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, Siddharth 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 Liaisoning Secretary: Bhoopendra Singh
(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. 188/AIB/S/20
Dt. 09.11.20
Sh. Ajay
Bhushan Pandey,
Finance Secretary, North
block,
New Delhi.
Sub: In rem implementation of the Subramaniam
verdict and other identical matters.
Sir,
Kindly
refer to the earlier communications of the Association made on the above
subject.
2.
Your kind attention is invited to the order given by the Hon’ble CAT of
Allahabad in OA No. 330/0536/2020. It is very specifically mentioned in the
para No. 8 in bold letters of the order to
consider issuing directions on identical matters such as above for in rem consideration and not in personam to avoid needless litigation
in the future.
3. It is further submitted with due regards that the
verdict is to be implemented in rem. The Hon’ble CAT has ordered under para No.
6.1 to ensure the benefit of the judgment to be given to all the persons who
are entitled to the same whether they are retired or in service. This is sixth or seventh such type of
verdict given by the Hon’ble CAT of Allahabad but, very unfortunately, the same
are not being implemented in rem. In various verdicts, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has also ordered that similarly placed persons don’t need to approach the
court in r/o an already decided issue directing the govt. to issue the order to
give benefit to all similarly placed persons on identical matters.
4. But the benefit is being given only to those officers who are
approaching the legal courts. As a result, the verdict has been implemented in
various zones in the case of the petitioners only. It means that our thousands
of affected officers should approach the legal courts despite of the govt.
policy for minimum litigations. It is really discriminatory not to implement
the verdicts in rem.
5. It is reiterated that the verdict settled at the level of the Apex
Court is always treated as the law of the land as also being followed and
implemented by our CBIC in-rem in revenue matters. But unfortunately, the
verdicts on service matters are not being implemented in-rem.
6. It is also clear
from the order under reference that all officers getting the pay scale of
Superintendent as ACP/MACP upgradation (whether in the pre-existing scale of
Rs. 6500-10500/- or Rs. 7500-12000/- or Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-) are to be
placed in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- on completion of four years. It is also
clear from the verdict that the four years time scale/NFG is not to be offset
with the MACP upgradation, i.e., time scale/NFG is not to be treated as MACP
upgradation.
7. Your kind attention is also invited to the verdict given by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in SLP No. 77457/2017 saying that once the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the part of the Govt. 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 Govt. 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. There are so
many verdicts of the various legal courts which are unimplemented in-rem in CBIC despite
of being settled finally. A few burning examples are as below-
i) Order given in OA No. 541/1994 by the
Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur regarding payment of arrears of pay. The issue has already been settled because
no appeal was made against this order.
ii) Order given in WP No. 13225/2010 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Subramanium case against
which not only the SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 filed by the CBIC was dismissed on
10.10.17 but the review petition has also been dismissed on 23.08.18.
iii) Order given in WP 11535/2014 by Madras High Court in which the SLP of the Department of Revenue has also been
dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court By it, para 8.1 of MACP Scheme
amounts to be scrapped and time
scale/NFG is also not to be considered as MACP upgradation. The Hon’ble Madras High Court gave the verdict by upholding that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-2 &
PB-3 is one and the same thing as there is no difference between the Grade Pay
of Rs. 5400/- in PB2 and PB3. It is
also worth to submit that the next Grade Pay after Rs. 5400/- is Rs. 6600/-.
iv) Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of
2011 filed by the CBIC was
also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court 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.
v) In Subramanium case {SLP(C) No. 029382/2011} also, it has been established that 4 years time-scale/NFG and
ACP/MACP upgradation are altogether different. By the finalization of the issue
at the level of the Apex Court, the time scale can never be treated as one MACP
upgradation.
8. 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 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.”
9. In view of the
above, it is once more requested to kindly implement the verdict in rem without
forcing thousands of officers to be litigants and issue the directions-
i) For in-rem
implementation of the verdict.
ii) For in-rem implementation
of the other identical verdicts on service matters including Subramaniam
verdict as submitted under para 7 above.
iii) Not to treat four
years time scale/NFG as MACP upgradation.
iv) Not to treat the single Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- as
two, i.e., in PB2 and PB3 and scrap para 8.1 of the MACP Scheme .
v) To step up pay of senior, if junior is getting more
pay on account of ACP/MACP upgradation.
vi) To bring parity in promotions among
intra-organisational counterparts in CBIC.
vii) To pay due arrears of pay with the due interest
to the affected officers.
Thanking you,
Yours
sincerely,
(HARPAL
SINGH),
