CH MAHADEVAN

ON VS PRAKASA RAO'S POST

1. The date of Jaipur order is 12/1/2010 and not 12/1/2013, maybe it is a slip.

2. The SC Order dt 17/10/2013 relating to the Delhi HC case reads as follows:
"Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
There shall be no stay of the directions given by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in WP(C)No.184 of 2007.
Tag with the Civil Appeals arising from
SLP(C) No.../2013 (CC Nos.16755-16758/2013).

Referring to the post of Mr V.S.Prakasa Rao, I wish to respond on some of the points raised by him.

3. There is no scope for confusion in the Supreme Court. If the petitioners’ counsel in all the three cases pray to SC for directions to LIC for implementation of the respective HC judgments, and SC allows the prayers,LIC will be compelled to implement the Jaipur judgment in rem and providing upgradation on all wage revision dates. The Supreme Court as it will not go into the realm of interpretation of the HC judgments. It is for LIC to seek any clarifications from the High Courts if needed as Supreme Court has refused to stay all the three HC judgments.
The real intent of Board Resolution:
i. Removal of DR anomaly for pre-Aug 1997 retirees from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement, if later
ii. Merger of rectified DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997
iii. Upgrading the pension by providing weightage of 11.25% on 1/8/1997 as done for in service employees.
The resolution is silent on similar merger and upgradation on future wage revision dates which had not arrived on 24/11/2001.But logically, the principle proposed to be adopted on 1/8/1997 should also be adopted on all future wage revision dates which would mean upgradation-in-chain for pre-August 1997 retirees.
The Board Resolution only applies to pre-August 1997 retirees.
Only the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order applies to all pensioners, viz pre-Aug 1997 & posts July 1997 retirees. 
4. As the HC judgments have become binding on LIC by virtue of refusal of their stay by Supreme Court , there can be no question of ordering depositing of the amount in the Court as the amount is to be paid to the eligible pensioners.The question of LIC suggesting all parties to come to a compromise will not also arise when all the Civil Appeals are together to be heard by the Supreme Court.

5. I agree that pensioners should not settle for anything less than DR anomaly removal on 1/8/1997, 100% DR neutralization on 1/8/1997 and wholesale upgradation of pension on 1/8/1997,1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 as of now. If it is not done there will be perpetual anomaly in pension structure of LIC.I am sure LIC is very well aware of this.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan