ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE
OFFICERS
Patron
Chief Patron
Patron
A.
Venkatesh
Ravi Malik
C. S. Sharma
Mob. 7780255361 Mob. 9868816290 Mob.
9313885411
President:
Address for communication: Secretary
General:
T. Dass Flat No. 6,
SE 11, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Harpal Singh
Mob.9848088928 mail
Id:aiacegeo2019@gmail.com Site:cengoindia.blogspot.in Mob.9717510598
Vice Presidents: B L Meena, K V Sriniwas (Central) Chinmoy Ghosh, Rajashish Dutta
(East) Ashish Vajpayee, Amadul Islam (North) B Pavan K Reddy, M Jegannathan
(South) Sanjeev Sahai, U D Meena (West) Joint Secretaries: S P Pandey, T
A Manojuman (Central) Apurba Roy, Siddhath Tewari (East) A K Meena, S K
Shrimali (West) Anand Narayan, Prabhakar Sharma (North) H Sadanand, M Nagaraju
(South); All India Coordinator: B L Meena Office Secretary: B C
Gupta Treasuer: Manoj Kumar 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)
Office address: 206, B wing, CGO Complex II, Kamla
Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad
Ref. No. 259/AIB/CR/19
Dt. 30.12.19
To,
Sh. Xavier Toppo,
Under Secretary, Ad.IV,
CBIC, New Delhi
Sub:
Proposal for Cadre Restructuring 2019 – regarding.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your letter C. No.
11019/10/2019-Ad.IV Dt. 19.11.2019 and letter Ref. No. 248/AIB/C/19 Dt.
02.12.19 of the Association.
2. The Association welcomes the
creation of separate service for our officers as it was a long pending demand
of the Association. However, much more
is required to be done in r/o the said separate service and other prospects for
cadre members of the Association. The views of the AIACEGEO on the proposal
for CR 2019 are submitted in the following paras.
3. In para 1 of Chapter 5 of the proposal, it has been
emphasized that, “the exercise
provides an opportunity to overcome bottlenecks, remove existing distortions
and bring about rationalization of cadre restructure so as to improve the
efficiency as well as morale of the personnel and thereby enhance the
effectiveness and efficiency of the department in the fulfillment of the
objectives”. But
nothing concrete is seemed to overcome bottlenecks, remove existing distortions
and bring rationalization of cadre restructure in r/o Group B executive
officers of CGST which may kindly be done immediately.
4.
In para 5.4.4 of Chapter 5, the suggestions regarding “alignment and parity of CGST organization with SGST” and “Parity of CGST hierarchical structure with
SGST” have been mentioned. Further, in para
5.4.5, it has been mentioned that, the CCAs have recommended “Parity of CGST hierarchical structure with
that of SGST” and “Redefining
the duties of the different grades of officers in GST”. Furthermore, in
para 5.4.6, it has been mentioned “there
should be structural and hierarchical parity of CGST and SGST”. However,
no structural and hierarchical parity with SGST is seemed in the proposal as
also asked by the Association during the meeting held on the issue. Equivalent posts of the officers of
CGST/SGST should be clearly defined in the Acts itself. The point of upgradation/redesignation
of posts, enhancement of pay scales and providing of due infrastructure like
State GST was also agreed by the administration during the meeting
held on cadre restructuring but nothing has been done. Immediate steps may
kindly be taken in the matter.
5. Immediate steps are also
required to be taken to remove the shortage of manpower and infrastructure,
if we really want to compete with the SGST. It is worth to mention that CBIC
model was to have around 400 assessees per Range but these offices are having
even upto 14000 assessees which is noway managable by one Range Officer. So,
number of assessees should not be more than 400 in a Range Office and this
should be the basic figure to calculate manpower strength in GST. One Range
Office should also have minimum one Range Officer, three Inspectors, one
Ministerial staff, one Sepoy and Housekeeping personnel alongwith due infrastructure
including one four-wheeler vehicle. Accordingly, a Division office should also
not have more than 2000 assessees for smooth tax administration alongwith due
infrastructure. Thus, the number of Range offices, Divisional offices, required
manpower and infrastructure under CGST should be calculated based on these
figures. SGST offices are also having this standard pattern. Requirement for
Headquarter offices, Audit, Preventive/Anti-evasion, Customs, Directorates etc.
is to be calculated in addition to it.
6. The
increase in workload and the requirement of the staff/officers to handle the
same have been considered without taking into the technological assistance in
r/o of the tax collection. Though the proposal has mentioned that the GST is
implemented in 140 countries and 03 countries including India have duel GST.
The proposal has miserably failed to point out as to which country has the best
model for administration of GST which can be replicated for better
administration. The proposal quoting our Hon’ble Prime Minister says that GST
is soul of “One Tax; One Nation; One Market”, but it has failed to address as
to why there should not be “one administrative structure” in the whole country.
All 36 States/UTs are having their own model of administrative structure and
their officers are having different roles and responsibilities. In every State/UT,
only one Commissioner supervises the tax administration, i.e., 36 Commissioners
for whole country in SGST. However, we have around 500 Commissioner and above
posts to administrate the CGST in spite of the fact that we have a smaller
number of tax payers and tax collection under the CGST. The officers of the States
under the erstwhile VAT regime and also under the GST era are empowered to
administer the tax payers in terms of their turnover. However, in CGST
administration, all the tax payers irrespective of their turnover are under the
control of Range Officer, i.e., Superintendent who in turn is controlled by 08
sets of officers from Assistant Commissioner to Principal Chief Commissioner. These disparities should be removed
immediately and extra posts of Commissioner and all posts above the
Commissioner should be abolished with increase of the posts at each level in
the Branch ‘B’ IRS to improve the promotional aspects of Group ‘B’ executive
officers in CGST adopting matching saving formula.
7. As regards the quasi-judicial
proceedings by way of the adjudication, all other adjudicating authorities except
Superintendent are having helping hands in the form of Superintendents who
prepare their order for perusal and approval. The CBIC is the only organisation
in the country where a junior level adjudicating authority, i.e., the
Superintendent is deployed to put up the adjudication order for the senior adjudicating
authority, i.e., for AC/DC/JC/ADC/Commissioner/Pr. Commissioner. Adjudication
& review of adjudication orders are judicial work and it is assumed that the
person empowered under the law shall decide the case and pass the order
independently without being influenced by others thought. To enforce this
ideology, only clerks, typists & stenos are provided as supporting staff to
all the judges in the judiciary and in quasi-judicial proceedings for the
Executive Magistrates in the provincial services. Thus, in CBIC, it is wastage of manpower, which should be addressed in
this organizational restructuring taking into account the technological
advancement.
8. This cadre
restructuring appears to vindicate the position of the direct Group ‘A’
officers only like earlier cadre restructurings. Our CBIC has two grades of
officers performing the same functional duties but getting higher salary e.g.
Assistant Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner, Joint Commissioner & Additional
Commissioner, Commissioner & Principal commissioner and Chief Commissioner
& Principal Chief Commissioner. The GST and Customs being a technology
driven tax administration system, the
post of Principal Commissioner and above are redundant. The informations are
also not required to be compiled at various stages, it can be obtained with a
click of mouse from the system.
9. In para 3.2.2 of Chapter 8, it has been mentioned that it has not been found feasible to increase
in the promotion quota from existing 50% of annual vacancies to 75% by reducing
direct recruitment quota to 25% of annual vacancies at JTS level as it may be
against the Memorandum I-11019/12/2008-CRD dated 20.01.2009. However, it is difficult to understand which
norms of the DOPT allowed the CBIC to maintain the ratio of Assistant
Commissioner to Superintendent as 1: 30.67 so far. There is no cadre in the
Central Government where such ratio has been maintained between two back to
back posts. The ratio in the hierarchy should be reasonable and unbiased. As
per DOPT norms also, it should not be less than 1:3.
10. In this regard, it is also
worth to mention that the point of enhancement of promotion quota at Group
‘A’ entry level was also raised by the Association. As per
the DOPT guidelines, it has already been decided not to make direct recruitment
more than 3% of total Group ‘A’ strength at Group ‘A’ entry level. So, the
promotion quota at Group ‘A’ entry level for promote officers is required to be
enhanced accordingly. This point was also agreed by the administration to
enhance promotion quota from ½ to 2/3rd. It was also asked by us to
give all posts in addition to maximum 3% direct recruitment of total Group ‘A’
strength as prescribed by DOPT for our promotions. This point was also agreed and
it was informed that it was already under process but nothing has been done.
The needful may kindly be done.
11. Seniority benefit/weightage
on promotion to group ‘A’ in lieu of the service rendered in group ‘B’
was also agreed by the administration and they themselves said that this issue
had already been recommended by the Stagnation Committee but nothing has been
done. Needful may kindly be done.
12. In our CBIC, the direct
recruit Inspector retires after one promotion even after completion of 35 years
of service. The Lower Division Clerk or Tax Assistant gets at least four
promotions and mostly retires from the post of Superintendent and some becomes
Asstt. Commissioner also. The Officers recruited as Direct Group ‘A’, get upto
9 promotions. This is sufficient to narrate our grievance which has not been
addressed in the proposed CR 2019 also like past ones. If the CBIC can
frequently get relaxed the norms for promotion of the Group ‘A’ officers citing
administrative exigency, why the CBIC and DOPT cannot come to rescue the
deprived cadre of Central Excise/CGST Group ‘B’ executive officers.
13. The para 3.8.4 of Chapter 8 shows the ratio between
promoted cadre and feeder cadre as under:
|
Existing
|
Proposed
|
|
|
Assistant
Commissioner: Superintendent
|
1:30.67
|
1:6.41
|
The ratio has been changed in the proposal very smartly without
increasing the existing posts of Assistant Commissioner. The actual figures of
the Branch ‘B’ Assistant Commissioners are as under –
|
Regular
posts presently for promoted ACs
|
Temporary
posts already in existence
|
CAOs
posts to be merged with AC
|
Actual
proposal for increasing post
|
|
|
a
|
B
|
c
|
D
|
e
(a-b-c-d)
|
|
3,092
|
623
(1,246/2)
|
2,118
|
349
|
2
|
The CAOs
post, however, will not be immediately available as the AC because the CAOs
shall continue work till their retirement.
14. The ratio for the Direct Group
‘A’ officers is as under: -
|
Grade
|
Existing
|
Proposed
|
|
DC: AC
|
1:1.56 [801:1246]
|
1:0.92 [677:624]
|
|
ADC/JC:DC
|
1:0.86 [932:801]
|
1:0.69 [982:677]
|
|
Commissioner: ADC/JC
|
1:2.78 [335:932]
|
1:2.87 [342:982]
|
|
PC: Commissioner
|
1:3.42 [98:335]
|
1:3.51 [100:351]
|
|
CC:PC
|
1:2.65 [37:98]
|
1:2.50 [40:100]
|
|
PCC:CC
|
1:2.64 [14:37]
|
1:2.67 [15:40]
|
Further, the
ratio for the branch ‘B’ officers is as under: -
|
Grade
|
Existing
|
Proposed
|
|
AC: Superintendent
|
1:30.67
|
1:6.41
[3,092:22,020]
|
|
DC: AC
|
NA
|
1:8.83[350:3,092]
|
|
JC:DC
|
NA
|
1:4.38
[80:350]
|
|
ADC:JC
|
NA
|
1:2.96
[27:80]
|
|
Commissioner:ADC
|
NA
|
1:11.89
[9:107]
|
15. From perusal of the above tables, it is found that there
is bias in the ratio for promotions between promotee and direct Group ‘A’
officers. This is against the mandate of the CRC and the Cabinet which has directed
to look into matter and to find out the root cause and resolve the issue
permanently. So, the ratio for
promotions between the officers of Branch ‘B’ service and direct Group ‘A’
officers should be based on their strength at each level.
16. There are seven
types of officers in the hierarchy (Assistant Commissioner, Deputy
Commissioner, Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Commissioner,
Principal Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner) who
take assistance from the Inspectors and Superintendents. All of these seven
types of officers are there only to keep asking Inspectors and Superintendents
to put and send the file upwards. All of
seven types of officers either put their signatures or make minor corrections relating
to phrases, comma and full stops. In view of the above, the organizational
restructuring is irrelevant and illogical.
17. By merger of the post of Administrative Officer (AO) with
the post of the Superintendent, the Superintendent will have either to hold the
charge of AO or it is to be held in addition to their routine charge. This
situation is against the settled principles as the Inspectors and
Superintendents are basically tax assessment officers performing executive
duties. As regards merger of Administrative Officer with Superintendent, it is
submitted that the EAs, who till a week ago were waiting for the DPC for
promotion to the grade of Inspector, now will be eager to join as AO so that
they can get their promotion to the post of Superintendent directly, thereby
superseding Inspectors of 18 years of service. Therefore, there should be no
further DPC for the post of Administrative Officer in future. Since the said
merger is to be treated as promotion, no
AO with less service than any Inspector should be promoted to the post of
Superintendent otherwise a junior officer (AO) will head a senior officer
(Inspector).
