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 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. 330/AIB/S/18
Dt. 13.12.18
To,
Sh. S. Ramesh,
Chairman, CBIC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Implementation of the
Subramaniam case.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the various
representations of the Association on the subject matter.
2. Your kind attention is also invited to the verdict given on 06.12.18
in OA No. 1318/2018 by the Hon’ble CAT, Allahabad holding that the applicants are entitled to be placed and
had their pay
fixed in the Non-Functional Grade (NFG) Pay Scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in Pay
Band-II with the Grade Pay of Rs.
5400/- with all consequential
benefits with
effect from the dates that they had completed four years of service in the
Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- (i.e., pay scale of the Superintendent) alongwith the interest at such rates as
might be found just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. Further, it is to submit with due regards
that the aforesaid OA was preferred by the
applicants seeking extension of the benefits of the Judgment given by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in
the M. Subramaniam case as upheld and affirmed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was also categorically
stated in the para
4.20 of the OA that several of the applicants had approached the respondents seeking
extension of the benefits of the judgement of the Madras High Court to them
since their claim stood squarely covered by those decisions but no response had
been received by them till date.
4. Further, it was also
specifically submitted by the applicants in the para 4.22 of the OA that-
“The applicants have been advised to submit,
most humbly, that, as per the dictum of law, as it stands today, all persons
belonging to the same class are equally entitled to the benefits of a judicial
verdict if it relates generally to that class, irrespective of whether some of
the members of that class had been parties before the court or not. In this
view of the matter, once the benefits under the Subramaniam Judgement have been extended to some, they were
liable to be extended to the present applicants as well since there is
absolutely nothing to distinguish their claim from that of Sri M. Subramaniam, and the failure to do so
on the part of the respondents amounts to subjecting the present applicants to
hostile discrimination in violation of the mandate of law repeatedly and
clearly enunciated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in a catena of cases.”
5. It is also worth to mention that, vide para 7 of the
captioned Judgment, Hon’ble CAT has pointedly observed that pay fixation matters like the one it was
considering, were all governed by uniform policies of the Government and,
therefore, judgments on such matters, by their very nature, were always
judgments-in-rem and cannot be judgments-in-personam, unless so specified in
the order. This observation of the Hon’ble Tribunal is a clear and telling negation
of the stand taken by the department in the Compliance Order dated
31.10.18 issued for implementing the order
of the Madras High Court, wherein it was stated that it had been decided to
implement the same in the case of M. Subramaniam in personam.
6. Having observed as above,
the Hon’ble CAT has been pleased to order that the respondents would
ensure that the benefits of the judgment referred above are given to all the persons who are
entitled to the same whether they are retired or are in service and that this
exercise is to be completed within a month from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order.
7. Your kind attention is also invited to the letter
F. No. A-23011/62/2016-Ad.IIA Dt. 06.12.18 of the CBIC seeking information
relating to the expenditure involved in the issue. In this regard, it is to
submit that no Hon’ble Court/CAT has put any condition for the approval of the expenditure
from the Department of Expenditure to implement the issue. So, the verdict is required to be
implemented without seeking the information about the involvement of the Expenditure.
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 including Expenditure is never
above the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous not to follow the court orders
and also no clearance from any government department including the Expenditure
is required to be sought to implement the issue.
9. In view of the above, it is requested to
implement the verdict in rem at an early date giving benefit to all affected officers,
whether petitioners/non-petitioners or serving/retired without seeking the clearance for the expenditure.
Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for
necessary action to:
1. The
Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The
Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.
