the GOI order in a tribunal case advising the
department of pension to implement the apex
court order qua petitioners to pay arrears only
from 1-1-2006 to the petitioners who had
approached or filed cases with the Central
administrative Tribunal.
In this context the
writer observed that this is utter disregard to
other similarly placed pre-2006 affected pensioners
and violated Article 14 of the constitution. This of
course is borne out of the fear that a similar
situation may arise in our case too when the SC
decides our cases by 12/13 NOVEMBER.
In this connection I have the following to state to allay any fear : -
1. In SC case No. Appeal(Civil) NO 1289/2007 in Para 25 of the judgment it has been held………that revision of scales of pay as also other allowances are technical in nature. When a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof, must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees.
2. In Delhi HC judgment: WP(C)) 184/2007 it is ruled “ There being complete identity of the issues raised we would further record that concededly the law declared by the Jaipur bench has to be applied in rem subject to the decision of the Rajasthan HC not being interdicted by the SC (Which we hope so) If SLP is dismissed or upon leave to appeal being granted but the civil appeal being dismissed (We pray for it) LIC WOULD GIVE BENEFIT OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE RAJASTHAN HC TO ALL THE PENSIONERS and would treat the decision in rem. If the SC were to differ LIC would act accordingly by ignoring the view taken by the Rajasthan HC.
3. In SC order D/4-9-2012 1V CPC (Rank pay case) IA NO 9 in TP(C) NO 56/2007 it was clarified that this order shall govern all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ petition which are pending before various courts.
4. In K.A. Ansari & others V Indian Airlines on 28-11-2008 the SC held that difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the court however grave its effect may be is no answer for its non-implementation. If the order was not clear it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said order. IA cannot circumvent the order on any ground whatsoever (In our case no question of amending pension rules and Gazette notification)
As only few weeks are left for the final hearing in SC Pensioners become restless which give rise to many doubts in their mind and perhaps this write up could minimize that to some extent and is for legal experts to supplement it if required.
R.K.Viswanathan
1. In SC case No. Appeal(Civil) NO 1289/2007 in Para 25 of the judgment it has been held………that revision of scales of pay as also other allowances are technical in nature. When a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof, must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees.
2. In Delhi HC judgment: WP(C)) 184/2007 it is ruled “ There being complete identity of the issues raised we would further record that concededly the law declared by the Jaipur bench has to be applied in rem subject to the decision of the Rajasthan HC not being interdicted by the SC (Which we hope so) If SLP is dismissed or upon leave to appeal being granted but the civil appeal being dismissed (We pray for it) LIC WOULD GIVE BENEFIT OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE RAJASTHAN HC TO ALL THE PENSIONERS and would treat the decision in rem. If the SC were to differ LIC would act accordingly by ignoring the view taken by the Rajasthan HC.
3. In SC order D/4-9-2012 1V CPC (Rank pay case) IA NO 9 in TP(C) NO 56/2007 it was clarified that this order shall govern all similarly situated officers who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ petition which are pending before various courts.
4. In K.A. Ansari & others V Indian Airlines on 28-11-2008 the SC held that difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the court however grave its effect may be is no answer for its non-implementation. If the order was not clear it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said order. IA cannot circumvent the order on any ground whatsoever (In our case no question of amending pension rules and Gazette notification)
As only few weeks are left for the final hearing in SC Pensioners become restless which give rise to many doubts in their mind and perhaps this write up could minimize that to some extent and is for legal experts to supplement it if required.
R.K.Viswanathan