IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG (IN LAW) TO CLAIM THAT CHANDIGARH & DELHI JUDGEMENTS ARE BASED ONLY ON JAIPUR ORDER. IT IS CONVENIENT AND COMFORTABLE TO Mr ASTHANA TO CLAIM SO. BUT IT REQUIRES SOME DEEP ACQUANTANCE WITH LAW TO APPRECIATE THE REAL POSITION.
Also, looked from another angle (purely hypothetically but firmly canvassed by GNS school of thought), if the Apex Court accepts, God forbid, LIC’s contention that Sec 48 cannot be brushed aside and LIC Board Resolution cannot be implemented without Government approval, does Mr Asthana admit that the Jaipur Judgement goes for a toss and does he then want the Chandigarh and Delhi Petitioners should give him company down the hill? That is not the case. The Chandigarh petitioners counsel is not going to argue his case as sought by Mr Asthana. If he does so, it amounts to telling the Court I am dependent on Jaipur Order (that’s what my ‘owner’ tells me), I have nothing else in support of my case. I sink or sail with him and my arguments rest here’.
When a bunch of cases is clubbed together by an Order of the Court (remember, no Petitioner or Respondent prayed for such a ‘club-together’ Order in our matters), it means the issues involved are common and somewhat similar and therefore they permit being heard together, independently but one after the other and permit being disposed of by a common Judgement eventually. This simple principle should expose the fallacy of Mr RK Singh’s intervention the other day on 7 Sept before the Bench ‘I am the main petitioner’ in these matters, so go by my submissions rather than what others say’. He and all of us now know how the Bench reacted to his upstart interjection that day.
Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Mr G N Sridharan have both shared their dreams/expectations personally with me quite some time ago in some context. Mr KML’s dream was that the Supreme Court shall uphold the Jaipur Judgement as it is, dismiss LIC’s CA against it and also add ‘As we have already upheld the Jaipur Judgement and as the other two (Chandigarh & Delhi) were based on the same, there is no need to deal with them separately. The CAs are accordingly disposed of…”.
If KML’s dream comes true, celebrations by his camp would go sky high (One Centre in Andhra promised him an Elephant ride to display their gratitude) but the poor Pensioners would remain in the same state as now, because LIC would implement the Board Resolution as it is now doing with the 20% payment. If my fears are not baseless, I should wish some dreams like this deserve to be shattered.
On the other hand, Mr GNS told me emphatically in April 2014, (he is not dreaming) that he sees the distinct possibility of LIC’s Appeal CA NO 9223 of 2013) against (his) Delhi Judgement being dismissed and simultaneously allow the two CAs against Jaipur & Chandigarh Judgements. Because according to him we have no case for Pension up-gradation. We get only DR parity for pre-Aug 97 retirees. That discussion took place when GNS & I are on cordial terms, respecting each other’s views but seriously differing at the same time. So I could heartily laugh it off.
Let us strive (wish me luck in my efforts) to get a COMPREHENSIVE SPEAKING ORDER granting full-fledged pension up-gradation to all those who are governed by LIC of (Employees) Pension Rules 1995, an Order and a Judgement that addresses all the RED FLAGS (on the wrong formulae being followed by LIC till now) so assiduously being displayed by Sri C H Mahadevan.
(Thank you Dear Editor,
I hope not to cluster your columns any more except for news-sharing and good news-sharing henceforth. I wish to thank all those providing emotional support specially, SN (a 1992 Pensioner), B Ganga Raju M V Venugopalan, JM Aboobucker, RKV, SD Sarma, Rama Rao, B Sudhakar Dr Pritam and many others. Thinking of organizing a Camel ride for My Very Dear Subbu, shortly (as I can’t afford the other). -MS.