DEAR SH MAHADEVAN,
I HAVE GONE THRU YOUR WRITE up in the LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE titled "Implications of the various Court Orders focusing on Jaipur SB Order dt 12/01/2010" AND WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND APPRECIATE YOUR VISION TO CLARIFY THE IMPLICATIONS OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 12.01.2010.
HOWEVER I FIND THAT YOU HAVE MISSED (may be inadvertently) TO MENTION THE MOST IMPORTANT VERDICT OF THE PB&HARYANA HIGH COURT,CHANDIGARH DATED 9.11.2012 (* REPRODUCED BELOW) IN WHICH BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SPELLED OUT AND THE COURT HAS ALLOWED 12% pa INTEREST ALSO AND THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT GRANT ANY RELIEF TO LIC IN THEIR ORDER DATED 19.8.2013 "The prayer for interim relief is rejected."
WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS
HK Aggarwal
CWP No.16346 of 2010.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16346 of 2010
Madan Lal Gandhi and other. . . .Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others .Respondents
Date of Decision: 09.11.2012
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN .
The petitioners are all retired Class I officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’), who have challenged the discrimination against employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.8.1997 while framing Rules with regard to grant of Dearness Relief to pensioners at par with in-service employees, up-gradation of pension and have
prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 3.6.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for removal of anomaly in the matter of rate of Dearness Relief to the pensioners and Dearness Allowance to serving employees on the same amount of pension/salary and up-gradation of pension on pay revision and further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to implement the decision passed by the Corporation in its meeting of the Board of Directors dated 24.11.2001 and also for issuance of direction by way of mandamus for striking down the words “as on 1.8.1997” in clause (3) of Section 1 “Short title, commencement and application” in the notification dated 22.6.2000 and words “as on 1.8.2002” in Notification dated 5.9.2005 with consequential effects and for issuance of direction to fix pension of the petitioners as per the substituted scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable to them in the scrapped pay scale as on the date of their retirement and pay, pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on and from 1.8.1997 and thereafter on and from 1.8.2002 with all consequential benefits with 12% interest.
The petitioners have given a note in the index of the writ petition that a similar case i.e. CWP No.654 of 2007 titled as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. LIC of India and others was allowed by the Rajasthan High Court directing the respondent-Corporation to take a decision for implementation of the Resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board holding that the Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of Dearness Allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997 and as such, the benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit.
The text of the directions of the order in CWP No.654 of 2007 titled as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. LIC of India and others decided on 12.1.2010 by the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, attached as Annexure P-20 with the writ petition, is as under: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that resolution passed by the Board of LIC does not need approval of the Central Government thus the Corporation may give effect to its resolution dated 24.11.2001 to avoid discrimination amongst existing pensioners.
In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent corporation so that every retired employee may get the
same benefit. Costs made easy.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid judgment which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2010 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others decided on 21.1.2011, with the following observations:
“We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Board’s resolution dated 24.11.2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said resolution of the Board dated 24.11.2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years. The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove the disparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance and pension to the retired employees under its resolution of the Board dt. 24.11.2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision of the Board dt. 24.11.2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India.
In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India before the learned Single Judge, we find that these appeals filed by the L.I.C. of India have no merit and the same stand dismissed.”
Although counsel for the Corporation has submitted that SLP has been preferred against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench but its operation has not been stayed by the Apex Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since it is not in dispute that similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra) which has been maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case namely Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra). (A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent corporation so that every retired employee may get the
same benefit. Costs made easy.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid judgment which has been further upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.494 of 2010 titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others decided on 21.1.2011, with the following observations:
“We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Board’s resolution dated 24.11.2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said resolution of the Board dated 24.11.2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years. The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove the disparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance and pension to the retired employees under its resolution of the Board dt. 24.11.2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision of the Board dt. 24.11.2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India.
In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India before the learned Single Judge, we find that these appeals filed by the L.I.C. of India have no merit and the same stand dismissed.”
Although counsel for the Corporation has submitted that SLP has been preferred against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench but its operation has not been stayed by the Apex Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since it is not in dispute that similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra) which has been maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case namely Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra). (A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
NOVEMBER 09, 2012