One again on 1.1.96

 

Once again I have started getting phone calls from different parts of the country regarding whether they can also approach the Tribunal Benches in their area for getting the benefit of 1.1.96 granted to the 13 persons consequent to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkatta and/or citing the Hyderabad CAT order.

Let me give a brief of the issue first:

1) The GoI grants higher pay scales for Inspectors of CBI, IB, Andaman & Nicobar Police and Delhi Police with effect from 1.1.1986.

2) The Jabalpur CAT mandates the 5th CPC to see if the Inspectors of Central Excise, IT etc are also on par with the Inspectors of CBI, etc and if so to grant the same pay.

3) The 5th CPC holds that Inspectors of CBI, IB etc are on par with the Inspectors of Central Excise, IT etc, but none of them are on par with the Police (i.e Delhi and Andaman & Nicobar Plice). Hence they ordered that the revised pay given to CBI and IB be withdrawn.

4) Since the Government did not withdraw the pay scale of CBI and IB as recommended by the 5th CPC, the Government of India decided to revise the pay scale of Inspectors of Central Excise, IT, etc on par with that of the Inspectors of CBI, IB etc with effect from 21.04.2004.

5) Actually, when the revision of pay scale is done as a fall out of the 5th CPC recommendation, the pay scale should have been revised with effect from 1.1.96 itself, since there was no new development in 2004 to have such a revision only from that date.

On this issue, the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkatta had mandated the Government to send the issue to an anomaly committee and decide in the light of the decision of the said committee.

The CBDT formed a committee which gave a favourable decision and the same was accepted and implemented only in favour of the 13 petitioners in the case before the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkatta.

Earlier the Mumbai bench of the CAT had given a favourable order in a case filed by the ITGOA holding that the pay scale should have been revised with effect from 1.1.96. But the CBDT had filed an appeal before the Mumbai High Court against that order.

The Associations of CBIC also had filed a case before the Mumbai CAT. In this case, the Mumbai CAT, subsequent to the development in Kolkatta gave an order that the subject matter should be referred to the same anomaly committee and accordingly settled.

The very next week, the Hon’ble HC of Mumbai dismissed the appeal filed by CBDT against the Mumbai CAT order citing the development in Kolkatta.

Subsequently the Hyderabad Bench of the CAT has given a favourable order in an application filed by officers of CBIC and asked the benefit to be given with effect from 1.1.96 and that the same be implemented within 3 months.

The 3 months period of the above said order has not yet lapsed.

At this juncture, it is my opinion that we should wait for implementation of the above said order of the Hyderabad CAT. Organisational efforts by AICEIA and AIASCT are required to be taken at the All India level to get it implemented.

Even if the department goes on appeal, all efforts will have to be put to get it decided favourably and quickly. All resources will have to be pooled at that point.

If separate applications are filed before different benches of the Tribunal, it will only fetter away our resources at different places. The other risk that we run is that if the Tribunals give some different order, then the department will find it convenient to be used against the favourable order of Hyderabad CAT.

In my personal opinion even the Mumbai CAT order should be sent in for review since the CAT could not have taken a stand different from its own earlier stand giving the benefit for ITGOA with effect from 1.1.96.

Even if that is not done, let us concentrate on getting the Hyderabad CAT order implemented.

I have said this to all those who have called me. For the sake of detailed explanation, I am giving this on the blog.

-R. Manimohan

19.02.2024