BS Hegde sir ! I hope I was the one with u when u were in audit in 84/87 ? Or is he different?
Anyway,your concerns about IA do not appear to be fully correct. Murty has certainly attracted the attention that LIC has not complied with the earlier Order in full and that means in full and in rem to all petitioners-pensioners who r eligible to receive it.
In fact, ur argument wd have held its ground, had LIC implemented the Order only to the extent of DA neutralisation and not updation. Since the minimum compliance was also not done, there is no surprise in what has resulted. In case, LIC now proceeds to pay all pre 97 pensioners fully neutralising the DA, and still if the SC is not convinced over the implementation of the order, possibly on LIC counsel's clarification on the interpretation of the HC judgment, SC may refer back the case to HCs for better clarification or elucidation of their judgments.
MSM had a limited purpose in his IA. He achieved it. there is nothing to complain.