1. Recruitment Rules.
2. Apex Court Order dated 03.08.11,
3. Cadre Restructuring.
4. MACP Anomaly,
5. Date of increment.
6. Pay Parity.
On point nos. 1&2 (above) all have discussed. In course of discussions all the participants were having an opinion that Apex Court on dated 03, 08.11 had directed to Board, to examine all the representations to be submitted and already submitted by the staff Associations of Feeder Cadres. But Board had not examined the representations submitted by Central Excise cadres, which is a gross violation of Apex Court order dated 03.08.11. Hence unanimously all were having an opinion that the Board minutes and the draft RR are to be challenged in Apex Court dully reviving the case filed by our different units. Though no decision was taken because this was an informal meeting, it was decided that first the matter will be discussed with the Advocate and if the Advocate will suggest to revive the case again then the draft will be procured from him and thereafter all the Applicants Units such as Pune, Meerut, along with both the intervener units such as Bhubaneswar and Kerala will make discussion with President and Secretary General at Delhi and thereafter the case will be revived again for proper justice. Meanwhile if Board will file clarificatory petition for implementation of RR prospectively, then the same will also be challenged in Apex Court by our Association.
The Secretary General informed that an OA will be filed in CAT principal Bench for merger of all three base cadres retrospectively.
As regards cadre restructuring, the Secretary General has informed the house that the Board replies to the queries of DOPT is pending with Member (P&V).
As regards to MACP anomaly Loknathjee informed that the draft of OA has been circulated by Chandra Moulijee and after perusal of the same the case will be filed in CAT Chennai.
As regards allowing of one increment to officers who have joined during 1st February to 30th June, lokanathjee had informed that the matter is still pending with anomaly committee. However according to him with holding or postponing date of increment amounts to punishment without offence, therefore the same is required to be challenged in court of law..
As regards to pay anomaly, Lokanathjee had informed that OA no 624/2011 has been filed in CAT Cuttack for enhancement of pay scale in the cadre of Superintendent since 01.01.96. The case is still pending for decision.
Except the above there was no discussion about any demand of Inspectors Association. Except office bearers of Coimbatore, Trichy and Madurai, all the office bears of all the southern units were present. The meeting was conducted very peacefully and all the members present in the meeting had contributed a lot in the discussions. Thanks were provided to office bearers of Karnataka unit for organizing such beautiful meeting at a very crucial time.
Posted on Facebook group KNOWLEDGE ON SERVICE MATTERS by Shri LOKANATH MISHRA with this note " I ( Lokanath Mishra) was out of hdqrs. for last 7 days for which I could not open the face book. While I opened the same I found certain incorrect postings have been made relating to Bangalore meeting, by the friends who had not attended such important meeting hence such postings have been deleted by me in the capacity of Administrator".
3 comments:
I totally agree that this agreement with 13:2:1 ratio is totally irrational and needs to be thoroughly condemned / contested.
Thanks for minutes circulated.The issue of common seniority/revival of old RRs,1987 which would ensure parity at least in the group B cadre (gap being 2001 apprs ,cus supdts 1996 and cex supdts 1992) and regularisation of all adhoc fom 1997 on this new RRs was a consensus conclusion.There was also a suggestion that this could be written as a letter to the new Chairman,-referring to minutes of Board meeting on 16-09-2011and the draft RRs given on website of cbec--before filing the petition in the court.As we have seen Court will not go deep into the nuances of RRs,only direct dept to finalise same after examining the representations ,as done on 3/8/2011.REG. WHETHER RATIO OR PARITY WILL BE BETTER,SINCE EVERY BODY HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE CAREER ASPIRATIONS, POLICY SHOULD BE TO EVOLVE A POLICY WHICH WOULD ENSURE 'JUST,EQUITY AND FAIR CHANCES 'FOR ALL.No doubt,parity to reach group B (even among difft.cex commtes and then customs cadres) and then parity to reach Gr.A will be the IDEAL SITUATION ANY BODY CAN FORE SEE AND PURSUE..ALL THE BEST.unnikrishnan,cochin
Good that the stand should be --OTHER THAN PARITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE--.But parity at which level is the basic issue.After joining the 3 streams thro'SSC exam(that too only DRs of 66.6%),the cadres are again split up customhouse wise,cex comm'te/zone wise--and all these levels disparity exist--like 1986 shillong Inspr,2002 Insprs elsewhere becoming supdts,Mumbai Pos waiting whereas posts lying vacant at cochin for POs with 8 yrs,Posts of apprs vacant for want of exr with 3 yrs in cochin,5 yrs exr waiting in mumbai etc.While all these inconsistencies exist and is a reality even today--no serious efforts being made to bring parity within excise commts/zones --the slogan of parity with 1992 exr to be made ACs is raised.I feel there may be some POs of 1992 aggrieved that his counter part is made AC,as he did not opt for appraiser and leaders are carried away by this idea given by the 'strong brain'. Will the excise men who became supdts earlier ever concede that the seniority be w.r.to date of joining as Inspr/ssc panel.??If so pl. be informed that there are orders dt.26-6-1990,issued at the instance of the then Inspectors fedn, to the effect that annual dpcs are to be held in june and promotions ordered on last w/dy of june..Read with dopt guidelines on seniority that 'for promotees ,the dpc select panel will decide the seniority',the seniority should have been drawn by merger of the various dpc panels of every year ,the seniormost inspr among the panel being the senior as supdt of that year.Has any assn pursued this?.Even now the seniority of supdt is fixed w.r.to date of joining as supdt--thus an inspr of 1993 joined as supdt on 14th july will be senior to another inspr of 1986 of other commte joined on 15th july.When the parity within same cadre of insprs among various commtes are not being pursued independently,how any body can expect parity with exr of 1992 to be ACs--even if made as AC,what seniority will be followed--ssc rank of inspr/select panel for promotion/date of joining as supdt as figuring in the present seniority list?.The complicated /confused policy in all these matters can not be expected to be sorted out in one fine MORNING slogan of parity.(or late evening!) .Without any bias to any body,pl. read,and think over..ALL THE VERY BEST.
Post a Comment