Clarification on N A Parmar case implementation issued by CHQ


Manishinath Bhawan A/2/95 Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi. 110 027.  email:

Telefax. 2510 5324; 2593 7462

Circular No. 19                                                                                                   Dated: 02.04.2013.

Dear Comrade

Supreme Court order in UOI Vs. N.R.Parmar case- Clarifications-

The Central Headquarters have been receiving Stereotyped representations of individual members from various parts of the country mainly from Directly Recruited Inspectors accusing the ITEF being biased against Direct Recruits and requesting for immediate implementation of the above Supreme Court Order. It all started from 28thMarch, 2013 after the CBDT issued instructions to the Cadre Controlling Authorities to promote personnel from ITI to ITOs based on the panel drawn by the DPCs held in 2012.  From 28th March, to till date (2.04.2013) 33 stereotyped representations have been received.  During the last two days lengthy and accusing SMSs are also being sent to the CHQ (both to the President and Secretary General) and more than 141 such messages have been received during the last 24 hours.  From the contents of the stereotyped representations and text messages, it is apparent that the members have resorted to such type of protest on a misconceived notion or misinformation being spread by somebody or the stand of ITEF on this matter communicated in Circular No. 14 dated 7.2.2013 after the Central Working Committee Meeting held at Puri, has not been understood in acuity.  It is felt that to remove the discontentment of such members; we must be little more explicit on our stand. Therefore, the content of the above circular in this regard is reproduced and further clarification is given below.

Agenda Item No. 2 (a)

“Upshot of the Supreme Court judgement in the matter of inter-se Seniority between Direct Recruits and Promotees:  The Secretary General informed the house the stand of the Federation taken in the above Sect. Meeting that the Federation is neither against nor in favour of the said judgement as the Government (DOPT and DOL) has to take a final decision on the matter.  The Federation is to get the decision of the Government correctly implemented by the Department and deliver justice to all the members without prejudice to the interest of any member. Further it is also the stand of the Federation that till a final decision is taken by the Government on the Supreme Court Decision, no DPC meeting or promotion should be withheld.  The Federation will take up the issue with the authorities to conduct all DPC Meeting and effect timely promotions”.

Further, the following points are also made here in this context.

  1. There is no basis for the charge that the Federation is biased against Direct Recruits- as all its members are Directly Recruited to the Department in one post or other viz. Gr. D (MTS),LDC,NS,TA,ITI etc.
  2. The Department (CBDT) is not the final authority to decide the implementation of any order of a High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as all such verdicts on service matters have to be referred to the DOPT before implementation and the final decision with regard to acceptance or otherwise, is taken by the Government in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Personnel.  At the most the Department can implement, being the Verdict of the Supreme Court, only in the case of the appellant/respondent.
  3. In case the Government in its wisdom decides to implement the same, it is a wrong notion, that the ratio of the judgement will be applicable only in the case of Inspectors.  Being Supreme Court order, the same will be applicable across all cadres in all the Departments.
  4. The DOPT in its interim opinion in the case of promotion to the cadre of ACIT, has conveyed that if the ratio of the Judgement is accepted and implemented, the seniority lists of all cadres have to be revised from the year 1986 which may take years together.  Till then neither functions of the Government nor promotions can be stopped and therefore, regular DPCs can be conducted subject to revision on the basis of the final decision of the Government on the said Judgement.
  5. In the light of the above and receiving reports from various circles that either DPCs are not being held or promotions are withheld on the ground of the said Supreme Court Order, even though no such direction was issued by the CBDT, the ITEF took up the matter.  The ITEF is not aware or interested to know whether directly recruited or Promote Inspectors are getting promotions.  Its only interest is to get timely promotion to its members without delaying it for years together.

The Circle General Secretaries are requested to reach out to all such members in particular  to remove their confusion by explaining them the above position either by holding general meeting or circulating the contents of this circular, if possible in regional dialect also.

With greetings,

Yours fraternally,

(KP Rajagopal)

Secretary General

18 Responses to Clarification on N A Parmar case implementation issued by CHQ

  1. admin says:

    1986 OM is for fixing inter se seniority between DR and PR. Hence, Parmar decision is applicable only in those cadres where there exists both PR and DR components.

  2. sekhar says:

    Good Afternoon. Whether the seniority of stenographers be fixed as per N.R.Parmar Decision. It is said that the decision is not applicable to Stenographers. Is there logic in such conclusion.

  3. parmar bhai urf kam chor says:

    promotes had the same right to get the seniority as and when DR gets seniority, in promote case vacancies are there for PR but not eligible due to shortage of service get promotion on a later date can also claim seniority from the date of arising the vacancies Exemption ( SC/St promotions are based on post (Post based roster) not in vacancy based
    different rule for different category
    Jokes continues ……

    fire in ass hole

  4. Anonymous says:

    promotee had also the same right to get revise seniority i.e vacancies are there but without qualified service promotee promoted on a later date can also claim seniority from the date from which DR gains seniority according to the DR PR quota. (SC/ST promotions are based on post not on vacancies to provide balance the quota rota rules ) Ha HA Ha joke
    Somebody from PR should start the fire in court…………

  5. karthik says:


    I am a DR Inspector joined in 2002 in Lucknow CCIT Charge. We are 1996 Re Exam Batch and posted in 2002 only. I gave exam in Tamil Nadu. We are first batch to be posted across in India in Group C cadre. Neither SSC nor CBDT obtained any place of choice as per procedure SSC follows now. I got intercharge transfer to chennai in 2006. I passed the ITO exam in 2010. I got promotion in March 2012. On implementation of NRP judgement, my previous ITO was cancelled and again I was promoted as on the date May 2014. Thus, I am DR (intercharge transfer) lost almost 2 years 5 months. Therefore, all DRs are not pull the coller as there are a lot of victim like in the Income Tax Department ( not our Department). It is also mention that while making posting orders, there were vacancies in my home state and the same were filled up with candidates from Bihar(7 people, i think) who have also gone on intercharge and lost their seniority. I feel embarrassed what is logic in not posting in the place of their home town when vacancy was available. Dear DRs do not see your benefit alone. Department consists of all promotee and drs. In the absence of unity, you cannot survive amount the higher beurocrats.

  6. Main fighter for seniority in inspector cadre those persons are appeared in SSC exam in 2005 and they feel that they have to get seniority for the vacancy of before 2005 but they didn’t knew at that time due to extension of retirement age has been done from 58 to 60 as well as post has been abolished every year 10% from 2001 to 2007. In this circumstances reported vacancy to SSC became infructuous. In the light of above situation SSC has kept result of inspector in suspended animation. Again vacancy reported in 2007-08 then SSC has published its result hence as per parmar decision only seniority can be given on reporteing year of vacancy. Dear comerade you are requested to keep above fact and then make arguments.

  7. subhash says:

    Can any one clarify that what will happen to the inspectors on intercharge transfer. whether they will be treated as direct recruit or promote . If date of joining is not the criteria for seniority then whether they will be treated as first direct recruit against existing vacancy on the date of joining in new charge on ICT. please clarify .

  8. PVB REDDY says:

    Dear Vikram Singh,

    I think u are taking the things personally by saying victory by DIRECT INSPECTORS. I do not think u were a party to the judgement. So please go slow. All have to live together in the department. It is crystal clear that the judgment need to be implemented. So do not have any other thoughts of non-implementation.

    Why are u forgetting that the OM of 1986 applies to all cadres and each of the promotee also a DR once. So please do not spread any such vicious statements showing that it is a war between DR (only ITI is not the DR) and PR.

    Be cool in ur statements. Already most of the CATs have given stay.

    Instead give the facts and discuss the facts that 2005 exam ITI should get which year seniority and so on.

    Please collect the documents for the same. Also please note that there are only 05 ITI posts were notified to the SSC by the CBDT when the 2005 main exam were conducted. Which were increased by further correspondence in 2007.

    What the SC decision say and which year to be given seniority.

    I think these are the things which matter rather than foolishly saying victory and words which will only add fuel to the matter.

    with regards


  9. seshu says:

    Friends, The issue of implementation of Apex Court judgement has become a complex issue since it relates way back to 1993 and recasting seniority among promotees and direct recruits will take a long time to become a reality. What is the fault of the persons who are on the verge of retirement. The CBDT has to take swift decision in this regard and implement the decision or otherwise and since the DPCs are stayed by various courts / tribunals in the country. If further delayed, the implementation of cadre restructuring will be got hampered. I hope the ITEF will take all possible steps in the regard.

    Yours sincerely.

  10. VIKRAM SINGH says:

    Dear comrades,,

    I would like to through some light on the Hon’ble Appex Court Judgment dated 27.11.2013 in the N R Parmar Case in the following Paras:-

    1. The OM in question is already in existence since 1986 and different people were interpreting it in different ways.

    2. Therefore, there arises no question of waiting for fresh OM from the DoPT.

    3. The Union of India and the Direct Inspectors of Income Tax Department were on the victorious side of this Judgment. Therefore there arises no question if the Government is going to accept this Judgment or to challenge it;

    4. It is laughable to wait for the Govt. going to challenge its own victory;

    5. In any case, it was a decision of Double Bench and the order can be reviewed only if some material discussion was not put forth by the losing parties or the Hon’ble Court not considered any material defense put forth by the losing parties. Since all the arguments being put forth by various persons such as direct recruits were even studying at that time or the promottees have done the job of directs till they actually joined,, have already been considered in this Judgment, therefore arises no question of reviewing this Judgment;

    6. Is still there any argument left which was not considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing this Judgment? I don’t think so? So there arises no question of being reviewing of this Judgment;

    7. Almost one year has been elapsed since this Judgment was delivered, but no progress in implementing the same due to the vested interests hindering the path.

    8. Why the ITEF never wrote a letter to the CCAs for speedy implementation of this Judgment, instead they are blaming the directees for making representations of making campaign?

    9. All the Departments have already been implementing this OM since 1986 but the CBDT and CBEC only not following this OM.

    10. It is not the question who is adversly effected by this Judgment or some one is retiring. the question is if some person is eligible for seniority from the vaccancy year, then he/she be given that benefit without bothering if some one is adversly effected. it is very obvious that any person on the higher seniority is always adversly effecting the persons of lower seniority.



  11. annymous says:

    What is problem to give the effect of SC judgement from 2005-SSC -DR IIT batch. It is not against the principal which was laid down by the SC. The ITEF is totaly baised towards DR-IIT because they know they became member of ITGOA very soon.

  12. anonymous says:

    all this troubles , mistrust started in our department from the date of 20% reservation unauthorizedly granted to stenographers with the pressure tactics of Union leaders ( because all the union leaders from the feeder cadre of Stenographers). because of that favour till today recruitment rule of Inspectors is not implemented . somany junior stenor are promoted to ITO without any justification, only due to reservation. all the time Union maintaining mum on this issue. they are always stood with stenos.

  13. Anonymous says:

    With all due respect to the law of the land and to the Supreme Court of India, I am expressing my sincere and independent view. This is a clear injustice. I can not understand why nobody is coming forward to make their sincere comments. It is unfortunate to note that even the ITEF is not coming forward to express the independent view only because all are members of ITEF. If a person gets siniority over his seniors only to the fact that his/her vacancy aroused some years back. It is a fact that after the vacancy arises so many years will take to get it intimated to the selecting authority, then notified and after receiving applications and written exam and other modes of selection final selection is done. Sometimes at the time of vacancy arises the candidate would have been a student. Their work might have been done by other existing staff but when the new occupant comes he will be senior to those who done his work. Here in my case I am doing the work of three ITIs. The other two ITIs who are yet come might be a student now and the work is being done by me. In future one day they will come and join as my seniors. What a blunder ? Nothing more has to say because this our country India. Here everything will go like this only.

  14. bhas says:


    why hate PR. The DR ITI is solely thinking of implementation of Parmar Case only from their angle. They are forgetting that each PR is also a DR once and their seniority is also need to be refixed (if Parmar case to be implemented) first from 1988. Also the implementation cannot be seen in isolation for IT department itself. The DoPT has to pass a general order, because it is their OM which was challenged, until that time please wait. This need to be implemented all over India and also in all the central government offices. So why to see it in isolation for only income tax department and that too only for ITI cadre. Once the DoPT gives a direction (the CBDT on its own cannot give the direction to implement, since DoPT is the authority for it), it has to be implemented. so wait.

  15. Voice of justice from Karnataka says:

    I fully endorse the points written by voice of justice. Hats off to you.
    Fraternally yours.

  16. Ranjan says:

    Dear All..
    Neither DOPT nor CBDT is above Honble Supreme Court Of India….Forget has no existance before SC….after all a Union…but the most apathy is…. In Circular No-19..Gen Scy is telling that he is not supporting any one i.e DR ITI or PR ITI….. as we All India DR ITI oppose the stand of ITEF in implementation of SC order….

    The letter written by Sri Rajagopal is in public domain and
    After going through the letter… in the last para Sri Rajagopal has clearly stated that, the promotion order of officials empanelled for DPC – 2012… should be released, and one of the reason mentioned by him was “MANY OF THE OFFICIALS ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT ALSO”……No where he has mentioned that, DPC should be conducted after recasting the seniority list as per SC Order …..

    So who is retiring Sir….any DR or PR……so whether he has supported or not (to PR Group )that is to be judged by all….

    I am mentioning this because on the Circular-19 issued by ITEF Gen Secy (After our SMS campaign ), he has stated that he is neutral…and we are stereotyped…..

  17. Voice of justice says:

    The Secretary General
    Income Tax Employees Federation
    Subject : Non implementation of supreme Court Decision in N. R. Parmar case: Protest regarding.
    Please refer to my previous protest letter dated…. and the circular dated… issued by the Federation on…
    In continuation to the above, I once again strongly protest the stand, even the clarified and more explicit one, taken by the Federation in this matter.
    It has been alleged that I am under the spell of some kind of misconceived notion or misinformation or have failed to understand the stand of the Federation. Here, I think that I must be a little more explicit in my stand so that the Federation can give due recognition to my protest against the manner in which the matter is being dealt with at the union level.
    Following points are made in this context:
    1. Every employee in every department is a direct recruit at one stage or other. Nobody is so naive to not understand this simple proposition. The question of whether one is a direct recruit or promotee, and at what stage in the organisation he is a direct or promotee, arises only if their interests clash. And the present situation is one such, and the Federation is siding with the interest of promotee recruits, because implementation of the order will inevitably involve even demotion of many promotee Inspectors from the post of ITOs which will rightfully be occupied by the direct recruit inspectors upon recasting of seniority.
    2. The judgment in question is the judgement by the highest court of this country and its verdict is the law of the land. Board or DOPT or even government for that matter, cannot decide whether it has to implement it or otherwise. Once it is decided by the Supreme court, it is settled for once and all and has to be implemented. It is quite astonishing and in fact amusing to hear that the Federation thinks that government may think otherwise; in the light of the fact that the government is the winning party in the present verdict and even if the government thinks otherwise, being so confused as to challenge its own victory, than the only course of action, and that too challengeable, available to the government is to pass a special law for this purpose and put it in ninth schedule of the constitution.
    It is also said that at the most the Department can implement the Decision only in the case of the appellant/respondent, that too for it being the decision of the Supreme court. By corollary it means that other court’s decisions are not at all implemented by the Department unless it has taken approval from various agencies. If that is the case, how come CAT decisions and decisions of high courts, are got implemented without any such approval. Another valid question that arises from it is as to how the decision of Gujarat High court in the same matter, which was fortunately in favour of promotees was implemented with much alacrity.
    3. By saying that it will be implemented across all cadres in all the Departments, the Federation has made at least one thing clear that it understands that it is applicable to the income tax department and it will be implemented despite otherwise opinions of many affected parties. However what the Federation has confused me about is whether it is the Federation for my department or for all the Departments in this country. Why should the Federation be worried about implementation of the order in other departments instead of focusing on its implementation in the department whose group D and C employees it claims to represent. Secondly, the Federation should note that the inter se seniority dispute was mainly related to the revenue department, due to which the office notes of DOPT, pointed out by the Supreme court in its judgment, specifically address the revenue department. And anyways, a single person is not going to recast the seniority lists in all the Departments. So the Federation need not lose its sleep as to how it will be implemented in such a huge proportion, instead the Federation should concentrate on quick implementation of the decision in this department.
    Regarding the impact of the decision on other cadres, I have to say that my seniority is not going to be affected by implementation of this decision on other cadres, as I have to be interspaced with the promotees in 1:2 ratio. So why cannot the Federation pressurize the board to quickly fix the seniority of the direct inspectors against their fixed quota and keep doing regular promotions of the direct inspectors and ad hoc promotions of the promotee Inspectors till their seniority is revised. Any ordinary person of average intelligence can understand that since direct inspectors are negligible in numbers compared to other direct cadres in the department, it will be legally and logically correct to implement the Decision first on the cadre directly affected by the decision instead of waiting till eternity to get a clean slate.
    Revising the seniority of Inspector cadre is very easy task considering their lesser numbers and the fact that in many regions seniority lists based on correct interpretation of the inter se seniority principle exist till as late as 1999. Further, many CC charges have already recasted the seniority lists, in a matter of weeks, after the pronouncement of the SC judgment. Hence it seems that the Federation is under the wrong notion that this order cannot be implemented for it being a time taking job. Despite all this, if the Federation thinks that it is a voluminous task, I and other direct cadres which the Federation represents are ready to devote our weekends towards this job so that nobody is denied his/her legal right of promotion and no junior becomes the boss of his senior.
    I am also amazed at the Federation buying and even abetting the claim of the DOPT that recasting of seniority lists may take years together. How can an employees Federation which never buys, and should never buy; administrative claims of delays, concur with administration on this very important issue affecting the career of its members.
    In the light of above discussion I once again strongly protest as to why the Federation has not even once, explicitly or implicitly, proclaimed that the board should direct the respective CCAs to implement the Decision without any further delay. Here I would like to bring to your notice the O. M. issued by DOPT on 03/04/2013 which directs the Departments not to make any ad hoc promotions. In the light of this O. M. it becomes even more expedient to pressurise the administration to get the seniority list recasted immediately.
    I hope that this time the Federation would think deeply over my stereotyped protest letter and will stand with truth and justice, otherwise roads to the temples of justice are always open to everybody which will ultimately harm the interests of employees of this department.
    Yours sincerely,

  18. D S Durganand says:

    Dear Comrade,
    Clarification of Sec. General is very satisfactory. As stated it is matter of DOPT but not Federation. One should not forget the strain that had been taken by our Federation in shaping of Cadre Restructuring, perhaps pending for some reason. Still some more departments where it is still at initial stages only. Federation has succeeded in granting increment on promotion in the same Grade Pay. Comrade, office memorandum issued by MoF,DoE on 07/01/2013 is having some ambiguity. Please see that it should be clarified in simple language that officials who got promotion after 1/1/2006, if their promotion post as well as earlier post carry same GP, consequent to VI-CPC. In our CCIT’s office at Vizag Administrative Officer, who got promoted as OS after 01/01/2006 has not been allowed to draw increment as our CCIT pointed certain mistakes in the Memorandum issued. Every one in the department eagerly waiting for Cadre Restructuring. Comrade, my small request, that only in Andhra Pradesh the Administration is forcing to put the signatures in the attendance register. Kindly see this should be stopped. I brought this to the notice of our GS com. Subba Reddy, nothing happened. Further, in AP so many daily wage workers working since 2003 are waiting for positive response from the Board. Even the workers engaged in the year 1994,1995 are still not given status of contingent. Kindly see the issue whenever your goodself gets time. Thanking you, COMRADE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

3 + = eleven