Comments on the Stagnation Committee report
|
ALL
INDIA ASSOCIATION OF
CENTRAL
EXCISE GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
(Representing
the Superintendents of C.Ex & CGST)
[Recognised
vide CBEC Letter F. No. B 12017/10/2004-Ad IV A dated 21/01/2008]
6/7 A.T.D. Street,
Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641018.
|
|||||||||||
|
President
Sanjay
Srinivasan
Vice Presidents:
Prabir
Mukhopadhyay
Sanjay
Kumar
H.S.
Bajaj
K.S.
Kumar
P.K.
Jaishankar Iyer
Secretary General
R.
Manimohan
(09443063989)
Asst Secy General
Shishir
Agnihotri
Joint Secretaries:
Kousik
Roy
D.
S. Thakur
Malkit
Singh Kalugasala Moorthy
Sandip
Panvalkar
Core Committee:
Tirthankar
Pyne
Ajit
Kumar K.G.
|
Ref.
No: CBEC/21/2017 Date:
22.08.2017
To
The
Deputy Secretary ,
Ad.II,
CBEC,
New
Delhi.
Sir,
Sub:- Suggestions on
the Stagnation Committee report –reg.
Kind reference is invited to
the recommendations of the Stagnation Committee marked to us vide
F.No.C-50/58/2017-AdII of the CBEC dated 1.8.2017 seeking comments. On behalf
of the AIACEGEO, our comments are offered as below:
In comparison with
any other cadre of the CBEC or in CBDT, those recruited as Inspectors in
Central Excise are the most affected due to stagnation. They get only one promotion or utmost two,
in their entire service. On the other
hand all other cadres get promotions between 4 and 7 from recruitment to
retirement. There is no major benefit by way of MACP to this cadre because,
invariably even in the promotion or MACP what is available is only an
incremental benefit due to the closeness of Pay scales or pay bands of the
adjacent cadres, in the hierarchy. The
following is the comparable position in respect of those officers who had
been recruited through a combined common SSC Exam:
The
above position is fairly conceded in the recently submitted report of the
Stagnation Committee with Shri. Balesh Kumar ADG (HRM-I) as the Chairman.
We
therefore proceed to offering our comments and further suggestions on the
above report:
|
||||||||||
Comments on the
report:
(1) The Stagnation
Committee in its draft report has stated that the difference in qualifying
service required for promotion to the posts of Supdts of CEx, Supdt of Custom
Preventive and Appraisers caused disparity in promotion to the next higher
grade of Assistant Commissioner. This is
not correct for the reason that when there is heavy stagnation and Inspectors
could not get promotion even after 15 years to 20 years, the higher qualifying
service cannot be held to be a reason for the disparity. The proposal to reduce the qualifying service
for promotion to the cadre of Superintendent of Central Excise will only serve
to increase the regional disparity within Central Excise whereby more and more
junior officers of one state would become supervisory officers for senior
officers in another state. Bringing
parity in qualifying service, at best, will bring in uniform eligibility
criteria. It does not ensure promotion of all officers batch wise in a given
year. Hence, it is in no way going to mitigate the problem of stagnation.
(2) The Stagnation
Committee has suggested that in order to do away with the inter-zonal disparity
in promotions within Central Excise, the vacant posts in one zone could be
moved to the stagnating zone. Apart from
the feasibility of the proposal due to working requirements, even if this is
implemented, it would benefit only the present Inspectors and would not serve
to mitigate the stagnation at the level of Superintendents. The suggested merger of cadres of C.Ex and
Customs at the level of Inspector level posts also is for only prospective
implementation. An easier and effective option for the future would be adoption
of All India Seniority for Inspectors atleast from 2006 because, after 2006
they have been recruited through a single All India Exam and based on All India
merit list.
(3) The Stagnation
Committee has recommended grant of weightage for seniority for promotion to
Group A. It would be more appropriate to
give weightage for the length of service beyond qualifying service in the Group
B cadre instead of a flat two years.
(4) The Committee has
recommended permitting Superintendents of CGST to go on deputation to SGST to a
post one above the post currently held.
It is to be emphasised that it has to be one post higher to the
corresponding post of that of the Superintendents. This is because in many of the States, the
GST Officers comparable to the Inspectors and Superintendents of CGST have been
upgraded by one level whereby the Officers who were Commercial Tax Officers
comparable to the Superintendents of CGST are Assistant Commissioners. For example, in states like Telengana, at the
time of toll out of GST, the GST Officers have already been given two
promotions. Similarly in the same manner, the Assistant Commissioners and
Deputy Commissioners also could be permitted to go on deputation to the State
GST posts.
(5) The Committee has
recommended grant of NFU for Inspectors and Superintendents for delay in
promotion to be computed in relation to the comparable services in Central
Secretariat Services.
(6) The Committee has
suggested extension of tenure of the 2118 AC posts created temporarily. While the temporary posts were created to
mitigate Stagnation and since it is not on the regular strength, it should be
available only for mitigating stagnation. Furthermore, these 2118 posts are not
part of Group A RRs 2016 and hence the ratio of promotion to regular Gr ‘A’
posts should not be applied.
(7) In 2014, 2118 posts
of ACs were created on a temporary basis to mitigate stagnation. However, as on date more than 600 posts of
Assistant Commissioners are lying vacant and many number of Superintendents are
retiring with only one promotion in their entire career of more than 35
years. Hence there is an urgent need to
intervene in the issue immediately. The
immediate problem faced in conducting DPCs has been stated as the litigation
regarding the implementation of the judgement of the Apex Court in the N.R.Parmar
case.
In the light of the
above, the following urgent steps are suggested to improve the situation:
i) Issue instructions
to the field formations giving detailed guidelines regarding implementation of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar as has been done by
CBDT vide F. No. HRD/CM/220/14/2013-14 dated 07.11.2014.
ii) Issue of All India
Seniority of Superintendents (which was last issued as on 1.1.2007 only).
iii) Conducting DPC for
the posts of Assistant Commissioners within 2 months by which time the Cadre
Controlling Authorities are required to revise the Seniority Lists of
Inspectors and Superintendents as per the above said instructions.
iv) In the event of
delay in finalising revision of Seniority lists by the Cadre Controlling
Authorities, conduct DPCs as suggested by the Eranakulam CAT in para 20 of its
order in O.A No. 180/403/2015 dated 15.12.2015.
v) The ad hoc
promotions from 1.1.97 may be regularised.
vi) A time frame may be
fixed for getting the ACs promoted under Temporary slots to Organised cadre in
symmetric alignment with regularisation of ad hoc promotions from 1.1.97
vii) Extension may be
sought for the 2118 posts of ACs for another 5 years and fill them up only from
the stagnating cadres.
viii)
Superintendents
and ACs/DCs may be permitted to go on deputation to the SGST as Deputy
Commissioners, since the Commercial Tax Officers have already been upgraded to
the level of Assistant Commissioners in most of the States.
ix) Similarly the ACs
and DCs of the department also may be permitted to go to SGST on deputation as
JCs or ADCs.
x) A onetime relaxation
may be sought from the DOPT to grant promotions for Officers completing service
as below:
|
On completion of
|
To be promoted as
|
|
8
years from entry as Inspector
|
Superintendent
|
|
15
years from entry as Inspector
|
Assistant
Commissioner
|
|
20
years from entry as Inspector
|
Deputy
Commissioner
|
|
25
years from entry as Inspector
|
Joint Commissioner
|
|
30
years from entry as Inspector
|
Additional Commissioner
|
xi) As a permanent
measure, the proposal for giving weightage of seniority according to actual
period of stagnation and grant of NFU as suggested by the Stagnation Committee
could be pursued simultaneously.
In
respect of Customs postings and re-organisation:
Tackling of stagnation would not be
complete unless the Officers within the CBIC (Excise and Customs) atleast are
not brought on par in respect of promotional avenues. In this regard, the
impending re-organisation of Customs consequent to the implementation of GST
becomes imperative. Towards that the
following issues are brought on record.
1) Though land customs
and minor Ports have been handled by Central Excise Officers, the proportion of
promotions to the grade of Group A has not been commensurate.
2) In the year 1996,
the CBEC undertook an exercise of up-gradation of Inspectors and Preventive
Officers who had completed service of 15 years without a single promotion and
granted them one promotion to the next grade.
1756 Officers were covered by that scheme from 1996 to 2001. The Board also took a decision vide Brief No.
72/95 on 16.1.96 to merge the Executive Cadres of Examiners of Customs,
Preventive Officers of Customs and Inspectors of Central Excise who are all recruited
through a common examination conducted by the SSC, but between which cadres a
wide disparity was prevalent in respect of promotional avenues. But till date
that decision has not been implemented and the disparity between these coevals
has only increased multi-fold causing disquiet and disenchantment. Subsequently
in 2014, the DGHRM has again reiterated the wide disparity between these
cadres, in a note on the subject. It is
pertinent to point out that due to the non-implementation of the decision of
the Board to merge the three cadres in 1996, it is the Central Excise side
which has borne the brunt even further.
The cadre of Preventive Officers who were also stagnating beyond 15
years during 1996, have now gone to the point where a 1992 Preventive Officer
could become an Assistant Commissioner, even as the 1985 Inspector of Central
Excise continues to be a Superintendent of Central Excise. This has resulted in
junior officers from Customs becoming supervisory officers to the senior
officers in Central Excise.
3)
Repeated
requests to the CBEC to implement its own decision of 1996 have been of no
avail. Hence, if the integration of the base cadres of Examiners of Customs,
Preventive Officers of Customs and Inspectors of Central Excise, who are all
recruited through a common examination conducted by the SSC, is not possible
from the date of the resolution of the Board in 1996,
(i)
Either
CBIC may be bifurcated as C.Ex/CGST and Customs, or
(ii)
Customs
may be made a separate organisation within the CBIC.
4)
The
above bifurcation would also effectively do away with one of the major cause of
heartburn to the Central Excise officers viz. the highly demoralising situation
where one has to work under a Customs officer junior by year of recruitment to
an equivalent cadre. Even otherwise, consequent to the roll out of GST, there
appears to be an urgent need to re-organise the CBIC so as to keep the Customs
within the ambit of the Union Government.
5)
Either
way, since all Central Excise Officers are also Customs Officers, as is done at
the time of bifurcation of any organisation, all the staff of Central Excise
may be given a onetime option between the Central Excise/CGST or Customs.
6)
If
Customs is to be made into a separate organisation/wing within the CBIC, the
following pattern will have to be followed to take care of mutual interests of
all stake holders:
(i) Have one Recruitment
Rules for the C.Ex & CGST Promotee Group A Officers and one for the Customs
Promotee Group A Officers, upto the rank of Commissioner on either side and
(ii)
Make
mobility between the two wings possible only for the Direct Recruit IRS
Officers.
It is requested that on any further discussions on
the above subject, we may also kindly be intimated and given an opportunity to
place our points in person.
Yours truly,
(R. Manimohan)
Secretary General
Copy
submitted to Member (Admn), CBEC, for information
Comments
Post a Comment