Denial Upgradation to Family Pensioners

I have also sent a copy to PMO.

It has been registered &  Registration Number is : PMOPG/E/2018/0417467   

C H Mahadevan

From: Colinjivadi Mahadevan<chmahadevan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 2:05 PM
Subject: Denial upgradation to Family Pensioners
To: <ed_personnel@licindia.com>
Cc: <chairman@licindia.com>

2/9/2018

To

Executive Director (Personnel),

L I C of India, Central Office,

Mumbai

FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF MR MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA

Dear Sir,

Re: MINIMUM PENSION UPGRADATION NOT EFFECTED FOR FAMILY PENSIONERS

I have come across at least one case in which a family pensioner on minimum pension has not been placed on upgraded pension as noticed  from  the Pension Slip  for August 2018  sent by the concerned OS/Pension cell.(Office Code DO 41;Pension ID No:404100934-Name : Tapendra Nath Lahiri ; Basic Family Pension 600: Date of death of retiree:  22 nd November 2015)

The Delhi High Court has ordered upgradation of minimum pension in its direction in the following paragraphs:

"83. There is another aspect on which we feel the retired employees/associations should succeed. The retired employees/associations on being asked could not point the lowest pension being paid.  Perhaps the retired employees at the lower end are not adequately represented in the associations and do not have the same "access". The Corporation was asked to specify the correct position and state the lowest/minimum amount of pension being paid under paragraphs 1 and 2.  For the sake of convenience, we would like to reproduce the chart filed by the Corporation, with reference to the minimum pension prescribed under Rule 36 quoted above:- ………………………….The aforesaid table indicates that a employee who had retired on 1st August, 2012, at the lowest end would get a minimum pension of Rs.4178 on 1st August, 2016 if he has put in 10 years of service or Rs.17,541 if he has put in 33 years of service.  On the same day, an employee retiring on or before 1st January, 1986 would be entitled would be entitled to a minimum pension inclusive of dearness relief of Rs.3586 if he has put in 10 years of service and Rs.7210 inclusive of dearness relief if he has put in 33 years of service.  Minimum basic pension is fixed under Rule 36 and has been revised as per the table above from time to time, from Rs.375 to Rs.720 on 1st August, 1992, to Rs.1100 on 1st August, 1997, to Rs.1480 on 1st August, 2002, to Rs.1880 on 1st August, 2007 and to Rs.3010 on 1st August, 2012. Rule 36 states that the amount of minimum pension shall be the amounts specified above. Benefit of enhanced minimum pension on each occasion is with reference to the date of retirement. Prior retirees have not been extended benefit of the increased minimum pension.   We do not think that benefit of minimum pension can be restricted with reference to the date of retirement.  If it is so fixed and computed, it will violate the principle of equality as expounded in D.S. Nakara, Krishena Kumar, Indian Ex-Services League and K.l. Rathi (supra). Minimum pension is a matter pertaining to liberalisation in computation of pension, and not connected with emoluments.  In D.S. Nakara's case (supra), one of the benefits granted to the pre-1st April, 1979 retirees was the benefit of removal of limit of Rs.1500 per month. Secondly, the method of computation with reference to 36 months was struck down, in favour of the period of 10 months for it was more beneficial. On the same analogy and reasoning, we would hold that whenever minimum pension is enhanced, the said benefit would accrue and should be given to those who were drawing pension lower than the stipulated figure.  Minimum pension would, to some extent, have reference to the amount required to be paid in order to simply sustain oneself. Thus, Article 21 of the Constitution would be attracted. Effect thereof would be that whenever there is an enhancement of minimum pension, the pensioners drawing less than the minimum pension would be entitled to the minimum pension so fixed. In other words, an employee, who was drawing and entitled to minimum pension of Rs.375 with effect from 1st August, 1986, would be entitled to minimum pension of Rs.720 with effect from 1st August, 1992, minimum pension of Rs.1100 with effect from 1st August, 1997, minimum pension of Rs.1480 with effect from 1st August, 2002, minimum pension of Rs.1880 with effect from 1st August, 2007, and minimum pension of Rs.3010 with effect from 1st August, 2012, if the pension being drawn inclusive of dearness relief on the respective dates was lower. Either/or principle, i.e. whichever is more beneficial, will apply.  Enhancement cannot obviously work to the detriment of the post retirees.

84. With effect from the said dates on grant of the said benefit, the pensioners would be entitled to dearness relief as specified and applicable with effect from 1st August, 1992, 1st August, 1997, 1st August, 2002, 1st August, 2007 and 1st August, 2012, respectively. This would be fair and just and would be in consonance with the judgment and ratio in D.S. Nakara (supra) as expounded and explained in Krishena Kumar, and Indian Ex-Services League (supra).

107. (iii) In other words:

a) Retired employees, who are in receipt of pension lower than the minimum pension as enhanced from time to time, would be entitled to benefit of the minimum pension irrespective of the date of retirement. This direction would apply only when it is beneficial to prior retirees.  Where such benefit of enhanced pension is granted, dearness relief would commence and would be calculated thereafter as per the applicable rate."

Even though it has been stated," Retired employees", considering the spirit of the directions given in the above paragraphs, the term should include family pensioners as well as family pensioners draw dismally much lower amounts of pension than regular pensioners. When minimum pension is applicable to family pensioners, making a narrow interpretation of "Retired employees" to exclude family pensioners will not only be against the spirit of the judgment, but also smacks of a lack of a human approach. It should be appreciated that it would not have been certainly the intention of the Delhi High Court to exclude family pensioners from the purview of upgradation in minimum pension.

Even if by a technical and literal application of the Delhi High Court judgment in respect of upgradation of minimum pension, upgradation of minimum family pension is not covered by the judgment, excluding family pensioners for this benefit creates an anomaly, whereby one set of pensioners drawing minimum pension   enjoy the benefit of upgradation while the other set of pensioners, viz, the family pensioners drawing minimum pension are deprived of similar benefit. This again creates discrimination among the pensioners attracting violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution. This discrimination is also against the ethos of the present Government headed by the Hon'ble Prime Mininster,Narendra Modiji, whereby there is a commitment towards providing security -both financial and otherwise- for the women mostly constituting the vulnerable section of the society.

Whatever logic and rationale have been advanced by the Delhi High Court in paragraphs 83,84 and 107 applies with equal force to the family pensioners even though the judgment has not specifically mentioned family pensioners.  

I request you to kindly review your decision and ensure that justice is done to the family pensioners on minimum pension as the number of such pensioners will be very negligible.

Thanking you,

C H Mahadevan

Executive Director (LIC)(Retd)

Hyderabad Mob 9849314013