Saturday, March 15, 2014

CBDT asked CCIT(CCA)s to fix seniority as per recent DOPT O.M.

In stead of issuing any definite and detailed guideline regarding implementation of Apex court order regarding inter se seniority between direct recruit and promotees, CBDT merely forwarded the DOPT O.M. dated 4th March 2014 and asked to initiate immediate necessary action.
This letter wass issued on 13.03.2014 and marked as "most immediate".
Click here to view CBDT letter dated 13.03.2014
(Link courtesy : ITEF website)
Click here to view DOPT O.M. dated 04.03.2014 
It may be remembered that this was predicted in this blog on 11.03.2014 that CBDT to issue instruction regarding seniority issue soon.

58 comments:

Unknown said...

Till date no time fixed. It may be

Anonymous said...

Phir ek kadam badha. but dus kadam pichhe hatne ka junun abhi bhi hai.

Anonymous said...

Most welcome and very good news . It was understood from the doPT OM dt.4.3.2014 that whether any such cases are falls to review the seniority from 3.7.86 effect from 27-11-2012 on words. Hence, only from 27-11-2012 it is to be verified in fixation of interse seniority . However, in no way connected to the DR inspectors batch from 2005 notification joined in 2008 are neither falls under the category of 3.7.86 OM or 4.3.2014 OM or NR permar case. Other than this batch, no other DRs or promotee are worried about any OM.
Only the so called 2005 DRs are under great trials to take the undue advantage from NR permar case without bringing true facts to the CBDT / CCIT (CCA) rather black mailing. More over, they have misleaded the CATs without bringing true facts. If any one challenges their recruitment in High courts, neither CBDT or DoPT will safeguard the DRs joined in 2008 from 2005 notification.

Anonymous said...

Board will do its work and there is chance every thing will be over by March end. Congrat.

Anonymous said...

Pehle notification karo cr ki. Itef aur board ko employees ki bhawano se kuch lena dena nahi hai. Sirf apni apni takat dekhani hai. Result big big zero.

Anonymous said...

ha ha ha

Anonymous said...

I advice the so called person who wish to challange in the high court about the recruitment of CGL 2005 are free to do so. Jab kuch nahi pata ho to suni sunai batto par bakwas nahi kiya karein. Pahle recruitment ke procedure parein samjhe uske baad comment karein. Rahi baat nrp imlementation ki to wo hokar rahegi.

Anonymous said...

LET THE AUTHORITIES DO THEIR WORK. PLEASE DO NOT FIGHT EACH OTHER. EVERYTHING WILL BE FOR THE BEST.

Anonymous said...

Union phir apni taang ada raha hei....Thande dimag se jakar pata karo...ki CR ka kya kar rahe hein...Jhagde se kuch hasil nehi hoga...ulta der hoti jayegi....tumhe to ek bar CR 2001 mein mila hei...aree unki socho jine 25 sal bad ab pahli bar milega...kuch to rahem kar yaar....

Anonymous said...

CBDT Lr.dt.13.3.14 read in conjunction with DoPT O.M dt.4.3.14 makes two aspects clear.
1.DoPT O.M dt.4.3.14 is not an amendment, but only consolidated guidelines.
2.Where inter se seniority of DRs not fixed in terms of OMs of 1986 need to be treated as unsettled and to be refixed. All other cases not covered under terms of OMs of 1986 are to be treated as settled issue. (Cover up for procedural lapses)
Explanation: As per OMs of 1986, Pre-requisite for DRs to avail seniority from the year of notificaton or year of vacancy is that available occurrences involving vacancy, intimation and notification happened in one and the same year. 93-94 is the only year qualify for this purpose and eligible to be considered as per para 5 (I) of DoPT OM dt. 4.3.14.
Interpretation of term "availability":
Present scenerio can be compared with chemistry involved in the natural phenomenon called 'FIRE'. Ignition takes place only when fuel, heat and oxygen are made available in one and the same place (co-existence). There won't be any sort of combustion (either internal or external) even when one element is missing. Now you can interpret the term.
Conclusion:
Smoke without fire! Claim of seniority without pre-requisite conditions fulfilled!

