Brief submitted to DOPT - Service Profile of Superintendents for Cadre Restructuring

SPECIAL STEPS REQUESTED FOR DPC TO AC POSTS

MEETING WITH DG & ADG, DGHRM AND MEMBER (ADMN) ON PROMOTIONS TO AC POSTS

Dear friends and comrades,

          

           A delegation of our All India Office Bearers called on the ADG, DGHRM, DG, DGHRM and Member (Admn) yesterday (21.10.2019).

          

             The main agenda of our meeting was regarding issue of promotions to the AC Cadre. 

The gist of the outcome is as follows:

On promotions:

There is no certainty regarding Cadre Restructuring. 

For buttressing our demand for separate Group B Service, we have to submit our detailed proposals with the structure in each zone.

We pointed out to the ADG, DGHRD that we had already suggested that wherever stays had been granted by any Court or CAT, the department may give an undertaking to the Courts that as many number of vacancies that are involved in each case could be kept aside to be filled up subject to the outcome of the OAs.  The department stand was that they had filed affidavit to the effect that they will conduct adhoc DPC and regularize the same subject to the outcome of the OAs.  We reiterated that the Judges/Members of the Tribunals would be more inclined to view the matter of promotion of others with sympathy, if specifically we said that out of the huge vacancies, the required posts would be kept reserved to be filled up based on the outcome of the OAs. 

We further expressed our view that now that the SLP in Bharathan case had been dismissed and since the AISL stands quashed as per the judgment of the CAT, Madras, upheld by the Hon’ble HC and Hon’ble Supreme Court, early steps to undertake the exercise of recasting the AISL as per the Parmar judgment could expedite things. We also stated our feeling that if the Parmar judgment was implemented, many of the petitioners in other cases in Jabalpur, Chennai and Ahmadabad would mostly be covered and could pave way for settlement of all those cases.  We also suggested that Parmar could be implemented in stages, starting with the promotion batch of 2002 (which was large) and the subsequent batches could be covered in due course.  We also pointed out that most of the Zones have kept ready the revised seniority list and had not effected them only due to the SLP in Bharathan case being pending.  The DG, DGHRD felt that even then conducting of review DPCs at the zones and then correcting the AISL will take some time.  From his experience, he said it could take around 6 months.

While there was no information about DPCs for the regular posts of AC, they stated that promotions to the temporary posts of ACs could be issued only if roadblocks in the form of three court cases in Jabalpur, Chennai and Ahmadabad are removed.

It was pointed out that as per our information the Contempt petitions in Jabalpur CAT had been withdrawn and that the department appeal against a CAT order in Chennai had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.  But the Member felt that all cases have to be withdrawn.

The Member (Admn) was of view that it was difficult for the department to implement Parmar entirely.  We pointed out that even before the Principal Bench of the CAT, the department had stated that they were in the process of implementing Parmar. The Board is however getting the view of DOPT and Law Ministry on the issue regarding filing of review petition or otherwise in respect of the Bharathan case.

The AISL from 1.1.2007 could be issued only after taking a decision in the above matters.

On in rem implementation of Subramaniam case:

Either we will have to wait for Expenditure to accept the proposal of the Board to give it in rem (which no one knows when) or the AIACEGEO should file a case with list of all members (throughout India) yet to be covered, in any of the CAT/HC orders in the issue.

With fraternal greetings,

R. Manimohan

Request for contributions for fighting the injustice to the Promotee Officers

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS (Representing the Superintendents of C.Ex& CGST) [Recognised vide CBEC Letter F. No. B 12017/10/2006-Ad IV A dated 21/01/2008] Secretary General’s Office: 6/7 A.T.D. Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641018. Email id: aisacbitc@gmail.com &manimohanr66@gmail.com

President Shishir Agnihotri Vice Presidents: Ashok K Bansal M. A. Jithendra Kousik Roy S.K.Bundela P.T.Gaidhani Vinod Sharma H.S. Bajaj R.R. Thripathy Ashish Pathak R. Soundari Secretary General R. Manimohan (09443063989) Asst Secy General A.S. Kundu Joint Secretaries Malkit Singh Hemant Ghosal S.K. Yadav D. Samantaray Anil Bhokare A.G. Dhoble C. J. Thomas T. Elanchezhiyan Samir Kumar Sinha Core Committee: Tirthankar Pyne Ajit Kumar K.G. G. Srinath Sanjay Srinivasan Office Secretary: K.R.Dinesh Kumar

