Dear Sury,
I am Attaching here the transcript of what I have put down as
my impressions. They are entirely my own impressions and do not purport to be
that of the Association I am a member of.Thanks
D.Krishnan.
*******************************************************************
Dear Sury,
You asked for my impressions on the
Delhi H C Judgement. I shall try and capture a few points here. They are
more or less the same as those I mentioned in the Meeting Yesterday. I shall
put them down here, again , for the benefit of those who weren't there in the
Gen Body Meeting Yesterday:
1. There is a Pre-amble to the
judgement which itself runs into pages, for good reasons. They have to
convince the reader of the points that were under reference to them from
SC, and on which they would adjudicate. It is pretty clear from their narration
that they were fully seized of their Brief from SC which included the
background of Jaipur, Chandigarh and Delhi HCs and their judgements favouring
the Petitioners on grounds of Discrimination as far as the DR principle to
Pre-97 Retirees. After going over the whole background of the point
upto where the SC thought of Remanding the case to the Delhi HC itself, mainly
because , while giving a favourable judgement on grounds of
Discrimination in DR , the Delhi HC had not addressed the issue of the
Constituional Validity of Rule 3(A) of the Pension Rules though it had been
specifically raised as a Prayer in the Petition filed by our Federation
way-back in 2006.. So with a lot of clarity as to their job on hand the Delhi
HC captures in essence the two aspects of Prayers from Petitioners
they need to listen to and adjudicate upon.
It says in Page 8 of the
Judgement, "In view of the aforesaid discussion, the issue which
survives for consideration, and has to be answered, relates to the VALIDITY of
Rule 3(A) which is restricted to employees who have Retired or died on or after
1st day of Aug 1997. This, as noticed below, is not the Primary issue. The core
issue is the Prayer of the Retired Employees/Assns that all Retirees prior to
Aug 1997 should be given full Neutralization and up gradation on Basic Pension
with effect from 1st Aug 1997, ensuring Uniform Pension for all Retired
Employees, irrespective of the Date of Retirement. In other words, the Retired
Employees seek enforcement of the precept of 'One Rank One Pension', by
judicial verdict contrary to the Rule position."
In analysing the point reg up
gradation demand, the judgement mainly discusses D S Nakara case which was
about discrimination in the principle involved in computing basic Pension for a
set of Retirees as against a later group retiring after a cut off date. Quoting
another SC judgement on another case it says, ".....merger of Dearness
allowance into pay would amount to a new Retirement Benefit, whereas D S
Nakara's case the ratio and mandate was limited to upward Revision of an existing
Benefit. The challenge made by the Retired Employees had failed to distinguish
between the in- force Pension Scheme and the Revised Pay Scale. When there is a
Revision of Pay, it applies to existing Employees or in some cases even to
Retired Employees, when given a retrospective effect. However, this does not
mean that the Pension should be Revised on the basis of the new or upgraded
emoluments. Unless there is a change in emoluments as defined in the Pension
scheme the basic pension payable would continue to remain as per the pay
drawn by the employees immediately before his Retirement."
In yet another averment of the SC in
connection with the D S Nakara Case it says, "the SC was certainly
conscious and aware that employees retiring from broadly comparable posts at
different times were receiving different amounts of Pension. These differences
were due to the difference in emoluments drawn by the Retirees at the time of
Retirement and also on account of merger of the Dearness Allowance with basic
pay or due to interim Relief granted from time to time. This was not
struck down in the case of D S Nakara. In fact , it was never made the subject
matter of challenge."
"thus, D S Nakara's case had
held that the Formula computing Pension by taking average of last 10 months'
emoluments would be applied universally. It did not lay down that quantum of
emoluments drawn during the last 10 months for each employee must be taken as
uniform. The emoluments have to be calculated according to the pay-scales
applicable at the time of Retirement."
"The Pension rules do not
Postulate increase in Pension pay outs for retired employees upon wage
Revision. The Pension Rules to offset the adverse impact of inflation provide
for Dearness relief based on price index. This cannot be faulted and struck
down as violating Art 14. Thus, courts have recognised that amount of Pension
for Retirees from the same post can be different."
In Pages 54 & 55 the judgement
goes on to state further- -"The Prayer is for Revalorisation of
basic pension by merging dearness Relief paid upto index of 1740 points
into basic pension or by notional increase in emoluments. The Prayer would
require re-writing the Pension Rules including the defenition of 'average
emoluments' and rule 35,37, &38 relating to computation of the amt of
pension , Dearness Relief, and re-calculation of average emoluments for the
period of 10 months."
"In case we accept the
contention of the Retired Employees/associations, whenever there is a Revision
of Pay, after a period of every 5 years, all retired employees would be
entitled to revalorisation of basic pension on the basis of
enhanced pay-scales, notwithstanding the fact that they have retired
prior to enhancement of pay-scales. For reasons stated, this challenge &
submission predicted on Article 14 is to be rejected."
Having thus demolished our demand
for up -gradation on the principle of Art 14, the judgement goes on to test it
against the principle of Art 21 of the constitution. The Art 21 embodies the
Right to adequate means of livelihood. The Demand for up-gradation can be
considered under Art 21 only if the" amount being drawn is shown as
grossly inadequate, unconscionable or an apparent case of arbitrariness and
irrationality resulting in violation of Art 14 can be made out. violation of
Art 21 is not made out with reference to the aforesaid Tables. Pensions between
13000/- and 21000/- a month do not violate Art 21 so as to affect right to
life. The challenge is not that the amount being paid as Pension is meager and
piteous, but that the pension paid is less than what is paid to others. The
Argument would have to be tested under Art 14 and not under Art 21."
Further the judgement points out
that the Pension Scheme was voluntary and those opting for it knew that
the in-service employees would get Revision every 5 years and that those
Retiring later would get sizably more Pension based on the definition of
basic pension as described in the Pension Rules.
"In order to offset the
inflationary effect, and fall in the value of money, the Pension Rules had
postulated Dearness Relief stipulated as per the scale or formula in Appendixiv
The Purpose and object of rule 37 read with Appendix iv is to grant Dearness
Relief on account of Inflation and rise in prices. Dearness Relief neutralised
the inflationary effect to ensure that the pension is adequate and fair"
My own impression is that the demand
for up-gradation has been exhaustively dealt with in the judgement
though it certainly was no demand for OR OP from our side, as seen in the
judgement. The judgement does recognize that earlier retirees in the same
position draw considerably less than the same level retirees later on.
But that is not to be seen as offending Art 14 or right to equal
treatment. The time point of retirement is significant and our demand for
'some ' up-gradation like what the retirees of Central Govt employees get
, was interpreted as OROP and all arguments against giving it ,have been
robustly built up. To me it looks like there is no getting up from this
devastating blow, to once again appeal to SC on up-gradation. We could at best
say we were not asking for wholesale change in Pension Rules, and what we
intended was only a percentage rise , that too , based on notional application
of the merger principle.
2. As far as the pronouncement in
the judgement on 3(A) of Pension Rules is concerned , I would read it as
a total success in that the constitutional validity of it has been
questioned and that it offends Art 14 has been upheld. The Problem
comes thereafter. The Court has perhaps not fully grappled with the concept of
percentage neutralisation that is embodied as part of the different percentage
points against each level of Basic pension, and before and after 1st Aug 1997.
With the result they start out stipulating percentage points to different
categories without quite realising that the discrimination talked about is the
neutralisation of Dearness Relief percentage, to each category referred to.
They seem to have got mixed up in seeing higher and lower percentage points in
their absolute form and sense, instead of the neutralisation percentage they
represent. This has resulted in there being no co-relation between the
way the Arrears on such neutralisation was calculated and Interim Relief
granted to the Pre-97 Retirees by the SC. This could be a good point for Appeal
if we decided to go for one.The Pension Rules are involved, and it becomes
policy making and perhaps the Courts here went beyond their Brief.
I do not want to proffer views on
deeper aspects now, as the Highest Brain-Trust of the Federation will sit on
the future measures to be followed based on their discussions and combined
analysis.
D.Krishnan.(Vice President)
14-05-2017.
Sunday, May 14, 2017
Abstract of proceedings of AGB held on 13.5.2017
RETIRED LIC CLASS1 OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION- CHENNAI
Abstract of the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting held
On 13th May 2017-
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------
As scheduled the AGM of our Association was held at Hotel Palmgrove on Saturday the 13th May 2017. The meeting was attended by more than hundred members with the President Shri GN Sridharan in the chair.
On 13th May 2017-
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------
As scheduled the AGM of our Association was held at Hotel Palmgrove on Saturday the 13th May 2017. The meeting was attended by more than hundred members with the President Shri GN Sridharan in the chair.
The president welcomed the members present and briefly referred to the status of the litigation on pensioners'. issues particularly with reference to the latest judgement of the Delhi HC.
The secretary shri PA Sivakumaran presented his Report on the activities of the Assn during the last one year and spoke on the important subjects dealt with in his report. He invited discussions on the report.
At this stage shri R Thamodaran Zonal Manager (South Zone) LIC who had been invited as a special guest arrived and was received by all office bearers.As proposed earlier Shri Thamodaran released the revised 2017 edition of our members' Directory. In his address shri Thamodaran made a reference to the business performance of the LIC ,particularly in S.Zone and shared his thoughts on the need for introducing certain accounting procedures in LIC. He assured that if any pensioner had any grievance he can be contacted personally and he would see to its redressal. Shri GN Sridharan thanked the Z M on behalf of the audience.Before leaving Shri Thamodaran in a rare gesture went round and personally greeted each member present.
On resumption of discussions on Secy's report the president in his capacity as the gen. Secy of the fedn elaborately explained the stand taken by us and the other petitioners us before the Delhi HC and the totally negative stance of LIC/Govt combine.He strongly deprecated the unnecessary hype created by some quarters during the entire proceedings and expressed his personal view that total dependence on judiciary may not help. He pointed out that the only small gain out of the DHC judgement dt 27/4/2017 was that there was an indirect recognition of the deprivation suffered by a section of pensioners in the matter of DR.Even that had not been spelt out clearly as the court had chosen not to specifically strike down Rule 3A but introduced a new formula. He explained how the judgement was harsh in denying any relief completely on other important issues like Up-gradation of pensions. He informed the house that the thinking in the federation was to file an SLP in the Supreme court instead of filing a review petition in the HC and that a meeting of officebearers and Legal committee members will be held on 26th or 27th of the month for taking a final deceision . The two vice-presidents M/S D Krishnan & M Arunachalam then spoke supplementing with further details on the implications of the Delhi HC judgement.
After only a couple of members sought a few clarifications , the house unanimously adopted the Secy's report.
Posted By Blogger to PENSIONERS' VOICE & SOUND TRACK Editor: R K Sahni on 5/14/2017 07:16:00 pm
The treasurer Shri TN Krishnamurthy then presented the audited statement of Accounts which was unanimously adopted by the house without any discussions.
The prsident informed that there were no elections due this year as per bye laws he sought approval of the general body for effecting some changes in the composition of the Executive committee.
Accordingly it was decided that as
requested by her Smt Sathi Thomas will be relieved from the post of
jt.Secy while continuing as EC member and in her place Shri N Nagarajan
will function as one of the jt. Secy for the remaining term.It was also
decided to co-opt shri V Devanathan an EC member in the place of shri
Kanchi Selvaraj.
Two distinguished guests from other units of the federation viz (1)shri TKS Narayanan president if Bengaluru Association and (2) shri P Gunasekar (Coimbatore ) spoke briefly and extended their greetings.
Two distinguished guests from other units of the federation viz (1)shri TKS Narayanan president if Bengaluru Association and (2) shri P Gunasekar (Coimbatore ) spoke briefly and extended their greetings.
Shri,.S Suryanarayanan Editor of the blog 'licofficerspensionersviews. blogspot.com' then informed that his blog has been attracting a large number of viewers and appealed to the members to visit his blog for updated information on our federation's activity particularly for circulars and messages from the gen.Secy shri GN Sridharan.
The meeting terminated with a hearty vote of thanks by shri VR krishnan followed by sumptuous lunch
G N Srridharan (president) -- P A Sivakumaran (Secretary) 14/4/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment