I happened to read with interest the write-up of my good
friend Mr D Krishnan which states inter alia as follows:
“I also ran into K Chandrasekaran who was ED Board Sectt.then, who told me that the only purpose of that Board Proposal was rationalising the three different benefit structures of DR within the Pensioner Class. and that too, more for administrative convenience than anything bigger. The Upgradation referred to in the Board Proposal (11.25%) was to only facilitate the process of the one-time rationalisation of DR rates, and that 11.25% was incidentally equal to the average percentage hike given to employees in the 1993 Revision process. And make no mistake; the Bhandari Order does not refer to this aspect of one-time upgradation of 11.25% even remotely. It only talks of removing anomalies in DR.”
I had also earlier shared with my pensioner colleagues the information that I gathered from Mr R.Chandrasekaran, my batch mate the then ED(P) who was involved in putting up the background note and the drafting of the Board Resolution, the preparation of illustrative chart etc.According to what I gathered from him, the clear purpose at the time of putting up the note to the Board was for not only removal of DR anomaly, but also to provide upgradation of pension after merger of DR as at 1/8/1997 and providing a weightage of 11.25%( which was an average) as was done for in-service employees. Thereby it was intended to bring about 100% DR neutralization from 1/8/1997, on par with in-service employees and retirees from that date.
The proposal which was approved by the Board was also elaborated by ED(P) in his letter dt 31st December, 2001 addressed to Joint Secretary (insurance) forwarding the approved recommendation of the LIC Board. I have also circulated a copy of the said letter to all pensioner colleagues who are in my mailing list. Nowhere in the office note or the Board Resolution has it been stated that such upgradation is ‘one time’. By this decision of the LIC Board a principle has been decided upon for enabling pensioners who retired before the first wage revision date following the date of notification of the LIC Pension Rules 1995 to migrate from an anomalous DR pattern to an anomaly- free DR pattern and also to an upgraded pension pattern on par with pensioners who retired after that wage revision date, viz 1/8/1997.
The role of ED (Board sect) is only the coordination of Board functions including collection of notes to be placed before the Board from concerned departments based on the agenda for the meetings and communicating the minutes of the meetings to members. He can at best be an unofficial witness to discussions, whereas ED (P) in this case has played an instrumental and active role in the decision making of the LIC Board from the stage of putting up pre-Board Meeting Notes to writing to the JS (Insce). In such a context, I consider that whatever Mr Krishnan has gathered from Mr K Chandrasekaran is just another interpretation like any other number of interpretations including mine. But I would consider the information given by Mr R Chandrasekaran, the then ED (P) as more authentic as he was actually involved in the whole departmental exercise. It may be argued that he is now an interested party being a potential beneficiary, but it does not detract from the fact that his information is credible when we read between the lines of the Board Resolution and the Jaipur HCB judgment.
True, the justice Bhandari judgment does not refer to one-time upgradation. But we must remember that the Order dt 12/1/2010 states,
” The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board.”
The Board resolution reproduced in the judgment clearly mentions upgradation in the following part
”…. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees…..”
Reading both the above together, one cannot but conclude that upgradation as a principle has been recognized by the Jaipur Bench.At the cost of repetition, I wish to reiterate that DR anomaly removal will stop with changing the DR slabs of pre-August 1997 pensioners on par with those that prevailed for in-service employees up to 31/7/1997.
As far as 100% DR neutralization is concerned, it cannot happen for pre-August 1997 pensioners without upgradation of pension w.e.f 1/8/1997, as even for in-service employees 100% DR neutralization came into effect from 1/8/1997 only.
Again the penultimate sentence of the Jaipur Order reads as follows:
“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. “
My personal view on the above is (1) the benefit will have to be extended beyond the 27 writ petitioners & (2)once the principle of upgradation approved by the Board is implemented for pre-August 1997 pensioners, similar upgradation cannot be denied to all those who retired on or after 1/8/1997 effective from the various wage revision dates viz 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 and even to those who retired after 1/8/2012 as and when the wage revisions take place w.e.f 1/8/2012.
I believe that an organization like LIC places more emphasis on customer orientation than merely administrative convenience. My understanding is that the Board resolution was basically for the satisfaction of the internal customers, viz pensioners and the resultant administrative convenience was only incidental and secondary.
Notwithstanding the above, considering that the Supreme Court has specifically refused to stay the Jaipur HCB Order dt 12/1/2010, LIC could very well implement the judgment and the Board resolution based on their own interpretation. Their hesitation in doing so is itself a pointer to their apprehensions of the long term implications of the Jaipur Order on which they would like to be assured of a green signal from the Central Government.
The final hearing on 3rd January 2014 on the contempt case must determine the course of action that LIC will adopt in regard to compliance with the Jaipur HC order dt 12/1/2010.