In para 11 of the Order it has been stated, ‘In other words, we are of the opinion that the Supreme Court had directed doubling of the said amount i.e. instead of 20%, the interim payment would be at the enhanced amount, being 40% of the amount payable as per paragraph 3A of the Appendix. “
This opinion seems obviously and unfortunately to have been arrived at presuming that the interim relief of 20% ordered on 7/5/2015 and the 40% amount of interim relief ordered on 31/3/2016 are on the same bases which is not true. The order dated 7/5/2015 does not bring in para 3A at all but only has directed payment in terms of the impugned judgment of the High Court. The SC Order of 31/3/2016 on the other hand had directed payment of interim relief at 40% of the amount due as per para3A of Appendix IV less the amount of 20% interim relief already paid..The HC judgments had been set aside while ordering the 40% interim relief. So it is only correct to say that the percentage of interim relief directed to be paid had been doubled and not the amount of interim relief. To put it briefly, ‘fortification’ is not twice ‘twentification’ in this case. Another feature of the order dt 31/3/2016 is that the 40% interim relief was directed to be paid to all similarly placed pensioners.
The order of the High Court deals at some length in para13, with the Board Resolution and Board Note. But we have to note that the Supreme Court did not direct payment of 40% interim relief as per Board Resolution but as per para3A.
LIC only has stuck to the Board Resolution according to its own faulty interpretation of the Resolution.
Referring to the observation in para16 of the HC order,para3A does not hold in isolation separated from upward revision of wages w.e.f 1/8/1997 which had to be necessarily factored in when para 3A was required to be applied to the group of pensioners for whom it was not applicable as per the extant Pension Rules.
Besides,in spite of the fact that in the rejoinder of the Hyderabad Association , it has been clearly brought out that the family pensioners have not been paid any interim relief, any mention about payment of interim relief to family pensioners is conspicuous by its absence.
For the above reasons, the conclusion of the Bench that the respondent Corporation has complied with the Supreme Court Order dated 31/3/2016 is disputable and fit for appeal in my opinion.
But it is upto the various petitioners in the case to take a view and decision in the matter.
C H MAHADEVAN
No comments:
Post a Comment