Draft.
IRS (INDIRECT TAXES)
OFFICERS’ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT: Address for
communication:
SECRETARY GENERAL:
AK SHARMA CR Building, Bhubaneswar-751007. LOKANATH MISHRA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To,
Shri Jayant Sinha
Hon’able Minister of State,
Ministry of Finance
Govt. of India, North Block,
New Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Sub: Framing of Gr-A Recruitment Rules by Central
Board of Excise and Customs as per DOPT Guidelines and Hon’able Supreme Court directions &
withdrawal of regularization order No. 202/2014 –
request for.
………………
Having been grossly
aggrieved after grave suffering for thousands of silent, frustrated, depressed,
disappointed, humiliated, demoralized and anguished Superintendents of Central
Excise & Superintendents Cus(Prev), we would like to express the
disillusionment and heartburn of such a large number of officers due to the
malaise prevailing in their hearts affecting their morale and work culture. The
main cause of this state of deterioration is that the Superintendents of
Central Excise , and Superintendents , Cus (Prev) are getting just one
promotion in their entire service span of about 35 to 40 years after joining
the job as Inspector/ PO, whereas other officers like Examiners of Customs
having joined in the same service and selected through the same all India
combined competitive examination on merit and option basis conducted by the
selection body, i.e., Staff Selection Commission, are getting 4 to 5 promotions
in the similar duration of service. More condemnable is the reason that the
Central Excise Inspectors and Preventive Officers of Customs (General,
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe all) are compelled to work under the
Examiners of Customs even having lower merit or selected through a later
examination (upto 20 years afterwards) despite of all Central Excise
Inspectors, Preventive Officers of Customs and Examiners of Customs having been
selected through the same all India combined competitive annual examination and
appointed in the same service of same organisation in same Department under
same Ministry to the same level of post (Promotions are made as mere simple
promotion and not on selection basis or selection post but to the cadre posts
at different levels in the same service). We have been fighting for justice as
per Rule of Law and Constitution of India for the last over three decades with
no tangible results so far due to the malafide acts of commissions &
omissions by the concerned officials. The right to live with dignity &
respect has been snatched from us.
We
are to state further that during the year 1978, Appraisers of Customs (A. K.
Chatterjee and others) filed a writ petition before the Apex Court
for the reason that some of their counterparts from Central Excise
(Superintendents of Central Excise) junior to them by 1 or 1½ half years in the
service have been promoted ahead of them. They wanted that Recruitment Rules
should be framed & promotions should be done on the basis of length of
service in the feeder cadre. As per the directions of Apex
Court, Govt. framed Indian Customs and Central Excise (Group-A)
Recruitment Rules in 1987 based on length of service in the feeder cadre (i.e.,
to allow promotions to the post of Asstt. Commissioner based on a common
seniority list on the basis of length of service of the officers belonging
to three feeder categories). This was challenged by the then office
bearers of AIFCEGEO (now AIACEGEO) & AIFCEEO (now AICEIA) in the Supreme
Court jointly under WP(C) No. 306/1988. While the matter was pending in
the Supreme Court for decision, the CBEC made a deceptive proposal
dt. 08.10.1988 in total disregard of the facts by distributing the posts within
the Customs and Central Excise on the basis of the number of Custom
Service posts and Central Excise Service posts of Asstt. Commissioner at group
A entry level. Whereas the fact is that the Customs Service Group ‘A’ and
Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ were merged w.e.f. 15th August,
1959 into a single service of Customs and Central Excise Service Group
‘A’. The Apex Court vide WP No 306/1988 without any judicial
determination accepted the proposal of CBEC of 6:1:2 ratio for promotion to
Group-A to amend the Group-A RRs in 1998.
The Superintendents of Customs Preventive filed O.A. No. 489/1999
in Hon’able CAT Mumbai Bench . The Hon’able
CAT directed in July, 2001 to consider the grievances of the
Superintendents of Customs. Against this decision of hon’able CAT, the Appraisers of Customs filed
Appeal before the Hon’able High Court
of Bombay. The Hon’able
Bombay High Court decided that Bombay CAT didn’t have
any jurisdiction of passing the orders of July,
2001. Superintendents of Customs filed an Appeal against the orders
of the Hon’able Bombay High Court
in the Hon’able Supreme Court of
India. While
the matter was pending before Hon’able Apex Court WP(C) No. 385/2010 was also filed by AIACEGEO in the Hon’able Apex
Court. The Hon.able Supreme Court delivered the
following judgment on 03.08.11 by
consensus in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010:-
“We
have heard learned
counsels for the parties in Civil Appeal No. 1198
of 2005 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 385 of 2010.
It has been brought to our notice that the Union
of India in terms of our previous order/directions dated 22nd
November, 2010 and 06th December, 2010, has filed an affidavit
in Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2005, inter alia, stating, that it
has initiated the process of reviewing the
Recruitment Rules, 1987 for promotion from Group 'B' posts to Group 'A'
posts. The entire scheme is being re-looked and worked out at the departmental
level in consultation with an expert body including the Department of Personnel
and the entire process is likely to be completed by 31st December, 2011.
