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, Pranave Shekhar (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. 97/AIB/M/19
Dt. 13.05.19
To,
The Secretary
DOPT,
North Block, New
Delhi.
Sub: Offsetting
of time scale/NFG with the MACP upgradation.
Sir,
Kindly refer to the letter Ref. No.
304/AIB/N/18 Dt. 19.11.18 of the Association.
2. Your
kind attention is invited to the 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.
3. 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.”
4. 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 court
verdicts in the settled issues is being given only to the
petitioners/applicants instead of implementing the court verdicts in rem.
5. 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 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
nodal departments like DOPT & Expenditure is never above the Hon’ble Court
and it is contemptuous not to follow the court orders. So, 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.
6. 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.
7. Further, your kind attention is invited to
the following verdicts regarding the offsetting of time scale/NFG with the
MACP upgradation-
i) In 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 (time scale) is not MACP upgradation
on
account of being integral part of the
pay. Thus, it can no way be treated as one 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 of Delhi High Court without preferring any
appeal in it. Thus, no need to submit that the matter has been finalized and
settled.
ii) 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.
iii) In Subramanium case also, it
has been established that 4 years time-scale/NFG and ACP/MACP upgradation are
altogether different. If time scale was to be counted as one MACP upgradation,
it would have been granted after 10 years of service instead of 4 years. By the
finalization of the issue at the level of the Apex Court, the time scale can
never be treated as one MACP upgradation.
iv) In Balkrishnan case in Writ Petition No. 11535/2014 with
M.P. No. 1/2014 also, the offsetting of time scale with the MACP upgradation
was not allowed. 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 law of land.
8. It is also worth to submit that any finally
settled verdict becomes the law of the land particularly being accepted by the
government or 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 IIn para and also in view of the IIIrd para above. If
every employee is forced to go to the legal court on an already decided issue, it
would not only be the wastage of the precious time of the courts but it would
also be 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 to be utilized in a positive manner for Nation building and it will
also save the huge litigation cost being incurred by the Govt. on such legal
cases.
9. Further, your kind attention is also invited to the verdict given in
the Contempt Petition (C) No. 928 of 2016 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 not
specifically directed to be implemented in person.
10. In view of
the above, it is requested that the due circular may kindly be issued not
to offset the time scale/NFG with the MACP upgradation and 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. Otherwise it is
requested to consider this letter as a notice for contempt of the Hon’ble Apex
court and also of the High Courts of Madras and Delhi as per the legal advice
given by the legal expert.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request of necessary action
to:
1. The Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India,
President House, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Department of
Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary, Department of Legal
Affairs, New Delhi.
5. The Chairman, CBIC, North Block, New
Delhi.
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
Mob.7780255361 mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com Site:
cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty
(west); Ashish Vajpayee, Pranave Shekhar (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. 98/AIB/P/19
Dt. 13.05.19
To,
Sh. Pranab Kumar Das,
Chairman, CBIC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Implementation
of the DOPT OM No. AB-14017/12/88-Estt. (RR) Dt. 25.03.96 on “Revision of guidelines for
framing/amendment/relaxation of recruitment rules - consideration of seniors in
cases where juniors are considered”.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the letter Ref. No. 332/AIB/S/18 Dt. 17.12.18 of the Association as
well as Gazette Notification Dt. 14.12.18 notified w.r.t. F. No.
A-12018/10/2012-Ad.IIB(Part 2) Dt. 13.12.18 of the CBIC amending the
Recruitment Rules of the Central Excise Superintendent on the directions of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi implementing the subject-mentioned OM of the DOPT.
2. Needless to submit that
the said OM was to be implemented from 1996. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
also directed in its Order Dt. 29.11.16 in CM No. 44096/2016, CM No. 44097/2016
and W.P.(C) 11277/2016 to give the benefit of the OM despite of not being
incorporated in the recruitment rules finally dismissing the petition of the
CBIC. It means that the said OM should have been implemented way back in 1996
only.
3. In view of the
above, it is again requested to implement the said OM from 1996 giving its benefit
to all of the affected officers, whether petitioners or non-petitioners like
the decision taken for petitioners as well as non-petitioners by the CBIC in
the Matharoo case. This shall benefit both categories of the officers.
Thanking You,
Yours sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with
the request for necessary action to:
1. The
Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, President House, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.
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
Mob.7780255361 mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com Site:
cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty
(west); Ashish Vajpayee, Pranave Shekhar (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. 99/AIB/S/19
Dt. 13.05.19
To,
The Secretary DOPT,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Stepping-up of pay under MACPS/ACPS.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the letter Ref. No. 307/AIB/M/18 Dt. 22.11.18 of the Association.
2. 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.
3. 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.”
4. Despite of the 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 the
court verdicts in rem.
5. 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.
6. The DOPT OM issued vide
No. 28027/9/99-Estt.(A) Dt. 01.05.2000 also contains the contemptuous content
like 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.
7.
Further, your kind attention is invited to the verdict given by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of
2011 filed by the CBIC by dismissing it 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 years ago.
8. 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 IInd para and also in view of the IIIrd para above. If every
employee is forced to go to the legal court on an already settled 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.
9. Further, your kind attention is also
invited to the verdict given in the Contempt Petition (C) No. 928 of 2016 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 not specifically directed to be implemented in person.
10.
In view of the above, it is requested that the due circular may kindly be
issued-
i)
to step up the pay of the
seniors, if juniors are getting more pay than seniors on account of ACP/MACP
upgradation.
ii)
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.
Otherwise it is
requested to consider this letter as a notice for contempt of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and also of the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana as per the legal advice
given by the legal expert.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
(RAVI
MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request of necessary action
to:
1. The Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India,
President House, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Department of
Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.
4. The Secretary, Department of Legal
Affairs, New Delhi.
5. The Chairman, CBIC, North Block, New
Delhi.
