W.P.(C) Nos. 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 27863 OF 2006` ## `PETITIONERS:` ``` 1M.N.GOPINATHAN, 'SURYA', MANJOORAN COLONY,, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2LIC CLASS I RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION REP. BY SECRETARY, 'SANGEETH', BTS, MAMANGALAM CROSS ROAD,, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24. BY ADV SRI.JACOB MATHEW MANALIL ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BIMA MARG,, MUMBAI-21. 2THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD,, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 3GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY (BANKING & INSURANCE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 'JEEVAN DEEP', PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADVS. SRI.H.GOPAKUMAR, CGC S.EASWARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, LIC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).10570/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 2 ## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 3RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ## `WP(C) NO. 10570 OF 2013` ## `PETITIONERS:` - `1 M.P.KARUNAKARAN NAIR AGED 78 YEARS` - `S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, USHA SADAN, P.O.KURUMASSERY, ALUVA-689 579.` - `2 P.D.JOSEPH AGED 80 YEARS S/O. LATE DEVASSIA, PARAYIL, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.` - `3 GEORGE T.PUNNOSE S/O. VARKEY PUNNOSE, TC 2/3732, VN 5, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SRI.M.S.MOHAMMED ANSARY ``` ## `RESPONDENS:` - `1 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA, 'YOGAKSHEMA', JEEVAN BIMA MARG, MUMBAI-21.` - `2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER LIC OF INDIA, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 035.` - `3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (BANKING & INSTITUTIONS), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, "JEEVAN DEEP", PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001.` W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 3 ``` BY ADVS. SRI.H.GOPAKUMAR, CGC S.EASWARAN, STANDING COUNSEL, LIC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).27863/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 4 ## P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of January, 2024. ## JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are connected matters and therefore, I am disposing these writ petitions by a common judgment. ## 2. In W.P.© No.27863 of 2006, the petitioners sought for the following prayers: (i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, to the respondents directing the respondent to revise the Dearness Relief of the pensioners like the 1[st] petitioner by giving effect to 100% neutralization on the basic pension from 1-8 1997, and thus adopting a uniform pattern of neutralisation of the increase in cost of living index for the pensioners of the Corporation as a Class (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof to quash the rules in Appendix IV so far as it is contradictory to W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 5 ## Rule 3 (B) and is ultravires the Constitution. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the 1[st] respondent to implement the decision taken on 24- 11-2001 by the board of management of LIC with regard to the uniform rate of dearness relief to the 1[st] petitioner and other members of the 2[nd] petitioner association. (iv) Issue a writ or direction directing the respondents to implement the decision in Exhibit P6 and pay the arrears along with 10% interest in a period of 2 months. (v) Direct the respondents to fix Dearness Relief allowing 100% neutralization in accordance with paragraph 3(B) of the Appendix to the Pension Rules, 1995. (vi)Issue such other orders, writs or direction that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances and nature of the case. ## 3. In W.P.© No.10570 of 2013, the petitioners sought ## for the following prayers: a) direct the respondents by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction to sanction and disburse Dearness Relief to the Pensioners like W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 6 the petitioners who retired prior to 1.8.1997 at the same rates applicable to those retired after 1.8.1997 by giving the benefit of 100% neutralization on basic pension together with arrears; b) direct the respondents by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ order or direction to immediately implement Ext. P2 resolution of the 1[st] respondent with effect from 1.8.1997 disburse the amounts due to the petitioners along with arrears c) declare that the Pensioners like the petitioners are entitled to Dearness Relief on pension at the same rates applicable to those pensioners who retired after 1.8.1997 and also to the benefits of Ext. P3 and P3 (a) orders d) direct the 1[st] respondent by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction to consider Ext. P4 representation in the light of Ext.P3 and P3 (a) orders and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously e) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and award the costs of these proceedings. ## 3. The Standing Counsel appearing for LIC submitted that the Apex Court as per a judgment in Life Insurance W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 7 Corporation of India and others v. Krishna Murarilal Asthana & another [(2016)6 SCC 515] directed the Delhi High Court to re-consider the matter. Now the Delhi High Court has delivered a common judgment dated 27.04.2017 in W.P.(C) No.184/2007. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing the following directions: - “107. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held as under: (i) Employees of the Corporation cannot be equated and claim parity or equivalence in respect of method and ‘content’ of pension with the Central Government employees - (ii) Challenge of the retired employees/associations for revalorization of basic pension or merger of dearness relief with basic pension upon re-fixation of pay scale of in-service employees relying upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution is rejected, except to the extent of entitlement to minimum pension as enhanced/increased under the Pension Rules from time to time; and rate of equalization stipulated in paragraph 1 is lower than the rate in paragraph 2 and rates in paragraphs 1 and 2 are lower than the rate in paragraph 3(A). (iii) In other words: W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 8 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. b) Retirees prior to 1[st] August, 1997 are entitled to dearness relief at a rate not lower than 0.23% of basic pension. Rate of dearness relief for pre 1[st] August, 1997 retirees cannot be lower than the rate stipulated for pensioners who had retired on or after 1[st] August, 1997 till 31[st] July, 2002. (c) Similarly, dearness relief @ 0.17% of basic pension in paragraph I shall stand enhanced to 0.29% for amounts between Rs.2130/- to Rs.3850/-, the rate stipulated in paragraph 2. 108. We would also clarify that payment made in terms of interim directions issued by the Supreme Court would not be refunded or returned to the Corporation. We have issued the said direction as the amount paid is not substantial for the Corporation, whereas asking the retired employees pensioners to refund the amount would put them in a grave W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 9 financial difficulty. 109. In view of the aforesaid directions partly allowing the Writ Petitions, the Corporation would have to re-work the pensions in several cases. This would be a time-consuming exercise and errors or mistakes can be made. It will be open to the Corporation to prescribe suitable method/procedure which may involve the retired employees/pensioners to submit their details, objections or even option. The said exercise should be completed within 9 months from the date a copy of this order is received. Arrears, if any, would be paid from the date when the first Writ Petition was filed, to all retired employees/pensioners who would be entitled to benefit of this judgment. Interest would not be payable in case, payment is made within a period of one year from the date copy of this order is received. In case there is delay beyond one year interest @ 8% per annum, unless explained and justified in writing to the retired employee, would be payable from the date of this judgment till payment is actually made. The retired employee if aggrieved by the written order would be entitled to challenge the order in accordance with law.” In the light of the above judgment, I think nothing W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 10 survives in this case. The directions of the Delhi High Court will follow in these writ petitions also. With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. If the follow up action based on the Delhi High Court judgment is not done so far, the respondents will do the needful within six months from today. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE smv W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 11 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27863/2006` ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` P1 : COPY OF THE APPENDIX IV (AS AMENDED) ``` ``` P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/2/03 ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN, LIC OF INDIA ``` ``` P3 :TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.4.04 ADDRESSED TO THE FINANCE MINISTER JASWANT SINGH ``` ``` P4:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.7.04 ADDRESSED TO THE FINANCE MINISTER MR.CHIDAMBARAM ``` ``` P5 : THE CHART SHOWING THE DR RECEIVED AND THE DR THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RD. IN CASE OF 100% NEUTRALIZATION. ``` ``` P6:TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 492ND BOARD MEETING OF LIC OF INDIA HELD ON 24.11.2001. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS` ``` EXT.R2(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LIC OF INDIA (EMPLOYEES) PENSION RULES, 1995 ``` ``` EXT.R2(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF LIC OF INDIA(EMPLOYEES) PENSION AMENDMENT RULES, 2000, W.E.F.1.8.97 TO 21.7.2000 ``` ``` EXT.R2(c)TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ``` ``` INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF LIC OF INDIA(EMPLOYEES) PENSION RULES,1995, W.E.F.1.8.02 ``` ``` EXT.r2(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION. ``` W.P.(C) 27863 of 2006 & 10570 of 2013 12 ## `APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10570/2013` ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` P1 : COPY OF THE APPENDIX IV DTD.22.6.2000, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P2 : COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CORPORATION HELD ON 24.11.2001. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.1.2013 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.184/2007. P3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.25.2.2013 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN WPC NO.184/2007. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.4.3.2013 BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF 1ST RESPONDENT. ```