3.1.12

Jaipur Cases : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 &S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 - 03.09.2011


30.08.2012.
No. COURT REGARDING DATE JUDGEMENT ( Please see 'Attachment' for full Judgement) REMARKS CASE NO YEAR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

1 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH D.A.Neutralisation 12th January, 2010 both the writ petitions are allowed.(LIC files appeal) 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. Civil Writ Petition 6676(+654) 1998 Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Union of India & Ors.

2 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH Pension Upgradation 12th January, 2010 both the writ petitions are allowed.(LIC files appeal) 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. Civil Writ Petition 654(+6676) 2007 Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Union of India & Ors.

3 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH Appeal by LIC of India 21/1/2011 Dismissed LIC to implement Justice Bhandari's decision.          SPL. APPL. WRIT              493(+494)                      2010            LIFE INSURANCE CORP AND ORS                         KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA ORS

4 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH Appeal by LIC of India 21/1/2011 Dismissed LIC to implement Justice Bhandari's decision.      SPL. APPL. WRIT    494(+493)                  2010            LIFE INSURANCE CORP AND ORS                         KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA ORS

5 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH Revision Petition by LIC of India 19/8/2011 DISPOSED [ DISMISSED ] Previous Judgemet is confirmed. WRIT REVIEW 86 2011 LIFE INSURANCE CORP KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHAN ORS

6 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH Revision Petition by LIC of India 19/8/2011 DISPOSED [ DISMISSED ] Previous Judgemet is confirmed. WRIT REVIEW 87 2011 LIFE INSURANCE CORP KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHAN ORS

7 SUPREME COURT SLP by LIC of India 15/07/2011 DISPOSED Review Petition first SLP 16117(+16118) 2011 LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS.   KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.

8 SUPREME COURT SLP by LIC of India 15/07/2011 DISPOSED Review Petition first SLP 16118(+16117) 2011 LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS.   KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.

9 SUPREME COURT SLP by LIC of India Next Date of listing is : 05/10/2012 PENDING SLP 29956 2011 L.I.C. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.

10 SUPREME COURT SLP by LIC of India Next Date of listing is : 05/10/2012 PENDING ` SLP 29957 2011 L.I.C. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.

11 SUPREME COURT Contempt Petition 19/03/2012 DISPOSED  petitions are disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made. Contempt Petition (Civil) 82(+83) 2012 KRISHAN MURARI LAL ASTHANA   L.I.C.OF INDIA & ORS.

12 SUPREME COURT Contempt Petition 19/03/2012 DISPOSED  petitions are disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made. Contempt Petition (Civil) 83(+82) 2012 KRISHAN MURARI LAL ASTHANA   L.I.C.OF INDIA & ORS.

13 SUPREME COURT Contempt Petition JULY 17, 2012. DISPOSED  petitions are disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made. CPP 124(+125) 2012 Krishna Murari Lal Asthana D.K.MEHROTRA & ORS

14 SUPREME COURT Contempt Petition JULY 17, 2012. DISPOSED  petitions are disposed of with liberty in terms of the prayer made. CPP 125(+124) 2012 Krishna Murari Lal Asthana D.K.MEHROTRA & ORS

JUDGEMENT ( Please see 'Attachment' for full Judgement)

12.01.2010 - Jaipur Judgement. Jaipur Cases : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 -D.R.Relief
& S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 - Pension Revision.


2 03.09.2011
21.01.2011 JAIPUR DIVISIONAL BENCH JUDGMENT

3 03.09.2011
15.07.2011 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A


4 03.09.2011
19.08.2011 Copy of the judgment dated 19/8/2011 in REVIEW PETITIONS

5 3.09.2011 Sri.V.R.Krishna Iyer

6 30.09.2011
Friday, September 23, 2011 12:16 PM
"Seetha And Kishore" rbkseetha@yahoo.com
PENSION UPGRADATION & FULL DR TO ALL PENSIONERS:

7  2.11.2011 -Jaipurcase-CCP 760 of 2010-Judgement

No Subject ]Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:10 AM
From: "asthana_jaipur ASTHANA"
mailto:asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in%3E%22

8 3.11.2011


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  -SLP 29956,29957 of 2011
9 5.11.2011

Re:- Supreme Court - SLP 29956/29957 of 2011 -14.11.2011
From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in
Date: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:45 AM
10 5.11.2011
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST
(For 08th, November, 2011 )

11 6.11.2011
Subject: Fwd: Meeting with Finance minister for pension upgradation
Date: Sunday, November 6, 2011, 2:54 PM
From: Seetha And Kishore

12.6.11.2011

Fw: Clarifications
Sri Asthana to CHMSunday, November 6, 2011 12:23 PM
From: "Seetha And Kishore"
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:57 AM

13 8.11.2011
Subject: Re: Fwd: Meeting with Finance minister for pension upgradation -5.11.2011 & C.C.P. 760 of 2011
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 1:29 PM

From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA
14 10.11.2011
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Daily Cause List
14th, November, 2011

15 14.11.2011
LL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES’ FEDERATION
JAIPUR HIGH COURT CASE DEVELOPMENTS
Date 14-11-2011 -

16 15.11.2011
P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29956-
29957/2011
Date: 14/11/2011

17 16.11.2011
 29956/57 OF 2011 SC BENCH ORDER & SRI ASTHANAS EMAILdt 16nov2011
10/59pm

18 17.11.2011.
Asthana image

19 17.11.2011
SLP 14 NOV AFTERMATH & ISSUES
Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:06 PM
"Seetha And Kishore"
rbkseetha@yahoo.com

20 2.12.2011
From: Seetha And Kishore
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: PLEA & APPEAL TO HONOUR & IMPLEMENT COURT JUDGEMENTS FOR PENSIONERS

21 2.12.2011
All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation.
16.11.2011
RE: LEGAL CASE ON DR ANOMALY & PENSION
UPGRADATION

22 3.12.2011
22 CONTEMPT PETITION

Message contains attachments1 File (59KB)KML CONTEMPT APPLICATION 2.docPL SEE THE ATTACHMENT FOR THE

------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.01.2010 - Jaipur Judgement.
Jaipur Cases : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998 -D.R.Relief
 & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 - Pension Revision.

JAIPUR HIGH COURT CWP 6676 OF 1998
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6676/1998
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.654/2007
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors.
Vs.
L.I.C. of India & Ors.
Date of Order : 12th January, 2010
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr.Abhinav Sharma, Ms.Anita Aggarwal,G.C. - for petitioners Mr. Anurag Aggarwal, Mr.Manoj Singh Ragav Mr.S.S. Raghav - for respondents BY THE COURT: REPORTABLE These two writ petitions involve common issues, thus are being heard and decided by this order. The petitioners are those who retired from the service of Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short 'the LIC of India'). First ground raised by the petitioners and common in both the writ petitions is regarding discrimination in grant of pensionary benefits. It is stated that on 28.6.1995, LIC of India(Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Pension Rules') were notified. The Pension Rules were made applicable to the employees, who were in service of the respondent Corporation on or after 1.1.1986, on their exercising options to be governed by the Pension Rules and refunding the contribution of provident fund with interest. For those employees, who retired after 28.6.1995, the Pension Rules were made compulsory. Chapter – IV of the Pension Rules provides rates of pension. Rule 35(2) of the Pension Rules provides that if an employee has completed qualifying service of not less than 33 years, then his pension would be 50% of the average emoluments. The grievance of the petitioners is in regard to the grant of dearness allowance, inasmuch as, dearness allowance benefit has been attached on the basic pension and not on the basic pay. To clarify the above, it is submitted that benefit of dearness allowance after revision of the pay scale in the year 1996 was provided as under:- Dearness formula” Basic Pay Rate of DA for every 4 points i) Upto Rs.4800 0.35% of pay ii) Rs.4801 to 7700 0.25% of 4800 plus 0.29% of pay in excess of Rs.4800 iii) Rs.7701 to 8200 0.35% of 4800 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.7700 and Rs.4800 plus 0.17% of pay in excess of Rs.7700 iv) Rs.8201 and above 0.35% of Rs.4800 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.7700 and Rs.4800 plus 0.17% of difference between Rs.8200 and Rs.7700 plus 0.09% of basic pay in excess of Rs.8200 Aforesaid formula was available till Pension Rules came in the year 1995. Under the Pension Rules, the benefit of dearness allowance was provided in the following manner:- Scale of Back pension Rate of dearness relief as a percentage of basic pension per month i) Upto Rs.2400 0.35% ii) Rs.2401 to 3850 0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of basic pension in excess of Rs.2400 iii) Rs.3851 to 4100 0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of the difference between Rs.3850 and Rs.2400 plus 0.17% of basic pension in excess of Rs.3850 iv) Above Rs.4100 0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.3850 and Rs.2400 plus 0.17% of the difference between Rs.4100 and Rs.3850 plus 0.09% of basic pension in excess of Rs.4100 In view of the aforesaid, benefit of dearness allowance at the first step being 0.35% remains upto basic pension of Rs.2400/- only whereas aforesaid percentage of dearness allowance is allowed on the basic pay upto Rs.4800/-. To understand the aforesaid difference, a comparative chart was submitted by the petitioners, which is quoted hereunder:- Comparative Chart Pay upto Rate of DA/DR Pension Upto 4800 0.35% of pay Upto 2400 From 4801 to 7700 0.29% of pay From 2401 to 3850 From 7701 to 8200 0.17% of pay From 3851 to 4100 Above 8200 0.09% of pay Above 4100 Perusal of the aforesaid Chart shows that increase in the DA/DR was less for the pensioners because the benefit of DA/DR was reduced to the extent of 50% on proportion basis from the basic pay as an employee having qualifying pensionable service of 33 years or more gets 50% of the pay as pension. Learned counsel for petitioners prayed that slab of dearness allowance should be kept the same as is payable to the employees. In other words, it should not be reduced proportionately to the basic pension. Thus, first grievance of the petitioners is in regard to reduction of benefit of dearness allowance. The other issue raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6676/1998 – Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. Union of India and Others pertains to non-grant of benefit of stagnation increment. Learned counsel for petitioners, advancing the arguments for first issue, submitted that non-grant of due benefit of dearness allowance to the retired employees is not only arbitrary but discriminatory in nature. After filing of the writ petition by Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, the LIC itself passed a resolution in its meeting held on 24.11.2001. On realizing the mistake, the LIC decided to sort out the issue by proper remedy, but finally left it to the discretion of the Union of India to take a final decision. If the resolution dated 24.11.2001 is implemented, then grievance of the petitioners can come to an end. This is more so when the LIC is an independent body constituted under the Act of Parliament and is controlled by its Board. The Central Government cannot sit on the decision taken by the Board within the framework of the Rules. However, in the present matter, despite the Board's resolution, petitioners have not been given relief for the reason that Government of India has not taken any decision on the aforesaid resolution dated 24.11.2001. Referring to the provisions of Section 21 of the LIC Act, it was submitted that only in regard to the matter of policy involving public interest, the Central Government may issue guidelines. Thus, aforesaid provision does not bar for implementation of the resolution passed by the Board as it is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. This is more so when the pensioners who retired after 31.7.1997 are getting the benefit of dearness allowance on the basic pay and not on the basic pension, thus pensioners have been divided in two categories in a discriminatory manner. Even the cut off date fixed becomes arbitrary between the two categories of pensioners more so when benefit of dearness allowance was not a new benefit. Thus, any change in the benefit of pension has to be made without a cut off date. The legal position in that regard is quite clear. In view of the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if there is a change in the benefit of existing pensioners, change has to be made effective to all without a cut off date inasmuch as cut off date in such cases are held to be arbitrary. In a case where pension is allowed for the first time, then a cut off date can be provided. My attention was drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Kasturi Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 61wherein aforesaid issue has been dealt with. Same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ofUnion of India Vs. Dr. Vijayappurapu Subhayammareported in AIR 2000 SC 3113 and was even reiterated in the case of Subrata Sen Vs. Union of India reported in(2001) 8 SCC 71. In reference to aforesaid judgments, it was urged that there can be no difference in the benefit of dearness allowance to the employees retired before 31.7.1997 and those retired after the aforesaid date. In reference to Section 21 of the LIC Act, it is submitted that a formal approval of the Government of India was not required to the Board's decision dated 24.11.2001. A reference of the judgment in the case of UGC Class-I Officers' Association Vs. University Grants Commissioner reported in 2000 (7) SLR (Delhi) 17 was made apart from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society Vs. Heavy Engg. Corporation reported in 2006 (3) SCC 708. Therein it was held that a body created under the Act or even the Government agency need not to seek approval of every decision taken by its Board for day-to-day functioning of the Company. In reference to aforesaid, it is submitted that when the Board of Directors have already taken a decision on 24.11.2001, then there is no need of its sanction by the Central Government. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that there exists anomaly even in regard to the revision of the pay scale. The benefit of revision in the pay scale from time to time was not extended to the pensioners. In view of aforesaid, even an officer retiring in the higher pay scale started getting less pension than to the employee retiring subsequently in lower pay scale. Aforesaid aspect was also considered along with the first issue, by the Board in its meeting held on 24.11.2001 and following decision was taken:- “Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there was three different rates for different groups of pensioners at present depending on their dates of retirement, which cause considerable administrative inconvenience. Chairman pointed out that he has since received a communication from Dr. S. Ram Khanna, Board Member, which refers to his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detailed. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of inservice employees. Chairman pointed out that these have been considered before placing the matter to the Board and it was felt that the same would increase the financial burden very substantially and may be unaffordable for the corporation. Chairman pointed out that the implications of the proposal made have been actuarially determined at Rs.51.37 crores and the annual outlay be in the region of 6 to 8 crores. After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval.” In view of aforesaid decision, the respondent Corporation was under an obligation to implement the decision without further delay as formal approval was not required from the Government. In view of aforesaid, it is prayed that relief claimed in the writ petitions may be granted to the petitioners. The prayer for grant of stagnation increment was not pressed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent – Corporation submits that benefit of dearness allowance has been provided on rational basis, thus petitioners are not entitled to any benefit. This is more so when the benefit is as per the Rules. By virtue of the aforesaid, even if retirees are divided in two or three groups for grant of pensionary benefits, it cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory in nature. The Board of Directors took a favourable decision in its meeting held on 24.11.2001, but the Central Government has not granted approval to the same till date. Thus, it could not be given effect. In view of aforesaid, so far as the respondent Corporation is concerned, it has taken a favourable decision for the employees, but on account of inaction on the part of the Government of India, the Board's decision could not be given effect for redressal of the grievance raised by the petitioners herein. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the Board's resolution dated 24.11.2001 is pending decision before the Government of India. The LIC was otherwise free to take its own decision. Thus, in these circumstances and as per the provisions of the Act, there was no need to send the Board's resolution for its approval by the Government of India. I have considered rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. First issue is in regard to non-grant of due benefit of dearness allowance. It is stated that employees retiring after 31.7.1997 are getting due benefit of pension with dearness allowance whereas those retired prior to aforesaid date are being deprived to get similar benefit. The issue for consideration, thus, remains is as to whether there can be a different method for grant of pensionary benefits for the retirees based on cut off date? The legal position in that regard is quite clear. In view of the several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, issue regarding cut off date for providing pensionary benefits can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) If there are change in benefit of pension then no cut off date can be provided. The benefit on account of change in pensionary benefits would have retrospective effect. (ii) If the pension is introduced for the first time, a cut off date can be fixed. Aforesaid issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners. In the case of V. Kasturi Vs. State Bank of India (supra), it was held that if a person was eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per new formula. Accordingly, he would be entitled to get similar benefit from the date it is given to other members. Same view has been reiterated in the cases of Dr. Vijayappurapu Subhayamma (supra), Subrata Sen(supra) and in the case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association Vs. Union of India reported in1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 664. In Paras 9 & 10 of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association's case, aforesaid issue was decided after referring earlier judgment of theHon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 SC 130). Relevant Paras of aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder:- “9. The scheme introduced by the Regulations is a totally new one. It was not in existence prior to its introduction with effect from November 1, 1990. The employees of the Reserve Bank who had retired prior to that date were admittedly governed by the CPF scheme. They had received the benefit of employer's contribution under that scheme and on superannuation the amount to their account was disbursed to them and they had put it to use also. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the retiral benefits admissible to them under the extant Rules of the Bank had been paid to them. That was the social security plan available to them at the date of their retirement. The Bank employees were, however, clamouring for a pension scheme, firstly on a restricted basis as a third retiral benefit and later in lieu of the CPF scheme. The Central Government had not approved of a pension scheme, as a third retiral benefit. After that proposal was spurned it appears that the employees of the Bank demanded a pension scheme on the pattern of the scheme available to Central Government employees in lieu of the CPF Scheme. This was approved by the Central Government and consequently it was introduced with effect from November 1, 1990 under the Regulations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that if the CPF retirees were not admitted to this new scheme they could not make any grievance in that behalf. They had no right to claim coverage under the new pension scheme since they had already retired and had collected their retiral benefits from the employer. But the moot question is whether it was open to the employer to grant the benefit of the pension scheme to one group of CPF retirees who had retired from Bank service on or after January 1, 1986 and deny the same to all who had retired on or before December 31, 1985. Is this division of CPF retires discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 10. Nakara judgment has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalization on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalize an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduced an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rational discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc. It must be realized that in the case of an employee governed by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. This is the reason why this Court in Nakara case drew a distinction between liberalization of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupees value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received a lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the pension scheme and those belonging to the CPF scheme has been rightly emphasized by this Court in Krishena case”. Perusal of aforesaid Paras reveals that there exists difference between introduction of new Scheme then the existing Scheme. In the light of the aforesaid, if the facts of this case are looked into, then it becomes clear that amongst the pensioners there exists discrimination more specifically when the pension has been made admissible to the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1986. In view of aforesaid, there can be no different basis for dearness allowance or other benefits to those retired on or before 31.7.1997. The existing pensioners are entitled for the benefit of dearness allowance with the same measure as is admissible to the pensioners on or after 31.7.1997. The discrimination amongst the pensioners on that count is not permissible and if there exists rule, making discrimination amongst the existing pensioners, it is held to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent Corporation has already taken up the aforesaid issue in its Board meeting and a resolution was also passed on 24.11.2001 after taking note of the fact that three different rates for different groups of pensioners exist depending upon their dates of retirement. It is not only causing administrative inconvenience but creating anomaly amongst the pensioners also. Accordingly, decision was taken but was made subject to final approval by the Central Government. The question now comes as to whether such Board's resolution requires Central Government's approval or can be implemented at the level of the respondent Corporation itself. If we look to Section 21 of the LIC Act, things become very clear. For ready reference Section 21 of the LIC Act is quoted hereunder:- “Section 21. In the discharge of its functions under this Act, the Corporation shall be guided by such directions in matters of policy involving public interest as the Central Government may give to it in writing; and if any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest, the decision of the Central Government shall be final”. Perusal of the aforesaid Section reveals that it is only in regard to discharge of its functions under the Act, the Corporation shall be guided by such directions of the Central Government, which involve public interest and is otherwise matter of policy. In the present matter, it has not been shown that any guideline was issued by the Government of India as a policy decision in public interest. Thus, the position herein is reverse. It is the Board which passed a resolution and sent it for approval of the Government of India, which cannot be said to be as per Section 21 of the LIC Act. In fact, position would be different if the Government of India would have issued guidelines on policy matters in the public interest. This is apart from the fact that on realizing the mistake, the Board had taken a cautious decision even for administrative convenience. 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 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 the Board is implemented. In fact, implementation of the Board's resolution would take away discriminatory treatment amongst the pensioners apart from keeping the LIC away from the administrative inconvenience. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, 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. 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 petitions 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. (M.N. BHANDARI) J. Sunil,JrPA -------------------------------------------------

