 |
| an insight into ongoing court cases... |
The Judgements in favour of the Petitioners delivered by the three different High Courts are INDEPENDENT of each other and stand on their own feet in law, notwithstanding the fact that Jaipur Judgement is cited in support by the other two HCs. It is so because the petitioners are different, prayers are different and the relief granted was also different in its detail. Consequently, the petitioners before EACH HC are entitled to pursue their judgements for their due implementation in accordance with law.
It cannot be disputed that all the three Judgements became final and binding and LIC has no justification for 'sitting' on the same indefinitely.
But what is happening in our case? Delhi Petitioners want to meddle with the Jaipur Order, by praying for payment/depositing of the amounts as was done in Jaipur. Luckily no damage took place in Supreme Court on April 4. Don't they know that what was deposited by LIC in Jaipur HC Registry was NOT even in according with the LIC Board Resolution and that LIC played a joke by not even rectifying the DR anomaly for pre-97 Retirees while depositing the amounts? Although Justice Chauhan of Jaipur Bench specifically directed LIC to explain the basis of the amounts deposited in its Registry, LIC was able to get away with a casual non-compliance of the specific direction of the Court and the Petitioner failed to establish even such a glaring contempt, during the hearing on 12th and 13th February.
More shocking now is the fact that Jaipur Petitioners want to be impleaded in Chandigarh case despite strong opposition from Chandigarh Petitioners. This, in addition to the two new futile WPs already filed in Jaipur. An IA was filed in Supreme Court on 6th May. Why, what for? The reason given in the IA was that Chandigarh judgement is based on Jaipur Order. So what? Is the Jaipur Judgement their 'private property'? Ostensibly to 'protect the interests of pensioners'. In what way? What is it that they can present before the SC in a big way which the Chandigarh Petitioners themselves cannot? Or is to give a handle to LIC to prolong the cases indefinitely. Keep knocking at Supreme Court doors on some pretext or other but not ask for implementation of your respective judgements. Strange and incomprehensible.
In order to do that, the Petitioners have to immediately fulfill certain formalities. Make a demand to LIC through a legal Notice for payment of CRYSTALIZED amounts individually due under the Judgements. It is possible to do so in respect of Jaipur and Chandigarh cases because they are independent Petitioners/Pensioners. In respect of Delhi Petitioners, a representative sample of calculations of ALL types of Pensioners - pre-97, post-97 and family pensioners should be presented to make the CRYSTALIZED demand. Non compliance by LIC (as can be suspected) would give the Petitioners the RIGHT/OPPORTUNITY to press for 'directions' to LIC. It will not be easy for LIC to escape liability. Question of several other proceedings pending before various courts, will certainly figure before the Bench. The two new WPs in Jaipur, the latest IA before SC for impleadment and the Contempt case before Chandigarh HC are all potential impediments (possibly even the Contempt Petition dismissed as withdrawn by Jaipur Bench) for any 'directions' as LIC can be expected to play the usual games to delay implementation. In that event Sr Counsel representing each of the three groups of petitioners can be authorized to offer to the Bench to withdraw all pending cases in return for suitable and firm directions to LIC to honor/implement the judgements that became final.
We can hope for a sensible and fair outcome if and only if the petitioners stop pulling and pushing their and others' cases in different directions at the expense of
Chandigarh Petitioners are proceeding on the above lines. Will the other two follow suit? If they don't, what should their members/pensioners do? Not even question?
Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla