3% increment posts in same grade pay in 6th Pay Commn - Recent order

Dear friends,
Deptt. of Expenditure has issued order dated: 7.1.2013 granting 3% for posts carrying same Grade pay.

It would be logical to say that when Feeder & Promotion cadre posts carry same grade pay, it should be either merged into one post or the promotion cadre post should be assigned higher grade pay.     But, instead of granting higher grade pay, a partial step has been taken in this regard.    When we look at all the other feeder and promotion cadres, on PROMOTION, everyone gets 3% increment in Pay Band and the Grade pay applicable to the promotion post excepting the case of PB2 Gpay 5400 to PB3 5400.    Here atleast the change of pay band is involved.   When a person's pay falls short of the minimum of the pay band, he will be fixed at starting of Rs.15600 + Rs.5400 (though he was in PB2 9300 with 5400 gpay).    But, till date, the only isolated case where the promotion benefit has been ZERO is in the case of merged scale 5000-5500 with Grade pay of Rs.4200 till date.   In order to offset this, the benefit of 3% Increment has been given by this order it seems.

However, it seems that this order is not applicable to all the cases where Grade pay of Feeder and Promotion post is same.   Because, the terms mentioned citing terms of  OM No. 169/2/2000-IC dated 24.11.2000:- 
1) that only in cases where it was not found feasible to appropriately restructure cadres in question on functional, operational and administrative considerations, extension of the benefit of fixation of pay under FR 22(I)(a)(1) could be considered on the merits of each case, provided all the conditions precedent for the grant of this benefit were fully satisfied and promotion to the post in question actually involved assumption of higher responsibilities. 
2) the feeder and promotion cadres should have been placed in the identical (same) pay scales as per 5th Pay Commission. 

Hence, this order appears that it would be applied on case to case basis depending the factors mentioned.   It would be for the individual departments to ascertain whether this is applicable based on the conditions mentioned in the said order.

In the case of DOS, though it was thought to be applicable, it seems to be not so as (only till 20.9.2005 the feeder and promotion cadre of STA and DOS L-II were lying in Rs.5000 basic) DOS post remained in a different grade pay of Rs.5500 whereas feeder cadre post of STA was in Rs.5000 basic prior to 6th pay commission itself ie., from 20.9.2005.    As this order specifically says that the pre-revised scale should have been in the same pay scale for feeder and promotion post ie., Rs.5000 for both feeder and promotion cadre or Rs.5500 for both feeder and promotion cadre.   But, situation here is different as prior to 6th Pay commn, i.e., w.e.from 20.9.2005 itself DOS and STA remained in different pay scales of Rs.5500 and Rs.5000 respectively.

Though I was under the impression that it would be applicable to the STAs who have been promoted to DOS post, it appears to be not so when we go thro the conditions mentioned in the order (went thro again and again and could come to a conclusion like this).

There may be similar situations in other departments also where same grade pay may have been in existence but with were with different pay scales prior to 6th Pay Commission.

MACP ANOMALY - FOR POSTS IN SAME GRADE PAY

Pl. find below the MACP clarification (received by email from CGemployees News):-

"Grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme-Clarification for Railway Employees...

Posted: 21 Dec 2012 12:50 AM PST

Grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme-Clarification for Railway Employees...

An another clarification order has been issued by the Railway Board to its employees regarding the Grade Pay would be admissible under MACP to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post is in the same Grade Pay. The nodal department of the Union Government, DOPT has informed the the financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes cannot be to higher Grade Pay than what are be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion...

The Railway Board order has been reproduced and given below for your consideration...

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
Railway Board

S.No.PC-VI/307
No.PC-V/2009/ACP/2

RBE No.142/2012
New Delhi, dated 13/12/2012

The General Manager/OSDs/CAO(R)
All Indian Railways & PUs
(As per mailing list)

Sub:-Grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme-Clarification reg.

References have been received from Zonal  Railways seeking clarification as to what Grade Pay would be admissible under  MACP Scheme to an employee holding feeder post in a cadre where promotional post is in the same Grade Pay. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T), the nodal department of the Government on MACP Scheme and it is clarified that ACP/MACP Schemes have been introduced by the Government in order to mitigate the problems of genuine stagnation faced by employees due to lack of promotional avenues.   

Thus, financial upgradations under ACP/MACP Schemes CANNOT be to higher Grade Pay than what are be allowed to an employee on his normal promotion. In such cases financial upgradation under MACP Scheme would be granted to the same Grade Pay.

This issues with the concurrence of the Finance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways.

Hindi version is enclosed.

(N.P. Singh)
Dy. Director/Pay Commission-V
Railway Board

Source: AIRF & NFIR

this is a test message"

As per the above, there seems to be some sort of confusion with regard to grant of MACP for those posts in PB-2 where the pre-revised scales of 5000-8000 and 5500-9000 still remain in the Grade pay of Rs.4200.    I feel that this clarification (and if applied for 4200 Grade pay it has been wrongly intended) must have been intended only for PB-2 & PB-3 Grade pay of Rs.5400.    

If this is applied to PB-2 Rs.4200 Grade pay having feeder and promotional posts in the same grade pay,  I feel, it is  incorrect and not based on the MACP Rules.  A look into the following paras 5 & 8 of MACP scheme Order dated: 19th May, 2009 will be of help in this regard.   I reproduce the wordings here below:

5. Promotions earned/upgradation~ granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPS.
The pre-revised hierarchy (in ascending order) in a particular organization was as
under:-
(a) A Government servant who was recruited in the hierarchy in the pre-revised pay scale Rs. 5000-8000 and who did not get a promotion even after 25 years of service prior to 1.1.2006,in his case as on 1.1.2006he would have got two financial upgradations under ACP to the next grades in the hierarchy of his organization, Le., to the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500.
(b) Another Government servant recruited in the same hierarchy in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 5000-8000 has also completed about 25 years of service, but he got two promotions to the next higher grades of Rs. 5500-9000 & Rs. 6500-10500 during this period.
ln the case of both (a) and (b) above, the promotions/financial upgradations granted under ACP to the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 prior to 1.1.2006will be ignored on account of merger of the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 recommended by the Sixth cpe. As per CCS (RP) Rules, both of them will be granted grade pay of Rs. 4200 in the pay band PB-2.
After the implementation of MACPS, two financial upgradations will be granted both in the case of (a) and (b) above to the next higher grade pays of Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 in the pay band PB-2.

8. Promotions earned in the post carrying same grade pay in the promotional hierarchy as per Recruitment Rules shall be counted for the purpose of MACPS.  

  
8.1 Consequent upon the implementation of Sixth CPe's recommendations, grade pay of Rs. 5400 is now in two pay bands viz., PB-2 and PB-3. The grade pay of Rs. 5400 in PB-2 and Rs.5400 in PB-3 shall be treated as separate grade pays for the purpose of grant of  upgradations under MACP Scheme."

 Hence, what has been clarified would apply to 5400 gpay of PB2 & PB3 and would not be correct if it is intended for 4200 Grade pay and it would only appear to be matter of convenience (for 4200gpay & not supported by rules if applied to 4200 gpay).   Any other views also welcome.

Ramnath

DY OFFICE SUPDT - ONE TIME INCREMENT - IF deprived, represent to the Chairman, CBEC

Dear DOS of CE & Customs,
If you are deprived of one time increment benefit, then represent to the Chairman, CBEC for it with copy to Ministerial Federation for taking up the issue with the Board.   Here is my representation.   You may customise according to your position and represent.   Givenbelow:-

From

Deputy Office Superintendent,

To

The Chairman,

Central Board of Excise & Customs,

New Delhi. (Through proper channel)

Respected Sir,

Sub: One time increment – Deprival of benefit to Deputy Office Superintendents due to

non-acceptance of Revised Option - Request for issue of orders/instructions –

Regarding.

---

I would like to humbly bring the following for issue of necessary orders/instructions to enable Deputy Office Superintendents like me to get the benefit of one time increment for which order has been issued vide Office Memorandum No.10/02/2011-E.III/A dated 19^th March, 2012 of Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi granting One time increment for those who had their increment from February 2006 to June 2006 prior to implementation of 6^th Pay Commission recommendations (copy enclosed as Annexure-I).

2. I was working as DOS Level-II and my increment month was April, prior to merger of DOS Level-I & DOS Level-II. In order to get the one time increment benefit, I had given Revised Option citing letter F.No.A-26017/131/2008-Ad.IIA dated 15^th December, 2009 (copy enclosed as Annexure-II) of Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi which had permitted revision of option on implementation of 6^th Pay Commission recommendations.

3. Based on the revised option given by me, the Pay Fixation Statement & Arrears Bill was sent to PAO, Central Excise, Chennai. But the same has been returned that my case is not covered under One time increment order dt.19.3.2012 (copies of Bill Return Memos enclosed as Annexure-III).

4. On merger of DOS Level-I & DOS Level-II, pay fixation was done granting the benefit of merger w.e.from April, 2006 prior to implementation of 6^th Pay Commission. 6^th Pay Commission being an unforeseen event, the revision of option for Dy. Office Superintendents was allowed by the Board vide letter dated 15^th December, 2009 on the grounds that if revision of option has resulted from Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, a Govt. Servant may be allowed to revise the option for fixation of pay within one month from the date of issue of the OM dated 29.1.2009 and all the Cadre Controlling Authorities were requested to take necessary action in terms of aforesaid OM dated 29.1.2009.  Since revision of option was permitted vide letter dated 15^th Decmeber, 2009, I exercised for revision of option as getting pay fixation on 20.9.2005 itself was beneficial to me, but only till grant of one time increment.    Now, one time increment which is an unforeseen event has occured, I have again given revised option to avail the benefit.   But, the same has been returned by the PAO though Pay fixation was made and arrears bill was prepared.   It is to be stated here that I would not have revised my option at all (as per letter dt.15.12.2009), if one time increment benefit was in place on pay commission's notification itself.    Since it is a new development but one of the benefits of 6th Pay Commission, I have given revised option which is not being accepted by the PAO.    Denial of such benefit which is an unforeseen event, does not render any justice.  

5. Though one time increment is one of the benefits of 6^th Pay Commission which has been announced only now and the order dated 15^th December, 2009 covers it by default, it is not being accepted by PAO. Denial of revision of option is not justified in view of the unforeseen circumstances and I am deprived/denied of genuine opportunity for no fault of mine.

8. I would like to further add that mine is not an isolated case and there are many Dy. Office Superintendents similarly placed persons spread through out the Department in all Commissionerates who have been deprived of and denied the benefit due to non-acceptance of revised option.

10. In view of the above submissions, I request for issue of necessary clarification/order with regard to letter dated: 15^th December, 2009 to enable submission and acceptance of revised option, which is solely due to unforeseen circumstances/event i.e., one time increment which is one of the benefits of 6^th Pay Commission granted w.e.from 1.1.2006.

I shall be so grateful for doing the needful in this regard.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Copy submitted to:

The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise,

                                            . - for kind information. (Through proper channel)

Copy to: All India Central Excise and Service Tax Ministerial Officers Association

                - for information and necessary action.

One Increment on promotion in posts carrying same Grade pay - Is it the solution?

Friends,
Our leaders have demanded for something lesser and the same has been now agreed as a final solution.   Here I mean the ONE INCREMENT for posts lying in the same Grade pay but are Feeder & Promotional post to each other.

The fact which was failed to be noted is that When a person for example, remains in Rs.4200/- Grade pay (I think this situation prevails in merged scales of 5000-5500-6500), he is able to achieve the 3% Increment Plus Next Immediate Higher Grade pay On MACP itself.    Pl. note: MACP is a fall back Option (Which is the substitute option as a last resort) which itself guarantees 3% Increment & Next Immediate Grade pay.    A substitute option (Last resort) is able to guarantee these benefits.   What is guaranteed by MACP is not in place in actual promotion.    ABSOLUTELY IRRATIONAL and UNREASONABLE and NOT JUSTIFIED.

Similar situation and grant of one increment is already in place in Auditors (AT SENIOR LEVEL) case where two posts - feeder and Promotional post remain in two different pay bands like PB2 Rs,9300 with Rs.5400 Grade pay & PB3 Rs.15600 with Rs.5400 Gpay.    In this case, MACP also takes both pay bands as different for grant of MACP.    In this case, both MACP and Promotion benefit remain equal.    Here, atleast the fixation will be at minimum of Rs.15600/- if the person promoted has basic pay lesser than Rs.15600/-   But, the same cannot be the case with regard to merged scales of Rs.5000-6500 because promotion benefit falls short of MACP benefit.

When separate identity of posts are to be maintained, then grade pay should also be different for the feeder and promotional post.

Anyhow, I have cited this MACP point in my OA pending in CAT.     The next hearing will be on 23.7.2012.   No reply/counter so far from the Department side.      The argument has to be - what is achievable by MACP is not achieved even on promotion?     This itself will take care of the case and cause.

Bye for now.
Ramnath

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