ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
President: Address
for communication:
Secretary General:
R.
Chandramouli 240,
Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central);
AnuragChaudhary, Ravi Joshi (North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha,
AshwiniMajhi (East); Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand
Kishore, J. S. Aiyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, AshishVajpeyi (North); M.
Nagaraju, Ajithkumar P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East);
JasramMeena, M. K. Mishra (West) Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasurer:
N. R. MandaLiaison Secretary: A.
S. KunduCoordinator on Telangana: P.
Shravan Kumar
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No.
B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 108/M/16
Dt. 23.06.16
To,
Sh. Najib Shah,
Chairman, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Clarification
on MACP- Grant of 3rd MACP to the Superintendents in CBEC who were
granted non-functional grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in Pay Band-2 -- Reg.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the letter F.
No.A-23011/25/2015-Ad.IIA Dt. 20.06.16 of CBEC on the above subject.
2. It is
submitted with due regards that the decision taken on the issue doesn’t seem
lawful because the SLP No. 15396/2015 of
the Department of Revenue (copy of order attached) on the same issue in W.P.
No. 11535/2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has already been dismissed
by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
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. The litigation policy of the
Govt. also says to minimize the litigations. No need to say that unwarranted
litigations are neither in the interest of the employee nor govt. It is sheer
wastage of time as well money of both sides. Moreover, further litigation on
the issue from the side of the govt. is also not in consonance of the verdict
given by the Apex Court as mentioned in the preceding para. In actual terms, it
will be contempt of the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly after the dismissal of
the SLP on the same issue of the same Department of Revenue.
5. In view of the above, it is
requested to review the decision giving due benefit to all equally placed
officers without forcing them to go for legal recourse. The time scale of the
Superintendents, who got time scale after completion of 4 years of service
prior to the MACPS coming into the existence (i.e., 01.09.08), may kindly not
be offset with the MACP upgradation accordingly.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy
with the request for necessary action to:
1)
The Revenue Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
2)
The DOPT Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
3)
The Expenditure Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
(RAVI MALIK)
