TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT?
Dear Fellow Pensioners,
We always have the choice to watch instead of acting, hoping for the best to happen on its own. If action has the potential risk of causing damage to our interests, just to watch is undoubtedly a lesser evil than acting. Having said that, I am eager to add that by acting if we are fairly sure not to be worse off and if our action has the chance of giving us what we want, shouldn’t we vote for ‘action’?
All LIC Pensioners and I are obliged to Sri SN (a 1992 pensioner), Sri M V Venugopalan and Sri A S Ramanathan for the wonderful analysis provided by each of them in their very recent articles in LIC PC, on the pros and cons of moving the Supreme Court with a Contempt Petition against LIC for non-compliance of the 7 May Order. I prefer that these are read necessarily with the series of Posts contributed by Sri C H Mahadevan on the related topic.
I have no problem in accepting the assertions (for all the valid reasons behind those assertions) that contempt proceedings are not always an unmixed blessing – aptly described by MVV as potential ‘landmines’. But I wish to meet some of the points raised by these well-informed gentlemen to the best of my ability hoping that at the end of the day, theories apart, we are all on the same page particularly in our specific context.
I MUST ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM NOT BATTING FOR ANY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AGAINST LIC BY OURSELVES, AS I AM FULLY CONSCIOUS OF ITS LIMITATIONS. I AM ONLY FOR CERTAIN PROACTIVE PREPARATION AND SAFE ACTION TO PURSUE, INSTEAD OF ‘WAIT & WATCH’ TILL 23 SEPT 2015.
For proper appreciation of my line of thinking, let me go back to the 7 May Order of SC. Let us confine to what is contained in the Order and ignore as we should, any other commentary by anybody. The most critical and important components of the Order are:
1. Supreme Court directed that LIC shall ‘release’ 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court.
2. It should be done within six weeks hence (from 7 May).
3. There are directions regarding ‘withdrawal’ where the amount is deposited.
4. Where the amount has not been deposited, Corporation shall ‘pay’ (from its own funds).
The above 4 points are indisputable. What is not clear and what can be interpreted in any of several ways are:
1. 20% of what? (In other words, what is the amount as per the impugned judgment that constitutes 100 %?)
2. Pay to whom (in other words if the payment is not meant for ALL pensioners, who are included and who are not included?)
3. Answer to 2 above will clear the clouds in respect of Delhi also.
Let me tabulate the above and attempt some non-controversial analysis of the 7 May Order, as follows:
Direction in the SC Order of 7 May
|
Worst scenario interpretation
|
Best scenario interpretation
|
Remarks
|
(1)
Pay 20% of the Amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court.
|
Amount on account of 100% DA neutralization for pre- Aug 97 retirees only without any weightage (up-gradation)
E.g. 20% of Rs.33,67,838/-for the 31 Chandigarh Petitioners i.e., Rs.21,728 per petitioner on an average
|
Amount on account of 100% DA neutralization for pre- Aug 97 retirees PLUS amount payable on account of appropriate weightage (up-gradation)
E.g. 20% of Rs.4,67,35,195/- for the 31 Chandigarh Petitioners i.e., Rs.93,47,039/- (Rs.3,01,517/- per petitioner on an average)
|
Chandigarh is taken just as an example as exact numbers have been worked out in their case and submitted to HC
|
(2)
Interim relief payable to whom
|
A) In Jaipur, to the 19 or so of the 27 Petitioners who are pre-Aug 97 retirees only
B) In Chandigarh, to the 31 Petitioners as ALL of them are pre-Aug 97 retirees and
C) In Delhi to the few VALID (?) Members of GNS Federation as per LIC-fixed parameters communicated to him
Total: A few hundred in all
|
To every single Pensioner & Family Pensioner (about 40,000 of them)
|
GNS wants the payment to all his members who are pre-Aug 97 retirees. Such a classification is neither backed by 7 May Order of SC nor does it qualify under LIC-fixed ‘validity’ parameters. His case therefore is a non-starter.
|
(3)
The process of payment
|
Withdraw 20% of the amount deposited in Jaipur & Chandigarh and pay to those 19+31 Petitioners there.
For Delhi wait till LIC receives valid (?) list from GNS and limit the payment to them. (I will put the number at a few hundred).
|
Since the amount deposited is by no means the amount as per the impugned judgments, pay 20% of what is payable.
E.g. Rs.93,47,039/- (Rs.3,01,517/- per Chandigarh Petitioner on an average)
LIC may separately withdraw the entire amount deposited in Jaipur & Chandigarh.
|
As against the above worst and the best scenario interpretation, LIC chose a course of action worse than the worst. It is yet to pay even One Rupee to any Pensioner. Even the withdrawal request to Jaipur and Chandigarh HC as well as the data collection from GNS Federation, commenced long after the time stipulated by the Supreme Court. How do we explain LIC’s (in) action? “We don’t care’’. Is it or is it not contempt? Even if it is not likely to be held as contempt, do we or don’t we have a remedy? I am sure we would like to discover that remedy with the professional assistance of a competent Sr. Advocate.
I have said this before but I do not hesitate to repeat now – An Order granting interim relief like the one dated 7 May 2015, is an interim measure, pure and simple. It says nothing about the final decision by the Court on the issues for adjudication before it. If and when the Interim Order is re-visited by the Bench, either in a contempt petition or by any other plea by any party, whether the Court adopts the worst possible interpretation scenario or upholds the best one, it shall have no bearing on the final decision. Any apprehension to the contrary needs to be got over by all our friends. This point, apart from being based on well laid law, can easily be seen from the order itself where it said “…..subject to final result in the appeals” & ‘’……payment in continuum shall be considered when the appeals are taken up for hearing”.
Putting a number of factors and facts together, it should be easier for us to secure the best possible interpretation of the Order rather than the worst. That in the face of a categorical Order to pay some money to the Pensioners, nothing is paid till date to anybody and the Order just remained on paper is a most welcome state of things for us to highlight before the Bench to our advantage. Justice Dipak Misra’s own landmark Judgment delivered emphatically as recently as on 1 July 2015, will aid our efforts so much that if we do not avail of it now, it will be a monumental mistake.
I stick to my word - let us not rush with a contempt petition ourselves, however strong may be the case we have. But let us also not keep quiet till 23 Sept. We are working very hard and if we are lucky enough to secure a categorical direction at Chandigarh for payment of Rs.93,47,039/- as the interim measure I certainly expect LIC to go before the SC in appeal against any such order. LIC’s Application for withdrawal of 20% having been dismissed as withdrawn, the final outcome of the on-going Contempt petition in Chandigarh will have bearing on our next step.
Therefore anything more is possible to discuss after 28 July 2015.