CR is cleared. Logjam is over. Be happy.

The Delegation of Mumbai was at Board's Office on 8/5/2014. Entire Board was buzy to put up the CR proposal before FM. Meeting with the Board's officials started at 5 PM till late evening. It is learnt that FM has ruled out all the queries raised by new R/S. FM was bent upon to clear the CBEC CR proposal as approved by the Cabinet. Notification for posts and formations of Commissionerates and Directorates is likely to be issued in the late night as the Board officials has to rush Mumbai for a DPC on 9/5/2014.

All the best to one and all.

The representation of CESA Mumbai on faulty Seniority Lists and demand for Temporary Post for us and uniformity in implementation of Board's OM.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Ref :  CESA/31/2014
Date : 07.05.2014.

Ms Mala Srivastav,

Hon’ble Member (P&V),
Central Board of Excise & Customs,
New Delhi

Respected Madam,

Sub:  Gross irregularities while placing the officers of Mumbai Zone

                                  in the All India Seniority List of Superintendents of Central
                                  Excise for the period 01.01.1993 to 31.12.1997 – reg.
                       

            In continuation to our letter dated 22.01.2014, CESA expresses its sincere thanks to your kind response in the matter. In this regard, Mumbai Cadre controlling Zone vide their letter dated 28.03.2014 addressed to the Under Secretary, ADII-B., with a copy endorsed to DGHRD, submitted the report wherein in para D&E, in the Annexure it was contested about the deemed date for promotions in both the Seniority lists of Superintendents at All India Level (AISL).

  Madam, a good number of officers are placed above in the Seniority list by just mentioning the ‘deemed date of promotion’ though their actual date of appointment as Superintendent is much later. No reason for such action is mentioned in the last column of AISL. It is also not clear as to how the notional date/deemed date is arrived at.  In absence of any anomaly or rulings from the judiciary, how the officers can be placed above just by mentioning the deemed date of promotions ?  In both the Seniority Lists, junior officers are placed above the Seniors. When this matter was enquired with ADII-B Section of CBEC as well as DGHRD, they simply stated that their job is only to compile the seniority lists on the basis of Zonal Seniority lists and are unable to clarify the reasons for mentioning deemed date of promotions in both the Seniority Lists(AISL).

   To elaborate - At S.No. 1709 to 1730 of the first AISL, officers of Bhubaneswar Commissionerate have been placed by showing the date of their notional promotion as 15.12.95/18.12.95 although the above officers are appointed as Superintendent on 30.09.1996.  Similarly, several other officers from Other Zones are placed above mentioning notional promotions. The extract of deemed date appeared in both the AISL is enclosed for your ready reference. 
    Further, as per the Kolkata High Court’s interim order dated 27.08.2010 in W.P.C.T. No.261/2008 and DOPT’s OM NO.36012/45/2995.Estt(Res) dated 10.8.2010, the Kolkatta CCA has revised the effective date of promotions of 1146 officers vide Establishment Order No.12/2011 dated 10.02.2011. Accordingly, the DGHRD has revised the seniority list for Kolkatta Zone. However, in the first Seniority List which is maintained by Board Authorities (Ad.II Section of the CBEC) no such revision has been carried out. The said OM dated 10.8.2010 should be made applicable to all the Cadre Controlling Zone of CBEC and accordingly both the Seniority Lists may be revised. The aforesaid OM dated 10.8.2010 is implemented in letter and spirit in CBDT (Copy enclosed).

    Madam, Kindly intervene and adopt rational uniform principles to all the officers so that no officer can take un-due advantage in their career progression and other rights. Also requested on above two counts apart from others if any and AISLs may be set right accordingly. 

            Thanking You,

      Yours Sincerely,
Sd/-
 A.K. Sasmal
General Secretary

Encl: As above .                                                                  

Copy to :

1)    Hon’ble DGHRD, CBEC, New Delhi for kind information and necessary action.

2)    Secretary General, AIACEGEO, New Delhi for kind information and necessary action to have uniformity in the AISL and rectification of both the faulty Lists.   

