MC JAIN case - A Retrospect

To all those who are 86 in number  whose names are uploaded in PENSIONERS VOICE AND SOUND TRACK who are the beneficiaries in terms of the Jaipur HC judgment in WP 1454/ 2009 dated 13-9-2012.

So tired we are in pursuing the legal battle many lost track of what is known as MC Jain case. Jain fought valiantly won in JAIPUR but alas what he got was a pittance of RS 12000 or so after spending much more towards legal expenses. Thanks to LIC for being so gracious. LIC true to their nature appealed and lost and the stay did not sustain. At this juncture I raised a query under RTI Act that in the light of the outcome of the Jaipur HC SB order in WP 1454/2009 of MC Jain V LIC OF INDIA why my salary was not revised as I was very much in service on 1-8-1992 when the revision of pay scale came into effect I got the reply thus : " However in the said case the Corporation has preferred  SLP before the HON'BLE SC ……… hence the matter is pending before the HON'BLE SC ". Thereafter we did not know what has taken shape and where we are as we are focusing on other important legal matters concerning large number of pensioners. I t surprised me when I have come to know that the SLP NO 16713/2014 of LIC stands dismissed  as early as 2-7-2014 and was last updated on  27-5-2016 in the SC website..Forgetting for a moment this time lag which has seen some of our brethren having left this world unfortunately LIC has to refix the salary as at 1-8-1992 and pay the consequential benefits whose names are in the uploaded list as prepared by Shri CH Mahadevan. According to the court order LIC has to pay 10 % simple interest on the arrears due which fact should not go out of our sight. There are two important points which are to be borne in mind :

1.In the 'Gratuity case' SC in their judgment dated 4-9-2012 in iv CPC IA NO 9 IN TP (C ) NO 56 of 2007 clarified that their order shall govern  all similarly situated officers  who have not approached the court and also those who have filed Writ petitions which are pending in various High courts.

2. In SC appeal  (civil ) NO  1289/2007 it was held that revision of pay  scales and other allowances are technical in nature. When a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefits which otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be applicable to other groups.

In the light of the above two judgments by the apex court LIC should expedite reopening these cases who are similarly placed vis-à-vis  MC Jain case. More the delay more the 10 % interest payable by the appellant which is not our intention.

The Association to which we belong should take up the matter with CO in right earnest. Should this lengthy message get a berth in the popular PC I thank the Editor for being so benevolent in accommodating

R.K.Viswanathan 

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR;

IN THE CASE OF SHRI MC JAIN, LIC ALSO PAID RS 87231 AS THE DIFFERENCE OF COMMUTATION FROM THE EARLIER DATE OF COMMUTATION AT THE FACTOR OF 9.81 YEARS AND RECOVERED 180 MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS  OF RS 741 EACH.  INSTALLMENTS OF ADDITIONAL COMMUTED PENSION. THUS LIC 

PROFITED TO THE EXTENT OF 5.19 YEARS OF ADDITIONAL  COMMUTED PENSION .

Thus a sum of Rs. 741x12 months x 15 years = Rs. 1,33,380 has been deducted as against the alleged payment of Rs. 87,231=00 AND LIC PROFITED BY RS 46149.