SRI M.S.MURTY A POINEER IN PEACE MAKING EFFORTS AMONGST THE CASE MANAGERS OF PENSIONERS AT SUPREME COURT CAME OUT WITH A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR THE PERSONS INTERESTED. HE IS KNOWN FOR HIS FORTH RIGHT AND CANDID PRESENTATIONS. BUT HIS SUBMISSIONS ARE A BIT CONFUSING THIS TIME. I WISHED THAT HE GAVE BRIEF NOTE ON THE THREATENING POINTS OF THE S.L.Ps FILED BY U.I.O FOR THE APPRECIATION OF THE INTERESTED BLOGGERS TO ENABLE THEM TO STUDY AND MAKE SOME VALID COMMENTS.
IT SEEMS HE IS CONFIDENT THAT IT IS VERY EASY TO DEAL WITH THE S.L.P WHEREBY THE G.O.I CAN BE BEATEN ON THE KNUCKLES FOR ALL THE BIZZARE ARGUMENTS AND BRAZEN LIES. SO HE SUGGESTED TO ALLOW THE S.L.PS TO BE HEARD AND GET DISMISSED ON MERITS OF THE CASE INSTEAD OF SEEKING THEIR DISMISSAL AT THE VERY OUT SET.
SURPRISINGLY HE DECLARED THAT THE CHANDIGARH AND DELHI PETITIONERS HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN OPPOSING THE S.L.PS AND IT IS FOR SRI ASTHANA AND HIS SR. LAWYER TO TACKLE THE S.L.PS. IF THESE ARE GOT DISMISSED ON 8TH ITSELF WE CAN SAVE TIME.
I SUPPOSE. SRI MURTY ASSURED THAT THE PETITIONERS OF CHANDIGARH AND DELHI WILL COUNTER THE POINTS RAISED IN THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY G.O.I AS RESPONDENTS IN THE C.A S WHICH ARE THE SAME AS THOSE MENTIONED IN THE S.L.PS. HIS SUBMISSIONS GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT THE COURT ORDERS OF H.CS OF JAIPUR, CHANDIGARH AND DELHI ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER .
BUT IF WE RECOLLECT THE MAIN ISSUES AT THE H.CS JAIPUR &CHANDIGARH ARE THE SAME. THE ORDERS OF CHANDIGARH AND DELHI ENDORSED THE JAIPUR ORDER AS SUCH THEY ARE ALL IDENTICAL. THAT IS WHY THE SUPREME COURT CLUBBED ALL THE THREE C.AS TO HEAR THE CASE JOINTLY TO EXPEDITE THEIR DECISION IN THE MATTER. WE THE PENSIONERS FERVENTLY HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE FINAL ORDERS WILL BE IN OUR FAVOUR INCLUDING UPDATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME INFORMATION ON RULE NO. 56 OF OUR PENSION RULES WHICH AIMS AT EXTENDING TO US THE BENEFITS GIVEN TO THE GOVT. EMPLOYEES .
AS PER THIS RULE WE ARE ENTITLED TO UPDATION OF PENSION THAT IS BEING ENJOYED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES. KINDLY NOTE THAT THIS RULE DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE G.O.I. OUR RULE 56 READS
“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 PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES 1972 OR THE CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (COMMUTATION OF PENSION) RULES 1981 APPLICABLE TO CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES.”WHERE AS THE PENSION RULE 56 OF THE NATIONALISED BANKS READS “IN CASE OF DOUBT IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS REGARD MAY BE HAD TO THE CORRESPONDING PROVISONS OF CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES RULES 1972 OR CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES( COMMUTATION OF PENSION) RULES 1981 APPLICABLE FOR CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEES WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATION THE BANK WITH THE PREVIOUS SANCTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY FROM TIME TO TIME DETERMINE.”
SO FOR NATIONALISED BANK'S RULE 56 PROVIDED SPECIFICALLY THAT GOVT. HAS TO DETERMINE EXTENSION OF THE BENEFITS TO THE BANK PENSIONERS IN TUNE WITH GOVT PENSIONERS. BUT THE RULE 56 OF L.I.C PENSION DID NOT ENVISAGE SUCH APPROVAL FROM THE GOVT. OF INDIA. OUR RULES ARE MADE U/S 48 OF L.I.C ACT 1956 AND SO MANDATORY OUR CHAIRMAN IS DUTY BOUND TO IMPLEMENT RULE 56.
LAST YEAR THE L.I.C INVOKING THIS RULE 56 EXTENDED THE PAYMENT OF FAMILY PENSION IN THE CASE OF A MISSING PENSIONER OF VISAKHAPATNAM D.O WHICH IS MADE AVAILABLE TO CENTRAL GOVT EMPLOYEES.
FURTHER WE SHOULD TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE NOTIFIACATION GSR – 553(E) DT. 22-6-2000 WHICH EMPOWERED THE L.I.C TO AMEND THE PENSION RULES ON MINIMUM PENSION ,D/R, AND FAMILY PENSION. FURTHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE CENTRAL GOVT TO ACT AND IMPLEMENT RULE 55A (POWER TO RELAX) ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE L.I.C.
I REQUEST OUR EDITOR TO PUBLISH A NOTE ON THE POINTS RAISED BY G.O.I IN THEIR S.L.PS FOR A DEBATE ON OUR BLOG.
V.S.PRAKASARAO, VISAKHAPATNAM
COMMENTS BY CH MAHADEVAN
Dear Mr Prakasa Rao,
Thank you for your mail. I wish to make some observations on your note sent to Mr Gangadharan.
Whether we like it or not, the latest SLPs filed by the GOI who are 100 % shareholders in LIC and having powers to make rules on salaries and pensions under Sec 48 of LIC Act 1956, in my view, stand a very good chance of being considered for granting of leave and getting converted into Civil Appeals to be clubbed with the other three already tagged together. May be if the SLPs are dismissed by the SC, we may take it as strengthening our position in the hearing on the Civil Appeals.
I agree with Mr Sreenivasa Murty that in the event of leave being granted, we should welcome SC making the GOI as another party through their Civil Appeals. We have seen in the past that only LIC as an appellant had been arguing for the powers of the GOI instead of the GOI themselves and in response to the Supreme Court’s notice, they filed affidavits instead of arguing on their own powers. In responding to the notices of the SC they also took their own sweet time to file their affidavits. Now if they enter as appellants, they are accountable to abide by any direction that the SC may be issuing to them in our case which may be favourable to pensioners instead of delaying the implementation of the Court directives as was done by LIC according to their own interpretations of the LIC Board Resolution/Jaipur judgment while claiming to comply with the court orders. Another advantage of GOI’s entry will be that any favourable direction from the directive given to the GOI will result in ‘in rem’ benefits to all eligible pensioners, unlike in the case of contempt applications at Jaipur & Chandigarh when deposits were made only in respect of the petitioners considering the issues raised by them like the ripple effect on consideration of upgradation of pension for LIC retirees.
No doubt Rule No 56 seems to give powers to LIC without the need for GOI approval, but when LIC Chairman does not make bold to record through administrative instructions LIC’s powers to upgrade pension as per the provisions in the C.G Services(Pension Rules,1972) etc when LIC Pension Rules are silent in the matter( the upgradation for Central Government retirees came into operation only from 1/1/1996 after the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission), only the Supreme Court can direct LIC Chairman to issue such instructions, especially when the GOI’s position of disagreement for upgradation for pension is known through their SLPs.
Amendments in the pension rules made through administrative instructions by LIC under Rule 55A are enabling actions consistent with the wage revisions that are effected once in five years ; for example in the matter of Minimum pension ,revised pay slabs for the family pension and revised minimum family pension etc in respect of post-wage revision period pensioners.In other words, the Rule 55A empowers LIC Chairman to issue administrative instructions within the existing Pension Rules but not to amend the existing Pension Rules. We cannot expect L I C to issue administrative instructions to effect upgradation of pension without the amendment of the Pension Rules, 1995 by the GOI.
Kind regards,