Please give serious thought .writes my friend..CH Mahadevan answers all .

It is not correct to call para 3A discriminatory.In fact Para 3A has to be taken as a benchmark as it has brought in 100% neutralization of DR from 1/8/1997 on the one hand and parity of Rate of DR  for pensioners with DA  of in-service employees.What have  become discriminatory in comparison  are Para 1 & Para 2 of Appendix IV because of lack of 100% DR neutralization and disparity in rate of DR/DA between retirees and in-service employees before 1/8/1997.If Para 3A is discriminatory against pre-August 1997 retirees,by the same logic, Para 2 of Appendix IV is discriminatory against pre-August1992/April 1993 retirees in the absence of upgradation of pension.

The purpose of Para 3B was only to vest the LIC with powers to determine the rate of DR after the date of each  future wage revision after 1/8/1997 instead of having to notify the same through a Gazette Notification by the Central Government.Para 3B does not provide for upgradation of pension.We can take the help of only Rule 56 & Rule 55 B to strengthen our case for upgradation in the course of our arguments before the Supreme Court.

The other points in our favour are that the LIC Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 recommended upgradation of pension w e f 1/8/1997 and the calculations made thereafter by LIC for payment of ad hoc amounts in Jaipur and Chandigarh and also the payment of 20% IR paid as per the Supreme Court interim order dated 7/5/2015 and the 40% IR paid as per the Supreme Court judgment dated 31/3/2016 were made by revising the basic  pension on 1/8/1997 after merger of existing DR with the basic pension and then applying the rate of DR  as per para 3A on such revised basic pension.

Once LIC has accepted the principle of upward revision of basic pension as at 1/8/1997 by merger of DR with basic pension,they have to extend it further by following the same principle as at 1/8/2002,1/8/2007 and 1/8/2012 and on all the future dates of wage revisions as long as the pensioners survive.As a corollary,such a merger principle for upgradation should also be followed for all post-August 1997 retirees as well to avoid discrimination from 1/8/2002 onwards.

What DHC has ordered by way of modification of DR formula was arbitrary and contrary to a scientific and systematic basis adopted by LIC/GOI for determining the rate of DA/DR after wage revision based on the AICPI(IW) on the date of such revision.If DHC wanted to rectify the  anomaly in DR only when it rejected our prayer for upgradation,the simplest and scientific way in which it could have been done was to equalize the DR formula for pre-August 1997 retirees with that for in-service employees of the respective periods.That was the right way to remove the discrimination that arose out of Para 3A.

So the discrimination caused by cut off date will have to be viewed in the context of the disadvantage suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees in the rate of DR before the cut off date,viz 1/8/1997.

The cut off dates for   Para 3B ,viz 1/8/2002,1/8/2007,1/8/2012 and future effective dates of wage revisions do not create any discrimination due to continuing 100% DR neutralization and parity of the DR rate of retirees with DA rate of in-service employees.

So we need to argue our case on the correct grounds without raising the  issue of constitutional validity of para 3A and/or para 3B.

C H Mahadevan

On Thursday, August 1, 2019, S.R.SRINIVASAN Srinivasan <srsrinivasan1935@gmail.com> wrote:

DHC has held rule 3A discriminatory as it contains a cut  off date.By the same logic all circulars issued under rule 3B are  also discriminatory since all of   them contain a cut off date. This  discrimination will go away if all   these instructions are made applicable to all pensioners irrespective of the date of retirement byremoving the cut

off date.

Then all pensioners will be eligible 

for DA per slab at .1 percent of the Basic pension which is the rate current from 1_8_12.This rate of .1 percent is linked to CPI 4708 and .1  percent should therefore be applied to BP linked toCPI 4708.

This leads to only one conclusion.

That is rule 3Bprovides for updation

of pension after every wage revisions though indirectly.

So thesolution to our problems as regards 100 percent DA  and updation of BP seems to lie underneath rule 3B.

Pl give serious thought and act 

accordingly.