WHY AC WHY NOT AEC

Respected President & Secretary General,

             My mail with title ‘Convert AC meeting to AEC Meeting’ has touched all the Office Bearers of AIB except both of you. On the contrary you have clarified in verbatim –

“As regards point no.1--- In Patna AEC meeting held during May 2013, I never pronounced any verdict to conduct the AEC meeting immediately. The resolution committee handed over a note stating that the issue of regional disparity in promotion will be discussed in next AEC meeting. The committee has not specifically recommended as to whether the meeting would be held early or otherwise.”

 In so many years of my active participation in the Association matters, I have never seen such an act of shying away from truth. The delegates present in the meeting are witness to the proceedings.

The issue of regional disparity effecting the cadre was so important that it even coerced the President of the Delhi Unit (OS to SG) to rush from the dais to be amongst the Delegates to submit his views on the issue.

The issue was anchored and deliberated by Shri. Sushil Pareekhji (Ex President) and many units had asked when and where the meeting will be held? Pune unit agreed to hold it any time but immediately a suggestion from dais came that it cannot be in Pune. Thereafter, Nashik, Goa, Mumbai offered to hold the meeting jointly or severally. Pareekhji had said that it will be held very shortly before CR, as this was the major contention of the units. Now, the clarification appearing in the mail as well as in the site is quite disappointing and out of context.

On one hand you say you are not against it but your following statement speaks otherwise.

(reproduced from site date 10.09.2013)

“Under the circumstances promotions to the post of AC cannot be allowed retrospectively on the basis of  all India seniority list for the cadre of Inspector. Certain provisions of RR can be relaxed but such relaxation cannot be made overlooking the provisions of another  RR and the guidelines of DOPT on the matter of fixation of seniority  and violating the provisions of article 14 & 16 of Constitution. Therefore, as per the present provisions of Law, the regional disparity in promotions cannot be removed retrospectively. Since AIB has already filed a case in CAT for base cadre parity in promotion as per the resolution of AC meeting held in Delhi  and the matter at present is subjudice, AIB cannot change it stands and submit another representation on a different footings”.    

What does it means? Are you not trying to justify the inequality and discrimination prevailing in the cadre? Quoting Articles of Constitution is impressive and convincing but there has to be some relevance to the subject. Simply speaking, the meaning of EQUALITY is not to discriminate in any manner.

AIB cannot change its stand and submit another representation on different footings. It is nothing but a false ego. It appears like ‘KHUDA HUMKO AISE KHUDAI NA DE JISE APNE SIVE KUTCH DIKHAI NA DE. 

At the time of last restructuring i.e. in 2002, in CAT OA 451/2002, this matter was taken up and CBEC had filed affidavit in CAT stating that the matter is under active consideration and will be dealt separately, hence point may be taken off from the OA. This fact was brought to the notice of house at Patna AEC.  After restructuring was rolled out in 2002, numerous correspondences took place on the issue and finally Bharadwaj committee was formed and there was strong news that from 2005 there will be all India Seniority of Inspectors to remove stagnation and promotional disparity.  However, as the recommendation of the said Committee was against our interest and it has no relevance to our present demand.

The Apex Court in the Judgement of Radheshyam Singh (in Para 10) is very clear that any discrimination cannot be tolerated. Para 10 reproduced.

“10. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that this process of zone-wise selection is in vogue since 1975 and has stood the test of time cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it was never challenged by anybody and was not subjected to judicial scrutiny at all. If on judicial scrutiny it cannot stand the test of reasonableness and constitutionality it cannot be allowed to continue and has to be struck down. But we make it clear that this judgment will have prospective application and whatever selections and appointments have so far been made in accordance with the impugned process of selection shall not be disturbed on the basis of this judgment. But in future no such selection shall be made on the zonal basis. If the Government is keen to make zone-wise selection after allocating some posts for each zone it may make such scheme or rules or adopt such process of selection which may not clash with the provisions contained in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India having regard to the guidelines laid down by this Court from time to time in various pronouncements. In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

(Kindly don’t read in between the lines.)

As regards to the Judgment cited i.e. 306/1988, it is for fixation of ratio between the feeding cadre to Group ‘A’ promotions and nothing else. Moreover, if you are so conversant on this issue then why are you afraid to hold the meeting on the issue, as agreed in AEC at Patna? We have offered to hold meeting number of times through our mail and in AEC at Patna also. Neither you agreed to hold the meeting or agreed to take up the issue in right prospective.

When you are convinced that nothing can happen as there are several judgement and OM etc. and regional disparity is legal then on what basis OA is filed in Principle CAT, and how CBEC made the parity in promotion as one of the term of reverence in the CR?

As regards to Principle CAT OA and respondents reply thereon, it is better to disclose it to the members from your end. As far as my understanding is concerned, at any moment of time the petition will be dismissed on solitary ground of limitation. Why are you silent on the reply of respondent as well as the response to your reply to that extent. I am not discouraging you but on going through the same I have no hope on the said petition as claimed by you.

After my mail, the AIB immediately sent the agenda for AC meeting. The issue of regional disparity has no place in the Agenda as well as the other issues raised by Mumbai Unit. The first point in the Agenda should be the confirmation of the Minutes of the last Meeting or action taken note, which is not appearing in the Agenda. The Agenda can be modified even now to include all the issues raised by Mumbai and other Units. The Meeting should be full-fledged as many office bearers are likely to attend the Meeting from far off places by spending lot of money and hence the enough time should be given for discussion of all the issues like matter of CR, pending litigation i.e. Principal CAT & implementation of Supreme Court matter and their status etc. Time is too short and we should utilise our energy to achieve our goal.

It is learnt that Board is positive on regional disparity. Board can act on receiving our proposal for removal of disparity in promotion. Mishraji, being experienced and senior officer bearer, we expect you to show us the way to sort out the issues amicably in fair manner.

 With Regard,

V.A. KOLHOTKAR

PRESIDENT, CESA

MUMBAI                                                                                                                DATED : 16.09.2013