Past Service Before Inter-Charge Transfer Counts for Promotion Seniority | Compassionate Transfer in Income Tax Cadre : CAT Cuttack

The Cuttack Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside a 2022 order that excluded an officer’s pre-transfer service from promotion calculations, affirming that compassionate inter-charge transfers do not erase prior regular service.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, Mr. Kali Charan Sahu, an Office Superintendent in the Income Tax Department, contended that his service rendered from 27 September 2012 to 03 August 2014 in the Karnataka & Goa Region should be counted as qualifying service for promotion to Senior Tax Assistant and Income Tax Inspector after his inter-charge transfer to the Odisha Region.

Key Facts

• 27 September 2012: Joined as Tax Assistant (scale Rs.5,200-20,200 + GP Rs.2,400) under Pr. CCIT, Karnataka & Goa Region.
• 14 May 1990: CBDT issued a guideline (Para-2(f)) stating that service in the old charge will not be counted for seniority in the new charge.
• 01 August 2014: Relieved from Karnataka & Goa Region.
• 04 August 2014: Reported for duty in the Odisha Region (Pr. CCIT, CCA).
• 09 October 2017: Promoted to Senior Tax Assistant.
• July 2018: Appeared for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspector; result announced 18 December 2018 (passed).
• 01 January 2021: Promoted to Office Superintendent.
• 11 July 2022: Submitted representation to Respondent No.3 requesting that past service be counted for promotion.
• 19 July 2022: Respondent No.4 antedated promotion of juniors, ignoring the applicant’s claim.
• 13 September 2022: Applicant reiterated request to antedate his promotion to Senior Tax Assistant.
• 14 October 2022: Respondent No.4 rejected the applicant’s claim.
• 2022: Applicant filed Original Application (OA No. 260/00722) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking quash of the 14 Oct 2022 order and direction to count past service.

Procedural History

• 13 August 2026: OA reserved.
• 31 August 2026: Judgment pronounced.
• Earlier Tribunal orders (02 December 2019) had set aside earlier rejections and allowed counting of past service in similar cases (OA Nos. 547/2013, 871/2015).
• High Court Writ Petition (C) No. 18927/2020, order 17 February 2021, dismissed.
• Supreme Court decisions cited: Pratibha Rani v. Union of India (10 April 2019), C.N. Ponnappan (1996), M.M. Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India (2017).

Parties' Positions

• Applicant: Argues that the CBDT circular only affects seniority, not eligibility for promotion; cites Supreme Court rulings that regular service in the old charge must be counted for promotion.
• Respondents: Rely on CBDT circular Para-2(f) and the applicant’s undertaking at transfer, contending that service prior to transfer should not be counted for promotion eligibility and that the Supreme Court judgment is prospective.

Relief Sought

The applicant prayed for:

1. Quash of Para-11.1.2 of the order dated 14 Oct 2022.
2. Direction to count past service (27 Sep 2012-03 Aug 2014) as qualifying service for promotion to Senior Tax Assistant and Income Tax Inspector.
3. Antedating his promotion to Senior Tax Assistant to align with his juniors.
4. Promotion to Income Tax Inspector.
5. Conduct of a review DPC to grant notional benefits.

The Legal Issue

Whether, for a government officer transferred on compassionate inter-charge grounds, the service rendered in the original charge must be counted towards the minimum service requirement for eligibility to promotion, notwithstanding a circular that limits the service count only for seniority.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• The CBDT circular expressly limits only seniority, not promotion eligibility.
• Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani and C.N. Ponnappan held that regular service in the old charge is to be counted for promotion and retirement benefits.
• No statutory provision or circular expressly excludes past service from promotion calculations.
• The applicant’s undertaking at transfer does not waive his right to have the service counted for promotion.

For the Respondent

• Paragraph 2(f) of the 1990 CBDT instruction states that service in the old charge will not be counted in the new charge for seniority, which the respondents extend to promotion eligibility.
• The applicant’s undertaking at transfer expressly accepted placement at the bottom of the seniority list, implying forfeiture of seniority-related benefits.
• The Pratibha Rani judgment is prospective and therefore not applicable to the applicant’s case.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal examined the language of the 1990 CBDT circular, the 2011 letter on lifting the ban on inter-commissionerate transfers, and the Supreme Court precedents. It observed that the circular’s sole purpose was to protect the seniority of existing officers in the receiving region. The Tribunal noted:

"It is clear from the above stipulations in the said circular that the inter-charge transfer on compassionate ground affected only the seniority of the employee and there is nothing in the said circular to specify that the past service rendered in the old charge prior to transfer will not be counted for the eligibility for promotion also." The Tribunal further relied on Pratibha Rani where the Supreme Court held that service rendered before a compassionate inter-region transfer is regular service and must be considered for promotion eligibility. It distinguished the respondents’ reliance on Para-2(f) by emphasizing that seniority and promotion are distinct statutory concepts; seniority determines order of selection, whereas promotion eligibility depends on total qualifying service as defined in the Recruitment Rules. The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the applicant’s undertaking waived his right to count past service, observing that the undertaking only addressed seniority placement and could not override statutory rights to promotion eligibility. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Pratibha Rani decision, though rendered after the applicant’s transfer, applies prospectively to all similar cases because it interprets the underlying statutory scheme, not a discretionary rule. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the order dated 14 Oct 2022 was legally untenable and set it aside. It remitted the matter to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Odisha Region for reconsideration, directing that the applicant’s service from 27 Sep 2012 to 03 Aug 2014 be counted for promotion eligibility and that his promotion be antedated accordingly.

The Verdict

The Tribunal allowed the applicant’s OA in part. It quashed the order dated 14 October 2022, remitted the case to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration of the applicant’s promotion, directing that his past service from 27 September 2012 to 03 August 2014 be counted as qualifying service for promotion to Senior Tax Assistant and Income Tax Inspector, and ordered antedating of his promotion. No costs were awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Promotion Eligibility Must Include Pre-transfer Service

• Practitioners should argue that any circular or instruction limiting seniority does not affect promotion eligibility.
• When drafting transfer requests, include a clause preserving the right to have prior service counted for promotion.

Supreme Court Precedent Overrides Administrative Circulars

• Cite Pratibha Rani and C.N. Ponnappan to establish that regular service, irrespective of region, is relevant for promotion.
• Courts will treat compassionate inter-region transfers as continuations of service for promotion purposes.

Undertakings Cannot Waive Statutory Rights

• An officer’s undertaking to accept bottom seniority does not extinguish the statutory entitlement to have prior service counted for promotion.
• Counsel must ensure that any undertaking is narrowly limited to seniority and does not prejudice promotion rights.