27 & 32 (common order) IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12th February 2020 W.P.(C) 1599/2020 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashim Sood, CGSC with Mr. Rhythm B., & Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, Advocates versus DEEPAK & ORS. Respondents Through: W.P.(C) 1622/2020 PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. Petitioners Through: Mr. Ashim Sood, CGSC with Mr. Rhythm B., & Mr. Armaan Pratap Singh, Advocates versus MEENAKSHI KATHPAL & ORS. Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI JUDGMENT G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL) CM APPL.5596/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1599/2020 CM APPL.5686/2020 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 1622/2020 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) No.1599/2020 Etc. Page 1 of 4 CM APPL.5597/2020 (for additional documents) in W.P.(C) 1599/2020 CM APPL.5687/2020 (for additional documents) in W.P.(C) 1622/2020 Allowed. Additional documents are taken on record. Applications stand disposed of. W.P.(C) 1599/2020 and 5595/2020 (for interim relief) W.P.(C) 1622/2020 and 5685/2020 (for interim relief) present petition is directed against order dated 31.10.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal', for short). 2. It turns-out that both petitions are covered by order dated 16.04.2019 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P. (C) No.8063/2017 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Manglalzom Gangte & Ors., decided on 21.09.2017 which was followed in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sh. Nitin & Ors., W.P.(C) No.3940/2019, decided on 16.04.2019. We extract paras 3 to 6 of judgment dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.3940 of 2019 as under:- "3. submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that Tribunal has placed reliance on decision in Union of India and Ors. v. Chet Ram Meena And Ors, W.P.(C.) No. 6368/2015, decided on 29.10.2015. While deciding Chet Ram Meena (supra), this Court had placed reliance on decision of High Court of Rajasthan in Union of India V. Ramesh Kumar Panwar & Anr., Civil W.P. No. 5148/2013, decided on 26.05.2015. submission of petitioner Union of India is, and even when we decided Manglalzom Gangte (supra) was that issue was under consideration before Supreme Court in CC No. 1691/2016 and that operation of decision of high Court had been stayed on 01.02.2016. This Court rejected said submission by observing as follows: W.P.(C) No.1599/2020 Etc. Page 2 of 4 However, we are not impressed by this argument as we find that Division Bench while deciding Chet Ram Meena (supra) has taken into account several other decisions including decision of Supreme Court itself in Union of India & Ors. vs. C.N. Ponnapan, (1996)1 SCC 524 wherein Supreme Court held as follows:- service rendered by employee at place from where he was transferred on compassionate grounds is regular service. It is no different from service rendered at place where he is transferred. Both periods are taken into account for purpose of leave and retrial benefits. fact that as result of transfer he is placed at bottom of seniority list at place of transfer does not wipe out his service at place from where he was transferred. said service, being regular service in grade, has to be taken into account as part of his experience for purpose of eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on ground that it was not rendered at place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, Tribunal has rightly held that service held at place from where employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for purpose of eligibility for promotion at place where he has been transferred. Other decisions to same effect, taken note of by Division Bench, were rendered in case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. N. Bhat, 2003 (9) Scale 517, Renu Mullick vs. Union of India & Anr., (1994) 1 SCC 373 and Raksha Mantri and Anr. Vs. V.M. Joseph, (1998) 5 SCC 305. W.P.(C) No.1599/2020 Etc. Page 3 of 4 For aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with impugned order and same is dismissed." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that even decision in Chet Ram Meena (supra) has been stayed by Supreme Court on 12.01.2018 in SLP (C) No. 9643/2016. 5. On other hand, learned counsel for respondent Mr. Bhardwaj makes statement that civil appeal preferred before Supreme Court from decision of Rajasthan High Court in Ramesh Kumar Panwar (supra) has since been dismissed by Supreme Court on 10.04.2019. It is also pointed out that SLP preferred from our decision in Manglalzom Gangte (supra) has also been dismissed by Supreme Court, and same has been implemented. 6. In fact, it is pointed that decision of this Court in Pratibha Rani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C.) No. 11959/2018, decided on 02.11.2018 was assailed before Supreme Court by petitioners in that case, and Supreme Court has allowed said appeal by placing reliance on decision in. C.N. Ponnapan (supra). 3. By reason of above, we see no reason to take different view than that taken in above two writ petitions. Resultantly, both writ petitions are dismissed. 4. Pending applications also stand disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. FEBRUARY 12, 2020/vk W.P.(C) No.1599/2020 Etc. Page 4 of 4 Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax & Ors. v. Deepak & Or