WHAT ALL HAPPENED IN
SUPREME COURT
ON 30 SEPT
(For the sake of
record though damp squib for many)
30 Sept was an
eventful day in Supreme Court. At the end of some 90 minutes of arguments
before and after lunch break, the day ended up with a long adjournment of the
cases to 18 Nov. The next date was Judge's proposal and decision. Mr Jay Savla
pressed for an earlier date (next week was possible) but his request was not
agreed to by the Bench, as his was the lone voice on the point.
The main drama that got enacted today
was full of contradictions. The twice mentioned request of LIC for adjournment
due to the 'non-availability' of the Solicitor General was not necessary on 30
Sept as the SG was reportedly available. Eventually when our turn came
and SL No 105 was taken up, Mr Ranjit Kumar, SG was yet to show up. He was
reported to be coming in few minutes. Judge was accommodative, and allowed the
other Sr Counsel present to commence (what appeared to me to be informal)
arguments. Mr Sekhar (newly engaged 2nd Sr Advocate by AIRIEF?) started with
some introductory remarks. Mr Nidhesh Gupta, who was also in attendance and
standing, took over. He went straight to his point referring to the Jaipur
Judgement according to which the Board Resolution of 2001 should be implemented
and it does not need Government approval as held by the HC.
One contradiction I referred to
above, was manifest because, LIC the Appellant ought to have first commenced
its arguments (through the SG) in support of the Appeals and
thereafter Jaipur Counsel, would have opposed the same. But the 'availability'
of the SG and at the same time, his physical non-availability to commence
arguments for LIC the Appellant, resulted in putting the cart before the horse.
And some avoidable faux paus.
SG walked in, apologizing to the
Bench. It was very evident that he was not at all prepared for the cases, no
time to get briefed by LIC AoR. There was no substantial participation by him
till it was lunch break. Case moved to be resumed at 2.00 PM, much to the
relief of the entire LIC team including its battery of Lawyers and a big
contingent of Officials from Central Office, headed by Mr Prakash Chand, Chief
(Per).
During his arguments before lunch, Mr
Nidhesh Gupta asserted that LIC can itself implement its Board Resolution, as
there are precedents when Chairman issued instructions in the past affecting
Pension Rules. He tried to quote certain Circulars of the Chairman in that
regard. He was interrupted by the Judge who asked what those circumstances are
and how many people were involved. Some discussion ensued with interventions by
the Sr Counsel on all sides and the Judge. It was evident that Mr Nidhesh
Gupta's point did not find favor with the Bench. The Judge went to the extent
of stating that if the Resolution was not
statutory and if it required Govt approval to become effective, that is how it
is and the Counsel cannot defend the Jaipur decision to the contrary, with his
line of approach (citing precednts). Mr Gupta I think sensed the mind of the
Judge and gently backed out (but not fully) and referred to Art 14 of the
Constitution and DS Nakara Judgement in passing. He also made an observation
that Justice Misra himself decided Pension matters on the basis of Nakara case
'although your Lordship held that DS Nakara decision stands diluted'. This part
of the observation on 'dilution' of Nakara case was not accepted by the Judge
and there was considerable discussion on what was said and what was meant
etc.,
Post lunch session was no different.
A couple of pass over matters were first taken up to facilitate SG to re-appear.
Arguments resumed but SG didn't come.
After putting some interesting and
leading questions to the counsel on both sides (like, ‘are these Petitioners
eligible for Pension or is there any dispute on that?’ ‘How did they become
eligible for Pension? If they had exercised option to receive Pension, what
about those who did not opt for Pension?’ There was a chorus of answers - not
all were accurate. Judge knows not only the significance of his questions but
even the answers, I think. He put everybody in their place and took control of
the issues. He told LIC counsel; there are different categories of Pensioners
who receive different rates of Pension. Based on their dates of retirement.
Forget Govt for a while, it is your baby. How do you defend your position? We
will look into Board Resolution, Govt's non-approval etc., independently
later.
For fuller arguments by the SG, cases
adjourned to 18 Nov. There was the question from the Bench whether the matters
are listed under 'part-heard' category. The cause lists don't show so. Then the
order dated 25 March was located which said 'Post as Part- heard'. As requested
by all the Counsel (not LIC) there is a specific direction to post on Top of the list. This time it is
categorical if it is of any relief even after 48 days. It will be at Sl. No 101
on 18 Nov 2015.
Soon after the matters got adjourned
to 18 Nov, the interim directions to pay 20% was raised (I think by GNS Sr
Counsel). Everybody joined pouring their woes. LIC counsel gave his brilliant Report
Card. He lavished on how well they paid in Jaipur, in Delhi and when he came to
Chandigarh he was at his vicious best. He vehemently accused that when LIC
tried to withdraw 20% and pay ‘as ordered by this Hon’ble Court’, the
Petitioners objected and contended that SC Order is not applicable to them. He
also desperately tried to show the Order allegedly passed to that effect by the
HC. When Mr Savla attempted to intervene and rebut the absurd accusation by LIC
counsel, Justice Misra himself intervened and dismissively brushed aside the
accusation and declined to buy the remarks. In spite of it, when the Counsel
insisted on producing the HC Order to support his claim, the Judge almost got
annoyed and remarked, ‘No, no, you counsel can twist the things as you want, we
are not interested to go in to that’. The unsaid response of the Judge was ‘Why
would the Petitioners ever say, ‘Supreme Court Order is not applicable to
us?’ The issue was not further discussed
except 'our Order to pay 20% remains'. Mr Nidhesh checked with Mr KML how much
he was paid, and highlighted the shabby handling of the 20% payment by
LIC.
Just before the people moved out,
Solicitor General rushed in, profusely apologizing for not being able to come
back. He explained why and how he was stuck in the Court of Justice Thakur.
Justice Misra comforted him and said he has not missed much, he can get briefed
and come back on 18 Nov to argue.
If I may conclude this report with my
assessment of what happened on 30th, I will say nobody has gained
anything today, except Justice Misra. He got a clear idea of what our case is
all about. More than the Counsel appearing for the Pensioners.