I
L
LIC’s undertaking before the P & H HC, Chandigarh and the HC Order dated 7.7.2014:
LIC’s undertaking before the P & H HC, Chandigarh and the HC Order dated 7.7.2014:
“Learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 states that the calculations regarding the benefits to be given to the petitioner are being assessed and the same will be deposited before this Court within a period of six weeks from today. Let needful be done within a period of six weeks from today. In case the petitioner makes an appropriate application for release of the amount, the same shall be considered as and when the same is moved. List again on 27.1.2015”.
2. It is important to note that neither in LIC’s undertaking nor in the HC Order dated 7.7.2014, any mention was made as to how and on what basis “the calculations regarding the benefits to be given to the petitioner are being assessed”. Notwithstanding the same, it was normal and proper for the Petitioners to infer from the undertaking given on 7.7.2014 that the calculations regarding the benefits to be given to the Petitioners would be, as ordered by the P&H HC Judgement dated 9.11.2012. That was the only way for LIC to get discharged from the Contempt proceedings.
3. In the Affidavit filed on behalf of LIC while depositing the sum of Rs. 33,67,838/- it was stated in para 4: “ That in view of the above, the amount as required to be paid to the writ petitioners in terms of Judgement in CWP No 16346 of 2010 decided on 9.11.2012 has been deposited in this Hon’ble Court.
3. In the Affidavit filed on behalf of LIC while depositing the sum of Rs. 33,67,838/- it was stated in para 4: “ That in view of the above, the amount as required to be paid to the writ petitioners in terms of Judgement in CWP No 16346 of 2010 decided on 9.11.2012 has been deposited in this Hon’ble Court.
In the calculation sheet attached to the Affidavit, the amounts
as applicable to each of the Petitioner/Pensioner are shown under the
following headings:
Pre-revised Basic Pension
(A)
|
Dearness Relief as on 1.8.1992
(B)
|
Dearness Relief as on 1.8.1997
(C)
|
Revised Pension as per Board Resolution
(A+B+C)
|
Amount to be deposited up to July 2014
|
(Note: The actual numbers are not reproduced here, firstly because they are faulty and also to protect the privacy of the Petitioners concerned. The unacceptable basis for the deposit, however, will be taken to the notice of the Court. )
. It follows that as per the Affidavit filed by LIC, the deposit made is purportedly in terms of the Judgement dated 9.11.2012 AND the Board Resolution.
5. Let us look at the operative portion of the Judgement dated 9.11.2012.
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since it is
not in dispute that similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra) which has been maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed, in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case namely Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra)”.
6. We now need to necessarily visit the concluding part of Jaipur Judgement dated 12.1 .2010:
“In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cutoff date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy”.
(M.N. BHANDARI) J
7. Continuing the trailing exercise to move to the origin of relevant judicial pronouncement, it is the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001 that becomes sacrosanct. It has to be implemented and there is no need for Government approval for the same.
8. LIC now claims to be depositing the amount in terms of the Chandigarh HC Order AND as per Board Resolution. The critical issue is: IS LIC REALLY DOING SO? NO IT IS NOT. LIC IS TRYING TO DENY WHAT IS CLEARLY GRANTED BY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IS NOT HESITATING EVEN TO MISLEAD THE COURTS OF LAW.
9. The Board Resolution is too well known to be reproduced but still for the sake of total clarity here it is:
“Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there was three different rates for different groups of pensioners at present depending on their dates of retirement, which cause considerable administrative inconvenience. Chairman pointed out that he has since received a communication from Dr. S. Ram Khanna, Board Member, which refers to his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detailed. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. Chairman pointed out that these have been considered before placing the matter to the Board and it was felt that the same would increase the financial burden very substantially and may be unaffordable for the Corporation. Chairman pointed out that the implications of the proposal made have been actuarially determined at Rs.51.37 crores and the annual outlay be in the region of 6 to 8 crores. After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval.”
10. What was approved in the Board Resolution which LIC now refuses to see? It is: giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. LIC should answer a straight and simple question – “Is this part of the Resolution complied with while depositing the money in Jaipur or Chandigarh”. If so how and if not why?
LIC first tried the mischief in Jaipur. Was able to get away with it, due to a number of factors. Naturally, it is playing the mischievous game again now in Chandigarh. But it will not be able to get away this time. Will get exposed – fully and squarely.
Shri C H Mahadevan has made a dissection of the amounts mischievously deposited and what ought to have been done by LIC, to escape the contempt charge. These are being made available to the Petitioners before P & H HC in Chandigarh, to assist them on their next course of action.
Tail piece: Blissfully, Supreme Court when it takes up the tagged Appeals for final Hearing will address the larger issues like points of law in the Appeals and Constitutional Provisions involving Articles 14 & 16 etc., and not bother itself to look in to the trivial issues like the interpretation of the Board Resolution (or the spelling errors in it or the grammar howlers etc.,).
Let’s hope our Leaders, the Petitioners and their Counsel, elevate themselves to the level of arguments taking place in Supreme Court and emerge victorious.
5. Let us look at the operative portion of the Judgement dated 9.11.2012.
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since it is
6. We now need to necessarily visit the concluding part of Jaipur Judgement dated 12.1 .2010:
“In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cutoff date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy”.
(M.N. BHANDARI) J
7. Continuing the trailing exercise to move to the origin of relevant judicial pronouncement, it is the Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001 that becomes sacrosanct. It has to be implemented and there is no need for Government approval for the same.
8. LIC now claims to be depositing the amount in terms of the Chandigarh HC Order AND as per Board Resolution. The critical issue is: IS LIC REALLY DOING SO? NO IT IS NOT. LIC IS TRYING TO DENY WHAT IS CLEARLY GRANTED BY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE IS NOT HESITATING EVEN TO MISLEAD THE COURTS OF LAW.
9. The Board Resolution is too well known to be reproduced but still for the sake of total clarity here it is:
“Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there was three different rates for different groups of pensioners at present depending on their dates of retirement, which cause considerable administrative inconvenience. Chairman pointed out that he has since received a communication from Dr. S. Ram Khanna, Board Member, which refers to his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detailed. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. Chairman pointed out that these have been considered before placing the matter to the Board and it was felt that the same would increase the financial burden very substantially and may be unaffordable for the Corporation. Chairman pointed out that the implications of the proposal made have been actuarially determined at Rs.51.37 crores and the annual outlay be in the region of 6 to 8 crores. After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval.”
10. What was approved in the Board Resolution which LIC now refuses to see? It is: giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. LIC should answer a straight and simple question – “Is this part of the Resolution complied with while depositing the money in Jaipur or Chandigarh”. If so how and if not why?
CONCLUSION FOR NOW
LIC first tried the mischief in Jaipur. Was able to get away with it, due to a number of factors. Naturally, it is playing the mischievous game again now in Chandigarh. But it will not be able to get away this time. Will get exposed – fully and squarely.
Shri C H Mahadevan has made a dissection of the amounts mischievously deposited and what ought to have been done by LIC, to escape the contempt charge. These are being made available to the Petitioners before P & H HC in Chandigarh, to assist them on their next course of action.
Tail piece: Blissfully, Supreme Court when it takes up the tagged Appeals for final Hearing will address the larger issues like points of law in the Appeals and Constitutional Provisions involving Articles 14 & 16 etc., and not bother itself to look in to the trivial issues like the interpretation of the Board Resolution (or the spelling errors in it or the grammar howlers etc.,).
Let’s hope our Leaders, the Petitioners and their Counsel, elevate themselves to the level of arguments taking place in Supreme Court and emerge victorious.
M Sreenivasa Murty