  |
Recently the representative of CENGO INDIA made discussions with one previous office bearer of AIFCEGEO regarding removal of regional disparity in promotions as existed in the cadres of Inspector and Superintendents of Central Excise and according to him there is no provisions for retrospective revision of RR.Those got promotions under a valid RR can not be reverted. The RR which is operative since 86 and confirmed by High Court can not be revised retrospectively.If RR is valid, then automatically promotions are valid and seniority list prepared as per decision of SC in 302 of 88 are also valid .Hence those who joined earlier in Supdt grade are seniors irrespective of date of joining in Inspector grade. He has stated that after Gyan Prakash case CBEC had decided to issue all India seniority list for Inspectors who joined on or after 01.01.1996.But as the Laxaman Rao case was rejected by SC and SC in 302/88 directed Board to prepare seniority list of Superintendents on the date of joining in such post,, Board implemented the directions of SC without issuing seniority list on all India basis for the Inspectors exclusively who have joined w.e.f 01.1.96 . Hence according to him revision of seniority list converting it to all India retrospectively is not at all possible. He has stated that if at all any court will pronounce any verdict for such implementation retrospectively then at least Board may take 5 years to recast the seniority. Because
according to him at present there are few Superintendents who are promoted from the cadre of
Sepoy who initially joined in service during 1973, therefore first seniority lists of Sepoy are required to be prepared year wise since 1973 converting it to all India and there after seniority lists of LDC/UDC/TA/STA/Inspector are required to be issued year wise since 1973 duly issuing proper notice to all individuals and inviting to raise any objection if they are not satisfy with such revision and thereafter litigation will be started with in house fighting. Thus according to him retrospective revision is not practically possible. He has stated that certain officers of a particular unit are engaged themselves always in raising such irrelevant issues, this unit obtained stay for implementation of last CR for which the implementation
of last CR was delayed for one year and many officers were retired without getting promotion
for such stay.Now mostly the Superintendents who have joined after 2002 are raising such issue on the sole purpose that if CR will be delayed for 5 years then all seniors will retire by this time and automatically these youngsters will be promoted to the post of AC. This is nothing but a conspiracy hatched between the Superintendents who have promoted on or after 01.01.2003 for the purpose to devide the association for their personal benefits to get promotion depriving their seniors. According to him this particular unit is instrumental for non approval of in situ scheme ( as this unit raised objection on in situ scheme without informing AIB and posed before Board that it has the approval of AIB on such objections) The office bearers of this particularl unit met UPSC and informed them about pending adhoc promotions, for which UPSC raised objection and restricted for allowing any adhoc promotions and for such restriction many senior Superintendents are retiring without getting any promotions. This unit has also unnecessarily filed contempt without raising the issue before Board through AIB in result verdict on contempt has come against the cadre. He has also stated that if such unit will raise such issue before Board directly and file CAT case for regional disparity, with sole purpose to delay the CR, then AIB can intimate Board that the issue has not been approved by AIB and in that case Board can take action under conduct rule against the office bearers of such unit and AIB can also file intervenor petition in CAT stating to reject such OA as the issue has not been approved by AIB.The affiliation of this unit can be withrawn and Board may restrict it office bearers to perform any association work.
According to such ex office bearer - In situ scheme was about to be approved by Board but due to raising of objection by Pune Unit , this has been kept in abeyance and therefore many seniors retired without getting promotion to Gr-A. In this connection Mr Khaleel Sayed Ex-GS of Pune Unit of AIACEGEO and Ex Vice President of AIACEGEO has stated that “ Pune Unit has opposed the In-situ scheme and directly made correspondence with the Board without even consulting the AIB and Zonal Office bearers”..
.
EXACT POSTING MADE BY MR KHALEEL SAYED IN FACE BOOK (Punecex Aicegoa) IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR INFORMATION
While recommending grant of in situ promotion to Assistants of CSS as Section Officer, the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 83rd Report on Personnel Policies of CSS and CISF has observed in para 7.13 -7.14 (page 29) recommended that grant of ACP should not stop grant of in situ promotion to stagnated Assistants. Accordingly, a large number of posts in higher grades were created in the year 2002-03 to remove stagnation from the Group ‘B’ cadres. What are the hurdles in implementing the same by CBEC ?
Sunil Patil Except strong will,no other hurdle. It has to be in CBEC, in our AIB, in our every individual Gr-B executive officer
Khaleel Sayed but, Pune Unit has opposed the In-situ scheme and directly made correspondence with the Board without even consulting the AIB and Zonal Office bearers.
IN FACE BOOK THERE IS A GROUP NAMELY Pune Central Excise Superintendents Discussion Forum.
In such forum it is clearly mentioned that a case in High Court of Mumbai is pending for correct determination of Zonal seniority list in accordance with Parmar case.Whereas to devide the association this unit one side claiming zonal seniority list in court but claiming all India seniority in Association.Few discussions of such forum are produced below for information of all :
Mr.Anurag Mishra uploaded a file.
nr parmar vs uoi sc.pdf
Anurag Mishra--- Income tax deptt. issued promotion(ITO to AC) order No.83/2013 dt.13/5/13 with the rider that.. .."the promotion of these officers shall be subject to revision of the seniority of Inspr/ITO,
if any , consequent to implementation of the h'able SC judjment dt 27/11/12 in NR Parmar case.
Similar issue exist in our seniority list where promotees of '84 batch are placed above '82 batch
direct recruites. Sh . Khaleel Sayed Supdt has already filed case in High Court and effected
officers are required to first represent their case to revise the seniority and if no relief is recieved
we should implead in the High court in the case already filed by Sh. Sayed.
..Anurag Mishra ----All concerned may contact Sh. Sayed for details.
..Khaleel Sayed--- most welcome. i am ready to help, who wish to implead with me.
..Sunil Patil--- Khaleel,can we have meeting on 23.5.13 at ICE HOUSE @1800hrs?
..Khaleel Sayed--- yes, i am available. only remind me on thursday.
{Due to over action of such unit since 2001,it ia very difficut on the part of AIACEGEO
to achieve it goals and there fore the common members are worst sufferes.}
( The author of this article is an ex office bearer of AIACEGEO)
|
