CIRCULAR- 06/10 Dated: 30.09.2010.

Dear Comrades,


As of now D.P.C. is completed through out India and a good no. of our members assumed their new charges. We bid adieu to them and would like to thank all the members for showing their unprecedented patience in resolving this subject. We are persuading further for the effective date in the post Kolkata High court interim order scenario.

We congratulate each and every member who stead fast to our call for agitation on our 9 point charter of demands as this compelled CBEC to start dialogue with the only recognized Association. We had a comprehensive discussion on the points raised by the Association in its agitational programme

Point No. I The ongoing cadre Restructuring Exercise:

Chairman intimated that Finance Minister desires that Restructuring Exercise should be completed at the earliest and this time Board is proposing creation of a good no. of Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner’s post inclusive of other Class-I posts.

We have gathered that a huge no. of vacancy would be created in the superintendent as well as in the A.C/D.C. level. Before 23rd Sept. 2010 the Restructuring file went past Revenue Secretary, now the file is lying with Expenditure. In the mean time Finance Minister expressed his desire that the restructuring should be completed by the 31st of December, 2010. We have come to know that in the final proposal which was cleared by Revenue Secretary there is a proposal of 7800( app.) post of Superintendent and 4300+ (app.) post of class-I officers which will be fully promotional.

Point No. 2 Notional fixation of pay of Inspectors of Central Excise in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 01.01.1996.

We argued that the rejection of the above demand by the Department of Expenditure is a colourable exercise of power as the principles adopted by the Government in granting retrospective effect while upgrading the pay scales in respect of other cadres, have not been applied in our case. We have submitted a non-exhaustive list of such cases:

No.   Name of the post / Ministry                                     Decision

1 Assistant Manager,Mail Motor Service,   Department of Posts Revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000  
                                                                  approved with effect from 1/1/1996

2 Organised Railway Services and Finance    Higher pay scales granted notionally from 1/1/1996
and Accounts Departments in Railways          with arrears payable with effect from 19/2/2003


3  Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi         Higher pay scales granted notionally from 1/1/1996
Translator and Assistant Director, in Central  with arrears payable with effect from 11/2/2003
Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS)



4 Divisional Accountant under the C&AG   Higher pay scales granted notionally from 1/1/1996
                                                                          with arrears payable with effect from 19/2/2003


This being a blatant case of discrimination of the officers of Revenue Department vis-à-vis the officers of other department we request that the issue be taken up with the Secretary (Expenditure) through the Secretary (Revenue).

Initially Chairman replied that CBEC has nothing to do, but afterwards he was agreed to our plea and assured that CBEC shall try to have a discussion with the Revenue Secretary in this regard.



Point No. 3 Fixation of minimum pay corresponding to pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450- 11500 consequent to up-gradation ordered on 13.11.2009.

In this regard we have pointed out that consequent to the upgradation of Grade Pay of Inspectors to Rs. 4600/- vide Boards letter F. No. A-26017/132/2009 – Ad II-A dated 23.11.2009 and Department of Expenditure OM no. 1/1/2008 – IC dated 13.11.2009 the pay of an Inspector who was drawing pay in the pay scale of 6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 at a stage lesser than Rs. 7450/- has to be first upgraded to Rs. 7450/- and then fixed in the revised pay band by multiplying it with 1.86. However, in CBEC the Inspectors has been merely granted the higher-grade pay of Rs. 4600/- without re-fixing the pay in the pay band as above. This has also resulted in a anomalous situation where a senior Inspector who was in service prior to 01.01.2006 draws a pay less that an Inspector recruited after 01.01.2006.

This remedial action in order to bring the pay of the senior on par with the junior has already been done in the case of Central Secretariat Service but has not been extended to our officers. We have referred to the pay fixation done in the Central Secretariat Service Vide F.No.50/46/2008-AD1B order no. A/56 of 2010 dated 19th June 2010 and A/116 of 2010 dated 6th August 2010 and in the Department of Expenditure Vide F.No. A-26018/1/2008-ADII dated 7TH September 2010.


Chairman replied that Board has already sent the respective file to expenditure, expenditures view will be intimated within a shortwhile. How ever Board shall pursue for this issue.

Point No. 4 Anomaly in pay of 1992 batch Inspectors who received ACP prior to 20.04.2004.

anomaly in the pay of 1992 batch direct recruit Inspectors started initially consequent to the upgradation of pay scales of the post of Superintendent of Central Excise from Rs.6500-10500 to Rs. 7500-12500 w.e.f. 21/4/2004 vides Order No.6/37/98…dated 21/4/2004, issued by the Department of Expenditure. There arose a situation where those Inspectors who matured for ACP prior to the upgradation dated 21.04.2004 were given a lower pay stage than their junior officers of the same batch who matured for ACP subsequent to 21.04.2004. The demand for stepping up was denied on an erroneous premise that no anomaly is recognized where pay is fixed under ACP scheme which is purely personal to the employee and has no relation to seniority of the employees. We had challenged the above disposal by highlighting that the anomaly in pay has not been caused by ACP but due to the up-gradation of pay scale of Inspectors and Superintendent; that the same problem could have arisen in  the case of promotion also; that the situation highlighted is a unique one and is not covered by any of the clarifications issued by the DOPT with regard to the ACP scheme and does not pertain to the implementation of ACP scheme and hence the remedy lies elsewhere; and that Note 9 to Rule 7 of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 contemplates stepping up of pay on par with that of the junior in a case where the senior is getting promotion before revision of pay-scales and junior after revision of pay-scales if the following conditions are satisfied



•Both the senior and the junior employees should belong to the same cadre and the posts in which they have been promoted should be identical in the same cadre•Pre-revised and revised scales of pay of the lower and higher posts in which they are entitled to draw their pay should be identical.•The senior should draw at time of promotion pay equal to or higher than that of the junior•The anomaly should be directly due to application of FR 22 or any other Rule regulating pay-fixation on promotion in the revised scale,

In addition to the above stated reasons, we requested for a reconsideration of the decision on the following grounds.


1.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in its order dated 13.06.2008 in OA 31/2007 filed by Shri. Chalapati Rao & Ors had decided in favour of the instant demand and since the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh declined to stay the order of the Tribunal, the Department decided to implement the order in favour of the applicants vide F. No. A-26017/95/2008 Ad II A dated 22.01.2010.2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in order dated 19.01.2010 in OA 156-JK/2009 filed by Ashok Kumar had directed to step up the pay of the senior officer who was not entitled for ACP on par with his junior who was in receipt of ACP. The Writ Petition filed by the Department against the CAT order has been dismissed. 3.In view of the favourable judgments of various judicial forums, there is every chance of proliferation of litigation seeking the same relief. In terms of the National Litigation Policy the Department is duty bound to take steps for unnecessary litigation when the law on the subject is clear.

Chairman stated that the High Court pronounced the subject order only for the appellant , as expenditure rejected the subject issue earlier it can not be given to all the 1992 batch Inspectors straight away, bending to the pressure of the Association Chairman opined for a review of this case once again.

Point No.5 Lifting of ban on ICT


The ban on Inter Commissionerate order by the Board in 2004 is causing acute hardship to officers in Group B & C level. In the present scenario where officers are recruited on an all India basis but allotted permanently to a regional zone has further compounded the agony. However, Board vide Letter F. No. A- 22015/19/2006 AD III A dated 27.03.2009 had partially relaxed the ban to facilitate officers having spouse working in Government /PSU to avail ICT, it does not take care of the requirements of the cadre.


The reason behind the discontinuance of ICT at the first instance was the protracted litigation on the question of seniority. Litigation in this regard had arisen only because Board on some occasion tinkered with the policy by deviating from the well-established principles on seniority. Board had formulated the policy guidelines for Inter Commissionerate Transfer with effect from 20.05.1980 which was very specific that the transfer would be made against direct recruitment quota only, existing in the seniority zone to which transfer is sought and upon joining, the transferee would be placed in the bottom of seniority list of the year on which his/her transfer took place.. These guidelines have been upheld even by the Apex Court and therefore the perception that ICT would lead to litigation is unfounded.

In this regard we have pointed out that in the next door CBDT a well defined policy on ICT is in vogue. The principles adopted by them are similar to our 20.05.1980 circular and their scheme of ICT is working smoothly.


We have submitted that the facilities available to our counterparts in CBDT may be extended to us also by reintroducing ICT in accordance with the principles put forth in our circular dated 21.05.1980. Thanking you.

Initially chairman was reluctant to take up the case but later on promised to raise it in full Board Meeting and to short out the problem.


Point No. 6 JCM s should be conducted at the Board level and at local level at regular intervals.

We have pointed out that the JCM is an important Government Machinery which is not functional at the Board & Ministry level, in absence of JCM forum meetings the consultations/meetings are becoming procrastinated dialogue without reaching any tangible settlement on any issue. We have demanded immediately procedure should be initiated to conduct JCM at the Board level. Chairman assured of initiation of the process.


Point No. 7 Abolition of control room duty and uniform in Central Excise and Service Tax.

We have pointed out that in the post tobacco regime there is no necessity of continuation of Uniform and in the era of cell phone the utilization of Inspectors In control room is obsolete and misuse of man power, it is also to mention that there is no statutory provisions to wear uniform as is evident through a RTI reply from CBEC.

Chairman replied that the issue is under examination, other organizations like Superintendent of C.Ex. have not yet demanded such abolition. During our course of meeting Chairman intimated that Uniform Allowance is expected to be doubled shortly.

Point No. 8 The 1% incentive on incremental revenue should be utilized for providing facilities and infrastructure for lower level staffs also.

At the time of discussion on this point it was pointed out that in CBEC the benefit of 1% incentive has not been percolated to the lower level officers while in CBDT all the staffs are enjoying the benefit after it was duely considered by CBDT. Chairman agreed to discuss the issue in full Board meeting to arrive at a conclusion.


In the meeting, apart from the above issues we have discussed the following issues:

1. Departmental Clarification on MACP

Consequent upon issuance of the revised clarification on MACP published by DOPT we requested Chairman to rectify the departmental clarification on MACP.

Chairman replied that the issue will be examined whether any further clarification is necessary and if required necessary clarification will be issued.

2. Protocol duty performed by Inspectors to various higher officials and VVIP’s:

We requested to stop this practice of protocol duty. Chairman clearly stated that nowhere it is written that Inspectors or any officer are bound to perform protocol duty. Hence, if there is any report from any officer of excess that should be reported to Board and Board in turn shall take due measure for this type of overindulgence.

We would like to request our Circle/ Branch Secretaries and all iNdia office bearers to organize meetings through which we shall convince our members not to do ant protocol duty, if necessary we can issue a mandate for this, if there is any negative action from the local authority immediately we shall spread the fire of protest through out India.

3. Non-functioning of the departmental anomaly committee :

We have argued that the basic issues of anomalies are yet to be settled and there is no indication that it would be done in the near future. We requested our Board to impress upon Revenue Secretary to organize departmental Anomaly committee meeting immediately.

In our last circular we forget to mention that in our Indore CEC held on 31st July and 1st August 2010 it was decided that the next convention will be held at Tamilnadu Circle, time and venue will be decided by the circle.

It is also to mention that all the circle and branches are requested to send fund for the All India Association forthwith otherwise it will be hard-hitting for this Association to function after October 2010.

On the organizational front we are waiting for the reply of Pune, Patna and Mumbai Circle, We have not yet received neither DDO certificate nor Association Contribution from the following Circles/ zones

•Mumbai Branch•Pune Circle•Bihar Jharkhand Circle•North East Circle•Vizag Branch•Guntur Branch•Hyderabad Branch•Noida Branch•Meerut BranchAs we were not aware of AP Circle and Hyderabad Branch, we have given temporary charge to one Industrious and responsible Inspector Sri Vigneshawar Raju for the Hyderabad Branch as well as Andhra Pradesh Circle. We are in search of proper leadership in the zones where there is either no activity or negative activity.

If we won’t get any reply from the defaulting zones by the end of October 2010 then we shall not allow these circles / Branches in our next Convention.

To

The President,

All office Bearers,

Circle and Branch Secretaries
Comradely Yours


( KOUSIK ROY )