CCIT DELHI RELEASES ITO PROMOTIONS WITH PARMAR IMPLEMENTATION
Delhi CCIT has became the first in ITD to release ITO promotions in the
lines of NRP judgement. On Sunday 25th May 2014, the Pr.CCIT, New
Delhi who has published Draft seniority list on 17th May, issued
promotion order for 234 aspirants.
(We express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Rakesh Garg, ITO (OSD), Chandigarh and others for their valuable contribution to this article.)
7 comments:
Why no comment on this post. where have all those guys who were singing DOla Dola gone...Seems this has hit them really hard..
He He He, really funny....
O No....how can illegally recruit 2005 could be ITOs ....Go to Hell ITEF...how much delay u want...do it in other region....Aab implementation ROK sake to ROKO....
There was no new rule was brought down by the Supreme court in NR permar except once again reiterating the explanatory note on 3.7.86 DoPT instructions. Next the The Supreme court has not said that it is either retrospective or prospective. It ruled IN THE INSTANT CASE. ie In the instant facts. Asking to implement correct interpretation of applying rota quota principle wef 3.7.86 after a lapse of 25 years is out of limitation as envisaged in the limitation Act. When the judgement is silent about for implementation of correct intrepreation, then how the CCIT(CCA) are holding that it is retrospective effect. have they asked the Supreme court from which date it is to be applied. No CCIT is empowered to ask unless when DoPT permits them to file a plea in the court of law since, the judgement is on the DoPT instructions which is binding principle to all central government departments who comes under common path. DoPT has rightly said that if any direct recruitee joins in service after 27-11-2012, the correct interpretation is seniority should recons from date of notification subject to advertised vacancies are filled up. How the CCIT(CCA) have pick up a word choose they like ie date of notification only why they have not observed the ruled laid down in the para No.33 which speaks about the correct interpretation of the term availability of 3.7.86 is not only the requisition but also the advertised vacancies are filled up. Who has given the power to CCIT(CCAs for infringement of fundamental rights to the serving employees by unsettling the settled position for the past 25 years. If any petitioner applies for correct interpretation of 3.7.86 now is barred by limitation and if asks for implementation of NR permar, he should have joined in the department after 27-11-2012. The CCIT(CCA)have bound to follow the DoPT rule 4.3.2014 except Gujarat CCIT(CCA)in those petitioner's case who have gone to the supreme court but with regard to rest, he also to follow the DoPT instructions. Otherwise, he will be called as above the Prime minister since DoPT is maintained in PMO's office.
If all the CCIT(CCAs) have implemented the correct interpretation of the doPT instructions 3.7.86 as laid down by the Supreme court in NR permar case since from the beginning of the said instructions, the retired persons may got benefit of their right. But after a gap of 28 years, if implemented correct interpretation, what is the fate of the retired employees. Some of them may be loosers and some of them may be benefited. Whether the CCIT-CCA could recover or could they give arrears to the retired. When this could not be possible, how the CCIT-CCA are dare enough to unsettle the settled position with a gap of 28 years. Next is they have done before issue of DoPT instructions 4.3.2014. NO. Are the other CCIT(CCAs) are respondents of the NR permar. NO. When the other CCITs are not respondents of the said NR permar then what is the binding principle to them to implement the judgement of NR permar. Is there any specific instructions of DoPT to implement courts judgement without referring the matter to the DoPT especially when a decission is laid down on Government of India's instructions. The DoPT in 2000 has clearly instructed all the departments not to implement any decisions of court on the instructions issued by the doPT without referring it to them. Why the CCIT(CCAs) are not taken care of those instructions. The reason is they are favor of DRs because they have taken a large amount from them to do undue favor and violating the article 14 and 16 of constitution of India.
The question is whether DGIT-HRD instructions is binding on the CBDT in terms of implementation of DoPT instructions or whether the DGIT-HRD is superior to the DoPT for Incometax department. Definitely not. For all central government organizations works under the control of PMO's office ie DoPT, the instructions issued from time to time in service matters is binding on the authorities who are under the control of the PMO. Hence, the CCIT-CCAs have not only violated the DoPT instructions but also they treat the DoPT as foolish department by implementing one instructions of it and not implementing the other instructions according to their choice or according to their own personal advantage. Hence, the CCIT-CCA who have unsettled the seniority with a gap of 28 years have totally perverted in violating the limitation Act. The Supreme court in en-number of cases have ruled that if any wrong interpretation of the government of india instructions in the service matter have done then it could be set right within the limitation period only but not after 10 years. Why these CCIT-CCAs are not gone through the other rulings given by the Supreme court in terms of service matter which also a land mark judgements.One thing is sure, if all the promotees have filed a PIL before high court/supreme court with regard to their fundamental rights as their seniority now unsettled with a gap of more than 10 or 20 years for no fault of him/her, then see the dance.
Pity for the basic understanding..... first of all seniority is never settled in ITI cadre. second your sacred cow DOPT itself clarified on 1st May that senuiority is to be revised in income tax department. Third, limitation does not apply since this is judgement in rem. Whether all the lakshs of employees gone to court in one rank one pension case? Better brush ur fundamental knwoledge before talking about fundamental right. It is the principle of equity gujarat petitioners have argued with their counter parts in Delhi and U.P.(West) and by filing the petition(SLP), the union of India wanted to apply the same principle all over India. Remember Union of India is the petitioner in SLP.
Post a Comment