ALL
INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
(Earlier
known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)
Patron
Chief Patron
Patron
A.
Venkatesh
Ravi Malik
C. S. Sharma
Mob. 7780255361 Mob. 9868816290 Mob.
9313885411
President:
Address for communication: Secretary
General:
M.
Loganathan Flat
No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Harpal Singh
Mob.8758262698 mail
Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com Site:cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9717510598
Vice Presidents: B C
Khatik, V Pagare (Central) Diwakar
Sahai, Sanjoy Gupta (East) Ashish Vajpayee, Amadul Islam (North) G Srinivas
Reddy, P Ravichandran (South) R Keny, J B Parmar (West) Joint Secretaries: S
P Pandey, T J Manojumon (Central) Subrata Adhikari, SiddharthTewari (East)
Ramkesh Meena, S Sahai (West) Atul Kumar, R B Sahu (North) Bhoopesh, R V
Raghunandan (South); All India Convener:
A K Meena All India Coordinator: B L Meena Office Secretary: B C
Gupta Treasurer: M Kumar Organising Secretary: M Bajpai Liaison
Secretary: N S Maheshwari North Zone
Coordinator: Prabhakar Sharma Legal Coordinator: S Sabarwal
Vigilance Coordinator: R K Singh South
Zone Coordinator: U Sharma
(Recognised
vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)
Ref.
No. 72/AIB/P/24
Dt. 13.09.24
To,
1. The
Secretary, 2.
The Secretary,
Department
of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
North
Block, New Delhi. North
Block, New Delhi.
3. The
Chairman,
Central
Board of Excise and Customs (now Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs),
North
Block, New Delhi.
Subject: Implementation of the
order of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 24349/2024 regarding
retrospective implementation of the pay scale revision.
Sir,
Kindly refer to earlier requests of
the Association communicating various court orders regarding retrospective
implementation of pay scale of Inspectors and Superintendents from 01.01.96 to
amend OM No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure.
2.
It is submitted with due regards that the pay scale of the Superintendents of
Central Excise (now CGST), Superintendents of Customs, Appraisers of Customs
and Income Tax Officers was revised to Rs. 7500-12000/- from Rs. 6500-10500/-
and also of Inspectors of Central Excise, Preventive Officers of Customs,
Examiners of Customs and Income Tax Inspectors to Rs. 6500-10500/- from Rs.
5500-9000/- prospectively w.e.f. 21.04.04, i.e., from the date of the issuance
of the order vide OM No.
6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure instead of 01.01.96.
Needless to say that all officers affected by the OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt.
21.04.04 are similarly circumstanced.
3. It is worth
to mention that the said order should have been implemented w.e.f. the date of
the implementation of the Central Civil Service, Revised Pay Rules, 1997, i.e.,
w.e.f. 01.01.96, since when the recommendations of the 5th Central
Pay Commission were implemented and disparity in comparison to other
counterparts occurred.
4. Income Tax Gazetted Officers
Association filed OA No. 86/2008 in the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal
of Bombay challenging the OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04. The Administrative
Tribunal found the above referred OM Dt. 21.04.04 “arbitrary and illegal” and gave order in favour of the employees.
Based on it, total 13 applicants also approached the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal of Kolkata and got the order in their favour. The govt. filed an appeal in the Hon’ble High
Court of Kolkata vide WPCT No. 21 of 2015 against the order of the Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal of Kolkata.
Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata vide order Dt. 03.05.23 directed to form a
special anomaly committee to decide the issue. Based on the report/decision of
the said committee, the benefit of the OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 has
been granted retrospectively from 01.01.96 to 13 Income Tax Officers.
5. Your kind attention is also
invited to the common order given in OA No. 323/2012 and 345/2021 by the
Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal of Bombay filed by the Central Excise
Inspectors Association and Central Tax Superintendents Association. The Hon’ble
Tribunal ordered to refer the matter for grant of benefit on actual basis to
the already constituted special anomaly committee and decide the same based on
judicial pronouncements and law and also the judgements given by the Hon’ble
Tribunal and other courts wherein the actual benefits have already been
extended w.e.f. 01.01.96 to the employees.
6. The govt. also filed WP No. 9649
against the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal of Bombay in
OA No. 86/2008 which was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay vide order Dt.
08.12.23.
7. The Hon’ble High
Court of Ernakulum vide common order delivered in OP (CAT) NO. 1 OF 2023, OP (CAT) NO. 139 OF 2023, OP (CAT) NO. 132 OF
2023, OP (CAT) NO. 133 OF 2023, OP (CAT) NO. 167 OF 2023, OP (CAT) NO. 173 OF
2023 & OP (CAT) NO. 175 OF 2023 also gave the retrospective benefit
of pay scale to the employees.
8. Your kind
attention is also invited to the order given by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 24349/2024
(copy enclosed). The Hon’ble High Court has also ordered in favour of the
Central Excise (now CGST) Inspectors and Superintendents to give the
retrospective benefit of pay scale following its own order in Writ Petition No. 10490/2024.
9. Your kind
attention is also invited to the order Dt. 09.09.24 given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Petition
for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2944/2024 (copy enclosed) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court
directed as below-
“4. We
agree with the views taken by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal that
the respondents/employees were discriminated in the matter of grant of benefit
of Fifth Central Pay Commission and the High Court has rightly held that in
order to bring them on parity with the other similarly circumstances employees,
they were entitled to the revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996.
5. We
direct the petitioner(s) to clear the arrears within a period of six months
from today.”
No need to submit
that any order given by the Apex Court is always called as law of land and
equally applicable to similarly circumstanced persons.
10. There already exist
so many orders of so many courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
benefit of such matters is to be given to all similarly positioned persons.
Same has been intended in the National Litigation Policy to minimise the
litigations and not to force all equally placed/positioned persons to approach
the legal courts on the same matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ordered
the govt. on various occasions to issue the circular to this effect to minimize
the litigations to save the precious time of the Hon’ble courts and not to
force the similarly situated persons to approach the courts.
11. Your kind
attention is also invited to the order on the issue given by the Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2544/2015. In this order, the
Hon’ble CAT has specifically ordered that the benefit of upgraded pay scales is
to be given to all eligible employees with effect from 01.01.96 irrespective of
the fact whether they have approached an appropriate judicial forum for the
same or not as under-
“Before parting we would also express a
hope that the competent authority shall on its own extend the benefit of
upgraded pay scales to all eligible employees with effect from 01.01.1996
irrespective of the fact whether they have approached an appropriate judicial
forum for the same or not so that unnecessary litigation is avoided.”
12.
The issue of extension of benefits granted by the courts including Apex Court
in service matters to similarly situated persons has been settled in various
cases including the following-
(i) In the case of State of Karnataka v.
C. Lalita (2006) 2 SCC 747, it was held that service jurisprudence evolved by
the courts from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated
should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court
would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.
(ii) In the judgment given by the
full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C. S.
Elias Ahmed and others v. UOI & others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), it
was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are
required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were
parties to the original writ. This principle has been upheld by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other orders like G. C. Ghosh
v. UOI, [(1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC)] dt. 20.07.98; K. I. Shepherd v. UOI [(JT 1987
(3) SC 600)]; Abid Hussain v. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], Order dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the
matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors,
SLP No. 77457/2017 filed against the order dt. 23.03.17 given by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in WP No. 2634/2017, Order dt. 08.12.21 in Civil Appeal
No(s). 5966, 5967, 5968 and 5969 of 2021 etc.
13.
In view of the above, it is very much requested to kindly implement the OM F.
No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 w.e.f. 01.01.96 at an early date with all
consequential benefits to all the affected persons.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Encls: As above.
(HARPAL SINGH),
Secretary General.
Copy to
the Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India: With the request for necessary action.