Anonymous said...

in NR permar case, the Supreme court categorically said that not only the requisition but also the advertisement is required to apply DoPT OM.No.3.7.86. The CBDT has sent requisition to SSC to recruit inspectors in December 2006 ie SSC has to advertise the same in 2006. Is it happened. Answer: NO
Next again CBDT has sent requisition to SSC in February 2007.So, SSC has to advertise on or after february 2007. is it happened: Answer: NO.
After closing of recruitment process, if any subsequent posts were identified belongs to subsequent year vacancies, the duty of the SSC has to advertise those posts subsequently received and without doing so, recruited candidates from the previous date of notification ie2005, then how the DoPT OM 2.7.86 and 3.7.86 are applicable to them . The SSC has filled up the vacancies anticipatedly without advertising those vacancies and hence the recruitment process itself is illegal and when recruitment is illegal, putting them and treating them as seniority from 2005 is totally illegal and it leads to infringement of fundamental rights. At the most, appointees in 2008 would be put below the promotees of 2008 but not the 2005. Still if the CBDT wish to favor those DRs joined 2008 , then all promotees are ready to file writ of mandumus challenging the SSC and CBDT and DoPT OM 4.3.2014

Anonymous said...

The comment of blogger regarding inter se seniority between DR and PR is not correct. Because CBDT is bound to forward the decision of DOPT as per GOI Rules.
AKS

Anonymous said...

Like 1993-94 DR ITI Batch, TAX ASSISTANT BATCH 2005 & 2006 are also eligible for recasting of seniority. But, what is the use? Now all of them are Sr.TA and there are hardly someone who has passed ITI promotion exams above these persons. Whether beneficial or not recasting is the requirement as per 1986 OMs as they fall under same RY category.

Anonymous said...

Retention of provision of date of passing ITI promotion exam only of some use to present Sr.TAs. Recast of seniority from date of notification or vacancy as per OMs1986 will not be of any use though SSC TA batches of 2005 and 2006 eligible for recasting inter se seniority.

Anonymous said...

The Supreme courtCIVIL APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26090 of 2011) Renu & Ors.
New Delhi; DATE OF ORDER: February 12, 2014.
in respect of public appointment held that important requirement of public appointment is that of transparency. Therefore, the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection and recruitment. The qualifications and other eligibility criteria for such posts should be explicitly provided and the schedule of recruitment process should be published with certainty and clarity. The advertisement should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in absence of the rules, the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken.
This is necessary to prevent arbitrariness and to avoid change of criteria of selection after the selection process is commenced, thereby unjustly benefiting someone at the cost of others.
SSC has selected 813 candidates by advertising 5 vacancies in 2005 notification - is this judgement applicable to SSC or not

Anonymous said...

Jasti garam khoon rakkar sarkari kaam nahi chalta. Abhi tumhe bahoot dhoop chao dekhni hai. Ek saal ke ooper ho gaya NRP implement nahi huwa aur na honga. 12 2 2014 ka SC ka order padoo usme jitne order ka reference diya hai woh bhi padoo aur baad me challenge karoo. Billi ke doodh ke daat nahi gire aur sher ke mooh me haath dalne chali.

Anonymous said...

WITH THE mere FORWARDING LETTER OF CBDT N R PARMAR IS NOW HISTORY. ALL DRS WILL GET SENIORITY FROM 27.11.2012 ONWARDS EARLIER DRS WILL CONTINUE TO EXPERIMENT NEW KANOONI TECHNOLOGY AND BECOME SLAVES OF SHREWED LAWYERS AND UNNECESSARY SPEND MONEY and time. Nothing is going to happen. Hot blood will cool down eventually as time passes and there will be infighting amongst the DRS lateron.

Anonymous said...

Yes 2005-06 n 2006-07 batch is back door entry. the entire SSC selection process is rigged and manipulated for them.

Anonymous said...

sir can anybody clarify this that the persons who has passed in ITO's exam in 2013 will they eligible for promotion in the recruitment year 2013-14

Anonymous said...

can any body inform me whether prmotion will be given in the month of March-14 after DOPT's clarification in the WB CCA

Anonymous said...

The question is whether the ensuing promotions will be implemented based on existing promo rule or new promo rule.
At least for promo from Sr.TA to ITI this will make a substantial difference

Anonymous said...

Thanks to CBDT. NR Paramar ghost gone from the employees of the ITD. Welcome the decision of the DOPT. Please don't look back. Kindly Implement the inter-se-seniority as per Board's letter.

Anonymous said...

No,for the R.Y 2013-14,candidate eligible as on 01.01.2013 as per DPC guidlines,result 2013 declared in the month of Dec.2013.

krishna said...

CR ko maro goli.....happy HOLI !!!

Anonymous said...

as per CIVIL APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26090 of 2011) Renu & Ors.
New Delhi; DATE OF ORDER: February 12, 2014. "35. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of with the
following directions:
i) All High Courts are requested to re-examine the statutory rules
dealing with the appointment of staff in the High Court as well
as in the subordinate courts and in case any of the rule is not inconformity and consonance with the provisions of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution, the same may be modified.
ii) To fill up any vacancy for any post either in the High Court or
in courts subordinate to the High Court, in strict compliance of
the statutory rules so made. In case any appointment is made in
contravention of the statutory rules, the appointment would be
void ab-initio irrespective of any class of the post or the person
occupying it.
iii) The post shall be filled up by issuing the advertisement in at
least two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State. In
addition thereto, the names may be requisitioned from the local
employment exchange and the filled up without advertising as prescribed hereinabove, shall be
void ab-initio and would remain unenforceable and
inexecutable except such appointments which are permissible to
be filled up without advertisement, e.g., appointment on
compassionate grounds as per the rules applicable. Before any vacancies may be advertised by
other modes also e.g. Employment News, etc. Any vacancy filled up without advertising as prescribed hereinabove, shall be
void ab-initio and would remain unenforceable and
inexecutable except such appointments which are permissible to candidates should be screened/tested while adhering to the
reservation policy adopted by the State, etc., if any.
iv) Each High Court may examine and decide within six months
from today as to whether it is desirable to have centralised
selection of candidates for the courts subordinate to the
respective High Court and if it finds it desirable, may formulate
the rules to carry out that purpose either for the State or on
Zonal or Divisional basis.
v) The High Court concerned or the subordinate court as the case
may be, shall undertake the exercise of recruitment on a regular
basis at least once a year for existing vacancies or vacan
be filled up without advertisement, e.g., appointmappointment is made, the eligibility as well as suitability of allent on
compassionate grounds as per the rules applicable. Before any ncies
that are likely to occur within the said period, so that the
vacancies are filled up timely, and thereby avoiding any
inconvenience or shortage of staff as it will also control the
menace of ad-hocism.
36. Before parting with the case, we record our deep appreciation to


March 16, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Anonymous said...

Is FM sleeping or busy in elections?Has the file been really moved from cbdt?

Anonymous said...

SSC has used to sent selected candidates list to the Board and in turn sent to the respective states. CCIT(CCA)of the state used to send appointment letters to the candidates in that year in which the scrolls are received and candidates have joined in the department in that year. At this stage, CCIT(CCA) are used put the DRs in the year when they have received the scrolls from SSC. This being practice since 25 years in all DR cases irrespective of the cadre. ie the year in which the SSC's scrolls received by the CCIT(CCA) of the state have treated the term availability of that year. To implement the NR permar case,each state has to excise 1st to identify the actual year of vacancy,whether the vacancy was reported to Board in the same identified year, whether the board has sent requisition for selection also in the same year in which the vacancy year was identified. 2nd, whether any future vacancy was filled up through previous recruitment process.3rd If the recruitment process was not started according to the 1st condition,then any carryforward vacancies are filled in the said recruitment process. In all 3 types of situation, the department used to put the DRs in the year in which the scrolls received from SSC by treating the term availability. Now DoPT said vide point No. 5(i) how the states have treated the term availability before this NR permar case, that settled issue may not be reopened and the said judgement came into effect from 27-11-2012 ie if the CBDT has sent requisition to SSC after 27-11-2012, the selected candidates from the said exam shall be put in the year of vacancy arised subject to the recruitment process or DPC process started in the said year.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it was informed from the reliable sources that CBDT has recognized the mistake in the selection process and appointed in respect of CGLE 2005.
Thanks to this website creator.

Anonymous said...

Seniority issue is still in confusion. In my case pertaining to recruitment year 1996, on representation the CC(CCA)has given reply, stating that representation cannot be entertained at present, as matter of seniority is already pending with S.C, in the case of N.R.Parmar. Now, what will be the status of may case after the decision of SC in the case of N.R.Parmar as well as after DOPT's memorandum dated 4/3/2014. Please guide us.


Anonymous said...

N R PARMAR CASE IS CLOSED. 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ILLEGALLY RECRUITED DRS SHALL GO HOME. IT LEARNT THAT SOME ARE ALREADY STARTRD SEARCHING FOR NEW JOBS.

Anonymous said...

Now therefore the appointment of 2005-06 and 2006-07 of ITIs is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore the appointments will be cancelled as per supreme court order which is binding on each n every recruiting n appointing agency of government.

Anonymous said...

If the CR decides to abolish the post of OS, then, the post of OS on the day of abolishment should be converted to the grade of IIT only. Keeping OSs in EAs category is a great loss not only to their positions but also to their dignities. All the OSs should take the shelter of the court if such situation arises.

Anonymous said...

It is high time for OSs to react to retain their dignities.

Anonymous said...

One time measure should be taken to promote all the available and eligible candidates up to the post of ITI, irrespective of their length of service instead going for recruitment due to CR.

ITEF should fight for such type of issues which are beneficial to the staff and department as well. But who is going to bother for the betterment of this organisation. All we are selfish ! officers are more....

Anonymous said...

Parmar is history now new craze RENU KUMARI 12 2 14

Anonymous said...

Agli tareekh kya hai?

Anonymous said...

A big confusion on interpretation by most of our friends and they understanding the meaning of DoPT O.M dated 4.03.2014 on (h) para, but you go through in para (i) and think whether our Department adopting O.M of 1986 of DoPT, If not settled by our Department firstly settled as per O.M 1986 as principle fixed on O.M 4 March 2013 on N.R Parmar for review of All DR posts. It is only and suitable criteria for avoiding mass litigation and future rightly policy for seniority fixing. All ITEF take immediate action for pursue this matter at once for smooth implementation of filling of news CR posts otherwise .......

Anonymous said...

The name of Central Board of Direct Taxes should be changed to Cheaters Board of Direct Taxes in view of delay in implementation of CR.

Anonymous said...

Blogger bro aapke anusar to CR file approve kar di thi....kuch to batao...accept ur criticism bro it helps....

Anonymous said...

my sincere request to one and all, please do not go to any CATs/HC before implementation of anything. ie implementation of DoPT 4.3.2014, before allotment of CR posts to states, before conducting of DPC etc. First CR posts may come in and DPC should be conducted immediately. Later who ever wishes to go court on their claim of seniority by presenting this DPC minutes and order. Then legal battle will go on its own course. Courts may not understood the actual problem what it is and they may think just something is going to be happened to applicant and without going into merits, they used stop DPC. For one's self cause, why the other eligible candidate should go suffer and No promotion is going to be given to the retired person who is actual eligible for promotion. Hence do not stop DPCs .

Anonymous said...

Who said the file has been approved by the FM? The file is still with Revenue Secretary. Don't spread rumors.

Anonymous said...

my request one all of IT department family please this blog every day and take positive things from the comments and do act keeping in mind of good comments and good knowledge. I am thankful to this website creator. Really a good job he is doing. This type of person should lead the association also

Anonymous said...

I also really very grateful to blog author for giving such a valuable information

Anonymous said...

The Highest Cadre control Authority for Incometax department is Chairman of CBDT. When the CBDT chairman has no clarity with regard to doPT OM.No.5(i) then expecting CCIT(CCA)s to understand the said clause is nothing but encouraging serving people to move to the CATs or courts for clarification. Reason mainly with regard to ITO's All india seniority for promotion to ACIT. At present in Andhra it is running 2001 Inspectors ( joined in the department in the year 2001). The worry is if any other state has already rectified the seniority interms of NR permar case, then what is the fate of Andhra state. For this CBDT has to give to clarity. Request Sri Bhattacharya to solve the problem immediately before arrival of CR posts.

Anonymous said...

Enough is enough. We have to challenge the illegal recruitment of dr of 2005 exam

Anonymous said...

post through illegal recruitment should be cancelled as per Supreme Court order in Feb, 2014. Be unite and do something through this blog. Only then there will be justice and harmonious environment in our office which was earlier to this so called 2005 ITIs.(think themselves as IRS or CC)

Anonymous said...

In reality they r ignorant shit

Anonymous said...

All backlog vacancies upto 2005 were abolished as a government policy since there was recruitment BAN. Hence with cabinet approval, CBDT has created new additional posts in all cadres of Incometax deparrment and got final approval in November 2006 and intimated the additional posts of Incometax Inspectors to both the SSC and CCIT(CCA)in 20th December 2006. CBDT has intimated 59 posts of Inspectors to recruit to SSC in 20th December 2006. Again in 27th February 2007 759 posts of Inspectors intimated to SSC. For these posts SSC has not advertised in the employment news after receipt of requisition from the Board. Thereby serving employees and Graduates who have completed graduation by 2006 and 2007 have lost the opportunity to apply for the post of Incometax Inspectors. Without doing so or advertising these vacancies after December 21006 or February 2007, the SSC has selected 813 Inspectors candidates from 2005 notification despite the fact that said recruitment process was stopped by 20th April 2006. So, the recruitment process is ILLEGAL. How CBDT has given appointment to those by voilating the Article 14 and 16 of constitution of India. Without bringing these facts, the DRs of 2005 batch are misleading the CATs on the grab of NR permar case claiming seniority over promotees. CBDT and SSC are not exempted to violate the article 14 and 16 of constitution of India.See the judgement of Supreme court in Assam Public service commission 2013 and Renu others February 2014.

Anonymous said...

My question is how the CCIT(CCA) are behaving BIAS in favor of Direct recruitees of 2005 batch of Inspectors. How the CATs of different states except Andhra pradesh is giving stay in conducting DPCs and allowing the 2005 DR inspectors to get seniority from the date of notification. SSC has advertised 5 vacancies and recruited 813 candidates is it not the back door appointment. Why the CBDT has not noticed this and how they have given appointment to those 808 inspectors recruited beyond the advertised vacancies.Why it was not given CBI for investigation to find out the falt whether with the SSC or CBDT. Who has involved .

Anonymous said...

How the CATs of different states are granting stay in conducting of DPCs when the Supreme court has rendered a land mark decissions in en number of cases, that seniority can be reviewed at any time but stoping the DPCs is causing and damaging the functions of the Government and the CATs are not supposed to do it without observing the full facts of the case and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the both the government and the respondents who are sufferers. Without observing these, maintenance of OA is rediculous as the OA is nothing but a PIL. PIL is not supposed to maintain in CATs. My request the CBI has to investigate the CATs decissions of Pune, bangalore,Gujarat,Kanpur,Jabalpur,UP, Jarkhand, Bihar.

Anonymous said...

Aare bhaiyya yeh sab bhaiyya giri hai.

Anonymous said...

How back door appointees are claiming seniority from 2005 when there was no posts available with the department and the department has created new additional man power with the cabinet approval in december 2006 and intimated to the SSC in February 2007 and when there was no posts more than 5 available with the department by the time 2005, how these 808 inspectors are claiming seniorities from 2005 and how these CATs are giving directions to give them seniority is totally ridiculous and bias in favor of DRs. Who are black mailing . May be these Biharees who has came from SSC Allahabad. SSC allhabad has jurisidction over 4 states ie UP, Bihar, Jarkhand, and Uttarakhand. Verify those 808 candidates list. how many are from SSC Allahabad

Anonymous said...

