Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.12.2025
ASHISH KUMAR THAKUR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.B.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv.
Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC and Mr. Sahaj Garg
Tax Officer
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 03.01.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2030/2014, titled Ashish Kumar Thakur and Ors. v. UOI through its Secretary and Ors., whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed.
2. The limited issue that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the 1494 additional reserved posts at the level of Income Tax Officer, created pursuant to the approval of the Cabinet in a meeting held on 23.05.2013, would be said to arise in the vacancy year 2013-14 or in the vacancy year 2014-15.
3. To answer the above issue, the petitioners state the following dates as being relevant: Stage of Restructure Date Proposal by the CBDT/Ministry of Finance for restructuring submitted to Cabinet Sectt. Not known to petitioners CCS deliberates on the issue and approves creation of posts. 25.05.2013 Communication of the approval to CBDT 31.05.2013 Provisional Allocation by CBDT to Regions 31.03.2014 Final Allocation by CBDT to Regions 04.04.2014 Budget allocation 10.07.2014 Gazette Notification 22.10.2014 Notification by Delhi Region 15.11.2014 Operative Date as per gazette & Delhi Region 15.11.2014
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in, solely on the basis of the Cabinet’s approval of the Cadre Restructuring Scheme in the meeting held on 23.05.2013, holding that the vacancies would arise in the financial year 2013-14. He submits that the final notification in respect of the said vacancies took place only on 22.10.2014, vide Notification NO. 51/2014/F. No. 187/35/2014(ITA.I), and was prescribed to be with effect from 15.11.2014.
5. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. K.P.S. Raghuvanshi and Ors., (2017) 8 SCC 334, to contend that it is only with the final notification that the vacancies would arise and as the same had taken place in the year 2014- 15, the vacancies would arise only in 2014-15.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, drawing our reference to a communication bearing No. F.No.A- 11013/1/2013-Ad.VII dated 31.05.2013, addressed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) to all the Chief Commissionerate of Income Tax, submits that the additional posts at different levels, including that of Income Tax Officer, stood created with effect from 23.05.2013. He submits that thereafter it was only an administrative process of allocating these posts to different Commissionerates and that the same would not affect the date of the creation of the posts. He submits that therefore, the posts in question were created in the year 2013-14.
7. He further submits that Commissionerate across the country have considered the creation of the posts having taken place in 2013-14.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
9. The communication dated 31.05.2013 referred by the learned counsel for the respondents so far is relevant to the present petition reads, as under:
the additional posts that are to be filled by promotion shall be initiated immediately on the basis of the model recruitment rules issued by the DoPT without awaiting amendment is the recruitment rules of the relevant post(s).”
10. From the reading of the above, it would be evident that the posts stood created by the Cabinet decision dated 23.05.2013; it was only a final bifurcation of the same amongst the various Commissionerate, that had to take place and which was eventually done by way of a provisional allocation by the CBDT to various regions on 31.03.2014 and the final allocation on 04.04.2014. We are informed that all Commissionerate have treated the creation of the posts for the year 2013-14.
11. The notification dated 22.10.2014 relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has no relation to the creation of the additional posts, but deals with the delegation of powers.
12. In K.P.S. Raghuvanshi (Supra), for giving effect to the creation of the post, a final approval from the President was required. The Supreme Court held that it is the date when the President approval was conveyed that would be considered as a date of creation of the posts. In the present case, the creation of the posts had taken place with the approval of the decision taken by the Cabinet Committee on 23.05.2013. The vacancies, have therefore arisen in the year 2013-14, and we find no infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Tribunal.
13. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J DECEMBER 20, 2025/ys/P/SS