Our Legal Battle

Dear Sh Prakasarao, 
Thank you very much for your email below elaborating and analysing in depth as to where we stand as of now, what have been the faults at different levels, and what could be further course of action by the case managers in view of some new and pertinent facts brought out by you besides my earlier submissions. Let's pray for good sense to prevail and hope the matured and learned leadership of all the Petitioners Associations will review pragmatically and seriously on the present status & scope of SLPs in SC, and what further course of action could be adopted taking into account our observations and analysis.
I am endorsing a copy of this email to  RK SAHNI BLOG SPOT & LIC PENSIONS CHRONICLE also.
With best wishes and regards to all.
H K Aggarwal.

Sent from my Superphone

20 Sep 2017 1:44 p.m. wrote on Prakasarao Rao <prakasarao1942@gmail.com>:

Dear Sir,

I have seen UR writeup. I am afraid that U are highly apprehensive 

of the out come at the S.C over our SLPS. You have correctly 

assessed the mood of the  S.C which committed our case to DHC.

DHC  taking  q from the S.C observations did great damage to our

issue   Now all the case managers filed seperate S.L.PS .The case

managers did not care to inform the pensioners  about the contents

of S.L.Ps  to effectively Counter D.H.C  and other  valid points for the

appreciation of the S.C , which may  motivate  the S.C to undo the 

Injustice meted out to the pensioners and the family pensioners

 by the L.I.C and the G.O.I.So as  U observed it is the Burden of the

Case Managers  to convince the Apex Court to see the foul play of 

the L.I.C and the G.O.I and how they are flouting our Pension Rules.

The case managers  failed to ask for a review of the S.C order 31-3-2016. The S.C held that the Board can not take decissions with regard to the matters which are in the domain of the rule making Authority.It was also observed  that as per rule 55 Chairman can not issue instructions that travel beyond Rules..(Para 15 of the S.C order). 

Here the POINT  is whether the Board took a DECISION or made

a recommendation to the G.O.I for Approval . Now  Million Dollar Qestion is  whether the G.O.I is  Rule Bound to give its approval or 

simply keep quite.

As per Rule 55A (power to relax)  whenever  matters are brought to

the Notice of the G.O.I  for removal hardships  and inconsistencies 

the G.O.I has to act on the recommendations  to remove such 

hardships.SO THE GOI SHOULD HAVE APPROVED THE RESOLUTION.

Another Important point  u raised AMENDMENT  TO RULES as 

opined by the S.C that  only G.O.I has the authority as per Sec.48.

Our case managers failed miserably  to high light the Notification   

G.E 553 Dt. 22-6-2000.As per this  the G.O.I empowered the 

Corporation to AMEND  the Rules 36,37,39  .So who can amend 

these rules after June 2000.ONLY L.I.C  BECAUSE THE G.O.I 

DELEGATED THE  AMENDING  POWER TO L.I.C.Now is amendment  amounts to RULE. What happened in 2001 .

L.I.C  understood that  Rule 37 , Annexure IV  PARA 3A. GAVE RAISE TO ANOMOLY  in that pre AUG 1997  Pensioners  used to get D/R 

WITH TAPERING EFFECT, WHERE AS THEIR JUNIORS  post Aug

1997  are paid  D/R at 100% neutralisation  as is being enjoyed by the in service employees. The office note of the E.D EXPLAINED THIS 

ASPECT  PROPOSED TO REMOVE THE DISCRIMINATION OR 

THE HARDSHIP . ULTIMATELY  THE BOARD RESOLVED.NOW 

THE PARA 3 A OF ANNEXURE  IV  BENEFIT i.e 100% D/R SHALL

BE EXTENDED TO THE PRE AUG.1997 PENSIONERS. HOW TO DO  AMEND  PARA 3A SUITABLY WHO CAN AMEND .THE G.O.I OR 

L.I.C . in view of Notification of June 2000 CORPORATION  is empowered to amend .But not the G.O.I.

Yet the Board  sought the approval the G.O.I  As per rule 55A G.O.I

should have approved the Resolution , because the RULE IS A STATUTORY  RULE. BY KEEPING QUITE  THE GOVT VIOLATED 

THE RULE  RESULTING IN DENIAL OF BENEFIT TO THE PENSIONERS. SO MUCH SO THE PENSIONERS RESORTED TO 

LEGAL ACTION. 

Had our Case Managers  explained to Justice Mishra  would not 

have held the Resolution as invalid in law. Board is authorised to 

amend  RULE 37. 

Another  important  aspect  the case managers  missed to protest 

is the  setting aside of the judgments of H.Cs at Rajastan ,Chandigarh ,

and Delhi. Justice Mishra  observed that Chandigarh and Delhi H.C S

did not deal with the issues but only relied on the single judge orders

of Rajastan. Further he observed  that the Single Judge of Rajastan 

gave the orders SIMPLY RELYING ON THE CONCESSION GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL OF THE G.O.I. This is far from the TRUTH and 

amounting passing disparging remarks on the Learned Judges of THEREE HIGH COURTS. (para 22) 

But Justice Mishra recorded  in para12  the observations  of the Divn.

Bench of Rajastan H.C .Here L.I.C RAISED THE ARGUMENTS CITING  Sec. 48 and 49 of the L.I.C Act.THE BENCH COMMENTED 

HAVING PASSED THE RESOLUTION TO REMOVE DISPARITIES AND DISCRIMINATION OUGHT NOT TO HAVE COME IN FOR APPEAL .D.B VIEWED THAT IT IS FOR THE G.O.I TO DISPUTE 

THE RESOLUTION AND CAN APPEAL IN THE MATTER. BUT G.O.I 

DIDNOT APPEAL .SO IT AMOUNTS TO APPROVAL AND FURTHER 

THEIR PLEADER MADE A CATEGORICAL STATEMENT AND THE GOI DID NOT APPEAL ON THIS SCORE ALSO. SO MUCH SO D.B

DISMISSED THE LIC APPEAL  . IN THE REVIEW ALSO LIC LOST.

BUT Justice Mishra ignored  all that happened at Rajastan  and relied on  the plea of the addl soliciter general that single judge relied only on

the concession given by the counsel for GOI. VERY STRANGE .

So our case managers missed the bus and the BUS went D.H.C where we lost the earlier advantage.. NAKARA CASE not applicable . CCSRULES 1972 not applicable. No comparison with  Govt. Employees . HEAVY COST . ETC.

In this connection we may recall  that  Justice Singhvi  refused 

to grant stay on the cases at Rjastan ,Chandigarh , and Delhi. He

 dismissed the SLP of LIC however permitted to resubmit it and also

condoned the delay. The GOVT. ALTHROUGH KEPT QUITE 

EXHIBITING  INDIFFERENCE TO OUR CASE.

kINDLY go through para 26 of S,C Order which expressed some 

sympathy to the pensioners.We must encash it. So also we must 

take advantage of the view expressed by the Human Rights Commisssion.which declared the pension as a Human Right , 

Constitutional right and property right.We must study  Rul 56

and take advantage of it.Recently  S.C FULL BENCH DISMISSED

A CURATIVE PETITION FILED BY L,I,C  ON THE ABSORPTION 

TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES  WHERE COST ASPECT GIVEN GO BY. tHERE MANY INSTANCES  WHERE LIC  GRANTED  BENEFITS 

TO EMPLOYEES WITHOUT  INVOKING SEC.48.

WE PURCHASED OUR PENSION  BY FOREGOING OUR P,F

CONTRIBUTION .CAN INVOKE  CONSUMER PROTECTION 

ACT PROVISIONS  FOR DELAY AND DEFFICIENCY  AND 

FOR NOT ACTING AS PER PENSION RULES.

CAN WE MOBILISE ALL THE PENSIONERS ORGANISATIONS

AND OUR IN SERVICE  EMPLOYEES ORGANISATIONS FOR 

HELPING US . CAN WE ALSO MOBILISE THE BANKS,RBI PENSIONERS ALONG WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES ORGANISATIONS

TO FIGHT UNITEDLY  AGAINST THE  FINANCE MINISTRY .

I MAY BE EXCUSED IF I TAKEN MUCH OF UR TIME .MAY EXPECT UR COMMENTS ON MY SUBMISSIONS. I WISH U TAKE UP THE POINTS BY OUR CASE MANAGERS EVEN NOW  TO BENEFIT US.

WITH REGARDS 

V.S.PRAKASARAO

VISAKHAPATNAM  

CELL 9441066338    prakasarao1942@gmail.com