Derailment of our cases in SC and further course of action

 Respected Shri Sahni Sahab,

I am receiving queries from our respected senior members about the current status of our court cases in the matter of DR disparity and Pension Updation. With a view to share the factual position and also the efforts being made for the possible earlier final and favourable judgment, I am sharing herewith my note headed ‘Derailment of our cases in SC and further course of action’. Kindly publish the note in your esteemed blog, if deemed fit. 

M P Agnihotri.

                          Derailment of our cases in SC and further course of action

Abrupt stopping of hearings of our cases in the Supreme Court has extremely disappointed us. As per the record of proceedings dated 3/12/2025, our cases were to be listed on 4/2/2026 on top of the board. After the winter vacation in SC, the bench hearing our cases was changed. Despite emphatic requests by our Sr Advocates on 10/2/2026 and 17/03/2026 for listing and deciding our cases at the earliest (and also as per the apparent intent of the bench seen in earlier hearings), our cases are not finding place in the cause list. It is surprising that the cases which were listed on top priority till 3/12/2025, now, not only have lost priority but even the place in the cause lists.

There may be enormous justifications for delay, but our grief is turning into an ever-increasing living loss with the passage of time.

Petitioners Associations/activists must be making efforts to overcome the impasse. In the meantime, they may also consider course correction and improvements in the arguments made by their advocates, wherever necessary.

As known, on 21rst Aug 2025 and thereafter on 8^th and 9^th Oct 2025, two Sr. Advocates completed their arguments and another Sr. Advocate covered partly. Most of the submissions of our Sr Advocates were apt, convincing and proving our claims substantially. However, some of the points, though apparently plausible on the surface, were actually incomplete, contradictory and inaccurate. Several alert members pointed out these inaccuracies/inconsistencies. Obviously, the petitioner associations/activists have also noted the specious contents submitted by their Sr Advocates.  

As per the daily order dated 12/11/2025 of the SC, the written submissions filed by the Sr Advocates were returned for resubmission after renumbering them as per the pages of revised common convenience compilation. Revised common convenience compilation is already submitted. But, as no hearing has taken place thereafter, the individual submissions are yet to be submitted. So, the Sr Advocates are having the opportunity to make due amendments in their written submission, wherever require. (The court asks for brief note on the arguments to be pleaded by the advocates which is referred as ‘written submission’)  

Apart from above, another important aspect is clarity of our prayer for relief claimed. All the petitioners have pleaded the Board Resolution dated 24^th Nov. 2001 and Rule 56 of the LIC Pension Rules, in addition to other grounds, in support of pension revision. Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 provides for pension updation by merging the DR in the Basic Pension and then applying the latest rate of DR on such updated pension (in the minutes of 492^nd meeting of LIC Board held on 24/11/2001, at item no. (9) pension upgradation is proposed by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in-service employees, but in the note the methodology described in para 4 (a) and (b) does not provide any weightage. IR paid as per SC order dated 31/3/2016 was also without any weightage). Rule 56 states that matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made in LIC Pension Rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the CCS Pension Rules. For CCS pensioners, the benefit of pension revision is given as per the methodology recommended by CPC and approved by the Central Government, which is different for different CPC periods and also different from what was proposed in the LIC Board Resolution. On this matter also, the petitioner associations/activists have to provide well-reasoned and unambiguous in puts to the Sr Advocates with a view to get unambiguous judgment.     

AIRIEF is on the job. The aforesaid issues are discussed in the video-meeting of the legal team on 11/4/2026. Accordingly, they have fixed their meeting with the Sr Advocate on 29/4/2026 to discuss the points stated above and decide further course of action. The revised written submission to be submitted by the Sr Advocate of AIRIEF is already discussed and finalised.   

If thought appropriate, the petitioner associations may have a joint meeting before next hearing to ponder over this issue and take suitable steps to ensure that contradictory/inconsistent/inaccurate points, if any, are avoided in the submissions of their advocates.

M P Agnihotri