Sri CHMahadevan's query[2]
Dear Mr Kishore,
The Gratuity case was also fought by an Association. When it was decided in favour of the Association,LIC did not restrict it to the members of the Association.
The Delhi WP was also filed by an Association. It related to anomalies in DR for a restricted group of pre-August 1997 retirees. It was also ordered in rem by Delhi HC.So now what is the justification for calling for the list of members when the retirees affected by the faulty pension DR formula extended beyond the members of the Class I Federation?When it has been recognized that there is a general anomaly in the pension rules, should not LIC find it proper to pay the interim relief as per Supreme Court order dt 7/5/2015 to all pre -August 1997 retirees?
In case of Jaipur & Chandigarh, the WPs were filed by identified number of retirees, whereas the Delhi WP was filed by a representative body of Pensioners which included pre-August 1997 retirees.
In the operative part of the unstayed judgment, Jaipur Bench SJ said that LIC was directed to take steps to implement the Board Resolution. Can LIC implement the Board Resolution only to a limited number of affected retirees?
These are,in my opinion, the questions that arise in respect of LIC's action.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
