On
the point mentioned under item( 4) in the circular of NOIP dt 7/6/2015,it is surprising that a
willing Personnel Department is
constrained by the possible objections
of the CO legal department to extending
the just and legitimate benefits to all
the 85 odd similarly placed retirees as
Mr M C Jain. It is unfortunate that LIC as a prestigious socially purposive financial
institution seems to be bent upon winning the legal battle rather than removing
injustice that has been meted out to its
own retired officers based on the
decision of the highest court of the country.
Legal
department’s role is to conduct the cases referred to it by other departments
on matters before the courts. But when a final verdict is clearly delivered in
the Apex court, it is for the department concerned to objectively study the implications
of the verdict and act to implement the judgment without discrimination.
In my
view it is the duty of the CO Personnel dept to decide whether further scope
for litigation is necessary and desirable and convince the legal dept about the
desirability of and need for avoiding unnecessary litigation at the cost of the
policyholders’ money. Assuming that the total liability towards all the 85 odd
similarly placed officers works out to about Rs 2 crores ,LIC as an enlightened
and responsible financial
institution has to examine whether it is
desirable to spend a huge legal
expenditure at the cost of the
policyholders’ money.
Even
for Mr M C Jain LIC has not paid the correct amount due in terms of the
judgment. What has been paid to him is not even 6 % of what he is entitled to
get as per the Jaipur judgment if all the consequential benefits arising out of
the judgment are duly taken into account.
The
only way in which Mr Jain and the 85 similarly placed retired officers can obtain
justice is through the judiciary although all or most of them are in their eighties.
The similarly placed officers can join together and file a writ petition in the
appropriate court citing the dismissal of LIC’s SLP by the Supreme Court in July 2014.
Incidentally,
as I have been pointing out time and again, all the Class I officers who were
in service as Class I Officers as at 1/8/1992(including the present Chairman
& MDs) are legally entitled to receive arrears of salary for the period
from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993.Most of the present retired Class I officers fall in
this category. It is worthwhile that all the Associations take up this matter
legally independent of the cases being fought in the Supreme Court for
upgradation of pension. In fact four of the original petitioners in the
Chandigarh case are similarly placed as Mr M C Jain and their benefits will
further be enhanced on upgradation if their Basic Pay gets revised on 1/8/1992
resulting in consequent enhancement of pension from 1/11/1993.
Experience
with LIC indicates that it is neither too early nor too late to seek legal remedy
for injustices being suffered collectively.
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan
