ACTION TAKEN REPORT APPROVED BY THE AIEC HELD ON 11.10.2020

 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 13^th 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