Tuesday, 9 February 2016
1. Ad hoc promotions: Promotions to the post of Superintendent were affected on ad hoc basis even against the long term vacancies at some of the places. The matter was taken up with the administration. The DOPT have clarified to the CBEC that ad hoc promotions are made only against short term vacancies, i.e., vacancies existing only for one year or less period. The vacancies for more than one year are treated as long term and promotions against these are treated regular instead of ad hoc. Hopefully, the CBEC will issue a clarification now.
2. DPC for the post of AC: It is really very painful that our officers are retiring regularly without promotion despite of huge number of vacancies being existed. I am getting numerous calls daily by our officers belonging to reserved as well as general category officers. We are already late by three years in the matter. The only way is to get the DPC conducted and promotion orders issued subject to the final verdict of the court matters otherwise the officers will keep retiring. We all the officers of both categories should think over the issue seriously otherwise nobody will be able to get promotion. I appeal both parties to have an amicable solution on the issue.
New Delhi: The government will issue the Seventh Pay Commission award notification soon to facilitate central government employees salaries with regard to inflation, the Prime Minister’s office (PMO) official said on Monday.
“But in case it’s not issued this month, it will be issued after budget. Usually it takes around two or more month to issue a notification,” he added.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) asked the Empowered Committee of Secretaries to process the review of the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations as soon as possible for taking cabinet nod, the PMO officials also said.
The committee directed to address the genuine concerns raised by stakeholders and accommodate their demands as much as possible.
The first meeting of Nodal officers of different ministries was held on February 2 in the Secretariat of the Empowered Committee for discussing the relevant issues in connection with the processing of the recommendations of Pay Commission.
According to the minutes of the of first meeting, the employees’ associations through ministries can raise afresh the demand for pay hike which were rejected by the Seventh Pay Commission but it will be done in short time as the government intend to implement pay commission award soon.
Although, there is indication that the Empowered Committee is also positively mulling the demand of central government employees for hiking the minimum pay, which was recommended very low by the Seventh pay commission.
The notification of One Rank One Pension (OROP) for ex-servicemen has been issued on February 3.
“One Rank One Pension (OROP) is now going to be implemented after notification. Hence government will issue the notification of ‘Pay Commission award’ soon,” the PMO official told our reporters.
The Seventh Pay Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur recommended the minimum basic pay of central government employees is Rs 18,000 per month while the maximum is Rs 2.25 lakh per month, its increased the pay gap between the minimum and maximum from existing 1:12 to 1: 13.8.
“All pay commissions made up pay gap between employees and higher officers from second Pay Commission 1:41 ratio to Sixth pay commission 1:12, except it,” said sources.
Sources also said the cell wants to make up pay gap between employees and higher officers and to recommend to hike Basic salary at least Rs 20,000 from Rs 18,000 recommended by the Seventh pay commission.
New Delhi: Finance Minister Arun Jaitley will present the Budget for 2016-17 on February 29. The salaried class has a lot of expectations from the Budget. Increase in the personal income tax exemption limit up to Rs 3 lakh and a higher deduction limit under Section 8OC up to Rs 2 lakh, say analysts.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley will hike the exemption limit in personal income tax from Rs 2.5 lakh to Rs 3 lakh.
He also may raise the tax exemption limit for investments to Rs 2 lakh from the current Rs 1.5 lakh under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act.
Not just that, the Minister is likely to hike the tax deduction limit to Rs 2.5 lakh from Rs 2 lakh on interest for housing loans in case of self-occupied property while the public provident fund (PPF) investment limit will also be raised to Rs 2 lakh from the current Rs 1.5 lakh.
In a nutshell, these measures do not only mean more money in your hands, there will also be more incentives to park it in national savings certificates (NSC), five-year fixed deposits, repayment of principal amount of home loans, children’s tuition fees, specific mutual funds and life insurance premium among other things. The three income tax slabs — at 10%, 20% and 30% — however, will be left undisturbed.
In our country, just 3 percent of the people pay income tax, which comes to 3.5 crore tax payers, among them top majority of the tax payers fall 10% slab. Just as comparison in USA around 45 percent of the population pays taxes.
So, it will provide much-needed relief to the salaried middle class, which has been reeling under the impact of high inflation.
Loans and Advances by the Central Government - Interest rates and other terms and conditions. (Click the link below for details)
Advances to Government servants — Rate of interest for purchase of conveyances during 2015-2016.(Click the link below for details)
Friday, 5 February 2016
No response received from any of our units about the Dharna programme of 25th Feb being observed at Jantar Mantar in Delhi by the Confederation of Central Govt Gazetted Officers whether we should participate in it with our own charter of demands (their charter of demands being differed from us as already clarified in the earlier mail on the issue). If interested, concerned units may also kindly specify the number of officers coming to Delhi to make participation in the programme. If no majority response is received immediately, AIACEGEO may at least write a letter to the concerned authority in their support with our independent charter of demands.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Ref. No. 16/MACP/16 Dt. 04.02.16
Dr. Jitendra Singh,
Minister of State, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: MACP upgradation in Promotional Hierarchy.
Kindly refer to the earlier request of the Association on the above subject.
2. Your kind attention is re-invited to the written reply given by you in Parliament to a question by Sh. Kamlesh Paswan in Lok Sabha regarding the subject matter. You said, “There have been instances where Tribunals and High Courts have directed to grant benefits under Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme in the promotional hierarchy. However, in such cases, the order of Court is specific to the applicant only.”
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors has held as under:
“Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.”
4. In spite of various such decisions of Apex Court and various other courts already brought to the kind knowledge of the administration, the benefit is not being extended to all other similarly situated employees. If any matter on service issue/policy is implemented based on the verdict given by the legal court, the Govt. is bound to give its benefit to all similarly situated employees. No need to say that no Govt. organization/department/ministry is above the courts and it seems contemptuous, if the benefit of the court orders is not given to the similarly situated employees.
5. Non-issuance of the orders for general implementation benefitting to all equally placed officers will merely force other concerned officers to go to the legal courts. It will not only increase the unwarranted litigations but is also against the policy of the govt. to minimize the litigations. It will incur unnecessary heavy expenditure in terms of money, time and man power from both side.
6. It is again submitted with due regards that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP No. 7467/2013 filed by the Govt. against the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Chandigarh in CWP No. 19387/2011 has already confirmed the order dated 31.05.2011 of Chandigarh CAT for grant of financial upgradation in the promotional hierarchy under MACPS. The same verdict has also been ordered by the Principal Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal in the OA No. 904/2012and864/2014.
7. The same verdict has been ordered by Madras High Court in W.P. No. 11535/14 and M.P. No. 1/14 on 16.10.14 undoing para 8.1 of MACPS. But no relief is being given by the government to its officers on the issue despite of so many legal verdicts including by the Supreme Court. SLP No. 896/2015 of the govt. against W.P. No. 11535/14 has also been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
8. The offset of the MACP upgradation with time scale is also liable to be scrapped as per the verdict given by Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) Vs. U.O.I. and also by Ernakulam CAT in the case of Sh. N.K. Gopinatham Vs. U.O.I.
9. The Principal Bench of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), New Delhi has also directed to implement the judgement of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India & others vs. Raj Pal & another (CWP No.19387/2011) vide its order dt. 15.09.14 in OA No.2553/2013.
10. It is further submitted that more employees are not required to be forced to approach any legal court to get the due benefit as per the principle of res-judicata and also various legal verdicts based on this principle. The benefit of all of the court orders relating to any matter including subject-mentioned matter should kindly be granted to all similarly situated employees without forcing them to go for legal recourse instead of giving the benefit only to petitioner.
11. In view of the above, para 8.1 of MACPS and offset of the MACP upgradation with time scale are not in consonance of the legal verdicts and are liable to be scrapped. It is, therefore, again requested that the said para 8.1 of MACPS instructions may kindly be scrapped and the financial upgradations under the MACP scheme may be granted in accordance of the promotional hierarchy without offsetting the MACP upgradation with the time scale. Thus, the officers already getting the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- as time scale should be granted a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- on next MACP upgradation without offsetting with the time scale.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Ref. No. 17/M/16 Dt. 04.02.16
Sh. Najib Shah,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Meeting of Joint Action Committee-regarding.
Kindly refer to the letter F.No.12017/07/2015-Ad IVA Dt. 29.12.15 of CBEC on the above subject.
2. It is submitted with due regards that the meeting with Joint Action Committee was proposed to be held in 2nd/3rd week of January, 2016 but the same is still awaited. The Association or Joint Action Committee has received no communication about the date of meeting even after the expiry of the month of January, 2016.
3. In view of the above, it is requested to hold the meeting at an early date as more than six months have already expired after the holding of the previous meeting. The meeting was, actually, expected to be held maximum within three months of holding of the previous meeting.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Ref. No. 18/M/16 Dt. 04.02.16
Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna,
Member (P&V), CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Minutes of the Meeting held on 14.01.16.
Kindly refer to letter Ref. No. 07/M/16 Dt. 13.01.16 and 11/M/16 Dt. 22.01.16 of the Association as well as the meeting held with the Association under your kind Chair on 14.01.16.
2. It is submitted with due regards that three weeks have already expired after the holding of the meeting but the minutes of the same are still awaited. The Association is apprehensive about the seriousness of the meeting particularly keeping in view the letter F.No.C.30013/6/2012-Ad IVA-Vol.III Dt.14.01.16 of CBEC asking the concerned authorities to take action against the officers participating in the Satyagraha.
3. The issuance of the above letter Dt. 14.01.16 by the Ad. IVA section of the CBEC is noway justifiable/lawful particularly when the Satyagraha programme of 17.01.16 was deferred on 13.01.16 itself on the request of the administration. The issuance of such letters only remind the English system when the poor Indians were threatened unnecessarily and unlawfully by the English. The issuance of such letter was not at all required because this merely weakens the bond of faith between the authorities and staffside. This causes the apprehension in the minds of the staffside whether their own administration is taking their cause seriously.
4. In view of the above, it is requested that the grievances of the staffside may kindly be taken seriously giving honest redressal to the same knowing very well that the staffside are always dependent only on their own administration for every benefit. Accordingly, it is further requested that the actual minutes of the meeting of 14.01.16 may kindly be issued at an early date without any deviation from the discussions/decisions held in the meeting and also without proving the meeting merely a formality.
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
The Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.