Dear friends and comrades,
The Action Taken Report placed before the All India Executive Committee Meeting of this Association online yesterday (11.10.2020) is posted here, as approved by the house.
It is to be specially mentioned that
(i) the President Com. Shishir Agnihothri who had been hospitalised the day before yesterday for a small procedure to be conducted, had attended the online meeting from his Hospital bed and
(ii) Com. Jithendra from Bangalore, who is recovering from COVID, in spite of his discomfort, attended the meeting online.
The above points are specifically stated here so that members understand the seriousness and dedication with which the Office Bearers undertake this work. This is apart from the normal office work. Hence, the members are requested to keenly follow the blogs, communications, etc and give their cooperation to the Association to their maximum. As a saying goes, 'we cannot expect Office bearers to become Hanumanjis and bring Ramrajya'. We, all of us have to be prepared to do our bit towards that.
Kindly go through the ATR and the communications pertaining to the decisions of the AIEC meeting to be put out in the coming days.
with fraternal regards,
R. Manimohan,
Secretary General
ACTION TAKEN REPORT
PLACED BEFORE THE ONLINE AIEC
OF AIACEGEO HELD ON 11.10.2020
Dear friends and comrades,
Welcome you all for this AIEC meeting being conducted
online due to COVID. Let us begin by
observing two minutes silence in memory of all our freedom fighters, martyrs
for the cause of Trade Union and Government employees movements, the public
servants in various departments who have died on duty fighting the pandemic,
all our colleagues who passed away, either due to COVID or due to other reasons,
and their family members who have succumbed to the pandemic in various parts of
the country.
2. When we met at Nagpur for the previous AIEC meeting, we had
some hope that due to the change of guard in the Board, the cadre could expect
some improvements in the promotional avenues.
The then Member (Admn) very shortly assumed charge as our Chairman and
started off his very first weekly letter laying emphasis on the priority to
hold the Group ‘B’ to ‘A’ promotions.
3. In the meanwhile the pandemic struck and the entire country
went into lock down. Our members have
risen to the occasion, both in respect of executing their official functions as
well as contributing to the social cause.
During the discussion as to whether we will ask for a one day’s salary
or three days salary as contribution to PMRF, some units felt that one days’
salary could be contributed to the PMRF and the remaining could be done to the
respective CMRF since the need to take care of health issues was predominantly
with the state Governments. Accordingly,
we wrote to the Chairman, CBIC, requesting him to give a call to contribute to
the PMRF so that we could ask our members to immediately contribute. While as
members of this Association we contributed to the PM’s Fund as per the call of
the Chairman, individual members as well as units of this Association have
contributed to the CM’s Relief Fund of their respective states and also have
contributed to other social organisations in their locality involved in
pandemic relief works. Many of our
members have also been involved in relief work in the field itself. We salute the spirit of our members and
congratulate them for the efforts. We
wanted to carry the stories of the involvement of our members in such voluntary
welfare activities all around the country on our blog. But later on, a predominant feeling emerged that
though such information could enthuse more to join such work, it could look
like seeking publicity in the face of such an unprecedented pandemic. So we have dropped that idea.
4. We were one of the first Associations to write to the Hon’ble
Prime Minister seeking facilities like work from home and working on rotation
basis, when the lock down was announced. We also requested for relaxation of
dates for payment of taxes, relaxation in leave rules,cancellation of exams for
school children other than public exams, giving incentives for health workers,
etc. Many of our suggestions came to be effected. We were also the first to protest when the RS
issued a circular for compulsory deduction from our salary, with negative
willingness alone to be expressed.
Subsequently, the said circular was withdrawn.
5. Though we whole heartedly contributed to the PM’s fund, we
have registered our protest regarding the freezing of DA. We have even suggested that alternatively, it
may be credited to our GPF accounts with a moratorium period and that retiring
employees and pensioners should be exempt from this. The government is yet to take a positive view
on this issue. We hope that at least the
arrears would be credited to the GPF and pension calculations would be altered
accordingly.
6. During the lock down, we were working from home. Though the
department has not given us any facility like computer/lap top, internet,
mobiles and data cards, we have used our personal resources and equipped
ourselves to work from home. It is a matter of record that in spite of the lock
down and work from home, the activities of the department were carried out
smoothly and on all fronts our targets in various areas of work had been
accomplished. During that period, we had
repeatedly requested the Board to supply our members with laptops, mobiles, etc
along with data card, internet etc so that the work from home efficiency is
increased. Though the Chairman had promised
to do so, it is yet to be accomplished. Recently, the new Member (Admn) has
assured to get these done at the earliest.
7. In the Nagpur AIEC we had passed a resolution demanding supply
of smart phones for office work and had according to the resolution also given
a call to the members to withdraw their personal mobiles from office work. Units are requested to intimate to this AIEC
regarding what percentage of their members had adhered to this call.
8. However, due to the lock down and work from home, we had
suspended the call for withdrawing mobiles.
We have not yet restored the call since in many parts of the country
work from home still continues. The DOPT
has issued an OM on 07.10.2020 reiterating only partial attendance below the
rank of Under Secretary. This meeting
shall take a call regarding the future approach in the issue.
9. On the lines of demand of mobiles and lap tops, we had also
rejected the proposal of the Board to purchase two wheelers for our field
formations and instead insisted that four wheelers should be supplied. It is
learnt that the proposal for supply of lap tops is in its final stages awaiting
formal concurrence from the Ministry.
Regarding the supply of four wheelers, the Department of Logistics is
understood to be reconsidering their earlier decision regarding supply of two
wheelers, based on our demand. In respect of supply of Mobile phones, the
Member (Admn) has assured to pursue it favourably and get it done at the
earliest.
10. Since on the front of DPC nothing was seen to be happening, we
passed a resolution on line and submitted it to the Board on 01.06.2020. The same is reproduced below for records:
“RESOLUTION OF AIEC OF AIACEGEO (BY ONLINE
CONSULTATION)
SEEKING REDISIGNATION OF SUPERINTENDENTS OF C.
EX/CGST
WHO ARE ALREADY ON PAY SCALE OF GROUP ‘A’
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS
The All India Executive Committee
of the All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers
(AIACEGEO) takes note of the fact that several
Superintendents of Central Excise are retiring every month, after putting in a
service of more than 35 years and yet without being able to get even a second
promotion in their careers.
On
the other hand there are more than 2000 posts of Assistant/Deputy Commissioners
lying vacant as on date.
During the same time, the
Recruitment Rules for the grade of Superintendent has been amended to envisage
Inspectors with 2 or even lesser years of service to be promoted as
Superintendents. Thus the post of
Inspector has become effectively only a probation for becoming Superintendents.
In effect it would mean that all those who are in the present grade of
Superintendents and retire only as Superintendents get no promotion at
all.
Presently Inspectors with 3 years
of experience or less have already been promoted as Superintendents in various
parts of the Country. But those who
joined as Inspectors in 1984 and 1985 are retiring only as Superintendents.
This state of affairs is causing severe anguish and pain in the cadre, due to
the reason that there appears to be no respect or regard for service rendered
by these Senior Officers to the department.
While
DPCs and promotions have been ordered in all other cadres in the CBIC, the
Group ‘B’ to ‘A’ Promotions alone could not be done.
It
is this cadre which has been the backbone of the entire department, helping it
change with times, augmenting revenue by onerous field work, bringing laurels
in implementation of ever changing legislations and systems and yet has been
the most neglected cadre in the CBIC.
The
litigations and disputes over the All India Seniority List (AISL) in the grade
of Superintendents of Central Excise could be one major reason for this
impasse.
The Chennai Bench of the CAT has
in the case of Bharathan and Others ‘quashed the seniority list published by the department without
applying the N.R. Parmar ratio and the department was directed to draft a
seniority list following the N.R. Parmar case and also the order in OA 741 and
692/2013 of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal which was confirmed by Mumbai High
Court, by giving seniority to the applicants from the date of initiation of
recruitment process’. This has been upheld by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras in appeal as well as in review.
In the SLPs filed by the department in this case on the main ground
whether Parmar would have effect for those who joined prior to 1986 also, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP stating that they found no reason
to interfere with the order of the High Court.
The decision in Bharathan and Others has also become final.
While certain zones like
Chandigarh and Delhi have revised the Zonal Seniority Lists of Inspectors as
per Parmar, it is yet to be carried over to the AISL of Superintendents. In other Zones, this work is pending at various
stages due to the SLPs filed by the Department.
The Board has issued a letter in this regard on 05.05.2020 intimating to
the zones that the issue has reached finality with the dismissal of the SLPs
filed by the department. However, the
process of recasting of seniority would take some time.
The previous DPC in April 2018
had been conducted on an adhoc basis with the permission of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by obtaining an Interim Order in the SLPs filed in Bharathan Case,
specifically stating that the DPCs are subject to the outcome of the decisions
in the SLPs. That DPC will also, therefore, now have to be reviewed after
recasting the AISL before proceeding for DPC for the present vacancies.
AISL
for the period from 01.01.2007 also has not yet been issued. To notify the same, give time for objections
and corrections and then issue the final list also some time will be taken.
In the meanwhile, the other cases
pertaining to Reservation/Catch-up etc are also pending before the Hon’ble HC
of Jabalpur, where the Department has sought a stay over orders of the CAT
Jabalpur.
In
the above scenario, this Association feels that there is an urgent necessity
calling for an administrative decision by the Board to fill up the posts of the
AC/DCs lying vacant as on date because the very purpose of getting 2118
temporary posts of ACs, for reducing stagnation and for functional requirements
is getting defeated and the cadre is also extremely demoralised.
Hence
this AIEC would like to suggest to the CBIC to re-designate all Superintendents
of Central Excise who are on the pay scale of 5400 PB-3 (present Level 10) as
Assistant Commissioners, since they are already on the pay scale of the said
post, and to fill up the vacant posts in each zone, by giving the charge to
these re-designated officers as per the seniority in reaching that scale in the
respective zones. For others who do not have
charge, functional arrangements could be made within the respective zones based
on revenue, level of responsibility, etc, like in the Income Tax Department,
whereby they would report directly to
JC/ADC.
Those who could not get the third
MACP due to being promotees, but are seniors to those covered by the above
scheme also could be re-designated as in the senior junior clause in the
Superintendents RRs.
This
will ensure that all those officers who have completed 14 years of service as
Superintendents and/or 26 years from becoming Inspectors will at least become
Assistant Commissioners. [Scenario in respect of those who joined prior
to 1996: Inspectors are placed in 4600 PB-2. First ACP granted after 12 years
or promotion as Superintendent will place them on 4800 PB-2. On completion of 4 years in 4800-PB-2 they
will be granted 5400 PB-2 (As per Subramaniam case). In the third MACP on completion of 10 years
from reaching 5400 PB-2 they reach 5400 PB-3.
Before implementation of Subramaniam case, those who completed 30 years
of service from Inspector Grade would reach 5400 PB-3, where they had not been
promoted within 12 years from date of joining as Inspector.]
Compared to the fact that in
Customs those who have put in lesser periods of service from the cadre of
Examiners and Preventive Officers (recruited through the same SSC Exam along
with the Inspectors of Central Excise) have become Assistant Commissioners long
back, and some of them have even reached the level of Joint Commissioners, the
above proposal would be a fair one, without incurring any extra expenditure on
the re-designation. This will also put
to rest to a very great extent, the in-equalities in promotional avenues of
Officers of same process of recruitment within the CBIC itself but in the
different zones, which has been one of the major reasons for several
litigations in the department and yet could not be solved till date due to various
pressure groups working in different directions.
This
proposal has the following justifications and benefits:
(1)
The
stalemate due to dispute over AISL could be overcome immediately.
(2)
Since
the benefit of the pay scale has accrued by MACP there cannot be any dispute
for the eligibility.
(3)
Since
these officers are already on the pay scale meant for ACs, it is expenditure
neutral.
(4)
The
department is benefitted because their services could be utilised at the higher
post which is lying vacant.
(5)
Already
many State GST Departments have upgraded/re-designated their CTOs as ACs.
(6)
This
is in keeping with the stagnation removal and functional requirement concepts
for which the temporary posts of ACs were created in 2014.
(7)
This
will also ensure a smooth transition into the Branch B Service as recommended
by the DGHRM for the ensuing Cadre Restructuring.
The
AIEC of AIACEGEO sincerely feels that if the CBIC could order this
re-designation, it will be a milestone achievement in the personnel management
history of the Board. It can bring to an end most of the litigations in the
cadre. For the Inspector born cadre of Central Excise which has hitherto been
neglected, this will give a great solace by paving way for alleviating the
painfully long stagnation and its consequent demoralisation and
depression. Hence it is unanimously
resolved to request the CBIC to consider the above proposal favourably and
implement it at the earliest.”
11. Immediately, the Chairman announced a video conference with the
Staff Associations representing Group B officers in CEX/GST and Customs on
10.06.2020.
12. We conducted a video conference of our AIEC on 09.06.2020 regarding
our stand to be taken in the said meeting.
Accordingly this Association was represented by the President and
Secretary General and we reiterated our demand for immediate promotions whether
by DPC or by re-designation as suggested by us, if the court cases are seen as
impediments. The Chairman sought a letter from the Associations on the subject
so that DPC could be conducted.
13. We conducted another AIEC meeting on 10.06.2020 itself to inform
about the proceedings in the meeting with the Chairman and also to decide on
the letter to be submitted. Accordingly
we submitted our letter on 11.06.2020 after online approval, stating as below:
“Resolution passed by the AIEC of AIACEGEO
on 11.06.2020 by online consultation
“The All India
Executive Committee of the AIACEGEO welcomes the initiative of the Chairman,
CBIC and his team in opening discussions on the issue of Group ‘B’ to Group ‘A’
Promotions in the CBIC.
As sought for by the
Chairman, CBIC, this Association hereby resolves to extend its formal consent
to the CBIC and urges CBIC to hold the DPC for promotion from Superintendent to
Assistant Commissioner in the month of June 2020 itself without any further
delay as per Rules, regulations and Court decisions, and also in a similar
manner to issue the AISL from 1.1.2007 and conduct further DPCs for all vacant
posts in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner within December 2020.
This Association
reiterates its stand that the 2118 temporary posts of ACs which are not covered
by the Group ‘A’ Recruitment Rules, are to be filled up only from Central
Excise/CGST on grounds of Stagnation and functional requirements for which
purposes they were actually created. If
there is any counter claim on this score from the Customs side, the combined
length of service from the Inspector or equivalent grade could be taken into
consideration for promotion to these temporary posts.
The ratio between the
Central Excise and Customs in promotion to Group A for regular posts of ACs
also as per the Recruitment Rules have to be reworked in terms of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s in Dudeja case in such a manner that it will
ensure equity between the three feeder cadres and thus stop the humiliation by
way of Officers far junior from Customs or other zones becoming supervisory
officers of officers who are their natural seniors having been selected through
the same process of recruitment/examination.
In addition to the
above efforts of conducting DPC, this Association reiterates its earlier
resolution (communicated to the Chairman, CBIC, vide Ref. No. CBIC/18/2020
dated 01.06 2020 ) that only a re-designation of the Officers who have got 5400
PB 3, and those who have put in equivalent number of years of service from the
date of joining as Inspector, as Assistant Commissioners will give real solace
to the really senior Officers (with long years of service rendered) who are
forced to retire without even getting their second promotion in the careers and
also bridge the inequalities within the cadre and department due to zonal
imbalances and differences due to non-implementation of the cadre regulations
in all zones uniformly. This Association
hopes that the Board under the present Chairman would sincerely try to get this
proposal which is expenditure neutral and really beneficial to the entire
Inspector borne cadre, implemented at the earliest, either simultaneous with
the DPC proceedings or even if there are impediments for the DPC, separately,
since this could pave way for overcoming regional imbalances and several
litigations related to seniority and also enable filling up of all vacancies in
the cadre of ACs. Further, this proposal
will also ensure that services of Officers in CGST with vast experience in
Central Excise, Service Tax and GST can be properly used in the implementation
of GST, in maximizing revenue and also to stop their humiliation to work under
supervisory officers who are their natural juniors.
This AIEC further
puts on record that continued interference by an outfit which is not having the
backing of even 10% membership of the cadre, headed by a non-member of this
cadre found inadmissible by the Board itself, in our cadre issues, should be
stopped by the Board so that the good intentions of the Chairman and his team
in CBIC towards this much neglected cadre gets properly conveyed.”
