M C JAIN CASE BENEFICIARIES - NO ALTERNATIVE TO LEGAL BATTLE

On the point mentioned under item( 4) in the circular of NOIP dt 7/6/2015,it is surprising that a willing Personnel Department is constrained by the possible objections of the CO legal department to extending the just and legitimate benefits to all the 85 odd similarly placed retirees as Mr M C Jain. It is unfortunate that LIC as a prestigious socially purposive financial institution seems to be bent upon winning the legal battle rather than removing injustice that has been meted out to its own retired officers based on the decision of the highest court of the country.

Legal department’s role is to conduct the cases referred to it by other departments on matters before the courts. But when a final verdict is clearly delivered in the Apex court, it is for the department concerned to objectively study the implications of the verdict and act to implement the judgment without discrimination. In my view it is the duty of the CO Personnel dept to decide whether further scope for litigation is necessary and desirable and convince the legal dept about the desirability of and need for avoiding unnecessary litigation at the cost of the policyholders’ money. Assuming that the total liability towards all the 85 odd similarly placed officers works out to about Rs 2 crores,LIC as an enlightened and responsible financial institution has to examine whether it is desirable to spend a huge legal expenditure at the cost of the policyholders’ money.

Even for Mr M C Jain LIC has not paid the correct amount due in terms of the judgment. What has been paid to him is not even 6 % of what he is entitled to get as per the Jaipur judgment if all the consequential benefits arising out of the judgment are duly taken into account.

The only way in which Mr Jain and the 85 similarly placed retired officers can obtain justice is through the judiciary although all or most of them are in their eighties. The similarly placed officers can join together and file a writ petition in the appropriate court citing the dismissal of LIC’s SLP by the Supreme Court in July 2014.

Incidentally, as I have been pointing out time and again, all the Class I officers who were in service as Class I Officers as at 1/8/1992(including the present Chairman & MDs) are legally entitled to receive arrears of salary for the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993.Most of the present retired Class I officers fall in this category. It is worthwhile that all the Associations take up this matter legally independent of the cases being fought in the Supreme Court for upgradation of pension. In fact four of the original petitioners in the Chandigarh case are similarly placed as Mr M C Jain and their benefits will further be enhanced on upgradation if their Basic Pay gets revised on 1/8/1992 resulting in consequent enhancement of pension from 1/11/1993.

Experience with LIC indicates that it is neither too early nor too late to seek legal remedy for injustices being suffered collectively.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan