The Supreme Court of India, while considering a plea by the Madras Bar Association, allowed the extension of the tenure of an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) member to continue till the age of 62.
The applicant had offered her candidature for appointment in pursuance of the circular of 2013. The selection process which was conducted in pursuance of the circular ended in the grant of letters of appointment to those who were found to be qualified and were selected.
The applicant was deprived of the selection at that stage only on the ground that she had not filed her income tax return for the relevant assessment year. Since the applicant was not included in the panel, she moved the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The tribunal rejected her plea on 9 November 2016. The applicant then moved the High Court of Calcutta. By its judgment dated 28 June 2017, the High Court allowed the petition.
Following the judgment of the High Court, a letter of offer was issued to the applicant on 24 December 2017 followed by a letter of appointment dated 19 March 2018. On 20 April 2018, the applicant submitted a representation to the Secretary in the Department of Justice to the effect that her appointment was in pursuance of a vacancy of 2013 which was governed by the parent act, namely, the Income Tax Act 1961.
Consequently, the contention of the applicant was that the tenure of her appointment should operate until the age of 62 and not for a period of three years as stated in the letter of appointment.
The Supreme Court observed that “On 14 July 2021, this Court clarified its decision in Madras Bar Association vs Union of India to the effect that all appointments made before 4 April 2021 would be governed by the parent statutes in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court earlier on 16 July 2018 and 21 August 2018.”
“The clear position on the facts of this case is that the right of the applicant to appointment had been crystallized even before the 2017 Rules. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant would be governed by the position as it existed prior to the 2017 Rules”, the Division Bench observed.
The Apex Court Bench of Chief Justice Dhanajaya Yeshwant Chandrachud and Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and J B Pardiwala thus held that “in other words, her tenure shall be extended until she attains the age of 62 years.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
