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: 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. 79/AIB/L/19
Dt. 18.04.19
To,
The Cabinet Secretary,
Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Sub:
Implementation of the legal verdicts.
Sir,
Your kind attention is invited to
the to the verdict given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. 77457/2017 saying
that 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.
it is further submitted with due regards that the Hon’ble Prime Minister also
emphasized on reduction of litigations in the Rajasva Gyan Sangam as evident
from the letter DO.No.26/CH/(EC)/2017 Dt. 08.09.17 of the Chairman of Central
Board of Indirect Tax & Customs (CBIC). Also despite of the CBIC letters
F.No.A-60011/24/2015-Ad.IIB Dt. 21.06.16 and F.No.C-18012/6/2013-Ad.IIB
Dt.09.05.16 to minimise the court cases in service matters, the officers are
forced to file court cases and contempt petitions on various issues due to
non-implementation/non-resolution/non-redressal of these issues which are
already settled vide various court verdicts. It is also very unfortunate that
the field formations are being asked to defend the court cases vide CBIC letter
F. No. A-23011/93/2018-Ad.IIA Dt. 15.01.19 quoting CAT judgements and ignoring
the judgements of higher courts including the Apex court and even ignoring the
accepted orders of the courts.
3.
The appeals are being filed against the orders of CAT/High Court to suffer the
officers endlessly even in the issues already settled by the Apex court. The
issues settled at the level of the Apex Court are also not being implemented in
rem. The officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even in the same
matters which have already been finalized/settled by the Hon’ble Higher
Courts/Apex Court. The verdicts, in which no appeal has been made, are also not
being implemented. The employees are forced to go to the legal courts even in
the matters which can be settled administratively very easily. If the issues
are to be settled by the legal courts only, there seems no use of any
administrative machinery. The benefit of court verdicts even in the settled
issues is being given only to the petitioners/applicants instead of
implementing in rem. The Meetings under the Employees Grievance Redressal
Mechanism are not being held.
4.
There are so many verdicts of the various legal courts which are unimplemented
by the govt. including CBIC despite of being settled finally. A few burning
examples are as below-
i)
Order given on 24.02.95 in OA No.
541/1994 by the Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur regarding payment of arrears of pay.
The issue is already a settled one because no appeal was made against this
order. But the order is still unimplemented in CBIC despite of the repeated
requests of the Association.
ii)
Order given on 06.09.10 in WP No. 13225/2010 by the Hon’ble
High Court of Madras in Subramanium case against which not only the SLP(C) No.
029382/2011 filed by the CBIC was dismissed on 10.10.17 but the review petition
has also been dismissed on 23.08.18. The
order is being implemented in persona instead in rem despite of being a settled
issue
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
iii)
Order given on 08.12.14 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 19024/ 2014 in
Chandrasekaran case against which issue (not to offset time scale granted prior
to 01.09.08 with MACP upgradation and GP of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 & PB3 being one & same thing) the SLP of the Department
of Revenue has also been dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balakrisnan
case (WP 11535/2014 in Madras High Court). Thus, para 8.1 of MACP Scheme
amounts to be scrapped. But the order is still unimplemented.
iv)
Order given on 01.03.17 in OA No.
2323/2012 by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi regarding parity in promotions to our
officers with intra-organisational counterparts. No appeal has been made in this case by the CBIC but the order is still
unimplemented.
v)
Special
Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of 2011 filed by the CBIC was also
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.05.11 in Ashok Kumar case involving the
issue of stepping-up of pay, if juniors are getting more pay than seniors on
account of ACP/MACP upgradation. General implementation of this issue is also
awaited even after being settled at the level of Apex Court.
vi)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7467/2013 has already confirmed
the order dated 31.05.11 of Chandigarh CAT for grant of MACP upgradation
in the promotional hierarchy. The Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 being a new pay
slab and not being existed in the promotional hierarchy, the para 8.1 of the
MACP instructions is also automatically amounts to be scrapped based on the
said verdict of the Apex Court but the order is still unimplemented.
vii)
Regarding
the offsetting of time scale with the MACP upgradation, the verdict given by
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 20.12.17 in the W.P.(C) No. 9357/2016 upholds that non-functional
financial upgradation/NFG (time scale) is not MACP upgradation on account of
being integral part of the pay. Thus, it can no way be treated as MACP
upgradation. The order of the Hon’ble High Court has already been implemented
vide office order No. 190/E-IV/Estt/DHC Dt. 23.02.18 in Delhi High Court
without preferring any appeal in it. Thus, the matter being already finalized is
yet to be implemented by the govt. including the CBIC.
viii) In the case of
U.O.I. Vs. Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) W.P. (C) 5146/2012 also, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated 24.08.12 held the same and
granted the next higher Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- after the time scale to the
employees. The order of the High Court was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by dismissing the Appeal of Union of India on 04.03.13 in SLP(C) No.
010607/2013. Thus, the above Order dated 24.08.12 of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi also attained finality after the dismissal of SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court but yet to be implemented by the govt. including CBIC.
ix)
In Subramanium case {SLP(C) No. 029382/2011} also, it has been
established that 4 years time-scale/NFSG and ACP/MACP upgradation are
altogether different. By the finalization of the issue at the level of the Apex
Court, the time scale can never be treated as one MACP upgradation but the same
is still unimplemented by govt. including CBIC.
x)
The verdict given in CWP 13702/2014 (Date of
decision-05.10.16) by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana ordering not to
limit the unused Earned Leaves of govt. employees which are being credited to
the limit of 300 only which is the limit of encashment also. This order has
been finalized as no appeal was made against it but yet to be implemented by
the govt. including CBIC.
5.
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 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.”
6.
It is reiterated that the officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even
in the same matters which have already been finalized/settled by the
Hon’ble Higher Courts/Apex Court. Needless to submit that
the verdicts finalized/settled by the Apex Court are always to be treated as
the Law of the Land. The verdicts, in which no appeal has been made, are also
not being implemented.
7.
Further, your kind attention is 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 letter Dt. 05.09.07. This letter says, “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 this letter and was prima facie of the
opinion that this letter invites 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 is never above
the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous not to follow the court orders.
8.
In view of the above, it is requested that-
i)
the grievances of the employees may kindly be rdressed administratively without
forcing them to go to the legal courts,
ii)
all court orders may kindly be implemented in true spirit,
iii)
circulars may kindly be issued to implement the settled issues in rem,
iv)
the appeals from High Court and Supreme Court in service matters may kindly be
withdrawn as has been done in appeals pertaining to the revenue by CBIC and
v)
the verdicts on service matters may kindly not be challenged, if already
settled by higher courts.
By
this, not only the hard earned money, energy and time of the officers will be
saved to be utilized in positive manner for Nation building and service of the
people but it will also save the huge litigation cost incurred by the Govt. as
well as precious time of the administrative machinery.
Thanking
you and waiting for your kind response,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
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: SoumenBhattachariya
(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. 80/AIB/T/19
Dt. 18.04.19
To,
Sh. Pranab
Kumar Das,
Chairman,
CBIC,
North Block,
New Delhi.
Sub: Transfers & postings of
promotee Asstt. Commissioners.
Sir,
Kindly refer to earlier requests of
the Association on the above matter.
2. It is to submit with due regards
that these officers have been promoted on ad-hoc basis against the temporary
posts of the Asstt. Commissioner with the clause of “no further promotion” and these posts have also not being included
in the recruitment rules. The officers have not got the benefit of even a
single paisa on being promoted against these posts at the fag end because of
already working in the same pay scale. Rather many of them are forced to get
less emoluments on account of being transferred to the cities with less HRA.
Due to this reason, a good number of the officers preferred to forgo the
promotion against these posts and many more may be forced to be voluntarily
retired.
3. Thus, these officers may kindly not to be
transferred to other station/zone (except willing ones), if vacancies exist in
their own zone as was also followed in transfer orders till October, 2014. If
vacancies don’t exist, the youngest officers may be transferred to nearby zone
and called back to the parent zone as soon as vacancies occur.
4. If the
change is inevitable, their station may be changed within their own zone (Para
2.1.5 of the policy also says about the change of station only, not the change
of zone) and the officers on promotion from Group B having
balance service of 5 years or less may kindly not be transferred out of the
station/zone where they are working at the time of promotion. If
transferred, they may kindly be brought back to their parent/requested place. The
reason behind it is that these officers are prone to various old age diseases
having regular treatment at the existing station and their families are also
settled at their parent places due to the compelling circumstances.
5. All of them also have to fulfill their family
obligations like settlement
of the career issues of young wards, settlement of
marriage of their
wards particularly daughters, care of old & ailing parents being under
medical supervision/treatment at the parent station etc. On being transferred
at this stage, neither they shall be able to fulfill their family obligations
nor be in the position to transfer whole family to new place or have double
establishments, one at the old place and another at the new place due to financial
constraints.
6.
Being promoted against temporary posts, nobody knows the fate of these officers
whether they would continue on these posts or not. If they don’t continue, it
is not known that they would again be asked to work on the parent post in which
zone, in their parent zone or new zone.
7. The period of more
than 9 months has been mentioned to be treated as a complete year in para 7.1
of the policy. In consonance of it, the period of one year and 3 months may also kindly
be treated as complete year for posting to the region/zone/station of choice.
8. It is also worth to submit that compassionate
grounds including DOPT guidelines, medical of self & family members/parents,
working spouse, no spouse, ward/s appearing for Board examination or higher
education, girl child etc. etc. are also to be considered as per the
representations made by the concerned officers.
9. The following submissions may also kindly be given due
consideration:
(i) The
promotee Asstt. Commissioners are very much demoralised due to
non-return to their parent places which may affect their
efficiency.
(ii)
The policy followed in 2017 & 2018 is totally different from the policy
followed in 2014. The policy of 2014 may kindly be followed for transfer of these
officers.
(iii)
The postings/transfers to Directorates may kindly be made based on policy
instead of recommendations to make the process transparent and impartial.
(iv)
The policy says about the change of station whereas the zones of these officers
have been changed. Accordingly, only the station may kindly be changed within
their parent zone, if required.
10. A huge number of officers were transferred to Patna,
Bhubaneshwar, Meerut, Hyderabad, Mumbai etc. from their existing place after
promotion in the year 2017. At least a one time measure may kindly be taken to accommodate
them to their parent/requested place to mitigate their problem relating to
health of self, spouse & parents, education & marriage of wards and
many other family problems/obligations including the officers transferred in
the year 2018. For example, a good number of officers from Kolkata forewent
their promotion under the apprehension of change of zone and a good number of
officers promoted there were transferred to other zones. The representations of
all of such officers including other zones may kindly be considered
sympathetically by not keeping any of vacancies unfilled in their zone.
11. In
view of the above, it is requested to kindly consider the above submissions
with due sympathy for the sake of justice and-
i) Retain the officers in their own zone/station, if the
vacancies exist including Directorate offices/NACEN.
ii) Not to transfer at least the officers having 5 years
or less service to out of the existing/requested station/zone and bring back
all of such officers to their own/requested station/zone who were transferred
in 2017 and 2018.
iii)
Give due consideration to the compassionate grounds as represented by the
officers.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
1) The Revenue Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
2) The Member (Admn), CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.
