Who stole the cheese?

The story of the pay scale parity

By R. Manimohan

There has been a criticism that the present AICEIA, which was resurrected in the 2003 Convention of the AIFCEEOA (herein after referred to as AIF) at Kolkata, was the cause for not getting the pay parity for Inspectors of Central Excise with the Inspectors of CBI with effect from 01/01/1996 (and consequently the pay of Superintendents of Central Excise).

As a person who was associated with the developments in the case from 1994, I feel that the record has to be kept straight, for the sake of knowledge of those unaware of the same or even if someone had forgotten the track of events.  Here is the time line:

1994-95:

The Indore Association had approached the CAT Jabalpur demanding parity of pay scale for Inspectors of Central Excise with the pay scale of Inspector of CBI, IB, Andaman & Nicobar and Delhi Police, which had been upgraded with effect from 01/01/1986 as per an executive instruction. Com. Rudra Mani Mishra, Com. R. R. Rahate and Com. R. K. Jaiswal were in the forefront of the case. Indore unit sought the help of the AIF.  The AIF did not decide.  They then sent an appeal to the units.  Many units provided financial help and Coimbatore was one among which sent Rs. 25,000/-. When the case took a positive turn, AIF impleaded itself in the case and sought that the relief should be granted to all Inspectors and not to the petitioner association alone. Hon’ble CAT (Coram: Hon. Sh. D.K. Agarwal & Hon. Sh. R. Hariharan) passed an oral judgment on 24/02/1995 and issued a mandamus to the Government to issue a notification within thirty days of the communication of the judgment referring the matter to the 5^th CPC (which was in chair by then) and disclosing its stand as to why CBI Inspectors were given a higher pay. The Government was also directed to give the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 from the date it was given to CBI Inspectors and to pay arrears but only on the basis of findings of the 5^th CPC in the matter. Government vide letter dated 27/3/1995 referred the matter to the 5^th CPC but maintained silence on its stand in the matter of granting higher pay to CBI Inspectors.

1996-97:

AIF vide its Supplementary Memorandum (original submitted on 30/8/1994) dated 20/01/1996 represented before the Pay Body with complete and comparative details of the issue and also incorporated a letter dated 27/10/1995 issued by the CBEC that stated that the duties and responsibilities of the Inspectors of Central Excise were more arduous and hazardous in nature than that of the CBI. These efforts were headed by the then SG of the AIF Com. R.C. Sharma.

1997:

5^th CPC in its recommendation stated that there was no justification for placing the CBI Officers on a higher scale and that they should be brought back to their old scales.  In the light of this finding, they stated that the demand for upgradation of pay scale of Inspectors of IT, C.Ex, etc on par with the Inspectors of CBI, etc did not subsist. However, to put the records straight, they said that the Inspectors of C.Ex, etc, were not even otherwise comparable with Police.

Though a Fast Track Committee was constituted to consider issues arising out of the CPC recommendations, the Government did not deem it fit to refer our issue for the consideration of the FTC.

September 1997:

The Revised Pay Rules were issued consequent on the 5^th CPC recommendations.  The pay scales of CBI Officers were not reduced to the pre-revised one, as recommended by the 5^th CPC.  The Scales of Inspectors of C.Ex, etc were also not revised upwards.

Most of the office bearers felt that since the CPC has stated that even otherwise, we were not Police, we cannot further persist with the demand.

On a close reading of the CPC recommendations, I came to a different view.

The CPC had clearly stated in the chapter pertaining to CBI itself that though CBI was constituted under the Delhi Police Act, CBI Officers were not Police Officers.

From this I advanced the analogy that since CBI Officers were also not Police Officers, as long as they were on the higher scale, we were also entitled for it. I argued that the clarification regarding our not being Police was only to clarify with regard to the parity of scales between us and that of the Inspectors of Delhi Police and Andaman & Nicobar Police. 

These arguments were put forth by me, in the form of an elaborate note, which was published in ‘THE DAWN’ a quarterly journal of the Coimbatore Central Excise Inspectors’ Association. I also circulated this note to all Associations in the AIF. Com. K.V. Srinivas, the then GS of the Nagpur Association sent a written letter supporting my contention.

I had stated that by not giving us parity with the CBI, the Government had committed a contempt of the CAT Jabalpur order.

Com. Rudra Mani Mishra and their successors in Indore Association were prepared to file contempt petition if the AIF would support.

AIF remained silent. 

1998:

The Convention of the AIF was held at Nagpur in 1998.

Though the time limit for filing contempt was over by the time of the Convention, I raised the subject for further action.

The outgoing SG behaved as if he did not understand my arguments. Some units shouted down my criticism that time was running out. Ultimately, in the din, my requests fell on deaf ears. Com. K.V. Srinivas who was in the fray for the post of SG (and who got elected as the SG, defeating me with a margin of 15 votes, with Com. Ravi Malik coming third with 20 votes) kept quiet throughout-regardless of the fact that he had originally supported my contentions, when the note was circulated.

Subsequently when the first FEC was held at Nagpur after the Convention, I again raised this issue and wanted it to be pursued. I said that we should try atleast for a notional fixation from 01/01/1996, as done in the case of IA&AD. Com. Ravi Malik famously said, ‘there is no question of foregoing arrears from 01/01/1986, because we are collecting so much revenue for the Government’. The house cheered him for that statement by wildly thumping on the desks and that was the end of it. It was decided that we will fight for it along with the Income Tax Organisations and Customs Organisations under the COC of Revenue. Gazetted officers’ (Superintendents) also joined the movement demanding equality of pay with DSP, CBI (5^th CPC: Rs. 2200-4000; 6^th CPC: Rs. 8000-13500)

After a three day strike under the aegis of the COC of Revenue, for which I had also been a campaigner on behalf of the AIF, in various places in TN, Kerala, Karnataka and A.P, a High Power Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri. A.M. Prasad, which recommended for granting parity to Inspectors but amended for Superintendents/ ITOs demand to Rs. 7500-12000 since the promotion grade of Assistant Commissioners are also in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500.

Then things became cold again. It was pending with Expenditure Department due to high revenue involved if the recommendations were accepted and implemented.

2003:

Due to the SG of the AIF becoming inactive and incommunicado (with last FEC held at Bhillai in July 2001, and since the tenure of the body had expired long ago (in 2001 itself because the body had been elected in 1998 at Nagpur), as per the demands of various units, I, as the President of the AIF, had to convene an FEC cum Convention at Kolkata in September 2003. A new body was elected to lead the AIF.

2004:

Since the beginning of the new tenure, efforts were made by the Office bearers of AIF to revive the CoC.  After a series of one to one meetings among AIF, Superintendents, ITEF and ITGOA, a meeting was convened at Delhi.

In the meeting we explained and argued on the basis of my note mentioned supra and emphasized that the CPC had actually found us to be on par with CBI & IB and their observation that we were not Police was only pertaining to comparison with Police of Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Police, and that therefore, as per the CAT Jabalpur order, we were entitled for parity with effect from 01/01/1986.

Com. Rajarshi Dasgupta, the SG of ITGOA supported our contention. Com. Satish Thakkar of the AIFCEGEO also agreed with the contention.  Accordingly Com. Kutty wanted us to supply the written note for being pursued. He only wanted to add that even in the case of IA&AD, notional fixation had been granted with effect from 01/01/1996. A fresh memorandum signed by AIF of Inspectors and Superintendents and ITEF, ITGOA was submitted stating that atleast from 1.1.96 the revision should be granted.

When the Expenditure Department was approached, they stated that as long as revenue arrears were involved, they would not process the demand.

The COC again met at Delhi. Considering that the next CPC was to be constituted early and if we did not get the Pay scale fixed at least prospectively, we would stand to loose before the next CPC, it was UNANIMOUSLY decided to accept it even if given prospectively and then to take the organizational and judicial route subsequently for the arrears. All four Organizations of the C.Ex and IT were party to this decision.

IT WAS ONLY DUE TO THAT DECISION OF THE COC, WE COULD GET THE PAY SCALE REVISION ATLEAST PROSPECTIVELY ON 21/4/2004.

As rightly apprehended, it had a bearing on the 6^TH CPC recommendations, where we could argue to set right the downward revision, only be the merit of the upward revision ordered in 2004.

Subsequently, the ITGOA has filed a case before the Mumbai CAT and the Government’s appeal against the decision in the case is pending before the Mumbai HC.

In the meanwhile a case was filed on behalf of C.Ex also in Jabalpur CAT seeking parity with arrears from 01/01/1986.

2016:

During the AIC of the AIACEGEO at Kolkata, in March 2016, when the subject came up for discussion, I suggested that we should show the case of IA& AD and try to get a notional fixation atleast from 01/01/1996, simultaneously pursuing the judicial route for getting arrears from 01/01/1986.  The then SG, Com. Ravi Malik stated that we cannot afford to make a demand for revision from 01/01/1996 and said that we will pursue only the Jabalpur CAT case, the records of which were supposed to be with Com. K.V. Srinivas.  Com. A.K. Sasmal was mandated to contact Com. Srinivas and get the records of the case.

Com. Sasmal reported before the AIC at Delhi that he could not get the records from Com. Srinivas.

2017:

Com. Ravi Malik has suddenly felt that we should compare ourselves with the NCB officers and demand parity with them. He sought materials supporting such a demand. He is unmindful of two facts: (1) By the prospective revision, the issue of parity with CBI is settled and for arrears and notional fixation, it is advisable and easier to pursue that route. (2) By getting into issue of parity with NCB, we will be allowing the Government to once again lean back upon the statement of the 5^th CPC that we were not comparable with Police.

NOW, PEOPLE CAN THEMSELVES COME TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS REGARDING WHY THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DELAYED AND HOW WE HAVE BEEN THE LOSERS SO FAR.