ALL
INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:
Address for communication:
Secretary General:
R. Chandramouli 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central);
Anurag Chaudhary, Ravi Joshi (North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha,
Ashwini Majhi (East); Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand Kishore, J. S.
Aiyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, Ashish Vajpeyi (North); M. Nagaraju, Ajithkumar
P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East); Jasram Meena, M. K. Mishra
(West) Office
Secretary: C. S.
Sharma
Treasurer: N.
R. Manda Liaison Secretary: A. S.
Kundu Coordinator on Telangana: P.
Shravan Kumar
(Recognised
by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 16/P/15
Dt.
11.02.15
IMMEDIATE PL.
To,
Ms. Joy Kumari Chander,
The Member (P&V), CBEC,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: DPC for
promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner.
Madam,
As your
goodself knows, it is submitted with due regards that the CBEC is already
behind by three panel years in the subject matter. More unfortunate is that no
seriousness is being shown despite of the DOPT provisions of fixing
responsibility of the concerned hand, if the due DPC is not conducted timely.
The DOPT provisions of preparing the advance panel for promotion are also not
being followed.
2. One
may say that the advance panel is prepared in the case of regular promotions
only. This argument may be very correct but the promotion of the due officers
can no way be delayed on the pretext of ‘adhocism’ in CBEC. The intention of
the DOPT provisions, whether applicable to regular promotions or otherwise, is
to grant timely promotions to the due officers who can’t be deprived of their
legitimate right of promotion in the name of adhocism.
3. One
may also say that the DPC is being delayed on account of some legal cases. But
this argument doesn’t seem correct because there has been granted no legal stay
by any legal court on the said DPC particularly for the promotions of the
Central Excise Superintendents to the post of Asstt. Commissioner. The due
officers can never be forced to retire without promotion merely for the want of
the finalization of the legal cases despite of the good number of the
promotional vacancies being in hand. The promotions may very well be affected
subject to the final verdict of the court which has happened on various
occasions in our CBEC. Moreover, the promotions are to be affected on ad hoc
basis and are to be regularized later on. So, there should be no problem in
conducting the DPC.
4. If
any problem exists in the case of the any category relating to the Customs, the
DPC for promotions of the officers belonging to Central Excise should kindly be
conducted without further delay particularly considering the fact that they get
the promotion (if any) on the fag end of the career. This has also happened in
the past when there was some legal dispute between Appraisers and Customs
Superintendents but Central Excise Superintendents were promoted. In the last
promotion order also, the Appraisers were not promoted on account of some legal
case but the Superintendents of Central Excise as well as Customs were
promoted, no legal dispute being in their case.
5. In
view of the above, it is requested that the subject-mentioned DPC may kindly be
conducted and promotion orders issued immediately without further delay to
grant the justice to the due officers retiring without promotion despite of the
promotional vacancies being in hand. It is also requested that the due modal
year may also kindly be followed without being behind in preparing the panel
and affecting the due promotions.
Thanking you,
Yours
faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
ALL
INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:
Address for
communication:
Secretary General:
R. Chandramouli 240, Razapur,
Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: P. Parwani, L. L. Singhvi (Central);
Anurag Chaudhary, Ravi Joshi (North); N. Raman, G. Srinath (South); B. K. Sinha,
Ashwini Majhi (East); Rajesh Chaher, J. D. Patil (West) Joint Secretaries: Anand Kishore, J. S.
Aiyer (Central); R. K. Solanki, Ashish Vajpeyi (North); M. Nagaraju, Ajithkumar
P. C. (South); P. K. Sen, S. Bhattachariya (East); Jasram Meena, M. K. Mishra
(West) Office
Secretary: C. S.
Sharma
Treasurer: N.
R. Manda Liaison Secretary: A. S.
Kundu Coordinator on Telangana: P.
Shravan Kumar
(Recognised
by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 17/L/15
Dt.
11.02.15
IMMEDIATE PL.
To,
Ms. Joy Kumari Chander,
The Member (P&V), CBEC,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Non-implementation
of the legal verdicts after finalization by the courts.
Madam,
As your
goodself knows, the legal verdicts are not being implemented by the CBEC/Govt.
even after being finalized by the various legal courts whether relating to MACP
upgradation or stepping-up in the case of ACP/MACP upgradation or time scale or
any other issue. The benefit of the verdicts is being granted only to the
applicant forcing other similarly situated officers to adopt the legal recourse
which wastes the time, resources and money not only of the individual but also
of the Govt. as well as Courts.
2. The
benefit of the court verdicts at least in the following matters has not been
granted to all similarly situated officers (i.e., Central Govt. employees) in
general except the applicants despite of being finalized at the level of the
Apex Court/High Court-
A. MACP
upgradation in the promotional hierarchy quashing the para 8.1 of MACPS.
B.
Stepping-up of pay of seniors, if junior is getting higher pay on account of
ACP/MACPS.
C. Grade
pay of Rs. 5400/- to the officers after completion of 4 years in the pay scale
of Superintendent on account of ACP/MACP upgradation at the time of working as
Inspector.
3. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014
in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
& Ors has held as under:
“Normal
rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the
Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would
be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This
principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that
all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the
normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did
not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.”
4.
In spite of various such decisions of Apex Court and various other courts
already brought to the kind knowledge of the administration, the benefit is not
being extended to all other similarly situated employees. If any matter on service
issue/policy is implemented based on the verdict given by the legal court, the
Govt. is bound to give its benefit to all similarly situated employees. No need
to say that no Govt. organization/department/ministry is above the courts and
it seems contemptuous, if the benefit of the court orders is not given to the
employees.
5. In
view of the above, it is requested that the benefit of all of the court
judgements deciding the general issue relating to any matter including the ones
mentioned in para 2 above may kindly be granted to all similarly situated
employees at an early date without forcing them for legal recourse.
Thanking you,
Yours
faithfully,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
