.jpg) |
| BY PP DHAMIJA |
MY RESPONSE ON
SOME OF
THE POINTS RAISED BY MR. P.P. DHAMIJA
* For those employees who retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1987, as per Rule 35 of the Pension Rules, 1995, basic pension and additional pension were updated as per the formula given in Appendix-III.
In Appendix III,the principle that was followed was:
(1) for upgrading the basic pension and additional pension to the above category of employees by increasing the basic pension by a percentage ranging from 50% to 40% in three tapering slabs,
(2) calculating Dearness Relief at index no 600 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960-100 on the total arrived at 1) above , and
(3) Arriving at the total increased basic pension as at 1/11/1993 by adding the total as per1) &2) above to the 50% of average monthly emoluments.
By a careful study of Rule 35 and Appendix III of the Pension Rules 1995, it can be observed that the principle of upgradation of basic pension has been adopted by upgradation of pension by merger of DR with basic pension even on 1/11/1993 for the above category of retirees, but without any increase as is provided for in-service employees on wage revision.
> “The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board”.
This means that the DR anomaly from 1/11/1993 existing for pre-August 1997 retirees should be removed and pension should be upgraded by merging DR on 1/8/1997 with appropriate weightage;
> “The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997”.
What this means:
Here the Court has taken note of the change in pattern of the DR calculation ensuring parity between in-service employees and pensioners with 100% DR neutralization that has been adopted in the wage revisions effective from 1/8/1997 onwards. This is covered in the Board Resolution when it talks about giving effect to the proposal from 1/11/1993.
> “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”.
In Appendix III,the principle that was followed was:
(1) for upgrading the basic pension and additional pension to the above category of employees by increasing the basic pension by a percentage ranging from 50% to 40% in three tapering slabs,
(2) calculating Dearness Relief at index no 600 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960-100 on the total arrived at 1) above , and
(3) Arriving at the total increased basic pension as at 1/11/1993 by adding the total as per1) &2) above to the 50% of average monthly emoluments.
By a careful study of Rule 35 and Appendix III of the Pension Rules 1995, it can be observed that the principle of upgradation of basic pension has been adopted by upgradation of pension by merger of DR with basic pension even on 1/11/1993 for the above category of retirees, but without any increase as is provided for in-service employees on wage revision.
- Besides, DR for the Class III & IV pensioners who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997 was calculated by a different formula from that of Class I & II Officers who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/3/1993.This category of pensioners were also denied fixation of pension on 1/11/1993 based on wage revisions effected w.e.f 1/8/1992. the Only the officers of the latter cadres who had retired from 1/4/1993 to 31/7/1997 had the benefit of Pension Fixation and DR parity on 1/11/1993( or the date of retirement if later) on par with retired Class III & IV employees retired between 1/8/1992 & 31/7/1997.
- I beg to differ on the view that the Jaipur verdict revolves around the Board Resolution only.
> “The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board”.
This means that the DR anomaly from 1/11/1993 existing for pre-August 1997 retirees should be removed and pension should be upgraded by merging DR on 1/8/1997 with appropriate weightage;
> “The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997”.
What this means:
Here the Court has taken note of the change in pattern of the DR calculation ensuring parity between in-service employees and pensioners with 100% DR neutralization that has been adopted in the wage revisions effective from 1/8/1997 onwards. This is covered in the Board Resolution when it talks about giving effect to the proposal from 1/11/1993.
> “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”.
What this means:
By this, the Court has clearly focused on the prayer in WP No 654/2007 for revision of pension for existing pensioners whenever wage revisions for in-service employees take place. As a corollary, not only all the Pre-August 1997 retirees, but also the post-July 1997 retirees should get the benefit of revision of pension arising out of wage revisions taking place after their dates of retirements.
Although the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001, deals with merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 only with a weightage of 11.25%, the last sentence of the operative portion of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dt 12/1/2010 extends the scope of revision of pension beyond the Board Resolution.
* If the Jaipur verdict revolved around the Board Resolution only, Justice Bhandari need not have added the last two sentences.
While it is the Court which has to interpret the judgment in case of LIC disputing the aforesaid interpretations, while implementing the same, in my view, it will be too early to term a favourable interpretation as wishful thinking.
By this, the Court has clearly focused on the prayer in WP No 654/2007 for revision of pension for existing pensioners whenever wage revisions for in-service employees take place. As a corollary, not only all the Pre-August 1997 retirees, but also the post-July 1997 retirees should get the benefit of revision of pension arising out of wage revisions taking place after their dates of retirements.
Although the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001, deals with merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 only with a weightage of 11.25%, the last sentence of the operative portion of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dt 12/1/2010 extends the scope of revision of pension beyond the Board Resolution.
* If the Jaipur verdict revolved around the Board Resolution only, Justice Bhandari need not have added the last two sentences.
- I agree that the LIC Board Resolution confines itself only to pre-August 1997 retirees, may be providing restrictive upgradation only as at 1/8/1997.( The wage revisions w.e.f.1/8/2002 were notified only in 2005).
- But the judgment of Justice Bhandari, not only provides for upgradation as decided by the Board Resolution w.e.f 1/8/1997,but also provides for further upgradation-in-chain on subsequent wage revision dates, not only for pre-August 1997 retirees, but also for post- July, 1997 retirees on all wage revision dates 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 and also wage revision now overdue w.e.f 1/8/2012.We have also to remember that five out of the 27 writ petitioners in the Jaipur Writ Petitions were those who retired between 1/8/1997 and 31/7/2002 and the court had not excluded them from receiving the benefits that flow out of the judgment.
While it is the Court which has to interpret the judgment in case of LIC disputing the aforesaid interpretations, while implementing the same, in my view, it will be too early to term a favourable interpretation as wishful thinking.