Wednesday, 3 January 2018
IRS transfer policy, MACP benchmark
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Ref. No. 01/AIB/T/17 Dt. 01.01.17
The Addl. Director General (HRM-II),
DGHRD, New Delhi.
Sub: Suggestions regarding draft transfer/placement guidelines for Indian Revenue Service (C&CE) officers.
Kindly refer to the draft transfer/placement guidelines for Indian Revenue Service (C&CE) officers placed on the website of the department.
2. With due regards, the following suggestions are submitted for kind consideration-
(i) Regarding para 11.3, it has been mentioned that the officers having less than 3 years of service left may be posted to their choice of region/zone. This is a welcome gesture by the Board but the cutoff date for calculating 3 years has not been mentioned. Para 7.1 of the draft policy, however, says that the cutoff date for transfer would be taken as 31st March. It is understood by it that the CBEC may take 31st March as cutoff date for calculating 3 years period for retirement. In this regard, it is submitted that 30th June has been considered as cutoff date for all purposes till now. Last time also while sending the promoted officers out of region/zones, 30th June was taken as cutoff date and many officers having even a few days more than 3 years had to go out. Accordingly, the cutoff date may kindly be taken as 30th June as being considered till last transfer order.
(ii) The period of more than 9 months has been mentioned to be treated as a complete year in para 7.1. In consonance of it, the officers having less than 3 years and 3 months service left may kindly be posted to their choice of region/zone.
(iii) Para 3.2 deals with placement committee and placement of officers of the level of Addl. Commissioner and below. The draft proposal is that all the officers would be placed at the disposal of the Committee of Chief Commissioners for the posting in respective zone. It is worth to submit in this regard that the promotee Asstt. Commissioners were directly posted to Customs Zones in 2014. But now it appears that henceforth the promotee Asstt. Commissioners from Central Excise wouldn’t get exposure of Customs as the postings in Customs will be given on the basis of the tenure spent in CGST. In the zones such as Mumbai and Gujarat where Customs postings are fairly better, the promotee group A officers who are first posted to Central Excise/CGST wouldn’t be able to make into Customs even after 3 years on account of being promoted on fag end of the career. Under such circumstances, the promotee Asstt. Commissioners of Central Excise will never be able to get Customs posting for the want of required tenure on account of their residual service being short. For this, a certain ratio for promotee group A officers of Central Excise stream may kindly be fixed which may be 13 out of 16 for due exposure to Customs as intended under para 4.8 of the draft.
(iv) Regarding para 4.6, officers on promotion from Group B having balance service of 5 years or less may kindly not be transferred out of the station where they were working at the time of promotion except willing ones. This issue was also discussed with the Chairperson prior to last promotion orders and she was pleased to agree to it. The reason behind it is that these officers are prone to various old age diseases on account of getting promotion on fag end of career without benefit of even a single rupee and having regular treatment at the existing station. All of them are also busy to fulfill their family obligations like settlement of the career issues of young wards, settlement of marriage of their wards particularly daughters, care of old & ailing parents being under medical supervision at the existing station etc. If they are transferred at this stage, neither they shall be able to fulfill their family obligations nor be able to transfer whole family to new place or have double settlements, one at the old place and another at the new place due to financial constraints. However, these officers are not required to be transferred to other zones, if vacancies exist in their own zone as was also followed in earlier orders including October, 2014. If vacancies don’t exist, the youngest officers may be transferred to nearby zone and called back to the parent zone as soon as vacancies occur. If the change is inevitable, their station may be changed within their own zone.
3. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly give due consideration to the above mentioned points to finalise the transfer/placement guidelines for Indian Revenue Service (C&CE) officers.
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
1) DG, HRD, CBEC, New Delhi.
2) Member (Admn.), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
3) Chairperson, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
4) Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Ref. No. 03/AIB/B/17 Dt. 03.01.18
DOPT, North Block,
Sub: Benchmark for MACP upgradation.
With due regards, it is to submit that the benchmark for MACP upgradation has been prescribed to be “very good” for all posts w.e.f. 25.07.16 vide DOPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) Dt. 28.09.16.
2. It is further submitted that the clarification given to CBEC by the DOPT on the issue says that the officers having post 2009 ACRs/APARs with at least “very good” grading now would only be eligible to get MACP upgradation.
3. No need to say that new condition would make it difficult for employees to avail MACP upgradation. New benchmark is more stringent then earlier benchmark and the employees will suffer more as they may find it difficult to meet this requirement. The change of benchmark from ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’ may only have prospective effect as many employees may find it impossible to meet the benchmark based on the said change.
4. Thus, the grant of MACP upgradation on the basis of the reports of earlier years when the said stipulation of ‘Very Good’ was not in existence must be calibrated on the basis of the earlier stipulation of the benchmark being `Good’.
5. In the clarification given to the CBEC by the DOPT, it has also been mentioned that there is no question of allowing IInd opportunity of representation against the APAR which are post-2009 as these are already disclosed to the employees. Regarding this, it is to submit that the benchmark was ‘good’ at the time of said disclosure. The benchmark has been changed to ‘very good’ vide the DOPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) Dt. 28.09.16 only. Accordingly, this provision needs to be reviewed.
6. In view of the above, it is requested to review the DOPT OM No. 35034/3/2015-Estt(D) Dt. 28.09.16 accordingly.