                                                                                             =======================

Ref :  CESA/32/2014

Date : 07.05.2014

Ms. Mala Srivastav,

Hon’ble Member (P&V),

Central Board of Excise & Customs,

New Delhi 

Respected Madam,

Sub: - Promotions of Group ‘B’ Gazetted Officers to Group ‘A’ to the

          post of Assistant Commissioner in CBEC- reg.

            The issue of promotions from Gr. ‘B’ to post of Assistant Commissioner Gr. ‘A’ has always been a bone of contention and in litigation all the years since 1987 onwards. None of the stake holders are satisfied with the with the prevailing practice. However, the worst sufferer is the Cadre of Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendents of Customs.

            Although it appears to be a very rosy picture painted to show that a large favour is done to the other two Cadres viz. the Superintendent Central Excise and Superintendent Customs, by way of giving ratio of 6:1:2 (now 13:2:1) on the basis of strength of the feeder Cadre. But the harsh reality is that the two Cadres are totally deprived off any future as far as the Career progression is concerned. The system is so that - Firstly the number of stake holders in the feeding cadre is so large as compared to the posts, so hardly a few reach to the golden mark, and Secondly, by way of following the system of vacancy base allocation of promotion.

            At present the ratio to be followed (not yet implemented even in the recent order) is 13:2:1, that is to share 16 posts of Group ‘A’ Assistant Commissioner 13 will be Superintendents of Central Excise, two Superintendents of Customs and 1 Appraiser. It will not be out of place to state that though the Examiner comes from same Staff Selection Test results which an Inspector and Preventive Officer pass but by lesser qualifying service (3 years) they reach to Group ‘B’ as Appraiser and eat all the promotion avenues in the department without any merit or justification.

            Once the officer as per the above ratio is promoted to Group A as Assistant Commissioner the 16 posts are treated as IRS cadre posts and have no link to the feeding cadre. As the Examiner promoted as Appraiser and the other Appraiser joined directly reach to Group ‘B’ much ahead of other two cadres they have large number of years in service whereas the Superintendent, though in number 13 but reach to the post having left with one or two year of maximum service. Some time they retire by the time they get posting order to the formation. Thus the vacancy created due to the retirement is again subjected to the ratio allocation in same way when posts fall vacant due to retirement of Central Excise officer. Therefore, the 13 promotions marked to Central Excise does not remain with Central Excise and is reduced gradually and goes to the other cadre and stake holders. 

 We have not lost hopes and have a solution to the problem of acute stagnation in Central Excise and Superintendent Customs and to overcome to this problem CESA Suggest the following measures to be taken immediately while implementing the Cadre Restructuring:

1.    The post base allocation i.e. the post falling vacant due to retirement of Superintendent Central Excise or by Superintendent Customs be filled in by the same stream to maintain the ratio and mobility in the Cadres which is not there at present.

2.    The 2118 temporary posts are sanctioned in the CR on the grounds of stagnation and hence has to be allocated to the Superintendent Central Excise & Superintendent Customs so that the parity be achieved first in promotion of all Group B Gazetted officers cadre. This method was adopted to remove Zonal disparity in the grade of Inspector in 1996 at the time of Up-gradation of posts though the posts were upgraded on all India basis but the post were allocated only to those Zones where Inspectors of 1982 batch or prior to that batch was not promoted on the basis of strength in respective Zones.

3.    In addition to our above suggestion the merit of the same can be emphasised by referring the stand taken by the department none but before the Supreme Court of India, while justifying the deviation from the ratio of 6:1:2, stating the excess promotions given (not factually correct) to Superintendent Central Excise & Customs, CBEC be deviated from the fixed ratio of 6:1:2 on the grounds of to offset the excess promotion. The relevant para of the Supreme Court Order dated 22.02.1999 is reproduced below:

There was a grievance raised by the writ petitioners that pending consideratio of names by the UPSC for promotion to Group A, adhoc promotions have been made to Group A and members from the first feeder category, namely, Superintendents of Excise Group B were not promoted. This was particularly so after the earlier judgment. In other words, the complaint is that for the said adhoc promotions, the quota rule of 6:1:2 has not been followed. The answer of the Union of India in this behalf is that it has been found that earlier there have been excess promotions to Group A from the petitioners' category of Excise Superintendents Group B and, therefore, presently, more officers from the other two feeder channels have been promoted on an adhoc basis so that there will be no imbalance when the final review takes place. Even assuming that for purposes of adhoc promotions it would have been fair to follow the ratio of 6:2:1, the respondents have shown adequate justification for not following the said ratio while making adhoc promotions. Thus if one of these groups in the quota has had more promotions earlier and if the Government of India wants to off-set the said advantage, such an action cannot be said to be unfair.

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA FEDERATIO OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/1999

             BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK, & M. JAGANNADHA RAO.

JUDGMENT: M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J. W.P. 651 of 1997 

      The above suggestions are easier and can be done without any violation of DOPT guidelines in the matter and have precedents also as sited above and may not even require any relaxation as CR is a policy decision and such decision can be taken for the betterment of Cadre. Needless to say that maintaining parity in promotion is one of the term of reference of CR and the above suggestion will be in consonance with that also.

             Thanking you,

      Yours sincerely,

Sd/-

   A.K. Sasmal
General Secretary

Copy to :

1)    Hon’ble DGHRD, CBEC, New Delhi for kind information and necessary action.

2)    Secretary General, AIACEGEO, New Delhi for kind information with a request to pursue the above imbalance in the feeder cadre and removal of stagnation demanding temporary post exclusively for us.   

                                                        
                                                                              ========================

Ref :  CESA/33/2014

Date : 07.05.2014

Ms. Mala Srivastav,

Hon’ble Member (P&V),

Central Board of Excise & Customs,

New Delhi

 Respected Madam,

           

            Sub: Request for fairness in regularization of promotion from Ad hoc

                    Promotion -  Reg.

Your kind attention is invited to the Board’s instructions vide F.No.A-29014/M/2011-Ad.IIB dated 24.10.2011 wherein a specific direction was issued to Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Zone stating that “it is hereby clarified to the extent that promotions to the grade of Superintendents of Central Excise against promotion to the grade of Assistant Commissioner against long term vacancies could be effected on regular basis”.

Madam, the said instructions is discriminatory, because by application of the same, the Inspector promoted to the grade of Superintendent in Jaipur Zone on ad hoc basis have been regularised against log term vacancies on account of adhoc promotion and their Seniority is placed in the top of AISL. Whereas, in case of other Zones including of Mumbai, the promotions from the Superintendent Cadre to Assistant Commissioner’s Cadre treated as ad-hoc and against these posts our Inspectors are promoted on adhoc basis and these officers have no place in the seniority list as they have not been regularised unlike Jaipur Zone.

DGHRD vide their letter dated 14.05.2013 asked for a report against long term vacancies to finalise the Seniority List.  Mumbai Zone vide their letter dated 27.05.2013 not only complied to the above but also made several communications in this regard to DGHRD, New Delhi.

It is learnt that the DGHRD is totally in disagreement with the said order dated 24.10.2011 as it doesn’t have the uniformity in all the Zones of CBEC. 

In the light of above, as well as the report of Cadre Controlling Zone, Mumbai vide their letter dated 28.03.2014 (copy enclosed) sought the same stand (like Jaipur Zone) to this Zone.  Because of lack of specific clarification in this regard, the officers of this Cadre Control are being un-duly denied the benefit (of regular promotion) granted to the Jaipur Zone and accordingly the officers are placed below in the seniority list vis-à-vis the officers of the Jaipur Zone.

Madam, at any moment the notification for implementation of Cadre restricting is likely to be issued.  However, All India Seniority Lists from which promotions for the post of Assistant Commissioner is to be done is not proper because of undue advantage given to Jaipur Zone. Unless the seniority list is rectified one Zone will be unduly benefitted at the cost of others including Mumbai Zone.  

CESA request to kindly intervene in person and if require our association will extend its fullest co-operation to resolve the said issue. CESA, expect that before effecting any promotions to Grade of A.C. the faulty Seniority List be revised and ensure no discrimination to any officer irrespective of the zone. 

Thanking You,

                                                                                                         

                                                                               Yours sincerely,

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                              (A.K. SASMAL)

                                                                              General Secretary

Encl : As above

Copy to :

1)    Hon’ble DGHRD, CBEC, New Delhi for kind information and necessary action.

2)    Secretary General, AIACEGEO, New Delhi for kind information with a request to pursue for implementation of OM without any discrimination.