WISH ALL PENSIONERS AND THEIR FAMILIES A VERY HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS DIWALI.
At this point of time without any prejudice, we should forget and forgive , and remain united for the common interest of all employees irrespective of their class or cadre & affiliation to one or the other Assn/ Fed/ Union and continue our full support to Sh Asthana/AIRIEF to bring the long drawn legal fight to a happy ending. We seniors must not be empowered by any egos and expect the same from our leaders of various pensioners associations/federations also.
However,
1. PENSIONERS WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY HAD AIIPA/ OR ANY OTHER ASSN/FED GOT THE DA ANOMALY REMOVED IN 1998 WHEN A COURT CASE WAS FILED, AND HAD AIIPA EVEN NOW PER-SUED THE JUST DEMAND OF UPGRADATION OF PENSION. ALSO, IN THEIR LETTER OF OCT,2013 TO LIC CHAIRMAN, FOR WHICH A WRIT WAS FILED IN 2007 IN JAIPUR.
2. ANY WAY , NOW AFTER SUCCESSFUL LEGAL FIGHT OF MORE THAN 15 YEARS BY SH KML ASTHANA SUPPORTED BY AIRIEF, AND FAVOURABLE VERDICTS OF PB & HAR HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH, DELHI HIGH COURT, AND THE FACT THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DID NOT GRANT ANY STAY TO LIC ON H Cs ORDERS, LIC HAS NOT PAID PENSIONERS THEIR OVER DUE BENEFITS ON ACCOUNT OF GRADE REVISIONS & REMOVING OF DA ANOMALY. WE ARE AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY AIIPA/FED.OF RETD LIC CL I ASSN. ARE FEELING SHY IN ASKING LIC WHOLE HEARTEDLY TO REVISE PENSION BY UPGRADING THE SAME DUE TO VARIOUS GRADE REVISIONS , ALSO REMOVE DA ANOMALY & HONOUR COURT ORDERS ?
3. What was the necessity of begging for DA payment only when there is no stay by SC on HCs orders - and the fact all the three HCs cases are tagged and lying as civil appeal has no significant and does not hamper the implementation of HC orders. It smells that AIIPA/FED.OF RETD LIC CL I ASSN. have deliberately (donot know why) tried to undermine and sabotage the upgradation issue which has never been disputed EVEN by Govt of India -( please refer to para V of above ATTACHED affidavit ). I request all, particularly functionaries of AIIPA/FED.OF RETD LIC CL I ASSN , to go thruogh the following facts /positive out come of the court orders and views enunciated by our pensioner friends from time to time.
i) In the above attached affidavit of GOI, IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE TWO ISSUES ie. upgrading the basic pension and providing 100% D.A. neutralization. (Ref. para v - brief facts/ gist given below):-
ii) Real intentions of the Central Govt.(particularly of the Finance Minister) have been clearly spelled out(exposed). (Ref. para vi & vii of brief facts, reproduced below.)
(vi) That the above proposal was considered in the Department in consultation with Banking division who had informed that any modification with regard to upgrading or change in the dearness relief formula in the insurance sector may have repercussion on public sector Banks as well as other financial institutions and advised this Division not to agree to the request made by LIC and to continue to maintain parity with regard to dearness relief with the public sector Banks. Hence, the proposal of LIC as per their Board Resolution was not agreed to.
(vii) That on this issue, replies were also given by the Finance. Minister to various references from Members of Parliament stating that “the insurance employees pension rule is broadly based on the pension rule of banks employees and since no change has taken place in the pension rule of the bank employee, it would not be appropriate to change the rule for the insurance employees, as the same would cause ripple effects in the banking and other similar sector.
Though these exposures by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance have no relevance to LIC pensioners case and HC Jaipur verdict, BUT the same do exhibit the arrogant & stubborn attitude of the Central Govt., particularly the FM towards just and legitimate demands of pensioners of LIC which have now been accepted & held lawful by various High Courts of the country, and no stay granted by Hon'ble SUPREME COURT.
AS A RESULT OF NON-IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLIANCE OF COURT ORDERS LIC IS FACING A CONTEMPT PETITION IN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JAIPUR AND THE NEXT DATE IS 29TH NOV,13.
HK AGGARWAL
IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE
PETITION (C) NO. 29956-57 OF 2011
IN THE MATTER OF:
Life Insurance Corporation of India ……PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & ORS. Etc.
….RESPONDENTS
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.28
I, S.K. Mohanty, S/o. Shri G.C. Mohanty aged about 52
yrs., presently working as Under Secretary to the Govt. of India, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That being
working in official capacity I am well conversant with the facts of this case
and such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That I have
read the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner and understood the
same. That save and except those which are matters of record and specifically
admitted in this counter Affidavit, all the averments, statements and
submissions made in the Synopses & List of Dates and Special Leave Petition
are specifically and categorically denied by the answering respondent.
3. That before
coming to Para wise reply to the grounds of the Special Leave Petition, the
answering respondent herein craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to place on
record some relevant facts of the case.
BRIEF FACTS
That the answering respondent submits that the Life
Insurance Corporation of India is a independent and statutory body established
by the Central Government under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation
Act, 1956.
That section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act,
1956 (Act 31 of 1956) empowers the Central Government to frame rules, inter
alia, for prescribing the terms and conditions of service of the employees of
the Corporation.
That in exercise of powers conferred by section 48 of the
Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 the Central Government has introduced and
index linked pension rule in lieu of the Life Insurance Corporation’s
contribution to the provident fund w.e.f. 1st November 1993 namely the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 vide
notification No. GSR 525 (E) dated 28.6.1995. The salient features of the said
rule are as under :-
The rule is applicable to those employees who joined the
service of the corporation on or after 01.11.1993.
The benefit of the pension rule was also extended for
those who were in services on or after 01.1.1986 and had retired while in
service on or before 31.10.1993.
Family pension was also made applicable in respect of
employees who retired or died between 01.1.1986 and 31.10.1993.
That the pensionary benefits admissible to LIC employees
are governed by provision of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995. The
amount of basic pension and dearness relief thereon are expressly governed by
rules 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the said rules. The said rules provide for basic
pension in proportion to the average emoluments drawn during the last 10 months
of service and the basic pension once fixed cannot be revised with every wage
revision effected thereafter. Thus, it is submitted that the pension of a
beneficiary is linked to the terminal basic salary of the employees. The
pension rule has an inbuilt provision for periodical revision of dearness
relief linked to All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers
(AICPI).
That as per the agreed rule a graded dearness relief is
being provided to pensioners who have retired before July 31, 1997 and 100%
neutralization has been provided to pensioners who have retired on or after
1.8.1997. The same was part of the wage revision package negotiated by LIC
management with the employees Unions/Associations and subsequently notified by
the Government of India.
That in the meanwhile, the LIC in its 492nd Board
meeting, held on 24.11.2001, resolved upgrading the basic pension and providing
100% D.A. neutralization thereon in respect of the pensioner retired on or
after 01.1.1986 but on or before 31.7.1997. The proposal was discussed in the
said Board meeting. The financial implication of the proposal was determined at
Rs. 51.37 crore and the annual outlay to be in the region of Rs. 5 to Rs. 6
crore. The Board had appoved the proposal and suggested that it should be
implemented after obtaining Government approval.
That the above proposal was considered in the Department
in consultation with Banking division who had informed that any modification
with regard to upgrading or change in the dearness relief formula in the
insurance sector may have repercussion on public sector Banks as well as other
financial institutions and advised this Division not to agree to the request
made by LIC and to continue to maintain parity with regard to dearness relief
with the public sector Banks. Hence, the proposal of LIC as per their Board
Resolution was not agreed to.
That on this issue, replies were also given by the
Finance. Minister to various references from Members of Parliament stating that
“the insurance employees pension rule is broadly based on the pension rule of
banks employees and since no change has taken place in the pension rule of the
bank employee, it would not be appropriate to change the rule for the insurance
employees, as the same would cause ripple effects in the banking and other
similar sector. Further it was made clear that a graded dearness relief is
being provided to pensioners who have retired before July 31, 1997 and 100%
neutralization has been provided to pensioners who have retired on or after
1.08.1997. The dearness relief pattern adopted prior to 1.8.1997 was part of
the pension package agreed in consultation with the employees association and
to open the issue at this stage would lead to host problems”.
That by virtue of section 48 of the LIC Act, 1956, the
Central Government has to power to make rules to govern the terms and
conditions of services of the employees of the corporation. Further the pension
and Dearness Relief on pension of an LIC employees are determined as per the
provisions of the LIC Pension Rules, 1995 as notified by the Central
Government. Any modification in the DA structure naturally needs an amendment
in the LIC Pension Rules and LIC has no power to modify the same by way of
passing Resolution through their Board.
That the pension admissible under the LIC of India
(Employees) Pension Rules, 1995is payable from a separate fund maintained for
the purpose which is valued actuarially every year for shortfall or excess. The
LIC pension is contributory in nature and the Corporation is crediting 10% of
Basic pay in respect for each pension optee to the Pension Fund maintained for
the prupose. As the Pension Fund is valued actuarially every year to assess
shortfall, if any, such shortfall is being funded by the Corporation by way of
additional annual contribution.
PARA-WISE REPLY:
Para 1: In reply
to this paragraph, it is submitted that the contents of the same are a matter
of record and as such do not need any reply by the respondent.
Para 2: In reply
to this paragraph, the respondent humbly submits that the present Special Leave
Petition raise substantial questions of law which merits the consideration of
this Hon’ble Court.
Para 3 & 4 In
reply to these paras, the answering respondent submits that the same are not
admitted/disputed for want of further knowledge and information.
Para 5: In view
of the submission above made and the grounds taken by the petition the present
matter deserves consideration of this Hon’ble Court. Further, the answering
respondent crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to state the following:
a. That under
section 48 of LIC Act, 1956, which gives power to make rules to govern the
terms and conditions of services of the employees of the corporation and LIC
has no power to modify the same by way of passing resolution through their
board. Therefore it would be wrong and illegal to implement any board
resolution without the approval of the central government.
It is
reiterated that LIC in its 492 Board meeting, held on 24.11.2001, resolved upgrading
the basic pension and providing 100% D.A. neutralization thereon in respect of
the pensioner retired on or after 01.1.1986 but on or before 31.7.1997. The
proposal was discussed in the Board Meeting. The financial implication of the
proposal was actuarially determined at Rs. 51.37 crore and the annual outlay to
be in the region of Rs. 5 to Rs. 6 crore. The Board had approved the proposal
and suggested that it should be implemented after obtaining Government
approval.
The said
proposal was considered in the respondent in consultation with Banking Division
who had informed that any modification with regard to upgrading or change in
the dearness relief formula in the insurance sector may have repercussions on
Public Sector Banks as well as other financial institutions and advised this
Division not to agree to the request made by LIC and to continue to maintain
parity with regard to dearness relief with the Public Sector Banks.
Hence, the
proposal of LIC as per their Board Resolution was not accepted by the
respondent.
Hence, it
is submitted that in absence of the approval by the Central Govt., the
direction given by the Hon’ble High Court is against the established procedure
and statutory provisions of LIC Act, 1956.
b. The
answering respondent reiterates that under the pensionary benefits admissible
to LIC employees are governed by provision of LIC of India (Employees) Pension
Rules, 1995. The amount of basic pension and dearness relief thereon governed
by rules 365, 36, 37 and 38 of the said rules. It is submitted and reiterated
that the provisions of section 48 of the LIC Act, 1956, which gives power to
Central Government to make rules to govern the terms and conditions of services
of the employees of the Corporation. Further the pension and Dearness Relief on
pension of an LIC employee are determined as per the provisions of the LIC
Pensions Rules, 1995 notified by the Central Government. Any modification in he
DA structure naturally needs an amendment in the LIC Pension Rules and LIC has
no power to modify the same by way of passing Resolution through their Board.
c. It is humbly
submitted that going beyond the text of the statute cannot be permitted to any
statutory Corporation since the LIC is established vide an Act of the
Parliament i.e. the LIC Act of 1956. The organization has to follow the
procedure and process established by the statute. It is categorically asserted
that the employee pension rules cannot be termed as day to day function of the
organization and such rules cannot be amended by way of a Board resolution. The
power is conferred solely to the Central Governmet to amend such rules. It is
humbly prayed that the order of the Hon’ble High Court to implement the Board
resolution is beyond the permissible power and as such requires to be set
aside.
Para6,7&8 In
reply to these paragraphs it is submitted that Hon’ble High Court failed to
appreciate the statutory requirement under sec 48 of LIC Act. 1956 wherein it
is only Central Government which is authorized to bring in any cages in the rules
applicable to the LIC employees and same cannot be done by way of a Board
Resolution and thus the petitioner is entitled to relief claimed.
The respondent has not taken any new plea regarding facts
and law in this counter affidavit apart from those pleaded before the Courts
below.
DEPONENT
S.K. MOHANTY
Under Secretary
Deptt. of
Financial Services
Ministry of
Finance
New Delhi