ON GN SRIDHARAN'S COMMENTS...

          CH MAHADEVAN, HYDERABAD          

  chmahadevan@rediffmail.com

As regards the long waiting for pensioners for justice, it is quite normal for any matter fought in the courts of law that the potential beneficiaries have a long wait for justice.

Judgments should not be passed on individuals merely because some temporary reverse was experienced in the Supreme Court that too on an Interlocutory Petition which Mr Asthana was forced to file because the Jaipur HC Bench did not decide the Contempt Petition which it could have done considering the observations of the Supreme Court dated 15th April, 2013 that no case has been made out for issue of any further directions to the Petitioners (LIC).

My personal opinion is that Mr Asthana’s hands have been strengthened to obtain a decisive order on the contempt petition pending before the Jaipur HC Bench, as according the latest SC order, the clarificatory interim order of 17-10-2012 should be the guide for the Jaipur HC Bench for arriving at a decision in the case. And Mr Asthana can be expected to use this as an opportunity to get a favourable verdict from the Jaipur HC Bench when the hearing takes place.

Mr G.N. Sridharan has mentioned emergence of cheerleaders during the past three long years. It cannot be overlooked that for more than 11 longer years Mr Asthana was fighting the case in Jaipur with only 26 others in their individual capacity and after the long fight he could get a favourable judgment from Jaipur Single Judge bench on 12/1/2010. This was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench and also Review Petition filed by LIC was dismissed.

Such a pensioner-friendly result was not achieved so far by any individual or by any of the Associations. In such a situation the proper course for all pensioners will be to support the continuing efforts of Mr Asthana, as AIRIEF is doing.  Even the apparently favourable order secured by the Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers’ Associations from the Delhi HC has based its judgment on the Jaipur HC Bench judgments. Even here there seems to be no movement on the part of LIC and it seems that the beneficial effect of the order is closely linked with the outcome on the SLP. Click on 'Read more' below.

I do not consider the approach of Mr Asthana unproductive as, 

in my opinion, it has brought to light the negative approach of the opposite party, 

which is only legally reacting to the moves of Mr Asthana on the contempt petition without making efforts to ensure thatthe SLP is taken up for early hearing as an interested party who have filed the petition. 

In my view, the more the delay that takes place in hearing of the SLP, 

more the weaknesses in LIC’s case will be exposed in the process of the ongoing contempt petition.

The latest SC order has put an end 'to the tossing of the matter' and the scene of decision has now shifted to Jaipur HC Bench. Now it may be only a matter of time before the Court delivers its judgment one way or the other.

DR ANOMALY

As regards the DR anomaly, we should remember that the DR anomaly goes far deeper than it appears. The clarificatory order issued by the Supreme Court on 17-10-2012 clearly brings out the fact that the anomaly dates back to the date before 1-8-1997 when employees retired as a result of anomalous DR formula slabs adopted differentially for in-service and retired employees as a result of the 1-8-1992 revisions.

Most of us have been under the impression that the DR anomaly has arisen only from 1-8-1997. The issue is two-fold. For pre Aug 1997 pensioners, the anomaly of differential DR formula for in-service employees and retirees should be resolved. Then arises the question of 100% DR neutralisation for pre Aug 1997 retirees. The 100% DR neutralization can be achieved only by merging the DR with basic pension as at 1-8-1997 and adopting the DR formula applicable as per 1-8-1997 wage revision. This, in my opinion, cannot be done without upgrading pension. Once it is done, it has to be logically extended to future wage revision dates of 1-8-2002 & 1-8-2007 and it has to apply to all retirees retired after 1-8-1997 also. So in my opinion, it is futile to delink 100% DR neutralization from pension upgradation to all eligible pensioners.

STRATEGICALLY DIFFERENT ROUTE ?

Finally, I do not see any strategically different route other than the judicial route as efforts in those directions are bound to be bogged down in considerations of financial implications in the larger context of public sector pensioners’ space as has been submitted before the Central Govt counsel before the Allahabad High Court. At least in our case there is the LIC Board resolution dated 24th Nov. 2001 which provides a distinct ground for treating LIC pensioners apart on the merits of their own case.

For all the reasons stated above, all the pensioners need to keep their morale high highlighting the positives and extend their whole-hearted support to Mr. Asthana whose success on the legal front is essential and crucial for all pensioners.

Get your own FREE website and domain with business email solutions, click here