That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court erroneously did not
consider that 'Merging of existing DA in Basic Pension' and 'Pension Revision
due to pay revision of employees' from time to time are two different urgent
issues for the existing pensioners. Merging of existing DA in Basic Pension has
no relation with Pension Revision of existing pensioners. Even though Pension
revision from time to time of existing members of the Pension Scheme 1995 i.e.
pensioners after retirement from service is not defined in the Pension Scheme
1995, a transparent provision is already existing in the said Pension Scheme in
Paragraph-55 that in the event of a dispute or non-clarity or non-provision in
the said Pension Scheme, the Pension Rules, Regulations & Provisions, which
are applicable to and available to Central Government employees, will be
applicable to the members of this Pension Scheme 1995. Merging of existing DA
in Basic Salary for new recruits and future retirees and merging of existing DA
in Basic Pension of existing pensioners after retirement from service has to be
allowed quite similarly inasmuch as all employees whether retired or to be
retired later on from service of LIC of India are similarly placed members of
the same Pension Scheme 1995. It is completely unethical as well as immoral
that some pensioners are allowed additional DR to be calculated over previous
DR amount by merging the same DR amount to Basic salary and consequently in
Basic Pension after retirement from service, whereas existing pensioners will
not be allowed the same DR amount as Dearness Relief. Thus, LIC of India has
created different Dearness Relief (DR) amount payable per slab of increase or
decrease of DR to the pensioners who are retired from service in the same post
comparing with other pensioners irrespective of pay revision benefits. Per slab
DR amount of pensioners in the same post in the same period for the same
increase or decrease of market price of commodities based on the same Consumer
Price Index (CPI) value cannot be different at all taking a plea that the
retirement date is not the same. Dearness Relief (DR) should be allowed to give
similar relief of inflation to all pensioners and it cannot be a reason for
creating a class of pensioners within the pensioners. Thus, the amendment made
to our Pension Scheme 1995 vide Paragraph-3A in Appendix IV is absolutely
unconstitutional as the same newly introduced Paragraph in the year 2000 after
the Pension Scheme 1995 was in operation, discriminates the pensioners who are
similarly placed members of the same Pension Scheme 1995. Thus, LIC of India
has violated Article-14 of the Constitution of India by introducing and
implementing Paragraph-3A in Appendix-IV of the said Pension Scheme.
That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court erroneously did not consider
that the entire problem is created as this Pension Scheme 1995 allows Dearness
Relief (DR) increase or decrease per slab basis which is based on Consumer
Price Index (CPI) value and not on percentage basis to take care of inflation
impact upon the pensioners from time to time. As and when, DR is allowed on
percentage basis instead of per slab basis to pensioners in other PSUs of India
or Central Government, it automatically considers the total emoluments viz.
existing Basic Pension plus existing DR as if both amounts are merged in each
other, whereas in per slab DR system, the pensioner does not get proper DR as
the existing DR is completely left out from this calculation on every occasion
of increase of DR. Thus, per slab DR amount which was payable to the pensioner
20 years ago cannot be justified today after a lapse of 20 years. For example,
if a pensioner was getting Rs. 11.00 for increase of one slab Dearness Relief
(DR) due to 4 points rise in Consumer Price Index (CPI) value 20 years ago,
there is no justification that the same pensioner should get the same Rs. 11.00
for increase of one slab DR today.
To understand this anomaly, let us examine the calculations
on percentage basis as under :
Let us suppose that 20 years ago an employee's Basic Pension
was Rs. 4,000 & DR amount payable was Rs. 3,000. Thus, total pension amount
payable at that time was Rs. 7,000. Supposing that average market price
inflation is 10% every year. Even without considering any Pension Revision to
the pensioners throughout these 20 years, if DR amount is increased considering
the same inflation rate on percentage basis, the present Dearness Relief (DR)
amount will come to Rs. 20,182 plus the same Basic Pension of Rs. 4,000. Thus,
in this percentage based system the present Pension amount would be Rs. 24,182
without any Pay Revision/Pension Revision, which will allow the same living
standard as the DR has been calculated here considering the actual inflation of
market price of commodities. Whereas, in per slab DR payable system as per the
prevailing rules of Pension Scheme 1995, DR which was paid to the pensioner
from time to time since last 20 years is completely left out for any further
revision and hence after a lapse a long period, say 20 years, the Pension
payable to the pensioner is not adequate at all and living standard of the same
Pensioner is deteriorated drastically every year when
the pensioners are not properly compensated through
appropriate DR amount against yearly price rise.
This is the reason that a Zonal Manager of LIC of India who
had retired from service 20 years ago is getting his Pension today equivalent
to the pension of an Assistant of LIC of India retiring from service recently
in the year 2016. Until and unless, this anomaly is not rectified or removed
today, this cycle will continue forever and after every 20 years, the Zonal
Manager of today will face the same situation.
Thus, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court erroneously did not
consider that the present Pension amount payable to existing Pensioners is
quite inadequate at every stage in addition to minimum pension amount due to
implementation of per slab DR payable criteria as per the provisions of Pension
Scheme 1995 instead of percentage increase criteria based on the actual market
price inflation and therefore, LIC of India must take into account proper
inflation of market price of commodities irrespective of considering the need
of Pension Revision from time to time within the framework of the Pension
Scheme 1995 (Paragraph-55), particularly when the DR amount has been merged
with Basic Pension of other retirees who retired on or after 01.08.1997,
01.08.2002, 01.08.2007, 01.08.2012 and so on and who are also the similarly
placed members of the same Pension Scheme 1995.
That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court erroneously did not
consider that not only minimum pension amount of pensioners has to be revised
from time to time to take appropriate care of market price inflation of
commodities, but the Pension amount at every stage should also be revised
accordingly to take care of the same price inflation and to maintain the same
living standard of the Pensioners irrespective of any Pension Revision to take
place or not. Therefore, different DR calculation formula or criteria by
merging DR in Basic Pension for some pensioners and by not merging DR in Basic
Pension for other pensioners to allow different amount of DR payable per slab
at the same stage of Consumer Price Index (CPI) value adopted by LIC of India
to calculate DR for different existing pensioners categorised on retirement
datewise and also future retirees in spite of all employees are the similarly
placed members of the same Pension Scheme 1995, by amending the Pension Scheme
1995 vide Paragraph-3A in Appendix-IV, cannot be justified in the eyes of law. Even
if LIC of India really desired and needed to pay higher amount of Pension to
its new recruits and future retirees, LIC of India should have created a
separate Pension Scheme & its separate Pension Fund for these new category
of employees instead of diverting the existing Pension Fund to these category
of pensioners by snatching the appropriate DR relief amount which was in fact
payable to existing Pensioners. Any employee or retiree who has simply
contributed slightly higher contribution to the same Pension Fund due to merger
of Basic Pay & DR, say only for 10 months (last 10 months' average of Basic
Pay plus DR is considered to calculate Basic Pension & DR on retirement
from service as per the provisions of Pension Scheme 1995), cannot and should
not enjoy the higher Pension amount during his/her entire lifetime, if
similarly placed other pensioners are denied the same benefits. Therefore, this
act of LIC of India and the amendment of the Pension Scheme 1995 by introducing
Paragraph-3A in Appendix-IV clearly discriminated the similarly placed members
of the same Pension Scheme 1995 i.e. pensioners and it is also mismanagement of
the existing Pension Fund similarly belonging to all the pensioners, by the
Trustee of the Pension Fund and the Trustee is none other than LIC of India.
That the analysis of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this
Judgement that the Pension Scheme 1995 was optional and not mandatory for
employees cannot be justified because the Pensioners were not informed by LIC
of India before opting for the Pension Scheme 1995 that later on this Pension
Scheme will be amended arbitrarily to deny certain benefits by discriminating
pensioners every 5 years on retirement datewise and to deny appropriate DR as
per market price inflation every 5 years and at the same time only for future
retirees (pensioners) additional DA over existing DA will be paid by merging
the present DA in Basic Salary or Basic Pension for new recruits and future
retirees categorising the pensioners on retirement date basis. Though it was
optional for employees to opt for the Pension Scheme 1995 by transferring
his/her entire Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) along with interest throughout
the service period to this Pension Fund, there was no provision in the original
Pension Scheme 1995 duly accepted by the existing pensioners that the Pension
Scheme 1995 will be amended later on arbitrarily to create separate classes of
pensioners within the same pensioners while all are members of the same Pension
Scheme. Therefore, this act of LIC of India to amend the Pension Scheme 1995 by
introducing Paragraph-3A in Appendix-IV clearly violates Article-14 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, this Paragraph-3A in Appendix-IV should either be
deleted from the Pension Scheme 1995 and set aside or this Paragraph should be
made applicable to all members of the same Pension Scheme 1995 i.e. all
pensioners to give similar effect and equal protection of Dearness Relief (DR)
per slab.
That it is observed from this Judgement itself that the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court was in a confused state of mind for the reason that
some Paragraphs of this Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are contradictory
to other Paragraphs of the same Judgement. For example, in some Paragraphs the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has stated that the Pension Scheme 1995 is not a
Statutory Scheme rather it is a Scheme to be implemented through a Pension Fund
created for the purpose. Whereas, at the same time in other Paragraphs, the
Hon'ble High Court has stated that the Pension Scheme 1995 is a Statutory
Scheme. However, the legal status is that this Pension Scheme 1995 is a
Statutory Scheme duly notified by Government of India in the Gazette of India,
though this Pension Scheme is to be implemented through a Pension Fund created
for the purpose in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). This Contributory
Provident Fund (CPF) along with interest for the entire service period of a
Pension optee employee was originally payable to the same employee at the time
of retirement from service, but this entire retirement benefit was transferred
to the Pension Fund as he or she opted for the Pension Scheme 1995. Thus,
the Hon'ble High Court has erroneously considered the same Fund as Pension Cost
to LIC of India, whereas this is purely Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) being
Salary Expenses. However, only the additional amount to be transferred by LIC
of India to this Pension Fund in case of a short fall in making payment of
Pension may be treated as Pension Cost to LIC of India. Thus, this Judgement
is based on the wrong imagination of facts & circumstances.
Other arguments by me to follow in due course. Please check
exact Paragraph numbers as I am a GIC pensioner and not LIC pensioner.
Thanks & Regards,
Pramod Srivastava
PUNE.
No comments:
Post a Comment