GN SRIDHARAN
I refer to the posting of a circular issued by me three years back, retrieved from the archives. I wish, my (green) circular dated 27/3/2012 had also been pulled out and posted since my stand will be clear when both are read together. I maintain that there is no change in my stand on any aspect of the issue involved in the going litigations on pension. The insertions in the blog this week therefore require my following comments and clarification.
1. Letter to GOI on upgrading pension - It is contended that the letter of LIC forwarding the Board Resolution carries a recommendation for upgradation for all. I wish it is true but opinion can differ. However my view after reading the Resolution and the supporting Office Note is that the upgradation applies only to the category of pensioners referred to therein as explained below. The following is extract from the management letter.
- "For this purpose, upgrading the pensions linked to 600 points of index and 1148 points of index to 1740 points of index and payment of Dearness Relief on the pension so upgraded at the rate of 0.23% for every four points of index were being considered and the approval of the Board."
The whole purpose of the Board Resolution as contained in its preamble as well as the back note leading to the Resolution is to introduce uniform DR rate in the place of three separate DR rate-schedules while neutralizing the DR at 100%. If DR basis is changed, upgrading will have to happen when the Board Resolution is implemented faithfully.
The words/terms ‘revision’ and ‘upgradation’ have been used almost interchangeably, by different people and different points of time. I have not seen clear distinction in any communication. The upgrading is in the context of establishing uniform rate of DR, is a corollary of merging DR with basic pension of retirees, analogous to merging DA with basic salary for in-service employees during periodical wage revisions. In this, the total pension increases because of 100% neutralisation only. However, the upgradation that one longs for would truly occur only when 11.25% increase or ‘point-to-point’ fitment is granted, based on each/successive wage revision so far (and for all times to come).
Please click on 'read more' below.
Please click on 'read more' below.
Unfortunately, leave alone the revision or upgrading, even the DR matter is hanging, and LIC now contends in their response to SC that the aforesaid Resolution has been overstretched by contempt petitioners.
The upgrading in the context of DR issue, as above, was clearly explained as early as 27/3/2012 in my aforesaid (green) circular. The relevant paragraph is as below.
- “Basic Pension Rationalisation: The Board minutes dated 24/11/2001 as well as the supporting office note indicates the need for doing away with three different DR rates. When the DR anomaly is removed following this recommendation, the resultant adoption of a uniform basis for all with 100% neutralisation could render the task of effecting of an upward revision of basic pension as a natural corollary and facilitate the implementation of the aforesaid recommendation of the Board. The upward revision of the basic pension for earlier retirees therefore could be become a forerunner for all retirees (now and in future)” The bracketed words are added now.
To put in nutshell (for pensioners who are not in the know of the intricacies),
(1) upgrading the basic pension to grant uniform DR rate (simply merging part of DR with basic pension) is totally different from
(2) revision (hike) to bring parity with later retirees.
To repeat, the upgrading stated in (1) above cannot be termed as revision or true upgrading despite increase in basic pension with merger of DR. We have however prioritised the first one for the present keeping the second issue to be sorted out in continuation.
2. My circular of 20th May 2010 - This circular only conveyed the gist of the Jaipur judgement, for the benefit of our members. In this circular, I did state by way of quick and initial reaction my happiness at the judgement and no doubt it was welcome. An in-depth reading brought out the fact that there is no express direction to implement the revision of 11.25% (or any other mode of) increase, which I have expressed repeatedly.
What benefits have come out so far? People would have been happy (and a number of our departed friends in the aged category would have died happier) had the judgement fructified a bit. Three years+ has traversed in repeating and resubmitting contempt petitions, harping in all three courts (HC, HC Bench and SC). Instead, thrashing out the SLPs would have settled the matter. We must definitely struggle for our posterity but not at the cost of our own enjoying some increase however little or beneficial it is.
As the matter of revision (quantum hike or point-to-point re-fixation) is highly complex, and involves a pretty long way to go, let it not stand in the way of the DR revision associated with the stated upgrading. Knowing the UOI and its attitude, all in one go is not possible, and I repeat emphatically court has limitations, and have rarely considered issues beyond points of law.
To state finally:
- Courts take their own time; let us not cause more delay;
- Let us be prudent to clinch what is immediately possible;
- Let our struggle go on till we achieve all our justifiable demands.