Details of follow up action - Meeting with Chairman

Pune, the 29th August, 2011

Dear Members,

You may recall the issues that have been taken by the Association with the Board, the details of which are available in the official minutes of the meeting (placed on the previous post) that took place with the Hon'ble Chairman on the 12th July, 2011. Some of the letters which have been subsequently submitted in terms of the discussions that took place, as a follow up measure, have already been placed on the blog.

        In the meantime, the Hon'ble Chairman, had visited Bangalore on 29.08.2011, and the Assistant Secretary General was directed to take up the important issues with him, by seeking an appointment through the Official channel.  Accordingly, the Asst. Secretary General, alongwith the local leaders met the Chairman and raised some of the important issues, by submitting a letter highlighting a few of the urgent matters. It has been reported that the Hon'ble Chairman has assured to look into all these issues, apart from the issues mentioned in the letter.  The matter pertaining to the promotion to the grade of CAOs too was raised and the fact that 110 posts remain vacant out of the 155 sanctioned posts was brought to his notice. At this the Hon'ble Chairman conveyed that he will take up the issue with UPSC for convening of DPC at the earliest. A copy of the letter submitted to the Chairman, is placed below for information.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Mony,

Secretary General.

Letter on AO - DOS Grade Pay

Pune, the 26th August, 2011

Dear Members,

You may all recall the recent meeting of the Officer Bearers held at New Delhi, with the Hon'ble Chairman in the presence of Senior Officers from the Board, seeking settlement of various outstanding demands (The Minutes of the meeting is available in the previous post). As desired by the Hon'ble Chairman, a fresh proposal has now been submitted to the Hon'ble Chairman, justifying the demand for granting Higher Grade Pay to the grades of AO and DOS. A copy of the said letter is placed below for information of the Members.

AICESTMOA

COPY OF THE LETTER

 

ALL    INDIA    CENTRAL    EXCISE    AND    SERVICE TAX MINISTERIAL    OFFICERS’    ASSOCIATION

Ref.No. AICESTMOA/2011-12/AO-DOS/

Date:- 24^th August, 2011

To,

The Hon’ble Chairman, 
Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi-1.
 
Sir,
 

Sub: Assignment of Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- to Administrative Officer and Rs.4,600/- to Deputy Office Superintendent – Objections/submissions on the observation of Department of Expenditure communicated vide letter dated 09.09.10 - reg.

* * *

            Most respectfully, your kind attention is invited to the discussion held with your goodself in the presence of some Board officials as well as the office bearers of this Association on the 12^th July, 2011 on the subject matter apart from other related issues. In continuation to this Association’s letter dated 14.03.2011 & 05.04.2011 (copy enclosed for ready reference), on the above subject, the following few lines are being submitted herewith for your kind and favourable consideration.

 

2.         As pointed out during the discussion that the observation made by the Department of Expenditure conveyed vide Board’s letter F.No.A.26017/92/2008-Ad.IIA dated 09.09.2010, does not reflect the correct position and in fact, contradicts the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission.   It is also against the principles of natural justice and equity as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and endorsed by various judicial pronouncement.  It is in this context, we would like to once again, submit the following to facilitate taking up the matter once again with the Department of Expenditure as agreed upon in the meeting referred to above.

3.(a) Observation of the Department of Expenditure:

            The post of Administrative Officers and Private Secretaries are common category post in offices outside the secretariat and hence the Pay scales recommended by the 6^th CPC and approved by the Government for common category post are to be implemented in this case and no special dispensation can be made for common category post in one department ;

Stand of the Association:

3.b(i)   The above observation is absolutely not in conformity with one of the fundamental policy recommendation of the 6^th CPC. It recommended complete parity between officers of both Hdqrs. Organization and Field Formations in chapter 3.1.The specific recommendation in Para 3.1.3 and Para 3.1.4, being relevant to the context, is reproduced below:

Para 3.1.3:-        “Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of paramount importance. The present position is different. Today, the weakest link in respect of any government policy is at the delivery stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to India. Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis on strengthening the delivery lines and decentralization with greater role being assigned at delivery points which actually determines the benefit that the common citizen is going to derive out of any policy initiative of the Government. The field offices are at the cutting edge of administration and may, in most cases, determine whether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in terms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and in the secretariat. This will need to be absolute till the grade of Assistants. Beyond this , it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board. “

 

Para 3.1.4:- “ A parity has long been established between the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Secretariat and field offices. The position becomes different for posts above UDC level, with the Assistant in secretariat offices being placed in higher pay scale vis-à-vis those working in field offices. Earlier, the respective pay scales of Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 5000-8000 existed for Assistants in Secretariat and in field offices. This disparity was aggravated in 2006 when the Government further upgraded the pay scales of Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service to Rs. 6500-10500/-.”

3.b(ii) In addition to this, 6^th CPC has recommended a particular hierarchical structure for Hdqrs. Organization in Para 3.1.9., and has similarly recommended another structure in Para 3.1.14 in respect of the Field formations. In fact at Para 7.15.14 the 6^th CPC has pointedly observed that such dispensation in chapter 3.1 would also be applicable for the Ministerial Officers in CBEC/ CBDT. Although, this particular paragraph has been quoted by Department of Expenditure in the present context, unfortunately this aspect appears to have not been taken into cognizance by the Department of Expenditure.

3.b.(iii)Therefore, the observation as regards common category staff is not at all relevant and the recommendation for the Hdqrs. Organization in chapter 3.1 would also be squarely applicable for the Ministerial Officers in CBEC as they deserve a special dispensation in accordance with Chapter 3.1, read with Para 7.15.14. Thus grade pay of Administrative Officer and Deputy Office Superintendent in CBEC is to be equated with Section Officer and Assistant in Hdqrs. Organization. It was observed by the Honourable Chairman that a specific recommendation of the Pay Commission will have an over-riding effect over any general or common recommendation made elsewhere in the report.

 

 4.(a) Observation of the Department of Expenditure:

            There is no established relativity between the post of Administrative Officers/ Private Secretary vis-à-vis the Section Officers and Private Secretaries of CSS/CSSS. They are governed by different set of Recruitment Rules. Their mode of Recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities are also different;

Stand of the Association

4.b(i)   The above observation is completely in contradiction of the principle-stand, adopted by the 6^th CPC, as articulated in chapter 3.1 and explained in the earlier paragraph. Such arguments (not governed by the recommendation of the 6^th CPC) are concocted to deny the legitimate claims of a particular group of officers, comprehensively endorsed by an expert body like Central Pay Commission. This undermines the very essence of the recommendation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission.

 4.b(ii)  In fact, the Government of India has accepted this particular recommendation of 6^th CPC, granting parity between Hdqrs. Organization and Field Formation, for granting grade pay of Rs.4,600/- in PB-2 to Assistants, Personal Assistants of Central Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Headquarters Service, Indian Foreign Service “B” and Railway Board Secretariat Service and their counterpart Stenographer Services vide O.M. F.No.1/1/2008/IC, dated 16.11.2009. The Government’s position is made clear in Para – 4 of the said O.M. which is as under:-

“While considering the case of granting upgraded grade pay of Rs.4,600/- to Assistants and Personal Assistants in the Central Secretariat, it is noted that 6^th Central Pay Commission had recommended parity in terms of hierarchical structure of Office Staff in Field and Secretariat Offices upto the level of Assistants and this recommendation had been accepted by the Government. …”.

4.b(iii)             Therefore, it is amply clear that the Department of Expenditure is adopting double standards in as much as on the one hand it has accorded Rs.4,600/- to Assistant on the grounds of extending parity between  Hdqrs. Organization and Field Formations (in terms of the recommendation of 6^th CPC), while on the other hand it has refused to extend a similar benefit in the case of Administrative Officers and Deputy office Superintendents  in CBEC by drawing parity with Hdqrs. Organization.

4.b(iv)             It may be argued that the parity between Hdqrs. Organization and Field Formations in CBEC has not yet been overtly established as yet and they might be governed by a different set of Recruitment Rules, having a separate mode of Recruitment. However, it is pertinent to note that nowhere in the entire report has the Pay Commission envisaged a pre-condition for establishing relativity between the post of AO/PS vis-à-vis the Section Officers & Private Secretaries of CSS/CSSS. The fact that they are governed by a different set of Recruitment Rules was available to the Pay commission as well & the recommendations have been made after taking the same into consideration. But, it is the accepted recommendation of 6^th CPC that there cannot be any disparity of pay structure & hence the pay commission must have factored these facts while recommending the same. Thus, such imputed arguments are not in conformity with the views of the 6^th CPC which Govt. too has accepted for implementation.

4.b(v)  Further based upon the above premise, the Honourable Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has vide order dated 19.02.2009, in O.A. No. 164/2009 considered the issue of parity between the Section Officer and Private Secretaries of the Central Administrative Tribunal with that of the Section Officer and Private Secretaries in CSS/CSSS. The decision of the Tribunal was favourable to these officers and the same has been accepted by the Government and the benefit has been since then extended to them. Contrary to the above, the Department of Expenditure is taking a completely different stand while considering extension of similar benefits to the post of Administrative Officer and Deputy Office Superintendent in CBEC.

4.b(vi)             Certain functions like Revenue Reconciliations, Refunds, Audit and Drawbacks etc, are performed by the Administrative Officers and Deputy Office Superintendents which are unique to this Department and hence it is requested to consider this post as Departmental Posts (A.O and D.O.S of Central Excise & Service Tax) for grant of higher Grade Pay on this ground.

5.(a) Observation of the Department of Expenditure:

15.       Keeping in view the nature of duties and responsibilities etc., there is no case for parity between the post of Administrative Officers/ P.S/Supdt./Deputy Office Superintendent, in the Directorate of Logistics with the executive post covered by the O.M dated 21.04.2004

Stand of the Association

5.b(i)   This is not a valid argument in the spirit of the recommendation of the 6^th CPC. Infact, one of the major reasons for which three pre-revised pay scale were proposed to be merged into a single Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- in PB – 2 has been the unilateral upgradation of pay scales of Inspectors and Superintends in CBEC and CBDT on 21.04.2004. Para 2.1.19, sub para vii is reproduced below:

5.b.(ii) Para 2.1.19.Vii:- Many pre-revised scales are being merged. Barring the Group-D posts, this merger has been done by extending the existing minimum prescribed for the highest Pay scale with which the other scales are being merged. However, the grade pay for the merged scale so derived has been computed with reference to the maximum of the highest scale. This besides ensuring a uniform benefit, will also prevent bunching Following scales have been merged.

Rs.5000-8000 Rs.5500-9000 Rs.6500-6900 Rs.6500-10500

Scales of Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500/- have been merged to bring parity between field officers; the secretariat; the technical post; and the work shop staff. This was necessary to ensure that due importance is given to the levels concerned with actual delivery. It is also noted that a large number of anomalies were created due to the placement of Inspectors/equivalent posts in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants/ Personal Assistants of CSS/CSSS in the scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500. ……….

The recommendation made in consonance with the above, in Para 7.15.13 is also relevant, which is reproduced below:-

5.b.(iii) Para 7.15.13:- “The posts of Inspector and equivalent exist in CBDT as well as CBEC.  The Fifth CPC had recommended the scale of Rs.5500-9000 for these posts. The pay scale of these posts was, however, upgraded to Rs.6500-10500.  Demands have been received from other posts existing in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 in these two Boards seeking similar dispensation.  The Commission has recommended merger of the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 which will automatically meet this demand.  Hence, no specific recommendation on demands seeking such upgradations is being made.”

5.b(iv)             It is ironical that the root cause of the present anomaly itself is cited as a reason for denying the legitimate demand of this cadre. The fact that the pay scales of the executive was unilaterally upgraded is one of the consideration under which the three payscales were merged and thereafter, the pay commission had in para 3.1.14 recommended that “in accordance with the principle established in the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is recommended”. Hence the observation of the Department of Expenditure is unjustified and not backed by the spirit of the recommendation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission.

6.(a ) Observation of the Department of Expenditure

18.       Para 7.15.14 has been quoted verbatim to justify the rejection. Para 7.15.14 as per the report of the Pay Commission is as under:-

 Para 7.15.14:            Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 for the posts of Appraiser/Superintendent (Preventive)/equivalent in CBEC and the post of Income Tax Officer/equivalent in CBDT. The Government, in 2004, upgraded the pay scales of these posts to Rs.7500-12000.  Various posts in ministerial cadres that earlier were in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 have demanded an identical dispensation in order to maintain their relativity.  The Commission would like to clarify that posts in ministerial cadres cannot claim any relativity with those in the executive cadre as the functions are different.  Mere fact of two posts being in the same pay scale cannot be a ground for establishing relativity.  However, the ministerial posts will get a separate dispensation because the Commission has recommended parity between headquarters organizations and the field offices in chapter 3.1 of the report.  The recommendations made therein shall apply to the ministerial cadre in CBDT and CBEC as well without any relativity being established vis-à-vis the posts belonging to the executive cadre (emphasis as available in the original report of the pay Commission.

Stand of the Association

 

6.b(i)   The fact that the actually intended and highlighted portion of the recommendation has been ignored and the non-highlighted portion has been taken into account for rejecting the demand was brought to your notice. The concluding sentence in the paragraph sums up the entire recommendation in the said paragraph, i.e., the recommendations made in Chapter 3.1 of the report shall apply without any relativity being established to the executive cadre. Therefore, there shall be no relativity with executive cadre as the pay commission has come to the conclusion that parity should be granted between Hqrs., Organisation and field formation. This leads to an undisputed conclusion that the Deputy Office Superintendent should be assigned Rs.4,600/- on par with the Assistants in Hqrs., Organisation and the Administrative Officer be assigned Rs.4800/- in PB 2 on par with Section Officers who have been assigned with the same grade pay.

 

6.b(ii)              Moreover, the grade pay of Deputy Officer Superintendents merits revision on a different account as well, since the grade pay of Inspector has been revised to Rs.4600/- in PB-2 vide order dated 13.11.2009. The recommendation made in Para 7.15.15 is pertinent here.

6.b.(iii) Para 7.15.15:- “ An anomaly has been reported in case of Senior Tax Assistants who are presently eligible for promotion as Inspector as well as Deputy Office Superintendent.  It is stated that Senior Tax Assistants, if they are promoted as Deputy Office Superintendent, reach the scale of Rs.5500-9000.  However, in case of promotion as Inspector, they are placed in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 which is anomalous especially because they function under Deputy Office Superintendent before promotion as Inspector.  The Commission has recommended merger of the pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 which will place the posts of Inspector and Deputy Office superintendent in an identical pay scale. No specific recommendation is, therefore, necessary in this case.”

 

Therefore it is once again humbly requested to take up the matter with the Department of Expenditure on the ground detailed hereinabove and in the true letter and sprit of the recommendation of the 6^th Central Pay Commission and render justice to section of deprived officers, desperately and patiently waiting for the same..

Yours faithfully,

Encl:- As stated
 

Sd/-

(Ashim Pramanick)

President

E-mail:-pramanik.ashim4@gmail.com

Copy to :-

1.       Director, AD.IIA, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
     

Sd/-
(Ashim Pramanick)

President

E-mail:-pramanik.ashim4@gmail.com

 

Revised Submissions on Cadre Review

Date:- 26.01.2011

Dear Members,

A copy of the revised submissions on cadre restructuring submitted to the Board is placed below for information of all Members.

AICESTMOA

ALL INDIA CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX MINISTERIAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION

Ref. No. AICESTMOA/11-02.

Dated :       Jan’ 2011

To,


The Chairman,
Central Board Excise & Customs,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 1

Respected Sir,

Subject: Demands of the Ministerial Officers –

                           ongoing Cadre restructuring exercise- regarding.

* * * *

This is with reference to the discussion that took place in the meeting, held on 18.01.2011 at North Block, on the captioned subject.

2. This association expresses its gratitude to the Hon’ ble Chairman, Member(P&V), DGHRD and Team of HRD officials for enlightening us about various aspects of draft Cadre restructuring proposals vis-à-vis our demands, submitted on 24-11-2010 through Joint Action Committee. However, we were stunned and extremely shocked to learn that none of our major proposals, concerning the well-being and survival of the entire ministerial cadre, has found place in the revised draft proposals. Further, the reasons put forth for rejection/ non-consideration of the genuine demands related to this Association are not acceptable.

3. Aggrieved by the decision and as desired by the Hon’ble Chairman (CBEC), we once again place the following demands for inclusion in the ongoing cadre restructuring proposals, which were also ventilated during the meeting on 18.01.2011. It appears that the Board has assumed and is under the impression that creation of large number of posts in the executive grade, which is a by-product of the cadre restructuring, alone will satisfy the aspirations of the entire Ministerial cadre, ignoring the genuine concerns put forth by this Association for removing the stagnation in the level of DOS and AOs. It is humbly submitted that it will be very difficult to address those genuine grievances of the ministerial cadre across the country, unless the minimum following demands are met with.

4. The demands to be incorporated in the cadre restructuring proposal are;

I. Restructuring of Administrative wing in accordance with the recommendations of 6th CPC can be implemented through cadre restructuring only. We sincerely believe that the cadre restructuring exercise should not merely be a statistical one, but it should also embody a cadre policy as envisaged by an expert body like 6th CPC. Therefore, the following hierarchical structure in the Administrative wing of the CBEC may be done beyond the grades of Tax Assistant & Senior Tax Assistant.

Sl. No. Name of posts Grade Pay No. of Posts Place of posting

1 Principal Administrative Officer Rs.7600/- 66 Chief Commissioner’s Office (1 each)

2 Administrative Officer Grade-I Rs.6600/- 442 Commissionerate Hdqrs. (2 each)

3 Administrative Officer Grade-II Rs.4800/- 1564 Divisional Offices & Hdqrs. Offices

4 Administrative Officer Grade-III Rs.4600/- 1986 Sections and field formations

Justification:-

(a) The 6th Pay Commission in its report vide Chapter 3.1 has recommended parity between Hdqrs. organisations and field formations. It has recommended a model cadre structure in para 3.1.14, for field formation / non-secretariat Organizations, drawing parity of the recommended cadre structure for the Hdqrs. organization in para 3.1.9. Both the paragraphs are reproduced verbatim in Annexure – I. This particular dispensation has been categorically recommended for ministerial officers in CBEC/ CBDT by the 6th CPC vide para 7.15.14 which is enclosed as Annexure-II. This very paragraph has been referred to by the Department of Expenditure while dealing with the grade pay of Administrative Officer, DOS etc. as conveyed by CBEC vide F.No.A.26017/92/2008.Ad.II.A dated 09-09-2010. Noteworthy is the fact that the Government has hiked the Grade Pay of Assistants vide O.M. dated 16-11-2009 of Department of Expenditure, drawing parity with the similarly placed officers in the field formations. However the DOS in CBEC, despite being similarly placed with Assistant is still languishing in Rs.4200/- in PB-2. Thus the recommendations of 6th CPC as contained in 3.1.14 can be implemented only through the ongoing cadre restructuring process by way of assigning Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in PB – 2 to A.O. Grade – III (to be created by re-designation of D.O.S.) on par with the Assistants in Hdqrs. organizations who have been allowed Rs.4600/- in PB – 2.

(b) The Recruitment Rule for the post of DOS was notified in July 2009 much after implementation of 6th CPC where the pay scale of both the feeder grade (STA) and the Promotional grade (DOS) has been shown as being the same (Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-). As a result the STA & DOS (one being feeder & another promotional post) are in the same Grade Pay and the promotion from STA to DOS brings no financial benefit. This distortion can be addressed by favourably considering the above proposed hierarchical structure in the Cadre Restructuring proposal. The relevant recommendations of 6th CPC contained in Para 3.1.4 is enclosed in Annexure-III. Further, the grade of STA & DOS has been shown together in the draft proposal which is demeaning the higher grade. It is submitted that they should be shown separately, as one post i.e., DOS is the supervisory grade for the other.

(c) The ratio for promotions to the higher grade as per the proposed structure is not a favourable one, as is being made out in the draft proposal and the presentation made by the HRD. There will be 221 posts of CAO for 1564 posts of AO, which is in the ratio of 1:8. Some of the AOs have put in more than 12 to 15 years of service in the same grade and have completed 25-30 years of service in the Ministerial cadre itself. If these Officers are to get any relief in the proposed restructuring, then the hierarchical structure needs a definitive change as proposed by this Association. On the one hand the Board had recommended for grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- & Rs.4800/- for the posts of DOS and AO respectively, and simultaneously arguing that such an increase of pay cannot be considered in the Cadre Restructuring proposal. Further, the ADG, HRD who represented the Official side in the Departmental Anomaly Committee is aware of the statement made by the Chairman of the Anomaly Committee that though this is a genuine grievance the issue should be considered outside the purview of the Anomaly Committee. Therefore, the only option which is left open for the Board to set right this injustice is to restructure the hierarchical structure of these Ministerial posts as proposed by this Association in consonance with the recommendations made by the 6th CPC.

(d) Based upon the recommendations of 6th CPC quoted above, the above structure of the administrative set up in CBEC is demanded. Such a set up will strengthen the administrative wing and improve the functional efficiency that is required and necessary for implementation of the Government policies on personnel matters. The contention of the Board that the organisational structure depends on the requirements of the department and that there is no justification to replicate the staffing model of CBDT is bizarre. Such a statement leads to the conclusion that the Ministerial cadre of CBEC are not supposed to compare themselves with the Executive officers in the same department, neither with the comparable organisation like CBDT nor with the Headquarters Organisation like CSS. It appears that the motive of the Board is that forever the Ministerial grade will have to remain confined to the unilateral decisions of the Board and languish in the present level or even worse.

(e) The fruits of such a step-motherly treatment are already being reaped by way of large number of posts in the grade of DOS remaining unfilled for want of willing candidates. If the same pattern continues and remain unaltered in the current proposal then the days of existence of the Ministerial cadre in this department can be numbered. It is also pertinent to mention that the large number of vacancies in the grade of DOS remain unfilled is due to the fact that there is a distorted pay structure for the Ministerial cadre vis-à-vis the executive cadre. The said distortion can only be set right by restructuring the existing hierarchical structure of the Ministerial grade as proposed hereinabove. Such restructuring alone can bring about a change and be a deterrent to large scale migration from ministerial cadre to executive cadre and resurrect the dying ministerial cadre. Otherwise the administrative functions in the filed formation will completely collapse for which CBEC may find it very difficult to explain in future.

II. It had been stated that abolition of posts is a must as it is a commitment made to the Union Cabinet made at the time of creation of 4647 posts in various grades during the Year, 2007. It is seen from the said allocation of posts that, apart from creation of certain number of posts in various cadres, 12 posts of AOs, 234 DOS, 58 STAs and 272 TAs have been created in the Ministerial cadre. Therefore it is clear that there has been corresponding increase in the Ministerial strength even in the said allocation. To curtail the number of posts by way of abolishment higher number of posts in the Ministerial cadre, thereby adversely affecting the administrative functions is uncalled for. Not only that the posts which remain unfilled for the past 10 years even without framing of Recruitment Rules are left untouched while the promotional posts like STA, DOS are proposed to be abolished is unjustified. It is requested that this decision be reconsidered in the right perspective.

(b) The existing Ministerial strength is 12,676 out of the total strength of 66,808 which is 19%. The proposed ministerial strength in the cadre restructuring is 14,396 out of a total proposed strength of 95,168 which is 15%. The reduction is amply evident. The HRD has factored the present vacancy position without paying heed to the functional necessity of the field formations and the administrative difficulties that are being experienced by them. The present vacancy position is the outcome of delayed recruitment and discriminatory pay structure of the ministerial cadre. As a result the existing ministerial officers are overburdened and saddled with additional work thereby leading to the Administrative functions taking a severe beating and unwanted delays.

(c) The total net increase in the ministerial grade is 1720 out of which the increase in the number of post of LDC is to the extent of 1009. This increase is not going to benefit the ministerial cadre and meet the functional requirements as the recruitment to the grade of LDC is by 100% promotion from Group ‘D’ cadre. It is being experienced that after implementation of the 6th CPC the Group ‘D’ Officers are not accepting the promotions to the grade of LDC due to the fact that they are already receiving higher Pay than that of LDC by way of financial upgradations. Thus it may not be realistic to expect that these posts can be filled up by 100% promotion from Group ‘D’.

(d) It is also worthwhile to mention that the Board has already proposed separate promotional channel for the erstwhile Group-D officers upto a grade pay of Rs.2400 in PB – 1, as disclosed in the meeting held on 18-01-2011. Therefore instead of creation of post in the LDC grade (which may be completely abolished in the event of creation of separate channel for erstwhile Group-D), the strength in TA & STA be substantially enhanced in Executive, Audit and Cadre controlling Commissionerates equivalent to the number of LDC posts that are likely to be abolished. The staffing norms for each commissionerate needs be improved upon particularly with reference to the grades of STA & TA, since the present structure is worse than the normative structure, suggested by study Group-I & II. The creation of Audit Commissionerates, as factored by HRD, to arrive at a reduced staffing pattern is not applicable for ministerial grades as there is not many ministerial posts (particularly in DOS & STA), proposed for the Audit Commissionerates.

III. The strength of Ministerial Officers for the Customs Preventive Commissionerate envisaged in the draft proposals are as under.

1. Administrative Officer – 2

2. Deputy Office Superintendent – 3

3. Senior Tax Assistant - 12

4. Tax Assistant - 24

It is extremely difficult to imagine that such a meager sanctioned strength can meet the requirements of the administrative work-load of the Customs preventive formation, manned by the Central Excise Personnel.

The number in each grade should be increased in the following manner in each Customs Division and Customs Circle. The total strength of entire Commissionerate, would therefore be required to be calculated by multiplying the number of the Customs Division & Customs Circle with the number of strength (proposed as under) for each Division & Circle, apart from providing equal strength of staff for the Commissionerate Hqrs., similar to an Executive Commissionerate.

1. Administrative Officer – 1

2. Deputy Office Superintendent – 1

3. Senior Tax Assistant - 4

4. Tax Assistant - 4

IV. HRD has already assured that all the newly created posts would be filled up by promotion only. It is requested to fill up all posts including Direct Recruitment & carried forward vacancies on the day of implementation of restructuring proposal, by promotion only, as done in the last cadre restructuring. Relaxation in the eligibility service may also be granted to promote officers and this may come as part of cadre restructuring proposal. Moreover, the demand for increase in the promotional quota also remains unaddressed.

V. Last but not the least, during the course of discussion , it was brought to this Association’s notice that there is a possibility of upgrading the post of Inspector who have put in more than 10 years of service to the post of Superintendent on in-situ basis, which proposal too would be detrimental to the interests of our cadre.

The examination of the above demands is a must to mitigate rankling grievance of the frustrated ministerial cadre. We request and hope that these demands will be favourably considered in the right spirit thereby boosting the morale of those officers who have been sincerely and dedicatedly working for the Department for more than 3 decades.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Aasim Pramanick)

President

LETTER TO CHAIRMAN ON OS TO AO ISSUE

Dear Members,

A copy of the letter submitted to the Chairman, requesting to extend the benefit of pay fixation for the Officers who were promoted to the Grade of Administrative Officers from the erstwhile cadre of Office Superintendents is placed below for information.

AICESTMOA

ALL INDIA CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX MINISTERIAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION

Ref. No. AICESTMOA/11-01.To,

New Delhi, the 20th Jan’ 2011

Hon’ble Shri. S. Dutt Majumder, IRS,

Chairman, Central Board of Excise & Customs,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,

North Block, New Delhi.

Respected Sir,

Sub:- Non-Adherence to directives of the Hon’ble Finance Minister in reducing litigations by Deptt. Of Expenditure - Request for extending benefit of Pay fixation under FR 22 (I)(a) (1) to all Administrative Officers promoted from the cadre of Office Superintendent during the period 01.01.1996 till restructuring of the cadres as per settled legal position – reg.

* * * *

This Association has been time and again taking up the cause of those officers in the cadre of Administrative Officer who have been promoted from the cadre of Office Superintendent prior to Cadre Restructuring and granted the pay fixation benefit as per FR 22 (I) (a) (1) and who stood deprived of the pay fixation benefit granted to them owing to issuance of Board’s s F.No.A-26014/7/2001-Ad.II.A dated 24.07.2006.

2. Apart from the previous references made on the subject issue, various documents and correspondences related to the issue involved has now become available through RTI, whereby it appears that either the facts of the particular issue have not been appreciated properly, or have been overlooked, consequent to which the issue is not being considered favorably, despite strong grounds and reasons thereto. Therefore, at the cost of repetition, the brief facts are narrated hereunder with a request to emphasize upon the Department of Expenditure to re-consider the issue and concede settlement of the same in consonance with the settled legal position.