1. Ministry Of Finance has created new 7051 additional manpower in different cadres in the Incometax Department in the year 2006. The Cabinet has given approval vide cabinet secretariat UO No.45/CM/2006(i) dated 8th November 2006 for which the Department of expenditure has concurred it vide their ID.No.876/E.cord.I/2006 dated 18th August 2006. Out of the 10 cadres, Incometax Inspectors is one of the cadre and the number of posts created in this cadre are 1193 posts. In addition to this, other consequential posts while conducting DPCs to the posts from ITO to CIT will generate and resulting to the posts of Inspector.
2. The CBDT vide their letter in F.No.A-11013/3/2006-Ad.VII dated 20th November 2006 intimated the approval of cabinet to all the CCIT(CCAs) and all the DGITs and also intimated that the region wise/charge wise distribution of the posts at various levels will be intimated separately.
3. The CBDT vide their letter dated 20th December 2006 intimated the region wise allocation of different cadres to all the CCIT(CCAs) and DGITs
4. The CBDT vide their letter dated 20th December 2006 intimated the SSC to recruit 59 posts of Income tax Inspectors and again on 27th February 2007 intimated 749 posts of incometax Inspectors and the requested the SSC to recruit by compressing the normal duration period which it takes in the recruitment process ie atleast to one year instead of 2 years.
It is very clear that when there was no posts available more than 5 in 2005, how the seniority claim would be given to the DRs who have selected from the 2005 notification . Without bringing these facts before the CATs/courts, the DRs are misleading the courts and the department also as neither DoPT OM 2.7.86 or 3.7.86 are applicable to them . SSC could not select future vacancies without advertising in public domain. If the CBDT is silent on this aspect it is deemed that they might have taken bribe from these DRs Batch.

Anonymous said...

my sincere request to all Incometax family to please watch this website and blog and the comments passed. Take positive views expressed and also get knowledge from the interesting comments posted. My request also if the CBDT or DoPT may have a look on this comments, so that if any problem, they could rectify it easily.

Anonymous said...

Logical conclusion is required in the case of DRs of 2005 selection who joined in the department in 2008. As they have not fallen in DoPT Om 3.7.86 or OM 4.3.2014 in fixation of a interese seniority with DR and promotes. Logical conclusion is CONTINUOUS LENGTH OF SERVICE IN THE RESPECTIVE CADRE has to be taken into cognizance and thereby determine the seniority. Because, these 808 DRs posts were created in December 2006 and intimated to SSC in February 2007. But as there was no advertisement of those posts by the SSC instead selected from 2005 notification by advertising 5 vacancies pertains to 2005. Instead of removing them from service, their seniority may be fixed in accordence with Delhi High court decission in the case of Vinod Goel 2012( district judge) in terms of 3.7.86 OM.

Anonymous said...

friends, it is income tax department , only where group B official (OS) is promoted into gropu C(ITI) official. The matter sould be come to notice of CBDT so the post of ITI be also catogrised as grop B official.

Anonymous said...

Every is CAT is directing the department to implement NR permar case ruling in fixation seniority but to whom they are not specifying. Because the CATs does not know to whom. All the CATs has not clarified in their order that whether petitioners are eligible to seniority and on whom they should be put above also not specified. Without specifying the petitioner's place of seniority and just directing the department to implement NR permar case is of no usage. How to implement a verdict is binding on the principal head ie CBDT not the CCIT(CCA). If the CAT says a particular person example some DR of 2005 selection process prakash ( joined in 2008) to put seniority over a person ex Kumar ( who promotee from 2006), then the order has to be read. Without giving specific directions and just holding stay on DPCs is nothing but violating the fundamental rights of a serving employee who is going to retire in between the stay period. And the stay granted by CAT without specifying any reason is void and there was no locus standy of CAT to pass such orders.It is easily challengble in any high court by filing a writ

Anonymous said...

Yes. If the DPC was stayed by 6 months or one year. In between these period the eligible employee who has retired without getting promotion can the CAT or Deptt could give promotion to him retrospectively with full pay and allowances from the said date of DPC and even if give, is it Valid. In the same way, if the eligible person dies during the stay period, who will hold responsibility. Is it CAT or Department. It is a very serious matter. A prudent man think of this situation. For one's interest staying DPC is adversely effects on the government and on the eligible employee. Why the administration has not giving clarity to the applicant who made representation first before them beforegoing to CAT. Is it not the duty of the administration to give clarity that whether said applicant is eligible to get seniority over a specific person on whom the applicant claimed. If nothing was mentioned in the application, then it is to be dismissed as non-est.

It may kindly be noted that comments published in this blog are the views of our readers. The administrator of this blog is not responsible in any way regarding the comments and opinions expressed here.
Viewers are requested to post relevant comments only and abstain from making any comment which can hurt any person or group.

My Headlines