On 14th, the JAC of Inspector based Associations in CBIC, consisting of the IRS (IDT)OA, AIACEGOE and AICEIA, met with the Hon’ble MOS Shri. Pon Radhakrishnan and submitted a memorandum to him. Scanned copy of the memorandum is given above. The Minister gave a patient hearing and also asked for details of what classification of goods was, how the clash of interests could happen in the field in enforcement of the GST law uniformly etc. He assured to take up the matter with the concerned to enable a proper policy decision in the matter.
On 15th the JAC met with the Member (Admn) Shri. S. Ramesh and submitted two memorandums. The soft copy of both the memorandums are placed below. The Member gave a patient hearing and also took down notes on various aspects of our demands and assured to follow up the issues speedily considering the necessity under GST implementation.
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE
OF INSPECTOR BASED ASSOCIATIONS OF CBEC
[Representing the Associations of Inspectors, Superintendents and Promotee IRS Officers in CBEC]
MEMORANDUM – 5
REQUESTING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAGNATION COMMITTEE
With reference to the recommendations of the Stagnation Committee published vide F.No.C-50/58/2017-AdII of the CBEC dated 1.8.2017 seeking comments all the concerned parties are expected to have given their suggestions and comments. We the three Associations representing the Executive Officers in the field from Inspectors to the IRS (IDT) by promotion from the Central Excise/CGST stream have also submitted our separate comments on the issue.
However considering the pressure at the field level and frustration, increased every day due the inclement atmosphere precipitated due to the fluctuations in system consequent to the introduction of the GST, we deem it necessary to press for early implementation of the recommendations of the Committee at an early date.
Unless a quick action is taken in this regard, we fear that the demoralization that has already set in would have a bearing upon the smooth transition into the GST.
In brief, the issue in focus is this:
In comparison with any other cadre of the CBEC or in CBDT, those recruited as Inspectors in Central Excise are the most affected due to stagnation. They get only one promotion or utmost two, in their entire service. On the other hand all other cadres get promotions between 4 and 7 from recruitment to retirement.
| Recruited as | Promoted up to | Number of promotions in the career of around 35 years |
| | | Minimum | Maximum |
| Group-D officers | Superintendent | 5 | 6 |
| DEO | Superintendent/AC | 4 | 5 |
| LDC | Superintendent/CAO | 5 | 6 |
| UDC | Superintendent/AO | 4 | 4 |
| Inspector of CEx | Superintendent/AC | 1 | 2 |
| DR IRS | Principal CC/Member/Chairman | 7 | 9 |
There is no major benefit by way of MACP to this cadre because, invariably even in the promotion or MACP what is available is only an incremental benefit due to the closeness of Pay scales or pay bands of the adjacent cadres, in the hierarchy.
Assured Progression Scheme and the Modified Assured Progression Scheme:
The Fifth Pay Commission took note of the stagnation prevalent in many of the Government departments and recommended a scheme in the name of Assured Progression Scheme (ACP) which was implemented by the Government vide O.M. No.35034/1/97-Estt(D) of the DOPT dated 9/8/1999. As per the said scheme:
Ø For Group A Officers alone functional promotions were to be enhanced by way of ensuring conducting periodical cadre review etc.
Ø For Doctors separate scheme was being prescribed.
Ø For all other Group B, C & D staff, an Assured Career Progression was implemented.
Ø Individuals who had not got their first promotion within 12 years of their service and had not got the second promotion within 24 years, would be placed in the scale pertaining to the next hierarchical cadre, subject to eligibility for a promotion.
Ø The above benefit would be personal and no anomaly could be claimed by seniors if their juniors get a benefit due to the above scheme.
The staff who could not get the benefit got by their juniors in the same cadre were aggrieved. The number of financial upgradations as per the above scheme also were far below the minimum expectations. Hence, the staff side requested the Sixth Pay Commission to make the scheme applicable for service in each cadre and also to increase the number of upgradations.
Upon revisiting the scheme, the Sixth Pay Commission recommended a Modified Assured Progression Scheme on 19/5/2009 as below:
Ø The number of upgradations were increased to three by making it applicable on completion of 10,20 and 30 years.
Ø It was made eligible on the basis of stagnation in a cadre.
Ø However, the upgradation was to be given only to the next pay grade and not to the next hierarchical grade.
The effect of the above schemes on the cadre of Inspectors/Superintendents of Central Excise:
In 1999, when the ACP scheme was launched, the pay structures of the cadres in this discussion were as below:
| 10. | S-10 | 5500-175-9000 |
| 11. | S-12 | 6500-200-10500 |
| 12. | S-13 | 7450-225-11500 |
| 13. | S-14 | 7500-250-12000 |
| 14. | S-15 | 8000-275-13500 |
Inspectors were on S-10, Superintendents were on S-12 and Assistant Commissioners were on S-15. Thus as per the ACP scheme, an Inspector completing 12 years was fixed at the scale of 6500-10500 and on completion of 24 years was fixed at pay scale of 8000-13500.
ON 21/4/2004, the pay scales were revised for Inspectors from S-10 to S-12 and for Superintendents from S-12 to S-14. Then they got the benefit of 7500-12000 and 8000-13500.
From 1.1.2006, consequent to the implementation of the 6thPay Commission Recommendations, the pay structures were revised as below:
| 11 | S-10 | 5500-175-9000 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 4200 |
| 12 | S-11 | 6500-200-6900 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 4200 |
| 13 | S-12 | 6500-200-10500 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 4200 |
| 14 | S-13 | 7450-225-11500 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 4600 |
| 15 | S-14 | 7500-250-12000 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 4800 |
| 16 | S-15 | 8000-275-13500 | PB-2 | 9300-34800 | 5400 |
| 17 | New Scale | 8000-275-13500 (Group A Entry) | PB-3 | 15600-39100 | 5400 |
Inspectors were placed on the GP of 4200 in PB-2 (4600 in PB-2 subsequently with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006) and Superintendents were placed on a twin scale with 4800 PB-2 at the start and 5400 PB – 2 on completion of a continuous service of 4 years in 4800 PB-2. Assistant Commissioners were placed on 5400 PB-3. In this scenario, the Inspectors on completion of 12 years could get the GP of 4800 PB-2 and on completion of 24 years, 5400 PB-3.
When the MACP was introduced, the financial upgradations were altered from hierarchical to one of linear based on the pay scales prescribed. Hence, the Inspectors on completion of 10 years would reach 4800 PB-2, on completion of 20 years, 5400 PB-2 and on completion of 30 years, 5400-PB-3 (AC’s scale).
Thus, the new MACP Scheme ensured that what was reached in 24 years in the ACP could alone be reached after 30 years also. This was a unique situation for the cadre of Inspectors of Central Excise because, in no other department, stagnation of this intensity exists at this level where the scales are closely placed for the promotional posts and the promotional post also had a twin scale, within.
The following is the comparable position in respect of those officers who had been recruited through a combined common SSC Exam:
| Name of the cadre | Present position |
| Inspector of Income Tax | Who joined in 1989 have become AddlCommisioners |
| Examiners of Customs | Who joined in 1989 have become Jt Commissioners |
| Preventive Officers | Who joined in 1992 have become ACs |
| Inspectors of Central Excise | Who joined in 1985 are only Superintendents |
The above position is fairly conceded in the recently submitted report of the Stagnation Committee with Shri. Balesh Kumar ADG (HRM-I) as the Chairman.
The net result due to the stagnation of the Officers who were recruited as Inspectors and stagnating as Superintendents and who would retire as Superintendents or at best as Assistant Commissioners is that their increase in pay and allowances would severely be affected in comparison with other cadres. The following table would explain it:
| Recruited as | Yr of r'ment | Approx pay (Rs) | Promoted up to | Approx pay(Rs) (2017) | Percentage increase |
| | | | | | Min | Max |
| Group-D | 1982 | 392 | Inspector/Superintendent | 65,000/ 72,000 | 16581 | 18367 |
| DEO | 1987 | 950 | Superintendent/AC | 72,000/75,000 | 7578 | 7895 |
| LDC | 1982 | 520 | Superintendent/CAO | 72,000/75,000 | 13846 | 14423 |
| UDC | 1982 | 660 | Superintendent/AO | 72,000 | 10909 | 10909 |
| Inspector of CEx | 1982 | 850 | Superintendent/AC | 72,000/75,000 | 8471 | 8824 |
| Examiner | 1982 | 850 | DC/JC/ADC | 85,000/1,40,000 | 10000 | 16470 |
| Preventive Officer | 1982 | 850 | DC/JC | 85,000/1,10,000 | 10000 | 12941 |
| AsstCommr | 1982 | 1400 | Principal CC / Member /Chairman | 1,50,000/2,05,000 | 10714 | 14643 |
Note:
(1) The above analysis is only based on a rough calculation. HRA is not included. The maximum would increase in the course of time.
(2) Since the cadre of DEOs was filled up only in 1987, their scale of pay is taken only from that date. The number of promotions in their case and the pay scale reached is in a span of 30 years while in the case of others it is 35 years. The number of promotions and percentage increase therefore in their case, at the time of their retirement would be much more.
In 2014, 2118 posts of ACs were created on a temporary basis to mitigate stagnation. Those promoted to the temporary posts would be absorbed against the permanent posts only based on the vacancies arising in the permanent posts. However, as on date more than 600 posts of Assistant Commissioners are lying vacant and many numbers of Superintendents are retiring with only one promotion in their entire career of more than 35 years. Hence there is an urgent need to intervene in the issue immediately. The immediate problem faced in conducting DPCs has been stated as the litigation regarding the implementation of the judgement of the Apex Court in the N.R.Parmar case. The Madras High Court has also dismissed the review petititon filed by the Government on grounds of latches and delay. Hence there is no reason to delay promotions to the vacancies in the Assistant Commissioner posts.
The Stagnation Committee has suggested extension of tenure of the 2118 AC posts created temporarily. While the temporary posts were created to mitigate Stagnation and since it is not on the regular strength, it should be available only for stagnating categories [Ref: Annexure-F of Note for Cabinet 2013]. Furthermore, these 2118 posts are not part of Group A RRs 2016 and hence the ratio need not be applied in respect of these Group-A posts.
It is apparent that the Committee constituted to study stagnation in the Group B cadres has realized that the issue is very real and will not disappear in an instant, it is seen that they have recommended the grant of NFU for Inspectors and Superintendents for delay in promotion to be computed in relation to the comparable services in Central Secretariat Services.
In this regard, a peculiar feature of the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission must be highlighted. In that as per the Resolution of the Government of India notified on 29/8/2008 made effective from 01/01/2006, while accepting the Pay Scales of the Central Civil Services Group ‘A’, the Government had resolved that ‘Whenever any IAS Officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4, grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organized Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government’
An extension of the Organised Group A Scheme highlighted above would neither be ideal nor an adequate solution for the years of stagnation that the Officers who joined as Inspectors in Central Excise have faced. It is undisputed that this category of Officers are the cutting edge of the Department and that without their active intervention, over ninety percent of the work would suffer, as all original work is being carried out by them. Hence, in order that a practical solution be put forth, it is proposed that instead of adopting the recommendation of the Committee for grant of NFU computed in relation to comparable services in the Central Secretariat Services, the yardstick to be used is the comparable grades to which Inspectors of Income Tax recruited in the same year have progressed on account of the scientific manner in which cadre restructuring was carried out in that Department. Adoption of such a standard would ensure that the Inspectors of Central Excise recruited through a common exam along with their counterparts in Income Tax, which is within the same Ministry of the Union Government, are adequately compensated for the years of stagnation that they have suffered and which has been compounded by the ignominy of working under Officers many years junior within the same CBEC, who have been promoted to Group A posts on account of the skewered ratio followed.
With this prospect in mind, a onetime relaxation may be sought from the DOPT for grant of commensurate pay scales to Officers completing service as below:
| On completion of | NFU to Pay Scale of |
| | |
| 25 years from entry as Inspector | Assistant Commissioner |
| 30 years from entry as Inspector | Deputy Commissioner |
| 35 years from entry as Inspector | Joint Commissioner |
| | |
It is to be emphasized that by projecting our cadre strength, the DR IRS protested across country in Jan/Feb 2017 for “saving Service” & succeeded in conducting back to back “7” DPCs for promotions within higher grades of Group-A. But, we wish to put on record the neglect shown to our legacy issues, hence this representation to your good office.
To remind on facts, in 1999 the then Chairman of CBEC filed Affidavit for purported loss in past for Customs feeder categories & proposed to review Gr-B to JTS promotions given during past 17-18 years.
We expect similar gesture from your good selves for us. The staggering loss to ‘Inspector Central Excise base’ is very apparent in facts mentioned in the Stagnation Committee report also.
As on 01/10/2017, there are 3553 serving Superintendent Cx (promoted pre-31/12/2006). Out of these; ‘379’ are having 35(+) years of experience, ‘1725’ are having 30(+) years of experience and ‘1254’ are having 25(+) years of experience; in Gr-B Executive Central Excise.
By invoking provisions of the One Time Relaxation (OTR); these “379” officers can be promoted in JAG Grade [vacancies available 402], the “1725” officers can be promoted in STS grade & the “1254” officers can be promoted in JAG Grade [combined STS+JTS vacancies available are 2884]. DoPT guidelines & UPSC Regulations allows this, we need support from our own administrative department to move suitable proposal for approval of the “competent”authority.
All the officers have good experience in the field formations, and are the face and feel of the department before the Trade & Industry and in helpingthem make GST transition through outreach and trainingprogrammes. The 244 pages GST Seva Kendra addresses and phone numbers put up on CBEC website are the contact numbers of Central Excise Inspector base officers around the country and include a number of personal mobile contacts of these officers.
Invoking of OTR provisions is fully justified as our HR issues have aggravated due to selective non-implementation of Nodal Ministry guidelines in respect of Inspector Central Excise born.
The CBEC has granted ‘409’ JTS promotions since 2002 to 2012 to Appraisers Gr-B feeder category which had sanctioned strength of mere 6% (& working less than 4%), while the feeder strengths of all 3 categories of Gr-B was changed in cadre restructuring 2002 giving percentage-ratio of 14:2:1[Superintendent (CX): Superintendent (Prev):Appraiser].
Therefore, considering base year of 2002, by 2012 Superintendent CX cadre should have got ‘5726’ (14 times of 409 for the Appraisers) against the paltry take of ‘1044’ to their share. However, the promotions were given in a flawed 6:1:2 contrary to the spirit contained in Apex Court Order dated 03/8/2011 and CBEC is still trying to regularise the adhoc promotions from 2001-02 in same wrong percentage-ratio (6:1:2) for reason beyond our understanding. We oppose this & request your support for invoking OTR provisions.
Hence the following demands are raised by this forum:
1) Implementation of the proposal for One Time Relaxation discussed above.
2) Immediate casting of All India Seniority List for Inspectors from the date of introduction of All India merit list in the cadre in terms of Supreme Court order in RadheShyam case.
3) Recast seniority lists of all DR cadres (viz. UDCs/ EAs and Inspectors)on the lines ofof N.R. Parmarjudgement with a uniform date of implementation.
4) Consequentially, recast and issue an updated All India Seniority of Inspectors and Superintendents.
5) Conducting DPC for the posts of Assistant Commissioners within 2 months by which time the Cadre Controlling Authorities are required to revise the Seniority Lists of Inspectors and Superintendents as per the above said instructions.
6) In the event of delay in finalising revision of Seniority lists by the Cadre Controlling Authorities, conduct DPCs as suggested by the Eranakulam CAT in para 20 of its order in O.A No. 180/403/2015 dated 15.12.2015.
7) The ad hoc promotions to JTS (Assistant Commissioner) be reviewed and regularisedfrom 01/01/1997 in the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court Order dated 03/8/2011.
8) A time frame may be fixed for getting the ACs promoted under Temporary slots to Organised cadre in symmetric alignment with regularisation of ad hoc promotions from 01/01/1997.
9) Extension may be sought for the 2118 posts of ACs for another 5 years from the date of actual promotion and fill them up only from the stagnating cadres.
Yours faithfully,
-sd/- dt 15.09.2017
[ABHISHEK KAMAL]
CHIEF CONVENOR
SECRETARY GENERAL, AICEIA
M: 9852743525
-sd/- dt 15.09.2017 -sd/- dt 15.09.2017
[R. MANI MOHAN] [BA CHAKRAVARTHI]
JOINT CONVENOR JOINT CONVENOR
SECRETARY GENERAL(AIACEGEO) SECRETARY GENERAL(IRS-IDT-OA) M: 9443063989 M:9080190606
JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE
OF INSPECTOR BASED ASSOCIATIONS OF CBEC
[Representing the Associations of Inspectors, Superintendents and Promotee IRS Officers in CBEC]
MEMORANDUM – 6
PAY MATTER FOR THE INSPECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE BASE
A. Objection regarding recommended Pay Scale of Inspector, Central Excise & Customs:-
The CPC in Para 11.18.60 while dealing with the matter of the pay of Inspector of Central Excise has made the following observations:
“The Commission notes that similar demand had been made before earlier Pay Commissions as well. The V CPC did not consider the two categories comparable. The VI CPC recommended GP 4200 and GP 4600 for Inspectors of Central Excise/Customs/Income Tax and Inspectors of CBI, respectively. Subsequently, the government, in separate orders, upgraded these pay scales to GP 4600 and GP 4800 for Inspectors of Central Excise/Customs/Income Tax and Inspectors of CBI, respectively. It is clear, therefore, that even after this upgradation, the Grade Pay of Inspectors of CBI remained higher than that of Inspectors of Central Excise/Customs/Income Tax. The Commission, therefore, recommends only replacement scales to Inspectors of Central Excise.”
It is worth mentioning here that the analysis made by the commission in above mentioned Para as “Subsequently, the government, in separate orders, upgraded these pay scales to GP 4600 and GP 4800 for Inspectors of Central Excise/Customs/Income Tax and Inspectors of CBI, respectively” is wrong. If the Grade pay of Inspector was already upgraded to 4800 then the recommendation in Para 11.35.20 contradicts itself where the 7th CPC has upgraded the Grade Pay of the Inspector CBI from 4600 to 4800. The relevant Para (Para No. 11.35.20) is reproduced below:-
“In the VI CPC report it has been mentioned that there is a historical parity between the executive cadre of IB and CBI and that such a parity has to be maintained. Since this Commission has approved upgradation of pay of ACIO I and ACIO II in IB, the pay of corresponding ranks in CBI viz., Sub Inspector and Inspector are also recommended to be upgraded similarly. The upgradation has also been recommended keeping in mind the nature of duties performed by these ranks in the organisation. Accordingly the pay of Sub Inspector is upgraded from GP 4200 to GP 4600 and that of Inspector from GP 4600 to GP 4800.”
The tables appended below shows the historical in pay scale of Inspectors of Central Excise with Inspectors of CBI since 3rdCPC, as supplemented by subsequent Court Judgments (CAT Jabalpur Judgment enclosed as Annexure 'A') and Governments orders (NSP-6/9 of F.No. 1/1/2008-IC of the Department of Expenditure enclosed as Annexure 'B'), till date:-
3RDCENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
| POST | RECOMMENDED SCALE | SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT | REMARK |
| INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE | 425-800 FOR ORDINARY GRADE & 550-900 FOR SENIOR GRADE | ORDINARY GRADE WAS MERGED WITH SENIOR GRADE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT | PARITY BETWEEN INSPECTOR CBI & THE INSPECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE EXISTED |
| INSPECTOR CBI | 550-900 |
4TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
| POST | RECOMMENDED SCALE | SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT | REMARK |
| INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE | 1640-2900 | THE CLAIM OF PARITY (IN RESPECT OF Notification dated 22.09.1986) WAS FINALLY FOUND JUSTIFIED BY CAT, JABALPUR BENCH IN OA NO.541/1994 | PARITY BETWEEN INSPECTOR CBI & THE INSPECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE RESTORED |
| INSPECTOR CBI | 1640-2900 | UPGRADED TO 2000-3200 VIDE GOVRNMENT OF INDIA NOTIFICATION DATED 22.09.1986 |
5TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
| POST | RECOMMENDED SCALE | SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT | REMARK |
| INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE | 5500-9000 (REPLACEMENT SCALE FOR 1640-2900) | 6500-10500 VIDE O.M. NO. 6/37/98 DATED 21.04.2004 | PARITY BETWEEN INSPECTOR CBI & THE INSPECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE EXISTED |
| INSPECTOR CBI | 5500-9000 (REPLACEMENT SCALE FOR 1640-2900) | 6500-10500 BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF 5TH CPC |
6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
| POST | RECOMMENDED SCALE | SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT | REMARK |
| INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE | GRADE PAY 4200 | UPGRADED TO GRADE PAY 4600 VIDE O.M. NO. 1/1/2008-IC DATED 13.11.2009 | PARITY BETWEEN INSPECTOR CBI & THE INSPECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE EXISTED |
| INSPECTOR CBI | GRADE PAY 4600 | REMAINED AT THE GRADE PAY 4600 |
7TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION
| POST | RECOMMENDED SCALE | SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT |
| INSPECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE | 44900 (REPLACEMENT SCALE FOR GRADE PAY 4600) | PARITY OF PAY IS DEMANDED |
| INSPECTOR CBI | 47600 (REPLACEMENT SCALE FOR GRADE PAY 4800) |
It is clear from the above, that while making this recommendation commission misrepresented the historical parity between Inspector of CBI & Inspector of Central Excise & Customs on the basis of wrong facts and historical parity to the Inspectors of Central Excise & Customs, with the Inspector CBI, was willfully denied on the basis of the said fictitious facts. This anomalous down-gradation of Cadre in terms of Pay Parity needs immediate redressal.
A.1 Objection regarding issue of stagnation observation made by the Commission:
The observations of the commission made on the issue of stagnation in the group –B level executive officers in Para 11.18.68 is reproduced as below:
“The Commission notes that a study team has been constituted by the CBEC to do exhaustive examination of the stagnation in Group `B’ executive grades and suggest measures. It further notes that as part of the cadre re-structuring exercise of 2013, 2118 temporary posts of Assistant Commissioners in GP ₹5400 (PB-3) have been created, which are to be filled up 100 percent by promotion of Superintendents of Customs (Preventive)/ Central Excise/Appraisers. The Commission observes that this move would provide adequate career progression for these feeder cadres viz., Superintendents and Inspectors of Customs and Central Excise.”
In regard to above observation, it is submitted that the study team was constituted with a time frame to submit its report before 30.09.2014, but till date no report has been submitted by the committee and it is still not known to anybody whether any extension was granted to the study team or it has been scrapped. So, in our view the Commission made conclusions on the basis of abstract suppositions.
Regarding creation of 2118 temporary posts of Assistant Commissioner during the Cadre Restructuring exercise of 2013, the Commission conveniently ignored the fact that these temporary post are in existence till December 2018 only and are insufficient for redressal of the long term systematic problem called stagnation. It is evident from the recommendation itself that the Commission was well aware about the unparallel stagnation in Group-B Cadre in CBEC. The ratio of Group-A: Group-B in CBEC as shown in the Annexure-4 of para 3.83 of the recommendation is 4:67 which is the least across the department as given in said annexure. In place of taking serious note of the situation they just let it go by making a passing remark.
The UPSC vide letter F.No3/8(17)/2015- RR dated 23.09.2015, had written to CBEC that the provisions relating to adhoc promotion to 2118 temporary post in JTS proposed by the Department has not been approved by the Commission. The reasons for the same has also been clearly mentioned by UPSC. These temporary posts are not even considered as being a part of organised Class A service. The Cadre is still confused about the ambiguous situation whether the Cabinet Note or the UPSC Comments will prevail. In backdrop of this the remarks made by the Commission adds the adverse effects on the already stagnated cadre.
In Para 11.18.69 & 11.18.70 the commission declined the demand for increase in the ratio of promotional quota vacancy in the Group-A service the observation of the commission is as below:-
11.18.69 It has been demanded that the Direct Recruitment Quota in the post of Assistant Commissioner may be reduced from 50 percent to 10 percent.
Analysis and Recommendations of the 7th CPC-
11.18.70 The Commission notes that one of the attributes of an Organised Group `A’ Service is that direct recruitment cannot be less than 50 percent. Reduction in the percentage direct recruitment below 50 percent will adversely affect the status of IRS (C&CE) as an Organised Group `A’ Service. In this backdrop, the Commission would not recommend reduction in the Direct Recruitment Quota as demanded by the Association.”
But the commission willfully ignored the fact that in Department of Post, the Group-A recruitment rules provides 75% quota for promotional channel and it has already been in the notice of the Commission as in Para 11.8.19 it has taken note of that. Relevant copy of the Recruitment Rule for Indian Postal Service is enclosed herewith as Annexure 'C'.
A.2. Comparison with other Central organisations:-
The observation of the Commission in Para 11.18.63 is reproduced below:-
‘11.18.63 : This Commission agrees with the views of VI CPC on the matter of parity. It also notes that the post of Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, which is in the GP 5400 (PB-3) is a promotional post of Superintendent of CBEC. Placing the posts of Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise in GP 5400 (PB-3) will disturb the existing hierarchical structure. The Commission, therefore, recommends only normal replacement pay level for Superintendents of Central Excise/Customs and Appraisers of CBEC.’
The pay Commission in Para 11.8.21 regarding the enhancement of GP to Rs 4,600/- in respect of Inspector of Post has made the following observation., which is also reproduced below:-
‘11.8.21 The Commission has noted that the VI CPC had placed Inspector (Posts) at par with Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC. Subsequently the inspectors of CBDT/CBEC were elevated to GP 4600. The Commission has further noted that Inspector (Posts) and Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC are recruited through the same combined graduate level examination. The Commission, therefore, recommends that Inspector (Posts) who are presently in the GP 4200 should be upgraded to GP 4600. With this upgradation, Inspector (Posts) shall come to lie in an identical grade pay as that of their promotion post of Assistant Superintendent of Posts (ASPOs). A higher grade would thus need to be extended to ASPOs. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that the promotional post of ASPOs be placed in the next higher GP 4800 and further, the post of Superintendent (Posts), which is presently in the GP 4800, be moved up to GP 5400 (PB-2)’
The Commission recommendation places the Superintendent of Central Excise at the Grade Pay level of Rs 4,800/- whereas the Superintendent of Post is awarded Grade Pay of Rs 5,400/-. In Para 5.1.5 the Commission mentions the following , ‘The approach of the Commission has been to ensure that the emolument structure is in consonance with the nature of work, role and responsibilities and accountability involved at various levels of the hierarchy in the Government of India’. It is to be noted that the Inspector and Superintendent of Central Excise are officers who have statutory power to effect arrest of offenders. They are trained on operations of Arms and Ammunitions. The Induction training of the officers have swimming and also martial arts training. This has been imparted to train the officers to meet the challenges they might face in carrying out the responsibility. It is also to be appreciated that many Inspectors have also lost their lives on the line of duty, while protecting the economic interest of the nation. The VIth CPC may have recommended the parity, but there has never been parity between these posts. In view of the enhancement of the proposed enhancement of Grade Pay to Inspector of Post, Inspector of Central Excise also ought to be given enhancement of Grade Pay commensurate with the responsibilities of the post.
It is also to be noted that the Section Officers and Accounts officers of the organised accounts cadre having Grade Pay of Rs 4,800/- is given, non functional upgradation to Rs 5,400/- in PB-3 after completion of 4 years in the grade, whereas Superintendent of Central Excise, having GP of Rs 4,800/- is given non functional upgradation to Rs 5,400/- in PB-2 after completion of 4 years.
Conclusion: The Grade Pay of Inspectors to be enhanced to Rs 4,800/-. The Superintendents of Central Excise to be enhanced to 5,400/- in Pay Band 2 and after 4 years be given non functional upgradation to Pay Band-3.
A.3. Risk Allowance:The Pay of Inspector of Central Excise, Inspector (Preventive Officer/Examiner) & Inspector of Narcotics were revised to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 21.04.2004 to bring them on par with the Inspectors of IB and CBI etc. In the VI CPC, the Inspectors of IB and CBI have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 i.e. PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4600. It is an acknowledged fact that Inspectors of IB and CBI and the Inspectors of Revenue Department carry out identical functions [DO Letter No. DOF: A-26011/5/94-Ad.II-A(PC) dated 27.10.1995 of the Jt. Secretary (Admin), Ministry of Finance has been enclosed as Annexure-D]. While parity in pay scales was brought about by the Government in 2004, Inspectors of IB and CBI were placed on a higher pedestal in the matter of allowances and other benefits like risk allowance etc. It is requested that similar benefits be allowed to the Inspectors of Revenue Department.
B. Seeking withdrawal of SLP in respect of granting of GP of Rs. 5400 in P.B-2 on completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800 in P.B-2
The meagre solace for the stagnating cadre of Inspector/Superintendent community in CBEC has been the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB 2 on completion of 4 years of regular service in GP of Rs. 4800 for the post of Superintendent of Central Excise as per the Revised Pay Rules, 2008. GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 was to be granted on Non Functional basis after regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2 for Group B Officers.
As per the above scheme, the Inspectors of Central Excise who are Group B Officers w.e.f 11.12.2003 as per CBEC Circular in F.No. 18013/100/2003.AD.III.B dated 24.10.2007, are entitled for the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on completion of 4 years regular service in GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2.
However, CBEC vide F.No.A.26017/98/2008-Ad.II.A dated 11.2.2009, communicated the clarification of Department of Expenditure that the GP of Rs. 5400 could be given on completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 after regular promotion and not on account of financial upgradation due to ACP.
The above stand of the Expenditure Department militates against the very concept of ACP/MACP which has been implemented with the sole objective of giving relief to those who are affected by stagnation. Thus, when a financial upgradation has been granted in lieu of promotion, the consequential relief that a promotion would have entailed also ought to have been extended.
Further, in the entire Country, there could not be another cadre like that of the Inspector of Central Excise presently Superintendent of Central Excise who have faced stagnation at the level of this Pay Scale.
Whenever the matter has been agitated, the Courts have also ruled in favour of extending the benefit to the employees in the following judicial decisions:
(1) Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 6.9.2010 in W.P. No. 13225 of 2010 in the case of M. Subramaniam of Centrl Excise.
(2) Judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 8.12.2016 in OP (CAT).No. 276 of 2010 (Z) in the case of S. Ashoka Narayanan of Central Excise.
