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. 93/AIB/S/19
Dt. 07.05.19
To,
Sh. Pranab Kumar Das,
Chairman, CBIC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Implementation of the
Subramaniam 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, 66/AIB/S/19
Dt. 27.03.19 etc. alongwith letter F. No. A-23011/3/2019-Ad.IIA Dt.23.03.19 of the CBIC
in r/o the implementation of the order given in OA No. 1318/2018.
2. It is to submit with due
regards that the Hon’ble CAT of Allahabad held in OA No. 1318/2018 that the pay of the officers is to
be fixed in
the Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400/- with all consequential
benefits with effect from the dates that they had completed four years of
service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- (i.e., pay scale of the Superintendent)
alongwith the interest at such rates as might be found just and reasonable in
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Your kind attention is also 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.
4. It is also worth to mention
that the Hon’ble CAT of Allahabad has pointedly observed in para 7 of the order that pay fixation matters
like the one it was considering, were all governed by uniform policies of the
Government and, therefore, judgments on such matters, by their very nature,
were always
judgments-in-rem and cannot be judgments-in-personam, unless so specified in
the order.
5. Accordingly, the Hon’ble CAT has been pleased to order that the respondents would
ensure that the benefits of the judgment referred above are given to all the persons
who are entitled to the same whether they are retired or are in service
and that this exercise is to be completed within a month from the date of the receipt of certified copy
of the order.
6. 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 including
Expenditure and DOPT is never above the Hon’ble Court and it is contemptuous
not to follow the court orders.
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. Despite of the Board letter
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 by redressing the
grievances represented by the employees, the officers are forced to file court
cases and contempt petitions on various issues. It is completely against the
policy of the government of minimum litigations. On subject matter, all
officers are being forced to go to the legal courts resulting into hefty
expenditure on the part of the government in the form of fees of the advocates
and unwarrantedly incurring of huge
working hours of the manpower of government on the issue in addition to the
huge money and manpower being forced to be unnecessarily incurred on the part
of the petitioners which is on increase day by day. Not only it, the precious
time of the Hon’ble Courts are also being wasted by forcing the officers to
file repeated petitions on the same issue.
8. For Lucknow & Meerut Zones,
it has correctly been decided by the competent authority to implement the verdict
benefitting all persons irrespective of the fact whether they are petitioner or
not. But contrary to it, the CBIC has issued the letter F. No. A-23011/3/2019-Ad.IIA
Dt.23.03.19 to implement the verdict in respect of the petitioners only. Such
letters give the mere impression that the concerned authorities intend not to minimise the court
cases as well as the contempt petitions.
9. Your kind attention is also invited to the various verdicts
given by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court for in-rem implementation including the orders Dt. 17.10.14 given in the Civil
Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs.
Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors 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.”
10. Further, your kind attention is also invited to the verdict given
in the Contempt
Petition (C) No. 928 of 2016 given on 26.04.19 by the Apex Court. The Apex
Court has established the law in the said order that any person aggrieved with
the violation of general directions issued in a judgement can file contempt
petition.
It is also reiterated that any direction/order is said to be general until specifically
directed to be implemented in person.
11. 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 the officers at an early date giving benefit to all affected officers, whether
petitioners/non-petitioners or serving/retired. Otherwise it is requested to consider this
letter as a notice for contempt of the Hon’ble Apex court as per the legal
advice given by the legal expert.
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.
4. The
Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, President House, New Delhi.
