DEVELOPMENTS IN CHANDIGARH HIGH COURT

(How LIC’s cheap strategy boomeranged)

Dear LIC Pensioners,

Many reports and comments are in circulation interpreting and reacting to the Chandigarh HC Orders dated 20^th & 28^th July 2015. I was a party to both. The first one dismissed the Application of LIC for withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited one year ago. The subtle point I raised and pressed for against the withdrawal request was accepted by the Judge and was also recorded in the Order at my request. The second occasion was the Hearing of the main Contempt Petition for which LIC filed its belated reply just a day before the hearing date, that too, because of the firm directions issued by the Court on 20 July 2015.

If the Petition and the Reply are taken up and finally heard, the outcome should normally be either ALLOW the Petition (hold the respondent guilty of contempt) or DISMISS the same if the Respondent is found ‘not guilty’ as per the Court’s discretion. LIC Counsel has been pressing each time for dismissal of the Petition on the ground that it has deposited the money payable and so where is contempt? If the Petitioners are not satisfied, they have other remedies – file a civil suit for recovery of the balance if they are entitled to.

If the contempt petition is allowed, the Court may punish the contemnors for not honouring the original judgement. Or direct for its compliance in a prescribed manner with a rider, ‘if you fail to do so’ you are liable for punishment. And the petition will remain pending for final disposal. We are interested in the latter type of outcome.

The cheap strategy adopted by LIC was to withhold without filing, the Reply to the main Contempt Petition (though it was ready and signed on 17 July 2015 itself) but file instead, the Application for withdrawal of 20%. LIC wanted and the Counsel would walk away on 20^th July with an Order permitting withdrawal of  Rs 6.73 Lakhs and directly pay some Rs 20,000/- to each on an average. If it happened accordingly, about which LIC was confident, the Contempt petition becomes infructuous and consequently there will be no need even to file any reply to the Petition. All our doors would have been closed in Chandigarh. The trick boomeranged and the Application was dismissed. LIC was obliged to file the ‘unfiled’ reply before the hearing on 28 July. During the hearing we pressed for payment of 20% of the ‘total due’ which is Rs. 93.47 Lakhs. What is ‘total due’ is before the Supreme Court because ‘up-gradation’ demand is yet to be decided. Court chose the soft option – await the outcome of final hearing. Adjourned to 5 Oct 2015. The Contempt Petition is neither ‘dismissed’, nor ‘withdrawn’, nor ‘dismissed as withdrawn’. If a few people were hoping that history (of Jaipur) repeats itself (at Chandigarh), they would have been disappointed.   

Some friends are trying to describe the 28 July Order as a setback to Chandigarh Petitioners and/or to Murty. Let them read the Order below:

Admittedly, the matter is sub-judice before the Apex Court.

To await the decision of the aforesaid appeals adjourned to 05.10.2015.

The contempt Petition is ALIVE. The Chandigarh Petitioners would take a call shortly, on their next step. All options are being explored. To me it is:                                             

‘
’ADVANTAGE PENSIONERS”

M Sreenivasa Murty

JAIPUR WITHDRAWAL ALLOWED

TODAY THE APPLICATION BY LIC FOR WITHDRAWAL WAS LISTED BEFORE THE COURT  AND THE COURT HAS ALLOWED WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME IN ABSENCE OF ANY OPPOSITION FROM MY SIDE FOR THIS WITHDRAWAL. 

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR ME SAYING ANY MY ADVOCATE HAD THE INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD THE COURT ASKS HE MAY MAKE STATEMENT THAT HIS CLIENT I.E. ME HAS NO OBJECTION EVEN IF 100% IS ALLOWED TO BE WITHDRAWN BECAUSE THAT AMOUNT DOES NOT HAVE NOW ANY CONCERN WITHT HE PAYMENT WHICH LIC HAS TO MAKE. PL INFORM THIS TO ALL

KML ASTHANA

OPEN APPEAL TO SRI KRISHNA MURARILAL ASTHANA

Dear Sri Asthana,

I understand that LIC’s Application for withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited in Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench Registry) is coming up for hearing on Thursday 30 July 2015. I am sure you have a notice of the same.

From the mails being circulated it looks that you do not propose to oppose the Application and you would like it to be allowed by the High Court.

I have read your logic and your analysis which suggests that LIC would withdraw 20% but that is not for payment. According to you, payment shall be from its own funds because what is payable including up-gradation is much more than 20% being withdrawn. Talking of specific numbers, LIC deposited in Jaipur Rs.19,63,638/-(in three instalments spread over TWO YEARS between Dec 2011 and Nov 2013. (correct me if I am wrong).

According to Mr Mahadevan’s rough calculations the total amount payable to the Jaipur Petitioners up to that date, was about Rs.2,18,18,200. What was deposited was therefore about 9% of the amount payable including up-gradation. Now poor LIC wants to withdraw Rs.3,92,727.60p to pay 21 of your petitioners, who are pre-Aug 97 retirees @ Rs.18,701 per pensioner on an average.

If 20% including up-gradation works out to Rs 43,63,640/- which is payable to your Petitioners, do you think LIC will use the withdrawn sum of Rs 3.93 lakhs and add Rs.39,70,913/-    

ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO ALLOW LIC                                TO PLAY THIS FOUL GAME?

On the contrary if you oppose the application and get it rejected, what will LIC do? Can it keep quiet till 23 Sep 2015? Can’t we do anything in the meantime to expose LIC before the Supreme Court?

LIC’s successful withdrawal and payment of Rs.3,92,727/- to the eligible Petitioners, would mean disaster to the Pensioner community.

Please reconsider your decision in the interests of LIC Pensioners as a whole. And if you wish to oppose the withdrawal request, the unassailable argument is: 

Supreme Court gave six weeks to pay. That time is over long ago. If the application to withdraw 20% is allowed now, it amounts to HC relaxing the conditions stipulated by the Apex Court, which it cannot. Highlight that point and let the Court either reject the application or keep it pending with a direction to LIC to secure extension of time from the Supreme Court. 

M Sreenivasa Murty 

30.07.2015

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

​Shri D.B.Mehta,

Advocate,

Ahmedabad.

Sir,

​Our petition in Gujarat High Court for pension to resigned employees

 - recent judgment by Supreme Court supporting our contention

​    Our petition in Gujarat High Court is pending at the stage of filing our rejoinder. In the meantime, as we discussed, we have also to file an amendment in the petition. Next date of hearing of this case is 10th August,'15. Kindly, therefore, spare your time to prepare a draft of amendment and send it to me for my perusal. A 'Note' prepared by me and certain material received by us from Shri R.K.Pathak, practicing advocate of Pune were forwarded to you earlier. Kindly peruse the same while drafting amendments in the petition. 

    In the meantime, we have come across a recent judgment (delivered on 17th December, '14) by the Supreme Court. A soft copy of the judgment is sent herewith. 

CLICK HERE

    Though it was a case of an individual employee of Central Bank of India who had resigned on health ground, certain ratios up-held by the Apex Court in that case are squarely applicable in our case.

   ​With regards,

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

​Shri S.C.Jain,

General Secretary,

AIBRF,

Indore.

Sir,

Invoking provision of ID Act for 100% neutralization of DA​

    Please refer my earlier letter on the subject (copy attached for ready reference). CLICK HERE

    If you are agreeable in principle to invoke provisions of ID Act for pressurizing the Banks to grant 100% neutralization of dearness relief to workmen, please request Shri C.N. Prasad to provide a suitable draft and note to you; which you may circulate among the affiliates of AIBRF with an instruction to file petitions in their respective area.

    If, for any reason whatsoever, you do not think advisable to initiate such legal actions by all the affiliates of AIBRF, at least let our Association (from Gujarat) undertake this task as a pilot project. Only difficulty in Gujarat is that there is heavy back long in the labor courts. Therefore, it may take very long time to get outcome of the proceedings. However, we are inclined to initiate the actions if AIBRF permits and Shri Prasad provides to us 'Note' and Format of petition to the labor courts.

    Regards.

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

What next ?

Dear Editor,

I fully agree with comments from Sh. B.D.Bhargava that order or direction dated 28.07.2015 by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain at Chandigarh High Court could be given by him even on 20.07.2015.

Myself being personally present at chandigarh high court with Sh. Murty during all the three proceedings dated 21.05.2015, 20.07.2015 and 28.07.2015, I am very clear that LIC Advocate did not place any fresh argument yesterday and repeated same old arguments placed during two previous hearings. Really, it is a mystery for us that same Judge rejected same arguments on 21.05.2015 and 20.07.2015 but agreed with same arguments from same LIC Counsel on third hearing yesterday i.e. 28.07.2015.

Now this issue has to be closed here and let us start thinking what next ?

Let me assure all concerned that our case manager Sh. Murty does not believe in taking rest and today he is at Delhi to discuss and chalk out what next after consulting a few renowned advocates working at supreme court and very well known to him.

As a layman and not as a lawman I think that dismissal of LIC deliberate mischievous application at chandigarh high court for release of 20% deposited amount rejected vide high court order dated 20.07.2015 can be used as a very strong weapon for next course of action since LIC has no valid reason for non compliance of supreme court order dated 07.05.2015 within six weeks time limit.

Yes, we are eager to know fate of similar application by LIC at Jaipur High Court .Can anyone throw some light on this issue.

Regarding a very good mail written by Sh. Asthana to Sh M.V.Venugopalan on 24.07.2015 but released by him yesterday only after knowing outcome of chandigarh high court, it seems that he was the happiest person to know yesterday that our contempt case could not secure any favorable order from chandigarh high court since it is as per his personality traits which are known to every one and these are "I know every thing and you donot know any thing." God bless his arrogance. Our respected Mahadeven ji has sent him a very nice reply.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

Proud to be an Editor with a difference !

_____________________

*Murty's case is an exception. 

He spends money from his pocket.

Mahadevan's response to Asthana

Dear Mr Asthana,

I have received the copy of the mail addressed by you to Mr M V Venugopalan.I would like to respond on some of the issues raised by you as follows:

• You have observed, “The SC order does not say you withdraw and pay the same. It was a facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle”.
  If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
  “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 it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
  This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of    “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
  If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:

”If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, such portion of the deposited amount shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as will equal the amount paid as interim relief by LIC to the respondent-petitioners as per this order”.
If such wordings had been used, LIC would possibly have had to pay the interim relief within the 6 weeks’ period without waiting for the release of the deposits by the HC.Also, if LIC had paid the right amounts as per the impugned judgment of the HC, it could have as well got the entire amount deposited by it released instead of only 20% of the inadequately paid amount. It is not very difficult to understand that what LIC has deposited did not even constitute 10 % of the amounts due to the original petitioners.

• You have also stated that cause of action for us arises only after the payment is made, which opportunity has been lost. But in my view, more than its anxiety to withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries before paying interim relief, LIC had possibly a very shrewd plan to justify that whatever amount they had deposited was the correct amount although their stand will not go unchallenged. If their move for withdrawal was not challenged, then LIC’s incorrect interpretation of the HC judgments and the Board Resolution will not come up for sharp focus that is crucial in the hearing that is to take place on 23/9/2015.The order of PB & H HC dt 20/7/2015 dismissing the application of LIC for withdrawal of the deposit with appropriate instructions to LIC in the CCP case provides a very good opportunity to effectively highlight this issue before the Supreme Court.
  

I thought it necessary to respond to you on the above points so that things are seen in the proper perspective although different people can have different views and perceptions as do different lawyers with their similar professional expertise on the same subject.

I am deliberately refraining from expressing any views on the other matters raised by you in your mail to Mr Venugopalan to avoid unnecessary debate (in my opinion).

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO READ KML ASTHANA'S LETTER TO VENUGOPALAN

Today's Chandigarh Court order

My dear Gangadharanji,

CHANDIGARH CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS * JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN DID NOT PASS ANY FAVOURABLE ORDER TODAY KEEPING IN VIEW OF PENDANCY OF WHOLE ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, CASE POSTED TO 5TH OCTOBER 2015, INFORMS BR MEHTA

If the judge had this to say why was it not said earlier instead of adjourning the case to 28th August. This is how courts waste time and make us waste money.

With best wishes,

B.D.Bhargava

CHANDIGARH HC ORDER

COCP No. 2975 of 2013

Sanjeev Gandhi and ors.

Vs. 

R.K.Takru and ors.

Present: Mr M.Sreenivasan Murty, Advocate,
with Mr.Rakesh Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioners

Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram,Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Arjun Partap Atma Ram,Advocate, for respondent
Nos. 2 to 4

Admittedly, the matter is sub judice before the Apex 

Court in CA Nos. 8959-8962 of 2013 titled as LIC and 

others Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and another etc. 

and is fixed for 23.9.2015.

To await the decision of the aforesaid appeals, 

 adjourned to 05.10.2015.

28.7.2015                      (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
                                                       Judge

Illustrious son of India left us

Among those Presidents of India Abdul Kalam 
occupied  a high pedestal.Simplicity was the hall mark 
of Kalam's character. 

He never aspired for any position or popularity and being secular he lived beyond his religion.He always dreamed for a better India and motivated the younger generation to work for it. Not coming from an affluent family he was concerned about the welfare of the poor. 

When foreign Stent was unaffordable for many heart patients due to its enormous cost he teamed up with Soma Raju an eminent Hyderabad Cardiologist and invented an indigenous stent with affordable cost even to the poor and rightly the stent was christened as KalamRaju stent.

That he unfortunately collapsed while lecturing shows his passion for teaching and through that convey his message for a better India.

The nation has lost an illustrious son

May the departed soul rest in peace

R.K.Viswanathan

Chennai

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

​'Union Sandesh' - a periodical bulletin published 

by 

Union Bank Officers' Association (Gujarat)​

FORWARDED HEREWITH CLICK HERE

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

Chat-n-Chat

28 Jul 15, 02:45 PM

JM Aboobucker: 

LIC in their Affidavit has stated that Petitioners are trying to extend the scope of the judgement dt.9.11.2012 which means that only 100% DR for pre 1.8.97 retirees and that is all.

But our understanding of the judgement is it includes Pension Upgradation too.

Back to Supreme Court SEPT 23 ?

This refers to the mail under the caption 'Chandigarh 

contempt proceedings'.

The fastest convenient way to dispose a case is to conveniently 

pass the buck to some one else ( SC ).

There is no other go than to put up with this. Ultimately we 

have to look for that auspicious date 23 September and explore 

how the planetory positions will be for us on that date.Can any 

one cast his opinion on this !

R.K.VISWANATHAN

CHANDIGARH CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS * JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN DID NOT PASS ANY FAVOURABLE ORDER TODAY KEEPING IN VIEW OF PENDANCY OF WHOLE ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, CASE POSTED TO 5TH OCTOBER 2015, INFORMS BR MEHTA

Chandigarh Contempt case

Dear All ,

Thanks God Chandigarh High Court is working today. Urgent matters under list 101- 136 is being taken up. Right now 121 being taken.

After it item201 onwards will start. We are at item 204
We need your blessings

Regards
BRMehta

Chandigarh High Court hearing

LIC has filed its affidavit at Chandigarh High Court with a copy to the petitioners telling that Petitioners are trying to extend scope of Judgement dated 09.11.2012.

• It is not clear whether it will be a working day today due to sad demise of our former President Sh. APJ Abdul Kalam yesterday evening ?

Reports on today's developments awaited.

A great President he was !

27 Jul 15, 10:24 PM

B Ganga Raju: 

Another one like him may not come for

decades hereafter. A President's duty is 

to be the custodian of the constitution. 

He discharged this role excellently 

at a moment of crisis in our polity.

He showed the way and helped the country to decide who 

should be its Prime Minister. A great scientist, a missile man, 

an educationist who inspired children , a simple man with high 

thinking .. yes. But his greatness lies in the fact that he proved 

to be a great President.

A hundred thousand pranams to this great man who is no 

more. May he rest in eternal peace.

Chat-n-Chat: KshIrapakam, DrAkshApAkam, KadalIpAkam, IkshupAkam and NALikErapAkam.‏

 "....songs and literary works are 

classified into five groups 

based on how they are formulated and 

how easy they are to comprehend, 

namely: KshIrapakam, DrAkshApAkam, 

KadalIpAkam, IkshupAkam and 

NALikErapAkam. 

The easiest of all is the KshIrapakam or the milk form which can not only be easily consumed, but also is a wholesome food for all ages and people in all conditions. DrAkshApAkam : like grapes which can be eaten without any processing. Next is the KadalIpAkam, the banana ( a variety of which is the 'kadali') form which need only to be peeled to be eaten. IkshupAkam is like sugarcane which has to be crushed to extract the juice. The form most difficult to comprehend is the NALikErapAkam; it is like a coconut; it must be dehusked and the shell broken, the flesh grated and then used.
     
In a similar vein in Samskrtam the literary compositions are classified into three groups: Prabhusamhita, Suhrtsamhita and Kanthasamhita. Prabhusamhita instructs like a 'prabhu' or master who punishes when rules are transgressed (e.g., instructions such as in the Vedas), Suhrtsamhita instructs like a 'suhrt', a friend who advises on what to do and what not to do (e.g., like the Puranas) and Kanthasamhitha which instructs like a 'kantha' or one’s beloved who advises and cites examples / cajoles/ coaxes / persuades / pleads as the situation requires to achieve the same end, namely ‘upadesa’ (e.g., as in Kavyam).
     
It is noteworthy that these different formulations or forms of communication are not understood as being part of a hierarchical system where one cannot replace or supersede another or is considered the generally superior form. Each one serves a specific need and may be the most appropriate for a particular context or for a given purpose."

---A.V.Balasubramanian, Folk Knowledge Compared with Classical Textual Knowledge : International Forum for India's Heritage. (Edited by PR)

(P.Ramanathan)

CHANDIGARH HIGH COURT CASE

Dear Editor,

For benefit of your esteemed readers wishing to track progress in our case while sitting at their homes from display board of Punjab &Haryana High Court Chandigarh, following information is likely to help them.

Case Details 2975/2013 COCP

Date 28.07.2015

Item No 204

Court No 013

Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

BR MEHTA

Panchkula

Chat-n-Chat

27 Jul 15, 05:17 PM SDSarma: Sri Ch.Mahadevan's interpretations are like Drakshapakam.

27 Jul 15, 04:15 PM SDSarma: Then we can classify Sri Asthanaji's style Narikelapakam.

Chat-n-Chat

27 Jul 15, 12:20 PM

B Ganga Raju: In Sanskrit literature the style of an author is 

classified as " Drakshapaka", "Kadalipaka," and   

"Narikelapaka." That is the classification  based on the effort 

one has to put to understand them.

In our court case Shri M S Murty's style can be compared to " 

Kadalipaka." That is with a slight effort you understand his 

approach. 

Because it is essentially a legal matter none can be 

classified as " Drakshapak." 

• Whose style it is that can be called only "Narikelapaka" 

requiring effort to break the outer shell to understand, I

leave it to you to conclude.

-----------------------------------

( Readers may refer to the following details taken out from

 http://peekayar.blogspot.com
P.K.Ramakrishnan -Ed.)

In Sanskrit literature the language is classified into three types according to the difficulty in finding the meaning - draakshaapaakam, kadaliipaakam, and nalikerapaakam.

The first applies to those of which the meaning can be grasped without effort in the same way the grape can be consumed as it is.

The second is like eating the plantain - just remove the skin and eat. A little effort but not
much.

The third is very difficult like taking the contents of a coconut. It has two hard covers - the first the fibrous one and the second the hard shell. Removing these is a difficult process.

I have not come across any authority describing these facts. But I can point out poetical compositions where these are manifest.

Kalidasas's compositions can be called draakshaapaaka.

Bhartrihari's compositions may be called kadaliipaaka.

Bharavi's Kirataarjuniiya would come under the third viz. naalikerapaaka.

I was recently listening to the audio of Mallinatha's commentary on Kiratarjuniyam. In his introduction he says he is trying to break the coconut and presenting the substance to panditas.

There are many members in this group who are more knowledgeable and I would like to hear their views.

Chat-n-Chat

27 Jul 15, 09:38 AM

JM Aboobucker: Hats off to Mr Murty for a very clear analysis of the present state of our case.

Mr Murti has made out a very good case of contempt against LIC which has chosen worser than the worst option detailed in Mr Murti's write-up,without any qualms.

Let us wait for the outcome of tomorrow's hearing in Chandigarh HC.

BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER 23

TO ACT OR NOT TO ACT?

Dear Fellow Pensioners,

We always have the choice to watch instead of acting, hoping for the best to happen on its own. If action has the potential risk of causing damage to our interests, just to watch is undoubtedly a lesser evil than acting. Having said that, I am eager to add that by acting if we are fairly sure not to be worse off and if our action has the chance of giving us what we want, shouldn’t we vote for ‘action’?    

All LIC Pensioners and I are obliged to Sri SN (a 1992 pensioner), Sri M V Venugopalan and Sri A S Ramanathan for the wonderful analysis provided by each of them in their very recent articles in LIC PC, on the pros and cons of moving the Supreme Court with a Contempt Petition against LIC for non-compliance of the 7 May Order. I prefer that these are read necessarily with the series of Posts contributed by Sri C H Mahadevan on the related topic.

I have no problem in accepting the assertions (for all the valid reasons behind those assertions) that contempt proceedings are not always an unmixed blessing – aptly described by MVV as potential ‘landmines’. But I wish to meet some of the points raised by these well-informed gentlemen to the best of my ability hoping that at the end of the day, theories apart, we are all on the same page particularly in our specific context.

I MUST ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM NOT BATTING FOR ANY CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS TO BE INITIATED AGAINST LIC BY OURSELVES, AS I AM FULLY CONSCIOUS OF ITS LIMITATIONS.  I AM ONLY FOR CERTAIN PROACTIVE PREPARATION AND SAFE ACTION TO PURSUE, INSTEAD OF ‘WAIT & WATCH’ TILL 23 SEPT 2015.

For proper appreciation of my line of thinking, let me go back to the 7 May Order of SC. Let us confine to what is contained in the Order and ignore as we should, any other commentary by anybody. The most critical and important components of the Order are:

1.    Supreme Court directed that LIC shall ‘release’ 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court.

2.    It should be done within six weeks hence (from 7 May).

3.    There are directions regarding ‘withdrawal’ where the amount is deposited. 

4.    Where the amount has not been deposited, Corporation shall ‘pay’ (from its own funds).

The above 4 points are indisputable. What is not clear and what can be interpreted in any of several ways are:

1.    20% of what? (In other words, what is the amount as per the impugned judgment that constitutes 100 %?)

2.    Pay to whom (in other words if the payment is not meant for ALL pensioners, who are included and who are not included?)

3.    Answer to 2 above will clear the clouds in respect of Delhi also.

Let me tabulate the above and attempt some non-controversial analysis of the 7 May Order, as follows:

Direction in the SC Order of 7 May	Worst scenario interpretation	Best scenario interpretation	Remarks
(1) Pay 20% of the Amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court.	Amount on account of 100% DA neutralization for pre- Aug 97 retirees only without any weightage (up-gradation) E.g. 20% of Rs.33,67,838/-for the 31 Chandigarh Petitioners i.e., Rs.21,728 per petitioner on an average	Amount on account of 100% DA neutralization for pre- Aug 97 retirees PLUS amount payable on account of appropriate weightage (up-gradation)   E.g. 20% of Rs.4,67,35,195/- for the 31 Chandigarh Petitioners i.e., Rs.93,47,039/- (Rs.3,01,517/- per petitioner on an average)	Chandigarh is taken just as an example as exact numbers have been worked out in their case and submitted to HC
(2) Interim relief payable to whom	A) In Jaipur, to the 19 or so of the 27 Petitioners who are pre-Aug 97 retirees only B) In Chandigarh, to the 31  Petitioners as ALL of them are pre-Aug 97 retirees  and C) In Delhi to the few VALID (?) Members of GNS Federation as per LIC-fixed parameters communicated to him   Total: A few hundred in all	To every single Pensioner & Family Pensioner (about 40,000 of them)	GNS wants the payment to all his members who are pre-Aug 97 retirees. Such a classification is neither backed by 7 May Order of SC nor does it qualify under LIC-fixed ‘validity’ parameters. His case therefore is a non-starter.
(3) The process of payment	Withdraw 20% of the amount deposited in Jaipur & Chandigarh and pay to those 19+31 Petitioners there. For Delhi wait till LIC receives valid (?) list from GNS and limit the payment to them. (I will put the number at a few hundred).	Since the amount deposited is by no means the amount as per the impugned judgments, pay 20% of what is payable.  E.g. Rs.93,47,039/- (Rs.3,01,517/- per Chandigarh Petitioner on an average) LIC may separately withdraw the entire amount deposited in Jaipur & Chandigarh.

As against the above worst and the best scenario interpretation, LIC chose a course of action worse than the worst. It is yet to pay even One Rupee to any Pensioner. Even the withdrawal request to Jaipur and Chandigarh HC as well as the data collection from GNS Federation, commenced long after the time stipulated by the Supreme Court. How do we explain LIC’s (in) action? “We don’t care’’. Is it or is it not contempt? Even if it is not likely to be held as contempt, do we or don’t we have a remedy?   I am sure we would like to discover that remedy with the professional assistance of a competent Sr. Advocate.

I have said this before but I do not hesitate to repeat now – An Order granting interim relief like the one dated 7 May 2015, is an interim measure, pure and simple. It says nothing about the final decision by the Court on the issues for adjudication before it. If and when the Interim Order is re-visited by the Bench, either in a contempt petition or by any other plea by any party, whether the Court adopts the worst possible interpretation scenario or upholds the best one, it shall have no bearing on the final decision. Any apprehension to the contrary needs to be got over by all our friends. This point, apart from being based on well laid law, can easily be seen from the order itself where it said “…..subject to final result in the appeals” & ‘’……payment in continuum shall be considered when the appeals are taken up for hearing”.

Putting a number of factors and facts together, it should be easier for us to secure the best possible interpretation of the Order rather than the worst. That in the face of a categorical Order to pay some money to the Pensioners, nothing is paid till date to anybody and the Order just remained on paper is a most welcome state of things for us to highlight before the Bench to our advantage. Justice Dipak Misra’s own landmark Judgment delivered emphatically as recently as on 1 July 2015, will aid our efforts so much that if we do not avail of it now, it will be a monumental mistake.

I stick to my word - let us not rush with a contempt petition ourselves, however strong may be the case we have. But let us also not keep quiet till 23 Sept.  We are working very hard and if we are lucky enough to secure a categorical direction at Chandigarh for payment of Rs.93,47,039/- as the interim measure I certainly expect LIC to go before the SC in appeal against any such order. LIC’s Application for withdrawal of 20% having been dismissed as withdrawn, the final outcome of the on-going Contempt petition in Chandigarh will have bearing on our next step.

Therefore anything more is possible to discuss after 28 July 2015.

 M.Sreenivasa Murty

PS: LIC filed its reply to the Contempt Petition in Chandigarh HC. It is being studied. The hearing is on 28 July 2015. 

26 Jul 15, 09:13 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: 

I share the grief and anxiety of RKV & Ganga Raju. 

The thing that strikes in this dismal and anarchic conditions 

is the hope of the ordinary citizen in taking on the life

- as it comes.

'Court'eous fees !

LIC Class One Retired Officers Association Panchkula

As per notice dated 10.07.2015 issued by our Secretary, general body meeting of Panchkula AIRIEF Unit was held today 26th July, 2015 at 11am at Senior citizens Council Sector 15 Panchkula and elected following office bears:-

1. Patrons

Sh.C.M Bhargav and Sh.R.C.Sodhi

2 . President 

Sh.H L Kharbanda 

3. Senior Vice President

Sh . H.D.Sharma 

4. Vice President

B.R.Mehta 

5. Secretary Sh.S.N.Chhabra

6. Joint Secretary

Sh. R K Chopra

7. Organising Secretary

Sh.N.K Garg 

8 Finance Secretary

Sh . Kishore Sharma

9. Auditor 

Sh.K.L Malhotra 

10. Executive Member

Sh.S.N.Gupta 

Regards

BRMehta

Panchkula

Chat-n-Chat: Fake lawyers

26 Jul 15, 11:43 AM

B Ganga Raju:

RKV's exasperation and indignation about Fake Lawyers is indeed the feeling of every honest citizen. 

In our holy land that swears by Bhagavadgita, Vedas, upanishads, epics, Bible, Koran, Guru Granth Saheb, we also see fake currency, fake degrees, fake babas, fake caste certificates, adulterated food, polluted water, air etc etc. 

That is the contradiction between precept and practice. Mass copying at exams, impersonation, selling of question papers and degrees including doctorate degrees is something we come across. 

In the profession of politics that is supposed to serve the people how many fakes are there? Take the statistics and find out how many parliamentarians have criminal cases against them. 

Even our free enterprise is fake and not the type of capitalism seen in other countries. Do we not see entrepreneurs obtaining huge loans from public institutions like Banks and then wish to multiply wealth if necessary by stopping production to create artificial market. 

Do not they manipulate supply and demand? 

RKV's prayer " God Save Judiciary " has also to reach god through intermediaries. Let us hope fake lawyers are not elevated to higher posts.

Fake lawyers !

30 % Lawyers fake : Bar council chief

Bar council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Misra 

said 30 % of all Lawyers in India possessed fraudulent 

law degrees and 20 % just wore Lawyer's robe 

without proper degree.Chief Justice of Madras 

High court Sanjay Kishen Kaul also said it was 

necessary to find out how many people were really 

involved with legal practice, how many were genuine, 

how many were earning bread and butter with 

this profession and how many were in 

different fields.

God save our judiciary

R.K.Viswanathan

Chat-n-Chat: Contempt case v/s Civil Appeal (CA)

25 Jul 15, 09:10 PM

B.D.Bhargava: I am convinced that our Advocates and Managers are more interested in filing a contempt case against LIC than that Justice is done to pensioners, as they can make more money that way including LIC Advocates otherwise knowing that Court Judgement is not clear cut they would have sought clarification from SC to avoid delay on points they thought LIC would use to avoid implementation of Court orders.

26 Jul 15, 08:08 AM

JM Aboobucker: Pursuing Contempt Case by our learned leaders would be a sheer waste of money and valuable time at our disposal. Better they try to hasten the CA for a favourable judgement for all Pensioners.

'Contempt' not contemplated !

26 Jul 15, 08:51 AM

B.R.Mehta: Since no body is thinking to file contempt against LIC at supreme court as we are very clear that it will be sheer waste of money, then why chit chat today morning on this issue?

God Willing -- All Will Be Well

Shri C H Mahadevan has been giving Pension Anomaly

Charts since last three half years. The charts indicate

" Monthly Loss " suffered by pensioners retired in

different pay scales on account of

non-up gradation of pension along with revision

of pay scales and on account of not granting 100%

neutralisation in Dearness Allowance (Relief) to 

pre August,1997 retirees. The " Monthly Loss " 

have been (the difference )worked out based on 

the pay scales of August, 2007 and the applicable 

percentage DA /DR. The difference is likely to be more 

when revised pay scales as on 01-08-2012 are in 

place.

A sample case to understand a bit of the injustice meted out to a pensioner retired at the maximum of August, 1987 pay scale of AAO.
.....
@ For Feb.2014 to Jul. 2014. Monthly difference : Rs.13995 x 6 months= Rs.80970/-......(A)
@ For Aug.2014 to Jan. 2015. Monthly difference : Rs.14191x 6 months =Rs.85146/-.....(B)
@ For Feb.2015 to Jul.2015. Monthly difference : Rs.14780x 6 months =Rs.88680/-.....(C)
----------------------
Total difference ( loss ) in gross pension in 18 months, A+B+C = Rs.254796/-
==============
@ Courtesy : Pension Anomaly Charts - Shri C H Mahadevan.


Hope is life and despair is death.

• As longed for by Shri M.V. Venugopalan, may he and all the pensioners, in particular, those in eighties and seventies as their expectation are high, have the luxury of living at top of the world at least till 23 rd of September, 2015 and God willing, many more months and years beyond that date.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

Chandigarh HC

Case Listing Details
Cause List Date List Type:Sr. No. Bench Order Link

28-JUL-2015 ORDINARY:204 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN 

Unedited expression of thoughts !

Mr KML ASTHANA’s STRATEGY? WHERE DO YOU FIND IT?

Dear Editor, 

You have just re-published KML's report dated 9.5.2015, released by him admittedly before he saw the official copy of Supreme Court's Order dated 7.5.2015. After the order was officially released by the SC, I do not recall having come across any corrected/revised report from him.  Consequently we had to live with the glaring variations between his version and the eventual official version on what exactly happened on the fateful day - May 7. 

You and your readers know that there were others in the Court on that day and if there were contradictions between different reports, credibility of individuals apart, what is finally in the Order, in black & white, matters and is final and binding. My version of what actually happened is also in your archives. It was dated 9 May 2015 and was in considerable detail. 

In the above background, I was somewhat amused when I first read what you re-published and chose to call it KMLA's 'strategy'. On seeing your cartoon later, I got my answer and am at peace with myself.

Mr Mahadevan, as is his wont, took the 'strategy note' seriously at its face value and also took pains to explain to KML, what SC order of 7 May actually meant according to him. I hope after reading KML's latest mail on the subject to the effect that 20% withdrawal is not for payment, Mr Mahdevan would have been sufficiently enlightened as to what is the understanding of KML on the 7th May Order. I wish to close the topic here with an assertion that each of us is entitled to our respective opinions and none is infallible.

For me the developments in Chandigarh are quite promising and naturally my further action plan unfolds after 28^th.

In the meantime there are excellent inputs via LIC PC, from Sri SN (a 1992 pensioner) & Sri M V Venugopalan. I am thankful to you and to them. Going to study both the Posts again and will revert with my thoughts later today.    

M.Sreenivasa Murty