Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Ex-IRS Officer’s Plea for Higher Pay of Additional Commissioner Rank while Serving as DR at ITAT [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by a retired IRS officer, who sought the pay scale of an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax for the period he served as a Departmental Representative (DR) at the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

The petitioner, Tarsem Lal, appearing in person, argued that since no post of Assistant Commissioner existed in the ITAT, his posting there from June 2006 should be deemed equivalent to holding the rank and discharging the duties of an Additional Commissioner.

He further contended that while representing the department before the ITAT, he was effectively performing functions of higher responsibility and, therefore, should be granted the pay scale of Additional Commissioner.

He also relied upon a sanction order dated June 2023 to state that reimbursement amounts sanctioned to him as a Deputy Commissioner and to an officer holding the rank of Additional Commissioner were identical, which according to him, implied parity of position and justified his claim for higher salary.

The Union of India, however, opposed the plea, submitting that the petitioner never discharged duties of a higher nature while posted at the ITAT. His substantive cadre remained that of Assistant Commissioner, and his work was confined to arguing departmental cases as a DR.

The respondents contended that the mere absence of a sanctioned post of Assistant Commissioner in the ITAT could not automatically elevate him to the rank of Additional Commissioner, nor could parity in reimbursement or special allowances be stretched to confer entitlement to higher pay.

It was submitted that allowances and reimbursements for officers of varying ranks posted in the ITAT were uniform, thereby negating any presumption that the petitioner performed higher responsibilities.

After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the Division Bench comprising Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Vikas Suri held that entitlement to higher salary can only arise where the duties performed are of a nature substantially higher than those attached to the officer’s substantive cadre.

In the present case, the petitioner’s responsibilities as DR were limited to presenting departmental cases before the Tribunal, which were no different in nature from the duties of his substantive rank of Assistant Commissioner.

The Court observed that parity of allowances and reimbursements across ranks only demonstrated uniformity in benefits, not equivalence of duties. Since no material was brought on record to show that the petitioner performed duties of higher responsibility than his substantive post, his claim for pay of the Additional Commissioner was unsustainable. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

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