DEAR ALL,
For quite sometime doubts were expressed in some quarters that the the Jaipur Justice Bhandari judgment does not envisage upgradation of pension at the time of every wage revision.
The *attached copy of Writ Petition No 654/2007 which was allowed by the Jaipur Single Judge Bench on 12/1/2010 received from Mr Asthana should set at rest all such doubts once and for all.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
***
S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. _______ of 2007
***
1. Krishna
Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri R.S.L. Asthana,
resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
2. K.L.
Malhotra, aged about 70 years, son of Shri D.M. Malhotra, 209, Girnar, Mahadev
Nagar, resident of Gandhi Path, Queens’ Road, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
3. Madan
Lal Khandelwal, aged about 69 years, son of Shri Banshidharji Khandelwal,
resident of 2971, Third Crossing, Uniara Raoji ka Rasta, Chandpole,
Jaipur-302001 (Senior Citizen)
4. A.P.
Tiwari, aged about 78 years, son of Shri G.L. Tiwari, resident of D-1, New
Durga Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur-302006 (Senior Citizen)
5. Ramesh
Chandra Khandelwal, aged about 70 yeas, son of Shri Kundan Lalji Khandelwal,
resident of 68/118, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
6. K.M.
Tahiliani, aged about 72 years, son of late Shri Moti Ram Tahiliani, resident
of 5-Ka-5, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Senior citizen)
7. Jas
Raj Mahnot, aged about 81 years, son of late Shri Girdhari Lal Mahnot, resident
of 4-Ya-8, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Senior citizen)
8. Kishinchand
B. Chainani, aged about 73 years, son of Shri Bhojraj Chainani, resident of
Vatika, 3-J-35, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur-302004 (Senior Citizen)
9. Raj Mal Hada, aged about 72 years, son of
late Shri Bhanwarlalji Hada, resident of 192, Mahaveer Nagar-I, Tonk Road,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
10. O.P. Sapra, aged about 71 years, son of
Shri Ghanshyam Das Sapra, resident of A-132, Ram Street, Raja Park,
Jaipur-302004 (Senior Citizen)
11. R.S. Dangayach, aged about 69 years, son
of Shri G.L. Dangayach, resident of 1, Khandela House, Sansar Chandra Road,
Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
12.
Chandra
Prakash Chug, aged about 64 years, 65 years, son of Shri Raj Kishan Chug,
resident of 107, Janakpuri-Ist, Imli Phatak, Jaipur
13.
Murli
Dhar Gupta, aged about 72 years, resident of Vishali, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
14.
Prem
Chand Sharma, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri Pooran Chand Sharma,
resident of 63, Vishnu Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
15.
Narain
S. Menghani, aged about 69 years, son of Shri Somjimal Menghani, resident of
121/62, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur-302020 (Senior Citizen)
16.
Anand
Singh, aged about 69 years, son of Shri Kehar Singhji, resident of M-15,
Madhuban Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 (Senior Citizen)
17.
Jagdish
Chandra Gupta, aged about 70 years, son of late Shri Panna Lal Gupta, resident
of C-13-E, Indrapuri, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Senior Citizen).
18.
M.R.
Badaya, aged about 67 yeas, son of Shri S.P. Badaya, resident of B-58, Saket
Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur-302004
19.
Rattan
K. Chhablani, aged about 70 years, son of Shri Keshwa Das, resident of 5A,
Mayur Colony, Mayo College Road, Ajmer (Senior Citizen)
20.
I.J.
Karnawat, aged about 69 years, son of late Shri Raan Lalji, resident of 2-Sagar
Darshan, Rani Road, Udaipur-313 001 (Senior Citizen)
21.
Ganesh
Lal Mehta, aged about 69 years, son of late Shri Arjun Lalji, resident of 117,
Chetak Marg, Chetak Circle, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
22.
Manohar
Lal Joshi, aged about 71 years, son of late Shri Shankar Lalji, resident of
Shiv Kripa, RHB, Opp. Water Tank, STD Tower, Udaipur Road, Banswara (Senior
Citizen)
23.
Shankar
Lal Sankhla, aged about 70 years, son of late Shri H.L. Sankhla, resident of
70-A, Chitrakoot Vihar, HMS No. 14,
Behind Shiv Mandir, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
24.
Roop
Lal Nagori, aged about 68 years, son of Shri Dhan Rajji, resident of 14, Glass
Factory, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
25.
Nand
Gopal Kapoor, aged about 70 years, son of late Shri Gian Chandji Kapoor,
resident of Plot No. 9, Nirmal Kutir, Opp. Boys Hostel, Vibhan Society, Udaipur
(Senior Citizen)
26.
A.
Miyajiwala, aged about 76 years, son of Shri Jiwajibhai, c/o Noble Bearing Tool
Company, 19, Ashwani Bazar, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
27.
B.L
Bhadawat, aged about 67 years, son of Shri M.L. Bhadawat, resident of HS-1,
Hiran Magri Sector-5, Udaipur (Senior Citizen)
28.
K.S.
Nigam, aged about 67 years, son of Shri K.B.L. Nigam, resident of B-35, Prabhu
Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Senior Citizen)
Petitioners
Versus
1.
Life
Insurance Corporation of India, through the Sr. Divisional Manager, Life
Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur
2. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Insurance, Government of India, New Delhi
Respondents
***
In the matter of
Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
AND
In the matter of
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995;
And In the matter of
Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of
Life Insurance Corporation of India Class II (Development Officers) (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of
Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III & IV (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And
In the matter of
Payment of Pension to the Petitioners as per the substituted Pay scales from time to time;
And
In the matter of
Revision of ex-gratia pension paid to pre-1986 retirees.
***
S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
***
To,
Shri Sacchidanand Jha,
Hon’ble Chief Justice and his Other
Companion Judges of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench
at Jaipur.
***
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,
The humble Petition of the Petitioners above named MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the Petitioners are citizens of India and are entitled to file the present writ petition in this Hon’ble Court. They are senior citizens.
2. That by filing the present writ petition the Petitioners are challenging the hostile discrimination in violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India by the Respondents by-
i) creation of several classes amongst the homogeneous class of pensioners on the basis of dates of their retirement and denial of revision of pension corresponding to the revised pay scales;
Different classes of pensioners have come up as under:-
a) those who retired after 1/1/1986 to 1992/1993,
b) those who retired from 1992/1993 to 1/7/1997,
c) those who retired from 1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002 and
d) those who retired after 1/8/2002.
in case this trend is not checked there will be further classes of pensioners at the time of revisions of pay-scales/pensions;
ii) the denial of enhancement of ex-gratia pension of pre-1986 retirees, though the same has been enhanced by the Central Government and other public sector Undertakings and Reserve Bank of India, thereby depriving them the right to live with some decency and not with mere animal existence .
3. That the Petitioners entered into the service of the Respondent Corporation and after serving formore than the qualifying period of service they retired from various posts on various dates. They were therefore entitled to full pension as per Rules.
4. That the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance notified on 28th June, 1995 the LifeInsurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Pension Rules’ for short). The Pension Rules were made applicable to the employees who were in service of the Corporation on or after 01/01/1986 on their exercising the option to be governed by the Pension Rules and refunding the contribution to Provident Fund of the Corporation with interest. However, for employees joining service after 28-06-1995, the Pension Rules were compulsory and the employees on retirement were to receive pension along with Dearness Relief as applicable. The Pension Scheme was in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund.
The important terms that are relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition as defined in the Pension Rules are as under:-
i) (j) “employee” means any person employed in the service of the Corporation on full-time work on permanent basis and who opts and is governed by these rules but does not include an employee retired before the commencement of these rules and who is drawing pension from the Pension Fund of the Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Company Limited . . .”
ii) (o) “pay” includes-
(a) in relation to an employee who had retired or died on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 1st day of November, 1993.-
i) the basic pay including the stagnation increments if any; and
ii) all allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance;
(b) in relation to an employee who retires or dies while in service on or after the 1st day of November, 1993,-
i) the basic pay including the stagnation increments if any,
ii) all allowances counted for the purposes of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance; and
iii) fixed personal allowance not exceeding the last increment in the scale of pay; and
iv) dearness allowance calculated upto Index number 1148 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960 = 100”.
iii) (p) “pension” includes the basic pension and the additional pension referred to in Chapter VI of these rules;
iv) (q) “pensioner” means an employee eligible for pension under these rules;
v) (t) “service Rules” includes,-
(i) the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
(ii) the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class II (Development Officers) (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
(iii). the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV employees (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985.
5. That Chapter VI of the Pension Rules provides for rate of pension. In sub rule (2) of Rule 35 it is provided that “In the case of an employee retiring in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules or of the Staff Regulations after completing a qualifying service of not less than thirty three years the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments”. As per the provisions of this Rule the Pension of a Pensioner shall be 50% of the basic pay as may be drawn by him, as defined above, on the date of retirement in the pay scale as applicable on that date. A copy of the Pension Rules shall be kept ready for the perusal of the Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the same.
6. That the Government of India in Ministry of Finance vide Notification dated 14th May, 1999 amended the definition of “pay” effective from 1st November, 1993. The amended definition reads as under:-
“(O) ‘pay’ includes:-
i) the basic pay including the stagnation increments, if any, and
ii) all allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and for the payment of dearness allowance; and
iii) fixed personal allowance not exceeding the last increment in the scale of pay; if any, and
iv) in a case conferred by the proviso to clause (j) or where the salary and other conditions have been fixed with the approval of the Central Government, the dearness allowance calculated upto Index No. 1148 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960=100 applied on the basic pay drawn by him in the scale of pay notified by the Central Government, for the post.
Provided that for the purpose of calculating average emoluments, as defined under sub-clause (d) of rule 2, in respect of employees whose ten months’ period before retirement falls partly under pre-revised pay scales and partly under the revised pay scales, the pay for the period for which they have drawn pay as per pre-revised scales may be updated by including the dearness allowance actually drawn by them or the dearness allowance upto the AICPI to which the revised basic pay is pegged, whichever is less”.
A copy of the Notification dated 14th May, 1999 is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE 1.
7. That the amendment in the pay scales of various classes of employees were made by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide Notifications dated 18/7/1996 and the pay scales were substituted and were made applicable from 1st August, 1992. The basic pension of the Petitioners were fixed as per Rules on the date of their retirement. Besides they were also granted an increment by way of Computer Allowance and the same was counted for purposes of pension and their basic pension was fixed at 50% of the pay so arrived at in respect of each of the Pensioners.
It is submitted that the Respondents illegally slashed the rates of Dearness Relief payable on pension while the Dearness Relief was payable at the same rates as were applicable in the Respondent Corporation on their basic pay for the basic pension is basic pay for purposes of grant of Dearness Relief. Therefore, the Petitioner No. 1 had filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6696 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and the same is pending decision in this Hon’ble Court.
8. That the Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued Notifications dated 22nd June, 2000 whereby Rule 4 of the Service Rules were substituted and the pay-scales of various classes of employees were made applicable from 1/8/1997. Definition of special pay continued to be the same, i.e. the last increment drawn by the employee in the respective pay scale. The fitment in the new pay scales was to be done on stage to stage basis. Thus the then existing scales of pay came to be substituted by the new pay scales and the old pay scales ceased to exist. A copy of the three Notifications dated 22nd June, 2000 are submitted herewith and the same are marked as ANEXURE 2, 3, 4 (for Class-I, for Class II and for Class III & IV respectively). Besides, stagnation increments were also applicable to some of the cadres on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the respective Notifications. The basic pay was therefore revised in terms of the substituted pay scales of all the employees as on 1/8/1997.
9. That the pay scales again came to be substituted vide Notification dated 5th September, 20issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance whereby new pay scales came to be substituted in place of the pay scales as existed on that date for all classes of employees. The rate of special allowance remained the same as the last drawn increment in the respective pay scales and stagnation increments were also granted to some of the cadres of employees. The fitment in the new pay scales was to be done on stage to stage basis. The scales of pay, which had come to be substituted from 1/8/1997 were again substituted on 1/8/2002 by fresh pay scales and the old pay scales ceased to exist. A copy of the three Notifications dated 5th September, 2005 are submitted herewith and the same are collectively marked as ANEXURE 5, 6, and 7 (for Class I, for Class II and for Class III and IV respectively).
10. That the rate of pension as per the Pension Rules is 50% of the basic pay to be calculated and counted as per the definition of ‘pay’ given herein above and the Petitioners were entitled to get the same but the Respondents have been paying the pension at the rate of 50% of the basic pay of the pay scale which does not exist at all even from 1/8/1997.
11. That as a result of various representations by pensioners and their regional Associations and all-India Federation, the Corporation had also passed a Resolution in its meeting held on 24/11/2001 to the following effect:
“Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there were 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 his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detailed. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1-11-1993 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 the 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 Petitioners had been trying to obtain certified copy of the aforesaid Resolution, which has now been received along with decision of the Appellate Authority under Right to Information Act. A copy of the decision of the Corporation dated 24/11/2001 with Note is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE 8. The Petitioners understand that the Corporation had passed a similar Resolution sometime in the year 2003 to do away the discrimination meted out to its pensioners on account of differential rates of Dearness Relief to pre-1/8/1997 retirees and updation of pension to pensioners but the Central Government did not respond to the same inspite of repeated requests by the Corporation and the Pensioners’ Association and All India Federation.
12. That from the perusal of the above decision of the Corporation (Board of Directors) it is clear that the Corporation appreciates the injustice done by it to the Pensioners but it has abdicated its duty by throwing the decision making process in the realm of the Central Government.
13. The Corporation is constituted as per the provisions of Section 4 of the L.I.C. Act, 1956 consisting of such number of persons not exceeding sixteen as the Central Government may think fit to appoint. Thus the Corporation is a delegatee of the Central Government and functions for and on behalf of the Central Government. It is a representative of the Central Government and its decision should therefore be binding on the Central Government. It is submitted that as per the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 the authority of the Central Government is limited to giving policy decisions of public interest and it cannot intervene in all the acts and decision of the Corporation nor can the Board be allowed to abdicate its duties. Section 48 of the LIC Act gives powers to the Central Government to make rules in certain matters as enumerated therein. By sub Section (2) clause (cc) the power has been given to the Central Government to frame Rules with regard to “the terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation, including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act”. The Central Government has made Pension Rules, which provides for the “pay” to be taken into account for the purpose of pension and the rate at which the pension is to be paid. Once the policy decision has been given by the Central Government it is for the Respondent Corporation to implement it and further intervention by the Central Government is ultra vires the powers vested in it by the Act. It is one of the day to day functions of the Corporation to calculate the pay in terms of that definition and it cannot abdicate its duties in this respect nor can the Central Government intervene.
14. That by no stretch of imagination the economic strength, the paying capacity of the Corporation, can be said to be having an adverse effect or the interests of the Policyholders in any manner whatsoever if the Corporation meets out its constitutional obligations and do justice to the pensioners. It is a management expense and it has to be met with even from the surplus after meeting the liabilities to the Policyholders. The Central Government which is enjoying the benefit out of the earnings of the Corporation is also liable to part with some of its earnings to meet with the fundamental rights and legitimate expectations of the Petitioners to live a life with human dignity and some decency at a time when after having given whole of their lives to the Corporation are crippling day by day due to advancing age. The Respondents have to meet with the obligations as a socialistic and welfare State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again made it clear that the duty cast on the State cannot be whittled down in any manner, either by pleading paucity of funds or otherwise. There is no paucity of funds in the present case.
15. That the Pension is being paid out of the Pension Fund, which comprises, inter alia of the contribution of the employer and other sources as mentioned in Rule 5 of the Pension Rules. Rule 5 provides for Contribution to the Pension Fund. Rule 5 is produced as under;-
“5. Constitution of the Fund- (1) The Corporation shall constitute a Fund to be called the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Fund under an irrevocable trust within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the notified date.
(2) The Corporation shall be a contributor to the Fund and shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under these Rules”.
Rule 7 of the Pension Rules provides for Composition of the Fund. It provides that the Fund shall consist of the following namely:-
(a) Contribution by the Corporation at the rate of ten percent per month of the pay of the employee.
Explanation: For the purpose of this rule ‘pay’ includes:
i) the basic pay;
ii) allowances other than dearness allowance which count for the purpose of making contribution to the Provident Fund and payment of dearness allowance;
iii) Dearness allowance payable on the basic pay and the allowances specified in clause (i) above, upto Index Number 1148 in the Quarterly average of the All India Consumer Price Index for industrial Workers in the series 1960=100, and
iv) Allowances to the extent they count for Provident Fund, House Rent Allowance, Gratuity and for refixation of salary on promotion.
