Views regarding Minutes of the Meeting

Views / comments received from members of the Associations regarding Minutes of the Meeting :

From the reading of the entire minutes, it appear that an attempt has been made to create an impression that the office-bearers of the officers associations were not co-operative and they were not interested in any type of discussion.

All the office bearers have attended the meeting on 26.05.2011 and all the office-bearers have in one voice represented that the present policy in vogue is taking care of all the desired objectives, which were discussed in the introductory para of the proposed policy. In that meeting you by any means wanted to get an endorsement of your views.

As desired, we again attended the meeting on 31.05.2011. PLEASE TAKE IT ON RECORD THAT WE HAVE NOT BOYCOTTED THE SAID MEETING. Had there been any intention of non-co-operation, we could have avoided the meeting. In the said meeting, Shri Gadkari, our spokesperson had given the brief on the Kandla Policy and apprised you that they do not want any change in the present policy. How could be this treated as SILENCE & NON-COPERATION.

The entire officers of Gujarat does not want any change in the policy. To place on record, we even do not want any change in the Kandla Policy also. The office-bearers discussed the Kandla Policy only when you informed us all in the meeting held on 26.05.2011 that the department is not getting required number of willingness for posting in Kandla. It was an act of co-operation on the part of association that we could sense the problem faced by the department and in a gesture of co-operation only we provided inputs for minor amendments in the policy for Kandla Postings. To describe such an act of co-operation as ‘interested in Kandla centric policy’ appears not to be in the right spirit and has disheartened us.

After denial of the allegation of non-co-operation and cryptic silence we would like to bring to your notice following facts, which might not be in your domain while drafting the new policy:

The proposed policy fails on two counts, legality and reasonability.

LEGALITY:

1. You might be aware that after a candidate passes the Staff Selection Examination, he is designated as ‘Preventive Officer of Customs’ or Inspector of Central Excise. Preventive Officers of Customs are never posted to Central Excise formations. Like wise the officers designated as ‘Inspector of Central Excise’ is also not liable to be posted in Customs formations. It is only for the administrative convenience that Inspectors/Superintendents of Central Excise are posted to such Customs formations, which does not have their own work force. This is the fact that when such officers are proposed to be posted to Customs formations, their willingness is being called for. In simpler words, when any person is required to work for which he/she is not appointed, his/her willingness is being called for. Further, all the formations which are not having workforce of their own have to call for willingness from the eligible officers. This is why, no willing ness was called for when Kandla was a part of Rajkot Commissionerate, and the practice of calling for willingness started only when Kandla became an independent Commissionerate, but without any work-force. We presume, all of your predecessors and the Cadre controlling Commissioners were aware of this fact and everybody continued with that policy. It is not a secret that all other formations, having no work-force of their own viz. DGCEI, DGRI, NCB, DGOV, DG Systems, International Airports, EPZs etc. are calling for the willingness from the eligible officers. In such a scenario, your determination that you are not interested in calling for willingness requires a review and some discussion from the Board and other agencies as to why the concept of ‘willingness’ is in force. Let all such willingness be scrapped!

2. There is a concept of ‘Parent Commissionerate’ for the purpose of posting of Inspectors and Superintendents. This is the reason, when any officer wants to change his Commissionerate; he is required to make an application for Inter-Commissionerate transfer. The cadre controlling Commissioners as well as office of the Chief Commissioners is also receiving such request transfer applications and they are being processed also. No such application for inter-Commissionerate transfer is being done , if the officer requests for a change in posting or station within the same Commissionerate. In the administrative setup, there is no concept of ‘sectors’ as there is no ‘Commissioner of Sector’ or ‘Chief Commissioner of Sector’. The term ‘SECTOR’ is used only for the administrative convenience and has no legal backing.

Ours position is akin to the officers of IAS, IPS and IFS (All India Service Officers), who are also allotted a home cadre in a particular state and they are required to serve in that state only except for service in the Central Pool for some years. They are not allowed to change their state. They settle in those states only, building their houses there only. What will happen, if one day they are told that now onwards liable to be transferred anywhere in India like IRS and IC&CE officers. What is ‘state’ to them is ‘Commissionerate’ to the Inspectors and Superintendents of Central Excise.

It may be noted here that the Appointing Authority for Group B officers (both Gazetted and Non gazetted) is The Commissioner. The great question is which Commissioner? For our understanding it is the Commissioner of the parent Commissionerate and not the cadre controlling Commissioners not to speak of Chief Commissioner. This gets support from the fact that neither Cadre controlling nor Chief Commissioner is disciplinary authority for both the cadres.

(Kindly see the following link of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-

http://centralexciseahmedabad.nic.in/aboutus.html and http://www.cbec.gov.in/cadres/cadres-idx.htm )

It is therefore requested to examine, when, any officer who want to change his Commissionerate he is required to make an application for inter-Commissionerate transfer, and whether he can be forced for posting in other Commissionerates. It is a simple irony that it is written in the appointment order that ‘you are not liable to be transferred out of this Commissionerate’, but we will transfer you out of your Commissionerate as many times we like to do so.

REASONABILITY:

1. Promissory estoppel - The officers when posted, were warned that they are liable to posted in their parent Commissionerate only and with is understanding only, they settled in the jurisdiction of that Commissionerate. Further, all the previous policy framed by previous Commissioners/Chief Commissioners were framed under that principle only. Now, all of a sudden it is being declared that there is no concept of ‘parent Commissionerate’, no concept of ‘willingness’ and that too when all the officers in anticipation of implementation of the prevailing policy either got their ward admitted in the schools or paid fees for the present year. If the officers are now posted out of their Commissionerate at this juncture, how their wards will get admission and even if they get admissions, whether they will not be liable to pay hefty fees again in the new school.

2. The Timing for the change.

If the intention of the administration is to have this policy, why such move was not initiated in the month of January itself, so that all the officers were atleast mentally prepared or deliberated on the issue with the administration much in advance. What is so hurry, that the draft policy is circulated on 16.05.2011 and is pushed upon to be implemented by 31.5.2011. The officers must be apprised of the reasons for such vast changes and compelling the officers to accept it also!

To compel the officers for shifting in the mid of June is nothing but a sort of harassment and going back on the contract/practice/ assurances and it will never pass the test of reasonability.

3. The objectives:

The so called sacred objectives, which are being cited in the introductory para though appears to be presented as novel one, but it is a fact that all policies are framed with such objectives only and to discard the earlier one by considering that it failed is a sort of allegation to your predecessors, some of them retired as Chairmen of the coveted Board.

As far as Rajkot is concerned, its officers are having very good exposure in all fields of the department viz. Central Excise, Customs Appraising, Customs Preventive, Service Tax and EPZs.

4. Disadvantageous position of officers of Rajkot.

The geography of Rajkot Commissionerate is that there are more than 40 stations where officers are posted. Further after completion of four years tenure of officers posted in Customs Commissionerate, Jamnagar, they are repatriated either to Rajkot or to Bhavnagar and equal numbers are posted there. In such a situation the maximum number of years, an officer can stay at a station is only 6 and that too for Rajkot city. After that, he either gets shifted to the rest of stations of Rajkot Commissionerate or gets posted to Customs. In Customs, Jamnagar also there are about 30 stations and officers posted there are transferred in 1 or 2 year.

The association requests the administration to verify the History of Postings (HOP) of the officers of Rajkot/Bhavnagar/Customs, Jamnagar and it will reveal that there is change of station/postings in every two years on an average. After so much of sufferings, it is distressing that the administration is making a mockery by considering Rajkot sector as something ‘different’ and being generous in awarding the tenure of 6 years in the Commissionerate. Even in the proposed scenario, the officers will be shifted three times during his tenure of 6 years.

5. NOT COMPARABLE WITH GROUP A OFFICERS.

During many of the interactive and preaching sessions, we are told that all the Group A officers are transferred all over India and we should take a cue from them and be willing to be posted anywhere. With due regard, we would like to submit that how we are differently abled and posted while comparison to our officers of Group A category.

