AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief (s):
“I. To issue a direction to the respondents, directing them to count the previous service of the applicant rendered in other Zone of Income Tax Department for the purpose of eligibility of Departmental Promotion.
ΙΙ. To issue a direction to the Respondents department to convene review DPC for promotion and consider the Applicant and promote him accordingly after counting the service of the applicant rendered in other Zone of Income Tax Department.
III. To award costs of the O.A. to the applicant.”
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instant O.A. may be disposed of as applicant is only seeking decision on the representation preferred by him in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/20180) – Pratibha Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (Annexure No. A-2 to the OA), judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 933/2025 (Ankit Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 09.10.2025 and judgment passed in OA No. 99/2026 ( Ashutosh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.) on 26.05.2026 (Annexure No. A-3 to the OA), order dated 30.12.2025 issued by Income Tax Department (Annexure No. A-4 to the OA) and judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 361/2021 (Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 18.04.2024 (Annexure No. A-5 to the OA) and ends of justice would be served if a direction is given by this Tribunal to the respondents/competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending representation of the applicant attached as Annexure No. A-1 [page 28-31 of the paper-book] to this O.A. in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/20180) – Pratibha Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (Annexure No. A-2 to the OA), judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 933/2025 (Ankit Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 09.10.2025 and judgment passed in OA No. 99/2026 ( Ashutosh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.) on 26.05.2026 (Annexure No. A-3 to the OA), order dated 30.12.2025 issued by Income Tax Department (Annexure No. A-4 to the OA) and judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 361/2021 (Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 18.04.2024 (Annexure No. A-5 to the OA) by way of reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then at least three months’ time may be allowed for the same.
In view of the above submission, respondents/ competent authority are directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicant attached as Annexure No. A-1 [page 28-31 of the paper-book] to this OA in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3792 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31728/20180) – Pratibha Rani & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (Annexure No. A-2 to the OA), judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 933/2025 (Ankit Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 09.10.2025 and judgment passed in OA No. 99/2026 ( Ashutosh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.) on 26.05.2026 (Annexure No. A-3 to the OA), order dated 30.12.2025 issued by Income Tax Department (Annexure No. A-4 to the OA) and judgment passed by Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 361/2021 (Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.) on 18.04.2024 (Annexure No. A-5 to the OA) and pass a reasoned and speaking order as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, under intimation forthwith to the applicant.
It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.
For avoidance of doubts, it is clarified that similarity of facts and applicability of judgments/ office order shall be determined by the competent authority itself while deciding the representation of the applicant.
The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.