Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajpreet Kaur vs Income Tax Department on 4 April, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No.060/214/2023
Chandigarh, the 4th day of April, 2024
HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
Rajpreet Kaur aged 43 years, widow of Sh. Amarjit Singh, r/o
Village Khera Jattan, District Patiala, Punjab - 147001.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, New Delhi - 110011.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Northwest
Region, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh -
160017.
...Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
2
O R D E R (Oral)
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against impugned order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) whereby the benefit of family pension has been denied after death of husband of the applicant, late Sh. Amarjeet Singh, who worked as casual worker with the respondents from 2002 to 12.11.2019. The applicant has sought the following relief:
i. Impugned order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) denying the applicant benefit of family pension may be quashed and set aside.
ii. Respondents be directed to grant the applicant benefit of family pension and other retiral dues keeping in view that her husband has worked for 17 years in the respondent department and she be also held entitled for interest at 12% per annum on delayed payments of above mentioned retiral dues.
2. The main facts leading to filing of this O.A. are that husband of the applicant, late Sh. Amarjit Singh was working as a Waterman-cum-Peon on daily wage basis with the respondent department till he expired on 12.11.2019. Late Sh. Amarjit Singh was engaged as Waterman-cum-Peon in the respondent department initially in 2002 and from 01.11.2004 he was paid wages of the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 revised to Rs. 2550-3220 in pursuance 3 of DoPT OM dated 07.06.1988. In the year 2013, late husband of the applicant filed O.A.No.853/2013 which was decided vide order dated 01.07.2014 along with various other O.A.s pertaining to the Income Tax Department and the hon'ble court held as under:
"12. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants Sh. S.K. Gupta and the learned counsel for the Respondents Sh. Rajinder Nishchal. There is no dispute that many of the applicants have been working with Respondents as casual labourers for over 10 years. One of them has been working w.e.f. 03.05.1995. He has put in nearly 20 years of casual service. There are others who have been engaged from the years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 They are continuing. By the impugned letter dated 09/13.05.2013, the respondents-CBDT through the CIT (vigilance) has only observed the CCIT/DGIT regions continue to ignore DOP&T OMs dated 07.06.1998, 10.09.1993, 12.07.1994 and 11.02.2006 with regard to engagement of casual labourers. the OM dated 07.06.1988 has already been extracted in this order. It deals with guidelines in the matter of recruitment of casual workers on daily wage basis. It also contains the provisions for regularization of service of the casual workers subject to the prescribed conditions. It is vide OM dated 10.09.1993 the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 has been issued. It deals with the procedure for grating temporary status to casual labourers and their regularization in service. OM dated 12.07.1994 has been issued by the DOP&T clarifying the various reference received by them regarding the aforesaid OM dated 10.09.1993 regarding grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers. The OM dated 11.12.2006 deals with regularization of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned posts in irregular manner in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (Supra). Therefore, the general statement of CIT (Vigilance), CBDT that the CCITs/DGITs have violated any of the aforesaid Office Memoranda in the case of the applicants are not factually correct and it has been made without any application of mind. Further, it is seen, as observed, earlier, that the Applicants have been working with the Respondents for fairly long time. Suddenly issuing a direction to CCITs/DGITs that they should ensure that none of the 4 DDOs working in this region make any payments to the directly deployed casual workers in contravention of the Government/DOP&T's orders and the judgments of the Supreme Court and bringing the applicants in this OA under the said direction is nothing but arbitrary and illegal. We, therefore, quash and set-aside the aforesaid impugned letters dated 09/13.05.2013 and 22.05.2013. We also make the stay granted against the operation of the aforesaid orders given on 11.06.2013 absolute. Further, we direct the respondents to continue to disburse payments/ remuneration/ wage/ payments to the applicants against their employment as per the standard terms and conditions prevalent and being followed at present.
13. We also make it clear that the applicants who are still working as daily wagers/casual employees shall not be replaced by another set of daily wager/ causal labourers directly on through any other mode unless the disengagement is resorted to on the ground of unsuitability. As regard the prayer of the applicant for regularization is concerned, we may profitably refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the Uma Devi's case (supra) the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-
"44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (Supra), R.N. Nanjundappa (Supra) and Β.Ν. Nagrajan (Supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merit in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment.
In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as 0 onetime measure, the services: of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duty sanctioned posts, but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to till those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub-judice need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the 5 constitutional requirement and regularization or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this OA is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
3. The applicant has submitted that thereafter husband of the applicant continued to work against the post of Waterman-cum-Peon till he expired on 12.11.2019 after putting about 17 years of service without any break. It is further submitted by the applicant that in the list of persons due for regularization working in the office of the then Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, husband of the applicant was placed at Sr.No. 6, however till his death husband of the applicant was not regularized and number of employees working in the other regions who were junior to husband of the applicant were regularized.
4. The applicant made two representations on 16.12.2019 and 04.01.2020 (Annexure A-4 (colly)) and further served legal notice dated 01.05.2021 (Annexure A-5) claiming family pension. Aggrieved by inaction on the representations and legal notice, the applicant approached this Tribunal through O.A.No. 060/330/2022 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure A-6), whereby the respondents were directed to decide the legal notice and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The applicant submits that the respondents have now passed impugned order dated 08.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) denying her family pension 6 contrary to their letter dated 26.07.2010 in which it has been admitted that after perusal of wages filed and acquaintance roll register it reveals that Sh. Amarjit had firstly drawn his wages in December, 2004 for work done in November, 2004 and accordingly his date of appointment in Income Tax Department was assumed from 01.11.2004. It is further submitted that family pension was governed by CCS (Pension) Rule, 1972 and family pension is admissible to the dependent of deceased employee as per Rule 54(2), which reads as under:
"54(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies-
(a) After completion of one year of continuous service; or (aa) Before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate Medical Authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service; or
(b) After retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or Compassionate Allowance, referred to in Chapter V, other than the pension referred to in Rule 37, The family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension, 1964 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the Table below:
Explanation:- The expression 'continuous one year of service' wherever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include 'less than one year of continuous service' as defined in clause (aa)." As such, the applicant has submitted that she was entitled for family pension as her late husband completed more than 1 year continuous service.
5. The applicant has relied upon judgment passed by the hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Gujarat Vs. Talsibhai 7 Dhanjibhai Patel 2022 (1) SCT 749 dated 18.02.2022 (Annexure A-7) whereby the hon'ble Apex Court held a person who rendered more than 30 years on Adhoc basis entitled for pensionary benefits, and held that it is unreasonable for the Government of India to deny pensionary benefits after such long period or service. The applicant has also relied upon judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal no. 6779 of 2009 titled U.T. Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Sampat & Ors.(Annexure A-8) wherein it has been held that work charge and daily wage employees cannot be denied the pensionary benefits, who have served the respondents for pensionable service.
6. The applicant has further submitted that in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. 2013 (4) SCT 469, hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sanction posts do not fall from heaven; State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need and it has also been held that judgment in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi SJT 2006 (4) SCT 420 cannot become a license for exploitation by the State and its instrumentalities. Accordinlgy, hon'ble Supreme Court directed the State of Punjab to regularize the services of the petitioners by creating necessary posts. The applicant submits that in the present case also husband of the applicant was required to be regularized in service as he had rendered more than 10 years in service.8
7. In written statement to this O.A., the respondents have submitted that husband of the applicant could not be regularized as he was not eligible as per judgment in Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.
(supra) because he had not completed 10 years of service which is one of the eligibility conditions as on cut-off date i.e. 10.04.2006 which was the date of judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the Uma Devi case. The husband of the applicant died on 12.11.2019 due to natural causes while working as casual worker/daily wager and was not regularized.
8. It has been submitted by the respondents that in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.(supra), the hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the Union of India, the State government and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one- time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons who are duly qualified in terms of the statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or tribunals, and the DoPT vide OM dated 11.12.2006 forwarded copy of the said judgment to all ministries/departments for implementation of the aforesaid directions. In view of the aforesaid directions in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and in view of guidelines issued by DoPT vide OM F.No.49019/1/2006-Estt.(C) dated 11.12.2006 and 9 CBDT, New Delhi letter dated 24.02.2010, the respondents vide order dated 05.03.2010 regularized services of 144 daily wages/casual workers who fulfilled the following conditions:
i. They must have completed continuous service of ten years or more as daily wages but the continuity of their service as daily wagers for ten years or more should not be on account of some order of court.
ii. They must have been appointed as daily wagers against duly sanctioned posts.
iii. They must fulfil the required qualification of the post to which they are regularized.
iv. Their age on the date of their engagement as daily wager should be within the permissible limit as required for the recruitment to the post to which they are claiming regularization.
v. They may have been engaged by irregular means as daily wagers but their appointment as daily wagers should not be illegal. In other words, they must have been appointed as daily wagers through an employment exchange.
9. It has been further submitted by the respondents that DoPT vide OM No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt(RR) dated 30.04.2010 framed Recruitment Rules for MTS whereby after 6th CPC, all Group 'D' posts have been upgraded to Group 'C' posts of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) and recruitment to erstwhile Group 'D' post placed in Group 'C' is now to be made only through direct recruitment and minimum 10 education qualification for recruitment has been specified as Matriculation or ITI pass. In view of the aforesaid, the process of further regularization of remaining casual workers could not be carried out as vacancies are now to be filled only through direct recruitment. Further, the respondents have submitted that as per clarifications/directions issued by DoPT & CBDT and also referring to the operative sentence of the judgment in Uma Devi case (supra) it was stated that "there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme." The respondents submit that as such, the services of late Sh.
Amarjit Singh cannot be regularized at any date earlier to his death i.e. 12.11.2019 and any consequential benefits including death-cum-retirement gratuity, family pension etc. and appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted to the applicant.
10. In rejoinder to written statement filed by the respondents, the applicant has submitted that husband of the applicant was allowed to work on daily wage basis by the respondents continuously even after the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra), and the non- regularization of his services is not attributable to him and therefore only because the services of husband of the applicant were not regularized by the department could not be a ground to deny the family pension to the applicant. 11
11. The applicant has further relied upon judgment of the hon'ble Apex Court in U.T. Chandigarh Vs. Sampat & Ors. (supra) whereby the hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the issue relating to work charge and daily wage employees and finding that such employees are not regularized even after long length of service and are thereafter denied pensionary benefit, the hon'ble Apex Court held that the persons who have retired from service shall get pension and also held that the persons who have not been regularized shall be regularized and if not paid pension, the pensionary benefit must be paid.
12. I have heard ld. counsel for both sides and gone through the material attached to this O.A. From the pleadings, it is clear that husband of the applicant was working as casual labourer/daily wager since 01.11.2004 and till his death on 12.11.2019 had worked as such. Through instant O.A. the applicant has sought for family pension. The applicant has relied upon judgment of hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Gujarat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that an employee who is employed on adhoc basis is entitled for pensionary benefits. The applicant has also relied upon judgment passed by hon'ble Apex Court in U.T. Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Sampat & Ors.(supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that even if no post is available in the regular establishment, the employee may work in the work charge establishment.
12
13. During arguments, ld. counsel for the applicant has further submitted that as the husband of the applicant has rendered is services to the respondent department for a long period of more than 15 years, the applicant is entitled for family pension in view of judgment passed by hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the matter of Alka Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2017 (2) SCT 739 (P&H)(DB), which has also been relied upon by this Tribunal in O.A.No.060/690/2019 titled Santosh Kumari Vs. Union of India decided 14.07.2023, whereby this Tribunal has directed to grant the family pension and other retiral benefits of the deceased employee by notionally treating his service as regular at the time of death of the employee. The applicant has further relied upon judgment passed by coordinate CAT Patna Bench in O.A.No.050/1109/2019 titled Naina Devi Vs. Union of India decided 03.11.2023 wherein judgment passed by this Tribunal in O.A.No.060/690/2019 (supra) has been relied upon.
14. In the instant case, it is not disputed that husband of the applicant has rendered service to the respondent department with effect from 01.11.2004 till his death on 12.11.2019. As per impugned order Annexure A-1, the respondents have stated that as the husband of the applicant was a casual worker at the time of death, therefore the Rule 54(2) of CCS (Pension Rules) is not applicable to the applicant, and hence the claim of the applicant for family 13 pension under Rule 54(2) of CCS Pension Rules has been rejected.
15. The hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has considered this issue in the matter of Alka Sharma Vs. Union of India (supra). Relevant portion is as under:
"3. Further according to the Petitioner, her husband was to retire in the year 2020 on attaining the superannuation age of 60 years and had at the time of his death completed more than 14 years service with the Respondent/Department as Mobile Booking Clerk. She therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal with her Original Application seeking direction upon the Respondents to treat the services of her husband as permanent from 30.7.1992 to 14.12.2006 and to release pensionary benefits and family pension in her favour, after her claim'in this regard was rejected by the Railway Authorities vide Order dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure P-6).
4. The Ld. Tribunal however, rejected the Petitioner's application by observing inter-alla-
"13. It is apparent from the record that the initial appointment of the deceased employee was made through notice dated 30.7.1992 on temporary basis and it was clarified in the notice itself that regularization of the appointed persons would be effected after completion of 3 years continuous service by "positive act of selection".
The husband of the applicant had three opportunities to clear the selection process as the written test was scheduled in 2000, 2001 and 2002, but he did not succeed. The deceased employee had made a request in 2004 to the authorises for scheduling the screening process once again and this was conducted in 2006, but just before the date announced for the written test, Sh. Pardeep Kumar died. The Railway Services (Pension) Rules regarding qualifying service for pension purposes are clear and in the case of temporary employees it is stated that the service put in on temporary basis will be counted in full in respect of those employees who have subsequently been appointed on substantive post. Since at the time of his death the applicant was still working in temporary capacity and his services had not been regularized, he was ineligible for pension and consequently his family cannot get the benefit of family pension. This O.A. is hence rejected." 14
9. Even otherwise, if the relevant Rule 75 governing Family Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1964 is considered, the Petitioner would appear to have become entitled to 'Family Pension', but for the fact that deceased employee was otherwise not regularized in spite of having pot in more than 14 years of service. The relevant Rule 75(2) lays down-
"75. Family Pension Scheme for railway servants, 1954 (1)..........
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a railway servant dies:-
(a) after completion of one year of continuous service; or
(b) before completion of one year of continuous service provided the deceased railway servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for railway service:
(c) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in Chapter V, other than the persion referred to in rule 53 the family of the deceased shall be entitled to a family pension 1964 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) the amount of which shall be determined in accordance with the Table (not printed).
EXPLANATION: The expression "Continuous one year of service" where- ever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include "less than one year of continuous service" as provided in clause (b)."
