IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WP(C) 184/2007
FEDERATION OF RETD. LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSCN. and ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Kumar Garg, Ms.Kavita Rawat and Mr.Ashish Garg, Advocates.
versus
UOI and ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.P.L.Gautam, Advocate for R-1.Mr.Kamal Mehta and Mr.Sudeep Singh, Advocates
for R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
O R D E R
30.01.2013
1. It is not in dispute that the issue decided by a learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on January 12, 2010 pertains to pensionary benefits to be received by retired employees of LIC of India under the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 and further, the decision embrace the controversy whether the Board Resolution by the Board of LIC dated November 24, 2001 needed an approval to be granted by the Central Government before its implementation. It is also not in dispute that the same issues as were decided by the learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court arise for consideration in the instant writ petition.
2. Embracing the broader issues aforesaid is the sub issue of categorization of employees who retired pre June 28, 1995 and those who retired post said date in the context of revision of pay scale in the year 1996 and the grant of Dearness Allowance while determining pension.
3. Applicability of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as AIR 1983 SC 130 D.S.Nakara v. UOI and Ors. and subsequent decisions reported as 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 664 All India Reserve Bank Retd.Officers Asscn. v. UOI and AIR 1999 SC 61 V.Kasturi v. State Bank of India on the subject of categorizing pensioners in two categories with a cut-off date prescribed for purposes of pensionary benefits resulting in pre cut-off date pensioners receiving lesser pension vis-a-vis those who retired post cut-off date arose for consideration before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and likewise arise for consideration in the instant writ petition.
4. There being complete identity of the issues raised we would further record that concededly the law declared by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has to be applied in rem.
5. Thus, noting that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has been affirmed by the Division Bench and that the matter currently awaits a decision from the Supreme Court where a notice has been issued in the petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal filed against the decision of the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, we dispose of the instant writ petition granting a declaratory relief : The members of the petitioner No.1 and No.2 Associations would be entitled to pensionary benefits as per the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court as affirmed by the Division Bench thereof subject to the said decisions not being interdicted by the Supreme Court. We clarify. If Petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal afore-noted is
dismissed or upon Leave to Appeal being granted but the Civil Appeal being dismissed, LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem. Needless to state, if the Supreme Court were to differ, LIC would act accordingly by ignoring the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court.
6. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
JANUARY 30, 2013
dk
WP(C) 184/2007