ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL
EXCISE
GAZETTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:
Address for communication:
Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh
240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena,
Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K.
Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay
Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh,
Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore,
Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
(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. 113/AIB/G/17
Dt. 28.09.17
To,
Sh. Arun Jaitley,
Hon’ble Minister of
Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub:
Implementation of New National Litigation Policy.
Sir,
With
due regards, no need to say that every member of the Association is already
under the process of doing the best with full dedication and determination for
successful and smooth implementation of the GST throughout the country in the
interest of govt. revenue like ever.
2. It is further submitted that the officers have some
legitimate expectations from your goodself which include the reduction in
unwarranted litigations and appeals in the cases relating to the service
matters. It is worth to mention in this regard that several appeals pertaining
to revenue have been withdrawn from CESTAT and High Courts as per the New
Litigation Policy. But there is no such initiative for service matters and the
officers are suffering because of apathy of the administration on the issue. The
service matters being unresolved, the litigations on the service matters are on
regular increase bearing high cost of government time and expenditure in
unwarranted manner.
3. The present Litigation Policy emphasizes on
reducing the litigations. Lakhs of cases are pending in appellate courts because
of indiscriminate filing of appeals by the govt. departments. Thereby, a lot of
money and energy are being wasted in unwarranted litigations for the want of
the redressal of the issues and the Hon’ble Courts are also getting piled up
with the unwarranted pendencies.
4. The new Litigation Policy states as under–
Clause C) Given that Tribunalisation is meant to remove
the loads from Courts, challenge to orders of Tribunals should be an exception
and not a matter of routine.
Clause D) In service Matters, no appeal will be filed
in cases where:
a) the matter pertains to an
individual grievance without any major
repercussion;
Clause E)
Further, proceedings will not be filed in service matters merely because the
order of the Administrative Tribunal affects a number of employees. Appeals
will not be filed to espouse the cause of one section of employees against
another.
Clause F)
Proceedings will be filed challenging orders of Administrative Tribunals only
if-
a)
There is a clear error of record and the finding has been entered against the
Government.
b)
The judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to a service rule or its
interpretation by a High Court or the Supreme Court.
c)
The judgement would impact the working of the administration in terms of morale
of the service, the Government is compelled to file a petition; or
d)
If the judgement will have recurring implications upon other cadres or if the
judgment involves huge financial claims being made.
5.
No need to say that the Hon’ble Prime Minister also emphasized on reduction of
litigations in the recently concluded Rajasva Gyan Sangam as also evident from
letter DO.No.26/CH/(EC)/2017 Dt. 08.09.17 of the Chairman of CBEC.
6.
It is regretted that CBIC/CBEC is taking no cognizance of the guidelines
provided in the Litigation Policy and appeals are being filed against the
orders of CAT/High Court to suffer the officers endlessly. The officers are
forced to go to the CAT/High Court even in same matters which have already been
finalized by the Hon’ble Higher Courts/Apex Court. The verdicts, in which no
appeal has been made, are also not being implemented. The employees are forced
to go to the legal courts even in the matters which can be settled
administratively very easily. If the issues are to be settled by the legal
courts only, there seems no use of any administrative machinery or employee
grievance redressal mechanism.
7.
There are so many verdicts of the various courts, which are unimplemented in
CBEC. A few burning examples are as below-
i)
Order given on 24.02.95 in OA No.
541/1994 by the Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur. It is worth to submit that no
appeal was made against this order. Despite of expiry of more than 22 years and
repeated requests by the Association, the order is still unimplemented.
ii)
Order given on 06.09.10 in WP No. 13225/2010 by
the Hon’ble High Court of Madras
in
Subramanium case against which the CBEC is already in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. The order has, however, been
implemented in persona instead in rem.
iii)
Order given on 08.12.2014 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 19024/ 2014 in
Chandrasekaran case against which the CBEC is already in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court despite of the SLP of the Department of Revenue being dismissed in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on the same issue in Balakrisnan case (WP 11535/2014 decided
by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras).
iv)
Order given on 21.06.17 in OA No. 633/2015
by the Hon’ble CAT of Mumbai.
v)
Order given on 01.03.17 in OA No. 2323/2012
by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi. The
four month time granted by the Hon’ble CAT has already expired in this case.
vi) Order given on 12.05.16 in OA No. 3405/2014 by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi.
vii) General
implementation of court orders in rem in case of single applicant or a few
applicants in the light of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. &
Ors. V.K. Kapoor & Anr. JT 2007 (12) 439, Inderpal Singh Yadav & Ors., State
of Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trymbak Choudhary by order dated 20.02.2007, 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 etc. 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.”
8.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly issue necessary instructions to
the CBEC for the sake of saving the officers from unnecessary harassment and
litigation-
i)
To redress the genuine grievances of the employees administratively to de-motivate
them to go to the legal courts without leaving any scope for litigation.
ii)
To examine all legal cases relating to service matters in the light of the guidelines
given in Litigation Policy.
iii)
To implement the court orders in true spirit without challenging in higher
courts and
iv)
To withdraw the appeals from High Court and Supreme Court in service matters as
has been done in appeals pertaining to Revenue.
By this, not only the hard earned money,
energy and time of the officers will be saved to be utilized in a positive
manner for Nation building and service of the people but it will also save the
litigation cost incurred by the Govt. as well as precious time of
administrative machinery.
Thanking
you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the
request for necessary action to:
1) The Hon’ble
Prime Minister, South Block, New Delhi.
2) The Hon’ble Minister
of State, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
3) The
Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
4) The
Chairperson, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
5) The Member
(Admn), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
(RAVI MALIK)
