Application of LIC and Reply for the same by Shri KML Asthana


NEXT DATED 1/12/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR


S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2010


Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Petitioner Versus T.S. Vijayan & Others Respondents


REPLY TO THE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

To,

Hon’ble the Chief Justice

And His other Companion Judges of

The High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur

***

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,

The humble Petitioner most respectfully submits the reply to the application filed on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation of India as under:

1. That the facts mentioned in the application with regard to the proceedings in the two writ petitions filed by the Petitioner are matters of record of this Hon’ble Court. The copies of the judgments passed at various stages have already placed on record by the Petitioner as Annexures 15, 16 and 17.

2. That the Contempt Petition is to be listed on 1st December, 2011 for the personal appearance of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in case the compliance has not been made within four weeks as undertaken on 30/10/2011 and which forms part of the order of this Hon’ble Court of that date. But the said Respondents have not filed any application nor appear to be presenting themselves on the next date of hearing i.e. 1/12/2011. After giving the undertaking the Respondents moved application denying the said undertaking on the ground that the Counsel who had given undertaking was only sent for seeking time and was not an authorized Advocate. But the same Advocate Shri Ajay Tyagi has filed the present application besides he was appointed by the Contemners as their Advocate along with Shri Mahendra Singh, Advocate as would appear from the Vakalatnama. These acts of the Respondents confirm that they have no respect for this Hon’ble Court and they can take any stand, whether right or wrong and they are avoiding appearance before this Hon’ble Court again and again.

3. That the Applicants are habituated of making wrong statements. In this para also it has wrongly been stated that in the direction dated 15.07.2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court had stayed the contempt proceedings for the period of three months, while as would appear from the judgment dated 15.07.2011, as has been placed by the Petitioner as Annexure 16 along with his application made earlier on 21/9/2011, the review petition was to be decided as early as possible but not later than three months and till then the proceedings will remain stayed, which meant that till the decision of the review petitions the contempt proceedings would remain stayed and with the decision of the review petitions on 19/8/2011 the stay came to an end.

4. That on 14/11/2011 the Special Lave Petitions came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court when the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner again stated that they are ready and willing to make payment but the Central Government is not allowing, therefore, direction may be given to the Central Government though Central Government has nothing to do after having given consent.

5. That after hearing the Petitioner-appellants in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions no order was passed on the S.L.Ps., but the notices were directed to be issued to the Respondents and the rule was made returnable within ten weeks. The proceedings in the Contempt Petition before this Hon’ble Court have been stayed only subject to the Life Insurance Corporation of India depositing the amount due to the employees (Pensioners) within eight weeks from that day i.e. 14/11/2011. In case the compliance of the said order dated 14/11/2011 is not made in letter and spirit and the amount due to all the Pensioners as due on that day are not paid then on expiry of the period of eight weeks from 14/11/2011 the stay will automatically come to an end. The copy of the order as downloaded from the website of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is submitted herewith for ready perusal of the Hon’ble Court and marked as ANNEXURE 18.

6. That the order dated 14/11/2011 is very clear and there is no ambiguity, which the Applicants want to create. This shows that the applicants have no intention to deposit the due amount to the employees (pensioners) and thus make compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which they want to achieve by getting the order of consigning the file to records.

7. That the Pensioners of the Life Insurance Corporation have been suffering on account of illegal and arbitrary act in the December of their life, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that an appropriate early action may be taken.

8. That the period of eight weeks as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court will expire on 8th January, 2012 by which date the amount due has to be deposited in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court. In view of this fact in case the whole amount is not deposited the Respondents will be liable for committing contempt not only of this Hon’ble Court but also of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances it is submitted that the present proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be consigned to record and it may be directed to be listed on 9th January, 2012 or some other near about date as may be deemed to be appropriate to see to the compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court otherwise appropriate action may be taken against the contemner Respondents.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the application of the Applicant-respondents and direct for listing the case on 9th January, 2012 or some other near about date to find out whether the compliance has been made or not and in the event of failure appropriate action may be taken against the Respondents.

Humble Petitioner

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana

Through his Counsel:

(ABHINAV SHARMA)

Advocate

Jaipur

November 29, 2011

Notes:

1. A copy of this reply has been given to the Counsel for the Respondents.

2. This application has been typed by my private Stenographer on stout papers since pie papers were not readily available.



Application filed by LIC


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 760/2010 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 654/2010

Krishna Murarilal Asthana ----Petitioner VERSUST.S. Vijayan & Others ---Respondents

APPLICATION FOR PLACING ON RECORD COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT.

To

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS CONPANION JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIP

The applicant-respondents most respectfully submit this application as under:-

1. That the present contempt petition arises out of judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the petitioner. Against the said judgment special appeals were filed which came to be registered as D.B Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494/2010, Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Krishan Murari Lal Asthana and DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 493/2010 Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & others.

2. The special appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2010 were decided by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide common judgment dated 21.01.2011. Against the said judgment Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which came to be registered as petition for SLP (Civil) No. 16117 and 16118 of 2011 Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Krishan Murari Lal Asthana. The said petitions were disposed off by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.07.2011 with a direction that the review petitions filed against the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2011 may be decided within a period of 3 months and till then the contempt proceedings shall remain stayed.

3. That after the common judgment was so passed by the Division Bench dated 21.01.2011, review petitions were filed by Life Insurance Corporation of India. The said review petitions were registered as D.B. Review Petition No. 86/2011, Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s Krishan Murari Lal Asthana and DB Review Petition No. 87/2011 – Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & others. The said review petitions were listed before the Hon’ble Court on 05.08.2011, 12.08.2011 and 19.08.2011 on which date the were dismissed.

4. That in view of the factual and legal position explained hereinabove, Life Insurance Corporation decided to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court after dismissal of the Review Petitions.

5. That the Special Leave Petitions were listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2011. On the said date the Hon’ble Supreme Court while ordering issuance of notice to the respondents also ordered for stay f contempt proceedings pending before this Hon’ble Court, subject to the condition that Life Insurance Corporation of India shall deposit requisite amount in the Registry of this Hon’ble Court within eight weeks. Computer print out of the order so passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2011 as down loaded from the official website is enclosed as Annexure-A. Certified copy of the said order shall be produced before this Hon’ble Court as soon as it becomes available.

6. That in the present petition an order was passed by the Hon’ble Court directing the respondents to remain present before this Hon’ble Court on 01.12.2011 if the order, which is subject matter of this petition, is not complied within with in a period of four weeks. However, in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2011 further proceedings in the contempt petition have been stayed.

It is therefore prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and in view of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying further proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act the instant contempt petition may kindly be consigned to record subject to the final outcome of the special leave petitions.

HUMBLE RESPONDENT APPLICANTS

THROUGH COUNSEL


Order on 14-11-2011 in SLP 29956-57

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29956-29957/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 19/08/2011 in DBCRP No.

86/2011 & DBCRP No. 87/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

L.I.C. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 14/11/2011 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Mr.Harish N.Salve, Sr.Adv.

Mr.R.Venkataramani, Sr.Adv.

Mr. A.V. Rangam,Adv.

Mr.Buddy A.Ranganadhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.P.S.Narsimha, Sr.Adv.

Mr.R.K.Singh, Adv.

Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Kumar Gaurav, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,A.O.R.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Issue notice, returnable in ten weeks.

Shri R.K.Singh, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf

of the respondents.

In the meanwhile, the proceedings pending before the High

Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 shall remain stayed

subject to the condition that within eight weeks from today, the

petitioner shall deposit in the Registry of the High Court the

amount due to the employees.

(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)

Court Master Court Master

SLP 29956-57

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. 29956 of 2011 AND 29957 OF 2011 (against common final judgment and order dated 19.6.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Cout of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 86 of 2011 and D.B. Civil Review Petiion No. 87 of 2011.

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES

The Petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India seeks this Hon’ble Court’s gracious indulgence to approach this Hon’ble Court for the second time (within a period of three months) in respect of the instant matter.

This Hon’ble Court on the earlier occasion, by order dated 15.7.2011 in SLP (Civil) No. 16117 and 16118 of 2011, was pleased to dispose of the said SLPs filed by the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India, in view of the pendency of Review Petitions filed by the petitioner herein for Review of the order of the High Court impugned therein.

The High Court was requested inter alia to decide the Review Petition as early as possible latest within three months.

The High Court by Order dated 19.8.2011 was pleased to dismiss the Review Petition on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of records, as would merit to interference of the High Court.

In view of the said decision, the petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India is again approaching this Hon’ble Court, this time against the Order of the High Court in the said Review Petitions.

The matter arises in the following circumstances set out in brief for a consideration of this case as under :-

In this matter, the scope and applicability of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956 (Central Act 31 of 1956) arises for consideration in deciding whether any resolution of the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation of India proposing an amendment to the said Pension Rules framed by the Central Government would ex proprio vigore be capable of being implemented without an amendment to the Rules. The High Court in the impugned judgment had held that it could be implemented.

The relevant Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956 is extracted below :-

Section 48. Power to make rules

48. Power to make rules –

(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules my provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-

(a) the term of office and the conditions of service of members;

(b) the manner in which the moneys and other assets belonging to any such fund as is referred to in Section 8 shall be apportioned between the trustees of the fund and the Corporation;

(c) the services which the chief agent should have rendered for the purpose of the proviso to Section 12;

[(cc) the terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation, including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act;}

(d) the jurisdiction of the Tribunals constituted under Section 17;

(e) the manner in which, and the persons to whom, any compensation under this Act may be paid;

(f) the time within which any matter which may be referred to a Tribunal for decision under this Act may be so referred;

(g) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which investments may be dame by the Corporation;

(h) the manner in which an Employees and Agents Relations committee may be constituted for each zonal office;

(i) the form in which the report giving an account of the activities of the Corporation shall be prepared;

(j) the conditions subject to which the Corporation may appoint employees;

(k) the fees payable under this Act and the manner in which they are to be collected;

(l) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed.

[(2-A) The regulations and other provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of the Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981, with respect to the terms and conditions of service of employees and agents of the Corporation including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act, shall be deemed to be rules made under clause (cc) of sub-section (2) and shall, subject to the other provisions of this section, have effect accordingly.

(2-B) The power to make rules conferred by clause (cc) of sub-section(2) shall include-

(i) the power to give retrospective effect to such rules ; and

(ii) the power to amend by way of addition, variation or repeal, the regulations and other provisions referred to in sub-section (2-A), with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the twentieth day of June 1979.

(2-C) The provision of clause (cc) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (2-B) and any rules made under the said clause (cc) shall have effect, and any such rule made with retrospective effect from any date shall also be deemed to have had effect from that date, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) or any other law or any agreement, settlement, award or other instrument for the time being in force.]

[(3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or to be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.” The Petitioner herein is Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred for the convenience as L.I.C.) The Respondents herein comprises of various individuals [collectively referred to as Writ Petitioners] and the Union of India.

1956 The Life Insurance Corporation of India came into being through the enactment of an ordinance since replaced by Central Act No. 31 of 1956. The Corporation has several thousands of employees throughout the country. Their appointment and conditions of services are being regulated by various statutory Rules framed by the Central Government in respect of various aspects of conditions of service including Pension benefits etc.

1981 The Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 was amended through Life Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981 and the Central Government was empowered to make rules, by notification in the Official Gazette, to provide for the terms & conditions of service of the employees & agents of the Corporation.

1995 Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 were framed by the Central Government providing for index linked pension in lieu of Corporation’s contribution to Provident Fund w.e.f. 1.11.1993. However employees who retired between 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 were allowed an option to become member of the said scheme. True copy of the said rules is filed herewith as Annexure P-1 at pages (34 to 37)

1.8.1997 Subsequently there were three wage revisions in the L.I.C. in 1997, 2002 and 2007.

2001 L.I.C. felt the need for rationalization of Dearness Relief to the group of Pensioners who retired prior to 1.8.1997 in order to reduce various administrative difficulties. Accordingly a proposal to amend the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules by upgrading pension to AICPI 1740 and 100% Dearness Relief neutralization thereof in respect of retirees prior to 1997 was put up to the Board of the Life Insurance Corporation for their approval to the proposal so that the matter would be taken up with Central Government for suitable amendment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 by notification in the official Gazette

Accordingly a Note to the Board was put up for consideration and true copy is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure P-2 at (38 to 41) pages

24.11.2001 The Board of L.I.C. at its 492nd meeting by resolution approved the proposal and resolved further that is should be implemented prospectively after obtaining Government’s approval. True copy of the of the minutes of the meeting in relation to the said item is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3 at pages (42 to 43)

Pursuant to the said Board’s Resolution the matter was put up to the Central Government by the LIC with a request to make appropriate amendments to the concerned Pension Rules. A true copy of the letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4 at pages (44 to 46)

Government has not so far promulgated any such amendment to the Rules pursuant to such request of the L.I.C. While so, two Writ Petitions were filed by certain former employees of the L.I.C. in the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in SBCWP No. 6676/1998 and 654/2007. complaining against the discrimination by LIC in grant of dearness allowance in regard to Pensionary benefits. It was inter alia contended by the Writ Petitioners (contesting Respondents) that their grievance “can come to an end” if the resolution of the Board of the LIC is implemented

12.1.2010 The learned single Judge of the High Court holding that the action by the Central Government for the amendment of the Pension Rules was not necessary and that the Resolution of the L.I.C. Board could be “implemented at the level of the Respondent Corporation itself, and that “there was no reasons to seek approval because day to day decision are not required to be sent for approval of the Central Government”, and also holding that it is only a policy decision which involve public interest and not every decision of the Board which needed approval of the Central Government. The learned judge allowed the Writ Petition on the view that the aforesaid resolution does not need approval of the Central Government and L.I.C. will be able to implement the resolution aforesaid dated 24.11.2001. A true copy of the said Judgment is annexed herein and marked as Annexure P-5 at pages (47 to 68)

Writ Appeals were taken to the Division Bench by the Petitioner LIC in Division Bench Special Appeal (Writ) No. 493 and 494/2010.

21.1.2011 The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal by their final judgment. True copy filed as Annexure P-6 at pages (69 to 74)

23.02.2011 The petitioner moved the High Court for Review of its Order by Review Petitions in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 86/2011 and 87/2011.

Against the aforesaid Judgments, the petitioner LIC approached this Honble Court in S.L.P. Civil Nos. 16117 & 16118/2011

15.7.2011 This Hon’ble Court disposed of the said Special Leave Petitions with a request to the High Court to dispose of the Review Petitions latest within three months. This Hon’ble Court was further pleased to order the stay of contempt proceedings to continue till the disposal of the case by the High Court. True copy thereof is filed as Annexure P-7 at pages (75 to 76)

19.8.2011 The Division Bench of the High Court in its final orders dismissed the said Review Petitions by its order which is impugned herein.

1.10.2011 Hence the present Special Leave Petitions.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) No. ______of 2011 (against common final judgment and order dated 19.6.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Cout of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 86 of 2011 and D.B. Civil Review Petiion No. 87 of 2011.

L.I.C. of India and another

Versus

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana

And others

The humble petition of the

Petitioners abovenamed

MOST RESPECTRULLY SHOWETH

1. The present petitioners for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, are filed against common final Judgment and Order dated 19.8.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 86/2011 and 87/2011 whereby the High Court dismissed the Review Petitions.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:

The following questions of law arise for consideration by this Hon’ble Court:-

I. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Review Petitions do not call for interference in the Review jurisdiction ?

II. Whether the High Court was correct in holding that there is no apparent error o the face of the record ?

III. Whether the High Court could have issued a mandamus for implementation of a Resolution of the Life Insurance Corporation of India seeking Government of India’s exercise of its statutory powers for amending concerned the Pension Rules before the Government of India made the amendments as requested by the Life Insurance Corporation of India?

IV. Whether the High Court could issue a mandamus directing the parties to do something which is not permitted by law, which if done will tantamount to without the authority of law ?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2)

The petitioners state that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by them against the impugned judgment and order.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6

The Annexure P-1 to P-7 produced along with the Special Leave Petition is true copy of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS

Leave to appeal is sought for on the following, amongst other grounds:

A. The High Court erred in law in rejecting the Review Petitions on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the records, as would merit interference by the High Court in its review jurisdiction.

B. It is submitted that various grounds before the High Court in support of the Review Petition taken individually or cumulatively would indicate the errors apparent on the face of the records which would require review by the High Court.

C. The High Court erred in ignoring the principle that when a particular thing has to be done in a particular way, it can only be done in that way and in no other way.

D. The High Court further do not take into account the legal principle that a court ought not to have compelled a party to do something which would not be permissible under the law or which if done would be in breach of prejudice of such law.

E. The High Court could not in law issue a mandamus directing the Petitioners to implement the Resolution concerned of the LIC without waiting for the amendment of the Pension Rules by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act 1956.

F. The High Court in law could not treat the Resolution of the LIC by which Government was approached for amending the Pension Rules into a self operating decision when a mere Resolution to recommend to the rule making authority cannot ex proprio vigore have the force of law in the absence of statutory amendments to the Pension Rules.

G. The High Court ought to have seen that the entitlement of the additional pension benefit granting amendments to the concerned pension rules can in law arise only when the amendment to the Rules is made by the Central Government under the LIC Act.

H. The High Court ought to have held that Resolution of the L.I.C. is only in the nature of a request to the Central Government for necessary and appropriate action for the amendment of the Pension Rules.

I. The High Court has ignored the legal position that when law provides for doing a particular thin in a particular way, that thing has to be done in that way and not otherwise.

J. By the reason of the High Court Judgment an amendment to the Pension Rules which are to be made by the Central Government is in fact being brought into force through making a resolution of the LIC requesting the Government for such amendment as self operating, which would be contrary to the statutory provisions.

K. The High Court’s finding that this is a policy decision and so unnecessary for any amendment of the rules goes contrary to the express provisions in section 48 of the LIC Act.

L. The High Court ought to have seen that the Pension having been provided by statutory Pension Rules, LIC cannot change the Pension Rules except when there is necessary amendment to the original Pension Rules which amendments can only be made by the Central Government.

M. The High Court ought to have appreciated that the Petitioners Life Insurance Corporation of India cannot be placed in a position of acting contrary to the law which created the corporation.

N. The High Court was in error in preferring the oral submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India in preference to the express words of the statute

O. The High Court was in error in characterizing the resolution as “day to day decision not required to be sent for approval of the Central Government”. IN this connection the High Court ought to have seen that the Resolution itself had resolved to address the Central Government for necessary amendment of the Rules.

P. The High Court ought to have seen that the resolution concerned was based on a note to the Board on which alone the Board’s resolution was passed to address the Central Government for suitably amending the rules.

Q. In that situation the question of tearming the resolution as a day to day decision which could be implemented on its own in totally untenable in law.

R. The High Court with all respect ought not to have criticized the Petitioners for having approached the High Court in Writ Appeals. The High Court ignored the fact that the learned single judge issued a mandamus against the Life Insurance Corporation of India and it was therefore the LIC which alone would approach the Division Bench of the High Court. The Writ Appeals were filed in order to present before the Court the true legal position and the legal difficulties which would arise in case the L.I.C. was to act beyond, out side and contrary to the parameters of law.

S. The High Court erred in holding that “there cannot be a cut off date for existing pensioners for providing benefits.”

T. It is submitted that such a finding is untenable in law and goes counter to law laid down by this Hon’ble Court which is binding on all courts and authorities in our country.

U. The High Court with all respect has not dealt with various grounds and contentions raised by the Petitioners in their Memo of appeal and argued during the hearing.

V. The High Court ought to have seen that in the memo of appeal, as also during the course of hearing, it was contended on behalf of the Corporation that by virtue of the statutory rules framed by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Act of 1956 and the subsequent amendments made by the Central Government in the said rules, the quantum of D.R. depends upon the quantum of pension and that the quantum of pension of an employee retiring from a post is computable on the basis of pay and the pay scale applicable to the post at the time of retirement. Thus employees working on the same post would be getting different pay and pay scale depending on the date of the retirement and therefore neither their pension nor their D.R. could be identical or equal unless the Central Government was to frame new pension rules or make substantial amendments in the existing pension rules. Thus as per the Agenda Note to the Board meeting, as also the resolution passed by the Board, the matter was necessarily required to be referred to the Central Government for amendment of the Pension rules. This relevant and significant aspect of the matter has not been correctly considered and dealt with in the judgment and order dated 12.1.2010, as also in the judgment and order dated 21.1.2011. The Judgment and order dated 21.1.2011 thus suffers from manifest error apparent on the face of the record.

W. That the High Court ought to have seen that the agenda note for Board meeting as also resolution passed by the Board refer to rationalization of Dearness Allowance (D.R.). The quantum of D.R. under statutory rules depends upon the quantum of pension which in turn depends upon the pay scale applicable at the time of retirement of an employee. The judgment and order dated 12.1.2010 is completely silent so far as the quantum of pension is concerned and has merely directed that so far as D.R. is concerned, every retiring employee should get the same benefit. Such a direction cannot be complied with unless rules are framed by the Central Government for amending the existing statutory pension rules.

X. The petitioner also craves leave at the hearing to refer to and rely on the (a) various grounds argued in its Review Petitions before the High Court (b) the various submissions made in its written submissions submitted before the High Court as part and parcel of this Petition. To avoid prolixity, the same are not repeated herein verbatim.

Y. Petitioner craves leave at the hearing to add to, alter, modify, or vary any or all the aforesaid grounds of the present petition each of which have been taken in the alterative and without prejudice to each other.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is submitted that, it is necessary in the interest of justice, for this Hon’ble Court to grant stay of operation of the final judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court impugned in this Special Leave to Appeal. The balance of convenience would lie in the grant of such interim relief. In the absence of such interim relief the Petitioners would face extremely legal difficulties if the orders of the High Court are implemented which would run contrary to the express provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act. In such circumstances, in the absence of interim relief by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner shall be put to great hardship and considerable loss. Moreover the pending contempt petitions (which were earlier subject to stay order issued by this Honble Court) will revive now. It will therefore be just and necessary and in the interests of justice that this Honble Court is also pleased to grant stay of the said contempt applications.

7. MAIN PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased

(a) grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against final Judgment and Order dated 19.8.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 86/2011 and D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 87/2011 and

(b) ex-parte ad-interim order in terms of above be granted and the same be confirmed after notice to the respondents; and

(c) pass such other order or orders which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Filed by

[A.V. Rangam]

Advocate for the Petitioner

Drawn on 14-9-2011

Filed on 1-10-2011

L.I.C. APPEALS DISMISSED

ON 21-01-2011, THE JAIPUR DIVISIONAL BENCH (JUSTICE DALIP SINGH AND JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI) OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED BOTH APPEALS ( S.A.W. 493/2010 AND 494/2010) OF L.I.C. FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY HON'BLE JUSTICE M. N. BHANDARI IN CWP 6676/1998 AND CWP 654/2007 ON 12-01-2010 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER / APPLICANT SHRI K M L ASTHANA AND OTHERS.

FULL JUDGMENT OF DB IS GIVEN BELOW

JAIPUR DIVISIONAL BENCH JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR

***

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 493/2010

Life Insurance Corporation of India

vs

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and ors

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 494/2010

Life Insurance Corporation of India

Vs.

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors

***

Dated: 21.01.2011

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI

Mr. Mahendra Singh for the appellant

Mr. N.K. Maloo )

Mr. Abhinabh Sharma) for the respondents

***

These two appeals have been preferred by the Life Insurance Corporation of India against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12th January, 2010 allowing two writ petitions filed by the petitioners.

2. We may not burden the judgment with the details of the facts in as much as the directions given in the judgment by the learned Single Judge are as follows:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that resolution passed by the Board of LIC does not need approval of the Central Government thus the Corporation may give effect to its resolution dated 24.11.2001 to avoid discrimination amongst existing pensioners.

In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitioners are allowed. The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however,, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy.”

3. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion and giving the aforesaid directions, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the LIC appellant before us had itself passed a resolution in the meeting held on 24.11.2001 for removing the aforesaid discrimination, so far as the grant of dearness allowance is concerned, the learned Single Judge inquired from the learned counsel for the Union of India appearing in the writ petitions, whether on the plea of the appellant LIC before the learned Single Judge that the aforesaid resolution would require approval of the Central Government. Faced with the above, as has been incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the resolution dated 24.11.2001 is pending decision before the Government of India. But the LIC was otherwise free to take its own decision. Based upon the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Union of India, the learned Single Judge concluded – “Thus, in these circumstances and as per the provisions of Act, there was no need to send the Board’s resolution for its approval by he Government of India.” The learned Single Judge further dealing with the aforesaid aspect in the impugned judgment after considering the scope of section 21 of the LIC Act came to the conclusion which reads as follows:

“Thus, there was no reason to seek approval because day-to-day decisions are not required to be sent for approval of the Central Government. The law, in this regard, is settled in view of various judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners and has not otherwise been debated by learned counsel for the respondent corporation. Even learned counsel for Union of India had accepted the aforesaid proposition and submitted that it is only a policy decision, that too, involving public interest and not every decision of Board, which needs approval by the Central Government. It is otherwise not made clear as to what is the element of public interest involved herein, if the resolution of Board is implemented. In fact, implementation of the Board’s resolution would take away discriminatory treatment amongst he pensioner’s apart from keeping the LIC away from the administrative inconvenience.” The learned Single Judge, therefore, further came to the conclusion that “there cannot be a cut off date for existing pensioners for providing benefits, but further fact is that to cure the aforesaid mistake, the Board’s resolution should have been given effect to, which will otherwise redress the entire grievance of the petitioners”.

4. Thus, we find from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the Government of India never contested so far as the resolution dated 24.11.2001 of the Board of the appellant LIC or the merits and the contents thereof before the learned Single Judge or its competent to pass such a resolution or implement the same so as to remove the discrimination between retired employees for payment of D.A.

5. The learned counsel for LIC Mr. Mahendra Singh contended, taking us through the provisions of the Act and the Rules under Section 48 and 49, that the rules with regard to the conditions of service of the employees could only be framed by the Central Government and could be implemented only after being notified in the official gazette.

6. We are of the view that whatever grievance with regard to the implementation of the Board’s resolution dated 24.11.2001 is concerned, the same can be raised by the Union of India who has chosen not to file any appeal in the matter and this can easily be considered as an approval of the said resolution of he Board dated 24.11.2001 which was allegedly pending for nine years. The Board of LIC, who is the appellant before us against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, had itself taken a decision to remove the disparities and the discrimination with regard to the payment of Dearness Allowance and pension to the retired employees under its resolution of the Board dt. 24.11.2001, which was in public interest. It could not and should not have filed the present appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has provided an umbrella to the appellant for the implementation of the decision of the Board dt. 24.11.2001 on the categorical statement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and not assailed in appeal by the Union of India.

7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Union of India before the learned Single Judge, we find that these appeals filed by the L.I.C. of India have no merit and the same stand dismissed.

Sd. Sd.

(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. (DALIP SIGH)J.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT OF JAIPUR HIGH COURT IS POSTED UNDER

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS AND COURT CASE - READ

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THE TIMES OF INDIA DT. 25-01-2011

Pay equal pension to all LIC retirees: HC

TNN, Jan 25, 2011, 6.05am IST

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily on the inaction of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for not adhering to

its board resolution to pay equal pension to all the retirees across the country irrespective of their date of retirement. The court verdict is bound

to affect thousands of retired personnel of LIC in the country.

A division bench comprising Justice Dalip Singh and Justice Mahesh Bhagwati directed the LIC to give effect to its board decision dated

November 24, 2001 to revise the pension and dearness allowance ( DA) payable to its retired employees corresponding to the successive

revisions of the pay scales that took place in 1986, 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2007 respectively.

Presently, the retired employees of LIC are drawing pension based on the last pay which was payable to them at the time of their retirement

and the same were never revised creating different classes of employees based on their date of retirement. This was challenged by Krishan

Murarilal Asthana, general secretary of Retired Insurance Employees' Association of LIC. The LIC board, infact, took the decision to do away

the disparity among pensioners but did not implement the same on the ground that the ministry of finance has not given its approval.

Disposing off the writ petition filed by Asthana, a single judge bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari in its order dated January 12, 2010

had asked LIC to take immediate steps to implement the resolution of LIC board and held, "In the present matter, there was no reason to seek

approval of the Central government. The law in this regard is settled and even counsel for union of India had accepted that it is only a policy

decision, that too, involving public interest and not every decision of the board, which needs approval by the central government." Feeling

aggrieved of this order, the LIC filed an appeal before the division bench.

The division bench took a serious note of the conduct of LIC in not adhering to its board resolution on one or the other account. Justice Dalip

Singh observed, "The LIC is making an eyewash by not falling in line with its own board decision and it is an extreme ridiculous situation that

the corporation itself has filed an appeal now saying that the order of the single judge is not tenable whereas the LIC still maintains that the

board resolution has not been rescinded and the corporation is not challenging its own board's resolution."

"LIC is making a sheer misuse of the judicial system by filing frivolous appeal and trying to dislodge the retired pensioners from their valid

right merely on the ground that the resolution was never approved by the ministry of finance. Such a ground is not maintainable when the

Government of India has never filed an appeal against the order of single judge as also the LIC is an autonomous statutory body which need

not depend on the government for its day-to-day functioning. Hence the appeal is not maintainable," observed Justice Mahesh Bhagwati.


INDIAN EXPRESS - CHENNAI - 25-01-2011

PAY EQUAL PENSION TO ALL THE LIC RETIREES: HC

The Rajasthan High court has come down heavily on the "inaction" of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for not adhering to its Board resolution to pay equal pension to all the retirees across the country irrespective of their date of retirement. The Division Bench of Justice Dalip Singh and Mahesh Bagavathi directed LIC to give effect to its Board decision dated November 24 2001 to revise the pension and dearness allowance(DA) payable to its retired employees corresponding to the successive revisions of the pay scales that took place in 1986,1993,1997,2002 and 2007 respectively.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Mail of Shri KML Asthana ( 02-10-2010)


Sat, 2 October, 2010 11:57:15 AM

Re: Court Cases at Jaipur
...
From:   asthana_jaipur ASTHANA    


Dear Sir,

Yesterday the two appeals came up for hearing when it was pointed out on our behalf that LIC has deliberaely withheld the vital documents, which has great bearing on the decision of the appeal as also has filed the unamended writ petition, the LIC Advocate stated that the amendment was not allowed then his own statement in the appeal was pointed out wherein he has stated that the amendment application was allowed.  On this the court directed him to place correct and all the documents on record with copies to the parties appearing before it and it will finally hear and decide the appeals on 18th October when the court reopens after Navratra holidays. The appeals are now to come up on 18th October.  I am sorry since I was very much unwell i could not convey this message yesterday itself.

KML Asthana



Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Mail of Shri KML Asthana ( 22-09-2010)

Wed, 22 September, 2010 2:11:38 PM

LIC'S SPECIAL APPEALS
.
DEAR SIR,

THE TWO SPECIAL APPEALS FILED BY LIC IN JAIPUR HIGH COURT AAINST THE JUDGMENT OF hON'BLE JUSTICE MN BHANDARI CAME UP TODAY BUT SINCE THE ADVOCATES' STRIKE WAS NOT LIFTED TODAY IT HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO 1ST OCTOBER. IT WILL CERTAINLY COME UPON THAT DAY SINCE THE ADVOCATES ARE GOING TO COMMENCE WORK FROM TOMORROW.

KML ASTHANA

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Mail of Shri H K Aggarwal (15-09-2010)

Wed, 15 September, 2010 9:17:52 PM

KURUKSHETRA- Jaipur HC cases
...
From:   H K Aggarwal  


Dear Friends,

Latest inf received from Jaipur.  let us pray and hope for the best.

"As per the case status the contempt petition is to be listed on 17th and the appeals on 22nd Sept. On 17th the Advocates have declared Rajasthan Bandh and may be they will not allow the judges even to enter the court rooms. let us se what happens
kml asthana"


 With regards

H K Aggarwal

Monday, September 6, 2010

Mail of Shri KML Asthana ( 06-09-2010)

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:26 PM, 

Dear Sir,

The two appeals filed by LIC in our pension cases came up before the Diviion Bench of CJ and Mohd. Rafique. Since the Advocates' strike is continuining undaunted no Advocate is appearing.  On behalf of LIC ADM(Legal) attended and requested for time, which I opposed and prayed for allowing me to submit that these are totally false and frivolous appeals, but the Court said that since there is a request from the Appellant's side no arguments are being addressed by them, we will hear you after hearing them, and granted adjournment of two weeks.  Now it is likely to come in the week commencing 20th.

KML Asthana

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Mail of Shri KML Asthana ( 04-09-2010)

Sat, 4 September, 2010 12:56:28 PM

PENSION CASES
...
From:   asthana_jaipur ASTHANA    

THIS IS TO INFORM THAT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY LIC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JUSTICE MN BHANDARI DATED 12/1/2010 IN OUR TWO WRIT PETITIONS ON DA/DR AND UPGRADATION OF PENSIONS ARE LISTED IN THE DOUBLE BENCH COMPRISING OF HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE JUSTICE MOHD RAFIQUE, AT NOS. 29 AND 30 SIMILARLY THE CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY US IS ALSO LISTED BEFOER HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI AT NO. 36. ALL THESE CASES ARE LISTED ON MONDAY THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010.
KML ASTHANA

Thursday, August 5, 2010

MAIL OF SHRI R B KISHORE

Date Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Subject LIC BOARD MEETING TODAY AT DELHI--FLASH
 
Dear All,
 
1)U are aware that LIC Board meeting was scheduled on 5/8/10.We did our best in all the earlier 2/3 months to contact them, send emails,clarify again some points, where needed depute our representatives to meet them face to face etc.Not a day we relaxed.
 
2) S/Sri JCGarg & Agarwal, President, RIEA ,Meerut left for Delhi yesterday evening. They met Sri Anup Garg,Board Member at Hotel Tajmansingh,near UPSC,opp India Gate. All these details I gathered yesterday morn from ZM,NZ & his PAs.I conveyed to our Sri Garg.

Sri JCGarg mentioned about our case .Board member told him he has recd all papers, Justice VRKrishnaIyers independent opinion etc from me.JCG has taken all needed papers.Board member said as he was new ,He cant take first inititaive but he will support

As Dr Sooranad Rajsekaran had not arrived, they cld not meet him.JCG phoned Dr SR,he was at Mumbai & he lands on 5/8 only Lt Gl is at gurgaon, so he can come any moment in the morning only The meeting lasted 15 mts & Board member assured them of full support to pensioners genuine problems.
 
3)I was following up Delhi regularly.The Board meet was not over at 5 pm.i rang up again at 645pm, just then they were dispersing

After 1 hr , I  contacted Sri Anup garg

The very 1st sentence he spoke was. Mr kishore, Congratulations.

I said why, what happened

Sri AG told me they raised the pensioners issue, the genuine problems of anamolies etc for so many years, it shd not be kept pending for this long

They told Mr Chairman, u  & others are also retiring one day, we shd empathise

Srt AG said we shd thank Lt Gl Arvind Mahajan for his upright & courageous stand.

He told that it is not fair to keep 24/11/2001 Board decision pending without implementation.Pensioners issues are genuine,we shd not keep them aggrieved.

