Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
By Justice L.Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The second applicant is an Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers and the first applicant is a member thereof. The first applicant joined the service of Customs and Central Excise Department as Inspector in the year 1986 and he was promoted in the year 2002 in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400. It is also stated that on completion of four years of service he has been extended the benefit of Non- Functional Upgradation (NFU) w.e.f. 20.09.2006. The grievance of the applicant is that though upgradation was effected in terms of fitment of pay scales, there is serious disparity compared to those of similar employees in other departments. As an illustration it is stated that the Superintendent and the Section Officer in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) on being extended the benefit of NFU are put in PB-3 and grade pay of Rs.5400 whereas Superintendent in Central Excise Department are put in PB-2 with the Grade Pay of Rs.5400.
2. On a representation submitted by the applicants in this behalf, the Central Board of Excise and Customs passed order dated 16.05.2011 stating the reasons as to why the parity cannot be brought about. It is mentioned that the benefit that is available to the employees in CSS cannot be extended to those in Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) because the scheme of NFU was introduced in the former, i.e. CSS much earlier and in the case of latter, it is introduced long thereafter.
5. We heard Sh. Yatender Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents.
6. The effort of the applicants is to secure parity in the context of the implementation of NFU, with the employees of corresponding grade in CSS. In case the recommendations of the Pay Commission were same for all the categories of employees and the implementation was also on uniform lines, the request of the applicants needs to be acceded to. However, there are certain factors which differentiate the employees of the two departments, warranting different approach.
7. The principal reason mentioned in the impugned order, i.e., 16.05.2011 is that the scheme of NFU was introduced in CSS much prior to the implementation of 6th CPC whereas that is not the case with the CBDT. This cannot be said to be without any basis. The applicants are not able to point out any other reasons in support of their contention. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The OA is dismissed. However, we leave it open to the second applicant to make a representation if they are able to overcome the ground that is mentioned in the impugned order. In such an event, the respondents shall pass a speaking order preferably within six months. However, we make it clear that default in this regard shall not be treated as a contempt. There shall be no order as to costs.