M. SREENIVASA MURTY

Dear Fellow Pensioners,

I am yet to see the Cartoon. 

The wide participation and the valuable inputs in to the discussion by many, are indeed a happy augury for the LIC Pensioners' community. When I contributed a Note analyzing the implications of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 30 Sept 2013, (on the suggestion of Shri C H Mahadevan - my boss, when I had my best ever time in LIC) I did not honestly expect that it would generate such a healthy discussion including the raising of quite a few so called 'inconvenient questions'. I thank everybody for unwittingly encouraging me to join the discussion once again. I will avoid rhetoric and go straight to the subject. 

1. No question is inconvenient or irrelevant. But most of them, in my view, come from a genuine apprehension bothering many that the LIC pensioners may still miss the bus (for once Bus = Pension),

2. One single disadvantage in the whole situation is the known 'unwillingness' on the part of LIC to act fairly. Decision makers in LIC think that they are doing justice to the Corporation by denying something 'due' to others. Consider this: If Chairman permits ED (Legal) to put up a Note recommending what the law states as on date on the issue of Pension revision (armed with an opinion from the LIC standing counsel) and if that Note says, as per the 30th Sept Order of SC, Pension of all the 'affected' Pensioners shall have to be revised from 24.11.2001 bringing them fully on par with the subsequent retirees and that instructions may be issued to all ZMs to implement the same forthwith, - what happens? We all receive what we should receive and the law will take its course when LIC's Appeals are finally disposed of in a few years' time, one way or the other.  This, is not a pious hope, but an academic discussion. Will it happen as above? Unlikely, may be even a NO. 

3. Why is it unlikely? With due respect, Chairman of the mighty autonomous Corporation, does not, in practice, act autonomous.  Either he should have the comfort of prior 'approval' of the GOI or be compelled by a Court of Law to act in a particular manner. The first is not going to happen after 13 years and the second is the only possibility and our only (pious) hope. 

4. On the compulsion by a Court Order, what is ordered by SC on 30 Sept is not good enough compulsion for an unwilling Party to the dispute. The compulsion that can work in favor of the Pensioners is a possible threat of conviction for contempt, by the Rajasthan HC. And the SC Order dated 30 Sept, is good enough for the Rajasthan HC, to issue that threat. Mr Asthana, I am sure will go all out in that direction.

Please click below to read more.

5. Now, at the cost of repetition, let me highlight that what is ordered by SC is that there are NO legal fetters for implementing HC Order dated 12 Jan 2010, in the shape of its possible stay. Pensioners' case will be that LIC should implement the HC Order. 

6. Let us be clear that the HC Order directs LIC to implement the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001. Up to this, in my humble opinion, there should be no problem. But the unwilling LIC would 'interpret' the Resolution to deny as much as it can. The issue goes back to HC again through, may be, fresh contempt proceedings.  So, at some stage or other, Rajathan HC should be approached to clarify its own Order to tell LIC 'do like this' or be prepared to face action for contempt. We should hope and pray here that Mr Asthana's Counsel will be able to wrest this relief from the Bench.   

7. What bothers me is that some of the Pensioner groups' active leaders are not only skeptical of the state of things but are complicating matters by avoidable 'interference'. Pensioners, as a class may have to do something to check any 'prophets of doom'. 

8. I would attempt to answer all other inconvenient questions as follows: Let us not lose sleep by talking about the shortcomings in our legal system. We have to live with them for the rest of our relatively 'short' remaining stint and leave reforms to the coming generations. Look at the grave consequences if the SC granted on 30 Sept, a stay of the HC Order. For that, thank the system and thank our stars. Take the best out of what is before us. 

There may be some more ingenious parallel and fair methods of pressurizing LIC to honor and respect the law as it stands. Like ALL the affected Pensioners signing and submitting a very brief memorandum to Chairman LIC, Min (Fin) and all Board Members.  Of Course this should be done, if at all, with the consent of Mr Asthana and his Counsel before HC and SC. As otherwise, LIC is capable of taking undue advantage of it and tell the Court it is 'examining' a Petition and ask for two months time or something like that.  

Nothing is a substitute for prayers. Collective prayers for a proper cause, will never go unheard/unanswered by Him.  

(Not LIC EMBLEM)
 LIC Chairman is
also praying !