Let there be no confusion and let us not be divided at this critical juncture, but speak the truth in one voice. Let our Sr. Advocates be supportive to each other. Who speaks first or second is not the question.
It is good that ultimately the arguments have started in the SC after waiting for more than five years. Now we should expect final verdict in the next one or two hearings.
Now we have a bigger fight—one against the appeal of LIC and the other against the appeal of UOI. LIC can afford to engage some more very senior Advocates who will support the views of UOI. This is a testing time for our Sr. Advocates and the tips which we provide to them. Nobody should find faults of others but be constructive.
The contention of Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi that the Pension Revision will cost the LIC some Rs. 9700 crores appears to be an exaggeration and is only to create a big doubt in the minds of all and the Court. The intention may be that the Court may ask for the actual burden and he may ask for time which may be two to three months.
I remember Mr. Asthana had got some calculation of Rs. 1600 crores through RTI. If available, these figures should be placed before the Court.
The Court had pointed out to Shri R.K. Singh that there is no provision of Pension upgradation in the Pension Rules, 1995. The Pension Rule No. 56 says 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 contained in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees.”
In the case of Central Government employees, the Pay Commissions are appointed by the Central Government and with revision of wages of Central Government employees, the pension of pensioners is also revised. This rule should apply to LIC Pensioners also.
Coming to the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001, the LIC Counsel stated that it was a one time correction with a limited objective to give relief to Pre-August 1997 retirees.
Where is the Relief? The Board Resolution should have been implemented and DR relief of Pre-August 1997 pensioners should have paid so that the Pre-August ’97 pensioners would not have suffered all these years. The Board Resolutin states for giving a weightage of 11.25%. This weightage corresponds to the increase in wages of existing employees on that date. This is principally acceptance of the revision of wages on the date of wage revision. The DR relief has not been given for the last 18 years.
LIC or the UOI Advocate may raise the point that the Pension Scheme applicable to LIC pensioners is a funded scheme. Let us not be confused by this funded scheme version. All Pension schemes whether the scheme of Central Govt. Employees or any other institution, they are all funded in that the employees are subjected to deduction of certain portion of their wages being transferred to the Pension fund in one or the other form. That fund is not a limited fund restricted to certain number of employees. It is a PERPETUAL fund which goes on increasing with the contribution of existing employees. It also increases by higher contributions with future wage revisions. The employees who have retired earlier are equally the beneficiaries of the fund. As such they are entitled to higher pension as and when the wages are revised and existing employees are given the benefit of higher pension.
The Counsel of UOI may raise the issue of ripple effect of this judgment on the Banks and GIC, we can place before the Court that this argument does not mean that the justice may be denied because justice will have to be given to other pensioners also. When the Banks and LIC can increase wages of the existing employees by any amount from 10% to 15% every five years, the same benefit should be extended to a small number of pensioners who have contributed to the growth on the institution during their service period.
Thanks.
