supasskar.insupasskar.in/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/attachment_27... · web viewthis mistake of...

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

President: Address for communication: Secretary General:Sushil Kumar Pareek 240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi MalikMob. 09414203722 mail Id: [email protected] Mob. 09868816290

Vice Presidents: R.Pratap, Ravindra Chhabra, K.P.S.Rai, Anil D.Bhavisskar, V.Suresh Kumar, R.L. Sampath Kumar, Lok Nath Mishra, V.N.Jha, K.A.Sayyed, Surendra Singh

Joint Secretaries: R.K.Solanki, N.C.Pandey, Anand Kishore, V.S.Kamble, P.C.Ajith Kumar, M.Nagaraju, R.K.Sarkar, Anindya Sundar Roy, Jitendra Singh, M.K.Mishra

Office Secretary: C.S.Sharma (Mob. 09313885411) Treasurer: N.R.Manda (Mob. 09871483585)(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. 140/10 Dt. 22.11.10 To,

The Hon’ble Minister of State for Expenditure,North Block,New Delhi.

Sub: The release of arrears of pay since 1986 in compliance of the decision of CAT (Cuttack Bench) in OA No. 180/2006 & CAT (Jabalpur Bench) OA No. 541/1994 to the Central Excise Executive Officers consequent upon the enhancement of pay scale of Inspector of Central Excise (1) Rs. 1,640-2,900/- to Rs. 2,000-3,200/- w.e.f. 01.01.86 and (2) Rs. 5,500-9,000/- to Rs. 6,500-10,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 and - regarding.

Respected Sir,It is submitted with due regards on behalf of the Central Excise Group ‘B’ Executive

Officers that the gross disparity and injustice has been done to these officers by not paying the arrears of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in comparison to CBI/IB.

2. We are really thankful to the Government for grant of upgraded scale of pay w.e.f. 21.04.2004 equal to the similarly placed employees of CBI/IB as per our long pending demand. But our demand for payment of arrears since 1986, though vigorously pursued by legal as well as administrative means, has by and large remained ignored. It is submitted that the issue of disparity/discrimination in the pay scales between the two categories of employees of Central Excise and CBI/IB, despite clear findings of the IVth and Vth CPC’s, was highlighted to the Ministry of Finance on several occasions but of no avail. The unending process of fighting for the just cause of the employees began with the filing of OA’s one after the other in the various benches of CAT. In nut shell, the entire sequence of the events is hereby submitted for your kind perusal:

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

(i) The IVth CPC effective from 01.01.1986 had acknowledged the parity between Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI, IB etc. and placed both the categories of employees in the same pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/-.

(ii) The govt. placed Inspectors of CBI/IB in the higher scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- thereby resulting in discrimination to the employees of Central Excise.

(iii) The employees of Central Excise demanded the same treatment as accorded to the employees of CBI/IB.

of 41

mailto:[email protected]

(iv) The Govt. rejected the demand and hence began the process of representations & finally litigations.

(v) Central Excise Executive Officers Association filed an OA No. 541 of 1994 which was decided by CAT, Jabalpur Bench on 24.02.1995. The CAT in principle accepted the plea of disparity advanced by the association. It further directed the Union of India to notify the Vth CPC the grounds of disparity between the Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB and placed them in the same pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- w.e.f. the date of Inspectors of CBI/IB were placed in the said pay scale.

(vi) The Union of India failed to comply with the CAT’s order dated 24.02.1995. No appeal was also preferred against the CAT’s judgment by the government.

(vii) The Union of India in their letter dated 27.10.1995 addressed to Vth CPC accepted that the duties and responsibilities performed by the Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/ IB were identical and rather the duties performed by the Inspectors of Central Excise were more arduous and hazardous.

(viii) The UOI, i.e., Ministry of Finance instead of implementing the CAT’s judgment dated 24.02.1995 constituted a High Power Committee on the issue.

(ix) The Vth CPC examined the issue of parity of pay scales between the two sets of employees and recommended the same replacement scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- for the both but government enhanced the pay scale of the Inspectors of CBI/IB by awarding them a higher pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-.

(x) The High Power Committee in its final report submitted to the Hon’ble Finance Minister recommended the revision of pay scale equivalent to CBI/IB.

(xi) The recommendations the of HPC were duly approved by the Secretary of Revenue & Minister holding charge of Personnel Ministry & Additional charge of Ministry of Finance.

(xii) The UOI, i.e., the government removed the disparity in the pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB on 21.04.2004 by awarding an equivalent scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- to the former.

(xiii) The Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) vide its order dated 09.08.2004 clarified that the higher scales had to be given to the Inspectors of Central Excise because earlier Inspectors of CBI/IB were extended the higher scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- (revised to Rs. 6,500-10,500/-).

(xiv) The Jabalpur Bench of CAT vide the decision in OA No. 45/2000 observed that the action of the Government to deny the pay scale to the Inspectors of Central Excise at par with those of Inspectors of CBI/IB was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the

of 41

Constitution of India. It ordered to reconsider the claim of the Inspectors of Central Excise for being accorded the pay scale at par with the Inspectors of CBI/IB and to make a final decision by passing a detailed and speaking order.

(xv) The Deptt. of Legal Affairs also did not find any infirmity in the CAT’s judgment in OA No. 45/2000 and observed that similarity of pay scale was also recommended by the High Power Committee.

3. In spite of the clear directions of the Hon’ble CAT (Jabalpur Bench) in OA No. 541 of 1994 on 24.02.95 wherein the Hon’ble CAT had directed CBEC/Ministry to upgrade the pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise equivalent to the grade of Inspectors of CBI/ IB from 1986, CBEC has denied the payment on non existent grounds. The legitimate and long over-due demand of parity in scale of the above two categories of employees was finally conceded w.e.f. 21.04.04. Needless to say that the said demand had been under consideration of the Govt. and Hon’ble Tribunals from 1986 onwards.

4. It may be stated that the IVth CPC had acknowledged the parity and granted the same pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- to Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI, IB etc. However, the Government chose to create disparity with Inspectors of Central Excise by granting higher scale of pay of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- to the Inspectors of CBI, IB etc. vide order dt. 22.09.86 without any valid reasons/rationale.

5. The Central Excise Executive Officers Association moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench by way of O.A. No.541 of 1994. The said OA was decided vide order dated 24.02.95. The Hon’ble Tribunal accepted the plea of disparity advanced by the Association and ordered as follows:-

“The learned counsels for the applicants have strenuously contended before us that the duties and responsibilities of Inspectors, Customs and Central Excise are no less arduous than the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of Central Bureau of Investigation. They have very firmly contended before us that their duties and responsibilities are far more arduous than their duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of Central Bureau of Investigation or Intelligence Bureau etc. A reading of the report of the IVth Pay Commission does provide inkling that the Inspectors Customs & Central Excise was intended to be brought at par with the Inspectors Central Bureau of Investigation. However, since IVth Pay Commission has not expressly evaluated the job contents of the above said two categories of employees we consider proper to withhold our hands in regard to any comparative assessment. All the same, we do not find any justification for the Govt. of India not to specifically refer the issue to Vth Pay Commission with full justification as to why the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission for parity of pay of the above two categories of Inspectors was not adhered to. It is still unfortunate that reasons have not been disclosed to us at any stage during the proceedings pending for the last six months. We have therefore every reason to assume that there does not exist cogent reasons for creating a disparity in the pay scale of the above two categories of Inspectors. We are therefore inclined to grant the relief prayed for but taking into account the fact that equalization of pay is the domain of an Expert Body, we are restraining ourselves to adjudicate the matter. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the applicants have a strong case for consideration of parity of pay by the Vth Pay Commission. Since the Govt. of India has failed to refer the matter to the Pay Commissioner the grievance ventilated by the applicants, we consider it proper to issue a mandamus.

of 41

In the result, Union of India is hereby mandated to issue a notification within thirty days of the communication of the judgment referring the matter to the Vth Pay Commission disclosing its stand as to why the Inspectors of Central Bureau of Investigation have been granted higher pay than the Inspectors, Customs and Central Excise for consideration of the Vth Pay Commission. The Union of India is further directed to place the Inspectors, Customs & Central Excise in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from the date Inspectors of Central Bureau of Investigation were placed in the said scale and pay arrears in the light of the Vth Pay Commission’s findings as a result of the reference made by the Govt. The petition is disposed of without any order as to costs accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied).

6. Firstly, as per CAT’s judgment dated 24.02.95, the Union of India was mandated to notify the Vth Pay Commission disclosing its stand as to why the disparity had been created between the pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB. The Union of India instead of furnishing the reasons for disparity in the pay scales of the two categories of employees accepted in their letter dated 27.10.95 that the duties and responsibilities performed by the Inspectors of Central Excise were more arduous and hazardous than the Inspectors of CBI/IB. Since the Union of India could not furnish to the Vth Pay Commission the grounds for disparity between the pay scales of the two categories of Inspectors, the decision of the CAT had attained binding effect and as such ought to have been implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1986 as CPC also placed both the categories under same pay scale.

7. Secondly, it is note worthy that the Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No.541/94 decided vide order dated 24.02.95 categorically directed that Inspectors of Central Excise should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- with effect from the date of Inspectors of CBI/IB were placed in the said pay scale. However, the arrears were to be paid in the light of Vth CPC’s findings as a result of the reference made by the Govt. Upon the recommendations of High Power Committee (HPC) comprising Chairmans of CBEC & CBDT & Joint Secretaries of both the Revenue Boards and also the CAT’s judgment in OA No. 541/94 dated 24.02.95; the Government finally accepted in principle parity between the two categories of employees, thereby bringing finality to CAT’s Order dated 24.02.1995. In other words, both the IVth & Vth CPC’s upheld the parity between the two categories of officers and as such the scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- should have been granted to the Inspectors of Central Excise from the date since the Inspectors of CBI/IB were allowed the said scale. Needless to mention that the said decision of the Tribunal was not appealed against and on attaining the finality cannot be curtailed or modified today. Therefore, this decision of the Government for revision of pay scales should have been given effect from 01.01.1986 and not from a later date in the interest of the equity and justice.

8. The Government (Ministry of Finance) instead of extending the benefit of up-graded scale of pay to the Inspectors of Central Excise in compliance with the orders of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench constituted a HPC under the orders of Hon’ble Finance Minister to go into the parity of scale of pay to Inspectors of Central Excise with Inspectors of CBI & IB. It is well pertinent to mention here that the Government while referring the issue to the Vth Pay Commission as per CAT’s order dated 24.02.95 in their letter dated 27.10.95 had clearly brought out that the duties and responsibilities performed by the Inspectors of Central Excise & Customs were more arduous and hazardous than the Inspectors of CBI/IB. The Vth Pay Commission corrected the anomaly and recommended the same replacement scale to maintain the parity between both categories.

FINDINGS OF HIGH POWER COMMITTEE

of 41

9. The High Power Committee set up by the Hon’ble Finance Minister had recommended the revision of pay scale of the Inspectors of Central Excise and the same had also been approved by the Secretary of Revenue and Minister holding charge of Personnel Ministry and additional charge of Finance Ministry. Despite unambiguous recommendations of the IVth & Vth CPC’s and HPC duly accepted by Ministry of Personnel/Ministry of Finance, the grant of same pay scale to the Inspectors of Central Excise at par with Inspectors of CBI/IB w.e.f. 01.01.1986 was rejected only at the behest of the Department of Expenditure without any valid and justified reasons. Pertinently, the Department of Expenditure was one of the respondents in OA No. 541 of 1994 and the Department of Expenditure/Department of Revenue were legally bound to implement the CAT’s order dated 24.02.95, more so in the light of the fact that the Government had not appealed against the said judgment which attained finality. It is, therefore, not open for the Department of Expenditure to refuse to grant of pay scale at par with Inspectors of CBI/IB to Inspectors of Central Excise w.e.f. 01.01.986 as the issue remained settled/beyond appeal and review proceedings.

10. In a large number of cases, the Govt./Department of Expenditure had allowed up-graded scale retrospectively as illustrated below:-

i) The pay scale of our counterparts, the Superintendents of Narcotics Control Bureau, was revised from Rs.6,500-10,500/- to Rs.7.500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all consequential benefits vide Office Order under F.No.15/2(38)/2004-Esst. Dated 20.04.05 issued by NCB, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, G.O.I.

ii) The redeployed surplus staff was also allowed the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all the consequential benefits vide DOP&T O.M. No.1/7/98-CS.III, dt. 09.04.99.

iii) The pay scales of the officers of the Organised Accounts Departments were revised w.e.f. 01.01.96 with actual payments w.e.f.19.02.03 vide MF & CA O.M. No.6/82/E-III.(B)/91dt. 28.02.03.

iv) The pay scales of Divisional Accountants/Divisional Accounts Officers were upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.96 with financial benefit w.e.f.28.04.04 vide C&AG [Cir No. 26/NGE/2004] No. 341-NRE (App.)/36-2003 dt. 28.04.04.

v) The pay scales of Junior Translator, Senior Translator and Asst. Director (OL) were upgraded notionally w.e.f. 01.01.96 with financial benefit w.e.f.11.02.03 vide Department of Official Language O.M. No. 13/6/2002-OL dt. 02.04.04.

vi) The officers of the Ministry of Agriculture were also paid the arrears of pay from a particular date and notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.96 on the upgradation of the scale.

vii) In case of CAG, change of scale from Rs.6500-10,500/ to Rs.7500-Rs.13,500/ was given effect notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 vide O.M. under F.No.6/82/E.III(B)/91 Dated 28.02.2003 issued by Deptt. of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, G.O.I.

viii) In case of Ministry of Labour, the change of scale was given effect from 01.01.1996 with arrears from 11.02.2003 vide O.M. No.A-32022/1/2002-Adm.I dated 26.04.2004.

ix) In cases of the Accounts Employees in Railways, they were given the retrospective benefit vide O.M. F. No.- 6/82.E.III(B)/91 Dt. 28.02.03 of the Department of Expenditure.

of 41

x) The Section Officers of CSS were given the retrospective benefit vide Order No.- 5/4/2005-CS.I Dt. 25.01.05 of DOPT.

xi) In case of the Accounts Employees in Postal , IA & AD, Civil Accounts, Ministry of Coal & Mines etc, the benefit of notional fixation of revised pay with effect from 01.01.1996 has been given with actual payment with effect from the date of the issue of the orders.

The legal courts have also given many judgements on the issue giving the benefit of the retrospective effect to the employees as follows-

i) The Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT has also given the retrospective benefit alongwith arrears from a particular date to the employees in O.A. No. 2529/96.

ii) The Hon’ble CAT of Ernakulam has also taken the view that the effect of the revised scale should be given retrospectively from the date of the implementation of the report of the Pay Commission in its order in O.A. No.671/2003 on 30.06.06 allowing the benefit of improved pay scale retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.96 with arrears.

iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also given the retrospective benefit alongwith arrears from the date of filing the case in the court to the employees in Civil Appeal No. 5866 of 2000.

iv) Bombay Bench of Hon’ble CAT has also given the retrospective benefit to the employees in O.A. No. 859 of 2004.

v) The Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT has also given the retrospective benefit alongwith arrears from a particular date to the employees in O.A. No. 2951/2003.

11. Despite of the clear findings of the High Power Committee and the Vth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- was not granted to the Inspectors of Central Excise which culminated in filing of yet another OA No. 45/2000 in the Jabalpur Bench of CAT. The Hon’ble CAT decided the issue in favour of grant of pay scale to the Inspector of Central Excise equivalent to that of the Inspectors of CBI/IB. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below:-

PARA - 7: “As regards the nature of duties and discharge of liability educational qualifications and mode of recruitment we find from the record that the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue by their letter dated 27.10.95 wrote to the 5th CPC that the duties and responsibilities performed by the applicants are more arduous and hazardous than the Inspectors of Delhi Police and CBI and recommended parity in the pay scale. Subsequently on agitation by the applicants a HPC has been constituted by none else than the Finance Minister, which included the Chairman, CBEC, CBDT, Joint Secretary of both the Boards etc. They recommended accord of higher pay scale at part with CBI and IB to the applicants and this has been approved by the Secretary, Revenue as well as the Ministry for State who was also holding the charge of Ministry of Personnel. In a way the recommendations have been approved and cleared but have not been acceded to by the respondents by referring to the recommendations in paras 66.118 and 66.119 is that the applicants have not been found comparable with that of Inspectors of Police organizations, we find that the same does not inter alia, include the CBI and IB who do not come within the purview of the Police organization and cannot be treated a such. Apart from it by their further recommendation placing the Inspectors in IB/CBI in the replacement scale of Rs. 1640-2900 the anomaly which has

of 41

been created in the year 1986 has been removed. In our considered view this recommendation after going into all aspects and factors for determination of pay scale i.e., eligibility, educational qualification, nature of duties and responsibilities as well as professional skills the applicants Inspectors of Customs and Excise have been found at par with the Inspectors of CBI and IB. The recommendation of expert body also places these two sets of employees in parity in all respects. Subsequent decision of the Government by disagreeing with the recommendations of the expert body as far as CBI and IB is concerned and recommended the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 to the Inspectors of CBI and IB vide their letter dated 06.10.97 certainly creates an anomaly in the pay scale of two equally placed sets of employees. This decision of the Government is without any logic, rational and shows hostile discrimination between the two sets of employees having been treated alike by the 5th CPC. In our considered view the expert body i.e. HPC set up by the Ministry of Finance has recommended the revision of pay scale of the applicants at par with the Inspectors of CBI and IB and same has been accepted by the Ministry of Finance there was no reason for the Government to have taken a contrary view by rejecting their request without recording any justified reasons. The stand of the Government to adopt restructuring in no way would be relevant for upgrading of their pay scale at par with their counterparts in CBI/IB. As per the ration of P.V. Hariharan’s case (Supra) the Tribunal can interfere in the matter of pay scale if their exists a hostile discrimination between the two sets of employees similarly situated, with any justification..

In the result, we find the action of the Government to deny the applicants pay scale at par with those of Inspectors of CBI/IB as violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, we refrain from ordering accord of pay scale to the applicants and in this view of the matter the OA is dispose of with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants for being accorded the pay scale at part with the Inspectors of CBI and IB having regard to the observations made above by us and to make a final decision by passing a detail3ed and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

12. The above-said pay disparity created by Government of India was removed only on 21.04.2004 vide OM No. 6/37/98-IC by awarding the equivalent to CBI/IB Inspectors’ pay scale to the Inspectors of Central Excise. But the pay anomaly created since 1986 existed up to 20.04.2004 has not been corrected as yet. The assigning of different dates for giving effect to the parity in the matter of pay scale to the Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB is discriminatory, arbitrary, influenced by extraneous factors such as financial repercussions or otherwise and is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as repeatedly held in various judgments of the Courts/Tribunal referred to hereinabove.

13. Needless to say that the cadres of Inspectors of CBI/IB and Central Excise were historically treated at par in the matter of pay scales. Thus, the subsequent action of the govt. to deny parity in the matter of pay scales to cadre of Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB can be considered to be arbitrary. The HPC have made the evaluation of the job contents and responsibilities for the purpose of up-gradation of pay scale which had been accepted by the Government at the highest level. In the facts and circumstances, the govt. is duty bound to accept the same. In the cases of Dalip Singh Vs. State of Haryana [199(4) SLR 688] and Dr. Gautam Mahajan Vs. St ate of Punjab [1987(4) SLR 594 (P&H HC) it had been held that:

“It is true that the employer has a right to provide various pay scales to different categories of employees and the decision of the employer has to be based upon recommendations of competent bodies which have to be given weight. But in a case of rejection of genuine claim of the employees, which was based upon recommendations by

of 41

competent bodies as also the recommendations of the Department itself, the final decision of Finance Department was to be arbitrary”.

14. The High Power Committee having its members viz. Chairmans of CBEC & CBDT, Joint Secretaries of both the Boards etc. are expert in the field and they after examining all the relevant material including recommendations of CPC’s, Judgments of Courts/Tribunals had recommended the same pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- (revised: Rs. 6,500-10,500/-) to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise as they were comparable and at par with the Inspectors of CBI/IB.

15. Accordingly, the Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) vide order dated 09.08.2004 inter alia clarified that – “the higher pay scales had to be given because earlier Inspector of CBI/IB were extended the higher scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- (revised to Rs. 6,500-10,500/-) as against the existing pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- (revised to Rs. 5,500-9,000/-).” The disrupting of established parity between Inspectors of CBI/IB and those of Central Excise had existed till the time of the IVth CPC and the status quo was maintained by expert body (i.e., IVth CPC). All these posts earlier existed in the same pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- (revised to Rs. 5,500-9,000/-). This issue was considered by the Vth Pay Commission which also had recommended that Inspectors of Income Tax, Central Excise & Customs as well as those of CBI/IB should be placed in the same pre-revised scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- (revised to Rs. 5,500-9,000/-). This had the effect of reduction in the pay scale of Inspectors of CBI and IB from the then existing pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,000/- to Rs. 5,500-9,000/-. The Vth CPC, therefore, established the clear principle that earlier parity in the pay scales between the Inspectors of Income-tax, Central Excise and CBI/IB which was also endorsed by the IVth CPC had to be maintained, especially when all those posts were not comparable with the post of Inspectors of Police in Delhi who were distinguished with others and placed in the higher scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- by the Vth CPC.

16. The pay scale of Inspectors of CBI & IB was, however, not reduced from the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- to Rs. 5,500-9,000/- not following the recommendations of the Vth CPC. As per the principle laid down by the CPC, the pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise would have been brought at par with the pay scale of Inspectors of CBI/IB. A High Power Committee had also looked into this issue and recommended higher pay scale for these posts in CBDT and CBEC. Aggrieved, the issue was also agitated by All India Federation of Central Excise Executive Officers before Jabalpur Bench of CAT vide OA No. 45/2000 wherein the Tribunal observed as under:“In the result, we find the action of the Government to deny the applicants pay scale at par with those of Inspectors of CBI/IB as violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, we refrain from ordering accord of pay scale to the applicants and in this view of the matter the OA is dispose of with the direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants for being accorded the pay scale at part with the Inspectors of CBI and IB having regard to the observations made above by us and to make a final decision by passing a detailed and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

17. The Department of Legal Affairs while observing that no infirmity existed in the judgment had opined, “It is a recorded fact that similarity of the pay scale was recommended by HPC also. But the same could not find favour of consideration by the Government for, reasons best known to it. When this fact is admitted that the nature of duties of Inspectors of Central Excise are arduous comparatively with those of CBI and IB, there appears no reasons as to why they should not be provided the same scale and it appears that it may, invoke Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.”

of 41

18. The High Power Committee (an expert body) had recommended to award replacement scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- to Inspectors of Central Excise etc. for which there has to be a date anterior to 01.01.1996 as the pre-revised pay scale is recommended for up-gradation granting revision in the replacement pay scale w.e.f. 21.04.2004 would have the effect of persisting the anomaly for the period from 01.01.1986 till 20.04.2004. This can be again illustrated by taking the case of an Inspector of Central Excise. He is given the higher scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- w.e.f. 21.04.2004 as per order F.No. 6/37/98/ic dated 21.04.2004 and (a) the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- from 01.01.1996 to 20.04.2004 (b) the pay scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900/- from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995. The pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- is Rs. 1,640-2,900/-. When the pre-revised pay scale itself is recommended for up-gradation to Rs. 2,000-3,200/- which has to be during 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995, how he can be given the replacement pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996? In view of this position, once it is to be treated as case of removal of anomaly by the Department, which existed in the implementation of upgraded scale, it is in the interest of justice that the said anomaly is not allowed to persist any more and the same is immediately corrected from the date when the higher pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- was granted to the Inspectors of CBI/IB.

19. Reliance is also placed on the judgment dated 22.09.1997, passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 13360 of 1996 titled Shyam Sunder and Ors Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr., wherein the Hon’ble High Court extended the benefits from 01.01.1986 instead of 01.05.1990 granted by Haryana State Electricity Board by observing as under:“Once the claim of pay parity has been granted to the petitioners, there is no reason to assign different date for its effect. The revised pay scale should be given from the same date as in the case of other categories of employees. The petitioners’ contention is that the revised pay scale given from May 01, 1990 instead of January 01, 1986 is the result of discrimination and arbitrariness.”

20. The Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench vide its order dated 24.02.1995 in OA No. 541/94 inter alia directed the govt. to place the Inspectors of Central Excise in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- with effect from the date of Inspectors of CBI were placed in the said scale and pay arrears in the light of the Vth Pay Commission’s findings as a result of the reference made by the Government relating to disparity between the two sets of employees. The said order was never implemented, which undoubtedly cast aspersion on the attitude of the bureaucracy to scuttle the legitimate demand of Inspectors of Central Excise pending since 01.01.1986. In short, the Inspectors of Central Excise ought to be allowed pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- at par with Inspectors of CBI/IB w.e.f. 01.01.1986 in view of the following reasons:

(a) Binding effect of the decision of the CAT in OA No. 541/94 dt. 24.02.1995 directing the Department of Expenditure (Respondent) to grant the pay scale to Inspectors of Central Excise at par with the pay scale of Inspectors of CBI/IB from the date the Inspectors of CBI/IB had been granted.

(b) The established parity between the job contents involving performance and responsibilities of the two categories of Inspectors viz. Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB etc. as brought out by the IVth, Vth CPCs and the High Power Committee. It has been concluded that the two categories of the employees are undertaking similar work profile and need to be placed in the same pay scale.

(c) In the judgments of the Hon’ble Tribunal, it is held that there is a clear parity between the two sets of employees:-

of 41

(i) Decision dated 22.03.2002 of the CAT (Jabalpur Bench) in OA No. 45 of 2000.

(ii) Decision dated 20.11.2009 of the CAT (Cutack Bench) in OA No. 180 of 2006.

(d) The issue relating to the nature of the duties performed by the Inspectors of Central Excise is more arduous and hazardous as compared to the nature of duties performed by the Inspectors of CBI/IB etc. has been dealt with by the High Power Committee constituted under the orders of Hon’ble Finance Minister and its recommendations duly approved by the Secretary of Revenue. Thus, non-grant of pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to the Inspectors of Central Excise is violative of the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

(e) The Inspectors of CBI and IB were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200/- instead of 1,640-2,900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 by the Government without any litigation and that too without into the aspect of any repercussion.

(f) Both the IVth & Vth CPCs, being expert bodies for recommending pay scales have maintained parity of pay scales between the Inspectors of Central Excise and CBI/IB. Therefore, any grant of higher pay scale to the Inspectors of CBI/IB would automatically entail grant of the said higher pay scale to the Inspectors of Central Excise w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with consequential benefits.

In view of the above, it is humbly requested that it is incumbent on the part of the Department of Expenditure to up-grade the pay scale of Inspectors of Central Excise w.e.f. 01.01.1986 with all the consequential service benefits equivalent to the Inspectors of CBI/IB.

PRAYER: Your honour may kindly direct the appropriate authority in the Government of India to remove the anomaly and issue necessary orders for enhancement of the pay scale of Inspectors of Central Excise:

(1) from Rs. 1,640-2,900/- to Rs. 2,000-3,200/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 and

(2) from Rs. 5,500-9,000-/ to Rs. 6,500-10,500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

with all the consequential benefits.

We fervently hope our just cause would receive your immediate attention and sympathetic consideration as well as early orders. Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(RAVI MALIK), Secretary General.

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL of 41

EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERSPresident: Address for communication: Secretary General:Sushil Kumar Pareek 240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.) Ravi MalikMob. 09414203722 mail Id: [email protected] Mob. 09868816290




Ref. No. 136 /10 Dt. 10.11.10

To,Sh. R. N. Singh,Under Secretary (Coord),Deptt. of Revenue,Ministry of Finance,New Delhi.

Sub: Meeting of Departmental Anomaly Committee.

Sir,Kindly refer to the Office Memorandum issued vide F.No.7/5/2009-Coord Dt. 15.10.10

by your goodself.

It is further submitted w.r.t. C. No. ASSCN./ AIACEGEO/05/2009/158 Dt. 03.06.09, 250 Dt. 18.08.09, 325 Dt. 08.12.09 and 377 Dt.11.01.10 of the Association that the submissions made by this association have not been recorded in the agenda of the meeting.

In view of the above, it is requested that the agenda of the meeting for the discussions to be held on 23.11.10 may kindly be amended accordingly.

Thanking you, Yours

faithfully,


of 41







Ref. No. 138 /10 Dt. 15.11.10

To,Sh. R. N. Singh,Under Secretary (Coord),Deptt. of Revenue,Ministry of Finance,New Delhi.

Sub: Meeting of Departmental Anomaly Committee on 23.11.10.

Sir,Kindly refer to-

i)Your letterF.No.7/5/2009-Coord (Vol.III) Dt. 10.09.10ii) The Office Memorandum issued vide F.No.7/5/2009-Coord Dt. 15.10.10 by your goodself.

The Association is thankful for giving it the opportunity to attend the meeting to be held on 23.11.10. But it is also submitted alongwith w.r.t. C. No. ASSCN./ AIACEGEO/05/2009/158 Dt. 03.06.09, of even No’s 250 Dt. 18.08.09, 325 Dt. 08.12.09, 377 Dt.11.01.10 and Ref. No. 136/10 Dt. 10.11.10of the Association that the submissions made by this association have not been recorded in the agenda of the meeting.

The following submissions are, therefore, again made with the request to be placed in

the agenda of the meeting in continuation of the above referred communications of the Association-

1. General anomalyA. Date of increment

The uniform date of annual increment on 1 st July of every year has been prescribed under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2008. As per that, the employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to get the increment. Under Rule 5 ibid, an employee can continue to remain in the existing scale till his date of increment. Therefore, the date of increment of an employee whose date of next increment falls from 1st of February to 1st June would be deferred by seventeen to thirteen months and he would also lose the grade pay up to the month of his increment. Hence, the exercising of option to continue in the existing scale does not remain optional since each and every employee is looser in all of such cases. Normally, the annual increment is given to the employees after completion of twelve months until it is deferred or withheld under (CCA) Conduct Rules. In the revised scale, the normal increment would not be granted to the

of 41


employee in the next year who opts for new scale after the date of his increment since the provisions of the Fundamental Rules shall not, save as otherwise provided in these rules, apply to the cases where pay is regulated under these rules to the extent they are inconsistent with these rules under Rule 15 ibid. It is also submitworthy that the provision has also been made under Rule 16 ibid that where the President is satisfied that the operation of all or any of the provisions of these rules cause undue hardship in any particular case, he may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

Thus, the injustice meted to a section of the employees, whose date of increment was between 1st of February and 1st June, is clearly discriminatory in comparison to the employees whose date of increment falls between 1st July and 1st of January. The anomalous situation may kindly be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble President to pass suitable order to remove undue hardship to deal the instant case in equitable manner.

B. Pension gratuity The 6th CPC in Para 5.1.33 of its report recommended that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments received during the past 10 months or the last pay drawn whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding the years of qualifying service for the purpose of computing the pension/related benefits would be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant. Pursuant to the acceptance of the said recommendation of the VI CPC, the Govt. of India vide its O.M. No.7/7/2008-P&PW(F) dated 13.02.2009 has withdrawn the system of adding the years of qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension as well as other related benefits such as gratuity. The upper limit of amount of gratuity has also been increased without amending the maximum of sixteen and half times of the emoluments linked with the qualifying service of thirty three years of service. The provisions require amendment for payment of the gratuity linked with the total number of years of service without the limit of sixteen and half times of the emoluments otherwise there is no meaning of reduction of qualifying service for full pension in case of gratuity.

2. Cadre specific anomaly

A. Replacement scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/ to the Superintendents of Central Excise The Government has given replacement scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise under the CBEC. In the memorandum submitted to the VI CPC, the Association demanded the replacement pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- at par with the Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. and the said demand was being persistently and continuously pursued since 1995. The VI CPC in para 7.15.17 observed that higher scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- has been sought for the posts of Appraisers/Superintendents/Income Tax Officers/equivalent officers in CBEC and CBDT. The higher scale has been demanded on the ground that these posts are comparable with Deputy Superintendents of Police in CBI etc. who are already in the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. It is observed that the Vth Central Pay Commission had specifically noted that no relativity could be established between the executive posts in Income Tax and Customs vis-à-vis those existing in CBI. Although the recommendation was made with reference to the post of Inspector, the same cannot but hold true for the next higher posts in the hierarchy of these organizations. Further, the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- is the entry pay scale for Group ‘A’ posts of Assistant Commissioner/equivalent. The post of Assistant Commissioner is a promotion post for the Superintendents/Appraisers/ITO’s etc. Therefore, even otherwise, this scale cannot be granted. The logic does not stand good since the promotional scale is given in the PB-3 whereas the scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500/- also exists in PB-2 for group ‘B’ officers. Moreover, the denial

of 41

of the parity with the Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. on the ground that the scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500/- is the promotional scale for the Superintendent of Central Excise is illogical since the same logic has not been applied in the case of T.A., S.T.A. and Inspector of Central Excise who were placed in the same Pay Band with same grade pay of Rs.4200/- though the Inspector of Central Excise was the promotional post for the S.T.A whereas the grade pays for the Superintendent of Central Excise and Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. are different (Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400 /-). Moreover, once upon a time, the Assistants and Section Officers of CSS were placed in the same pay scales while the later being the promotional post for the former. So, it is a clearcut anomaly not to grant the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise and requires to be redressed. Moreover, the VI CPC in para 7.15.24 of its report clearly admitted the traditional parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Appraisers, Income Tax Officer & Superintendent of Narcotics and recommended for the maintenance of the same in future. The Chief Enforcement Officers were given the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by the Government pursuant to the recommendations of the V CPC and subsequently revised their scale to Rs. 8,000-13,500/- w.e.f 04.10.2005 vide order issued under F. No.16/26/2004-Ad. 1C dated 04.10.2005.

The High Power Committee formed in the Ministry of Finance after the Vth Central Pay Commission also admitted that the duties and responsibilities of similar levels in the organizations of NCB, IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. are at par . This Committee recommended the scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- for our officers w.e.f. 21.04.04 admitting that it could not recommend the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- on the ground that this pay scale is that of the initial level of Group ‘A’ and the Appraisers of Customs are also recruited through the same Civil Services Examination through which Group ‘A’ IC&CES/IRS officers are also recruited, this will obviously create difficulties from the operational point of view of fitting them into the overall structure of the department. The logic does not stand good now because the direct recruitment of the Appraiser of Customs has already been stopped through the Civil Services Examination since the last cadre restructuring.

Our counterparts in IB, CBI etc. had already been granted a pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- prior to VI CPC. They were not only given the scale of group ‘A’ but also given group ‘A’ status. They have not only got the higher pay scales but also got one month extra salary in a year as well as 25% special pay per month. On the contrary, we have been ignored totally despite of the fact that the investigation & intelligence work done by them is an integral and only a single part of our multi-functional duties. We are also doing the work of enforcement, judicial, executive, anti-evasion, anti-smuggling etc. nature alongwith the investigation & intelligence work while our counterparts in CBI, IB etc. are doing only a single work of the investigation & intelligence nature which constitutes merely one part of our duties.. This is the only reason that we are entitled to go to their department on deputation while they are not entitled to come to our department because their duty is merely a single function of our duties.

As per the definition of analogous post vide O.M. No.14017/27/75-Estt(D) (Pt.) Dt. 07.93.84 of Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms), the counterparts of CBEC, NCB, IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. fall under the category of the analogous posts. They should, therefore, be given equal treatment in the matter of pay etc.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also decided that the officers should get equal pay for equal work in Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 2004. Thus, our officers should also get the pay

of 41

benefits at least equal to our counterparts in IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. being fallen under the same category of the analogous post.

The Hon’ble Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has also decided that the officers should get equal pay for equal work in O.A. No. 2951 of 2003. Thus again as stated in the above para, our officers should get the pay benefits equal to our counterparts in IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. being fallen under the same category of the analogous post.

Even more, the government has recently enhanced the pay scales of our Inspectors (the cadre being supervised by us) and other equivalent cadres to Rs. 7,450-/- from Rs. 6,500-/- with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.01.06. This has left an initial difference of only Rs. 50/- in the pay scales of the supervised cadre and supervising cadre while this difference of the initial pays of supervised cadre and supervising cadre in the case of higher cadres is Rs. 2,000/- or more. In the case of the lower cadres also, it was at least Rs. 1,000/- which has now become around Rs. 2,000/- too (Rs. 1,950/-). In view of this all, the difference of mere Rs. 50/- between the initial pays of the supervised cadre and supervising cadre is no way justified and seems only a mockery with the group ‘B’ gazetted officers. Therefore, the better remedy would be that all the group ‘B’ gazetted officers of the Government of India may be placed in a uniform scale of Rs. 8,000-13,000/- (grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB3) with group ‘A’ status on the lines of the uniformity of scales done recently in the case of all the group ‘B’ non-gazetted officers of the Government of India and accordingly, all the group ‘A’ entry level officers of the Government of India may be placed uniformly in a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) to remove all the disparities. The uniform upgradation of all the group ‘A’ entry level officers to a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) from a pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,000/- (grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB3) will have no administrative or technical or legal etc. problem because they are already being upgraded automatically to a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) after regular service of 4 years as a time scale. This time scale benefit would be shifted to their supervised cadres accordingly. In the same manner, all the group ‘B’ non-gazetted officers may be given a gazetted status to maintain the administrative hierarchy. This all will also remove all the inter-cadre disparities in the pay scales.

Therefore, this anomaly requires to be removed immediately with retrospective effect as per the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission and the other facts submitted above.

B. Retrospective effect of revision of pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Rs. 8,000-13,500/- w.e.f. 04.10.2005.

In view of the continuous protest against the anomaly created by the V CPC by granting the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, the government granted the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise & Customs, Appraisers of Customs and Income Tax Officers w.e.f. 21.04.2004. The Association demanded retrospective effect of the said pay scale from 01.01.1996 at par with the Chief Enforcement Officers who were given the same pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

The government, in case of change of any scale in between the V and VI CPC, issued the following orders for retrospective effect of the revised/enhanced scales of many of the categories of government employees-

i) The pay scale of our counterparts, the Superintendents of Narcotics Control Bureau, was revised from Rs.6,500-10,500/- to Rs.7.500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all consequential benefits vide Office Order under F.No.15/2(38)/2004-Esst. Dated 20.04.05

of 41

issued by NCB, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, G.O.I. ii) The redeployed surplus staff was also allowed the revised scale of pay w.e.f.

01.01.96 with all the consequential benefits vide DOP&T O.M. No.1/7/98-CS.III, dt. 09.04.99.


iv) The pay scales of Divisional Accountants/Divisional Accounts Officers were upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.96 with financial benefit w.e.f.28.04.04 vide C&AG [Cir No. 26/NGE/2004] No. 341-NRE (App.)/36-2003 dt. 28.04.04




viii) In case of Ministry of Labour, the change of scale was given effect from 01.01.1996 with arrears from 11.02.2003 vide O.M. No.A-32022/1/2002-Adm.I dated 26.04.2004.


x) The Section Officers of CSS were given the retrospective benefit vide Order No.- 5/4/2005-CS.I Dt. 25.01.05 of DOPT. xi) In case of the Accounts Employees in Postal , IA & AD, Civil Accounts, Ministry of Coal & Mines etc, the benefit of notional fixation of revised pay with effect from 01.01.1996 has been given with actual payment with effect from the date of the issue of the orders.

The government avoided our case and referred the matter to the VIth CPC. The VIth CPC in para 7.15.16 of the report observed that the Commission, as a general rule, is not considering demands seeking retrospective application of some or the other order unless a clear cut and manifest anomaly that cannot be corrected other than through such retrospective revision is made out. Such is not the case here. The demand, therefore, cannot be considered. Such observation from a Commission headed by a retired and renowned Judge of Supreme Court is unbelievable and unacceptable because this loss and discrimination cannot be removed without retrospective revision. A Superintendent of Central Excise of 1995 got his pay fixed at Rs. 6,500/- on 01.01.96 whereas other equivalent employees of the government got their pay fixed at Rs.7,500/- due to giving effect of retrospective revision. Thus, the Superintendent of Central Excise suffered a loss of Rs.1’450/- (Rs. 1,000/- on account of difference in initial pay + Rs. 450/- on account of incremental difference of Rs.50 for nine years in two scales) with applicable D.A. up to 01.01.2006 having a substantial bearing in fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 which is a clearcut and manifest anomaly requiring immediate rectification with retrospective revision. Neither the government is removing this anomaly nor the pay commission attended it, it is not understood how this anomaly would be removed.



ii) The Hon’ble CAT of Ernakulam has also taken the view that the effect of the revised scale should be given retrospectively from the date of the implementation of the report of

of 41

the Pay Commission in its order in O.A. No.671/2003 on 30.06.06 allowing the benefit of improved pay scale retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.96 with arrears.




It is also submitted that the Hon,ble Central Administrative Tribunals have given such type of favourable decisions at least on three occasions analyzing all the things in our favour on each occasion giving the detailed justifications and asking the government to pass the speaking order in the following judjements-i) O.A. No. 180/2006 by Cuttack CAT.ii) O.A. No. 45/2000 by Jabalpur CAT.iii) O.A. No. 541/94 by Jabalpur CAT.

But the government was only pleased to reject the same on every occasion giving no heed to the detailed justifications given by the Hon,ble CAT’s. The government even gave no weightage to-

a) Its own strong recommendations made to the Vth CPC saying that duties of our officers are more hazardous and arduous than CBI, IB etc.

b) The acceptance of the Ministry of Law after the IInd judgement in O.A. No. 45/2000 of Jabalpur CAT.

While our claims were being rejected, the staff of CBI etc. was repeatedly able to get the relief without any specific recommendations or legal judgment/s.

Moreover, the then Deputy Secretary in CBEC, Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, issued the orders for the payment of the arrears vide letter F. No. A-26017/44/94-Ad.II (A) Dated 08.03.95 on the basis of the very Ist judgment of its kind in O.A. No. 541/94 of Jabalpur CAT from the date of the enhancement of the pay-scale of the staff of CBI, IB etc. in the light of the forthcoming report of the Vth CPC. The Vth CPC was pleased to place our officers and the officers of CBI, IB etc. in the same pay scale but even then we were not paid the arrears as per the decision in the O.A. No. 541/94 of Jabalpur CAT which are now overdue.

The payment of the arrears with retrospective effect is further substantiated from- (A) the observations of the VIth CPC in para 7.15.24 of the report wherein the

traditional parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise and Assistant Enforcement Officer with the Inspector of Central Excise has been admitted and recommended for the maintenance of the same for future too; and

(B) The fact that the government very recently and very rightly has enhanced the pay scales of all the non-gazetted group ‘B’ or equivalent cadres to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- from Rs. 6,500-10,500/- after the implementation of the report of the 6th CPC with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.01.06.

Thus, this anomaly regarding the payments of arrears of pay needs immediate rectification.

3. Discrimination in granting of Non Functional Scale The VI CPC recommended removal of discrimination between the Secretariat and Field level officers. As a result, the benefit granted earlier to the Section Officers placing them in the scale of Rs. 8,000/-13,500/ after completion of four years of service in the said grade has also

of 41

been granted to the Group B officers of Department of Post, Revenue etc. by the resolution No.1/1/2008-I C dated 29.08.2008 which reads in para (X) as follows:-

“Regarding Group B Cadres the Commission’s recommendations will be modified in the following manner:-(a) After 4 years of regular service in the entry grade of Rs.4800/-in PB-2,

Officers belonging to Delhi & Nicobar Islands Civil Service and Delhi & Nicobar Islands Police Service will be granted the non- functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2;

(b) After 4 years of regular service the Section Officer/ Private secretary/ equivalent grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2, officers of Central Secretariat Service Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and other similarly placed HQ services will also be granted the non-functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2;

(c) In the IA&AD and all organized accounts cadres, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit/ Accounts officers will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 as recommended by the Commission. In modification of Sixth CPC’s recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) will be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5400 and Senior AOs will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400;

(d) Group “B” Officers of Ministry of Railways in the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000 -13500 will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 instead of PB-2;

(e) Group B Officers of Posts, Revenue etc. will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 on non- functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2.”

To implement the above resolution, the government has made the Central Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In part C, Section II against Ministry of Finance the following provision has been made- Department of Revenue

9 Income Tax Officers/ Superintendent, Appraisers etc. (Customs & Central Excise)

7500-12000 7500-12000

8000-13500(after 4 years)

PB-2

PB-2

4800

5400

7.15.17

The granting of non functional scale is to remove the discrimination between the Secretariat and Field level officers, but rule making authority chooses otherwise and so the discrimination is allowed to continue.

Moreover, in all cases the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 on non functional basis after 4 years of regular service has been granted but in some cases including our case, it has been given in PB-2. The granting of grade pay on non functional basis in the Group B cadre, to an officer who is already functioning as Group B cadre is anomalous and requires rectification.

of 41

In addition to the above, the non granting scale in PB-3 has taken a tole in the Modified Assured Progression Scheme granted under O.M. No.35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009 wherein in para 8.1 of the Annexure-I of the said O.M., it has been provided that the grade pay of Rs.5400/ of PB-2 and PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of up gradation under MACP Scheme, which is unbelievable and totally against the recommendations of the Pay Commission which recommended change of grade pay under the Scheme with actual financial benefit. Resultantly all the Group B officers other than Revenue and Post department, would get higher grade pays under MACPS. It is a clear anomaly and discrimination particularly when the fate of the Superintendents is known to the Government who are getting only one promotion in their entire service career with loss of retirement salary, pension and other retirement benefits as compared to their counterparts in other departments. Therefore, they should be given a grade pay in PB-3 on completion of four years of service to remove this anomaly.

In view of the above, it is requested that the agenda of the meeting for the discussions to be held on 23.11.10 may kindly be amended accordingly including in it all of the above points of this Association.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully,


Copy with the request for necessary action to-1. Director (Coord), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.2. Addl. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.3. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.4. The DG, HRD, CBEC, New Delhi.5. The ADG, HRM, CBEC, New Delhi.

(RAVI MALIK)

of 41






Ref. No. 141/10 Dt. 22.11.10 To,The Chairman,CBEC, North Block,New Delhi.Sub: Meeting of Departmental Anomaly Committee on 23.11.10.Sir,

It is submitted with due regards that the following points may kindly be considered for the meeting on behalf of this Association-

1. General anomalyA. Date of increment

The uniform date of annual increment on 1 st July of every year has been prescribed under Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2008. As per that, the employees completing 6 months and above in the revised pay structure as on 1st July will be eligible to get the increment. Under Rule 5 ibid, an employee can continue to remain in the existing scale till his date of increment. Therefore, the date of increment of an employee whose date of next increment falls from 1st of February to 1st June would be deferred by seventeen to thirteen months and he would also lose the grade pay up to the month of his increment. Hence, the exercising of option to continue in the existing scale does not remain optional since each and every employee is looser in all of such cases. Normally, the annual increment is given to the employees after completion of twelve months until it is deferred or withheld under (CCA) Conduct Rules. In the revised scale, the normal increment would not be granted to the employee in the next year who opts for new scale after the date of his increment since the provisions of the Fundamental Rules shall not, save as otherwise provided in these rules, apply to the cases where pay is regulated under these rules to the extent they are inconsistent with these rules under Rule 15 ibid. It is also submitworthy that the provision has also been made under Rule 16 ibid that where the President is satisfied that the operation of all or any of the provisions of these rules cause undue hardship in any particular case, he may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Thus, the injustice meted to a section of the employees, whose date of increment was between 1st of February and 1st June, is clearly discriminatory in comparison to the employees whose date of increment falls between 1st July and 1st of January. The anomalous situation may kindly be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble President to pass suitable order to remove undue hardship to deal the instant case in equitable manner.

B. Pension gratuity The 6th CPC in Para 5.1.33 of its report recommended that linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average emoluments

of 41


received during the past 10 months or the last pay drawn whichever is more beneficial to the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding the years of qualifying service for the purpose of computing the pension/related benefits would be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant. Pursuant to the acceptance of the said recommendation of the VI CPC, the Govt. of India vide its O.M. No.7/7/2008-P&PW(F) dated 13.02.2009 has withdrawn the system of adding the years of qualifying service for the purpose of computing pension as well as other related benefits such as gratuity. The upper limit of amount of gratuity has also been increased without amending the maximum of sixteen and half times of the emoluments linked with the qualifying service of thirty three years of service. The provisions require amendment for payment of the gratuity linked with the total number of years of service without the limit of sixteen and half times of the emoluments otherwise there is no meaning of reduction of qualifying service for full pension in case of gratuity.

2. Cadre specific anomaly

A. Replacement scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/ to the Superintendents of Central Excise The Government has given replacement scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise under the CBEC. In the memorandum submitted to the VI CPC, the Association demanded the replacement pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- at par with the Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. and the said demand was being persistently and continuously pursued since 1995. The VI CPC in para 7.15.17 observed that higher scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- has been sought for the posts of Appraisers/Superintendents/Income Tax Officers/equivalent officers in CBEC and CBDT. The higher scale has been demanded on the ground that these posts are comparable with Deputy Superintendents of Police in CBI etc. who are already in the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. It is observed that the Vth Central Pay Commission had specifically noted that no relativity could be established between the executive posts in Income Tax and Customs vis-à-vis those existing in CBI. Although the recommendation was made with reference to the post of Inspector, the same cannot but hold true for the next higher posts in the hierarchy of these organizations. Further, the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- is the entry pay scale for Group ‘A’ posts of Assistant Commissioner/equivalent. The post of Assistant Commissioner is a promotion post for the Superintendents/Appraisers/ITO’s etc. Therefore, even otherwise, this scale cannot be granted. The logic does not stand good since the promotional scale is given in the PB-3 whereas the scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500/- also exists in PB-2 for group ‘B’ officers. Moreover, the denial of the parity with the Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. on the ground that the scale of Rs. 8,000-Rs.13,500/- is the promotional scale for the Superintendent of Central Excise is illogical since the same logic has not been applied in the case of T.A., S.T.A. and Inspector of Central Excise who were placed in the same Pay Band with same grade pay of Rs.4200/- though the Inspector of Central Excise was the promotional post for the S.T.A whereas the grade pays for the Superintendent of Central Excise and Deputy Superintendent of C.B.I. etc. are different (Rs. 4800/- and Rs. 5400 /-). Moreover, once upon a time, the Assistants and Section Officers of CSS were placed in the same pay scales while the later being the promotional post for the former. So, it is a clearcut anomaly not to grant the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise and requires to be redressed. Moreover, the VI CPC in para 7.15.24 of its report clearly admitted the traditional parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Appraisers, Income Tax Officer & Superintendent of Narcotics and recommended for the maintenance of the same in future. The Chief Enforcement Officers were given the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by the Government pursuant to the recommendations of the V CPC and subsequently revised their scale to Rs. 8,000-13,500/- w.e.f 04.10.2005 vide order issued under F. No.16/26/2004-Ad. 1C dated 04.10.2005.

of 41

The High Power Committee formed in the Ministry of Finance after the Vth Central Pay Commission also admitted that the duties and responsibilities of similar levels in the organizations of NCB, IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. are at par . This Committee recommended the scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- for our officers w.e.f. 21.04.04 admitting that it could not recommend the scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- on the ground that this pay scale is that of the initial level of Group ‘A’ and the Appraisers of Customs are also recruited through the same Civil Services Examination through which Group ‘A’ IC&CES/IRS officers are also recruited, this will obviously create difficulties from the operational point of view of fitting them into the overall structure of the department. The logic does not stand good now because the direct recruitment of the Appraiser of Customs has already been stopped through the Civil Services Examination since the last cadre restructuring.

Our counterparts in IB, CBI etc. had already been granted a pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/- prior to VI CPC. They were not only given the scale of group ‘A’ but also given group ‘A’ status. They have not only got the higher pay scales but also got one month extra salary in a year as well as 25% special pay per month. On the contrary, we have been ignored totally despite of the fact that the investigation & intelligence work done by them is an integral and only a single part of our multi-functional duties. We are also doing the work of enforcement, judicial, executive, anti-evasion, anti-smuggling etc. nature alongwith the investigation & intelligence work while our counterparts in CBI, IB etc. are doing only a single work of the investigation & intelligence nature which constitutes merely one part of our duties.. This is the only reason that we are entitled to go to their department on deputation while they are not entitled to come to our department because their duty is merely a single function of our duties.

As per the definition of analogous post vide O.M. No.14017/27/75-Estt(D) (Pt.) Dt. 07.93.84 of Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms), the counterparts of CBEC, NCB, IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. fall under the category of the analogous posts. They should, therefore, be given equal treatment in the matter of pay etc.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also decided that the officers should get equal pay for equal work in Civil Appeal No. 4104 of 2004. Thus, our officers should also get the pay benefits at least equal to our counterparts in IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. being fallen under the same category of the analogous post.

The Hon’ble Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has also decided that the officers should get equal pay for equal work in O.A. No. 2951 of 2003. Thus again as stated in the above para, our officers should get the pay benefits equal to our counterparts in IB, CBI, Enforcement Directorate etc. being fallen under the same category of the analogous post.

Even more, the government has recently enhanced the pay scales of our Inspectors (the cadre being supervised by us) and other equivalent cadres to Rs. 7,450-/- from Rs. 6,500-/- with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.01.06. This has left an initial difference of only Rs. 50/- in the pay scales of the supervised cadre and supervising cadre while this difference of the initial pays of supervised cadre and supervising cadre in the case of higher cadres is Rs. 2,000/- or more. In the case of the lower cadres also, it was at least Rs. 1,000/- which has now become around Rs. 2,000/- too (Rs. 1,950/-). In view of this all, the difference of mere Rs. 50/- between the initial pays of the supervised cadre and supervising cadre is no way justified and seems only a mockery with the group ‘B’ gazetted officers. Therefore, the better remedy would be that all the group ‘B’ gazetted

of 41

officers of the Government of India may be placed in a uniform scale of Rs. 8,000-13,000/- (grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB3) with group ‘A’ status on the lines of the uniformity of scales done recently in the case of all the group ‘B’ non-gazetted officers of the Government of India and accordingly, all the group ‘A’ entry level officers of the Government of India may be placed uniformly in a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) to remove all the disparities. The uniform upgradation of all the group ‘A’ entry level officers to a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) from a pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,000/- (grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB3) will have no administrative or technical or legal etc. problem because they are already being upgraded automatically to a pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- (a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-) after regular service of 4 years as a time scale. This time scale benefit would be shifted to their supervised cadres accordingly. In the same manner, all the group ‘B’ non-gazetted officers may be given a gazetted status to maintain the administrative hierarchy. This all will also remove all the inter-cadre disparities in the pay scales.

Therefore, this anomaly requires to be removed immediately with retrospective effect as per the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission and the other facts submitted above.

B. Retrospective effect of revision of pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and Rs. 8,000-13,500/- w.e.f. 04.10.2005.

In view of the continuous protest against the anomaly created by the V CPC by granting the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, the government granted the pay scale of Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to the Superintendents of Central Excise & Customs, Appraisers of Customs and Income Tax Officers w.e.f. 21.04.2004. The Association demanded retrospective effect of the said pay scale from 01.01.1996 at par with the Chief Enforcement Officers who were given the same pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

The government, in case of change of any scale in between the V and VI CPC, issued the following orders for retrospective effect of the revised/enhanced scales of many of the categories of government employees-

i) The pay scale of our counterparts, the Superintendents of Narcotics Control Bureau, was revised from Rs.6,500-10,500/- to Rs.7.500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all consequential benefits vide Office Order under F.No.15/2(38)/2004-Esst. Dated 20.04.05 issued by NCB, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, G.O.I.

ii) The redeployed surplus staff was also allowed the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.96 with all the consequential benefits vide DOP&T O.M. No.1/7/98-CS.III, dt. 09.04.99.


iv) The pay scales of Divisional Accountants/Divisional Accounts Officers were upgraded w.e.f. 01.01.96 with financial benefit w.e.f.28.04.04 vide C&AG [Cir No. 26/NGE/2004] No. 341-NRE (App.)/36-2003 dt. 28.04.04




viii) In case of Ministry of Labour, the change of scale was given effect from

of 41

01.01.1996 with arrears from 11.02.2003 vide O.M. No.A-32022/1/2002-Adm.I dated 26.04.2004.


x) The Section Officers of CSS were given the retrospective benefit vide Order No.- 5/4/2005-CS.I Dt. 25.01.05 of DOPT. xi) In case of the Accounts Employees in Postal , IA & AD, Civil Accounts, Ministry of Coal & Mines etc, the benefit of notional fixation of revised pay with effect from 01.01.1996 has been given with actual payment with effect from the date of the issue of the orders.

The government avoided our case and referred the matter to the VIth CPC. The VIth CPC in para 7.15.16 of the report observed that the Commission, as a general rule, is not considering demands seeking retrospective application of some or the other order unless a clear cut and manifest anomaly that cannot be corrected other than through such retrospective revision is made out. Such is not the case here. The demand, therefore, cannot be considered. Such observation from a Commission headed by a retired and renowned Judge of Supreme Court is unbelievable and unacceptable because this loss and discrimination cannot be removed without retrospective revision. A Superintendent of Central Excise of 1995 got his pay fixed at Rs. 6,500/- on 01.01.96 whereas other equivalent employees of the government got their pay fixed at Rs.7,500/- due to giving effect of retrospective revision. Thus, the Superintendent of Central Excise suffered a loss of Rs.1’450/- (Rs. 1,000/- on account of difference in initial pay + Rs. 450/- on account of incremental difference of Rs.50 for nine years in two scales) with applicable D.A. up to 01.01.2006 having a substantial bearing in fixation of pay on 01.01.2006 which is a clearcut and manifest anomaly requiring immediate rectification with retrospective revision. Neither the government is removing this anomaly nor the pay commission attended it, it is not understood how this anomaly would be removed.



ii) The Hon’ble CAT of Ernakulam has also taken the view that the effect of the revised scale should be given retrospectively from the date of the implementation of the report of the Pay Commission in its order in O.A. No.671/2003 on 30.06.06 allowing the benefit of improved pay scale retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.96 with arrears.




It is also submitted that the Hon,ble Central Administrative Tribunals have given such type of favourable decisions at least on three occasions analyzing all the things in our favour on each occasion giving the detailed justifications and asking the government to pass the speaking order in the following judjements-i) O.A. No. 180/2006 by Cuttack CAT.ii) O.A. No. 45/2000 by Jabalpur CAT.iii) O.A. No. 541/94 by Jabalpur CAT.

But the government was only pleased to reject the same on every occasion giving no heed to the detailed justifications given by the Hon,ble CAT’s. The government even gave no

of 41

weightage to-a) Its own strong recommendations made to the Vth CPC saying that duties of our

officers are more hazardous and arduous than CBI, IB etc. b) The acceptance of the Ministry of Law after the IInd judgement in O.A. No.

45/2000 of Jabalpur CAT.

While our claims were being rejected, the staff of CBI etc. was repeatedly able to get the relief without any specific recommendations or legal judgment/s.

Moreover, the then Deputy Secretary in CBEC, Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, issued the orders for the payment of the arrears vide letter F. No. A-26017/44/94-Ad.II (A) Dated 08.03.95 on the basis of the very Ist judgment of its kind in O.A. No. 541/94 of Jabalpur CAT from the date of the enhancement of the pay-scale of the staff of CBI, IB etc. in the light of the forthcoming report of the Vth CPC. The Vth CPC was pleased to place our officers and the officers of CBI, IB etc. in the same pay scale but even then we were not paid the arrears as per the decision in the O.A. No. 541/94 of Jabalpur CAT which are now overdue.

The payment of the arrears with retrospective effect is further substantiated from- (A) the observations of the VIth CPC in para 7.15.24 of the report wherein the

traditional parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise and Assistant Enforcement Officer with the Inspector of Central Excise has been admitted and recommended for the maintenance of the same for future too; and

(B) The fact that the government very recently and very rightly has enhanced the pay scales of all the non-gazetted group ‘B’ or equivalent cadres to Rs. 7,450-11,500/- from Rs. 6,500-10,500/- after the implementation of the report of the 6th CPC with all the consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.01.06.

Thus, this anomaly regarding the payments of arrears of pay needs immediate rectification.

3. Non Functional Scale The VI CPC recommended removal of discrimination between the Secretariat and Field level officers. As a result, the benefit granted earlier to the Section Officers placing them in the scale of Rs. 8,000/-13,500/ after completion of four years of service in the said grade has also been granted to the Group B officers of Department of Post, Revenue etc. by the resolution No.1/1/2008-I C dated 29.08.2008 which reads in para (X) as follows:-

“Regarding Group B Cadres the Commission’s recommendations will be modified in the following manner:-(d) After 4 years of regular service in the entry grade of Rs.4800/-in PB-2,

Officers belonging to Delhi & Nicobar Islands Civil Service and Delhi & Nicobar Islands Police Service will be granted the non- functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2;

(e) After 4 years of regular service the Section Officer/ Private secretary/ equivalent grade of Rs.4800 grade pay in PB-2, officers of Central Secretariat Service Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and other similarly placed HQ services will also be granted the non-functional grade of Rs.5400 in PB-3 and not in PB-2;

(f) In the IA&AD and all organized accounts cadres, posts of Section Officers and Assistant Audit/ Accounts officers will be merged and placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4800 as recommended by the Commission. In modification of Sixth

of 41

CPC’s recommendations, Audit/Accounts Officers (AOs) will be placed in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.5400 and Senior AOs will be placed in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs.5400;

(d) Group “B” Officers of Ministry of Railways in the pre-revised scale of Rs.8000 -13500 will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 instead of PB-2;

(e) Group B Officers of Posts, Revenue etc. will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400 in PB-2 on non- functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2.”

To implement the above resolution, the government has made the Central Civil Services(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In part C, Section II against Ministry of Finance the following provision has been made- Department of Revenue

9 Income Tax Officers/ Superintendent, Appraisers etc. (Customs & Central Excise)

7500-12000 7500-12000

8000-13500(after 4 years)

PB-2

PB-2

4800

5400

7.15.17

The granting of non functional scale is to remove the discrimination between the Secretariat and Field level officers, but rule making authority chooses otherwise and so the discrimination is allowed to continue.

Moreover, in all cases the grade pay of Rs.5400 in PB-3 on non functional basis after 4 years of regular service has been granted but in some cases including our case, it has been given in PB-2. The granting of grade pay on non functional basis in the Group B cadre, to an officer who is already functioning as Group B cadre is anomalous and requires rectification.

In addition to the above, the non granting scale in PB-3 has taken a tole in the Modified Assured Progression Scheme granted under O.M. No.35034/3/2008-Estt. (D) dated 19.05.2009 wherein in para 8.1 of the Annexure-I of the said O.M., it has been provided that the grade pay of Rs.5400/ of PB-2 and PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of up gradation under MACP Scheme, which is unbelievable and totally against the recommendations of the Pay Commission which recommended change of grade pay under the Scheme with actual financial benefit. Resultantly all the Group B officers other than Revenue and Post department, would get higher grade pays under MACPS. It is a clear anomaly and discrimination particularly when the fate of the Superintendents is known to the Government who are getting only one promotion in their entire service career with loss of retirement salary, pension and other retirement benefits as compared to their counterparts in other departments. Therefore, they should be given a grade pay in PB-3 on completion of four years of service to remove this anomaly.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

of 41


Copy with the request for necessary action to-1. The Member (P&V), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Joint Secretary (Admn), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.

(RAVI MALIK)

of 41






Ref. No. 142/10 Dt. 22.11.10 IMMEDIATE PL.

To,The Chairman,CBEC, North Block,New Delhi.

Sub: Minutes of the meeting held on 02.11.10.

Sir,Kindly refer to the letter F. No. A-26017/52/2010-Ad.II.A dt. 19.11.10 of your office.

It is further requested that the following issues may also be considered as already submitted by the Association during the meeting-

Item No. 2 & 3: Nothing has been mentioned in the minutes regarding the cancellation of the transfer orders of the office bearers of the associated units of Mumbai, Indore, Bhopal etc. There is also no mention of the hand-outs submitted on behalf of Mumbai as well as Chennai Unit during the meeting to the Director Ad IIA & B on the issue of transfer/postings, MACPS, infrastructure and other issues. The decisions on these hand-outs may also kindly be minuted.

Item No. 4: Nothing has been mentioned in the minutes regarding the hand-outs submitted on behalf of the Chennai Unit during the meeting to the Director Ad IIA & B on this issue. The decisions on these hand-outs may also kindly be minuted.

Item No. 5: It is now very well evident after the circulation of the cadre restructuring proposal that the cadre of the Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise has been given no parity with their counterparts in CBDT, CSS etc. They have been given no parity even with their counterparts in Customs of same organization of CBEC while the IRS officers are being given parity even with their counterparts of other organizations/departments. The matter may kindly be given a serious thought as the Superintendent of Central Excise of 1995-96 would only be promoted while the Superintendent of Customs of 2001-02 and Appraisers of Customs of 2007-08 (leaving behind no Appraiser for promotion) would be promoted as a result of this cadre restructuring. Not only this, perhaps the Examiners of Customs of 2004 would also become Asstt. Commissioner while the Ispectors of Central Excise of 1972 are still waiting to become Asstt. Commissioner. It is well pertinent to mention that the portion of parity

of 41


with CBDT was very well marked by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in the Ref. No. 10/10 Dt. 21.02.10 and sent to the Board.

Item No. 6 & 7: No decision has been taken on the issue till date. Even the affidavit to be filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been filed till date as promised. It is requested that an immediate action may kindly be taken on the issue.

It is further submitted that the further submissions in the matter would be made after getting the due feedback from the associated units.

In view of the above, it is requested that the necessary action may kindly be taken, minuted and circulated accordingly.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,


Copy with the request for necessary action to-1. The Member (P&V), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Joint Secretary (Admn), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.3. The Director, Ad IIA & B, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.

(RAVI MALIK)

of 41






Ref. No. 145/10 Dt. 25.11.10

To, Sh. M.L.Sharma,Under Secretary,Ad-IVA, CBEC,New Delhi.

Subject: Renewal of the recognition.

Sir,Kindly refer to your letter F. No.B.12017/10/2006-Ad IVA Dt. 04.11.10 received

yesterday on 24.11.10.

It is further submitted that the names of the office bearers are already enlisted on the letter-head itself submitted to your goodself. However, the copy of the election result showing the names of all the office bearers is also enclosed herewith for the necessary action at your end.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Encl: As above.

(RAVI MALIK),Secretary General.

of 41







Ref. No. 146/10 Dt. 26.11.10

To,Sh. M.S.Arora,ADG, HRD (HRM Wing),Rajendra Place, CBEC,New Delhi.

Sub: Cadre restructuring in CBEC.

Sir,Kindly refer to the O.M. F. No. 8/B/12/HRD (HRM)/2010/Association Dt. 11.11.10 of

your goodself.

It is submitted with due regards that there is no doubt that the efforts have been made to look after the promotional interests of every cadre but special emphasis has been given to only the IRS, stenographer and official language cadres which is really discriminatory and unjustified. Moreover as a net result, as far as group ‘B’ categories are concerned, Customs streams are being going to be benefited very extraordinarily particularly when there would be left no eligible Examiner or Appraiser of Customs waiting for promotion and a sufficient number of vacancies meant for these posts would remain vacant as a result of this cadre restructuring. Evenmore, the Examiner of Customs of the year 2007 would be able to become Asstt. Commissioner in the year 2013 and of the year 2008 in 2014 and so on while the Inspector of Central Excise of the year 1972 is still waiting to become the Asstt. Commissioner. The authorities are requested to realize the pain of working under a junior as a senior officer joining as the Inspector of Central Excise in 1972 (still Superintendent) may be forced anytime to work under an extremely junior officer joining as Examiner of Customs in 1989 who have already become Asstt. Commissioner under the present circumstances. The only remedy to undo this injustice and discrimination is to bring all the Inspectors of Central Excise, Preventive Officers and Examiners of Customs of a relevant same year to the same level of the promotion without loss of seniority in r/o initial merit position/joining at the level of the Inspector because all of them belong only to one and single cadre of Inspector which has been trifurcated by our Board into the three streams without any reason or justification. This mistake of the Board was rectified in the last cadre restructuring where only the word Inspector was depicted unifying all the three streams considering that all of them merge at the level of Asstt. Commissioner in one and the same organization of CBEC with the same nature of job and administrative hierarchy and being recruited through one and the same

of 41


competitive examination. But this mistake again started to come into existence due to non-serious, apathetic and indifferent attitude of the concerned authorities which needs immediate rectification for the sake of justice. If these three streams of Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive Officer/Superintendent and Examiner/Appraiser of Customs are to be kept separately due to the reasons known to the concerned authorities only, their line of promotion may also be kept separate like Principal Appraiser, Principal Chief Appraiser etc. with retrospective effect since the time of trifurcation as was in the past. It is not justified to post Customs personnel in Central Excise and Service Tax after promotion because they have no experience/expertise of this work while the Central Excise personnel are doing the work relating to Excise, Customs as well as Service Tax since very beginning. It may also be noted that there also would be no scope for Customs in the forthcoming GST, so we may also think to have separate Boards for GST (covering Central Excise and Service Tax) and Customs. It will also help to have more promotional posts for IRS at higher levels particularly at the level of Member & Chairman. It is worth to mention that not only all the eligible officers belonging to these categories of the Examiner and Appraiser of Customs would be promoted, but all the eligible Addl. Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Asstt. Commissioners, STA’s, TA’s etc. and the most of the eligible Head Havldars and Havldars would get promotions as a result of this cadre restructuring.

Now, let us have a brief look at the cadre restructuring proposal-

1. An IRS officer will become the Commissioner attaining 4 levels of promotion within 17 years of qualifying service while the Superintendents of Central Excise with 18 years of service are still waiting for promotion despite of the fact that the qualifying service for the purpose is only 3 years.

2. The workload has been taken the only criterion for creation of the Customs formations while it is revenue for Central Excise and Service Tax. It should also have been workload based for Central Excise and Service Tax also. It is also requested that the workload/strength of the Customs formations under Central Excise Zones may kindly be added only to the share of the Central Excise. The work of Factory stuffing is shown against the Customs in the proposal which is done by Central Excise only. Similarly the work of customs performed at Air ports, minor ports and land Customs at Boarders, under CCP, ICD, EOU, SEZ has not been worked out separately and shown against the Central Excise as all these formations are manned by Central Excise officers at various places except a few Customs Houses. The workload of Maritime Commissionerate dealing with rebate refund/rebate of Excise duties and Service Tax should also go to the share of Central Excise. In Commissionerate Hqrs, many sections have been left even the Preventive which is now centralized, Review where work is increased multifold due to time bound review of Refund/Rebate orders after pre-audit and post-audit, Stats, Adjudication (no adjudicating authority prepares the orders itself, it is only Inspectors and Superintendents even at the level of Commissioner appeals). The number of the promotional vacancies at the level of the Asstt./Deputy Commissioner should be calculated on the basis of the formula of having one post for maximum 500 assessees in Central Excise and Service Tax.

3. Proposal seeks to create new posts in Group ‘A’ STS and JTS grade to address the long pending demand of Stenographers Association means creation of a separate service for them. But very disappointingly, no such heed has been paid to the demand of the Superintendents of Central Excise to create a separate service on the lines of CSS giving the only impression that the concerned authorities are not serious to alleviate the acute stagnation being faced by this worst hit category of government employees in the last as well as this cadre restructuring despite of this category comprising the largest number of the group ‘B’ gazetted officers of the government of India.

of 41

4. Only 1.5 or 1 assisting hands are proposed to be provided to a Superintendent of Central Excise who is already working with the acute shortage of staff. It is requested that he/she may be provided at least with 3 assisting hands keeping in view the practical workload for the proper governance of the government work and efficient revenue administration.

5. The streams of Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise, Preventive Officer/Superintendent and Examiner/Appraiser of Customs were unified in the last cadre restructuring but this time these have been treated in separate manner. These streams should be unified into the single cadre of the Inspector/Superintendent with the retrospective effect from the time of initial trifurcation. It is worth to mention that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ordered not to prepare the regional merit lists for the purpose of recruitment since 1996 which was prevalent since very beginning alongwith the combined all India merit list.

6. The proposal seeks to upgrade the posts of Chief Commissioner from present HAG to HAG+ and Apex Grades in order to achieve structural parity of IRS (C&CE) with other organized Group ‘A’ Central Services but no such parity has been considered for the Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise despite of the fact that the portion of parity at least with CBDT was very well marked by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in the Ref. No. 10/10 Dt. 21.02.10 of the Association and sent to the Board.

7. The proposal also seeks to upgrade the posts of Commissioner to HAG grade but nothing such has been considered for the Superintendents of Central Excise. All or 80% of them might have also been upgraded on the lines of their counterparts in Enforcement Directorate/Indian Accounts and Audit Services particular when the 6th CPC has also recommended in the para 7.15.24 of its report that the parity between the post of Superintendent of Central Excise with Chief Enforcement Officer is well established and the same should be maintained in future. The 6th CPC has also recommended in the para 7.15.24 of its report that the parity between the post of Inspector of Central Excise with Asstt. Chief Enforcement Officer is well established and the same should be maintained in future.

8. The higher pay scales have been proposed for the post of upgraded Chief Commissioners and Commissioners while nothing such has been done for the Superintendents of Central Excise despite of their long pending demand for higher pay scale at par with their counterparts in CBI, IB, Enforcement Directorate etc. Moreover, the VIth CPC in para 7.15.24 of its report clearly admitted the traditional parity of the Chief Enforcement Officer with the Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Appraisers, Income Tax Officer & Superintendent of Narcotics and recommended for the maintenance of the same in future. The Chief Enforcement Officers were given the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by the Government pursuant to the recommendations of the Vth CPC and subsequently revised their scale to Rs. 8,000-13,500/- w.e.f 04.10.2005 vide order issued under F. No.16/26/2004-Ad. 1C dated 04.10.2005. Even the time scale after 4 years of service for the group ‘B’ gazetted officers has not been proposed to be converted into PB3 from PB2 involving no financial implication while this time scale was granted initially to the officers of CSS in cadre restructuring itself.

9. The present proposal seeks to provide dedicated channel of promotion to the Stenographers up to Senior Time Scale (PB-3 Grade Pay Rs. 6600/-) from a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- in PB-1 giving them at least 7 promotions with the special exemptions from DOPT despite of the recommendations of the 6th CPC to abolish the post of the Steno by making them Executive Assistants after giving the computer training. No such special efforts/exemptions have been made/asked for the most stagnated cadre of the government of India, i.e., the Superintendent of Central Excise despite of the particular observations made in the proposal itself that this

of 41

category of the employees is the most stagnated one in the CBEC retiring only after getting one promotion in their service span of 35-40 years after joining the job as an Inspector.

10. All the officers joining at the level of the Assistant Commissioner and completing 17 years of service have been proposed to become Commissioner within the qualifying service required for the purpose.

11. All the officers joining at the level of the Assistant Commissioner and completing 14 years of service have been proposed to become Addl. Commissioner leaving behind no eligible Joint Commissioner waiting for the promotion.

12. All the officers joining at the level of the Assistant Commissioner and completing 9 years of service have been proposed to become Joint Commissioner leaving behind no eligible Deputy Commissioner waiting for the promotion.

13. All the officers joining at the level of Assistant Commissioner and completing 4 years of service have been proposed to become Deputy Commissioner leaving behind no eligible Asstt. Commissioner waiting for the promotion.

14. An Examiner joining the organization in the year 2007/2008 will become Asstt. Commissioner in the year 2013/2014 and so on as a result of this cadre restructuring.

15. 1986 batch Preventive Officers and Customs Superintendents of the year 2001 have been proposed to be promoted to the post of Asstt. Commissioner.

16. All the Appraisers with 3 years of qualifying service have been proposed to be promoted to the post of Asstt. Commissioner leaving behind no eligible Appraiser or Examiner of Customs waiting for promotion while the Superintendents of Central Excise of the year “1992-93/1995” only will get the promotion. So, all the Superintendents of Central Excise with 3 years of qualifying service should also be promoted like others also considering that their extreme juniors have al ready been promoted.

17. All the Examiners with 3 years of qualifying service have been proposed to be promoted leaving behind no eligible officer waiting for the promotion.

18. All the STA’s/TA’s have been proposed to be promoted to the post of Inspector leaving behind no eligible officer waiting for the promotion.

19. The most of the eligible Head Haveldars/Haveldars have been proposed to become TA/LDC.

Thus, all the officers belonging to other categories except the Superintendents of Central Excise will be able to get promotions but this post would again be the worst hit like in the past as the Superintendents of Central Excise of the year 1992-93/1995 only will get the promotion.

So, it is again requested that all the Superintendents of Central Excise with 3 years of qualifying service should also be promoted and none of them completing eligibility condition should be left behind waiting for the promotion.

No provisions for infrastructure have been made in the proposal. As since 1997, new Commissionerates/formations were craved out at several places but there is not even a proper

of 41

office to accommodate the officers even after lapse of more than 13 years.

Let us have a look on the existing circumstances also-

The fixing of the ratio for promotion as 6:1:2 instead of making the length of service (on the basis of the base cadre seniority) since initial joining at the level of the Inspector the actual criterion of promotion has only deteriorated the conditions. Moreover, the share of the Central Excise personnel in r/o the places where the Customs work is manned by the Central Excise personnel (on account of the Customs being the part of the Central Excise Commissionerate/jurisdiction) has also been added to the ratio of the Customs, thus decreasing the ratio of Central Excise personnel and increasing the ratio of Customs personnel in the promotions at the common level of the Asstt. Commissioner at present.

The disparity in the qualifying service for the promotion as 8 years for the Inspector of Central Excise and only 3 years for others like Inspector of Income Tax and Examiner of Customs/others etc. is beyond all the understandings and reasonings giving the only impression that the recruitment rules have been framed without any application of mind.

It is really painful that the Inspectors of Central Excise even with 24 years of service are still waiting for the first promotion and further the Superintendents with 18 years of service are waiting for next promotion, if any.

In view of the above discrimination and gross injustice, the only remedy to give justice to the cadre of the Inspector and Superintendent of Central Excise is to create a separate service giving parity in attained promotional levels to them with their counterparts in CBDT as well as other better placed cadres like CSS etc. For this, the necessary changes in the recruitment rules would be required to be made. This parity in r/o the attained promotional levels is very well possible on the lines of the parity given to the direct recruit IRS officers of our organization (CBEC) with their counterparts in CBDT in the last cadre restructuring and with other better placed cadres as proposed in the present one . The parity of the Inspectors and Superintendents of the Central Excise with other better placed cadres like CSS etc. is also very well possible on the lines of the parity of the direct recruit IRS officers of the organization of CBEC with other better placed cadres.

It is also worth to mention that the whole process of the cadre restructuring should be totally transparent preferably on line in the present time of the total transparency. The staff-side should also be signatory for it like in CBDT.

In view of the above, the following submissions are made for kind consideration to remove the acute stagnation at the level of the Superintendent of Central Excise and also remove the disparities as well as undo the injustice meted out to them in the promotional matters giving them the parity with their counterparts in CBDT and other better placed cadres like CSS etc. in r/o the attained promotional levels-

1. Their promotional avenues should be opened upto the level of the Commissioner like presently in CBDT. This can only be done by creating a separate service for the cadre of the Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise making necessary changes in the recruitment rules on the lines of CSS etc.

In this reference, it is worth to mention that-

of 41

(a) A substantial number of the posts have been kept reserved for the promotee officers even at the level of the Joint Secretary in the latest cadre restructuring of CSS.

(b) Very recently, the Director of CBI has also shown his willingness to create the provisions in the cadre restructuring to promote their Sub-Inspector upto the level of the Director (the topmost post there). As per the information received, an officer joining at the level of the Sub-Inspector has become DIG there very recently.

(c) In the para-military forces like ITBP, CRPF etc., the Sub-Inspectors are already touching the level of the IG and DIG.

(d) In Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha Secretariats, the Assistants are reaching the level of the Joint Secretary.

In the proposed service-

i) a substantial number of the posts should be identified/created and located for the promotee officers at least in proportion of the cadre strength of CSS upto the level of the Commissioner covering each level (like in the latest cadre restructuring of CSS where a substantial number of the posts have been kept reserved for the promotee officers even upto the level of the Joint Secretary).

ii) A time bound promotional scheme may also be an integral part of this service as such time bound mechanism to give time scale at every 7 years to the Inspector/Superintendent of Central Excise had also been recommended by CBEC itself to the 6th CPC.

iii) The creation of the separate service on the lines of CSS etc. was also recommended by DOPM, an expert wing looking after the HRD work of the CBEC, in its file F. No. 8/B/4/O&PM/2008 submitted to the Member (P&A) on 17.01.08 (vide letter F. No. 8/B/33/O&PM/2008 Dt. 06.05.08 of the Commissioner of DOPM).

iv) Further, the creation of the separate service on the lines of CSS etc. was also recommended by the Member (P&A) in F. No. 11013/67/2007-Ad IV of CBEC on 24.01.08.

v) The creation of the separate service was also recommended by the High Power Committee formed by the Board (CBEC) under the Chairpersonship of Ms. C.G. Lal. The modalities of this service should be fixed on the lines of the CSS etc. in consultation with the Association instead of the modalities as recommended by this committee because the said committee was not empowered to decide the modalities. The work assigned to the committee was only to observe whether there should be created a separate service on the lines of CSS etc. to remove the stagnation at the level of the Superintendent of Central Excise.

vi) The creation of a separate service will also put to rest all the disputes relating to the seniority between direct recruit and promotee IRS officers. This service should have all the posts substantially created upto the highest level strictly meant only for the officers belonging to the cadres of the Superintendent and Inspector of Central Excise.

The parity with CBDT and other better placed cadres will also save the cadre from the huge erosion of pay and pension as well as other retirement benefits as compared to the Income Tax and others because the ACP/MACP scheme is also unable to undo such erosions and injustice. It is well pertinent to mention again that the portion of the parity at least with CBDT was very well marked by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in the Ref. No. 10/10 Dt. 21.02.10 of the Association and sent to the Board.

of 41

2. The officers belonging to the cadre of the Superintendent of Central Excise should also be promoted directly to the post of the Deputy Commissioner like the most of the other group ‘B’ gazetted cadres of the Central as well as State Governments where the group ‘B’ gazetted officers are directly promoted to a senior group ‘A’ post on the pattern of CSS etc. This happens in the most of the services like Forest Services, Administrative Services, Engineering Services, Telecom Services, CPWD Services, Police Services, CSSS, CSS, MES, AFHQ Services etc. etc. including the cases where the group 'A' entry is in the grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in PB3 (e.g. CPWD etc.) like our organisation. Moreover, there is no justification in promoting the Superintendent of Central Excise to a post bearing a grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- particularly when they have already been granted a time scale in the grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- after the completion of 4 years of service. The most of them are already drawing a grade pay of Rs.5,400/- as well as many of them a grade pay of even Rs. 6,600/- on account of ACPS/MACPS.

3. On the above lines, there should be identified/created and located a substantial number of promotional posts of the Deputy Commissioner instead of Asstt. Commissioner for the cadre of the Superintendent of Central Excise strictly meant only for the promotee officers on the basis of the expected assessee base to the tune of 70 lac in r/o the implementation of the forthcoming GST. The Customs figures are not included in this expected assessee base of 70 lac. This should be done by calculating the required number of the promotional posts needed on the functional basis (the posts to the tune of 7,000 to 14,000 are strictly required only for the Superintendents of Central Excise on the functional basis) in the manner that a Deputy Commissioner (instead of the Asstt. Commissioner in the case of the promote officers) would deal with 500-1000 assessees in the GST regime. The figure of 7,000 to 14,000 is further overall increasable keeping in view that the figures for the Customs not included in this as already submitted. These 7,000-14,000 vacancies of Deputy Commissioners should be meant only for the promotee officers and filled strictly from the Central Excise personnel on the basis of their length of service as compared to other equivalent cadres of Customs, Income tax etc. to bring all the officers of the same batch (on the basis of base cadre seniority) at the same level of the promotion without loss of seniority in r/o initial joining at the level of the Inspector. Further, a substantial number of the posts should be identified/created and located for the promotee officers at each and every promotional level in a sufficiently higher specific ratio at least upto the Commissioner level keeping these posts strictly reserved for the promotee officers like in the latest cadre restructuring of CSS where a substantial number of the posts have been kept reserved for the promotee officers even at the level of the Joint Secretary.

4. The Division pattern should be changed to the Group pattern for proper governance of the revenue collection work and functional requirement of the time whether it is Service Tax or Central Excise or Audit or Anti Evasion/Preventive or GST etc. This Group will comprise 500 to 1,000 assessees based on the workload to be headed by a Deputy Commissioner (instead of Asstt. Commissioner in the case of the promotee officers). The organisation already has 9000 audit teams (vide letter F. No. 8/B/33/O&PM/2008 Dt. 06.05.08 of the Commissioner of DOPM of CBEC) which may be transformed into Groups being headed by a Deputy Commissioner (instead of the Asstt. Commissioner in the case of the promotee officers). These audit teams have already been recommended to be headed by Asstt./Deputy Commissioner and even by Addl./Joint Commissioner in the F. No. 11013/67/2007-AdIV by the Member (P&A) of CBEC on 24.01.08. In the same way, the organisation already has a substantial number of anti-evasion/preventive teams and Divisions which may also be transformed into Groups being headed by a Deputy Commissioner (instead of Asstt. Commissioner in the case of promotee officers). It may also kindly be noted that the figures shown in this para belong to pre-GST era. This all very well justify the functional need of more than 14,000

of 41

(GST+already existing audit teams+already existing anti-evasion/preventive teams+Divisions+headquarters posts etc.) posts of Deputy Commissioners meant only for the direct promotion of the Superintendents of Central Excise for creation of a separate service on the lines of CSS etc.

5. The cadre restructuring/cadre reviews should be done at a regular interval of 3 years as per the current provisions which have not been followed in CBEC. The due c ompensation should be given to the cadre of the Superintendent/Inspector of Central Excise for undone cadre restructurings/cadre reviews which will further help to increase the maximum number of the promotional posts asking one time relaxation from the concerned authority/ies.

6. The basic feeder posts of the Inspector, Preventive Officer and Examiner should be merged with retrospective effect reviewing all the past promotions to give parity with the Inspector of Income Tax and other better placed cadres in the promotional matters by bringing the officers of the same batch to the same level of the promotion in the direct proportion of their length of service without loss of seniority in comparison of other equivalent cadres/posts (on the basis of base cadre seniority) after the initial joining at the level of the Inspector. The past promotions of the basic feeder posts of the Inspector, Preventive Officer and Examiner may be reviewed on the basis of the precedent of reviewing all the promotions of Superintendents of Central Excise, Superintendents of Customs and Appraisers of Customs since 1980. The method of the notional promotion may also be applied to give this parity in the promotions. Their qualifying service for promotion may be counted since the very initial joining of the job at the Inspector level (on the basis of base cadre seniority) on the pattern of the direct recruit IRS officers. This will also help to remove the intra-organisational, intra-departmental and inter-departmental disparities. The CBEC has also already shown its willingness to count their length of service rendered as Inspector and Superintendent together and separately for the purpose of the promotion in a case in the Principal Bench of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal very recently in the counter reply affidavit of OA No.2793 of 2009 alongwith the willingness to revise the promotional ratio for three different feeder streams from 6:1:2. The qualifying service for the promotion may be counted in the following manner under the present circumstances-

i) 3 years for Inspector of Central Excise to be promoted to the post of the Superintendent based on the analogy that it is already 3 years for the Inspector of Income Tax and Examiner of Customs & others etc. to get promoted to the equivalent post.

ii) 7 years after initial joining as Inspector of Central Excise to be promoted to the post of the Deputy Commissioner as per DOPT guidelines vide No. 14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR) dt. 24.03.09 (depicting qualifying service of 7 years to get promoted to a grade pay of Rs. 6,600/- from a grade pay of 4,600/-). The Superintendent should be promoted directly to the post of the Deputy Commissioner (a senior group ‘A’ post) instead of Asstt. Commissioner (a junior group ‘A’ post) like the most of the other group ‘B’ gazetted cadres of the Central as well as State Governments including CSS etc. where the group ‘B’ gazetted officers are directly promoted to a senior group ‘A’ post. The post of the Asstt. Commissioner should only be meant for the direct entry of the IRS officers (if required) who spend the most of the time of next about 4 years only for their in-house training, probation, on the job training etc. after entry into the job.

iii) 12 years after joining as Inspector of Central Excise to be promoted to the post of the Joint Commissioner on the analogy that it is already 9 years for the direct recruit IRS officer to become the Joint Commissioner.

of 41

iv) 17th year as on Ist January of the relevant year after joining as Inspector of Central Excise to be promoted/upgraded to the post of the Addl. Commissioner on the analogy that it is already 14th year as on Ist January of the relevant year for the direct recruit IRS officer to become the Addl. Commissioner.

v) 20 years after joining as Inspector of Central Excise to be promoted to the post of the Commissioner on the analogy that it is already 17 years for the direct recruit IRS to become the Commissioner. There is prescribed no qualifying service to become the Chief Commissioner from Commissioner. There is also no qualifying service to become the Member or Chairman from the Chief Commissioner, the only condition is the one year of the service left.

It is also worth to submit that an Inspector of Central Excise may also aspire to become the Commissioner in 20 years after joining the job, if a direct recruit IRS officer of CBEC wants to become the Commissioner in 17 years after joining the job. 7. One of the measures to be adopted to remove the acute stagnation at the lower levels of the Inspector and Superintendent of Central Excise is to decrease or stop the direct recruitment of the IRS officers of CBEC. It will benefit the department in two ways. Firstly, the department will be able to get the services of more expert personnel in the form of promotee officers on account of their longer experience in the actual field work which will increase the work efficiency and revenue collection multifold as the direct recruit IRS officers work merely as administrative heads; the burning evidence is that even the adjudication orders upto the level of the Commissioner are being prepared by the Superintendents and Inspectors while the same are supposed to be done by the adjudicating authority itself. Secondly, the government will be able to save a lot of the expenditure incurred on the trainings, probation and vast set-ups of the inexperienced direct IRS officers.

8. For the time being as an instant measure, all the Superintendents already completing 1.5 (one and half) times of qualifying service required for the promotion may be promoted on the pattern of CSS where all the Section Officers completing 1.5 (one and half) times of qualifying service required for the promotion were promoted to the post of the Under Secretary.

9. The post of the Superintendent of Central Excise may also be reclassified at par with their counterparts like the Deputy Central Intelligence Officer of the Intelligence Bureau, Deputy Superintendent of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chief Enforcement Officer of the Enforcement Directorate etc. having a traditional historic parity with the post of the Superintendent of Central Excise in the past. Moreover, the 6th Central Pay Commission has also recommended this parity of the Superintendent of Central Excise etc. with the Chief Enforcement Officer to be maintained under para 7.15.24 of its report. This is also worth to mention that our Superintendents are doing multi-expertise and multi-skilled work as compared to them. The job of intelligence and investigation constitutes merely one part of our duties which is the only reason that our officers can go to CBI, IB etc. on deputation but they are not entitled to come to our organisation as we are doing not only the work of the intelligence, investigation and enforcement but many more other works including judicial too. 10. In many of the departments like Railways, CSIR, Postal, Administrative Services & many State governments etc., a group ‘B’ gazetted officer is given the benefit of 4/5 years of seniority in a group ‘A’ post in advance in lieu of the longer service rendered in group ‘B’ at the time of promotion to a group ‘A’ post. In the southern states, provincial services officers get IAS within 8 years of the service with 4 years of seniority benefit in IAS. Such seniority benefit should also be given to the Superintendents of Central Excise at the time of the promotion to compensate them for the bleakest promotional avenues.

of 41

In the last, it is also submitted that the solution of the stagnation problem will certainly boost the morale of the badly affected cadre of the Superintendent of Central Excise which in turn would result in the better and more efficient indirect taxes administration increasing the revenue collection multifold.

It is also requested that no posts/vacancies created in the cadre restructuring should be filled up by the direct recruitment, all of those should be filled strictly by the promotions.

For the future too, the posts being vacant on account of the retirements against the posts created in the cadre restructuring should strictly be kept reserved only for the promotee officers. If the vacant posts on account of these retirements are distributed between the direct recruit and promotee officers, the stagnation problem at the level of the Superintendent will again recur without its permanent solution. By that, it will only help the some of the present Superintendents to retire as Asstt. Commissioner under the present circumstances while the future generation would not be able to reach even this level from the cadre restructuring. So, the post-based distribution instead of vacancy-based distribution of the vacant posts against the future retirements between the direct recruit and promotee officers at group ‘A’ entry level would be the only solution for the stagnation not to recur again at the level of the Superintendent. The post-based distribution instead of vacancy-based distribution of the vacant posts against the retirements was already in the existence under the provisions of DOPT in the remote past.

It is also requested that all the communications addressed to the various authorities (already forwarded to you) including you on the issue in the past may kindly be given the due consideration. Your kind attention is also invited to D.O.No.5/26/2010-CS.II(A) Dt. 06.10.10 of Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, I.A.S., Joint Secretary (AT&A) of DOPT saying that the CSSS cadre review proposal is ongoing to address the stagnation in the service. You are requested to kindly use this authority to address the acute stagnation problem of the cadre of the Superintendent of Central Excise in the ongoing cadre restructuring without being worried for any expenditure involved or any other justification. Kindly proceed on the issue taking the justification to address the acute stagnation as far as this cadre is concerned.

It is further submitted that the Association would further supplement its submissions as and when required as per the circumstances.

Your kind attention is also invited to F. No. 8/B/48 /HRD (HRM)/2010 intimating the initiation of the following proposals to the Hon’ble Finance Minister-

i) Taking of combined length of service of Inspector+Superintendent for the purpose of promotion.

ii) The promotion of Group ‘B’ Executive grades directly to Senior Time Scale as is being done in CSS, CSSS, Departments of Commerce and Railways, CSIR etc. giving benefit of 4-5 years to the Superintendents for service rendered in Group ‘B’ Executive grade. iii) The promotion of all the Superintendent level officers completing one & half times of qualifying service. However, all the eligible Superintendents completing qualifying service of 3 years should be promoted to give them parity at least with the Appraisers of Customs. iv) The enhancement of promotion quota from existing 50% to 75% and the merit based promotion at entry level of IRS.

of 41

v) The unification of feeder cadres.

vi) The change in promotion quota to 15:2:1 from 6:1:2 prescribed for three different feeder grades at JTS level of IRS (also vide F. No. A-12018/2/2010 Ad. II (Pt.) and DGHRD F. No. 8/38/HRD (HRM)/ 2009). However, the promotions should be affected on the basis of the combined length of service (Inspector level+Superintendent level) taking into consideration the base cadre seniority.

You are requested to kindly take due care of the above proposals too.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(RAVI MALIK),Secretary General.

Copy with the request for necessary action to:1. The DG, HRD, CBEC, New Delhi.2. The Joint Secretary (Admn), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.3. The Member (P&V), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.4. The Chairman, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.5. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.6. The MOS of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.7. The Minister of Finance, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi.

(RAVI MALIK)

of 41

supasskar.insupasskar.in/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/attachment_27... · web viewthis mistake of...

Documents