IIN THE DHC ON 20 FEB - HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION'S EFFORTS REWARDED

Dear Shri Sahni. 

My report composed late last night, for information of your readers:

I report with a sense of satisfaction that our hard work for the last three years or more and the copious material  generated by Sri Mahadevan, through continuous research, have paid off when the arguments put forth by Sri Nidhesh Gupta, on behalf of the Hyderabad Associations, have been accepted and duly noted  by the Bench, clinching a few critical points in our favor for the first time. Some submissions were resisted initially by Justice Khanna, but after being pressed by us with more data and stubborn logic, the Bench eventually yielded and who ever watched the proceedings and is un-biased, should have no problem to concur with my reading of the day's outcome. 

Coming straight to the point, I believe we made the Bench agree that 

1. Our Pension Rules are akin to CCS Pension Rules and therefore, not extending the benefit of Pension Revision with Wage Revision, to us amounts to discrimination. Extensive references were made today also with advantage, to V, VI & VII Pay Commission Recommendations implemented through Office Memorandums as a result of Nakara Judgement. Sufficient material is filed in support and taken in to records. This was necessary to make the relief to be granted to be free from ambiguity.  

2. The argument that different Pension rates solely on the basis of date of Retirement is arbitrary, is driven home successfully. The contention of LIC that Nakara Judgement is inapplicable in our case is squarely demolished. 

3. Our most notable achievement today was to establish and secure Justice Khanna's concurrence (via the visible nod and the body language) that upward revision of Pension is a right flowing in our case from our Pension Rules themselves. We relied heavily and argued in depth that Rule 13 (b) clearly confers the right "to revise upwards" We successfully established that the proviso "subject to availability of additional sums in the Fund" is a reference to Rule 5 (3) and does not in any way dilute the right for upward revision. We could score this point by explaining how Rule 5 (3) mandates LIC to make the Funds available and how the role, function and obligation of the Pension Trust is independent of LIC's statutory obligation in that regard. On an earlier occasion some weeks ago, when I attempted this argument, Mr Gupta was not fully convinced of the inherent advantage we had in Rule 13 (b) and he preferred (rightly) to play safe and not press for it then. Thanks to his openness to persuasion (a special trait for the Hyderabad Counsel Team) he owned it so well today and it made considerable difference. 

4. Yet another exclusive of the Hyderabad Association, if I may call it, Pension at Government rates to Chairman & MD and denying the same to the rest of the Pensioners, is projected by us most systematically as an instance of flagrant violation of Art 14, being discriminatory. Whether my other co-Petitioners agree or dispute, this was 'our Hyderabad's cherished discovery. Mr Mahadevan and I kept it for long as the Brahmastra in our arsenal. Justice Khanna accepted our submission but not before severe grilling and only after we emphatically convinced him that  even after elevation as MD & Chairman they continue to be LIC Officers only, that they are paid from LIC Pension Fund and that all Chairmen (and MDs) are insiders (after TA Pai and KR Puri).  When Justice Khanna shared his impression  that Chairman is from the IAS, I was allowed to correct and say 'not after Sri M R Bhide, ICS' around 1960'. For how long is the Post filled from insiders, was the next question - for very long but certainly after the Pension Rules came in to force, was my answer. Unfortunately, it didn't occur to me to prompt Mr Gupta to say that there was discrimination even among the past Chairmen. (There was an arbitrary cut off date there also). 

5. To contest LIC's claim in its Affidavit that it has to shell down Rs. 8297 Crores to meet the cost of up gradation, we flashed an  Annexure from our Affidavit to show that Rs  5135 Crores out of it is inclusive of future wage Revisions and it should be compared only with present value of Future income of LIC which Sri Mahadevan had estimated at a whopping Rs 78 Lakh Crores. The statement contained the basis of the estimate also, the same as LIC's assumptions. Justice Khanna, very well informed in numbers as he is, does not easily buy the argument. He insisted it does not take future wage revisions in to account. On our not relenting, Justice Khanna directly asked Ms Madhuri, ED (Actuarial) twice, 'have you factored  future wage revisions in arriving at Rs 5,135 Crores?'. She first said it includes DA increase. Justice Khanna repeated his question, ' No, I am asking about future wage revisions'. She replied coolly, yes, we have factored wage revisions at the rate of 3% rise every year i.e., 15% for five-year revision. Next, Justice Khanna liberally conceded and said, yes, Mr Gupta you are correct. Pl proceed. My Counsel team and I mentally saluted Mr Mahadevan sitting before his Desktop, at Hyderabad as per our tacit understanding for being on 'hotline'. 

6. A most unexpected question came suddenly from Justice Khanna. What is the Minimum guaranteed Pension in LIC? I was not ready with the answer and told Sri Nidhesh Gupta, 'I will give you in a short time'. and murmured it is not much, a few hundreds to a few thousand. NG doesn't entertain such approximations and told the Bench, he would get back. Justice Khanna continued the topic and said it should be some Ten Thousand. While it was being checked with LIC people, I sent an SMS and an urgent eMail to Sri  Mahadevan, then and there from my iPhone & iPad, requesting for the copy of the C O Circular. Next minute, I got a reply SMS stating that he is emailing the circular to me. In three minutes flat, the CO circular dated 23 May 2016 is on my 'favorite device' and the contents were read out by Mr Gupta, to a bewildered Judge, who did not suppress  his shock on learning that it is a paltry Rs.3010/- for those who retired after 1.8.2012. Mr Nidhesh Gupta lost no time and grabbed the occasion to state that My Lord, this directly attracts Art 21. Judge asked LIC to comeback and inform what is the minimum to each class. This question from the Bench was providential (not thought of by us) our being able to produce the CO circular in real time and the benefit that flowed was significant. Let nobody ridicule me henceforth for the device I am glued to. 

We did attempt without success at least for now, that Pension cost does not reckon as Management Expense for the purpose of Statutory cost Ratio. It is an outgo for sure but forms part of Life Fund being a Retirement Benefit. My RTI info was rejected by the Judge and said the question was wrongly framed. Let me confess that when I raised the RTI query, none of this was in my mind. It was all post Dec 8, enlightenment. I wouldn't like to give up but will handle differently. 

To conclude for now, the day ended for me with a tremendous 'feel good' factor. But let me also warn myself that we didn't make it 100%, yet. Possibly, we won 90%.  Justice Khanna is highly obsessed with adverse impact on Bonus to Policyholders. We have valuable material with us to get over. We will do it for sure. 

Mr Gupta's enquiry with the Bench before the Court rose, if we may make written submissions, was a considered and 'discussed among ourselves' strategic decision. It was readily agreed to by the Judge and we got ten days time granted. The signal is welcome. If the judge decides the case in our favor, he would borrow from our own arguments from the the written submissions. His job becomes easy. 

Let us hope his job is made easy. 

God bless LIC Pensioners. 

My apologies for the report being this long. 

Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla

Camp: New Delhi. 

Sent from my iPad