ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The above four cases urge the same point. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the facts relating to OA 514/2007 could be taken notice of for appreciating the factual position.
2. By Notification dated 20.10.2006, as available to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Establishments, 194 officers in the Junior Administrative Grade had been conferred with Non-Functional Selection Grade (Rs.14300-400-18300) with effect from different dates, as could be seen from Annexure P-1.
3. The short question to be decided is the manner of fixation of initial pay viz. as to whether Fundamental Rule (FR) 22 (I) (a) (1) was to be made applicable or it was to be FR 22 (I) (a) (2) as had been applied. If Sub-rule (1) was to be applied, the officer would have become entitled to get his pay fixed after receiving one notional increment in the lower scale and a fitment in the higher scale but if it was on the basis of Sub-rule (2), there was only a fixation admissible to the stage next above his pay in respect of the old post held by him. The claim of the applicant essentially is that since the new post of Additional Commissioner expected the incumbent of shouldering duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the erstwhile post held by him-which was a parameter to be borne in mind because of the presence of the rules, and since this had been omitted to be extended, his fixation was not in consonance of the Rules and this Tribunal is required to intervene.
4. The applicant in OA 514/2007 was appointed as Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in the JAG Grade, a Group IV cadre, in the pay scale of Rs. 12000-375-16500, on 25.9.2002. On his promotion as Additional Commissioner, his pay had been fixed at Rs. 15,500/-, which, according to him, gave a reason and cause to complain. A representation submitted by him had been rejected by Annexure P-6, on 21.03.2007 in lines with Annexure P-7 and P-8, which were the norms in vogue adopted by the Government while fixing pay of the promotees to the cadre, similarly situated like him. This was irregular and done without application of mind. With reference to certain facts and figures, as also recommendations issued by the Directorate of Customs and Central Excise (Annexure P-13 and P-14), it is submitted that when comparison of powers of Additional Commissioner with those of the Joint Commissioner is attempted, the fallacy of the approach of the Government would have been evident. Counsel has also relied on Government of India’s orders dated 19.08.1930, a copy of which is produced as Annexure P-10 where it is shown that for the purpose of FR 22, a declaration as to the relative degrees of responsibility of two posts should be obtained from the Administrative Head of the Department. But straightaway we may observe that Annexure P-10 might not be relevant in any case, as it deals with a different situation.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the Department was obsessed by the nomenclature of the posts as the promotion awarded had been noted as Non-Functional Selection Grade. It was really selection to a grade, which had also trappings of a due promotion. From the lower grade, they have been brought to a higher grade and in the matter of jurisdiction also, there was vast change, which was sufficient for the Tribunal to come to decision that there was a wrong application of the relevant provisions and non-application of rules. Counsel suggests that the Commissioner, who is posted with the full facts, had by Annexure P-13 and P-14, recommended for a favourable consideration of the claims of persons like the applicants. When the Additional Commissioners had the power to deal with the valuation of cases above Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 50 lakhs, the Joint Commissioners had a lower jurisdictional limit and could have examined the cases where the value would have been less than Rs. 20 lakhs.
6. In fact, this solitary circumstance is relied on as an effort to press the claim, that fixation under Sub-rule (1) would alone have been admissible. Counsel also submits that the facts of the case do not also attract Sub-rule (2). We had heard Mr. K.B. Rohtagi appearing for the applicants as also Mr. R.V. Sinha appearing for the respondents. With reference to the counter reply filed, standing counsel points out that the claim is without any substance or merit and the accepted norms in practice have been correctly applied, in deference to the rules. According to him, enhanced limits in the matter of monetary jurisdiction while adjudicating Customs/Central Excise cases can have no relevance, and the basic requirement prescribed by the Rules, therefore, should not be gone unnoticed.
7. After hearing the parties, we are convinced that the claim as put in is not sustainable. We also notice that the Indian Customs and Central Excise Services Group `A’ Rules, 1987 prescribe for categorization, and promotion. Schedule-I to the Rules provide that Grade-I service consists of Chief Commissioner. Grade-II (Senior Administrative Grade) is to consist Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. Grade-III is Non-Functional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade and the incumbents are given the name as Additional Commissioners. Grade-IV service consists of Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. FR 22 (I) (a) (1) provides for grant of an increment only in a case where there is promotional appointment to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post being held by the officer concerned. The expression ‘duties and responsibilities of greater importance’ is of significance. What has been brought to our attention is that because of the Non-Functional Promotion, Additional Commissioner can hear cases of a higher monetary jurisdiction. This cannot be equated to a position that a person is lifted up and promoted to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance. The expression used by the rule is pregnant with the suggestion and a superficial impression is not expected to be employed. There should be additional responsibilities of a higher caliber.
8. We may also take notice of a further circumstance that the persons, who got Non-Functional Promotions, had been allocated to a variety of Directorates, and only few of them may have occasion to hear appeals. Most of the promotees may have no opportunity to exercise such quasi-judicial functions at all. We, therefore, have to note that the applicants have not made out a case for interference. It has not been possible for them to show that there is any error committed in understanding of the rules or its application.
9. Resultantly, the Original Applications are dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
10. Let a copy of this order be placed in all the aforesaid four cases.