everybody to read. It doesn’t deliver the second
on its own. Justice has to be secured through
the third.
Law and the contractual liability arising from the documents signed by all the concerned parties established that LIC was right and the Employer was also right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the Claimant established that the premium was shown as deducted from the pay of the deceased. The Bench observed that the Court was not there merely to uphold and interpret law. It has a duty to deliver ‘justice’. It said in the matter before it, justice demands that the Claim should be settled. Who should pay is a small matter. LIC is in the business of Insurance which includes claim settlement. We direct LIC to pay. The Employer was slapped with a hefty fine for bungling in its Accounting practices. (I don’t remember whether the fine amount went to LIC or the Claimant).
We know fairly well all that the LIC Counsel is going to tell the SC. Its three Appeals speak loud and clear. When the Pensioners’ turns come to oppose the Appeals, a common query from the Bench is quite likely to come to each of the three Counsels.
“What is your stand on the LIC’s powers to implement its Board Resolution? Does it need Government approval, Pension Rules Amendment and Gazette Notification or the Central Government has NO role to play, according to you?
Here is the crux of our problem. Our situation is rather dicey, looked strictly from a legal angle. Our counsel should use all their erudition, experience and tact to explain the law and extract Justice. Justice demands that there shall be no discrimination in the DR payable to different groups of Pensioners. And the Pensioners should have their Basic Pension revised with each pay revision. The
In this task our success lies in what we tell our counsel and how they convey it to the Bench. I have complete faith in our Counsel’s skills and their Court craft. But I am sceptical about our own leaders – because they have their own agenda to pursue. It is pathetic but TRUE.
Let’s pray (and join those who have been already doing it with such a great devotion and faith), for JUSTICE to be delivered by HIM.
We the LIC Pensioners are exactly in that situation now.
I vividly recall a landmark judgement and Order of the Supreme Court in the year 2000 or so, where a death claim rejected by LIC came up before the Apex Court through an Appeal/Cross Appeal. It was a SSS Policy; the Employer was Delhi Transport Undertaking. LIC rejected the Claim (by Accident) on the ground that the premiums under SSS were never received by it. Claimant gave unassailable proof that the premiums were in fact deducted from the pay of the deceased. Employer contended forcefully (and proved) that it had to raise funds on a month to basis only to meet the ‘net’ pay of its employees. All recoveries viz., PF, Income Tax and LIC premium etc., were done only on paper. It then went on to establish that on a correct interpretation of the SSS Agreement with LIC and the undertaking given by the Employee while requesting for premium deduction from salary, no liability sticks to it as far as any claim is concerned – it shall be purely between LIC and the Claimants only.Law and the contractual liability arising from the documents signed by all the concerned parties established that LIC was right and the Employer was also right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the Claimant established that the premium was shown as deducted from the pay of the deceased. The Bench observed that the Court was not there merely to uphold and interpret law. It has a duty to deliver ‘justice’. It said in the matter before it, justice demands that the Claim should be settled. Who should pay is a small matter. LIC is in the business of Insurance which includes claim settlement. We direct LIC to pay. The Employer was slapped with a hefty fine for bungling in its Accounting practices. (I don’t remember whether the fine amount went to LIC or the Claimant).
- We the LIC Pensioners who are before the Apex Court deserve justice, whatever the Law may be. We have seen the recent Posts from Sri GN Sridharan claiming some new support for implementation of the Delhi Judgement. He seems to have forgotten the operative portion of the Delhi HC Order dated January 30, 2013. Is he asking SC to uphold Delhi HC Order without reference to Jaipur Judgment? When the Order under the Jaipur Judgement itself is under scrutiny by the SC, what is the relevance of the Delhi HC Judgement independently? On top of it all, he writes ‘unnecessary interventions’ should not block what he achieved for pre-97 retirees. Elsewhere he writes to LIC. ‘I don’t care how you did your calculations. Pay pre-97 retirees whatever you want to pay (because I don’t have any calculations with me)’.
We know fairly well all that the LIC Counsel is going to tell the SC. Its three Appeals speak loud and clear. When the Pensioners’ turns come to oppose the Appeals, a common query from the Bench is quite likely to come to each of the three Counsels.
“What is your stand on the LIC’s powers to implement its Board Resolution? Does it need Government approval, Pension Rules Amendment and Gazette Notification or the Central Government has NO role to play, according to you?
Here is the crux of our problem. Our situation is rather dicey, looked strictly from a legal angle. Our counsel should use all their erudition, experience and tact to explain the law and extract Justice. Justice demands that there shall be no discrimination in the DR payable to different groups of Pensioners. And the Pensioners should have their Basic Pension revised with each pay revision. The
In this task our success lies in what we tell our counsel and how they convey it to the Bench. I have complete faith in our Counsel’s skills and their Court craft. But I am sceptical about our own leaders – because they have their own agenda to pursue. It is pathetic but TRUE.
Let’s pray (and join those who have been already doing it with such a great devotion and faith), for JUSTICE to be delivered by HIM.
M. Sreenivasa Murty