IMPORTANT : Our Pension updation case in the SC

WAS RULE 55 B HIDDEN FROM THE LIC BOARD MEETING ON 24/11/2001?
FYI

C H Mahadevan

All the  earlier HC  judgments  which ordered the implementation of the LIC Board Resolution might have been  neutralized by SC judgment dated 31/3/2016,but the LIC Board resolution is very much alive.

Another point to be remembered is that the Board resolution envisaged upgradation of pension and not merely removal of DR anomaly..On 24/11/2001  it was an issue of relevance only for pre-August 1997 retirees.With no legal remedy provided, subsequent wage revisions effective from 1/8/2002  enhanced the applicability of the effect of the LIC Board Resolution in two ways.

Firstly,whatever benefit was intended to accrue to the pre-August 1997 retirees as a result of implementation of the Board Resolution had to be extended by way of upgradation of pension effective from all wage revision dates as well starting from 1/8/2002 after revising their pension from 1/8/1997.

Secondly,the Board Resolution was restricted to pre-August 1997 retirees only  as on 24/11/2001.But with the rationale dictating the resolution and with the necessity to extend the benefits of the Resolution for subsequent wage revision dates also,as a corollary,the benefit of pension upgradation per force has to  be extended to all generations of pensioners as well from 1/8/2002 onwards.

While the Board Resolution was the starting point of our legal claim for upgradation,the demand has gathered further strength with the change brought forth by the 5th Central Pay Ommission Recommendations effective from 1/1/1996 and the discrimination brought forth by Rule 55 B notified on 13/8/2001( which was hidden from public domain not only at the time of the Board Resolution,but also till the matter was discovered later).In fact after my RTI query, the updated Pension Rules 1995 with Rule 55 B was uploaded in LIC website only on 30/5/2018.

In fact the question also arises as to why a very material fact of insertion of Rule 55 B  notified on 13/8/2001 was not brought up before the LIC Board on 24/11/2001. This is all the more serious as Chairmen and Managing Directors who  Also belonged to the pre-August 1997 retirees-category  were adversely affected by Rule 55B.Probably the unpublicised Rule was the hidden reason for recommending upgradation of pension through the Board Resolution even though it has not been officially so recorded.It has to be presumed that Rule 55 B was deliberately hidden from the LIC Board.If it was in the knowledge of the Board on that day, the same decision would have emerged,but with a different supporting ground for that decision.

It is necessary for all our senior counsel to raise the point of LIC not bringing the notification of Rule 55 B to the notice of the Board on 24/11/2001.Especially, the Chairman presiding over the Board Meeting and other Managing directors were the only top management officers aware of the Rule 55 B.

Even the Executive Director ( Personnel) who would have  organized submission of relevant notes & information  for the LIC  Board Meeting was obviously kept in the dark about Rule 55 B!

This  fact should also  be another strong weapon in our armour.

C H Mahadevan

On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 12:18 AM Seetha And Kishore <rbkseetha@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 at 3:27 pm, Ramamoorthy G

<grama1937@hotmail.com> wrote:

Respected Sir, 

With reference to the many discussions we 

had  had in our pleadings to support the Updation of Pension, it is again I wish to refer to Para 3A to the Appendix IV incorporated on 22-6-2000 in the Pension Rules 1995, upon which a Resolution was passed by the LIC Board on 24-11-2001, recommending uniform rate of DR of 0.23% of basic Pension and updation of the pension at AICPI 1740 points for those Retired prior to 1-8-1997 and requested the Govt to approve of the same.

The Honorable SC held on 31-3 2016 unless the government approve the said resolutions , the decisions cannot be implemented, though the High Courts have upheld the Resolution. 

Here I wish to mention that the Administrative Authority is LIC , while Rule making Authority is Govt. The Administrative Authority has clearly mentioned that the decisions of the Board are based on to protect the real value of the pension which is being eroded over a period of time besides causing administrative inconvenience thus become necessary to rationalise the DR structure and provide a suitable updation formula to upgrade the basic Pension to the employees of the corporation who have retired prior to 1-8-1997.

With reference to the said SC decison, I wish to quote the following extract from the Judgement of the SC in a different case { National Highways Authority of India Vs Madhukar Kumar} [ Case No.CA 11141of 2018  dt 23-9-2021] Justice KM Joseph & Justice S Ravindra Bhatt.

 

"There may be something in the nature or the context, under which, the administrative action is taken, which may necessitate the authority being forthcoming with rational reasons. There are other decisions, which essentially belong more to the realm of executive policy-making, which ordinarily may not require the furnishing of reasons. The advantages, undoubtedly, of introducing a reasons driven regime, are as follows.
Reasons could help establish application of mind

61. Persons, who may have a right or an interest, would know, what are the reasons which impelled the Administrator to take a particular decision. Judicial review, in India, which encompasses the wide contours of public interest litigation as well, would receive immeasurable assistance, if the reasons for particular decisions, are articulated to the extent possible. The giving of reasons also has a disciplining effect on the Administrator. This is for the reason that the reasons would capture the thought process, which culminated in the decision and it would help the Administrator steer clear of the vices of illegality, irrationality and also disproportionality. Reasons could help establish application of mind. Conversely, the absence of reasons may unerringly point to non-application of mind. The duty to act fairly, may require reasons to be recorded but the said duty, though there is a general duty on all state players to act fairly, may have its underpinnings, ultimately in legal rights.
The court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials.

62. It is one thing to say that there should be reasons, which persuaded the Administrator to take a particular decision and a different thing to find that the reasons must be incorporated in a decision. The question, relating to duty to communicate such a decision, would arise to be considered in different situations, having regard to the impact, which it, in law, produces. In fact, the second proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules, provides not only for there being reasons, but the reasons for refusal to permit barricades, must be communicated. If the law provides for a duty to record reasons in writing, undoubtedly, it must be followed and it would amount to the violation of the Statute, if it were not followed. Even if, there is no duty to record reasons or support an order with reasons, there cannot be any doubt that, for every  decision, there would be and there must be, a reason. The Constitution does not contemplate any Public Authority, exercising power with caprice or without any rationale. But here again, in the absence of the duty to record reasons, the court is not to be clothed with power to strike down administrative action for the mere reason that no reasons are to be found recorded. In certain situations, the reason for a particular decision, may be gleaned from the pleadings of the Authority, when the matter is tested in a court. From the materials, including the file noting's, which are made available, the court may conclude that there were reasons and the action was not illegal or arbitrary. From admitted facts, the court may conclude that there was sufficient justification, and the mere absence of reasons, would not be sufficient to invalidate the action of the Public Authority. Thus, reasons may, in certain situations, have to be recorded in the order. In other contexts, it would suffice that the reasons are to be found in the files. The court may, when there is no duty to record reasons, support an administrative  decision, with reference to the pleadings aided by materials. In India , every State Action must be Fair , failing which , it will fall foul of Article 14.

      Here I may mention that the LIC is a STATE.

     From the above judgement I am of the view that SC could uphold the Resolution of the LIC Board ( which is a State) irrespective of the Powers vested with the government under Section 48 of the LIC Act.

Submitted with high regards and respects,

G Ramamoorthy.