[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ashish Kumar Thakur & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision:20.12.2025
+ W.P.(C) 12183/2022
ASHISH KUMAR THAKUR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.B.S. Rajan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr.
Nischay Chaudhary, Mr.
Upmanyu Chikara and Mr.
Akshansh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj, SPC and Mr. Sahaj
Garg with Mr. Manoj, Income
Tax Officer
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
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 Not known to
restructuring submitted to Cabinet Sectt. petitioners
CCS deliberates on the issue and approves creation 25.05.2013
of posts.
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:
"2. All the additional posts at different levels as
per Annex A stand created with effect from 23rd
May, 2013 (the date of the Cabinet Meeting),
These posts shall be filled up in accordance with
the Cabinet approval in the following manner:-
i. The 166 additional regular posts and 620
additional reserve posts at the level of Assistant
Commissioner of Income Tax and 563 vacancies
arising in this grade due to promotions to higher
grade will be filled up equally by promotion and
direct recruitment. Therefore, the additional 1349
posts created at this level will be filled over a
period of 5 years with 270 posts per year being
filled in the next four years and 269 posts bring
filled in the fifth year. Every year these posts will
be filled by promotion and by direct recruitment in
equal proportion.
ii. The Cabinet has permitted, as a one-time
measure, filing up of the additional posts that are
to be filed by promotion immediately, without
awaiting amendments in the recruitment rules on
the basis of the model recruitment rules issued by
DOPT. Accordingly, the process of filling up of all
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
