Dear friends,
Namaste.
A meeting through VC was conducte with CCE associations under the Chair of CBIC Chairman today on 10.06.20. Commissioner (Co-Ord), DGHRD, ADGHRD and concerned US also attended the meeting. Chairman wants to conduct the DPC for the year 2018 and 2019 for the post of Astt. Commr within this month and next DPC latest by Dec, 20 and sought the suggestions in the matter. We welcomed the move and besides other positive points suggested to conduct the DPC immediately subject to outcome of the pending Court cases. We also added that on an average about 20 of our officers are retiring every month without promotion and they are literally crying for not happening of DPC before retirement. We also pointed out relevant points about Alok Dixit & Himanshu Verma cases in which the CBIC is already in HC. We mentioned that the DPCs subject to court verdicts also happened in the past. The matter was presented by our Chief Patron Sh. Ravi Malik from our side. Similarly Appraiser & Supdt Customs Fed have also expressed their suggestion to hold DPC at the earliest. Mr Shishir Agnihotri and Mr Manimohan argued on the pretext of Bharathan case first to revise AISL and to conduct DPC only after it. They opposed the holding of DPC without recasting of AISL saying that the seniority list has already been quashed in the Bharathan case by the court. They said that there would be more litigations, if DPC is conducted without recasting of AISL based on Bharathan verdict as per the Parmar case. Mr Manimohan started to tell the history of Bharathan case. The Chairman said that I know the history, don't tell me history. The Chairman CBIC further asked Mr. Manimohan whether they want DPC or not but Manimohan expressed that approval from Chennai HC should be obtained before holding the DPC otherwise it will be contempt of HC. This approach of these two is an attempt to derail/delay the DPC. During VC, everyone was willing for immediate DPC except these two persons. The Chairman desired for written consent in the matter by tomorrow. The VC was concluded with a strong hope for the DPC within this month.
Thus, Mr Manimohan & co. opposed the DPC with if & buts in the name of Bharathan verdict and said that there would be more court cases, if AISL is not recasted based on Bharathan/Parmar verdict before convening the DPC. Chairman said that there would also be court cases, if seniority is recasted based on Bharthan/Parmar verdict. Board representatives also discussed within them that Parmar verdict has already been ruled out in Meghchander Singh case by larger bench of Supreme Court. Chairman had to ask Mr Manimohan & Mr Agnihotri in clear terms whether they want DPC or not. Mr Agnihotri also objected participation of Sh. Ravi Malik in meeting but Chairman said that the meeting is on the issue of DPC not on the participation of him and over ruled their objection. Finally, the Chairman sought consent letter for DPC from all Associations upto tomorrow. We said that we are sending it. Other Associations except Mr Manimohan & Co. also said that they are also sending it. Mr Manimohan & Co. were adamant only to implement Parmar case based on Bharathan verdict before going for DPC and opposed happening of DPC before it. They once more tried to object the participation of Sh. Ravi Malik but it was again not sustained.
We also requested to implement In-situ promotion scheme approved by the Board in 2011 to promote 10 years Inspector as Superintendent, 20 years combined length officer as AC and 25 years combined length officers as DC stressing that it would also remove regional disparities.
We also requested to give parity with SGST and upgrade/redesignate our Supdt as Asstt. Commr to bring them at par with the counterparts of State GST and save them from the humiliation and insult being faced in public because public as well as State GST counterparts treat them as inferior to State GST counterparts due to difference in designation. It was also requested accordingly to upgrade AC to DC, DC to JC, JC to ADC and ADC to Special Commr on the lines of State GST. We raised this issue during the meeting on cadre restructuring and it was also agreed by the administration but it is missing in cadre restructuring proposal.
It was also requested to promote for years temporary/ad hoc ACs to post of DC based on the past court verdicts as accepted and duly minuted by the CBIC. The courts including Supreme Court directed to promote all ad hoc ACs with four years of service as DC. The decision to promote four years ad hoc ACs as DC was duly accepted and recorded by the Board in its meeting.
Our requests were noted down for further consideration.
In the last, we asked for another meeting on other issues. It was replied by the Chairman to have it soon.
Regards,
HARPAL SINGH.
SG, AIACEGEO.
Namaste.
A meeting through VC was conducte with CCE associations under the Chair of CBIC Chairman today on 10.06.20. Commissioner (Co-Ord), DGHRD, ADGHRD and concerned US also attended the meeting. Chairman wants to conduct the DPC for the year 2018 and 2019 for the post of Astt. Commr within this month and next DPC latest by Dec, 20 and sought the suggestions in the matter. We welcomed the move and besides other positive points suggested to conduct the DPC immediately subject to outcome of the pending Court cases. We also added that on an average about 20 of our officers are retiring every month without promotion and they are literally crying for not happening of DPC before retirement. We also pointed out relevant points about Alok Dixit & Himanshu Verma cases in which the CBIC is already in HC. We mentioned that the DPCs subject to court verdicts also happened in the past. The matter was presented by our Chief Patron Sh. Ravi Malik from our side. Similarly Appraiser & Supdt Customs Fed have also expressed their suggestion to hold DPC at the earliest. Mr Shishir Agnihotri and Mr Manimohan argued on the pretext of Bharathan case first to revise AISL and to conduct DPC only after it. They opposed the holding of DPC without recasting of AISL saying that the seniority list has already been quashed in the Bharathan case by the court. They said that there would be more litigations, if DPC is conducted without recasting of AISL based on Bharathan verdict as per the Parmar case. Mr Manimohan started to tell the history of Bharathan case. The Chairman said that I know the history, don't tell me history. The Chairman CBIC further asked Mr. Manimohan whether they want DPC or not but Manimohan expressed that approval from Chennai HC should be obtained before holding the DPC otherwise it will be contempt of HC. This approach of these two is an attempt to derail/delay the DPC. During VC, everyone was willing for immediate DPC except these two persons. The Chairman desired for written consent in the matter by tomorrow. The VC was concluded with a strong hope for the DPC within this month.
Thus, Mr Manimohan & co. opposed the DPC with if & buts in the name of Bharathan verdict and said that there would be more court cases, if AISL is not recasted based on Bharathan/Parmar verdict before convening the DPC. Chairman said that there would also be court cases, if seniority is recasted based on Bharthan/Parmar verdict. Board representatives also discussed within them that Parmar verdict has already been ruled out in Meghchander Singh case by larger bench of Supreme Court. Chairman had to ask Mr Manimohan & Mr Agnihotri in clear terms whether they want DPC or not. Mr Agnihotri also objected participation of Sh. Ravi Malik in meeting but Chairman said that the meeting is on the issue of DPC not on the participation of him and over ruled their objection. Finally, the Chairman sought consent letter for DPC from all Associations upto tomorrow. We said that we are sending it. Other Associations except Mr Manimohan & Co. also said that they are also sending it. Mr Manimohan & Co. were adamant only to implement Parmar case based on Bharathan verdict before going for DPC and opposed happening of DPC before it. They once more tried to object the participation of Sh. Ravi Malik but it was again not sustained.
We also requested to implement In-situ promotion scheme approved by the Board in 2011 to promote 10 years Inspector as Superintendent, 20 years combined length officer as AC and 25 years combined length officers as DC stressing that it would also remove regional disparities.
We also requested to give parity with SGST and upgrade/redesignate our Supdt as Asstt. Commr to bring them at par with the counterparts of State GST and save them from the humiliation and insult being faced in public because public as well as State GST counterparts treat them as inferior to State GST counterparts due to difference in designation. It was also requested accordingly to upgrade AC to DC, DC to JC, JC to ADC and ADC to Special Commr on the lines of State GST. We raised this issue during the meeting on cadre restructuring and it was also agreed by the administration but it is missing in cadre restructuring proposal.
It was also requested to promote for years temporary/ad hoc ACs to post of DC based on the past court verdicts as accepted and duly minuted by the CBIC. The courts including Supreme Court directed to promote all ad hoc ACs with four years of service as DC. The decision to promote four years ad hoc ACs as DC was duly accepted and recorded by the Board in its meeting.
Our requests were noted down for further consideration.
In the last, we asked for another meeting on other issues. It was replied by the Chairman to have it soon.
Regards,
HARPAL SINGH.
SG, AIACEGEO.
