ALL
INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL TAX
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
(Earlier
known as All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers)
President: Address for
communication: Secretary General:
Kajal
Kumar Mandal Flat
No. 6, SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Harpal Singh
Mob. 9957366172 mail
Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com Site:cengoindia.blogspot.in
Mob. 9717510598
Chief Patron: Ravi Malik Patrons: A. Venkatesh, C. S. Sharma, M. Nagaraju
Vice Presidents: B C
Khatik, K D Venkatraman (Central) Swapan
Kr Das, Subrata Adhikary (East) Ashish Vajpayi, B B Sharma (North) G Srinivas
Reddy, G Ananda Sukumar (South) Siddhraj Parmar, Vimal Kishore Soni (West) Joint
Secretaries: Manoj Kumar, T J Manojumon (Central) Pradyut Purkayastha,
Ashis Maji (East) Rajeev Prakash, Anil Sreedharan (West) Prabhakar Sharma, R B
Sahu (North) K Yugandhar Kumar, S M Kosalaya Devi (South); Office Secretary:
B C Gupta Treasurer: Manoj Kumar Liaison Secretary: Bhoopesh Organising
Secretary: Utkarsh Sharma South Zone Coordinator: R Keny Legal
Coordinator: S Sabarwal Joint Organising Secretary: Jayant Dey
East Zone Coordinator: Debasish Modak
(Recognised
vide F.No.B-12017/17/2022-AD-IV A dt. 14.07.23 of CBIC, Govt. of India)
Ref. No. 19/AIB/P/25
Dt. 21.03.25
COURT MATTER
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 KOLKATA in W.P.C.T. 6
of 2025 in r/o 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 w.e.f. 01.01.96 to amend OM No.
6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure and
the order Dt. 19.03.25 of the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF KOLKATA in W.P.C.T. 6
of 2025 (enclosed herewith).
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.
Various courts have already ordered to implement the Department of Expenditure OM No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04
w.e.f. 01.01.96 instead of 21.04.04 in r/o pay scale of Superintendents and
Inspectors. Even the SLP Diary No(s). 59005/2024 filed by the UOI on this issue has
been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 28.02.25.
5.
The Hon’ble HIGH
COURT OF KOLKATA in W.P.C.T.
6 of 2025 ordered specifically by dismissing the petition filed by UOI as below-
“In view of the submissions and the facts taken note
of above, we find that the present writ proceedings has become infructuous as
the petitioner’s entitlement has already been affirmed by the Apex Court as per
the proceedings taken note of above.”
6. In this case, the UOI through its counsel admitted as
below as reflected in the order of the Hon’ble High Court-
“2. When the matter was called on today at the very outset
the petitioner’s learned counsel has fairly submitted that the identical issue
whether Inspectors in the Central Excise & Customs Department would be
entitled to benefits of 5th Pay Revision Committee with effect from 01.01.1996
was decided by the Telangana High Court in Writ Petition No. 10490 of 2024 in
the case of R. Siva Shankara Sastry & Ors. Vs. the Union of India
& Ors. The order of the Telangana High Court dated 09.08.2024 passed in
the writ proceeding was assailed by the Union of India before the Apex Court.
The S.L.P. (Civil) No. 59005 of 2024 has been dismissed on 28.02.2025 by
the Apex Court.
3. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner since
the issue regarding entitlement of the petitioners to grant of benefits of 5th Pay
Revision Committee with effect from 01.01.1996 stands settled in the above
noted proceedings, nothing remains to be considered in the present proceedings.”
7. Thus, after above admission by the UOI before the Hon’ble
High Court, nothing remains further in this case to be decided. Also nothing
remains for UOI to wait in it except implementing the order and amend OM No.
6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 accordingly.
8. 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 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.”
9. 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. It is also worth to mention that the court orders
related to pay matters are always treated and implemented in rem unless ordered
specifically to implement in personam.
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. It is also worth to mention that it will be
direct contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if such orders of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not obeyed.
11. 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.
12. 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
and due interest not less than the rate of interest on GPF to all the affected
persons without enhancing the number of litigations in the matter by forcing
more and more officers to be litigants on the issue against the various orders
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give such benefits to all the equally placed
persons.
Thanking
you,
Yours
sincerely,
Encls: As above.
(HARPAL
SINGH),
Secretary
General.