	Group A Officers	Group B Officers
Terms of appointment	Liable to be posted anywhere in India. Made known to them at the time of initial appointment.	Liable to be posted in the parent Commissionerate. Made known to them at the time of initial appointment
Well drafted, transparent and permanent transfer policy	The policy for transfers is well drafted, and permanent in nature. Minor amendments are done well in advance.	Every Chief Commissioner discards the policy framed by his/her predecessors. Abrupt and unreasonable changes are made.
Period of stay in a Zone	About 13-14 years. Considering the postings for All India, 13 to 14 years in a Zone is a good period of stay.	Considering the posting in a zone, a period of 4/6 years in a Commissionerate is a very short stay
Facilities in settlement	They get quarters or the local officers manage a good accommodation for them and ensure admission to their wards in a good school. Their designations gets the things easier. Further their batchmates in IAS/IPS also help them in getting the things settles comfortably.	No body cares for the accommodation and education and the officers have to pull up two establishments.
Pay packets	Group A officers get almost double pay that the Group B officers and they can manage double establishments in exigencies and costs of frequent transfers.	Frequent transfers affects both physically and financially
Objectives	Statistics speaks for themselves as to how the objectives have failed	Considered backbone of the organization do their best for the department.

With the above submissions, we would like to once again clarify that, we have co-operated with you, but not your ideas and that too with certain reasons. On the contrary you are pushing your agenda with coercion and pressure without any reasoning. Our silence may not be taken as ‘acceptance’ but our resolve to abstain from any planned trap of giving consent to your ideas. Our silence may also be not taken as surrender. We have, and we will oppose the oppressive attitude on your part. The members of the association are very much agitated over the issue and taking note of the gravity of the situation our Federation has given a call for agitation programme, which is enclosed. You may be aware that your counterpart in Mumbai has also initiated such a move and he had also abandoned the idea and have accepted the prevailing policy as of now.

One last appeal. Please do not hit on the backbone (Inspectors and Superintendents) of the department. The department will be crippled. Please do not go ahead with the proposed policy and issue minimum orders in light of the policy in vogue ( as on today, it stands as it is). If there is requirement of any change, we may sit together, after consolidating the position and requirements after cadre-restructuring.

Hoping for a positive response.

Some more suggestions :

The policy aims at providing enough exposure to the officers.As regards to exposing the Group B officers, it is to submit that the Both Inspectors and Superintendents are not only getting exposure of work designated to them , but also designated and required to be done by others.

1. They are doing the work of sepoys by carrying and moving the files, either because of shortage of sepoys because of deployment of maximum sepoys for Commissioner and ADC/JC chambers.

2. They are doing the work of LDC, by typing all the letters, as the department has almost abolished the post of LDCs.

3. They are compelled to work as Stenos/Private Assistants, because of shortage of Stenographers or when they are on leave.

4. Inspectors are posted in Accounts, Administration and Establishment Sections to perform the work designated for Tax Assistants. The Superintendents are posted as Administrative Officers in the Hqrs and Divisions.

5. Both Inspectors and Superintendents are preparing Order-in-originals on behalf of Commissioners/Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioners so as to discharge the duties, required to be discharged by such Commissioners as per the provisions of the Act.

6. Inspectors and Superintendents are doing the work of review of Orders issued by the authorities ranging from Assistant Commissioners to Commissioners and also of CESTAT and High Courts.

(Chief Commissioner Madam may like to examine and have a stock as to how many of the Commissioners are in fact reviewing the orders and preparing their OIOs on their own.)

7. They are forced to do work of Sahayaks/Paricharks, when they are ordered to sit in the front seat, to accompany Chief Commissioner/ Commissioner/ Additional/Joint Commissioners in their cars and that too in full uniform so that the passersby get an impression that a VIP is seating in the car. Those officers are supposed to order tea/coffe etc on highways and show the officers, way to toilets. See the pity of the officers and the department itself that a Group B officer and that too in full uniform is compelled to do work compared to a servant. Even the DGP, the highest post in Police department is not accompanied by a Group B officer to do such type of work.

And still the administration feels that we are not getting enough exposure.

It is high time now, the association should resolve that, hence forth:

1. No officer of Group B will prepare OIOs and review the files on behalf of designated officers as per the Act. They will simply put up the file and the documents as required and directed for.

2. No officer will accompany the officer in official/private cars to serve as PRO.

3. No officer will type the letters and the association will press for posting of LDCs.

4. No officers will function as Stenographers/Private Assistants.

5. No executive officer will function as Ministerial officer.

All such refusal may not be taken as refusal to work as all such work are not required to be done by those officers and it is only correcting themselves by withdrawing from illegal/non designated work being allotted to them