Dear friends,
Namaste.
Draft OA to grant promotion to our Superintendent to STS post (Deputy Commissioner) instead of JTS post (Asstt. Commissioner) is placed below. All are requested to go through it and suggest amendments/additions accordingly to mail Id ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com or whatsap 9868816290.
Loving regards,
RAVI MALIK,
Secretary General,
AIACEGEO.
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO. OF 2019
Namaste.
Draft OA to grant promotion to our Superintendent to STS post (Deputy Commissioner) instead of JTS post (Asstt. Commissioner) is placed below. All are requested to go through it and suggest amendments/additions accordingly to mail Id ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com or whatsap 9868816290.
Loving regards,
RAVI MALIK,
Secretary General,
AIACEGEO.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD.
O. A. NO. __________ OF
2019
DISTRICT-
GHAZIABAD
1. All India Association of
Central Excise
Gazetted Executive Officers
Through its Secretary General Mr. Ravi Malik
Having its office at:
240, Razapur, Ghaziabad.
2. Mr. Ravi Malik
S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh
R/o 240, Razapur, Ghaziabad
Presently holding the post of Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise/CGST Posted at CGST Commissionerate, Ghaziabad.
Aged about 57 years, Group-A.
3. Mr. C. S. Sharma S/o Sh. M. R. Sharma
R/o 9/768, Lodhi Colony,Delhi-110003
Aged about 54 years
Presently holding the post of Superintendent of
Customs
Posted at Customs Preventive Commissionerate,
New Customs House, New Delhi. Group-A.
4. Mr. Harpal Singh S/o late Sh. Pratap Singh
R/o Flat no. 6, SE-11, Shastri Nagar
Ghaziabad, U. P. Aged about 48 years
Presently Posted as Superintendent, O/O
Commissioner
CGST, AUDIT Commisionerate, NOIDA Ghaziabad.
Group B
…. Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union
of India through Revenue Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, North Block, New
Delhi
2. Secretary,
Expenditure, North Block.
3. Department of Personnel & Training
Through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi
4. Chairman,
CBIC, North Block, New Delhi
5. Member Adm & Vig,
C.B.I.C., North Block, New Delhi.
6. Director
General, HRM, C.B.I.C., Bhai Beer Singh Sadan, B.B.S. Marg, New Delhi.
……………..Respondents
DETAILS OF APPLICATION:
1.
Particulars of the order against which the application is
made:
The present original application is made against
the impugned order dated 14/09/2018 passed by Respondent No.1 in pursuance of directions issued by Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench in its order dated 09/02/2018 in O.A.
No. 684/2018 (All India Association of Central Excise and others vs Union of
India and Ors.). True Copies of the Impugned Order dated 14.09.218 and order
dated 09/02/2018 are annexed herewith as Annexure
A-1 to this O.A.
respondents
decided the representation of the applicants vide impugned order dated
14/09/2018 and rejected the claim of the
2.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal :
The applicants declare that the subject
matter against which the applicants want redressal is within the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal.
3.
Limitation :
The applicant further declares that the
application is within the limitation period prescribed in section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. Facts of the case:
4.1 That applicant
no. 1 is the recognized association of Customs and Central excise/CGST gazetted
executive officers and its members are from the rank and post of
Superintendents and above. The Applicant no. 1 represented through its
Secretary General Mr. Ravi Malik who is Assistant Commissioner (Central
Excise/CGST and Customs) and is also an affected party. Copy of resolution
authorising Mr. Ravi Malik (who is also an applicant in his personal capacity)
to file the present case is at Annexure
A-2.
4.2 That the
applicants are seeking parity in payscale on promotion to Senior Time Scale as it is being
done in other departments.
4.3 That the applicants
named above submitted an application dated 02.08.2017 before the respondents
for promoting the central Excise Superintendants directly to a senior group “A”
post (Senior Time Scale) i.e. Deputy Commissioner like many other
counterparts and also to give weightage
of the service rendered in group “B” but the respondents sit tied over the
matter hence applicants were constrained to file O.A. No. 684/2018; All India
Association of Central Excise & others Vs. U.O.I. & others before Hon’ble
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench seeking direction for the respondents
to remove the disparity in the pay scale of promotional post for Central
Excise/ CGST Superintendents under CBIC and to promote Superintendents and promotee Assistant Commissioners to
Senior Time Scale bringing them at par with other similarly placed posts which
was decided on 09.02.2018 at the admission stage itself directing the
Respondents to take a decision on the representation dated 02/08/2017 made by
Applicant Association. True Copy of the representation dated 02/08/2017 &
order dated 09.02.2018 are being annexed collectively as Annexure A-2 & 3.
4.4 That in
pursuance of the above said direction of the Hon’ble CAT, Principal bench the respondents
decided the representation of the applicants vide impugned order dated
14/09/2018 and rejected the claim of the Applicants which is:
(i)
Pay parity of Superintendent of Central Excise at
par with DSP of CBI i.e. grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- PB-3 for
Superintendent of Central Excise.
(ii)
Promotion of Superintendents directly to the Grade
of GP-6600/-
(iii)
Grant of batch to batch non-functional upgradation
to Group ‘B’ Gazetted and Non-gazatted Executive Officers at par with the
counterparts in CSS.
However, the
respondents rejected the claim of the applicants without giving any plausible
reasoning or distinguishing the case of the applicant’s vis-à-vis the other
similarly situated personnel in other organizations in Central Government. The
Respondents No.1 & No.2 compared the case of pay parity of Superintendents
of Central Excise with that of DSP of C.B.I. only and did not look into that of
NCB or CSS.
4.5 That the
Applicants would like to bring forth the case of similarly situated persons in
Narcotics Control Bureau which was set up on 17th March 1986 under
the administrative control of Respondent no. 1. Later on, NCB was transferred to
Ministry of Home Affairs with effect from 18th February 2003. Till such time,
the recruitment rules for promotion to the post of Asstt. Commissioner in CBEC (now
CBIC) was same for Central Excise Superintendents as well as
Superintendents of NCB and both were considered and promoted to the post of
Asstt. Commissioner under same promotional hierarchy. Both cadres drew the
identical scale of pay. The parity in the promotion hierarchy of both the
posts, i.e. Superintendents of CBEC and Superintendents of NCB continued till
February 2003. Copy of Recruitment Rules for promotion post under Senior Time
Scale (Level-11) in Narcotics Control Bureau, CSS, All India Services, are
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
A-4 and Annexure A-5 respectively
to this O.A.
4.6 That the
Inspectors in CBEC/CBIC and Intelligence Officers/Inspectors in NCB are
recruited in same pay scale by SSC. The posts of Superintendents in CBEC/CBIC
and NCB are also filled-up through promotion from the Inspectors/Intelligence
Officers. The High Power Committee formed by the then Finance Minister also
accepted that the Superintendents of Central Excise and the Superintendents of
NCB are at par. Further, the Sixth Pay Commission categorically observed vide
Para 7.15.20 of its report that the duties & responsibilities attached to
these posts whether in Central Excise or in the Narcotics Control Bureau are
similar and recommended for parity of Inspector of the Central Bureau of
Narcotics with the Inspector of Central Excise.
4.7 That the
Central Excise Inspectors, Inspectors of NCB and Assistants of the Central
Secretariat Services (CSS) etc., being analogous posts, are recruited by same
recruiting body, i.e., the Staff Selection Commission and in a common scale of
pay. Earlier, on recommendations of the IVth CPC, the Assistants were
placed in a lower pay scale than the pay scale of the Central Excise Inspector
but was upgraded later on to bring it at par with Central Excise Inspector.
Similarly at one point of time (w.e.f. 21.04.04
to 31.12.05), the pay scale of the Section Officers was also
lower than the pay scale of the Central Excise Superintendents but was upgraded
later on to bring it at par with Central Excise Superintendent after
recommendations of VIth CPC. Eventually, the Inspectors are promoted to the
rank of Superintendent whereas the Assistants are promoted as Section Officers.
The posts of Central Excise Superintendent and Section officer of CSS are
analogous, yet the similarity ends here.
Section Officers are promoted directly to the Senior Time Scale post
with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- (Level-11) and reach up to the level of Joint
Secretary in the grade pay of Rs. 10000/- (Level-14) whereas the Central Excise
Superintendents are promoted (if at all), to the Junior Time Scale post merely
with a grade pay of Rs. 5400/- (Level-10). No need to submit that the
Superintendents (Central Excise) are at loss of at least one level in MACPS due
to the non-grant of direct promotion to STS post in comparison to their
counterparts in other Ministries/ Departments. True copy of the relevant
documents is annexed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure A-6 to this O.A.
4.8 That it is
further submitted that the Superintendents in Narcotics Control Bureau were
also granted the non-functional time scale on completion of 4 years of service
based on the precedent of the grant of the same to the Superintendents of
Central Excise.
4.9 That
Applicant No. 1 and other affected individuals including the applicants sought
for removal of disparity and allow promotion to the Group ‘B’ officers of
Central Excise & Customs to Senior Time Scale as available to Group ‘B’
gazetted officers in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau, CSS, MPA, MEA,
DANICS, DANIPS, CPWD and Railway Board etc. The Respondents have failed to
redress the grievance of the applicants, hence present O. A.
4.10 That so far as the Superintendents of NCB
are concerned, there also exists an established parity and relativity between
the Superintendents of NCB and Superintendents of Central Excise as the nature
of duties, mode of recruitment, functions and responsibilities of these posts
are the same. The Superintendents of Central Excise/CGST are also working as
Superintendents in NCB since the creation of NCB. NCB was also a part of CBEC
under the Department of Revenue and remained its part till 18.02.03. The
Superintendents of NCB were sharing common seniority with the Superintendents
of Central Excise for promotion to the same post of Group ‘A’ (i.e., Asstt. Commissioner)
till 18.02.03. The Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 were amended vide
Notification No. I/22/1/2003-CAB dt. 18.02.03 [S.O. 193(E)] to include the NCB
in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Even after that, NCB is being monitored by the
CBEC/Department of Revenue and the Superintendents of Central Excise/CGST are
till now performing their duties as Superintendents of NCB.
5. Grounds
for relief with the legal provisions:
5.1 Because the Group ‘B’ officers of
Customs & Excise, i.e., Superintendents are not only discharging all
functions relating to assessment, investigation & intelligence, Narcotics
Control and issuing Show Cause Notice but have also been conferred with the
judicial responsibilities of adjudication and also recording statements of
various persons in terms of Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and
Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and
also under GST. The statements
tendered before the Central Excise Superintendent have a legal binding and are treated
as a valid piece of evidence by various courts including the Hon’ble Supreme
Court just like the statements tendered before a Magistrate. Adjudication
Orders are also being prepared by them for the Commissioner level officers. No other counterpart of them has been
conferred with such responsibilities. So, Central Excise/CGST Superintendents
deserve far better treatment than their counterparts.
5.2 Because the
Central Excise Superintendents are performing more responsible work functions
as compared to other group ‘B’ gazetted counterparts yet they are facing the
worst career prospects instead of being given better treatment. They are being
maltreated despite of being the ‘backbone of the government revenue’. In the
actual terms, though they are the ‘backbone of the government’ on account of
being responsible to earn the finance for the government yet they are being
totally ignored in every matter including
career prospects and pay matters. So, Central Excise/CGST
Superintendents deserve far better treatment than their counterparts.
5.3 Because, not
only the direct promotion to Senior Time Scale, the Central Excise
Superintendents should also be given benefit of seniority in
group ‘A’ at the time of promotion
like given to group ‘B’ gazetted
officers at many places in lieu of the service rendered by them in group
‘B’. In Railways, Administrative Services, Police Services, Forest Services,
State Services etc., the group ‘B’ gazetted officers are allowed the weightage
of minimum of 4 years at the time of entry into group ‘A’ also giving them the
due benefit of seniority in lieu of the service rendered by them in the group
‘B’ and promotion to STS post. For example, the officers of Provincial Services
in Southern States enter into IAS in a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- (Level-11)
within 8 years with 4 years of seniority benefit while the most of the Central
Excise Superintendents are unable to enter into IRS in a lower grade pay of Rs.
5400/- even after serving for 35-40 years. They enter (if any) into IRS in a grade
pay of Rs. 5400/- (level-10) only and retire at same level without any
weightage in lieu of seniority in group ‘A’.
5.4 Because
the rationale behind such a provision of weightage or direct promotion to STS
group ‘A’ is based on the fact of the promotee officers having gained rich
experience at the time of working as group ‘B’ officer as compared to direct
recruit group ‘A’ officers. But very unfortunately, the Central Excise
Superintendents are not being given the said benefit despite of being served for
the longest period in group ‘B’ as compared to any other category of the group
‘B’ employees of the Govt. of India.
5.5 Because
before the enactment of Indian Customs & Central Excise Service Group ‘A’
Rules, 1987, the group ‘B’ gazetted executive officers in CBEC were allowed
five increments in their group ‘A’ pay scale on promotion to group ‘A’ since
senior time scale was not available at that point of time.
5.6 Because
the common entry counterparts of CSS are not only being promoted directly to a
STS post (Level-11) from Section Officer (analogous to Superintendent and
Level-8) but also reaching the level of Joint Secretary (Level-14). The
position in CPWD is even more interesting where an officer with a grade pay of
Rs. 4600/- (Level-7) is being directly promoted to a post with a grade pay of
Rs. 6600/- (STS) and further directly to a post with the grade pay of Rs.
8700/- (Level-13) from a post with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/-. Thus, they don’t
need to serve on a post at Level-8, Level-9, Level-10 and Level-12 for
promotion to the Level-13 after entry into a post with merely a grade pay of
Rs. 4200/- (Level-6).
5.7 Because the
reasoning given by the Respondents while declining the demand of the Applicants
is absolutely whimsical and devoid of any merit in view of the judgments of
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Union of India vs.
Sri S. Balakrishnan (WPC No. 11535/ 2014) and in the case of Mr. R. Chandrasekaran versus CAT & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 19024/
2014), which has obliterated the so called distinction between GP 5400/- in PB2
and GP-5400/- in PB3. So, the Central
Excise Superintendents should be promoted to Senior Time Scale post after
getting Grade Pay of 5400/- as time scale. There is no justification of
promoting an officer to Grade Pay of 5400/- who is already getting a Grade Pay
of 5400/-.
5.8 Because, IAS,
IPS & IFS (Forest) are the most elite services in the country and the group
‘B’ officers are provided weightage even on promotion to these services in lieu
of the service rendered in-group ‘B’. But no such preferential treatment is
meted out to the Central Excise Superintendents at the time of entry (if any)
to IRS, despite of the latter being one of the most important services of the Govt. of India.
5.9 Because like
CSS, there is a provision of direct recruitment in Group-B non-gazetted and
Group-B gazetted posts in CBEC. Hence like CSS, the Group-B gazetted officers
of Central Excise and Customs are required to be promoted directly to a post
having senior time scale and all the Group-B gazetted officers completing 1½ of
qualifying service be promoted to STS
posts as it was done in CSS during 1999, if not getting promotion within prescribed residency period.
5.10 Because the
Respondents are violating the underlying principle of equality amongst equals
and thus expressly and deliberately depriving the applicants and all the
Superintendents of CBEC from direct promotion to Senior Time Scale, i.e., PB-3 Grade Pay 6600/- (Level-11).
5.11 Because the
most of group ‘B’ gazetted officers in Central as well as State governments are
being promoted directly to a Senior Time Scale (STS) post with GP of Rs. 6600/-
in PB-3 including CSS, CPWD, Railway Board, AFHQ, CVC, UPSC, MEA, MPA, NCB,
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Enforcement Directorate in Revenue Department itself,
Forest services, Police services, Foreign Services, Engineering services, State
services etc. But Central Excise Superintendents are being promoted merely to a
Junior Time Scale (JTS) post with Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3. In these
premises, Central Excise Superintendents also deserve to be promoted directly
to a STS post keeping in view their extraordinarily acute stagnation. It is
also worth to submit that the posts in GP of Rs. 5400/- & 6600/- are
functionally same.
5.12 Because the Inspectors in CBEC/CBIC and Intelligence
Officers/Inspectors in NCB are recruited in same pay scale by SSC. The posts of
Superintendents in CBEC/CBIC and NCB are also filled-up through promotion from
the Inspectors/Intelligence Officers.
5.13 Because the High Power Committee formed by
the then Finance Minister also accepted that the Superintendents of Central
Excise and the Superintendents of NCB are at par.
5.14 Because the Sixth Pay Commission
categorically observed vide Para 7.15.20 of its report that the duties &
responsibilities attached to these posts whether in Central Excise or in the
Narcotics Control Bureau are similar and recommended for parity of Inspector of
the Central Bureau of Narcotics with the Inspector of Central Excise.
5.15 Because the Central Excise Inspectors,
Inspectors of NCB and Assistants of the Central Secretariat Services (CSS)
etc., being analogous posts, are recruited by same recruiting body, i.e., the
Staff Selection Commission and in a common scale of pay.
5.16 Because the pay scale of the Assistants was lower than the
pay scale of the Central Excise Inspectors based on the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission but
was upgraded later to bring at par with Central Excise Inspector without the recommendations of the Pay
commission.
5.17 Because at one point of time (before VIth Pay Commission), the pay scale of the Section
Officers was also lower than the pay scale of the Central Excise Superintendents
but was upgraded later at par with Central Excise Superintendents.
5.18 Because the Inspectors are promoted to the
rank of Superintendent whereas the Assistants are promoted as Section Officers.
The posts of Central Excise Superintendent and Section officer of CSS are
analogous, yet the similarity ends here.
Section Officers are promoted directly to the Senior Time Scale post
with a grade pay of Rs. 6600/- (Level-11) and reach up to the level of Joint
Secretary in the grade pay of Rs. 10000/- (Level-14) whereas the Central Excise
Superintendents are promoted (if at all), to the Junior Time Scale post merely
with a grade pay of Rs. 5400/- (Level-10).
5.19 Because the Superintendents (Central Excise) are at loss of
at least one level in MACPS due to the non-grant of direct promotion to STS
post in comparison to their counterparts in other Ministries/ Departments.
5.20 Because the Superintendents in Narcotics Control Bureau were
also granted the non-functional time scale on completion of 4 years of service
based on the precedent of the grant of the same to the Superintendents of
Central Excise.
5.21 Because at one point of time (before 2005), the pay
scale of the Superintendents of NCB was
also lower than the pay scale of the Central Excise Superintendents but was
upgraded later at par with Central Excise Superintendent.
5.22 Because Applicant No. 1 and other affected individuals
including the applicants sought for removal of disparity and allow promotion to
the Group ‘B’ gazetted officers of Central Excise & Customs (i.e.,
Superintendent) to Senior Time Scale as available
to Group ‘B’ gazetted officers in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau,
CSS, MPA, MEA, DANICS, DANIPS, CPWD and Railway Board etc. but the respondents
have failed to redress the grievance of the applicants, hence present O. A.
5.23 Because there also exists an established
parity and relativity between the Superintendents of NCB and Superintendents of
Central Excise as the nature of duties, mode of recruitment, functions and
responsibilities of these posts are the same. The Superintendents of Central
Excise/CGST are also working as Superintendents in NCB since the creation of
NCB. NCB was also a part of CBEC under the Department of Revenue and remained
its part till 18.02.03. The Superintendents of NCB were sharing common
seniority with the Superintendents of Central Excise for promotion to the same
post of Group ‘A’ (i.e., Asstt. Commissioner) till 18.02.03.
5.24 Because the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961 was amended vide
Notification No. I/22/1/2003-CAB dt. 18.02.03 [S.O. 193(E)] to include the NCB
in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Even after that, NCB is being monitored by the
CBEC/Department of Revenue and Superintendents of Central Excise/CGST are till
now performing their duties as Superintendents of NCB.
6. Details of the remedies exhausted:
The applicants declare that they have
availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules
etc. The applicants made representations
before the respondent department for their redressal and the same has been
rejected by the impugned order.
7. Matters
not previously filed or pending with any other court:
The applicants further declare that
they had filed O.A. before Principal Bench for instant cause of action which
was disposed at the admission stage with the direction to the respondents to
decide the representation of the applicants pending before them which has now
been decided by the impugned order.
8. Relief
Sought:
In view of the facts mentioned in para
6 above the applicants prays for the following relief(s):-
1.
To quash and set aside impugned order dated
14/09/2018 directing the respondents to
remove the disparity in the pay scale of promotional post for Central
Excise/CGST Superintendents under CBEC/CBIC in comparison to its counterparts
in other Departments/ Ministries;
2.
To direct the Respondents to promote Applicants and
other similarly situated Central Excise/CGST Superintendents and promotee
Asstt. Commissioners to Senior Time Scale (PB3 GP 6600/-) bringing at par with
other similar posts including Narcotics Control Bureau, DASS, CSS etc.;
3.
To direct the Respondents to give the benefit of
seniority in Group ‘A’ (at least one year against every three years service in
Group ‘B’) to the Applicants and other similarly situated Central Excise/CGST
Superintendents and promotee Asstt. Commissioners on entry to Group ‘A’ in lieu
of the service rendered by them in Group ‘B’;
4.
And/OR may pass such other and further orders /directions
which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.
9. INTERIM RELIEF, IF ANY
Pending
final decision on the application, the applicant seeks the following interim relief: N.A.
10. In the event of application being sent by
registered post, it may be stated whether the applicant dires to have oral
hearing at the admission stage and if so, he shall attach a self addressed
postcard or inland letter, at which intimation regarding the date of hearing
could be sent to him: NOT APPLICABLE
11. PARTICULAR
OF APPLICATION FEE:
1.
Name of issuing Post Office :
2.
Date of issuing the P.O.:
3.
Amount of the Postal Order:
4.
Post Office at which payable:
12. LIST OF ENCLOSURES: As per Index
VERIFICATION:
I, Ravi Malik, son of late Sh. Mahabir Singh, aged about
57 years, working as Assistant Commissioner in the office of CGST, Ghaziabad, applicant no.2 and also
Secretary General of applicant no.1 in the above noted Original application do hereby verify that
the contents of paragraphs No.________________ ________________of this
application are true to my personal knowledge; and paragraphs
nos._______________________ of this application are believed to be true on
legal advice, and paragraphs nos. _________________________ based on record,
and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
APPLICANT
VERIFICATION
I, Chhidda Singh
Sharma, s/o late Sh. M. R. Sharma, r/o 9/768, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-3, aged
about 53 years, applicant no.3
in the above noted Original application do hereby verify that
the contents of paragraphs No.________________ ________________of this
application are true to my personal knowledge; and paragraphs
nos._______________________ of this application are believed to be true on
legal advice, and paragraphs nos. _________________________ based on record,
and that I have not suppressed any material fact.
APPLICANT
VERIFICATION:
I, Harpal Singh, S/o
late Sh. Pratap Singh, r/o Flat no. 6, SE-11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad, U. P. ,
aged about 48 years, applicant no.4 in the above noted Original application do hereby verify that
the contents of paragraphs No.________________ ________________of this
application are true to my personal knowledge; and paragraphs
nos._______________________ of this application are believed to be true on legal
advice, and paragraphs nos. _________________________ based on record, and that
I have not suppressed any material fact.
APPLICANT
Date: May, 2019.
Place: ALLAHABAD.
(ASHOK
KUMAR PANDEY)
Advocate
Adv.
Roll A/A-1365/2012
(YASHWANT
SINGH)
Advocate
Adv.
Roll A/Y-0023/12
Counsels
for the Applicants
Old
Study Room, South Verandah,
High
Allahabad
Mobile:
9454966521
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
**********
ORIGINAL
APPLICATION NO. OF 2019
(Under
Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
DISTRICT : GHAZIABAD
All India Association of Central Excise
and others ---- Applicants
Versus
Union of India and others ---
Respondents
ANNEXURE NO.
