* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Saturday, August 29, 2015

M. Sreenivasa Murty



Apropos the 7 May Order of the Supreme Court that LIC shall release 20% of the amount ‘as per the impugned judgement of the High Court’ (which is yet to be implemented), it is clear that LIC is playing the game by setting its own rules.

LIC was successfully challenged at Chandigarh and it had to eat the humble pie by withdrawing its application for withdrawal of money.
In Delhi, we a see a different ball game – let us watch.

In Jaipur, LIC took two years to deposit a total sum of Rs. 19,63,638/- in three instalments between 23.12.2011 and 20.11.2013. The amount withdrawn viz., Rs 3,92,727.60 cannot be the amount to be paid because even as per its faulty formula, LIC has to add what is due after 20.11.2013 up to 30 April 2015 to appear as honouring the 7 May Order. So when the amount released/paid eventually is more (by a few thousands each) than the amount withdrawn, one may claim, ‘See, I told you, the amount withdrawn has nothing to do with the amount payable - both are different’. ‘My theory stands proved, I am vindicated.

The fact of the matter by way of a real example is, in a given case in Chandigarh, LIC deposited Rs. NIL up to 31.07.1997 as against Rs 19,680/- due. Obviously there is no weightage till then. Continuing the faulty formula till 31.07.2014 in the same case the amount deposited (of course without weightage) was Rs 34,883/- as against Rs 12,41,310/- due with weightage.

The mischief at Chandigarh shown above was only a repeat of what was done in Jaipur. So, as and when any payment is made in Jaipur (Rs.3,92,727.60 or even after adding a few thousand more to take it up to April 2015), Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana should cry foul, blow the whistle, join the platform at SC already secured for 7 Sept 2015 by the Chandigarh Petitioners and collaborate in exposing the highhandedness of LIC and the shabby interpretation given by it to the 7 May Order. If he has a different agenda, that is a different matter.

If the Respondents in all the three CAs cannot have identical views on the import of the 7 May Order, it amounts to compromising the interests of the Pensioners community as a whole.

May God be with us…