It cannot be gainsaid that the forerunner to the case is our Jaipur friend. That was the contention, that by bringing in the concept of reducing slab rate, the total cost for DA can be brought down. It is now clear the concept of merger of basic, be it pay or pension, was with the idea of reducing recurring cost. I am not sure whether it was realised that the merger of pay and DA is a cardinal principle without which the DA would continue to be paid on the pension fixed at the time of retirement. The amendment to the Rules to remove the clause (iv) of Rule 2(o) is proof enough. That was also creation of a discrimination of applying different rates of DA for the employees and the pensioners. Everyone knew that the wage settlement that was applicable from 1-8-1992, was finalised after the notification of the pension rules on 28-6-1995. Hence the pensioners cannot be said to be partners in the discussions. That case was won on the ground that there cannot be two different rates for DA, one for the employees and another for the pensioners, because inflation affects both the employees and the retired. The DHC judgment also upheld the decision. No doubt the Jaipur HC decision was oscillating on the point of the Govt sanction U/s 48.
The next point of our claim was revision. The DHC called it revalorization, which word I thought the Hon Bench used for revision. But it occurred to me late, that they had used the expression in connection with the new pay scales upon a wage revision that is usual to draw after merging the basic pay and DA; with an additional grant of increase. The wage revision is only for those who are on the rolls as on the 1st of August of the year of revision. Some of the pensioners were eligible for the revised pay scales and DA as they had retired later to the Pension Rules notification. Thus they were drawing DA at a higher slab rate of 0.35% for the first slab of Rs.4,800/-before retirement. When they retired this slab rate of 0.35% was reduced to Rs,2,400/- of the pension, although their pension was more than Rs.4,800/-. This reduced their DA, as is evident. What was not thought of by us was its effect on the DA payable to the pensioners. The point of merger of basic pension and DA was not apparent because of the thinking that there is no additional grant for the pensioners; as done to the employees. This point was highlighted by me to say, without the merger, we will be drawing increases in DA on the basis of the prices that prevailed at the time of retirement. This point is established beyond doubt by the sworn Affidavit filed by LIC. The merger will have a compounding effect on the DA relief that will be equal to the compounding price rise; which term has to be understood as the price rise at the end of the period a quarter/ half year is always over the prices as at the beginning of the period.
What other benefit can we claim under the Rules is the next question. The Pension Rules prescribes certain benefits under Rule 56. This the Govt does not admit. I am unable to understand if it is an ornamental addition to the Rules, with no purpose. Usually there will a Residual clause to the rules for any contingency arising in the implementation of the provisions delegated to an administrative authority and to that extent, such delegation will not attract the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. But a Residuary Provision as in Rule 56, when specific to provide for some additional benefits, that are found from somewhere else and brought into the rules to provide supplementary benefits, subject to the restrictive conditions for adoption, it becomes specific. That rule is very crisp and unambiguously provides some benefits that may be adopted as per the prescription for it, like the pension hike proposed in the CGCS Pension Rules to the pensioners who live upto the ages prescribed. Hence it is not a routine rule for any contingency but a delegated authority for contingencies certain to happen for which a specific Provision has to be made. Rule 55B is complimentary to Rule 56, because in the case of certain category of pensioners, payments have to be made after calculation of such benefits as per the CGCS Pension Rules and the same CGCS Pension Rules are referred in Rule 56 and this was available in the principal notification itself but 55B was an addition to the Rules that goes to show both the Rules are complimentary.
It is now for consideration whether the general increase given during a wage revision can be extended to the Pensioners. Primarily the Pension Rules are the fountain head for all benefits to the pensioners, to which consent has been obtained from every pensioner. The general increase granted is a contingent factor for negotiations in a wage revision, which is finally made effective through a statutory notification U/s 48. This makes all the difference in calling the Pension Rules a Contract for payment of Pension because a Rule made U/s 48 is not binding on the pensioners, as they are not employees.