Of
late, I have occasion to see writings,
in frustration, of payments made to some of the LIC pensioners only, which I
think, is the cause of the confusion giving rise to a feeling as to whether the
interim payment, as per the direction of the SC, will be made only to those
before the court and also the final benefit, if the SC favours the pensioners
with a favourable verdict. Here are some points based on a little knowledge of
law known to me.
1) Coordinate
Bench is one existing along with similar Benches hearing cases in the HC/SC.All Benches have same powers.
2) Conflict
of Judgements arise when two different points of views is expressed by them,
which will lead to confusion as to which one of the point/s is valid.
3) Quorum
is the number of the Judges present and hearing the case and taking decisions.
4) In
rem and in personum are two proposition best discussed.
There may not be any difficulty in
understanding points 1) & 2). But one may wonder whether there can be two
different conflicting judgements on the same points. There are SC rulings that
a coordinate bench shall follow a judgement of another coordinate Bench on
points of law decided and if there is any irreconcilable difference, the case
has to be referred to a larger Bench. (whether the
present Bench consisting of two judges hearing our pension case can take a different
view of the cases we are presenting in our case ?)
I had occasion to
handle one such case while working in the Jaipur DO. LIC’s case was dismissed
by all the Civil Courts and the First Appeal was also lost, the Hon. Judge
dismissing the appeal on the basis of a SC Bench decision. Although that
decision was elaborately discussed, in imitable style, elaborating various
labour laws, on reading the case law, I was surprised to find that the learned
counsel in that case has not done justice to his client, LIC, because he seems to have
not done his home work and failed to notice a contrary decision of another
Bench of the SC. That was a judgement delivered by a larger Bench presided over
by the then CJ of the SC, which was also not noticed by or not brought to the
notice of the other Bench. Even if it were to be a decision of a similar bench,
the earlier decision will prevail. When the LIC’s plea came up for hearing, I
was questioned as to how I have signed a petition for urgent hearing, when the
decision was based on a SC decision. When I pointed to the larger bench
decision, the Appeal was allowed for the simple reason cited above. This I have
narrated, to show the importance of quorum and the rule of going by the
decision of coordinate Bench especially in our pension case.
For understanding the principle of in
rem, it is easy if we understand what is in personum. When a personal
right, say to enjoy a property as a tenant, that is a personal right to a
lessee under a contract, a decision on it will be in personum . If it is
relating to the title of the property or a decision on the principle of non
discrimination as in our case, its application is universal and not confined
for an individual, it is called in rem. It need not be specified in the
judgement specifically, as was the order of the Delhi HC in our case, but is
always implied and noticed by a legally mind. This I have quoted in certain
citations as proof but I have not circulated because what I wrote was for the
exclusive consideration of our captains leading our cases. Therefore, there is
no scope for any other opinion. However, the present action of the LIC in
making the interim payment is questionable. But let us be patient because they
know not, what they know not.
There need be no pessimism, because
of volumes of statistics have been compiled by friends like Sri RBK and
circulated to show our claim is justifiable. We have also an impregnable shield
of law of precedence to support our legal contentions. I have also attempted in
formulating an altogether new argument, terming the Sec.48 ‘non est’ taking into
consideration some of the SC decisions. It will not be appropriate to quote
details here. It is my contention that irrespective of what is stated in Sec.48
notifications and even if a new notification specifically made to deny the
benefits to pre 8/97 retirees, that is not going to be legally valid. Let us be
patient and not get confused. YOGASHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM.