My honest evaluation of The Supreme Court’s Order of 7th May 2015 - It is more significant than what meets the eye!
Dear LIC Pensioners (and Petitioners),
Who said the 7th May Order applies to some (only) and does not apply to some others? Let us not rush to any hasty conclusions. Read the Order again and again and try to fathom what is in His Lordship’s mind when he said what he said. One should recall all that was said by the participants during the ‘all at a time’ arguments in the Court on that day and put two and two together to be able to see through the Order, wherever the ‘directions’ are vague if not opaque.
Without prejudice to the above, it is a simple fact that what is in black and white matters and where some direction is not clear, every party has the freedom to (conveniently) interpret it as it chooses. Again, the SC Order directs some money to be paid to the ‘respondent employees’ and the burden of action to be taken (within six weeks – less than five weeks remain as of now) is clearly on LIC. Others have only to wait and watch.
I canvassed hard that the principal Respondent may seek clarification before the Court closes for its vacation. It didn’t happen. No complaint - he would have had his reasons/constraints. When the Bench was considering some interim relief (release 20%), GNS was greatly concerned and his Senior Counsel highlighted his plight that whereas Jaipur and Chandigarh had some money deposited, he didn’t have any in Delhi and his IA (for ‘similar’ treatment) was actually pending before the Hon’ble Court. Justice Misra kindly and spontaneously conceded and if I heard him correctly he said, ‘don’t worry, you will also get it’.
The other points raised (I cannot recall by whom) were:
1) Whether the interim relief is for Petitioners only or for all Pensioners
2) The amount ordered is not merely for being deposited but shall be released to the Petitioners/Pensioners and finally
3) the payment to be subject to what conditions?- recoverable/adjustable?
The reaction of the Bench to all these queries was positive – clearly in favour of Petitioners/Pensioners, as noticed by everybody during the proceedings.
Now, what does all this mean? In my view, unless LIC assumes a ‘I don’t care’ posture, it has a major problem before it. If at all anybody genuinely needed clarification of the Order, it was LIC. Because it has to ACT while we all need only to react.
In order to act, LIC has to balance between complying with the SC Order (and not expose itself to any fresh contempt charge that too before the Apex Court) AND NOT PAY a rupee more than what it wants to pay, whomever it thinks it is liable to pay to.
Not an easy task at all. Since LIC has not sought any clarification, we can assume that it may pay whatever it thinks it is liable to pay. It may still file a Petition in the Vacation Court, mention and have it posted for disposal after the Vacation. To pre-empt contempt charges. The latter is more likely. The following questions are most relevant but they defy answers:
1. Pay 20%, of what?
2. Who decides what 100% is? In order to pay 20% of it, (to whoever). Does LIC itself decide? Do the Pensioners/Petitioners decide what is 100%? Obviously neither. It has to be decided (not arithmetically but by deciding the law and the principle) only by the Supreme Court. Has it decided yet? No, wait till after September 2015. Don’t we appreciate LIC’s predicament?
3. Which sentence in the Order permits limiting the payment to the Petitioners? The words used are: ‘in favour of the respondent-employees’. ‘…..so that it (LIC) can pay to the concerned employees’.
4. Assuming LIC interprets the 7th May 2015 Order to mean ‘pay to Petitioners only’ there are identified Petitioners in Jaipur and Chandigarh. Who are the Petitioners in Delhi? Federation of ………….? All those whom GNS certifies as his Members? Does the Federation have a Membership Register? As on what date? Date of filing the Writ? Date of the Judgement? All this is an absurd and impossible exercise for LIC to handle. When some Pensioners were talking of the Hyderabad Association (which disaffiliated itself from GNS Federation) and its members not being covered by the Order, I felt it was a laughable issue though GNS might have been pleased with such a probability. We in Hyderabad Association are in no particular disadvantage.
5. We all know that LIC would like to set right the DR anomaly for pre-97 retirees only. LIC and GNS have nothing to offer to post -97 retirees. Assuming LIC attempts to pay to pre-97 retirees only, citing the SC Order of 7th May in support, can it restrict it to such of those Petitioners who are pre-97 retirees only and exclude non-petitioners among the pre-97 retirees? There are some in Jaipur and some in Delhi. All petitioners in Chandigarh are pre-97 retirees.
6. When the Order directed that the “Petitioner Corporation shall release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgements pertaining to the High Court”, has the Supreme Court tentatively or finally decided that the amount as per the impugned judgements shall be limited to DR Anomaly rectification for pre-97 retirees only AND it does not extend to the amount payable (as being demanded by Jaipur & Chandigarh Petitioners) on account of revision of pension with each pay revision for in-service employees? To me it is crystal clear that SC did NOT decide the issue either way. That means what is 100% is undecided – Therefore it has to be ASSUMED, logically (and legally).
7. The real issue to be decided by the Supreme Court (apart from the issue whether LIC itself can implement or the Government approval is mandatory) is whether or not Pensioners are entitled to up-gradation of pension with each pay revision. This point
I may conclude by saying that the Supreme Court ordered 20% of the pensioners demand to be paid as interim benefit while the payment in continuum as well as the payment of the balance of 80% based on its decision on the principles of law involved, to be taken up in September 2013. The long adjournment decision actually followed the grant of interim benefit.
I will be surprised if LIC acts fair. We are perhaps in for fresh bout of contempt proceedings.
We paid a price (through inordinate delay) for having been a divided house. It is never too late to make amends for the sake of survivors in our community, as we can never make up for the loss suffered by the departed.
Chandigarh is offering an important testing ground on 21st May 2015. We shall do our best. Seek your blessings,
M.Sreenivasa Murty