Mention for early hearing of our CAs and SC’s order dated 24/07/2024 to list the cases on 11/12/2024

I have read the comments of the well-meaning members in the matter of mention for early hearing of our CAs and SC's order dated 24/07/2024 to list the cases on 11/12/2024. I agree with the concern of our discerning members over delay. However, I would like to share some information so that the current situation may be appreciated in the right perspective. 

1. On 20/02/2024, when leave was granted and our SLPs were converted into CAs, next date of hearing was given as 24/04/2024. Due to a Constitutional Bench ongoing case, our cases were not taken up on 24/04/2024 but were kept in the Cause List of 02/05/2024. For the same reason, on 02/05/2024 also our cases could not be heard (Please see the status shown in SC website stating, "Pending (Final Hearing) Not taken up/ Not Today-Ord dt:02-05-2024"). We were expecting the case to come up on 8/5/2024 but unfortunately our cases were not there in the Causelist. After summer vacation, the status of our cases in the SC Website was not showing next date of listing. In consultation with our Advocate, we decided to submit written mention.  Our AOR submitted the Written Submission before the Registrar on 10/7/2024, which was placed before the CJI and CJI marked it to the bench (Any petition is submitted in SC by the AOR and not by Sr Advocate). We were watching the Causelists and when our cases were not seen in the Causelist, our Advocate followed up the written mention. Accordingly, our case was in the list of matters for oral mention before court no. 5 on 24/07/2024. There were 4 cases in the list and in three cases, no date was given by the bench though they were represented by the Sr Advocates. Since on last several occasions, oral mention by the Sr Advocate (on one occasion two Sr Advocates made oral mention for earlier hearing), did not yield any favourable results, it was decided not to engage the Sr Advocate and the oral mention in continuity to written mention was made by Shri R K Singh to avoid the heavy fee. The judges enquired about the date when our SLP was filed in SC and what is the current status of the case. Our Adv submitted that SLP was filed in Jul 2017, Leave was granted on 20/2/2024, next date was given as 24/4/2024 but hearing could not take place till now. Our case is on Pension related issues affecting the Sr Citizens who are vulnerable to high mortality. About 5000 pensioners have died after Jul 2017 and hence the request for urgent hearing. The Bench ordered to list the case on 11/12/2024. I watched the proceedings on 'Webex App' of SC and I did not notice any subservient attitude of the bench towards our advocate. Since our cases are in 'Regular' category, long arguments are permitted. Obviously, less number of cases are disposed off causing larger backlog. 

2. As would be known to the learned members of this group, AIRIEF supported Shri KML Asthana in Jaipur High Court and provided financial support when LIC filed SLPs against the judgment of Jaipur High Court. SLPs filed by LIC against the judgments of Delhi HC and Chandigarh HC were also tagged with the SLP against Jaipur HC. On 07/05/2015, SC passed the order to pay interim relief of 20% of the dues payable as per Jaipur HC order in the WP filed by Shri KML Asthana. It was clarified by the court that IR was to be paid to all the petitioners of Jaipur HC, Delhi HC and Chandigarh HC. In Delhi HC, Federation of Retd Class 1 Officers Associations was the party so the IR was paid to their all eligible members, whereas in the case of Jaipur and Chandigarh HC petitioners, amount was paid to the petitioners only. This caused a great disappointment to the members of AIRIEF as they contributed the Legal Fund but benefit of IR was not given to them. This lead to AIRIEF to become the party in SC. Accordingly, AIRIEF filed the Application for impleadment running in 19 pages on 11/01/2016. The case on behalf of AIRIEF was filed by Shri S S Saxena in the capacity of the President of AIRIEF and vakalatnama was also given by him. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, Sr Advocate pleaded the case of AIRIEF along with the case of Shri KML Asthana in the SC. Thus, AIRIEF became a party in SC before the judgment of SC dated 31/03/2016. After the SC judgment dated 31/03/2016, meeting of OBs and LC members was held at New Delhi on 02/05/2016 where it was decided that WPs in Delhi High Court would be filed on behalf of Shri KML Asthana, AIRIEF and Chandigarh Petitioners. There were some controversies on legal fee paid by Chandigarh Petitioners and some other points also which subsequently resulted parting away of Chandigarh petitioners from AIRIEF.   

3. As regards unity among all the petitioners to contest the case in SC, our members have to keep in mind that arguments by the pleading advocate are given based on the Paper Book. (Paper Book is the entire set of documents presented in the court by way of Petition (SLP, Synopsis and chronological order of happenings), Counter Affidavit, Rejoinder, Additional Affidavits, Compilations, Inter-Locutory Applications, etc. These are the numbered pages; number being given by the Registrar of the Court. Presently, there are 6 petitioners (seventh petitioner is LIC in the case of Shri KML Asthana's WP of Jaipur HC filed in 2010 on calculation of his Basic Pension, which is separate from those filed by him in 1998 and 2007 in the matter of DR anomaly and Pension Revision). Apparently, prayer clause of all the petitioners is similar (removal of DR anomaly in the case of Pre-Aug 1997 pensioners and pension revision with every wage revision) but their arguments/grounds may not be similar. Everyone has prepared the cases in the best interest of the pensioners as per the ideology and expertise of their Associations. In the order dated 27/04/2017 of Delhi HC, in para 96, the judges commented that the retired employees/associations have raised multifarious arguments which are to some extent even contradictory. Thus, it is on records that there is diversity in the approach of all the petitioners. However, such a diversity cannot be attributed to the connotation that this approach is right or that approach is wrong. Under such circumstances, it is a difficult proposition to engage a common Sr Advocate. This aspect was considered by the petitioners long back and a joint meeting of all the petitioners was held at Chennai on 02/01/2019. In the meeting, representatives of Retd Class 1 Officers Association, Hyderabad; Retd Class 1 Officers Association, Panchkula; AIRIEF; AIIPA and Federation of Retd Class 1 Officers Associations had participated. Shri KML Asthana did not participate because of his ill health. In the meeting, all the aspects of our cases were discussed and it was decided that each petitioner will contest its case separately, no one will oppose the stand taken by the others and focus shall be on the main issues (side issues like correct implementation of DHC judgment etc. will not be taken up in the beginning of arguments). Whenever, I have attended the court proceedings, I have observed that the agreed points are observed by all the participants of the Joint Meeting. I may share that whenever there had been any occasion of submitting affidavits in the SC, at least four petitioners viz. AIRIEF, Retd Class 1 Officers Assn, Hyderabad and Panchkula and Federation of Retd Class 1Officers Assns have consulted each other. Such cooperation and coordination ensures that if a relevant point is left by one, the same may be covered by the others. I would like our enlightened members to refer to para 16 and 17 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 31/03/2016. Based on the arguments of Jaipur Writ Petition, the Bench had set aside the judgment of Jaipur HC but because of the arguments of Mr. Shree Ram Panchu, the learned senior counsel of Delhi HC petitioners, the case survived, as there were some other law points in the Writ Petition filed in DHC which were not there in the WP of Jaipur HC. My intention here is not to say who was complete or incomplete, but to stress that diverse point here helped us. Similarly, para no. 7 and 8 of the Impleadment Application of AIRIEF filed in SC on 11/01/2016 was used by Sr. Advocate Shri Nidhesh Gupta to take up the issue of the employees who have retired after the cut off date stipulated in Para 3A (those retired after 01/08/1997) as they are not being given the requisite dearness relief based on subsequent pay revisions (vide para 19 of SC judgment dated 31/03/2016). Para 15 of the Impleadment Application of AIRIEF was pleaded by Shri Nidhesh Gupta to make payment of 40% IR to all the similarly placed employees (vide para 26 and 27 of the SC judgment dated 31/03/2016).    

I am thankful to the creator of this WhatsApp group to add me in the group of 186 members. When I saw the list of members, I am overwhelmed to see the names of very senior and familiar members who are known for their contribution for the cause of various classes of employees and pensioners. All the members of this group are highly experienced and knowledgeable. Seeing the response from some of them, I felt that some developments have escaped their notice, and therefore, though I am shy to subscribe to such platforms, I dared to share the aforesaid information. 

Like the other legal matters, our court cases are also enigmatic and impenetrable to the persons like us. So, I do not claim that I am having legal knowledge. But, since the date of filing our SLPs in SC, I am associated with the persons who are dealing with our cases. In the process, I have studied a number of judgment relevant to our issues and also our rules and regulations thoroughly. To comprehend a judgment, we have to read various judgments cited by the parties and sometimes by the Bench also; only then we can grasp the true substance. Being a law graduate and having worked in legal department of LIC for about 4 years I developed a flair to read and analyze the judicial proclamations. Interacting with the Chairmen and Members of District Consumer Fora in the workshops arranged by the MP State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, as a guest faculty enhanced my confidence (In MP the chairman of DCF is a sitting judge from Higher Judicial Services). This made me to come forward and actively engage in preparing in puts and briefing the Sr Advocates. AIRIEF provided the platform and support of highly intelligent Legal Study Group Members, who are well-versed with legal acumen as well as our Rules and Regulations. 

I am too small to give any suggestions to the learned members of this group. However, I may request that kindly keep yourself update with the latest developments. Almost every union of retired employees issues magazine, circulars and post the news on various blogs and websites. That would help to abstain from forming any opinion on ill-informed material. I may also suggest to participate in the meetings to the possible extent where exchange of views benefits each other. 

I am specially thankful to Shri H K Aggarwal ji, who is so much active at such an advance age. He is a source of inspiration for the persons like me. I have a small request to him also that he should be free from the Dunning-Kruger effect. If other's views cannot be appreciated, they should not at least be condescended. 

I pray Almighty for the long, healthy, pleasant and peaceful life to all the pensioners. 

M P Agnihotri.