SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This common judgment would dispose of the aforestated writ petitions and Civil Appeals/Letters Patent Appeals.

2. Writ Petition (C) No.184/2007, Federation of Retired LIC Class -I Officers and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. was earlier disposed of by a short order dated 30th January, 2013 relying upon the decision of a Single Judge of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, affirmed by the Division Bench in Civil Special Appeal (W)No.493-494/2010, Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Kishan Murari Lal Asthana and Anr. The decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, order of this court dated 30th January, 2013 and decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 9th November, 2012 in Madan Lal Gandhi & Others v. Union of India & Others, CWP 16346/2010 (again relying upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court), were made subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8959 to 8962/2013, 6995/2013, 9223/2013 and 9409-10/2013.

3. The Supreme Court after referring to the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the LIC Act’), vide judgment and order dated 31st March, 2016, held that the Board Resolution dated 24th November, 2001 to amend the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955 (Pension Rules for short), for upgrading the basic pension to All India Consumer Price Index of 1740 point and 100 per cent dearness allowance neutralization thereon in respect of retirees prior to 1st August, 1997 was non est and would not confer any legal right. On perusal of Section 48 of the LIC Act, it was clear as crystal that conferment of benefit, either pensionary or anything ancilliary thereto, has to be conferred by the Pension Rules, and as prescribed the Rule has to be tabled before Parliament. In absence of a rule, no benefit could be granted on the basis of the resolution.

4. Having held so, the Supreme Court noticed the second facet of the controversy relating to challenge to the legality of paragraph 3(A) of Appendix-IV restrictively applicable to employees, who had retired on or after 1st day of August, 1997 and not to the employees who had retired earlier in point of time, and the following order was passed:

“21. It is urged by Mr. Gupta that once the employees are covered under Para 3A, being retirees after the cut-off date, the benefit cannot remain static but has to change with the pay revisions regard being had to the price index, for otherwise the provision does not spring to life and, eventually, paves the path of arbitrariness. He has heavily relied on paragraphs 34, 35 and 39 of Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association, Tamil Nadu and others v. State of Tamil Nadu apart from other paragraphs. We may hasten to add that we have referred to this aspect in extenso as Mr. Gupta would submit that non-conferment of the benefit of the dearness relief keeping in view the subsequent pay revisions of the similarly situated employees leads to disastrous effect and in a way allows room for absurdity. Learned senior counsel has given an example to highlight as to how the absurd situation can creep in. It is urged by him that if an Executive Director stood retired sometime in 1997, he would get approximately Rs.7,000/- towards pension, whereas a person working in Class III, if he retires subsequently would get approximately double of the said amount.

22. We have already stated that the High Court of Delhi has really not adverted to as regards the constitutional validity of Para 3A of the Appendix. As far as the other delineations or deliberations are concerned, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has also not independently dealt with the controversy, but followed the decision rendered by the Rajasthan High Court. We have already adverted to the reasoning of the High Court of Rajasthan inasmuch as it has referred to the scheme of the