N.R. Parmar (supra) was erroneous or that his seniority should be determined under K. Meghchandra Singh (supra). On the contrary, it can be seen that the challenge to the legality and validity of CBDT’s Communication dated 27.05.2019 by the applicant in MCA No. 1/2019 in SCA No. 5718/2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and while disposing of the said MCA, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 18.10.2019 categorically observed in the para 4 of the said order that:- “The applicant has sought to assail the order dated 27.5.2019 on the ground that same is in violation of directions issued by this Court and contrary to principles laid down in case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. N. R Parmar & Ors. reported in (2012) 13 SCC 34 which lays down guiding principles.”

Thus, there cannot be any submission contrary to the core grievance put forth by the applicant about non-grant of seniority in terms of N.R. Parmar judgment. 8.1 Learned counsel would submit that although the order dated 29.09.2021 recorded a submission allegedly made on behalf of the applicants, including the present applicant; the counsel appearing for the applicant was not present on the said date. The applicant, therefore, immediately

PRATIK VYAS

:27: OA No.120/281/2025

challenged the said recording by filing Review Application No.19 of 2022 in above noted OA No.1760/2021. Though the review application was dismissed on 24.02.2022, the dismissal, according to learned counsel, cannot be construed as an affirmative adjudication that the applicant had voluntarily or consciously abandoned his claim under N.R. Parmar (supra). 8.2 Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant's consistent stand, from the inception, has been that his seniority ought to be determined in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra). It would be wholly contrary to the applicant's case to infer that he had consciously consented to determination of his seniority under AIISL 2012. 8.3 Learned counsel would submit that there can be no waiver of a statutory or legal entitlement in terms of principle laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra). The disposal of the OA by the Principal Bench based on the K. Meghachandra judgment and accordingly directed the respondents to prepare the seniority list afresh by following the principle laid donw in K. Meghachandra (supra) which stipulates that settled seniority as per the N.R. Parmar (supra) should not be disturbed.

9. Learned counsel would submit that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is liable to be set aside because it fails to consider the relevant judgments relied upon by the applicant and proceeds substantially upon the CBDT circular dated 27.05.2019. According to the applicant, the competent authority was required to consider the effect of the judgment in Mukeshkumar Solanki (supra), the subsequent order in Prakash Chandra Chauhan (supra), and the status of AIISL 2017 before rejecting his representation dated 26.12.2023. 9.1 It is submitted that merely passing an order styled as a “speaking order” does not cure a failure to consider material judicial pronouncements having a direct bearing upon the controversy. Learned counsel would contend that reasons must demonstrate proper consideration of the

PRATIK VYAS

:28: OA No.120/281/2025

relevant legal position and cannot consist merely of reiteration of an administrative instruction whose validity itself is under challenge.

10. Learned counsel would emphatically contend that the CBDT circular dated 27.05.2019, to the extent it withdrew AIISL 2017, cannot prevail over binding judicial pronouncements. The applicant reiterated that various decisions of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had recognised the seniority position reflected in AIISL 2017. 10.1 It is further submitted that the subsequent CBDT communication dated 26.10.2021, whereby the earlier CBDT advisory dated 06.06.2014 was treated as cancelled/modified in accordance with the circular dated 27.05.2019, necessarily falls with the said circular if the latter is found to be contrary to the binding judicial position. 10.2 Learned counsel would submit that an executive circular cannot be used as a device to nullify the effect of a judicial determination. The respondents, therefore, cannot justify the impugned order merely by relying upon the circular dated 27.05.2019 when the very validity and legal effect of that circular are under challenge before the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel would submit that the respondents' reliance upon AIISL 2012 is misplaced because, according to the applicant, the said list stood superseded by AIISL 2017 prepared pursuant to the judicial directions. The applicant specifically relies upon the observations of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court (SCA No. 4720/2017 Mukeshkumar M Solanki Vs. Union of India & Ors. & other connected SCAs decided on 28.07.2017) in this regard that AIISL 2012 was no longer in existence after the revised list dated 05.02.2018 i.e. AIISL 2017 had been promulgated. The findings recorded by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has not been challenged by the respondents and thus the same has attained finality. 11.1 The Applicant would therefore contend that his promotion to the grade of ACIT against Vacancy Year 2019 cannot be used as a justification for perpetuating an allegedly erroneous seniority position. According to

PRATIK VYAS

:29: OA No.120/281/2025

learned counsel, the fact that the Department subsequently acted upon AIISL 2012 cannot confer legality upon an action which is otherwise inconsistent with the judicially recognized seniority position.

12. Learned counsel would further submit that the reliance placed by the respondents upon Hariharan v. Harsh Vardhan Singh Rao, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1717, and the reference concerning K. Meghchandra Singh(supra) does not extinguish the applicant's claim. It is submitted that Hariharan (supra) itself considered the question of the correctness of the earlier approach and referred the issue to a Larger Bench, while the seniority positions already prepared in accordance with N.R. Parmar (supra) were also considered in that context. 12.1 According to learned counsel, the pendency of the reference cannot retrospectively invalidate the applicant's seniority as reflected in AIISL 2017, particularly when the said list was prepared pursuant to judicial directions and the applicant's position therein had already been acted upon. 12.2 Learned counsel would further rely upon the decision of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.184 of 2022, as well the order passed by CAT, Principal Bench in O.A. No. 1920/2026 dated 21.07.2026 and submits that the principles emerging from N. R. Parmar (supra) and the same was followed by granting due seniority and promotion benefit at the relevant time by the respondents, the same should not be disturbed in light of the judgment passed in K. Meghachandra (supra).

13. Finally, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondents have failed to demonstrate any lawful basis for disregarding AIISL 2017 insofar as the applicant is concerned. The applicant's case is founded not merely upon an administrative seniority list but upon a chain of judicial decisions, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Mukeshkumar M Solanki Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) pursuant to which AIISL 2017 was prepared. Further, the applicant's seniority was expressly kept subject to the

PRATIK VYAS

:30: OA No.120/281/2025

outcome of the litigation concerning N.R. Parmar (supra) and, therefore, the respondents cannot invoke the doctrine of settled seniority to deny the applicant the benefit of the revised seniority position. The applicant maintains that the subsequent CBDT circular dated 27.05.2019 could not lawfully undo the consequences of the judicially directed exercise without first addressing the binding effect of the relevant judgments.

14. Learned counsel would accordingly submit that the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 suffers from failure to consider relevant judicial pronouncements; proceeds upon an administrative circular whose validity is itself questioned, and fails to appreciate the legal effect of AIISL 2017. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and that the applicant's seniority be directed to be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra) and the seniority position reflected in AIISL 2017, with all consequential benefits. RESPONSE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT

15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in response to the above noted submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the controversy regarding implementation of the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra) and determination of inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits is no longer res integra and has to be considered in the light of the subsequent judicial pronouncements as well as the consequential administrative instructions issued by the Department. 15.1 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant's reliance upon the judgments rendered prior to the subsequent authoritative pronouncements is misplaced. In particular, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Veena Kothavale (supra). Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the Board in light of Order dated 22.0l.2018 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and DOP&T's OM dated 04.03.2014, the Department reviewed the implementation of

PRATIK VYAS

:31: OA No.120/281/2025

N.R. Parmar Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in consultation with DoP&T and Department of Legal Affairs and the Competent Authority has decided to implement N.R. Parmar judgment prospectively i.e. w.e.f. 27.1l.2012. 15.2 Learned counsel also submitted that thereafter CBDT issued its letter dated 27.05.2019, whereby the AIISL of ITOs, 2017, circulated vide letter dated 05.02.2018, as well as the draft AIISL of ITOs circulated vide letter dated 03.12.2018, were cancelled and withdrawn ab initio. In their place, the AIISL of ITOs as on 01.01.2012, circulated vide CBDT letter dated 01.09.2015, was treated as the valid seniority list for the relevant purpose. 15.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant's contention that N.R. Parmar (supra) ought to operate retrospectively cannot be accepted in view of the subsequent judicial development as noted hereinabove. 15.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant's reliance upon Prakash Chandra Chauhan (supra) is equally misconceived. The Order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 16209 of 2019 was, according to the respondents, an interim arrangement expressly linked with the pendency of OA No.295 of 2019 and could not be treated as a final adjudication of the legality of the seniority list. In this connection, learned counsel drew attention to the subsequent Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the review proceedings and relied upon the following quoted portion: "6. We are of the view that any clarification of any nature at this point of time may complicate the issue. If there are any developments in the matter in the form of settlement etc., we leave it open to the parties to go before the Tribunal and point out all such developments. We do not express any opinion on the clarification which is sought for in the present application. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. We may only clarify that the Coordinate Bench also permitted the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing of the Original Application and it will be in the interest of all the parties concerned to request the Tribunal to take up the Original Application itself for hearing. If such request is made, the Tribunal may consider the same and take up the

PRATIK VYAS

:32: OA No.120/281/2025

main matter itself, i.e., the Original Application for hearing and dispose it of." (emphasis supplied) 15.5 Learned counsel further submitted that subsequently OA No. 295 of 2019 itself came to be transferred to the Principal Bench of this Tribunal and thereafter withdrawn by the applicant therein. 15.6 Learned counsel therefore submitted that the interim protection granted in the proceedings arising out of SCA No. 16209 of 2019 was dependent upon the pendency of the underlying proceedings and could not survive as an independent declaration of law after withdrawal of the OA. The applicant, therefore, cannot rely upon an interim order, divorced from the circumstances in which it was passed, to contend that the earlier seniority list continues to govern the field. 15.7 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents' position is also supported by the subsequent administrative action taken after due consultation with DoP&T and the Department of Legal Affairs. The AIISL-2017, which had proceeded on the basis of retrospective implementation of N.R. Parmar (supra), was cancelled and withdrawn ab initio, whereas the AIISL as on 01.01.2012 was retained for the relevant purpose. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant cannot seek enforcement of a seniority list which itself had subsequently been withdrawn by the competent authority. 15.8 Finally, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far the issue about grant of benefit of N.R. Parmar (supra) is concerned the same has to be examined in the context of the subsequent judicial pronouncements, particularly Veena Kothawale (supra) and the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the proceedings concerning Shri Diwakar Singh, as well as the consequential decision of the Department to implement N.R. Parmar (supra) prospectively with effect from 27.11.2012.

PRATIK VYAS

:33: OA No.120/281/2025

Learned counsel further submitted that the seniority of the applicant in the cadre of ITO, as settled on the basis of the AIISL as on 01.01.2012, remains the operative seniority position for the purpose of the promotion in question. The promotion granted to the applicant to the grade of ACIT vide Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 against Vacancy Year 2019 was, therefore, stated to have been made in accordance with the prevailing seniority position. As such the instant OA, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

16. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, examined the pleadings and documents placed on record and considered the sequence of administrative and judicial developments governing the applicant’s seniority. In our considered view, the controversy can be appropriately resolved by examining whether, on the date on which the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) was pronounced, the applicant’s seniority had already been determined and acted upon on the basis of N.R. Parmar (supra), and if so, whether that position could thereafter be disregarded merely because the department subsequently withdrew AIISL 2017.

18. At the outset, we find it necessary to distinguish the present case from a case where an employee, after accepting a seniority position without objection for several years, seeks to reopen the same on the basis of a subsequent interpretation of law. The applicant’s service history does not fall in that category. His seniority was questioned by him as early as 05.02.2003. His promotion as ITO in 2006 was expressly made subject to the outcome of N.R. Parmar (supra). Thus, there was neither acquiescence on the part of the applicant nor an unequivocal representation by the Department that the seniority position was permanently closed.

19. The principle in Veena Kothavale (supra) that settled seniority ought not ordinarily to be unsettled is undoubtedly an important principle of service jurisprudence. However, the said principle cannot be divorced from the factual circumstances in which it was applied. The Hon’ble

PRATIK VYAS

:34: OA No.120/281/2025

Delhi High Court itself harmonised the retrospective operation of a declaration of law with the principle protecting seniority which had already become settled. The present case is distinguishable because the applicant’s seniority had remained under challenge and was subsequently revised pursuant to N.R. Parmar (supra).

20. The departmental action following N.R. Parmar assumes considerable significance. The Department itself issued advisories for implementation of the said judgment. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat thereafter passed Order No. 38 of 2015-16 granting the applicant a deemed date of promotion as ITO with effect from 01.03.2004 in line with the decision in N.R. Parmar (supra). The applicant’s revised position was thereafter reflected in AIISL 2017, which was prepared pursuant to Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s decision in SCA No.4720 of 2017 and connected matters directing preparation of fresh seniority list in accordance with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar (supra). In fact, the said seniority lists based on N.R. Parmar (supra) were further acted upon through Office Order No. 196 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017, whereby the applicant was promoted as ACIT on ad hoc basis against vacancy year 2016-17. This is, therefore, not a case where the applicant seeks to derive a right merely from an unimplemented judicial proposition but a case where the respondents have admittedly actually acted upon N.R. Parmar (supra) and determined the applicant’s seniority accordingly.

21. We observe that the issue of seniority in Veena Kothavale (supra) arose in the context of officers belonging to the Indian Legal Service consequent upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra). The ratio laid down therein is that settled seniority cannot be reopened. However, as is evident from the letter/advisory dated 22.02.2005 and 06.06.2014 issued by the Department of Revenue, CBDT, coupled with the promotion order dated 03.02.2006 and the representation dated 05.02.2003 preferred by the applicant, the seniority of Income Tax Inspectors of Gujarat Charge in the Income Tax

PRATIK VYAS

:35: OA No.120/281/2025

Department had never attained finality prior to the judgment in N.R. Parmar (supra). In the present case, the seniority of the applicant has been in dispute since February, 2003 and was finally settled only vide Order No.38 (Gaz.) of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Pr. CCIT, Gujarat, and consequently through the All India Inter-se Seniority List of Income Tax Officers (AIISL-2017) giving effect to the judgment in N.R. Parmar (much prior the decision of the Apex Court in K Meghchandra Singh (supra)), wherein the applicant was placed at Seniority No. 2746 with his deemed date of promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officer as 01.03.2004.

22. We are, therefore, unable to accept the respondents’ contention that AIISL 2017 can be treated as if it had never existed merely because it was subsequently withdrawn by the CBDT. The withdrawal of an administrative list may have consequences in accordance with law, but such withdrawal cannot automatically obliterate the legal consequences of the determination which preceded it, particularly, when the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressly protects inter-se seniority already based upon N.R. Parmar (supra).

23. The significance of paragraph 39 of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) cannot be overstated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not merely overrule N.R. Parmar and leave all consequential seniority positions to be retrospectively reopened. On the contrary, it specifically stated that inter-se seniority already based upon N.R. Parmar (supra) would not be affected and would remain protected. For facility of reference para 39 of the said judgment in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) is reproduced as under:- “39. The judgment in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] relating to the Central Government employees cannot in our opinion, automatically apply to the Manipur State Police Officers, governed by the MPS Rules, 1965. We also feel that N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] had incorrectly distinguished the long-standing seniority determination principles propounded in, inter alia, Jagdish Ch. Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of

PRATIK VYAS

:36: OA No.120/281/2025

Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] , Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K [Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, (2000) 7 SCC 561 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 977] and Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh [Pawan Pratap Singh v. Reevan Singh, (2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] . These three judgments and several others with like enunciation on the law for determination of seniority makes it abundantly clear that under service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. In our considered opinion, the law on the issue is correctly declared in Jagdish Ch. Patnaik [Jagdish Ch. Patnaik v. State of Orissa, (1998) 4 SCC 456 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1156] and consequently we disapprove the norms on assessment of inter se seniority, suggested in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] . Accordingly, the decision in N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] is overruled. However, it is made clear that this decision will not affect the inter se seniority already based on N.R. Parmar [Union of India v. N.R. Parmar, (2012) 13 SCC 340 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 711] and the same is protected. This decision will apply prospectively except where seniority is to be fixed under the relevant rules from the date of vacancy/the date of advertisement.”

The Respondents’ interpretation, if accepted, would substantially deprive this express protection of meaning in cases where the department had actually implemented N.R. Parmar (supra) before its overruling.

24. The DoPT’s O.M. dated 13.08.2021 reinforces the same transitional principle. While withdrawing the earlier O.M. dated 04.03.2014 from 19.11.2019, it expressly preserved cases of inter-se seniority, which had already been decided under the earlier instructions. The applicant’s case, having resulted in a specific determination of seniority by Order No.38 of 2015-16, which was thereafter also reflected in AIISL 2017 and Office Order No.196 of 2017 dated 13.11.2017, falls within the substance of the protection contemplated by the aforesaid transition.

25. The decision of this very Bench in Avdhesh Kaushik v. Central Excise & Customs (OA No. 475 of 2022), decided on 18.02.2026, lends considerable support to the aforesaid conclusion. In that matter, this Tribunal examined a seniority list prepared and finalised pursuant to N.R. Parmar (supra) and subsequently sought to be disturbed after K.

PRATIK VYAS

:37: OA No.120/281/2025

Meghachandra Singh (supra). This Bench held that seniority already fixed under N.R. Parmar (supra) and protected by the subsequent legal position could not be disturbed merely through administrative action.

26. The respondents’ reliance upon the order/judgment dated 29.09.2021 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal also does not persuade us to take a different view. The said order/judgment directed the department to prepare a fresh seniority list in light of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). It did not adjudicate that AIISL 2012 was finally and conclusively applicable to the applicant’s case. The respondents/Department was, therefore, required to undertake the fresh exercise in accordance with the law prevailing after K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), including the protection expressly afforded to seniority already fixed under N.R. Parmar (supra).

27. The fact that the applicant did not challenge the order dated 29.09.2021 does not alter the position. The applicant is not seeking to set aside that order in the present proceedings. On the contrary, he relies upon the fact that the department failed to comply with the operative direction contained therein to prepare a fresh seniority list. The present Original Application challenges the subsequent Office Order No. 294 of 2023 and the order dated 06.05.2025, which constitute fresh and distinct causes of action.

28. We are also unable to treat the submission made on behalf of the Applicant in the earlier proceedings as an admission that AIISL 2017 was legally void or that AIISL 2012 was conclusively correct. The submission, even if read in the manner suggested by the respondents, was made in the context of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) and sought reconsideration through preparation of a fresh seniority list. It cannot be extended beyond its context so as to constitute an express waiver of a protection subsequently recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

29. We may now consider the aforesaid Hon’ble Gujarat High Court order dated 03.12.2019. We accept that the operative direction contained

PRATIK VYAS

:38: OA No.120/281/2025

therein restraining the department from taking any action in ignorance of AIISL 2017 was linked to the disposal of OA No. 295 of 2019 and that, upon withdrawal of the said OA, such conditional restraint could not continue indefinitely. However, the respondents’ submission goes further and seeks to treat the entire order of the Hon’ble High Court as having become legally irrelevant. Such a proposition cannot be accepted.

30. It is apt to mention that the applicants of the OA No. 295/2019 being dissatisfied with the interim order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the CAT, Ahmedabad Bench had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing SCA No. 16209/2019 seeking relief to quash the said interim order dated 16.09.2019 in O.A. No. 295/2019 and the respondents be restrained for the operation of said interim order dated 16.09.2019 and the respondents be directed to follow, implement the Post-N. R. Parmar All India Inter-se Seniority List in the Cadre of ITOs circulated on 08.02.2018 for promotion to the post of ACITs for the Vacancy Year 2019. By considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitions and respondents therein including the submission of the respondents that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in case of Ms. Veena Kothawale dated 22.01.2018 and decided to act thereupon to operate the N.R. Parmar case prospectively, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat recorded its findings vide judgment dated 03.12.2019 in para 6 to the effect that “..the decision in case of N.R. Parmar was acted upon by the respondents and in accordance therewith the Seniority List of 2015 in the Department was revised and new Seniority List i.e. revised seniority list of ITO was promulgated on 05.02.2018. This aspect is not disputed by anyone, meaning thereby the seniority list of 05.02.2018 has not been disturbed nor the same has been sought to be revised in any manner…..” After referring the observation of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Court in case of Ms. Veena Kothawala (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat further recorded that “…when N.R. Parmar (supra) decision of Supreme Court is

PRATIK VYAS

:39: OA No.120/281/2025

implemented and it has been resulted into promulgation of seniority list dated 05.02.2018, there could not have been any direction in law for overlooking the same, be it implied or explicit. In other words, even if there was judgment of Delhi High Court interpreting the N.R. Parmar (supra), judgment of Supreme Court to be prospective the same in its own would not cloth any authority for overlooking the seniority list of 05.02.2018 as if the said seniority list was subject matter of scrutiny and it was over-ruled. The Court hasten to add here that the said Seniority list has never been the subject matter of scrutiny and no officer figuring thereunder were invited to show cause why the same shall not been revised. In other words, without following principle of natural justice, naturally the same could not have been admitted to be revised when the revision of seniority list of 05.02.2018 not even an offing or admitted, there was a clear attempt on the part of the Department in issuing directions….” Thereafter, by considering the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 40 of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), the Hon’ble High Court in para 6 (5) of the judgment dated 03.12.2019 held that “Thus, now there is no scope of any controversy so far as the seniority list of 05.02.2018 (i.e. AIISL 2017) is concerned as the Supreme Court even while overruling N.R. Parmar (supra) has observed that the resultant seniority list was not to be disturbed based upon the said ruling.” Accordingly, the said SCA was disposed of by restraining the respondents from implementing any exercise or undertaking any exercise ignoring the list of 05.02.2018, till the final disposal of O.A. No. 295/2019 pending before the Tribunal.

31. We therefore accept the applicant’s submission that the subsequent withdrawal of OA No.295 of 2019 (i.e. PT No. 104/2021 and new Number given by CAT, Principal Bench i.e. O.A. No. 2690/2021) vide order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure A/30) cannot retrospectively erase the judicial reasoning and conclusions recorded by the Hon’ble High Court in SCA No. 16209/2019 decided on 03.12.2019 (Annexure A/28).

PRATIK VYAS

:40: OA No.120/281/2025

At the same time, we reiterate that our conclusion in the present matter does not depend solely upon the said Hon’ble Gujarat High Court’s order. The applicant’s claim is independently supported by the express protection contained in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra), the DoP&T’s O.M. dated 13.08.2021, Order No.38 of 2015-16, AIISL 2017, Office Order No. 196 of 2017 and the applicant’s service record.

32. The contention of the respondents that AIISL 2017 was withdrawn “ab initio” and, therefore, could not confer any right also cannot be accepted in the absolute terms in which it has been advanced. The applicant is not claiming a right merely because his name appeared in an administrative list. His claim is founded upon the underlying determination of his deemed date of promotion as ITO with effect from 01.03.2004, which was made pursuant to the implementation of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.R. Parmar (supra) and was thereafter reflected in the revised seniority list. The subsequent withdrawal of the list, therefore, required examination in the light of the legal protection applicable to that underlying determination.

33. If the respondents’ interpretation was accepted, every seniority determination made pursuant to N.R. Parmar (supra) before 19.11.2019 could be rendered vulnerable simply by withdrawing the administrative list in which it was reflected. Such an interpretation would, in substance, defeat the express protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). We therefore cannot accept such an interpretation.

34. It is apt to mention that undisputedly, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat while considering the issue for not revising the seniority list in the Cadre of ITO for more than five years and not implementing the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of N.R. Parmer and the respondents continued to grant the promotion only on ad-hoc basis in the cadre of ITO by operating the seniority list of Pre-N.R. Parmar (supra) deprecated the stand of the respondents and while allowing the group of SCAs vide judgment dated 28.7.2017

PRATIK VYAS

:41: OA No.120/281/2025

subsequently directed the respondents to finalize the revised seniority list in the cadre of ITO in accordance with the principles laid down in N.R. Parmar and restrained the department from proceeding on the basis of the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority position and restrained them from making promotion to ACIT on ad hoc basis by operating the pre-N.R. Parmar seniority list (Annexure A-17).

Undisputedly, the respondents herein in compliance of the aforesaid direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat revised the seniority list of ITO and notified AIISL 2017 on 05.02.2018 (Annexure A/18) wherein the applicant was placed at Sr. No. 2746 by taking into consideration his deemed date of promotion to the cadre of ITO as 01.03.2004.

35. In absence of any modification in subsequent order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, the judgment dated 28.07.2017 passed in SCA No. 4720/2017 and connected SCA or in absence of any order passed by the Supreme Court in challenge to the said judgment, it is not open for the respondents to nullify the compliance of the said judgment and publication of AIISL-2017. The Respondents’ reliance upon the general principles against reopening stale seniority claims is also misplaced on the facts of the present case. The applicant’s grievance has not been dormant. He raised it in 2003, pursued the issue following N.R. Parmar, participated in the subsequent litigation, challenged the withdrawal of the revised seniority position, sought preparation of a fresh seniority list, submitted his representation dated 26.12.2023 after Office Order No. 294 of 2023, approached this Tribunal in OA No.475 of 2024 when that representation remained undecided, and thereafter filed the present OA following the order dated 06.05.2025.

36. The present Original Application is, therefore, not a stale challenge to a decades-old seniority list. The immediate cause of action arises from

PRATIK VYAS

:42: OA No.120/281/2025

Office Order No.294 of 2023 and the consequential order dated 06.05.2025. The application has been instituted within the statutory period from the latter order. The principles in B.S. Bajwa (supra), K.R. Mudgal (supra) and the other cases relied upon by the respondents, therefore, do not justify dismissal of the present OA on the ground of delay or laches.

37. The allegation of forum shopping is equally without substance. The applicant’s earlier proceedings arose from earlier administrative decisions and culminated in an order directing preparation of a fresh seniority list. The present proceedings challenge subsequent and distinct administrative action. Merely because the same broad controversy concerning seniority under N.R. Parmar (supra) is involved does not render the present proceedings an abuse of process.

38. We also find no merit in the submission that correction of the applicant’s seniority would necessarily result in administrative chaos. The relief sought by the applicant is directed to his own service position and consequential promotional entitlement. The department is fully competent to undertake the consequential exercise in accordance with the applicable service rules and to protect the rights of persons who may be directly affected. Administrative inconvenience cannot, by itself, be a ground for sustaining an action which is otherwise found inconsistent with the governing legal principles.

39. The applicant has specifically asserted that, on the basis of his deemed ITO date of 01.03.2004, he would fall between Serial Nos. 120 and 121 in Office Order No. 188 of 2022 dated 31.08.2022. Whether that precise placement follows from the complete service records is a matter which the respondents may verify while undertaking the consequential exercise. What cannot be accepted is the proposition that such verification need not be undertaken at all because AIISL 2012 is treated as an absolute and conclusive bar.

PRATIK VYAS

:43: OA No.120/281/2025

40. At this stage, by filing MA. Diary No. 860 of 2026, the respondents have contended that the Task Force is constituted on 09.04.2026 which will examine the inter-se seniority of direct recruits and departmental promotees in relevant cadres, including the ITO cadre, in the light of the relevant records, DoP&T’s OMs, HRD advisories and the judgments in N.R. Parmar (supra), Veena Kothavale (supra) and K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). We appreciate that the department is dealing with a complicated historical issue and that an administrative examination of the records may be useful to the department. However, the mere constitution of a Task Force cannot render an existing judicial cause of action incapable of adjudication.

41. The applicant’s challenge concerns completed administrative decisions. Office Order No. 294 of 2023 has already been issued. The applicant’s representation dated 26.12.2023 was directed to be considered by this Tribunal in OA No. 475 of 2024. The respondents thereafter passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2025. The legality of that decision cannot be made contingent upon an uncertain future administrative recommendation.

42. On the facts before us, therefore, the applicant’s seniority under N.R. Parmar (supra) had already been determined and acted upon before the decision in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). The subsequent overruling of N.R. Parmar (supra) did not, by virtue of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) itself, require such already fixed seniority to be retrospectively extinguished. On the contrary, such seniority was expressly protected.

43. We are accordingly of the considered view that the respondents could not, while considering the applicant’s representation in 2025, simply proceed on the premise that AIISL 2012 alone governed his case and that the applicant’s seniority under Order No.38 of 2015-16 and AIISL 2017 stood wholly obliterated. The impugned order does not adequately address the applicant’s continuous challenge to his seniority, the express qualification in his 2006 promotion order, the subsequent determination

PRATIK VYAS

:44: OA No.120/281/2025

of his deemed ITO date as 01.03.2004, the publication of AIISL 2017, or the protection contained in K. Meghachandra Singh (supra).

44. The impugned order is consequently vitiated by failure to consider material facts and by an erroneous application of the principle in Veena Kothavale (supra). The respondents have treated the said judgment as laying down an absolute prospective rule, whereas the judgment itself was concerned with reconciling retrospective operation of law with the protection of seniority which had already become settled. The applicant’s factual position does not fall within that category.

45. We accordingly hold that, for the purpose of determining the applicant’s consequential seniority and promotional entitlement, the respondents should have taken into account his deemed date of promotion as ITO with effect from 01.03.2004, as determined by Order No. 38 of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 (Annexure A/16), and the protection applicable to the seniority position fixed pursuant to N.R. Parmar (supra).

46. This conclusion is confined to the applicant’s case and does not amount to a direction for wholesale reopening of the entire All India Seniority List. The consequential exercise shall necessarily be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, DPC procedure and other governing instructions, while taking into account the rights of officers directly affected by the applicant’s placement.

47. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are satisfied that the applicant has established a case for interference with Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure A/1) to the extent that his seniority and consequential promotional placement have been determined by relying upon AIISL 2012 without giving effect to the applicant’s seniority position determined pursuant to Order No. 38 of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 and AIISL 2017 dated 05.02.2018 and the protection applicable to seniority already fixed under N.R. Parmar (supra). The order dated 06.05.2025 rejecting the applicant’s representation also

PRATIK VYAS

:45: OA No.120/281/2025

cannot be sustained, since the same proceeds substantially on the assumption that Veena Kothavale (supra) conclusively required the applicant’s claim to be rejected and that withdrawal of AIISL 2017 automatically extinguished the applicant’s earlier seniority position.

48. We accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to reassignment/placement of his seniority and consequential promotional entitlement by taking into account his deemed ITO promotion date of 01.03.2004 and the legal protection applicable to seniority already fixed pursuant to N.R. Parmar (supra).

49. In the result, the instant OA is allowed, in the following terms:

(i) Office Order No. 294 of 2023 dated 01.12.2023 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside to the extent that it determines the applicant’s seniority and consequential promotional placement on the basis of AIISL 2012, without considering the Applicant’s seniority position determined pursuant to the promotion order to the post of Income Tax Officer being Order No. 38 (Gaz.) of 2015- 16 dated 05.11.2015, the AIISL 2017 and the revised seniority exercise undertaken pursuant to N.R. Parmar;

(ii) the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Respondents rejecting the Applicant’s representation dated 26.12.2023 is quashed and set aside;

(iii) the Respondents shall take into consideration the Applicant’s deemed date of promotion to the cadre of Income Tax Officer as 01.03.2004, as determined by Order No. 38 (Gaz.) of 2015-16 dated 05.11.2015 and AIISL 2017, while determining his consequential seniority and promotional entitlement;

(iv) the Respondents shall reconsider the Applicant’s entitlement for promotion to the grade of ACIT against vacancy year 2016-17, by taking into account the aforesaid deemed date of promotion and the seniority position arising from the implementation of N.R. Parmar;

PRATIK VYAS

:46: OA No.120/281/2025

(v) in undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the Respondents shall specifically examine the Applicant’s claim for appropriate placement in Office Order No. 188 of 2022 dated 31.08.2022, including his claim for placement between Serial Nos. 120 and 121, subject to verification of the relevant service records and the applicable rules;

(vi) upon such examination and verification, the Applicant shall be granted consequential seniority and such other service benefits as he is found entitled to in accordance with the applicable rules. The question of actual monetary benefits shall be determined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the consequential determination;

(vii) the aforesaid exercise shall be completed and an appropriate consequential order shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

(viii) it is clarified that the present order is confined to the Applicant’s claim and shall not be construed as a direction for wholesale reopening of the seniority of all officers in the department. Any consequential adjustment shall be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and after taking into account the rights of officers directly affected thereby; and

50. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

51. Pending MA(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A)

Member (J)

/pv/

PRATIK VYAS