GNSridharans dissertation on PU

I refer to the following statement by Mr GNS:

"2) Updation is an issue not dealt with in any of the pension Rules referred to herein.It would therefore be better to rely on other things rather than harping on ,56 especially when we are held not to be equals to govt employees."

I agree that upgradation is not dealt with specifically in our LIC Pension Rules 1995. But we should not forget the fact  that updation has been granted in a truncated manner in the rules.The pension rules cover all employees retired after 1/1/1986 not covered by Oriental Life insurance company's pension scheme.But  in terms of Rule 35(1),for employees retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1987, a provision has been made for updation of pension bringing them on par with employees who retired from 1/8/1987 upto 31/7/1987(31/3/1993 in case of Class I & II Officers).A methodology has also been provided through Appendix III.Thanks to this Rule 35(1), the retirees of the period 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987 have enjoyed the benefit of upgradation of pension albeit one time, which has not been available to all retirees of subsequent  periods of retirement from 1/8/1987 under the seven retirement groups.The retirees of the period  from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987 were originally covered by the pay scales as per wage revision effective from 1/10/1983 & in force upto 31/7/1987.So the updation provided  under Rule 35(1) of the LIC Pension Rules 1995 is discriminatory in the sense that at least such one time updation of pension is not granted under the Rules  to the subsequent 7 groups of retirees  retired from 1/8/1987.This is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and attracts the ratio of the D S Nakara case judgment .

As regards 'harping ' on Rule 56, I humbly disagree with Mr GNS for the simple reason that although we are not held equals to Central Government employees, the  very fact that our Pension Rules are patterned on  CCS Pension Rules 1972 , and  CCS (Commutation Of Pension) Rules 1981  which  have  been specifically mentioned in the Rule 56.Besides, the Rule 55 B  inserted in the Rules on 13/8/2001 entitled Chairmen ( now Chief Executives) and Managing Directors retired after 1/1/1996( the date from which the 5 th Central Pay Commission  took effect) to be covered by CCS Pension Rules 1972.In other words, Rule 56 was selectively applied  for the top two cadres , that too discriminating  against these two  top cadre officers retired before 1/1/1996. These two top cadre officers are whole time employees of the LIC and their salaries & pension are paid by LIC  and not reimbursed by the Central Government. It is worthwhile to remember that when the LIC Pension Rules 1995 where notified on 28/6/1995 , only Recommendations  of the 4th CPC were in vogue, which didn't provide for upgradation of pension. When the LIC Pension Rules were patterned on the CCS Pension Rules 1972( now repealed by CCS Pension Rules 2021), it was logically necessary for the Central Government to have amended the Pension Rules providing for upgradation of pension as done for Central Government employees as implied by Rule 56 as, while the Rules did  not provide upgradation of pension,  they also did not specifically rule out upgradation of pension in future.So, I personally feel that we can draw tremendous comfort and support from Rule 56 and by doing so we are not harping  but taking it as a strong ground for our claim. Rule  55 B is discriminatory and violates Article 14  & 21 of the Constitution and attracts the ratio of D S Nakara case judgment. Rule 35(1) ,Rule 55 B and all the other rules in the LIC Pension Rules 1995, create three separate classes of pensioners and  this creates heterogeneity among pensioners resulting in discrimination and violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. There is one more separate  class of pensioners,viz,  pre-August  1997 retirees(& family pensioners) who are  continuing to be  discriminated against due to lack of 100% DR neutralisation despite partial relief granted by Delhi High Court  by its judgment dated 27/4/2017 ordering modified DR formula in an arbitrary manner without having regard to the relativity of the DR rate with AICPI  instead of ordering equitable neutralisation of DR as provided to serving employees before 1/8/1997. Here again ratio of D S  Nakara case case judgment is attracted.

We need to highlight all the above points through our counsel during our arguments  in the Supreme Court.

C H Mahadevan