Now that we are at a a stage when our SLPs have been converted into Civil Appeals , even though the adjudication by the SC Bench will be based on hearing of our appeals with special reference to the common DHC judgment dated 27/4/2017 on the six Writ Petitions, I wished to refresh myself with the key points in the Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Dipak Misra to understand points favourable to us in our ongoing legal fight at the Supreme Court. First and foremost, the judgment extensively quoted the Minutes of the Board Meeting and also the Resolution passed in the Board Meeting of 24/11/2001. Reading both together, it becomes very clear that the import of the Board proceedings on 24/11/2001 was to provide upgradation of pension to the two groups of pre-August 1997 retirees w e f 1/8/1997 to ensure a single rate of DR at 0.23% on the revised basic pension regardless of the date of retirement.
It is ironical that LIC as the same organization and respondent in our Civil Appeals stands against our prayer for upgradation in the Supreme Court.
Another point worth noting is that even though the SC Bench set aside the three HC judgments aside , did not stop with it, but gave a lifeline for pensioners so that they can have the case adjudicated afresh at Delhi Court. But the reason for remanding was stated as the need by the HIgh Court to adjudicate on the Constitutional validity of Para 3A of Appendix IV.
It is also significant to note that the SC recognized not only the case of pre-August 1997 retirees for pension revision, but also the need for similar upward revision for post July 1997 retirees as well as they likewise missed the benefit of revised pension with wage revisions that had taken place . As on the date of the judgment three more wage revisions had taken place and the gap in pensions had widened with cascading effect.
The thread of sympathy was running in some paragraphs of the judgment and in the matter of payment of interim benefit , the judge emphasized on the need to pay the benefits to all similarly placed pensioners stating that it didn't require Solomon's wisdom to adopt the principle.
To put it briefly, Justice Dipak Misra apparently had sympathy and empathy for the LIC pensioners, but for want of adequate pleadings, he was constrained not to deliver a judgment favourable to pensioners.
Let us consider how we can utilise the favourable points in our arguments before the SC Bench besides the other strong grounds that we have brought out in our SLPs, rejoinders to LIC's counter affidavits and the subsequent synopses.
I attach the extracts which I considered important in the SC judgment and I have also put my remarks under the extracted paragraphs.
C H Mahadevan
P.S
Incidentally as a footnote, I would like to mention that Mr R Chandrasekaran , my batch mate and good friend , was the the Executive Director(Personnel) who steered the Board Note for the Board Meeting on 24/11/2001 and oversaw the preparation of the Minutes and the Board Resolution after the discussions in the meeting.Mr R Chandrasekaran and I are in conversation every day both on the personal and pensioners' matters. The irony is that having laid the foundation for upgradation of pension, he is also one among us, pensioners, helplessly waiting for upgradation of pension and the eagerly awaited one time ex gratia payment !
CH MAHADEVAN
No comments:
Post a Comment