_______Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla ______
That the Writ Petition filed by the Federation headed by Mr G N Sridharan, in the Delhi High Court sought rectification of DR Anomaly (only) for the pre-'97 retirees was never in dispute. When that Writ was allowed by the HC, the relief sought by the Petitioner was granted. The Court while allowing the WP, relied wholly on the judgement of the Single Judge of Jaipur Bench (also referring to the fact that it was later upheld by the Division Bench). Then the Delhi judgement was also conditional to what the Supreme Court was going to decide on the SLPs pending at that point of time.
Mr Sridharan's circular dated 30 Oct 2013 does not make comfortable reading to me. His meeting with Mr R K Thakru, as reported in his Circular, is conspicuous for omitting to highlight the fact that the Rajasthan High Court Order and the Order of Delhi HC are now identically placed in law, in as much as the SC ordered 'there shall be no stay' in both the cases. Any demand or appeal to Mr Thakru, should have been for removal of DR Anomaly for pre '97 retirees AND for the up-gradation of pension to all on identical grounds. What is the purpose in asking for ad hoc payment referring to the LIC's Appeals pending before SC? "No stay" ordered by SC has a higher value in Delhi and is less 'binding' on Rajasthan HC order? What is the message?
Unlike in Delhi, there is already a pending contempt petition filed by Mr Asthana in Rajasthan. If the time sought and secured by LIC up to Nov 29, is genuinely for implementing the Rajasthan HC Order (hopefully fully) and not to come up with any new game plan to deny/delay the benefits to pensioners, it is fine. Otherwise, contempt proceedings are sure to be pressed for. In this context also, any demand for ad hoc payment is out of sync with the ground realities.
One hopes, the General Council which is scheduled to meet on Dec 2, provides proper direction to protect the interests of ALL rather than move in isolation. It becomes more critical if LIC continues to play foul even after Nov 29, 2013.