NOTE ON JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT CASE
LIC ACT 1956
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA IS A STATUTORY BODY ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 3 OF LIC ACT 1956. UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE ACT, LIC WAS COMPETENT TO MAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PRESCRIBE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
LIC (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1981
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE ISSUE OF AN ORDINANCE ON JANUARY 31, 1981, OMITTED THE PROVISIONS UNDER THIS SECTION 49 AND CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS WERE INSERTED UNDER SECTION 48 OF THE LIC ACT. THE ORDINANCE GOT ENACTED AS LIC (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1981.
SECTION 48 AS AMENDED IS REPRODUCED BELOW.
SECTION 48: POWER TO MAKE RULES.
I. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, MAKE RULES TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT;
II. IN PARTICULAR AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING POWER, SUCH RULES MAY PROVIDE FOR ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS NAMELY:-
(CC) THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS OF THE CORPORATION INCLUDING THOSE WHO BECAME EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS OF THE CORPORATION ON THE APPOINTED DAY UNDER THE ACT.
LIC OF INDIA (EMPLOYEES) PENSION RULES, 1995
AFTER JANUARY 31, 1981 GOVERNMENT ISSUED VARIOUS NOTIFICATIONS IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 48 OF LIC ACT. ONE SUCH NOTIFICATION UNDER THE NOMENCLATURE "LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA (EMPLOYEES) PENSION RULES 1995 WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 28, 1995. RULES UNDER CHAPTER IV AND CHAPTER V DEFINED QUALIFYING SERVICE AND CLASSES OF PENSION AND RULES 35 AND 36 PROVIDED FOR THE AMOUNT OF PENSION AND MINIMUM PENSION RULE 37 READ WITH APPENDIX IV PROVIDED FOR RATES OF DEARNESS RELIEF FOR VARIOUS CLASSES OF PENSION.
THE NOTIFICATION DATED JUNE 28, 1995 PROVIDED FOR TWO RATES OF DEARNESS RELIEF, ONE FOR EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1985 BUT BEFORE NOVEMBER 1,1993 AND OTHER FOR EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED AFTER NOVEMBER 1, 1993, THE FIRST FOR POINTS ABOVE 600 AND SECOND FOR POINTS ABOVE 1148 OF CPI (1960=100).
WHEN WAGE REVISION WAS GIVEN EFFECT FROM AUGUST 1, 1992, PROVISIONS WERE MADE TO MAKE THE RATES ABOVE 1148 POINTS APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1992.
PAYMENT OF DEARNESS RELIEF AT UNIFORM RATE.
ANOTHER WAGE REVISION EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 1997 CAME INTO FORCE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE CHANGES IN THE BASIC PAY STRUCTURE, A NOTIFICATION WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 22, 2000 WHICH UNDER APPENDIX IV PROVIDED FOR DEARNESS RELIEF AT AN UNIFORM RATE OF 0.23% FOR ALL WHO HAD RETIRED ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1997.
THIS NOTIFICATION ALSO PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF ANY WAGE REVISION IN FUTURE, THE RATE OF DEARNESS RELIEF PAYABLE TO AN EMPLOYEE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE LIC CORRESPONDING TO THE INDEX TO WHICH THE SCALE IS LINKED.
THUS FOR WAGE REVISIONS AFTER AUGUST 1, 1997, RATES OF DEARNESS RELIEF WERE DETERMINED BY THE CORPORATION AND NOT THROUGH GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATIONS.
THE RATES OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCE FOR EMPLOYEES AND RESULTANTLY FOR THE PENSIONERS WAS ON A TRUNCATED BASIS FOR RETIREES UP TO AUGUST 1, 1997 WITH FULL NEUTRALIZATION UP TO A CERTAIN LEVEL, 75% UP TO A FURTHER LEVEL, 50% FOR A STILL HIGHER LEVEL AND 25% BEYOND THAT LEVEL WHEREAS IT WAS FULL NEUTRALIZATION FOR RETIREES WHO HAD RETIRED ON OR AFTER AUGUST 1, 1997.
THUS PENSIONERS AND FAMILY PENSIONERS WERE CLASSIFIED BASED ON THE INDEX LEVEL AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT OR DEATH WHILE IN SERVICE AND CORRESPONDING DEARNESS RELIEF RATES.
PENSION RULES PROVIDED THAT BASIC PENSION WOULD BE 50% OF THE AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS FOR THE TEN MONTHS PRECEDING THE DATE OF RETIREMENT FOR 33 YEARS OF SERVICE (INCLUDING NOTIONAL SERVICE ADDED FOR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT) AND PROPORTIONATE FOR LESSER SERVICE AND DEARNESS RELIEF ON FULL BASIC PENSION EVEN AFTER COMMUTATION AT THE RATES SPECIFIED UNDER APPENDIX IV FOR THE PARTICULAR DATE ON WHICH EMPLOYEE RETIRED.
SIMILARLY FAMILY PENSION WAS BASED ON THE BASIC PAY AT THE TIME OF DEATH WHILE IN SERVICE OR BASIC PAY AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT IN CASE OF DEATH AFTER RETIREMENT.
THUS THERE ARE FIVE CLASSES OF PENSIONERS AS ON DATE AT INDEX LEVEL OF 332/600, 600, 1148, 1740, 2328 AND 2944 WITH DATES OF RETIREMENT/DEATH WHILE IN SERVICE BEING BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1986 AND JULY 31, 1987, AUGUST 1, 1987 AND JULY 31, 1992, AUGUST 1, 1992 AND JULY 31, 1997, AUGUST 1, 1997 AND JULY 31, 2002, AUGUST 1, 2002 AND JULY 31, 2007 AND AFTER AUGUST 1, 2007.
RULE 55 OF THE PENSION RULES VESTED THE POWER TO ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES WITH THE CHAIRMAN LIC AND INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME FOR CALCULATION OF BASIC PENSION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAD DRAWN PRE-REVISED SCALES FOR A PART AND REVISED SCALES FOR ANOTHER PART OF THE PRECEDING TEN MONTHS OF RETIREMENT AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH EMPLOYEES, DEARNESS RELIEF RATES WERE AS APPLICABLE UNDER THE REVISED SCALE.
LIC BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 24-11-2001.
WHEN PAY SCALES OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES WERE LINKED TO 1740 POINTS OF INDEX (CPI 1960=100) LIC WANTED TO RATIONALISE THE DEARNESS RELIEF STRUCTURE AND A PROPOSAL IN THE FORM OF A NOTE TO THE LIC BOARD WAS PLACED BEFORE THE MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 24, 2001.
THE NOTE POINTED OUT TO THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES OF DEARNESS RELIEF AS PER ANNEXURE IV OF PENSION RULES AND NOTED THAT IT RESULTED IN EROSION OF REAL VALUE OF PENSION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND ALSO CAUSED ADMINISTRATIVE INCONVENIENCE. THE NOTE SAID THAT IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO RATIONALISE DEARNESS RELIEF STRUCTURE AND PROVIDE A SUITABLE UPDATION FORMULA TO UPGRADE THE BASIC PENSION TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED PRIOR TO AUGUST 1, 1997.
THE NOTE SAID THAT PROVISION TO UPGRADE DUE TO PERIODIC REVISION IN CASE OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IS INCORPORATED IN CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICE (PENSION) RULES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH LIC EMPLOYEES' PENSION RULES HAVE BEEN DRAFTED.
THE PROPOSAL INCORPORATED IN THE NOTE WAS TO UPGRADE PENSION AT 600 AND 1148 POINTS BY MERGING DEARNESS RELIEF PAYABLE UPTO 1740 POINTS AND TO PAY DEARNESS RELIEF ON THE UPDATED PENSION AT 0.23% OVER 1740 POINTS.
THE NOTE SUGGESTED TO MAKE AMENDMENT FROM THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE. THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE NOTE AND MINUTES OF THE MEETING IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:
"EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT, MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS AT PRESENT DEPENDING ON THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENT WHICH CAUSE CONSIDERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INCONVENIENCE. CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT HE HAS SINCE RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM DR. S RAM KHANNA, BOARD MEMBER WHICH REFERS TO HIS MEETING WITH THE RETIREES' FEDERATION AND REQUESTED EXAMINING THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL. THE NOTE IS IN LINE WITH THE DEMANDS MADE BY THE FEDERATION, VIZ. GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROPOSAL FROM 1.11.1993 AND UPGRADATION BY GIVING WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% AS IN THE CASE OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES. CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THESE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PLACING THE MATTER BEFORE THE BOARD AND IT WAS FELT THAT IT WOULD INCREASE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN VERY SUBSTANTIALLY AND MAY BE UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE CORPORATION. CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL MADE HAVE BEEN ACTUARIALLY DETERMINED AT RS.51.37 CRORES AND THE ANNUAL OUTLAY COULD BE IN THE REGION OF 6 TO 8 CRORES. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, THE BOARD APPROVED THE PROPOSAL AND SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED PROSPECTIVELY AND AFTER OBTAINING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL."
THOUGH THE DECISION WAS TAKEN IN NOVEMBER 2001, IT HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED TILL DATE.
JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDERS.
SRI KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA WHO HAD TAKEN VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM LIC, HAD FILED A WRIT PETITION BEFORE JAIPUR BENCH OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE YEAR 1998 CLAIMING INTER ALIA THAT RULE 2 UNDER APPENDIX IV WAS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 5 OF REVISION RULES AND HENCE DEARN4ESS RELIEF SHOULD BE PAID AS PER REVISION RULES AND NOT AS PER APPENDIX IV.
RULE 5 OF REVISION RULES SPECIFY THE BASIS ON WHICH DEARNESS ALLOWANCE IS PAYABLE TO IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES WITH FULL NEUTRALIZATION UPTO A PARTICULAR BASIC PAY AND TAPERED DA FOR HIGH LEVELS OF BASIC PAY.
APPENDIX IV PROVIDES RATES OF DEARNESS RELIEF AND THE PETITIONER'S CONTENTION WAS THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO BRING DOWN THE LEVELS OF BASIC PENSION TO 50% OF BASIC PAY FOR PURPOSES OF DEARNESS RELIEF.
REVISION RULE 5 GOT AMENDED BY THE NOTIFICATION IN JUNE 2000 PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM RATE OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCES FOR ALL EMPLOYEES.
ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER WAS PAYMENT OF REVISED DEARNESS RELIEF EVERY THREE MONTHS AS IN CASE OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
PENSION RULES UNDER APPENDIX HAD PROVIDED FOR DEARNESS RELIEF AS ACCORDING TO GOVERNMENT/LIC, BASIC PENSION WAS 50% OF BASIC PAY SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. SRI ASTHANA'S CONTENTION WAS, AS HIS BASIC PENSION FELL BELOW THE LEVELS OF BASIC PAY UNDER RULE 5 OF REVISION RULES, HE MUST BE PAID DEARNESS RELIEF ON THAT BASIS. THIS PRAYER IMPLIED THAT HE MUST BE PAID DEARNESS RELIEF WITH FULL NEUTRALISATION UPTO THE BAISC PAY LEVEL APPLICABLE FOR EMPLOYEES.
THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPLICATION IN JULY 2000 FOR AMENDMENT OF THE WRIT PETITION AND AGAIN FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON MAY 7, 2008. IN THE SECOND APPLICATION, HE HAD MADE A MENTION OF THE LIC BOARD'S DECISION OF NOVEMBER 2001. FURTHER APPLICATIONS WERE FILED IN MARCH AND AUGUST 2009 FOR FURTHER RELIEF.
WHILE THE WRIT PETITION WAS PENDING, SRI ASTHANA ALONG WITH 27 OTHERS, HAD FILED ANOTHER WRIT PETITION WHEREIN ALSO THE CRUX OF THE GRIEVANCE RELATED TO COMPUTATION OF PENSION AND DEARNESS RELIEF.
THE CONTENTION IN THE WRIT WAS THAT ALL PENSIONERS SHOULD BE DECLARED TO BE FORMING ONE CLASS AND PENSION BE PAID AT ENHANCED RATES TO CORRESPOND TO THE PAY SCALES IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT.
HON. JUSTICE BHANDARI WHO HEARD THE CASE, DELIVERED THE JUDGMENT VIDE ORDER DATED JANUARY 12, 2010. THE JUDGEMENT NOTED THAT EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED AFTER JULY 31, 1997 WERE GETTING DUE BENEFIT OF PENSION WITH DEARNESS ALLOWANCE WHEREAS THOSE WHO HAD RETIRED EARLIER WERE DEPRIVED TO GET SIMILAR BENEFIT.
IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE CAN BE A CUT OFF DATE WHEN A NEW BENEFIT IS INTRODUCED BUT THERE CANNOT BE A CUT OFF DATE WHEN THERE IS CHANGE IN BENEFIT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON JUDGMENT IN V. KASTURI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA, ALL INDIA RESERVE BANK RETIRED OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA, D.S.NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA ETC. IT HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PENSIONERS OF PRE-AUGUST 97 AND POST AUGUST 97 PENSIONERS IN THE MATTER OF GRANT OF DEARNESS RELIEF.
THE JUDGEMENT TOOK NOTE OF THE LIC BOARD'S RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 2001 AND DEALING WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER GOVERNMENT'S APPROVAL WAS NECESSARY OR WHETHER LIC COULD IMPLEMENT ITS RESOLUTION ON ITS OWN, THE JUDGEMENT SAID A PERUSAL OF SECTION 21 OF LIC ACT REVEALED THAT ONLY IN REGARD TO DISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTION UNDER THE ACT, THE CORPORATION SHALL BE GUIDED BY SUCH DIRECTIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WHICH INVOLVES PUBLIC INTEREST AND IS OTHERWISE MATTER OF POLICY AND NOTED IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN ANY GUIDELINE WAS ISSUED.
FOR READY REFERENCE, SECTION 21 IS QUOTED BELOW:
IN DISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTIONS UNDER THIS ACT, THE CORPORATION SHALL BE GUIDED BY SUCH DIRECTIONS IN MATTERS OF POLICY INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST AS THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY GIVE IT IN WRITING AND IF ANY QUESTION ARISES WHETHER A DIRECTION RELATES TO A MATTER OF POLICY INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST, THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE FINAL.
THE JUDGEMENT ALSO NOTED THE AVERMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT THAT BOARD'S RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001 WAS PENDING DECISION BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT AND LIC WAS OTHERWISE FREE TO TAKE ITS OWN DECISION.
THE HON'BLE JUDGE HELD THAT RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD DOES NOT NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT AND MAY GIVE EFFECT TO ITS RESOLUTION TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION AMONGST PENSIONERS AND ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITIONS BY THE PETITIONERS.
SRI ASTHANA, THE PETITIONER, ALSO FILED A CONTEMPT PETITION BEFORE THE SINGLE JUDGE FOR NON IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS ORDER AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE CONCERNED PARTIES.
DISMISSAL OF LIC'S WRIT APPEAL.
AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION, AN APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE LIC BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND AFTER HEARING OF ARGUMENTS, THE DIVISION BENCH UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL.
WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THE DIVISION BENCH OBSERVED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT NEVER CONTESTED BEFORE THE SINGLE JUDGE SO FAR AS THE RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001 OF LIC OR THE MERIT5 AND CONTENTS THEREOF OR ITS COMPETENCE TO PASS SUCH A RESOLUTION AND ALSO NOTED THAT GOVERNMENT HAS NOT CHOSEN TO APPEAL AND THIS CAN EASILY BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPROVAL.
LIC FILES CIVIL REVIEW PETITION.
AFTER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH, LIC HAS FILED A CIVIL REVIEW PETITION WITH SRI ASTHANA AND OTHERS AND ALSO UNION OF INDIA, AS RESPONDENTS.
ANOTHER CONTEMPT PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH AND DIVISION BENCH DISPOSED OF THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND CONSIGNED TO RECORD WITH LIBERTY TO PETITIONER TO PURSUE THE REMEDY BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE.
SOME OF THE BASIC CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE CIVIL REVIEW PETITION ARE LISTED BELOW IN BRIEF:
SECTION 21 OF LIC ACT PROVIDES THAT, IN DISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTIONS UNDER THE ACT, LIC SHALL BE GUIDED BY DIRECTIONS IN MATTERS OF POLICY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND SECTION 48 OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE GOVERNMENT TO FRAME RULES INTER ALIA PRESCRIBING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES OF LIC. AFTER THE COMING INTO VOGUE OF LIC (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1981, AND WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATION COMPRISING OF PENSION RULES, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT OR PENSION RULES EMPOWERING ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO MODIFY OR AMEND THE RULES.
WITH POWER VESTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE ACT AND WITH ISSUANCE OF NOTIFICATIONS, THE FIELD ALREADY STANDS OCCUPIED BY STATUTORY NOTIFICATIONS AND IT IS NOT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR LIC TO TAKE ANY CONTRARY DECISIONS ON ITS OWN.
ALL THE GROUNDS AND CONTENTIONS RAISED IN THE APPEAL AND URGED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED, DEALT WITH AND DECIDED IN THE JUDGEMENT.
BY VIRTUE OF STATUTORY RULES FRAMED BY THE GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 48 WITH ALL AMENDMENTS, THE QUANTUM OF DA DEPENDS ON THE QUANTUM OF PENSION AND QUANTUM OF PENSION IS COMPUTABLE ON THE BASIS OF PAY AND PAY SCALE APPLICABLE TO THE POST AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.
DIFFERENT PAY AND PAY SCALES WOULD BECOME APPLICABLE TO A POST, BASED ON THE DATE OF RETIREMENT AND HENCE NEITHER PENSION NOR DA COULD BE IDENTICAL OR EQUAL UNLESS GOVERNMENT FRAMES NEW RULES OR MAKE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING RULES.
AS SUCH, THE BOARD RESOLUTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE REFERRED TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF PENSION RULES. THIS RELEVANT AND SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED OR DEALT WITH IN THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDERS DATED 12.1.2010 AND 21.1.2011.
THE JUDGEMENT BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE HAD NOT GIVEN ANY DIRECTION TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND IT WAS ONLY TO THE LIC A DIRECTION WAS GIVEN. THE DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL APPEAL BY THE DIVISION BENCH ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH APPEAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FILED BY LIC BUT ONLY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, THUS SUFFERS FROM MANIFEST ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF RECORD.
THE ORAL STATEMENT SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY GOVERNMENT'S COUNSEL, EVEN IF TAKEN ON FACE VALUE, CANNOT RESULT IN REPEAL OR AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY RULES WHICH ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE JUDGEMENTS.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, NOT BEING A PARTY IN APPEAL, CANNOT ENABLE OR EMPOWER LIC TO AMEND THE RULES FRAMED BY GOVERNMENT OR ACT IN SUCH A MANNER CONTRARY TO PRESCRIPTIONS THEREIN.
THERE IS NO PROVISION IN LIC ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT LIC BOARD'S RESOLUTION PER SE CAN RESULT IN AMENDMENT OF STATUTORY RULES.
QUANTUM OF DEARNESS RELIEF DEPENDS UPON QUANTUM OF PENSION AND JUDGEMENT DEALS ONLY WITH QUANTUM OF DEARNESS RELIEF AND NOT QUANTUM OF PENSION AND SUCH DIRECTION CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS PENSION RULES ARE AMENDED.
THE BOARD'S RESOLUTION ITSELF SHOWS THAT A CONSCIOUS DECISION WAS TAKEN TO REFER THE MATTER TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH IN JUDGEMENT.
JAIPUR BENCH DISMISSES LIC'S REVIEW PETITION.
THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY LIC HAD ALSO BEEN DISMISSED BY THE JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. LIC HAS PROCLAIMED ITS INTENTION TO GO BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WITH A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP). DETAILS OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, IF AND WHEN FILED, WILL BE STUDIED AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE INITIATED.
16TH October 2011.