"The ‘disappointment’ is the upholding of powers of the Central Government under Sec 48, which in my opinion is immaterial to the strength of our case where justice has to be done on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
Excerpted from Shri.C H Mahadevan's write up :"Supreme Court Judgement", (PC dated 14-04-2016).
Shri Mahadevan has put solid faith, in his articles, on Article 14 - touch stone of equality before law - a socio legal imperative - enshrined (cherished as sacred) in the Constitution of India.
It is worth recalling that Article 14 has been referred more than 50 times in the lengthy judgement of D.S.Nakara v/s UOI. (Judgement copy available for reference in PC.)
Our petition may be mainly on the constitutional validity of Para.3 A of Appendix IV to our Pension Rules.
Though there may be a scope, it is not (does not appear right) advisable to bring / to interpolate other Appendix (say, App.V - Family Pension). Better not divert from the principal issue of pension. The issue of family pension has not been till this day our court case. Better not add 'incidental issues' at this late stage.
The revision of family pension may be achieved 'without the judicial intervention'. I have copied, partially, from the Editorial - Eastern News.
Shri MSM may (better) not make all and sundry facets of his case public, for obvious. Pensioners do appreciate that some kind of confidentiality has to maintained.
All please pardon, it seems, I have overstepped.
I heartily welcome Shri Joshi , a 1990 pensioner to LIC PC family.
My neck, lumber, back need some rest. I am otherwise quite fine. I shall come back after getting arrears ! Bye.
SN (a 1992 pensioner)
Shri Mahadevan has put solid faith, in his articles, on Article 14 - touch stone of equality before law - a socio legal imperative - enshrined (cherished as sacred) in the Constitution of India.
It is worth recalling that Article 14 has been referred more than 50 times in the lengthy judgement of D.S.Nakara v/s UOI. (Judgement copy available for reference in PC.)
Our petition may be mainly on the constitutional validity of Para.3 A of Appendix IV to our Pension Rules.
Though there may be a scope, it is not (does not appear right) advisable to bring / to interpolate other Appendix (say, App.V - Family Pension). Better not divert from the principal issue of pension. The issue of family pension has not been till this day our court case. Better not add 'incidental issues' at this late stage.
The revision of family pension may be achieved 'without the judicial intervention'. I have copied, partially, from the Editorial - Eastern News.
Shri MSM may (better) not make all and sundry facets of his case public, for obvious. Pensioners do appreciate that some kind of confidentiality has to maintained.
All please pardon, it seems, I have overstepped.
I heartily welcome Shri Joshi , a 1990 pensioner to LIC PC family.
My neck, lumber, back need some rest. I am otherwise quite fine. I shall come back after getting arrears ! Bye.
SN (a 1992 pensioner)