If the Bench has taken a view that para 3A deals with only the rate of
DR and not an increase in pension,it has arisen out of a lack of
understanding of the background of para 3A..
Para
3A specifies the rate of DR to be applied to the Basic Pension that
originated after the wage revision w.e.f 1/8/1997 and hence cannot be
isolated from the Basic Pension that should logically emanate from an
equivalent average monthly emoluments corresponding to the revised wages
after 1/8/1997.
Technically,
we have a strong case to appeal to SC on the flawed order,but
considering that it deals with an interim payment subject to final
decision on substantive issues like DR anomaly removal,100% DR
neutralisation and upgradation of pension,we need to think whether it is
worthwhile appealing against the DHC Order.But we need to go through
the full order containing the reasoning for the decision.
From
the reactions being published in the pensioners' blogs,even the
pre-August 1997 retirees seem to be averse to the idea of an appeal to
the Supreme Court.
Only the Family Pensioners are left in the lurch not having received any interim relief.
C H Mahadevan
.
No comments:
Post a Comment