Remedies through Courts

                                                       Remedies through Courts

Legal recourse is resorted to when the grievances of the employees are not resolved through negotiations. Filing a case in the court of law is the last option to settle the industrial dispute in order to protect our legitimate rights.

Associations of retired employees in LIC, working for their welfare mainly established after introduction of the Pension Rules, 1995. These Associations raised legitimate demands to resolve the grievances of the retired employees from time to time and also filed petitions in courts when the grievances were not resolved by obstinate Management. Some important court judgments protecting the interest of the retired employees/pensioners are given below for the information of our members.

Gratuity Case:

LIC of India Class 1 Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Services) (Amendment) Rules, 1996 were published in official gazette on 18/07/1996 with the clause that the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of August, 1992.However, different cut off dates were fixed for grant of different nature of allowances as also pay by the Chairman of the Corporation in purported exercise of his power under Regulation 51 of the Regulations. Whereas 1st April, 1993 was the cut off date for revision of pay; 1st August, 1994 was fixed as the cut off date for the purpose of payment of gratuity on the basis of revised pay. Consequently, those employees who had retired prior to 1st August, 1994 were directed to be entitled to reduce gratuity based on the pre-revised scale of pay, though the arrears of revised pay were paid w.e.f. 1st April, 1993. On behalf of such Class 1 Officers, who retired between the period from 1/4/1993 to 31/7/1994, cases were filed in the Gujarat and Kerala High Court who upheld the validity of the instructions issued by the Chairman, but the Karnakata High Court took a different view. LIC filed SLP in the Supreme Court which was converted to CA no. 1289 of 2007 and decided in favour of the retired officers vide order dated 12/02/2008. The Court observed that the revised pay was paid retrospectively with effect from 1/4/1993. If by reason thereof, even a retired employee, as on the date of retirement, became entitled to the benefit of the revised scale of pay, the same for all intent and purpose must be taken to be the permanent basic pay, apart from other allowances, if any, which are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the amount of gratuity.  Accordingly, gratuity arrears for Class I retired between the period from 01/04/1993 to 31/07/1994 with Simple Interest @ 10 percent per annum were awarded.

Gratuity Payment to the Class 1 Officers who retired between the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/03/1993

Shri M L Gandhi, Retired Dy. Zonal Manager, Chandigarh also filed CWP No.1128 of 1997 in Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the cut off date for payment of Gratuity from 1/8/1994 and demanding the gratuity for all the Class 1 Officers on the basis of revised pay from 1/8/1992, which was the effective date of the wage revision as per the Wage Revision Notification. Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition vide their order dated 04/07/2008 and directed to pay the Gratuity to the Class 1 Officers who retired between the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993 on the basis of revised pay.

Golden Jubilee Cash Award of Rs3000 to the retired employees

On completion of glorious 50 years, LIC awarded the Eight Gram Gold Coin for all the in service employees, but not for the retired employees, who worked for greater part of 50 years of LIC & who actually have a greater claim for such recognition. The issue was followed up the leaders of AIRIEF, but of no avail. RIEA, Jaipur filed a Writ Petition in Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, which compelled LIC to make a cash award of Rs.3000/- only to the retired employees.

 

Concessional Mediclaim Premium

Before 2010, the retired employees who had opted for mediclaim were charged full premium. The amount of premium was also increased inordinately on the plea of increasing claim liability. AIRIEF not only opposed the mediclaim premium hike but also demanded for the concession in the premium. Shri G T Parikh, General Secretary, Ahmedabad Unit of AIRIEF filed Special Civil Application no. 1168 of 2010 in High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad on the above issues. AIRIEF’s ex-General Secretary, Shri C S Murthy (now late) obtained information under RTI, from LIC with regard to premium collected from the employees and the amount of mediclaim paid, which revealed that not only the claim liability was less than the premium paid but also that LIC had paid less amount to the insurer than the amount collected by way of premium. These data compelled LIC to issue instructions vide CO Circular ZD/1153/ASP/2010 dated 18/05/2010 to share 75% of the mediclaim premium by LIC. Excess premium collected by LIC was also refunded and adjusted in the next year’s premium. LIC had submitted affidavit in the Court to aforesaid effect and the case was disposed of with the direction to ensure compliance within three months vide order dated 20/09/2010.

Shri M C Jain Case

Shri M C Jain retired in Jan 1993 so he was not given benefit of Wage Revision notified by the Central Government on 18/07/1996. Shri Jain filed the Writ Petition No. 1454/2009 in Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, which was decided in favour of Shri Jain on the issue of allowing the benefit of wage revision from 1/8/1992, as he was in service as on 1/8/1992, the effective date of the notification. The judgment is based on clause 2 of the notification dated 18-07-1996. The court held that those retired before the date of notification were not allowed the option provided in said clause 2 of the notification, whereas the same was allowed to those who were in service as on the date of notification and hence denial of revision of salary to the class 1 officers who had retired before 18-07-1996 was illegal and they should be allowed revision from 01-08-1992. LIC challenged the judgment and filed Special Appeal (Writ) no.1492/2012 before the DB, who upheld the judgment of the Single Judge. LIC filed SLP in SC which was dismissed.

This judgment allowed benefit of wage revision and consequential benefits to those class 1 officers who retired or died while in service during the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993, but unfortunately LIC has not allowed the benefit to other similarly situated officers. On the same issue, WP(C).No.6228 OF 2009(W) was filed by S/S C Krishnan and KNG Kurup and later Federation of Retired LIC Class 1 Officers Associations also impleaded. The case is decided against the pensioners vide order dated 7/8/2019. While deciding aforesaid WP, HC Kerala mainly relied upon the judgment delivered by it in respect of OP No. 11231 of 1997 (famous gratuity case. It is concluded by the Court that claims raised in the O.P.No.11231 of 1997 were confined to persons who continued in service after 01.04.1993 and therefore, any further claim for arrears with effect from 01.08.1992 is completely misconceived. The writ petition, thus was failed and dismissed.

DR disparity and Pension Updation Case

The cases on aforesaid issues, filed in Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Chandigarh High Court and Delhi High Court reached in Supreme Court by way of appeals, review and SLPs, remand to DHC and further SLPs in the Supreme Court and are yet to be decided finally. The details of the long ongoing legal battle, are not being given here, but the interim relief given at various stages are shared for information of our members.

i.                   SC vide interim order dated 17.10.2012 (I.A.No.3 of 2012 in SLP(C)No.29957 of 2011) directed LIC to deposit, within eight weeks, in the Registry of the High Court, Jaipur the amount due to the pensioners i.e. the writ petitioners with effect from the date of their eligibility to get retiral benefits. In the order the phrase “eligibility” mean that the difference on account of revision of pensions and Dearness allowance from the date of retirement. Accordingly, the amount was deposited by LIC in respect of 27 petitioners in the registry of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court.

ii.                 SC vide interim order dated 07.05.2015 in C.A. Nos.8959-8962/2013, 6995/2013, 9223/2013 and 9409-9410/2013 directed LIC to release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court, in favour of the respondent-employees within six weeks hence, subject to final result in the appeals. If any amount, that was deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees. Where any amount was not deposited in the court, LIC had to pay to the concerned person direct from its account within six weeks from the date of this order. It was clarified by the SC that the interim relief was to be paid to the petitioner pensioners. Accordingly, in the case of Jaipur petitioners and Chandigarh Petitioners it was to be paid to the individual petitioners but in case of Delhi HC Petitioners the interim relief was paid to the members of Federation of Retired LIC Class 1 Officers Associations.

iii.               SC while finally disposing of the CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8959-8962 OF 2013, 6995 OF 2013, 9223 OF 2013 and NOS. 9409-9410 OF 2013 by remanding the cases to Delhi High Court vide the order dated 31/03/2016 directed LIC to pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks.

iv.               Delhi High Court admitted the WPs filed by six petitioners (5903/2016, 184/2007, 5868/2016, 4894/2016, 3983/2016 and 9441-3984.2016) partly on the issue of minimum pension and DR disparity. In the case of minimum pension, DHC granted relief by directing LIC to pay enhanced minimum pension, as per the latest wage revision irrespective of the date of retirement. In the case of DR disparity to Pre-Aug 1997 retirees, DHC directed to enhance the rate of DR to 0.23%(for those retired before 1/11/1993) and to 0.29% (for those retired after 1/11/1993 but before 31/7/1997) for the Basic Pension slabs where it was less than aforesaid rates. DHC also directed LIC not to recover the amount of Interim Relief paid earlier, but LIC adjusted the amount paid by way of IR from the payment made as per DHC order. There are several legal and arithmetical inaccuracies in this order so it has been challenged by the petitioners in SC.

As per the aforesaid orders LIC paid amount as per following details:

To Pre-Aug 1997 pensioners:

A.     As per SC order dated 07/05/2015:  Rs.  3, 36, 17, 307

B.      As per SC order dated 31/03/2016:  Rs. 29, 35, 22, 627 (Amount of ‘A’ was recovered, Amt of Rs. 25,85,29,913 was paid to 15922 pensioners, for 2041 pensioners IR was not paid for reasons like both pensioner and family pensioners were not alive or amount of arrears was less than Rs. 10.)

C.      As per DHC Order dated 27/4/2017: Rs. 23,08,22,942 (paid to 3630 pensioners after deducting the amount already paid)

To Minimum Pension receiver: Rs. 7,76,174 (paid to 56 pensioners). It was stated by LIC that calculation of minimum pension to the Pensioners would require some more time in view of complex nature of calculation.

Thus, total amount paid to the pensioners during the pendency of court cases on DR disparity and Pension Updation issues is Rs. (3,36,17,307 + 25,85,29,913 + 23,08,22,942 + 7,76,174) = 52,37,46,334.

The SLPs pending for final disposal in the SC, are crucial to the pensioners and being contested with utmost sincerity. Pleadings are complete (Petitions/Synopsis, Counter Affidavits, Rejoinders, etc. are submitted). So far, the SLPs are listed in SC 16 times, but arguments could not start. Pandemic has added to the agony of the pensioners as physical hearings are again stopped and virtual hearings are taking place in respect of very urgent cases only.

 

M P Agnihotri.