LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE

I am giving my reply to the queries of Mr. Murty.

a) The law is that mere filing of appeal the executing court should not stay the execution of the judgment until stay is granted. The Supreme Court Rules also lay down this provision that mere by SLP or appeal does not restrict the lower court from executing the judgment appealed against. Similar is the provision in Civil Procedure Code. In our case stay is specifically rejected, there is no impediment on the implementation of the judgment.

b) Otherwise fight had never been easy to get justice with unscrupulous persons bent upon somehow put hurdles in the right path of justice. The Officers of LIC have nothing to lose in delaying the compliance.

c) I have already taken this matter in the Contempt petition now.

d) Your other apprehensions have already been replied by Hon’ble Justice TNC.

e) Judgment of Bhandari J is very clear when he decided the issue raised in WP 654/2007 that pensioners have to be paid the revised pensions and the pensioners cannot be discriminated on the basis of date of retirement. He has used the word “pensioners” and not “pensioner” therefore, the impression that it is for the petitioners only. Yet the possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out on the part of LIC. And for this I have been pursuing to implement the judgment for all pensioners irrespective whether they are petitioner or not and this hurdle has also been cleared by Delhi HC when it made the judgment of Rajasthan HC “in rem”. The SC judgment in Gratuity case is also relevant.

f) In case they do not do so for all the pensioners it is no compliance and the contempt will persist.

g) After the verdict of revision of pensioners on the basis of substituted pay scales the Board resolution has restricted importance that the effective date will be 1/11/1993. Since the payscales had come on 1/8/1997 the pay as on that date will have to be revised in respect of the retired employees also and therefore the pensions will have to be revised accordingly and as such the question of updation of DR and fix the pension with 11.25% weightage has lost its validity.

h) Still after all even though the law is wholly in our favour but the journey is full of ups and downs and hurdles, which we have to anticipate and trod down.

i) There is no question of security for this repayment now.

j) For complete implementation all three judgments of Jaipur, Chandigarh and Delhi have to be joined together. I am trying that WPs are filed in the three HCs on behalf of those who were not parties in those cases for implementation of the judgment in their cases since they cannot be excepted.

k) I hope I have made the position clear.

KML ASTHANA