IT APPEARS WHEN THE MATTER IS AT THE FINAL STAGE YOU ARE STILL CONFINED TO 20%
MERELY BECAUSE SOME PERSONS GOT SOME PALTRY AMOUNTS WHICH WILL BE ADJUSTED OUT OF
THE FINAL PAYMENTS. I MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AT THE INTERIM STAGE NO ORDER CAN BE
PASSED IN REM. IT APPEARS THAT REVISION OF PENSIONS IS NOT OF ANY INTEREST TO YOU.
WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN REVISIONS, THOUGH WE WILL NOT EASILY LEAVE THE DR ANOMALY
MATTER ALSO.
MERELY BECAUSE SOME PERSONS GOT SOME PALTRY AMOUNTS WHICH WILL BE ADJUSTED OUT OF
THE FINAL PAYMENTS. I MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AT THE INTERIM STAGE NO ORDER CAN BE
PASSED IN REM. IT APPEARS THAT REVISION OF PENSIONS IS NOT OF ANY INTEREST TO YOU.
WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN REVISIONS, THOUGH WE WILL NOT EASILY LEAVE THE DR ANOMALY
MATTER ALSO.
KML ASTHANA
The matter may be in the final stage, but I am sure that many will agree that we
cannot allow LIC's wrong steps of calculating a wrong amount due to the
respondents and paying a resultant wrong and inadequate amount of 20% interim
relief go unchallenged.When Supreme Court has ordered LIC to pay 20% of the
amount due as per the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is not only very clear
that LIC has not done so, but LIC also has not given any supporting calculations to their
credit to the Bank a/cs of the pensioners concerned. How can this act of contempt
of Supreme Court by LIC of India allowed to go unchallenged notwithstanding the
fact the balance of due amount will be paid to the respondents when the case
reaches finality in favour of the original petitioners?
After all it is the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dt 12/1/2010 which forms the
basis for the other two HC judgments and when we are sure that this judgment
provides for removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralisation right from the date
of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever is later, and also upgradation of pension (in
fact constituting OROP), how can we compromise on this issue by ignoring the gross
underpayment of LIC? If we do so,we will be guilty of letting down our own other
petitioners.
Finally, I don't know whether you have checked the interim relief received by the
family pensioner in your batch of petitioners. Has she got any percentage of
arrears (excluding that due to the deceased pensioner)?
I would request you to kindly ponder over the above points, before taking a
plunge with your strategy in the SC when the matter comes up for hearing on 30th
September 2015.
credit to the Bank a/cs of the pensioners concerned. How can this act of contempt
of Supreme Court by LIC of India allowed to go unchallenged notwithstanding the
fact the balance of due amount will be paid to the respondents when the case
reaches finality in favour of the original petitioners?
After all it is the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dt 12/1/2010 which forms the
basis for the other two HC judgments and when we are sure that this judgment
provides for removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralisation right from the date
of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever is later, and also upgradation of pension (in
fact constituting OROP), how can we compromise on this issue by ignoring the gross
underpayment of LIC? If we do so,we will be guilty of letting down our own other
petitioners.
- Again, we cannot forget the fact that 5 of the post-July 1997 petitioners of Jaipur have not been paid a single pie (as I presume) even though they should have got some payment if only the Supreme Court order dt 7/5/2015 had been implemented properly. Is it fair to them to proceed further in the case without challenging the wrong act of LIC?
I agree with you that we are all more interested in the upward revision of
pensions, but we should also remember that proceeding further in the case without
challenging the dubious games played by LIC will jeopardise the pensioners'
interests in the final judgment because LIC will leave no stone unturned to
mislead the Apex Court into believing that they have calculated the amounts
payable correctly while in fact they have not. If that happens, not only will the
pre-August 1997 retirees receive a grossly inadequate amount, but also the post
July 1997 retirees will sustain total loss.
pensions, but we should also remember that proceeding further in the case without
challenging the dubious games played by LIC will jeopardise the pensioners'
interests in the final judgment because LIC will leave no stone unturned to
mislead the Apex Court into believing that they have calculated the amounts
payable correctly while in fact they have not. If that happens, not only will the
pre-August 1997 retirees receive a grossly inadequate amount, but also the post
July 1997 retirees will sustain total loss.
Finally, I don't know whether you have checked the interim relief received by the
family pensioner in your batch of petitioners. Has she got any percentage of
arrears (excluding that due to the deceased pensioner)?
I would request you to kindly ponder over the above points, before taking a
plunge with your strategy in the SC when the matter comes up for hearing on 30th
September 2015.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
C H Mahadevan