Sunday, August 16, 2015

Asthana's queries answered

I had to settle down after my return from USA for a few days and so could not
respond to you on your query in your mail.

I have read your separate mail addressed to a number of pensioner colleagues on
the IA filed by the PB & H petitioners in the SC (It is not a personal IA of MSM,
but definitely he has admirably and actively assisted the petitioners in filing
the IA).

The IA is clearly intended to bring before the SC the mischievous game being
played by LIC in circumventing the SC order dt 7/5/2015 to its advantage(if the
SC deems it proper).All of us aware that when it comes to payments even ordered
by courts,LIC has found it convenient to interpret the court judgments according
to its own convenience for escaping its liability to the pensioners.The IA if
considered seriously by SC,can checkmate the attempts of LIC to adopt such
devious tactics against pensioners.Even if SC refuses to consider the IA in view
of the final hearing to take place,the points made in the IA can be made use of to
call the bluff of LIC in the course of the final hearing in the SC.

Presently LIC has taken advantage of the wordings in the SC order dt 7/5/2015 so
that they can first withdraw 20% of the amount deposited in the HC and then pay
the same to the pensioner-respondents.What is clear is that the SC has ordered
20% of the amounts due to the petitioners in terms of the impugned judgment of the
HC. What is also clear to all of us is that whatever LIC has deposited is not
even 10% of the amounts due in terms of Jaipur & Chandigarh HC judgments.

So if LIC withdraws 20% of the amounts paid in the HC registries and pays them to 
the petitioners,what the pensioners under reference will get will not be 20% of the
dues, but hardly less than 2% of the dues.It will be nothing short of the height
of absurdity, if the LIC's attempts to walk away by paying a pittance to the
pensioners are allowed to go unchallenged.For this reason,by no stretch of
imagination,filing this IA can be construed as compromising on the issue of
revision of pension as you seem to imagine.On the contrary,this IA only helps to
reinforce our case for revision of pension with enhancement as per the Jaipur &
Chandigarh judgments.

As regards your question as to why a contempt petition has not been filed,you are,
with your own experience, a better judge in the matter when in one of your own
mails you have quoted reports that even the illustrious former Chief Justice
Markandeya Katju has dismissed 99% of the Contempt petitions that came up before
him.As an experienced lawyer, you will agree that the contempt petition will only
hijack the legal fight from the main issues to secondary legal issues with
resultant delay in our getting justice from the Apex Court which we hapless
pensioners can ill afford in this crucial period of our advanced ages.

These are the thoughts that I thought I should share with you in response to your

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan