Paras 8,9,10,11 13,14,15,16 are very relevant & pertinent.
As rightly said, Powers that be ,by their Orders nullify the original provision which is made ,with a definite purpose & if they now rule out that provision that it cannot be invoked, it is a deathblow to pensioners. Supreme Court must clear that stand & the positive & affirmative meaning of such a provision has to be made use of to assist & promote benefit for the larger cause of pensioners & not to deny
1. "WHEN WE FAIL
IN OUR EFFORTS
BETTER TO PEEP
INTO THE PAST"
2. No doubt,every pensioner of LIC,expecting
and made to believe a favourable judicial support
for his demands,the observations/recommenda-
tions of D.HC,than to call it a judgement at this
stage, is put to a big jolt.
3. I admit that I do not have the legal base
and do not know much about the legal proceed-
ures and the judicial jugglery.Even then I dare to
put my head into the most complicated legal
issues, in order to respond to the call given by
AIRIEF, to have a feed back from its members
at this critical juncture.
4. It appears to me that we lost the grip on our
case not on 27-04-2017,when the D.HC.delivered
its observations, but on 31-03-2016 itself, when
the S.C.pronounced its partial judgement.The
roots of unrecoverable damage meted to us by
the D.HC, rest in the S.C.judgement of 31-03-2016
5. The achievements of our legal toil over a
period of years were put aside by the S.C. stating
that " the learned single judge as well as the D.B.
has committed illegality in deciding an issue of
law."Who is responsible for this.It is neither the
pensioners who approached the courts for justice
nor the courts that favoured them.By not caring
to set right the anomaly of DR formula in respect
of pensioners retiring on different dates; not evin-
cing interest to look into the resolution of the LIC
BOARD for years together, which worked out a
rationalised DR structure for the smooth function-
ing of the corporation under its domain, it is the
GOI that resorted to illegality of shirking its respo-
nsibility.It is that adamant attitude of the GOI
made the pensioners go round the courts in
search of justice, contributing heavy amounts
beyond their capacities and face the fiddle of
6. A septuagenarian pensioner could not
digest the legal play with the nod of the judiciary
and feels he is made a prey of the judicial
jugglery.Good number of pensioners being septu-
agenarians and some are crossing that mark
even, it is a pity that they are not given the super
senior citizen privilege or treatment in dealing
and disposing of their cases with some priority.
7. The present batch of pensioners are those
who rendered humane service, immediately after
the formation of LIC,realising and consolidating
their efforts in achieving the objectives of LIC.
In those initial days, those in particular who
worked during the period 1960-2000 laid the
foundation so strong and they are responsible
for the present day growth of the corporation
to this level of status.
8. If the GOI is getting crores by way of its
share out of the surplus it is due to the hard,
honest and sincere efforts and whole hearted
contribution of the pensioners of today and it is
not fair on the part of LIC,GOI, as well the judiciary
to find out some illegalities in the implementation
of law to avoid what is due to such contributors.
THEY should feel proud to make such contribu-
tors (pensioners) lead a comfortable life of
present day standards.
9. A govt school teacher in A.P.who worked
during the above period,drew half the salary of an
LIC employee,is today getting 25% more pension
than his LIC counterpart.It is high time that THEY
have to reconcile and improve their standards of
understanding to consider and give prominence to
such aspects of EQUALITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and
become more sensitive to the ENVIRONMENTAL
ECHOS, but not limiting themselves to mere
aspects of Legal JURISPRUDENCE only and they
should exhibit dignity in deeds and assure that
JUSTICE OR JUDGEMENTS SHOULD NOT
B E C O M E O U T D A T E D.
10. At a time when everything was ready and
everybody was awaiting for the final outcome,
having dealt the case in all its facets in a row of
adjournments over a period of prolonged years,
it was indeed a surprising move that the S.C.
came out with an innovative proposition on
31-03-2016, delivering a partial judgement and
transferring some vital aspects of the case to be
dealt by a bench of D.HC, in turn which has to
study the case from alphabets, definitely a time
consuming device, contributing to prolong the
11. For a lay man like me, this type of legal
procedure viz delivering a partial judgement
without having clarity on all the aspects on hand
concerning the case is first of its kind and many
were baffled. If some more information or some
clarity in respect of some aspects was required, it
could be completed in S.C. itself in another 5 or 6
adjournments over a period of 6 to 8 months or a
maximum of 1 year and by this time the full and
final judgement could have been delivered.
12. Perhaps, we felt happy that we were
given an opportunity to put forth our arguments
vigorously in support of our demands, gathering
all the loose and missing threads, instead we did
not feel and think much to put a review petition or
some other legal resort against the odds that
weakened our case.
13. Rule 56 of the LIC of India(employees)
pension Rules 1995 has got the potentiality and
it is more than a LIFE SAVING PILL FOR US and
we have to work out our strategies to utilise it for
14. Our submissions on Rule 56 in the D.HC.
in support of our case are turned down vehemently
creating a state of confusion, by going on repeat-
edly citing number of case laws running into
number of pages and finally trying to make us
understand that the constitution and composition
of PENSION FUND OF LIC IS DIFFERENT FROM
THAT OF GOI EMPLOYEES AND WE CANNOT
ASSERT ANY ADVANTAGE UNDER THIS RULE.
15. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE FATE OF THAT
RULE 56, WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THE SCOPE AND
NEED OF ITS INCLUSION IN THE RULES BOOK
AND WHETHER THERE CAN BE A SINGLE
OCCASION TO TOUCH THAT RULE. ABOVE ALL
CONTRARY TO THE INFERENCES OF THE D.HC,
IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE EXTENT OF
LEGALITY OF RULE 56 IS TO BE ESTABLISHED
IN THE SUPREME COURT.
16. NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED
ABOVE, THE BALL BEING TOSSED AMONG THE
PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS, LIC, GOI, S.C, AND
THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND FINALLY
AGAIN REACHED THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY OF THE LAND WHERE OUR FUTURE
AND FATE ARE IN STORE.
WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THE COMMENTS OF
THE S.C. MORE THAN ONCE , WHILE TRANSFER-
ING THE CASE TO D.HC.THAT " WE MAY CLARIFY
THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION
ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE ." AT THE SAME
IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY TO RECOLLECT THE
COMMENTS OF THE S.C. WITH THE SAME SPIRIT
AGAIN MORE THAN ONCE, AN EXPRESSION OF
LIP SYMPATHY FOR THE PENSIONERS. I BELIEVE
THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR FAVOUR.
IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT IS INTERESTING TO
WATCH, WHETHER THE S.C.IS GOING TO
RATIONALISE OR MODIFY CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF D.HC. FOR THE BETTERMENT OF PENSIO-
NERS OR GOING TO ENDORSE IN TOTO AND
GIVE US A BIG HAND.
17. I FEEL IT IS A BETTER PROPOSITION
TO APPROACH THE S.C. THAN TO PUT A REVIEW
PETITION IN THE D.HC. HOWEVER IT IS UP TO THE
LEGAL COMMITTEE TO DECIDE A STILL BETTER
LEGAL RESORT IN CONSULTATION WITH OUR
S .PARDHA SARADHY.
PRESIDENT. MACHILIPATNAM unit.
The above is in my personal capacity as member of AIRIEF.