4600 Grade Pay for DOS of Central Excise & Customs is inevitable - Why?

Dear friends of CE & Customs,

The grant of Rs.4600 Grade pay to DOS of CE & Customs cannot be denied but can only be delayed.   It is going to be the inevitable thing waiting to happen in view of the following:-

1) In CE & Customs Departments, there is single feeder cadre i.e., Senior Tax Assistant (Rs.4200 Gpay) for 2 different channels of promotion to the posts of DOS & Inspector.    Of these two, only Inspector has been granted Rs.4600 Grade pay.     And the legal battle for 4600 gpay to DOS is on.

2) As per 6th Pay Commn Report, merger of 5000-5500-6500 is not possible in CE & Customs Deptt., as there is no single line or promotion.    In departments, where there is single line of promotion, the merger of these scales has already taken place and the effective date is 1.1.2006.

3) The merger if at all thought of by the CBEC, can be only (as per 6th Pay Commn) from 1.1.2006.     But, what will happen to fate of Sr. Tax Assistants who have become Inspectors from 1.1.2006 to till date.    They are to be placed below DOS since 1.1.2006 for Inspector line of promotion (if DOS also want to go for Inspector line, after being made feeder cadre).

4) The General Rule (which cannot be changed) is that Recruitment Rule can be Revised only prospectively and not retrospectively, here I mean from the date of notification and not from 1.1.2006.    Since DOS (if merged with STA from 1.1.2006), they by default DOS becomes senior to STA, naturally they have to be considered for Inspector post also, failing which it will draw the legal intervention.    But, the position is that RR has to be revised from prospective date only, such a merger will be in contravention of the RR position. 

5) In view of the above, if merged, DOS is to be considered for Inspector.   But as per RR, they were not eligible during the post which needs revision which cannot be from retrospective date.    It is is full of  entanglement (as it can not comply with both Merger and RR & will only further complicate the position).


6) Thank the authorities that we in CE & Customs have two different lines of promotion for STA which is the saviour in our case.

In view of the position, the Govt./Department may be dilly dallying the position & can only delay the grant of 4600 gpay but cannot deny.   If the posts are merged, it is inviting further trouble, and finally due to legal intervention, the justice will be made to prevail.

Case of Chennai CAT is posted for hearing on 29.3.2012 before bench.   Govt so far has not filed its counter.

So, HAVE HOPE ABOVE 100% AND WE ARE SURE TO WIN.
Ramnath

Income Tax Officers/Inspectors pay parity from 1.1.96 - CAT Order

Pl. see the CAT Mumbai Bench Order granting revised upgraded scale to IT Officers/Inspectors, etc. w.e.f 1.1.96.
This would be of some use to similarly placed persons.

The Order link:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_wcN1t0C9s3ZWFiZDgyYzAtYjMwNi00YWY3LWJiZWItMDIyN2QwMTZmOWEz&hl=en_US

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