Grand Success of GST protest

On Martyrs Day, Officers of CBEC are forced to wear black bands/badges, to protest against some of the decisions taken by the recent GST Council headed by the Hon'ble Finance Minister.

The Associations under CBEC observe that the said decisions are heavily tilted towards the states which does not augur well for the sovereign function of the Centre to levy and collect taxes. While extending their support for successful and smooth implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST), the Associations felt that the decisions were not rational.

However, in the present setup of things and the decisions which have been taken in the recent meeting of the GST Council, it is felt that the basic structure of the scheme is being compromised and the same may lead to utmost chaos which may be detrimental not only to the revenue but also to the industry, trade and commerce in general, as well the interest of the service of the all employees.

The Council had in its January 16 meeting agreed to give states the powers to levy tax on economic activity within 12 nautical miles of territorial waters and to administer 90 per cent of the tax payers under Rs 1.5 Crore annual turnover besides certain provisions of Integrated GST. These and other decisions are detrimental the very existence of the huge work force under Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). All the employees from top to bottom feel that there is an urgent need for their review.

Being a responsible officer of the esteemed organization, who have a history from the freedom era to liberalization till demonetisation, believe in Constitutional methods of protests to make their voices heard and to draw the attention of the decision makers. It is hoped that the action plan of the movement of wearing of black bands/badges by officials of CBEC on January 30 - Martyrs Day, will have an impact and will force them to review the decisions taken.

The response in Mumbai (in all the offices - from the city to the suburbs) was spontaneous. At a short notice, all the officers concerned, rose to the occasion, actively participated in the protest.

It is hoped that the All India body will take stock of today's protest and will chalk out the future course of action by taking all staff Associations including Inspector of Central Excise Federation  into confidence. It should be more methodical, so that it will be more forceful. Let us be UNITED in this...

****************** 

Chicken Or Egg....

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MADRAS BENCH

OAs 310/01237/2016, 310/01454/2015, 310/01536/2016 & MAs 781/2016, 889/2016, 878/2016, 880/2016, 890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016

Dated 10/01/2017

The Operative Part of the order is as under:-

14.        Heard  both.    Perused the  materials placed on  record.  It is not  in dispute that  the applicants were recruited as Direct Recruit (DR) Inspectors and joined the department during the  year  1985  through an  examination  conducted by  the  SSC  for  the  vacancy position pertaining to the  year 1983.   It is also not  in dispute that  the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court in the case of N.R. Parmar had  held  that  the  Direct Recruits Seniority  would  commence from  the date   of  initiation  of  recruitment  process when  the  vacancies  were  notified   by  the  user department to  the  recruitment agency.   Now  the  grievance of  the  applicants is that  the respondent department had  not  revised the  seniority of the  applicants based on the  N. R. Parmar's case.  For which the official respondents would submit that as per the DOPT OM dt. 04.03.2014  the   principles  of  determination  of  inter  se seniority  of  Direct  Recruit   and Promotees would be effective from 27.11.2012, the date  of Supreme Court Judgment in N.R. Parmar case.

15.        On perusal it is seen that  the  para  5(h) of the  DoPT OM dt. 04.03.2014 clarifies the principles of  determination of  inter  se seniority of  Direct  Recruit  and  Promotees is only prospective from the date  of Supreme Court Judgment.  But challenging the provision of the DOPT  OM dt.  04.03.2014,  OA was filed  before the  CAT,  Mumbai   Bench   in  OA 741  & 692/2013  wherein  this Tribunal vide order  dt. 06.05.2015 had  held that  the DOPT provision of prospective application of   Apex Court Judgment in N R Parmar case has to be ignored and   the   judicial   principle   enshrined  under   the   said  judgment  ought    to   be   applied retrospectively.    It  is  clear   that   the  order  of  Mumbai   Bench  of  this  Tribunal  had  been accepted and  conceded by the  1st and  2nd  respondents before the  High Court, Mumbai  in WP No. 6784/2013 vide its order dt. 22.09.2014 and had also implemented it in Mumbai  and Goa Customs Commissionerates.    Now the grievance of the applicants is that  if their cases are not considered for adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner on par with the similarly placed persons as per Judgment of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal they would not  only be deprived  of their right of promotion but also their juniors will become senior to them.

16.        Under  such circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that   the  applicants  are  similarly situated persons as that  of the  applicants in OA 741  and  692  of 2013  of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal  which  was confirmed by Mumbai  High Court.   The  mere  fact  that  they  were recruited before 1986 could not deprive them  of the applicability  of the 1986 OM of the DoPT. Had this been  the correct law, the applicants' senioirty would have been  fixed in terms of the 1959 OM which might have been  even more  beneficial to them.   Having applied  the 1986 OM for  fixing their  seniority  at  the  relevant  time,  the  respondents cannot now  argue  that  the 1986   OM as interpreted  by  the  Hon'ble  Apex  Court  would  have  no  applicability   to  the applicants' case. Further, the respondents cannot be oblivious of the fact that such selective application of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court might make  a 1985 direct  recruit junior to a 1986  direct  recruit  which  cannot be  sustained by any logic  or reason.  We are, therefore of the view that  the relief sought by the applicants has to be granted.  Accordingly the  seniority list published by the  respondent department without  applying  the  N.R. Parmar ratio is quashed and the respondent department is directed to draft  a seniority list following the N.R. Parmar case and  also the order  in OA 741 and  692/2013 of Mumbai  Bench  of this Tribunal  which  was confirmed by Mumbai  High Court, by giving seniority to the  applicants from  the  date  of  initiation  of  recruitment process.  Also the  respondents are  directed to consider the names of the applicants strictly in accordance with such revised seniority in the ensuing  DPC.   Accordingly  all the  OAs  are  allowed.  MAs  878/2016,  880/2016,  890/2016, 897/2016, 923/2016 filed for vacating the stay are also closed.  No costs.

(R. RAMANUJAM)                                  (A. ARUMUGHASWAMY) Member (A)                10.01.2017              Member (J)

AS