Our Pension Cases in SC

Dear Sir,

Re: LIC’s Pensioners cases

Our cases were listed for 11/10/2018 and therefore, AIRIEF team (S/S SS Saxena, G Krishnaswamy, Pramod Bhatnagar and MP Agnihotri) visited Delhi on 9^th Oct 2018 to meet our advocates and attend the court. On 9^th evening, we met our Sr Advocate Shri KTS Tulsi at around 4 pm. We expressed our concern over delay and requested him to see how arguments may take place at the earliest possible and any delay due to request for adjournment  (it was our apprehension only at that point of time) or any other probable side issues be avoided. We wanted continuous hearings for final verdict at the earliest possible. By that time we were not aware of the compliance report of LIC. Shri Tulsi took note of our priority and informed that with regard to faulty compliance of interim order dated 30/7/2018 we would lodge our protest and request the Hon’ble bench to allow arguments for final order. Shri Tulsi stated that our issue is pension updation with wage revision, which will resolve all the discriminations. Next day, we met with Shri V Shekhar, who was an advocate of Shri R K Garg chamber when the bonus case of class III and IV was contested in SC in 1981. Shri Shekhar informed that he is familiar with amendments made in LIC Act 1956 with regard to terms and conditions of services of the employees. He has studied our current case on DR and Pension parity. It’s a case having merits but complex in nature and would require the judges to give sufficient time to comprehend and resolve the issues. LIC service rules and pension rules are statutory provisions and they cannot violate fundamental rights of equality and equity. The disparity in pension is writ large and violates Article 14. Delhi High Court has rejected pension revision relying on the judgements of Indian Ex-Service League case and Krishen Kumar Case which were delivered by the constitutional bench of SC. DHC had not considered the later developments and the precedents into account. Sri Shekhar discussed various plans to counter the erroneous conclusions of DHC. From the discussions, we could know that Shri Shekhar has deep knowledge of our issues. On the point of immediate arguments on our pension updation, he opined that it is difficult to say that the Bench will allow final arguments immediately as LIC has prayed for more time (by that time LIC’s compliance was received). He stated that we will request for earliest arguments for final order but it will depend on the bench as to how much time would be allowed to LIC for full compliance. Generally, final arguments are not allowed until any interim order is not complied with.

On 11/10/2018, our team attended the court proceedings. Representatives of almost all the petitioners (except Shri KML Asthana) and their advocates were present. From LIC, Shri Siddharth Mohanty, ED (Legal) was also there along with other officials. We could know from some sources that though UOI representatives were not there, but UOI has made its efforts tooth and nail to counter petitioners move. Sr advocates viz. S/S KTS Tulsi, Vijay Hansariya, V Shekhar, Savla, and few others reached the court room in time. Shri R K Singh arranged mutual discussions among all the Sr Advocates during short time they got in the court room. After a few mention cases our case came up. LIC’s advocate emphatically placed before the bench that an amount of Rs. 23,08,22,942 has been paid to 3630 pensioners towards arrears of dearness relief as per DHC order date 17/4/2017. An amount of Rs. 7,76,174 is paid to 56 pensioners towards arrears of minimum pension. It was further stated that Corporation is committed for payment and as the calculation of the minimum pension would require some more time in view of the complex nature of calculation for which 8 weeks time is requested. All the Sr Advocates opposed LIC’s request for allowing 8 weeks time pointing out that more than I and half years time has elapsed and LIC is still taking the plea of complex calculation which is nothing other than dilatory tactics. Shri Tulsi stressed that the case is of seniors citizens; more than 16000 pensioners have left this world without relief and therefore arguments for final order should be allowed on pension revision issue immediately, which will resolve all discrepancies. The other Sr Advocates pointed out that LIC’s compliance is faulty and not in accordance with DHC order dated 27/4/2018. LIC’s advocate stated that the petitioners have filed SLPs for more amount. He insisted for allowing 8 weeks time for the compliance. The Bench allowed 6 weeks time to LIC to make payment to all the eligible pensioners as per DHC order. On pointing out by Shri Tulsi for early final hearing, Justice Lokur clarified that final hearing will be held on next date which will be after 6 weeks.

While talking to the advocates (during the conference), it was appearing that some time will be allowed by the Bench to LIC and the advocates will press for allowing minimum time. It was also decided that on the issue of erroneous compliance, it will only be brought to the notice of the bench and for this reason any other steps will not be taken which may sidetrack our main issue. Advocates for all the petitioners struck to it and submitted almost similar and supplementing arguments.

We have hit one more stroke to crack the hard issue. We could have detailed talks with the advocates who refined the legal points and prepared better for the arguments. It is strange that the case is being fought by UOI through LIC without coming out openly. UOI, perhaps knows well that it will be difficult to them to defend their stand and therefore resorting to dilatory and unethical tactics to harass and torture the senior citizens.   

Our advocate Shri R K Singh is submitting shortly a written objection to LIC compliance submitted in SC on 10/10/2018, with the request to allow main arguments for final order so that all the discriminations and objections are resolved finally without more delay.     

Aforesaid reporting is as per my observations and understanding and any omission/commission may be effected by those having more details.

M P Agnihotri.