When LIC pretends to have complied with the SC Interim directions
WHAT NEXT?
(Part 2)
In continuation of my Post on 11 Sept, I
wish to re-emphasize the significance of the ensuing Court proceedings of the first few minutes, when our
cases are going to be taken up by Justice Misra on 23 Sept 2015, in the context
of his Interim directions of 7 May & 7 Sept 2015 to LIC.
Even if it may sound metaphysical, I am always of the firm view that LIC Pensioners’ cases and their overall interests are being taken care of by providence every now and then. Post Jaipur Judgement dated 12 Jan 2010 secured by Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, all by himself, the happenings on 4 April 2014, 7 May 2015, 20 July 2015 and finally on 7 Sept 2015 before different Judicial forums, fall in to that hallowed category being alluded to by me. We better keep that in mind with the requisite amount of gratitude to the ‘unseen’ and supplement human efforts to reach the final goal to ensure and see full smiles eventually on the faces of EACH LIC Pensioner.
I am today trying to drive my point home
and to seek on that basis, for what it may be worth, the proactive support from
Delhi & Jaipur Petitioners on 23 Sept 2015.
An interim direction, in law, is unrelated
to (has no bearing upon) the outcome in the main matter currently under
judicial scrutiny and awaiting final verdict eventually. In our case, we are
well aware of the subtle differences in the issues involved in the three
different Judgements in favour of the respective Petitioners and LIC’s Civil
Appeals arising from the same. There is no relevance to any of those issues or
other nuances, when the interim directions were issued by the Bench on 7 May
and reiterated more loudly on 7 Sept 2015.
In the above background, I hereby appeal to
our Delhi and Jaipur Petitioners to look at SC’s interim directions of 7 May & 7 Sept 2015
(to pay 20% ‘on the basis of the
impugned judgements’), compare their own genuine expectations critically with
LIC’s actual compliance as on 22nd Sept 2015. Such an exercise, I am
sure will highlight the wide variation between what is payable on the basis of
the impugned Judgement/s and what is actually paid by LIC.
Let us take a closer look at the issue.
As far as the Jaipur Petitioners are
concerned, Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana never minced his words that the
Judgement dated 12 Jan 2010 said ‘both the Writ Petitions are allowed (WP No
654 of 2007 being for Pension Up-gradation with each wage revision) and as such
LIC is bound to implement the Board Resolution inclusive of weightage, to
ensure Pension-upgradation. When the interim directions prescribe payment of
20% on the basis of the impugned judgement, Mr Asthana would therefore find the
payment made to some of the Petitioners in Jaipur to be in gross violation of
the interim directions and I am sure he would have no difficulty in exposing
LIC (through proper judicial means) on 23 Sept and support the move of
Chandigarh Petitioners to secure necessary directions to LIC.
The stand of Sri GN Sridharan in the
context of 20% payment has been a different experience. On the twin issues of
whom to pay and how much to pay (20% of what) he has admittedly no concern for
any post Aug 97 retirees including members of his own Federation who constitute
nearly two thirds of his total membership.
The communication dated 6 July 2015 that Mr
GNS received from LIC prescribing its own eligibility criteria to receive 20%
payment, is by far the most serious violation of the 7 May Order by the Supreme
Court. But the willing cooperation being extended by Mr GNS to LIC’s policy of
denial is bound to help LIC and work against the interests of the Pensioner
community as a whole, unless he takes steps to tell the Court that the
compliance by LIC is far short of what is due.
The
real irony in the role of GNS lies elsewhere. In the name of protecting the interests of his
members who are pre-Aug 1997 retirees, he will be seriously compromising the
interests of those very members if he fails to appreciate the full implications
of what LIC is doing in the name of compliance. He can and he should make
amends on 23 Sept. How?
Accepting that Mr GNS does not believe in
Pension up-gradation as a benefit flowing from the Judgements and is even willing to dump all his post-Aug
97 retiree members in the process, should he not want the correct 20% payment
as ordered by SC to be paid to his
pre-Aug 97 retiree members? He and his pre-Aug 97 retiree-members should
note and understand certain incontrovertible facts in this connection.
Look at the following Table in respect of a
REAL Pensioner who retired on 31.08.1990 in the cadre of AO:
The above real illustration may be seen as
proof that LIC is ditching even pre-Aug 97 retirees although Mr GNS is NOT
demanding up-gradation for payment of 20%. In fact the Pensioner in the above
illustration should be paid Rs.2,48,262/- towards 20%, if weightage is conceded
by LIC. But he is being paid Rs 6976/- instead of Rs 24,515/- even without
weightage.
In conclusion, I appeal to both Mr KML Asthana
and Mr GN Sridharan, to take these facts to the Notice of the Bench on 23 Sept
2015 and help themselves and the Pensioner community as a whole.
I shall do my bit on behalf of the
Chandigarh Petitioners, where I do not expect LIC to make any payment before 23
Sept 2015, because of the HC Order of 20 July 2015.
I also renew my offer that we three may
meet on 22 Sept 2015 at Delhi at a common convenient place, to iron out minor
differences if any, in the understanding of the issues involved but most
relevant to the hearing on 23 Sept 2015.
M Sreenivasa Murty