Ref. No. AICEIA/CBEC/2010/10 10.02.2010
To
Sri V.Sridhar,
Chairman, C.B.E.C,
North Block,
Sir,
Sub: MACP to Inspectors appointed on promotion from lower grade – Clarification – Reg
Please refer to Board’s F. No. A- 26017/76/2009 – Ad II A dated 29.09.2009 wherein certain clarification regarding MACP scheme were issued to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The said letter was subsequently circulated to all formations.
Vide point no. 3 of the letter it was clarified, with regard to an officer who joined as a UDC and subsequently promoted as Tax Assistant (pre-restructured) and Inspector and spending more than 10 years in that grade, that the 3rd financial up-gradation would be granted after completion of 30 years or whenever the person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay, whichever is later.
It is submitted that the phrase ‘whichever is later’ in the said clarification is incorrect and against the principles enunciated in the MACP scheme. Paragraph 1 of the Annexure to MACP OM dated 19.05.2009 provides that ‘there shall be three financial up gradations under the MACPS, counted from the direct entry grade on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. Financial up-gradation under the scheme will be admissible whenever a person has spent 10 years continuously in the same grade pay’. Obviously, the latter part of paragraph 1 of the Annexure to MACP OM is intended to provide solace to a person who has stagnated in a post for 10 years or more despite the fact that the person has already received not more than 2 promotions. If the clarification issued by the Board is accepted, the very purpose of the injunction contained in the latter part of paragraph 1 of the Annexure to MACP OM would be rendered meaning less as the person would even without that provision be entitled to the up-gradation in the 30th year. It is therefore requested to amend the clarification issued vide the letter under reference by substituting the phrase ‘ whichever is later’ appearing under column ‘clarification’ against point no. 3 by the phrase ‘whichever is earlier’
We would also like to point out that while issuing the afore said clarification under reference, the Board has treated Tax Assistant (pre-restructured) as a promotional grade for UDCs for the purpose of MACP and has virtually denied one financial up-gradation to the persons who were promoted as Inspector from the Ministerial cadres.
In this regard it is submitted that movement from UDC to Tax Assistant (pre-restructured) cannot be considered as a promotion for the following reasons.
i) Prior to the 2001-02 cadre restructuring, appointment to the post of Inspectors were done according to the Central Excise & Customs Group C posts Recruitment Rules, 1979 and in it Tax Assistant do not form part of the feeder cadre for promotion. From the ministerial stream only UDCs were provided as a feeder cadre. Promotion of Tax Assistants as Inspectors was done in terms of Board F. No. A-26011/10/86 – Ad. II A dated 05.08.1988 and 30.01.1989.
i) Board vide F. No. 32011/32/2003 – Ad III A dated 06.08.2004 (addressed to Commissioner, Bhubaneswar) in consultation with DOP&T has clarified that the Tax Assistant retain their basic seniority in the grade of UDC and the grade of Tax Assistant can not be treated as promotional grade in the normal hierarchy of UDC. Hence under ACP scheme UDC including Tax Assistant are to be allowed financial up-gradation in the normal hierarchical grade viz. DOSL – II, DOS L-I.
It is evident that the pre-restructured TA was always been treated as a UDC only, whether for the purpose of promotion or up-gradation under ACPS and the same analogy has to be taken for the purpose of financial up-gradation under MACPS also.
It is therefore requested to issue instructions to the field formations to ignore the placement of UDC as pre-restructured Tax Assistant for the purpose of counting 1st. 2nd and 3rd promotion for the purpose of MACPS.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
(Kousik Roy)
Secretary General