LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE

Mr G.N Sridharan in his circular has mentioned that the Delhi HC judgment dt 30th January 2013 relates to removal of DR anomaly only. It is true that the writ petition filed by the Federation related to removal of DR anomaly only. But the operative part of the Delhi HC judgment reads as follows. (Please click at the end of the article to read the relevant portion of Delhi High Court judgment.)

It has to be remembered that the judgment in effect is an order for LIC to implement the Jaipur HC bench order dt 12/1/2010 'in rem' as the SLP Nos 29956-957 filed by LIC against the dismissal of Review Petition were dismissed by the Supreme Court. It has also to be remembered that there were a few post-July 1997 pensioners also who were petitioners in the Jaipur case and the writ petitions were allowed without any distinction between pre Aug 1997 and post July 1997 pensioners.The cut-off date was mentioned in the Jaipur order only to make the point that there cannot be different bases of DR between the pensioners retired before and after the cut-off date.

The basic order was for LIC to implement the Board resolution dt 24/11/2001.The secret letter dt 31/12/2001 by the then ED(P) to the Joint Secretary (Insurance) had clearly brought forth the import of the Board Resolution, viz merging the DR as at 1/8/1997 into the basic pension and applying 0.23% of the merged basic pension per slab for the purpose of calculating post Aug 1997 DR and the resultant gross pension in future. This clearly means that the Board Resolution covers both removal of DR anomaly and upgradation of pension as at 1/8/1997 for pre -Aug 1997 pensioners and by logical extension of that principle such merger of DR with basic pension and upgradation should happen for post July 1997 retirees as well.

Viewing from this angle, it would appear that the Delhi HC order has given to the Federation more than it asked for by its judgment dt 30th January, 2013.This is my personal view. Readers are welcome to come to their own conclusions on the issue.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan 

PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO READ JUDGMENT EXCERPTS.


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.