Different cut off dates - a hidden agenda ?

Dear All,

I attach a mail of Mr R K Viswanathan together
 with the comments of Mr Sreenivasa Murty where
vital points have been raised, for your information.

Can any of our pensioner friends confirm whether 
LIC called for the list of Association members 
before  making payment of the gratuity difference 
as per the judgment in the CA No 1289/2007
(copy attached)?CLICK HERE

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan 

RK VISWANATHAN WRITES

Dear Sir,

Coming to GNS circular alerting us to be ready to receive the CO circular and to furnish the required particulars I think the different cut off dates has a hidden agenda. 

Validity of members as on the date of the SC order is to prevent those who have rushed to become the Federation members after the court order.The valid members as on 3-7-1997 the date on which the Federation has filed the writ is to  say that all those who are not members on that date fail to get the status of petitioners to become the beneficiary of the SC order. However the validity of these cut off dates become innocuous in SC JUDGEMENT IN SC CASE NO APPEAL (CIVIL) 1289/2007 which categorically said that revision of pay scales and ALL OTHER ALLOWANCES ARE TECHNICAL IN NATURE WHEN A BENEFIT IS EXTENDED TO A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES THE EFFECT OF SUCH BENEFITS IF OTHERWISE COMES WITHIN THE PURVIEW MUST BE HELD TO BE APPLICABLE TO OTHER GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES

With Regards  

RKViswanathan 

Shri Sreenivasa Murty's comments

Dear Sirs, 

Aren't we assuming many things prematurely? Does the SC Order say anything of what LIC mail to GNS said?

What is LIC's locus to stipulate so many parameters of eligibility? What about Delhi HC Order on In Rem? Can LIC just ignore it? What is LIC's authority to claim and conclude that it is liable to pay to pre-97 retirees only? Has the SC said it? How can LIC arrogate to itself all powers to interpret everything? Where money is deposited, 20% applies. (On the assumption that what is deposited  is what is actually payable). How does one apply that in Delhi? Will not some one excluded from the benefit, go to court?

GNS should write back to LIC a one line reply stating 'Your Communication constitutes gross contempt of Court. Read the Delhi judgement and SC Order of 7 May again. Pay to ALL. If you don't you are exposed to contempt'.

What ever we do, we should compel LIC to knock at SC doors. There it will be shown the door. 

Unfortunately, GNS has his own agenda. Even otherwise GNS just cannot furnish what LIC asked. Can he? 

Sreenivasa Murty M