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. 120/AIB/G/17
Dt. 11.10.17
To,
Sh. Arun Jaitley,
Hon’ble Minister of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub:
Implementation of New National Litigation Policy.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the Ref. No. 113/AIB/G/17 Dt. 28.09.17 of the Association on above
subject.
2.
It is further submitted that it is really unfortunate on the part of CBEC to
contest against the staffside on the issues already decided by the legal courts
or accepted/recommended by the CBEC itself. There are so many issues including
initial pay scale under Level-10 to the Central Excise Superintendents, time
scale in PB3 to group ‘B’ officers instead of PB2, arrears at par with the
Superintendents of NCB etc. which have been recommended to nodal departments or
accepted during the employee grievance redressal mechanism by the CBEC but
still remain unimplemented after expiry of long periods giving rise to unwarranted
litigations.
3.
It is reiterated that 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.
4.
Very recent example of unwarranted litigation by the CBEC is the dismissal of
their SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Subramanium case yesterday on 10.10.17
involving the issue of the grant of time scale on completion of 4 years of
service after getting Ist ACP/MACP upgradation to our officers joining as
Inspector. No need to say that the ACP and MACP upgradation is one and the same
thing as MACPS is merely the modified (or de-modified) ACPS. It is also worth
to mention that the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of 2011 filed by the
CBEC unwarrantedly was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.05.11 in
Ashok Kumar case
involving the issue of stepping-up of pay, if juniors are getting more pay than
seniors on account of ACP/MACP upgradation. General implementation of the Ashok
Kumar case is still awaited even after expiry of more than 6 years. Likewise,
we don’t know whether the Subramanium case would also be implemented in general
or not.
5.
There are so many verdicts of the various courts, which are unimplemented in
CBEC. A few burning examples as below have already been communicated to your
goodself vide above referred Ref. No. 113/AIB/G/17 Dt. 28.09.17 of the
Association-
i)
Order Dt. 24.02.95 in OA No. 541/1994
by the Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur. No appeal was made against this order but, very unfortunately, the same is still
unimplemented even after expiry of more than 22 years.
ii)
Order Dt. 08.12.14 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 Dt. 21.06.17 in OA No. 633/2015
by the Hon’ble CAT of Mumbai.
v)
Order Dt. 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 Dt. 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, order 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.”
6.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly issue necessary instructions to
the CBEC to implement the court verdicts ‘in general for all equally placed
officers instead in person’ including as mentioned in para 4 and 5 above and
redress the grievances of the employees administratively to avoid unwarranted
litigations.
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)
