" IRS OFFICERS PROMOTED FROM THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF AIACEGEO. THIS IS THE ONLY ASSOCIATION FOR SUPERINTENDENTS OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND IRS OFFICERS PROMOTED FROM THE GRADE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY . President Mr. A. Venkatesh and SG Mr. Ravi Malik.

Monday, 19 February 2018

Accumulation of Earned Leaves, Acceptance of legal verdicts

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:                                          Address for communication:                                       Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh                             240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)                                              Ravi Malik
Mob.7780255361       mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com, Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in      Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 45/AIB/L/18                                                                          Dt. 19.02.18
To,
The Secretary,
DOPT, North Block,
New Delhi.
Sub: Accumulation of Earned Leaves.
Sir,
            Inviting your kind attention to the verdict given in CWP 13702/2014 (Date of decision-05.10.16) by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it is to submit with due regards that the unused Earned Leaves of govt. employees are being credited to the limit of 300 only which is the limit of encashment also.
            2. It is further to submit that the unused Earned Leaves of the employees are being reduced to 300 without any valid reason. The Hon’ble Court also took the matter seriously and termed this practice to be mischievous.
3. No need to submit that there is no limit of accumulation of Half Pay Leaves. Accordingly, Earned Leaves may also be accumulated in actual number without any limit.
4. Further, there seems no valid reason also in keeping the limit of 300 to the encashment of Earned Leaves. As is clear from the name itself, these leaves are earned by the govt. employee in lieu of the service rendered by availing minimum leaves. So, the cap of 300 for encashment is also required to be removed for encashment.
5. In view of the above, it is requested that-
i) The limit of 300 of accumulation of Earned Leaves may kindly be undone as per the verdict given by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana by crediting the actual number of leaves in the account of the employees like Half Pay Leave.
ii) The cap of 300 for encashment of Earned Leaves may also kindly be removed by encashing the actual number of Earned Leaves.
iii) Not only it, the Half Pay Leaves may also kindly be encashed.
No need to say that it would motivate the employees to avail minimum leaves enabling them to be available for work in the maximum possible manner.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,



(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.       

 ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:                                          Address for communication:                                       Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh                             240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)                                              Ravi Malik
Mob.7780255361       mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com, Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in      Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 46/AIB/V/18                                                                          Dt. 19.02.18
To,
Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna,
Chairperson, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Orders of Supreme Court, High Courts and CESTAT accepted by the Departmentand and on which no review petitions, SLPs have been filed-reg.
Madam,
Kindly refer to the Circular No. 1063/2/2018-CX issued vide F.No. 116/2/2018-CX 3 Dt. 16.02.18 accepting the orders of Supreme Court, High Courts and CESTAT and not filing review petitions or SLPs. It is worth to mention that the same approach is not being adopted by the CBEC in the service matters.
2. Your kind attention is also invited to the Ref. No. 113/AIB/G/17 Dt. 28.09.17 and 120/AIB/G/17 Dt. 11.10.17 of the Association including others in r/o legal verdicts and the recommendations made by the CBEC.
            3. It is really painful on the part of CBEC to contest against the staffside on the issues already decided by the legal courts or accepted/recommended by the CBEC itself relating to service matters. There are so many issues including initial pay scale under Level-10 to the Central Excise Superintendents, time scale in PB3 to group ‘B’ officers instead of PB2, arrears at par with the Superintendents of NCB, NFU at par with CSS, minimum five functional promotions, FCS/DACP, uniform promotional hierarchy including promotion of Superintendent directly to STS, merger of Level-9 and 10, in-situ promotion scheme, scheme independent of cadre restructuring to remove stagnation etc. etc. which have been recommended to nodal departments or accepted during the employee grievance redressal mechanism by the CBEC but still remain unimplemented after expiry of long periods giving rise to unwarranted litigations. 
4. It is reiterated that the officers are forced to go to the CAT/High Court even in the same matters which have already been finalized by the Hon’ble Higher Courts/Apex Court. No need to say that the verdicts finalized by the Apex Court are always to be treated as the Law of Land. The verdicts, in which no appeal has been made, are also not being implemented.
5. The latest example of unwarranted litigation is the dismissal of the SLP(C) No. 029382/2011 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Subramanium case on 10.10.17 involving the issue of the grant of the time scale on completion of 4 years of service after getting Ist ACP/MACP upgradation to our officers joining as Inspector which is yet to be implemented in general despite of being finalized at the level of the Apex Court. No need to say that the ACP and MACP upgradation is one and the same thing as MACPS is merely the modified (or de-modified) ACPS.
6. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7278 of 2011 filed by the CBEC was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 02.05.11 in Ashok Kumar case involving the issue of stepping-up of pay, if juniors are getting more pay than seniors on account of ACP/MACP upgradation. General implementation of the Ashok Kumar case is still awaited even after expiry of more than 6 years.
7. The offset of the MACP upgradation with time scale is also liable to be scrapped since its initiation as per the verdict given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Nurses Union (Regd.) Vs. U.O.I. dismissing the Appeal of Union of India on 04.03.2013 in SLP(C) No. 010607/2013 filed against W. P. (C) 5146/2012.
 8. Para 8.1 has also been duly discussed in the case of U.O.I. & Others versus Sri S. Balakrishnan & Ors. (WP 11535 / 2014 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras on 16.10.2014). The Hon’ble High Court decided that the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3 is not a higher Grade Pay than the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 and the immediate next higher Grade Pay to the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- is Rs.6600/-. The Hon’ble High Court also held that this para has been misinterpreted and the grant of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on non-functional basis cannot be counted as Financial Up-gradation for the purpose of the MACP upgradation. The SLP No.15396/2015 filed by the UOI in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement dated 16.10.2014 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court was dismissed by the Apex Court on 31.08.2015. Thus, the judgement dated 16.10.2014 of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has attained finality and our officers are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- on MACP upgradation after time scale of Rs. 5400/-.
9. As far as the grant of MACP upgradation in promotional hierarchy is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 7467/2013 filed by the Government against the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Chandigarh in CWP No. 19387/2011 has already confirmed the order dated 31.05.11 of Chandigarh CAT for grant of MACP upgradation in the promotional hierarchy. The Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/ in PB2 being a new pay slab and not being existed in the promotional hierarchy, the para 8.1 of the MACP instructions is automatically amounts to be scrapped since its initiation based on the said verdict of the Apex court.
10. In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs Balbir Singh Turn & Anr. in Civil Appeal  Diary No. 3744 OF 2016, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has ruled that the MACPS is to be implemented since 01.01.06 instead of 01.09.08. Accordingly, our officers completing 20 years on or before 01.01.06 should be granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/- on IInd MACP upgradation on 01.01.06 ignoring time scale, the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- being kept only for the purpose of time scale as in CSS. If such officers are granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- as MACP upgradation without ignoring the time scale, their juniors will get higher grade pay (pay level) than them. Thus, our officers after joining as Inspector should be granted Level-8 or equivalent on Ist MACP upgradation, then time scale in Level-10 or equivalent, further Level-11 or equivalent on IInd MACP upgradation and Level-12 or equivalent on IIIrd MACP upgradation under the present scenario.
11. There are so many other verdicts of the various courts, which are also unimplemented in CBEC. A few burning examples are as below -
i) Order Dt. 24.02.95 in OA No. 541/1994 by the Hon’ble CAT of Jabalpur. No appeal was made against this order but, very unfortunately, the same is still unimplemented even after expiry of more than 22 years.
ii) Order Dt. 08.12.14 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 19024/2014 in Chandrasekaran case despite of the SLP No.15396/2015 of the Department of Revenue being dismissed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the same issue in Balakrisnan case (WP 11535/2014 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras).
iii) Order Dt. 21.06.17 in OA No. 633/2015 by the Hon’ble CAT of Mumbai.
iv) Order Dt. 01.03.17 in OA No. 2323/2012 by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi. The four month time granted by the Hon’ble CAT has already expired in this case.
v) Order Dt. 12.05.16 in OA No. 3405/2014 by the Hon’ble CAT of Delhi.
12. General implementation of court orders in rem in the light of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. K. & Ors V. K. Kapoor & Anr JT 2007 (12) 439, Inderpal Singh Yadav & Ors, State of Maharashtra Vs Tukaram Trymbak Choudhary by order dated 20.02.2007, order dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dt. 17.10.14 in the Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors has held as under: 
“Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved  by  this  Court  from  time  to  time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.”
13. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly-
i) Implement the various court verdicts to give the benefit to the employees and redress the grievances of the employees administratively to avoid unwarranted litigations without going to review petitions, appeals or SLPs as done in revenue matters.
ii) To withdraw the reviews/appeals/SLPs from CATs/High Courts and Supreme Court in service matters as has been done in revenue matters and further not to file appeals/SLPs/reviews in service matters at least on the issues already decided by the Apex Court or already recommended/accepted by the CBEC.
By this, not only the hard earned money, energy and time of the officers will be saved to be utilized in a positive manner for Nation building and service of the people but it will also save the litigation cost incurred by the Govt. as well as precious time of administrative machinery.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,



