DGK ..... humiliated by LIC / GOI, who responded with ' NO CONSENT ' ! And now we are seeing this great unity of at least 2 Civil Appellants/ Pensioners Assns ( or may be 3, unless AIRIEF doesn't
come clean
, showing that it was not a privy for the ' Clandestine agreement ' of the other two Civil Appellants) expectations and suggestions from the well meaning Activists, for a Common Senior Counsel for all the Civil Appellants was certainly not meant for such a ' nefarious united action ', betraying the cause and interests of LIC Pensioners/ Family Pensioners, who may never see the end of this litigation and get justice during their lifetime . CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE :- AIIPA addressed letter dt 29-9-2026, to General Secretaries of AIRIEF & Federation of Retired LIC Class-I Officers' Associations, proposing a joint meeting (Post dt 29-9-2026 in LIC PC ). In other Pensioners Blog, Sri S. K. Awasthi 's following communication dt 16-10-2026 was published- " Application filed for early hearing of our case by AIIPA- Dear members, in response to a request from AIIPA G.S. to make coordinated efforts to resolve the pensioners issues,at all forums, I have been in touch with them and AIRIEF G.S. As a result of coordination, the AOR of the AIIPA has today filed an application in the Registry of the Supreme Court, for an early hearing of our cases. Notice of it has been sent to all Petitioners’ AORs. Now Registrar shall place it before the CJI, he will decide the date & court to hear the early hearing plea. Let us wait for a date. S.K. Awasthi. "Important :- Date line of 29-9-2026 to 13-10-2026 of WP (C ) 1263/ 2026 tagging to C.A.No 3467/ 2024 is sandwiched between the 2 dates of communications, 29-9-2026 of AIIPA & 16-10-2026 of Federation of Retired LIC Class-I Officers' Associations. In view of all these facts, our Pensioner friends may read between the lines, join the dots, find out the missing links and come to a conclusionH. A. JOSHI
GIC case is tagged with our case in SC. This means it is delaying tactics and our case
needs further 2 to 3 years to finalize. Meantime thousands retirees will go to heaven.
S Raja Sekhar
Weekly list from 27th and Daily list for 28th are published. In weekly list our cases,
including New India case, are at Sl No 150 of Court 8. They are not in daily list SN
Supreme Court Registry has been playing with the psyche of LIC Pensioners for the last few
months .
Our learned counsels may react/act/do the needful Silence is not always more eloquent than speech. Raghavan : SNji AIIPA counsel has done his part We await others ‘ action programme.
Parvtathi: I don't know why so many cases are listed when there's no chance of them being heard. It’s certainly a cruel joke.
Sarvabhowman : Not just a cruel joke, it certainly looks like a vengeful desire to hurt.
DGK
In February 2026, Hon'ble CJI Surya Kant raised concerns about administrative irregularities-
such as similar cases being assigned to different benches, noting that some long-serving Registry staff judges as temporary and themselves as permanent decision makers.( The Hindu-26/2/ 2026. ) CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, criticized the Supreme Court Registry as " nasty " and accused its officials of acting like a " Super Chief Justice of India "( The Economic Times 4-5-26) This sort of situation is ironical in view of the fact that the Chief Justice of India is called the “ Master of the Roster " having the sole administrative power to constitute benches and allocate to different judges.( VIDHI Centre for Legal Policy Blog dt 18 February 2026.) As
far as the learned Counsels are concerned, they are expected to ' act ' as per the 'instructions or the brief of their clients '.Evidently, they would never exceed the ' brief or instructions’ if any. So we cannot question their ‘silence ‘ which is infact the 'echo or reflection ' of the silence( eloquent or otherwise) of their clients- Civil Appellants/ Case Managers/ Pensioners Assns. If you want you can question them irrespective of their known or likely response OR BE SILENT ! ( Speech is silver, Silence is golden, true, but for our mundane daily life, what we require small changes aka coins. But then, we are in advanced and developed digital India. Hence we have to depend on UPI only, since even coins are becoming a rare commodity ! not much justice in this world. Only laws favouring some. world has always been run by
rich men. They can buy their way out of any mistake. They don't just take more than their share. They
take the entire buffet table.
H. A. JOSHI
We should ask Dipke, Sourabh Das or Bora to intervene in our pension case.
Sarvabhowman : CJP is digital noise. Though they are good people, intelligent and I wish them all godspeed in life, they may be suffering from grandiose delusions. Our own leaders are quite capable.
