+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Inter-Commissionerate Transfer with Seniority protection

  1. #1
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default Inter-Commissionerate Transfer with Seniority protection

    Hi all

    Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued latest letter on 27-03-2009, to All Chief Commissioners on the subject of Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) for Group-B, C and D without any loss of seniority. Salient features being;

    1. Transfer/change of cadre is allowed only in cases where the spouse with either Central Govt /State Govt / Public Sector undertaking of State/Central Govt;

    2. Option for cadre change should be exercised within six months of the initial appointment of the officer, if the officer is married at the time of such initial appointment or within six months from the marriage, if taken place subsequently;

    3. However for past cases, option should be exercised within six months of the date of issue of this instructions.

    Please visit http://www.cengokerala.org/ for a copy of these instructions...

    I am sure, ICT with seniority, will open another set of can of worms and CAT cases

    regards


  2. #2
    Member nsdev007
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    31

    Default

    again opening a can of worms.

    there is discrimination in this order. what happens to officers who had taken ICT losing seniority? what about officers having spouse working in private sector?

    the dopt orders cited in the board letter makes it abundantly clear that the facility is extended to AIS officers and other officers having all india transfer liability. Invariably, there is all India seniority for such cadres. so no nobody is adversly affected because of transfer as special case.

    in our dept the seniority of ministerial and inspector level officers is commissionerate/zone wise. definitely transfer with seniority protected would have adverse impact on some officers where the transferee is posted.

    what would happen if A transferred to station X and later his spouse is transferred to station Y. Now A will request to move to Y. again seniority problem at Y.This would lead to unwanted litigations.

    As a remedial measure it is suggested to continue with existing system of IC Deputation in a more liberal manner. A moving from station X to Y, will hold lein to his post at X. If he gets promotion at X, he would be allowed to officiate in promotion post at Y. This can be done by temporaray transfer of post to Y till A is posted at Y

  3. #3
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Hi all

    heard the news that two officials have been transferred as per this latest Order in Pune and Coimbathore Commissionerates.

    regards


    ps: this is just a rumour. pl correct me if I am wrong..

  4. #4
    Junior Member mbjitendra is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ujjain
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Can anyone clarify the rules of transfer of group C employees(Promotee Income Tax Inspectors) in central board of direct taxes from one state to another state?
    Last edited by mbjitendra; 27-02-2010 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #5
    Junior Member mbjitendra is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ujjain
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Can anyone clarify the rules of transfer of group C employees(Promotee Income Tax Inspectors) in central board of direct taxes from one state to another state?

  6. #6
    Junior Member mbjitendra is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ujjain
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Is anybody Income tax Inspector requesting for transfer from Nagpur CCA to MP & CG Charge

  7. #7
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    @ mbjitendra

    Please follow this thread in the ITEF blog

    http://itef.blogspot.com/2009/12/blog-post_03.html

    regards


  8. #8
    Junior Member vikas_callme007 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coolgoose2 View Post
    Hi all

    Central Board of Excise and Customs has issued latest letter on 27-03-2009, to All Chief Commissioners on the subject of Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) for Group-B, C and D without any loss of seniority. Salient features being;

    1. Transfer/change of cadre is allowed only in cases where the spouse with either Central Govt /State Govt / Public Sector undertaking of State/Central Govt;

    2. Option for cadre change should be exercised within six months of the initial appointment of the officer, if the officer is married at the time of such initial appointment or within six months from the marriage, if taken place subsequently;

    3. However for past cases, option should be exercised within six months of the date of issue of this instructions.

    Please visit http://www.cengokerala.org/ for a copy of these instructions...

    I am sure, ICT with seniority, will open another set of can of worms and CAT cases

    regards

    Hi, me also of same mind but may u kindly guide me if there is any new proposal or order of CBEC regarding ICT with or without seniority loss .......if u can put up .. regards.

  9. #9
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vikas_callme007 View Post
    Hi, me also of same mind but may u kindly guide me if there is any new proposal or order of CBEC regarding ICT with or without seniority loss .......if u can put up .. regards.
    Hi Vikas

    Hon'ble Delhi High Court has recently come up with a order on 10-09-2010 in the matter of Intercommissionerate Transfer in CBEC.

    W.P.(C.) No.1624 /2010

    Date of Decision: 10.09.2010
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.…. Petitioners
    Versus
    RAM KISHORE & ORS
    CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
    1.
    Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
    2.
    To be referred to the reporter or not?
    3.
    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
    MOOL CHAND GARG, J. (ORAL) * 1. The respondents are selectees of Combined Main (Graduate Level) 2003 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for the post of Inspector, Central Excise. 2. They were appointed as Inspectors in the year 2005. As per the conditions of service as contained in Memorandum dated 12.7.2005 wherein they have to give the willingness to serve anywhere within the jurisdiction of Shillong Zone, the following clause was also added:- “(xi) He/She is liable to transfer/posting within this Zone to which he/she is nominated and under no circumstances his/her request for transfer to any other Commissionerate outside this Zone will be entertained.”
    3. This condition was contrary to the condition of service as had been applicable to the Inspectors who joined in Shillong zone earlier
    W.P.(C.) No.1624 /2010 Page 2 of 8
    and who joined in other zones which provided for not only another zone transfer but also provided for transfer to any other Commissionerate on request. 4. According to the respondents, prior to 2003, the candidates chosen to the post of Inspector in Central Excise had the privilege of choosing their zone of posting and the candidates chosen in the year 2004 and thereafter, have also been granted the option of choosing their zone of posting. It was their case that the respondents who are Inspectors, Central Excise are also under the control of Central Board of Excise and Customs and draw their salary from the Centre irrespective of the zone they are posted in and are not under the control of their zonal officers. 5. On being offered appointment, respondents were posted to different ranges under the Shillong zone. However, from the year 2005 to 2007 a transferability on all India basis has been interpreted as condition of service to the Inspectors recruited in Central Excise and one of the cited examples is of examination conducted by SSC in February 2006 whereas the candidates selected for appointment are liable to serve anywhere in India and the posts carrying all India transfer liability. 6. Aggrieved by absence of on all India transferability, a representation preferred by the respondents when not responded to by the respondents led to filing of OA-540/2007, which was disposed of by treating the OA as representation and disposal thereof on 30.3.2007. Non-compliance resulted in a contempt petition, being CP-292/2007, where certain directions have been issued. Vide an order passed on 19.10.2007, petitioners rejected the claim of the respondents on the ground that as per the existing policy of the CBEC, inter-Commissionerate transfers have been discontinued as transfers allowed under the previous policy resulted in enormous litigation. However, on extreme compassionate grounds, such transfers could be allowed on deputation basis initially for a period of three years and upto a maximum of five years.
    W.P.(C.) No.1624 /2010 Page 3 of 8
    7. Assailing the order passed on their representation, the respondents filed OA NO. 586/2008, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 24.12.2008. The basic contention raised by the respondent, which has also been accepted by the Tribunal was that the inclusion of clause (xi) in their appointment letter was a discriminatory exercise of power and was arbitrary inasmuch as, Inspectors appointed prior to them and who had been appointed later are not to bind themselves with clause (xi) as aforesaid. It is also submitted that there was absolutel...(text missing)
    10. It was also stated that no enforceable and fundamental right had accrued in favour of the respondents to be issued mandamus and as to cut-off date, it is stated that when the same is reasonable, it does not require any interference by this Tribunal. The petitioners also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of P.U. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 632.

    cont'd.../

  10. #10
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    continued from the previous post....

    All India transfer liability whichposition has also been in existence prior to the selectees of 2003 though appointed later as per office Memorandum dated 12.07.2005 and the selectees in the next years who have been permitted to have transfer liability with an availability of an option to be transferred even outside their zone on request, the other selectees earlier cannot be discriminated by changing the terms and conditions as has been done by the petitioners merely by a administrative decision and not by amending the rules. What the respondents had been arguing was nothing else but equality with others similarly situated. Eligibility to ask for transfer out of zone is always subject to willingness thereof shown by the respondents and thus, it is not that something additional would be conferred upon the respondents than except equality. 20. In view of that, the directions of the Tribunal to consider providing all India transfer liability to the batch of Inspectors, Central Excise of the year 2003 at par with batch of 2006 who are similarly placed, cannot be faulted with.
    W.P.(C.) No.1624 /2010 Page 8 of 8
    21. The matter can be looked at entirely differently with a completely independent line of reasoning. 22. The offending clause, contents whereof have been noted in para 2 above, contain a negative stipulation that no request for transfer to a Commissionerate outside the zone would be considered or even entertained. This has been done in the year 2005. There is no justifiable reasons to do so and we cannot even think of one justifying the same. As is the case of the candidates appointed in the year 2005 even candidates appointed prior thereto had to serve in Commissionerate within their zone but could make a request to be transferred outside the zone and on case to case basis the department had retained the power to consider the request. We see no reason why should the department denude itself of the power to consider the requests by taking away the very entitlement to even make a request. By giving the power to make a request does not mean that in every case the request has to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. CM No.3279/2010 (Stay) Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Application is dismissed as infructuous.

    MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
    SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
    PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.


    I had copied the above order from the Orkut Customs & Central Excise forum.. It is not yet available in JUDIS web site..So can't vouch for authenticity..

  11. #11
    Member coolgoose2 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Hi

    here is the above order in pdf form. go through it

    http://www.delhicourts.nic.in/Sep10/...%20KISHORE.pdf

    regards


+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Clarification for transfer grant
    By muthupm_1234 in forum Transfer
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-10-2009, 06:12 PM
  2. Notional date for seniority
    By narayanan in forum Promotion, ACPS & MACPS
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-12-2008, 07:19 PM
  3. Composite Transfer Grant ...
    By ShreekumarM in forum Allowances
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 04:36 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-09-2008, 03:40 PM
  5. what are the rules for transfer?
    By nriyer64 in forum Transfer
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-04-2008, 10:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts