Mr Asthana's strategy

Mr Asthana’s report of 9/5/2015, inter alia, states as follows:-

“On this the Court suggested to give 20% out of the arrears. LIC’s Advocate said that they have already deposited the arrears in the Courts, then the Court making it easy said that then 20% be immediately paid to the pensioners.  I immediately stated that this is wrong statement of LIC counsel. The said deposit was not acceptable to us otherwise we would have drawn the same then and there, that is not AT ALL acceptable, the deposit has not properly been made and is based deliberately on incorrect calculations that too for DA/DR only in violation of the directions of the SC while our main case is of upgradation of pension with every wage revision and further that amount is not for pensioners and not even of all the petitioners. 7 have been left out, whether they are not entitled to get the benefit of the same judgment when our writ petitioners were allowed without exception.

Then the Court enquired and expressed its displeasure on the wrong statement of LIC Advocate and after our Advocates gave out a short summary of our case, the Court corrected the order and asked for making 20% of the arrears to the pensioners as per the judgment of Jaipur High Court. The payment has been directed to be made within six weeks.”

The Supreme Court in its interim order dt 7/5/2015  had stated,
“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.”

If Supreme Court  was  made aware of the fact that LIC  had deposited a wrong amount,why SC  ordered  release of only 20% of ‘any amount’ deposited in the High Court  as releasing of 20 % of any amount does not constitute 20% of dues payable as per the HC judgment where such ‘any amount’ is not the correct amount as per the Jaipur Bench judgment

Again , the use of the words,  ” so that it can pay to the concerned employees”  seems to have been construed by LIC  to mean that withdrawal  of the 20% amount  should precede  payment of interim relief as directed by the Supreme Court with the result that LIC could conveniently wait for the release of the amount before paying to the concerned employees. 

So despite the so called correction  made by the Supreme Court in its order,there seem to be loose ends which have come in handy for  LIC for dilatory and denial tactics in the matter of interim relief.
The net result is that the purpose of ordering interim relief has been woefully defeated.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan