SHRI CH MAHADEVAN HAS REVISED HIS NOTE TITLED "IMPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS COURT ORDERS FOCUSING ON JAIPUR SB ORDER DATED 12-1-2010." To read, Click here.

Implications of the various Court Orders focusing on Jaipur SB Order  dt 12/1/2010

Operative part of Jaipur Single judge Bench Order dt 12/1/2010:

Both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 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.

Meaning:

1. Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 to be implemented: “Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there was three different rates for different groups of pensioners at present depending on their dates of retirement, which cause considerable administrative inconvenience. Chairman pointed out that he has since received a communication from Dr. S. Ram Khanna, Board Member, which refers to his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detailed. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. Chairman pointed out that

these have been considered before placing the matter to the Board and it was felt that the same would increase the financial burden very substantially and may be unaffordable for the corporation. Chairman pointed out that the implications of the proposal made have been actuarially determined at Rs.51.37 crores and the annual outlay be in the region of 6 to 8crores. After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval.” (Underlining mine).

The Jaipur Bench held that approval of Central Government was not necessary. Giving effect to the proposal from 1/11/1993 means applying DR formula for retirees as applicable for in-service employees and thereafter upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% (then). As the wage revision effective from 1/8/1997 was the only one  in existence as on 24/11/2001,by implication, upgradation  will have to be extended  following the same principles effective on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 as well.

2.” Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut-off date i.e. 31.7.1997”.

This is also mentioned in the Board Resolution where the relevant portion is underlined (by me). This means that DR formula for retired employees and in-service employees will have to be the same which is not the case for pre August 1997 retirees.

CWP No.16346 of 2010.                         

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH-Order dt 9/11/2012 

“The petitioners ------ 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 court passed the following order:

“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).” 

The Supreme Court while granting leave for appeal under the SLP No 11603/2013 filed by LIC did not grant any relief to LIC in their order dated 19.8.2013 stating "The prayer for interim relief is rejected."

Import of this case:

These orders have not only reinforced the view taken by Jaipur SB in its order dt 12/1/2010, but have also   specifically confirmed the principle of upgradation of pension to be followed   on the next wage revision effective from 1/8/2002 onwards.

Operative Part of the Delhi High Court Order dt 30^th January 2013:

“Thus, noting that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench and that the matter currently awaits a decision from the Supreme
Court where a notice has been issued in the petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, we dispose of the instant writ petition granting a declaratory relief : ? The members of the petitioner No.1 and No.2 Associations would be entitled to pensionary benefits as per the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court as affirmed by the Division Bench thereof subject to the said decisions not being interdicted by the Supreme Court.? We clarify. If Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal afore-noted is
dismissed or upon Leave to Appeal being granted but the Civil Appeal being dismissed, LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem. Needless to state, if the Supreme Court were to differ, LIC would act accordingly by ignoring the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court.”

Legal developments since the order:

SLP dismissed on 8/8/2013 with liberty to LIC to file another SLP against the Jaipur DB Order dt 21/1/2011. So LIC will have to” give the benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem” (underline mine).

There is no stay of the Jaipur SB Order dt 12/1/2010 as per the  SC Order dt 30^th September 2013 under Special Leave to Appeal (Civil )CC 16755-16758/2013.

There is no stay of Delhi HC Order dt 30^th January 2013 as per SC Order dt 17/10/2013 clarified under SLP (Civil) No 17226.

The prayer for interim relief to LIC was rejected by SC under SLP No 11603/2013 against the Punjab & Haryana HC,Chandigarh order dt 19/8/2013 as mentioned  earlier. So there is no stay of the said HC Order dt 9/11/2012  also.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately all the legal developments   converge on the validity of the Single Judge Bench Order of Jaipur (Rajasthan High Court) dt 12/1/2010  pending disposal of Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court. It is worth recalling at this juncture the letter dt 31/12/2001 written by the then  ED(P) to the Joint Secretary (Insurance) clearly spelling out how LIC  proposes to go about removal of DR anomaly  and upgradation of pension w.e.f 1/8/1997, the effective  date of the  only wage revision existing then after the notification of Pensions Rules,1995. Also  the Punjab& Haryana HC Order dt 9/11/2012 has reinforced the  principle of upgradation of pension in clear terms leaving no scope for  misinterpretation of Jaipur SB Order dt 12/1/2010.

Note:

These are my personal interpretations based on my understanding of the various court orders. My retired colleagues may get the points validated from legal experts if they so desire. I would also welcome feedback and further light on the implications.