Examining the scenario obtaining on the legal front, Shri Sreenivasa Murty says
there is the unwelcome polarization even now where "one doesn't like to
there is the unwelcome polarization even now where "one doesn't like to
talk to the other". The "desirable possibility is we shed the 'I know everything'
approach. We should brief our respective counsels fully on facts, provide
inputs and leave "certain freedom to the Counsel to use his original skills arising
from his erudition and experience."
approach. We should brief our respective counsels fully on facts, provide
inputs and leave "certain freedom to the Counsel to use his original skills arising
from his erudition and experience."
Above all, Shri Murty says, in his view "it pays to facilitate
a conference among all the Counsels to share their views and
agree on how to go about to oppose the Appeals. Such a
meeting can happen along with us, the clients."
a conference among all the Counsels to share their views and
agree on how to go about to oppose the Appeals. Such a
meeting can happen along with us, the clients."
The euphoria of successful 'mentioning' for early hearing is over. Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order copy has also been received and posted. This should give peace of mind to the doubting Thomases.
We are firmly on board on Jan 14, 2015.
We will get an indication of our Sl No in the Advance Weekly List to be released on 9th January. And the exact position in the final daily list, only the previous evening i.e. 13 Jan 2015. In all probability, we will be in the top position, as specifically requested by Shri Jay Savla, so that we may expect LIC's arguments of the main Appeals to commence the same day.
WHAT NEXT? We should now focus on FULL SCALE PREPARATION for opposing the Appeal/s.
HOW? One unwelcome scenario is to continue as per the present polarization, where one doesn't like the other, one doesn't like to talk to the other - suggesting 'you mind your business and I mind mine'.
The other desirable possibility is we shed that 'I know everything' approach. We first brief our respective Counsel fully on facts from our angle as well as provide inputs to him to meet the Appellant's contentions comprehensively, We also certainly discuss with him the points of law and the overall strategy that may be adopted for opposing the Appeals. But there will be a point where we leave certain freedom to the Counsel to use his original skills arising from his erudition and experience.
Above all, in my view it pays to facilitate a conference among all the Counsel to share their views and agree on how to go about to oppose the Appeals. Such a meeting can happen along with us, the clients.
A certain point that bothers me is, even now some key players continue to talk and harp on imaginary hurdles for hearing and disposal of our matters and want others to believe the same. Unfortunately the issue is so presented to look like a complex legal procedure which they only know. And strangely these are also owned and adopted and vehemently put forth by some of the other office bearers. I wish to allude to the point here and share it for the information of all.
The number of original Petitioners in the WP before P & C HC were 31. Six out of them, unfortunately expired at different points of time - some even before LIC's SLP was admitted and some subsequently (even recently). LIC got the Notices of its Appeal served (through Supreme Court Registry) on all the Petitioners (Respondents in the Appeals) at the addresses available in the records. Notices sent in the names of deceased Respondents might have been received and acknowledged by their kith and kin, or they might have been returned to the SC undelivered.
The surviving petitioners had executed Vakalat Forms in favor of their Counsel which were all filed in and acknowledged by the SC Registry.
Similar thing would have happened with reference to the Petitioners in Rajasthan HC also. (Delhi Petitioners NOT being individuals, non-delivery of Notices is a non-issue there.
Now, some of our friends are making this so called non-delivery of Notices to some, a big issue and propagating the same as a likely hurdle for the Appeals to be heard by the Supreme Court. They give it a color to make it look like 'we only found it'. They even presented this as the reason against 'mentioning' for early hearing. There are gullible followers to believe and further spread this false alarm.
In all such matters, we should not claim 'we know everything' . Even if we think we know, we should check with the dealing Advocates - again not the half-baked Advocates who always tell you, you are correct but do check with seniors, especially when you come across a differing opinion.
When this issue was put in circulation, I did not go by my own view (though I was never uncertain) but discussed seriously with more than one Advocate, including Mr Jay Savla himself. The response I got fully corroborated what I am aware of viz., 1) Serving Notice of Appeal on ALL the Respondents is the legal responsibility of the Appellant (LIC in our case). It does not at any time shift to the Respondents who have received the Notices 2) Supreme Court decides the law on the issues before it and passes the Order. Such an Order when passed applies not only to those who are parties and are represented before it but also to others who are affected in the matter but not represented before it. 3) Then the practical question: who raises this issue before the Bench, if at all? LIC? It will not. Because if it failed to serve Notice on some for one and half years, does it hope to do so in another month or two? Will it be raised by any of the Respondents? Why would they? They only represent themselves and not any other.
If any party still has any doubt on this aspect, he better check with his Advocate.
Then some Respondents still talk of their IAs and Interim Relief. When the cases are ready for final hearing, which Court would entertain requests for interim relief?
Mr Savla proposed two rounds of detailed preparation with us preferably on Saturdays, well before 14th January. 3rd January will be one of them. It will greatly help if the respondent representatives could join on 10th and also facilitate a conference among ALL the Counsel to meet and exchange views. After strongly opposing the Appeals on facts and on legal grounds, our counsel should have a collective approach in securing an unambiguous Order from the SC granting 1) Revision of Pension with each pay revision, past and future (which automatically includes DR at the same rate as applicable to in-service employees) 2) Effective from the date of retirement or 1.11.1993 whichever later and 3) All the Counsels representing the Pensioners should be of the same mind in respect of the relief sought and should respond to any queries from the Bench in one voice instead of looking like a divided house.
The Other part of the preparation is to keep our written arguments ready for submission to the Court if called upon to do so and to save the Court's time in delivery of the judgement.
