I have come across some well-meaning
questions raised by some pensioners who unfailingly follow the posts in the
Pensioners blogs – on my despatches from the scene of action. I stick to my versions on the FACTS, as I
reported. Where an opinion is involved however, I am open and ready to welcome
a different opinion. Bear with me, if my following elaboration is a bit too
long.
The proceedings in the Court on 25th are
somewhat unusual. When our matters were called, I was expecting, as it should
be the case, that LIC’s (The Appellant) Sr. Counsel Mr Abhishek Manu Singhvi
(who was already present in the Court) to commence his arguments while every
other counsel remains seated and just keeps listening, unless the Bench has any
question to any of them. Sometimes, they do support the other side lawyer by
supplying copies of judgements or any material papers but do not interfere in
or interrupt the arguing counsel.
Yesterday, however, while Mr Singhvi was on
his feet, Government Counsel was also standing and arguing in between AND Mr R
K Singh (in the absence of the Sr Counsel Mr Nidhesh Gupta) also stood up and
simultaneously started countering Mr Singhvi’s statements. The discussion and the
issues went so much forward, that Justice Misra made quite a few comments
agreeing with the submissions of LIC & Government. For instance, LIC’s
Board Resolution cannot be implemented without Government approval, LIC Pension
Rules do not provide for up-gradation with each pay revision of serving
employees, the matter is not of day to day administration but of policy, the
Court has to decide the point of law whether Sec 48 of LIC Act comes in to play
or not. Throughout the discussion, Mr RK Singh kept insisting that the Board
Resolution does not need Government approval, as Chairman has the power to
issue instructions and in fact Chairman has issued such instructions following
2002 & 2007 revision of pay scales. A tough situation arose for Mr R K Singh
when Justice Misra signalled to him to stop and answer a question; “Are LIC
Pensioners governed by Pension Rules or not? If so whether Pension Rules
provide for Pension up-gradation?”.
During the continuing cross talk by all, Ms
Sushma Suri, representing Union of India, brought to the notice of the Bench
that two of their Appeals against Jaipur Judgements are pending registration
(not numbered). Mr Savla invited the attention of the Bench to the fact, that
UoI’s Affidavits are already brought on record and they can make their stand
known for us to oppose when our turn comes. Having noticed that the Bench is
firming up its views agreeing on the submissions by LIC and the Government,
Mr.Jay Savla intervened and pleaded that UoI can independently put forth its arguments
in the matter and the Court may decide after hearing all. At some point Sr
Counsel appearing for Delhi petitioners, also made some submissions that
appeared to be not opposed to LIC’s and UoI’s – Board Resolution was a onetime
relief to pre-97 retirees and no up-gradation was ever contemplated.
I hope the above narration will be accepted
by all those present in the Court, as by and large factual and does not warrant
any contradiction.
Now, my comments. questions and concerns:
Why did Mr R K Singh open up his arguments
even before LIC and UoI Counsel concluded theirs and sat down?
When the Jaipur Petitioners engaged Mr
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr Counsel (who was in the Court a few minutes before, and may
be in some other Court when our case was called) was it a wise move for Mr R K
Singh to put forth the case himself and invite inconvenient questions from the
Bench?
When the mood of the Bench appeared hostile
(to Mr RKS line of argument), will an experienced Counsel persist on the same
arguments and almost lose the Bench or bring in some other point and highlight
the same to his advantage or not?
When LIC and UoI Counsel were repeatedly
claiming that the Board Resolution had a very limited objective, should not RKS
strongly differ and offer to prove the opposite party wrong?
If we harp on one single argument that the
Board Resolution is on a day to day matter and no policy is involved and that
LIC should implement it without waiting for Government approval because Jaipur
HC said so, what happens if the argument does not find favour with the Court?
Aren’t we finished once and for all? So, shouldn’t we be thinking of a Plan B
argument?
I said, what we feared and predicted came
true. I stick to it with full responsibility. The stand taken by LIC (and now
directly by UoI) that Government has a necessary role in amending Pension Rules
and that Sec 48 cannot be wished away, appears to be the opinion of the Bench,
as of now. Mr C H Mahadevan, Mr Jay Savla and I, have a clear and strong line
of argument in our view and a strategy to pursue, different from what Mr RK
Singh came out with. And we hope to win the Bench back.
