Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sh. Ram Adhar (Supdt.) vs Union Of India & Ors. Through on 6 May, 2011

      

  

  

 Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA-3962/2010

	New Delhi this the  6th  day of May, 2011.

Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)


1.  Sh. Ram Adhar (Supdt.),
     S/o late Sh. Dhaneshwar,
     R/o H.No. 626, Sector-21C, 
     Faridabad.
     Presently posted on Deputation 
     in the Office of Directorate General
     of Central Excise Intelligence,
     Delhi Zonal Unit, West Block-VIII,
     Wing No. VI, First Floor, 
     R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

2.  Sh. Ratan Kumar Deo,
     S/o late Sh. Sahdeo Das,
     R/o E-100, East of Kailash,
     New Delhi-65.
     Present posting in:
     As Supdt. in Central Excise,
     Delhi-III, Gurgaon.				.	Applicants

(through Sh. D. R. Gupta, Advocate)

Versus

Union of India & Ors. through

1.  Secretary,
     Ministry of Finance,
     Department of Revenue,
     Central Board of Excise & Customs,
     North Block, New Delhi.

2.  Secy. Department of Personnel & Training,
     North Block, New Delhi.

3.  The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise
     (Delhi Zone), C.R. Building,
     I.P. Estate, New Delhi-2.			.	Respondents

(through Sh. H.K. Gangwani, Advocate)

O R D E R

Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) The applicants have assailed the order dated 09.09.2010 of Respondent No.3 in which the representation of applicant No.1 for grant of ACP benefits from 01.07.2004 was rejected on the basis of advice received from the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T).

2. Applicant No.1, who was selected for appointment on the post of Inspector, Central Excise & Customs in the examination conducted in the year 1979, originally he was assigned to the Patna Collectorate as per his preference but could not be adjusted for want of vacancies. An effort was made to adjust him in Calcutta and Delhi Collectorate and he was asked to give his preference. He gave his preference on 12.02.2002 in favour o Delhi and thereafter for Calcutta. Accordingly he was appointed to Delhi Collectorate where he joined on 09.08.1982. He was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 30.09.1997, subsequently granted 2nd financial up-gradation on 09.08.2006 on completion of 24 years of service.

3. Under similar circumstances, applicant No.2 joined on 04.11.1982 and he was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 17.09.1997 and was granted 2nd financial up-gradation on 09.08.2006.

4. It is the contention of the applicants that the advice given by DoP&T that the years of regular service should be counted from the date of actual joining run counter to their own advice given in respect of members of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and Central Secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS). The advice of the DoP&T which is the nodal department in respect of ACP Scheme dated 30.08.2010 has been enclosed to the impugned letter. Relevant extracts of the note of the DoP&T reads as under:-

3. Department of Revenue has pointed out that it has been clarified that the regular service in respect of direct recruits will commence from the 1st of July of the year following the year of examination and in respect of seniority of departmental examination of the candidate the regular service will commence from 1st July of the Select List year in which they have included vide Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. dated 01.11.2002 (Flat A).
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the clarification given to MHA is only applicable to the services of CSS and CSSS and not for the others. In the instant case, officers in various grades working in the Customs and Central Excise Department are not covered under DOPTs O.M. No.5/23/94-CS.1 dated 05.07.1995.
5. The applicants have made averments at paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 that they have been given seniority in the cadre of Inspector on the basis of their selection in 1979 examination. Keeping in view their aforesaid seniority they were promoted on the posts of Superintendent on 30.09.1997 and 17.09.1997 respectively.
6. Respondents except for making a blank denial have not clearly stated whether these averments are correct or not. They have also not stated the exact year of seniority which has been granted to the applicants in the cadre of Excise Inspector.
7. Grant of ACP is governed by the Scheme of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 09.08.1999. Paragraph 3.2 of the said Scheme reads as under:-
 Regular Service for the purpose of the ACP Scheme shall be interpreted to mean the eligibility service counted for regular promotion in terms of relevant Recruitment/Service Rules.