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 Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising
Secretary: S. 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. 66/AIB/S/19
Dt. 27.03.19
To,
Sh. Pranab Kumar Das,
Chairman, CBIC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Implementation of the
Subramanium case.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the various
representations of the Association on the subject matter including the Ref. No.
330/AIB/S/18 Dt. 13.12.18, 31/AIB/S/19 Dt. 04.02.19, 43/AIB/S/19 Dt. 27.02.19
etc.
2. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahamedabad
held in SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 102 of 2019 on 11.03.19, “Having regard to the fact that the issue which is raised
by the present petitioners is already adjudicated and has
attained finality and also having regard to the undisputed fact
that present petitioners are similarly situated, we consider
it appropriate to direct present respondents to act in accordance
with the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.8883 of 2011 and the decision in Writ Petition No.13225
of 2010 decided on 06.09.2010 by Hon'ble High Court
of Judicature at Madras and the decision by this Court in
Special Civil Application No.346 of 2018. The respondents will
ensure that necessary steps are taken, appropriate modification
in applicable pay scale of the petitioners is given effect
and appropriate fixation of grade pay is made and if any arrears
became payable, are paid to the petitioners and entire process
is completed as early as possible and preferably within
3 months.”
3. Further, it was also observed by the Hon’ble
High Court, “At this stage, a
profitable reference can
be had to the observation
by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind
Kumar Srivastava [AIR (SCW) 2014 0 6519] wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court said that identically situated persons need
to be treated alike by extending the benefit whether
they approached the Court or not.”
4. It was also observed by the
Hon’ble High Court, “Besides this, it is necessary to also take into
account the observations by the Court in Special
Civil Application No.1314 of 2009
wherein this Court has
observed that once the
issue is adjudicated and
decided by the Court and the said adjudication has attained finality, then
unless there is any strong justification to take
a different stand the benefits should be extended
by the authority to similarly placed employees and
similarly placed employee
should not be made to
approach the Court to
seek same benefits.”
5. Having looked into the verdict given and the
observations made by the Hon’ble Court, it is clear that the benefit of the judgment is to be given to
all the equally placed persons who are entitled to the same whether they are
retired/working or petitioners/non-petitioners.
6. Your kind attention is also invited to the
letter F. No. A-23011/62/2016-Ad.IIA Dt. 06.12.18 of the CBIC seeking
information relating to the expenditure involved in the issue. In this regard,
it is to submit that no Court has put any condition for the approval of the expenditure to implement the issue. So, the verdict
is required to be implemented without seeking the information about the involvement of the
Expenditure.
7. Needless also to submit that any verdict
settled at the level of the Hon’ble apex Court is to be treated as the law of the land and is to
be implemented in rem without any discrimination to anybody. It is unfortunate that
only applicants are being given the benefit of the verdict, that’s too only
after being forced to file the contempt petition in the Hon’ble Court. The
result of the discriminatory implementation of the verdict is that even seniors
are forced to get less pay than their juniors.
8. In view of the above, it is requested to
implement the verdict in rem throughout the country with all consequential benefits alongwith
the due interest to officers at an early date giving benefit to all affected officers, whether
petitioners/non-petitioners or serving/retired without seeking the clearance for the expenditure.
Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for
necessary action to:
1. The
Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The
Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.
