Parity is the basic concept of our Indian Constitution. Every one interested for parity in all respect. Hence all are interested for removal of the regional disparity in promotions existed in the cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise. In the impugned issue first we
have to see as to whether the promotions to the posts of Superintendent
were awarded on the basis of any valid Recruitment Rules or otherwise.
2nd to award promotion on the basis of the RR whether the Seniority
Lists were prepared as per DOPT guidelines in consonance with such RR
or not. If these two issues are to be solved then automatically the
regional disparity in promotions will be removed.
The promotions to the post of Superintendent were awarded on the basis of the Superintendent of Central Excise
Recruitment Rules 1986 which has been issued under the provisions
article 309 of the Constitution of India. This RR is still valid . This
RR has been providing for promotion on CCA basis. Seniority Lists as
per DOPT guidelines ( circular dated 7.02.1986) therefore prepared on
CCA basis to award promotions on the basis of such valid RR. Unless
the said RR is quashed with retrospective effect by any court this
issue can not be solved. Board is not authorised to withdraw any RR
retrospectively. Therefore merger committee recommended for merger
prospectively w.e.f 01.01.2006. In past during 1993 this RR was
challenged in High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Supdts.Association of
Hyderabad and one Mr.Laxamana Rao. But High court rejected the writ and
up held the RR as valid one. Against such decision of High Court,
Hyderabad Association moved to SC but SC rejected the petition. Moreover creation of CCAs is a policy decision , which can
not be challenged in CAT. Therefore those joined in the grade of Supdt early are seniors to those joined in the grade of Supdt subsequently irrespective of date of joining in Inspector grade. The Guideline of DOPT vide OM NO. AB-14017/12/88-ESTT is not helpful for removal of regional disparity in promotions. FR also accepted for creation of separate cadre on regional basis.
Laxmana
Rao's petition in SC was disposed relying on/quoting the decision
dt.22-11-96 in WP 302/88 on RRs filed by cex assns.(resulted in 6;2;1
ratio ,replacing the common seniority clause ). It is a one line order stating that "..In the light of decision dt.22/11/96 in WP no.302/88,this petition stands dismissed".. WP No 302/88 was filed by both the Federations of Inspectors and Superintendents jointly The Gr-A RR published on the basis of the decision in WP no 302/88 was valid up to October 2011. In the petition both the Federations have accepted promotions on regional/zonal basis. Therefore considering the situation AIACEGEO has filed a case in CAT Principal Bench to maintain base cadre parity in promotion. In
the OA it is prayed for creation/ distribution of more nos of
promotional post in stagnated cadres or zones to solve the existing
disparity in promotions. It has been specifically stated that since
1992 batch Examiners are at present AC , all Inspectors/ POs who have
joined on or before 1992 should be promoted to the post of AC to
maintain parity amongst the three feeder categories. AICEIA is very
correctly demanding to up grade all Inspectors who joined in service on
or before 2002 to maintain parity amongst Inspectors of all zones.
Parity is the basic concept of our Indian Constitution. Every one interested for parity in all respect. Hence all are interested for removal of the regional disparity in promotions existed in the cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise. In the impugned issue first we
have to see as to whether the promotions to the posts of Superintendent
were awarded on the basis of any valid Recruitment Rules or otherwise.
2nd to award promotion on the basis of the RR whether the Seniority
Lists were prepared as per DOPT guidelines in consonance with such RR
or not. If these two issues are to be solved then automatically the
regional disparity in promotions will be removed.
The promotions to the post of Superintendent were awarded on the basis of the Superintendent of Central Excise Recruitment Rules 1986 which has been issued under the provisions article 309 of the Constitution of India. This RR is still valid . This RR has been providing for promotion on CCA basis. Seniority Lists as per DOPT guidelines ( circular dated 7.02.1986) therefore prepared on CCA basis to award promotions on the basis of such valid RR. Unless the said RR is quashed with retrospective effect by any court this issue can not be solved. Board is not authorised to withdraw any RR retrospectively. Therefore merger committee recommended for merger prospectively w.e.f 01.01.2006. In past during 1993 this RR was challenged in High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Supdts.Association of Hyderabad and one Mr.Laxamana Rao. But High court rejected the writ and up held the RR as valid one. Against such decision of High Court, Hyderabad Association moved to SC but SC rejected the petition. Moreover creation of CCAs is a policy decision , which can not be challenged in CAT. Therefore those joined in the grade of Supdt early are seniors to those joined in the grade of Supdt subsequently irrespective of date of joining in Inspector grade. The Guideline of DOPT vide OM NO. AB-14017/12/88-ESTT is not helpful for removal of regional disparity in promotions. FR also accepted for creation of separate cadre on regional basis.
The promotions to the post of Superintendent were awarded on the basis of the Superintendent of Central Excise Recruitment Rules 1986 which has been issued under the provisions article 309 of the Constitution of India. This RR is still valid . This RR has been providing for promotion on CCA basis. Seniority Lists as per DOPT guidelines ( circular dated 7.02.1986) therefore prepared on CCA basis to award promotions on the basis of such valid RR. Unless the said RR is quashed with retrospective effect by any court this issue can not be solved. Board is not authorised to withdraw any RR retrospectively. Therefore merger committee recommended for merger prospectively w.e.f 01.01.2006. In past during 1993 this RR was challenged in High Court of Andhra Pradesh by Supdts.Association of Hyderabad and one Mr.Laxamana Rao. But High court rejected the writ and up held the RR as valid one. Against such decision of High Court, Hyderabad Association moved to SC but SC rejected the petition. Moreover creation of CCAs is a policy decision , which can not be challenged in CAT. Therefore those joined in the grade of Supdt early are seniors to those joined in the grade of Supdt subsequently irrespective of date of joining in Inspector grade. The Guideline of DOPT vide OM NO. AB-14017/12/88-ESTT is not helpful for removal of regional disparity in promotions. FR also accepted for creation of separate cadre on regional basis.
Laxmana
Rao's petition in SC was disposed relying on/quoting the decision
dt.22-11-96 in WP 302/88 on RRs filed by cex assns.(resulted in 6;2;1
ratio ,replacing the common seniority clause ). It is a one line order stating that "..In the light of decision dt.22/11/96 in WP no.302/88,this petition stands dismissed".. WP No 302/88 was filed by both the Federations of Inspectors and Superintendents jointly The Gr-A RR published on the basis of the decision in WP no 302/88 was valid up to October 2011. In the petition both the Federations have accepted promotions on regional/zonal basis. Therefore considering the situation AIACEGEO has filed a case in CAT Principal Bench to maintain base cadre parity in promotion. In
the OA it is prayed for creation/ distribution of more nos of
promotional post in stagnated cadres or zones to solve the existing
disparity in promotions. It has been specifically stated that since
1992 batch Examiners are at present AC , all Inspectors/ POs who have
joined on or before 1992 should be promoted to the post of AC to
maintain parity amongst the three feeder categories. AICEIA is very
correctly demanding to up grade all Inspectors who joined in service on
or before 2002 to maintain parity amongst Inspectors of all zones.
