CADRE RESTRUCTURING OF CBEC- CAVEAT TO BE FILED IN CAT(PB) . The cabinet approval of CR of CBEC may likely to be delayed for another one month. The DOPT objected to the cabinet note on the ground that the minutes of COS has been modified in draft cabinet note prepared by CBEC and cleared by FM.However the Ministry of Laws and Justice have objected for creation of temporary Gr-A posts for five years without any provision of direct recruitment which is violating the decision of the Apex Court. Hence now the CR is required to be cleared by GOM before approval in cabinet as per procedures of cabinet approval. Every one knows the CR of CBEC is being delayed for 8 years. This has been purposefully delayed by the leaders of AICEIA. All the Secretary Generals, who occupied such seat since2005 till date are responsible for such delayed. They asked for the report while they were having a copy of the same with them.The main purpose of such delayed is attributed to the sole reason that these leaders wanted that they are to be promoted before approval of CR, so that they are to be seniors than the senior Inspectors of stagnated zone. Now the leaders of AICEIA are totally silent on CR. In the CR there is a provision for 50% of direct recruitment out of the CR posts, no provision for all India seniority list of Inspector, abolition of temporary posts within 5 years, sanction of posts in phase manner, removal of regional disparity. But the Leaders of AICEIA have not objected to such provisions. Now it is learnt that some members having some vested interests are moving to stay the CR and to delay it further. This is not tolerable. All of us are not in favour of any delay. Hence we have decided to form a committee amongst ourselves to watch where who is moving for stay and if any stay will be granted by any CAT, then we will move to High Court to vacate the stay by producing the copy of OA No. 451 of 2002, where in it was held that CR is a policy matter and CAT has no jurisdiction to decide any issue pertaining to CR. If any one is willing to join with us please furnish his willingness urgently. It is learnt that CAT cases may likely to be be filed at Mumbai and Chennai. Officers of a particular group of Tamil Nadu have already consulted advocates to obtain stay order from the CAT, Chennai bench. Similarly certain Officers of Maharastra and MP under the leadership of PATIL have already consulted to obtain stay from CAT, Mumbai. W e have also decided to file a caveat in CAT , Principal Bench, New Delhi with a prayer, if any stay application will be filed in any co ordinating bench of CAT , then the stay may not be granted ex parte, without providing an opportunity to us. That the right to retrospective regional parity among ourselves from our entry grade is definitely a justified demand particularly when we are demanding parity with our Customs counterpart also from the entry level. So, we should definitely make a demand to that effect to the concerned authority citing the benefit enjoyed by the Appraisers consequent upon the issuance of earlier Supreme Court verdict. Moreover, there should not be any problem in removing regional imbalance straightaway from a date when the all India merit list is available. This is important from the point of view that our AICEIA has agreed to the consequential all India transfer liability. Recently Board has examined such issue along with the decisions of Radhesyam case of Apex Court and opinions of Ministry of laws and Additional Solicitor General on the subject issue, Bharadwaj Committee report and the judgement of CAT Jabalpur pronounced way back on 1997, immediately after the Radheshyam Singh case at the time of upgradation and what Govt affirmed in that case. The Board has reached in a conclusion that as per the Inspectors of Central Excise recruitment rules the appointing authority in relation to Inspector grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. Similarly as per the Superintendents of Central Excise Recruitment Rules the appointing authority in relation to Superintendent grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. As per these rules , Commissioner of Central Excise (CCA) is the proper authority which is empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to both the grades of Inspector & Superintendent . There is no provisions under such rule for delegation of powers to subordinate or exercise of power s by higher officials. Hence Commissioner (CCA) is the only competent person to appoint both Inspector and Superintendent . Neither Board nor DG/HRD are empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to make appointments to the Grades of Inspector & Superintendent . Commissioner (CCA) is the competent authority for appointment of Superintendents, he is also competent to prepare seniority list of Inspectors working under his jurisdiction to grant promotions to the grade of Superintendent on zonal basis as per the provisions of RR as he is the appointing authority for the post of Superintendent. Board is not authorised to prepare a unified seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise on all India basis unless the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is amended suitably . Since appointments have already been made and promotions have already been granted, these rules can not be amended retrospectively. Since the Union Govt.( through CBEC) is competent for appointment of AC as per Gr-A RR, CBEC is preparing the seniority list of feeder categories ( in cluding Superintendent of Central Excise )on all India basis to grant promotions the post of AC. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Chief Commissioners/CBEC are the appellate /revision authority respectively for the grade of Superintendent. Appellate authority can not exercise the power of adjudicating authority. Example Commissioner ( Appeal ) can not adjudicate any case which are empowered for adjudication by Commissioner or by any subordinate to Commissioner . The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 also provides different provisions pertaining to vigilance,accounts and other service matters, there is not a single instance for amendment of the same retrospectively. The Authority of such rules at present is DOPT. The Radhesyam case is related to conducting of examination by SSC in the pattern of UPSC. The examination is being conducted by SSC on all India basis but candidates are allotted as per requisitions of appointing authorities, hence appointing authority is only responsible to maintain the merit list in respect of allotted candidates. Promotion and seniority will be granted by appointing authority. All India seniority list of Inspectors therefore can be made prospectively ( for those who will join on or after 2013 only )if the appointing authority will be changed from Commissioner to Board. Now Board therefore abandoned the idea for preparation of all India seniority list for Inspector and DG/HRD has issued letter for allotment of new establishments and staffs, zone wise. The Chief Commissioners have already received such letter from the DG/HRD regarding implementation of the reorganisation of the Commissionerates and allotment of staffs zone wise. Therefore at present there is no use to file any CAT case. CADRE RESTRUCTURING OF CBEC- CAVEAT TO BE FILED IN CAT(PB) . The cabinet approval of CR of CBEC may likely to be delayed for another one month. The DOPT objected to the cabinet note on the ground that the minutes of COS has been modified in draft cabinet note prepared by CBEC and cleared by FM.However the Ministry of Laws and Justice have objected for creation of temporary Gr-A posts for five years without any provision of direct recruitment which is violating the decision of the Apex Court. Hence now the CR is required to be cleared by GOM before approval in cabinet as per procedures of cabinet approval. Every one knows the CR of CBEC is being delayed for 8 years. This has been purposefully delayed by the leaders of AICEIA. All the Secretary Generals, who occupied such seat since2005 till date are responsible for such delayed. They asked for the report while they were having a copy of the same with them.The main purpose of such delayed is attributed to the sole reason that these leaders wanted that they are to be promoted before approval of CR, so that they are to be seniors than the senior Inspectors of stagnated zone. Now the leaders of AICEIA are totally silent on CR. In the CR there is a provision for 50% of direct recruitment out of the CR posts, no provision for all India seniority list of Inspector, abolition of temporary posts within 5 years, sanction of posts in phase manner, removal of regional disparity. But the Leaders of AICEIA have not objected to such provisions. Now it is learnt that some members having some vested interests are moving to stay the CR and to delay it further. This is not tolerable. All of us are not in favour of any delay. Hence we have decided to form a committee amongst ourselves to watch where who is moving for stay and if any stay will be granted by any CAT, then we will move to High Court to vacate the stay by producing the copy of OA No. 451 of 2002, where in it was held that CR is a policy matter and CAT has no jurisdiction to decide any issue pertaining to CR. If any one is willing to join with us please furnish his willingness urgently. It is learnt that CAT cases may likely to be be filed at Mumbai and Chennai. Officers of a particular group of Tamil Nadu have already consulted advocates to obtain stay order from the CAT, Chennai bench. Similarly certain Officers of Maharastra and MP under the leadership of PATIL have already consulted to obtain stay from CAT, Mumbai. W e have also decided to file a caveat in CAT , Principal Bench, New Delhi with a prayer, if any stay application will be filed in any co ordinating bench of CAT , then the stay may not be granted ex parte, without providing an opportunity to us. That the right to retrospective regional parity among ourselves from our entry grade is definitely a justified demand particularly when we are demanding parity with our Customs counterpart also from the entry level. So, we should definitely make a demand to that effect to the concerned authority citing the benefit enjoyed by the Appraisers consequent upon the issuance of earlier Supreme Court verdict. Moreover, there should not be any problem in removing regional imbalance straightaway from a date when the all India merit list is available. This is important from the point of view that our AICEIA has agreed to the consequential all India transfer liability. Recently Board has examined such issue along with the decisions of Radhesyam case of Apex Court and opinions of Ministry of laws and Additional Solicitor General on the subject issue, Bharadwaj Committee report and the judgement of CAT Jabalpur pronounced way back on 1997, immediately after the Radheshyam Singh case at the time of upgradation and what Govt affirmed in that case. The Board has reached in a conclusion that as per the Inspectors of Central Excise recruitment rules the appointing authority in relation to Inspector grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. Similarly as per the Superintendents of Central Excise Recruitment Rules the appointing authority in relation to Superintendent grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. As per these rules , Commissioner of Central Excise (CCA) is the proper authority which is empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to both the grades of Inspector & Superintendent . There is no provisions under such rule for delegation of powers to subordinate or exercise of power s by higher officials. Hence Commissioner (CCA) is the only competent person to appoint both Inspector and Superintendent . Neither Board nor DG/HRD are empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to make appointments to the Grades of Inspector & Superintendent . Commissioner (CCA) is the competent authority for appointment of Superintendents, he is also competent to prepare seniority list of Inspectors working under his jurisdiction to grant promotions to the grade of Superintendent on zonal basis as per the provisions of RR as he is the appointing authority for the post of Superintendent. Board is not authorised to prepare a unified seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise on all India basis unless the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is amended suitably . Since appointments have already been made and promotions have already been granted, these rules can not be amended retrospectively. Since the Union Govt.( through CBEC) is competent for appointment of AC as per Gr-A RR, CBEC is preparing the seniority list of feeder categories ( in cluding Superintendent of Central Excise )on all India basis to grant promotions the post of AC. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Chief Commissioners/CBEC are the appellate /revision authority respectively for the grade of Superintendent. Appellate authority can not exercise the power of adjudicating authority. Example Commissioner ( Appeal ) can not adjudicate any case which are empowered for adjudication by Commissioner or by any subordinate to Commissioner . The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 also provides different provisions pertaining to vigilance,accounts and other service matters, there is not a single instance for amendment of the same retrospectively. The Authority of such rules at present is DOPT. The Radhesyam case is related to conducting of examination by SSC in the pattern of UPSC. The examination is being conducted by SSC on all India basis but candidates are allotted as per requisitions of appointing authorities, hence appointing authority is only responsible to maintain the merit list in respect of allotted candidates. Promotion and seniority will be granted by appointing authority. All India seniority list of Inspectors therefore can be made prospectively ( for those who will join on or after 2013 only )if the appointing authority will be changed from Commissioner to Board. Now Board therefore abandoned the idea for preparation of all India seniority list for Inspector and DG/HRD has issued letter for allotment of new establishments and staffs, zone wise. The Chief Commissioners have already received such letter from the DG/HRD regarding implementation of the reorganisation of the Commissionerates and allotment of staffs zone wise. Therefore at present there is no use to file any CAT case. CADRE RESTRUCTURING OF CBEC- CAVEAT TO BE FILED IN CAT(PB) . The cabinet approval of CR of CBEC may likely to be delayed for another one month. The DOPT objected to the cabinet note on the ground that the minutes of COS has been modified in draft cabinet note prepared by CBEC and cleared by FM.However the Ministry of Laws and Justice have objected for creation of temporary Gr-A posts for five years without any provision of direct recruitment which is violating the decision of the Apex Court. Hence now the CR is required to be cleared by GOM before approval in cabinet as per procedures of cabinet approval. Every one knows the CR of CBEC is being delayed for 8 years. This has been purposefully delayed by the leaders of AICEIA. All the Secretary Generals, who occupied such seat since2005 till date are responsible for such delayed. They asked for the report while they were having a copy of the same with them.The main purpose of such delayed is attributed to the sole reason that these leaders wanted that they are to be promoted before approval of CR, so that they are to be seniors than the senior Inspectors of stagnated zone. Now the leaders of AICEIA are totally silent on CR. In the CR there is a provision for 50% of direct recruitment out of the CR posts, no provision for all India seniority list of Inspector, abolition of temporary posts within 5 years, sanction of posts in phase manner, removal of regional disparity. But the Leaders of AICEIA have not objected to such provisions. Now it is learnt that some members having some vested interests are moving to stay the CR and to delay it further. This is not tolerable. All of us are not in favour of any delay. Hence we have decided to form a committee amongst ourselves to watch where who is moving for stay and if any stay will be granted by any CAT, then we will move to High Court to vacate the stay by producing the copy of OA No. 451 of 2002, where in it was held that CR is a policy matter and CAT has no jurisdiction to decide any issue pertaining to CR. If any one is willing to join with us please furnish his willingness urgently. It is learnt that CAT cases may likely to be be filed at Mumbai and Chennai. Officers of a particular group of Tamil Nadu have already consulted advocates to obtain stay order from the CAT, Chennai bench. Similarly certain Officers of Maharastra and MP under the leadership of PATIL have already consulted to obtain stay from CAT, Mumbai. W e have also decided to file a caveat in CAT , Principal Bench, New Delhi with a prayer, if any stay application will be filed in any co ordinating bench of CAT , then the stay may not be granted ex parte, without providing an opportunity to us. That the right to retrospective regional parity among ourselves from our entry grade is definitely a justified demand particularly when we are demanding parity with our Customs counterpart also from the entry level. So, we should definitely make a demand to that effect to the concerned authority citing the benefit enjoyed by the Appraisers consequent upon the issuance of earlier Supreme Court verdict. Moreover, there should not be any problem in removing regional imbalance straightaway from a date when the all India merit list is available. This is important from the point of view that our AICEIA has agreed to the consequential all India transfer liability. Recently Board has examined such issue along with the decisions of Radhesyam case of Apex Court and opinions of Ministry of laws and Additional Solicitor General on the subject issue, Bharadwaj Committee report and the judgement of CAT Jabalpur pronounced way back on 1997, immediately after the Radheshyam Singh case at the time of upgradation and what Govt affirmed in that case. The Board has reached in a conclusion that as per the Inspectors of Central Excise recruitment rules the appointing authority in relation to Inspector grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. Similarly as per the Superintendents of Central Excise Recruitment Rules the appointing authority in relation to Superintendent grade means the authority empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to that grade. As per these rules , Commissioner of Central Excise (CCA) is the proper authority which is empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, to make appointments to both the grades of Inspector & Superintendent . There is no provisions under such rule for delegation of powers to subordinate or exercise of power s by higher officials. Hence Commissioner (CCA) is the only competent person to appoint both Inspector and Superintendent . Neither Board nor DG/HRD are empowered under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to make appointments to the Grades of Inspector & Superintendent . Commissioner (CCA) is the competent authority for appointment of Superintendents, he is also competent to prepare seniority list of Inspectors working under his jurisdiction to grant promotions to the grade of Superintendent on zonal basis as per the provisions of RR as he is the appointing authority for the post of Superintendent. Board is not authorised to prepare a unified seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise on all India basis unless the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is amended suitably . Since appointments have already been made and promotions have already been granted, these rules can not be amended retrospectively. Since the Union Govt.( through CBEC) is competent for appointment of AC as per Gr-A RR, CBEC is preparing the seniority list of feeder categories ( in cluding Superintendent of Central Excise )on all India basis to grant promotions the post of AC. Under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Chief Commissioners/CBEC are the appellate /revision authority respectively for the grade of Superintendent. Appellate authority can not exercise the power of adjudicating authority. Example Commissioner ( Appeal ) can not adjudicate any case which are empowered for adjudication by Commissioner or by any subordinate to Commissioner . The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 also provides different provisions pertaining to vigilance,accounts and other service matters, there is not a single instance for amendment of the same retrospectively. The Authority of such rules at present is DOPT. The Radhesyam case is related to conducting of examination by SSC in the pattern of UPSC. The examination is being conducted by SSC on all India basis but candidates are allotted as per requisitions of appointing authorities, hence appointing authority is only responsible to maintain the merit list in respect of allotted candidates. Promotion and seniority will be granted by appointing authority. All India seniority list of Inspectors therefore can be made prospectively ( for those who will join on or after 2013 only )if the appointing authority will be changed from Commissioner to Board. Now Board therefore abandoned the idea for preparation of all India seniority list for Inspector and DG/HRD has issued letter for allotment of new establishments and staffs, zone wise. The Chief Commissioners have already received such letter from the DG/HRD regarding implementation of the reorganisation of the Commissionerates and allotment of staffs zone wise. Therefore at present there is no use to file any CAT case.
Posted on: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 03:48:53 +0000