Friday, 11 November 2016

The service rules apply similarly to the resigning Ex-Chairman and other resigning ex-employees.



               If the service rules apply similarly to the resigning Ex-Chairman and other resigning ex-employees, why should the Ex-Chairman expect preferential treatment to get his retirement dues? Kindly refer to the report from the Economic Times, as reproduced below.
               If the Government considers his resignation as VRS,  all the resigning ex-employees' resignations must also be treated as VRS and their arrears and retirement dues must be released by LIC of India, immediately. No two ways about it!
                                                                                                                                   Priya
**************************************************************************************************************
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/lic-chairman-sk-roy-asks-government-to-treat-resignation-under-vrs-category/articleshow/53565351.cms

LIC chairman SK Roy asks government to treat resignation under VRS category

By Dheeraj Tiwari, ET Bureau | Updated: Aug 06, 2016, 04.10 PM IST
NEW DELHI: Life Insurance Corporation of India chairman SK Roy, who resigned unexpectedly, has asked the government to relieve him under the voluntary retirement scheme after realising that he stands to lose benefits including pension and other emoluments if he quits.

Roy stepped down as chairman of state-owned LIC, the country's largest insurance company, in June, two years before the end of his term. It was widely reported that his decision was due to "personal reasons," although  no statement was issued by Roy, LIC, or the government.

A senior official confirmed that Roy had written to the government seeking to leave the company under VRS.

The official said it may be the case that he resigned without realising that he may lose all those years of service that he has put in.

"Now the resignation may be considered under VRS," the official said, adding that it was rare for a government employee to resign instead of seeking voluntary retirement. A detailed email sent to LIC did not elicit an immediate response. Roy did not respond to text messages or phone calls.

Roy is expected to serve for another three months unless a replacement is appointed and he is allowed to leave earlier. "The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet will soon take a call on his resignation," the official said.
Under the rules, an employee can opt for VRS after completing 20 years of qualifying service and has to give notice of not less than 90 days, in writing, to the appointing authority.

A senior LIC executive also confirmed the development. He said the issue is over the interpretation of the rules and Roy must have sought VRS as a measure of "abundant protection."

According to the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, forfeiture of service, including resignation, dismissal, removal, termination and compulsory retirement, will entail loss of past service and pensionary benefits. "The rules also state that if the employee of the corporation becomes chairman, then these rules will apply to him as well," the executive said.
Roy started his LIC career in 1981. Prior to becoming chairman, he was manager of the north, central and eastern zones. Roy's resignation is a rare instance of a top LIC executive leaving prematurely.

GN Bajpai resigned as chairman to join the Securities & Exchange Board of India and TS Vijayan stepped down as managing director to become chairman of the insurance regulator.

Saturday, 22 October 2016

Who will bolster LIC if it tanks in future?


Source: http://www.firstpost.com/business/if-air-india-is-turning-around-why-should-lic-offer-low-cost-loan-to-the-maharajah

If Air India is turning around, why should LIC offer low-cost loan to the Maharajah?

f  Updated: Oct 20, 2016 12:52 IST National carrier Air India, saddled with huge debt and other major operational challenges over the past few years, seems to be getting its act together and working towards a quicker turnaround.
PTI
Few days after the airline reported its first operating profit in the last ten years for the fiscal year ended 2015-16, the cash-strapped company has now announced it has cut its debt by Rs 5,000 crore in the last fiscal.

As it works towards becoming fully profitable ahead of its schedule under the 10-year turnaround plan, the carrier has brought down its debt to around Rs 46,000 crore at the end of March this year.
"We have phased out more than Rs 5,000 crore debt from the books in the last fiscal and it now stands at around Rs 46,000 crore," a top Air India official said.
The airline had a total debt of Rs 51,367.07 crore at the end of 2014-15 fiscal.
Even as the airline has been reporting improved operational performance besides working on ways to pare debt last fiscal, the debt-laden airline will be seeking help from national insurer LIC to convert its high-cost debt.
Of the Rs 46,000 crore debt post the reduction in dues, an Air India official said Rs 28,000 crore are short-term loans and the rest are long-term borrowings.
According to a report in Times of India, top officials of Air India and Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) are in discussions wherein the former wants its current 10 percent rate of interest on its working capital loan of Rs 10,000 crore be converted to 7 percent by the government-controlled insurer. The lowering of interest rate will help Air India save Rs 300 crore annually on its loan dues.
“AI's total loan is about Rs 50,000 crore, of which Rs 28,000 crore is working capital loan at an interest rate of 10 percent. We are seeking to convert whatever possible of this working capital loan to a LIC loan at 7 percent. Switching Rs 10,000 crore will lead to a saving of Rs 300 crore annually in debt servicing," the Times of India reported quoting a source.
Talks with Air India for a softer loan rate comes after the insurer last year in a similar agreement had announced to provide financial package of Rs 1.5 lakh crore till 2020 to Indian Railways. The Railways has already received first instalment of Rs 2,000 crore loan from the insurer at around 7 percent interest rate.
The question here is: Will the country's insurance behemoth keep fiddling with public money to bailout government companies facing huge losses incurred over the past years?
In the past, there were several instances where LIC was allegedly used in bailing out disinvestments of government-controlled entities.
On queries about LIC being roped in to bailout  disinvestments, finance minister Arun Jaitley said last year, "LIC is not a body which invests only to bailout the government in disinvestment. In issues by private companies, LIC also participates. It stocks the shares as part of its investments and then sells them at an appropriate time."
In fact, last year in the IOC stake sale, the government managed to garner Rs 9,379 crore primarily because LIC bought significant stake during the offer for sale of the state-owned oil company.
“LIC has bought a significant stake in the Indian Oil issue,” a Mint report said last year quoting the head of a brokerage firm.
Besides Air India, will the cash-cow LIC be used as a tool to offer funds at lower rates of interest to other government firms facing challenging operational issues besides servicing huge debts.
For instance, state-run BSNL had an outstanding debt of Rs 7,666.94 crore as on January 31, 2016, while that of MTNL stood at Rs 13,529.62 crore at the end of February this year, former telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had said in a written reply to Lok Sabha in March this year.
With regards to Air India, the airline is staying afloat on a Rs 30,231 crore bailout package extended by the previous UPA government in 2012 for a period of up to March 31, 2021.
For the first since the merger of Indian Airlines, Air India has reported an operating profit of Rs 105 crore in 2015-16 on the back of lower fuel costs and higher passenger numbers. It had an operating loss of Rs 2,636 crore in 2014-15.
Analysts say a fall of nearly 31 percent in fuel costs in the last financial year compared to the year-ago period was a key factor in the airline becoming operationally profitable.
Sources had said the airline's net loss after interest declined to Rs 3,837 crore in the last fiscal, from Rs 5,859 crore in 2014-15.
However, a Firstpost report had highlighted that although the operational profit is a significant milestone for the ailing national carrier, it could soon evaporate if oil prices go up.
So, it could be said that not many cost initiatives, but savings from benign global crude prices saved it the blushes in 2015-16.
In fact, a media report recently said that the airline has once again missed the target for a modest operational profit for the first quarter of the current fiscal and posted a loss. Unsure about its ability to service the huge debt, the airline's management wants a corporate debt restructuring from the banks for its survival.
(With PTI inputs)
All 6 comments
sorted by:
best
[–]imaketrollfaces 10 points  
Capital infusion to accelerate profits.
[–]WhatsTheBigDeal 5 points  
At the cost of policy holders. As a policy holder for of a LIC policy, the burden on your shoulders is enormous. Not only do you have to pay towards the commissions of your agent who mis-sold you the policy, but also bail out failing OFSes, lend money at low cost to symbols of national pride like Air India besides contributing to the government held company's bottomline.
[–]samacharbot2 1 point  
Talks with Air India for a softer loan rate comes after the insurer last year in a similar agreement had announced to provide financial package of Rs 1.5 lakh crore till 2020 to Indian Railways

·         "We have phased out more than Rs 5,000 crore debt from the books in the last fiscal and it now stands at around Rs 46,000 crore," a top Air India official said.
·         Of the Rs 46,000 crore debt post the reduction in dues, an Air India official said Rs 28,000 crore are short-term loans and the rest are long-term borrowings.
·         According to a report in Times of India, top officials of Air India and Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) are in discussions wherein the former wants its current 10 percent rate of interest on its working capital loan of Rs 10,000 crore be converted to 7 percent by the government-controlled insurer.
·         The lowering of interest rate will help Air India save Rs 300 crore annually on its loan dues.

[–]Bowiefanzy 1 point  
46k crores!!
[–]WhatsTheBigDeal 1 point  
Air India is just like Kingfisher, just that its debt is sovereign...
[–]stoikrus1 1 point  
LIC is a government financing arm like no other. It bails any failing PSU bond offering, it props up stock markets and the Rupee. It's a case of poor capital allocation which, if it goes south will wipe out the savings of millions of middle class salaried folks. Just like Unit Trust of India.
******************************************************************************* My queries to LIC in the light of the above-mentioned report:

LIC can't pay its resigning ex-employees their legally rightful Arrears' payments and Difference in Statutory retirement benefits and expects them to file court cases to get justice. This injustice has been going on since nearly 2 decades, that is from 1997! My RTI appeal and the replies received from LIC are testimony to this fact.

Why shouldn't it fulfill its responsibility towards these hard-working employees who have contributed towards its profitability, while in service, by granting them their dues?

Why does it pride itself on bailing out sick and unprofitable Government undertakings?

Who will be able to bail out LIC in case it tanks in future, at the alarming rate at which it is bolstering the above-mentioned undertakings?

Doesn't it owe its stakeholders, majorly the employees, policy-holders and agents, etc.? 

How will it explain its rationale to invest in loss-making undertakings, at the cost of the policy bonuses, policy-holders' trust and the resigning ex-employees' dues that it has unjustly been repudiating?

                                                                                             Priya Swaminathan

Tuesday, 4 October 2016

NHRC - Handbook

 Source: http://nhrc.nic.in/Documents/Publications/Retiral%20Benefits%20as%20a%20Human%20Rigts%20NHRC%20Initatives_2014.pdf          
         
           The Handbook of the National Human Rights Commission highlights how retirement benefits are essential for the well-being of a retired employee's family. They form a part of basic human rights and shouldn't be deprived to the employees' families when they need them the most.
           Several court cases are given in this handbook; the ones pertinent to insurance are also mentioned. The readers are requested to kindly peruse them carefully.
           One case pertaining to Gratuity payment mentions that Gratuity is not a bounty, it must be given to the ex-employees as per the last basic pay, as per revised pay-scales, irrespective of the mode of retirement.
           One only wishes that LIC's lawyers advise LIC appropriately, whenever it decides to unjustly deprive its ex-employees of their arrears' payments and retirement benefits' difference payable as per revised pay-scales. They should also keep abreast of the latest judgments on these issues and update the Management regularly. They should behave responsibly and conscientiously. One never knows when the shoe could be on the other foot!  
          Loyalty to the Management surely shouldn't mean bending backwards to put the ex-employees to a distinct disadvantage and forwarding the cause of LIC's injustice! 
***********************************************************************************
           
          How did LIC manage to illegally repudiate the resigning ex-employees' arrears payments and difference in retirement benefits since 1997? 
          Why should these ex-employees have to suffer the trauma of being deprived of their wages, a Fundamental Right? Why should they have to run from pillar to post for their basic rights? Why doesn't the Government put an end to this?  
          LIC is an institution with the motto 'Yogakshemam Vahamyaham'- 'Your welfare is our responsibility.'
         This 'welfare' obviously does not include the resigning ex-employees' welfare - Sad but true!
         Think about it!

Friday, 2 September 2016

SC - "Proviso of Para 3 is struck sown ultra vires"

Supreme Court Decision - GIC

**************************************************************************************************************
 K. S. Raina.                                                                                       -      ------------Petitioner.
                        Versus
Union of India and others.                                                                         --------Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?*                                    Yes.
For the Petitioner:                                                  Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1:                                         Ms. Shilpa Sood,
Central Government Counsel.
For Respondents No. 2 & 3:                                Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
                        The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner started his career in respondent No. 2 – Company as an Assistant in the year 1969. He submitted application seeking voluntary retirement under Special Voluntary Scheme on 4th February 2004. The request was accepted by the employer on 5th March 2004 and he was permitted to retire with effect from 15th March 2004. Respondent No. 1 had issued notification dated 21st December 2005 under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 whereby the Scheme called as the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of service of Officers) second Amendment Scheme, 2005 was framed. The Scheme has come into force with effect from 1st August 2002. Under the Scheme the scales of the Officers working in the company were revised. While implementing the Notification on 21st December 2005 the category to which the petitioner belongs, i.e. who had sought voluntary retirement under 2004 Scheme was excluded except for the limited relief. The petitioner had approached this Court for the following reliefs:-
(i) That the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and Conditions of service of Officers) second Amendment Scheme, 2005 may be quashed and set aside to the extent it excludes the Officers who have sought Special Voluntary Retirement under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (S.O 7(E) dated 1.1.2004 and the General Insurance Corporation of India Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (S.O 455(E) dated 1st April 2004) and were relieved prior to the date of notification dated 21.12.2005 resulting in deprivation of the revised pay scale to the petitioner.
* Whether reporters of local papers are allowed to see the judgment?  Yes.
(ii) That after quashing the proviso under 3A and B, the respondents may be directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioner as per the notification dated 21.12.2005 and to pay him the arrears alongwith interest at some nationalised bank rate.
(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to revise the pensionary benefits to the petitioner after such pay fixation as directed by this Hon’ble Court alongwith arrears with interest at some nationalized bark rate.
(iv) That the cost of this litigation may be burdened upon the respondents.
(v) Any other order deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Ms. Ranjana Parmar has strenuously argued that second proviso of para 3 of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 as applicable to her client is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She then contended that the category to which the petitioner belongs could not be excluded on the basis of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 and her client is entitled to revised pay scale with effect from 1st August 2002.
Mr. Ashwani Sharma was supported the Notification dated 21st December 2005 and has strenuously argued that since the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004, he is precluded from challenging the vires of conditions enumerated in Para 3 of the Scheme.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the cord.
To appreciate the rival submissions of the parties, it will be appropriate to consider the salient features of the Schemes which were invogue in respondent No. 2 – Company from time to time. The first Scheme under which an employee of the company can seek voluntary retirement is called the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995. Para 30 of the Scheme provides that at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Para 30 is reproduced in its entirely, which reads thus:-
“(30) Pension on voluntary retirement:-
(1) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than ninety days, in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service:
Provided that this sub – paragraph shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation unless after having been transferred or having been returned in India he has served for a period not less than one year:
Provided further that this sub – paragraph shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub – paragraph (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall before effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3) (a) An employee referred to in sub paragraph (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than ninety days giving reasons therefore.
(b) On receipt of request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub – paragraph (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of ninety days on merits and it he is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may leave the requirement of the notice if ninety days in the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of ninety days.
(4) An employee who has elected to retire under this paragraph and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.
(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this paragraph shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of retirement.
(6) The pension on an employee retiring under this paragraph shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d0 of paragraph 2 of this scheme and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension:
Explanation:- For the purpose of this paragraph, the appointing authority shall be the appointing authority specified in Appendix – 1 to this Scheme.”
            The petitioner had sought retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004. Para 3 of the Scheme prescribes the eligibility criteria and the period of operation of the scheme is provided under Para 4 and the amount of ex-gratia has been stipulated under Para 5 and other benefits to which an employee has been held entitled, has been stipulated under Para 6.
            The petitioner submitted the application under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 on 4th February 2004, which was accepted by the employer on 5th March 2004 and he was permitted to retire with effect from 15th March 2004. Respondent No. 1 had issued the Notification dated 21st December 2005 framing a Scheme called the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of service of Officers) second Amendment Scheme, 2005, it will be apt to reproduce para 3 of the scheme in its entirety to go into the entire gamut of the issues involved in this petition. Para 3 reads thus:-
“(3) This scheme shall be applicable to those Officers who were in the service of the Corporation or Company as on or after the 1st August 2002.
Provided that the officers, whose resignations had been accepted or whose services had been terminated during the period from the 1st day of August 2002 and the date of publication of this scheme, shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision under this Scheme.
Provided further that the officers, who had sought Special Voluntary Retirement under:-
a. The General Insurance Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (S.O 7(E) dated 1st January 2004), in the case of Company, or
b. The General Insurance Corporations of India Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (S.O 455(E) dated 1st April 2004), in the case of Corporation.
And have been relieved thereunder prior to the date of this notification, shall not be eligible for any benefit arising from this Scheme other than that provided for by sub – paragraph 2 of paragraph 5 of the General Insurance Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004, or, the General Insurance Corporations of India Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004, as the case may be.”
It has come in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the wage revision of the employees of the nationalized insurance companies follows a periodicity of five years, i.e. 1st August 1987, 1st August 1992, 1st August 1997 and 1st August 2002. Thus, it is evident that in normal circumstances wage revision should have taken place in the year 2002 instead of 2005.
The General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of service of Officers) second Amendment Scheme, 2005 has come into force with effect from 1st August 2002. The petitioner had sought retirement with effect from 15th March 2004. In the normal circumstances the petitioner was entitled to get the wage revision in the basis of the Notification on 21st December 2005 since the same had been made applicable with effect from 1st August 2002, but the petitioner and similarly situate persons who had sought voluntary retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 had been excluded from getting the benefit of revision in pay scales on the basis of Para 3.
The only ground taken to deny the benefit of revision of pay scale is that the petitioner had agreed to the terms and conditions of 2004 scheme and after his retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme the contract has come into existence between the employer and the employee. The ground taken to deny the petitioner the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 1st August 2002 is not sustainable on the following grounds:
Firstly, the persons who had sought voluntary retirement either under the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme 1995 or under 2004 Scheme constitute a homogeneous class. It is evident from the contents of para 3 of 2005 Scheme that the persons who are governed under the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme 1995 are not precluded from getting the benefit of revised pay scale and it is only the petitioner and similarly situate persons who had sought the retirement under 2004 scheme, who have been excluded from getting the revised pay scales. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the employees who had sought the voluntary retirement under 2004 Scheme or under the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme 1995. Classification made by the employer on the basis of seeking premature retirement on the basis of two sets of retirement schemes is not sustainable being irrational and discriminatory. The petitioner had submitted his papers for seeking retirement on 4th February 2004, which was accepted by the employer on 5th March 2004 and he was permitted to seek retirement with effect from 15th March 2004. The wage revision as per the pleadings of respondents No. 2 and 3 takes place every five years. The pay scales were to be revised in the year 2002, but for the reasons mentioned in the reply it took place in the year 2005. A conscious decision has been taken to implement the same with effect from 1st August 2002. Undoubtedly the petitioner was in employment in 1st August 2002 with respondent No. 2 – Company. He cannot be deprived of the revision of the pay scales with effect from 1st August 2002 to 15th March 2004 only on the ground that he had sought voluntary retirement in the year 2004 and had agreed to the terms and conditions of the Scheme. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 has not placed any contemporaneous record to substantiate that the petitioner has agreed to waive to get the benefits of the revised pay scale. This position was not visualized by the employer in the year 2004 since no revision has taken place on that date i.e. 15th March 2004. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The petitioner has a constitutional right to get his pay including the revision in the pay scale and it is settled law by law the fundamental rights can neither be waived off nor bartered away.
Secondly, it is also held that the petitioner had never acquiesced even as per 2004 Scheme to get the revised pay scale which had been made applicable with effect from 1st August 2002.
Thirdly, the object sought to be achieved by the issuance of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 was to give the revised pay scales which were due in 2002. In fact, this has been done by giving retrospective effect vide Notification dated 21st December 2005. It is, thus, held that classification created on the basis of insertion of sub-clauses (a) and (b) in second proviso of Para 3 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Another versus Jai Singh, (2003) 9 SCC 114 have laid down the following tests for valid classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India:
“We will first take up for consideration the argument accepted by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the impugned classification is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While considering the challenge based on Article 14 as to the arbitrariness in the impugned classification, the court has to examine whether the impugned classification satisfies certain constitutional mandates or not. They are (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relationship with the objects sought to be achieved by the Act. (See Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra.)
Fourthly, the respondent No.2 being the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India its actions are subject to the constitutional limits and the same are to be judged in the light of the fundamental rights granted by Part-III of the Constitution. The action of an instrumentality or the agency of the State must be in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution. The option given by the petitioner cannot bind him as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it also runs against the public policy. The action of the respondents is not supported by any rational basis or intelligible differentia.
The ratio of the judgment of (2006) 3 SCC 708 cited by Mr. Ashwani Sharma is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in the present case the petitioner was in fact in employment as on 1st August 2002, the date from which the Notification (Annexure P-4) dated 21st December 2005 has been made applicable.
Consequently, in view of the observations made above, send proviso of Para 3 of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 is struck sown being ultra vires to the extent it deprives the petitioner and other similarly situate persons to get the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 1st August 2002 after applying the principle of severability.
According, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to get the revised pay scale corresponding to his post he was occupying as on 1st August 2002 till 15th March 2004. The respondents are directed to work out the arrears etc. within six weeks from today.
December 3, 2007                                                                                      (Rajiv Sharma), J.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Source: Supreme Court and High Court judgments relating to Insurance. 
***************************************************************************************************************
In my opinion, once the Supreme Court has decided that "the said proviso of Para 3 is struck sown being ultra vires", in a case regarding the General Insurance Charter, the same will apply to the Life Insurance Charter too.
The Charters of LIC and GIC are identical with respect to the Provisions of Para 3 and its clauses A and B.
Why should the resigning ex-employees be expected to get this order again and again, wasting their and the Courts' time, efforts and money? The management is just shirking its responsibility to pay dues immediately and buying time!
Kindly note that LIC had asked me to approach the Court for my dues.