NEWS FLASH

INCREMENT DUE ON COMPLETION OF 12 MONTHS SINCE DATE OF   LAST INCREMENT AS ON DATE OF RETIREMENT SHOULD BE NOTIONALLY ADDED FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS Mr N K Vaid,  our pensioner colleague  from Delhi brought my attention to the Madras High Court judgment dated 15/9/2017 in WP No 15732 of 2017 upheld by the Supreme Court by  dismissal on 23/7/2018 of the SLP filed by the Union of India &Ors favouring one Mr Ayyamperumal. Mr Ayyamperumal retired from service as Additional Director General, Custom & Excise dept,Chennai on 30.06.2013 and in the normal course, he would have drawn an increment if he had continued in service on 1st July 2013. On a writ petition filed by him at Madras High Court, the Court ordered that he should be provided with the benefit of increment due to him on completion of one year since the last increment drawn. The SLP filed by the Union of India & Ors was dismissed on 23/7/2018 bringing a finality to the judgment of Madras High Court. There may be instances of retirees of LIC who might have retired just a day before the date when their annual increment was due .For example,if an employee was due to receive an increment on 1/7/2017, but he had to retire on 30/6/2017, in terms of the above judgment ,he can  claim an increment to be added notionally  to the last drawn basic pay as on the date of retirement for pensionary benefits. Regulation 56 of LIC Staff Regulations ,1960 provides as follows:   " 56 (2) [Subject to the other provisions of these Regulations, increments shall fall due]§ on the first day of the month following that in which the employee completes twelve months service in accordance with sub-regulation (1) from the date of his first appointment or from the date on which his last annual increment accrued or the date of promotion (except in cases where no change in time-scale is involved), as the case may be. Explanation: 1. For the purpose of this sub-regulation, 12 months means a period of 365 days or 366 days where the month of February in a leap year is involved. 2. Where an employee on appointment to the service of the Corporation or on appointment to a higher post joins in the forenoon of the first working day of a month, he shall be deemed to have joined on the first of the month for the purpose of this regulation." But LIC may not readily agree to act as per the above judgment and may be the Pension Rules 1995 may need some amendment in regard to computation of 'average emoluments'. There are only two options available: The first option is through a firm demand by the in-service employees'Associations/Federations for providing the benefits of the judgment to all the retirees/ pensioners and also in computation of family pension in such cases. The other option is to approach the judiciary for getting extension of the benefit for pensioners falling in this category. The number of likely beneficiaries may be relatively small in number and they need to consult some advocate to examine whether an application can be filed by the group of  potential beneficiaries in the Supreme Court for a direction to LIC  or whether a writ petition has to be filed in respective High Courts. The Associations of pensioners may not take the initiative in the matter as this judgment may not concern majority of pensioners. The affected pensioners may have to take the lead in order to get the benefit. I attach the judgment of the Madras High Court and the judgment of Supreme Court dismissing the SLP of Union of India & Ors. Greetings. C H Mahadevan