Let us not worry much about 18th June deadline.
We have larger issues to address
and resolve.
Dear Co-Pensioners,
I personally consider LIC not doing anything before
18th June, a lesser evil than its doing something
irrational and claim to have complied with the SC
directions of 7th May 2015. Not doing anything helps
us to approach the Supreme Court from a better
position of advantage than our having to complain
that LIC did not ‘correctly’ implement the Order. LIC
may seek more time or may ask for clarification on
the Order. In either case we get an opportunity to tell
the Court what we wish to tell.
I am genuinely concerned that we do not seem to be geared up for converting LIC’s imminent non-compliance, to our immense advantage. Imagine LIC asks for clarification. The original Writ Petitioners will get a golden opportunity to play the ‘victim’ card and plead with the SC Bench for unambiguous interim directions to LIC to pay 20% to ALL pensioners, with pension up-gradation. This is going to be our God-given (‘LIC-given’) opportunity to convert LIC’s ‘contempt’ in to Court’s compassion for us. But how to achieve it?
M. Sreenivasa Murty
I am genuinely concerned that we do not seem to be geared up for converting LIC’s imminent non-compliance, to our immense advantage. Imagine LIC asks for clarification. The original Writ Petitioners will get a golden opportunity to play the ‘victim’ card and plead with the SC Bench for unambiguous interim directions to LIC to pay 20% to ALL pensioners, with pension up-gradation. This is going to be our God-given (‘LIC-given’) opportunity to convert LIC’s ‘contempt’ in to Court’s compassion for us. But how to achieve it?
As and when any Notice is served on our Counsel of any application being moved by LIC before the SC, (or if no action is taken at all by 18th June, which will be an indisputable contempt), the Petitioners in Jaipur & Chandigarh HCs should hire an articulate Sr Counsel who is a big name, limited to the task of securing a favourable clarificatory Order from SC. It would cost good money but it is worth every Rupee that may be spent. Let us remember the interim direction of 7th May is a welcome window of opportunity for the Pensioners, as important as the final outcome after 23rd September. We should not fail to capitalize on the most significant mention by the SC itself that the ‘’matter relates to enhancement of pension’’. Those familiar with the fundamentals of jurisprudence would agree with me that the Law applicable to ‘interim directions’ is governed by the wonderful principle known as ‘balance of convenience’. No Senior counsel worth his salt (and his price) should fail to dwell on this principle of ‘balance of convenience’ and succeed in securing through a clarificatory Order, 20% of the total dues to ALL Pensioners, pension up-gradation including. Ours is a case and a best possible example for applying the principle.
In the desired action plan I am pleading for, Jaipur has to play a major role being the lead petitioner and Chandigarh has a slight edge over Jaipur on the limited point of LIC withdrawing (some Rs Six Lakhs from the Rs 33 Lakhs) out of the money deposited in the Registry there. Delhi is once again irrelevant. Pensioners covered by the Delhi HC Judgement, should however make sure that their interests are not compromised just to prove some stale point.
M. Sreenivasa Murty
