PP DHAMIJA

        

THE PENSION SCHEME FOR LIC EMPLOYEES CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST NOVEMBER 1993 AND COVERED EMPLOYEES WHO WERE IN SERVICE ON 01.01.1986 AND RETIRED THEREAFTER AND WERE IN SERVICE ON 28th JUNE’ 1995, THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION AND ALSO WHO JOINED AFTER 28.06.1995.

• THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 01.01.1986 WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PENSION SCHEME. HOWEVER, ON REGULAR FOLLOW UP BY VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS, AN EX-GRATIA WAS GIVEN TO SUCH RETIREES.

THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED AFTER 01.01.1986 AND BEFORE 01.11.1993, THE DEARNESS RELIEF WAS TO BE PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE ON THE BASES OF EVERY 4 POINTS OVER 600 POINTS IN THE QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ALL INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN THE SERIES 1960=100.

THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1st NOVEMBER’ 1993, DEARNESS RELIEF WAS TO BE PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE ON THE BASIS OF EVERY 4 POINTS OVER 1148 POINTS IN THE QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF THE ABOVE SERIES 1960=100.

THE PAY SCALES OF THE EXISTING EMPLOYEES WERE REVISED IN 1997 AND PART OF D.A. WAS MERGED IN THE BASIC PAY AND BENEFIT OF 100% NEUTRALISATION WAS GIVEN AFTER 1748 POINTS. THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1st AUGUST’ 1997, THE RATE OF DEARNESS RELIEF PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE WAS DIFFERENT.

SHRI K.M.L. ASTHANA FILED A W.P. IN JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (SBCWP NO. 6676/1998) FOR PAYMENT OF D.R. AS WAS BEING PAID TO IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND THOSE WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 01.08.1997 (AND ALSO FOR GRANT OF STAGNATION INCREMENT WHICH WAS NOT PRESSED). SHRI K.M.L. ASTHANA FILED ANOTHER W.P. (SBCWP NO.654/2007) FOR INCREASE IN PENSION WITH REVISION OF PAY SCALES OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES FROM 01.08.2002, 01.08.2007.

SIMILAR CASES WERE FILED IN OTHER COURTS LIKE CHANDIGARH, DELHI, ALLAHABAD, KERALA ETC.

• THE CASES OF MR. ASTHANA WERE DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 12.01.2010 BY SINGLE JUGDE AND IS CONSIDERED AS THE BASIC REMARKABLE JUGDMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS. THE JUDGMENT OF SINGLE JUDGE WAS UPHELD BY THE DIVISION BENCH AND APPEAL OF L.I.C. WAS DISMISSED.

THE CHANDIGARH CASE CWP NO. 16346/2010 MADAN LAL GANDHI AND OTHER VS. U.O.I. WAS DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 09.11.2012 ON THE SAME LINES AS JAIPUR H.C. DECISION WITH ADDITION THAT INTEREST @ 12% WAS ALSO PAYABLE.

THE DELHI H.C. CASE ( NO. WP 184/2007) THE FEDERATION OF RETIRED CLASS I OFFICERS FEDERATION AND OTHER VS. UOI AND LIC WAS ALSO DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 30.01.2013 ON THE LINES OF JAIPUR H.C. DECISION WITH FURTHER ADDITION THAT THE DECISION WILL APPLY ‘IN REM’ i.e. TO ALL CONCERNED. 

THERE ARE TWO MAIN ISSUES ON WHICH THERE IS LOT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND CONFUSION.

1. THE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001.
2. THE JAIPUR H.C. DECISION BY HON’BLE JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI DATED 12.01.2010.

1. LET US FIRST STUDY THE BOARD RESOLUTION:

• “ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS THREE DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS AT PRESENT DEPENDING ON THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENT, WHICH CAUSE CONSIDERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INCONVENIENCE. CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT HE HAS SINCE RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM DR. S. RAM KHANNA, BOARD MEMBER, WHICH REFERS TO THE MEETING WITH THE RETIREES FEDERATION AND REQUESTED EXAMINING THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL. THE NOTE IS IN LINE WITH THE DEMANDS MADE BY THE FEDERATION VIZ. GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROPOSAL FROM 01.11.1993 AND UPGRADATION BY GIVING WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% AS IN THE CASE OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES. 

• "CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THESE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PLACING THE MATTER TO THE BOARD AND IT WAS FELT THAT THE SAME WOULD INCREASE FINANCIAL BURDEN VERY SUBSTANTIALLY AND MAY BE UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE CORPORATION. 

• "CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL MADE HAVE BEEN ACTUARIALLY DETERMINED AT RS. 51.37 CRORES AND THE ANNUAL OUTLAY BE IN THE REGION OF 6 TO 8 CRORES. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION THE BOARD APPROVED THE PROPOSAL AND SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED PROSPECTIVELY AND AFTER OBTAINING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.”

THE BOARD RESOLUTION IS VERY CLEAR. SINCE THERE WERE PREVAILING THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULA FOR CALCULATION OF THE DEARNESS RELIEF, THE E.D.(P) SOUGHT TO GET THE DR FORMULA MADE APPLICABLE ON UNIFORM BASIS. THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING UNIFORMITY IN THE PROCESS OF CALCULATION OF DR FOR ALL THE PENSIONERS. FOR THIS IT WAS SUGGESTED TO GIVE WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% IN THE PENSION OF EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 01.08.1997 AS WAS DONE FOR IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND MAKE THE DR UNIFORM FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS.

DIFFERENT PERSONS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETTING THE BOARD RESOLUTION DIFFERENTLY IN THEIR OWN WAY.

• (i) THERE IS ONE OPINION THAT THE BOARD RESOLUTION WAS MEANT TO MAKE THE PATTERN OF DR UNIFORM FOR ALL PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT.
• (ii) THE OTHER VIEW IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF GIVING WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% WAS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF REVISION OF PAY SCALES GIVEN TO IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES MAY BE GIVEN TO THE PENSIONERS ALSO AND SIMILAR BENEFIT WILL BE GIVEN IN FUTURE ALSO WHENEVER THE PAY SCALES ARE REVISED.

2. NOW LET US COME TO THE SECOND ISSUE — THE FINAL DECISION OF HON’BLE JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI:

THE JUDGMENT OF SINGLE JUDGE RELATES TO TWO W.PS. — ONE FOR RESTORATION OF DR AND THE OTHER FOR UPGRADATION OF PENSION. THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS DISCUSSED THE BOARD RESOLUTION AND IMPRESSED UPON THE CORPORATION FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION. THE SINGLE JUDGE HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS DECIDED CASES AND ALSO SECTION 21 OF L.I.C. ACT AND OBSERVED THAT 

THE APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED.

IN REFERENCE TO THE SECOND W.P. No. 654/2007, THE JUDGMENT ALSO STATES:

• “LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE EXISTS ANOMALY EVEN IN REGARD TO THE REVISION OF PAY SCALES. THE BENEFIT OF REVISION IN THE PAY SCALES 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 ALONGWITH THE FIRST ISSUE BY THE BOARD IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 24.11.2001 AND FOLLOWING DECISION WAS TAKEN”.

THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE HAS GIVEN HIS FINAL JUDGMENT AS UNDER:

• “ IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE BOARD OF LIC DOES NOT NEED APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THUS THE CORPORATION MAY GIVE EFFECT TO ITS RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001 TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION AMONGST EXISTING PENSIONERS.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE ABOVE, BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS ARE ALLOWED. THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION IS DIRECTED TO TAKE A DECISION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001 PASSED BY THE BOARD. THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION CANNOT PROVIDE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR GRANT OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCE TO THE EXISTING PENSIONERS BASED ON CUT OFF DATE i.e.  31.07.1997. 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. COSTS MADE EASY”.

NOW IF WE GO THROUGH THE JUDGMENT, THE VERDICT REVOLVES AROUND THE BOARD RESOLUTION ONLY. THE JUDGE AGREES THAT THERE IS DISPARITY IN THE PENSION WHEN A SENIOR EMPLOYEE RETIRES TODAY AND A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE RETIRES AT A LATER STAGE THE JUNIOR WILL BE GETTING HIGHER PENSION. BUT THE JUDGMENT STATES THAT THE BOARD RESOLUTION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.J. IS REVOLVING AROUND THE BOARD RESOLUTION WHICH REQUIRES TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE APPROPRIATE COURT/AUTHORITY.

WE ALL ARE INTERPRETING THE JUDGMENT IN OUR OWN FAVOUR AND ARE HOPING THAT OUR BASIC PENSION WILL BE REVISED FROM 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 AND SO ON AND WE SHALL BE GETTING THE SAME PENSION AS EMPLOYEES RETIRING TODAY OR YEARS LATER IN OUR CADRE/GRADE. I WISH IT SHOULD HAPPEN WHICH WILL BE THE HAPPIEST OCCASION FOR ALL L.I.C. PENSIONERS. BUT THIS IS  WISHFUL THINKING. WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT GRANTED ANY STAY TO THE CORPORATION WHICH IS ANOTHER FAVOURABLE FACTOR. BUT TO GET IMPLEMENTATION FROM THE HIGH COURT THROUGH CONTEMPT CASES OR OTHERWISE IS NOT GOING TO HELP AS THE CIVIL APPEAL IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. MOREOVER THE S.C. IS LIKELY TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF L.I.C. ABOUT SECTION 48 WHERE THE POWERS VEST IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE GONE AND IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW MANY MORE YEARS WILL BE LOST IN THE LEGAL BATTLE. HOW MUCH MONEY THE PENSIONERS HAVE PAID TOWARDS THE LEGAL EXPENSES CAN BE IMAGINED. WITH OUR LONG EXPERIENCE WE KNOW THAT L.I.C. HAS NO POWERS AND CANNOT TAKE ANY DECISION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT GIVE ANY DECISION UNLESS THERE IS A FINAL DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. THEN WHY TO WASTE OUR TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY IN THE LOWER COURTS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I HAVE TRIED TO GIVE A BRIEF PICTURE ABOUT THE PENSION CASE. THESE ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND MAY DIFFER FROM SOME SENIOR LEGAL EXPERTS. BUT LET US BE REALISTIC AND WAIT FOR A CLEAR VERDICT FROM THE APEX COURT.

HAPPY RAM NAVMI TO ALL RETIREE FRIENDS.

P.P. DHAMIJA,09810186067