ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
President:
Address for communication:
Secretary General:
A.
Venkatesh
240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)
Ravi Malik
Vice Presidents: Apurba
Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish
Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy, M. Jegannathan (South); K.V.
Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N.
Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay
Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore,
Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C.
S. Sharma T reasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen
Bhattachariya
(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. 305/AIB/N/18 Dt.
20.11.18
To,
The
Secretary DOPT,
North
Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Bifurcation of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
Sir,
Your
kind attention is invited to the verdict given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP
No. 77457/2017 in r/o the order Dt. 23.03.17 given by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in WP No. 2634/2017 in which the Apex Court said,“Once the question,
in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the
Government of India to issue a circular so that it will save the time of the
court and the Administrative Departments apart from avoiding unnecessary and
avoidable expenditure.” The Hon’ble Court further directed the Government of
India to immediately look into the matter and issue appropriate orders so that
people need not unnecessarily travel either to the Tribunal or the High Court
or the Supreme Court.
2. Your kind attention is
also invited to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. & Ors. V. K.
Kapoor & Anr. JT 2007 (12) 439, Inderpal Singh Yadav & Ors., State of
Maharashtra Vs. Tukaram Trymbak Choudhary by order dated 20.02.2007, 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 etc. mandating to
give the benefit of court verdict to all equally placed persons. 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 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.”
3. Despite of above verdicts, the
officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even in same matters which have
already been finalized/settled by the Hon’ble High Courts/Apex Court. The
verdicts, in which no appeal has been made, are also not being implemented. The
benefit of the court verdicts in the settled issues is being given only to the
petitioners/applicants instead of implementing in rem.
4. Your kind attention is also invited
to the order Dt. 27.09.18 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)
11277/2016 taking serious note against the CBIC letters like F. No.
A-18013/3/2007-Ad.IV(A) Dt. 05.09.07 and F. No. A-32022/26/2013/-Ad.IIIA Dt.
13.12.13. These letters say, “in cases where the Court orders are adverse to
the interest of the department/Government, such orders should not be
implemented without clearance of the Board”. The Hon’ble High Court took strong
exception to these letters and was prima facie of the opinion that such letters
invite contempt of Court. However, at the request of the ASG, the Hon’ble Court
refrained from passing further orders and offered an opportunity to the CBIC to
withdraw the letter. Thus, it is very clear that any government
department including nodal departments like DOPT & Expenditure is never
above the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous not to follow the court orders. No
need also to say that the issuance of any communication like letter Dt.
05.09.07 and 13.12.13 of CBIC (now withdrawn vide F. No. C-18012/3/2015-Ad.II B
Dt. 12.10.18 of CBIC in compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi) amounts to be contempt of the legal court.
5. The DOPT OM issued vide No.
28027/9/99-Estt.(A) Dt. 01.05.2000 also contains the contemptuous content as
was present in the above referred CBIC letters Dt. 05.09.07 and 13.12.13. So,
no need to say that the said letter of the DOPT or any other letter/s of DOPT/any
other department containing the contemptuous matter to the Hon’ble courts
is/are also required to be withdrawn.
6.
Further, your kind attention is invited to the verdict given in Balkrishnan
case (Writ Petition No. 11535/2014 with
M.P. No. 1/2014) in r/o of treating
single Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 and PB3 as separate Grade Pays under para
8.1 of MACP Scheme. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in this case gave the verdict on 16.10.14 by upholding that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2
(Level-9) & PB-3 (Level-10) is one and the same thing as there is no
difference between the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 and PB3. The said
judgment was finalized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) 15396 of 2015 by dismissing
the SLP filed by the Govt. establishing the verdict as “the law of the land”.
It is also worth to submit that the next Grade Pay after Rs. 5400/- is Rs.
6600/- (Level-11).
7. No need to say that any finally
settled verdict becomes the law of the land particularly being settled at the
level of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Thus, the government is supposed to issue the
appropriate order as per the verdict given in SLP No. 77457/2017 without
forcing every employee to approach the legal court as mentioned under very
first para and also in view of the second para above. If every employee is
forced to go to the legal court on an already decided issue, no need to say
that it would not only be the wastage of the precious time of the courts but it
would also be the wastage of the precious time and money of the government and
also inappropriate use of the manpower. If the officers are not forced to go
for unwarranted litigations, their hard earned money, energy and time will
be saved enabling their energy and time to be utilized in a positive manner for
Nation building. It would also save the huge litigation cost being incurred by
the Govt. on such legal cases.
8. In
view of the above, it is requested that the due circular may kindly be issued-
i) to
withdraw para 8.1 of MACP Scheme to undo the bifurcation of the single Grade
Pay of Rs. 5400/-.
ii) to
withdraw the Level-9 by merging it with Level-10 of pay matrix.
iii)
to grant MACP upgradation to the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- (Level-11) after
the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/ (whether in PB2 or PB3).
iv)
to withdraw the DOPT OM
issued vide No. 28027/9/99-Estt.(A) Dt. 01.05.2000 or any such
OM/letter/order/instruction/direction of the Govt. of India.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
