VS PRAKASA RAO

                      

I have been following the ongoing acrimonious debate on what to do at the Supreme Court by the persons fighting for the pension benefits as per the order of  Jaipur H.C.  Sri Murty  took great initiative to forge unity amongst the Pensioners’ representatives so that common strategy is adopted at the Supreme Court during Aug 2014.  I am afraid Sri Murty is getting  frustrated as his Action  Plan  has not  received the due recognition. 

I think that Sri. Murty  is well aware of  the facts of  the legal  fight at  Jaipur, Chandigarh and Delhi H.Cs. He may be also aware of the cases at Allahabad H.C posted to 4-7-2014  and at Gujarat H.C posted to 23-7-2014. Further L.I.C, it seems, is trying to get the case at  Kerala  H.C transferred  to the Supreme Court. The  issue raised at all  these High Courts was  for removal of D/R anomaly for pre Aug.97 pensioners and UPDATION of pension on each  wage  revision given to the in-service employees. In fact  this  is  the essence of  the Resolution  passed by the L.I.C Board on 24-11-2001.

But  the  issue  raised  at  Delhi  H.C and  Kerala  H.C was only removing  the D/R anomaly  only to pre Aug 97 pensioners.  Yet the Delhi H.C ordered  implementation of the Jaipur H.C order  dated *12-1-2013 in REM subject to the clearance  by Supreme Court.  That means  L.I.C  has to implement the Board  Resolution  i.e.100%  D/R  neutralization  to pre Aug 97 pensioners and UPDATION of  pension with each wage revision. But  the Delhi petitioner sought for and obtained  a modified order on 17-10-2013 the details of which are not  known. 

I am sure that Sri. Murty  is well aware of this matter and the incidental ramifications. Indeed  Sri. Murty reacted very strongly to the circular  dt. 31-10-2013 issued by Sri GNS which detailed the interview he had with Sri. Takru the Secretary Finance and the Board Member of L.I.C. His rejoinder gave the impression that he wanted the benefits should be achieved  for both the pre Aug.97 and post Aug.97 pensioners as per the verdict of Jaipur  H.C.

Now Sri Murty, if  he wants  a united move at Supreme Court, the Delhi Petitioner be prepared to seek full implementation of the of the Jaipur verdict but not a part of  it. If they insist  on  the modified order of Delhi H.C and those of JAIPUR AND CHANDIGARH H.Cs want  for the implementation of the Board Resolution, it will create  confusion to the Supreme Court which is  against  the objective of unity move.  

IN THIS CONNECTION  IT  IS  NECESSARY  TO KNOW THE REAL MEANING  OF  THE  BOARD  RESOLUTION  AND THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THE  PENSIONERS.  THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING  OF ALL THE PENSIONERS IS THE  RESOLUTION IS AIMED  TO RECTIFY THE D/R ANOMALY  FOR PRE AUG.97 PENSIONERS  AND UPDATION TO ALL PENSIONERS LINKED TO THE WAGE REVISION.  SO IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE  ALL THE  PENSIONERS  INTO CONFIDENCE  AND PREPARE FOR THE UNITY MOVE.   IT IS ALSO VERY  PERTINENT TO NOTE NEVER THE L.I.C  MANAGEMENT  QUESTIONED THE PRESENCE  OF POST AUG.97 PENSIONERS  FOR BEING  THE PETITIONERS  IN  JAIPUR, CHANDIGARH  AND DELHI. FOR THAT MATTER THE LIC DID NOT RAISE THIS MATTER IN THEIR SLP ALSO. 

AS SUCH  WE PRAY THE  S.C. TO CONSIDER THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE JAIPUR H.C ORDER  WHICH IS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE  BOARD RESOLUTION  OF 2001  TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SEC.21 OF L.I.C ACT  WILL  S.C  ORDER  IMPLEMENTATION  IMMEDIATELY -  BECAUSE  IT DID NOT  ORDER STAY  ON THE  H.C  ORDERS.  AT BEST  IT  MAY  ORDER  LIC TO  DEPOSIT  THE  AMOUNT  DUE  TO THE PETITIONERS  IN  THE  RESPECTIVE H.CS.  OR IN  THE  ALTERNATIVE  S.C  MAY  SUGGEST  ALL THE  PARTIES  TO  COME  TO  A COMPROMISE.  THEN WHAT  SHALL BE  THE  TERMS  OF  COMPROMISE.  L.I.C. AND  DELHI  PETITIONERS  OPT  FOR  ONLY  D/R  RECTIFICATION  LEAVING  UPDATION.  IS  IT  FAIR  TO  THE PENSIONERS  IN  GENERAL  WHO ASPIRE  FOR  THE  UPDATION ESPECIALLY  IN THE LIGHT  OF  THE  ONE RANK  ONE  PAY  PENSION CLEARED  BY  THE  SUPREME  COURT,  AND  NON APPLICATION  OF  RULE  56  OF OUR  PENSION  RULES  WHICH  PROVIDE  FOR  THE  APPLICABILITY  OF THE  CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES  PROVISIONS.  IN FACT  RULE  36  OF OUR  PENSION  RULES  ON  MINIMUM PENSION  ACCEPTED  THE  PRINCIPLE  OF UPDATION   AND  ENJOYED  BY  THEM AS SUCH.

• NOW  IT  IS  NECESSARY  FOR  THE  PENSIONERS  TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE CONTENTS  OF  THE  S.L.P  FILED  BY  L.I.C AND  THE  458  PAGE APPENDED TO IT.  SRI MURTY  MIGHT  BE  KNOWING  THE  DETAILS.  CAN WE  COUNTER  THESE  POINTS  EFFECTIVELY. 
• WHAT  ARE  THE  MOST  DIFFICULT  POINTS  FOR  US TO COUNTER? IF  THEY  ARE  HIGHLIGHTED SOME  OF  THE PENSIONERS MAY  GIVE  THEIR  SUGGESTIONS.  
• I  APPRECIATE  IF  SRI MURTY  TAKES  INITIATIVE  IN THIS  MATTER.  IF  HE  IS  ABLE TO  WORK  OUT  UNITY, THEN  THE  PENSIONERS  FIGHTING  THE  CASES  SHOULD  PRESENT  A COMMON  COUNTER  TO  THE  L.I.C POINTS IN THE S.L.P  AND  ENGAGE  A  TEAM  OF  COMMON  LAWYERS  TO  PLEAD  THE  CASE  OF  THE  PENSIONERS. 
• CAN  WE  ALLOW   THE   AIIPA  TO  BE  A  MUTE  SPECTATOR   TO  THE   CRUCIAL  FIGHT  OF THE  PENSIONERS. SRI  MURTY  SHOULD  CONTEMPLATE.  
• FURTHER  WE SHOULD  TAKE  CARE  OF  THE  CASES  AT  ALLAHABAD  AND  AHMEDABAD  H.CS  SO THAT THESE  H.CS ALSO DECIDE  ON  THE  SAME  LINES  OF JAIPUR  ORDER.   
• I APPEAL  TO  SRI  MURTY  TO  REVIEW  THE  MATTER  IN  PROPER  PERSPECTIVE AND  WORK  FOR   COMMON  COUNTER   BY  ALL THE  RESPONDENTS  AND GO IN  FOR  COMMON  TEAM  OF  LAWYERS  WHICH  IS  THE  REAL  UNITY.  LEST  IT  WILL BE  A CASE  OF  DOCTORS  DILEMMA - THE WELL KNOWN  WRITING OF  DR. BERNARD SHAW.

                        V.S. PRAKASARAO .  VISAKHAPATNAM    94410 66338.
_________________
Jaipur HC order dated 12-1-2010.