18. The eligibility of the Additional Assistant Directors of
the Directorate for the post of Assistant Commissioner is detrimental to remove
the stagnation of Superintendent. So, Additional
Assistant Directors should not be eligible to become Asstt. Commissioner.
Rather, measures may be taken to improve their prospects within Directorates
only.
19. It is mentioned in the proposal that to achieve the goals
and keeping in view the paradigm shift in Indirect Tax administration and its
business process, it has necessitated a completely fresh zero-based review of
the present organizational structure of the department which facilitates
optimum utilization of resources as per the current functional needs of the
organization. After detailed consultation with the Committees formed and the
stakeholders, a detailed proposal for strengthening the constituent units, i.e.,
GST formations, Customs formations and the Directorates associated with CBIC
has been prepared. But on perusal of the proposal, it is observed with
reference to GST formations that retaining of the formations based on
geographical area is relevant for the administrative purpose only. To avoid
multiple interfaces with different level officers, the executive officers should
be allotted units on the basis of monetary limits, i.e., on the basis of
turnover. The proposed system of reporting by the Superintendent ->
Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner -> Joint Commissioner/Additional
commissioner -> Commissioner/Principal Commissioner -> Chief
Commissioner/ Principal Chief Commissioner is redundant and be done away. The
point of defining the responsibilities in proportion of ranks for
various levels of officers was also agreed by the administration
during the meeting on cadre restructuring but nothing has been done. So,
responsibilities of each post should be defined under GST in proportion of
their salaries.
20. It was also agreed during the
meeting on cadre restructuring to implementation the Stagnation Committee
report but nothing has been done. The recommendations of the
committee may kindly be implemented on immediate basis.
21. Not only the recommendations made by the Stagnation
Committee but the promises made and issues recognized in the presentation made on last cadre
restructuring on 18.01.11 should also be implemented immediately.
22. The grant of the Non-functional
Financial Upgradation (NFU) to give financial parity with the best placed
counterparts like CSS etc. to our officers was also agreed by the
administration during the meeting on cadre restructuring saying that this issue
had also already been recommended by the Stagnation Committee. But
unfortunately, nothing has been done in this regard. This measure is required
to be brought immediately independent of cadre restructuring or as the part of
cadre restructuring as a department-specific scheme to bring financial parity
with the counterparts of CSS or at least with the counterparts of sister
concern of CBDT under the Department of Revenue itself keeping in view the extraordinarily
acute stagnation being faced by our officers. It is worth to mention that this
scheme has already been recommended by the CBIC and Stagnation Committee at
least on four occasions including the OM issued vide
F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A Dt. 14.03.16 but it is missing in the proposal of
cadre restructuring which points out that our own CBIC doesn’t want to do
anything for us and is made only “for, by and of” direct recruit IRS officers.
If CBIC was concerned for us, it should have been proposed to bring this
already recommended scheme for our officers. This scheme may kindly be brought
immediately independent of cadre restructuring or part of it. No posts will be
required to be created for this scheme.
23. As an alternative, a scheme of
granting time scale after every 7 years to our officers after joining as
Inspector may also be brought. It was also
recommended by CBIC vide F.No.A.26017/147 /06-Ad.II.A Dt. 04.01.07 as one of
the measures to be taken for our officers. No posts will be required to be
created for the grant of time scale after every 7 years.
24. Creation of Flexible
Complementary/Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme (FCS
or DACP) for our officers to grant them at least 5 in-situ promotions
which is also an already admitted issue by the CBIC OM issued vide
F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A Dt. 14.03.16 saying that it is an alarming anomalous situation
and these schemes are already existing in the Department of Science &
Technology as well as Department of Health. These schemes should also be the
part of the cadre restructuring proposal for our officers, if the CBIC is
concerned for us. Bringing a scheme to improve the career prospects of Central
Excise Superintendents to grant minimum five functional promotions has also
been recommended vide above mentioned OM of the CBIC. It is very unfortunate
that CBIC is now ignoring its own recommendations.
25. An organization
specific Assured Career Progression
Scheme should also be brought for our officers. This progression
may be in the form of time bound promotions/in-situ promotions/financial
upgradations to the higher grades as below to remove the stagnation of
our poor officers-
(a)
Assured progression to Level-8 after completion of 3 years of service from
Level-7. As per DOPT guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 2 years for
the same.
(b)
Assured progression to Level-10 after completion of 6 years of service from
Level-7. As per DOPT guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 4 years for
the same.
(c) Assured progression
to Level-11 after completion of 10½ years of service from Level-7. As per DOPT
guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 7 years for the same.
(d) Assured progression
to Level-12 after completion of 18 years of service from Level-7. As per DOPT
guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 12 years for the same.
(e) Assured progression
to Level-13 after completion of 25½ years of service from Level-7. As per DOPT
guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 17 years for the same.
(f) Assured progression
to Level-14 after completion of 30 years of service from Level-7. As per DOPT
guidelines, residency period is prescribed as 20 years for the same.
(g) And so on.
26. The
merger of three group ‘B’ executive streams was also a long pending demand of
the Association but to bring it with prospective effect will lead to the
situation that the officer of some cadre control and Examiners will be placed
in the advantageous position who will reap the benefit of this cadre
restructuring by reaching the top positions and holding the post for a long. As
a result, the most of the officers will retire with two promotions only and
will not have any financial benefit in comparison to their present position.
Thus, this merger should be implemented retrospectively w.e.f. the introduction of All
India SSC examination to bring parity in promotions in all three streams. We
were promised to do the needful to bring this parity at the time of the last
cadre restructuring but nothing was done despite of this point being included
in the presentation by the CBIC. Now, these three streams may be merged
retrospectively by bringing parity in promotions as directed by the Principal
Bench of CAT in OA No. 2323/2012. This will also remove the regional
disparities in promotions relating to different cadre control zones.
27. At page 104 & 105 of the proposal, the posts belonging to above three
streams have been trifurcated at Group ‘B’ non-gazetted as well as gazetted
level which should be mentioned in integrated manner showing the clear merger at both levels.
28. A scheme was also to be brought for our
officers to remove stagnation independent of cadre restructuring as approved by
the Cabinet at the time of the approval of the last cadre restructuring: It is to be brought
prior to the ensuing cadre restructuring. But nothing has also been done in
this regard for which immediate steps should be taken immediately independent
of cadre restructuring.
29. Immediate implementation of in-situ promotion
scheme approved in the Board meeting of 18.02.11 was also agreed by the
administration during the meeting on cadre restructuring but nothing has been
done. It will remove our regional disparities as an instant measure and also
retire our all officers at least in Level-11 by promoting them as Asstt.
Commissioner after 20 years of service and as Deputy Commissioner after 25
years of service after joining the job as Inspector. So, this scheme should also
be implemented immediately independent of cadre restructuring.
30. It was also agreed in the meeting to promote
our Superintendent to a STS (Deputy Commissioner) post instead of JTS (Asstt.
Commissioner) like
other Group ‘B’ gazetted counterparts of Central as well as State Governments. This
point was also agreed during the presentation made on last cadre restructuring.
This issue was also recommended by the CBIC in the OM issued vide
F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A Dt. 14.03.16 but nothing has been mentioned in
this regard in the cadre restructuring proposal. So, all posts of Asstt.
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner meant for IRS Branch ‘B’ should kindly be
merged to Deputy Commissioner to promote our Superintendent directly to the
post of Deputy Commissioner.
31. It is observed that 677 posts of
Deputy Commissioner have been earmarked for 624 posts of Asstt. Commissioner
for Direct Recruit Group ‘A’ IRS whereas it is merely 350 for 3092 in Branch
‘B’ IRS meant for promotee officers. It means promotional pots of Deputy Commissioners
have been earmarked even more (108%) than the feeder posts of Asstt.
Commissioner for direct recruit Group ‘A’ officers and just 350 for the 3092 Branch ‘B’ service
officers which is merely 11% of the sanctioned strength of 3092. No need to say
that it is clear-cut discrimination with
the promotee officers and such discrimination has been proposed at every level
of the service. This discrimination should be undone.
32. As far as the organised service for
group ‘B’ officers in Central Govt. is concerned, CSS is the only base service
and starts from the level of the Assistant, the counterparts of our Inspector.
Both are also recruited by same process. In CSS, Group ‘B’ gazetted officers
are promoted to a Senior Time Scale post instead of Junior Time Scale as in the
case of our Superintendent. Not only in CSS, Group ‘B’ gazetted officers are
promoted to a Senior Time Scale post at the most of the places in Central as
well as State governments. Accordingly, our Superintendents should also be
promoted to a Senior Time Scale post, i.e., Deputy Commissioner. Thus, Branch ‘B’ IRS should be started from the
level of Inspector and next promotional post should be Deputy Commissioner
after Superintendent and all posts of Asstt. Commissioner should not only be
converted to the Deputy Commissioner but the number of these posts of Deputy
Commissioner should also be increased in proportion of our cadre strength at
Group ‘B’ level vs Direct Recruit IRS. Next immediate promotional posts
have been proposed 108% of feeder post in case of Direct Recruit IRS.
Accordingly, next immediate promotional post (Deputy Commissioner) should also
be 108% of the strength of our Superintendents without having any post of
Asstt. Commissioner in Branch ‘B’ IRS meant for us. No need to say that the
post of the Asstt. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are functionally same.
33. Not only it, it is reiterated that
the posts at higher levels upto the level of Commissioner in Branch ‘B’ IRS
meant for us should also be created in
proportion of our cadre strength at Group ‘B’ level vs Direct Recruit IRS.
It is unfortunate that merely 80 posts of Joint Commissioner and 27 posts of Additional
Commissioner are proposed for Branch ‘B’ Service against 982 for the Direct
Recruit group ‘A’ service. It would be
a mockery, if we make a comment on 9 posts of Commissioner given to the Branch ‘B’
service as compared to 342 to the Direct Recruit group ‘A’ service. The
percentage of the posts at each higher level in comparison to the feeder
strength should be the same in both the services. It means that the ratio of
promotion at each level should be the same for both, i.e., the Direct Recruit
Group ‘A’ service and Branch ‘B’ service.
34. Moreover, sanction strength at the
level of Joint Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner have been bifurcated in the
Branch ‘B’ service despite of both posts being functionally same whereas it has
not been bifurcated in the direct recruit Group ‘A’ service and mentioned
combinedly because of the Addl. Commissioner being a time scale post by
promoting a direct recruit Group ‘A’ officer to this post on Ist January of
fourteenth year of service. In the same way, it is required to be mentioned
combinedly without bifurcation in the case of Branch ‘B’ service. Accordingly, keeping in view the residency periods
prescribed by the DOPT, our Inspector should also be promoted to the post of
Addl. Commissioner on Ist January of seventeenth year of service.
35. Keeping in view
the above paras relating to Branch ‘B’ IRS, draft recruitment rules should be
circulated. The Association has already submitted the draft on recruitment
rules for this service which may kindly be finalized under consultation with
the Association. Qualifying service/residency periods for this service is to be
prescribed for Central Excise/CGST executive officers in consonance of the DOPT OM No. AB-14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR) dt.
24.03.09 as below-
(i) 2 years for promotion to a post of Level-8 (grade pay of
Rs. 4,800/-) after joining as Inspector.
(ii) 7 years for promotion to a post
of Level-11 (grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) after joining as Inspector as there is
no justification to promoe an officer from a Grade Pay of 5400/- to 5400/-.
(iii) 12 years for promotion to a post ofLevel-12 (grade pay
of Rs. 7,600/-) after joining as Inspector.
(iv) 17 years for promotion to a post of Level-13 (grade pay
of Rs. 8,700/-) after joining as Inspector.
(v) 20 years for promotion to a post
of Level-14 (grade pay of Rs. 10,000/-) after joining as Inspector.
(vi) And so on.
36. Keeping in view the
extraordinarily acute stagnation of the Central Excise/CGST executive officers
(Superintendents/Inspectors), there should kindly be incorporated the permanent
provisions in the recruitment rules in addition to the above qualifying
services at every level to promote, functionally or non-functionally, the
officer automatically to the next higher grade, if his/her stagnation in a
grade reaches one & half times of the qualifying service. Such
provisions may be created based on the precedent when all the Section Officers
(equivalent to our Superintendent) of CSS were promoted to the post of Under
Secretary (equivalent to our Deputy Commissioner) after completion of one &
half times of qualifying service some years ago in 1999.
37. Coming to para 3.3, page 80, 81
& 82, where the merger of Pay Levels 8 & 9 has been proposed. No need
to say that it is a positive step but Level-10
should also be merged with Level-8 and 9. It is worth to mention that the
CBIC have already recommended for the merger of Level-9 and 10 on persuasion of
the Association vide the OM issued under F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A Dt.
14.03.16. The said merger will not only bring our Superintendents at par with
the SGST counterparts but it will also bring them at par with the DSP of CBI,
DCIO of IB, Chief Enforcement Officer of Enforcement Directorate etc. in the
matter of pay scale as recommended by the High Power Committee. The pay scale
of Level-10 was also recommended by the CBIC in the OM issued vide
F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A Dt. 14.03.16 for our Superintendents. It may also
be noted that the VIth CPC also recommended for the parity of pay scale between
our Superintendent and Chief Enforcement Officer. It is also worth to mention
that the CBIC has already recommended a pay scale for our Superintendent
equivalent to the DSP of CBI.
38. Time scale
of Level-10 after four years of service to our Officers like CSS was also agreed
by the administration during the meeting on cadre restructuring and the
concerned member of the cadre restructuring committee was asked by the ADG to
arrange relevant papers regarding CSS. We requested for its grant with retrospective effect from the date of
its grant to the officers of CSS without offsetting with the MACP upgradation.
However, Level-11 should be granted now as time scale to our officers as there
is no point in granting time scale in Level-10 (GP of 5400/- in PB3) after a
pay scale of Level-9 (GP of 5400/- in PB2) or 10. Thus, our Superintendents should be placed in basic pay scale of Level-10 and
they should further be granted the time scale in Level-11 after completing 4
years of service in Level-10.
39. Creation
of reserve pool posts,
which couldn’t be created in the last cadre restructuring, was also agreed by
the administration in the meeting on cadre restructuring but nothing has been
proposes in the proposal in this regard for either of the service. So, reserve
pool posts may kindly be created for both the IRS, i.e., direct recruit Group
‘A’ and Branch ‘B’.
40.
As far as the merger of Chief Accounts
Officer with Assistant Commissioner is concerned, it is submitted that
there are CAOs with 5 to 10 years of service left. These CAOs joined as LDC/UDC
at the same time when many of the present day Superintendents joined as Inspector.
These CAOs opted for the ministerial side instead of the executive side due to
not fulfilling the fitness criteria or their lack of will to opt for the same.
Merging their Cadre now with the executive cadre and placing them over and
above the Superintendents of 17 years shall be grave injustice to our Group ‘B’
executive officers. Therefore, they should continue to perform the duties and
responsibilities of the post of CAO till their superannuation instead of
merging their cadre with Assistant Commissioner. These posts arising after
their retirement should be filled by the Branch ‘B’ IRS Officers.
41. It is also suggested that the
proposed specialized Rajbhasha staff and
dog handlers should not be merged with the other staff in future.
42. The posts of Principal Chief
Commissioner have been proposed to be increased by 1, Chief Commissioner by 3,
Principal Commissioner by 2 and Commissioner by 16 under para 4.0 on page 103
having heading ‘Requirement of Manpower’ even though they have no functional
role in the GST regime. It gives only impression that the interest of Direct
Recruit Group ‘A’ officers is being watched. In last cadre restructuring also,
the posts for promotions of Direct Recruit Group ‘A’ officers were increased
even in the manner that the eligible officers were not available. Instead of adopting such partial approach,
the CBIC authorities should think equally for the Group ‘B’ executive officers.
It is reiterated that the posts at least above the Commissioner should be
abolished and used in matching saving to create posts at lower than
Commissioner levels meant for promotions of Group ‘B’ executive officers.
43. it has been observed that the most of the officers who joins the CBIC
as Inspectors are highly qualified like B. Tech./M. Tech./MBA/ PhD etc. but a
large number of such Inspectors have resigned. So, to attract talented and highly educated young minds to continue and
contribute in the service, effective steps are required to be taken to
improve the career prospects of these officers to make them job-satisfied.
44. In view of the above, it is
requested-
(i)
To create the
posts in the manner that at least five functional promotions may be ascertained
for our Inspectors as also recommended by CBIC OM issued vide F.No.A-26011/35/2016.Ad.II.A
Dt. 14.03.16. It is worth to mention that
the posts of Asstt. Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner, Joint Commissioner
& Addl. Commissioner, Commissioner & Principal Commissioner and Chief
Commissioner & Principal Chief Commissioner are functionally same.
(ii)
The ratio for
promotions should be identical for direct Group ‘A’ service and Branch ‘B’
service. Number of promotional posts and feeder posts should be in the same
proportion at each level in both services.
(iii)
To integrate the branch
‘B’ service with direct group ’A’ service at the level of Principal
Commissioner, if the posts above the grade of Commissioner are not abolished.
(iv)
To bring the scheme of Non-functional Financial Upgradation (NFU) for our
officers to give financial parity with the best placed counterparts like CSS or
Income Tax etc.
(v)
To grant time scale of next promotional post after every 7 years to our
officers after joining as Inspector.
(vi)
To create Flexible Complementary or Dynamic Assured Career Progression
Scheme (FCS or DACP) for our
officers to grant them at least 5 upgradations in the hierarchy of functional
promotions.
(vii)
To bring
organization specific Assured Career Progression Scheme for our officers.
(viii)
To define or
redefine the duties and responsibilities of each post in proportion of the pay.
(ix)
To assign the
assessment work to the various officers on the basis of turnover.
(x)
To reorganize the
field formations in CGST in such a manner as to rationalise the tax payers base
and work load.
(xi)
To ensure that
there will be no discrimination between the officers whether recruited in the
direct Group ‘A’ or came through Branch ‘B’ service.
(xii)
To promote our
Superintendent directly to STS post.
(xiii)
To merger
Level-8, 9 and 10 by placing our Superintendent in the pay scale of Level-10
with time scale of Level-11 to our officers after four years of service in
Level-10.
(xiv)
Not to bifurcate
the number of the posts of Joint Commissioner and Addl. Commissioner in IRS
Branch ‘B’ and to promote our Inspector to the post of Addl.
Commissioner on Ist January of seventeenth year of service.
(xv)
No Administrative
Officer with less service than any Inspector should be promoted to the post of
Superintendent, otherwise a junior officer (AO) will head a senior officer
(Inspector).
(xvi)
Existing CAOs to continue to perform the
duties and responsibilities of the post of CAO till their superannuation
instead of merging their cadre with Assistant Commissioner. The posts arising
after their retirement should be filled by the Branch ‘B’ IRS Officers for
merger.
(xvii)
To merge three
Group ‘B’ Executive streams with retrospective effect to bring the officers of
same year to same level of promotion.
(xviii)
To remove extra posts of Commissioner and all posts above the
Commissioner.
(xix)
To grant
structural and hierarchical parity with SGST and upgrading the posts under CGST
at par with SGST.
(xx)
To promote
Superintendent to Senior Time Scale post and increase the number of the posts
in IRS Branch ‘B’ in proportion of IRS (DR Group ‘A’) or CSS at each level.
This service is also to be started from the level of Inspector by rationalizing
the promotional posts at each and every level.
(xxi)
To implement
Stagnation Committee Report.
(xxii)
To implement the
promises made and the issues recognized during the presentation made for the last
cadre restructuring.
(xxiii) To make
equitable distribution of assesses among Divisions and Ranges.
(xxiv)
To strengthen CGST Ranges and post at least
3 Inspectors, 1 ministerial staff, 1 Sepoy and 1 housekeeping personnel in
Ranges
alongwith one four wheeler vehicle for
exclusive use.
(xxv) To provide due
infrastructure and manpower for the formations under CGST.
(xxvi) To strengthen
Audit and Anti-Evasion formations.
(xxvii)
To give seniority benefit/weightage on promotion to group ‘A’ in lieu of
the service rendered in group ‘B’ to our officers.
(xxviii) Additional
Assistant Directors should not be eligible to become Asstt. Commissioner.
(xxix)
To bring a scheme
to remove stagnation of our officers independent of cadre restructuring as was
approved by the Cabinet.
(xxx)
To implement in-situ promotion scheme approved in the Board meeting of
18.02.11.
(xxxi) To create
reserved pool posts and various kinds (Training, Deputation,
Probation, Leave etc.) of reserves may be shown
separately.
(xxxii)
To shift administration of CBIC in the hands of senior IAS
officers for smooth and fair & impartial functioning instead of looking vested
interests of a particular class, if CBIC is unable to do justice to Group ‘B’
executive officers and is unable to redress their grievances.
(xxxiii) To consider all of the above submissions from
para 1 to 44 and all of earlier submissions made by the Association on the
issue.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(HARPAL SINGH),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for necessary
action to:
1.
The
Director, Ad.IV, CBIC, New Delhi.
2.
The
Joint Secretary (Admn)/Commissioner (Coordination), CBIC, North Block, New
Delhi.
3.
The
DG, HRM, CBIC, New Delhi.
4.
The
Member (Admn), CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.
5.
The
Chairman, CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.
6.
The
Revenue Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
7.
The
Cabinet Secretary, President House, New Delhi.
8.
The
Hon’ble MOS, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
9.
The
Hon’ble Minister of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
10. The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, South
Block, New Delhi.
