Our on going case in SC on UG of Pension and 100% DR

I don't agree that DHC held Para 3A  of Appendix IV discriminatory against pensioners covered by Para 1 & 2.

Before  passing any judgment on para 3A let us try to understand what para 3A had provided for.Para 3 A effected two changes w e f 1/8/1997 in the DR formula to the formula that was followed for retirees under para 1 & 2.The first change was that the DR was neutralised 100% without any tapering basic pension slabs compared to lesser neutralisation based on the tapering DR formula for pre-August 1997 retirees . The second change was that the DR formula  from 1/8/1997 was identical for serving employees and pensioners at 0.23% on the quantum of  Basic Pay and Basic Pension  unlike two different tapering slab formulae for serving employees & retirees before 1/8/1997.For this reason, Para 3A  cannot be held discriminatory, but can only be considered as  a benchmark to be adopted suitably  for para 1 & 2 pensioners to remove the anomaly caused by a more detrimental principle followed while determining the DR formula as per Appendix IV in the judgment of DHC.

If para 3 A were  constitutionally not valid then so will be the DR formulae  under para 3 B  for  subsequent wage revisions effective from 1/8/2002 to 1/8/2017.If para 3 A were unconstitutional,then Delhi HC would have quashed para 3 A which would only have upheld the system of tapering  and differential slabs for serving employees and retirees and the regime of lack of 100% DR neutralisation would have been continued for all future generations of retirees as well.The DHC instead wanted to give partial relief to para 1 & 2 retirees by giving the benefit of application of 0.23% wherever the DR  rate for any basic pension slab was less than 0.23% both under para 1 & para 2.Of course this kind of tweaking of DR formula was again anomalous for the reason that even after the change in the DR formula, it was still short of providing for 100% DR neutralisation. More importantly it was in conflict with a scientific basis on which the DR rate was determined after each wage revision based on changes( increase) in the AICPI  to which the wage revision was pegged.Even though the pre-August 1997 retirees  got some benefit   by the DHC judgment, it was still an inadequate relief for pre-August 1997 retirees.It should be remembered that about 15900 retirees got 40% IR as per SC order dated 31/3/2016, while only about 3600 plus retirees got partial relief by the DHC's faulty judgment.That is because  DHC judgment gave benefit only by a change in the DR formula while 40% IR was paid by revising the basic pension notionally for all  pre-August 1997retirees from 1/8/1997.Most losers in this process were those who were drawing upto Basic pension of 2130  under para1 and upto 3850 under para 2.The retirees who missed the benefit by DHC judgment were Class II & Class III & IV retirees and perhaps some among the retired AAOs drawing less Basic Pension.The only cold comfort for them was that there was no recovery of 40% IR from them. That is again a discrimination  suffered by the beneficiaries of the DHC judgment. It is strange that LIC didn't challenge the grant of partial relief at the SC.

The disparity caused by a differential kind of DR formulae between pre-August 1997 retirees and subsequent generations of retirees can be used in the SC to convince the Bench that D S Nakara judgment ratio is attracted and Articles 14 & 21 have been violated.

Another point we need to emphasize is that the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 recommended revision of pension w e f 1/8/1997 and applying the rate of DR as 0.23% on such revised pension.On the date of that Board Meeting only the revision of wages & pension had been notified on 22/6/2000.If the rationale of the Board Resolution is accepted, it automatically follows, that pension needs to be revised for all  subsequent generations of pensioners - besides pre-August 1997 retirees-with every wage revision in chain after the date of retirement.As the Board Resolution is still alive, the methodology envisaged in the Board Resolution for pre-August 1997 retirees has very well to be extended to retirees after 1/8/1997 as well.

Now our SLPs have been converted into Civil Appeals and it is upto us to have  our arguments effectively put forth  through our Senior Counsel on the strong grounds on which our prayer for upgradation rests.

C H Mahadevan 

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024, 19:38 Seetha And Kishore, <rbkseetha@yahoo.com> wrote:

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "Ramamoorthy G" <grama1937@hotmail.com>

To: "rbkseetha" <rbkseetha@gmail.com>, "RB Kishore LIC" <rbkseetha@yahoo.com>

Cc:

Sent: Sat, 2 Mar 2024 at 4:51 pm

Subject: Our ongoing case in SC on UG of pension & 100% DR

Respected Sir,

I wish to submit my views on the subject as under : 

I intend to make a reference to the Honourable SC order dt 31-3-2016 wherein  the Court granted 40% IR as per Para 3A to the Appendix IV. The Court more or less convinced that the Pensioners are entitled to the Relief as per Board Resolutions dt 24th November 2001, but asserted law has to be preserved with regard to the constitutional validity of Para 3A, therefore remitted the Case files to DHC for decision. 

DHC held Para 3A discriminatory to the Pensioners covered under Paras 1 & 2 , but erred in granting the benefit of DR equalization to all the Pensioners on the basis of prevailing Consumer Price Index formula upon which the Pay Revision took place as also the LIC Board sought of the same. 

As pointed out by our Legal team leader Shri M P Agnihotri in his briefs , we have approached the Courts to challenge the faculty Rules which are creating grave discrimination and violating Article 14 of the Constitution, and wanted to eliminate the discrimination by allowing the Rules the same benefits to all the Pensioners irrespective of their date of Retirement since any additions to the Pension Rules of 1995 after it Notification should be applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of their date of Retirement or Cadre status as Ruled by  SC in D S Nakara case.

We may observe that the Govt and LIC are adamant that the Pension Rules does not allow UG of pension and uniform DR for all even though the Courts wanted to grant the benefits uniformly.

Now the Honourable SC admitted our case and posted for further hearing in April 24. 

Now it is the time for the Honourable SC to exercise it's powers under Article 142 as under : 

Article 142 of the Constitution confers wide-ranging powers on the highest court of the land to pass orders and decrees necessary to ensure 'complete justice' in any case before it.

 These orders are enforceable throughout India and can include directives for the attendance of individuals, discovery of documents, or investigation of contempt of court.

{ https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-article-142-guidelines-substantive-rights-litigants-250981}

Submitted for your  kind consideration 🙏

With high regards and respects,

G Ramamooorthy.