- It is not correct to say that I failed to convince GNS on the stand that the Hyderabad Association and I took on his IA No 3 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013. What was our demand? That he should modify or withdraw his IA. Why? Because in our view, the contents and the prayer in his IA would go against the interests of not only the post-97 retirees but the pre-97 retirees also. The other point we have been contesting with GNS is his prayer for directing LIC to deposit the amounts for the Delhi Petitioners (for the pre-97 retirees) as was done in Jaipur. Also, his endorsement in his IA, of LIC’s mischievous game of denying even to the pre-97 retirees what they are entitled to, as per the Board Resolution. These are like series of ‘self-goals’.
GNS assured me personally (in the presence of
several common friends) and he also reiterated the same very clearly in his
circular dated 25th July 2014 that the Federation was not against
Pension up-gradation demand. According to him the IA was drafted just to keep
the prayer simple. (It is another matter that limiting the prayer just to the implementation
of the Delhi Judgement would have been simpler still). He did not refute the
basis for our objections nor did he dismiss our concerns. In spite of all the
pressure that we exerted, it was conveyed to us that the IA cannot be modified at
this stage, or withdrawn, ‘as per the advice received from his new Sr Counsel’.
Where is my failure here?
As far as we in Hyderabad were concerned, it
was our unanimous and firm view that we cannot coexist with the IA in its
present form. This view was fully backed by our pre-97 retirees also, with full
knowledge of the implications. So we decided to oppose it and the only way to
do so was to disaffiliate and oppose. We parted and we are on board the SC and will
oppose the IA, if the need arises. In retrospect, I look at the series
of developments as not my failure to convince GNS about our reservations
towards his IA but in spite of appreciating the reasons behind our demand, it
is GNS’s inability to modify/withdraw the IA as a measure of ‘judicial
prudence’, if I may quote him.
Now, we have no time to waste. I no longer
consider IA No 3 as a threat to anybody. So better to leave all that behind and
prepare for the next level.
I am informed that once the CAs are posted and
taken up for Final Hearing, no IAs will be permitted to be raised. If IA
No 3 is still pressed by GNS’s counsel, it will be stoutly opposed by us and
there is a bright chance of its getting thrown out. In fact, we the former
members of the Federation, have a better case to oppose it than KML & Co.
It is also possible that GNS’s Sr. Counsel may hold a similar view and exercise
discretion and not raise the IA No 3 at all, in which case, the dust raised by
all the IAs settles down quietly and the focus happily moves to the main
Appeals.
When the CAs are taken up for Final Hearing
(whether it happens next week or after a whole month), LIC the Appellant, has
to commence the arguments. Personally I doubt whether LIC would be ready for
the showdown. The Respondents, being the Petitioners in Jaipur, Delhi and
Chandigarh HCs, should necessarily be fully ready to oppose the Appeals when
their turn comes. If LIC seeks adjournment (such a move from an Appellant would
not be received kindly by the Court), all the three Respondents should strongly
oppose the same and demand ‘let them take their sweet time, but please direct
them to implement the Judgements, which they are bound to do in law’.
My Appeal for a prior meeting and exchange of views is to assist in working out a common approach to oppose LIC’s likely moves but not to continue to dwell on the past controversies or pointing fingers at one another. That stage is over; gone for ever. When the opportunity before us is so bright and the stakes so high, is it still worth quarrelling like ‘you said that’, ‘you called me this’ and the like and expose ourselves as petty rival Unions before the Bench? And jeopardise the main cause? After all, we are all accountable to our respective members as well as to the vast community of LIC Pensioners as a whole.
I have a much more serious concern. We all know that during a Hearing, one wrong statement or incorrect comment from either side or any one Party may change the course of the case itself, as the Judges’ mood (with utmost respect), is highly unpredictable. Imagine for example, there is a brake and the Final Hearing is not going forward for whatever reason, the Petitioners’ Counsel are expected not to yield, but to demand implementation of the respective Judgements, as LIC has no legal right to decline or deny. Imagine further that LIC would express its inability due to the Judgements being not the same. On the point of ‘ripple effect’, ‘cost constraint’ and ‘heavy outflow’ or something new altogether, the Bench would look at the Counsel for the Petitioners and ask ‘what do you say’? What should they say? Look at each other and ask for adjournment to ‘obtain instructions from the client’? If so, isn’t it self-defeating if not suicidal? Such situations, if they arise, need to be addressed with great care and circumspection and we should not falter due to lack of advance preparation and a common approach.
Whether prior meetings and exchange of views
on strategy take place or not, it is hoped and expected that nothing will be
done from any of the Petitioners’ side that may delay the hearing or put spokes
in the delivery of justice.
To conclude my answers to Mr K S Raman’s
questions, I quote below the last line from GNS’s four-page printed circular
dated 25th July 2014:
“Silver line: At present there are certain moves for unified action. Let us hope for the best”.
Now, does Mr K S Raman and other co-pensioners
like him, still think I failed to convince GNS and that I am not correct in
making the Appeal as I did?
I hope this Note answers the concerns expressed by my good friend Mr T
Sampath Iyengar (from Bangalore) also.
Will share some more thoughts shortly (thanks to the space so liberally
being provided by the much-visited Chronicle) related to
my Appeal to KML & Co.
M.Sreenivasa Murty