Mr M V Venugopalan’s post, he has cited the views of the protagonists of removal of DR anomaly only with 100% DR neutralisation to the exclusion of upgradation of pension in chain reading “We are on a shaky ground as far as our demand for upgradation of pension is concerned but 100% sure of wresting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court in the matter of parity in DA. If differential DA between pre 1997 and post 1997 pensioners is an anomaly and discrimination between two sets of pensioners, doesn't the same logic apply in the case of differential pension drawn by pensioners with the same designation and length of service but retired at different intervals?”
May be the anxiety of this group of pensioners is understandable as such pensioners relatively older in the age group of 74-85 years ( including retired employees of erstwhile insurers) are desperate to obtain whatever benefits they can secure even if they fall short of what they are legally and legitimately entitled to.
But there is a subtle and fine difference in the type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees and that being suffered by post July 1997 retirees. The type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees is additional to the discrimination arising out of non –up gradation of pension suffered by all pensioners retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/2007. The additional discrimination suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees springs from the anomaly of differential DR formula adopted in respect of pensioners vis-à-vis the in-service employees unlike in the case of post-July 1997 retirees for whom no anomaly exists on the DR front.
- It is quite another matter that the Supreme Court may not necessarily provide partial justice to pensioners considering the fact that Jaipur Bench has allowed two distinct writ petitions – one allowing removal DR anomaly and the other allowing upgradation of pension- with reasoned observations. Even if – by a remote chance in my view-the Apex Court only allows DR anomaly removal & 100% DR neutralisation for pre-August 1997 pensioners, the matter will not end there as the removal of DR anomaly will have to be done according to the decision taken in the LIC Board Resolution of 24/11/2001 which while providing for removal of DR anomaly also provides for merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 with suitable weightage. If such a process is not adopted for post-July 1997 retirees, then there is bound to be a spate of vexatious litigations from post-July 1997 retirees. May be it will be a painful process for the affected ageing pensioners, but it may be inevitable.
I am sanguine that judicial wisdom will ultimately prevail in the disposal by Supreme Court of the three CAs and justice will be done to all affected pensioners without exception. With strong grounds in favour of pensioners, it is up to the three sets of case managers and counsel to make things happen in favour of pensioners.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
