HOW ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS JUDGMENT RELATES TO OUR CASE

Dear Mr Agnihotri,

 Re HOW ALL MANIPUR PENSIONERS JUDGMENT  RELATES TO OUR CASE

I was reading the SC judgment in  The All Manipur Pensioners Assn. ... vs The State Of Manipur  of  11 July, 2019  repeatedly and I found  that the judgment very strongly relied on the ratio of  D S Nakara  judgment clearly exploding the myth of limited application of the said judgment.

I thought the above judgment will lend adequate support to our case if used effectively by  the Senior Counsels.

Basically, it emphasizes that undisputedly the Pension Rules governing the Manipur Pensioners have been patterned on the Central Government pension rules. Same is the case with LIC Pension Rules 1995  which has been clearly indicated by Rule 56 which stipulates application of CCS Pension Rules 1972( now repealed by  CCS Pension Rules 2021 notified elaborately on 20th December 2021 including a provision for pension updation) when there is no express provision in the rules. This is further reinforced by Rule 55 B which was notified on 13/8/2001 creating a separate class of pensioners, viz, the Chairman/ Managing Directors  retired after 1/1/1996 to be governed by the Central Government Pension Rules of 1972  providing them the advantage of a more liberal pension than that for  other employees of the lower cadres as also officers in the same cadres of Chairman/Managing Directors retired before 1/1/1996.

That being so, on the date of Notification of the LIC Pension Rules 1995, even the Central Government employees  were not entitled to upgradation of pension( being governed by the implementation of the 4th Central Pay Commission Recommendations in effect upto 31/12/1995).It was only in the 5 th Central Pay Commission Recommendations that the Central Government employees were made entitled to revision of pension on the principle of modified parity.(Even though the CCS Pension Rules 1972 were not amended, the effect of revision on implementation of CPC Recommendations was provided through Office Memoranda issued by the Personnel Department of the Central Government).Even So, strictly speaking, Rule 56 should have been applied  to LIC  employees from 1/1/1996 or at least the principle followed  for Central Government pensioners should have been followed  for LIC pensioners with effect from 1/8/1997, the immediately  next effective date of wage revision after the notification of the LIC Pension Rules 1995 and the implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission Recommendations effective from 1/1/1996.Instead Rule 56 was only selectively applied for Chairman/MDs retired after 1/1/1996,creating a separate class of pensioners  under the homogeneous single class of pensioners governed by LIC Pension Rules 1995.

The judgment reiterating the ratio of the D S Nakara case judgment lays down that when the same pension scheme is liberalized , there cannot be discrimination by providing benefit to some section of retirees based on cut-off dates of revision( which happen with effective wage revision dates in  case of LIC pensioners ). The D S Nakara judgment clearly rules that there cannot be separate class of pensioners created under the same scheme which is liberalized unless the classification is based on criteria having nexus to the object and purpose of such classification .The Manipur Pensioners case judgment states that the object was to provide relief against the increase in the cost of living which was equally applicable to employees retiring  before the  cut -off date (1/1/1996).The judgment did not find a rational nexus as equals had been treated as unequals.

Now coming to the question of drawing a parallel to our case, even at the inception,  namely from 1/11/1993, a liberalization adopted in framing the Rules, viz Rule 35(1) whereby the employees retired before 1/8/1987  were brought on par with those who retired from 1/8/1987 upto 31/7/1992( in case of Class III & IV employees) and  those who retired from 1/8/1987   to 31/3/1993( in case of Class I & II Officers) by updating their pension vide Appendix III.When such a principle was adopted for one of the three groups viz, for the employees retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987, there was a discrimination against the two subsequent two groups. In other words, looking at it from the ratio of DS Nakara judgment, the Pension Rules 1995 were flawed even from the date of the Notification in the absence of updation  in chain as at  1//11/1993  for retirees of the period from 1/8/1992/1/4/1993 upto 31/7/1997.There should have been  only one Class of pensioners from 1/11/1993  to 31/7/1997 irrespective of the dates of retirement.It is another matter that there was anomaly in fixing of DR rate on a tapering basis of basic pension without equitable DR neutralisation vis-a-vis serving employees contrary to the principle adopted from 1/8/1997.

There is no doubt that each wage revision-in the absence of upgradation of pension in the notified rules- creates a  separate class of retirees within the homogeneous class of LIC retirees/ pensioners because the increased rate of pension that they receive constitutes a liberalization of the pension scheme  for that class.Thus we can say that there have been five  liberalizations from 1/8/1997,1/8/2002,1/8/2007,1/8/2012 & 1//8/2017.There are now four groups of   discriminated  pensioners based on cut-off dates determining the classes of retirees.This is besides the two classes of pensioners discriminated as at 1/11/1993 in the absence of updation on the principle of Appendix III.

The Manipur judgment also clearly dismisses some case laws relied upon by the Manipur Government counsel firmly asserting the application of ratio of D S Nakara case judgment.

One more important point emerging from the judgment is that financial constraints cannot be a ground for denying benefit to pensioners when the pensioners in the  same homogeneous class of retirees after the cut-off date are provided increased pension

I thought I can share my above thoughts with you for your examination in relation to our SLPs.

C H Mahadevan