PROVIDED that the Corporation shall not make any contribution to the account of the Provident Fund of the employee.
(b) the accumulated contributions of the Corporation to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon upto the date of such transfer in respect of the employee;
(c) the amount consisting of contribution of the Corporation along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the date of publication of the rules but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in the rules;
(d) the investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;
(e) amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund;
(f) the additional annual contribution made by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 11 of the Rules.
(g) any income from investments of the amounts credited to the Fund;
(h) the amount consisting of contribution of the Corporation along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.
Rule 11 of the Pension Rules provides-
“11. Actuarial Investigation of the Fund – The Corporation shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the fund every financial year, on the 31st day of March and make such additional contributions to the Funds as may be required to secure payment of the benefits, under these Rules.” (Emphasis supplied).
PROVIDED that the Corporation shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the Fund, as on the 31st day of March immediately following the financial year in which the Fund is constituted”.
Rule 13 of the Pension Rules provides for administration of the trust for payment of benefits by the trust. In Rule 13(b) it is provided that “the trust shall, subject to the availability of additional sums in the Fund, to be provided by the Corporation as required under rule 5(3) purchase additional annuities as and when it becomes necessary to revise upwards the benefits payable in accordance with these rules”.
It is thus clear that the Corporation is to make adequate contribution to the Fund to enable it to make payments of the Pension.
16. That as stated above the Respondent Corporation has created various categories of pensioners though they constitute a homogeneous class and the benefits of updation/liberalization of pension has to be extended equally to all retirees irrespective of their date of retirement and could not be confined only to those retired on or after a particular date. There cannot be mini-classification amongst pensioners on the basis of different dates of retirement. All the pensioners in the Respondent Corporation form a homogenous class and any further classification amongst them is a hostile discrimination and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
17. That the Pension Rules have been made applicable to all those who were in the service of the Corporation as on 1/1/1986 and the retirees prior to 1/1/1986 were granted an ex-gratia pension of Rs. 300=00 keeping in view the minimum pension payable at that time. There had been no change in the ex-gratia pension of such pensioners though there had been three revisions in pensions itself thereafter. Such pensioners, who are over 80 years of age, are compelled to live a life of utter misery and languishing without adequate means of food and cloth what to say of suitable nutrition and leisure in their old age when they are uncared for by their kiths and kins and the society as a whole. It is therefore the responsibility of the welfare State, as our country is, to take care of such persons in their old age and don’t let them live on the alms of others for they have also given whole of their life to the cause of the building and upbringing of the Respondent Corporation in particular and the nation as a whole. They also have some legitimate expectations from their employers in these days when they are fast approaching their end that they will be taken care of.
18. That the case of the Pensioners was being agitated by the All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation from time to time to the authorities of the Respondent Corporation as also to the Central Government, but no redress has been given to them and they are being put to great hardship in the old age. Copy of one such representation dated 31/7/2006 made by the Vice President of the said Federation is submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE 9. The Retired Insurance Employees’ Association, Jaipur has also made a representation to the Chairman of Respondent Corporation on 27th December, 2006 but the same has also not been able to elicit any favourable response. A copy of the said representation dated 27th December, 2006 is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE 10. Ultimately when the Respondents failed to do justice and pay pension as per the substituted pay scales and continued to pay the pension on the basis of non-existent pay scales nor have they implemented the decision of the Corporation dated 24/11/2001, notices of demand of justice were served on the respondents dated 16/12/2006 by the Petitioner No. 1 and 23/12/2006 by the Petitioner No. 2, a copy of which is submitted herewith and the same are marked as ANNEXURES 11 and 12 respectively. However, no action has been taken on the said notice and the pension of the Petitioners has not been revised as such the Petitioners having no other alternative are filing this writ petition on the following amongst other
G R O U N D S:
i) For that the action of the Respondent Corporation is wholly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination amongst the Pensioners in the matter of payment of pension on the basis of dates of their retirement and the same deserves to be declared violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
ii) For that the Petitioners are not given the benefit of revision of pension equivalent to the revision of pay scales from different dates on the ground that they have retired on a date earlier to the date of substitution of pay scales by the Notifications though they were members of the Pension Scheme on such dates of revision and as such all pensioners were entitled to be treated alike.
iii) For that the Pay scales have been substituted respectively from 1/8/1997 and 1/8/2002 scrapping the pay scales as existed on dates prior to those dates and as such the payment of pension on the basis of non-existent pay scales is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, for the purpose of calculation of pension the substituted pay scales will come into force and the pension has to be calculated on that basis and payable from the date of substitution.
iv) For that the “pay” has been defined in the Pension Rules vide clause (o) of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules, 1995 and the same exists even today. The “pay” as it exists on the date of payment of pension, therefore, can only be taken into consideration. But the Respondent Corporation by making payment of pension on the basis of non-existent pay scales are acting arbitrarily and discriminatorily in breach of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
v) For that the rate of pension has also been fixed as 50% of the basic pay. Since the pay scales have been substituted the Petitioners are entitled to 50% of the pay as is applicable to them at the stage where they were on the date of retirement but the Respondent Corporation has illegally and arbitrarily denied the same.
vi) For that it is settled law that a scheme of pension making liberal provision for those retiring after a specified date is discriminatory vis-à-vis those retiring earlier than that date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court invoked Arts. 14, 38(1), 39(e) and (d), 41 and 43(b), and even the word ‘socialist’ in Preamble to the Constitution to reach this result. The principal aim of a socialist state is to eliminate inequality in income, status and standards of life. The basic framework of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and, especially, to provide security from cradle to grave. Thus, amongst others on the economic side, envisages economic equality and equitable distribution of income. In the old age, socialism aims at providing an economic security to those who have rendered unto society what they were capable of doing when they were fully equipped with their mental and physical prowess.
vii) For that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has appreciated the need of revision of pensions and has held that “in the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount”. It is submitted that on the same considerations the pay scales of in-service employees are revised from time to time, therefore, the Pensioners are also entitled to be treated alike and when pay-scales are revised their pensions should also be revised commensurate with the revised pay scales.
viii) For that the Court can take judicial notice of the inflationary pressure and the erosion in the value of the rupee and direct escalation in the rate of pension particularly when such escalation had been admitted by similarly circumstanced employers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept the argument of lack of funds.
ix) For that Article 41 of the Constitution of India enjoins the state to ensure a reasonably decent standard of life, medical aid, freedom from want, freedom from fear and enjoyable leisure, relieving the boredom and the humility of dependence in the old age.
x) For that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again been ruling that in the case of pension retirees the obligation of the employer continues till the death of an employee and any revised scheme in respect of post-retirement benefits, if implemented with cut-off date, the same has to be applied to all the pensioners as they form one homogenous class.
xi) For that the Petitioners are members of the Pension scheme right from the date of notification of the Pension Rules, they are entitled to the amendment to the pension rules enhancing the pension or providing a new formula for computation of pension. It has been held in the case of V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India and others (1998) 8 SCC 30 that “where the amendment to the pension rules enhance the pension even the earlier retirees who at the time of retirement were eligible for pension and if he survives till the date of subsequent amendment of the pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension”. Thus the Petitioners being eligible for pension on the date of revision of pension i.e. 1/8/1997 and 1/8/2002 are entitled to the revised pension and they cannot be discriminated with other pensioners.
xii) For that the act of the Respondent Corporation is violative of the fundamental right of the Petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By the meager pension given to the Petitioners their life is devoid of human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
xiii) For that the right to life includes right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving along and mixing and mingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.
xiv) For that the dignity of the Petitioners is taken off from them as they are not able to live even the life, which employees subordinate to them but who retired after them, have more means to live with comfort while the Petitioners are devoid of even those means and their dignity is at peril. Their inability to meet with their daily needs and standard of life somewhat equal to what they had been availing has brought indignity amongst their equals who had retired at a later date.
xv) For that the right to life does not mean mere animal existence but some other finer facets of life, which includes life with human dignity, leisure and pleasure. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 922) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified “the right to life with human dignity” as “The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned”. In the case of the Petitioners the right to live with dignity has been snatched away by the Respondent Corporation.
xvi) For that as per the definition of the term “pensioner” as given in clause (q) read with the definition of the term “employee” as given in clause (j) of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules the Petitioners are also employees and are entitled to the benefit of substitution of higher pay scales and they cannot be discriminated merely on the ground that they have retired on a particular date. Their relations have not been snapped with the Respondent Corporation and they still continue to be employees of the Respondent Corporation only with a changed status as such all the employees whether in service or retired are entitled to equal treatment so far as the payment of pension is concerned.
xvii) For that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ruled that a pensioner does not snap his relations with the employer unlike the PF retiree. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Respondent Corporation to treat the pensioners equally with the employees in service in the matter of pay fixation 50% of which is the pension payable to them.
xviii) For that as per the Pension Rules it is the Respondent Corporation which has to meet with its liabilities arising out of Pension and has to provide such funds as are necessary for the purpose. The Pension is Management Expense and has to be met with out of its incomes.
xix) For that the Respondent Corporation is bound by its decision taken on 24/11/2001 and the Central Government cannot interfere in the day to day functions of the Corporation nor the Corporation can abdicate its duties.
xx) For that the Central Government has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in the day to day functioning of the Respondent Corporation. There is no provision in the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 that even in its day to day functioning the Respondent Corporation would be bound by the directions issued by the Central Government. The Central Government had invested a paltry sum of Rs. 5.00 crores at the time of nationalisation in the year 1956 towards the capital of the Respondent Corporation. It is settled law that even if entire shareholding of a Company or Public Undertaking is held by the President of India or his nominee, in its day to day functioning it is free to take its own decisions because in law it is a separate juristic entity. Even where a statute confers such a jurisdiction on the Central Government, the same must be held to be confined only to issue of directions on the questions of policy. Such policy decision, however, must be in relation to the activities of the Corporation under the Act and not de’hors the same. It cannot interfere in the day to day functions of the Board. In the instant case the Central Government is vested with the power of giving policy decision and the same has been exercised by making Pension Rules and implementation of the same rests with the Respondent Corporation. Therefore Respondent Corporation is bound to implement the decision it has taken in its meeting held on 24/11/2001. A writ of mandamus deserves to be issued to the Respondent Corporation to implement its decision dated 24/11/2001 and declared that approval of Union of India is not necessary.
xiv) For that the dignity of the Petitioners is taken off from them as they are not able to live even the life, which employees subordinate to them but who retired after them, have more means to live with comfort while the Petitioners are devoid of even those means and their dignity is at peril. Their inability to meet with their daily needs and standard of life somewhat equal to what they had been availing has brought indignity amongst their equals who had retired at a later date.
xv) For that the right to life does not mean mere animal existence but some other finer facets of life, which includes life with human dignity, leisure and pleasure. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 922) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified “the right to life with human dignity” as “The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilization which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned”. In the case of the Petitioners the right to live with dignity has been snatched away by the Respondent Corporation.
xvi) For that as per the definition of the term “pensioner” as given in clause (q) read with the definition of the term “employee” as given in clause (j) of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules the Petitioners are also employees and are entitled to the benefit of substitution of higher pay scales and they cannot be discriminated merely on the ground that they have retired on a particular date. Their relations have not been snapped with the Respondent Corporation and they still continue to be employees of the Respondent Corporation only with a changed status as such all the employees whether in service or retired are entitled to equal treatment so far as the payment of pension is concerned.
xvii) For that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also ruled that a pensioner does not snap his relations with the employer unlike the PF retiree. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Respondent Corporation to treat the pensioners equally with the employees in service in the matter of pay fixation 50% of which is the pension payable to them.
xviii) For that as per the Pension Rules it is the Respondent Corporation which has to meet with its liabilities arising out of Pension and has to provide such funds as are necessary for the purpose. The Pension is Management Expense and has to be met with out of its incomes.
xix) For that the Respondent Corporation is bound by its decision taken on 24/11/2001 and the Central Government cannot interfere in the day to day functions of the Corporation nor the Corporation can abdicate its duties.
xx) For that the Central Government has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere in the day to day functioning of the Respondent Corporation. There is no provision in the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 that even in its day to day functioning the Respondent Corporation would be bound by the directions issued by the Central Government. The Central Government had invested a paltry sum of Rs. 5.00 crores at the time of nationalisation in the year 1956 towards the capital of the Respondent Corporation. It is settled law that even if entire shareholding of a Company or Public Undertaking is held by the President of India or his nominee, in its day to day functioning it is free to take its own decisions because in law it is a separate juristic entity. Even where a statute confers such a jurisdiction on the Central Government, the same must be held to be confined only to issue of directions on the questions of policy. Such policy decision, however, must be in relation to the activities of the Corporation under the Act and not de’hors the same. It cannot interfere in the day to day functions of the Board. In the instant case the Central Government is vested with the power of giving policy decision and the same has been exercised by making Pension Rules and implementation of the same rests with the Respondent Corporation. Therefore Respondent Corporation is bound to implement the decision it has taken in its meeting held on 24/11/2001. A writ of mandamus deserves to be issued to the Respondent Corporation to implement its decision dated 24/11/2001 and declared that approval of Union of India is not necessary.
xxi) For that the Corporation is a representative body constituted by the members appointed by the Central Government and its decisions in its day to day functioning and management should be binding on the Central Government as well and no further approval should be necessary.
xxii) For that there was no justification and legal requirement for the Respondent Corporation to have sought for an approval of the Central Government for implementation of its decision dated 24/11/2001. Neither the Act makes it mandatory for the Corporation to seek prior approval of the Central Government nor the Corporation has been obtaining such approval in all respects. For example, in the matter of payment of Medical Allowance and Revision of Minimum Pension as also in the matter of Family Pension there is no provision in the Notifications issued on 22 June, 2000 and 5/9/2005 (Annexures 2 and 3) but the Corporation has exercised the power as is vested in it under the Pension Rules without approval of the Central Government. A copy of the Circular dated 18th October, 2005 is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE 15. The copies of the Instructions issued for implementation of pay-scales showing the hike in medical allowances to its employees consequent upon revision of pay scales will be kept ready for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the same before this Hon’ble Court. This proves that the Corporation has revised the Minimum Pension and Family Pension of its own accord. It cannot be allowed to make a pick and choose in the matter of exercise of its authority.
xxiii) For that the Petitioners are not challenging the cut-off date as fixed in the two notifications dated 22/6/2000 (Annexure 2) and dated 5/9/2005 (Annexure 3).
xxiv) For that admittedly the Pension Rules are based on C.C.S. Pension Rules and when the Central Government has been revising pensions simultaneously and automatically with revisions of pay scales for its own employees and for employees of its Undertakings and Instrumentalities then there is no justification in denying the same treatment to the Petitioners.
xxv) For that Rule 56 of the Pension Rules provides that matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made in these rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions in the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is submitted that there is no express provision with regard either to revision of pensions as also with regard to ex-gratia payment to pre-1986 retirees in the Pension Rules. Therefore, the provisions of C.C.S. Pension Rules will hold the ground and matters relating to these aspects will have to be governed by these rules.
xxvi) For that the pre-1986 retirees had been granted a paltry sum of Rs. 300=00 per month in the year 1997 to maintain themselves even though it was Rs. 600=00 in the Central Government. Several organizations such as Reserve Bank of India and even the Central Government has since revised the said ex-gratia amount from Rs. 300 to Rs. 600 and again to Rs. 800 looking to the inflationary trends in the country. The paltry sum is not even sufficient to meet with the expenses on survival of a person on his animal existence what to say of a suitable life. The number of pre-1986 retirees is very small for they have crossed the age of 80 years and above and their number is extinguishing every day. The Respondent Corporation has not conceded to the request of increasing their monthly ex-gratia commensurate with similar organizations. As a welfare State it is the responsibility of the Respondents to secure minimum income to crippled persons when they cannot earn, medical treatment suited to their needs when they are ill, welfare services for the old. But the Respondents have failed to fulfill their constitutional obligations towards such old persons in the hours of their need.
xxvii) For that the paltry sum of Rs. 300 per month given to pre-1986 retirees is much less than even the minimum daily wages given to labourers. It is not only below their dignity but also wholly insufficient to meet with their daily needs to fill in their stomach in these hard days. They have their right to live a life with leisure and human dignity and not merely to animal survival, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is the responsibility of the Respondents to provide them.
xxviii) For that the pre-1986 retirees have become crippled due to their old age and are unable to earn their livelihood while they have given their best during their hey days to the development of the Respondent Corporation. They have constitutional right to live a life of some substance in the fag end of their life as guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21. Merely because they are not members of the Pension scheme they cannot be left in lurch and deprived of their right to live more so when they are still part of the Respondent Corporation.
xxix) For that nothing in this world is static and everything has to change with the passage of time and changing situations and circumstances. The pay as paid before 1992 has changed thrice notwithstanding that the price rise was meted out by rise or fall in the dearness allowance and therefore the ex-gratia amount also needs a change to keep pace with the soaring prices and enabling such aged and crippled persons to live a suitable life.
xxx) For that even the minimum pension of Rs. 375/- per month payable to employees who retired before 1/8/1992 in the case of Class III or Class IV employees and before 1/4/1993 in the case of Class I and II Officers was upgraded to Rs. 720/- per month from those dates. Similarly those employees who retired on or after 1/8/1997 are paid the minimum pension of Rs. 1100=00 per month. The minimum pension has been fixed at Rs. 1480=00 per month in respect of employees who have retired on or after 1/8/2002. Then there is no justification in not revising ex-gratia payment to pre-1986 retirees commensurate with such minimum pensions.
xxxi) For that other grounds in support of the present writ petition will be submitted at the time of hearing of the same before this Hon’ble Court.
19. That the Petitioners have no other alternative muchless efficacious remedy for the redress of their grievance and injustice being perpetrated to them except to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. That the Petitioners have not filed any other writ petition in the subject matter of the present case either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
RELIEF PRAYED FOR:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition and -
(a) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof declare that all pensioners form one class and differential treatment of pensioners on the basis of date of retirement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(b) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondent Corporation to fix the pay of the Petitioners in the substituted pay scales equivalent to their stage of pay in the scrapped pay scale on the date of their retirements and pay pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on and 1-8-92/1-11-1993 and on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits;
(c) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondent Corporation to pay to the pre-1986 retirees the ex-gratia as per C.C.S. (Pension) Rules;
(d) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondents to correspondingly enhance the pension payable to the retirees as and when pay scales are revised irrespective of their dates of retirement;
(e) award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on arrears of pension;
(f) award costs of this writ petition to the Petitioners; and
(g) award such other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present so as to give full relief to the Petitioners.
Humble Petitioners
Through their Counsel:
(ABHINAV SHARMA
and ABHISHEK SHARMA)
Advocates
Jaipur
January _____, 2007
Notes:
1. No such other writ petition has been filed in the subject matter of the present case either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Process fee, summons and extra copies will be submitted within three days of admission.
3. That vires of none of the Acts has been challenged in the present writ petition and as such the same is maintainable before a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
4. This writ petition has been typed by our private Stenographer on stout papers since pie papers were not readily available.
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
***
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. _____ of 2007
***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana
and others Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
and others Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri R.S.L. Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001, do hereby take oath and state as under:-
1. That I am one of the Petitioners in the present case and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the same.
2. That the annexed writ petition has been drafted by the Counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same have been read and understood by me well.
3. That the facts contained in paras 1 to 20 of the annexed writ petition are correct to my knowledge and the legal averments made therein are based on legal advice and the same are believed by me to be correct.
Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana,, Deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 above are correct to my knowledge, nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD.
Verified at Jaipur this ________ day of January, 2007.
Deponent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
***
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. _____ of 2007
***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana
and others Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
and others Respondents
***
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
ANNEXURES TO THE WRIT PETITION
***
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri K.M.L. Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001,, do hereby take oath and state as under:-
1. That I am one of the Petitioners in the present case and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the same.
2. That Annexures 1 to 13 are the true and correct Photostat copies of the relevant documents which are available with the Petitioners.
Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, Deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 and 2 above are correct to my knowledge, nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD.
Verified at Jaipur this ________ day of January, 2007.
Deponent
xxii) For that there was no justification and legal requirement for the Respondent Corporation to have sought for an approval of the Central Government for implementation of its decision dated 24/11/2001. Neither the Act makes it mandatory for the Corporation to seek prior approval of the Central Government nor the Corporation has been obtaining such approval in all respects. For example, in the matter of payment of Medical Allowance and Revision of Minimum Pension as also in the matter of Family Pension there is no provision in the Notifications issued on 22 June, 2000 and 5/9/2005 (Annexures 2 and 3) but the Corporation has exercised the power as is vested in it under the Pension Rules without approval of the Central Government. A copy of the Circular dated 18th October, 2005 is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE 15. The copies of the Instructions issued for implementation of pay-scales showing the hike in medical allowances to its employees consequent upon revision of pay scales will be kept ready for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court at the time of hearing of the same before this Hon’ble Court. This proves that the Corporation has revised the Minimum Pension and Family Pension of its own accord. It cannot be allowed to make a pick and choose in the matter of exercise of its authority.
xxiii) For that the Petitioners are not challenging the cut-off date as fixed in the two notifications dated 22/6/2000 (Annexure 2) and dated 5/9/2005 (Annexure 3).
xxiv) For that admittedly the Pension Rules are based on C.C.S. Pension Rules and when the Central Government has been revising pensions simultaneously and automatically with revisions of pay scales for its own employees and for employees of its Undertakings and Instrumentalities then there is no justification in denying the same treatment to the Petitioners.
xxv) For that Rule 56 of the Pension Rules provides that matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made in these rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions in the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is submitted that there is no express provision with regard either to revision of pensions as also with regard to ex-gratia payment to pre-1986 retirees in the Pension Rules. Therefore, the provisions of C.C.S. Pension Rules will hold the ground and matters relating to these aspects will have to be governed by these rules.
xxvi) For that the pre-1986 retirees had been granted a paltry sum of Rs. 300=00 per month in the year 1997 to maintain themselves even though it was Rs. 600=00 in the Central Government. Several organizations such as Reserve Bank of India and even the Central Government has since revised the said ex-gratia amount from Rs. 300 to Rs. 600 and again to Rs. 800 looking to the inflationary trends in the country. The paltry sum is not even sufficient to meet with the expenses on survival of a person on his animal existence what to say of a suitable life. The number of pre-1986 retirees is very small for they have crossed the age of 80 years and above and their number is extinguishing every day. The Respondent Corporation has not conceded to the request of increasing their monthly ex-gratia commensurate with similar organizations. As a welfare State it is the responsibility of the Respondents to secure minimum income to crippled persons when they cannot earn, medical treatment suited to their needs when they are ill, welfare services for the old. But the Respondents have failed to fulfill their constitutional obligations towards such old persons in the hours of their need.
xxvii) For that the paltry sum of Rs. 300 per month given to pre-1986 retirees is much less than even the minimum daily wages given to labourers. It is not only below their dignity but also wholly insufficient to meet with their daily needs to fill in their stomach in these hard days. They have their right to live a life with leisure and human dignity and not merely to animal survival, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is the responsibility of the Respondents to provide them.
xxviii) For that the pre-1986 retirees have become crippled due to their old age and are unable to earn their livelihood while they have given their best during their hey days to the development of the Respondent Corporation. They have constitutional right to live a life of some substance in the fag end of their life as guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21. Merely because they are not members of the Pension scheme they cannot be left in lurch and deprived of their right to live more so when they are still part of the Respondent Corporation.
xxix) For that nothing in this world is static and everything has to change with the passage of time and changing situations and circumstances. The pay as paid before 1992 has changed thrice notwithstanding that the price rise was meted out by rise or fall in the dearness allowance and therefore the ex-gratia amount also needs a change to keep pace with the soaring prices and enabling such aged and crippled persons to live a suitable life.
xxx) For that even the minimum pension of Rs. 375/- per month payable to employees who retired before 1/8/1992 in the case of Class III or Class IV employees and before 1/4/1993 in the case of Class I and II Officers was upgraded to Rs. 720/- per month from those dates. Similarly those employees who retired on or after 1/8/1997 are paid the minimum pension of Rs. 1100=00 per month. The minimum pension has been fixed at Rs. 1480=00 per month in respect of employees who have retired on or after 1/8/2002. Then there is no justification in not revising ex-gratia payment to pre-1986 retirees commensurate with such minimum pensions.
xxxi) For that other grounds in support of the present writ petition will be submitted at the time of hearing of the same before this Hon’ble Court.
19. That the Petitioners have no other alternative muchless efficacious remedy for the redress of their grievance and injustice being perpetrated to them except to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.
20. That the Petitioners have not filed any other writ petition in the subject matter of the present case either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
RELIEF PRAYED FOR:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition and -
(a) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof declare that all pensioners form one class and differential treatment of pensioners on the basis of date of retirement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
(b) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondent Corporation to fix the pay of the Petitioners in the substituted pay scales equivalent to their stage of pay in the scrapped pay scale on the date of their retirements and pay pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on and 1-8-92/1-11-1993 and on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits;
(c) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondent Corporation to pay to the pre-1986 retirees the ex-gratia as per C.C.S. (Pension) Rules;
(d) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direct the Respondents to correspondingly enhance the pension payable to the retirees as and when pay scales are revised irrespective of their dates of retirement;
(e) award interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on arrears of pension;
(f) award costs of this writ petition to the Petitioners; and
(g) award such other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present so as to give full relief to the Petitioners.
Humble Petitioners
Through their Counsel:
(ABHINAV SHARMA
and ABHISHEK SHARMA)
Advocates
Jaipur
January _____, 2007
Notes:
1. No such other writ petition has been filed in the subject matter of the present case either in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. Process fee, summons and extra copies will be submitted within three days of admission.
3. That vires of none of the Acts has been challenged in the present writ petition and as such the same is maintainable before a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
4. This writ petition has been typed by our private Stenographer on stout papers since pie papers were not readily available.
Advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
***
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. _____ of 2007
***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana
and others Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
and others Respondents
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WRIT PETITION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri R.S.L. Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001, do hereby take oath and state as under:-
1. That I am one of the Petitioners in the present case and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the same.
2. That the annexed writ petition has been drafted by the Counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same have been read and understood by me well.
3. That the facts contained in paras 1 to 20 of the annexed writ petition are correct to my knowledge and the legal averments made therein are based on legal advice and the same are believed by me to be correct.
Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana,, Deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 above are correct to my knowledge, nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD.
Verified at Jaipur this ________ day of January, 2007.
Deponent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
***
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. _____ of 2007
***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana
and others Petitioners
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India
and others Respondents
***
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
ANNEXURES TO THE WRIT PETITION
***
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years, son of late Shri K.M.L. Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001,, do hereby take oath and state as under:-
1. That I am one of the Petitioners in the present case and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the same.
2. That Annexures 1 to 13 are the true and correct Photostat copies of the relevant documents which are available with the Petitioners.
Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, Deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 and 2 above are correct to my knowledge, nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD.
Verified at Jaipur this ________ day of January, 2007.
Deponent