Ragland
Sir, the days of collective bargaining popularized by the aiiea and others are over. Now
politicking is one way. Another is through courts if we are lucky. The second way is costly and time consuming game. Political solutions are easy, cheap and fast. This has been amply proved by the third option for pension obtained by bms without bloodshed. Mr jaitley was kind enough to listen to them. The path breaking 1985 wage revision was also due to political reasons the ruling party feels panicky or jittery about the election results it may go in for some handout, ex gratia or wage settlement. So, we'll get some offer(offering?) around 2028 or so. has been well documented that many retirees underspend and numerous families have way more money in their accounts than when they retired ten years ago despite systematic withdrawls. This trend applies to well prepared affluent retirees with substantial nest eggs; doesn't apply to lower income retirees. Of course, for many people, medical expenses will be very heavy and they may find it difficult
to manage with their pension. Imagine
the situation for people without index linked pension. That applies to 90 percent of the senior citizens.Home care for very sick people is an issue which is difficult to manage. No insurance will cover the cost.
S Raja Sekhar
While commenting on New India Assn case getting tagged to our cases Sri Mahadevan
mentioned about National Insurance retirees too filing some case in SC. I
managed to get the details of the said case. It is not a WP under Art 32. It is SLP(C) filed against a case lost in Madurai Bench of Madras HC. They filed SLP against that Judgement. The SLP Nos are 18799 & 18800 of 2026. They were filed in May 2026 against the Judgement dated 19-1-2026 of DB of Madurai Bench. The SLPs are currently getting listed in Registrar's Court. They were last listed on 12-10-2026 and next computer generated date is 26-10-2026. Litigation in Madurai Bench started way back in 2011 with filing of WPs by few individual pensioners (like Singla.) Single Judge dismissed the WP in 2015 and against that Appeals were filed in 2015 itself. Those Appeals too were dismissed by the DB on 19-1-2026, against which SLPs are filed.They too may ask for tagging with our cases when the SLPs come up before a regular Bench in the days
to come. We may have to wait and watch. I
have downloaded and read the Single Judge Order dt. 17-6-2015 and DB Order dt 19-1-2026. Both have categorically held that it is a policy issue and Court can not intervene to order upgradation.Manoj k Badola:
But who FILED IA in sc to CLUB WP1263/2026 to our case
gov,party itself,or sc suo motu, why our associations are silent on it,it can delay our case which is at final stage of disposal whether notices for clubbing are issued to other parties,so that they can file objection jointly.DGK.
Under constitutional law, Supreme Court cannot abdicate its core responsibility of judicial review
simply because a matter involves a government policy. If an executive or legislative action violates
the Constitution or infringes upon fundamental rights, the Court is duty bound to intervene. However, courts do observe self imposed limits under the principles of separation of powers, distinguishing between a policy's wisdom and it's constitutionality. However there is no blanket immunity, labelling an action a ' ‘policy decision’does not shield it from judicial review, if it violates provisions. The Court will strike down a policy if it is unconstitutional, violates fundamental rights,is plagued by manifest arbitrariness or exceeds the legal authority ( ultra vires ) of the govt. When the citizens' basic rights are at stake, the Court cannot use the political or policy nature of the issue as an excuse to avoid its role as the custodian of the Constitution. The above is the answer I got, when I posed the following question, " Can the Supreme Court escape its responsibility of determining whether a particular action of the Legislature or Executive stands the scrutiny of its Judicial Review in determining whether it is Constitutional or Unconstitutional by refusing
to dwell on it on a mere excuse of it being the so called " policy issue " of the Govt.
The above said question . I posed to say, Google search / Chat GPT / AI or may be a combo of it. To me the answer appears to be legally very sound and in line with my thinking and analysis.
S Raja Sekhar
The IA for tagging is filed by the Writ Petitioner only Badolaji. This is very much clear from
the case details of WP(C) 1263/2026 on SC website and order dt 13.10 2026. Sri.
DGK's views backed by the replies by various AI tools may be valid. But the fact remains that both single Judge and a DB authoritatively held so duly supported by decided case laws. The single judge order dt 17.6.2015 discusses umpteen number of decided case laws. The DB too concurs with the single judge's application of case laws. I think it is worth reading both the judgements. Particularly the manner in which the DB Judgement dt..19.1.2026 rejects the arguments of a retired GM of 1997 getting less pension than a clerk retired in 2018has to be taken note to prepare ourselves.
DGK
In any high profile cases, it is not uncommon that the decided case laws are cited by both Petitioners/
Appellants and Respondents and it is left to the judges to decide on which to rely upon or which
reject. Many a times, such decisions of the judges / or bench can be both subjective and / or objective and at times, not free from biases. Especially, if such decisions are of high court/s, even if they are based on Supreme Court decided cases, Supreme has need not necessarily agree with such decisions. There are many instances, where Supreme court has viewed it own angles and wisdom and has overruled H C decisions, with its own reasoning.its own angle. With all this, once the Supreme Court pronounces its final judgement/ decision, the remedy left to the the losing party is to file a Review Petition, failing which Curative Petition, in rarest of rare occasions In criminal cases, the provision of seeking ' pradon' from the President of India In civil matters, there is an outside chance of Legislature / Parliament, providing some relief through amendments in ' appropriate ' cases.
Here also, we may have to give margins, for Supreme Court judgements, during the era of " COMMITTED
JUDICIARY " and rarest period like " National Emergency ".
We have seen many such Supreme Court judgements, which have been reversed by subsequent government/s successfully.In the final analysis, it is well
said that the SUPREME COURT DECISION IS FINAL BECAUSE IT IS FROM SUPREME COURT IRRESPECTIVE
OF THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION AS TO ITS BEING RIGHT OR WRONG !
Manoj k Badola:
The past history of Indian judiciary since independence, had been glorious, with its landmark
judgements, maintaining separation of powers as different govts tried to control judiciary by making
amendments in the constitution ,but now judiciary is appears to be compromised and itself aggrieved by judicial capture, lost its
independence, very unfortunate for the country.
S Raja Sekhar
I agree with Sri DGK. It is ultimately the decision of SC which marks the end of any dispute/issue
whether one perceives it as right or wrong. Getting favourable verdict is only one part of the story. These
days one gets doubts about implementation of the SC verdict also. SC Verdict in S30 Pensioners Assn case is a live example
for that.
whole point is what constitute basic rights. Recently the supreme court said children have a fundamental
right to access the internet. How many of us will agree
you ask 90 per cent of the people in India whether pension revision is a basic right they will laugh.
Manoj k Badola:
Right to access internet is a fundamental rights,but it is not absolute, it can be restricted if
necessary by
govt. Many countries banned socia media for children,internet in itself is not bad.
Parvathi : Actually, no right is absolute. Secondly the list of fundamental rights cannot go on increasing because
some judge thinks so .
Manoj k Badola : Recently goi made finance act 2025, empowering goi to revise ccs pension rules1972 for old pensioners, with an evil design to make various slabs of pension, pensioners associations smelling a rat,filed a case in sc.listed for hearing on 3rd November 2026, if pension updation provision removed from ccs pension rules 1972,can we then rely on ccs pension rules in our case? you talking about rule6if Judge do not think so,it is need of the hour,right to education,right to healthy environment etc also new fundamental right,our constitution is dynamic and changeable with time yes ,all pleadings would fall flat, if goi changes its ccs pension rules 1972 for old pensioners
course the constitution is dynamic. But every judge in the
country cannot keep changing it
a procedure
and a process to do it
should also be involved case should be more on technicalities than on fundamental rights technicalities, I mean the letter of the law, rules etcDGK.
Yes, I agree with Sri S. Raja Sekhar about the doubts over implementing Supreme Court judgements. Apart
from S-30 pensioners case verdict of S C which Central Govt has tried to circumvent, there are
two other important cases. 1 ) The Tribunal Reforms Act 2021 where S C repeatedly struck down execurive heavy selection committee
and other provisions violating judicial independence and separation of powers, but Govt re introduced many of the
same core provisions which were struck down by S C. On 19-11-25, S C bench struck down key provisions of 2021
Act, sharply rebuking the Centre for what it judiciary and the government will be at loggerheads most of the time or
so it appears termed impermissible " legislative overruling " directing the establishment of an independent National
Tribunals Commission. 2 ) Chief Election Commissioner& other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 :- IN March 2023,
Supreme Court Constitutional Bench ruled that the Selection Panel must include P.M., Leader of Opposition and
Chief Justice of India. In 2023, Govt circumvented this judgment through passing an Act in Parliament replacing CJI
with Union Cabinet Minister nominated by P.M.
Now currently this 2023 Act of Parliament is again challenged in S C for bypassing the spirit of 2023 Constitutional Bench Verdict. So this increasing tendency of the Govt to overturn and
circumvent the important landmark judgements is indeed annoying and worrisome which is an attack on the very
institution of Supreme Court.
Manoj k Badola:
In cec selection committee case,cji chadrachud himself made a scope for govt saying in judgement
that
CJI will be in committee till the govt makes a law,saurabh das ,leader of gen z,exposed
:
Chandrachud in his
report
by pointing out a unique such pattern in his judgements ,that's why judges are at fear by his journalism, no doubt
his father was an excellent judge .Saurab
das is a talented young journalist, an rti activist, investigative journalist publishing many reports on current status of judiciary in india.
Sarvabhowman: When the PM visited the CJI’s house and performed arti in his house on the occasion of Ganesh
Chaturthi, it came as no brainer to conclude that democratic checks and balances are going to take a back seat.
Why whine now ?
S Raja Sakhar : You are right Sarvabhowmanji. The signals were loud and clear for quite some time.
________________€__________