14. Subsequently, vide our letter dated 22.06.2020, we also brought
to the notice of the Board, the anomalous situation in respect of zonal
seniority lists leading to litigations and reiterating that apart from DPC by
normal course, re-designation also is required to take care of the interests of
the really seniors who have put in more service but do not even find a place in
the AISL and would retire without even their second promotion in the entire
career. The following table along with detailed explanation regarding the
problem was submitted for their better understanding:
“
|
Inspector
batch (As per the zonal lists)
|
No of
Supdts as in 12/2019
|
Serving
Supdts to be promoted as AC if DPC covers
|
No of
Supdts still out of AISL
|
Cumulative
total of No left out
|
|
First
400 Supdts as per AISL
|
First
800 Supdts as per AISL
|
Entire
AISL upto 31.12.2006 (1191 Nos)
|
|
1983
|
3
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
1984
|
50
|
7
|
9
|
13
|
37
|
37
|
|
1985
|
248
|
28
|
32
|
100
|
148
|
185
|
|
1986
|
103
|
8
|
13
|
27
|
76
|
261
|
|
1987
|
145
|
12
|
15
|
40
|
105
|
366
|
|
1988
|
135
|
17
|
18
|
58
|
77
|
443
|
|
1989
|
410
|
94
|
101
|
140
|
270
|
713
|
|
1990
|
528
|
148
|
153
|
200
|
328
|
1041
|
|
1991
|
847
|
68
|
77
|
121
|
726
|
1767
|
|
1992
|
1418
|
10
|
218
|
274
|
1144
|
2911
|
|
1993
|
1300
|
2
|
78
|
96
|
1204
|
4115
|
|
1994
|
988
|
|
36
|
39
|
949
|
5064
|
|
1995
|
572
|
1
|
21
|
27
|
545
|
5609
|
|
1996
|
467
|
|
9
|
9
|
458
|
6067
|
|
Others
|
|
4
|
16
|
44
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
7214
|
400
|
799
|
1191
|
|
|
The
above table is based on inputs received from our units regarding the working
strength in each zone as in the month of December 2019 and projections of
promotions are based on the AISL, eliminating those who have retired from
service as on date. The table shows that:
a) If 400 Superintendent of Central Excise are promoted from the
AISL, it would include 1992 batch inspectors also (148 from 1990, 68 from 1991
and 10 from 1992) but 927 officers who joined as Inspectors even before 1989
would be left out.
b) If 800 Superintendent of Central Excise are promoted from the
AISL it would include 1996 batch Inspectors also but would not include 3248
Officers who joined before 1992 out of which 903 would be those who joined as
Inspectors even before 1989
c) Even if the entire AISL is exhausted, still 2911
Officers who joined as Inspectors up to 1992 will not be promoted and out of
that 713 would be those officers who joined as Inspectors even before 1989
(i.e., even those who have completed 30 years from service as Inspector itself
and have got just a single promotion from that grade)”
15. The matters related to DPC and re-designation have been
personally briefed to the Member (Admn) on 07.10.2020. She has taken notes, got
related correspondence from our side and responded positively by assuring to
discuss them with the Chairman and take action accordingly. During the discussion, it was enquired from
her as to whether the CR Proposals have been sent by the CBIC to the RS or
MOS. She categorically denied that the CR
Proposal has gone out from the Board.
She stated that the Board was yet to discuss it. When she sought our
opinion on Uniform, we told her that Uniform did not have any statutory backing
and in certain places, it has become a tool for harassment. The issue in Lucknow was also discussed. She asked whether uniform has to be
prescribed now. We informed that in GST,
it was not required and practically it was not used for official work. It was also pointed out that it was an
impediment actually in anti-evasion work. It was stated that however for Land
Customs stations with borders with other countries, for security reasons, some
uniform may be prescribed properly, so as to identify the officers as belonging
to the Government department. She
assured to discuss this aspect also with the Chairman and decide at the
earliest.
16. During the Video Conference on 10.06.2020, when the matter
regarding the AISL not in accordance with NR Parmar having been quashed by the
Hon’ble Tribunal at Chennai in the Bharathan case, upheld by the Hon’ble High
Court of Madras and the SLP dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Commissioner (Co-ordination) had stated that as per the Legal Opinion with the
department, the judgment was applicable only to the Chennai Zone. We pointed out however that the AISL was
quashed. Thereafter the Chairman had enquired whether NR Parmar had not been
overruled by a subsequent judgment. We
stated that the Meghachandra case had only prospective effect, that it was yet
to be accepted and implemented by the UOI and the Bharathan case had become
final.
17. Subsequently, since nothing was moving in the matter of
implementation of the Bharathan/Parmar case, we consulted our Advocate in the
Supreme Court regarding what is to be done in the matter for uniform
implementation of NR Parmar in all zones as per the judgment in the case of
Bharathan and others. We wanted to know
whether we can prefer a clarificatory petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The Advocate opined that since it was not a detailed order by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and was only dismissal of the SLP, the question of clarification
will not arise there and hence advised to move contempt petition before the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
18. A video meeting of the AIEC was held on 12.08.2020 to discuss
and decide on the matter. Accordingly
the following resolution was passed:
“RESOLUTION
PASSED BY THE
ALL
INDIA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF
THE
ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
HELD
ONLINE ON 12.08.2020
This
meeting of the All India Executive Committee of the All India Association of
Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers, held online on 12.08.2020 hereby
resolves unanimously to authorise its Secretary General, Shri. R. Manimohan to
take necessary steps to file a Contempt Petition before the Hon’ble High Court
of Madras for non-implementation of the judgment dated 25.04.2017 of the
Hon’ble High Court in W. P. No 5611/2017 even after the dismissal of the SLP
filed by the Department against the said judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in SLP Nos. 4870 – 4871/2018 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 25.09.2019 and also after repeated requests by this
Association for uniform implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras
High Court order in the above case to all similarly placed members of this
Association which has been a respondent in the above said proceedings.
Further
resolved to spend upto Rs. 1.5 lakhs towards the initial filing expenses of the
contempt petition and any further expenses towards that as would be required in
the proceedings; that all the expenses for litigation be met from the
Litigation fund separately maintained by getting donations from units and
members, as was done in the cases previously.”
19. The Contempt petition has since been filed by our Advocate in
the Hon’ble High Court on 22.09.2020. The Sl. No is Contempt SR 63429 of 2020.
Some units like Mumbai, Karnataka, Pune and Kerala have sent contributions
towards the Litigation fund and members from Chandigarh and Tamil Nadu have
started sending in donations as per the call given by the AIB.
20. It came to our notice in the meanwhile that an IA was filed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the name of this Association by Shri.
Harpal Singh and others with certain false claims regarding the representative
capacity of the Association (beyond the provisions of the Constitution,
repeatedly clarified by the Board) and tagging non-related matters to the
Jarnail Singh Case, seeking an order to enable an adhoc DPC. We wrote to the
Board to expose the mis-declarations being made before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. However, some of our members also
filed a counter IA. Since the interest
of the Association and entire cadre was involved, by online consultation, it
was decided by the AIEC to fund the counter IA from the litigation fund.
21. Other issues raised:
a) We raised the issue regarding
non-holding of DPC for MACP in Chandigarh and the process was accordingly
initiated there.
b) When there were certain issues
in Ranchi Zone related to AGT, we intervened and the Chief Commissioner
immediately obliged and sorted out the matter in consultation with our unit
Office Bearers there.
c) As discussed in the Nagpur
AIEC, we have requested for in rem implementation of Pankaj Nayan Case of Delhi
Commissionerate in respect of seniority and promotion, where juniors got the
benefit ahead of their natural seniors.
d) We intervened to get the
acceptance of Board for CAT orders in respect of 5400 cases of different zones,
when it became delayed due to roster attendance on account of COVID. In this matter certain developments require
to be reported regarding Karnataka and Kolkata, which the units are themselves
requested to explain in detail.
e) We intimated our resolution
that there should not be any bifurcation or creation of CCAs and also that
whenever any jurisdictional changes are done in GST/Customs during any
re-organisation, the local unit and Association should be consulted and changes
effected accordingly.
f) With regard to the issue of
uniform and victimization of Office bearer in Lucknow, we have strongly
protested.
22. During the period under report, we have given suggestions to the
Board on technical matters as below:
a) Request for issue of SOP to
maintain uniform procedures for checking and maintaining safety protocols in
Air Ports;
b) Regarding the risks faced by
the Officers due to verification of risky exporters involving Tax Payers in
State GST jurisdiction;
c) For relaxation of dates under
Indirect Tax laws due to COVID (which was issued by Ministry)
d) Once again insisting upon
notification of duties and responsibilities of all cadres so that
Superintendents alone don’t continue to face the brunt of the entire work load
in the department;
e) Detailed suggestions to the
committee constituted for prescribing modalities for scrutiny of GST returns;
f) We have also intimated to the
Board that since the GST platform is not properly functioning, the Kerala model
should be emulated and the platform of GST of states be made accessible to our
department officers also for better results.
g) We also intimated to the Board
that since there is no facility to see the GST provisions at each point of
time, until that facility is enabled, officers of the department should not be
held responsible for any lapse on this count during GST Audit.
23. I request the house to take note of the calls for agitation
given by the AICEIA and also the JAC of CBDT and take appropriate decisions.
24. As per the decision of the previous AIEC
meeting held through VC. a circular was issued on 13th September
2020 to the units requesting that the opinions of the members in each unit may
be obtained on the following specific points so that we can take up our woes
with more vigour and vitality for a
concrete solution:
a) Since our proposal for re-designation has not been discussed and/or accepted, there appears no solution for Superintendents with even more than 25, 30 and 35 years of service from Inspector grade and they are going to face the same pressures more and more unmindful of their age and health. Hence, to at-least safeguard our health and self respect of the cadre of Superintendents as a supervisory cadre, are we ready to take a stand that WE WILL PERFORM ONLY SUPERVISORY WORK?
b) Are we prepared to withdraw our private facilities like mobile, computer/laptop/internet from being demanded by or being put to use by the department, once again?
c) Shall we demand that the CGST may be taken away from the CBIC and kept as a department under the Revenue Secretary so that we get at-least an equal treatment along with our counterparts in State GST so that the CBIC which is obsessed and mindful only of Customs, can happily administer Customs alone and all those of us who want to go to Customs could opt to go there and gain our rightful seniority and promotion there?
d) Shall we suggest to the Hon’ble Prime Minister that there should be a 360 degree assessment of higher officials where we will also give our grading to our supervisory officers with regard to their behaviour to staff, knowledge on taxation law and procedures, proactive nature, non-misuse of staff and office machinery like cars, etc, so that the Government will be able to decide on who should be retained in service for the betterment of the Nation. Otherwise, as an Association we can also conduct such annual survey and submit it to the Government. This can alone stop harassment by self-serving higher officials.
This house is required to discuss the above issues also and decide further course of
action in the matters.
25. From time to time canards are being
circulated by the fringe elements misusing the name of this Association, that
we are stopping promotions, etc. Some of the Units seek reply from our side
every time something is circulated like that.
We are clear in our stand that Court orders have to be adhered to by the
Department, as long as they do not have a stay against such orders. If they have made any appeal against any
orders, but have not got any stay, let them implement the Order subject to the
outcome of the appeal filed against such order.
Waiting for every matter to be settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
not a wise and practical method. Since
we all know where each case stands, we do not reply to each and every outbursts
of frustrations of the fringe elements, who continue to mislead some members in
the consideration zone. All of us know
that there is no case where any stay has been granted for the DPC as on
date. Hence there is no reason to the
best of our knowledge why it could not be held.
Even if we have filed contempt in Bharathan case, there is no stay in
the matter. If the department gives an undertaking to the Court that it will
implement the Bharathan case in rem within a time frame and that they may be
permitted to conduct DPC on adhoc basis, subject to such revision, we have
assured the Board that we will not object.
This assurance was given orally to the then Member (Admn) in 2017 itself
and reiterated to the Member (Admn) in January 2020. Thus we see no reason for
not holding the DPC. Our demand for
re-designation is an additional demand which can be a take-off point for the
Branch B Service demanded by us and recommended by the DGHRD in the CR
Proposals.
26. Hence, Office Bearers are requested to
clarify the issues to their members and refer them to the blog published by us
and copies of correspondence made by this Association, all of which are marked
to the Units, though some of them may not be put on the blog.
27. We require to make our members understand
that unless our pain is made known at the field level, Office Bearers alone
cannot make any difference. In this regard, it has come to my notice that in
certain units the information from the AIB given by way of internal circulars
or communications are not being properly conveyed to the members in the
units. This will not enable the All
India Association to have effective functioning, if at the grass roots the
members are not informed properly.
With fraternal greetings,
R. Manimohan,
Secretary General,
AIACEGEO
