The above response is in reply to the letter dated 31.08.2018 addressed to the RS & FS given below:
Ref.
No: FS/RS/06/2018
Date: 31.08.2018
To
Dr. Hasmukh Adhia,
Secretary for Finance
and Revenue,
Government of India,
North Block, New
Delhi.
Respected Sir,
Sub: Implementation of
Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam – in rem –
reg.
Ref: (1) Our letter to
CBIC vide CBEC/29/2017 dt. 11.10.17 (2) Our letter to FS vide
RS/ES/04/2017 dt.
30.10.17 (3)
F.No.15/06/2017-IFU-III dated 06.12.2017
(4) Our letter to CBIC vide 15/2018/CBIC dt. 21.05.2018 (5)
Our letter to CBIC vide 40/CBEC/2018 dt. 25.08.18
Kindly
find enclosed a copy of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23rd August,
2018 in the Review Petition (Civil) No. 2512 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 8883
of 2011 in the case of M. Subramaniam and the above referred correspondence on
the said subject.
2.
The back ground of the above case in brief is as below:
2.1.
The Government of India, vide their Resolution dated 29.08.2008 had decided to
grant Grade Pay of 5400 in PB-2 on completion of 4 years of continuous service
in the Grade Pay of 4800 PB-2 for Group B Officers in certain departments like
the Central Excise and Income Tax departments.
2.2.
The Inspectors of Central Excise are Group B Officers. They are on
the Grade Pay of 4600 PB-2. Either on promotion to the grade of
Superintendents or on getting their ACP/MACP they reach the Grade pay of 4800
PB-2. The CBEC vide F. No. A.26017/98/2008-AdIIA dated 11.02.2009 issued
a clarification stating that the benefit of 5400 in PB-2 could be granted ONLY
to those who reach the Grade Pay of 4800 PB-2 by promotion and not if it is by
way of ACP. This was challenged before the Hon’ble Tribunal of Chennai and
subsequently taken in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. The
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in their judgement dated 6.9.2010 in W.P. No.
13225/2010 held that 5400 PB-2 is to be granted on completion of 4 years in
4800 PB-2 even if reached by ACP. This was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in their order dated 10.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 8883 of 2011.
Not beign satisfied by this order the matter was taken up by the Government in
Review, which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Review
Petition (Civil) No. 2512 of 2018, copy of which is enclosed.
3.
It is indeed a matter of shock and surprise that the above issue which had been
consistantly settled in favour of the employees by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
several SLPs had been taken up for Review itself.
4.
In the meanwhile, separate O.As have been filed in different parts of the
Country, on the same issue and atleast 5 High Courts and more than 9 Tribunals
have passed similar orders. More such litigations and representations are
in the pipeline through out the Country.
5.
In this context, attention is also drawn to the Diary No. 23663/2017 dated
1.9.2017 in SLP IA No. 77457/2017 in the matter of Government of India Vs.
Somvir Rana & Ors wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court have observed interalia as
below:
“Once
the question, in principle, has been settled, it is only appropriate on the
part of the Government of India to issue a Circular so that it will save the
time of the Court and the Administrative Department apart from avoiding
unnecessary and avodiable expenditure”.
6.
It is also pertinent to mention that unless the Government leads by example in
letting the benefit of a judicial verdict to flow to all those who are
similarly placed and on the question of maintainability of an instruction or
circular, the same officials, cannot be expected to adhere to the same law of
‘DHARMA’ while discharging their official duties themselves. Further, the
disgruntlement, demotivation and disillusionment caused would cause
irrepairable damage to the very fabric of tax administration.
7.
Further, the cadre of Inspectors of Central Excise is one of the worst affected
due to stagnation and even this benefit of fixation in 5400 in PB-2 has only an
incremental benefit. Hence we request that instructions may kindly be
issued to the concerned authorities to immediately issue OM rescinding the F.
No. A.26017/98/2008-AdIIA dated 11.02.2009 and making the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Subramaniam applicable to all similarly
placed employees – in rem.
Thanking
you,
Yours
truly,
Encl: As above
(R.
Manimohan)
Secretary
General
Copy submitted for
information to:
The Chairman, CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.
Subsequently we have addressed the Board again on 25.09.2018:
Ref. No: CBIC/42/2018 Date: 25.09.2018
To
Shri. S. Ramesh,
Chairman,
CBIC, North Block, New Delhi.
Sir,
Sub: Implementation of Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam – in rem – reg.
*****
Kind reference is invited to the correspondence on the above subject resting in F.No.15/06/2017-IFU-III. Reference is also invited to the letter of this Association in Ref. No. FS/RS/06/2018 dated 31.08.2018, addressed to the Finance Secretary and copy marked to your good self. A copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference.
In the meanwhile, it is learnt that the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is being implemented in certain zones where the individuals had to go to Tribunals or Courts again to get orders based on the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this matter.
As an administration, to force individuals to go to Tribunals and Courts for getting settled principles implemented, again and again, is an unwelcome thing, that demoralises the staff and encourages corrupt practices. This is also in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in the matter of Somvir Rana & Ors cited in para 5 of our letter enclosed.
Hence it is requested that the matter may kindly be taken up urgently with the Ministry and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to grant GP 5400 in PB-2 on completion of regular service of 4 years in GP 4800 PB-2, in rem, to all concerned in this department.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Encl: As above
(R. Manimohan)
Secretary General
Copy for information and necessary action to:
The Member (Admin), CBIC, New Delhi.
Sir,
ReplyDeleteIn this case, complaint can be lodged again as the more than 6 months has been passed but no such OM is issued.