(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
The Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.



(RAVI MALIK)

Sunday, 18 February 2018

DPC

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:                                          Address for communication:                                       Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh                             240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)                                              Ravi Malik
Mob.7780255361       mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com, Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in      Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 44/AIB/G/18                                                                          Dt. 19.02.18
To,
Sh. S. Ramesh,
Member (Admn), CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.

Sub: DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Sir,
            As your goodself is already aware, it is to submit with due regards that the contempt proceedings in the Bharartan case regarding DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner have already been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also worth to submit that our officers are retiring regularly without promotion for the want of DPC despite of a good number of posts being in hand.
            2. As far as the Dhindhsa case is concerned, it relates to seniority of the Customs officials. DPC for the Central Excise officials may be conducted keeping Customs DPC on hold till their seniority issue is resolved. No need to submit that we already have precedents of conducting DPCs for Central Excise in case of pending dispute relating to Customs.
3. The promotions have not been affected against the promotional quota in respect of regular/permanent posts in the last DPC for the post of Asstt. Commissioner. Thus, 230+200+230+104=764 posts are to be added in the DPC for promotion of our officers against the promotional quota in respect of regular/permanent posts.
            4. It is further submitted that the DPC for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 has been held for 1261 posts but promotion orders have been issued merely for 844 officers in all. Thus, 417 (1261-844) posts are also to be added for the DPC. Final figure is to be reached also by adding all retirements including voluntary retirements, demise etc. against temporary posts.
5. The officers promoted against temporary posts have also not been moved upwards against regular posts which is required to be done immediately. This will increase the number of promotional posts at temporary level.
6. It is also worth to mention that the chain vacancies on account of cascading effect from higher side are also required to be included for the promotion as per the DOPT OM No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) Dt. 06.10.99. It is mentioned in this OM that the existing and clear anticipated vacancies as well as chain vacancies on account of retirements, promotions, demise etc. in all higher grades/hierarchy should be included for the purpose of DPC.
7. The temporary posts of Asstt. Commissioner will lapse in the month of December, 2018. So, posts upto December, 2018 at least are required to be taken into consideration for promotion.
8. Your kind attention is also invited to the RTI reply given vide F. No. 8/B/03/HRD (HRM)/2014/Pt. 1/16445 Dt. 07.11.17 saying that CBEC is having 11, 1, 72, 4, 405 & 1374 posts vacant respectively at the level of PCC, CC, PC, Commissioner, ADC/JC & DC/AC as on 06.11.17. The vacancies for the period from 07.11.17 to 31.03.18, however, are also to be added to it for the year 2017-18.
            9. The provisions under GFR 254 of 2005 say that the vacant posts on account of the want of the eligible officers at higher levels can be operated at lower level. Accordingly, the vacant posts at higher levels may be operated at JTS level.
           10. In view of the above, it is requested to convene DPC for the years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 at an early date against all unfilled/existing/anticipated posts of Asstt. Commissioner including promotion quota against regular/permanent posts, retirements, demise, backlog etc. vacancies taking into consideration all of the above submissions as our officers are forced to retire waiting for the rarest IInd promotion in the career.
                        Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,



(RAVI MALIK),

Secretary General.

Friday, 16 February 2018

DOPT OM on pay matters

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:                                          Address for communication:                                       Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh                             240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)                                              Ravi Malik
Mob.7780255361       mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com, Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in      Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 42/AIB/G/18                                                                          Dt. 15.02.18
To,
Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna,
Chairperson, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: DOPT OM issued vide Dy.No. 1173974/16/JS(CPC) in the month of June, 2016 (enclosed herewith).
Madam,
            It is to submit with due regards that no action has been taken on the above communication even after expiry of more than 1½ years despite of the repeated requests of the Association. This OM relates to the pay matters of Central Excise Superintendents.
            2. The issues relating to pay commission matters were submitted to the Secretary, DOPT in person by the Association. From there, the matter was referred to the Department of Revenue alongwith the representation and relevant documents submitted by the Association. It was further referred to the CBEC by the Department of Revenue.
            3. The issue was also raised before your goodself on various occasions but no action has been initiated on the said OM till date.
            4. In view of the above, it is requested to kindly direct the concerned section to do the needful in the matter.
            Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Encl: As above.


(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
Copy with the request for necessary action to (alongwith enclosure):
The Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.



(RAVI MALIK)

Thursday, 15 February 2018

SLP


ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.8 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.3066/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-04-2017 in WP No. 5611/2017 and order dated 18-08-2017 in RP No. 114/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS P. BHARATHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

APPLICATION FOR C/DELAY IN FILING Date : 12-02-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv. Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, Adv. Ms. Aarti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Ragunath, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Delay condoned. Issue notice returnable in four weeks. There shall be stay of further proceedings in Contempt Petition No.1858/2017 in Writ Petition No.5611/2017 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (CHANDER BALA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Wednesday, 14 February 2018

Public Provident Fund (PPF) Accounts To Offer More Benefits

Apart from higher interest rates compared to bank deposits, PPF or Public Provident Fund also offers a host of income tax benefits.

PPF or public provident fund is one the most popular saving schemes. Apart from higher interest rates compared to bank deposits, PPF also offers a host of income tax benefits. In terms of income tax implications,PPF enjoys an EEE – exempt, exempt, exempt – status. This means the contribution, interest and maturity proceeds are all tax-free. PPF contribution up to Rs. 1.5 lakh in a financial year is eligible for tax deductions under Section 80C of the Income Tax Act. Now, PPF accounts are likely to come with more benefits.
Here are 10 things to know about thechanges proposed in PPF rules:
1. The government has proposed to allow premature closure of Public Provident Fund (PPF) accounts.
2. According to the current PPF account rules, premature closure of PPF account is allowed only under specific conditions such as expenditure towards medical treatment and higher education. The account has to complete at least five financial years.
3. “To make provisions for premature closure easier in respect of all schemes, provisions could now be made through specific scheme notification. The benefits of premature closure of small savings schemes may now be introduced to deal with medical emergencies, higher education needs, etc,” the Ministry of Finance said in a statement.
4. The government has also plans to consolidate PPF Act under the proposed Government Savings Promotion Act. The government has said that “no existing benefits to depositors are proposed to be taken away through this process”.
5. “The main objective in proposing a common Act is to make implementation easier for the depositors as they need not go through different rules and Acts for understanding the provision of various small saving schemes, and also to introduce certain flexibilities for the investors,” the Finance Ministry said.
6. PPF accounts are immune from attachment under court decree order. The Finance Ministry has also clarified that there is no proposal to withdraw the provision and the existing and future depositors will continue to enjoy protection from the attachment under the amended umbrella Act as well.
7. The government has also said that apart from ensuring existing benefits, certain new benefits to the depositors have been proposed under the bill to merge Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 and Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 with the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873.
8. “The existing Acts are silent about grievance redressal. The amended Act allows the Government to put in place mechanism for redressal of grievances and for amicable and expeditious settlement of disputes relating to Small Savings,” the Finance Ministry said.
9. As per existing provisions of the Acts, if the depositor dies and nomination exists, the outstanding balances will be paid to nominee(s). But Supreme Court in its judgement stated that nominee(s) is merely empowered to collect the amounts as trustee for the benefit of legal heirs, the Finance Ministry said. “It was creating disputes between the provisions of the Acts and verdict of Supreme Court. Hence, right of nominees have now been more clearly defined,” the ministry said in a statement.
10. No change in interest rate or tax policy on small savings scheme is being made through this amendment, the government clarified. The interest rate on PPF accounts, like other small savings schemes, is reset on a quarterly basis. Currently, PPF accounts fetch an interest rate of 7.6 per cent (for January-March quarter).

Government May Allow Premature Closure of PPF account, But Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Do It

The government intends to retain all the existing protections under the PPF Act while consolidating it with the Government Savings Promotion Act.

In a bid to remove the existing ambiguities owing to multiple Acts and rules as well as to make small saving schemes more attractive, the government has in the Union Budget 2018 proposed merger of the Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 and the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 with the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873. The move is aimed at making the various small saving schemes simpler and more flexible for investors.
The good news is that besides ensuring the existing benefits, certain new benefits to the depositors have been proposed under the bill. For instance, the existing Acts are silent about grievance redressal. However, the amended Act allows the government to put in place a mechanism for redressal of grievances, and an amicable and expeditious settlement of disputes relating to small savings. Similarly, investments can also be made by the guardian on behalf of minors.
Apart from getting a wide applause, the proposal, however, has also created scepticism in the mind of many investors about what will happen to their existing and future PPF investments, and whether they are safe or not. Keeping this in view, the Ministry of Finance, in a press release issued on Tuesday, said, “All existing protections have been retained while consolidating PPF Act under the proposed Government Savings Promotion Act. No existing benefits to depositors are proposed to be taken away through this process.”
The Ministry has also made it clear that “the existing and future depositors will continue to enjoy protection from the attachment under the amended umbrella Act as well.
Financial experts say that with the proposal to revoke the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968, PPF will henceforth fall under the purview of the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873, and be somewhat like other post office schemes such as Post Office Savings Account, Senior Citizen Savings Scheme etc.
To put it simply, “revoking the PPF Act does not have any impact on the interest rate, taxability and most importantly, the safety with respect to our invested money. The only impact it will have is that currently PPF enjoys freedom from the court attachment (not income tax) with respect to any debt or liability incurred by the investor. However, the change will be applicable only to new investors. The balance accumulated so far shall continue to enjoy the guarantee with respect to court attachment,” says Amar Pandit, Founder & Chief Happiness Officer at HappynessFactory.in.
According to financial experts, currently, different small savings schemes are governed by different laws such as the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968, the Government Savings Certificate Act, 1959, and the Government Savings Bank Act, 1873. Some of them are antiquated and some of their provisions are redundant today.
“The government’s Budget proposal is aimed at bringing all of them under one umbrella law. The provisions of the Act simplify several matters such as norms for premature closure of small saving schemes and allowing guardians to deposit funds on behalf of minors in all schemes. The government intends to retain all the existing protections under the PPF Act while consolidating it with the Government Savings Promotion Act. This includes the clause on protection from being attached. At the same time, premature closure terms and conditions will be simplified. The funds of the investors are and will continue to remain safe,” says Adhil Shetty, CEO, Bankbazaar.com.
Premature Closure of Schemes
Among the proposed benefits in the new bill, the government also wants to make provisions for the premature closure of all small savings schemes so that investors could utilize them to the most. For example, as per the existing PPF Act, a PPF account can not be closed before the completion of 5 financial years, even if someone wants to do so. However, the benefits of premature closure of small savings schemes may now be introduced to deal with medical emergencies, higher education needs, etc, which will make these schemes more attractive.
“While it is true that PPF accounts are meant for long-term capital creation, giving options for partial or complete withdrawal on specific emergencies is a good idea.
Under normal circumstances this would remain a long-term capital creation instrument as early redemption is only possible on certain contingencies. Giving options on early foreclosure, on specific adverse circumstances, will only increase the attractiveness of this instrument for investors,” says Ashish Kapur, CEO, Invest Shoppe India Ltd.
However, while you may now be allowed by the government for premature closure of your PPF account – even before five years – it is in your own interest not to do so.
Experts say that PPF is still one of the best investment options in India, which can help you generate a good corpus over its term of 15 years, which can be extended within one year of maturity for further 5 years and so on. Besides, contribution to a PPF account, interest and maturity proceeds all are tax free. Thus, it is good for generating your retirement nest egg also. Therefore, premature closure of PPF accounts should be avoided.
“The government is aiming to provide premature closure of small savings schemes in specific situations. In my view, however, this may prove fatal to your savings habits. What this provision says indirectly is that you bring your own discipline and we will be less liable for paying long-term interest in case of small savings schemes.
The lower flexibility has worked well for many investors and they were able to accumulate a good corpus through small savings schemes especially for children. Now with the flexibility to close the account earlier, what has happened in case of EPF will start happening here too. Not many people will continue the account till its maturity in case the need of funds arises. This may further reduce the level of household savings as not many people invest in equity markets in India, nor do they understand debt instruments fully,” says Jitendra P S Solanki, MCSI, CTEP, and CFP.

