15 Apr 16, 05:43 PM
V.S.Prakasarao VIZAG: Congrats ASR a brilliant exposition and pleading.S.C opined the pleadings are insufficient Please see our counsel go through urs.I find the S.C missed the amending power delegated to L.I.C by G.O of 22-6-2000 for Rules 36,37,39.37 is D/R.Let us study the case law cited by ASG ,S.C,Panchu.,Gupta. S.C convinced the H.C order was simply based on the concession given by the GOI Counsel.
Our position is like playing the snake & ladder game. The big snake S.C brought us down ignoring our property right, constitutional right,and human rights& law on Sr.citizens.
Can u throw some light on the constitutional validity of Para3A of AnnexIV..It is simply D/R rule of june 2000 fixing the rate@.23%.removing the tapering D/R provision of earlier years. So two groups created one getting tapering D/R & another 100%D/R. L.I.C empowered to amend Rule 37, found hardships in administering the D/R every six months, &resulted in the real value of pension. resulted in the erosion of real value of pension .So pensioners are classified depending on the date of retirement.This is violation of constitutional provisions. But it seems case law supporting the grouping is there. can it be applied to us. If H.C Delhi rely on S.C comments we have a hard task When power to amend is with LIC what is the role of GOI. The non implementation of Rule 55A, 56 should be highlighted. GOI approval not required for giving benefits in 55. LIC /GOI are flouting rule.