Rule 55B and recent information under RTI

Thank you for your mail. 

Chairman & MDs retired before 1/1/1996, those who retired after 1/1/1996 and all employees from Sweeper to Executive Director are  covered by the same Pension Rules,viz,LIC( Employees') Pension Rules 1995.Singling out only two cadres of employees for a more advantageous treatment than other employees cannot constitute an intelligible differentiation.If Chairman is equivalent to Special Secretary of the GOI,MD is equivalent to the Additional Secretary of the GOI,then Executive Director of LIC  is also to  Joint Secretary and so on, and whatever anomaly exists between the top two cadres on pension if LIC Pension Rules are applied, may as well arise between Joint Director of GOI and ED of LIC.The only difference is that the Chairman and Managing Director are appointed by the GOI.But All functionaries of LIC are employees of the Corporation under Rule 2(j).

The proviso to Rule 2(j) reads, "* Provided that where the Chairman of the Corporation appointed by the Central Government in accordance with Section 4 of the Act was immediately preceding such appointment an Employee of the Corporation, then, subject to the terms of any contract, agreement or letter of appointment or directions issued by the Central Government, such Chairman for the purposes of these rules shall also be deemed to be an employee of the Corporation."

A differential treatment  to one sub-set of the employees covered by the LIC Pension Rules 1995  for more beneficial treatment than others cannot be an intelligible differentiation.More so when Rule 56, provides ,"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 other words ,by inserting Rule 55 B in the Pension Rules , LIC has selectively favoured one  microscopic  minority class of employees discriminating against  a large class of other employees.This  constitutes violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution  and attracts the ratio of the D S Nakara judgment.

Kindly note that I have deliberately used the word 'employees' instead of 'pensioners' because pensioners (other than family pensioners) continue to be employees of the Corporation under Rule 2(j) of the LIC Pension Rules 1995.

The benefit  also cannot be extended merely to Chairmen & MDs retired before 1/1/1996 to the exclusion of others because,the cut off date of 1/1/1996 will itself be unconstitutional when  all employees retired on or after 1/1/1986 are eligible to receive pension under the Rules.Making pre-1996 Chairmen & MDs only eligible for the benefit after having clubbed them so far  with all other employees so far under the Pension Rules will again be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.Also Pension Rules nowhere except in Rule 55 B discriminate among employees based on cadres.

I hope I have clarified your doubt.

C H Mahadevan

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:14 PM Dattatraya Deshpande <deshpande.dattatraya0709@gmail.com> wrote:

R/Sir,

      Hope this finds you in good health, mood and spirit.

      You have been very emphatic about the usefulness of 55B in winning our case. You have also obtained specific information about how the calculation of basic pay is different for the pensioners covered by 55B. No doubt, it's discriminatory and one hopes the Hon SC finds it to be so.

      Now coming to my apprehension that if LIC argues that the principle of "intelligible differentia" applies in this case (which was elaborated in recent Manipur case also) how are we going to counter? If the Court accepted that principle only the Chairpersons and MD's who retired before 1/1/1996 will benefit.

      I write this with a hope to get my doubt cleared.

      With regards,

Dattatraya B Deshpande,

Kolhapur

8668316477 / 9421105493(wa)