IT
IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG (IN LAW) TO
CLAIM THAT CHANDIGARH & DELHI JUDGEMENTS ARE BASED ONLY ON JAIPUR ORDER. IT IS CONVENIENT AND COMFORTABLE TO Mr
ASTHANA TO CLAIM SO. BUT IT REQUIRES SOME DEEP ACQUANTANCE WITH LAW TO APPRECIATE
THE REAL POSITION.
Also, looked from another angle (purely hypothetically but
firmly canvassed by GNS school of thought), if the Apex Court accepts, God
forbid, LIC’s contention that Sec 48 cannot be brushed aside and LIC Board
Resolution cannot be implemented without Government approval, does Mr Asthana
admit that the Jaipur Judgement goes for a toss and does he then want the
Chandigarh and Delhi Petitioners should give him company down the hill? That is
not the case. The Chandigarh petitioners counsel is not going to argue his case
as sought by Mr Asthana. If he does so, it amounts to telling the Court I am
dependent on Jaipur Order (that’s what my ‘owner’ tells me), I have nothing
else in support of my case. I sink or sail with him and my arguments rest
here’.
When a bunch of cases is clubbed together by an Order of the Court (remember, no Petitioner or Respondent prayed for such a ‘club-together’ Order in our matters), it means the issues involved are common and somewhat similar and therefore they permit being heard together, independently but one after the other and permit being disposed of by a common Judgement eventually. This simple principle should expose the fallacy of Mr RK Singh’s intervention the other day on 7 Sept before the Bench ‘I am the main petitioner’ in these matters, so go by my submissions rather than what others say’. He and all of us now know how the Bench reacted to his upstart interjection that day.
Mr
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Mr G N Sridharan have both shared their dreams/expectations
personally with me quite some time ago in some context. Mr KML’s dream was that
the Supreme Court shall uphold the Jaipur Judgement as it is, dismiss LIC’s CA
against it and also add ‘As we have already upheld the Jaipur Judgement and as
the other two (Chandigarh & Delhi) were based on the same, there is no need
to deal with them separately. The CAs are accordingly disposed of…”.
If
KML’s dream comes true, celebrations by his camp would go sky high (One Centre
in Andhra promised him an Elephant ride to display their gratitude) but the
poor Pensioners would remain in the same state as now, because LIC would
implement the Board Resolution as it is now doing with the 20% payment. If my
fears are not baseless, I should wish some dreams like this deserve to be
shattered.
On
the other hand, Mr GNS told me emphatically in April 2014, (he is not dreaming)
that he sees the distinct possibility of LIC’s Appeal CA NO 9223 of 2013)
against (his) Delhi Judgement being dismissed and simultaneously allow the two CAs against Jaipur &
Chandigarh Judgements. Because according
to him we have no case for Pension up-gradation. We get only DR parity for
pre-Aug 97 retirees. That discussion took place when GNS & I are on cordial
terms, respecting each other’s views but seriously differing at the same time.
So I could heartily laugh it off.
Let
us strive (wish me luck in my efforts) to get a COMPREHENSIVE SPEAKING ORDER granting
full-fledged pension up-gradation to all those who are governed by LIC of (Employees)
Pension Rules 1995, an Order and a Judgement that addresses all the RED FLAGS
(on the wrong formulae being followed by LIC till now) so assiduously being
displayed by Sri C H Mahadevan.
(Thank
you Dear Editor,
I
hope not to cluster your columns any more except for news-sharing and good news-sharing
henceforth. I
wish to thank all those providing emotional support specially, SN (a 1992
Pensioner), B Ganga Raju M V Venugopalan, JM Aboobucker, RKV, SD Sarma, Rama
Rao, B Sudhakar Dr Pritam and many others. Thinking
of organizing a Camel ride for My Very Dear Subbu,
shortly (as I can’t afford the other). -MS.
(Concluded)