UNION OF INDIA Vs. GENERAL SECRETARY KARNATAKA CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 18/3/1988, rummaging allowance at the rate stated therein was allowed to Inspectors of Central excise Department who were posted for rummaging and intelligence duties in the customs Department for the period from 1/2/1988 to 31/7/1988 to but by a subsequent letter dated 21/6/1988 issued by the Deputy collector of Customs and Central Excise, bangalore, it was communicated that the rummaging allowance to officers of Central excise Department engaged temporary to perform rummaging duties and had not been agreed to by the Central Government. It was at this stage that six Inspectors of Central excise Department who were denied the rummaging allowance approached the Central administrative Tribunal where it was contended that since these Inspectors were performing the same duties as were being performed by the Officers of Customs Department in similar situations and they were also required to go for rummaging duties on ships on high seas, they are entitled to the same rummaging allowance as was paid to the Officers of the Customs Department. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment indicated in its operative part as under :- ". . . . . . . . . . Such of these officers of the central Excise department who are members of the Applicant Association and are engaged in preventive work who are required to perform rummaging duties on Ships on high seas should be allowed rummaging allowance at the same rate as is given to customs Officials engaged in similar duties for the period and to the extent they perform such duties. " it is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The Tribunal itself has granted a limited relief to the Officers of the Excise department as it specifically provided that if and when they are required to perform rummaging duties on Ships on high seas, they would be allowed rummaging allowance at the rates at which it is given to customs Officers engaged in similar duties. The order further provides that this allowance would be payable only for the period and to the extent the Officers of Central excise perform those duties. In our opinion, the order is just and proper and does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.