IS THERE A CASE FOR REVIEW PETITION ?

DOES MR ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN HAVE

 A CASE FOR FILING A REVIEW PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT?

In the operative part of the judgment in the CA No 10251/2014, the Supreme Court has ordered as follows:

“We thus hold that the termination of services of the Appellant, in essence,

was voluntary retirement within the ambit of Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of

1995. The Appellant is entitled for pension, provided he fulfils the condition of

refunding of the entire amount of the Corporation’s contribution to the

Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon as provided in the Pension

Rules of 1995. Considering the huge delay, not explained by proper reasons, on

part of the Appellant in approaching the Court, we limit the benefits of arrears

of pension payable to the Appellant to three years preceding the date of the

petition filed before the High Court. These arrears of pension should be paid to

the Appellant in one instalment within four weeks from the date of refund of the

entire amount payable by the Appellant in accordance of the Pension Rules of

1995. In the alternative, the Appellant may opt to get the amount of refund

adjusted against the arrears of pension. In the latter case, if the amount of

arrear is more than the amount of refund required, then the remaining amount

shall be paid within two weeks from the date of such request made by the

Appellant. However, if the amount of arrears is less than the amount of refund

required, then the pension shall be payable on monthly basis after the date on which the amount of refund is entirely adjusted.”

This raises a question of equity among the pensioners. When the LIC Pension Rules were notified in 1995, all the employees retired  from 1/1/1986  and the spouses of deceased  employees retired after 1/1/1986 opting for pension were asked to pay the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest within 180 days from the notified date. When that was done, pension was payable from 1/11/1993 or from the 1^st  date  following the month of retirement whichever was later.

In the case of the resigned officer  (Mr Asger Ibrahim Amin) under  the above Civil Appeal,he has also been directed by the Apex Court  to refund the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest,but as he had  filed the writ petition in the High Court with considerable delay, the Supreme Court has restricted the payment of arrears of pension to only three months before the date of his filing the writ petition in the High Court.There is no remission/restriction on what he has to refund to the Corporation, but there is a limitation on the arrears of pension that he could get  upto 29/3/2012, the date he filed his Special Civil Application in the High Court. In other words, he will be required to refund 100% of the Corporation’s Contribution of PF while the arrears that he will be entitled to get upto March 2012 will be only 25% of total pension arrears from 1/11/1993.

Legal experts may give their views on whether there is a case for Mr Amin to file a Review Petition to release the pension arrears for the full period from 1/11/1993 as a wrong has been committed by the Corporation in not treating his resignation as deemed voluntary retirement  notwithstanding his delayed application in the High Court..

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan