Cadre Restructuring

Article written by Sri ashokkulgod ashokkulgod in Tax India Online (21-02-2011). (Reproduced by Sri R.Prabhakar, Gen Secretary of AICEIA, Vizag Branch) 1. With the advent of the proposal to restructure the possibilities of achieving

the parity in the matters of promotion is the highest. However, the proposals talk of distributing the additional posts available in terms of the present ratio of 6:1:2 and therefore instead of parity they are only talking different progressions to the three cadres. 2. In another petition made by fellow unit of the Association and also in respect of various depositions in the Supreme Court the Government admits of the need for change of ratio from the present one, to the ratio 15:2:1. Hence, we are 50% thru in respect of the main prayer of declaring the Recruitment Rules ultra virus of the Constitution. 3. The question of parity was raised in special communications to the CBEC by the petitioner units. The proposals have been discussed in the Board meeting dated 4th Jan, 12th Jan, 4th Feb and 18th Feb all of 2011. The reading of one of the documents i.e. the minutes of the meeting dt. 12th Jan 2011, gives the impression that the CBEC does not want to accede to the request directly; but is engaging itself in the process of confusing the cadre and its leadership by creating in-situ positions, which is really immaterial and irrelevant to the process of restructuring. 4. That the parity in the most simplistic manner was suggested by us, but the CBEC has been deliberating this over so many marathon meetings. This itself goes to suggest that the parity as per the dictionary meaning shall not be the conceived decision of the CBEC. 5. The CBEC at this juncture, has raised the question of base cadre seniority. Base cadre seniority would be the best thing to happen. We have asked for it in one of the prayers in the petition. But after following different policies over the

year especially Commissionerate load based distribution of posts in the restructuring of 2001; - has resulted in irreconcilable anomalies. In every likelihood, the different regions of the formations under Central Excise would take up different positions. This would result in multiple petitions thus delaying the promotions in the Central Excise wing in spite of the fact that around 4000 plus officers are to retire before 2013 who in the circumstances would retire without any promotions. 6. In the course of discussions with the Commissioner DoPM on the 7th January 2011 at the instance of the Chairman, an impression was given which again is confirmed in the thoughts reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 12th Jan 2011. They have shown an interest to favour some of their assistants who would other-wise not find favours in the formulation of a general policy to attain parity. In fact, due to this consideration only, there is a talk of creating in-situ posts with laudable objectives of it being given to officers completing 20 years and 25 years of service.

7. In the circumstances, we feel that as promotions have been given to the appraisers up to 31.12.2001, we should press for promotions to all Superintendents both from the Central Excise and the Customs up to 31.12.2001. The following position emerges Officers remaining in service as on 1/1/2011 waiting for promotion Supdt of CE, Supdt of Cus (P) & Appraiser.

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

173 411 353 337 784 1012 155 37 124 335

0 0 1 1 192 113 70 5 4 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

TOTAL

3721

390

Thus the total number of Officers joined/promoted up to 31/12/2001 in all the three feeder cadres, waiting for promotion as Assistant Commissioners, works out to 4113.Therefore, in order to bring parity among the three feeder cadres all the 4113 Officers as per the above table may be promoted as Assistant Commissioners in one go as a onetime measure without applying the existing ratio. This can bring parity with respect to date of joining in the feeder cadre (i.e.; up to 31/12/2001). This fits into the scheme of things envisaged in the current restructuring where new posts and the consequential vacancies number about 4245 posts. 8. The matter of parity cannot stop here as there is disparity throughout the rank and file of the Central Excise cadre, which has officers completing 10 years to 39 years of service both as Group B non-Gazetted and group B Gazetted. The above proposal shall take care of the senior rung of officers but shall not have any consideration for the medium and junior rung of officers. This consideration is necessary as the unconstitutional ratio of 6:1:2 has disturbed the entire fibre of the cadre from top to bottom. 9. As discovered after detailed study, the Appraisers of 2001 have been the Examiners of 1992. Viewing the position of Preventive officers (Group B nonGazetted), the facts emerge that they have all been promoted in the Group B Gazetted in the year 2006. However, in respect of the Central Excise, there are many officers recruited in 1992 - have been promoted between the period 2002 and up to date. However, there are about 1476 no. of officers still remaining as Group B non-Gazetted in the various Zones as mentioned here-under:-

SL NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

ZONE Maharashtra Bhopal Tamil Nadu North East West Bengal Rajasthan Patna Chandigarh Lucknow

NUMBER OF POSTS 611 146 17 178 151 85 39 68 181 1476

10. In the present scheme of things as in the restructuring proposal, it may be appreciated that all new posts created and the consequential vacancies in Group B Gazetted would result in all Group B non Gazetted officers having completed qualifying service at present, getting promoted at the stroke of restructuring. At the same time, the officers of recruitment year 1992 who are Superintendents would not be promoted immediately not before the vacancies from retirements start arising subsequent to restructuring. It is suggested that the base cadre seniority should be implemented in the grade of Superintendents at the stroke of restructuring with definite machinations such as weightage etc. to see that the base cadres match in the feeder cadre also. 11. The ultra-virus Recruitment Rules have affected the entire cadres of Central Excise. Whereas the officers from Customs went on getting the promotions unhindered there was an illegal and unconstitutional estoppels for the Central Excise cadres. As a result, it shall be found that the officers of the Customs are at the highest rungs of the department whereas the officers from the Central Excise were stuck up at the Group A entry levels without any progressions afforded to them. There will have to be some efforts required in this direction, in order to match up these levels by giving consideration of coevals. In other words, keeping recruitment rules aside for one time the coevals will have to be equated in terms of the specific rung of the cadre in which the Customs cadres have progressed. As seen from the tables of such Superintendents deserving upheavel from the Central Excise cadres, they would stand to match the number of new posts proposed in the restructuring. As these officers do not have much balance service, if the posts are not available, super- numeric posts may have to be created to accommodate the deserving officers 12. All the above suggestions shall form the basis of parity which becomes logical on implementation of erroneous Recruitment Rules 13. Further to the parity obtained as above, the Recruitment Rules should be changed and a common seniority of all the three cadres be made. It shall not be difficult as many small groups like the Narcotics Officers etc. are a part of the seniority list of the Central Excise and the minority cadres of Appraisers and Customs Superintendents (P.O) are having separate seniority list. They are

totally less than 1800 as compared to 12000 officers in the seniority lists of Central Excise. 14. The CBEC had agreed in the note for approval of Cabinet in 2001 that in order to curtail the legal wrangles, all the three cadres shall be combined into one seniority list with feeder cadre seniority i.e. date of officiating as the criteria. But the zeal to provide benefit to selected few, the system has been maintained unchanged in spite of assurances to the highest administrative authority.

15. The reasons why a new changed ratio etc. cannot be acceptable to the Central Excise cadre has been more elucidated in the Annexure to this note.

16. There are many disparities in respect to the qualifying services for promotion from Group B (non-Gazetted) to Group B Gazetted in the three feeder cadres. Whereas the Examiners have 3 years as the qualifying service, the Customs (P.O) and the Central Excise Inspectors have 8 years as the qualifying service. Obviously three analogous cadres under the same department cannot have different qualifying service. This needs to be made one. It seems the CBEC would only act at the instance of the Supreme Court. 17. All these considerations could never have come in the earlier petition. As the proposal to restructure the department has just been declared. As there are continued efforts of the CBEC in evolving in-situ promotions in conjunction to the restructuring exercise, it is pertinent to guard the interests of the cadre through the interjection through the Supreme Court. The prayers in the new petition are expected to be modified with respect to the above note keeping the basic prayers similar. (Part II to be continued) Courtesy: Tax India Online