In the Associate Committee Meeting
of our Association held at
Patna during 25.05.13 & 26.05.13 it has been interalia decided that
“ no unit should approach Board directly
on local and all India issues. As per the provisions of our constitution all units are independent up to Chief
Commissioner levels only . Board has already clarified that no representation
should be submitted by any unit directly and this should be submitted through
AIB only. A resolution has already been adopted in our Associate Executive Committee Meeting that for any matter our Units should
not approach any authority beyond their respective Chief Commissioner”.
Such decision was taken because one unit is always approaching Board directly for
certain irrelevant issues. When the” in- situ scheme” was about to be approved by Board such unit unnecessarily rose certain
objections directly to Board and for such irrelevant objections, such in situ scheme
has been kept in abeyance by Board and
therefore our members are retiring without getting any promotion. The office
bearers of such unit again approached UPSC and informed about adhoc promotions for which UPSC imposed restriction
on granting adhoc promotions, therefore Board could not hold DPC against
existing vacancies. While AIB pursuing
in Board for implementation of revised ratio since 97 as per decision dated
03.08.11 of Apex Court, this unit without informing AIB filed contempt and the
decision of such contempt has gone against the interest of our cadre.
At present one Vice President of
such unit is engaged in sending emails and conducting meetings at different
places and advocating to put pressure
upon AIB for withdrawal of case( filed
by AIB to maintain base cadre parity in
promotion) and insisted that AIB should submit one representation for removal
of regional disparity in promotion.
Basically such unit is insisting for the
following two points:
1.
That Board should overlook the provisions
of The Superintendents of Central Excise Recruitment
Rules and maintain seniority list of Inspectors on all India basis
retrospectively since 1975 and those got
promotion to the post of Superintendent during 93 to 2013 are to be treated as adhoc and promotions to
the post of AC should be made basing on all India seniority list of Inspector to be prepared since 1975.
2.
The provisions of Gr-A RR should be
relaxed and there should be a clear
stipulation in such RR that promotion should be made to the post of AC basing
on the all India seniority list of
Inspector duly over looking the provisions of the Superintendent Recruitment
Rules.
Regarding point no.1-- we have already
clarified that the cadres of Inspector and Superintendent are not falling under
any service ( like CSS, IRS etc.) The promotions to the post of Superintendent
are being awarded on the basis of the
valid Superintendent of Central Excise
Recruitment Rules which has been issued
under the provisions article 309 of the Constitution of India. This RR has been providing for promotion on
CCA (Zonal ) basis. Therefore Seniority Lists as per DOPT guidelines are being
issued in the cadre of Inspector of Central Excise on Zonal basis since
creation of this department. This RR was challenged in High Court of Andhra
Pradesh by Supdts. Association of Hyderabad and one Mr.Laxamana Rao. But High
court rejected the writ and up held the RR as valid one. Against such decision
of High Court, Hyderabad Association moved to SC but SC rejected the petition. It
is a one line order.,WP no.3835 of 1981.."The wp has become infructuous
and accordingly dismissed .No costs. 'on 24/9/1996.However another linked
matter WP nos 512 and 835 of 1988 was disposed relying on Gaya baksh yadav
caseJT 1996 (5)SC 118.The contention of mr.Rao in the petn was for all india SL
of Insprs or count total service as inspr and supdt considering the disparity
in various commtes.It was also pleaded that if each commte is treated as
separate.then separate quota must be
allotted just like cus apprs and supdts. Of course, the case was linked with
306/88 at various stages but disposed differently.. WP No 302/88 was filed by both the Federations of
Inspectors and Superintendents jointly The Gr-A RR published on the basis of
the decision in WP no 302/88 was valid up to October 2011. In the petition both
the Federations have accepted promotions on regional/zonal basis. The honourable Apex Court in 302/88 had
directed to cast seniority list of Superintendents of Central Excise basing on the date of joining
in the post of Superintendent of Central Excise on All India basis.
Moreover creation of CCAs is a policy decision
, which can not be challenged in CAT. Therefore those joined in the grade of
Supdt early are seniors to those joined in the grade of Supdt subsequently
irrespective of date of joining in Inspector grade. The Guideline of DOPT vide
OM NO. AB-14017/12/88-ESTT is not helpful for removal of regional
disparity in promotions. FR has also
accepted for creation of separate cadre on regional basis for which step up of
pay is not allowed to seniors of other
zones. After a long time without knowing the back grounds of the issue, few
units of AIACEGEO are raising the issue of regional disparities in
promotions and asking that the promotions to the post of Asstt. Commissioner
should be granted on the basis of joining in the Inspector cadre. They insisted
that the combined length of service as Inspector + Superintendent should be
counted for the grant of promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner by
treating the already promoted senior Superintendents as ad hoc. Actually AIACEGEO is pursuing the matter of parity with the common
entry counterparts which automatically solve this problem. The AIACEGEO has
already filed a case in the CAT for parity in promotions with the Examiners as
the Examiner of 1992 has already become Asstt. Commissioner. Therefore at this stage no one
should engage themselves with intra-Central Excise fighting. Instead
of it, we should fight unitedly with common opponents to get actual relief.
This would also cause litigations in the
legal courts and nobody among us would be able to get any benefit from cadre
restructuring while others would enjoy it. No rule permit to place any senior
Superintendent to lower position and grant him/her ad hoc status..
Thousands
of our senior Superintendents are already waiting for the implementation of
cadre restructuring expecting for next promotion at the fag end of the career.
The issue should have been taken up at the time of arising of these regional
disparities in the promotions to the post of Superintendents from Inspectors.
Moreover, regional disparities will automatically be removed if we are able to
get parity with Examiners & other counterparts. The issue of regional
disparities is basically related to the Inspectors Association regarding
promotion of Inspector to the post of Superintendent. The promotion to the post
of Asstt. Commissioner can never be granted by counting the length of service
rendered as Inspector to remove the regional disparities.
Not only
in Central Excise Department but also in other departments such as Income Tax,
Railways, Postal & Audit etc. there
is a provision for preparation of seniority list on Zonal basis as per
guidelines prescribed by DOPT. This has been confirmed by Apex court in catena
of judgements including Union of India Vs. N.R. Parmar (Supreme Court
Judgement 2012 STPL(Web) 687 SC )
Thus it is totally incorrect that Board has not correctly observed the
guidelines of DOPT in preparing the seniority list of Inspectors on zonal
basis. Under the circumstances promotions to the post of AC can not be allowed
retrospectively on the basis of all
India seniority list for the cadre of Inspector as claimed by such VP.
Regarding point no-2—Certain provisions of RR can be relaxed
but such relaxation can not be made overlooking the provisions of another RR and the guidelines of DOPT on the matter
of fixation of seniority .
Therefore as per the present provisions of Law, the regional
disparity in promotions can not be removed retrospectively. Since AIB has
already filed a case in CAT for base cadre parity in promotion as per the
resolution of AC meeting held in Delhi and the matter at present is subjudice, AIB can not change it stands as per the mercy
of such unit and submit another representation on a different footings.
