In the arrears case of retired Central Board Of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) officers before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi no advocate appeared on behalf of retired officers despite collecting huge fees whereas the counsel for the govt. ready for the argument.
In a petition filed to seek arrears at par with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Officers, the Advocate for Government stated that he was ready to argue but Officer’s Counsel was absent with no request for passover or adjournment. To be relisted on August 8, 2025. Delay after delay.
The retired officers had filed a petition seeking parity in arrears and pensionary benefits with their counterparts in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). However, despite the gravity of the matter and the long-standing demands of the petitioners, their legal counsel failed to appear in court on the day of the hearing. This absence was particularly disappointing considering that the counsel had reportedly collected substantial legal fees from the affected officers, many of whom are elderly and depend on their pensions.
In stark contrast, the counsel representing the government was present and ready to proceed with the arguments. He conveyed to the tribunal his preparedness to argue the matter, thereby indicating the government’s willingness to bring some resolution to the dispute. The tribunal took note of the absence of the petitioners’ advocate and the lack of any communication such as a request for passover or adjournment. This lapse not only resulted in a wasted opportunity for the retired officers but also contributed to yet another delay in a case that has already seen multiple postponements over time.
Given the circumstances, the tribunal has now decided to relist the matter for hearing on August 8, 2025. This rescheduling has once again extended the wait for justice for the retired CBIC officers, who continue to seek equitable treatment. The repeated delays, coupled with the lack of accountability from their legal representative, have left many of the petitioners disheartened. As the new date approaches, there is growing concern among the officers that unless prompt and serious legal action is taken, they may continue to face undue procedural setbacks in their rightful pursuit of financial parity.
Case Details
Case Title: Satyendra Kumar Gupta Versus M/O Finance