10. 10. The overall picture which thus emerges is that admittedly, the deceased employee had worked for in excess of the requisite one year of service, from 30.07.1992 till his death on 14 12.2006, and that he had also passed the requisite Medical examination on 5.08.1992. Consequently, on account of his death in harness, his widow would become entitled to grant of Family Pension, The same was however not granted, ostensibly as his services were not regularized'. But as can be rightly concluded by objectively considering the facts in the light of specific averments of the Petitioner and evasive denial of the same by the Respondents, the employee himself was not at fault for such lack of 15 regularization. He passed the requisite written examination in the year 2000, but was never called for interview in spite of the Respondents' oven witten communication dated 30.06.2000 for that purpose. He was not wen intimated through his Controlling Authorities about the succeeding written examinations in the years 2002 and 2004. In fact, the Ld. Tribunal went on to hold that the employee could not clear the Written Test scheduled in 2000, 2001 and 2002. This observation is ex facle in correct since he had actually cleared the Test in 2000, while there is nothing on record even from the side of the Respondents to suggest that any such Test was at all held in 2001. Regarding the following year 2002, the petitioner's allegation that her husband was never intimated for taking the Test is virtually un-rebutted in the pleadings. Further, no rule or Instructions have been brought on record to show that "Interview" was a mandatory condition for regularization of services when the employee was performing his duties for 14 years to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. We, therefore, have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that substantially, the responsibility of the deceased employee's services having remained un- regularized during his life time, lies with the Respondents themselves.
11. For the above reasons, the impugned Order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed and the Respondents are directed to do the needful for grant of Family Pension and other Retiral benefits of the deceased employee by notionally treating his services as regularized. She shall however, be entitled to arrears of Pension only for a period of three years preceding the filing of her Original Application in the Ld. Tribunal I.e. May, 2012 onwards."
Though in this matter, the hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has discussed the Section 75 of the Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants 1964, ld. counsel for the applicant submits that section 54(2) of the CCS Pension Rules are similar and identical. The relevant portion of which is as under:
"[(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 13-8 and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies 16 (1) after completion of one year of continuous service; or
(ii) before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service; or
(iii) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as Family Pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, the amount of which shall be determined at a uniform rate of 30% of basic pay subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven thousand rupees per mensem.
EXPLANATION. The expression 'one year of continuous service' wherever I occurs in this rule shall be construed to include 'less than one year of continuous service' as defined in Clause (ii):]"
This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that the instant case is covered by the hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Alka Sharma Vs. UOI ( Supra).
16. The applicant has also relied upon the judgement passed by the hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of UOI Vs. Meena Devi in CWP No. 34 of 2014, wherein, the similar circumstances has been dealt with. The relevant portion of which is as under:
"There is also on record a judgment, dated 3rd October, 2013, passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 17 10597-CAT of 202 [O&M titled as Union of India and others Vs. B.N. Jaggi and others, which reads as under:-
"The respondent served the petitioner-Department w.e.f. 24.01.1963 till he retired from service w.e.f. 10.09.1975. In this manner, he served the Department for 12 years, 7 months and 17 days. The question was whether the respondent is entitled to be paid pension for the above stated service? The Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 6365 of 1988 (Yashwant Hari Katakkar Vs. Union of India & Ors.]. decided on 19.09.1994 where the employee had served for 1812 years but denied pension on the ground that he was not a permanent employee. The Supreme Court held that it would be travesty of justice if the retiree was denied pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not a permanent employee of the Department even after serving for 1812 years. It is not in dispute that in the instant case also, the respondent was denied pension only on the ground that he did not hold the post on permanent basis. The Tribunal has, thus, rightly relied upon the cited decision rendered in somewhat similar circumstances and accepted the claim of the respondent. It is informed by learned counsel for the respondent that the order passed by the Tribunal has already been implemented even before filing of the writ petition and pension stands granted to him. For the reasons afore- stated and also keeping in view the fact that the respondent retired way back in the year 1975, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed."
The hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) and others etc. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. And another Etc. (1990) Supp. SCC
113. This Tribunal has also considered the judgment passed by the hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and is of the view that the instant case is also fully covered by the judgment in the matter of UOI Vs. Meena Devi (supra).
17. In view of the above discussion, instant O.A. is allowed and impugned order (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant the family pension and 18 other retiral benefits of the deceased employee by notionally treating his service as regular at the time of death of the employee i.e. 12.11.2019, however, the applicant shall be entitled arrear of pension only for a period of three years preceding the filing of her O.A. in the Tribunal i.e. 02.03.2023. The aforesaid exercise be done within two months of receiving the order of this Tribunal.
18. No order as to costs.
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (J) S*