I would like to share my thoughts on your writeup as follows:
1.Even though 100% DR neutralisation has been granted for pre-November 2002 Public Sector Bank retirees with prospective effect, we don't know how many surviving retirees will benefit from this as the survivors will all be octogenarians and their number will be much smaller than tens of thousands of retirees in the category who are no more.We are also not sure how long the surviving beneficiaries will enjoy this increased DR in the face of increasing mortality .Denying the legal heirs of the large number of deceased retirees in this category of this benefit with arrears will be a grave injustice to them.For the surviving retirees if only arrears of upgradation benefits are paid from the dates of their retirement, even if future pension is paid at existing rates, the pensioners will get compensated by the interest that they can earn by investing the arrears in Bank FDs with the amount deposited in tact as their owned assets.
2. My hearty congratulations to you on your assisting specialist officers of BOB in the matter of increased number of qualifying years of service for proper fixation of pension and winning the case for them in the Apex Court.
3. As regards the SLP no 21206/2017 in continuation of WP 184/2007 filed by the Federation, there were also two other SLPs tagged with it ,viz. the one against the Chandigarh judgment and the other against the Jaipur Bench judgment in respect of Mr KMLA & others.
Even though the SC remanded the case to Delhi High Court to adjudicate on Constitutional validity of Para 3A , liberty was also granted to more petitioners to enter the litigation ,with the result three more petitioners viz.AIIPA, AIRIEF & Hyderabad Retired Class I Officers' Association filed WPs in DHC mainly with a focus on upgradation of pension. With this development, the terms of reference got enlarged to one of pension upgradation. DHC actually did not adjudicate on the Constitutional validity of Para 3A , but instead took the DR rate of 0.23% in para 3A as a benchmark minimum and tweaked the DR formula for para 1 & para 2 retirees replacing the DR rate for various slabs in the tapering DR formula with 0.23% wherever the slab rate was less than 0.23%.This approach was erroneous as the DR rates of a particular wage revision period weren't transplantable to the previous wage revision periods.It was also erroneous for the reason that the change in DR formula ordered by DHC for granting partial relief went against the methodology followed by merger of DA with Basic Pay for providing wage increase in relation to the AICPI at which the revised scales were pegged.
This apart, the DHC rejected the prayer for pension upgradation without appreciating the legal and Constitutional grounds supporting it.But nevertheless the Bench ordered upgradation in minimum pension with every wage revision and this brought in its wake new anomalies.
Now the focus of the six SLPs in the SC is on pension upgradation.If and when some relief is granted by SC, the quantum of relief will offset the losses suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees if is granted retrospectively from 1/8/1997. But the loss suffered by them on account of lack of equitable neutralisation upto 31/7/1997 will remain. If the effective date is fixed later than 1/8/1997 as was done by DHC, the loss will be more upto the effective date.
3. As regards the M C Jain case relating to retirees of the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993, I wish to correct your figure of number of similarly placed beneficiary-officers as 325 .I had actually furnished the full list of such retired officers to Central Office.As of now I wonder how many among them may be still surviving as the youngest among the survivors may be at least 88 years old and transfered officers may be 90 plus if alive.Their actual number may be handful.So unless the survivors organize themselves and collectively fight the case, nothing positive can be achieved. If upgradation is achieved, their loss may perhaps be offset.
4.Rule 66 figures in CCS Pension Rules 2021( not 2019 as stated by you) which was notified on 20/12/2021 repealing CCS Pension Rules1972.
I would like to humbly differ with your opinion that Rule 56 is dubious.My feeling is that the Rule 56 has a very good potential to help us if properly used in our arguments in the Supreme Court. Why I consider Rule 56 important is for the following reason.
Our Pension Rules 1995 were patterned on Central Government pension rules and that is proved by the fact that Rule 56 mentions CCS Pension Rules 1972.When our Pension Rules 1995 were notified, for the Central Government employees only the 4th CPC Recommendations were being implemented which did not provide for upgradation of pension. Only the 5th CPC Recommendations provided for upgradation from 1/1/1996.Although Rule 66 was not in existence then,the recommendations on pension revision were being implemented by issue of Office Memoranda after each CPC Recommendation adopting the principle of modified parity.In the latest CPC effective from 1/1/2016, an OROP type revision of pension was recommended by the CPC by multiplying the pre-revised basic pension just before 1/1/2016 by a multiple of 2.57.Rule 56 becomes very relevant as there is no express provision on upgradation -either its permissibility or its impermissibility-in LIC Pension Rules 1995.Rule 66 has been inserted in the new CCS Pension Rules 2021 only to obviate the necessity for issue of Office Memoranda to give effect to CPC Recommendations on pension revision every time.
Further, Rule 55 B notified on 13/8/2001 is nothing but a selective application of Rule 56 for the top two cadres,viz, Chairman ( now Chief Executive) & Managing Director who retired after 1/1/1996.Once Rule 56 is implemented in letter and spirit, Rule 55 B will become redundant.
5.I agree with you that approach to courts should be as a last resort.All the same,having been engaged in litigation for decades having spent money and efforts against anomalies and disparity in pension , I feel that we need to strive for a logical conclusion in the matter of obtaining justice.I see a general tendency of desperation among old pensioners to settle for some increase in pension during their life time.There is nothing wrong in and natural for having such expectations.But organizations representing pensioners at large should think holistically and should not forget the need for justice for the pensioners who have died in large numbers since the start of the legal fight and many of such pensioners might have been members of one or the other Association of pensioners.Many of the deceased pensioners would also have contributed to the legal fund to their respective Associations out of their meagre pension in expectation of some future benefit that would be secured in the event of a successful outcome in the Supreme Court.To settle for some benefit which deprives the legal heirs of deceased pensioners of what is legitimately due to them is morally wrong, unethical and also an act of betrayal.One is also not sure of how long the surviving pensioners will enjoy such truncated benefit( because of loss of arrears) on a benefit with prospective effect - especially the septuagenarians and octogenarians-in the face of increasing mortality with each day of survival. The possibility of an adverse verdict is a natural part of any litigation. Pensioners' organisations, having resorted to litigation have also to be prepared for a negative outcome striving hard to win the case with the help of the senior counsel engaged by them.If,God forbid, we get a negative verdict, we have no alternative but to accept it and explore out of court alternatives to achieve our purpose.
My personal view therefore is that we should push for early hearing as much as possible so that the verdict gets delivered by the Supreme Court at the earliest.In the meantime if the GOI/LIC provide any benefit to pensioners short of what is prayed for in our SLPs, we need to accept the same and pursue our litigation not giving up our right to fight legally.I am sanguine that we have a fair chance of winning our case in the Supreme Court with reasonably satisfactory relief for the pensioners waiting for pension upgradation by making good efforts through our counsel
I leave my about thoughts with you to ponder over as a senior pensioner- leader and an eminent legal luminary.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
No comments:
Post a Comment