Shri M.V.Venugopalan’s write up is a wakening call to decipher
some gray arrears which would lead to animated arguments when the Bench sits on
March 10. Anticipating any eventualities we should be fully prepared. Shri MVV
has said that until such time the Government has disapproved the Board’s resolution
we cannot call SEC 48 as draconian and the Government has not done it so far.
Brushing up my memory I have to say that in the course of
earlier arguments before the court it was averred by the UOI that the Board
resolution is not mandatory but could only be deemed as a recommendation and
therefore they are not bound by it. What UOI said has no legal sanctity in the light of what HON Justice Bandari said
in his judgment : ‘ In the facts and
circumstances of the case I am of the view that the resolution passed by the
Board of LIC does not need the approval of the Central Government thus the Corporation
give effect to the resolution D/ 24-11-2001.
This is one gray area which would come up for adjudication
by SC. While it is crystal clear that in GOI ‘s own submission while framing
our pension rules that where a matter is concerned of public interest GOI’s permission is
required and in other matters where no public interest is involved it is well
within LIC’s domain to act and one such matter is the removal of the anomaly in
DR and pension upgradation at every wage revision. The very SEC 48 which has
raped the LIC autonomy with the blessings of the Parliament has to be scrutinized
by the apex court as to its applicability in our case where no public interest
is involved and whether SEC 48 has to be scrapped as it is unconstitutional.
Bouquets to Shri A.S.Rmanathan who has cleverly pointed out
that every law enacted by the Parliament shall not be in conflict with the
constitutional provision and every rule made by the Government shall be within
the parameter of the law relating to which the rules are made. Such rule should
also confine to the provisions of the constitution. SEC 48 suffers from this
infirmity.
Forgetting for a
moment this SEC 48, the IDES of March and what not let us recollect what Justice
Krishna Iyer in his inimitable style wrote in his letter D/July 17 2010 to
Pranab Mukherjee highlighting the plight of the LIC pensioners : “ Pensioners
cannot be classified on the basis of retirement as it does not satisfy the test
of Article 14 of the Constitution ………… May I disclose to you the pathetic
condition of a class of people arbitrarily alienated from the beneficial stream
of pensioners in LIC. What is arbitrary is unconstitutional as the CONSTITUTION
BENCH in the SC has held in the Maneka Gandhi’s case
……..Again in a weighty judgment in Nakara V UOI SC has
observed that the date of variation cannot be the basis of differential
pension. ………The older the age of the pensioner greater the need for liberal
pension since age invites infirmity. LIC pensioners are one integrated group
and cannot be divided into different classes. “
The Court has to be told that it is a blatant disregard of
GOI’s own commitment that in matters relating to PENSION AND OTHER BENEFITS in
respect of which no express provision has been made in these rules shall be
governed by the corresponding provision contained in the Central Civil Services
Pension rules of 1972 or Central civil services
commutation of pension rules of 1981. Were it to be so Pension in LIC
ought to have been revised when wages
were revised.
This note may sound to those regular visitors to LIC Pensioners Chronicle as old wine in new bottle. However Wine guzzlers know
older the wine greater its efficacy.