Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Rejoinder in the OA No. 381/10 has been filed

Dear friends,
      The case heard on 03.09.10 and two weeks time has been granted to the respondents for the reply to the rejoinder. The case is posted to 21.09.10. Further information will be given in due course. (Edited on 05.09.10)

       Rejoinder in the OA 381/10 has been filed. All the issues raised by the Respondents in the reply statement have been suitably defended in the Rejoinder. Extract of Some main issues are given below:

Issue No.1 The Inspector Posts were not in the Pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500, hence they are not entitled for the benefit under OM dated 13.11.2009 issued by MOF.

      It is clear from Paragraph 7.6.14 of 6th Central Pay Commission Report that Inspector Posts was upgraded in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 on par with Inspectors and analogous posts in CBDT/CBEC as well as Assistants of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) with effect from 01-01-2006. Due to this upgradation only the pay scale of ASPOs was upgraded to the next higher pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. The contention of the respondents that Inspector Posts was upgraded in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 only notionally with effect from 01-01-2006 and therefore, they cannot be treated alike with the comparable posts in CBDT/CBEC is untenable. It is pertinent to point out that the 6th Central Pay Commission found parity among Inspector Posts, Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS and to effectuate this parity, the pay scale of Inspector Posts was upgraded with effect from 01-01-2006. Hence, any upgradation of pay scale or Grade Pay granted to Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS is equally applicable to the Inspector Posts and the incumbents in the post of Inspector Posts alone cannot be discriminated in the matter of revision of Grade Pay. The averments to the contrary are emphatically denied.

Issue No.2 Inspector Posts are not comparable to the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS AND only Group B Post in Dept. of posts are comparable to the Group B posts in CSS/CBDT/CBEC. There is hierarchical problem due to intermediatory post of ASPOs in Dept. of Posts, unlike in CSS/CBDT/CBEC and if the Inspector Posts are given Grade Pay of Rs.4600, it will disturb the entire hierarchical structure of Inspector Posts and its promotional cadre both within the Departmental hierarchy and horizontal relativity outside the Department

         The pay scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission and 6th Central Pay Commission and accepted by the Government for the following categories are given below :

                                                       Pay scale recommended by the 5th CPC  
                                                                   and accepted by the Govt.                                               
                                                                                                        Pay scale recommended by the 6th CPC                                                                                                                  and accepted by the Govt.
1 Assistants in CSS and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC Rs.5500-9000                  9300-34800with GP Rs.4200
2 Inspector Posts                                                     Rs.5500-9000                  9300-34800with GP Rs.4200
3 CentralExcise/Customs Superintendent,
Income Tax Officer                                                 Rs.6500-10500                 9300-34800with GP Rs.4800
4 Section Officer in CSS                                         Rs.6500-10500                9300-34800with GP Rs.4800
5 Assistant Supdt. Of Posts                                     Rs.6500-10500                9300-34800with GP Rs.4600
6 Supdt. of Post Offices                                           Rs.7500-12000                9300-34800with GP Rs.4800

      It is evident from the above table that same pay scale/ Grade pay was granted by both 5th Central Pay Commission and 6th Central Pay Commission for Inspector Posts in comparison with Assistants in CSS and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC. The Inspector (Posts) and other analogous posts in CBDT/CBEC and Assistsnts in CSS were enjoying the same scale of pay of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 01-01-2006 and were continued to draw the same scale of pay and grade pay as on the date of issuance of Annexure A-9 O.M. Dated 13-11-2009 and Annexure A-11 O.M dated 16-11-2009 granting the upgraded Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Inspectors of CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in the Central Secretariat respectively. Therefore, the persons like the applicants are subjected to hostile dicrimination in denying the grade pay of Rs. 4600/-
          Department of Post made a proposal to the Ministry of Finance recommending to extend the benefit of Annexure A-9 O.M dated 13-11-2009 and A-11 O.M. Dated 16-11-2009 and to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Inspector (Posts) to maintain parity between similar cadres. In the above proposal the Department had categorically stated that the pay of Inspector (Post) was upgraded to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 01-01-2006 and the parity agreed to in the pay scales of Inspector (Post) with Assistants (CSS) and Inspectors CBDT/CBEC has not been recognised and given effect to while issuing Annexure A-9 and A-11. Therefore, it is evident that there is discrimination in the matter of grating Grade Pay to the Inspector (Post). However, the Ministry of Finance did not approve the proposal and returned the same. The reason for non-granting of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to the Inspector (Post) alone by the Ministry of Finance is on three grounds. Firstly, prior to 01-01-2006 the Inspector (Post) was in the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and secondly, the hierarchical structure in respect of Inspector (Post) is not comparable with the analogous posts in CBDT/CBEC. Thirdly, the 6th CPC specifically recommended the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- to the Inspector Posts. All the three reasons shown are entirely untenable. It is submitted that the pay scales of Inspector in CBDT/CBEC was upgraded from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 as per Annexure A-5 dated 21-04-2004 and on the basis of Annexure A-5, the pay scale of Assistants in CSS was upgraded in September, 2006 as per Annexure A-6. As earlier stated the scale of pay of Inspector (Post) and other analogous posts were same i.e. Rs. 6500-10500 as on 01-01-2006 and the revised pay scales also were granted to them with effect from 01-01-2006 in the scale of pay of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- The 6th Central Pay Commission recommended only Rs. 4200/- as Grade Pay to the post of Inspector CBDT/CBCE and other analogous post. However, the Inspector in CBDT/CBCE and Assistants in Central Secretariat were granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 01-01-2006 as per Annexure A-9 and A-11 respectively. Therefore, the Inspector (Post) is entitled for equal treatment as that of the Inspectors in CBDT/CBCE and Assistants in CSS. 
          It is submitted that hierarchical structure is not at all a criteria for granting Grade Pay. As stated earlier in different department different hierarchical structure is adopted and the comparable posts are enjoying similar benefits. The averments to the effect that only Group B Posts in Department of Post are comparable to those of Group B posts in CSS/CBDT/CBEC is totally unsustainable for the reason that the comparable posts of Inspector (Post) is Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in Central Secretariat Service. The details of pay scale and Grade Pay recommended by 5th and 6th Central Pay Commission and accepted by the Government shown in paragraph 4 (Table above) of the rejoinder statement would prove contrary to the contentions of the respondents. The contention of the respondent that the Assistant Superintendent of Posts is given the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- which is the next higher post of Inspector (Post) and therefore, the Inspector (Post) is not entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- is unsustainable as some promotional posts in other Departments and feeder post are enjoying the same Grade Pay. For example, in Defence Accounts Department Sr. Accounts Officer is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts (ACDA) and both the posts are in the same Grade pay Rs.5400 in PB-3. Likewise, in the Postal Accounts Office (PAO) under the Department of Post, Senior Accounts Officer is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Chief Accounts Officer (ACAO) and both these posts are in the Grade pay Rs.5400 in PB-3. In Comptroller and Auditor General’s Officer, Senior Audit officer is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant General(AAG) and the Grade pay is Rs 5400 in PB-3 for both these posts. Therefore, it will not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the promotional post is in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and therefore, the Inspector (Post) is not entitled for the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. 
          It is submitted that when parity is brought out by the Pay Commission and Inspector (Post) and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC and Assistants in CSS is treated alike, the denial of equal grade pay would result in down grading the post of Inspector Post and the same is not permissible in law. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Debashis Kar and others reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 528. Admittedly, the Department of Post recommended the same pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC to the Inspector (Post) before the 6th Central Pay Commission and the same was approved by the Pay Commission granting the same scale of pay and Grade Pay and therefore, the department cannot turn around and contend that the Inspector (Post) are not entitled for the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-.

Issue No.3 Nature of duties assigned to Assistants in CSS are different to that of Inspector Posts.

      Admittedly, the nature of duties assigned to Assistants in CSS are different from duties assigned to Inspector Posts since Assistants are office staff in Secretariat offices where as the Inspector Posts are the office staff in field. It is worthy to mention that 6th Central Pay Commission in Para 3.1.3 had recommended absolute parity in terms of hierarchical structure of office staff in field and Secretariat offices up to the level of Assistants and this recommendation was accepted by the Government. The above factual aspects were considered while issuing Annexure A-11 OM F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 16.11.2009 as indicated in paragraph 4 of Annexure A-11. Parity made and recommended by the Expert Body namely, the Pay Commission and accepted by the Government cannot be denied by the Department under any pretext.

Issue No.4 Pay scale of Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC was upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 on 21-04-2004 and merely recruited through direct recruitment from the same All India Competitive examination does bring any parity between Inspector Posts and Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC & Assistants in CSS.

        Admittedly the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC were given the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 on and from 21-04-2004 before the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission Recommendations and the above scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 granted to the Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC was considered and the Pay Commission found absolute parity with the Inspector (Posts) and other analogous posts and that's why the Pay Commission recommended to grant the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 to the Inspector Post upgrading their scale of pay from Rs. 5500-9000. Since the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations were implemented only with effect from 01-01-2006 the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 was granted to the Inspector Posts with effect from 01-01-2006 and not by an earlier date. Once the Pay Commission found parity with the analogous posts and recommended the same scale of pay the respondent cannot turn around and contend that the direct recruitment did not bring the Inspector Posts on par with the Inspectors in CBDT/CBCE. The Recruitment Rules were amended and element of direct recruitment was introduced only because of the recommendations of the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission and based on the recommendation for bringing out parity by the Commission. The respondents are clearly overlooking the recommendation of the 4th pay commission in Paragraph 10.44, in which Inspector Posts were equated with inspectors in other Central Government organisations like customs and central excise and income tax and recommended to introduce direct recruitment to bring parity. The 5th pay commission also in paragraph 62.9 had granted the equal pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 with Inspectors in CBDT/CBEC with recommendation to introduce direct recruitment from the Inspectors Grade examination of Staff Selection Commission.

Issue No.5 Sub Inspectors in CBI  are also recruited through the same examination and are in the Grade of Rs.4200 only.

       Sub-Inspectors in CBI  cannot be compared with Inspectors of Department of Posts, as they are Sub-Inspectors in the lower cadre and they belong to Group C post. The Pay Commission also did not recommend any parity with Sub Inspectors of CBI to that of Inspector (Post), Inspectors in the CBDT/CBCE and Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service. It is relevant to note that all the Inspectors (Central Excise, Income Tax, Customs etc.) and Assistants recruited through the Combined Graduate level Examination, conducted by Staff Selection Commission, are granted Grade Pay of Rs.4600, except the Inspector Posts. It is ironical to state that, though the Inspector Posts are Group B non gazetted they are being denied the equal grade pay to that of some Group C Inspectors in other Departments like Inspectors in the Income Tax Department. The Inspectors in the Income Tax Department is allowed the Grade pay of Rs. 4600/- even though they are Group C post.



  1. Dear Permanad,
    Well done!. Best wishes. We are expecting favourable result.Jayantji, where are you? Any comment on rejoinder.I like your comments as you have also studied the case carefully.



  2. Rejoinder is ok but at hearing stage counsel can produce documents of AIR and similar fixation of gp 4600 and SC rulings like State of UP vrs JP Chaurasia(1989)SCC 121 and batches and also OA 164/2009 of CAT,New Delhi besides OA 144-A of 1993 and batches of CAT, New Delhi

  3. kindly give good dose of advice to the current circle secretary of Maharashtra Circle... he is totally oppose for upgradation of ip for pay grade ofrs. 4600/-... he is spreadiing wrong rumours withinthe senior asps... kindly advice him on his blog www.

  4. dear friends.. by looking the comments given by members.. it seems they are taking too much pain..and helping premananad for fighting up for the rightfull justice for the pay grade...god bless them... and lets pray to god to give moral support for this fight....

  5. Dear Permanand,

    Kudos for your good work. I think all the points given in the Dept's reply are fully countered with proper supporting details.

    As said in the second comment (by Anonymous), if additional supporting details are available, they can be produced to make our case strong at the time of hearing.

    Hope, the CAT will understand our plight and pass the correct judgement (i.e., in our favour).

  6. Dear Mahesh Jee and friends,
    I have taken note of the Anonymous comment (September 1, 2010 10:17 AM). The judgment copy of the CAT, New Delhi, given in OA No.164/2009, and OA No.1165/2010, I got through net. The case is based mainly on the historical parity since 3rd CPC, which does not matches with our case completely. The OA NO.144-A of CAT New Delhi, I could not got through net. If it is available with some one, the same may be informed. SC rulings in c/w State of UP vrs JP Chaurasia(1989)SCC 121 will also be checked. Thanks again for the support and valuable suggestions.

  7. Dear friends,
    I have seen comment at sl 3regarding CS Maharashtra Circle. He can not go beyond court ruling.Let him oppose the upgradation of GP . We will win through CAT. Let DOP treat IPOs beggar. Every suffering brings prosperity. Prosperity will come in the life of IPOs . DOP has descriminated IPOs.

  8. Dear Friends
    The case is in your favour, nobody can stop giving the same to you. You are going to achieve the goal.We are with you, Best of luck.

    Kindly let me know any of your Inspectors got ACP from 5500 to 6500 before VI pay Comn. ie. 1.1.2006 and what is the status of them after vi pay commn.or any group B officer in the grade of 4800 (pre-revised 7500-12000)is given 5400 after 4 years regular service.

    P.Vigneshwar Raju
    inspector of Customs & Central Excise

  9. Dear, P Vigneswar Raju,
    Regarding your quiry, I learnt that one ASP named Mr. Natarajan working at O/O Supdt of Postoffices, Arakkonam DIvision T.N got the scale of 6500 in ACP before he got promotion to ASP cadre during 1-1-2006. Please contact him for accuracy and for more details if you want. ASP from Chennai, TN

  10. hello

    just registered and put on my todo list

    hopefully this is just what im looking for, looks like i have a lot to read Im trying to find a way to build an e-mail list.

  11. Dear friends,

    Tax official on a month-Long Strike against Outsourcing
    An outsourcing contract to Infosys, India’s second-largest software company, has resulted in an unexpected reprieve for those with income to hide from the taxman.
    Irked by the contract, under which Infosys is processing tax returns filed online and rattled by the prospect of more outsourcing officials of the investigation wing of the income-tax department, the arm of the tax administration that conducts raids, have refused to step out of their offices for at least a month. As a result, officials have not been able to conduct the so called search and seizure operations, officialese for raids, during this period, even though many of these were in the works.
    The union representing employees and officers has adopted this unusual mode of protest and said they would refuse to budge till the Central Board of Direct Taxes, or CBDT, the apex body for tax administration, meets their demands.
    Since raids require officials to leave their offices and visit the taxpayers’ premises, such plans have had to be shelved until the agitation is called off.
    A senior officer said raids have had to be postponed, reducing their effectiveness. “We have not been able to conduct raids in even those cases where investigations are already on. The success of raids largely depends on the timing and this element has been badly affected by the agitation.”
    CBDT Chairman S. S. N. Moorthy told ET that the board had given employees whatever they wanted.
    - The Economics Times, Dated – 26.08.2010

  12. Having countered every point of the Dept.'s reply with valid and strong supporting documents, I am eager to see what reply will be given to this rejoinder.

  13. Kumar says,
    Yes I agree with above comment. However DOP is always notorious for twisting the matters right from bottom to top.

  14. Dear Premanandji,
    Kudos and whole heartedly thanks from entire fraternity for the zeal and tenacity demonstrated by you.I am sure that Hon'ble CAT will certainly take a note of strong points advanced by you and contradictions in the reply visible in the reply of the Directorate especially with reference to the point that Directorate, itself had submitted proposal for upgradation of grade pay to MOF but now contradicting it.
    With regards
    ASPOs Mumbai

  15. The dose of medicine has been prescribed for the Circle Secretary of Maharashtra Circle and General Secretary and medicine has been purchased and also handed over to them, but they are not ready to consume the dose of said medicine. Now it the duty of commrades from Maharashtra Circle to force him to take the medicine regularly for 30 days or till he is cured.

  16. The efforts made in the court case are appreciated but the need of hours is that without sacrifice we will get nothing because such things have been taking place during the last more than 20 years but it appears that the MOF is reluctant and is not ready to accept the demands.We should mobilize our campaign in this regard and more and more members should be adduced with this movement "GP HIKE MOVEMENT"

  17. Sir,
    Wait and watch the reply from present day "SAKUNIS" of "MAHABHARAT" in Department of Posts. "SHAKUNIS" will definitely take efforts to twist the matter. See the current letter of GS IP/ASPOs in which he has demanded new GP 4600 with ASP(Non Gazz) or ASP(Gazz).Demand is one more effort to twist the smooth gpoing case.One missing point I have observbed is GS has not demanded the merger w.e.f. 1.6.2006. Why ?You can imagine, if incase demand is accepted , Dte will bounce back that they have not accepted the demand retrospectively.What a great idea Sirji. Hit the IPOs from front and back.

