JM Aboobucker: Our demand is 100% DR as was given to retirees from
1.8.1997. So LIC may contend that they have calculated the arrears by
granting the 100% DR to the pre 8/97 retirees. Thus They have
implemented the PH HC orders and there is no contempt of court,
according to LIC. In this connection we have to remember that Courts
would go into the aspects of law and rules and decide if there is any
violation by LIC rather than going into the nuances of the
Arithmetical calculations involved in the dispute as expressed by the
SC. under the circumstances what could be the solution for this
P & H HC judgment dated 9/11/2012 allowed the petition praying for not only 100% DR neutralization(after removal of DR anomaly from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever is later),but also upgradation of pension on substituted scales of pay together with interest on arrears. So LIC’s contention after stopping with payment only providing 100% DR neutralization leaving out the other benefits as per the judgment will not be legally acceptable.
As regards the nuances of arithmetical calculations, it is not very difficult to determine the accuracy of the calculations if one works out the arithmetic correctly understanding the judgment. When the arithmetic followed by LIC is not in tune with the judgment , there is no legal compliance and hence there is contempt. Here the problem is not with the judgment, but the manner in which LIC has been deliberately distorting the interpretation of the Jaipur and P& H HC judgments. It is for our counsel in the Supreme Court to convince the SC on where LIC has gone wrong and also deliberately continuing to go wrong.
The solution lies with effective arguments by the petitioners’ counsel and deft court craft. Here ,how the counsel are properly briefed by the case managers and how such briefings are used by the counsel in the Court also become very crucial.