 |
| An Octopus phenomena |
Dear Editor,
The spectre
of Sec 48 has returned to haunt many people in many ways. Mr.Mahadevan has gone
the extra mile to explain the probable scenarios arising out of Sec.48 in
the Apex Court and the probable outcome. Yet, Mr. M. S. Murty seems to be
having his own reservations about it. My take on the entire issue is slightly
different and I would seek the indulgence of our readers if I make a bit
of detouring to elaborate my viewpoints.
What is the
complexion or true color of Sec.48? LIC, as we all know, is not an
autonomous body. GOI is a major stakeholder in LIC and the representative they
have installed in the Board is the person who calls the shots. LIC is
permitted to take its own decisions only in very limited matters; sometimes
with the approval of the Board and at times independently. There is no clear
cut demarcation as to which are the issues where there is a Board
Resolution which need to go to the Government and the ones where, without
referring to the Govt. LIC can implement the Board Resolution. This area
has been deliberately left hazy and unclear because, as otherwise GOI fears it
will lose its grip over LIC. Generally speaking, only such matters where
‘public interest’ is involved and the financial burden adversely will
affect them, it needs to be referred to the GOI. The DR parity and
upgradation of pension do not fall in that category and logically LIC itself
can go ahead with the implementation of the Resolution as it
involves no financial outlay to GOI and the LIC Pension Funds can take care of
it. Unfortunately, over a period of time LIC has always preferred to look
up to the Government for anything, and even where it could have used its
authority to take a decision. It is in this context, Sec.48 has become so
important, and that is perhaps the reason why Justice.Bhandari found a way
around Sec.48 to deliver his verdict. If Sec.48 is struck down, don’t you think
it would mean handing over autonomous powers to LIC to take independent
decisions in every matter where a financial outgo is anticipated. Therefore,
let us not expect GOI/LIC to allow this to happen: they will try every trick in
their bag to protect it.
Mr.Murty’s
fear is that until such time the ‘draconian’ provision is withdrawn or
eliminated the danger of its presence and validity remains. First of all, until such time Govt. has
disapproved the Board Resolution, we can’t call it draconian. Govt. has not
done it so far. Of course, we have to take pre-emptive steps, lest it
might be used against us any time in the future. But then, we have
Mr.Ramanathan’s assurance , according to which the Parliament can’t put an Act
in place which conflicts and runs counter to the Constitutional
provisions. If that be the case, as long as articles 14 and 16 are there,
should we fear the Spectre of Sec. 48.?
Let us now run through the meandering
path traversed by our court cases so far. Both the writ petitions , one for
parity in DR and the other for upgradation of pension, were admitted by the
Jaipur H.C. Justice Bhandari delivered his judgment conceding both. It
was based entirely on our Board Resolution though he has drawn inspiration from
similar supporting cases like DS Nakara and others. LIC went in appeal and both
the Division Bench and the Bench which heard the Review petition
upheld Shri.Bhandari's verdict. And again, when LIC dragged us to the
Supreme court LICs SLPs were dismissed and the Single Bench verdict of
the Jaipur H.C was not stayed. All these happened because they found merit
in the arguments of the Single Bench and didn’t assign any significance to the
restrictive Sec.48. This may sound a little far-fetched and unrealistic
inference but is the truth.
DS Nakara
judgment, OROP , periodical upgradation of pension for the Central Govt. Employees
all can only help supplement our arguments and in no way directly help us win
our case. If DS Nakara judgment is taken as the benchmark by all the judges,
the decision making process can become utterly simplistic for them. That our
Pension Rules were framed after C.G Employees Pension Rules also can be
quoted as comparable instances and not something which will clinch the issue
for us. While the Board Resolution has to be approved by the Govt.,the pension
rules amended suitably and gazetted, when it comes to implementation of
provisions of Pay Commission, only administrative instructions are issued. The
bottom line is our issues stand on a unique footing and we have to deal
with it as deemed fit from time to time.” Horses for courses” should be the motto
and not try to run the same horses in all the tracks!
So, Mr. Murty,
let us not fear the monster Sec 48. I don’t think you need to drag someone into
the loop for legal assistance. You are the doer, and as it
happens to all doers, difficulties are to be faced by the doers only and
not the Observers. No one has any doubt looking at the role you have
played so far, even relegating your personal matters to the background for the
sake of our court cases, you have the capability to steer the case to its
logical end. What is needed is to have a deeper look into certain hidden
grey areas in the Board Resolution and Justice Bhandari’s judgment
and evolve a clear- cut strategy to tackle them. Success will be yours;
success will be that of the 45000 pensioners all over the country. Good Luck.
With
Greetings,
M.V.VENUGOPALAN