Personal Hardships Must Be Considered Before Forcing Repatriation: CAT Stays Transfer of Excise Inspectors

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled that the transfer of Gujarat-based Central Excise Inspectors cannot be enforced without considering their personal hardships, and directed that each case must be reviewed individually.

Hariom Meena and others, the applicants, are Central Excise Inspectors who were originally selected through the 2006 SSC examination and posted in the Chennai Zone. In 2017, they were transferred to the Vadodara Zone under the Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) policy of 2011. The transfer orders specifically stated that they would forgo their seniority and had no right to be repatriated. Based on this, they moved to Gujarat, relocated their families, and settled down.

In 2018, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued a circular declaring all ICTs made after the amendment of recruitment rules in December 2016 to be invalid. These transfers were retrospectively treated as being on a "loan basis," and the officers were directed to return to their parent cadre.

GST on Real Estate & Works Contracts – Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector!, Click Here

The applicants submitted individual representations citing various hardships, such as spousal employment in Gujarat, children’s education, housing loans, and family health issues. However, the department rejected all their representations through a single, common order dated December 20, 2022.

The applicants’ counsel argued that their transfers were lawfully made under the 2011 ICT policy and that the 2018 circular could not apply to them retrospectively. They pointed out that their cases were not examined individually, in violation of the Gujarat High Court’s direction issued in line with the Supreme Court ruling in S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India. They also argued that their cases involved genuine personal and humanitarian concerns, and that similar cases had been treated more leniently by the department.

The respondents’ counsel argued that post-2016 ICTs were no longer valid as per the amended rules and the CBIC’s policy. They claimed that representations were considered but did not meet the threshold of exceptional hardship as required. They also argued that following a uniform policy was necessary for maintaining administrative discipline and avoiding a flood of exceptions.

GST on Real Estate & Works Contracts – Your Ultimate Guide to GST in the Real Estate Sector!, Click Here

The two-member bench comprising Jayesh V Bhairavia (Judicial Member) and Dr. Hukum Singh Meena (Accountant Member) observed that the government had failed to consider each applicant’s case on its own merits and had mechanically rejected all representations in a single order. The tribunal explained that the Supreme Court had directed that ICT-related grievances must be decided with due regard to personal hardships and constitutional values like the right to family life under Article 21. It also referred to a recent Principal Bench decision where a similar direction was issued in the case of CBDT employees.

The tribunal set aside the rejection order dated December 20, 2022, and directed the applicants to submit fresh individual representations within six weeks. The department was directed to decide each case individually, within six months, per judicial directions. Until a decision is made, the applicants are to remain at their current postings in Gujarat. The applications were partly allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates