A VERY EDUCATIVE JOKE...

WHILE COMPARING AND CONTRASTING,WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT SUBTLE DIFFERENCES.
HERE IS ANOTHER JOKE NARRATED BY MY FRIEND MR SRINIVASA MURTY.

A virtually bald gentleman visited a hair-dresser for a haircut and asked for his charges.
The hair-dresser replied,"Rs 100/-".
The customer asked "Why such a high rate... for customers with copious hair, you charge only 
Rs 50?-"

one good thing about baldness..
it is neat !

The hairdresser replied, "It is true, but I take less time to dress their hair, but in your case I have to do a lot of searching, which is a time-consuming affair eating into my normal working & earning time".

The gentleman quietly had a haircut and paid him Rs 150/- with a bonus for educating him !
What a WIN-WIN situation!

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

JAIPUR CASE

Dear Sir, 

At last the Writ of Mandamus for implementation of Justice Bhandari's order dt 12 01 2010 is coming up for admission on 21 07 2014 after several adjournments and dismissal of contempt petition. Good news.

It is learnt that LIC has submitted 480 pages of affidavits for not implementing the court order. It is quite unlikely that the court will give a negative judgement of their own order. Still LIC will play mischief citing the civil case coming up for hearing in SC on 12 08 2014 and seek adjournment though the case in SC has no connection with the HC order. So the counsel for the Federation should strongly oppose any further adjournment and by forceful argument see that the HC order dt 12-01-2010 is implemented by LIC.

A V Subbaraman Coimbatore Division

(This is only admission stage. Ed.)

JEST A WHILE !

A SURGEON CAME TO A WORKSHOP WITH HIS CAR FOR REPAIRS.  THE MECHANIC OPENED THE BONNET, CHECKED AND FOUND PROBLEMS WITH ENGINE. HE OPENED ENGINE, CHECKED PISTONS, REPLACED IGNITION PLUGS AND REPAIRED THE CAR FOR SMOOTH RUNNING. 

WHEN THE SURGEON PAID THE BILL, THE MECHANIC SAID, “ LIKE YOUR SURGERY, I ALSO OPENED THE CAR’S HEART AND MADE THE SURGERY.  BUT WHY YOUR REMUNERATION IS SO HIGH AND MINE SO LESS?”

THE SURGEON SMILED AND WHISPERED IN THE MECHANIC’S EARS,  

“DO THE SAME JOB  WHILE THE ENGINE IS RUNNING.”

(Recd thro Basudeb Das)

ERRATIC THOUGHTS...

We cross into the month of July in about *36 hours.

That is on the Tuesday. Because we follow the Roman Calendar the months appear named after Roman Emperors. The next month named after Emperor Augustus will find us before the bench of the August Body of Justice, the Supreme Court of India.

 In our land the legislature, executive and judiciary have their own prominence and importance. Each with a defined area of activity and jurisdiction. But all institutions are subject to the verdicts of the August Body of Justice, in matters of interpreting the law and the law of the land.
 Even today the clouds just appear on the firmament. Met. experts say the clouds are denuded of their moisture content by hot winds. Monsoon has arrived but the rains are yet to be seen in full strength.

This is the month of ASHADA about which the Poet Kalidas sang "Aashadasya Pradhama Divase...". But there are no black clouds resembling the herds of black elephants. The farmers are the most worried lot. The seed beds are going dry and they have to invest heavily a second time. 

The politicians promise waiver of past loans but the Bankers are frozen at the prospect. How to balance the different ways of thinking of the primitive politician and that of the Reserve Bank? Will something like a scene in Maya Bazaar be possible with money in Swiss Banks? 

Meanwhile farmers continue with their desperate acts of suicides. Whatever be the election time promises the prices continue to soar. Market will not obey the politician. It is the otherway round. The quarrels between states for water and electricity are now a reality.
Load shedding has come. Domestic power cuts mean we cannot use our p.c. when our thought process is active. Long back we forgot to put our ideas in black and white. Sometimes I wonder loudly,"Are we the same generation which shouted that we won't touch a computer even with a barge pole?"
Men may come and men may go. The chariot of technology advances. Is this not what Allwyn Toffler said in his THIRD WAVE? We are both traditional and modern at the same time. We send our children abroad and lament that there is nobody to care for the old. Such are the contradictions in our not-so-affluent life.

The wheels of the Chariot of Lord Jagannadh roll out today. What a grand spectacle! Who asked those lakhs to congregate on the main road of Puri? In the months of May and early June a good start was made to forge Unity of Approach between the organisations that appear before the Supreme Court in August 2014. But like the monsoon that has gone erratic, no fruitful outcome is seen. Perhaps, Unity requires long gestation. Our group of Pensioners ( By the word group I mean the collective of entire pensioners, not the narrow divisive way in which it is used.) is following with interest the activity of submission of memoranda to Ministers in the Ruling Party at various places like Nagpur, Vijayawada, Hyderabad etc. The memoranda highlight our long pending problem and urges the politicians to interfere and resolve it in our favour. Let us hope the politicians spare time for us, what with international developments, the attacks on oil fields of Iraq, the major train accidents, the explosion around gas pipe lines in East Godavary District of Andhra, The accidental drowning of students on excursions in river Beas etc. etc, demanding their urgent attention.

August would arrive soon whether we count days or not. Affidavits have to be filed before the bench in our matters. Will there be one affidavit from both the organisations pursuing the legal battle? Or will there be more than one affidavit with the same content but in different names? For a layman like me that would be OK. But different affidavits with widely varying pleas would certainly be disastrous.

When in-service organisations submit their charter of demands, they circulate them first to rank and file, elicit opinions, incorporate the final changes and hand them over to management. Why not our pensioners' organisations also circulate the draft of their affidavit/s to all those that would be affected by the outcome of legal process in advance and elicit/call for comments and improvements? That would give opportunity to all those who can think and express their opinions, though they may not be in the governing bodies of organisations. Can we give this method a try?

Greetings to all......B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad (*29.6.2014 21-02 Hs. IST)

I refer to Sri A V Subbaraman's Post in the Chronicle. His frustration is shared by many and is understandable. But I want to assure him and others that "Mission Unity" is not a cry in wilderness. It is yielding results. Not a day passes without new ground being covered. Ultimately the cause wins. A genuine one like ours. The efforts before the Apex Court and attempts to meet the political leaders - both are necessary. Keep faith.      

 

Thanks and regards,

 M. Sreenivasa Murty

HYDERABAD 500090

NO LONGER A VICTIM BUT A STRONG SURVIVOR !

Recd thro RK Viswanathan

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT CW NO.3508 OF 2014 LISTED ON 21-7-2014

  

PENDING

Date of query : 29/6/2014	Time : 3:37:28 PM
CW'3508' of 2014 - R	6604/2014
Petitioner :	ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE ORS
Respondent:	L I C OF INIDA
Petitioner Advocate:	SANJAY GANGWAR
Respondent Advocate:	ARUN SHARMA
Class Code : 0521	Registered on : 27/3/2014
Bench : SB	Stage : FOR ADMISSION- NOTICE SERVED
DATE GIVEN BY: PESHI CLERK DATE
Date of Listing : 21/7/2014
Listed in court No. 5 on 22/05/2014 ________________________________ FORWARDED WITH THE HOPE FOR ADMISSION & ORDERS. REGARDS HK AGGARWAL

WE SHOULD MEET THE FINANCE MINISTER

Dear Sir

• There is a hue and cry raised from all quarters for unity among pensioners' associations in fighting LIC's civil appeal coming up for hearing on 12 08 2014, but till date no positive result has come up and the cry is only in the willderness.

Similarly petitions have been given to Chief Justice of India, Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, Nirmala Sitaraman Mos Finance,

Minister Nitin Ghatkari etc with no response.

• So I am afraid  political solution also will not be possible in the near future.

The unions should meet Finance Minister Arun Jaitely and
apprise him of our problems in right earnest. Then only our just 

demand will be conceded.

A V Subbaraman Coimbatore 

CLARIFICATION

I refer to the post by Mr S R Krishna.

Although the Contempt Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to seek clarification at Jaipur, it is only for the limited purpose of enabling the petitioner to pursue the contempt matter afresh. The petitioner cannot be compelled to seek clarification. Mr Asthana might have chosen not to seek clarification on second thoughts and decided to follow alternative course of action.

• As things stand at present, SC has refused to stay the Jaipur SJB Order dt 12/1/2010. So the order is binding on LIC. If LIC is having any reservations on implementing the order, they should seek clarification from the Court.
• So the clarification matter cannot be allowed to hamper decisions on other courts' cases. 

Kind regards
C H Mahadevan

• The idea is to have a second line of  Editors, say one or two, who will work for LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE, have access to materials received for the Chronicle, copy-edit the same and upload the post directly to the Chronicle.
• This is a work the Editors could do at their convenience - maybe, once weekly or monthly or quarterly, all depending on their leisure time (showing the name of the concerned Editor and Centre.)
• He may belong to any of the Pensioner Associations. But the blog will have an impartial outlook - something which you feel the blog has at present. The same should be kept in mind while doing 'projections' and all blog related work.
• Such an Editor will take over the blog in the absence of the Editor -  Zindagi ke saath aur zindagi ke baad bhi.

PENSIONER FRIENDS MAY LOCATE SUCH PERSONS AND RECOMMEND TO THE EDITOR SO THAT THE EDITOR COULD CONTACT THEM AND PERSUADE TO DO THIS WORK. INTERESTED PERSONS  CAN ALSO DIRECTLY APPROACH THE EDITOR. 

WHY NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION ?

As has already been pointed out by Mr. T. Sampath Iyengar on 12-6-2014, during the course of arguments in the Contempt case in Rajasthan H.C. Mr. Asthana sought liberty to seek clarification for Justice Bhandari's judgement and got permission for doing so. 

In the case of Chandigarh H.C . contempt proceedings, L I C made use of the above and pleaded that Chandigarh judgement was largely based on Jaipur H.C. Judgement and as the petitioners of the Jaipur case themselves have sought and got liberty to seek clarification of that judgement, they (LIC) will implement Chandigarh judgment on the basis of clarification provided by Jaipur H.C.

It is feared that LIC may take the same stand in SC on 12-8-2014. To counter such a situation, why shouldn't Mr. Asthana seek whatever clarifications he needed from Jaipur H.C. well before 
12-8-2014, when the case comes before S.C. and take necessary action based on the same?

S.R.Krishna

T SAMPATH IYENGAR

I am responding to BR Mehta's call for learned friends to express their
independent views. Yes the course for united approach on 12th Aug is the
best, provided BR Mehta and his friends bring Chandigarh leaders
on board and break ice with Jaipur leaders, ARIEF President and
Secretary and and sell the idea of a united approach to all stake holders
concerned. As this meet has to take place on an emergency basis so as to
prevent LIC/GOI from seeking adjournment on one ground or another,
Leaders like RBK and others should join in the attempt to bring all stake
holders to the platform. Unfortunately there appears to be no move
towards this so far.

I appeal to all to realise the urgency and the need for an united fight in
view of the fact that half our pensioner friends have left us and the rate
of losing others would be at a faster rate due to advanced age and its
consequences. HOPE THINGS MOVE FAST IN THIS DIRECTION.

T SAMPATH IYENGAR, BANGALORE

UNITED APPROACH ON 12TH AUGUST

A versatile and painstaking analysis of the ongoing court cases, the probabilities and possibilities likely to emerge in the course of arguments likely to ensue when the SC bench sits on 12 TH AUGUST coming from Sreenivasa Murty deserves attention and not to be brushed aside. There are a few points which Murty raised and they are worth examining :-

• 1.Under some pretext or other LIC would ask for adjournment as information what they sought  has not been complied with. Should such a situation emerge the advocates on our side should use all their ‘court craft’ to scuttle such move and in this a collective thinking and the strategy to be adopted gets the priority.
• 2. Murty’s fear that SEC 48 of LIC Act which empowers the GOI to frame the pension rules would again be raised by the appellant/LIC and the interpretations made in lower courts needs adjudication by the apex Court as it involves substantial question of law. Should such a situation arise what shall be our common approach in defense ?
• 3.LIC may come with the plea that pension rules need to be amended and gezetted before compliance of the court order which would again put us to inconvenience. In this regard SEC 55 of LIC Act Should be brought to the attention of the Apex court. SEC 55 of LIC Act ( Power to issue instructions ) says : The Chairman of the Corporation may from time to time issue instructions as may be considered necessary or EXPEDIENT for implementation of these rules.

The physical meeting of all the stake holders and more especially the busy lawyers who are going to argue although desirable may not be possible due to several reasons and therefore it is desirable that  the stake holders give the necessary brief to them.

I will shout from roof-top that justice is on Pensioners side and the unfortunate LIC not on their own volition fighting a losing case spending lakhs of Policy holder’s money but yet go scot-free.

R.K.Viswanathan

THE UNPLEASANT QUESTIONS...

unpleasant questions...
will the government give in ?

AN APPEAL FROM A PENSIONER

Pension is a boon to any employee to lead a peaceful life. The central Government Employees’ ,

State Government employees do receive pension and it is but natural that every increase in wage

revision of the existing employees’  the retirees will also get an increase in their pension in the cadre they retired.  Almost, One Rank and One Pension.

Whom she will oblige ?

The L I C also had a pension rules broadly based on Central Government Pension Rules. A reference

is also made to refer Central Government Pension Rules. But the L I C has forgotten all the norms

and forms of revision of pension which is in practice in the Central Government.  Then the pensioner has no option to approach the Court. One Shri K M L Asthana has filed a case in the Jaipur

High Court 1998 and a federation of ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES’ FEDERATION was also formed and supported him. One single Judge M N BHANDARI has given the Judgement. The

L I C has no respect towards the Jaipur High Court Judgement Dated 12 01 2010. The L I C preferred

an appeal which is dismissed  by the Division Bench even then the L I C has no respect towards

the Judgement. They preferred a review and also filed SLP in the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

The SLP of L I C was dismissed and the review petition filed in Jaipur is also dismissed.

The wiser counsels of L I C did not prevail on them. The L I C has again failed another SLP

in the Supreme Court  after a lapse of time, but it is also dismissed.  The L I C filed 3^rd SLP

which is converted in to CIVIL APPEALS  without giving a stay order on the Judgement of the

Jaipur High Court specifically. But the L I C did not obey even the order of the SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA.

Similar case is filed by Late Shri M L GANDHI and along with 22 members in the Chandigarh High

Court.  But basing on the JUDGEMENT of SJ M N BHANDARI they have given similar Judgement

and advised L I C to pay 12% interest for the delayed payment.  But L I C did not oblige the

Court  Verdict.  The L I C preferred an SLP which was converted in to Civil Appeal and NO STAY

ORDER IS GIVEN ON THE CHANDIGARH HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT. The L I C did not oblige.

And a similar case was also filed by Shri G N Sridharan in Delhi High Court, the Judgement

of the Delhi High court is also based on the Judgement  of SJ M N BHANDARI. But L I C could

not oblige and preferred SLP in the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. The L I C filed

another SLP which was also converted in to Civil Appeals and the Supreme Court also has

not given any stay on the Delhi High Court Judgement.

The Supreme court of India did not grant any stay order of JAIPUR, CHANDIGARH and also

Delhi.  The eligibility criteria is decided by its bench is from the date of retirement or from

the date of eligibility.

You do find that L I C has no respect towards the court orders and they are taking adjournments

after adjournments.  They are misusing the legal lacuna with all delaying tactics.

JUSTICE DELAYED AND JUSTICE DENIED.

........ We hope that you will advise the L I C to implement the Court orders and also a resolution

of their own D/ 24 11 2001 which could rectify  and resolve all our problems. (excerpts).

MILORD !

HOW CAN THE PENSIONERS FIGHT THE MIGHTY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FINANCIAL PUBLIC SECTOR INDUSTRY SINCE THEY (UOI AND OTHERS) CAN AFFORD TO HIRE THE TOP PAID LAWYERS TO DEFEND THEM?

LET US RAISE OUR VOICE LOUD ENOUGH SO THAT THE MODI 

GOVERNMENT DOES SOME THING TO RENDER US JUSTICE.

REGARDS

VK BHASIN

CHAIRMAN

GENERAL INSURANCE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION

LAKSHMINARAYANA

Lakshminarayana has sent a link to the blog: 


Need of the hour is united approach 
arguing the cases in the Courts. 


Blog: LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE 
Post: Quick Response to Mission Unity Appeals‏ 

Quick Response to Mission Unity Appeals‏

I am sure that our all learned LIC pensioner friends who happen to be regular readers of LIC Pensioners Chronicle must have gone through recent posts from Sh. Sreenivasa Murty and Sh. C.H. Mahadevan on above subject.

It it is really unfortunate that by becoming part of this camp or that camp, we are not in a position to rise above petty positioning of our fixed mind set since so far we have learnt either to blindly support A or always oppose B without going into merits or demerits or study logics or facts of case with an independent and neutral thinking.

May I request all learned friends to kindly express their 

independent views on merits of facts or ideas as put by both 

Sh.Murty and Sh.Mahadevan clearly stating 

how and where they are wrong. 

In case there is nothing wrong in the line of action suggested by Sh. Murty, then everyone must 

come forward to support this mission with an open mind and heart so that 

at the end of day it is victory of LIC Pensioners only 

and not so called self styled, unquestioned and unaccountable leaders who are bent upon spoiling the noble mission due to their unlimited hunger for being the only winner in present race of war for credit. It must be a victory of whole Pensioners community.

With my regards for all

BR Mehta

Panchkula

M SREENIVASA MURTY

IN PURSUIT OF UNITY (1)

THE THREE JUDGEMENTS - WHAT DO THEY REALLY MEAN FOR US? 

 (Their ‘Confluence’ so well enunciated by Sri C H Mahadevan and AFTER)

My appeal for unity of approach among the Petitioners in all the three High Courts, supported by every individual LIC pensioner, is literally the need of the hour. I am not tired of referring to the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4/4/2014 has done us a great favour by ordering:

“Post the application along with all the appeals in the 2nd week of August, 2014”.

The valuable opportunity should be capitalized by our Petitioners, to cut short the otherwise inescapable delay in the delivery of justice. Notwithstanding the SC Order of 4/4/14, the three Civil Appeals may not be heard for final disposal immediately, for any one of a number of possible reasons. Though such a hearing cannot be ruled out theoretically, it is highly unlikely that LIC/UoI will be ready to argue the Appeals immediately and in that case, they will offer some excuse (like they need to obtain instructions from the new Government etc.,), to put off the hearing. It is exactly here that the Petitioners (their Sr/Advocates) should be fully prepared to take ‘control’ of the situation and convince the Bench that LIC/UoI cannot be allowed to get away by taking the higher judiciary for granted on some pretext or the other and that the Petitioners/Pensioners are entitled to fair relief ‘here and now’. The Counsel shall be fully equipped with irrefutable facts (like large number of ‘exits of Pensioners from the world’) to plead with the Bench for what we deserve.    

The Sr/Advocates’ task is not going to be easy. To succeed in such a situation, there are at least three major factors that play a role – i) The inherent strength in our case - legally speaking (we believe we have it and we should make sure our Advocates believes so equally strongly). ii) Anticipate ALL possible spanners that LIC/UoI may throw during the hearing and be prepared to counter them effectively and iii) Overall ‘court craft’ displayed by the Counsel.

It is not irrelevant to state here that while we should be ready and fully prepared to argue and oppose the Civil Appeals for their dismissal/disposal, it will be to our advantage if we are not called upon to do so now and we should welcome LIC/UoI being ‘not ready’. If I may explain my point further, final disposal of the CAs involves Supreme Court’s findings on important points of law like scope of Sec 48, Government’s powers with reference to intervening in the running the Corporation under various Regulations and whether or not the proposed rectification of anomaly in DR for the earlier retirees in terms of the Board Resolution, warrants any amendments of the statutory Regulations etc.,      

If the Bench is keen to dispose of the CAs and rejects LIC/UoI’s probable pleas against the same, we have to be prepared, as we will have no choice. Only if we are ready but the final hearing does not take place, we have the right to press for directions to implement the three judgements that became binding. At best LIC/UoI may still ask for time and manage to get a week or two (adjournments for interim orders are always short). If, hopefully, the Bench is willing to issue directions to implement the judgements, the inevitable next situation will be LIC’s poser to the Bench that the three judgements under discussion are not the same, if only they need to be implemented. LIC will certainly highlight the real or imaginary differences in the three judgements and then the Bench will have to turn to the Petitioners’ counsel and ask “What doth thou sayeth?”

(Continued)

IN PURSUIT OF UNITY (2)

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST NO.1)

All our co-pensioners and our leaders are by now fully aware of what is available under each of the three Judgements, subject to known differences in interpretation. However it is indisputable that Delhi and Chandigarh HCs gave their verdicts citing the Jaipur Order dated 12/01/2010 and so it is natural that the SC Bench would like to look in to it in some depth. Here comes the need for the all-important ‘unity of approach’ among all the Petitioners. As the operative portions of all the three Judgments are available in black and white for everyone to read and understand, there are differences in interpreting them by different Petitioners. But everyone should accept that the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on any point shall only prevail. Let us take a quick look at the three Orders and identify differences which are more obvious.

For easy appreciation of the different viewpoints, I have appended to this Note a sheet with three Tables giving worked out illustrations of ‘live’ cases of real pensioners. Table 1 explains the enormous mischief played by LIC while depositing a total (paltry) sum of Rs.19,63,638/- in three instalments between 23/12/2011 and 20/11/2013. It may be seen that the short payment in the Monthly pension of October 2013 was Rs. 3613/- and the shortage in total arrears deposited was a whopping Rs 3,97,133/-.

Similarly, Table 2 illustrates how another Pensioner (who is not a Petitioner in any WP) would lose Rs 4724/- per month and Rs 9,17,226/- in arrears, if LIC is allowed to follow the absurdly untenable pattern as it did in depositing amounts in Jaipur HC Registry.

A reference to the ‘confluence’ Post in the Chronicle by Sri C H Mahadevan, will clarify and validate the above numbers.

Table 3 gives more interesting information. These are also real figures. The total amount payable by way of arrears to 24 Petitioners works out to Rs 3.12 Crores without adding interest and Rs. 4.97 Crores, with interest, as ordered by P&H HC at Chandigarh. The Petitioner/Pensioner in the worked out illustration is entitled to Rs.15,61,387/- by way of arrears without interest and Rs 25,52,509/- with interest, as ordered by the HC. The amount being denied to him now every month, works out to Rs.19,376/-  

My purpose in projecting these numbers is to emphasize the fact that the Counsel appearing for our petitioners before all the three HCs, should present a united front in persuading the SC Bench to issue suitable directions to LIC. At the cost of repetition, I list out the benefits flowing from:

The Board Resolution:

·         Removal of DR anomaly before 1/8/1997 and 100% DR neutralization from then on.

·         Merger of rectified DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997;

·         Up gradation of pension after such merger by providing 11.25% (presumably average)

·         Provide weightage (as was done for in-service employees) w.e.f. 1/8/1997;

Jaipur Judgement:

·         Government approval is not required for implementing the Board Resolution

·         No discrimination among pensioners based on the dates of retirement, i.e., pension to the existing retirees has to be revised on every wage revision effected for in-service employees.

Punjab & Haryana HC Order:

·         LIC directed to fix pension on substituted scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable in scrapped pay scale as on the date of retirement on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits;

·         Also award of interest at 12% on the difference in amount payable.

Delhi HC Order:

·         LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem.

(continued)

IN PURSUIT OF UNITY (3)

(CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST NO.2)

What is the Unity of approach we have been talking of? 

Parties in all the three Civil Appeals shall respond to SC proceedings dated 4/4/2014. 

Jaipur and Chandigarh Petitioners, through fresh Applications, facilitated by Delhi Petitioners filing an amended Application, supplementary to IA No 3 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013. Once the Advocates are duly instructed and fully briefed, they know how to do their job. Maintenance of timelines and Clients’ involvement in vetting the drafts and providing inputs for verbal arguments, will clinch the issues in our favour. 

Some other points of relevance:

• · The D day: 12/8/2014 & 19/8/2014 are provisionally indicated for now, with reference to Jaipur and Chandigarh CAs. SC proceedings of 4/4/2014 were actually in IA No 3 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013 which is on Delhi Judgement and is yet to be listed even provisionally. Should be only be a clerical omission and will be rectified by finally posting of all Appeals on one date, which could be 12/8/2014 only.
• · When directions are sought and before the same are given by the Supreme Court, the issue of ‘financial implications’ is sure to arise. Theoretically SC is not bound to and so may not yield. Where money is payable as per law, money has to be paid. However, we cannot draw blank if we are asked to respond. So it is necessary that our Counsel are equipped with near accurate information on that, if only to counter LIC if it presents incorrect picture to the Court, to our detriment. 
• · The other relevant information to the Counsel will be the unfortunate mortality statistics of Pensioners, during the last five years or so. It will be left to the counsel to use that information or not to use. 
• · On all these and other aspects, there should be information sharing, common understanding and consensus on strategy among the petitioners and the Counsel. 

That is the Unity of Approach the LIC pensioners are yearning for.

(END)