Mr GNS's Post

I refer to the  post of Mr G N Sridharan and am sorry that he has got a dismally low amount of arrears due to multiple lapses on the part of LIC in interpreting the DHC judgment for its implementation.   He  has made the following observations:

"While dealing with the matter in the 'clarification' part (para 108 of the judgement)the Delhi HC  has clearly meant that 40% has to be treated as property already vested in the pensioners and had also spelt out the reasons for treating it so,the operative part (para 107) carrying specific directions to LIC does not make a mention of it in specific terms. Evidently LIC must have taken

"Legal advice" that they have no obligation to follow 'obiters' in the judgement and that there will be technical compliance if they follow the "directions" of the court in letter if not in spirit!!"

 I wish to submit to Mr GNS that the operative  part ,viz para 107(iii) b) & c) has to be read  together with  para 108 in which case it will be clear that the said para also constitutes an operative part.

 The words beginning the  paragraph,"We would also clarify' and the words in the second sentence,"We have issued  the said direction' clearly proves that para 108 is a continuation of  para 107 as an operative part.In my view it is wrong to treat whatever has been stated in para 108 as obiter as legal interpretation of a part of the judgment cannot permit any element of logical absurdity.

I hope LIC does not get ideas  from Mr GNS observations for defending its wrong actions.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan