"Jaipur Bench is fighting shy to address themselves to the crux of the problem," complains the writer...

Ravindra Thakur, Nagpur

I was stunned when I perused the capricious court order dated 20/05/2013 of Hon’ble Justice Sri RS Rathore of Jaipur Bench.  I really wonder why the designated court of Jaipur bench is fighting shy to address themselves to the crux of the problem, that is, whether the LIC Management has deposited an appropriate amount in the Registry of Jaipur HC in the light of the categorical judgement dated 12/01/2010 and the clarificatory order of the SC dated 17/10/2012 superseding their earlier order dated 14/11/2011. 

The SC must have never imagined that the veteran LIC Management will be at a loss to know how to calculate the amount due to the petitioner-pensioners by raising puerile queries about the date of eligibility and the amount due to the  petitioner-pensioners.

• The designated court of Rajasthan Bench has instead kept the matter of contempt of court in limbo for absolutely no reason or perhaps there is an apparent error of ignoring the SC order dated 17/10/2012 and misinterpretation of their order dated 15/04/2013 which simply implies that the SC has nothing more to add than what they have already stated in their order dated 17/10/2012.
• The Hon’ble Justice Sri RS Rathore appears to have strayed away from his task of carefully examining whether the LIC Management has properly calculated and deposited an appropriate amount within the stipulated time limit prescribed by the SC in their amended order dated 17/10/2012.  To read more, please click below.
• Hon’ble Justice Sri RS Rathore is not expected to bother about the SLP concerned and whether Hon’ble Justice Bhandari’s judgement dated 12/01/2010 suffers from any legal lacuna.
• In fact Hon’ble Justice Sri Bhandari has taken cognizance of the Minutes of the Board meeting of LIC Management of 24/11/2001 which among other things deliberated on upgradation of Pay Scales and its financial implications and it was suggested that the same should be implemented prospectively after obtaining Govt. approval. 
• His landmark judgement dated 12/01/2010 was reaffirmed twice in succession by their Division bench. The apparent reluctance of the designated court for considering cases of contempt of court appears to be inconsistent and incongruent

Now consult our legal counsels and explore if we can bring the matter on proper track. Go ahead we all are with you.

( rjthakoor@rediffmail.com )