  18. Dear Permanji & other well wishers of IPOs for 4600 GP,
    Rejoinder text is as good as explosion of bomb in the face of knowledge centre of Directorate officers who are handling the case and filing irrelevant reply in the CAT. Rejoinder is also strong "SLAP" in the face of those who are against the GP 4600 for IPOs and always trying to twist the matter.


  19. Sir,
    I agree with above comments Rejoinder medicine is sufficient for treatment of those who opposed & twisted the IPO GP issue .Hope Rejionder will cure the mental health of those who have taken lot of efforts to deny the GP of 4600 to IPOs.


  20. Dear Permanad,
    Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana in a recent judgment-case titled Computers' Association V/S State Of Punjab [C.W.P No.14688 Of 1995(O&M] date of decision: 5/8/10 has held that even the government was not sure of its own stand and that is the reason that the representation of the petitioners was referred to the 4th Punjab Comm. However, as mentioned above, the parity which was rejected by the first three pay comm has thereafter been restored by the Fourth Punjab pay comm. Thus as far as the expert body is concerned there is unanimity in all the Pay comm that the pay scales of the petitioners should be equal to those of the similar categories of the employee in the Economic and Statistical Organization .Writ petition has been allowed . You may please download it from Punjab and Haryana High Court site and see if it is helpful. Now we should not expect much from Dte. so I request you to please concentrate on Court case that will otherwise also be more beneficial to IPs because you will get pay parity from the date other central Inspectors got. I am sure Case will be definitely in your favour.Also visit Punjab blog
    With best wishes
    Hari Mohan
    ASP(BD) C.O.

  21. Dear Permanandji,
    We are eagerly reading your blog several times in day in the hope that some updates may be there. For all IPOs/some ASPOs only hope rests with your CAT case. We have lost all hopes from the Dte/DOP/MOF.If we will not get justice from CAT case then we can conclude that no govt. employee can get fair justice wrt parity or pay scales.We can also conclude that pay commissions are just formalities for peoples like IPOs.There is system like caste system in pay scales/parity and descrimination like castes.


    ASP Patil

  22. Dear Sri Patil,
    Thanks for writing. Actually, for the time being there is nothing new in the CAT case which can be posted on the blog. As already informed, the CAT case is posted on 21.09.10 and the Respondents have not filed the reply to the Rejoinder, so far. Whenever, there will be any development in the case, the same will be published in the blog without any delay. Thanks for the support.

  23. Dear Permanandji,
    Please see tyhe Orissa blog. Some body has posted good comment in respect of Gaz/non Gazz issue and same can be helpful in the CAT hearing.


  24. Cooment in Orissa blog:
    In Organised accounts departments,after 1/1/2006 S.O. recruited through Staff Selection Commission will be called as Designated SO (Non-Gaz.) for 2 years and after completion of probation they will become Gazetted. Probationary SOs will get 13150+4800 from the day one itself. Why cann't we ?

    IPs can also be designated ASP in probation for 2 years ( now also they are confirmed after two years) with GP of 4600. Like Section Officers , they can become gazetted after 2 years. In this way the cadre of Ip and ASP can be merged as desired by DOP and MOF. Also ASPs can retain their gazetted status. And IPs can also be recruited through Staff Selection Commission.

    Dear GS of Orissa circle, kindly circulate this proposal to CHQ office bearers and also to senior officers of Dept of Post. This solution seems to be the cure of all issues.

  25. Dear friends,
    If the Department is willing to give Grade Pay of Rs.4600, there are many options, which may be considered after upgrading the Grade Pay.

    Option 1 : Inspector and ASPOs may remain in the Same Grade pay in the same way as the Sr. Accounts Officer and Asst. chief Accounts Officer in Postal Accounts office and similar posts in other Accounts Departments. At the time of promotion, one increment may be given. In such case, it may be treated as promotion. In future, if the SPOs grade pay is increased to Rs.5400, the ASPOs may be placed to Rs.4800.

    Option 2 : Inspector may be termed as ASPOs designate (Non Gazetted) and may be recruited through SSC, similar to the post of Section officer in CAG Office. After completion of the probation or after a fixed period (may be decided by the Dept.), the Gazetted status may be given without any financial benefit and that may not be treated as promotion.

    As the Association has alrady given the letter that ASPOs are ready to be in the same grade pay to that of Inspectors, the options may be considered by the Dept.
    The issue is that Inspectors are eligible for the grade pay of Rs.4600 and it should be given without delay. How it has to be given, Dept. has to decide. Association may consider the proposal only if received from the Dept.
    In my view, We should stick to the main issue only.

  26. Scale or Grade Pay is not related to Gazetted or Non-Gazetted status. Some pre-6500 are gazeted and some pre-6500 are non-gazetted. GP 4600 earned by CSS Assistant is Non-gazetted and GP 4600 earned by PS of subordinate offices is gazetted. See classification of Railways. Some Grade Pay 5400 is Group B and some Grade Pay 5400 is Group A. Variation can be made by individual ministries according to nature of job. SO(Non-gazetted) is merged to AAO(Gazetted) w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in C&AG's offices. Why DOP is much worry unnecessarily ?

  27. Sir,
    Above comment of anno. & Permanend are coorect. Department is always worry about IPOs .Not for good but for bad.When JAO(Non Gazz) is merged with AAO Gazz wef 1.1.2006 as per pay commission recommendation then why was DOP was mute spectator?DOP should have come in streets or should have filed case in CAT against the merger of Non Gazz(JAO) with Gazz(AAO).Now BOTH JAO& AAO are Gazz AAO in same GP.None of the Officers heart WAS burnt on this issue. However when there is favourable recpommendation for GP of IPOs 4600 every bodys including some ASPOs/SPOs/SSPOs heart is burning. I feel some peoples at top level and bottom level in DOP may get heart attack.There is hue and cry at Dte.
    Dear friends being in a IPO/ASPO cadre I desires to make a small tele film for this cadre.In the film I would like to highlight role of the twisters in administrative setup. Our case is like a "Sohrauddin"fake encounter of Gujrat or Lakhanbhaiya fake encounter case of Mumbai, Maharashtra.At the end the real culprits are caught and jailed in both above cases. But friends, in our GP issue the main culprits who have taken lot of efforts to deny GP of 4600 will not be caught and jailed.Any way god is great and suspected culprits who twisted the matter will get niece result from the god only.



  28. Please see maintained by Ramnath in which parity of pay case of All India ESI Corporation Employees Federation Vrs. Director General, ESI & Anr passed on 17-3-1999 by Principal CAT, New Delhi is extracted. In fact, OA 144A of 1993 and batches passed by CAT, New Delhi on 19-1-1996 attained finality with the dismissal of a SLP filed by UOI on 11-7-1996. Thus extended pay parity between Secretariat and field offices in respect of Stenos and Assistants. This judgment further emphasized the case of Prema Devi Vrs. Delhi Admn. 1989 Supp.(2) SCC 330 wherein their Lordships directed that other employees identically placed should be given the same benefit which would avoid unnecessary litigation.

  29. Dear Anonymous (September 16, 2010 9:12 AM)
    Thanks for the information.

  30. Dear Permanand,
    I have gone through the The information/judgement in the case is very helpfull if the parity CAT case is genuine. I feel no body can deny the GP of 4600 to IPOs.
    Our Advocate may kindly be informed about content of the the judgement contained in the above blog.All IPOs /ASPos or persons like Mahesh or well wishers of IPOs are requested to read the blog and offer the comments in c/w our CAT case

    Best wishes.


  31. Dear friends see the mentality of CS of Maharashtra Circle, earlier the comments was directly updated immediately, but due to the hot and geniun comments passed by the members and that too more on grade pay hike for IP... he had changed the blog setting and now all the comments are updated after approval...thats why no comments are seen.

    one of the members of Maharashtra Circle had posted a comment on 16.09.2010 at sl. no. 9 on the topic( 10% hike of DA) which is true in nature and I hope all the IP / ASPs are suffering same problem. ( Kindly see the that comments on Maharashtra Blog), he had only raised the point of Doble charge and adequate infrastructure

    But instead of replying to it.. he changed the setting of blog.

    Now he can only know what are the comments passed by the members, but hiding the same from all the members....

    If such type of CS is there in assosiation how the union will be strong and can fight unitedly..

    this show the cowardness of CS of Maharashtra Circle.

    IP, Maharashtra Circle.

  32. Dear Permanand,
    Please comment on todays hearing. The progress or reply submitted by the respondent may be linked to the blog. It is also requested inform as to why the respondent noI i.e. MOF is not submitting reply.
    We are eagerly waiting for the prgrees of the case.