Attention DOS of Central Excise - Representation against proposed merger of DOS with STA

Pl. find enclosed herewith representation received from our colleague.   I have posted it here for all Deputy Office Supdts. of Central Excise to download and send the same thro proper channel to the concerned higher ups. 

From

Dy. Office Superintendent Central Excise : .

________Commissionerate.

To

The Chairman,

Central Board of Excise & Customs,

North Block, New Delhi – 110001.

(Through proper channel)

Respected Sir,

Sub:- Promotion from the feeder grade posts in PB-1 with grade pay of s.4200/- to promotional post in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs4200 in Ministerial cadres under the administrative control of field formations of CBEC

********

With due respect I, the undersigned, would like to invite your kind attention to the letter F.No.C.12034/16/20111-ADIII B dated 02.11.2011 issued by Under Secretary, AD. IIIB on the above subject. Copy is enclosed for ready reference please.

2. In this context, I request you to consider the following points before any action, detrimental to the career prospects of all officers in the cadre of Dy. Office Superintendent working under the field formations of CBEC, is taken in the haphazard way as proposed by the Chairman, CBEC, for merger of the promotional posts of Dy. Office Superintendent in supervisory cadre (Gr. B-Non Gazetted) with that of their feeder cadre of Sr. T.A. (Gr. C ) working in the subordinate offices under CBEC (RRs of DOS, 2009 & Sr. T.A., 2003 refers).

3. Consequent to the implementation of the Sixth CPC, vide part C, Section II, First Schedule to the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2008 regarding Revised Pay Structure For Certain Posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories, the pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 were merged in the pay band of PB2 – Rs. 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200/- in the revised pay structure. However, vide Ministry’s F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009, it was decided that the posts, which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 as on 01.01.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 4200 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted grade pay of Rs. 4600 in the PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7450-11500 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

4. In this regard, kind attention is invited to the hierarchy of the posts in the Ministerial cadre in the subordinate offices under the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The post of Sr. Tax Assistant with pre-revised scale of Rs.5000-8000, which is the feeder cadre for the promotion to the post of Dy. Office Superintendent, and the post of Dy. Office Superintendent with pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000 have been merged and placed in the same pay band and grade pay of Rs. 9300-34800+4200 (grade pay). The said merger is not functionally feasible as the feeder and promotion grades both have been placed in the same pay band and grade pay. Thus it can be concluded that a grave error had already crept in by creation of artificial pay parity between the supervisory and promotional cadre of Dy Office Supdt(Gr B Non Gazetted) and its feeder and subordinate cadre of Sr Tax Asstt (Gr C ). These circumstances have already resulted in filing of Original Applications by many officers in the cadre of Dy. Office Supdts. in the Hon’ble CAT Benches of Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkatta.

5. The post of Dy. Office Superintendent is a supervisory post (Gr B- NG) having responsibility for and controlling the subordinate staff and also acts as Reporting Officer for the said subordinate post viz. Sr. Tax Asstt. The level of the responsibilities and duties of the two cadres are not at all comparable and these two cadres cannot be merged to form a newly formed merged cadre, as proposed.

6. Sir, in this context I would like to bring to your kind attention that I have been promoted as Dy. Office Supdt. w.e.f. and am working in supervisory capacity controlling the subordinate staff and also acting as Reporting Officer for the subordinate staff of LDC, Tax Asstt, and Sr.Tax Asstt. The so called merger of the posts of DOS –STA as proposed vide letter F.No.C.12034/16/20111-ADIII B dated 02.11.2011 of Board in the guise of downgrading is definitely a degrading step which will destroy my career prospects.

7. Sir, I would like to bring to the attention of the Board that in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI 1981(4SCC 130), the following principles were enunciated by the Supreme Court where different cadres are proposed to be merged :

“ In the Equation of posts :

(1) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis ; but

(2) where there are no such similar cadres, the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts ;

nature & duties of the posts, Powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charges held or responsibilities discharged ;

The maximum qualifications, if any prescribed for recruitment to the post ; and

Salary of the posts”

8. However, in the instant case, as proposed by the Chairman, CBEC vide letter dtd.02.11.2011, the functionally unfeasible merger of the promotional & supervisory cadre of DOS with that of its feeder and subordinate cadre of STA is being taken only on account of pay parity, ignoring the nature of functions, duties & responsibilities discharged by the functionaries in the cadre of Dy Office Supdt., a position that carries greater responsibilities as well as supervisory and administrative control of “L.D.C.,Tax Assistant and Sr. Tax Assistant” for all purposes and also acts as Reporting Officer for all these subordinate posts.

9. The promotion of Sr. T.A. to the grade of D.O.S. is to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance and higher responsibility than those attached to the post of Sr. Tax Asstt. The DOS shoulders higher supervisory responsibilities and also initiate the CRs for the LDCs, Tax Asstts.and Sr.Tax.Asstts. working under them as per Board’s F.No.A-28011/2/75-Ad.III A dt.16^th December 1975 (Copy encl.). In view of such a requirement, the DOS are cast with the responsibility of overseeing, monitoring and reporting of Group-C staff working under them and thus they have supervisory responsibility which is not tagged to STAs. STAs as such do not have any supervisory responsibilities in the department and they need not oversee the work of any one. Thus the level of responsibility and nature of duties of the two cadres are not at all comparable and therefore the two different posts of STA and DOS therefore cannot be compared and merged only on pay criterion.

10. Sir, here I would like to invite your kind attention to the Board’s letter F.No.A11013/4/2002-Ad IV dtd.14.11.2002 (copy enclosed) wherein it had been directed by the Board that promotion in the grade of DOS L-II from eligible candidates in the grade of STA may be made only after the new recruitment rules are circulated by the Ministry. However, it took the Board 7 long years to issue the recruitment rules for the post of DOS. During this period, no STAs were promoted to the post of the then DOS L-II inspite of the vacancies and availability of eligible candidates in the grade of STA.

11. Respected Sir, I would further like to bring to your kind notice that the Competent Authority of Board finally approved and issued the Recruitment Rules in respect of the post of Dy. Office Superintendent i.e. Department of Revenue, Central Excise And Customs, Deputy Office Superintendent Group B Rules, 2009 on 20.07.2009 which has come into force w.e.f. 20.09.2005 (copy enclosed). The RR prescribes that the method of recruitment to the post of Dy. Office Supdt. is by functional promotion from the post of Sr. Tax Assistant which is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Dy. Office Superintendent, subject to eligibility as per the Recruitment Rule i.e. three years of regular service in the grade of STA. The said criterion for recruitment of DOS has been approved by UPSC as clarified by the Board vide letter F.No.A-32018/14-A/2007-Ad.III-A dated 29^th July, 2008 (copy enclosed). Accordingly, the Board itself directed all cadre control authorities vide their aforesaid letter dated 29^th July, 2008 to promote the STAs fulfilling the eligibility criteria.

12. As per Recruitment Rules, for earning a promotion to the post of DOS, an STA has to put in 3 years of service in the said cadre. A Departmental Committee has to be nominated to choose the eligible incumbents from the Group of STAs. The benchmark levels/parameters set are to be met by the STA incumbent. The number of promotional posts of DOS is restricted as per cadre strength. Point Based Roster is also maintained for such promotion to the post of DOSs. A promotion to the higher post thus has been earned by all the officers working as DOS as of now. Further, the classification of these posts also vary as the post of Dy. Office Supdt. is classified as Gr. B Non Gazetted while the post of STA is classified as Gr. C under their respective RRs.

13. Therefore the two posts cannot be merged to form a common cadre at a later date, thus negating the historical background of the post of DOS and down grading the supervisory and promotion post of DOS as also disturbing the vertical relativity hitherto prevalent in the Department. The “merger “as designed by the Board now will take away the promotion of all such STAs who have been promoted as DOS after stagnation of 8-9 long years for no fault of their own.

14. The order and course of action proposed by the Chairman, CBEC, vide letter F.No.C.12034/16/20111-ADIII B dated 02.11.2011 thus does not pass the test of constitutionality which particularly implies that the equation/merger of different posts must be based on fair, just and rational principles.

15. The Board itself has stated in Para 3.0 of Chapter 16 of their Cadre Review Proposal that since the post of STA is feeder cadre to the post of DOS, it is proposed not to merge these two posts. Thus the merger under question is not a part of Cadre Review. Therefore I request the Board not to turn around on their own conscious decision above and adversely affect the career prospects of the officers currently working in the grade of DOS under the pretext of facilitating removal of stagnation in the grade of TA in some zones and provide promotional opportunities to the feeder grade posts in PB-1 with grade pay of Rs. 2400/- to promotional post in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs. 4200.

16. Further as mentioned in the earlier part of my representation, the Original Applications against unjustified pay-parity between these two posts that carry distinctly different duties and responsibilities has already been filed and admitted before the CAT Benches. By filing these applications, the applicants (DOS) in these OAs have sought to raise a substantial question of law as to whether such artificial parity between two posts for the only purpose of “pay” and by ignoring the “higher” and “superior” duties of one post over the other is in breach of public policy and public interest and whether the same violates the settled position in law that equal pay is meant only for equal positions. The matter is under litigation till date.

17. It may not be out of turn to mention here another example of sheer apathy of the Ministry/Board in respect of the cadre of DOS. The Ministry, vide letter F.No. A.11013/16/2002 Ad.IV dt. 20.09.2005 merged the cadres of DOS L-I with DOS L-II into one cadre known as ‘DOS’. To date, the Central Excise Collectorate AO/ACAO/EAO Recruitment Rules, 1987 have not been modified to include the merged cadre of DOS vis-à-vis the qualifying service. The Ministry, vide F.No. A-26017/55/2008-Ad.IIA dated 28.08.2008, in consultation with DOPT, had informed that DOS (DOS L-I/II) who have put in not less than three years’ of regular service are eligible for consideration for ad-hoc promotion to the grade of A.O.

18. There are large number of officers (erstwhile DOS L-II) in the cadre of DOS who have already completed minimum 6 years and maximum 17 years regular service in the grade. However, in the absence of amended Recruitment Rules specifying the minimum qualifying service required in the merged cadre of DOS for promotion to the grade of A.O., such officers are being considered for promotion on ad-hoc basis only in the light of Ministry’s instructions vide letter dated 28.08.2008, as mentioned above, leading to great financial and seniority loss.

19. In view of the above, I request you to review Board’s speedy, rather hasty and arbitrary decision vide letter dtd 02.11.2011 for the unfair & unjust merger of posts of DOS & STA which will give rise to increase in filing O.As against the injustice or does the Board need to be reminded of the positive attempts being put in by the Hon'ble Finance Minister in directing all concerned to reduce/avoid litigations on service matters by giving due cognizance to the aspirations of every cadres, thereby ensuring that the proposed Cadre Restructuring is free of litigations.

20. I hope that my representation will be considered by applying the fair, just and rational principles in determining as to why these two different cadres viz. Dy. Office Superintendent, a promotion post which is “higher” and “superior” than the other post of Sr. Tax

Assistant which is its feeder cadre in the hierarchical structure should not be merged. I stress here that a definite guideline/clarification is needed to be issued in the matter so that if required I may be able to seek redressal for my grievance through proper channel in CAT.

Yours faithfully,

Encl : As above.

Copy to :-

1) The Member (P&V), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi - 110001

2) Joint Secretary (Admn), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CBEC,

North Block, New Delhi - 110001

3) Director General, Dte General of HRD, Customs & Central Excise, Drum Shaped Building,

I.P. Bhavan, New Delhi - 110002

4) Under Secretary, Ad. V, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,

CBEC, Hudco Vishala Building, B-Wing, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi - 110066

5) S.O., Personnel Section, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CBEC,

North Block, New Delhi - 110001

6) Under Secretary, Ad. II A, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CBEC,

North Block, New Delhi - 110001

7) Under Secretary, Ad. IIIA / Ad III B, Hudco Vishala Building, B-Wing, Bhikaji Cama Place,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi - 110066

Pre-2006 pensions Parity Case verdict of CAT case - See this link

CAT New Delhi's Judgement on parity of Pre-2006 pensioners - OA No.655/2010

Pl. see in either of the links given below:-
http://www.rscws.com/pdfdocs/Central_Administrative_Tribunal-655-2010.pdf
http://cccgpa.in/pdfdocs/Central_Administrative_Tribunal-655-2010.pdfCopy the above link, Open a browser tab and paste the link, then press enter.  You will get the order page.

Upgradation of basic of seniors w.e.f. 2.1.2006 based on Mr.Kabui's basic

Till 6th Pay Commission, it used to be that a junior due to exercise of option, etc. would have been drawing pay more than that of seniors and seniors would make a claim to refix their basic citing junior drawing more pay.


But, After 6th Pay Commission, which simply announced merged pay scale (Revised) in some cases and upgraded pay scales in some cases (Revised) for certain cases, but when it came to fixation it has stated that only the applicable grade pay has to be given and not the Revised Pay scale (5th pay commission) while arriving at basic for multiplying by 1.86.

Here, comes the real issue or one can even call it magic.    Till 5th Pay Commn. something would have been place since 1.1.96.    But here, the Revised scale is not allowed to exist on 1.1.2006 but when some one opts to be in old scale till his promotion (like Mr.Kabui's case), he is allowed to remain (Point to be noted is for fixation purpose new revised scale was not given and not to be adopted as per fixation formula but only grade pay was allowed to be adopted) in the pre-revised scale of 4000-6000 and then allowed to come to Revised scale of 7450-..., (which was not available on 1.1.2006 - for this the whole India is searching for its locality on 1.1.2006) which suddenly comes into existence on 2.1.2006, then his pay is fixed 7450 x 1.86 + 4600 Grade pay.    Here, point to be noted is:- Seniors were deprived of this opportunity (since they got their promotion prior to 1.1.2006).  Hence if any one in the department gets promoted after 1.1.2006, he alone can exercise the choice and based on junior's choice and pay fixation, others have to follow him (quote his case and claim for higher pay from 2.1.2006).

Is this Correct?    This is absolutely illogical/unreasonable/irrational.      What is not in place as per 6th pc on 1.1.06 how can that come into being on 2.1.2006.   The 6th Pay Commn is in force only w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and not from 2.1.2006.   Only GOD can answer this.

Friends, regarding my case for 4600 Grade pay, all particulars given to Advocate.   He is taking some time for preparation of OA.    Should have been filed by now.    I hope OA to be filed within a week or ten days time from now.    Very soon I will intimate the news that it is filed.

Bye - from Ramnath

For those in 4200 (pre-revised scales of 5000 & 5500 basic)

For friends of field office who are in 4200 grade pay (who were in 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 pre-revised basic),
I request you to represent to your department to make 5500-9000 scale to be placed in 4600 Grade pay.   If not acceded to, then you may choose the legal option.   
Here, even unions (especially Railway) appear to be not knowing the fact.    They are idiotically demanding to grant atleast 3% increment for those in 5000 & 5500 merged (feeder & promotion cadre) who have been placed in 4200 Grade pay, on their promotion.    This demand is ridiculous.  

The demand should have been:-
1) Either merge these two posts (in two different designations) into one single designation/name/nomenclature by restructuring. 
OR
2) Grade 4200 grade pay for feeder (5000 basic) & 4600 Grade pay (5500 basic) for promotion cadre.

But setting these things side, when the rule for MACP itself states that MACP benefit will be the same as that of Promotion benefit (here I mean 3% increment in the Pay band and next higher immediate grade pay).   Only in a few cases the Grade Pay on promotion will be even higher than MACP benefit for example, person in 2400 grade pay gets 2800 on MACP (if MACP preceeds promotion) and on promotion he gets 4200 grade pay (Grade pay of the promotion post).

See reproduction of Para-4 of Annexure-I of MACP Order dt.19.5.2009 below:

4. Benefit of pay fixation available at the time of regular promotion shall also be allowed at the time of financial upgradation under the Scheme. Therefore, the pay shall be raised by 3% of the total pay in the pay band and the grade pay drawn before such upgradation. There shall, however, be no further fixation of pay at the time of regularpromotion if it is in the same grade pay as granted under MACPS. However, at the timeof actual promotion if it happens to be in a post carrying higher grade pay than what isavailable under MACPS, no pay fixation would be available and only difference of grade

pay would be made available.  To illustrate, in case a Government Servant joins as a direct recruit in the grade pay of Rs. 1900 in PB-l and he gets no promotion till
completion of 10 years of service, he will be granted financial upgradation under MACPS in the next higher grade pay of Rs. 2000 and his pay will be fixed by granting him one
increment plus the difference of grade pay (i.e. Rs. 100). After availing financial upgradation under MACPS, if the Government servant gets his regular promotion in the
hierarchy of his cadre, which is to the grade of Rs. 2400, on regular promotion, he will only be granted the difference of grade pay between Rs. 2000 and Rs. 2400. No additional increment win be granted at this stage.
When this being the situation, demanding a benefit on promotion which does not even equal even MACP benefit, is absolutely irrational, illogical, idiotic.    Hence, Railway employees, pl. take efforts to restrain your leaders from making such idiotic demands.

As far as I am concerned, the OA for 4600 Grade pay is to be filed this week positively.

My best wishes for success in our fight for justice.

Ramnath


 

Illogical - On ACP/MACP 3% Increment + Next Grade Pay but on promotion nothing

After 6th Pay Commission, in the name of creating equality the posts from 5000 to 6500 basic were merged into one and were granted 4200 Grade Pay. On 13.11.2009, 6500 scale persons were given 4600 grade pay.

In many field offices, because of the above, the feeder and promo posts (5000 basic & 5500) respectively remained on same Grade pay of Rs.4200. It is heard in some of the offices, the promotion earned from 5000 to 5500 has been nullified and both the scales have been merged with grant of 4200 Grade pay (Heard that in Railways in Office Ministerial line). But, we see the situation of overlapping of same grade pay of Rs.4200 (as seen in Anamoly Committee Minutes of AIRF site, some technical posts still remain on same grade pay) and Railways have requested for grant of atleast 3% increment on promotion from feeder to Promo cadre having same grade pay. Here, comes the problem.

Now in the old 5000 scale (having 4200 grade pay), if a person gets ACP/MACP, being an alternative/substitute (temporary relief), that itself is able to grant financial benefit of 3% increment + Next Grade pay of 4600 grade pay (without changing the designation). ACP/MACP is not a permanent solution/remedy but that itself is able to grant the benefits mentioned above.

But, when a person (having 4200 grade pay) gets promoted from 5000 scale to 5500 scale, is not given any financial benefit (but here the designation changes and he is vested with more higher responsibilities). In what way it is correct.

As per pay Rules, the minimum benefit on promotion should be Rs.100/- (as per last pay commission) and now 3% increment + Grade pay applicable to promotion post should be given. Since Grade pay remains same for feeder and promo post, no benefit is given But higher responsibilities are given.

In this regard, the latest order of DOPT (also mentioned in Gconnect) which reads under:-

The Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), has reiterated that the grant of the benefits under the earlier ACP Scheme or the MACP Scheme is a fall back option in the event of promotions not taking place. It has been impressed that the Cadre structure needs to be reviewed periodically to harmonise the functional needs of the organisation and career progression of employees.

Therefore, the Ministry has advised all the concerned Departments to review the cadre structure in a time bound manner with a view to mitigate problem of stagnation.

For further details, download DOPT http://gconnect.in/pages/circular_pa...ing-100211.pdf may be seen.

In some departments (take for example Central Excise) where a feeder cadre has two different lines of promotion. Senior Tax Assistant (4200 grade pay) can be promoted to a post of Dy. Office Supdt. (4200 grade pay - remains unchanged) as well as to the post of Inspector (4600 grade pay). If he opts for promotion as Dy. Office Supdt, no benefit but for Inspector post 4600 grade pay is given (because of order dt.16.11.2009 granting 4600 grade pay).

Restructuring cadre (review) is going on in Central Excise. But, in this exercise also (as per proposal under finalisation), the post of Dy. Office Supdt. (being one of the Promotion post for STA) is still allowed to remain on 4200 grade pay.

There may be many departments like this in our country, I think. As a last resort, quoting the provision of Pay Rules, such department people should resort to legal remedy (if admn. action is not favourable).

I also seek the opinion of esteemed boarders whether such legal action will work out favourably (by quoting the provisions/orders already existing in the books, pay rules, etc.).
Ramnath

6th Pay Commission Anomaly

1. Posted by Mr.Muralikrishna, member of Gconnect forum

    The Central Governmental Employees working in different field offices throughout India are totally upset and the Department of Personnel and Training is slowly grabbing the government decisions and attempting to create two kinds of citizens by implementing the same Fundamental Rules (FR) in different ways for Central Secretariat and field office. Some of the serious discrimination and anomalies are brought to notice as under:
   

   
   1. The DOPT vide OM No.AB.14017/61/2008-Estt(RR) dated 24th March, 2009 directed all the Ministries and Departments to amend the existing Service Rules/recruitment rules within six months in view of the 6th pay commission recommendations and it’s government decisions. Whereas this has been done only for the employees working in the Central Secretariat and discriminated the field offices.
   2. The Govt. of India constituted National Anomaly Committees at the National level w.e.f. 12.th January, 2009 in order to settle the anomalies arising out of the implementation of 6th cpc in more than one Ministry/Department/field offices. Whereas only two meetings were held so far ie., 12.12.2009 and 27.3.2010 and the serious anomalies of field offices were not at all discussed in these two meetings. Further, the Govt. of India on 12.12.2009 itself issued orders to constitute separate Departmental Anomaly Committees for field level organizations and subordinate offices whereas no such anomaly committees were constituted so far . Whereas frequent monthly anomaly committee meetings are taking place for the employees of the Central Secretariat and their anomalies are being sorted by fixing pay at the minimum of the higher scale, granting higher grade pay, timely promotions or even ad hoc promotions and creation of posts to accommodate where there are no posts for promotion. These similar genuine benefits are forbidden for the employees of field offices. Now there is no Departmental anomaly committee for field organizations and there is no meetings and no reviews etc.
   
   
   3. The examples of the attempt of keeping the citizens in two levels are (1) the employees those who were drawing the same scale of pay in the Central Secretariat and in the field offices are fixed at different level when there is only one FR and thereby the employees of the field offices drawing same scale of pay are getting less pay of Rs.3000 to 4000 in the basic pay itself every month and the seniors are getting very less than their juniors and junior most. 2) For the Central Secretariat employees, the pay of seniors were stepped up at par with their junior most whereas in the field offices, these stepping up are not allowed so far. 3) The employees who were promoted after 1.1.2006 in the Central Secretariat in different cadres were fixed at the minimum of the pre-revised and multiplied by 1.86 whereas for the field offices, this fixation at the minimum was not extended.
   
   4. Another example of serious anomaly or discrimination is that “an employee who was drawing scale of Rs. 4000-6000 in the Central Secretariat on promotion as Assistant w.e.f. 2.1.2006 in the pre-revised scale of 5500-9000 were given fixation such as 7450x1.86+GP4600 . Whereas this is not allowed to field office. Further an employee who was drawing scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 prior to 1.1.2006 were denied fixation in 7450x1.86+4600 and he/she was allowed only 5500x1.86+4200 . This is a clear cut example of creating two type of citizens though both of them were drawing same scale of pay. These are only skeleton examples and like this there are many serious anomalies in the field offices.
   
   In view of the above, we request the members of NAC to kindly take up this serious issue and discuss same in the NEXT NATIONAL ANOMALY COMMITTEE SCHEDULED TO BE HELD on 15th February, 2011 in order to apply the Fundamental Rules and CCS(R.P)Rules, 2008 uniformly.

    
2. Comments of Mr.Victor

   
   

   The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.
   
   Victor

   
3. Comments of Mr.Sundarar

   
   

   Mother of all Anomalies

   Originally Posted by Victor

   The anomalies indicated are serious and needs due consideration. I sincerly hope that staff side takes up the matter vigorously and forcefully at the next NAC meeting so that uniformity in rules and regulations is restored.
   
   Victor

   The fundamental question involved in r/o all anomalies referred to above, is whether there exists a Minimum Pay in the running Pay Band or otherwise. If exists as per definition provided under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 then the Rule 13 of CCS (RP) Rules 2008 relating to fixation of pay on promotion needs to be amended suitably to replace the terminology - minimum of the pay band - by `minimum of the pay in the running pay band' therein. In fact, the present Rule 13 is applicable only for a promotee from one pay band to another pay band, and mostly applicable promotees to PB4 in view of the enhanced minimum of the pay band beyond 1.86 mf aspect. (Similar situation in the case of pensioners also exists wherein the revision of pension under para 4.1 of OM dated 1.9.2008 is beneficial only for PB-1 to PB-3 in view of modified para 4.2 and for PB 4, the original para 4.2 ought to take care, but unfortunately the said modified para 4.2 brought reducing impact)
   
   In one of the Circular issued by RB, it is indicated that `Sixth CPC has not prescribed minimum pay in the pay band for the purpose of fixation of pay on promotion in the case of any grade and, fixing of minimum pay in the pay band in the case of each grade pay for departmental promotees would defeat the very purpose of introduction of running pay band'.
   
