Kerala HC ; Judgement Reserved. Circular from Federation. Gen.Secy. informs details.

RETIRED   LIC   CLASS   I   OFFICERS’   ASSOCIATION – CHENNAI

(Affiliated  to Federation of Retd. Class I Officers’  Associations)

Dear Friends,

I am forwarding herewith the circular regarding the long pending issue of the 1992-93 retirees, in Ernakulam HC,  The case came up for hearing on 10th June.  I furnish below the circular from the Federation.

with greetings

V.R.KRISHNAN 

Secretary

====================================================================================================

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS

President :    N.P. Bali 705, Sur, Veena Saaz, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400 101 Mob : 9820324213                   Email Id - npbali@hotmail.com

General Secretary :    D Krishnan No.6/1, Sreshta Riverside Apartments, Wood Creek Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600089 Tel : 9176635967 / 044 42850049. Email Id - dkrishnan1@gmail.com

 

Ecircular No.DK/70

11-06-2019

Friends,           

      Reg: 92-93 Case ---Kerala HC ---Judgment Reserved 

Happy to Report that the Kerala High Court Hearing on the 92-93 Case was concluded yesterday, after about 2 hours of Arguments and Counter-Arguments.

Sri M Arunachalam and I from Chennai, and Sri P Janardhanan Nair , President Ernakulam Assn and Sri T S Sasi Kumar, Secretary , Ernakulam Association attended the Court Proceedings.

The Original Writ Petition (WP 6228 of 20090 of Sri C Krishnan and KNG Kurup was represented by Sri Shyam Kumar, their Advocate.  WP (C) No 39134 of 2017 of Sri P D Joseph and another, and IA  No 9957 of 2018 filed by D Krishnan, Gen Secretary, were represented by their Advocate Sri Jacob Mathew Manalil.    Sri Easwar, Senior Counsel, appeared for LIC.    All the Cases were clubbed for being heard together , as the Prayers were on the same lines--- that Revision of Pay Scales from 1- 8 -1992 to be effective for Cass I officers too from the same date, as against 1-4-1993 as implemented by the LIC.

Initially when the Case came up in its slotted order, the Judge passed it over, so that a number  of other smaller cases could be heard and completed. Around 12 noon our Case was taken up and the first submissions were done by Sri Shyam Kumar Advocate, on behalf of the Original Petitioners Sri C Krishnan and Sri KNG Kurup.  Additions were submitted by Sri Manalil , our Advocate.

        Thereafter Sri Eswar, LIC's Counsel made his points relying mainly on Powers of Chairman ( Regulation 51 (2) of Staff Regulations) to fix Effective Dates for such Revisions in Terms for Employees. He also quoted from the Gratuity Case judgment on the same matter, by Supreme Court , which had not questioned the Authority of Chairman in this behalf, although for Gratuity, because it had statutory force, an exception was made to alter the Effective Date to 1-4-1993 from the originally stipulated Effective date of 1-8-1993. He also added that the original Prayer of Petitioners was only to align the Effective dates to the same , along with the Effective Revision Date for Class I officers, of 1-4-1993. He added that out of magnanimity LIC Paid out the Gratuity based on Notional Revised Pension from 1-8-1992 itself.

        It was then contended by Sri Shyam, Advocate, that it was not a bounty given by the Organisation, but on account of  judgment by the Punjab and Haryana HC dated 4-7-2008, allowing the Prayer of the Retired Officers for payment of Gratuity on the basis of Revised Pay w.e.f., 1-8-1992 to those officers who Retired between 1-8-1992 and31-03 1993.

The Senior Counsel for LIC then quoted the SC judgment on Gratuity to say, that while the SC had agreed that the Powers of the Chairman regarding Rule 51(2) of Staff Regulations does not cover the jurisdiction of Gratuity or Provident Fund, had  agreed that he has the Powers to fix Effective Date concerning Pay and Allowances.

The SC judgment while deciding on Gratuity on LIC's Appeal says in para 20 of its judgment "Method of Fixation, eligibility for the Benefit of Revision and the Date from which the Revisions shall apply, are thus, the only areas within which the Chairman can exercise jurisdiction. The effect of Revision of pay scales on other spheres and which are otherwise governed by another statute or other Provisions of the said Regulations would not come within the purview thereof."

At the level of Arguments and Counter Arguments, this is where matters stand when the Hearing was closed finally , and Judgment Reserved.

 It has to be seen now, whether the judgment that comes, is able to balance between the two SC averments, one in  Feb 2008, Gratuity Case, where it had agreed with the Powers of Chairman to Fix Effective Date for Pay and Allowances, and the other , very briefly, in July 2014, where  it had Dismissed LIC's Appeal in the M C Jain case, agreeing with the contention there, that it was Discriminatory to have two different cut-off Dates for two groups of Employees for the common Revision .

My own personal take on this is that , while Powers of Chairman are not in question, the exercise of such Powers in an Arbitrary manner, is. To quote from the judgment of Rajasthan HC (Division Bench) on M C Jain's case, "In our considered view, if what is contended by the appellant (LIC) is upheld, that would amount to treating equals unequally and would be Discriminatory being violative  of Art 14 of the Constitution".

This in my view distinguishes the issue at hand, as one, of not the Powers of Chairman of LIC per se, but the manner it is exercised, bringing into play the higher aspects of Constitutionality. Let us then hope that the judgment will be in a position to sift out between the two apparently contradictory positions, on the same issue by the Highest Court of the land.

With Heartiest Greetings,

ReplyForward