(i)What the Board Resolution intends for pre-August 1997 retirees?
- · Rectification of DR anomaly before 1st August 1997 and 100% DR neutralization from 1/8/1997;
- · Merger of rectified DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997;
- · Upgradation of pension after such merger by providing 11.25%( presumably average) weightage( as was done for in-service employees) w.e.f. 1/8/1997;
- · Merger of DR with upgraded pension as at 1/8/1997 on 1/8/2002 and revision of pension upwardly by providing weightage as was done for in-service employees w.e.f 1/8/2002;
- · Even though the Board Resolution does not seem to have envisaged upgradation of pension beyond 31/7/2002, the principles spelt out in the Resolution for upgradation as at 1/8/1997 necessarily imply LIC’s adoption of the same on future wage revision dates as well. So the Board Resolution - albeit unintendly, but by implication- has provided for pension upgradation at the time of every wage revision.
- i. Implementation by LIC of its of Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 for which no approval was necessary from the Central Government;
- ii. Removal of DR anomaly existing before 1/8/1997;
- iii. No discrimination among pensioners based on the dates of retirement, i.e pension to existing retirees has to be revised on every wage revision for in-service employees.
- · Prayer made by the petitioners in the Writ Petition:
- (i) Striking out of date “1/8/1997” in LIC Wage Revision Notification dt 22/6/2000 and “1/8/2002” in the Notification dated 5/9/2005( The effect will be to provide for revising pension on substituted scales of pay on the wage revision dates);
- (ii) For issue of direction to LIC to fix pension on substituted scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable in scrapped pay scale as on the date of retirement on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits;
- (iii) Also award of interest at 12% on the difference in amount payable.
Writ petition allowed as similar relief prayed for has been granted by the Jaipur Bench.
D.WHAT DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DT 30/1/2013 PROVIDES
- · The law declared by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan HC has to be applied in rem;
- · Declaratory Relief granted;
- · Validity of Jaipur SJB decisions has been upheld subject to such decisions not being interdicted by the Supreme Court;
- · The Jaipur Bench decisions have not been interdicted by the Supreme Court for the following reasons:
(ii) Supreme Court has refused to stay the Jaipur SJB Order dt 12/1/2010 and also the Delhi HC Order dt 30/1/2013;
· The decision is to be treated in rem.
E.WHY CONCERTED EFFORTS BY ALL THREE SETS OF PETITIONERS MAKES SENSE
- · LIC Board Resolution has to be implemented in any case by LIC.It cannot stand apart from the three judgments; the benefits provided by the HCs stretch beyond the express benefits intended by the Board Resolution and obliterate the ambiguities that may be perceived in diverse interpretations;
- · Punjab & Haryana HC judgment in a way clarifies the scope of the Jaipur SJB Order by making upgradation required to be done on 1/8/2002 specific and further provides an extended benefit of interest at 12%.
- · Delhi HC judgment provides benefit in rem and LIC cannot implement Delhi judgment without implementing Jaipur SJB Order and LIC cannot implement Jaipur Order in a restricted manner overlooking the in rem prescription in Delhi HC case ;
- • If Jaipur is the solid foundation, Delhi is the spread eagle, while Chandigarh is the Colossus.
NOTE:
The areas under the circles only reflect the scope of (apparent)
benefits for pensioners and not their relative importance; from
the point of view of relative importance,Jaipur Judgment
stands out as the fulcrum of all the other two court decisions.
THE INDIAN SCENE by guruji
