DO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PARA 3A?

Mr G N Sridharan, in his letter to Mr Sahni has stated as follows:

“As for your query on Rule 3 A, I am fairly confident that in as much it is the cause for discrimination among two sets of pensioners on the basis of a cut- off date, it will be struck down.”

In my view  the constitutional validity of para 3A  of Appendix IV has to be  considered  in relation to the DR  formula followed in respect of retirees  of the period 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 from 1/11/1993.

Para 3A does not become invalid per se, but what  has become invalid is the Appendix IV  which was applicable for retirees  from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 as the pensioners were placed at a financial
disadvantage on account of the dual formula for DA/DR  for in service employees and retirees  during that period. This discrimination  was remedied in respect of  retirees after 1/8/1997 beginning with the
amendment of LIC Pension Rules introducing  para 3A  w.e.f 1/8/1997 and adopting the same pattern of DR  from subsequent wage revision dates.

If para 3A is invalidated, what will it mean for retirees from 1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002? Does it mean that their DR formula will have to be brought on par with those of pre-August 1997 retirees making them
suffer similar loss in DR? Then the constitutional validity of all amendments in DR formula in subsequent wage revision dates will also have to be questioned.

Unfortunately the DR anomaly prevailing right from 1/11/1993 for pre-August 1997 retirees has not been adequately highlighted by the Respondents’ counsel and Supreme Court should have been convinced to direct the GOI to equalize the DA/DR formula for both in-service employees and retirees for that period  so that there will be  no discrimination  in the matter of DR for employees retired at different points of time.

So what needs to be stressed before the Delhi HC is not the constitutional validity of para 3A  but  the constitutional invalidity of Appendix IV as notified in the LIC Pension Rules in respect of
pre-August 1997 retirees in the context of amendment by para3A of Appendix IV.

It has also to be particularly noted is that with all the gracious direction of the Apex Court to LIC to pay 40% IR to all similarly place pensioners as per para 3A, the  financial loss suffered by pre-August 1997  retirees  and family pensioners of that category till begs to be  made good.In fact if the case had been properly argued, the 40% IR could also  have included that loss component.Let us
hope that at least in Delhi HC ,this aspect is adequately taken care of.

Another area where injustice prevails is the non-implementation of the M C Jain case judgment  which should benefit at least about 90-100 pensioners(including family pensioners).When the question of
upgradation of pension is considered,the implementation of this judgment becomes  very relevant as it will make a lot of difference in the benefits secured by this category of the people on upgradation
right from 1/11/1993.

Alongside, the injustice to the family pensioners on account of the archaic AppendiX V  (relating to Rule 39) should also be adequately emphasized before the Delhi HC especially when the LIC Pension Scheme
has been patterned on the Central Government Pension Rules,1972.

Let us hope all the case managers (sorry to use the term although  it creates some palpable  discomfort among some leaders), address the above aspects in the ensuing legal battle at the Delhi HC.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan