DEAR FRIENDS, CONGRATS, YOUR BLOG CROSSED 4005000 HITS ON 12.10.2025 THE BLOG WAS LAUNCHED ON 23.11.2014,HAVE A GREAT DAY
VISIT 'PENSIONERS VOICE & SOUND TRACK' WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Friday, 1 April 2016

Supreme Court Happenings dated 31.03.2016 Version Part 3 from Sh. Murty

Courtesy: Shri R B Kishore
 
Friday, April 01, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty

Dear Editor,

Some genuine doubts and well-meaning queries

I came across a couple of well-meaning queries in the PC on yesterday’s developments in the Supreme Court.  I am able to answer them as they pertain to facts.

1.    Was a reference to Delhi High Court (instead of disposal by SC itself) not resisted?

Ans. It was stoutly and repeatedly opposed by Mr Nidhesh Gupta. He offered to have the matters given a short adjournment, so that ‘we will file an Affidavit or a Petition under Art 32 with necessary amended prayers, keeping the observations made by your Lordship’.  NG also highlighted the inevitable additional delay in the matter involving Petitioners who are in their eighties. Not agreed to because, the points of law vehemently raised by LIC Counsel should be addressed and resolved at the original stage and not in the Appeals for the first time. Plus it was an escape route to overcome LIC Counsel’s strong objection that HC gave an ‘out of the hat’ Order. As far as we are concerned, we got a fresh lease of life and can try to put the derailed vehicle back on track and make it move.

2. Appendix IV is also included in reference to Delhi HC.?

Ans: Yes, That actually is the main reference. It was opposed by NG. But in vain. When it was being discussed, lot of confusion prevailed. It was referred because of the confusion created by LIC Counsel. Even now it can be a problem area because; I heard NG mentioning that we have no quarrel with it. Our grievance is elsewhere. I am waiting for Mr Mahadevan’s interpretation.


1 Apr 16, 06:57 AM

M Sreenivasa Murty: Hopefully the Order should get uploaded by EOD. As one of our Sr Pensioners said, LIC closed its business for the year yesterday and ours just started. Once the Order is out, we can expect reams of Posts and relentless discussions. Blogs can open special editions.On a serious Note, we need to start working without losing a single day, to realize (for whomever it applies) whatever is ordered, without allowing LIC to go in to 'destroy enemy' mode as it did Post- 7 May Order. Mr C H Mahadevan is traveling South and is expected to return this afternoon, Hyderabad Association has convened an emergency informal General Body Meeting on Saturday 4,00 PM. to take a number of decisions and chalk out a plan of action.We are now formally admitted as a Party in the future proceedings.

I think GNS was right and true ONLY in that part of his Post. The rest of what he wrote is a Joke. I am eager to share some highlights of the impending Order. Justice Misra pulled up LIC in clear terms and expressed surprise how LIC has been treating its Pensioners "who contributed' to its growth. He gave us an opportunity to say before Delhi HC (before the Specially constituted Bench) with a deadline to dispose of the cases. The tricks tried by the new Sr Counsel for LIC (unsuccessfully though,thanks to Mr Nidhesh Gupta's persuasive stubbornness) to deny any relief to Pensioners, were many. One was to limit the 40% relief to Petitioners only. This found tacit support from GNS Team (if not their Counsel). All of us with mainly Nidhesh Gupta and Mr Jay Savla literally shouted 'NO. NO' & Judge was furious. 'How can you limit it to a few? It was agreed after great fighting. It shall be to ALL SIMILARLY PLACED. We succeeded but without paying a price. LIC Counsel succeeded in getting it reduced from 50% to 40%. NK Kaul claimed it costs LIC 300 Crores. NG shouted Your Lordship may please record it. My learned friend is misleading the court. Another trick tried by NK Kaul was 'let those eligible for payment under this Order apply individually to LIC claiming their dues. we examine each case and respond. The suggestion was shot down by the Judge himself even before we objected.



No comments: