The recent order by the Apex Court reminds me of the SNAKE AND LADDER game whereby
we have to start afresh to fight for our cause of 100% DR
neutralization and updation of pension .The
aura of the confidence
created by the orders of the THREE HIGH COURTS has been taken away by the Apex Court .How
ever the Hon. Judge encourages the septuagenarians to fight another round of litigation in the
Delhi High Court on the issue of the Constitutional validity
of para 3A of Annexure IV to Rule 37 , and the issue of updation of
pension to the Post Aug.97 retirees
and other matters.CAN WE
FIGHT AND FIGHT TO WIN .
The court accepted the submissions of Assistant Solicitor General that the Single Judge and
the Division Bench committed illegality in deciding the issue of Law.(para13).The Hon. Judge stated “the thrust of the matter
is whether approval of Govt. is necessary. Sri Nidesh Gupta drew our attention
to Rule 55. (para14).On scanning the
rule the court observed “ we are absolutely clear that it does not
confer power on the Chairman to issue instructions that can travel beyond the
Rules. The Board is not authorised to take the decision on matters which are in
the domain of the rule making Authority. A perusal of Sec48 makes it crystal
clear that conferment of benefit either pension
or ancillary thereto has to be conferred by the Rules and such rules
are to be tabled before the parliament.
It is our considered opinion that when there are no rules no benefit can be
granted on the basis of Resolution .This being the legal position the H.C could not have held to the contrary on the
basis of the concession given by the counsel for GOI” (para15).. Having stated
so in all possibility we could have proceeded to record the conclusion, but a
significant one the controversy does not see the sunset with such
immediacy.(para16). Thank God and the Hon. Judge. Again by para 23 it was held
“regard being had to the piquant situation we are inclined to set aside the
orders passed by the three H.Cs and
transfer the Writ Petitions from Rajasthan ,Pun &Haryana to H.C of Delhi to
decide the Constitutional validity of para 3A of the appendix IV to the rules
as argued by Sri Panchu and also deal with the cases of the pensioners who have
retired after cut off date to consider the contentions raised by Mr. Guptha and
other contentions to be raised .“We may clarify we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case except that the resolution could not become
operative unless it was conferred the status of a rule as provided under Sec.48”. So far so good we obtained fresh lease to fight the case of
pre and post Aug.97 pensioners.
The S.C at the very out set observed” the present
picture is not a happy one L.IC at one
point of time was enthusiastic to confer certain benefits on the respondent employees may be
without appreciating the legal nuances .Its action instilled a CONCRETE HOPE in
thousands of employees.(para2).Again in (para26) the court dealt with the HOPE.“ the respondents harbored hope.
This is not unfounded in as much as the
revisions in pension were earlier made by issue of certain circulars issued by
chairman in exercise of powers conferred
under the rule55. Whether the hope was
reasonable or not need not be commented upon, but the fact remains that certain
respondents are septuagenarians and they have to fight another round of
litigation in the H.C. We feel the pain while remanding the matter but we have
no option as the pleadings are not adequate as it should have been while
assaulting constitutional validity of a provision. It is settled law that he
who assails the constitutional validity of statutory provision of a rule has to
specially assert the grounds for such
challenge.
The purpose of saying all this is as the Counsel agonizingly contend that the amount of pension is very paltry and it is
difficult to sustain in the present day . The L.I.C SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRACIOUS
ENOUGH TO RECOGNISE THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THEM AND THE G.O.I SHOULD HAVE COME WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE
WHEN THE RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE
L.I.C. We have already adjudicated the said facet but we are remanding the
matter to the High Court on a different count.” The I.R @40%to all similarly
placed pensioners is subject to final
out come of the case at Delhi H.C.
Thus the S.C blew
hot and cold, held that without the creation of rules by the rule creator ,the
G.O.I , benefits can not be given to the
pensioners.The board resolution is not valid because of non approval by G.O.I.
The orders of the three H.C are set aside. If we recollect justice
Singhvi dismissed the SLP of L.I.C and
the orders of the 3 H.Cs not stayed . Now these orders
set aside.Where do we stand
now.How to fight more so when the rules are very clear . What is the power of
the corporation to amend rules 36,37,39 as per G.O 353(E) Dt.22-6-2000. What is
the scope and operation of rule 55A-power to relax.Who has to implement Rule 56
which confers to the pensioners the
benefits available to the central govt.
employees.The note of the ED(p) as recorded by the S.C mentioned in para
(8) explains the hardship faced by the
pensioners and the management and
suggested remedies. The L.IC should have amended the rules of D/R as per the notification
dt.22-6-2000.Yet L.I.C passed the resolution and sought approval of G.O.I.The
G.O.I should have acted as perrule55A. Similarly rule 56 should have been implemented by L.I.C on its own as the rule
does not envisage clearance by G.O.I.Rule 36, and 55B provide for updation of
pension.It is a fact that the L.I.C has
been utilizing the amending power as provided in the G.O dt.22-6-2000.L.I.C
also invoked rule 56 in 2012 to pay
family pension when a pensioner was missing
as per the Central Govt. rules.Sec. 48 can not take away the
constitutional rights , property rights
and the human rights of the pensioners.The L.I.C &G.O.I have to
follow the rules . So it is time to high light the points and ask for the review of the matter by S.C.Can we expect justice at Delhi H.C when L.I.C
brings to the notice of the H.C the comments and discussion of the points dealt
by the S.C in their order dt.31-3-2016.
V.S. PRAKASARAO
VISAKHAPATNAM.