Gyanendra Kumar Gupta vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT on 5 November 2026

O R D E R

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant joined the Department of Income Tax as Stenographer Grade-II (PB-I) on 20.01.2016 at Hyderabad and was subsequently promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-I on 01.01.2021. After completing more than three years of satisfactory service, the applicant submitted an application dated SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

29.07.2019 seeking Inter-Charge Transfer from Hyderabad Region (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) to Kanpur Region (Uttar Pradesh) under the CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990. The said application was forwarded by the competent authority vide letter dated 08.08.2019. Subsequently, the applicant married Smt. Akanksha Jaiswal on 09.11.2019, who is a permanent employee of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and has been working as Food Safety Officer in the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department at Kanpur Nagar since 11.04.2016. In this regard, the applicant submitted a further application dated 27.02.2020 along with the relevant documents concerning his marriage and his wife's Government employment, which was forwarded to the concerned authority vide letter dated 02.03.2020.

3. Learned counsel further submits that, during the pendency of his request for Inter-Charge Transfer, the applicant was transferred to Kanpur Region on loan basis vide order dated 07.08.2023. Pursuant thereto, he was relieved from Hyderabad Region on 01.09.2023 and joined the office of respondent No. 5 at Kanpur on 04.09.2023, where he has been continuously working since then.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the CBDT, vide its communication dated 15.02.2019, had extended the period of relaxation of Condition No. 2(c) of the original Circular dated 14.05.1990, with effect from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019, in respect of five specified categories of employees. One such category, mentioned at Clause 3(iv), specifically covers officials whose spouses are employed in Government service in a State other than the State in which the officials are posted. Subsequently, vide communication dated 12.02.2020, the CBDT clarified that Inter- Charge Transfer applications falling under the categories mentioned in paragraph 3(i) to (v) of the aforesaid communication dated 15.02.2019 could be considered by the concerned Principal Chief Commissioners of SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Income Tax (CCAs), provided such applications had been received up to 31.12.2019.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant's case is also supported by various decisions rendered by different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the issue of Inter-Charge Transfer under the CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990. In this regard, he places reliance upon the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.410/2022, Priti L. Rao Vs. Union of India & Others, wherein the Tribunal observed that the subsequent communication dated 22.12.2020 introducing the policy of Inter-Charge Transfer on loan basis could not be used to deny consideration of cases which were already under process under the earlier policy dated 14.05.1990. It was further observed that similarly situated employees could not be discriminated against on the basis of their individual circumstances and the applicant's case deserved consideration under the policy prevailing prior to 22.12.2020.

6. Learned counsel also places reliance upon the common order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2012/2021, Ajay Rani & Others Vs. Union of India & Others; OA No.378/2021, Rahul Soni & Others Vs. Union of India & Others; OA No.392/2021, Dinesh Goyal & Others Vs. Union of India & Others; OA No.395/2021, Ankit Sharma & Others Vs. Union of India & Others; and OA No.397/2021, Sitaram Jangid & Others Vs. Union of India & Others. He submits that in the aforesaid matters, the Tribunal, applying the principle of equality and non-discrimination, directed the respondents to consider the pending Inter-Charge Transfer applications in accordance with the original policy dated 14.05.1990. The Tribunal also observed that the subsequent clarificatory O.M. dated 22.12.2020 should not operate to the prejudice of those employees who had submitted their applications prior to its issuance and whose applications had already been partly SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

processed by the authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents challenged the aforesaid decision by filing Review Application No.09/2025 in OA No.378/2021 (Sanjay Melhotra and 4 Others Vs. Rahul Soni and 2 Others), which was rejected vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2025. The Tribunal, while rejecting the review application, reiterated the principle of non-discrimination amongst similarly situated employees and found no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with its earlier order. In the said review proceedings, reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Pancham Lal Pandey Vs. Neeraj Kumar Mishra & Others, SLP No.3329 of 2021.

7. Learned counsel further submits that similar views have also been taken by the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.170/00007/2022, Varun Kumar Kushwaha Vs. Union of India & Others; OA No.170/00599/2021, C.I. Ajit Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others; OA No.170/00071/2020, Ruchi Sachan Vs. Union of India & Others; and OA No.170/00222/2022, Gautam Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid decisions consistently recognise that employees who had applied for Inter-Charge Transfer under the policy dated 14.05.1990 before issuance of the subsequent communication dated 22.12.2020 cannot be deprived of consideration under the earlier policy merely because the administrative process remained incomplete.

8. Learned counsel also draws attention to the order dated 26.03.2026 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.181/2025, Chandan Kumar Srivastava Vs. Union of India & 2 Others, wherein the respondents were directed to consider the applicant's Inter-Charge Transfer application dated 19.09.2018 in terms of the policy dated 14.05.1990 within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. He further submits that the aforesaid order was duly complied SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

with by the respondents vide Office Order No.2 dated 22.04.2026. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the aforesaid decision of the Lucknow Bench also supports the applicant's claim for consideration of his pending application under the original ICT policy.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts, policy provisions and judicial decisions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had submitted his original application dated 29.07.2019 well before the prescribed cut- off date of 31.12.2019 and his case was also found fit for Inter-Charge Transfer by the Committee in its meeting dated 16.11.2020. He contends that the subsequent communication dated 22.12.2020 cannot be applied to defeat the applicant's claim, particularly when his application was already pending and had been processed under the earlier policy. He, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to consider and grant Inter-Charge Transfer to the applicant from Hyderabad Region to Kanpur Region in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated 14.05.1990 and subsequent communications dated 15.02.2019, 12.02.2020 and 21.04.2021, keeping in view the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the claim of the applicant, submits that the applicant's original application dated 29.07.2019 was submitted prior to his marriage, which took place on 09.11.2019, and therefore, the same cannot be treated as an application seeking Inter-Charge Transfer on spouse ground under the communication dated 15.02.2019. The subsequent application dated 27.02.2020, along with supporting documents relating to his wife's Government employment, was submitted after the prescribed cut-off date of 31.12.2019. He further submits that the Committee's recommendation dated 16.11.2020 treating the case as fit for Inter-Charge Transfer does not, by itself, confer any vested right upon the applicant for permanent transfer. His posting at Kanpur was granted only on a temporary loan basis and cannot be treated as regular Inter-Charge Transfer. Learned counsel, however, seeks some time to SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

obtain detailed instructions from the respondents with regard to the applicant's claim and to file short counter affidavit.

11. The Tribunal has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal has also taken note of the judicial pronouncements relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, as referred to in the preceding paragraphs. Learned counsel for the respondents has sought time to obtain detailed instructions and file a short counter affidavit. However, having regard to the nature of the controversy and the directions proposed to be issued hereinbelow, the Tribunal do not consider it necessary to keep the matter pending for the said purpose. The applicability of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements to the facts and circumstances of the present case is left open for consideration by the competent authority.

12. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the present case, we are of the considered view that the applicant's claim deserves fresh consideration by the competent authority in the light of the applicable policy provisions and the relevant documents available on record. The competent authority shall specifically examine whether the applicant's claim falls within the category of cases covered under the CBDT communication dated 15.02.2019, read with the subsequent communication dated 12.02.2020, keeping in view that the applicant had submitted his original application dated 29.07.2019, forwarded on 08.08.2019, prior to his marriage, which took place on 09.11.2019, i.e., before the prescribed cut-off date of 31.12.2019, whereas the subsequent application dated 27.02.2020, along with supporting documents relating to his wife's Government employment, was submitted thereafter. The authority shall also examine whether the subsequent application was merely in continuation of the earlier application or amounted to a fresh request on spouse ground. The Committee's proceedings dated 16.11.2020, the subsequent CBDT communications and clarifications, including the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

communication dated 22.12.2020, and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant shall also be duly considered while taking an appropriate decision in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant's claim, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority concerned to reconsider the applicant's claim for Inter-Charge Transfer from Hyderabad Region to Kanpur Region, including his grievance against the order dated 19.06.2026, and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The competent authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant before taking a final decision. Till the decision is taken by the competent authority, the applicant shall not be disturbed from his present place of posting at Kanpur.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA