IN PURSUIT OF UNITY (2)

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST NO.1)

All our co-pensioners and our leaders are by now fully aware of what is available under each of the three Judgements, subject to known differences in interpretation. However it is indisputable that Delhi and Chandigarh HCs gave their verdicts citing the Jaipur Order dated 12/01/2010 and so it is natural that the SC Bench would like to look in to it in some depth. Here comes the need for the all-important ‘unity of approach’ among all the Petitioners. As the operative portions of all the three Judgments are available in black and white for everyone to read and understand, there are differences in interpreting them by different Petitioners. But everyone should accept that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on any point shall only prevail. Let us take a quick look at the three Orders and identify differences which are more obvious.

For easy appreciation of the different viewpoints, I have appended to this Note a sheet with three Tables giving worked out illustrations of ‘live’ cases of real pensioners. Table 1 explains the enormous mischief played by LIC while depositing a total (paltry) sum of Rs.19,63,638/- in three instalments between 23/12/2011 and 20/11/2013. It may be seen that the short payment in the Monthly pension of October 2013 was Rs. 3613/- and the shortage in total arrears deposited was a whopping Rs 3,97,133/-.

Similarly, Table 2 illustrates how another Pensioner (who is not a Petitioner in any WP) would lose Rs 4724/- per month and Rs 9,17,226/- in arrears, if LIC is allowed to follow the absurdly untenable pattern as it did in depositing amounts in Jaipur HC Registry.

A reference to the ‘confluence’ Post in the Chronicle by Sri C H Mahadevan, will clarify and validate the above numbers.

Table 3 gives more interesting information. These are also real figures. The total amount payable by way of arrears to 24 Petitioners works out to Rs 3.12 Crores without adding interest and Rs. 4.97 Crores, with interest, as ordered by P&H HC at Chandigarh. The Petitioner/Pensioner in the worked out illustration is entitled to Rs.15,61,387/- by way of arrears without interest and Rs 25,52,509/- with interest, as ordered by the HC. The amount being denied to him now every month, works out to Rs.19,376/-  

My purpose in projecting these numbers is to emphasize the fact that the Counsel appearing for our petitioners before all the three HCs, should present a united front in persuading the SC Bench to issue suitable directions to LIC. At the cost of repetition, I list out the benefits flowing from:

The Board Resolution:

·         Removal of DR anomaly before 1/8/1997 and 100% DR neutralization from then on.

·         Merger of rectified DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997;

·         Up gradation of pension after such merger by providing 11.25% (presumably average)

·         Provide weightage (as was done for in-service employees) w.e.f. 1/8/1997;

Jaipur Judgement:

·         Government approval is not required for implementing the Board Resolution

·         No discrimination among pensioners based on the dates of retirement, i.e., pension to the existing retirees has to be revised on every wage revision effected for in-service employees.

Punjab & Haryana HC Order:

·         LIC directed to fix pension on substituted scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable in scrapped pay scale as on the date of retirement on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits;

·         Also award of interest at 12% on the difference in amount payable.

Delhi HC Order:

·         LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem.

(continued)