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