Friday, April 9, 2010

Good Morning

Posted by Secretary General on 4/09/2010 06:29:00 AM with 6 comments
Dear Friends,
We got a call from DG HRd's office, want to consult with the Associations on the ensuing restructuring and this probably be the final consultation from Board, regarding injunction given by Kolkata High Court, Association is of the view that justice should prevail, as of now Association got no scope to involve themselves with the case, we have just requested our Board and concerned Chief Commissioner to expedite the case and resolve the issue at the earliest and help this most stagnating cadre of this country to come out of this situation.

6 comments:

rajan said...

Be optimistic and broad minded while approaching the DG

Hanwant said...

Parity among Examiners, Preventive Officers and Inspectors of Central Excise should prevail. Lets hope for the good. Best of luck.

paulsint said...

Dear Friends,

The Association does not look into the issue in the interest of the individual officers who on the verge of promotion.

If looked into problem from that angle who are not themselves responsible for the in-ordinate delay in conducting DPCs as stipulated in the Rules.

Once again the ill fate of the cadres in the CBEC had to face another obstacle in getting their legitmate promotion. Punishing the officers for no fault of the individuals, in the name of Hon’ble Court’s stay is neither legal nor logical.


The Associations should approach the Board to submit a letter stating that the due promotions not given to the individual eligible officers based on Court stay has to be dealt with in such a way that the number of vacancies to be filled by promotion should be declared twice in a year and can be kept pending .
However, whenever the Stay gets vacated the vacancies declared earlier have to be filled from the dates on which such vacancies could be filled had this stay was not in force and all the benefits like seniority, scale of pay and financial benefits should be granted on post-date basis. Even the arrears should be paid from the date for which each individual officer becomes eligible, with interest. The burden of interest may be borne by the Government or by the complainant.
Because, the innocent individuals can not face the loss which is due for them from such dates .



This is similar to the time limit excluded from the limitation Act when the matter is stayed by Court. Is it not?

There is no doubt that justice should prevail, but there can not be a second opinion that justice to somebody is not at the cost of other innocents.

Pal

Hanwant said...

Dear Comrades,
The views expressed by Mr. Paul Sint as "The Association does not look into the issue in the interest of the individual officers who on the verge of promotion.

If looked into problem from that angle who are not themselves responsible for the in-ordinate delay in conducting DPCs as stipulated in the Rules.

Once again the ill fate of the cadres in the CBEC had to face another obstacle in getting their legitmate promotion. Punishing the officers for no fault of the individuals, in the name of Hon’ble Court’s stay is neither legal nor logical.


The Associations should approach the Board to submit a letter stating that the due promotions not given to the individual eligible officers based on Court stay has to be dealt with in such a way that the number of vacancies to be filled by promotion should be declared twice in a year and can be kept pending .
However, whenever the Stay gets vacated the vacancies declared earlier have to be filled from the dates on which such vacancies could be filled had this stay was not in force and all the benefits like seniority, scale of pay and financial benefits should be granted on post-date basis. Even the arrears should be paid from the date for which each individual officer becomes eligible, with interest. The burden of interest may be borne by the Government or by the complainant.
Because, the innocent individuals can not face the loss which is due for them from such dates .



This is similar to the time limit excluded from the limitation Act when the matter is stayed by Court. Is it not?

There is no doubt that justice should prevail, but there can not be a second opinion that justice to somebody is not at the cost of other innocents.

Pal"

are correct and should be applauded all over India. It is amazing that Why comrades of all circles are not taking care and sending representations to Union Government and all other agencies or even PIL. We should act proactive for our legitimate rights with full vigour and efforts. We should remember agitation of Gandhiji "DO OR DIE"

murali said...

As regards Paul's comments, it is to be borne in mind that the DPC due to be conducted during December 2009 had been inordinately delayed and had been scheduled to be conducted during March 2010. The Cal High Court's stay has further delayed the conduct of DPC which was to be conducted on 24 th. Had the DPC been conducted on 24th, in all probablity, Paul would have got promotion from the date of DPC. The point now lies is whether the employee has a right to claim promotion from the date of the schedule DPC. Does the stay order of the court hold the conduct of the DPC in suspended animation. When the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, was the order of the board to suspend the DPC legal and proper. I think that for the least the association should implead themselves on these lines.

Mohammed said...

please see that the stay is vacated first dont get involved in verbal clashes act first.