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
Mob.7780255361
mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com,
Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9868816290
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)
Office Secretary: C.
S. Sharma Treasuer: N.
R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(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. 45/AIB/L/18
Dt. 19.02.18
To,
The
Secretary,
DOPT, North
Block,
New Delhi.
Sub: Accumulation of
Earned Leaves.
Sir,
Inviting your kind attention to the
verdict given in CWP 13702/2014 (Date of decision-05.10.16) by the Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab & Haryana, it is to submit with due regards that the unused
Earned Leaves of govt. employees are being credited to the limit of 300 only
which is the limit of encashment also.
2. It is further to submit that the
unused Earned Leaves of the employees are being reduced to 300 without any
valid reason. The Hon’ble Court also took the matter seriously and termed this
practice to be mischievous.
3. No need to submit that there is no limit of accumulation
of Half Pay Leaves. Accordingly, Earned Leaves may also be accumulated in actual
number without any limit.
4. Further, there seems no valid reason also in keeping the
limit of 300 to the encashment of Earned Leaves. As is clear from the name
itself, these leaves are earned by the govt. employee in lieu of the service rendered
by availing minimum leaves. So, the cap of 300 for encashment is also required
to be removed for encashment.
5. In view of the above, it is requested that-
i) The limit of 300 of accumulation of Earned Leaves may
kindly be undone as per the verdict given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
& Haryana by crediting the actual number of leaves in the account of the employees
like Half Pay Leave.
ii) The cap of 300 for encashment of Earned Leaves may also
kindly be removed by encashing the actual number of Earned Leaves.
iii) Not only it, the Half Pay Leaves may also kindly be
encashed.
No need to say that it would motivate the employees to avail
minimum leaves enabling them to be available for work in the maximum possible
manner.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
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
Mob.7780255361
mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com,
Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9868816290
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)
Office Secretary: C.
S. Sharma Treasuer: N.
R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(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. 46/AIB/V/18
Dt. 19.02.18
To,
Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna,
Chairperson, CBEC,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Orders of Supreme
Court, High Courts and CESTAT accepted by the Departmentand and on which no review
petitions, SLPs have been filed-reg.
Madam,
Kindly
refer to the Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX issued vide F.No. 116/2/2018-CX 3 Dt.
16.02.18 accepting the orders of Supreme Court, High Courts and CESTAT and not filing
review petitions or SLPs. It is worth to
mention that the same approach is not being adopted by the CBEC in the service
matters.
2.
Your kind attention is also invited to the Ref. No. 113/AIB/G/17 Dt. 28.09.17
and 120/AIB/G/17 Dt. 11.10.17 of the Association including others in r/o legal
verdicts and the recommendations made by the CBEC.
3. It is really painful 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 relating to service matters. 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, NFU at par with CSS, minimum
five functional promotions, FCS/DACP, uniform promotional hierarchy including
promotion of Superintendent directly to STS, merger of Level-9 and 10, in-situ
promotion scheme, scheme independent of cadre restructuring to remove
stagnation etc. 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.
4.
It is reiterated that the officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even
in the same matters which have already been finalized by the Hon’ble Higher
Courts/Apex Court. No need to say that the verdicts finalized by the Apex Court
are always to be treated as the Law of Land. The verdicts, in which no appeal
has been made, are also not being implemented.
5.
The latest example of unwarranted litigation is the dismissal of the SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the Subramanium case on 10.10.17 involving the issue of
the grant of the time scale on completion of 4 years of service after getting
Ist ACP/MACP upgradation to our officers joining as Inspector which is yet to
be implemented in general despite of being finalized at the level of the Apex
Court. 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.
6.
The Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of 2011 filed by
the CBEC 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.
7.
The offset of the MACP upgradation
with time scale is also liable to be scrapped since its initiation as per the
verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Nurses
Union (Regd.) Vs. U.O.I.
dismissing the Appeal of Union of India on 04.03.2013 in SLP(C) No. 010607/2013 filed against W. P.
(C) 5146/2012.
8.
Para 8.1 has also been duly discussed in the case
of U.O.I. & Others versus Sri
S. Balakrishnan & Ors. (WP 11535 / 2014 decided by the Hon’ble
High Court of Madras on 16.10.2014). The Hon’ble High Court decided that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-
in PB-3 is not a higher Grade Pay than the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2
and the immediate next higher Grade Pay to the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- is
Rs.6600/-. The Hon’ble High Court also held that this para has
been misinterpreted and the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on
non-functional basis cannot be counted as Financial Up-gradation for the
purpose of the MACP upgradation. The SLP
No.15396/2015 filed by the UOI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the
judgement dated 16.10.2014 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court was dismissed by
the Apex Court on 31.08.2015. Thus, the judgement dated 16.10.2014 of the
Hon’ble Madras High Court has attained finality and our officers are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- on
MACP upgradation after time scale of Rs. 5400/-.
9. As far as the
grant of MACP upgradation in promotional hierarchy is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 7467/2013 filed by the
Government against the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Chandigarh in CWP
No. 19387/2011 has already confirmed the order dated 31.05.11 of
Chandigarh CAT for grant of MACP upgradation in the promotional hierarchy. The Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400/ in PB2 being a new pay slab and not being existed in the
promotional hierarchy, the para 8.1 of the MACP instructions is automatically
amounts to be scrapped since its initiation based on the said verdict of the Apex
court.
10.
In the case of Union of India and
Ors. Vs Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. in Civil
Appeal Diary No. 3744 OF 2016, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the MACPS is to be implemented since
01.01.06 instead of 01.09.08. Accordingly, our officers completing 20 years on
or before 01.01.06 should be granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- on IInd MACP
upgradation on 01.01.06 ignoring time scale, the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- being
kept only for the purpose of time scale as in CSS. If such officers are granted
the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- as MACP upgradation without ignoring the time
scale, their juniors will get higher grade pay (pay level) than them. Thus, our
officers after joining as Inspector should be granted Level-8 or equivalent on
Ist MACP upgradation, then time scale in Level-10 or equivalent, further
Level-11 or equivalent on IInd MACP upgradation and Level-12 or equivalent on
IIIrd MACP upgradation under the present scenario.
11.
There are so many other verdicts of the various courts, which are also
unimplemented in CBEC. A few burning examples are as below -
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 despite of the SLP No.15396/2015
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).
iii)
Order Dt. 21.06.17 in OA No. 633/2015
by the Hon’ble CAT of Mumbai.
iv)
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.
v)
Order Dt. 12.05.16 in OA No. 3405/2014
by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi.
12. General implementation of court orders
in rem 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.”
13.
In view of the above, it is requested to kindly-
i)
Implement the various court verdicts to give the benefit to the employees and
redress the grievances of the employees administratively to avoid unwarranted
litigations without going to review petitions, appeals or SLPs as done in
revenue matters.
ii)
To withdraw the reviews/appeals/SLPs from CATs/High Courts and Supreme Court in
service matters as has been done in revenue matters and further not to file appeals/SLPs/reviews
in service matters at least on the issues already decided by the Apex Court or
already recommended/accepted by the CBEC.
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:
The
Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
(RAVI
MALIK)