Tuesday, 13 February 2018

Grievances

ALL INDIA ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
GAZETTED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
President:                                          Address for communication:                                       Secretary General:
A. Venkatesh                             240, Razapur, Ghaziabad-201001 (U.P.)                                              Ravi Malik
Mob.7780255361       mail Id:ravimalik_sweet@yahoo.com, Site: cengoindia.blogspot.in      Mob.9868816290
Vice Presidents: Apurba Roy, P. C. Jha (East); A. K. Meena, Somnath Chakrabarty (west); Ashish Vajpayee, Ravi Joshi (North); B. Pavan K. Reddy (South); K.V. Sriniwas, T. J. Manojuman (Central) Joint Secretaries: Ajay Kumar, R. N. Mahapatra (East); B. S. Meena, Sanjeev Sahai (West); Harpal Singh, Sanjay Srivastava (North); M. Nagraju, P. Sravan Kumar (South); Anand Kishore, Ashutosh Nivsarkar (Central)
Office Secretary: C. S. Sharma Treasuer: N. R. Manda Organising Secretary: Soumen Bhattachariya
(Recognised by G.O.I., Min. of Fin. vide letter F.No. B. 12017/10/2006-Ad.IV A Dt.21.01.08)
Ref. No. 39/AIB/G/18                                                                          Dt. 13.02.18
To,
Sh. M. K. Gupta,
Under Secretary, Ad.IIA, CBEC,
North Block, New Delhi.
Sub: Grievance Petition of All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers (Registration No. PMOPG/E/2017/0618437 Dt. 04.1.17)-reg.
Dear Sir,
            Kindly refer to your letter F.No.A-26017/237/2017-Ad.IIA Dt. 07.02.18.
            2. The following grievances were registered at PMO portal-
(i) DPC for the year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 for the post of Asstt. Commissioner in CBEC-being forwarded to Under Secretary Ad.II.  
(ii) Initial pay scale to Central Excise Superintendent at par with DSP of CBI alongwith other perks & allowances etc.-under process.
(iii) Batch to batch Non Functional Financial Upgradation to our officers to grant at least financial parity with the best placed counterparts of CSS etc.-under process.
(iv) Non-functional time scale in PB3 to Central Excise Superintendents like other counterparts instead of PB2 after 4 years of service-under process.
(v) Next promotion of Central Excise Superintendent to STS like other group ‘B’ gazetted officers of Central as well as State Governments and weightage of group ‘B’ service-under process.
(vi) Flexible Complementary Promotion/Dynamic Assured Career Progression Scheme to improve the career prospects of Central Excise Superintendents to grant minimum 5 functional promotions as our officers are retiring with single promotion in the service career of 35-40 years (Cabinet also approved to bring a scheme to remove the stagnation of group ‘B’ Central Excise executive officers independent of cadre restructuring)-under process. 
(vii) Implementation of the CBEC circular issued vide F. No. A-26017/44/94-Ad II (A) Dt. 08.03.95 regarding arrears of pay-disposed of. 
(viii) Implementation of para 7.15.24 of 6th CPC report in light of UO No. 6/37/98-IC Dt. 24.11.14 of Expenditure-not recommended by 7th CPC.
(ix) Undoing of MACP irregularities (para 8.1, upgradation in promotional hierarchy and offsetting of MACP upgradation with time scale) as our officers were able to get the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB3 after 24 years of service under ACPS while now getting the same after 30 years of service under MACPS-DOPT is nodal department. 
(x) Uniform promotional hierarchy for all Group ‘B’ officers across all departments/ministries in Govt. of India and merger of Level 9 and 10-promotional hierarchy is not necessary to be uniformed.
(xi) Finalisation of RRs as per the verdict given in OA No. 2323/2012 by Principal Bench of Hon’ble CAT-under process.
(xii) Upgradation of posts scales like state governments under GST-being forwarded to Under Secretary Ad.IVA.  
(xiii) Infrastructure and office space-being forwarded to Under Secretary Ad.III.
(The status shown by your goodself is mentioned in italics against every grievance)
            3. Against point (ii) to (vi) and (xi), the issues have been mentioned as “under process”. It is requested that all of the issues may kindly be redressed in time bound manner. No need to say that all are long pending and minuted issues but unredressed for very long.
            4. Against point (i), (xii) and (xiii), the issues have been mentioned as “being forwarded to the concerned Under Secretary”. It is requested to kindly forward the issues to the concerned Under Secretaries at an early date to be redressed in time bound manner. No need to say that all are long pending and minuted issues but unredressed for very long.
            5. Against point (vii), the issue has been mentioned as “disposed of” but unfortunately, the position has not been mentioned correctly as this issue is yet to be disposed of. It is requested to kindly redress the issue at an early date in time bound manner. No need to say that this issue is unfortunately the longest pending of all grievances mentioned in your letter and minuted one but still unredressed.
            6. Against point (viii), the issue has been mentioned as “not recommended by 7th CPC”. Very unfortunately, the position regarding this grievance has also not been mentioned correctly as this was not required to be recommended by 7th CPC because of already being a recommended issue by 6th CPC. Not only it, it had also been accepted by the competent authority in Expenditure but couldn’t be implemented due to an irrelevant remark of the then Under Secretary in Expenditure to send it to 7th CPC. It is requested to kindly redress the issue at an early date in time bound manner. No need to say that this issue is also a minuted one but is unredressed since very long.
            7. Against point (ix), the issue has been mentioned as “DOPT is nodal department”. It is requested to kindly forward the issue at an early date to DOPT for redressal in time bound manner. No need to say that this issue is also a minuted one but unredressed since very long.
            8. Against point (x), the issue has been mentioned as “promotional hierarchy is not necessary to be uniformed”. Very unfortunately, the position regarding this grievance has also not been mentioned correctly as this issue is already a recommended issue by CBEC itself. Merger of Level 9 and 10 is also a recommended issue by CBEC. It is requested to kindly get both the issues redressed at an early date in time bound manner. No need to say that these issues are also the minuted ones but unredressed since very long.
            9. Submitted for kind and early redressal please.
            Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,



(RAVI MALIK),
Secretary General.
           
Copy with the request for necessary action to:
1) PMO Grievance Portal.
2) Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, PMO, South Block, New Delhi.
3) The Finance Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
4) The Chairperson, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
5) The Member (Admn), CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
6) The Under Secretary Ad.II, CBEC, North Block, New Delhi.
7) The Under Secretary Ad.IVA, CBEC, Hudco Vishala Building, New Delhi.
8) The Under Secretary Ad.III, CBEC, Hudco Vishala Building, New Delhi.



(RAVI MALIK)