In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Sudhir Kumar Jain, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision, affirming that an Office Memorandum cannot override Statutory Rules. The court clarified that while an Office Memorandum can supplement the rules, it cannot replace or supersede them.
Background:
The case involved officers who were promoted to the post of Joint Commissioners of Income Tax (CIT) on September 17, 2010. Along with them, their juniors were also promoted on the same date. However, in January and December 2022, the juniors were further promoted to the position of Additional CIT (NFSG), which led the senior officers (the Respondents) to challenge this promotion before the Central Administrative Tribunal. They argued that their promotion had been unfairly delayed and violated the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 2015.
The Respondents pointed to Rule 7(4) of the IRS Rules, which states that promotions to the grade of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (NFSG) should be based on seniority. Additionally, Rule 7(4) stipulates that when juniors are promoted, their seniors must also be considered for promotion, provided they meet certain criteria, including completing the required qualifying service.
The senior officers claimed they were entitled to a two-year relaxation for promotion, which should have allowed them to be promoted at the same time as their juniors in January 2022.
Tribunal’s Ruling:
The Central Administrative Tribunal sided with the Respondents, stating that the position of Additional CIT (NFSG) was indeed a promotional post, and their seniority should have been respected. The Tribunal emphasized that an Office Memorandum, which is essentially an executive instruction, cannot override Statutory Recruitment Rules, referencing a Supreme Court judgment in UOI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal. Based on these grounds, the Tribunal granted the Respondents a two-year relaxation for their promotion, aligning it with their juniors.
High Court’s Decision:
Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s ruling, the government (the Petitioners) approached the Delhi High Court. The Petitioners argued that the grant of NFSG was not technically a promotion but merely a placement in a higher pay scale. They relied on an Office Memorandum issued in 2021 to support their case.
However, the High Court rejected the Petitioners’ argument, reaffirming that the post of Additional CIT (NFSG) was indeed a promotion as outlined in Rule 7(4) of the IRS Rules. The Court stressed that an Office Memorandum cannot supersede Statutory Rules and only serves to supplement them where needed.
The High Court concluded that the Tribunal had correctly granted the Respondents their promotion rights, in line with the rules. As a result, the Court dismissed the Petitioners’ appeal, confirming the Respondents’ entitlement to promotion effective from January 1, 2022, along with their juniors.
Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that executive instructions, such as Office Memoranda, cannot override legally binding Recruitment Rules. The decision upholds the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines in matters of promotion and seniority within government services.
