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, M. Jegannathan (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 T reasuer: 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. 277/AIB/MACP/18 Dt. 22.10.18
To,
The
Secretary,
DOPT,
North Block,
New
Delhi.
Sub: Para 8.1 of MACP Scheme and
offsetting of time scale with MACP upgradation.
Sir,
It is to submit with due regards
that the single Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 and PB3 has been mentioned as
separate grade pays under para 8.1 of MACP Scheme. Not only it, one MACP
upgradation has also been offset with the time scale granted after serving for
4 years in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. As a result, our officers are getting
after 30 years of service under MACPS what they were able to get after 24 years
of service under ACP Scheme.
2. In the verdict given by the Madras High Court in Writ Petition
No. 11535/2014, it has been upheld that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in
PB-2 & PB-3 is
one and the same thing. It was also decided in this case that the time scale
can’t be offset with the MACP upgradation. SLP (C) 15396 of 2015 filed by the
Govt. was also dismissed in this case. It is also worth to submit that the
next Grade Pay after Rs. 5400/- is Rs. 6600/-.
3. In the verdict given
by the High Court of Delhi in the W.P.(C) No. 9357/2016, it was upheld that
non-functional financial upgradation (time scale) is not MACP upgradation. This
order of the High Court has already been implemented vide office order No.
190/E-IV/Estt/DHC Dt. 23.02.18 without preferring any appeal in it.
4. In W.P. (C) 5146/2012 also, the High Court
of Delhi granted the next higher Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- after time scale to
the employees. The SLP(C) No. 010607/2013 filed by the Govt. was also dismissed
by the Supreme Court in this case.
5. The High
Court of Madras in WP No. 13225/2010 in Subramanium case, against which not only
the SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 filed by the CBIC was dismissed on 10.10.17 but the
review petition has also been dismissed on 23.08.18, has ruled that time
scale/NFSG would be granted on completion of 4 years after ACP/MACP upgradation
establishing
that the ACP/MACP upgradation and time scale are altogether different and can
no way be off-set with each other.
6. In SLP No. 77457/2017, the
Apex Court said, “Once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only
appropriate on the part of the Government of India to issue a circular so that
it will save the time of the court and the Administrative Departments apart
from avoiding unnecessary and avoidable expenditure.” The Hon’ble Court further
directed the Government of India to immediately look into the matter and issue
appropriate orders so that people need not unnecessarily travel either to the
Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court.
7. Thus, all of the above Court Orders have become law of land by settling
the issues to the finality. No need to say that people need not unnecessarily travel
again repeatedly to the courts on above issues.
8.
In W.P.(C) 11277/2016, Delhi High Court took serious note against the CBIC
letter Dt. 05.09.07. This letter says, “in cases where the Court orders are
adverse to the interest of the department/Government, such orders should not be
implemented without clearance of the Board”. The High Court took strong exception to this
letter and was prima facie of the opinion that this letter invites contempt of
Court. However, at the request of the ASG, the Court refrained from passing
further orders and offered an opportunity to the CBIC to withdraw the letter. Thus, it is very clear that any government
department is never above the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous not to
follow the court orders.
9. The Supreme Court in the
Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 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.”
10. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly-
i) Undo the para 8.1 of MACP Scheme and not to offset the time scale with MACP
upgradation,
ii) Grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- to the employees after time scale
of Rs. 5400/- (whether in PB2 or PB3).
iii) Grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 7600/- to the employees on being
due for next MACP upgradation after Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary
General.
