Dear Sri Krishnan,
1) Thanx for your candid response,espousing “reality “ of your Federations views about limitations of Hon SJ Bhandaris judgement & the day dream of pension upgradation which is being talked about by us
I set forth my reply as under:
2)a) Whenever I appreciate a principle, when I know for certain it conveys sense & meaning, when I know that should be real “reality”, heartily, I begin to espouse that cause to the hilt. I deal with it minutely,collect massive information, statistics, utterances, many case laws, Google search, exchanges of email, share & care with other Sector Pensioner Fedn leaders. We released in our Ahmedabad EC/GC meeting on 1,2 & 3 Nov 2012 Kurukshetra Legal BattleBooklet, a treasure-trove of history, with 4 Chapters .
b) We receive lots of feedback every day & month & select ones are fully published in my –Pensioners Emails & Feedback, running into 8-16 pages, every Fortnight & it is running Serial No 67. In ever so many releases & educative write-ups, the distinguishing features of Only DR School & Holistic Pension Revision with every wage revision with 100% DR for pre-8/1997 pensioners were explained to all. The judgements were circulated. The main points where Hon SJ Bhandari described & delineated about pension revision successively were underlined. When pensioners asked the impact of the same, that was also clarified how it will benefit all groups of pensioners. We never create any iron curtain between us & pensioners. We did say even at that remote time, if it were MERE DR, Pensioner Fedns headed by Stalwarts could have helped & assisted pensioners immediately after LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 to capture the line & length, spirit & significance of Board Resolution as understood by them & donate the bonanza of FULL DR to all pre-8/1997 pensioners, say in 2002 itself. Where are we now & how the wheel of time, such strong Fedns forget pensioners interests & then cry over interpretation & even after 12 years of procrastination or unaware of such Board Resolution, want to achieve what could have been more easily achieved & perhaps by this time, thro Courts, they would have succeeded for “ pension upgradation ” too. That would not have entailed all these tortuous legal battle & so-called war of words , as perceived by the 2 Schools.
c) When I narrate an idea, & if it goes against the grain of thinking of Sri GNS, you begin to think I talk derisively about him. Not so, I am solidly, that Principle having reached near end, whatever you may think or perceive, we don’t want any intervention, except in Courts,& we felt approaching Secretary FS at that juncture was more for ego & pride & to try good luck, wish all the best, only to post another obstacle to final progress in CCP. Quoting delay & deaths now is as bad as ignoring & bypassing or neglecting or not taking seriously LIC Board Resolution, earlier for so many years. All would have congratulated GNS then as the hero as another pensioner group was ‘yet ‘ to be born, ie 2002—2007 etc. Unfortunately we have come a long way, sorry.
d) You say in one breath, Yes, I agree, Asthana has Prayed for such rolling revision in his 2007 Petition to Court. But do remember, what is granted is only what is expressly Ordered by the HC. And nowhere has that judgement (Order) expressly come on a rolling Revision of the kind you repeatedly keep bandying about, & then ‘True there is a logic that emerges for later Revisions too, and that is what Sri Asthana has so cleverly given open expression to in his Petition in 2007. But that will have to come up seperately as a matter for court to examine and decide on and does not seem to be automatic as many of us now come to expect. ’ With all the experiences & expertise on hand, my good friend whom I hold in high esteem,let us know that “ABHI NAHIN TO KABHI NAHIN”. That is it,let us not tread dangerous ground.
e) You have in your heart of hearts a liking for pension upgradation principle, as you have sprinkled not only the word but also its true import & effect but to say “All of us are pushing in the same directions “ is absurd & meaningless. AIIPA is also a sounding board wanting to crash the progress in so many Courts without any single defeat & vow to defeat a fine, unique judgement of sorts in tune with present environment & reality, in a welfare state & to protect the Fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. It looks you wont vote for AAP also, please let us protect the underdog, the aggrieved, the elders & senior Citizens & allow those who are going on winning many victories in various Courts to win finally, without aborting it.
f) When after important verdicts or finality came in Jaipur HC or August 2013 from SC dismissing 2 Main, Core SLPs 29956 & 29957 of LIC, GNS wrote,AIIPA wrote to LIC Chairman,MD etc to implement the judgement. Why did LIC not implement then, even if it were only DR as you presume or imagine?
g) You don’t give any weight to Hon Justice Retd VRKrishna Iyers valid & candid opinion for pension upgradation ? I wrote to him, I spoke to him. Let us respect venerable legal pundits & the doyen especially of legal jurisprudence.
h) It is not as though we are coining the word,may be ‘dirty’ for you, the sanctified word “ pension upgradation” but already there in pension vocabulary & being enjoyed in India by many. You have read my writeup in full & that contains all info of CG, SG, PSEs, Railways, Defence etc.
i) You have not read or digested Nakra Judgement of 5 Judge Bench, SC presided over by Hon Chandrachud.
Supreme Court 5-Judge Constitution Bench presided by Hon Justice Y.V.Chandrachud, in D.S.Nakara vs Union of India case (AIR1983 SC130),regarded as the MagnaCarta for pensioners, thundered that
a) ‘by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria, for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme & thereby dividing a homogeneous class, -- violates Article 14 & is unconstitutional. "Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer. It is not an exgratia payment, but it is a deferred wage for the past services rendered by him------- Pension is their statutory, inalienable & legally enforceable right. It has been earned by the sweat of their brow. As such. it should be fixed, revised, modified & changed in ways ,not entirely dissimilar to thesalaries granted to serving employees”.
3) Here is the Important & CRUCIAL line in the Note prepared by EDP paving the way for the Board Resolution “it may be mentioned that such a provision to upgrade the pension due to periodic revision in case of Central Govt employees is incorporated in the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, on the basis of which LIC of India (Employees ) Pension Rules 1995 have been drafted. Further, it is to be borne in mind that LIC itself , in its SECRET letter dt 31/12/2001 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.
It is also added “ Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules ,on which LIC (Employees) Pension rules has been broadly designed, contains such an upgradation formula corresponding to revisions effected for Central Govt Employees. ”
4) Jaipur Single judge Hon Bhandari in his order dt 12/1/2010 has observed as follows:
i) “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’.
ii) 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.
iii) 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.”
iv)a) Combining the above part of the Jaipur Single judge Bench order and the portions of the ED(P)’s letter dt 31/12/2001 and also the DB judgment of Jaipur HC Bench, it is crystal clear that the Board had approved the proposal for both 100% DR neutralization for pre-Aug 1997 retirees and upgradation of pension as per the scales of pay revised from 1/8/1997.
b) At the time of the said Board meeting, the latest wage revision was only that w.e.f 1/8/1997.So when the principle of upgradation is accepted, it will extend to the further wage revision dates of 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 as well and all existing pensioners will have to be provided benefits of upgradation arising from such wage revisions.
5) Normally, when a Judgement is delivered ordering, both the writs 6676/1998 & 654/2007 are admitted, it means that submissions by both the parties are over & approval granted to the 2 Writs one on DR & another on pension upgradation. It is, therefore, strange how one can look with a jaundiced eye, programming their thoughts & views so self-opinionated that Hon SJ Jaipur HC verdict does not cover pension upgradation. Already detailed quotes from his judgement pertaining to pension upgradation are given above. Let them say how the meaning can be anything else!
(To be continued)