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. 42/AIB/P/25
Dt. 23.06.25
To,
1. The Cabinet Secretary, 2. The Secretary,
President House, Department
of Expenditure,
New Delhi. North
Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, 4.
The Chairman,
Department of Revenue, Central
Board of Indirect Tax and Customs,
North Block, New Delhi. North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Request for
“in-rem implementation” of the O.M. F.No.6/37/98-IC dated 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure
(Implementation Cell) w.e.f. 01.01.96
instead of “in-personam”.
Dear Sirs,
Kindly
refer to the following letters (copies attached)-
(i)
F. No. A-23011/44/2024-Ad.IIA Dt. 16.06.25 of the CBIC.
(ii)
F.No. C-18011(S)/43/2023-V&L-II Dt. 18.06.25 of the CBDT.
2. The O.M. F.No.6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of
the Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) has been implemented w.e.f.
01.01.96 “in-personam” instead of “in-rem” vide above referred letters of the
CBIC and CBDT based on contempt of court cases. Your kind attention is also
invited to the
earlier various requests of the Association communicating various court orders
regarding the retrospective implementation of the pay scale of the Inspectors
and Superintendents of Central Excise w.e.f. 01.01.96 to amend the OM No.
6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure.
3. 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 common order vide OM No. 6/37/98-IC
Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of Expenditure instead of 01.01.96, i.e., the
date from which the anomaly was created. It is also worth to mention that
all officers affected by the OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 are similarly
placed.
4.
The High Power Committee formed by the then Finance Minister to look into the
disparity/anomaly created by the implementation of 5th CPC report
recommended to place the Superintendents of Central Excise, Superintendents of
Customs, Appraisers of Customs and Income Tax Officers in the pay scale of Rs.
7500-12000/- instead of Rs. 6500-10500/- and also Inspectors of Central Excise,
Preventive Officers of Customs, Examiners of Customs and Income Tax Inspectors
in the pay scale Rs. 6500-10500/- instead of Rs. 5500-9000/-. It is reiterated
that the above mentioned High Power Committee was formed by the govt. to
consider and undo the anomaly created w.e.f. 01.01.96 after
recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission. So, the common
order issued vide OM No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the Department of
Expenditure 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 the pay scale of above officers in comparison
to other counterparts occurred.
5.
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 the pay scale of the 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. After dismissal of the
Govt. SLP by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, nothing remains now in this issue
except accepting the order to amend the OM No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 of the
Department of Expenditure and grant the enhanced pay scale w.e.f. 01.10.96 to
all affected officers.
6. Any
order decided at the level of the Apex Court is always treated as law of land
and is equally applicable to the similarly circumstanced persons. It is also
worth to mention that the court orders related to the pay matters are always
treated and implemented “in-rem” unless ordered specifically to implement “in-personam”
and are, thus, applicable to all
equally placed persons. Various Hon’ble courts including the Hon’ble Supreme
Court have already passed the orders giving directions to the Govt. to issue
the due circular to this effect.
7. There exist so many orders of so many courts including
the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give “in-rem” benefit of such matters to all
similarly positioned persons. Same has been intended in the National Litigation
Policy of the Govt. of India 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.
8. The issue of the 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, order in Amrit Lal Berry vs Collector of Central Excise, (1975) 4 SCC 714, order
in Inder Pal Yadav Vs. Union of India, 1985 (2) SCC 648, order in Uttaranchal
Forest Rangers’ Assn (Direct Recruit) Vs. State of UP (2006) 10 SCC 346 etc. etc.
9. The Vth CPC also recommended in its report under para 126.5 –
Extending judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all similarly
placed employees:
“We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation
involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only
extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the
Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs
contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed & Ors Vs. UOI &
Ors, (OA 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein 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.
Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case
as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C. Ghosh V. UOI [(1992) 19 ATC 94
(SC)], dt. 20.07.1998; K.I. Shepherd V. UOI [(JT 1987 (3) SC 600)]; Abid
Hussain V. UOI [(JT 1987 (1) SC 147], etc. Accordingly, we recommend that
decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Government
should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing other employees
to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that
this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of
general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is
concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an
individual employee.”
10. But very
unfortunately, the benefit of the retrospective effect of pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.96 has been given only to the applicants “in-personam” who won court
cases and filed contempt instead of giving “in-rem benefit” to all equally
placed officers. Thus, the concerned authorities ignored all court orders and
litigation policy of the Govt. of India to this effect. This proves that the
concerned authorities don’t want to honour the litigation policy and the court
orders (many of the court orders are mentioned in para 8 and 9 above). These
authorities merely want to enhance the number of litigations in the matter by
forcing more and more officers to be litigants ignoring the various orders of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give such benefits to all the equally placed
persons. Such enhanced litigations will force the Govt. as well as private
persons to incur more and more expenditure in terms of the money, working hours
and manpower despite of the matter being settled at the level of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The concerned authorities forced the Govt. to face the various
contempt cases in the various courts and also intend to waste the precious time
of the Hon’ble courts by their unreasoned approach instead of applying the mind
to take due decision.
11. It is also
very discriminative that all the orders of against the employees, whether by
the higher court or lower court, are implemented “in-rem” whereas the orders in
favour of the employees, even by the Apex Court, are implemented “in-personam”.
Likewise, any order by a lower court in tax matters is treated “in-rem”
applying it to all tax payers but it is just opposite in the service matters.
12. In view of
above, it is very much requested to kindly implement the upgraded pay scale
w.e.f. 01.01.96 “in-rem” instead of “in-personam” to give benefit to all the
officers affected by the above mentioned OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04
without forcing every one of them to approach the legal courts. It is great
injustice in our welfare state to those equally placed officers who have not
been given benefit despite of the guarantee of equal treatment by our great
Constitution and also the matter being settled at the level of the Apex Court. If
the order is not implemented “in-rem”, many seniors will be forced to get the
pay/pension less than their juniors which is again discriminatory.
Thanking
you,
Yours sincerely,
Encls: As above.
(HARPAL SINGH),
Secretary
General.
Copy with the request for necessary action to undo
the discrimination to:
(1) The Hon’ble Cabinet Minister, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
(2) The Hon’ble Minister of State, Ministry
of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
