Re: BEWARE IN SUPREME COURT

BEWARE FEDERATIONS OF LIC PENSIONERS.- IN SUPREME COURT ON 18.11.2015-TURNING POINT- Referring to the bulk mail addressed by Mr H K Aggarwal,it has become necessary for me to respond to his views  expressed in the mail. No doubt the Apex Court is hearing on the merits of the pensioners deserving 100% of dues and not 20% by way of interim relief. Theoretically, the Supreme Court may order 100% (if upgradaton of pension is upheld) or allow the Civil Appeals of LIC with zero benefits for pensioners. But the very fact that pending the final verdict the Supreme Court Bench chose to order payment by LIC of the interim relief of  20% of the amount due to the respondent-pensioners as per the impugned judgments of the High Courts goes to indicate that the Apex Court could see a prima facie case for pensioners. That being the case, the manner  in and the spirit with which LIC  is implementing the  interim order dt 7/5/2015 of the Supreme Court cannot be viewed in isolation  from the manner and spirit  in which LIC interprets the LIC Board Resolution  and the three High Court judgments. It is true that the case to be heard on 18/11/2015 is a part heard one, but if the casual manner in which LIC has credited some amounts  to some of the pensioners'  bank accounts is allowed to go unchallenged ,LIC may only get further emboldened to take advantage of the acquiescence of the respondents  by paying wrong inadequate amounts , thereby weakening our case in the final hearing.AS things stand the recipients of the amounts in their bank accounts from LIC have officially no information  as to what this amount represents  and how it has been arrived at. That it is towards interim relief is virtually a matter of  hearsay spread by circulars  and communications from sources( including word of mouth) other than  from the source of payment. When LIC  has been ordered to pay 20% of the due amounts and when it is clear that what has been paid  to the Jaipur petitioners is not 20% of the due amount as per the Jaipur Single judge Bench judgment of 12/1/2010 and also in the absence of any letter from LIC to the recipients and the calculation sheets in support of the amounts credited, if it is accepted by the Jaipur petitioners  that LIC has complied with the interim order dt 7/5/2015 of the Supreme Court,LIC will be  allowed to get away with non-compliance of the Supreme  Court order  and  their own whimsical manner of calculations for payment made bearing no relationship  to what is due in terms of the Jaipur judgment. Further it is only under the Jaipur case that there are 5 post July 1997 retirees which is not the case under the Delhi & Jaipur HC judgments. The very fact the W P no 654/2007 was also allowed by the Jaipur HC clearly indicates that upgradation of pension is also allowed to all the 27 petitioners. If LIC's act of crediting amounts to only 22 petitioners (I don't know whether any IR was paid to the family pensioners towards family pension)-that too an inadequate amount- to the exclusion of the 5 post –July 1997 retiree petitioners is meekly accepted by the Jaipur petitioners, it is tantamount to not only compromising the interest of post-july 1997 petitioners, but even betraying them. It should be remembered that nowhere did the Supreme Court state that only pre-August 1997 retirees only should be paid the interim relief. Ironically, even though all the 31 Chandigarh petitioners belonged to the pre-August 1997 retirees' category, they have firmly stood by their claim for upgraded pension and arrears as brought out clearly in the Punjab & Haryana HC judgment and even resisted the temptation for receiving a measly amount by way of interim relief from LIC. I feel that we should not be under the notion that merely raising the issue of IR will delay the case. Even otherwise there is no guarantee that substantial progress will be achieved in the hearing on 18/11/2015.For one thing, the SLP of UOI has to be decided by the Supreme Court. In all probability, the Court may grant leave for appeal condoning delay and adjourn the case for a future date. But  before adjournment  , the Jaipur counsel  can definitely try to  seize any opportunity to submit before the Hon'ble Bench  the fact of non-compliance by LIC  in the interest of all the 27 Jaipur petitioners if they so choose. But the most important thing to be remembered is that Jaipur petitioners can ill afford to commit any mistake in the Supreme Court as was committed in the contempt case at Jaipur. Greetings. C H Mahadevan