My hearty thanks to M/s RV Chandrasekharan, MP Agnihotri, BR Mehta, T Sampath Iyengar, CH Mahadevan and several others who are in touch with me, besides a host of silent supporters who follow the Pensioners’ Chronicle. I want to update the Pensioner Community through the Chronicle. I am still in Delhi, talking to Advocates, having returned from a quick trip to Chandigarh on 21st May.
1. I have not given up and will not give up my efforts to convince all the active Petitioners and the leaders of the Federations, as the case may be, to prepare ‘properly’ for the hearing before the Supreme Court Bench in the second week of August.
2. I am NOT asking any of them to give up their rights to realize what they have achieved through the Judgements delivered in their favour, each of which is, as per law, binding on LIC. I am only asking them to press for ‘directions’ from the Hon’ble Supreme Court (they have a legitimate chance and an opportunity to do so in the second week of August) to implement their respective judgements. What I am appealing to them is to REFRAIN from straying in to the other petitioners’ territory, which would only give scope to LIC to step in and work in some way to our detriment. The minimum LIC can do is to ask for and get a long adjournment.
3. In order to do as above, legally exploit the benefit of 4th April 2014 proceedings of the SC, file reply/supplementary Application (on the first day when the Court reopens after the summer vacation) ending with an eloquent prayer in two parts: i) Please dispose of the Civil Appeals urgently (highlighting the most sensitive fact carefully, that the petitioners are leaving the world on a weekly frequency) or ii) “I have the Judgement and Order in my favour, which the Respondent LIC is bound to honour – but not doing so – please direct its implementation pending disposal of the CA against the said Order”. This is the substance of the prayers – the language and the emphasis will be provided by the Advocate/s.
4. Let LIC say what it wants to – let SC intervene as it wants to. SC would easily notice that the Chandigarh Petitioners are demanding 1) DR anomaly rectification for pre-97 retirees 2) up-gradation of basic pension with each pay-revision – 1997/2002/2007, 3) full arrears from 1.8.97 and 4) with interest at 12%. Supreme Court would also notice (with the help of LIC) that the benefits accruing from the Delhi and Jaipur Judgements are lesser in scope and detail. In that situation, the Sr Counsel would have been authorized by the petitioners to ‘offer’ to the Bench, on behalf of all the three Petitioners with prior consultation, to direct granting (AS INTERIM MEASURE) of whatever immediate benefit the Bench feels just and proper. If it comes to, it could be a) arrears on up-gradation without interest, b) full up-gradation but without arrears, c) only DR anomaly rectification for pre-97 retirees, (but necessarily with the benefit of revision due on 1.8.97, to prevent the contemptuous mischief played by LIC while depositing money in Jaipur HC registry and ironically sought to be ignored by Delhi Petitioners in their IA heard on April 4th). If Supreme Court grants DR anomaly rectification for the pre-97 retirees only, without rejecting the other reliefs for the time being, we should be willing to take it as a consideration to the ‘worst affected’ among us. The Sr Counsel team should be able to take control of the situation in the open court, after winning the sympathy of a benevolent Bench. What is important is that the matter as a whole is NOT allowed to drift to an indefinite future. That is where well informed Sr Counsel, slapped with no conflicting instructions from our Petitioners (for example and in a lighter vein “Mr. Sr Counsel, I don’t care what happens to my case – but make sure the other fellow gets nothing from the Hon’ble Court. Tear your counterpart’s arguments to smithereens”).
5. I renew my appeal to the Petitioners of Delhi & Jaipur: Make supplementary submissions in response to SC proceedings of April 4 to be able to pray for directions to implement the Judgements dated 30.01.2013 & 12.01.2010 respectively.
6. Prepare and keep ready the comprehensive written arguments in CA Nos 9223/2013 and 8959-62/2013 (without being ready on that, you have no case to ask for urgent disposal of the Appeals listed before the Bench)
7. The total strategy should be that the petitioners in Jaipur, Delhi and Chandigarh HCs should not appear to be fighting among themselves, to the advantage of LIC and to the inconvenience of the Supreme Court.
8. I have come across some dealing advocates, not fully familiar with all the facts of our cases. It is our duty to ensure that the advocates on record as well as the Senior Counsel are fully briefed to the point of 100% control on facts of the case. The fee paid is also for the time spent with the client to discuss the case thoroughly.
9. I don’t claim I know all the relevant law. But I do know how cases are won by winning the sympathy of the Bench, especially in cases like ours. The first task is to convince our counsel how strong is our case. If we succeed there, half the case is won. I am open to correction if the petitioners in Jaipur & Delhi and/or their leaders have any better strategy than what is discussed above.
10. If Delhi and Jaipur do not agree with this line of approach, (or don’t share a possible better plan they wish to pursue), they owe an explanation to their co-pensioners, throughout the country hoping and waiting for justice.
11. To the query from Mr Sampath Iyengar: Yes, I do have a Plan ‘B’, which is a gamble (I file an Application for Intervention before the SC myself) and also a Plan ‘C’ which will prove a WMD. Aimed at the wrong doers of all their wrong doings against the trusting LIC pensioners.
