My response to Shri S R Srinvasan

Referring to the post of Mr  S R Srinivasan on DHC judgment, it is not correct to state that Para 3A goes against the spirit of D S Nakara case judgment.What para  3A provides for is 100% DR neutralisation for employees  who retired or died after 1/8/1997.It is a liberalization of the formula for DR for post July 1997 retirees.Where the discrimination arises is when we compare the principles followed for fixing the DR formula between the pre-August 1997 retirees and post July 1997 retirees.The consequence of para  3A is two-fold.One,there is 100% neutralisation of DR which didn't exist before 1/8/1997.The other one is  that the rate of DR on Basic Pension  was identical for retirees with the rate of DA for serving employees after 1/ 8/1997.Against this, the para 3 of Appendix IV not only provided for less than 100% DR neutralisation,but also a differentiated tapering DR formula where the threshold boundaries of basic pensions in the slabs were reduced to 50% of the slabs for  basic pay for serving employees taken for DA calculation at the same rate.

So we cannot fault para   3A as the culprit for the disadvantage suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees, but the discrimination in the matter of DR formula  between retirees and serving employees compared to the equality  created by para 3 A for post July 1997  employees & retirees in DR formula proved to be the anomaly.There was no 100% DA neutralisation even for serving employees before 1/8/1997.In fact Para 3 A has provided a benchmark for removal of discrimination between retirees and serving employees in fixation of DR/DA formula.

 The reason for  the application of D S Nakara ratio arises  not because of Para 3 A, but  because, after insertion of Para  3 A, two  classes of pensioners  have been created under the same Pension Rules,viz those discriminated in DR  formula before 1/8/1997 and those not suffering such discrimination from  1997  vis-a-vis serving employees. The homegeneity in the classes of pensioners  was  thus compromised. Para 3 A is therefore not the cause of discrimination, but it has provided a cause for removal of the discrimination that existed before 1/8/1997.

So para 3A has to be used as a ground for removal of discrimination and not as a provision responsible for discrimination But unfortunately in the past, in the Writ  Petitions filed in the High Courts, para 3A  had been projected as unconstitutional,  which in my opinion is not a right approach as, if para 3A is struck down by courts, there will be a vacuum in the matter of DR formula post July 1997. In fact the constitutionality of Para 3A had even become  the core issue in the Justice Dipak Misra's judgment dated 31/3/2016 remanding our case to the Delhi High Court. 

Now, after four wage revisions that have taken effect after 1/8/1997 and one more  having fallen overdue w e f 1/8/2022, our focus needs to be more on upgradation of pension which will take care of the losses suffered by all generations of pensioners from 1/11/1993 to 31/7/2017 as of now.What has to be ensured beside winning our case is to secure retrospective benefits as the legal fight is going on for 25 years now and tens of thousands of beneficiaries have left the world. 

Let us hope LIC pensioners get lucky early.

C H Mahadevan