UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY SC (contd.)

POST-2

Recently our friend, Shri M.C. Jain derived some benefit, as 

result of a writ petition, which I understand, was paid to him. 

Pensioners like him are also eligible for the same benefit and I 

will be glad to hear, all in the same position have been paid. If 

not there is a case for adjudication.

Another confusion is with regard to jurisdictional applicability of a High Court decision. A Constitutional interpretation by a High Court when it becomes final after an Appeal, if any, to the SC has universal applicability. One High Court decision is quoted in other HC’s/SC to seek parity. Similarly a SC decision on a case arising from one decision, is uniformly applied and made applicable in other States to attain uniformity and to uphold the rule of law. Else an authority like the Chairman of the LIC, who is concerned in the management of an institution spread throughout the Country, has to necessarily take uniform decisions and cannot discriminate an employee/member of the public working/living in one state from another in a different state. Nakaras case for instance is followed by all the Courts in the Country.

The Chandigarh HC, in our pension case, approvingly quoted the Judgement of Justice Bhandari of Jaipur HC that “the benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit”. Otherwise, a spate of litigation will arise, defeating the object of obtaining finality in the decision. The Chandigarh Bench of the Punjab & Haryana HC also said, I quote, “We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Boards resolution dated 24-11-2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said resolution of the Board dated 24-11-2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years”. Therefore, here also the Govt. has lost the right of appeal.

The doctrine of “law and justice shall meet eye to eye”
is a well known saying meaning that a law properly enacted
by due process but which is patently such that it pricks the
judicial mind, may be declared a nullity by the SC. Many
examples can be quoted, but that is not my purpose. I think
none need to hold any view that only the petitioners, in our
pension case, will enjoy the fruits of our labour. I invite other
views on the subject to supplement and to remove doubts
that may subsist. We need not be carried away, by the action
of the LIC considering payment, of the so called interim relief,
only to some of the petitioners, into such ideas and I am sure
ultimately every one of the pensioners will be benefitted.

(concluded)