Mr Anand in his post “NEED OF THE HOUR……” states as follows:
“10. Thus it is clear that the provisions of 36 ( c ) & ( d ) and Appendix IV 3A & 3B of the Pension Rules amended vide gazette Notification dt.22.6.2000 is applicable to the existing pensioners as well the employees due to retire. This fact needs to be highlighted in further pleading before the Delhi HC as the Chairman already been conferred powers to determine the basic pension and DR for all the pensioners vide gazette notification dt.22.6.2000.”
Rule Nos 36 ( c) & (d) as also paras 3A & 3B of Appendix IV have been notified as amendments to the LIC Pension Rules by the Government of India.Chairman according to the SC judgment dated 31/3/2016 cannot travel beyond the LIC Pension Rules made by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 55. So it has to be agitated before the Delhi HC if we have to make these
Rules applicable to all pensioners .
But for the present, the saving grace is that for the purpose of providing interim relief at 40% for all similarly placed pensioners, the SC has directed in effect the one-time upgradation of pension on 1/8/1997 for pre-August 1997 retirees that would bring them on par with employees who retired or died between 1/8/1997 and 31/7/2002.
The whole problem for pre-August 1997 retirees of anomalies arose on account of the dual DR/DA formula for pre-August 1997 retirees and in service employees between 1/11/1993 and 31/7/1997,placing the former at a major disadvantage of financial loss. But this anomaly was
remedied for post July 1997 retirees by equalising the DR formula
for both in-service employees and retirees with 100% DR neutralisation. LIC had wanted to only remove the anomaly in DR, it could have simply made the DR/DA formula uniform for all pre-August
1997 retirees/in-service employees when the pre-August 1997 retirees would have got more pension than on LIC’s own faulty application of the LIC Board Resolution.
Now with the focus placed on the Board Resolution ,Supreme Court has, happily for us, thought it fit to direst in para 27 of the judgment, payment of 40% IR as per para 3A of Appendix IV .This is
nothing but an ad hoc one-time upgradation for the purpose of payment of interim relief for all pre- August 1997 retirees.
Now using the same logic,when the matter is being argued before the Delhi HC ,the writ petitioners can plead for IR on the same basis of one-time upgradation for pre-Aug 2002,pre-August 2007 and pre-August 2012 retirees. My intention is not to suggest we should get bogged down in the demand for IR instead of striving towards final relief with full upgradation for all, but this argument is only to strengthen our case for successive upgradation for pensioners with every wage revision. I feel we have reached the first major step towards achieving upgradation with the judgment dated 31/3/2016 of the
Supreme Court. Let us try to legally strengthen our case at Delhi with this opportunity.
“10. Thus it is clear that the provisions of 36 ( c ) & ( d ) and Appendix IV 3A & 3B of the Pension Rules amended vide gazette Notification dt.22.6.2000 is applicable to the existing pensioners as well the employees due to retire. This fact needs to be highlighted in further pleading before the Delhi HC as the Chairman already been conferred powers to determine the basic pension and DR for all the pensioners vide gazette notification dt.22.6.2000.”
Rule Nos 36 ( c) & (d) as also paras 3A & 3B of Appendix IV have been notified as amendments to the LIC Pension Rules by the Government of India.Chairman according to the SC judgment dated 31/3/2016 cannot travel beyond the LIC Pension Rules made by the Government in exercise of powers under Rule 55. So it has to be agitated before the Delhi HC if we have to make these
Rules applicable to all pensioners .
But for the present, the saving grace is that for the purpose of providing interim relief at 40% for all similarly placed pensioners, the SC has directed in effect the one-time upgradation of pension on 1/8/1997 for pre-August 1997 retirees that would bring them on par with employees who retired or died between 1/8/1997 and 31/7/2002.
The whole problem for pre-August 1997 retirees of anomalies arose on account of the dual DR/DA formula for pre-August 1997 retirees and in service employees between 1/11/1993 and 31/7/1997,placing the former at a major disadvantage of financial loss. But this anomaly was
remedied for post July 1997 retirees by equalising the DR formula
for both in-service employees and retirees with 100% DR neutralisation. LIC had wanted to only remove the anomaly in DR, it could have simply made the DR/DA formula uniform for all pre-August
1997 retirees/in-service employees when the pre-August 1997 retirees would have got more pension than on LIC’s own faulty application of the LIC Board Resolution.
Now with the focus placed on the Board Resolution ,Supreme Court has, happily for us, thought it fit to direst in para 27 of the judgment, payment of 40% IR as per para 3A of Appendix IV .This is
nothing but an ad hoc one-time upgradation for the purpose of payment of interim relief for all pre- August 1997 retirees.
Now using the same logic,when the matter is being argued before the Delhi HC ,the writ petitioners can plead for IR on the same basis of one-time upgradation for pre-Aug 2002,pre-August 2007 and pre-August 2012 retirees. My intention is not to suggest we should get bogged down in the demand for IR instead of striving towards final relief with full upgradation for all, but this argument is only to strengthen our case for successive upgradation for pensioners with every wage revision. I feel we have reached the first major step towards achieving upgradation with the judgment dated 31/3/2016 of the
Supreme Court. Let us try to legally strengthen our case at Delhi with this opportunity.
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan
C H Mahadevan
No comments:
Post a Comment