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. 25/AIB/P/25
Dt. 01.04.25
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 Indirect Tax and Customs,
North Block, New Delhi.
Subject:
Implementation of the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
in OA No. 237 of 2024 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 order Dt. 05.03.25 of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
in OA No. 237 of 2024 (copy enclosed). Now, there is already
a long row of court orders on this issue to implement the OM w.e.f. 01.01.96.
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 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 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 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 Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in OA No. 237 of 2024 quashed
the OM Dt. 21.04.04 ordering to grant the benefit of upgraded pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.96 with all consequential benefits of fixation of pay /pension and arrears
thereof. The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to order the same in the OA No.
207/2022 also. Now after a long row of court orders, nothing remains
further in this case except to implement the upgraded pay scale w.e.f.
01.01.96.
6. 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.”
7. 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.
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. In view of
above, it is very much requested to kindly implement the upgraded pay scale
w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all consequential benefits of fixation of pay/pension and
arrears thereoff and also 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.
