Fw: Preliminary Comments on Delhi High Court judgment and Request to take up the issue of Revision of Pension of Pre-2012 Pensioners at par with Post 2012 Pensioners

32, Phase 6,

Mohali – 160055

Dated: 23-5-2017

1.    Shri SS Saxena, President, A I R I E F

2.    Shri G. Krishna Swamy, General Secretary, A I R I E F

3.    Sh. KML Asthana, Vicei President (NZ) A I R I E F

4.    Sh. RK Sharma, President, LIC Retd. Officers Association, Chandigarh,

5.    Sh. Inder Thakral, Secretary, LIC Retd. Officers Association, Chandigarh,

6.    Sh. HK Aggarwal, LIC Retd. Officers Association, Chandigarh,

7.    Sh. IP Puri, LIC Retd. Officers Association, Chandigarh

Dear Sir,

Subject: i) Preliminary Comments on the Delhi High Court judgment dated 27-4-2017

            ii) Request to take up the issue of Revision of Pension of Pre-2012 Pensioners at par with Post 2012 Pensioners

Reference: W.P.(C) 184/2007 Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers – Vs – UOI & Others

1. We are hurt to go through the above cited adverse judgment of the Delhi High Court on the issue of Revision of DA and updation of Pension.

However, we do appreciate the valiant struggle put up by Shri Asthana as well as by the A I R I E F for fighting this case so well over the years and presenting every aspect of it before the Delhi High Court – notwithstanding the final verdict of DHC against which the struggle must go on - apparently through an SLP in the Supreme Court or as advised by the legal experts.

2. Since the Legal Committee of the AIRIEF is meeting on 25^th May, 2017 as advised by Shri Inder Thakral, and since he and Sh RK Sharma wanted us to send our comments on the judgment, we are sending our preliminary comments thereon due to paucity of time. Detailed comments if required, shall be submitted later on, as advised by you.

3. Preliminary Comments on the Delhi High Court judgment:

Delhi High Court has seriously erred in its judgements as apparent from the following facts:

i)     It has ignored to consider the legal & Constitutional validity of the relevant Rules and Orders of the Government and those of the LIC cited by it in the judgment as well as ignored to decide the Constitutional validity of the Articles of the LIC Act cited by it; and has thus ignored the following aspects of the settled law:

a)    No Rule, Orders or Instructions can be relied upon and the same should rather be set aside, if these are violative of or result in consequential violation of any of the Constitutional provisions - especially the Fundamental rights or Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

b)    Law settled by the Apex Court should be applied in its entirety and in its true spirit and not in piece meal.

c)    Having accepted the basic spirit of the judgment of Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. – Vs - Union of India (!983) 1 SCC 305, that the Pensioners form a homogenous class, the Delhi High Court was wrong in allowing 4 Classes of Pensioners in LIC to continue, as it is totally discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

d)    Basic spirit of Major S. P. S. Vains & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 125 Case has been dealt with very superficially by the High Court without even referring to the related aspects thereof in their judgment.

ii)    a) Since Union of India was a respondent in this case (supra), the Delhi High Court in its orders (as well as all courts in their orders over the years in this case) should have directed the Government to accept the Resolution of LIC dated 24-11-2001 - even by amending the LIC Act, if required.

b)    High Court has failed to ask UOI / the Government or the LIC whether the Resolution was ever considered by the Government or what action or decision was taken thereon and whether it had gone by default or has it been rejected by the Government and if so at what level. Was it ever put up to the Cabinet for approval or otherwise?

4. Other related aspects:

i) Nakara’s case (supra) did not impact the 3^rd and 4^th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs). However, 5^th and 6^th Pay Commission did take note of it while stressing the need for providing Parity of Pension between past & future Pensioners but citing financial constraints of the Government, both of the CPCs recommended Parity at Minimum levels of Revised Pension in each revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which Pensioners had retired. This was initially mutilated by an Executive by a so called clarificatory order but was finally implemented after litigation wherein Supreme Court set aside the illegal clarificatory orders made by the Executive.

ii) 7^th Central Pay Commission, while relying heavily on Nakara's and Vains' Cases (supra), had recommended for full Parity between Pre- and Post 2016 Pensioners. Government has finally implemented the Parity to Past Pension, ers (Vide OM Dated 12-2017) by Notionally fixing their Pay from Pay Commission to Pay Commission since their retirement as if they had been serving employees fixing their Revised Pension from 1-1-2016 at 50% of their Notional Pay in 7^th CPC.

5. We also urge upon the Federation once again take up the case of Revision of Pension of Pre-2012 Pensioners more effectively – either as part of the proposed SLP or separately through a new Writ Petition. Since the orders regarding Post-2012 Pensioners have been issued only in 2015/16, the minor delay in filing the WP can be got condoned especially it is an issue of major recurring loss to the old Pensioners.

With kind regards,

Yours Faithfully,

 

Jagjit Kaur

ADM (Retd.)

LIC DO CHD

Email: jagjit_lic@yahoo.com

(Harchndan Singh)

Secretary General, RSCWS

ASG, Bharat Pensioners Samaj,

H/o (Mrs. Jagjit Kaur.

Email: harchandan_chd32@yahoo.co.in