Dear Gangadharan ji we are highly obliged for your
yeomen services in providing free and frank
communications amongst our pensioners.
We appreciate your problems in running the blog.
Then there is no need for regrets.
I think it is better late than never.
SRI Venugopalan found 4 unfavourable points in pensioners case. The first one Upgradation Provision in our pension rules from legal angle. At the cost of repetition I may be allowed to clarify that
(1) L.I.C is a State as per Article 12 of the constitution.
(2) The Pension Rules are framed U/S 48 of the L.I.C Act. So they have the force of law.
(3) Rule 36 relating to the Min. Pension enshrines the principle of updation with each wage revision of pay scales.
(4) Rule 56 helps us to be eligible for the benefits that are available to the Central Govt Employees.
- This Rule does not provide for the approval of the G.O.I. where as the similar Rule 56 created for the Employees of the nationalised Banks clearly provided for the approval of the G.O.I to enable the Bank retirees to get the benefit availed by the Govt. Employees.
(5) The G.O.I empowered the L.I.C by G.O 553 Dt. 22-6-2000 to amend pension rules relating to Min.Pension, D/R, and Family pension. L.I.C recognized the hardships to the pre August 97 pensioners on D/R which is also inconvenient for the management. L.I.C also realized the need to update the pension in view of Rule 56. So the Board passed a Resolution in Nov.2001 and sought approval of the G.O.I ( as a measure of abundant caution). Kindly note that the G.O 553 gave power to LIC to amend the rules on D/R and the Rule 56 does not provide for Govt. approval. However when the matter was presented to the G.O.I the Govt. should have acted spontaneously in view of the provision of Rule 55A (power to relax) . This is a positive rule and Govt. can not use this to negate the recommendations of the L.I.C.
Further the Govt. can not use Sec. 48 to create Rules that are illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and violate the constitution Article 14 and 41. The article 41 of our Constitution takes care of the Sr. Citizens. The well being of Sr.Citizens is mandated by the constitution under Article 41. It says “ the state shall within the limits of of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the the right to public assistance in cases of old age”. The right to equality is guaranteed by the constitution as fundamental Right (Article 14). Social Security is the concurrent responsibility of the Central and State Govts. The G.O.I is a signatory to all these Documents demonstrating its commitment to address the concerns of the ELDERLY. The Ministry of Social Justice &Empowerment coordinate programmes to be undertaken by other Ministries to support OLDER PERSONS. Land Mark legislation was piloted by the Ministry of Social Justice MAINTENANCE OF WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SR. CITIZENS ACT 2007”. ( Quote from NATIONAL POLICY FOR SR.CITIZENS MARCH 2011). Pl. see www.social justice.nic.in/pdf/dnpc.pdf.
So as per this policy the Central and State Govts allocate huge funds running into thousands of crores to provide OLD AGE PENSION to Sr. Citizens, women, physically challenged, freedom fighters etc. and these pensions are being updated despite the heavy deficit Budgets of the Govts. The retirees of central and state Govts., Railways, Ports are enjoying the benefit of updation.”
The Second one is SEC.48 is an impediment.The L,I.C ACT provided for Sec.48 and amended in 1981. The items a to j of this section give authority to Govt to make rules. Our pension Rules were made as per this Sec.48. The million dollar question is, does Sec.48 empower the GOVT. to create Rules which are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violate the constitution.
Further the Govt. can not use Sec. 48 to create Rules that are illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and violate the constitution Article 14 and 41. The article 41 of our Constitution takes care of the Sr. Citizens. The well being of Sr.Citizens is mandated by the constitution under Article 41. It says “ the state shall within the limits of of its economic capacity and development make effective provision for securing the the right to public assistance in cases of old age”. The right to equality is guaranteed by the constitution as fundamental Right (Article 14). Social Security is the concurrent responsibility of the Central and State Govts. The G.O.I is a signatory to all these Documents demonstrating its commitment to address the concerns of the ELDERLY. The Ministry of Social Justice &Empowerment coordinate programmes to be undertaken by other Ministries to support OLDER PERSONS. Land Mark legislation was piloted by the Ministry of Social Justice MAINTENANCE OF WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SR. CITIZENS ACT 2007”. ( Quote from NATIONAL POLICY FOR SR.CITIZENS MARCH 2011). Pl. see www.social justice.nic.in/pdf/dnpc.pdf.
So as per this policy the Central and State Govts allocate huge funds running into thousands of crores to provide OLD AGE PENSION to Sr. Citizens, women, physically challenged, freedom fighters etc. and these pensions are being updated despite the heavy deficit Budgets of the Govts. The retirees of central and state Govts., Railways, Ports are enjoying the benefit of updation.”
The Second one is SEC.48 is an impediment.The L,I.C ACT provided for Sec.48 and amended in 1981. The items a to j of this section give authority to Govt to make rules. Our pension Rules were made as per this Sec.48. The million dollar question is, does Sec.48 empower the GOVT. to create Rules which are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violate the constitution.
When this aspect is observed by the management and decided to take remedial steps can the Govt. insist the continuation of these rules which are illegal on the face of it. When three High Courts ordered to render justice to the pensioners as envisaged by the Management itself, can Govt ignore the matter in adamant and nonchalant way. Article 41 mandates the well being of the Sr.citizens. Govt. is duty bound to set right the rules. How the Govt. ignore rule 55A. Rules are created for implementation especially when they are favourable to the related people like pensioners. The rules are not for window dressing. Bad rules should be made good by the powers that be.
The 3rd point is on ripple effect. As you sow, so you reap. The Govt. is bound by the constitution, national policy on Sr. citizens, Human Rights. When the Central and State Govts arrange updation of pension to their employees and create Rules to extend the benefit of updation to the L.I.C pensioners, how they can flout the Rules. Further the govt. has no financial burden if updation is implemented. The financial position of L.I.C is well known and the L.I.C logo depicts “YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM”. THE RIPPLE EFFECT IS ONLY TO CRIPPLE OUR LEGITIMATE DUES WHICH SHALL NOT PASS LEGALLY ETHICALLY OBJECTIVELY.
The 3rd point is on ripple effect. As you sow, so you reap. The Govt. is bound by the constitution, national policy on Sr. citizens, Human Rights. When the Central and State Govts arrange updation of pension to their employees and create Rules to extend the benefit of updation to the L.I.C pensioners, how they can flout the Rules. Further the govt. has no financial burden if updation is implemented. The financial position of L.I.C is well known and the L.I.C logo depicts “YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM”. THE RIPPLE EFFECT IS ONLY TO CRIPPLE OUR LEGITIMATE DUES WHICH SHALL NOT PASS LEGALLY ETHICALLY OBJECTIVELY.
Let us hope the apex court sees reason in our arguments and render the much awaited JUSTICE.
V.S.PRAKASARAO. VISAKHAPATNAM.
V.S.PRAKASARAO. VISAKHAPATNAM.