The Chairman's point was that the Jaipur judgment was in response to the Writ filed by Mr M C Jain as an individual who had retired on 31/1/1993. So LIC is likely to honour the judgment in respect of Mr Jain and similarly placed retired Class I Officers.
The wider implications of the judgment entitle Class I Officers who retired after 31/3/1993 and also Class I Officers(as on 1/8/1992) still in service to the difference in salary for the period 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993 with consequential benefits as otherwise there will be a discrimination between officers retired before 1/4/1993 and those who retired later in the matter of extending the benefit of 1/8/1992 wage revision. This aspect is not explicitly covered by the judgment as it was not relevant for Mr M C Jain. So we have to only approach the Supreme Court with a separate writ.
Of course, in order to avoid litigation,Federations/ Associations of Retired Class I Officers and even Federation of LIC Class I Officers can attempt to prevail upon the LIC Management to extend the benefits without the need for any litigation. If they succeed, well and good; otherwise litigation is the only resort.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
Dear sir,
I read your note in the chronicle regarding the class of employees who are eligible
for payment of difference in salary. You have also stated that the employees retired
after 1-4 93 have to approach the Supreme court in the matter. Can we not approach
the Chairman to treat the judgment as in REM and pay the arrears to all the eligible
retirees retired after 1-4-93. A sincere effort by you through the association ,
I think, will yield good result.
I feel instead of driving the retirees to approach the supreme court again and again
on the same subject as per your observation the association can take up the matter.
I hope you will agree with my views. I retired on 31-12 93.
Yours sincerely,
N.VENKATARAMAN,MADURAI.