   Whereas, without correlating with the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale, a corresponding running pay band cannot start its journey. On promotion to a higher grade, pay would have been fixed at the lowest stage of pre-revised scale of the said higher grade till 31.12.2005 and even till implementation of 6th CPC recommendation. On implementation, the promotional fitment benefit got reduced to that of financial upgradation under ACP, according to me. In both the cases, while GP applicable to the higher grade is granted - the running pay in the pay band after adding the benefit of 3% of revised pay with it, if happens to be lesser than a running pay in the pay band applicable to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the promoted grade, it can be stepped upto minimum of the pay band, only in the case of promotion. As we had seen so far, a minimum of the pay band can also plays the role of minimum of the running pay in the pay band only in respect of 4 pre-revised scales corresponding to minimum of PB1, 2, 3, and 4. There are many intermittent pre-revised scales within a particular pay band and when promotional benefits are granted, the same are more or less similar to that of ACP benefits, according to me. Our forum members may please clarify this aspect with their valuable inputs.
   
   For want of minimum pay in the pay band just because the same is not specifically prescribed by the 6th CPC owing to the fact that it is nothing but corresponding to lowest stage of the pre-revised scale that is very much derivable, the due promotional benefits can not be fixed at a stage lower than the minimum of the pay in the pay band, ie. below the lowest stage of the pre-revised scale of the higher post in the revised structure.
   
   The question is, whether a minimum pay in the pay band is required to be prescribed specifically by a Pay Commission under the given situation. The manner and methodology of interpretation during implementation, led to several reducing impacts in respect of promotees to higher grades, higher scale holders owing to merger as well as upgradation, pensioners for the purpose of deriving minimum revised pension, etc.
   
   It is quite significant to note that the Dept. of Expenditure, vide their U.O. dated 14.12.2009 to DOPT while clarifying, have gone on record that `since the minimum pay in the pay band in the revised structure corresponding to the stage of Rs.5500 (pre-revised scale of Rs.5500-9000), is more than the minimum of the pay band PB-2(ie.) Rs.9300/- no benefit of bunching is admissible in this case'.
   
   It is also said in the same U.O. Note that `6th CPC has not prescribed a minimum pay in the running pay band w.r.t. minimum entry level pay prescribed for direct recruits appointed on or after 1.1.2006'.
   
   Further, stepping up of pay on par with a MACP holder, is not prescribed anywhere in the CCS(RP) Rules, 2008. The related Notes No.7 and 10 under Rule 7 of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 need further clarification, as to whether a person is required to be drawing more pay in the lower grade too than his junior - is not very clear in the case of Note No.7. Though the stepping up done through DOPT OM dated 7.1.2011 refers to Rule 10, it is given to understand that the junior official indicated in the said OM appears to be drawing more pay in the lower grade than the seniors whose pay have been stepped up. But, as said earlier, these seniors could be eligible to get what has been fixed w.e.f. 2.1.2006 from 1.1.2006 provided the minimum pay in the running pay band is ensured in all cases of promotion, replaced/upgraded/merged scales on or after 1.1.2006. To that extent,
   a clear cut decision with regard to the terminology - MINIMUM PAY IN THE RUNNING PAY BAND -WHICH IS NOTHING BUT BOTTOM OF THE PRE-REVISED SCALE (BE IT REPLACED/PROMOTED/MERGED/UPGRADED SCALE) X 1.86) and its applicability, is inevitable.
   
   Another very serious anomaly, according to me, is application of varying multiplication factor. All pre-revised pay shall have a uniform multiplication factor, and the purpose of introduction of pay band concepts is only to provide enhanced multiplication factor to scales above S-23. Need for parity among all employees irrespective of the pre-revised scales they were holding till 1.1.2006, is not taken note of by the serving community. That is the mother of all injustices and anomalies that followed.
   
   It is hoped that the NAC will give its final verdict duly taking care of all the discussions that are being recorded in various public forums which are otherwise the feedback on implementation of 6th CPC recommendation and bring appropriate remedial measures to settle the problems once for all without pushing towards judicial remedy.

Revised submissions on Central Excise Cadre Restructure on 26.1.2011

ALL INDIA CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX MINISTERIAL OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION

Ref. No. AICESTMOA/11-02.

Dated :       Jan’ 2011

To,


The Chairman,
Central Board Excise & Customs,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, North Block,
New Delhi - 1

Respected Sir,

Subject: Demands of the Ministerial Officers –

                           ongoing Cadre restructuring exercise- regarding.

* * * *

This is with reference to the discussion that took place in the meeting, held on 18.01.2011 at North Block, on the captioned subject.

2. This association expresses its gratitude to the Hon’ ble Chairman, Member(P&V), DGHRD and Team of HRD officials for enlightening us about various aspects of draft Cadre restructuring proposals vis-à-vis our demands, submitted on 24-11-2010 through Joint Action Committee. However, we were stunned and extremely shocked to learn that none of our major proposals, concerning the well-being and survival of the entire ministerial cadre, has found place in the revised draft proposals. Further, the reasons put forth for rejection/ non-consideration of the genuine demands related to this Association are not acceptable.

3. Aggrieved by the decision and as desired by the Hon’ble Chairman (CBEC), we once again place the following demands for inclusion in the ongoing cadre restructuring proposals, which were also ventilated during the meeting on 18.01.2011. It appears that the Board has assumed and is under the impression that creation of large number of posts in the executive grade, which is a by-product of the cadre restructuring, alone will satisfy the aspirations of the entire Ministerial cadre, ignoring the genuine concerns put forth by this Association for removing the stagnation in the level of DOS and AOs. It is humbly submitted that it will be very difficult to address those genuine grievances of the ministerial cadre across the country, unless the minimum following demands are met with.

4. The demands to be incorporated in the cadre restructuring proposal are;

I. Restructuring of Administrative wing in accordance with the recommendations of 6th CPC can be implemented through cadre restructuring only. We sincerely believe that the cadre restructuring exercise should not merely be a statistical one, but it should also embody a cadre policy as envisaged by an expert body like 6th CPC. Therefore, the following hierarchical structure in the Administrative wing of the CBEC may be done beyond the grades of Tax Assistant & Senior Tax Assistant.

Sl. No. Name of posts Grade Pay No. of Posts Place of posting

1 Principal Administrative Officer Rs.7600/- 66 Chief Commissioner’s Office (1 each)

2 Administrative Officer Grade-I Rs.6600/- 442 Commissionerate Hdqrs. (2 each)

3 Administrative Officer Grade-II Rs.4800/- 1564 Divisional Offices & Hdqrs. Offices

4 Administrative Officer Grade-III Rs.4600/- 1986 Sections and field formations

Justification:-

(a) The 6th Pay Commission in its report vide Chapter 3.1 has recommended parity between Hdqrs. organisations and field formations. It has recommended a model cadre structure in para 3.1.14, for field formation / non-secretariat Organizations, drawing parity of the recommended cadre structure for the Hdqrs. organization in para 3.1.9. Both the paragraphs are reproduced verbatim in Annexure – I. This particular dispensation has been categorically recommended for ministerial officers in CBEC/ CBDT by the 6th CPC vide para 7.15.14 which is enclosed as Annexure-II. This very paragraph has been referred to by the Department of Expenditure while dealing with the grade pay of Administrative Officer, DOS etc. as conveyed by CBEC vide F.No.A.26017/92/2008.Ad.II.A dated 09-09-2010. Noteworthy is the fact that the Government has hiked the Grade Pay of Assistants vide O.M. dated 16-11-2009 of Department of Expenditure, drawing parity with the similarly placed officers in the field formations. However the DOS in CBEC, despite being similarly placed with Assistant is still languishing in Rs.4200/- in PB-2. Thus the recommendations of 6th CPC as contained in 3.1.14 can be implemented only through the ongoing cadre restructuring process by way of assigning Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in PB – 2 to A.O. Grade – III (to be created by re-designation of D.O.S.) on par with the Assistants in Hdqrs. organizations who have been allowed Rs.4600/- in PB – 2.

(b) The Recruitment Rule for the post of DOS was notified in July 2009 much after implementation of 6th CPC where the pay scale of both the feeder grade (STA) and the Promotional grade (DOS) has been shown as being the same (Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-). As a result the STA & DOS (one being feeder & another promotional post) are in the same Grade Pay and the promotion from STA to DOS brings no financial benefit. This distortion can be addressed by favourably considering the above proposed hierarchical structure in the Cadre Restructuring proposal. The relevant recommendations of 6th CPC contained in Para 3.1.4 is enclosed in Annexure-III. Further, the grade of STA & DOS has been shown together in the draft proposal which is demeaning the higher grade. It is submitted that they should be shown separately, as one post i.e., DOS is the supervisory grade for the other.

(c) The ratio for promotions to the higher grade as per the proposed structure is not a favourable one, as is being made out in the draft proposal and the presentation made by the HRD. There will be 221 posts of CAO for 1564 posts of AO, which is in the ratio of 1:8. Some of the AOs have put in more than 12 to 15 years of service in the same grade and have completed 25-30 years of service in the Ministerial cadre itself. If these Officers are to get any relief in the proposed restructuring, then the hierarchical structure needs a definitive change as proposed by this Association. On the one hand the Board had recommended for grant of higher Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- & Rs.4800/- for the posts of DOS and AO respectively, and simultaneously arguing that such an increase of pay cannot be considered in the Cadre Restructuring proposal. Further, the ADG, HRD who represented the Official side in the Departmental Anomaly Committee is aware of the statement made by the Chairman of the Anomaly Committee that though this is a genuine grievance the issue should be considered outside the purview of the Anomaly Committee. Therefore, the only option which is left open for the Board to set right this injustice is to restructure the hierarchical structure of these Ministerial posts as proposed by this Association in consonance with the recommendations made by the 6th CPC.

(d) Based upon the recommendations of 6th CPC quoted above, the above structure of the administrative set up in CBEC is demanded. Such a set up will strengthen the administrative wing and improve the functional efficiency that is required and necessary for implementation of the Government policies on personnel matters. The contention of the Board that the organisational structure depends on the requirements of the department and that there is no justification to replicate the staffing model of CBDT is bizarre. Such a statement leads to the conclusion that the Ministerial cadre of CBEC are not supposed to compare themselves with the Executive officers in the same department, neither with the comparable organisation like CBDT nor with the Headquarters Organisation like CSS. It appears that the motive of the Board is that forever the Ministerial grade will have to remain confined to the unilateral decisions of the Board and languish in the present level or even worse.

(e) The fruits of such a step-motherly treatment are already being reaped by way of large number of posts in the grade of DOS remaining unfilled for want of willing candidates. If the same pattern continues and remain unaltered in the current proposal then the days of existence of the Ministerial cadre in this department can be numbered. It is also pertinent to mention that the large number of vacancies in the grade of DOS remain unfilled is due to the fact that there is a distorted pay structure for the Ministerial cadre vis-à-vis the executive cadre. The said distortion can only be set right by restructuring the existing hierarchical structure of the Ministerial grade as proposed hereinabove. Such restructuring alone can bring about a change and be a deterrent to large scale migration from ministerial cadre to executive cadre and resurrect the dying ministerial cadre. Otherwise the administrative functions in the filed formation will completely collapse for which CBEC may find it very difficult to explain in future.

II. It had been stated that abolition of posts is a must as it is a commitment made to the Union Cabinet made at the time of creation of 4647 posts in various grades during the Year, 2007. It is seen from the said allocation of posts that, apart from creation of certain number of posts in various cadres, 12 posts of AOs, 234 DOS, 58 STAs and 272 TAs have been created in the Ministerial cadre. Therefore it is clear that there has been corresponding increase in the Ministerial strength even in the said allocation. To curtail the number of posts by way of abolishment higher number of posts in the Ministerial cadre, thereby adversely affecting the administrative functions is uncalled for. Not only that the posts which remain unfilled for the past 10 years even without framing of Recruitment Rules are left untouched while the promotional posts like STA, DOS are proposed to be abolished is unjustified. It is requested that this decision be reconsidered in the right perspective.

(b) The existing Ministerial strength is 12,676 out of the total strength of 66,808 which is 19%. The proposed ministerial strength in the cadre restructuring is 14,396 out of a total proposed strength of 95,168 which is 15%. The reduction is amply evident. The HRD has factored the present vacancy position without paying heed to the functional necessity of the field formations and the administrative difficulties that are being experienced by them. The present vacancy position is the outcome of delayed recruitment and discriminatory pay structure of the ministerial cadre. As a result the existing ministerial officers are overburdened and saddled with additional work thereby leading to the Administrative functions taking a severe beating and unwanted delays.

(c) The total net increase in the ministerial grade is 1720 out of which the increase in the number of post of LDC is to the extent of 1009. This increase is not going to benefit the ministerial cadre and meet the functional requirements as the recruitment to the grade of LDC is by 100% promotion from Group ‘D’ cadre. It is being experienced that after implementation of the 6th CPC the Group ‘D’ Officers are not accepting the promotions to the grade of LDC due to the fact that they are already receiving higher Pay than that of LDC by way of financial upgradations. Thus it may not be realistic to expect that these posts can be filled up by 100% promotion from Group ‘D’.

(d) It is also worthwhile to mention that the Board has already proposed separate promotional channel for the erstwhile Group-D officers upto a grade pay of Rs.2400 in PB – 1, as disclosed in the meeting held on 18-01-2011. Therefore instead of creation of post in the LDC grade (which may be completely abolished in the event of creation of separate channel for erstwhile Group-D), the strength in TA & STA be substantially enhanced in Executive, Audit and Cadre controlling Commissionerates equivalent to the number of LDC posts that are likely to be abolished. The staffing norms for each commissionerate needs be improved upon particularly with reference to the grades of STA & TA, since the present structure is worse than the normative structure, suggested by study Group-I & II. The creation of Audit Commissionerates, as factored by HRD, to arrive at a reduced staffing pattern is not applicable for ministerial grades as there is not many ministerial posts (particularly in DOS & STA), proposed for the Audit Commissionerates.

III. The strength of Ministerial Officers for the Customs Preventive Commissionerate envisaged in the draft proposals are as under.

1. Administrative Officer – 2

2. Deputy Office Superintendent – 3

3. Senior Tax Assistant - 12

4. Tax Assistant - 24

It is extremely difficult to imagine that such a meager sanctioned strength can meet the requirements of the administrative work-load of the Customs preventive formation, manned by the Central Excise Personnel.

The number in each grade should be increased in the following manner in each Customs Division and Customs Circle. The total strength of entire Commissionerate, would therefore be required to be calculated by multiplying the number of the Customs Division & Customs Circle with the number of strength (proposed as under) for each Division & Circle, apart from providing equal strength of staff for the Commissionerate Hqrs., similar to an Executive Commissionerate.

1. Administrative Officer – 1

2. Deputy Office Superintendent – 1

3. Senior Tax Assistant - 4

4. Tax Assistant - 4

IV. HRD has already assured that all the newly created posts would be filled up by promotion only. It is requested to fill up all posts including Direct Recruitment & carried forward vacancies on the day of implementation of restructuring proposal, by promotion only, as done in the last cadre restructuring. Relaxation in the eligibility service may also be granted to promote officers and this may come as part of cadre restructuring proposal. Moreover, the demand for increase in the promotional quota also remains unaddressed.

V. Last but not the least, during the course of discussion , it was brought to this Association’s notice that there is a possibility of upgrading the post of Inspector who have put in more than 10 years of service to the post of Superintendent on in-situ basis, which proposal too would be detrimental to the interests of our cadre.

The examination of the above demands is a must to mitigate rankling grievance of the frustrated ministerial cadre. We request and hope that these demands will be favourably considered in the right spirit thereby boosting the morale of those officers who have been sincerely and dedicatedly working for the Department for more than 3 decades.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Aasim Pramanick)

President