In the aforesaid background, we deem
it proper and in the interest of all parties concerned to dispose of both the
Civil Appeal as also the Writ Petition without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the impugned judgment or the writ petition
but with the following directions:
1. All the 3 groups of officers in
the feeder categories, i.e., (i) Superintendents of Central Excise; (ii)
Superintendents of Customs (Preventive); and (iii) Customs Appraisers,
may make representations to the Union of India
suggesting the changes which according to them should be made
in the Recruitment Rules for their promotion to Group-A post of Assistant
Commissioner (Central Excise & Customs).
2. The Union of India shall
duly consider all such representations including those made before it in light
of the subsequent development in the cadre strength
of the 3 feeder categories of group-B
services and amend/revise the Recruitment Rules
including altering the existing ratio to secure just
and fair representation of all the 3 feeder categories.
3. Union of India shall try
to complete the entire process by 31st December, 2011, uninfluenced by any
observations made in the previous judgment of this Court in All India
Federation of Central Excise vs. Union of India &Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 520],
in which the existing ratio was approved as also the
observations in the impugned judgment dated 19th December, 2003 of the
High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1324 of 2002 with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Having
perused one of the Office Orders (No. 51/2011 dated 18th March, 2011), whereby
some officers were promoted from Group 'B' to the grade of Assistant
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise in the
Pay Band 3 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on purely ad hoc
basis, we direct that all such ad hoc promotions shall abide by the final
decision to be taken by the Department in terms of this order”.
As per Hon’able Apex
court decision dt. 3.8.2011, CBEC in its board
meeting held on dt.16.9.2011
took the decision for preparation of
RRs by altering existing ratio for 3 feeder
cadres to 13:2:1 and also
decided to make regularization of all adhoc promotions pending since
97 in old ratio under the provisions of previous RRs. The
new RRs were notified on 13.9.2012. The prayer of CBEC for amendment
of Supreme Court order dated 03.08.11 seeking clarification to make
regularisation of all adhoc promotions pending since 1997 in old ratio was
rejected by Apex Court on 30.3.2012. In the old Recruitment Rules, the
ratio of 6:1:2 was fixed very unscientifically and the same was not fixed
considering the sanctioned strength of three feeder categories for which during
the period of 1987 to 2011 one of the feeder categories namely Appraiser took the undue benefit in getting early
promotion than the seniors of other two feeder categories. The Recruitment
Rules, therefore, are required to be framed to grant promotion on the basis of
common seniority list of feeder categories instead of any ratio system. The
ratio system is also against the DOPT guidelines because the number of promotional
posts is too less. Further, the promotional
prospects of Superintendents of Central Excise were adversely affected due to
the fixation of 6:1:2 ratio in old Recruitment Rules giving undue benefit to
one of the feeder categories namely Appraisers of Customs. However, the said
ratio has been revised to 13:2:1but the adhoc promotions have not been
regularised based on the new ratio, i.e., the rules existing on the date of
regularisation. It is also pertinent to resubmit that no ratio system for promotion
to Group ‘A’ is mandated in our case as per DOPT guidelines on account of the
number of promotional posts being too less. Therefore, the promotions should be
affected on the basis of length of service in Group B gazetted cadre instead of
any ratio. As per DOPT Handbook on Recruitment Rules, the Recruitment Rules
(RRs) should be reviewed once in 5 years
vide para 3.1.5 with a view to affect such changes as are necessary to
bring them in conformity with the changed position including additions to or
reductions in the strength of the lower and higher level posts but CBEC never
implemented such instructions of DOPT. The Group-A RRs framed during 1987 were
revised during 2012 instead of every 5 years.
Hon'ble
Apex court in the case of Radhey Shyam Singh upheld that "Direct
Recruitment" made on the basis of "Zonal Examination" conducted
by SSC is contrary to Fundamental Rights. Thereby, it was struck down and the
examination on all India basis started since 1996 as per the directions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court. In the year 1999, the then
Director/Commissioner of DOPM made a self speaking elaborate noting in the
concerned file that it is unfair & unjust and also unconstitutional to have
separate cadres of (a) Inspector of Central Excise (b) Preventive Officer of
Customs &( c) Examiner of Customs and also of (d)Superintendent of Central
Excise (e) Superintendent of Customs Preventive and ( f) Appraiser of Customs
in the same service and should be merged in one single cadre at each such level
(just like in Income Tax). Subsequently after his transfer however, no efforts
were made though shown to have been made (with dilatory tactics, pre-planned
motives & conclusions) without any tangible, legal and justified results by
the CBEC as obvious from the factual position submitted under forthcoming
paras:
Present Hierarchy of executive Posts in CBEC:
Level (I) Group ‘B’ – Non Gazzetted
(i) Inspector (Central Excise).
(ii) Inspector (Preventive Officer of Customs).
(iii) Inspector (Examiner of Customs).
All recruited through
one and same process.
Level (II) Group ‘B’ Gazzetted
(i) Superintendent of Central Excise
(ii) Superintendent of Customs
(iii) Appraiser of Customs
Respective promotional post for the Level (I) posts.
Level (III) Group ‘A’ entry JTS
Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service
Tax.
Single promotional post for all Level (II) posts (filled-up
based on ratio formula against DOPT provisions because number of promotional
posts is too less).
Level (IV) Group ‘A’ STS
Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
& Service Tax.
Time scale promotional post for Group ‘A’ Asstt. Commissioner.
Level (V) Group ‘A’
Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax.
Promotional post for Group ‘A’ Deputy Commissioner.
Level (VI) Group ‘A’
Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax.
Time scale promotional post for Group ‘A’ Joint Commissioner.
Level (VII) Group ‘A’
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax.
Promotional
post for Group ‘A’ Addl. Commissioner.
Level (VIII) Group ‘A’
Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax.
Promotional post for Group ‘A’
Commissioner.
Level (IX) Group ‘A’
Member of CBEC-Promotional post for Group ‘A’ Chief
Commissioner.
Level (X) Group ‘A’
Chairman of CBEC-Promotional post for Member of CBEC.
4. Two more
levels with new pay scales have been created between Level (VIII) and Level
(IX) for Group ‘A’ officers in the current cadre restructuring.
The CBEC vide office order No.202/2014 has
regularized adhoc promote officers against vacancy years 1997-98 to
2001-02(only 5 year block). It is pertinent to note that in year 2000, the CBEC
has regularized promotions of Gr-B to Gr-A for period upto 1996-97. The
promotions from 1997-98(Gr-B to Gr-A) have since been subjected to be adhoc and
CBEC in the Board meeting held on 16.09.2011 decided to make regularization of
adhoc promotions pending since 1997. But surprisingly in the said
regularizations order No.202/2014, the ‘adhoc’ promotes of 1995 have also been
regularized. The office order No.
202/2014 has considered for regularizations of
the ‘retired’ officers promoted
from the grade of Supdt. Central Excise violating the DOPT instructions vide OM
No.22011/4/98-Estt(D) dated 12.10.1998, para 3. However, it has (correctly)
deleted names ‘retired’ officers in respect of Appraiser category officers with
an intention to favour the Appraisers. Further, the CBEC again has now
conspicuously maintained silence on the officers who are adhoc promotees
in/within Gr-A service. These officers have not been confirmed upto vacancy
year 2001-02. There are more than 100-150 number of such ‘adhoc’ promotee Gr-A
officers who were promoted on adhoc basis prior to 1.4.2002, and have been
allowed to continue in & within Group-A grades. THIS IS AGAINST THE NODAL
MINISTRY GUIDELINES[para 18.4.3, Part-VI, F.No.22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated
1-.4.1989]. By adopting such
detrimental policies, the officers of 2 feeder cadre officers of Supdt Central
Excise & Customs Preventive, are consistently subjected to discrimination
in their legitimate promotions to Group-A. Therefore this order No. 202/2014 is
required to be withdrawn.
The rule in conformity with the Law as well as Constitution of
India is that any person lower in rank & merit and selected through the
same all India combined competitive examination conducted on the basis of same
qualification for the same level posts and having been appointed in the same
organisation/service can never become superior to the other officer higher in
rank & merit and selected through
the same all India combined competitive
examination for same service in the same organisation. But the situation in the
CBEC is very astounding as the Inspectors of Central Excise of 1982 batch have
yet not been promoted to Group-A while the Preventive Officers of 1990 batch
and Examiners of 2002batch have already
been promoted to Group-A. Also the Examiners of 1984 batch are at present
Additional Commissioner whereas the 1982 batch Inspectors of Central Excise are
still Superintendent. Thus by the wrong acts of the concerned authorities, the
Superintendents/Inspectors of Central Excise are forced to work under the
junior officers recruited as Examiner.
The most of group ‘B’
gazetted officers in the Central as well as State governments are being
promoted directly to a Senior Time Scale (STS) post with Grade Pay of Rs.
6600/- in PB-3 including
CSS, CPWD, Railway Board, CSSS, AFHQ, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Forest services,
Police services, Foreign Services, Engineering services, State services etc.,
the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers are being promoted while Central Excise Superintendents are being
promoted (if any) merely to a Junior Time Scale (JTS) post with
Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3. The Superintendents of Central Excise (Group
‘B’ Gazetted post) should also be granted promotion directly to a Senior Time
Scale post with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 to maintain parity with
similarly placed employees of other departments.
Not only the promotion directly to STS post,
the counterparts of Central Excise Superintendents are also given benefit of
seniority in group ‘A’ at many places in lieu of the service rendered by them
in group ‘B’. At many places like various services in Railways, Administrative
Services, Police Services, State Services etc., the group ‘B’ gazetted officers
are allowed the weightage of minimum of 4 years at the time of entry into group
‘A’ also giving them the due benefit of seniority in lieu of the service
rendered by them in the group ‘B’. For example, the officers of Provincial
Services in Southern States enter into IAS in a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- within
8 years with 4 years of seniority benefit while the Central Excise
Superintendents are unable to enter into IRS in a lower grade pay of Rs. 5400/
even after serving for 35-40 years. They enter (if any) into IRS in a grade pay
of Rs. 5400/- only and retire at same level without any weightage for seniority
in group ‘A’. The rationale behind such
a provision of weightage or direct promotion to STS group ‘A’ is based on the
fact of the promotee officers having gained rich job experience at the time of
working as group ‘B’ officer as compared to direct recruit group ‘A’ officers.
But very unfortunately, the Central Excise Superintendents are not being given
the said benefit despite of being served for the longest period in group ‘B’ as
compared to any other category of the group ‘B’ employees of the Govt. of
India. They are not allowed the benefit of their rich experience even despite
of the Adjudication Orders also being prepared by them for the Commissioner
level officers. Before the enactment of
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ Rules, 1987, the group
‘B’ gazetted executive officers in CBEC were allowed five increments in their
group ‘A’ pay scale on promotion to group ‘A’ since senior time scale was not
available at that point of time. It is
also worth to mention that the common entry counterparts of CSS are not only
being promoted directly to a STS post after Section Officer (analogous to
Superintendent) but also reaching the level of Joint Secretary (GP-Rs.
10000/-). The position in CPWD is even more interesting where an officer with a
grade pay of Rs. 4600/- is directly being promoted to a post with a grade pay
of Rs. 6600/- (STS) and further directly to a post with the grade pay of Rs.
8700/- from a post with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/-. Thus, they don’t need to
serve on a post with a grade pay of Rs. 4800/-, 5400/- and 7600/- for promotion
to the post with a grade pay of 8700/- after entry into a post with merely a
grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. The very
purpose in framing the Human Resource Management policy through RR’s has not
been followed by the CBEC. Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been
violated on account of failure to maintain equity, fairness and justice in
recruitment/placement/promotions and all service related matters of Group ‘B’
Executive Cadres. Equality is the basic concept of Indian Constitution and,
hence, it is required to frame the Group Recruitment Rules to maintain parity
in promotions amongst the three base level Inspectors (i.e., Central Excise Inspector,
Preventive Officer and Examiner)
Recently Central
Board of Excise has forwarded a draft Recruitment Rules for Gr-A services to
DOPT without considering the grievance raised by our Association which is
pending with DOPT for concurrence. The suggestions of our
Association with reference to such draft Recruitment Rules are enclosed here
with for your kind perusal.
In view of the above, it is requested
that kindly direct the Central Board of Excise and Customs to make necessary
amendments in the RR’s retrospectively for regularizations
of all adhoc promotions since 1997 and framing of new Gr-A RRs as per our
suggestions in consonance of the Hon’able Apex Court decision dated 03.08.11
and the provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the
provisions of DOPT guidelines duly withdrawing the regularization order No. 202/2014.
Thanking you,
Enclosed- as above.
Yours faithfully,
(A.K.SHARMA)
PRESIDENT
Copy for kind information and
necessary action to
(1) Secretary, Revenue, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.
(2)
Chairman, Central Board of Excise and
Customs, North Block, New Delhi.
ANNEXURE
Suggestions
by the IRS(Indirect Taxes) Officers’ Association to amend Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A
Recruitment Rules 2014 as circulated by CBEC
1.Suggested amendment for sub-Rule 4(1)
For the
words, 'The authorised permanent strength in all grades of service and
temporary strength in the grade IX of the service', the words, ‘The authorised strength in all grades of
service’ shall be substituted.
Reason
Under
Rule 2(g) of the RRs, the ‘Post’ includes permanent as well as temporary
strength in all grades. Accordingly, authorised
strength constitutes appointment made to any post under Indian Revenue Service
(Customs and Central Excise) Group A as defined under Rule 2(g). Besides, the
temporary posts are authorised posts created by virtue of cadre restructuring,
for functional necessity. So use of the words ‘temporary’ or ‘permanent’ is
superfluous.
As far as the proposed ‘Grade IX’ is concerned, it may be pointed
out that creation of a separate Grade (grade IX) for the Assistant Commissioner
(Junior Time Scale) Customs and Central Excise, appointed against temporary
posts, lower than the Grade (VIII) of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise (Junior Time Scale), is against the basic tenets of devising any
RRs. This arbitrary gradation is a result of misconception in understanding the
distinction between the term ‘posts’ and expression ‘an officer
appointed in a grade to such posts’. Appointment in a grade may take place
through different modes of selection (i.e. by direct recruitment or by
promotion) and through different nature of posts (i.e., permanent or
temporary). The grade, however, does not change because of such variations in
manner of selection and nature of posts and remains same. Therefore, an officer
shall be treated to have been appointed in a single grade, say Assistant
Commissioner, grade, irrespective of nature of Post or nature of selection.
Creation of separate grade by way of linking it to the nature of posts (permanent
or temporary) or mode of selection (either direct recruitment or by promotion)
is grossly anomalous and is unfair with regard to framing RRs. Besides, the Central Excise Act, 1944 or
Customs Act 1962 or Finance Act 1994 makes no distinction between temporary and
regular posts of Assistant Commissioner with regards to functions and powers.
Furthermore, there is no precedence of creating different grades
in the same ranks with the same grade pay. So such a sub-division in the grade
of Assistant Commissioner is untenable. It is to be kept in mind that the
officers working as Assistant commissioner in the temporary posts are already
permanent /regular employees of Govt. of India with even more than 30 years of
service behind them.
So, any reference to ‘Grade IX’, wherever it appears in RRs, needs
to be omitted.
2. Suggested
Amendment for sub-Rule 4(2)
The
words ' permanent and temporary ' in this sub-Rule
should be deleted.
Reason
That in terms of definition under Rule 2(g) of the RR, the
authorised strength itself indicates and includes permanent as well as
temporary posts. Accordingly, the words ‘permanent and temporary ' are
superfluous.
3.Suggested Amendment
for sub-Rule 4(3)(i)
This
sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘The continuation
of the posts in temporary strength, as specified in Schedule-I, beyond the period, for which these are
initially created, shall be reviewed by the Govt based on the factors like
workload, stagnation etc. However, as long as an
officer, after appointment in the grade of Assistant commissioner against such
posts in temporary strength, remains in that grade in conformity with the
service conditions, such posts in temporary strength, against which the said
officer is appointed, shall not be declared as
abolished.’
Reasons:
The first line is superfluous as it is already mentioned in
sub-Rules 4(1) and 4(2) of this Recruitment Rule(RR) that any post, be it
permanent or temporary shall be specified in Schedule-I. It is also not
necessary to mention the trifling details like date on which any post has been
created or likely to be terminated, be it permanent or temporary. The Rules of
RR should be confined to recruitment modalities and not details of creation of
posts.
The first part of the second line regarding continuation of
the posts in temporary strength is contrary to the provision of the sub-Rule
4(2) of this RR itself where it is provided that the continuation of the posts,
be it temporary and permanent, shall be determined by the Govt. from time to
time depending on the workload. Accordingly, the provision regarding continuity
of the posts in temporary posts should be in conformity with the said provision
in the manner as proposed. This will also ensure the functional justification
of creation of any post.
The second part of the
second line is based on complete misunderstanding between the term ‘post’
and the expression ‘an officer appointed in a grade through such post’ either
by way of promotion or direct recruitment or through permanent post or
temporary post. Once the officer is appointed in a particular grade, he or she
will be regarded as belonging to the service under which the posts exist and in
this respect, no distinction can be made between officers appointed either to a
permanent post or a temporary post, by direct recruitment or by way of
promotion. The continuation of the service of that officer in that grade is in
no way dependent on the fate or tenure of the post. So the incorporation made
above to this effect linking the tenure of post and continuation of service is
outrageous and beyond the purview of law. As long as an officer, after
appointment in a particular grade against a post (permanent or temporary),
remains in that grade in conformity with the service conditions, the post
(permanent or temporary) against which the said officer is appointed cannot be
declared as abolished.
Moreover, the 2nd line is also contrary to the
Cabinet approval under CBEC F.No.
A. 11019/08/2013- Ad.IV, dated 18.12.2013, para 7 of which states
that " wherever the posts recommended for abolition are filled up
at present, such abolition will be effective on such posts being relinquished
by the existing incumbents by way of promotion, transfer, retirement,
resignation etc".
Similar amendment regarding continuation of temporary posts has
also been suggested through insertion of ‘Note’ in Schedule-I of the RR.
4. Suggested Amendment
for sub-Rule 4(3)(ii)
This
sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘As and when the vacancies arise against posts in temporary
strength, as specified in sl. No. 8 of Schedule-I, the same shall be filled up
by promotion only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-Rule
5(3)(b) read with relevant entries of Schedule-III(sl. No. 8) and
Schedule-IV(sl. No. 8)
Reasons:
The amendments proposed are in conformity with the amendments
proposed in sub-Rule 4(1), Schedule-I, III and IV of the RR opposing arbitrary,
discriminatory and unfair creation of separate grade IX for Assistant Commissioners,
promoted in temporary strength of posts defined and accordingly proposing
deletion of sl. No.9 of all the Schedules mentioned.
5. Suggested Amendment
for sub-Rule 5(2)
1)
The sub-Rule 5(2) shall be renumbered as sub-Rule
5(2)((i) and The words ‘fifty percent’ shall be substituted by ‘ upto ten per
cent’.
2) A new sub-Rule 5(2)(ii)
shall be inserted after sub-Rule 5(2)(i) in the following manner:
‘A post-based roster shall be maintained earmarking the posts
meant for direct recruits and the posts meant for promotion in the ratio
mentioned in sub-Rule 5(2) (i) and sub-Rule 5(3)(a) respectively of the RR.’
Reasons for amendment (1)
In view of the highly adverse ratio (1: 15
approx) existing between the consolidated Gr B Executive officers and their
immediate promotion grade of Assistant Commissioner, even after restructuring,
whatever has been done in the Cadre restructuring shall be diluted and the
stagnation is bound to return in short span of 1 or 2 years until and unless,
immediate other measures like promotion to STS or granting 'weightage' are
taken. Otherwise, the next lot will continue to stagnate. Therefore, as an
important measure, the ratio of 50:50 between the posts meant for direct
recruit Assistant Commissioner and that
of the promotee Assistant Commissioner should be changed to 10 (upto):90 (or more). Besides promotee
Assistant Commissioners can immediately be put to functional utility as they are
adequately trained with long real-time experience.
Reasons for amendment (2)
The provision of maintenance of post-based roster should be
incorporated here without which there will always be a possibility of erosion in
promotion quota or direct recruit quota at any point of time. The provision of
maintenance of post-based roster should be incorporated as there will always be
an erosion in promotion / direct recruit quota at any point of time. To give an
example -
The IC&CE Gr-A Recruitment Rules
2012 (earlier of 1987, 1998), stipulates the entry-level Group-A post of AC
(also termed as JTS -Junior Time Scale) in the ratio of 50% DR(UPSC) & 50% by Promotion(amongst 3 feeder categories).
The then sanctioned strength of JTS
post(Assistant Commissioner) is '949', while that of STS (Deputy Commissioner)
is '601'. The promotions are given to the JTS level 50% posts i.e. against
'475'.
The Civil List published by CBEC on its
official website "http:// www.
cbec.gov.in/deptt_offcr/civil-list2014-part2.pdf", for 01.01.2014, gives
in Part-2, the list of Gr-A officers in the grade of AC/DC. This list consists
of total '1284' Names['950' Direct-UPSC(DC:291+AC:439+AC-Probationer:220), and
'334' Promotees(Cust Appraiser:198+Supdt Cus-P:18+Supdt CX: 118 )].
This indicates that against the '949' JTS
strength (even leaving aside the DR officers who have been promoted by now);
the DR are '659 (439+220)', while promotees are just '334'. This is unjustified.
The DR should not be more than '475'.
6. Suggested Amendment
for sub-Rule 5(3)(a)
1) The sub-Rule 5(3)(a) shall be renumbered
as sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) and
the words ‘fifty percent’ shall be substituted
by ‘ninety per cent or more’.
2) A new sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(ii) shall be inserted after sub-Rule
5(3)(a)(i) in the following manner:
‘A post-based roster shall be maintained earmarking the posts
meant for direct recruits and the posts meant for promotion in the ratio
mentioned in sub-Rule 5(2)(i) and sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) respectively of the RR.’
Reasons for amendment (1) & (2)
Same as given against sub-rule 5(2) above.
7. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(3) (b)
The
entire sub-rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘One hundred percent of the vacancies in Grade
VIII (Junior Time Scale) of the service specified in sl. No. 8 of the
Schedule-I i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in the
temporary strength shall be filled by promotion from amongst the officers
mentioned in the sub-rule 5(3)(a)(i) above’.
Reasons
The amendments proposed are in conformity with the amendments
proposed in sub-Rule 4(1), Schedule-I, III and IV of the RR opposing arbitrary,
discriminatory and unfair creation of separate grade IX for Assistant Commissioners,
promoted in temporary strength of posts defined and accordingly proposing
deletion of sl. No.9 of all the Schedules mentioned.
8. Suggested Amendment for the ‘Note’ appended to after
sub-Rule 5(3)
(b) and the sub-Rule 5(4)
Both the ‘Note’ appended to after sub-Rule 5(3) (b) and the sub-Rule 5(4) shall be substituted by one new sub-Rule 5(4)
in the following manner:
‘The promotion to the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale),
i.e., Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise from amongst the all
categories of officers, mentioned in the sub-Rule 5(3) (a) (i), on the basis of
a combined eligibility list of all those categories of officers shall be
prepared with reference to the length of continuous regular service counted
from the respective base level Executive grade of Inspector/Preventive
Officer/Examiner.”
Reasons
(A)
The disparity in promotional opportunity amongst the 3 feeder
streams of Supdt. Central Excise, Supdt.
Customs Preventive and Appraiser is well known and has been categorically
acknowledged by the Board in the Minutes of the meeting dated 11.02.2011. In
the said Minutes, it was also pointed out that promotion on the basis of ratio
(even after revision) is not enough to redress the disparity and that the promotion to JTS level on the basis of
base cadre seniority is a much better redress under the present dispensation.
The base cadre seniority at present is feasible proposition because of the
discontinuation of direct recruit Appraisers/Supdt Experts and, existence of all
India merit list in the examination for base cadre recruits.
Considering the acute stagnation in
the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise relaxation of Recruitment Rules
can be resorted to in respect of a class or category of persons as per provision
of Para 4.3, of PART IV on AMENDMENTS AND RELAXATIONS, of 'the Guidelines on
Framing/Amendment/Relaxation of RRs' issued by DoP&T in 2010. This is also in conformity with
the Article 309 of the Constitution of India which is primarily designed
to obtain fairness and equity in recruitment, promotions and other service
related matters. As the Superintendents of Central Excise are getting just
one promotion unlike the officers of other Department, RR should be framed
accordingly to bring just, fairness and parity.
(B)The separate provision for ‘Note’
after sub-Rule 5(3) (b) is not necessary as a
combined eligibility list for all categories of Group B officers, mentioned in
the sub-Rule 5(3)
(a) (i), have been proposed to be prepared in the amended consolidated sub-Rule
5(4) which includes the categories mentioned in the said ‘Note’.
9. Suggested Amendment for Rule 5(4)
It should be substituted as below:
The vacancies to be filled by promotion shall be filled from the
categories mentioned in 5 3 (a) (i)
Suggested Amendment by way of insertion of of ‘Note’ after the amended sub-Rule 5(4)
The following ‘Note’ shall be inserted after the sub-Rule
5(4) in the following manner:
“Note : It must be ensured that at all points of time, the
parity in promotion in respect all the 3 feeder cadres to Grade VIII, i.e.,
amongst the cadres of Supdt. Central Excise, Supdt.
Customs Preventive and Appraiser, is maintained with reference to such
eligibility list based on base cadre seniority. This can be achieved either by
giving the entire promotion vacancies available to the feeder cadre/s, which
is/are ahead of other feeder cadre/s by the yardstick of base cadre seniority,
at the time of promotion, to the other feeder cadre/s which is/are lagging
behind till such parity is reached, or otherwise.”
Reasons
The disparity once crept into amongst equally placed
cadres by way of resorting to inequitable promotion policy cannot be wiped out
merely by giving promotion on the basis of
eligibility list based on base cadre seniority. This can be achieved by
way of allowing promotion to the cadre which is lagging behind till the time
parity is maintained with the cadre
which are unjustly ahead of other cadres with reference to the date of
joining/position in the seniority list by virtue of inequitable promotion
policy.
10. Suggested Amendment for sub-Rule 5(5) (i)
The
entire sub-Rule shall be substituted in the following manner:
‘Appointments
in the grade VII of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Senior
Time Scale) shall be made by promotion from amongst the officers in the lower
grades in the following manner:
i)
Officers
who have either completed 4 years of regular service in the grade VIII,
or
ii)
Officers
who have completed 6 years of combined regular service in the Grade VIII and
feeder cadres of Grade VIII, taken together,
Reason
(A)
The Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central excise (Senior Time
Scale) in Grade VII is not a distinct functional grade with any higher level of
responsibilities or any change of command than those associated with the grade
of Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Junior Time Scale) in
Grade VIII. The creation of such grade is essentially mitigatory and intended
to alleviate the stagnation. It is akin to grant of the scale of pay in the
mode of prevalent non-functional selection grade (NFSG). Accordingly, declaring
those officers as Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central excise (Senior
Time Scale) in Grade VII who have already attained the pay scale and grade pay
assigned to such grade and/or have completed the combined qualifying service is
only logical and fair.
Most of the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers in the Central as
well as State governments are being promoted directly to a Senior Time
Scale (STS) posts with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 including CSS,
CPWD, Railway Board, CSSS, AFHQ, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Forest services,
Police services, Foreign Services, Engineering services, State services etc.,
whereas the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers of CBEC are being
promoted merely to a Junior Time Scale (JTS) post with Grade
Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3. These Gr-A
officers should also be granted promotion directly to a Senior Time Scale post
with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- in PB-3 to maintain parity with similarly placed
employees of CSS & other Central Ministries/Departments.
Apart from the promotion directly to STS post, the
counterparts of Gazetted Gr-B officers of CBEC are also given
benefit of seniority in group ‘A’ at many places in lieu of the service
rendered by them in group ‘B’ in various services in Railways, Administrative
Services, Police Services, State Services etc., these group ‘B’ gazetted
officers are also allowed the weightage of minimum of four years at the time of
entry into group ‘A’, giving them the due benefit of seniority in lieu of the
service rendered by them in the group ‘B’.
The
position in CPWD is even more encouraging where an officer with a grade pay of
Rs. 4600/- is being directly promoted to a post with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/-
(STS) and further directly to a post with the grade pay of Rs. 8700/- . Thus,
they don’t need to serve on a post with a grade pay of Rs. 4800/-, 5400/- and
7600/- for promotion to the post with a grade pay of 8700/- after entry into a
post with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. Whereas in CBEC the Inspector Central Excise
who is recruited at Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- is not allowed to move beyond the
Rs.5400/- grade pay.
It is known fact that, the Group-B non Gazetted officers
of CBEC and Assistants of the Central Secretariat Services (CSS), being
analogous posts, are recruited through a common entrance examination conducted
by the Staff Selection Commission, with common scale of pay.
(B)
The condition, given in the last line of the sub-Rule 5(5)(i)
of the draft circulated by the Board, that “the service rendered by the
officers in temporary post in Junior Time scale shall not be counted as
‘regular service’ for the purpose of promotion to higher grade(s)” is in
conflict with the definition of ‘regular service’ given in sub-rule 2(h) ibid.
It flows from complete misunderstanding between the term ‘post’ and the
expression ‘an officer appointed in a grade through such post’ either by
way of promotion or direct recruitment or through permanent post or temporary
post. Once the officer is appointed in a particular grade, he or she will be
regarded as belonging to the service under which the posts exist and in this
respect, no difference can be made between officers appointed either through
permanent post or through temporary post, by direct recruit or by way of
promotion. The continuation or counting of the regular service of that officer
in that grade is in no way dependent on the fate or tenure of the post. So the
service rendered by an officer in the grade of Assistant Commissioner (junior
time scale) has to be regarded as ‘regular service’ irrespective of appointment
by way of promotion or direct recruitment or to a permanent post or temporary
post. Therefore, the above provision which seeks to preclude any further
elevation of the Assistant Commissioners promoted against temporary posts is
wholly arbitrary and legally untenable.
11. Suggested Amendment for sub-rule 5(5)(iii)
The entire sub-rule 5(5)(iii) shall be deleted.
Reason
The Rule is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. It has emanated from the complete misunderstanding and misconception of
creating separate grade for Assistant commissioner appointed through temporary
strength. The fact, that the same is completely anomalous and unjust, has
already been elaborated in the ‘reasons’ given under the proposed amendment of
sub-Rule 4(1) of the draft RR circulated by the Board. The contention that the service
rendered by the Assistant Commissioners appointed through temporary strength
can not be treated as regular service is also equally unjust and bad in law for
the reasons elaborated in the ‘reasons’ (B) given under sub-Rule 5(5)(i) above.
Accordingly, this sub-Rule 5(5)(iii) deserves to be deleted in its entirety.
The manner of appointment in the grade of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise
(Senior Time Scale) (Grade VII) is already incorporated exhaustively in the
sub-Rule 5(5)(i) of the proposed amendment.
12. Suggested
Amendment for sub-Rule 6
The
words ‘by promotion in Junior scale’ shall be deleted.
Reason
This
clause is essentially meant for new entrants. The officers on promotion after
25 years of service and endowed with vast
experience should be given due weightage and be exempted from such
probation/confirmation.
13. Suggested
Amendment for Schedule-I to the RR
The
following amendments shall be made in respect of Schedule- I:
(A) Sl.
No. 8 The entries in Col. (3)
showing ‘Number of Posts’, shall be substituted in the following manner:
(a) Permanent strength- 1249
(b) Temporary strength- 2118*
(B) Sl. No. 9 To
be deleted entirely
(C) The
existing ‘Note’ at the end of Schedule_I shall remain as ‘Note 1’
and
a ‘Note 2’ shall be inserted after the ‘Note 1’ in the
following manner:
Note
2: The continuation of the temporary
post beyond the period for which these are created shall be reviewed by the
Govt based on the factors of workload, stagnation etc.
However, as long as an officer, after appointment in a particular grade against
a post (permanent or temporary), remains in that grade in conformity with the
service conditions, the post (permanent or temporary) against which the said
officer is appointed shall not be declared as
abolished.
Reason
(A) & (B): The creation of
separate grade for Assistant commissioner appointed through temporary strength
is a result of complete misunderstanding and misconception. The fact, that the
same is completely anomalous and unjust, has already been elaborated in the
‘reasons’ given under the proposed amendment of sub-Rule 4(1) of the draft RR
circulated by the Board. So, there can be only single grade of Assistant
Commissioner irrespective of the nature of post (temporary or permanent) and
irrespective of nature of selection (Direct recruitment or promotion). So, the
clause ‘Grade IX’, wherever it appears, needs to be omitted.
Now, the definition
of the term ‘post’ under Rule 2(g) ibid, includes permanent as well as temporary post in all grades.
Accordingly, the authorised strength (Number of
Posts) of a particular grade should necessarily indicates and includes
appointment in any post, temporary as well as permanent, under Indian Revenue
Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group A Recruitment Rules. As there can be
only one grade of Assistant Commissioner, the mentioning of both the permanent
and the temporary post in the relevant column against the sl. No. 8 of the
Schedule-I (meant for the grade Assistant Commissioner (junior time scale) in
Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity.
(C) The insertion of the ‘Note’ regarding continuation of
temporary posts is in conformity with the amendment proposed in sub-Rule
4(3)(i) and the provision under sub-Rule 4(2). The detailed reason have already
been incorporated along with the amendment proposed for sub-Rule 4(3)(i) of the
RR.
14. Suggested Amendment for Schedule-III
of RR
The
following amendments shall be made in respect of Schedule III:
(A) Sl.
No. 7 The entries in Col. (4)
showing ‘Field of Selection, Grade and the minimum qualifying service for
promotion’, shall be substituted in the following manner :
‘Appointments
in the grade of Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Senior Time
Scale) (Grade VII) shall be made by promotion in accordance with sub-Rule
5(5)(i).’
(B) Sl.
No. 8 (1) The entries in Col. (3) showing ‘Method of recruitment’ shall
be substituted in the following manner:
(a) For Permanent strength
(i)
Upto 10% by Direct Recruitment
(ii)
90% or more by Promotion
(b) For Temporary strength
-100%
by Promotion
(2) In the entries in Col. (4) showing ‘Field
of Selection, Grade and the minimum qualifying service for promotion’, for the
words, ‘Fifty percent of the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale) shall
be filled by promotion in accordance with Rule 5(3)(a)’, the following
words shall be substituted :
‘Ninety
percent or more of the vacancies in Grade VIII (Junior Time Scale) shall be
filled by promotion in accordance with sub-Rule 5(3)(a)(i) and sub-Rule 5(4)’
(C) Sl. No. 9 To
be deleted entirely.
Reason
(A) :
For reasons as already appended to against sub-rule 5(5)(i) above.
(B) & (C): For
reasons as already appended to against sub-Rule 5(2)(i), 5(3)(a)(i) and also
for reasons appended to against the proposed amendment of Schedule-I above. As there can be only one grade of Assistant Commissioner,
the mentioning of both the permanent and the temporary post in the relevant
column against the sl. No. 8 of the Schedule-III (meant for the grade Assistant
Commissioner (junior time scale) in Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity and
that the the sl. No. 9 showing a different grade of Assistant Commissioner has
to be deleted.
15. Suggested Amendment for Schedule-IV
of RR
The following amendments shall be made in respect of of
Schedule-IV of RR:
(A)
Sl. No. 8 The entries in column 3 showing ‘DPC/DSC
for Non-Functional Selection Grade’
shall be substituted in the
following manner.
(B)
Sl. No. 9 To be deleted entirely.
Reason
For reasons as already appended to against Schedule-I and
III above and also for the reason that for a single grade, the constitution of
the DPC should be identical. The role of UPSC should be confined to direct
recruitment of officers to Group-A at entry level grade. It should not be
involved for promotion of officers to Group-A level. As
there can be only one grade of Assistant Commissioner, the mentioning of both
the permanent and the temporary post in the relevant column against the sl. No.
8 of the Schedule-IV (meant for the grade Assistant Commissioner (junior time
scale) in Grade VIII), therefore, is a necessity and that the sl. No. 9 showing
a different grade of Assistant Commissioner has to be deleted.
