Thank you for your circular mail.Let us hope that the I.A is disposed of in favour of pensioners.
While I am sure that the emphasis by our Federation will be on LIC implementing the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 (which has also been ordered by the Jaipur HC Bench on 12/1/2010) as per the Delhi HC Order dt 30/1/2013, I feel our emphasis should also be on the proper implementation of the Board Resolution.
Whatever may be ambiguity that exists in the Board Resolution on account of the not so clear wording of the same, we need to read between the lines in the context in which the Board approved the resolution.
The resolution states that the DR anomaly from 1/11/1993 (or from the date of retirement, whichever is later) existing for pre-August 1997 retirees should be removed and pension should be upgraded by merging DR on 1/8/1997 at 1740 points of AICPI 1740 with appropriate weightage (of 11.25%) as was done for in-service employees.
While the removal of DR anomaly is an one-time action needed from LIC for pre-August 1997 retirees, the action of merger of DR with basic pension and upgradation as at 1/8/1997 with 11.25% weightage cannot be viewed as an one-time action to be taken by LIC only for pre-August 1997 retirees. Considering the context that the resolution was passed at a time when only the wage revision w.e.f 1/8/1997 had been notified (in 2000), the far-reaching implications of DR merger & upgradation with weightage cannot be overlooked. The LIC Board had in effect decided upon a process of upgradation of pension by merger of DR with basic pension and providing appropriate weightage w.e.f 1/8/1997 which has logical extendibility to all future wage revisions for all retirees, both pre-August 1997 and post July-1997.
So our demand from LIC should be for implementation of the principle spelt out on DR merger with Basic Pension and upgradation with appropriate weightage for all pensioners and on all effective dates of wage revisions and not in a truncated manner by a narrower interpretation of the Board Resolution. Our arguments before the Supreme Court should also encompass the recognition of the afore-stated principle of upgradation-in-chain.
I am sure that the above points will be kept in view by our Federation while conducting the case in the Supreme Court.
Kind regards,
C H Mahadevan