The Inland Revenue Audit Officers (IRAOs) have approached Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Chairman for accepting their legal right of up-gradation to BPS- 18 by declaring rules for new promotion path of Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager etc framed under SRO.1126 (I)/2010, as illegal and ultra vires to the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
In an appeal filed by the Inland Revenue Audit Officers to the FBR Chairman Tariq Bajwa here on Sunday, audit officers requested that the so-called rules framed under SRO.1126 (I)/2010 dated 27.11.2010 may be declared as illegal and ultra vires to the Civil Servants Act, 1973 by reviving the rules which had earlier been applied in case of promotion to seven audit officers to Assistant Collector and Deputy Collector. The instant appeal may be allowed with all consequential benefits. Before disposal of the tilted appeal the Appellant may kindly be allowed to explain there case in person.
The unrest among hundreds of such audit officers is also affecting the performance at the level of field formations having negative impact on revenue collection.
It is further requested that the IRAO's legal right of up-gradation to BPS- 18 may be accepted and implemented as decided by Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, representation of the IRAOs added.
The representation said that asking the audit officers to accept a different promotion path other than that available to his similarly placed colleagues in the IRS and that too under threat and coercion offends Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which specifically provides that "No person shall be compelled to do which the law does not require him to do".
According to the appeal, the Department tried to argue the case with reference to the new promotion path as Assistant Manager, Deputy Manager etc for the audit officers and their colleagues ie Rules of November, 2010 but after finalisation of the matter by the Sindh High Court some colleagues of the Appellants were promoted as Assistant Collectors and then as Deputy Collectors and not as Assistant Managers or Deputy Managers as per the so-called SRO meaning thereby that the Respondent's Department itself nullified new path under SRO of 2010 making the same as redundant.
At this belated stage to ask for accepting a new service structure by linking it with up-gradation through an undertaking is mere compelling the Appellant to adopt a career deprived of the legal and administrative powers/functions entrusted upon the IRAOs under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Ordinance 2001, Sales Tax Act 1990 and Federal Excise Act 2005. This action of FBR will put the audit officers in a less favourable position and such a coercive action is an express violation of section 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 which provides that "terms and conditions of service of any person to him this Act applies shall not be varied to his disadvantage. It is a settled principle of law that "when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner that must be done in that manner and not otherwise", representation said.
It is an admitted position that the Appellant/his colleagues are in litigation with FBR up to the level of Supreme Court but neither before the learned Single Judge nor before the Division Bench of Lahore High Court (where the matter was dealt not only once but twice) and even not before the Honourable Supreme Court in the appeal filed by the FBR itself such like framing of so called rules was not disclosed. But suddenly when the Appellant and his colleagues did not compromise with FBR according to their own wishes and whims a new line of action is taken by FBR compelling the Appellant as well as his other colleagues to follow the said Rules otherwise non followers shall be sufferer, this impugned conduct of department amounts to exploitation which is not warranted under law particularly when an employee and employer cannot be treated at par, hence the kind interference of your good-self is requested.
Referring to an example, the appeal said the Appellant (audit officer) joined Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) as Senior Auditor BPS-16 (now designated as Inland Revenue Audit Officer vide the Finance Act, 2011 ie IRAO) in 1999 on regular basis being Core Functionary in Sales Tax Department and is still performing the same duties in Inland Revenue Department after merger of Income Tax and Sales Tax w.e.f October, 2009.
The officer during his service became eligible for promotion to the next higher rank of BS-17 after completion of probation period but the same was denied, so similarly placed colleagues of the Appellant filed W.P No.1516/2005 before the Sindh High Court, the same was allowed through judgement. To the extent of certain colleagues the department implemented the said judgement of the SHC by promoting them in year 2009 who had further been promoted as Deputy Collector/Commissioner (BS-18) in 2013. The rest of IRAOs were not considered for departmental promotion despite existence of the order of the SHC in field by ignoring the Rule of Consistency.
On the other hand, Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No. 325 to 397/2010 regarding up-gradation of Audit Officers of different Departments to BS-18 passed a judgement dated 15.03.2015. Being aggrieved due to declining the promotion in the next higher grades and by relying on the above referred Judgement of the Apex Court Appellant's colleague firstly approached the department for up-gradation of IRAO from Bs-16 to Bs-18 when not succeeded, filed a W.P. No. 21651/2010 along-with other colleagues.
The said W.P. was allowed through judgement dated 24.05.2011. Then the Department filed I.C.A. No. 303/2013, which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2014 confirming the judgement dated 24.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in favour of the appellant.
Subsequently, FBR issued two notifications dated 27.06.2012 & 09.07.2012 asking to join by accepting the terms & conditions imposed by FBR, which caused a serious prejudice to the Appellant's lawful rights, so the Appellant's colleagues filed W.P. No. 27666/2013 & 27748/2014 both are pending for final adjudication and interim relief has also been granted vide orders dated 31.10.2013 & 20.10.2014. The FBR issued another notification dated 29.07.2015, whereby the Appellant is up-graded/promoted from BS-16 to BS-17 as Assistant Manager Audit (BS-17) w.e.f 03.04.2012.
Comments
Comments are closed.