Brief Facts:-

a. Prior to the Cadre restructuring in CBEC, the promotions to the grade of Administrative Officer, a Gazetted Group ‘B’ post were being made from the grade of Office Superintendent, Non-Gazetted Group ‘C’ post. Consequent to implementation of the recommendations of Fifth CPC vide resolution dated 30.09.1997, the pay scales of both, the feeder grade i.e. Office Superintendent and the promotional grade i.e. Administrative Officer came to lie in the same pay scale i.e., 6500-200-10500. Therefore, a question arose as to whether the benefit of pay fixation can be extended in cases where an Officer is promoted from the grade of Office Superintendent to Administrative Officer after 01.01.96, as both the grades are having identical scales of pay. As the promotional grade is carrying higher duties and responsibilities the benefit of pay fixation was extended in many field formations. Subsequently after a lapse of 9 Years, the Board had vide letter F.No.A-26014/7/2001-Ad.II.A dated 24.07.2006, clarified that “since the pay scale of Office Superintendent and Accounts Officer (Administrative Officer/Assistant Chief Accounts Officer) were merged into one pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 by the Fifth Central Pay Commission, w.e.f. 01.01.96, the benefit of pay fixation under FR 22 (I) (a) (1) cannot be granted.”

The said clarification is silent on the situation prevailing before the merger of both grades and has only considered the situation post merger of both these cadres. (kindly refer to Department of Expenditure’s advice on N/s. 43 of Board’s F.No.A.26014/7/2001-Ad.II A wherein it is mentioned that “the issue has been reconsidered by this Department. It is observed that the posts were merged and as such benefit under FR 22(1)(a)(i) is not possible as per extant instructions” Copy enclosed for ready reference), which advice specifically answers situation post merger and not for the period from 01.01.1996 till the date officers holding both these posts & performing different functions stood merged.

b. Consequent to issuance of Board’s clarification dated 24.07.2006, some of the Cadre Controlling Authorities in the field formations, issued orders modifying the earlier promotion orders (even those issued prior to 05.06.2002) and sought to deny the benefit of pay fixation to those Officers who were promoted to the grade of Administrative Officers from the pre-restructured post of Office Superintendent. Being aggrieved with the said decision, some officers approached the Hon’ble Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. The Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore in O.A. No. 117/07 dated 13.02.2008 and a series of other cases had held that the clarification dated 24.07.06, is bad in law stating that “the applicants were promoted to the post of AO long before the date of merger, i.e., 05.06.2002.” Further it also ordered that “the impugned order dated 24.07.06 is quashed and set aside” apart from setting aside the orders issued pursuance to the said Board’s order dated 24.07.06.

c. The Writ Petition No.10261/2008 filed by the department against the said order of the Hon’ble Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, vide a detailed order dated 26.11.08. Thereafter a Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Department against the said order, which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court after condoning the delay, vide its order and judgement dated 21.08.2009. In conclusion, the order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal, Bangalore quashing the circular/clarification dated 24.07.06, attained finality and thus became a settled law of the land. Consequently, the Board had vide its letter F.No.A-26017/31/2007-Ad.II-A dated 01.02.2010, directed the Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore –I, Bangalore to implement the orders and judgement of the Hon’ble CAT, Bangalore Bench, restrictively in respect of only those Officers who have filed Application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

d. Ironically, it is submitted that the clarification issued by the Board was restricted to the litigants only, instead of issuing fresh instructions superseding the earlier orders issued on 24.07.2006 which stood quashed and was set aside by the legal body. It is owing to this restricted implementation of the Court judgment which has an All India ramification, that another set of affected Officers from Central Excise, Cochin approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking similar relief. It is apprehended that some aggrieved Officers from other Zones are also contemplating similar course of action. In this context, the CBEC, has in consultation with the Department of Expenditure decided to defend the OA now filed before the CAT, Ernakulam, much against the principles laid down by a judicial verdict of a High Court and approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which as explained above has been accepted and implemented for similarly placed Officers. By doing so the Board is indirectly forcing all the similarly placed Officers to approach the legal forums, much against the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution. More so, in a situation when the Hon’ble Finance Minister has ordered constitution of a Committee to prepare a roadmap for reducing existing litigation and also to avoid litigation in future, such a stand being taken by the Board is surely against the spirit and directions of the Hon’ble Finance Minister.

Settled Legal Position :-

1. It is an undisputed fact that the Hon’ble Tribunal has categorically held that the Ministry’s order dated 24.07.06 is bad in law, and quashed the same and also the subsequent order of the Cadre Controlling Authority in totality. The Ministry has sought to implement the order of the Tribunal, affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and the Apex Court, restrictively to the applicants only, which action is discriminatory and against all the basic tenants of law as the order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal is an order in rem and not an order in persona. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has in Amrit Lal Berry V/s. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 held that “when a citizen aggrieved by the action of the Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to Court”. Even the Expert Body like the Fifth Pay Commission has in its recommendation with regard to extension of benefit of Court judgment to similarly situated held in Para 126.5 that “Extending judicial decisions in matters of general nature to all similarly placed employees – We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal/Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S.Elias Ahmed and others V/s. Union of India and others (O.A.NOs 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original Writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgments like G.C.Ghosh V/s. Union of India, (1992) 19 ATC 94 SC dated 20.07.1998, K.I.Shepherd V/s. Union of India (JT 1987 (3) SC 600), Abid Hussain V/s. Union of India (JT 1987 (1) SC 147 etc. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the Judiciary or the Government should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the Court of Law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of Government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee. It is in this background that this Association had requested the Ministry/ Board to extend this benefit to all similarly placed Officers.”

2. It is understood that the matter was once again referred by the CBEC to the Department of Expenditure so that the Officers who stood promoted from the grade of Office Superintendent to the grade of Administrative Officers from the period 01.01.1996 till the date of merger of posts, are eligible for benefit of pay fixation as the post of Administrative Officer carries both higher duties and responsibilities compared to that of an Office Superintendent. The Board also felt that the advice given by the Department of Expenditure needs re-consideration. Since it was reiterated again and again, in the course of consultation with the Department of Expenditure, this particular issue stood referred to the Ministry of Law and Justice for its advice/ opinion regarding implementation of the order and defending the present OA. The Ministry of Law and Justice has vide Dy.No.3136/2010-B dated, 04.08.2010, categorically stated as under:-

“In this connection it is pertinent to note that Article 14 of the constitution guarantees equality and equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Equal protection means right to equal treatment in similar circumstances both in the privilege conferred and in the liabilities imposed. In the light of the principle enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution granting benefit to some employees and denying the same to other similarly situated persons may go against the spirit of the constitution and may not with stand to the judicial scrutiny. Since the matter being sub-judice and it is not practice in this department to tender any advice in sub judice matters it is for the administrative department to take a policy decision as per their policy and precedent and defend the pending cases accordingly in consultation with the Govt. Standing Counsel.”

3. Instead of accepting the said advice and allowing the benefit by issue of uniform instructions, the Department of Expenditure had once again mechanically reiterated its earlier stand taken, which is religiously being followed by the CBEC without taking into consideration the correctness of the matter and the prevailing legal position. It is an admitted fact that when the issue was first referred to the Department of Expenditure for opinion/ advice regarding the situation prevailing before cadre restructuring i.e., for the promotions effected during the limited period between 01.01.96 and 05.06.2002 whereas the advice given by the Department of Expenditure was that the same need not be granted, as both the posts have since been merged (relevant copies of notesheet of F.No.A-26014/7/2001-Ad.II A are enclosed). The Department of Expenditure has overlooked the vital fact that Officers who stood promoted from the period 01.01.1996 till the date of restructuring were already availing of the Pay Fixation benefits as per rules in force. Needless to mention, though the Law Ministry has opined that the stand taken by the Department of Expenditure is untenable and will not withstand judicial scrutiny, no positive decision has been arrived to in the issue concerned, thereby leading to fresh litigations in the matter. It is ironical that so much of time, energy and money is being spent by the Government to defend these cases, whereas the litigants have to incur unnecessary expenditure to get their legitimate benefits for no fault of theirs.

4. Further it is submitted that the number of affected Officers are far and few and spread out in various Commissionerates throughout the country, who have been availing of the said legitimate benefit till 24.07.2006. It is also pertinent to bring to your notice that some of them who are in the last lap of their service are either facing the threat of recovery from their pensionary benefits or are forced to approach the court for relief at this stage of their career, especially in a situation wherein the entire case has already been decided & settled by the judiciary.

5. In view of the compelling facts and legal position explained above, it is humbly requested that :-

(i) a policy decision may kindly be taken to extend the benefit of pay fixation to similarly placed officers as per the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order which is an order in rem & not restricted to the applicants only, &

(ii) suitable directions may kindly be issued to all the Cadre Controlling Authorities under CBEC, for uniform application of the Court’s order to all similarly placed Officers under CBEC at the earliest, with copies to the respective Pay and Accounts Offices thereby granting relief to those officers who are under the threat of recovery from their service benefits, thus putting an end to the unwarranted injustice and related litigations thereto.

Awaiting a judicious re-consideration of the above matter and an early issuance of revised directives to the concerned authorities, I remain,

Yours faithfully,

(THOMAS MONY)

Sd/-

SECRETARY GENERAL

Encl : As above.

Copy submitted for kind information to :-

1. The Joint Secretary (Personnel), Department of Expenditure, North Block, New Delhi.

2. Smt. Renu Jain, Deputy Secretary, Department of Expenditure, w.r.t the meeting held on 28.10.2010, on the subject matter with a request for re-consideration of the matter.

3. The Deputy Secretary, Ad.II A, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi with a kind request to re-examine the entire matter in the light of the judgment delivered and for an early issuance of revised instructions to the field formations in the matter.