"The Pensionary benefits to Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation are governed by Rule 55B of LIC of India(Employees)Pension Rules 1995 as amended on 13/8/2001 and the same reads as under:
RULE 55B
Pensionary benefits to employees mentioned in proviso to sub-rule (j) of Rule 2 and employees appointed as Managing Director under Section 20 of
the Act (LIC Act 1956) and who were in service on or after 1st January 1996;
Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, in respect of an employee appointed as Managing Director under Section 20 of the LIC of India Act 1956, and in respect of an employee covered
by proviso to sub-rule(j) of Rule 2,who were in service on and after 1st January
1996, the pensionary benefits shall be calculated in accordance with
the provisions contained in the Central Civil Services(Pension)Rules 1972
and the Central Civil Services( Commutation of Pension)Rules,
1981, as applicable to Central Government servants and in accordance
with the instructions issued by the Central Government thereunder
from time to time;
Provided that
where such an employee who has retired on or after 1.1.1996 and before
the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette or
the family of such employee in the event of
death of such employee, gives a notice in writing within 90 days of the publication of these rules,
expressing an option not to be governed by the provisions of this
rule, then , the provisions of the above paragraph shall not apply
in respect of such employee or the family of such employee as the case
may be. Option once exercised under this proviso shall be final".
1. What if the SC strikes down this Section being ultra vires the Constitution?
2. What if the SC holds it to be discriminatory and extends its
benefits to all but the GOI prepares to introduce a law in the
parliament to nullify the effect of the verdict?
Q1. What if the SC strikes down this Section being ultra vires the Constitution?
Answer:
When
the Apex Court holds any law discriminatory, its intent will be only
to render justice where injustice has been done. The Supreme Court will
not, in my opinion, look at Rule 55 B in isolation leaving aside the
corroboratory violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution by
LIC having allowed some anomalies to crop up in Pension Rules in
respect of pre-August 1997 retirees, and not invoking the provisions of
Rule 56 despite the fact that LIC Pension Rules 1995 have been
notified on the pattern of the CCS Pension Rules in a copy-paste
fashion. The role of the justice system is to provide legitimate
benefits to those who were denied the benefits violating constitutional
provisions rather than taking away some benefits given to others who
deserved to receive such benefits. The word 'discriminatory' is used by
the petitioners in the positive sense so that those who are denied
similar benefits should also be provided the same. It is difficult to
imagine that the highest court of the country will dis entitle a group
of pensioners -however small it may be-from continuing to receive the
benefits that have been provided by due process of law merely because
it is discriminatory against the provisions relating to another group
of pensioners who are deprived of similar benefits. It is not the prayer
of the petitioners that Rule 55B should be struck down.. Rule
55B is not ultra vires because it has been inserted in exercise of the
powers vested in the Central Government under Sec48 of Lic Act
1956.Hence such fears are unjustified.
If limiting of the applicability of Para 55B only to Managing Directors are declared as discriminatory & made applicable to all employees, it will be a huge relief to all those are superannuated with less than 33 years of service & drawing Pro-rata Pension.
The Implication is that the Basic Changes of CCS Pension Rules 1972 as amended from time to time will be applicable to LIC Pension Scheme 1995.
If limiting of the applicability of Para 55B only to Managing Directors are declared as discriminatory & made applicable to all employees, it will be a huge relief to all those are superannuated with less than 33 years of service & drawing Pro-rata Pension.
The Implication is that the Basic Changes of CCS Pension Rules 1972 as amended from time to time will be applicable to LIC Pension Scheme 1995.
Q2.
What if the SC holds it to be discriminatory and extends its benefits
to all but the GoI prepares to introduce a law in the parliament to
nullify the effect of the verdict?
Aanswer:
The Question is Hypothetical in Nature However If
SC orders the benefits to be extended to other groups of pensioners,
the immediate outcome will be a direction by Supreme Court to LIC to
implement the judgment and pay benefits within a time frame to eligible
pensioners.
Even
if the Government of India chooses to resort to legislation to nullify
the effect of the verdict, the implementation of the judgment cannot
be kept in abeyance till the enactment of appropriate law. But
considering that the LIC Pension Scheme is closed to new recruits of LIC
after 1/4/2010 and the pension liability of the Corporation will be a
tapering liability over the future period of time and it is most unlikely that GOI will resort to such step. If it happens,it will again attract the axe of upex court.
