The Supreme Court has ordered inter alia,
"If
any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to
the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in
favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees. "
My view:
Our counsel must have pointed out to the court immediately how the relief provided is not only inadequate but also erroneous-even for the respondent- pensioners for the following reasons:
1) LIC has not acted as per the directions of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench allowing writ petition no 6676/1998 as per which the anomaly in DR arising out of disparity in DR formula between pensioners and in-service employees prior to 1/8/1997 was to be removed and payment of difference in pension was required to be made from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever was later;
2) LIC has restricted the revision of pension only
from 1/8/1997 without adopting the same principle of merger of Basic Pension and DR on 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 and paying difference thereof on further revisions of pension;
and
3) LIC had completely overlooked the fact that the Jaipur SJB order had allowed the W P No 654/2007,whereby pension of all retirees was to be upgraded based on revised scales of pay on all future wage revision dates after 1/8/1997 also.LIC had not deposited any amount in Jaipur HC Registry in respect of some post- July 1997 retiree-petitioners
I hope the case managers will consider ways and means of bringing it to the notice of the Apex Court before 15/5/2015.
For the above reasons, my view is that the respondent- pensioners should refuse to accept the interim payment when made by LIC so as not to weaken our case for final verdict of the SC.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
3) LIC had completely overlooked the fact that the Jaipur SJB order had allowed the W P No 654/2007,whereby pension of all retirees was to be upgraded based on revised scales of pay on all future wage revision dates after 1/8/1997 also.LIC had not deposited any amount in Jaipur HC Registry in respect of some post- July 1997 retiree-petitioners
I hope the case managers will consider ways and means of bringing it to the notice of the Apex Court before 15/5/2015.
For the above reasons, my view is that the respondent- pensioners should refuse to accept the interim payment when made by LIC so as not to weaken our case for final verdict of the SC.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan