* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN THE CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE THE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Saturday, October 17, 2015

DOES MR ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN HAVE

 A CASE FOR FILING A REVIEW PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT?

In the operative part of the judgment 

in the CA No 10251/2014, the Supreme 

Court has ordered as follows:


“We thus hold that the termination of services of the Appellant, in essence,
was voluntary retirement within the ambit of Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of
1995. The Appellant is entitled for pension, provided he fulfils the condition of
refunding of the entire amount of the Corporation’s contribution to the
Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon as provided in the Pension
Rules of 1995. Considering the huge delay, not explained by proper reasons, on
part of the Appellant in approaching the Court, we limit the benefits of arrears
of pension payable to the Appellant to three years preceding the date of the
petition filed before the High Court. These arrears of pension should be paid to
the Appellant in one instalment within four weeks from the date of refund of the
entire amount payable by the Appellant in accordance of the Pension Rules of
1995. In the alternative, the Appellant may opt to get the amount of refund
adjusted against the arrears of pension. In the latter case, if the amount of
arrear is more than the amount of refund required, then the remaining amount
shall be paid within two weeks from the date of such request made by the
Appellant. However, if the amount of arrears is less than the amount of refund
required, then the pension shall be payable on monthly basis after the date on 
which the amount of refund is entirely adjusted.”

This raises a question of equity among the pensioners. When the LIC Pension Rules were notified in 1995, all the employees retired from 1/1/1986 and the spouses of deceased employees retired after 1/1/1986 opting for pension were asked to pay the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest within 180 days from the notified date. When that was done, pension was payable from 1/11/1993 or from the 1st date following the month of retirement whichever was later.

In the case of the resigned officer (Mr Asger Ibrahim Amin) under the above Civil Appeal,he has also been directed by the Apex Court to refund the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest,but as he had filed the writ petition in the High Court with considerable delay, the Supreme Court has restricted the payment of arrears of pension to only three months before the date of his filing the writ petition in the High Court.There is no remission/restriction on what he has to refund to the Corporation, but there is a limitation on the arrears of pension that he could get upto 29/3/2012, the date he filed his Special Civil Application in the High Court. In other words, he will be required to refund 100% of the Corporation’s Contribution of PF while the arrears that he will be entitled to get upto March 2012 will be only 25% of total pension arrears from 1/11/1993.

Legal experts may give their views on whether there is a case for Mr Amin to file a Review Petition to release the pension arrears for the full period from 1/11/1993 as a wrong has been committed by the Corporation in not treating his resignation as deemed voluntary retirement notwithstanding his delayed application in the High Court..

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan