No consultation with staffside for ongoing cadre restructuring of CBIC

 

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. 44/AIB/P/25                                                                       Dt. 24.06.25

To,

Sh. Arvind Shrivastava,

Revenue Secretary,

North Block, New Delhi.

Sub: No consultation with staffside for ongoing cadre restructuring of CBIC.

Sir,

            It is submitted with due regards that the service associations of stake holders were invited by DG, HRD, CBIC to make consultations on the cadre restructuring sometimes in 2018. But, as the Association came to know, the earlier proposal has been totally changed without making any consultation with the service associations of staffside. At the earlier time, the proposal was circulated among the staff associations before and after finalization but nothing such happened this time. During the process of cadre restructuring of 2013 also, the staff associations were duly consulted and the due meetings were held with them but the same is missing this time.

            2. This Association is totally in dark this time. Whatever we know, that is based on hearsay in the corridors of administration or some PPT being floated a few months ago on social media. We came to know that only non-recognised association of IRS officers has been, officially or unofficially, consulted but no opportunity of consultation has been given to the recognized associations of staffside. We came to know that many drastic things have been proposed in the cadre restructuring which are against the interest of stake holder staffside whereas many lucrative things have been proposed in the interest of the direct recruit IRS officers to enhance their promotional avenues better than even IAS.

            3. Because of every power being vested in the direct recruit IRS officers in CBIC, only their interest is being watched by the CBIC. The CBIC, actually, has become only for, by and of direct recruit IRS officers. They are worried only for the interest and promotional avenues of direct recruit IRS officers equating them with IAS. They have no worry about staffside, particularly executive officers who are retiring after getting one promotion to the post of Superintendent after being appointed as Inspector. The CBIC managed the things in such a manner in the last cadre restructuring that a young Assistant Commissioner (Level-10) became Commissioner (Level-16) within 17 years. They also don’t hesitate to get relaxations for direct recruit IRS officers from the nodal departments to promote them whereas no measure has been taken by them for executive officers of staffside to remove their stagnation despite of the recommendations of Cabinet during the last cadre restructuring to take measures to remove the stagnation of these executive officers independent of cadre restructuring.

            4. As your goodself knows that every state has only one Commissioner in State GST, thus there are total around 36 Commissioner throughout India in the State GST against more than 400 Commissioners in Central GST. But very surprisingly, they not only have many times more Commissioners in Central GST in comparison to the Commissioners in State GST but also have Principal Commissioners, Chief commissioners, Principal Chief Commissioners etc. etc. It is well pertinent to mention that no such post exists in the State GST because the actual GST work is limited only upto the post of Additional Commissioner. For example, a single state of Uttar Pradesh has 26 Commissioners in Central GST in comparison to only 1 Commissioner in State GST. Other larger states like Maharashtra etc. may be having more than 26 Commissioners in Central GST against one Commissioner in State GST. It is not understood why such huge number of Commissioners are required in Central GST despite of Act, rules and provisions of GST being same in Central GST and State GST in addition to the provisions of cross empowerment and also no GST work defined above the post of Additional Commissioner.

            5. Despite of above facts, they want to enhance the number of posts at each level for direct recruit IRS officers. The Association came to know a few months ago through PPT on social media that they proposed to enhance the posts of Principal Chief Commissioner from 14 to 40, Chief Commissioner from 38 to 50, Principal Commissioner from 99 to 138, Commissioner from 335 to 562 and Additional/Joint Commissioner from 932 to 1748 in the interest of direct recruit IRS officers. Thus, there would be 790 posts of Commissioners and above in Central GST against only 36 posts of Commissioners in State GST. Perhaps they want promotional avenues better than even IAS. Moreover, they have managed the posts of Deputy Commissioner in such a manner that their direct recruit Assistant Commissioners (100%) become Deputy Commissioner within four years of selection whereas they proposed only 22% promotional quota for the promotee Assistant Commissioners to become Deputy Commissioner which will take long years for them to be promoted or they will never be promoted to the post of Deputy Commissioner except a few on account of a separate service proposed by them in distorted manner for promotee Assistant Commissioners only upto the level of Deputy Commissioner which was earlier proposed upto the level of Commissioner.

            6. Not only it, they have also proposed to convert four years time scale (Level-9) given to the Group B executive officers (in the pay scale of Superintendent) after four years of service to an intermediary promotional post naming it as Senior Superintendent which was not proposed earlier due to the opposition by the Association. This will not only be against the Subramaniam verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme court but also be against the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 published under Article 309 of the Constitution. Being against the Subramaniam verdict, needless to submit that it will be direct contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, after making it a promotional post, it will be vacancy based and full procedure of DPC will be followed to fill-up these vacancies. Net result will be that our officers working in the pay scale of Superintendent on account of MACP upgradation will never get this benefit after 4 years of service. These posts being vacancy based, our Superintendents will also not be able to get the benefit of time scale or promotion after 4 years of service. Instead of proposing the merger of Level-9 (GP of 5400/- in PB2) and Level-10 (GP of 5400/- in PB3), they want to make the intermediary GP of 5400/- in PB2 a promotional post.

            7. They also have proposed to stop the direct recruitment of Inspector at Pay Level-7 whereas direct recruitment at Pay Level-7 will continue in other departments including the sister organization of CBDT. Thus, their intension is to give screwed structure to the organization of CBIC and degrade the cadre of Inspector instead of giving structural parity with State GST and CBDT.

8. It is very clear from above that they are interested to give all benefits to direct IRS officers only without taking care of other cadres of staffside. Rather they want to snatch benefits from other cadres as mentioned in para 6 and 7 above. Moreover, now VIIIth CPC has already been declared and we don’t know which pay scale will be merged and which posts will be curbed by the pay commission as ever. So, their proposal is no way justified or reasoned and seems to be prepared without application of mind.   

9. The Association came to know that a meeting of CBIC is fixed with your goodself in the end of this month. It is, therefore, requested that an appointment may kindly be given to us to enable making due submissions in person before your goodself prior to the meeting with CBIC. It is also requested that the copy of the proposal may kindly be provided to the Association before finalization and after finalization as done in the past.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                       

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to:

(1)   The Cabinet Secretary, President House, New Delhi.

(2)   The Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.

(3)   The Secretary, DOPT, North Block, New Delhi.

Retrospectivity of pay scale

 

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 5^th 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 5^th 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 5^th 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.

DPC

 

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. 38/AIB/D/25                                                                       Dt. 28.05.25

To,
The Chairman

CBIC, North Block,

New Delhi.

Sub: DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner.

Sir,

Kindly refer to the earlier representations of the Association about the continued delay in convening the DPC for the post of Assistant Commissioner.

2. It is again submitted with due regards that a significant number of officers are retiring every month without promotion despite of thousands of vacancies existing in the grade of Assistant Commissioner. The most of the Assistant Commissioners are already holding multiple charges overburdening them for the want of DPC.

3. The Association understands that the DPC process has been held in abeyance due to the court case pending in the Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai in OA No. 407/2020. We are informed that the final hearing in the matter was concluded on 10.03.2025 and the case has since been reserved for orders. However, more than two and half months have elapsed but the order is yet to be pronounced.

4. It is understood that Shri Santosh Mehra, Member (A), who was part of the bench that heard the matter, has since been transferred to CAT, Bangalore from Mumbai. It appears that his transfer may have inadvertently contributed to the delay in issuing the final order. We wish to bring to your kind notice that in a similar situation involving OA No. 21/1089/2019 and connected matters before the CAT Hyderabad, despite the transfer of Shri Sudhir Ranjan Mishra, Member (J) to CAT Cuttack, the order which was reserved on 17.10.2023, was subsequently pronounced on 09.01.2024 after appropriate administrative arrangements were made by the Hon’ble Principal Bench.

5. In view of this precedent, it is requested to kindly take up the matter with the Hon’ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi and request to facilitate the pronouncement of the reserved order in OA No. 407/2020 by the Bench that originally heard the matter, at the earliest.

6. In addition to the above, your kind attention is also invited to another case namely Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India (OA No. 4762/2024) pending before CAT, New Delhi, where a blanket stay has been granted on the conduction of the DPCs for promotions from Group B to Group A. In this regard, it is submitted that the promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioner are made from following three feeder streams:

(i)     Superintendent of Central Excise

(ii)   Superintendent of Customs (Preventive)

(iii)  Appraisers of Customs

7. The promotion is governed by a fixed ratio of 13:2:1. Therefore, the pendency or legal challenge involving one feeder stream does not and should not affect the filling of vacancies for other two streams. Unfortunately, during the hearing in the Ashok Kumar case, this crucial aspect appears not to have been adequately presented resulting in a stay applicable to all streams.

8. Accordingly, it is requested that the departmental counsel in the Ashok Kumar matter may be specifically instructed to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal for partial vacation of the stay in respect of the streams of Superintendent of Central Excise and Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), so that the DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner may be convened at least for these streams, which are unrelated to the dispute raised by the petitioner.

9. The Association is very confident that these long-pending matters may be resolved with kind intervention of your goodself, thereby alleviating the undue hardship being faced by thousands of eligible officers for promotion who continue to serve the department with utmost dedication.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                                                                       

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to:

(1)   The Revenue Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.

(2)   The Member (Admn.), CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.

Pay w.e.f. 01.01.96

 

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. 30/AIB/P/25                                                                       Dt. 11.04.25

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 Indirect Tax and Customs,

North Block, New Delhi.

Subject: Implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in WP.CT 49 of 2025, 74 of 2025 and 75 of 2025 in r/o retrospective implementation of the pay scale.

Sir,

            Kindly refer to the 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 orders all Dt. 07.04.25 of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in WP.CT 49,74 & 75 of 2025 (copies enclosed).

2. It is brought to your kind notice 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, all officers affected by the OM F. No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 21.04.04 being similarly placed.

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 5^th 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 and the favourable orders from the various Central Administrative Tribunals and High courts are keeping continued regularly.

5. The Hon’ble High Coert of Kolkata like in W.P.C.T. 6 of 2025 ordered specifically in WP.CT 49 of 2025, 74 of 2025 and 75 of 2025 by dismissing the petition filed by UOI as below-

“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 these cases, the UOI through its senior counsel admitted as below-

“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.”

“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. 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.

9. There already exist so many orders of so many courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give benefit of such matters 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 to 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 would be direct contempt of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if such orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are not obeyed and implemented. 

10. In view of 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 against the various orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give such benefits to all the equally placed persons.

            Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Encl: As above.                                                                                                                                   

(HARPAL SINGH),

Secretary General.