Sri AG said Dr Rajasekharan also lent his voice.He told that the anamolies are widening,loss is heavy for pensioners,a solution shd be devised without delay
 
Sri T.S.Vijayan,Chairman assured they will address this issue & resolve as early as possible
 
4)Friends, form ur own conclusions, no effort will ever go in vain
 
Greetings,
 R.B.KISHORE

Thursday, July 22, 2010

MAIL OF SHRI R B KISHORE - Appeal against LIC Appeal

From Seetha And Kishore

Date Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17 AM

subject Our Appeal against LIC Appeal -respond generously to the sincere

Dear All,

I) The bugle was sounded after the text of the Jaipur Judgment was released on 19 May, 2010. The flow of events were fast, even tho many interested parties tried to smash the extent & scale of achievement, as they are not able to relish. They thought it is a daydream & howcome it has come like this, with Full DR as also pension up gradation automatic every 5 years protecting in full the welfare, concern & interest of elders & pensioners who contributed so much to the overall growth & development of the organization in no small measure.

It really needs synergy at this juncture to realise the power & potency of the singular, superlative verdict which Justice MNBhandari , Jaipur HC has delivered .

b)SAY NOT THE STRUGGLE NOT AVAILETH, This is the time when all,all Fedns ,employees & pensioners ,must present same stand without deviation, without claiming or commenting adversely on strategies adopted for the right ends & objectives. Success of SBI,RBI is because all employees Fedns join the strike etc & Govt is forced to come to a final decision without endless procrastination ;it is sadly missing in LIC front .Even if any High Court judgement is due & delivered in pensioners favour,LIC will not budge,as they have taken a stand to appeal, right or wrong.

II)A 1st TIME,HC crystal clear verdict in f/o pensioners,covering both the critical issues of Full DR & pension upgradation & hence historic, is now being trampled upon & mercilessly being thrown away at the behest of mandarins of MOF.

Who will take responsibility for not implementing 24/11//2001 LIC Board Resolution ?

b) MOF IAS Babus dictat prevails ! Govt is in eternal debt with staggering VI PC benefits for employees/pensioners .In a few years more,pension bill of govt will exceed wage bill ! LIC IS AN OASIS IN A DESERT, UNDECLARED NAVARATHNA,ECONOMIC TAJMAHAL FM, PM ALL PRAISE, BUT OF WHAT AVAIL TO PENSIONERS ?
LIC Management diplomacy is not penetrative & telling, invoking positive acceptance of sound ideas & decisions

c) As LIC has now gone in for Appeal to the Division Bench of Rajasthan HC yesterday 20th July 2010,the scene will shift for yet another submission of arguments & counter arguments TIME PASSES AWAY, PENSIONERS WILT & WITHER, AGONY & FRUSTRATION, AGAIN TO Square One, tho it can be termed a victory in defeat. We now possess greater ammunition .We derive greater vigour & vitality.
Yes, The first and greatest commandment is,
Don't let them scare you. –Elmer Davis


d) YET, with unabated Enthusiasm, WE ALL JOINTLY, UNITEDLY SHD FIGHT THE CAUSE WE KNOW IT IS RIGHT .
WE KNOW IT WILL MEET WITH THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
LET US BE READY TO GALVANISE OUR MIGHT,CREATE AN UNPREDENTED PUBLIC UPROAR,EXPOSING EVIL DESIGNS, & ENSURE A JUST VICTORY FOR ALL GROUPS OF PENSIONERS


e)I received several encomiums about the lucid,pinpoimt,forceful letter of Hon Justice Sri V.R.Krishna Iyer to Finance Minister Sri Pranab Mukerjee Assertively,he has even cautioned FM to remedy what earlier MOF has overlooked

‘ May I disclose to you the pathetic condition of a class of people arbitrarily alienated from the beneficial stream of pensioners in the LIC. What is arbitrary is unconstitutional as a Constitution Bench has held in the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi’s case (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597).

Here is a case of arbitrariness which I dare say has been overlooked by your ministry and must be set right once it is discovered. The older the age of the pensioner the greater the need for liberal pension since age invites infirmity. I know this to my cause at age 95 by way of income tax benefit. The LIC pensioners are one integral group and cannot be divided into different classes. Date is an irrelevant factor when alteration in pension was made. The Supreme Court again in a weighty judgment observed that the date of variation cannot be the basis of differential pension (Vide Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130: (1983) 1 SCC 305: (1983) 1 LLJ 104]. ’

III) a) When on 7th July,2010 RBI Retireees Assn met RBI Governor at Chennai & raised the issue of pension updation, RBI Governor mentioned that he was ,personally, for pension updation. He added that he had a meeting recently with FM on this subject matter, the meeting was cordial.He added he has instructed the Dept & requested the Assn to wait for some time & assured the Bank will do the needful. Gold coin memento was given to all pensioners in connection with Platinum Jubilee.He concluded by saying ‘I am keen to see every RBIite with a happy face ‘

When will the smile dawn on all Pensioner LICians ?!!

b)Please note that RBI,every month,they are able to receive so generously ,in response to their Assn Appeal ,Donation ranging from Rs1000-4000,Fighting Fund Rs1000-10,000 & 5% of DR arrears ,a whopping Rs3000-8000.

I, therefore, remind our dear friends & colleagues, wherever they are, to whichever Fedn they belong, remember the only silver lining common as an ordinary pensioner to unite & donate liberally.It is no use taking for granted donations will pour in, as we know when it comes to purse, many become stingy.We may not need much after we succeed, but we do need skyhigh donations & collections to engage a professional advocate of standing & eminence to fight our modest cause with all the legal acumen & skills & ensure positive & favourable judgement.


We, on our part assure you, as u would have noticed in the last few months in particular the zeal & zest, we displayed for holding high pensioners esteem & self-respect.We shall fight to the end till we score a historic Victory & we know our stand is irrefutable as Hon justice Sri VRKrishna Iyer,the most illustrious legal jurist & luminary has so lucidly pointed out to FM. It is only an act of disgrace that LIC could not act magnanimously to honour the Jaipur verdict.

c)We got 91 slabs of DR in Feb 2010. We received the permanent yearly 3/4th subsidy effect of mediclaim premium, a decent amount. We are going to enjoy this for ever.
We may get eligibility of 24/27 slabs of DR in 8/2010 pension, judged by rough calculations.

YOU must,therefore ,rise to the occasion & be generous in your donations direct to
Sri Asthana,Org Secretary,Retd Insce Employees Assn,Jaipur B8,SHANTI NAGAR,AJMER ROAD,JAIPUR,302006

Details are SB Ac ,0247000100213363,PNB ,BAPUNAGAR,JAIPUR (PUN BO 024700) thro core banking.

I am sending my humble contribution of Rs2000 immediately.

In case, anyone desires to send to me, please do so by a crossed cheque in the name of Retd Insce Employees Assn,Chennai ,& I shall dutifully consolidate & remit thro core banking from any branch of SBI.

R.B.Kishore, A6, Pratigna, 8(old 22),2nd Street, B.N.Road,TNagar,Chennai,600017
044-2815 5810 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 044-2815 5810 end_of_the_skype_highlighting / 098403 40591 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 098403 40591 end_of_the_skype_highlighting .Give ur full address,telephone number,email id etc

d)All the more,our blood boils after glancing at latest salary scales of all classes ,& the anamolies & discrepancies become virtually unbridgeable ,such an yawning gulf.
Look at AAO transition ,just to take 1 or 2 examples,from—
Rs7535 ----14015 (1997-2002), Rs 15,110—20,910(2002—2007) & Rs17,240—32,640(2007-2012)

ED: Rs21,200---23,600 (1997—2002), Rs31,745—36,100(2002—2007),& Rs52,210—59,850 (2007—2012)

YOU can form your own conclusions about Basic Pension ,the arbitrary alienation from the beneficial stream of pensioners becoming more pathetic,if we may say so in Rev Justice VRKrishna Iyer’s language !!

IV)So, dear friends, I plead with you with all sincerity & seriouness at my command, & with all humility & modesty ,to assist us,to motivate us,to accelerate the pace of victory, in this joint voyage ,irrespective of any other consideration, for the common cause of welfare & upliftment of ALL PENSIONERS FRATERNITY, as this is the 1st time, along with pre-8/1997 pensioners woes, every Group of pensioners ,have to receive a facelift with pension updation.


We earnestly solicit your fullest, unhesitating cooperation.

V) Let the Flower of Pensioners Bloom with Hope & Aspiration, Let the Thorns we face pave the way for a Greater,Full-throated Inspiration,
Let its Petals dance with Scintillating Ray,
Let the Plant of Pensioners be Happy & Gay


R.B.KISHORE,
VP,AIRIEF
044-2815 5810 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 044-2815 5810 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
98403 40591

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

MAIL OF SHRI H K AGGARWAL

21-07-2010

DEAR FRIENDS,

 RE:         PENSIONERS CASE- LIC GOES FOR APPEAL.

 WE THE PENSIONERS HAVE BEEN ANXIOUSLY WAITING FOR LIC TO HONOUR JAIPUR HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT, BUT INEVITABLE HAS HAPPENED AS LIC HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE DIVISION BENCH AGAINST THE HON’ABLE HC DIRECTIONS.
 SHOCKING AND SAD, AS SOME SILVER LINNING HAD BEEN SEEN WHEN AIRIEF HAD ACCELLARATED THIER EFFORTS BY MEETING NOT ONLY THE BOARD MEMBERS, BIG ILLUMINARIES LIKE HON'BLE JUSTICE VK IYER BUT ALSO THE FINANCE MINISTER.
 FRIENDS, WE HAVE TO GIRD OUR LIONS NOT FOR ANY PHYSICAL FIGHT BUT FOR THE LEGAL BATTLE BEING FOUGHT BY OUR HERO SH KML ASTHANA, RIEA, JAIPUR WHO HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING FOR OVER 12 YEARS FOR PENSIONERS CAUSE, ACTIVELY SUPPORTED BY ALL SECTIONS OF PENSIONERS, ASSOCIATIONS/FEDERATIONS PARTICULARLY THE AIRIEF & ITS STALWARTS LIKE SH.RB KISHORE AND OTHERS.
 LET US EXTEND OUR WHOLE HEARTED SUPPORT BOTH MORAL AND FINANCIAL TO THEM TILL WE ACHIEVE THE GLORIOUS GOAL.  WE HAVE FULL FAITH IN OUR JUDICIARY AND MR. ASTHANA’S CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY TO WIN.
 AS AN HUMBLE & ORDINARY MEMBER OF THE PENSIONERS FRATERNITY I AGAIN REQUEST YOU ALL TO GENEROUSLY CONTRIBUTE IN THE LEGAL FUND OF  RIEA, JAIPUR WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS CAN BE DIRECTLY DEPOSITED IN
  SB A/C NO.  0247000100213363 – PNB,  BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR 
 OR SENT THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE  FEDERATION/ASSOCIATIONS/UNIONS  TO JAIPUR. MANY HAVE ALREADY DONE AND DESERVE ALL APPRECIATION.
 PLEASE MAIL/PASS ON THIS APPEAL TO ALL OTHER PENSIONERS  KNOWN TO YOU OR LIVING NEAR BY YOU, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR CLASS OR CADRE  OR AFFILLIATION TO ANY OTHER UNION OR ASSOCOATION/FEDERATION.
 THIS GESTURE OF YOURS WILL BE A SYMBLE OF PENSIONERS UNITY AND FIRM SUPPORT TO THE COMMON CAUSE.
 WITH BEST WISHES & KIND REGARDS
 H K AGGARWAL
556, SECTOR-54 Phase- 2,
MOHALI, CHANDIGARH-160055.
MOB:  9855002556.

Monday, July 5, 2010

RIEA MEMORANDUM TO F.M.

5TH July, 2010

Hon’ble Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
Finance Minister,
Union of India,
New Delhi

Hon’ble Sir,


MEMORANDUM

Sub: Revision of pension of employees of Life Insurance Corporation of India.
***

We are grateful to your Honour for sparing some of your valuable time for us. Sir, we are representing the All India Retired Insurance Employees’ Federation, an Association of the Pensioners of L.I.C. of India spread all over the country.

The main subject of our grievance which we wish to submit to your honour is with regard to payment of lesser Dearness Relief on Pensions of those who retired before 1/8/1997 and the Pensioners who retired on and after 1/8/1997 are getting the same rate of DR. While the pensions of all the institutions of the Central and State Governments have been revised time and again but the pensions of the Pensioners of Insurance Industry have remained static with the result they are living a miserable life compared to other pensioners.

We made several representations to the LIC about the anomalies with the result the Board passed a resolution in its meeting on 24/11/2001 but left the same to the approval of the Finance Ministry and although a long period of more than nine years has elapsed the Ministry is sitting tight on our legitimate demands.

Sir, it is pertinent to submit that these pensioners were paid 33% of D.R. while all others are paid 50% of D.R. This was as against the agreed conclusions in between the employees Associations and the Management.

The negative attitude of the Central Govt and LIC compelled the members of this Association o file writ petitions in Rajasthan High Court, Allahabad High Court, Delhi, Ahmedabad and Kerala High Courts. Out of them the writ petitions filed in Rajasthan High Court have been decided.

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 the differential treatment with regard to D.R. pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 was challenged and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees. This is applicable to those retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997. It also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

By another writ petition No. 654/2007 the Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised. In this writ petition the Hon’ble High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse. All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

On 19th of May, 2010 we had submitted a downloaded copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12/1/2010 and then the Certified copy of the said judgment were submitted to L.I.C. of India with the hope that the judgment will be honoured.

In this connection it would not be out of place to submit that once the Policy guidelines had been given the Central Govt. is absolved and the Board of LIC, which is an independent statutory body has to manage the affairs but the Officers of the Ministry are bent upon to deny the fruits of the judgment to we the humble pensioners. It is another thing that all others including themselves have derived benefit of exorbitant increase in pay scales and pensions.

Then the Central Government had announced the National Litigation Policy and the Retired Insurance Employees Association had submitted its letter dated 24th June, 2010 quoting the relevant portion of the said Policy. This Policy amongst other things had pronounced that appeals would not be filed in pension and retirement benefit matters. It appears that the pronounced policy of the Central Government is being violated by the Central Government itself.

It is further to make a mention of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 2007 – Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers and others [(2008) 3 SCC 382] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 25 that when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees also. This applies to the present case of the Petitioners and cannot be disobeyed by the Corporation. The Pensioners are also employees of the Corporation and they cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay scales in the matter of revision of their pensions.

In view of the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subjects involved in the aforesaid writ petition and the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which envisages equal and same treatment to all citizens alike and it was mandatory for the Corporation to have treated the Pensioners and the in-service employees without any discrimination. Now that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has given verdict in this connection it is apt that the management of LIC of India complies with the same and do justice to its Pensioners, most of whom are at the fag end of their life, thereby removing the discrimination amongst the pensioners and pensioners and pensioners and in-service employees, while all of them deserve similar treatment.

Since, inspite of lapse of a long time, justice has not been done to the Pensioners and the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been implemented, we earnestly hope and pray for your kind intervention to remove the discrimination being meted out to the Insurance pensioners and directions issued for implementation of the judgment without any further delay.

Sir, we have faith in your magnanimity and sense of Justice and right and positive thinking and approach.

Thanks and regards


Yours humbly,

Mr Madusudhan Mistry meets FM leading AIRIEF Delegation

Mon, 5 July, 2010 10:41:21 PM

From:   Seetha And Kishore    

Dear friends,

1) Yesterday, I talked to sri GTP ,who is already at Delhi.He told me,they are trying to have darshan of Sri Pranab Mukerjee,FM.

I asked for the members of the delegation.He told me himself,S/Sri athod,JCGarg,Meerut  & Jejurkar from Bhopal Sri Madusudhan Mistry,our Hon Chairman will be at Gujarat Bhavan.They await call from PA to FM

2)I told GTP,he wld have been well prepared.he has already given a copy of the Petition to FM,  to Sri Mistry also

Please give important,core points,jaipur Judgement crux of both Full DR,pension revision after wage revision,3/6 SC judgement re power of Statutory bodies,26/6 National Litigation Policy re no appeals for HC case involving pension,retiral benefits etc
I told him, he can also add pension bill is moderate,LIC can bear as PM/FM are aware & have praised in so many occasions

Lastly, I asked him to add that even after grant of pension upgradation, LIC pension will be far far short of Govt pension for similar cadres.

GTP has lot of data, I cld notice, he tries to update.

3)I asked him to ring me the next day, today
I was uneasy, i rang him up, he was full of enthu,telling me they are just returning after meet

I enquired the details.He told me as Bandh was there, they were unsure of appointment.Mr Mistry told them to be in readiness.

Indeed the call came ,they rushed at 9PM,one was local delegation.The other was AIRIEF delegation. S/Sri Garg & Jejurkar had to leave, as they had to return ,it was late & bandh also was a factor

4)Mr Mistry put up the case well,he said.He gave full picture of the situation, the long struggle, wait etc He said LIC must honour, they are appealing against,which is not proper.

Sri GTP had to interject for facts, numbers, saying outlay is moderate,LIC can comfortably bear etc
FM patiently listened,appeared to be impressed by Mr Mistrys submissions & data.
FM told them he wld contact LIC Chairman not to appeal.
FM instructed his Private secretary Sri Manoj Pant to connect tomorrow morn so that he wld talk to LIC Chairman

5)There was a glow in his talk, he said thank God, they waited patiently, they ran virtually

.So glad they were to be with FM,he considers it as very fruitful & helpful
I profusely thanked GTP for his valiant efforts on Bandh day,sitting like patience on a monument,atlast after call,meeting FM proudly for a very important,crucial purpose wherein welfare & interets of thousands of pensioners are involved

6)AIRIEF salutes GTP for this noble endeavour,which strategy is vital.Our gratitude to Sri Rathod.Our hearty thanx to Sri Mistry for leading the delegation
Let us all now pray some definitive pointers & results will follow

7)I learn Jaipur case is fixed for 8th July

Greetings

RBKISHORE
VP,AIRIEF


Friday, July 2, 2010

RIEA MEMORANDUM TO CHAIRMAN 2 7 10

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2353023) B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783) Ajmer Road,
Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712) Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725) E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

July 3, 2010

The Chairman,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021

MEMORANDUM

Sub: Revision of Pensions and payment of Dearness relief on pensions.
***

On behalf of the Pensioners of Life Insurance Corporation of India of Jaipur Division, who are beneficiaries of the verdict of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court dated 12st January, 2010 we are submitting this Memorandum through the Sr. Divisional Manager, Division-I, Jaipur as under:

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 the differential treatment with regard to D.R. pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 was challenged and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees. This is applicable to those retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997. It also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

By another writ petition No. 654/2007 I along with other Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised. In this writ petition the Hon’ble High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse. All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

On 19th of May, 2010 we had sent a downloaded copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12/1/2010 and then we had submitted the Certified copy of the said judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others on the subject of revision of pensions and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Union of India and another on the subject of payment of Dearness Relief on Pensions. In the said letters we had requested for implementation of the judgment within a period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

Then along with letter of Retired Insurance Employees Association dated 8th June, 2010 a copy of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd June, 2010 on the powers of the Government to interfere in the working of the independent Boards, responsibility of the administrative officers to implement such decisions, intervention of politicians such as Ministers etc., and filing of frivolous litigation was sent.

Then the Central Government had announced the National Litigation Policy and the Retired Insurance Employees Association had submitted its letter dated 24th June, 2010 quoting the relevant portion of the said Policy. This Policy amongst other things had pronounced that appeals would not be filed in pension and retirement benefit matters. With this Policy the scope of appeal has also come to an end.

It is needless to make a mention of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 2007 – Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers and others [(2008) 3 SCC 382] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 25 that when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees also. This applies to the present case of the Petitioners and cannot be disobeyed by the Corporation. The Pensioners are also employees of the Corporation and they cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay scales in the matter of revision of their pensions.

In view of the catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subjects involved in the aforesaid writ petition and the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which envisages equal and same treatment to all citizens alike and it was mandatory for the Corporation to have treated the Pensioners and the in-service employees without any discrimination. Now that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has given verdict in this connection it is apt that the management of LIC of India complies with the same and do justice to its Pensioners, most of whom are the fag end of their life thereby removing the discrimination amongst the pensioners and pensioners and pensioners and in-service employees, while all of them deserve similar treatment.

However, inspite of lapse of a long time justice has not been done to the Pensioners and the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been implemented, which had directed for implementation of the decision of the Board of LIC itself dated 24/11/2001 with such modifications as have been given in the judgment to remove the discrimination meted out to the Pensioners for long. This is the responsibility of the Management of LIC of India.

It is therefore once again requested by this Memorandum that instructions be issued without any further delay and the Pensioners be saved from approaching the Court once again.

Thanking you,


(K.L. Malhotra)
President

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

RIEA LETTER TO MD 30 6 2010

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2353023) B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783) Ajmer Road,
Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712) Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725) E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

June 30, 2010

The Managing Director,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021

Sir,

Sub: Revision of Pensions and payment of Dearness relief on pensions.
***

On 19th of May, 2010 we had sent a downloaded copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12/1/2010 and then we had submitted the Certified copy of the said judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others on the subject of revision of pensions and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Union of India and another on the subject of payment of Dearness Relief on Pensions. In the said letters we had requested for implementation of the judgment within a period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 the differential treatment with regard to D.R. pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 was challenged and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees. This is applicable to those retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997. It also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

By another writ petition No. 654/2007 I along with other Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised. In this writ petition the Hon’ble High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse. All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

Then along with letter of Retired Insurance Employees Association dated 8th June, 2010 a copy of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd June, 2010 on the powers of the Government to interfere in the working of the independent Boards, responsibility of the administrative officers to implement such decisions, intervention of politicians such as Ministers etc., and filing of frivolous litigation was sent.

Then the Central Government had announced the National Litigation Policy and the Retired Insurance Employees Association had submitted its letter dated 24th June, 2010 quoting the relevant portion of the said Policy. This Policy amongst other things had pronounced that appeals would not be filed in pension and retirement benefit matters. With this Policy the scope of appeal has also come to an end.

It is needless to make a mention of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 2007 – Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers and others [(2008) 3 SCC 382] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 25 that when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees also. This applies to the present case of the Petitioners and cannot be disobeyed by the Corporation. The Pensioners are also employees of the Corporation and they cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay scales.

However, inspite of lapse of a long time the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been implemented, which had directed for implementation of the decision of the Board of LIC itself dated 24/11/2001 with such modifications as have been given in the judgment to remove the discrimination meted out to the Pensioners for long.

It was also requested that instructions be issued for payment of DR on the slabs which had accrued and for which DA has already been released to in-service employees from 1st May, 2010. This would have given some respite to the old citizens of India from every day soaring prices of the life saving items. But these instructions have also not been issued.

Since the decision of the Board has to be implemented there should not be any hitch but no action is being taken on the same. Sir, does it not amount to contempt of court?

It is therefore once again requested that instructions be issued within a period of fifteen days from receipt of this letter positively, otherwise the Petitioners may approach the Court for redressal.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary

RIEA LETTER TO EDP 30 6 2010

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2353023) B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783) Ajmer Road,
Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712) Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725) E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

June 30, 2010

The Executive Director (P),
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021

Sir,

Sub: Revision of Pensions and payment of Dearness relief on pensions.
***

On 19th of May, 2010 we had sent a downloaded copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12/1/2010 and then we had submitted the Certified copy of the said judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others on the subject of revision of pensions and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Union of India and another on the subject of payment of Dearness Relief on Pensions. In the said letters we had requested for implementation of the judgment within a period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 the differential treatment with regard to D.R. pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 was challenged and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees. This is applicable to those retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997. It also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

By another writ petition No. 654/2007 I along with other Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised. In this writ petition the Hon’ble High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse. All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

Then along with letter of Retired Insurance Employees Association dated 8th June, 2010 a copy of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd June, 2010 on the powers of the Government to interfere in the working of the independent Boards, responsibility of the administrative officers to implement such decisions, intervention of politicians such as Ministers etc., and filing of frivolous litigation was sent.

Then the Central Government had announced the National Litigation Policy and the Retired Insurance Employees Association had submitted its letter dated 24th June, 2010 quoting the relevant portion of the said Policy. This Policy amongst other things had pronounced that appeals would not be filed in pension and retirement benefit matters. With this Policy the scope of appeal has also come to an end.

It is needless to make a mention of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 2007 – Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers and others [(2008) 3 SCC 382] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 25 that when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees also. This applies to the present case of the Petitioners and cannot be disobeyed by the Corporation. The Pensioners are also employees of the Corporation and they cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay scales.

However, inspite of lapse of a long time the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been implemented, which had directed for implementation of the decision of the Board of LIC itself dated 24/11/2001 with such modifications as have been given in the judgment to remove the discrimination meted out to the Pensioners for long.

It was also requested that instructions be issued for payment of DR on the slabs which had accrued and for which DA has already been released to in-service employees from 1st May, 2010. This would have given some respite to the old citizens of India from every day soaring prices of the life saving items. But these instructions have also not been issued.

Since the decision of the Board has to be implemented there should not be any hitch but no action is being taken on the same. Sir, does it not amount to contempt of court?

It is therefore once again requested that instructions be issued within a period of fifteen days from receipt of this letter positively, otherwise the Petitioners may approach the Court for redressal.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary

RIEA LETTER TO CHAIRMAN 30 6 10

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2353023)                             B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783)             Ajmer Road,

Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712)                     Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725)                                     E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

June 30, 2010

The Chairman,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021

Sir,

Sub:   Revision of Pensions and payment of Dearness relief on pensions.
                                      ***

          On 19th of May, 2010 we had sent a downloaded copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 12/1/2010 and then we had submitted the Certified copy of the said judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others on the subject of revision of pensions and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Union of India and another on the subject of payment of Dearness Relief on Pensions.  In the said letters we had requested for implementation of the judgment within a period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

          In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 the differential treatment with regard to D.R. pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 was challenged and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees. This is applicable to those retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997. It also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

          By another writ petition No. 654/2007 I along with other Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised. In this writ petition the Hon’ble High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse.  All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised.  The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

          Then along with letter of Retired Insurance Employees Association dated 8th June, 2010 a copy of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 3rd June, 2010 on the powers of the Government to interfere in the working of the independent Boards, responsibility of the administrative officers to implement such decisions, intervention of politicians such as Ministers etc., and filing of frivolous litigation was sent.

          Then the Central Government had announced the National Litigation Policy and the Retired Insurance Employees Association had submitted its letter dated 24th June, 2010 quoting the relevant portion of the said Policy.  This Policy amongst other things had pronounced that appeals would not be filed in pension and retirement benefit matters.  With this Policy the scope of appeal has also come to an end.

It is needless to make a mention of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1289 of 2007 – Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. Retired L.I.C. Officers and others  [(2008) 3 SCC 382] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 25 that when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees also.  This applies to the present case of the Petitioners and cannot be disobeyed by the Corporation. The Pensioners are also employees of the Corporation and they cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay scales.

          However, inspite of lapse of a long time the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not been implemented, which had directed for implementation of the decision of the Board of LIC itself dated 24/11/2001 with such modifications as have been given in the judgment to remove the discrimination meted out to the Pensioners for long.

          It was also requested that instructions be issued for payment of DR on the slabs which had accrued and for which DA has already been released to in-service employees from 1st May, 2010.  This would have given some respite to the old citizens of India from every day soaring prices of the life saving items.  But these instructions have also not been issued.

          Since the decision of the Board has to be implemented there should not be any hitch but no action is being taken on the same.  Sir, does it not amount to contempt of court?

          It is therefore once again requested that instructions be issued within a period of fifteen days from receipt of this letter positively, otherwise the Petitioners may approach the Court for redressal.

          Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary

Thursday, June 24, 2010

RIEA LETTER TO EDP 24 6 2010

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2352023) B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783) Ajmer Road,
Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712) Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725) E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com


June 24, 2010

The Executive Director (P),
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 001

Sir,

Sub: Implementation of the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6676/1998 and 654/2007- Krishna Murari Lal Asthana.
***

Kindly refer to our representation dated 24/5/2010 along which we had submitted the certified copy of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court whereby the S.B. Civil Wit Petition No. 6676 of1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana vs. Union of India and others and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another have been allowed.

After this letter we had also sent a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered on 3rd June, 2010 along with our letter dated 8/6/2010.

We have been awaiting necessary instructions for implementation of the judgment but it appears that action has not been initiated so far by issue of instructions of DR on quarterly basis from 1/5/2010.

We are now reproducing hereunder the relevant provisions of the National Litigation Policy announced by the Union Law Minister yesterday the 23rd June, 2010 for your kind reference:

Appeals, adjournments, delays restricted

Appeals would no longer be filed in:
• ex parte ad interim orders,
• tribunal hearings or administrative tribunals, unless in exceptional cases,
• service matters that only pertain to "individual grievance without any major repercussion" or pension or retirement benefits that do not have precedential or financial implications, or
• revenue matters unless the stakes are high or in a number of other exceptions
Appeals to the Supreme Court would only be allowed if:
• a case involves a question of law or a question of law under the constitution,
• a conclusion of fact by the lower court was "perverse" or a High Court's decision was "plainly erroneous",
• public finances are adversely affected,
• it substantially interferes with "public justice", or
• a High Court exceeded its jurisdiction or has struck down a statutory provision as ultra vires.
Delays in filing appeals would also be more strictly monitored by the new nodal officers and heads of departments and the "question of limitation and delay must be approached on the premise that every court will be strict with regard to condonation of delay".

In view of this mandatory provision of the National Litigation Policy no appeal in the matters of pensions and retiral benefits is to be filed. This Policy comes into force from 1st July, 2010. We are sure that a magnanimous Institution like LIC will honour the judgment and give respite to the Pensioners in the last days of their life, hundreds of whom have already left this world. We hope in this view if there is any thought of appeal the same should not be resorted to.

It may not be out of place to submit that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment dated 3/6/2010, a copy of which has already been submitted, has deprecated frivolous litigation.

Under the circumstances we request you to kindly implement the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which has already been overdelayed.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary

RIEA LETTER TO CHAIRMAN 24 6 2010

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2352023)                             B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783)             Ajmer Road,

Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712)                     Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725)                                     E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com


June 24, 2010

The Chairman,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 001

Sir,

Sub:   Implementation of the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court
          in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6676/1998 and 654/2007- Krishna Murari Lal Asthana.
                                      ***

          Kindly refer to our representation dated 24/5/2010 along which we had submitted the certified copy of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court whereby the  S.B. Civil Wit Petition No. 6676 of1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana vs. Union of India and others and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another have been allowed. 

          After this letter we had also sent a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered on 3rd June, 2010 along with our letter dated 8/6/2010.

          We have been awaiting necessary instructions for implementation of the judgment but it appears that action has not been initiated so far by issue of instructions of DR on quarterly basis from 1/5/2010.

          We are now reproducing hereunder the relevant provisions of the National Litigation Policy announced by the Union Law Minister yesterday the 23rd June, 2010 for your kind reference:

Appeals, adjournments, delays restricted


Appeals would no longer be filed in:
  • ex parte ad interim orders,
  • tribunal hearings or administrative tribunals, unless in exceptional cases,
  • service matters that only pertain to "individual grievance without any major repercussion" or pension or retirement benefits that do not have precedential or financial implications, or
  • revenue matters unless the stakes are high or in a number of other exceptions
Appeals to the Supreme Court would only be allowed if:
  • a case involves a question of law or a question of law under the constitution,
  • a conclusion of fact by the lower court was "perverse" or a High Court's decision was "plainly erroneous",
  • public finances are adversely affected,
  • it substantially interferes with "public justice", or
  • a High Court exceeded its jurisdiction or has struck down a statutory provision as ultra vires.
Delays in filing appeals would also be more strictly monitored by the new nodal officers and heads of departments and the "question of limitation and delay must be approached on the premise that every court will be strict with regard to condonation of delay".

In view of this mandatory provision of the National Litigation Policy no appeal in the matters of pensions and retiral benefits is to be filed. This Policy comes into force from 1st July, 2010. We are sure that a magnanimous Institution like LIC will honour the judgment and give respite to the Pensioners in the last days of their life, hundreds of whom have already left this world. We hope in this view if there is any thought of appeal the same should not be resorted to.

          It may not be out of place to submit that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its latest judgment dated 3/6/2010, a copy of which has already been submitted, has deprecated frivolous litigation.

          Under the circumstances we request you to kindly implement the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, which has already been overdelayed.

          Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,



(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

RIEA LETTER TO CHAIRMAN 8 6 2010

RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR
(Affiliated to All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation)
***
President: K.L. Malhotra (2353023)                                         B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Secretary: M.L Khandelwal (2310783)                         Ajmer Road,

Org. Secy. K.M.L. Asthana (2223712)                                 Jaipur-302006
(098285 28725)                                     E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

June 8, 2010

The Chairman,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office,
Yogakshema,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai-400 021

Sir,

Sub:   Implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High
          Court dated 12/1/2010 in SB C.W.P. Nos. 6676/1998 and 654/2007.
                                      ***

          This is further to our letter dated 24/5/2010 along with certified copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the above cases with a request to please implement the judgment within one month.

          However, on the above subject we are sending herewith a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered on 3rd June, 2010, which is on the subject of powers of the Government to interfere in the working of the independent Boards, as ours is, responsibility of the administrative officers to implement such decisions, intervention of politicians such as Ministers etc, and filing of frivolous litigation.  This judgment is in addition to the cases referred to in the judgment and also on other subjects.

          Sir, thus we have been able to get independence of the Board from the shackles of the Central Government and now it is for the administrative machinery of the Board to take immediate steps for implementation of the decision of the Board..  Kindly therefore, comply with the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court without any further delay as requested in our letter under reference.

          Thanking you, Sir,

Yours faithfully,


(K.M.L. Asthana)
Org. Secretary
Encl. as above


Monday, May 24, 2010

KML LETTER TO CHAIRMAN REVISION OF PENSION 24 5 2010

B-8, Shanti Nagar,
Ajmer Road,
Jaipur-302006
            E-mail: asthana_jaipur@yahoo.com

May 24, 2010

REGISTERED A.D.
To,

The Chairman,
L.I.C. of India,
Central Office, Yogakshema,
Bima Marg, Fort,
Mumbai-400 021
                  
Sir,

Sub:   Revision of Pensions and payment of Dearness relief on pensions
                                      ***

I am submitting herewith certified copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others on the subject of revision of pensions and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 entitled Krishna Murari Lal Asthana vs. Union of India and another on the subject of payment of Dearness Relief of Pensions.  These writ petitions have been allowed by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur vide its judgment dated 12/1/2010.  The judgment is self-explanatory.

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 I had challenged the differential treatment with regard to payment of D.R. to pensioners who retired prior to 1/8/1997 and the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has directed that there cannot be different rates of Dearness Relief than the rates at which it was payable to in-service employees.  This is applicable to those who retired after 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 since same rate has been applied to those who retired after 1/8/1997.  sIR, it also means that the DR has to be revised on quarterly basis as is revised in the case of in-service employees.

By another writ petition No. 654/2007 I along with other Petitioners had challenged the action of the Corporation in not revising the pensions as and when pay scales were revised.  In this writ petition the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners interse.  All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

          It is therefore requested that the compliance of the judgment may kindly be made and the pension of the applicant may be directed to be updated in terms of the judgment and arrears of the difference of pension on account of rate of DR and revision of pensions be also directed to be paid from the date of my retirement I,.e. 31/12/1997 at an early date and in any case within a period of one month from receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.

          In the meantime instructions be released for payment of Dearness allowance as enhanced from 1st May, 2010.

          A copy of the instructions issued in this connection be also kindly be directed to be sent to this Association.

          Kindly acknowledge,

Yours faithfully,

(K.M.L. Asthana)
Encls. as above