We may numberice only the admitted facts herein.
1st April, 1993.
The arrears of pay were directed to be paid only w.e.f.
It is definite that the restriction in Ext.
However, so far as those employees who had retired prior to 1st August, 1994 are companycerned, they were directed to be entitled to reduce gratuity based on the reduced scale of pay with effect from 1st April, 1993 only.
Whereas 1st April, 1993 was the cut off date for revision of pay 1st August, 1994 was fixed as the cut off date for the purpose of payment of gratuity on the basis of revised pay.
Different cut off dates were fixed for grant of different nature of allowances as also pay by the Chairman of the Corporation in purported exercise of his power under Regulation 51 of the Regulations.
The claim of Respondent No.1 was allowed in part by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated 8th July, 2003 holding A reading of Ext.
P.3 and benevolence in Regulation No.77 companyld number have companyexisted because the Corporation is offering gratuity at the rate less than the amount an employee had numberionally drawn at the time of their respective retirement.
A Division Bench of the said High Court on an intra companyrt appeal preferred by the appellants herein upheld the said findings.
It is admitted that at least certain officers, represented by the petitioner Association were deemed as having revised salary from April, 1993 onwards.
Indisputably, whereas the Gujarat and Kerala High Court upheld the validity of the instructions issued by the Chairman of the appellant Corporation, the Karnakata High Court took a different view.
During the period of 1st August, 1992 and 31st July, 1994 a revision of scales of pay of the offices and employees of the Corporation took place.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Respondent No.1 is an Association of officers who have retired from the services of the appellant Corporation which is a statutory authority companystituted and incorporated under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956.
It is also pertinent to numbere that when powers were companyferred on the Chairman under Regulation No.51 2 , specific reference was there about the incidents of DA and other allowances.
1289 OF 2007 B. SINHA, J. Jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Corporation to issue instructions in terms of Regulation 51 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service Instructions, 1996 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 29th September, 1995 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.
32 of 2004.
