Re: WHY ANY LIST OF MEMBERS, IF SUBMITTED BY CLASS I FEDERATION CAN BE DISPUTED?

WHY ANY LIST OF MEMBERS, IF SUBMITTED BY CLASS I FEDERATION CAN BE DISPUTED? LIC on 6/7/2015 thought it fit to call for a list of members of the Class I Federation for payment of interim relief by the former to the eligible members of the latter as per the Supreme Court order dated 7/5/2015. Only legal experts can comment on the legal validity of not only the action of LIC calling for such a list, but also the validity of the list (if submitted) per se. To me the following issues seem to arise out of the LIC's action of calling for the list: The list has been called for by LIC long after the expiry of the deadline fixed by the Supreme Court for payment of interim relief of 20 % of amounts due to the respondent-employees (petitioners) in terms of the impugned judgment of the High Court. The parameters stipulated by LIC in terms of the cut-off date of membership are arbitrary and are in the nature of adding more conditions to those in   the Supreme Court order dated 7/5/2015. LIC was not right in calling for the list when Delhi High Court had allowed the Federation's writ petition and application of its judgment in rem. The Federation of Retired Class I Officers' Associations is not a registered body nor is it recognized as an association by the LIC.In such a situation even if LIC is going to accept the list for payment of interim relief, unless an audit is conducted for certifying the correctness of the list, the list cannot be considered authentic for the purpose of payment of interim relief by LIC.  Even if an audit is conducted for certifying the correctness of the list, I wonder whether it will be acceptable as the criteria specified by LIC for identifying the beneficiaries can be challenged legally. The Federation might have come into being before 2007, but being an aggregation of affiliated Associations, it naturally grows over a period of time. Restricting the eligibility to interim relief to only members of the affiliate Associations as on the date of filing the writ petition in Delhi High Court can by no stretch of imagination be reasonable and fair to the members who have joined their Associations after the cut-off date with all good faith and expectations from the Federation. LIC, might have impliedly obtained a temporary stay of the impugned judgments of the High Courts for a period of six weeks from 7/5/2015, but with LIC not implementing the said Supreme Court order before 18/6/2015, not only LIC is liable to be charged for contempt of court, but also the refusal to stay of the three High Court judgments has been restored. So now what the LIC owes to the eligible petitioners is not 20% of dues, but the 100% of amounts due to them in terms of the High Court judgments. With Delhi High Court having pronounced its judgment making it applicable as in rem, the amounts payable will have to be paid to all similarly placed pensioners beyond the membership of the affiliated Associations of the Federation. In my view, all the above mentioned points indicate that both LIC and the Federation may find themselves in a great dilemma. May be, even the issue   of the list called for by LIC may need to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court on 23/9/2015! Greetings. C H Mahadevan