Friday, April 08, 2016

God not in the heaven ?

Shri Anand (Chat n Chat column) is right that there is no word - 100% neutralisation in the Judgement. He may please read para.27 and para. 3A, reproduced below for ready reference. My interpretation may be right. If this interpretation is considered ok by the seniors, there is scope to interpret - 4 points over 1740 points. Does it involve merger of DR with basic of those retired on 31-07-1997 and earlier ? (weightage ??)

" 27.Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect. The Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in the Courts so that it can pay the employees who....

@3(A). In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in he quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of 1960 – 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall be at the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension; "

The S.C. Order dt.11-05-2015 probably did not invite attention to Para.3A, may be because, it was a very brief order.

I sincerely agree with Shri Subbu Sir and others. It did not occur to me to read the 'operative part of judgement' before browsing it from 'Reportable'. The judgement is very lucid, sympathetic, empathetic, half way through, and favourably inclined towards the pensioners (old in particular) in some paragraphs and apparently gives a feeling that the Judge is going to give a good package, all clear cut judgement to grant updation and DR- 100% - under article 14 of the Constitution of India, which has been extensively discussed in the judgement, subject to deciding Sec.21, 48, 55 etc. of LIC Employees Pension Rules, 1995 by (further) examination (once again) by another bench. May be because the SC has not much time at its disposal. But, at the end, a shocker : the judgement is not at all favourable to pensioners. It is equally painful difficult to understand why the judge has taken much pains to explain IR.

The Hon. Justice concludes "..We ingeminate (reiterate) that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to any of the aspects of the matter, except what we have finally concluded, namely, the resolution could not have been given effect without framing a rule by the central government..."

It would be imprudent for a layman like me to pass a judgement on a judgment by the highest authority or by any authority or by the learned. The Hon. Judge may have reasons to pass on the matter to a lower court. But, I do take some liberty to express and share my views like many others do. I may be right or I may be wrong.

Three days back, the Cabinet headed by the PM gave ex post facto approval on OROP to defence personnel - pensioners w.e.f. 01-07-2015. The GOI civil pensioners (judiciary- judges etc. included) going to get OROP retrospectively from 01-01-2016 as per recommendations of 7th C.P.C.

It is all going well elsewhere with GOI pensioners. But, this judgement is harsh. The judgement couldn't have been more harsher on the beleaguered pensioners. Helplessly waiting period has once again begun. No one should hereafter, (I won't) take any thing for granted. Bye up till next....

SN (a 1992 pensioner)