LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE

For the good of ALL LIC Pensioners, as I perceive it.

Enough has been said by many on how strong our case is and how solid it is for our victory. Fine, we are happy with it. Even after excluding and ignoring the not-so-relevant, emotional and essentially the verbose ‘rhetoric’ part from the content, there still are valid and valuable inputs in the painstaking case made out, that deserve to be highlighted during the final arguments to oppose LIC’s Appeals. “Has it been taken care of?” is my humble question to the few who are in charge of the case management and it is my genuine concern at this point of time. It is not enough if we pat ourselves for how much we know about our own case. It is essential that we grill all that in to the ears of our counsel and work with him closely while he sifts the voluminous inputs and picks what he considers relevant and useful to clinch the verdict in favour of the pensioners. After briefing the counsel comprehensively, we may have to yield space to him to decide on the strategy and the priorities. As the day of reckoning is round the corner, pointing fingers at others will be counterproductive - past performance record of the lead-players makes me wary though.  

The polarisation process of the views of all the lead players appears complete by now. I wish to share it (as I understand the same) with all the stakeholders.

1.     Delhi Writ Petition was for removal of DR anomaly for pre-97 retirees. The petitioner does not believe that pension revision is possible. For him Sec 48 is sacred and so one should not attempt to question, much less fight its relevance. Due to public pressure, the leader conceded that he would not ’oppose’ revision, if it comes. Great – very kind of him! He always believed that instead of asking for the moon and falling flat, take what is conceded and be happy. Do something for the worst-affected. The questions he does not however answer are: Q1. Is your prayer answered fully, if LIC does to ALL the Pensioners what it did (deposited) for the Jaipur and Chandigarh Petitioners? Q2. Even if the anomaly for pre-97 retirees gets removed (partly or fully), don’t you see a problem of the anomaly continuing for pre-2002 and pre-2007 retirees? What is your solution?

2.     Jaipur Petitioner wants that Justice Bhandari’s Judgement dated 12.01.2010 be upheld in Toto. I learn very reliably from common friends, that to avoid ambiguity, Supreme Court is being urged to declare that LIC being an autonomous body, it can implement its Board Resolutions without Government approval. Supreme Court should therefore ‘direct’ the Union of India, not to ‘interfere’ in the affairs of the Corporation.

3.     Petitioners before the Chandigarh HC, after rebutting and meeting squarely all the Questions of Law and the Grounds of Appeal, in the Appeal, wish to lay adequate emphasis on the sanctity of the Constitutional provisions against unfair discrimination and draw support heavily from a plethora of cases already decided by the Apex Court. In conclusion they wish to plead that their Writ Petition was allowed and their prayers covered are a) Removal of DR Anomaly in respect of those who retired before 1.8.1997, b) Revision/up-gradation of Pension with each Pay Revision and c) Payment of arrears from 1.8.97 with interest at 12% per annum. According to them the SC Order should grant all these benefits while dismissing LIC’s Appeal against the P & H HC Judgement dated 9.11.2012.

As far as LIC is concerned, the QUESTIONS OF LAW raised and incorporated by it in the SLPs/CAs against both the Jaipur & Chandigarh Judgements (numbering 12 & 13 respectively) and the GROUNDS OF APPEAL (numbering 15 & 17 respectively) have been drafted and crafted by its Counsel with such diligence and professional competence that we (and of course our Counsel) cannot just take them easy and just harp on the fact that ‘we got favourable judgements from three different High Courts’ or mislead ourselves thinking that the Supreme Court will ignore all the arguments marshalled by LIC Counsel. I warn myself (if others are not ready or willing to be warned) that any complacency in terms of preparation or inadequate homework to rebut the arguments, could be fatal to our cause. Cannot go in to details in this Note for want of time as well as constraints in blog space but suffice it to say, even at the cost of repetition, that the best and the safest way in my humble view is that the Petitioners and the case managers SHOLULD MEET AS ALSO FACILITATE MEETING/TALKING BY THE COUNSEL (BEFORE JAN 14) TO DEVELOP A CONSENSUS ON THE COMMON OVERALL STRATEGY TO BE ADOPTED. It is possible that Delhi may not be interested and may not come forward. I will not be heart-broken, if it is so. But there is no reason or justification for not facilitating a quick meeting of the Counsel of Jaipur and P&H HC Appeals. Why should it be barred? Is there any apprehension that Chandigarh gains at the cost of Jaipur or Jaipur will be a loser if it associates with Chandigarh? AT THE COUNSEL LEVEL?

Why am I keen on this even at this late hour? Because I have reasons to believe that while LIC is going to fight us tooth and nail with all the weapons in its arsenal (my close interaction with the Chairman on 10th Dec 2014, convinced me of it), Government is going to watch how the Supreme Court views the matter and simply GO BY THE FLOW. I won’t be surprised if the Government offers to the Bench ’we will let LIC implement its Resolution dated 12.01.2010, if your Lordships permit us do so’. Apparently it looks like a big success to us and some of the Writ Petitioners may jump with joy and grab the offer. All this could be a conjecture but if it does happen, it is a big trap. We can ill afford to be unprepared for such and/or any other eventualities. The response from the petitioners’ side should be uniform, well-thought out and helpful to the Bench to ‘extract’ what we want – a clear, unambiguous direction/order encompassing removal of anomalies, Revision of Basic Pension with each Pay Revision and effective date to be 1.11.1993 or the DoR.

It is the Counsel’s privilege and responsibility to choose whether the priority for our arguments is focus on Constitutional provisions highlighting the discrimination in the existing dispensation or focus on the irrelevance of Sec 48 in our case or dwell on the law laid down by SC itself touching upon pension regulations. But whatever line of approach is adopted by different counsel in their wisdom, there should be no contradiction among us/our counsel is all that I want to reemphasize when I make this

ONE LAST AND FINAL APPEAL

for a meeting amongst us and our counsel ASAP. We are however fully prepared for any contingency, if we need to go alone.

I will be camping in Delhi from 10th Jan 2015 till the hearing concludes while Shri C H Mahadevan has been requested to make himself available at Delhi for the duration of the hearing, to provide any expert inputs to the Counsel, which he alone can provide.

Hyderabad                                                               M Sreenivasa Murty

Jan 7, 2015