CIRCULAR - 2/2019 16.10.2019 Dear friends and Comrades,           The department has filed yet another SLP in respect of 14 WPs decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in a common order dated 27.04.2016 involving Promotee officers from Jaipur.            The Hon’ble High Court in the above impugned Order had upheld the order of the Hon’ble CAT, Jaipur Bench dated 10.12.2014 wherein it had been held that the pay of the senior has to be stepped up to that of the junior, if the junior gets a higher pay by virtue of ACP/MACP.  The bar as per the ACP/MACP scheme was only to grant the pay scale and not the pay, it was clarified.           The above CAT order was in line with a previous decided case in the matter of Ashok Kumar Vs UOI & Others in OA No. 156/JK/2009 which was already upheld by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (CWP No 12894 of 2010) as well as by the Apex Court by dismissal of SLP CC 7278 of 2011.            In an already decided matter, when the petitioners got favourable orders from the Tribunal and was once again upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, filing of SLP all over again was total waste of public money as well as putting the individuals to unnecessary financial and mental strain.           It appears that the strategy of the department in filing a fresh SLP is to get it admitted and in the CA, get an order in favour of the Department.           Hence, it was decided in the Convention held at Kolkatta that AIACEGEO should help by taking up the issue to get the SLP dismissed, by engaging the services of a Senior Advocate.           From our experience in fighting a case in the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Bharathan & Ors, it is observed that we should be prepared to face at least 6 hearings and hence will have to be prepared with an amount of at least Rs. 25 lakhs.  Therefore as per the decision of the Kolkatta Convention, we are requesting for donations towards taking up this litigation.  The litigation fund may be collected from willing members by the Unit Officer Bearers and remitted to our Association Account.  The details of remittance may kindly be sent to me directly by email.           With regards, Fraternally yours, R. Manimohan

Suggestions on CGHS

Dear friends and Comrades,

Suggestions have been invited regarding revamping CGHS.  The letter in this regard is reproduced below.  Kindly send your suggestions by EMAIL TO :aisacbitc@gmail.com.  PL DO NOT SEND BY WHATSAPP SINCE IT CANNOT BE CONSOLIDATED.

With regards,

R. Manimohan
Secretary General

Ban on purchase of vehicles for operational requirements lifted

All Units may bring the above matter to the knowledge of their respective Commissionerate/Zonal authorities so that demand for purchase of vehicles and appointment of drivers is pursued from all levels.  Only by getting back the departmental vehicles we can expect vehicles to be available for office work.

WELCOME DELHI UNIT

Dear Friends and Comrades,

The Delhi Unit has decided to join us formally.  This was communicated to us by the GS Shri Pranav Shekar.  There are certain persons who have tried to portray the Delhi Unit in a negative light by giving an impression that they were for post or power.

Nothing is farther from truth as the events that took place in the past two years would reveal.

The new committee of the Delhi Unit took over after elections in 2017 almost after 8 years.  The new committee immediately on taking over wrote to the Board that they were neutral and their DDOs could not be taken into account of neither groups seeking recognition.  The new committee of Delhi continued to interact with both groups to know where the real majority lay.  They had been told by certain people placed in Delhi that all the units were divided and that this group formed in the Chennai Convention was only a 'splinter group'.  So they were not able to form any opinion.  In the meanwhile, they attended an EC of the other group held at Allahabad and undertook to try for unification of both groups.  Accordingly they spoke to us at Patna and also conveyed our stand and their own stand to the other group.  However, nothing came out of their efforts.

Hence, they decided to attend our Convention at Kolkatta as well as the meeting that was being convened at Jodhpur, to assess the real strength.  

When they went to Jodhpur, after attending the Kolkatta Convention, they came to know that what all the Delhi sources, close to the other side had been telling about the strength in the ground was not correct.  They realised that the majority was with the AIB elected at Chennai.  Even then they had to fight hard to ensure that no ACs would be office bearers.  There were only 12 official units (38 delegates) at Jodhpur against 25 which came to Kolkatta.  Out of this 12 also, many units were not having subscription deductions.  Apart from their own unit which had 12 delegates, at Jodhpur, all others were either ACs, Retired Persons or individuals without authorisation from their own units.

On seeing the condition, the Delhi Unit decided to contest for the SG so that unification of both factions could be done easily.  When the other side demanded that the Delhi Unit give a letter formally supporting them, the Delhi Unit said that it was nor required because they had been invited and even all units on the other side had been invited and hence no such declaration of support was called for.  But they CHANGED THE ELECTION OFFICER and brought in Shri. Sushil Pareek as the Election Officer to reject the nomination of Sh. Pranav Shekar.  The order for rejection was published by them after 17 days of the event, to create an impression that Shri. Pranav Shekar was for post/power.

In the meanwhile, the Delhi Unit had already communicated to us their sense of despondency over their failure to bring about unification.  Ultimately, they decided to join us sensing that the majority clearly lies on this side and hence unification could be achieved only by strengthening the AIB with clear majority and acceptability of Superintendents all over India.

We have gladly welcomed them into our fold.  Association will definitely be strengthened by their active participation.

Let us march forward together in the interest of the Cadre.

-R. Manimohan,

Secretary General,

AIACEGEO

Why Hyderabad need not want Parmar implementation NOW

The above is a Daily Order in a CIVIL APPEAL before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

The issue pertains to fixation of seniority of DRs in Hyderabad Zone - not as per the date of joining, but as per the date of recruitment. 

In the above proceedings, the Counsel representing the Direct Recruit Inspectors has argued that the fixation of Seniority of the DRs is covered by the decision in NR Parmar.

Thus, the DRs of Hyderabad Zone are already ahead of their counterparts in other zones and hence they do not require NR Parmar implementation now.

IT IS FOR OTHER UNITS TO UNDERSTAND...

THIS IS ANOTHER CLASSIC CASE WHERE THE RESPECTED CBIC (CBEC) HAS NOT BOTHERED TO MAINTAIN UNIFORMITY IN CADRE MANAGEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ZONES THUS PERPETUATING INEQUALITY.