Delhi High Court
Avinash Kishore Sahay vs Union Of India And Others on 13 October, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2025
+ W.P.(C) 5824/2021
AVINASH KISHORE SAHAY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar and
Ms.Devina Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey,
CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich, Mr. Kritarth
Upadhyay and Mr. Vivek
Sharma, Advs.
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
25.03.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal')
in O.A. No. 257/2019, titled Avinash Kishore Sahay v. UOI through
its Secretary & Ors., dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner
herein.
2. The petitioner had filed the above O.A. praying for the
following reliefs:
"(a) To direct the Competent Authority to
urgently consider the case of the Applicant for
promotion to Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax, for Empanelment to the Grade of CCIT,
with all consequential relief under the law.
(b) To direct the Department of Revenue in
the Ministry of Finance to pass the
consequential Order for promotion of the
Applicant as Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax w.e.f. 31.12.2018, when the immediate
junior to the Applicant in IRS was ordered to
be promoted to this post, with all
consequential relief and pay of level 16 in the
pay matrix Rs. 2,05,400/- to 2,24,400/- w.e.f.
31.12.2018.
(c) To direct payment of appropriate interest
on the difference of the salary and allowances
payable to the Applicant on account of
promotion to level 16 in the pay matrix, w.e.f.
31.12.2018 uptill the date such payment is
made to the Applicant.
(d) To compensate the applicant for mental
agony, harassment and the humiliation
suffered on account of wrongful denial of
promotion as CCIT w.e.f. 31.12.2018.
(e) Award costs of the present Original
Application in favour of the Applicant and
against the Respondents."
3. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, who was an
Indian Revenue Service Officer of 1986 batch, had been
recommended, by the Department Promotion Committee ('DPC') held
on 06.12.2018, for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of
Income Tax for the panel year 2018. The Department of Personnel &
Training ('DOP&T'), however, vide communication dated 29.12.2018
informed the petitioner that the Appointments Committee of the
Cabinet ('ACC') had deferred the case of the petitioner for promotion.
Consequently, the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('CBDT'),
Department of Revenue, issued an order dated 31.12.2018 promoting
officers to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, however,
not including the petitioner therein. The petitioner claimed that the
deferment of promotion was contrary to the Office Memorandum no.
22011/4/1991-Estt.(A) Dated 14.09.1992 issued in implementation of
the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. K.V.
Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109. The learned Tribunal,
however, dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, observing
therein that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and
Charge Memos have also been issued against the petitioner.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of
this present petition.
4. During the pendency of the OA before the learned Tribunal, the
petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2020, and unfortunately, during the
pendency of the present petition, passed away on 09.11.2022. The
petitioner has thereafter been substituted by his legal heirs.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that post the
death of the petitioner, vide order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the
CBDT, the Departmental proceedings against the petitioner have been
treated as having abated and that thereafter, by a further order dated
04.09.2024, it has been directed that the petitioner be promoted to the
post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax with notional benefits. He
submits that the only prayer of the petitioner left is for the actual pay
between the period his juniors were promoted to the post of Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax till the date of his superannuation.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had availed of his legal remedies immediately on denial of his
promotion and therefore is entitled to the differential of pay for the
above period.
7. We are, however, unable to accept the above prayer of the
petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner did not work at the promotional
post prior to his superannuation. This may be for reasons beyond his
control, however, once the petitioner has not worked at the
promotional post, he is not entitled to the differential of pay for the
same.
8. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
OCTOBER 13, 2025/ys/k/ik
