RB KISHORE, VP, AIRIEF

 Memory is short, we tend to forget many, even important matters or utterances. 

More so in the tortuous course of this epic Kurukshetra legal battle 

for years & decades under the redoubtable captaincy of Sri ASTHANA. 

We Pensioners have gained a lot of insights, nuances of pension upgradation 

& 100% Full DR to ALL pensioners & their implications for future. 

Throughout, we have won sterling victories, delay was inevitable, tossing between Jaipur HC & SC Bench occurred, but the shine & lustre, the core & critical kernel of our demands never faded away from Sri Asthanas grips. We 

are deeply indebted to him,  that in spite of trials & tribulations, ups & 

downs, the upswing was more than the downswing. 

Pessimists will be there, irksome questions will be raised, doubts 

will linger eternally till the entire case runs its full course & finality 

of judgement is handed over to the fraternity of all groups of pensioners. 

i) When someone pointed Board Resolution deficiency, it was clarified.  Sri CH Mahadevan too gave his delineation. When someone said Hon SJ Bhandari's verdict is vague, I quoted  extensively relevant paras from his verdict about pension upgradation substituting new scales of pay.

ii) When Article 226 of Constitution & Artcle 32 confers powers on High Courts & SC respectively to issue writs & mandamus against Govt/Institutions, there is no need for any more appurtenances who will play only spoilsport.  All those who cross the rubicon or Laxman Rekha will be booked by HC or SC. That is it.

iii) When 12,272 pensioners have died till 31/7/2007,because of MOF/UOI  intransigence & LIC acquiescence, we  cry &  shed tears for them & their families & desire to hand over the benefit when final victory comes.

iv)   MOU dt 14/1/1994 CLEARLY SAYS ‘’SAME DR FOR PENSIONERS, AS SAME DA FOR EMPLOYEES’ It is on record. There cannot & should not exist any restrictive process or provisions, nullifying better benefits, allowed for others but denied to the pensioners.

EQUALITY of interests & no discrimination  should be the ethical ground & principle. That is violated by RESTRICTIVE APPENDIX IV formula. Time has come to banish this from the lexicon of DR determination & calculation.

v)   Basic Pension unchanged & static  right from 1/11/ 1993, a long long 20 yrs !! is obnoxious, it will be a travesty of justice, building up, perplexing anomalies, glaring discrepancies & unbridgeable paradoxes & so, has to be addressed & redressed, by Courts alone & so came the landmark judgement of Jaipur HC by SJ Hon Bhandari on 12/1/2010.

vi)  SJ Hon Justice Bhandari’s judgement dt 12/1/2010  was allowing both the writs 6696/1998  pertaining to Full DR & 654/2007exclusively on pension upgradation.   It also means that Hon SJ has gone through the submissions by both Counsels & quoting relevant portions & arguments came to definite conclusions and issues orders covering both the issues affecting pensioners. Pension revision with successive wage revisions have been upheld conspicuously & unambiguously. 

Please click below to read more.

vii) Pension is a social welfare measure on an assurance that they, in their old age, would not be left in the lurch. Relying on Article 14 of our Constitution, the   Supreme Court gave an important ruling in that “all pensioners form a homogeneous class irrespective of their dates of retirement and are entitled to same relief as subsequent retirees etc."

viii) Further, it is to be borne in mind that LIC itself, in its SECRET letter dt 31/12/2001 to then Joint Secretary, MOF, Sri Ajit Sharan,  secured under RTI & 11/8/2003, to MOF/UOI state clearly “there is an urgent need to rationalize the DR structure available to different groups of pensioners in order to reduce the administrative inconvenience & also to see that different  generations of pensioners are protected by merging the pension to a suitable index.”  This clinches the issue of successive pension revisions with every wage revision. It has a vital bearing on continued pension upgradation. It stretches & goes beyond Board Resolution to capture full & continuous pension revision at CPI 600, 1148, 1740, 2328, 2994.

ix)  What is the content and reach of the great equalising principle ?  There can be no doubt that it is a  founding faith of the Constitution.  It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic.  And, therefore, it must  not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning for, to do so would be to violate its activist magnitude.

x) Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits..... Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence."

xi) Jaipur Single judge Hon Bhandari in his order dt 12/1/2010 has observed as follows:

“Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that there exists anomaly even in regard to the revision of the pay scale. The benefit of revision in the pay scale from time to time was not extended to the pensioners. In view of aforesaid, even an officer retiring in the higher pay scale started getting less pension than to the employee retiring subsequently in lower pay scale.  Aforesaid aspect was also considered along with the first issue, by the Board in its meeting held on 24.11.2001.

Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that, on the basis of date of retirement, there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners inter se.  All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

xii) While dismissing the appeal of LIC on 21/1/2011, the HC Division Bench of Jaipur observed as follows: The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove the disparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance and pension to the retired employees under its Resolution of the Board dt. 24.11.2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision of the Board dt. 24.11.2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India

xiii) The SB Civil Writ Petition nos. 6676/1998 and 654/2007 deal with the following two issues:

a) The existing pensioners are entitled for the benefit of dearness allowance with the same measure as is admissible to the pensioners on or after 31.7.1997. The discrimination amongst the pensioners on that count is not permissible and if there exists rule, making discrimination amongst the existing pensioners, it is held to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

b) Pension revision with each wage revision. Relevant paragraph in the said judgment reads as “Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that there exists anomaly even in regard to the revision of the pay scale. The benefit of revision in the pay scale from time to time was not extended to the pensioners. In view of aforesaid, even an officer retiring in the higher pay scale started getting less pension than to the employees retiring subsequently in lower pay scale. Aforesaid aspect was also considered along with the first issue, by the Board in its meeting held on 24.11.2001.”   

xiv) The judgment, awarded by Hon’ble Justice Mr. M N Bhandari on 12.01.2010 has elaborately dealt with both the above referred issues.   The directive part of the judgment reads as, “The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cutoff date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit.” 

xv) It must be noted that SJ Hon Bhandari went beyond LIC Board Resolution & updated the same with further accelerated pension revisions at subsequent wage revisions,citing case laws, violation of Fundamental Rights & avoidance of discrimination in pre & post classification destroying homogeneity, the cardinal & accepted principle in equality & justice.

This was the reason why DR ONLY school was not able to secure the benefit or concession of isolating one strand of DR from the holistic pension upgradation, they frantically tried from LIC Chairman

xvi) SC Bench on 17/10/2012 issued a clarificatory order re. the amount due to the pensioners ie writ petitioners wef the date of their eligibility to get retiral benefits. Further CCP760/2010 in relation to WP654/2007 on pension upgradation only in Jaipur HC SJ Hon Bhandari's judgement has to be honoured in letter & spirit. Difference in Pension & DR is what is referred to & that too from the date of retirement, not 1/8/97. Strictly speaking, it is from 1/11/1993 or 1/8/1997 whichever is later.

(TO BE CONTINUED)