CH MAHADEVAN

Mr Anand in his post “NEED OF THE HOUR……” states as follows:

“10. Thus it is clear that the provisions of 36 ( c ) & ( d )  and
Appendix IV 3A & 3B of the Pension Rules amended vide gazette
Notification dt.22.6.2000 is applicable to the existing pensioners as
well the employees due to retire. This fact needs to be highlighted in
further pleading before the Delhi HC as the Chairman already been
conferred powers to determine the basic pension and DR for all the
pensioners vide gazette notification dt.22.6.2000.”

Rule Nos 36 ( c)  & (d) as also  paras 3A & 3B  of Appendi x IV have
been notified as amendments to the LIC Pension Rules by the Government
of India. Chairman according to the SC judgment dated 31/3/2016 cannot
travel beyond the LIC Pension Rules made by the Government in exercise
of powers ubder Rule 55.

So it has to be agitated before the Delhi HC if we have to make these
Rules applicable to all pensioners.

But for the present,the saving grace is that for the purpose  of
providing interim relief  at 40% for all similarly placed
pensioners,the SC has directed in effect the one-time upgradation of
pension  on 1/8/1997  for pre-August 1997 retirees  that  would bring
them on par with employees who retired or died between 1/8/1997 and
31/7/2002.

The whole problem for pre-August 1997 retirees of anomalies arose  on
account of the dual DR/DA  formula for pre-August 1997 retirees and in
service employees  between 1/11/1993 and 31/7/1997,placing the former
at a major disdvantage of financial loss.But this  anomaly was
remedied  for post July 1997 retirees  by equalising the DR formula
for both  in-service employees  and retirees with 100% DR
neutralisation.If LIC had  wanted to only remove the anomaly in DR,it
could have simply made the DR/DA formula uniform for all pre-August
1997 retirees/in-service employees  when the pre-August 1997 retirees
would have got more pension than on LIC’s own faulty application of
the LIC Board Resolution.

Now with the focus placed on the Board Resolution ,Supreme Court
has,happily for us, thought it fit to direst in para 27 of the
judgment, payment of 40% IR  as per para 3A of Appendix IV .This is
nothing but an ad hoc one-time upgradation for the purpose of payment
of interim relief for all  pre- August 1997 retirees.

Now using the same logic,when the matter is being argued before the
Delhi HC ,the writ petitioners can plead for IR on the same basis of
one-time  upgradation  for pre-Aug 2002,pre-August 2007 and pre-August
2012 retirees.My intention is not to suggest we should get  bogged
down in the demand for IR instead of striving towards  final relief
with full upgradation for all,but this argument is only to strengthen
our case for successive upgradation  for pensioners with every wage
revision.I feel we have  reached the first  major step towards
achieving upgradation  with  the judgment dated 31/3/2016 of the
Supreme Court.Let us try to legally strengthen our case at Delhi with
this opportunity.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan