INCOME TAX
EMPLOYEES FEDERATION, MUMBAI CIRCLE
Dear Comrades,
At the outset we thank all our
members for implementing the non-cooperation agitation in totality and also for
making the 2-day strike action a tremendous success. We also thank our officer
friends for their support in our struggle against the CBDT. As informed to you
in the meeting our leaders had with the Chairperson and Member (P), CBDT it was
informed that the discussion on the allocation of posts within the CBDT will be
concluded next week and afterwards the issue will be discussed with the ITEF to
bring about an amicable settlement. On the NR Parmar issue the instructions of
the DG(HRD) will be put on hold till the uniform instructions are issued after
getting clearance from the Law ministry. It was also assured to pursue other
issues to its logical conclusion. In the light of the above it was decided to
suspend the ongoing agitational programme. However, if need be the agitational
programme will be re-commenced if no satisfactory agreement is reached. On the
issue of 7th CPC and related issues, the matter was scheduled to be
raised in Parliament on 13.2.2014 but as you all know because of the unseemly
incidents in Parliament on that day the proceedings was adjourned. We hope some
of the issues raised by us will be resolved or we will be forced to go on an
indefinite strike action shortly.
Cadre restructuring and
ITEF stand:
1.
The ITGOA in its circular had gone the whole hog
to justify the sub-committee and core committee reports. Then it goes on to ask
“where is the reason for any grievance?.” We have a reason to be agitated
because it is only the ITEF which has submitted an alternative proposal while
the ITGOA preferred to have none and therefore perforce had to support both the
sub-committee report and the core-committee report which are diametrically different
from each other. As we discussed earlier the Cabinet approval as well as the
terms of reference of CBDT to the sub-committee was for allocation of 20,751
posts. Therefore by following the Consolidated Approach (allocation of
additional as well as existing posts) both the Committees have exceeded its
brief which no organization worth its salt can accept. It is pertinent to mention here that in our
meeting with Member (P) CBDT on 16th and 17th January in
which both ITGOA leaders from Mumbai was also present, the Member (P) agreed
that the consolidated approach is wrong.
2.
The ITGOA goes on to tom-tom that the “views
expressed by it were tactfully put in such a way that the views expressed by it
became the view of the sub-committee.” If that is the case then why ITGOA
found favour with the Core Committee
report also which has a different formulation.
The ITGOA General Secretary in Mumbai owes an explanation to all the
officers and Staff members in Mumbai who are awaiting their promotions as to
why he became a party to a proposal which was discriminatory towards Mumbai
Charge. From their own circular it is crystal clear that the ITGOA had no
proposal whatsoever in so far as the allocation of posts were concerned. So all
the proposals that are now there and whatever comes in future can be
theirs!
3.
The glaring instance of how the Mirani Committee
has allocated the posts can be seen from the fact that when the cabinet has
approved a total of 16 posts of Pr.AO (copy enclosed), the Mirani Committee in
his wisdom has allocated 116 posts of Pr.A.O. charge-wise and 16 posts of Pr.A.O. to Mumbai charge! The ITGOA vide its
ITGOA-Mum/Cir./2013-14 dated 11/02/2014 is supporting this fraud of the Mirani
Committee. It would have been better if
the ITGOA leadership verified the figures, especially of the ITEF proposal,
before printing in the circular so that people are not misled.
4.
As we have mentioned in our earlier circular the
Core committee inspite of the fact that it fully endorsed the criterion adopted
by the sub-committee on allocation of posts went on to change the allocation of
posts charge-wise in a major way. Howsoever the ITGOA leadership may distort
the facts, the truth remains that the Core Committee had to perforce allocate 3
more Pr.CITs increasing the number of ITOs in Mumbai region after the
successful Dharna and other agitational programmes carried out by ITEF, Mumbai
Circle. The ITGOA leadership in Mumbai was a mute spectator when we went on
agitation. So what the core committee gave was nobody’s charity but under
compulsions created by ITEF Mumbai Circle. However, we have taken a principled
stand that the proposal of the ITEF should be implemented (if required with
minor amendments so that justice is done to all charges) for the ITEF proposal
was the produce of collective wisdom of its Central Working Committee and had
the unanimous approval of all concerned.
5.
So far as the proposal sent from Mumbai was
concerned the number of Pr.CITs was allocated at 44 but the Mirani Committee
changed the structure of allocation of Pr.CITs by taking only Pr.CIT(Corporate)
and Pr.CIT(Non-Corporate) to 32. According to the proposal submitted by the
Mumbai Sub-Committee the number of additional ITO posts for Mumbai worked out
was 284. So the Mirani Commtitee has accepted one part of the proposal without
considering the proposals to ITOs and down below cadres proposed by Mumbai. It
needs no mention here that we are concerned with the allocation of posts of
ITOs and cadres down below in which the interest of our members are involved.
6.
Immediately after cooling period is over a
person should get his promotion. So if a
person takes more than 3 years, for promotion to the post of ITO there is an
element of stagnation. This stagnation
may vary from charge to charge because of various reasons like number of
persons passing the exam, the vacant posts, the seniority of the personnel who
come on intercharge transfer etc. It
needs to be remembered that upto the level of ITO the promotions are localized
and local factors play an important role.
Hence, relative stagnation has been given weightage by ITEF taking 15%
as stagnation factor on the number of qualified persons in each charge so that
no charge should suffer. It is a proven
fact that relative waiting period for promotion in each charge does not remain
stagnant but changes each year depending upon the number of persons promoted
from that charge to higher level positions.
On the other hand stagnation was taken as a criterion by the Mirani
Committee in respect of two/ three charges selectively as mentioned in the
ITGOA Circular. This is nothing but naked discrimination. It is also pertinent
to mention that the Mirani Committee initially expressed the view that no
consideration must be given for the stagnation factor and rejected the proposal
of ITEF in this regard, whereas throughout the Cadre Restructuring report, the
comparatively longer waiting period of IRS officers vis-à-vis officers of other
organized Group A services and all India services had been adduced as the primary
reason for the up-gradation and creation of posts at top levels.
7.
We have taken a principled stand that the
allocation in respect of ITOs and cadres down below should be on the basis of
ITEF proposal as it concerns the promotion prospects of our Group C
cadres. Secondly both the sub-committee
& the core committee reports suffer from various infirmities and
inconsistencies alongwith the basis adopted as mentioned above and hence cannot
be accepted. The IRS has their own interests in getting the posts at higher
levels according to their preference of posting etc. It needs no mention here that no IRS officer
wants to go to North East but prefer a posting in the North. Hence, the
paranoia about Kolkata and it is a well known fact that the ITGOA leadership
supports the cause for their own electoral politics. Otherwise how can one say
that one charge should be kept out of the benefit of cadre restructuring while
all others enjoy the fruits? Incidentally we may mention that it is nothing but
a canard that the West Bengal Charge got the lion’s share in the allocation of
posts in 2001. It was in fact Mumbai
charge which got the largest number of ITOs allotted in 2001. The cadre restructuring proposal of 1998 was
based on zero financial liability for the Government. Therefore, at the cost of abolition of the
posts of LDCs, number of posts in higher cadres was created. West Bengal suffered the abolition of the
largest number of LDCs posts. It was not
however allotted higher posts proportionate to the abolition.
In conclusion, we don’t believe
in the dictum of “yes Boss” where you can accept anything and everything
without batting an eyelid. We are an organization which has the history of
fighting for our due rights. In the last cadre restructuring in 2000, the JCA
with ITGOA & ITEF came together to give a proposal for allocation of posts
which was accepted in toto. Today, both the organizations are taking a
divergent views on allocation of posts before CBDT thereby putting a question
mark on the very purpose of JCA. It is only for deriving platonic pleasure the
ITGOA leadership use the name of JCA.
The irony is that both at the time of the preparation of the report and
at the juncture of allocation of posts, no attempt was made to converge the
views of the two Federations. The fact
is that JCA remain only in form and not in content.
With greetings,
Yours fraternally,
Ravindran B Nair
General Secretary.
No comments:
Post a Comment