Ramesh Chandra Dixit & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.

BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH-VII, MEMBER – J

This execution application has been filed for execution of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2015 passed in O.A. No. 330/00974 of 2015 Ramesh Chandra Dixit Vs. Union of India and others. The operative portion of order dated 30.07.2015 is ^SRIVASTAVA extracted herein below:-

The brief facts as narrated in the execution application is that name of the applicant figures at Sl. No. 21 of the eligibility list of Income Tax Inspectors for promotion to the post of I.T.O for the year RY 2014-15 and 2015-16. Employees who were figured Sl. No. 1 to 20 were considered for promotion for the post of I.T.O for the year RY 2015-16. The applicant was in the zone of consideration and to be considered for the RY 2015-16 but the DPC was not being held though the Board has given direction for holding the DPC before 31.07.2015. Applicant was retired from service on 31.07.2019 and his juniors were promoted to the post of I.T.O. Since the delay caused in holding the DPC and promoting the applicant to the post of Income Tax Officer, applicant filed OA No. 974 of 2015 before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2015 disposed of the OA of the applicant directing the respondents to hold the DPC as per their own instructions dated 17.6.2015. In compliance of aforesaid order, the respondents passed an order dated 17.07.2015 whereby they have promoted 11 employees to the post of Income Tax Officer, however, respondents did not consider the candidature of the applicant to be promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents, applicant filed present execution application.

In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents it has been submitted that before deciding the case of the applicant, ^{MANISH KUMAR} respondents had convened the DPC on 17.07.2015 for R.Y 2015-16 and 11 eligible employees have been promoted to the post of Income Tax Officers. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that this Tribunal in its order dated 29.07.2015 passed in OA No. 970 of 2015 directed the respondents not to hold any DPC till the next date of hearing. It is also stated that DPC for the post of ITO for RY 2015-16 has been stayed by this Tribunal. It is also stated that in compliance of the direction of the Tribunal, the DPC has been convened on 17.10.2016 to 20.10.2016 for Income Tax Officers for R.Y 2016-17 and the applicant has been approved for promotion to the Income Tax Officer vide order NJo. G-47/2016-17 (F No. Pr. CCIT/KNP/Review DPC Panel/2016-17/4332 dated 21.10.2016 by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, UP (West)/Uttarakhand Region, Kanpur at serial No. 3 for the recruitment year 2015-16. Thus, the order of the Tribunal has fully been complied, hence present Execution Application is liable to be rejected.

In reply to the counter affidavit, applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit negating the contentions as made in the counter affidavit while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the execution application. Nothing new has been averred in the rejoinder affidavit.

We have heard Shri R.K Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no compliance has been made whereas respondents have stated in the order dated 17.07.2015 that 11 employees have been promoted wherein the candidature of the applicant was considered.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that order of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2015 has fully been complied with in letter and spirit. He further submitted that in compliance with the Tribunal's direction, the respondents have convened DPC between 17.10.2016 and 20.10.2016 and has approved the applicant for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer vide order NO. G-47/2016-17 (F No. Pr. CCIT/KNP/Review DPC Panel/2016-17/4332), which was issued on 21.10.2016 by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, UP (West)/Uttarakhand Region, Kanpur, wherein name of applicant figured at serial No. 3 for the recruitment year 2015-16.

We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.

In the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is well settled principle of law that an execution court cannot go beyond the decree.

In the instant case, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to convene the DPC. In compliance of the direction of the Tribunal, respondents have convened the DPC and have granted the promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer vide order NO. G-47/2016-17 (F No. Pr. CCIT/KNP/Review DPC Panel/2016-17/4332), which was issued on 21.10.2016 by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, UP (West)/Uttarakhand Region, Kanpur, wherein name of applicant figured at serial No. 3 for the recruitment year 2015-16. Thus, the direction of the Tribunal has fully been complied with. If the applicant is aggrieved by the order of respondents and is of the view that the decision is not correct he may challenge the same in the proper proceedings. The executing court cannot go into the merit of the order.

Considering the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the reasons given therein, if the applicant is feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the competent authority then he has remedy to challenge the same before the appropriate forum and for the said purpose remedy to him does not lie in this execution application.

Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and factual position of the case, the execution application is dismissed in full satisfaction. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.