Seen from any angle, LIC Pensioners’ fate is presently
hanging precariously. The trend of the on-going arguments
before Justice Deepak Misra’s Bench and the impending
summer vacation for the Court, are both staring at all of us.
As is very clear now, Government is bent upon denying
Pension up-gradation to every sector, including RBI
(yet to be covered) and eventually even to the Government
servants themselves (already covered). Judiciary may be no
exception. ‘Unaffordable’ is the slogan.
In this scenario, what happened on and up to April 8, 2015 cannot be undone. Let’s debate what could and should be done on and from April 22, 2015. We have 22nd & 23rd besides 29th & 30th in April. Then we have 6th & 7th and finally 13th & 14th in May. Let us assume and hope that there will be no developments from the Court’s side to cut these available calendar days short.
Summer vacation being round the corner, is a double edged weapon. It could be used to expedite and conclude the hearing of a matter; it could also be used to defer the hearing easily. Any one of the two occurrences can be explained and justified. In our case, Pensioners are dead keen that it should conclude before the vacation (of course conclude in their favour) but such a keenness to conclude may not be shared by the other players in the system viz., the Bench and the Bar, for different reasons. The ‘case managers’ (this title was not coined by me – I borrowed it with thanks from the Blog) can make the difference by persuading their respective counsel, not to let the matter drag beyond vacation. The pensioner community as a whole is entitled to expect the Organizations and the individual leaders representing their interests, to commit to play this role and act accordingly.
How is it possible? Firstly by believing it to be necessary and then believing it to be possible. Our respective counsel SHALL NOT seek an adjournment and SHALL NOT acquiesce if LIC and/or the UoI ask for an adjournment. They should even resist it seriously (they are entitled to do so and can count on support from the Bench, as it happened on 8th April). By convention, at the appellate stage, the right to seek adjournment vests in the Respondent and not the Appellant. (Stay not granted on 30 Sept 2013 is most relevant).
Having aired my views as above, I venture to refer to the on-going controversy on opposing the SLPs/Appeals of LIC first and when the turn comes, of the UoI next.
Unlike what happened on April 8, arguments should normally start on behalf of LIC the Appellant followed by the UoI as the ‘supporting’ Respondent. I hope those closely following the cases noticed that the request for ‘pass over’ made on behalf of Mr AM Singhvi, (who was reported to be in the First Court) was not agreed to, by the Bench. As a result, Mr Kailash Vasdev another Sr Advocate was obliged to rush and represent LIC, due to the non-availability of Mr AM Singhvi. Mr Nidhesh Gupta, would have, in the normal course, let LIC advance its arguments on the CAs and later oppose the same on ALL grounds – technical (maintainability) as well as on merits too in one go. He chose instead, to raise ‘preliminary’ objections on the maintainability of the present Appeals by referring to and reopening of the IAs/SLPs and Orders filed/passed in 2011 & 2013. The arguments were extensive but fell short of anyone referring to the final Order dated 30 Sept 2013, which would have made all preliminary objections redundant.
It is not known whether on 22nd April,
Mr Nidhesh Gupta would
himself resume and continue the arguments on his preliminary objections or let LIC’s Sr Counsel Mr AM Singhvi rebut the objections already raised and move on to argue the Appeals. Here comes exactly the role (I call it RESPONSIBILITY) to be played by the Jaipur Petitioners – to instruct the Counsel not to let the further arguments lead to more adjournments. There is no need to give up or forego the right to oppose on any ground including the question of maintainability. The Appeals will have to be opposed and got dismissed on merits eventually. This golden rule extends to adopting a proper strategy to oppose the UoIs new SLPs also. There too the Pensioners’ Counsel should be interested in and willing to do all that is necessary to PREEMPT further adjournments. Again the Jaipur Petitioners should instruct the Counsel accordingly, if they wish to. If we stray away from utmost alertness, it could lead to catastrophe to the cause of Pensioners as a whole. While facing Union of India’s fresh SLPs, the question of ‘Notice’ having been served or ‘not yet served’ should also be handled with circumspection. Again to prevent further adjournment.
I am keen to recall yet another unique feature in the epic battle of LIC pensioners. Whereas the interests of LIC Pensioners are still safe and awaiting final adjudication by the Apex Court (thanks undoubtedly to KMLA’s original efforts leading to the historic Judgement dated 12 Jan 2010) there are providential developments subsequently, to our advantage which may be described as HIS blessings to LIC Pensioners. One was Supreme Court’s unexpected Order dated April 4, 2014, ‘Post the Application with ALL THE APPEALS (for Final Hearing) in the Second week of August 2014’ (Emphasis supplied). That is how we jumped the queue at least by a couple of years as far as the final hearing is concerned where none of us had any role otherwise. A similar development (I call it providential again) recently is the fact that the Union of India, the real culprit in the whole drama has itself come before the Apex Court in the shape of its fresh SLPs. Oppose them by all means on ‘maintainability’ also but without prejudice to it, grab the wonderful opportunity to meet the Government’s substantive grounds squarely and have them thrown out.
Any opportunity available in front of us should be utilized fully
– TO ACHIEVE THE FINAL GOAL. And the final goal shall be
not mere upholding of the Judgement dated 12 Jan 2010 and dismissal
of LIC’s CAs. It has to be categorical and comprehensive
DIRECTIONS to the Union of India, to put an end to the unlawful
discrimination that violates the Constitutional provisions and to
ensure it, ‘Amend the Pension Rules and notify the same in the Gazette’.
This is going to be the unequivocal strategy of the Counsel representing the Chandigarh Petitioners when his turn comes. But the first opportunity to do so (or act in any other way) comes to the Rajasthan Petitioners.
Let’s Move in the Right Direction
We owe it to ALL LIC Pensioners.