(3) In respect of case of Shri. A. Shivakumar and Shri. P. Mallachari in the Department of Space, the SLP Nos 27687/2016 and 34238/2016 of the the Government had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the benefit extended to the petitioners.
Hence it is requested that the matter may once again be brought to the notice of the DOPT impressing upon them the need to grant the GP of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 on completion of continuous service in GP of Rs. 4800 PB-2 irrespective of whether it was by promotion or ACP,because ACP/MACP is given only because there were no posts available for promotion and when promotion could not be granted to the individuals for no fault of theirs. This would pave way for withdrawal of the SLP No. 15627/2011 filed against the Judgement dated 6.9.2010 of the Madras High Court (converted into Civil Appeal No. 8883/2011) and the benefit of the GP NFU be extended to all those who had got the ACP in GP 4800.
B. Grant of GP of Rs. 6600 in PB3 (6thCPC) on completion of 30 years of service to all Inspectors who joined after 01/01/1982 by seeking suitable amendment to the MACP Scheme (2009).
C. Seeking notional fixation of pay for Inspectors and Superintendents from 01.01.96.
The pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise, Superintendents of Central Excise and their equivalent cadres were revised as under vide Expenditure Department’s O.M. No.6/37/98-IC dated 21st April, 2004:-
| Post | Existing Scale | Revised Scale |
| Income Tax Officer | Rs.6500-10500 | Rs.7500-12000 |
| Appraiser (CentralExcise) | Rs.6500-10500 | Rs.7500-12000 |
| Superintendent (Central Excise) | Rs.6500-10500 | Rs.7500-12000 |
| Superintendent (Customs Preventive) | Rs.6500-10500 | Rs.7500-12000 |
| Income Tax Inspector | Rs.5500-9000 | Rs.6500-10500 |
| Inspector (Central Excise) | Rs.5500-9000 | Rs.6500-10500 |
| Examiner (Customs) | Rs.5500-9000 | Rs.6500-10500 |
| Preventive Officer (Customs) | Rs.5500-9000 | Rs.6500-10500 |
The above revision of scales was done on the basis of the findings of the 5th CPC as mandated by the Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur in its order dated 24.2.1995. The 5th CPC had placed the Inspectors of Central Excise, Income Tax etc on par with the Inspectors of CBI and IB, though all the above category of Officers were held not to be comparable with the Inspectors of Police in Delhi, etc.
Though the 5thCPC took effect on 1.1.1996, the above revision of scales on the basis of the 5thCPC recommendations were granted only with a prospective effect from 21.04.2004.
As a result, the seniors in the cadre of Inspectors and presently Superintendents who had joined before 2004 did not get the actual benefit of this pay revision.
It may be noted that in the case of similar revision of pay scales on the basis of 5th Pay Commission recommendation itself, the following category of Officers in other departments had been granted notional fixation of pay from 1.1.1996:
i. Accounts Officers in the Department of Telecom
ii. Superintending Engineers in P&T, Electrical and Architectural Wing
iii. Draftsman Grades I & II in Dept of Telecom
iv. Inspectors of Post Offices/Railway Mail Services
v. Staff Car Drivers
vi. School Teachers.
vii. Junior and Senior Hindi Translators.
viii. Assistant Manager, Mail Motor Services
ix. Departmental Librarians.
x. Organised Accounts Department.
xi. Divisional Accountants/Divisional Accounts Officers of IA&AD
xii. Organised Group A Services.
During the proceedings before the CAT, Jabalpur in the above said case, the CBEC had stated in writing that the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of Central Excise were more arduous and hazardous than the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of CBI, etc. Further, there was no change in the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise and equivalent cadres, on 21.04.2004, requiring a revision of pay scale only from that date.
Hence, in the interest of the officers of this department, in whose favour findings had been given by the 5th CPC, it is requested that the CBIC should take up with the Expenditure Department the need to grant at least notional fixation of the revised pay from 1.1.1996, if not with arrears.
Yours faithfully,
-sd/- dt 15.09.2017
[ABHISHEK KAMAL]
CHIEF CONVENOR
SECRETARY GENERAL, AICEIA
M: 9852743525
-sd/- dt 15.09.2017 -sd/- dt 15.09.2017
[R. MANIMOHAN] [BA CHAKRAVARTHI]
JOINT CONVENOR JOINT CONVENOR
SECRETARY GENERAL (AIACEGEO) SECRETARY GENERAL(IRS-IDT-OA) M: 9443063989 M:9080190606
