In my considered view, the LIC Board’s resolution regarding pension updation must be examined in its proper legal perspective. While the resolution indicates the Board’s willingness to consider or support pension updation for LIC pensioners, it cannot, by itself, be treated as a statutory provision conferring an enforceable right to pension updation.
The LIC Pension Rules, 1995, constitute the governing framework for determining pensionary benefits. Unless pension updation is incorporated into the Rules through the appropriate amendment by the competent authority, the Board’s resolution alone cannot be equated with an enforceable rule or treated as sufficient legal authority for directing pension updation.
The Board’s resolution may certainly be relevant as evidence of LIC’s willingness to extend the benefit. However, the crucial question is whether the competent authority has approved the proposal and whether the necessary amendment has been made to the Pension Rules. In the absence of such an amendment, the resolution remains a proposal or recommendation and does not, by itself, establish a legally enforceable entitlement.
The same legal principle was also relevant during arguments concerning bank pension matters. Agreements arrived at between banks and their employees’ unions, even if accepted by the parties, cannot automatically amend the statutory pension regulations. The necessary provisions must be incorporated into the governing regulations in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure before they can operate as enforceable pension rules.
Therefore, our claim for pension updation should not rest solely on the LIC Board’s resolution. It should instead be founded on the applicable statutory provisions, the constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14, the relevant provisions of the LIC Pension Rules, 1995, and the corresponding provisions of the General Insurance Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, wherever legally applicable. The Board’s resolution can be relied upon as supporting material, but not as a substitute for the required statutory provision.
Ultimately, the competent authority within the Government of India, acting under the applicable statutory framework, must take the necessary decision and ensure that the benefit is duly incorporated into the governing Pension Rules or Scheme.
Our legal strategy should, therefore, be directed towards establishing the legal and constitutional basis for pension updation and seeking appropriate relief from the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rather than treating the Board’s resolution alone as a sufficient ground for claiming the benefit.
This distinction is important for presenting a legally sustainable case and avoiding reliance on a document whose legal effect may be limited to a recommendation or an expression of intent.
Regards.
