m. sreenivasa murty
The valiant and prolonged legal battle being fought by Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, reached a crucial stage and should yield results soon, benefiting all LIC Pensioners. The Proceedings dated Sept 30, 2013, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in SLP (Civil – 2013) CC 16755-16758/2013, in my view, is the best possible outcome under the overall circumstances marked by the characteristic and consistent insensitivity shown by LIC towards its Pensioners. These proceedings are indeed a major landmark, next only to the Rajasthan HC- Jaipur Bench (Single Judge) Order dated 12.01.2010 and the dismissal of LIC’s Appeals against it by the Division Bench on 21.10.2011.
From the informal exchange of views and sharing of thoughts among friends/co-pensioners, on the implications of the latest SC order, I notice that many are sceptical about the outcome of the SC Order because it granted Leave to LIC to appeal while condoning the delay. As everyone is aware, the Proceedings also state as follows:
‘’There shall be no stay of the directions given by the learned Single Judge vide Order dated 12.01.2010 passed in S.B.C.W.P. No 6676 of 1998 and connected matter’’
Please click below to read more.
The above is the best part of the story because, while condoning delay and granting leave to LIC to appeal, SC had the following three options before it, flowing from its unlimited discretionary powers:
a) Stay the operation of the Rajasthan HC Order dated 12.01.2010 pending disposal of the Appeal allowed to be filed by LIC, or,
b) Pass NO ORDER either way, on LIC’s prayer for a stay or
c) Direct ‘No Stay’ of the HC Order, as it did exactly on 30.09.2013.
Now, what are the implications?
If a) above was done, Pensioners have no choice except wait till the disposal of the SLP after several years. (Chances of moving the SC again and getting the stay vacated are minimal).
If b) above happened, it is ’Advantage-LIC’ because when an appeal is admitted and pending in a higher court, it is in Law a ‘virtual’ stay against the Order appealed against. Mr Asthana would have certainly pressed for implementing the HC Order on the ground that there is no stay by the SC. But in that event it would have been an uphill task to fight a hostile appellant and succeed.
That c) above happened, makes all the difference in favour of the Pensioners. One may appreciate that the Order is actually more than rejecting LIC’s prayer (if any) to grant a stay. It reads like a positive direction to LIC to implement the HC Order dated 12.01.2010, notwithstanding the fact that LIC’s appeal is allowed to be filed before it.In other words, the HC Order became final and binding because of the categorical assertion by the SC that ‘’there shall be no stay’’. That the appeal is pending makes no difference. The SLP being finally allowed is only a contingency like its being dismissed eventually. If allowed, it may be prospectively applicable. If dismissed, no further action is called for.
Now, what next? On this aspect, I had the benefit of discussing the matter with Justice Sri TNC Rangarajan, former Judge of AP and Madras High Courts. He is generally in agreement with the above analysis on the implications of the SC Proceedings dated 30.09.2013. But he gave some interesting inputs on what LIC may do before the Rajasthan HC Jaipur Bench, on or after 22.10.2013.
According to Justice TNC, LIC may file a petition before the Rajasthan HC, praying for a stay of its own Order dated 12.01.2010, on the ground that its SLP has been admitted by the SC. It seems SC’s Order (stating that there shall be no stay of the HC Order) does not (legally and theoretically) prevent HC from staying the operation of its Order, if it wants to. The probability of such a stay order coming from HC is almost NIL, though.
Then LIC will raise the issue of how it can recover the monies paid to Pensioners, in the event of its appeals being finally allowed. HC is likely to say ‘that is your problem’.
The next filibuster from LIC will be to offer to pay the dues against ‘security’ being offered by the Pensioners. This also will be a non-starter.
That there is a contempt petition pending before the HC, is of immense advantage to Mr Asthana. He is sure to effectively use it to compel LIC to implement the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001, in view of the unequivocal proceedings of the SC on 30.09.2013.
The other issues of concern to many Pensioners appear to be:
a) Can LIC limit the Pension revision benefits only to the Writ Petitioners?
b) What will be the effective date?
c) What exactly will be the relief?
While it is always the concerned Courts of Law that can interpret any contentious issue, based on the material before them, it will not be wrong to find answers to the above questions as under:
a) No. HC Order dated 12.01.2010, while allowing the Writ Petitions, directed the Corporation to implement the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001, to avoid discrimination amongst existing pensioners. The Order also mentions that “’every retired employee may get the same benefit’’.
b) On this question, one has to refer to the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001, as there is no mention of it in the judgement itself. The Resolution reads: “After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval”’. Court having held clearly that the Government approval is not required, that part of the Resolution becomes inoperative and ‘prospectively’ should mean effective from the date of the Resolution viz., 24.11.2001. At the cost of repetition, final interpretation may have to come from the HC itself, as LIC need not be expected to gracefully accept the Court Order in letter and in spirit.
c) Answer to this question is all important. Without going in to details and enter in to controversies, the simplest answer should be – every officer/employee who retired in the same cadre irrespective of his/her scale of pay on the date of retirement, whether retired before 1997 or later or retired last month, should be paid the same pension. We should hope LIC would be gracious enough to honour the Court verdict and not act small minded and temporarily deny the benefits to its Pensioners.
Let’s all wish Mr Asthana all the luck and success he richly deserves and thanks to his efforts, we too deserve.
(Shri M.Sreenivasa Murty retired as RM (Legal) South Central ZO,Hyderabad)