2 03.09.2011

21.01.2011

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.



3 03.09.2011
15.07.2011
ITEM NO.20                      COURT NO.10                 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).16117-
16118/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 21/01/2011 in       DBSAW No.
493/2010 in SBCWP No. 6676/1998 & DBSAW No. 494/2010 in SBCWP No.
654/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS.                         Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.                            Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief )

Date: 15/07/2011    These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU


For Petitioner(s)       Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr.Adv.
                        Mr. A.V. Rangam,Adv.
                        Mr. Buddy A. Rangandhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s)       Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
                        Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
                        Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.

             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R
                   These    petitions    are   directed     against   order
      dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the
      Rajasthan High Court whereby the special appeals filed
      by the petitioners against the order of the learned
      Single    Judge      in   the   matter   of   grant    of   dearness
      allowance to the respondents were dismissed.
                   We have heard learned senior counsel for the
      petitioners and perused the record.
                   Since the petitions filed by the petitioners
                                 2


for review of the order passed by the Division Bench
are pending consideration, these petitions are disposed
of with a request to the Division Bench of the High
Court   to    make   an   endeavour      to    decide   the   review
petitions as early as possible, but latest within three
months from the date of receipt/production of copy of
this order.
             We also direct that till the disposal of the
review petitions, the proceedings initiated against the
officers     of   petitioner   No.   1   under   the    Contempt   of
Courts Act, 1971 shall remain stayed.




   (A.D. Sharma)                              (Phoolan Wati Arora)
    Court Master                                  Court Master

---------------------------------------------
4 03.09.2011
19.08.2011
Copy of the judgment dated 19/8/2011 in REVIEW PETITIONS


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI

Mr. Mahendra Singh   )Counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Ajay Tyagi       )

Mr. Abhinav Sharma   )Counsel for the respondents
Mr. S.S. Raghav      )

     Heard learned counsel for the parties.
     Having regard to the facts of this particular case, as narrated by the learned Single Judge and which were taken into account by us while hearing the appeal, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record so as to call for interference in the review jurisdiction.  The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
     Consequent upon the dismissal of review petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.

Sd.                                     Sd.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J.                (DALIP SINGH)J.

Note: Shri S.S. Raghav is Assistant Solicitor General of Central Government
---------------------------------------------------------
5 3.09.2011
From: Seetha And Kishore <rbkseetha@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Subject: Phone call from Hon Justice VRKrishna Iyer
 

Dear friends,
1)When I was with City Branch 6,Chennai SBM,a call came on my Mobile.It was PA to Hon Justice(Retd)VRKrishna Iyer.Then after I confirmed,she gave the connection, a gent,who finally enabled me to talk to VRKIyer
I cld only thank him profusely for his modesty in his response to we poor pensioners.He has received all emails etc.He asked me if anybody is coming to see him
I told him after our representative came, he wanted more connected papers,which also  I sent immediately.
He was glad that a responsible official ,thorough in the knowledge of these matters & developments,will see him positively
I pleaded with him to help us in the matter as this is childs play for him & we shall be highly thankful
Indded, it was so nice on his part to have established connection ,I felt elated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seetha And Kishore <rbkseetha@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Subject: Fw: letter
From: chandrika aravind
Subject: letter
To: http://us.mc1132.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rbkseetha@yahoo.com
Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010, 4:32 PM
Dear Sir,
As per the telephonic talk just now I am attaching the letter.
Kindly acknowledge receipt by email.
Regards
Chandrika Aravindan
PA to Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
------------------------------------------------------------------

July 17, 2010

My dear Pranab Mukherjee,

         I have a vague recollection of having a big public meeting in Calcutta years ago.  I wonder if you have recollection of me or that meeting.

         I write this letter for a public cause so necessary for a class of people who need most support from Government.  I am happy you have been sworn into high office as Finance Minister of India.  You have done us great and in a country of deprivation and indigent it is important that a man of your vision and socialist mission should become vibrant ‘to wipe every tear from every eye’ if I may quote from Nehru’s historic tryst with destiny speech over Independence Day on 15.8.1947.  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].

         Facts which has lead to this anomaly are as follows:-

         It has been alleged by the LIC Board where a resolution passed by them on 24.11.2001 rectifying the disparity in the calculation of Dearness allowance to pensioners of the LIC before and after 31.7.1997, has been kept in abeyance for want of financial sanction from your ministry.  The court had directed the LIC to implement the resolution of the Board dt. 23.11.2001 stating that the corporation
cannot hold different criteria for granting D.A based on the cut of date i.e. 31.7.1997.  The LIC is also not able to approach the court again as per the provisions of the national litigation policy announced by your ministry on 23.6.2010.

         I, therefore feel that your ministry in all fairness instruct the LIC to implement court judgment, simultaneously giving financial concurrence for its implementation by your ministry.

         I am enclosing the papers connected with this received by me with a prayer that immediate action in the matter is called for as a humanitarian and patriotic duty which otherwise will adversely affect the old aged pensioners who may be deprived of their benefits if prolonged further.

         In the light of my submission above and out of consideration for humanism, justice and constitution fairness kindly accord financial concurrence to the court order.  Surely these unfortunate section as they draw their pension on a just basis will bless you and your Government.  I too will.  Statesman like action without delay will be a boon to the forsaken pensioners.

        With regards,

                                                                     Yours sincerely,
                                                                  V.R. KRISHNA IYER

Encl : as above

To

         Shri. Pranab Mukherjee
         Hon’ble Minister for Finance
         Government of India
         New Delhi
 ------------------------------------------------------------

6 30.09.2011

Friday, September 23, 2011 12:16 PM

From:

PENSION UPGRADATION & FULL DR TO ALL PENSIONERS:

     Social justice & empowerment to Seniors demand lot of suave,empathetic decisions in their favour. As an institution of national pride, par excellence in performance & earning encomiums from PM, FM & all quarters, it will be in the fitness of things ,that this Jaipur judgement is honoured in letter & spirit & implemented in full. Lack of money power, lungpower, muscle power, political power must be addressed & compensated ONLY by a Sane Judiciary by a favourable decision as demands  are modest, logical & coherent.
 
          More so after the 23/6/2010 National Litigation Policy announced by Law Minister,it will be suffocating if the golden & guardian principles are immediately thrown to the wind by the Powers that be. We are now reproducing hereunder the relevant provisions of the National Litigation Policy announced by the Union Law Minister 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.
 
 
      We plead  in all humility & modesty to intervene to ensure LIC accepts & honours the Rajasthan High Court judgement. Coming as it does after 12 years,when the inequities, anamolies & discrepancies are being sorted out by this Judgement,to a large extent & when hundreds of pensioners have already died, it ill behoves this sterling institution LIC, to go in for appeal & appeal, review & review ,again causing untold delay & misery.
 
       Retirees have done yeoman service to the cause of institution & society ,which they honourably served ,with devotion & dedication, finding now uncared, unwept & unsung & being treated as Secondary citizens & UIP-UnImportant Persons. Let not this Oxygen be extinguished by any ill-advised move to question & appeal against the verdict., more so with this new Bible of National Litigation policy explicitly prohibiting appeals in case of Elders getting retiral or pensionary benefits,after a Court order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 2.11.2011
No Subject ]Wednesday, November 2, 2011 12:10 AM
From: "asthana_jaipur ASTHANA" mailto:asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in%3E%22 

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 2007

***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 70 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lal Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri T.S. Vijayan, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

2. Shri A.K. Das Gupta, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

3. Mrs. D. Vijaylakshmi, Executive Director (P), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai 400 021

Contemner-Respondents

***

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for deliberate intentional contempt of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of judgment dated 12th January, 2010 passed by Hon’ble Justice Shri Munishwar Nath Bhandari in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 65 of 2007.

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760/10

Date of Order 31.10.2011

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

Mr. Abhinav Sharma, for petitioner

Mr. Ajay Tyagi, for contemnors.

Mr. Tyagi undertakes that he will get the order complied with within a period of four weeks.

Time prayed for is allowed.

If the order is not complied with within the aforesaid period, the contemnors respondents no. 2 and 3 will remain present before this court on the next date.

List the case on 01st December, 2011.

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8 3.11.2011
 A)
November 3, 2011 1:34 AM
asthana_jaipur ASTHANA" asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in
Message contains attachments

1 File (68KB)

• KML SLP LIC VS KML ASTHANA & ORS.doc

PL FIND THE SLP IN THE ATTACHMENT


ASTHANA

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 B)
SLP (Civil) 29956/2011
STATUS PENDING
Cause Title
L.I.C.
Vs.
KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC.
Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MR. A.V. RANGAM
Res. Adv. MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
Subject Category
SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFITS
Listing Details
Next Date of Listing 14/11/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 5.11.2011

Re:- Supreme Court - SLP 29956/29957 of 2011 -14.11.2011
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in
Date: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd:
To: C R Sankaran crsankaran1938@gmail.com
YES, AS I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY MY ADVOCATE IN SC NEW DELHI
LIC HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2011 AND THEIR
APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE SAME IN THE SC TO BE TAKEN
ON RECORD OF THE SLP. THEY HAVE DONE MY JOB. THE SLP IS
SCHEDULED NOW TO COME UP ON 14TH NOVEMBER
ASTHANA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 5.11.2011
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - JAIPUR BENCH
SUPPLEMENTARY LIST
(For 08th, November, 2011 )
COURT NO. 7
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
S. TYPE NO. TITLE OF THE CASE NAME OF ADVO
45.C.C.P. 760/2010 KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ABHINAV SHARMA-P
2401. T S VIJAYAN AND OTHERS MAHENDRA SINGH/A TYAGI-R
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 6.11.2011
attachments1 File (1068KB)Revised Letter_to_Finance_Minister__GOI[1].doc

From: Seetha And Kishore
Subject: Fwd: Meeting with Finance minister for pension upgradation

Date: Sunday, November 6, 2011, 2:54 PM
WONDERFUL LETTER FROM SRI OSCAR FERNANDEZ TO FM
CLASSIC LETTER FROM SRI MAHESH KAUSHIK,
PROMISE & ASSURANCE OF FM

'FM after going through our memorandum and listening to our submission about court case of Jaipur HC , coming hearing at SC on 14/11/2011, told us to wait till matter is heared at SC but he seems to be convinced on Oscar jee's suggestion that as we are 100% owned by Govt. of India, all benefit availabe to Govt. employees on pension front be extended to us.'

HEARTWARMIMG,WA
BRAVO, VICTORY ON 8 NOV AT JAIPUR HC RE APPLICATION MADE & FINAL SLP ON 14 NOV 2011
----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Vimal Chand Jain vcindore@gmail.com

REPECTED SIR, PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH THE ATTACHMENTS REGARDING MOVE OF UNITED FORUM OF INSURANCE UNIONS REGARDING OUR CASE AND ALSO THE REPLY OF FINANCE MINISTER TO THE CONVENIOR OF THE FORUM. THANKS.

V.C.JAIN. GEN.SEC. AIRIEF----------

Forwarded message ---------- From: Vashisth Omprkash opv_ram@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 10:06 PM
Subject: Meeting with Finance minister for pension upgradation To:
 To,
All constituents members of
UNITED FORUM OF INSURANCE UNIONS and
"Core comittee members for Pension Upgradation,"
Friends,
I am sending herewith copy of our memorandum submitted to FM Shri Pranab Mukherjee with a covering letter from Shri Oscar Fernandes. The memorandum is amended and edited, before submission, as per deliberations held at Kolkatta on 31st July 2011. Some proposal recieved from leaders of general insurance segment has been incorporated.
After the memorandum was sent from Oscar ji in last week of Sept 2011, we were looking for anexclusive meeting with FM. Which could be made possible today. As the meeting was finalized with very little margin of time, I accompanied Shri O.P Vashisth, our national coordinator and Shri Oscar Fernandes visited FM late evening.
FM after going through our memorandum and listening to our submission about court case of Jaipur HC , coming hearing at SC on 14/11/2011, told us to wait till matter is heared at SC but he seems to be convinced on Oscar jee's suggestion that as we are 100% owned by Govt. of India, all benefit availabe to Govt. employees on pension front be extended to us.
Next meeting of the forum shall be held at Mumbai as per decision taken at Kolkatta meeting and the host will be ALL India Life Insurance Employees Association (LIFE), Mumbai, for which shri Jaokar has taken the responsibility in our Kolkatta meeting. Date and Venue shall be conveyed seperatly.
Thanks,
Mahesh Kaushik O P Vashisth
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.6.11.2011
Fw: Clarifications
 Sri Asthana to CHMSunday, November 6, 2011 12:23 PM
From: "Seetha And Kishore"
----- Forwarded Message -----

From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA asthana_jaipur@yahoo.co.in
To: CH MAHADEVAN ; RB KISHORE
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2011 12:57 AM
Subject:
Dear Sri Asthana,
Thank you very much for promptly sending a copy of the SLP filed by LIC.The following points occurred to me which I thought I must share with you and I am not sending a copy of this to anybody else:

• SLP dwells in sufficient detail on the powers of CG u/s 48 of LIC Act. But it is silent on why CG did not use its powers under the said section for over 11 years to either accept the LIC Board recommendations or reject them, until the Single Judge Bench of Jaipur delivered the judgment on 12th Jan 2010.During this delayed period more than 1000 pensioners have died.


That is correct, there is no mention in the SLP while in the judgment of the DB it is mentioned that this amounts to tacit approval.

• Has LIC informed the Jaipur DB that an SLP has been filed in SC on 1st Oct 2011, before the judgment was delivered in the contempt petition on 31st October, 2011? How did LIC’s counsel give an undertaking in the court that LIC will implement the Court order dt 12th Jan 2010 on 31st October, while a SLP challenging the same court’s judgment was at SC on 1st Oct, 2011?


There was no mention of SLP for the reason that till then it was a waste paper having been filed by an unknown person. The defect was with regard to not filing the Vakalatnama or Memo of Appearance. Only after passing of the judgment here the defect was removed. Even if reference was made it had no effect since the SLP had not even been admitted nor any stay order had been issued.

• The SLP contends that Jaipur Bench passed an order merely on the submission of the LIC’s counsel. Then what is the sanctity of a counsel representing LIC in a court of law? Also at no place in the Jaipur Single judge Bench judgment cited Sec 48 of LIC Act. How can that point come up now? Section 48 was dealt with in the judgment of single judge but it was given a finding that this is not a policy matter, therefore, CG cannot interfere in the day to day functioning of the Board of LIC, which was confirmed by the statement made by the CG counsel at bar. Even otherwise CG has power only to issue instructions and it is for the Board as to how to implement the same for which powers have been given to the Chairman in rule 55. Therefore, it cannot be a bar.

• I don’t know whether I am right; the LIC Act gives power to the CG to make rules relating to terms and conditions of service of its employees. By virtue of the fact that pensioners also come under the definition of ‘employees’, wage revisions effected every five years must also cover corresponding revision of pensions on the principle that pension is a deferred wage, and pension is not charity but a right under the Indian Constitution.


Yes, that is also the defect in the SLP.

• The contempt petition has been decided upon by the court on 31st October2011 and the judgment has imposed obligations on LIC to implement the court order within 4 weeks and should independently operate irrespective of the status of the SLP. May be you will be justified in praying for interim implementation of the judgment during the pendency of the SLP proceedings. The SLP has been filed against the judgment in review petition. By virtue of mandatory provisions of law no appeal lies against a judgment rejecting review petition. Therefore, the SLP, which is a petition seeking permission to file appeal is in all likelihood will be dismissed at the threshold and now that the LIC has filed copy of the order dated 31/10/2011 the SC may ask for the date by which the compliance has to be made and pass an order in this regard, which will be final. Even SC may impose penalty as in the Gratuity case.

All these points indicate that the grounds of SLP are quite weak, but apart from the merits, as you may be yourself as a lawyer aware, it becomes important that the admission of SLP is contested by engaging a senior lawyer of repute, even though expensive ,so that the Supreme Court will appreciate the strength of our case better. As a lawyer you may be also able to discover additional points to strengthen the contest of SLP in consultation with your counsel.


I am sure in such a ‘do or die ‘situation, pensioner colleagues will definitely come forward to make financial contributions to successfully fight the SLP.


Kindly consider as you may deem fit.


Wishing you good luck & with kind regards,


C.H.Mahadevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 8.11.2011
From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA

Subject: Re: Fwd: Meeting with Finance minister for pension upgradation -5.11.2011
Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2011, 1:29 PM

SIR

THIS IS JUST A POLITICAL EVASIVE REPLY. IF HE REALY INTENDED WHERE

WAS THE QUESTON OF DECISION OF SLP

TODAY THE CONTEMPT APPLICATION CAME UP BUT THE SAME WAS

NOT ENTERTAINED AND THE ORDER DATED 31/10/2011 HAS BEEN DIRECTED

TO CONTINUE AND THE MD AND ED TO APPEAR IN PERSON IN CASE

COMPLIANCE IS NOT MADE WITHING 4 WEEKS AS ORDERED EARLIER

KML ASTHANA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 10.11.2011
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Daily Cause List
( For 14th, November, 2011 )
COURT NO. 6
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
37. SLP(C)No.29956-29957/2011 L.I.C. MR. A.V. RANGAM
 XV FRESH-H Vs. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
100,107, 0 S.( 601) ORS. ETC.
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
1ST LISTING AND OFFICE REPORT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 14.11.2011
ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES’ FEDERATION

(Registration No 500)
JAIPUR HIGH COURT CASE DEVELOPMENTS
Date 14-11-2011 -
The SLP filed by LIC against Jaipur DB judgment and dismissal of Review Petition (by Jaipur High Court) came up for hearing in Hon'ble S.C. today, the 14th of Novr. After hearing counsels of both the sides, the court adjourned the hearing for three weeks and directed LIC to deposit the amount due as also stayed the contempt proceedings being pursued in Jaipur H.C.
Earlier, LIC's counsel had informed the court that LIC was prepared to pay but in absence of clearance from U.O.I. this could not be done. On this, the court wanted to know the amount which would be due and in reply LIC's counsel gave the figure of Rs 51 crore. Afterwards the court ordered LIC to pay the amount due within three weeks. Initially the court had given two weeks time but LIC's counsel wanted more time and as such the court finally agreed to allow three weeks time.
LIC's counsel also requested the court to issue notice to Union of India to appear but the court declined the request by saying that let them come first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 15.11.2011
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 16.11.2011
SLP 29956/57 OF 2011 SC BENCH ORDER & SRI ASTHANAS EMAILdt 16nov2011

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10/59pm

Note: This order implies that the LIC will have to calculate the amount payable to individual pensioner right from the beginning in terms of the judgment of Single Judge which includes DA/DR parity upto 31/7/1997 and revision of pensions thereafter upto date. This shows the intention of the Hon’ble Judges to give benefit to the LIC Pensioners. Eight weeks time is acceptable in view of in depth calculations at different levels in different pay scales. Besides, pay scales of Section Heads and Superintendents have also to be carved out which were closed cadres from 1/8/1997. The amount that becomes thus payable will have to be deposited in the Rajasthan HC within eight weeks from 14/11/2011 otherwise they will have to face contempt proceedings as was ordered on 31/10/2011. However, the fight is still not over and we will have to wait for the action of LIC. The SC will issue directions as sought for by LIC after this procedure is over and I am confident that we are going to fruits of the long drawn battle and that day is not far. Pl remember all the benefits have come to our side near about Makar Sankranti (2010 and 2011) and this final decision is also likely to come near about Makar Sankranti.

KML Asthana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.2011.
 Asthana image

Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:45 AM



-----------------------------------------------------------------------19 17.11.2011
SLP 14 NOV AFTERMATH & ISSUES
Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:06 PM
From:
"Seetha And Kishore" rbkseetha@yahoo.com
 November 16, 2011 4:00 PM

DEAR SRI MAHADEVAN,
1)I HAVE GONE THRO THE SERIES OF EMAILS FROM U & SRI M.SREENIVASAMURTY
2)WE HAVE GONE THRO THE SC BENCH ORDER:

FAVOURABLE POINTS :
1)SC BENCH ORDER LOOKS TO BE MADE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE INFO WE GOT ON PHONE ON THAT CRUCIAL DAY 14 NOV
2)THAT AMOUNT OF RS 52 CR IS NOT THERE, BUT -AMOUNT DUE TO EMPLOYEES-- MENTIONED THEREIN IS A REAL STRENGTH FOR PENSIONERS
 LIC COUNSEL ALSO ADMITTED THAT CORRECT AMOUNT IS NOT READY WITH LIC
3)WHEN THE APEX COURT HAS ORDERED LIC TO REMIT IN JAIPUR HC REGISTRY BEFORE 8 WEEKS ,SAY 14 JANUARY 2011, IT WAS INDEED THEIR POINT THAT LIC MUST CALCULATE PROPERLY ,CORRECTLY & THEN REMIT IN JAIPUR HC
NO INSTN WORTH THE NAME, LEAST SO, A GREAT PUBLIC SECTOR INSTN CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE RISKS BY UTTERING A LIE OR A FALSEHOOD MENTIONING --WRONG LESSER AMOUNTS
THAT WILL EXPOSE THEM TO GREATER RISKS
B) I AGREE WITH ONE EMAIL OF SRI CHMAHADEVAN THAT IT IS NOW ENOUGH TO KNOW THE FINAL PENSION AFTER DUE REVISIONS OF WAGE AS PER EARLIER JAIPUR HC ORDERS
IN FACT SRI MAHADE VAN & MYSELF HAVE THOSE JOTTINGS
WE CAN ROUGHLY CALCULATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING OR OLD PENSION & NEW PENSION AFTER DUE NUMBER OF REVISIONS WARRANTED BY RESPECTIVE GROUPS OF PENSIONERS COINCIDING WITH WAGE PERIOD.THAT SHD SUFFICE
C) WE ARE AWARE WHEN THERE ARE 2 ACTUAR IES THERE ARE 3 OPINIONS OR NUMBERS.WE ARE NOT DECRYING THEM
WE SAW VISIBLY IN BANKS 2ND OPTION WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 ESTIMATES WAS SO HUGE ! !
D) AS AN ENLIGHTENED ORGN SUBJECT TO ANNUAL ACCOUNTS ETC BEING VERIFIED & AUTHENTICATED BY AUDITORS & EVER SO MANY MECHANISMS W ITHIN & WITHOUT, LIC WILL NOT DARE TO DO WRONG THINGS BUT
MAKE A FAIR & ACCURATE ESTIMATE & CALCULATION
I shall re quest our DY GS ,AIRIEF Mumbai to closely monitor the buzz at Yogakshema as he knows many influential staff & officers there.Equally I shall alert our Pre sident/GS to be in good touch at regular intervals to assess the true situation.
4)SRI SR INIVASAMURTY APPEARS TO BE CORRECT W HE N HE ARTICULATES WITH SOUND REASONING THAT --- ---AMOUNT DUE TO EMPLOYE ES-- CLEARLY INCLUDES all PENSIONERS AFFECTED BY THE HAPPENINGS SO FAR IN THE COURTS IELIC PENSIONERS OF ALL HUES & COLOURS ,OF ALL GROUPS WHO COME UNDER THE UMBRELLA JUDGEMENT OF JAIPUR HC.
b)FURTHER , EVEN IN SINGLE JUDGE HON BHANDAR I JUDGEMENT HE REFERS TO --PENSIONERS ,not PETITIONERS & SO OBVIOUSLY .EMPLOYEES include ALL PENSIONERS CATEGORICALLY
c)PLUS , EVEN IN 2008 GRATUITY HC JUDGEMENT NOT ONLY THE PETITIONERS but ALL 1350 CLASS I OFFICERS ALL OVER INDIA GOT THAT BENEFIT with SIMPLE INTEREST OF 10%,MIND U WEF 1/8/1992-- 31/ 7 /1994 & SIMPLE INTEREST EXCEEDED THE PRINCIPAL ARREARS !!
WHEN PENSIONERS USED TO BEMOAN OH GOD I SHD HAVE RETIRED LATER TO GET 60 RETIREMENT AGE , I MISSED BY FEW MONTHS, I MISSED NEXT WAGE REVN, I MISSED ENHANCED PENSION, HERE THEY FELT THEY SHD HAVE RETIRED EARLIER !!!
d) EVEN IN NATIONAL LITIGATION POLICY WHICH HAS RUN 18 MONTHS BY NOW, IT IS STATE D THAT SIMILARLY PLACED CITIZENS MUST GET DUE JUSTICE BY EXTENSION OF THAT VALUABLE JUDGEMENT
e)R ECENTLY WHEN CHIEF ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMY HQRS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO LOWER COMMANDS TO WITHDRAW CASES OF APPEALS AGAINST PENSIONE RS WHEREIN PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS E XIST, THERE SHD NOT BE ANY MORE ATTEMPTS TO DIG UP OR PURSUE SUCH SIMILAR CASES & PENSION REVISION CAN BE GRANTE D & PROCEEDED FORTHWITH. THAT WAS EMPATHY & WONDERFUL INDEED/
5)BECAUSE OF STRENUOUS & TORTUOUS COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE GLIMMER OF HOPE IS TO COME AFTER A SERIES OF VICTORIES,PENSIONERS FROM MANY QUARTERS BEGIN TO ASK WHETHER PENSION WILL BE REVISED. TRUE.BUT ONE THING IS CLEAR
a)SRI HARISH SALVE SR COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT LIC IS PRE PARED TO PAY. THIS IS CLEAR ,UNAMBIGUOUS & EXPLICIT/
WHATEVER THE AMOUNT TO BE QUOTED, ME NTIONED & DE POSITED BY LIC.HOWSOEVER HIGH OR STAGGERING IT LOOKS,LIC CANNOT RETRACE THAT STATEMENT, NOW RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SC
THAT INCLUDES DR FULL FOR PR E-8/1997 PENSIONERS & PENSION REVN WITH EVERY WAGE REVN, AS BOTH HON BHANDARI & DB JAIPUR HC JUDGES HAD MENTIONED & THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO.
b)DO THEY NOT DO FOR WAGE , 27% RISE PLUS RS450 CR MIDDAY MEALS COUPON PLUS RISE THIS 9/2011,PLLI, SUPER ALLOWANCES ETC
HUGE INDEED
BUT LIC R ATIOS ARE FINE . IT IS GOLDEN INSTN IT CAN WITHSTAND
SMALL RISE IN FYP & RP PLUS CONTROL ON OTHER WASTEFUL; EXP WILL COMPENSATE WE POINTED OUT IN ALLAHABAD CASE IN FULL
LIC AS PER 31/3.2011 ANNUAL RESULTS SAVED RS40 CR IN MISC EXPENSES
IN MY EMAILS TO BOARD MEMBERS I HIGHLIGHTED VARIOUS RATIOS SO FAVOURABLE
I QUOT ED MANY HC & SC CAS ES RESOURCES CANT BE QUOTED AS A RESTR AINT WHAT THEY DESE RVE MUST BE HONOURED
LIC SHD NOT BE BOGGED DOWN BY PENSION FUND RIGMAROLE. RULE 5 (3)SAYS PUMP AMTS WHEN NEEDED.
LIC SR COUNSEL HAS ADMITTED LIC IS PREPARED TO PAY
SO, IRRESPECTIVE OF AMOUNT , NO GOING BACK
NO EYEBROWS SHD BE RAISED BY HUGE AMTS WH WILL BE QUOTED BY LIC.UOI
UOI SHD NOT STEAL THE LIMELIGHT & TRY TO THROW US BACK TO WHERE WE WERE.
AS THEY ARE SIDELINED, SC BENCH WILL ENSURE APPROPRIATE ORDERS, ONE FEELS
I AM JUST PUTTING THESE SO THAT ALL CAN REMAIN AT ONE PLACE FOR QUICK RE FERE NCE TOO AS WE GO ROUND & ROUND IN SEARCH.

NEUTRAL TENDING TO FAVOURABLE:
1)WHEN LIC COUNSEL RE QUESTE D SC BENCH TO ISSUE NOTICE TO UOI ,SC BENCH MENTIONED NO, LET THEM COME TO US FIRST. IT SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT SC BENCH DOES NOT LOOK TO BE HAPPY WITH SO MANY WRONGS DONE TO PENSIONE RS, DELAY, DITHER ON LIC BOARD RESN 24/11/2011 ,DEATHS OF PENSIONERS ETC PRESUMABLY.
FURTHER, UOI IS NOW SIDELINED
OUR ARGUMENTS ARE CANDID & FORCEFUL:_
a)UOI COUNSEL ADMITTED THAT AFTER SO MANY DIALOGUES& DELIBERATIONS, WHEN A COMPREHENSIVE CODE OR PENSION RULES 1995 COMES INTO BEING, LIC CAN GO AHEAD WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, AS IT DOES NOT INVOLVE MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTERE ST
b)when uoi did not imple ad even after db hon jud ges gave time,UOI CANNOT RAKE UP THAT ISSUE & DB JUDGE S HAVE MADE A CLEAR MENTION IN THEIR VERDICT
2)SC BENCH HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SLP.INFACT SLP WAS NOT TAKEN UP AT ALL ON 14 NOV, U SEE.
IT SEEMS IF SLP IS ADMITTED IN SC WEBSITE, THEY WLD NOT HAVE QUOTED S AME SLP 29956 & 29957/2011
NEW CIVIL APPEAL NO .WLD COME INTO BEING
LET US W AIT & SEE HOW THE PROCEEDINGS GO ABOUT ON CRUCIAL HEAR ING ON THAT DATE TO BE DECIDED FALLING AFTER 14 JAN 2012
IF IN ONE EMAIL SRI CHM WAS TALKING ABOUT COINCIDENCE OF 24/11/2001 & 14/11/2011 ALL NOVEMBER
, I WLD S AY GREATER COINCIDENCE OF S ANKARANTHI GIFT, AS 1/2010 WAS 1ST VICTORY,NE VER BE FORE HE ARD ANYWHERE ABOUT PENSION UPGRADATION BEGAN TO DAW N, AS BOTH LIC & UOI WERE SIMPLY DODGING WITHOUT CATCHING THE PROBLEM BY THE TUFT AS IT WERE THEN 1/2011 DB VICTORY 8 NOW TO AWAIT 1/2012.CLD IT BE AUSPICIOUS,WE WILL MAKE IT AUSPICIOUS.
today CG PENSIONERS ARE TALKING OF MERGE OF 50 % DR WITH BASIC PENSION AS NOW DR IS 58% ,EVEN WHEN 6TH PC HAS MADE RETROGRADE COMMENTS ON THIS, WHY TODAY DEFENCE & OTHER CG PENSIONERS 10,00 0ARE ASSEMBLING AT D ELHI FOR CALL FOR 7TH PC TO BE CONSTITUTE D, 30 GRIEVANCES & SUGGESTIONS,SONIAL RAHUL & DRMANMOHAN INVITED, SO THAT TIMELY RECOMMEND ATIONS THEY CAN GIVE ETC
SC WILL WATCH THE CONCURRE NT SCENARIO & WILL FIT IN INSCE PENSIONERS PROPERLY WITHOUT ANY MORE HURT IS MY HUNCH.IF WISHES WERE HORSES, BEGGARS WLD RIDE. BUT IT IS A GENUINE AFFAIR, VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & EVER SO MANY S C VERDICTS ARE IN OUR FAVOUR, NO LONGER, SC WILL TRY TO THROW US FROM THE FRYING PAN TO THE FIR E,LEAST OF ALL WANTING TO HURTLE PENSIONERS IN QUANDARY.

LIKELY NEGATIVE BUT CAN BE CHANGED TO FAVOURABLE:
a)Sri Srinivasamurthy says 14 NOV 2011 PROCEEDINGS IS AN AUTOMATIC PRELUDE TO SLP 29956 & 57/2011 BEING ADMITTED ONLY
a)IS IT NOT POSSIBLE TO COUNTER ANY ARGUMENTS DURING HEARING ON THAT CRUCIAL JAN 2012 DATE , AS SO MANY VALID POINTS HAVE EMERGED, BY & LARGE ANY IN THE COUNTRY & MORE SO SC BENCH, CLEAR & SHARP AS THEY ARE , WILL NOT EASILY BE ATTRACTED TO ANY ASIDE COMMENTS BY LIC COUNSEL
U ARE AW ARE I CIRCULATED IN AN EARLIER FORCEFUL EMAIL SC QUOTE OF THEN SAME SC BENCH JUDGE S HON SINGHVI & HL DUTTU THAT SC HAS THE POWERS TO TRACE ANY INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IN R/O ANNA HAZARE MISHANDLING & COMMENTED ON UOI IF THIS CONTINUES THERE WILL BE A RUN ON GOVT.IF SC BENCH CONTINUES TO BE TRUE TO SUCH OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR OWN ,NOT MISQUOTED, SC BENCH SHD DISMISS TH E SLP
IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, IF DEPOSITING AMOUNT DUE TO EMPLOYEES IS JUST TO BIND LIC HAND & FOOT & NOTHING ELSE, & AN OPENING FOR DISMISSAL OF SLP IS NOT THE RE , SC BENCH CLD HAVE ADMITTED IT THEN &THERE ON 14 NOV 2011
b)NOTICE TO SRI RKSINGH ,OUR COUNSEL WILL BE DULY REPLIED
c)RARELY PENSIONERS HAVE LOST THEIR CASE IN SC
HERE IT WAS A LONG WAIT, TRAGEDY OF THIS LESS PRIVILEGED SECTIONS OF SOCIETY, THE GLARING ANAMOLIES & PARADOXES ALL WELL DELINEATED IN SLP REPLY & REJOINDER MUST AWAKEN THAT SAME SPIRIT OF SC BENCH TO SEE BALANCE IS NOT LOST, & TRUE EQUITY & JUSTICE PREVAIL, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS LONG WAIT FROM 1998/2007
WHATEVER IT IS, IT IS A DO OR DIE SITUATION & I AM SURE SRI ASTHANA , WITH HIS ADROITNESS & STRATEGY, & NOW WITH A MORE BALANCED TEAM OF LAWYERS, WILL COUNTENANCE ANY NEW THREATS OR HAPPENINGS TO DISTURB THE EQUILIBRIUM
TIME IS THERE , WE CAN SHARE & CARE FOR COMMON GOOD
(as I had to go to take mrs rbk to a skin specialist for her skin woes, i had time only now)

GREETINGS,
RBKISHORE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 2.12.2011
From: Seetha And Kishore

Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 3:31 PM
Subject: PLEA & APPEAL TO HONOUR & IMPLEMENT COURT JUDGEMENTS FOR PENSIONERS

Revered & Respected LIC Board Member Sir,

1)I have been keeping in regular touch with you briefing on developments on pension front in Jaipur HC & Supreme Court. I have also endeavoured to send short summary of the state of affairs with a sincere plea & request to you,eminent LIC Board Members, to intervene & persuade LIC to follow & implement the letter & spirit of Court judgements of Hon Judges during ensuing Board meeting on 9Dec,2011

2)To put things in proper perspective,here is a succinct summary of Court cases:

i)Jaipur HC Single Judge Hon Bhandari judgement in SB CIVIL/WP6676/1998 & 654/2007 dt 12/1/2010 ordering Full DR & pension revision after every wage revision.

ii) DB CIVIL SPL APPEAL 493/2010 dismissed by DB Hon Justice Dalip Singh & Hon Justice Mahesh Bhagwati by judgement dt 21/1/2011 upholding Single Judge verdict iii) LIC filed Review Petitions in Rajasthan HC & also SLP 16117 & 16118/2011 in SC . SC Bench Hon.Justice G.S.Singhvi & Hon Justice H.L.Dattu disposed of on 15/7/2011 with an order to get final verdict on LIC RP pending at Jaipur HC not later than 90 days, as against 2 yrs sought by LIC counsel

iv)) LIC WRIT REVIEW 86 & 87/2011 is dismissed on 19/8/2011 by DB JAIPUR HC

v)When SLP in SC 29956 & 29957 of 2011 came up on 14 Nov, 2011, SRI HARISH SALVE SR COUNSEL,LIC ADMITTED THAT LIC IS PREPARED TO PAY. THIS IS CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS & EXPLICIT

SC BENCH 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.

vi)Jaipur Bench informed LIC counsel during Contempt petition proceedings on 1 Dec 2011 that the SC order cannot be consigned to the records as stay of contempt proceedings was subject to LIC's depositing the amount due to pensioners and they can only be deferred. On a question by the Court, LIC counsel is reported to have informed the Court that LIC was likely to deposit Rs 1200 crores within the 8 weeks' period.The case is posted for 16th January 2012 for further hearing.

3) Sir,I HAVE BEEN KEEPING REGULAR ,CONSTANT TOUCH WITH INDEPENDENT BOARD MEMBERS PURELY AS A BRIDGE OF UNDERSTANDING .Sir,you shape POLICY DECISIONS,you can exert powerful influence . IF AT ALL TRANSPARENT CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HAS TO SUCCEED, THE NORMS & NEUTRALITY MUST BE THE GUIDING LIGHT & BEACON FOR JUSTICE FOR A STERLING INSTN LIKE LIC TO PROGRESS & SET AN IDEAL EXAMPLE AS A TORCH-BEARER. I HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING SHORT NOTE MUCH BEFORE LIC BOARD MEETING AS DESIRED .Sir, you have appreciated the reasonableness of our demands.LIC’s solvency & stability are unquestionable.The yearly commitment will be a very moderate amount.

4) Hon Finance Minister Sri Pranab Mukerjee ,on 5th Nov,2011, after going through our Memorandum of United Forum of Insurance Pensioners Fedns and listening to our submission seems to be convinced on Oscar Fernandez ,MP & GS,AICWC suggestion & observed that as LIC is 100% owned by Govt. of India, all benefit available to Govt. employees on pension front be extended to LIC pensioners too.

5)FURTHER,i)Deaths of pensioners, ii)pensioners not alive to secure Commuted Pension 15 yrs after retirement,a savings for LIC, iii)See the rising numbers of Family Pensioners, 18% jumping to 33 %,iv)both Regular pensioner & Family pensioner have died v)so parity also tapers off, vi)NPS wef 1/4/2010makes pensioners cadre slowly a closed one under present scheme.

6)a) Salary & other benefits to employees/pensioners outlay is a mere 4.1% to Total Premium Income & 3.4 % of Total Income. iii)Pension bill forms only 13% of the total expenses on Salary& other benefits to all.

iv) Staggering Total Income,Booming,Solid Life Fund, Economic Tajmahal,a True National Institution in every sense of the term, a ‘jewel in the crown, a world-class institution ’,unalloyed praise from FM & PM & recipient of innumerable awards

b)When in the wage Charter,1/8/2007—31/7/2012, LIC grants apart from Basic Pay, DA,HRA,CCA etc etc,if Transport Allowance Rs275 or 800 pm is granted ,Fixed Personal Allowance Rs 315-1700pm ,Cash Medical Benefit Rs4000 &8000/12000pa, one can very well imagine the huge outlay for the entire Class I, II, III/IV on these additional benefits alone.We don’t envy. Similar such outlay can well go to augment pensioners welfare

c)As a September Anniversary gift to all employees,LIC announced on 1/9/2010, Meal coupon per working day of the value ranging from Rs 50- 200,Substaff to ED,costing Rs450cr app..Especially, this becomes yet ANOTHER TAIL of the post Wage offer ,on top of the highest wage accord of 27 % rise in emoluments for all employees,when we have highlighted the miserable state of affairs, of pensioners , cost of living, medical expenses domiciliary & anything we touch for our living,continue living in below par standards with miserly pension,Basic Pension untouched right from start 1/11/1993 !!

Many are not aware that Sep 2011onwards, this allowance has still been slightly enhanced further!!!

d)What AIRIEF is asking for is not even the tail of the Wage agreement PLLI or the tail of the subsidiary benefits,other than BP,DA,HRA,CCA etc granted to employees in wage settlements or the tail of the Meal Coupon bonanza as gift on SeptemberAnniversary 2010.

7)SO MANY VALID POINTS HAVE EMERGED. THE SAME SC BENCH JUDGES COMMENTED THAT SC HAS THE POWERS TO TRACE ANY INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IN R/O ANNA HAZARE MISHANDLING & COMMENTED ON UOI IF THIS CONTINUES THERE WILL BE A RUN ON GOVT. IT HAS BEEN A LONG WAITFOR 13 YEARS & MORE, TRAGEDY OF THIS LESS PRIVILEGED SECTIONS OF SOCIETY, INSURANCE PENSIONERS,THE GLARING ANAMOLIES & PARADOXES ALL WELL DELINEATED IN SLP REPLY & REJOINDER MUST AWAKEN THAT SAME SPIRIT OF SC BENCH TO SEE BALANCE IS NOT LOST, & TRUE EQUITY & JUSTICE PREVAIL,

8)Retirees have done yeoman service to the cause of institution & society ,which they honourably served ,with devotion & dedication.

I sincerely appeal to you to intervene for the cause of entire pensioners fraternity, waiting with bated breath,having reached this positive outcome after lot of sacrifices,labour, time, money & energy & persuade LIC to honour graciously the Court judgements granting Full DR & pension revision with every wage revision.

Bless us & allow us to be blissful in the twilight years of our lives.

If we recall & remember that historic LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 with respect & nostalgia, let this Board meet be a harbinger for final solution once for all to pensioners woes by holistic implementation of Court verdicts already pronounced.

With respectful regards,

R.B.KISHORE To:Lt.General Arvind Mahajan.

ED(Retd),LIC Hon LIC BOARD MEMBERVP,AIRIEF

098403 40591

-----------------------------------------------------------
21 2.12.2011
All the Presidents and Secretaries of Divisional Units of


All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation.


RE: LEGAL CASE ON DR ANOMALY & PENSION
UPGRADATION.


As you are aware, the case filed by Shri KML Asthana and others
on aforesaid issues in Jaipur Bench of HC, Rajasthan was decided
by Single Judge Hon'ble Justice M N Bhandarion 12.01.2010
directing LIC to implement the Board's Resolution dated 24.11.2001
to resolve the DR anomaly and upgrade the pension with each
wage revision so that every retired employee may get the same
benefit and there should be no discrimination in retirees due to
their date of retirement. This order was passed in respect of SB
Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/1998 and No.654/2007. The case was
being persuaded since 1998 and was finally decided in favour of
pensioners on 12 Jan. 2010.
LIC preferred appeal against the said judgment vide DB Civil
Special Appeal (W) No. 493/2010 and 494/2010, which were
decided by the Divisional bench of Hon'ble Justice Dalip Singh and
Hon'ble Justice Mahesh Bhagwati again in favour of the pensioners
vide their order dated 21.01.2011.
LIC filed DB Civil Review PetitionNos. 86/2011 87/2011 before the
HC, Rajasthan against the order passed by the Divisional Bench of
Jaipur HC.
During the pendency of aforesaid review petition, LIC also filed SLP
Civil Nos. 16117/2011 & 16118/2011 in Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The aforesaid SLPs were dismissed by Hon'ble SC on 15.07.2011 on the ground
that the case is already pending before the HC and direction was given to
Hon'ble HC to decide the case within 3 months. Accordingly, Hon'ble HC heard
the case promptly and passed their order on the Review Petitions in favour of
the pensioners on 19.08.2011.
As we see, LIC at every stage adopted dilatory tactics and therefore,Shri Asthana
moved an application for early decision on the contempt petition, which was
heard by Hon'ble HC, Jaipur on 31.10.2011. LIC's Advocate Shri Ajay Tyagi
appeared before the court and gave undertaking to comply with the court's order
within four weeks. Justice Mr. M C Sharma passed the order reading as “ Time
prayed for is allowed. If the order is not complied within the aforesaid period, the
contemnors respondents no.2 & 3 will remain present before this court on the
next date of hearing. List the case on 01.12.2011.”
After this order, LIC's another advocate submitted an application to HC, Jaipur
that no such instructions for giving any such undertaking s were by the
answering respondents to the counsel and because of some confusion, the
Hon'ble Justice has passed the said order on 31.10.2011. This application was
outright turned down by Hon'ble HC on 08.11.2011 expressing annoyance on
such attitude of the respondents and affirming that the order dated 31.10.2011
stands as it is.
Now, LIC has again filed SPL in the Apex Court on 01.10.2011. LIC engaged
Shri Harish Salve, Sr. Advocate, ShriVenkatramani, Sr. Advocate, Shri A V
rangan and Shri Buddy A Rangnadhan, advocates to plead their case before
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2011. Shri KML Asthana and other respondents,
in consultation with AIRIEF engaged Shri P S Narsimha, Sr. Advocate, Shri R K
Singh, Advocate, Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate and Shri Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, AOR to defend the case. AIRIEF E.C. Member Shri Asthana, M.K.
Khandelwal Secretary Jaipur Unit, S.K. Shukla President AIRIEF, V.C. Jain
General Secretary AIRIEF, S.S. Saxena Vice President AIRIEF (C.Z.), S.V.
Kulkarni Treasurer AIRIEF & B.L. Bhadawat Jt. Secretary AIRIEF were all present
in the Supreme Court when the case was heard.
Hon'ble Justice Mr. G S Singhavi and Hon'ble Justice Mr. SudhanshuJyoti
Mukhopadhyay heard the advocates of both the parties and passed interim order
reading as,
“ Issue notice returnable in ten weeks. Shri R K Singh, Learned Counsel accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents. In the meantime, the proceedings before the
HC Jaipur, under Contempt of Court Act 1971, shall remain stayed subject to the
condition that within eight weeks the petitioners shall deposit in the registry of the
HC, Jaipur, the amount due to employees.”
Shri KML Asthana has been fighting these cases with utmost sincerity, highest
degree of legal skill and greatest sense of patient and perseverance for last 12
years. Despite of his deteriorated health and other unfavorable circumstances he
is devoting day and nights to win the case. AIRIEF is providing full support to
Shri Asthana and his team. AIRIEF gave a call to contribute for the legal funds
and very good response is received from so many units. EC committee met at
Rajkot on 16.10.2011 and decided the strategies. Shri Asthana also attended the
meeting. On 13.11.2011, President, Gen. Secretary, Shri Asthana, Shri M L
Khandelwal and some other senior members met at Delhi and were present in
the SC also on the date of hearing ie14.11.2011. AIRIEF has assured Shri
Asthana to provide full financial support as well as all other support he needs.
Our Ultimate purpose is to win this legal battle in the largest interest of entire
pensioner's fraternity.
Thus, the legal battle, being stretched longer intentionally, requires patience,
perseverance, commitment and legal acumen and huge financial support. While
ShriAsthana is an embodiment of sincerity and commitment and the team of
Federation is standing behind him, your cooperation and financial support in
liberal manner is the need of the hour. Please donate towards legal fund with
open heart and liberal hand.
We also request you to collect contribution for the legal funds from all the
members and other well-wishers and send the same to AIRIEF at the earliest.
We may inform that response from WZ (Gujrat State), SCZ, SZ and CZ is very
encouraging. We request all the units to take up this job on top priority and
collect and remit maximum possible amount to AIRIEF at the earliest but no later
than 15.12.2011 so that financial constraint does not come in the way of our
success.
We are confident that all the office bearers and members will appreciate the
need of the hour and endeavor to make the campaign of collecting the legal
fund a grand success. Kindly keep the time limit in mind and ensure to remit the
funds to AIRIEF before 15.12.2011.
Cheques/DDs may be sent in the name of “All India Retired Insurance
Employees Federation” at following address or May be deposited directly in Bank
A/c. with State Bank of India, Old Palasia, Indore. A/c No.30353370294 IFS code :
SBIN0003432 MICR No. 452002011 under intimation to following :
Shri S V Kulkarni,
Treasurer,
Flat No.302, Royal Avenue,
18/2 –C, New Palasia, Indore 452003.
Phone No. 0731-2542535.
Or
Shri V.C. Jain,
General Secretary
203, Sanmati Apartment, 42-B, Sainath Colony
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 CONTEMPT PETITION
Message contains attachments1 File (59KB)KML CONTEMPT APPLICATION 2.docPL SEE THE ATTACHMENT FOR THE

















APPLICATION I HAVE FILED IN THE

CONTEMPT PETITION TODAY

KML ASTHANA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN




JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR



***

S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. ________ of 2012

in

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010

in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007

***

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 72 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lal Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur

Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri T.S. Vijayan, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

2. Shri A.K. Das Gupta, Managing Director, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

3. Mrs. D. Vijaylakshmi, Executive Director (P), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima marg, Mumbai-400 021

4. Shri D.K. Mehrotra, Current-in-charge and Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 001

5. Shri B. Manivannan, Executive Director (P), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 001

Respondents

***

S.B. Civil Misc. Application for direction and punishing the Respondents for committing deliberate and intentional contempt of this Hon’ble Court.

***

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 as under:

1. That the humble Petitioner had filed the above captioned Contempt Petition on 12/8/2010 against the Respondents for not complying with the judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 21st January, 2010 inspite of repeated representations, as per details given in the Contempt Petition itself.



2. That though the notices were issued by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 6/4/2011 and the Respondents were aware of the said Contempt Petition but no one appeared. This fact is clear from the fact that on 22nd October, 2010 when the Special Appeal came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Division Bench the Counsel for the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India had obtained an assurance from the Petitioner that he will not pursue the contempt petition till the decision of the Special Appeal, which the Hon’ble Court ordered to be decided at the admission stage. Taking advantage of this assurance given by the Petitioners the Respondents did not comply with the judgment, instead on 9th December, 2010 Shri T.S. Vijayan, then Chairman and now Managing Director had issued Circular whereby the pensions of those who retired after 1st August, 2007 were revised but the pensions of the earlier pensioners including the Petitioner were not revised. A copy of this Circular dated 9th December, 2010 has already been placed on record of this case.

3. That the aforesaid Special Appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide its judgment dated 21/1/2011. With this the stay on the compliance as assured by the Petitioners also came to an end. However, the Respondents did not comply with the judgment dated 21st January, 2010.



4. That this Hon’ble Court on 6th April, 2011 was pleased to direct for issue of the notices to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the said notices have also been served on those Respondents. Even otherwise the Respondents had full knowledge of the Contempt Petition, which will be apparent from the fact that on 15th July, 2011 when the Hon’ble Supreme Court had disposed of the S.L.P. filed by the Respondents the Respondents had sought stay from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the contempt proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, which was granted till the decision of the Review Petition, and the High Court was requested to decide the Review Petition at the earliest but not later than three months. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had also directed the Respondents to submit the copy of the order within seven days from that date but the Respondents did not comply with the same with a view to delay the decision of the Review Petitions as much as possible. It was on the application of the Petitioner that the Review petition was listed and decided. The ill-intentions of the Respondents to somehow delay the compliance of the judgment is writ large from this fact.



5. That the Review Petitions filed by the Respondent L.I.C. of India also came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its judgment dated 19th August, 2011 and the stay applications filed with the Review Petitions were also dismissed. The Hon’ble Division Bench has specifically ordered that the Respondent L.I.C. of India should make compliance of the judgment under the Umbrella provided by it. The Central Government is not above the Courts and even they have to make compliance of the judgment.



6. That with the dismissal of the Review Petition the stay also came to an end. In the meanwhile the Contempt Petition came up for hearing on 10/8/2011 but due to stay order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the Petitioner sought time. However, none of the Respondents, who had been served with the notices did appear before this Hon’ble Court or even made any submission.



7. That the aforesaid Contempt Petition again came to be listed before this Hon’ble Court on 13th September, 2011 on which date there was no stay from any Court but the said Respondents, i.e. the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, did not appear before this Hon’ble Court in spite of service of notices and knowledge.



8. That this fact of their disrespect to this Hon’ble Court is writ large and is further clear from the fact that no Vakalatnama was filed even upto commencement of Diwali vacations in the month of October, 2011.



9. That on 31st October, 2011 the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 made a submission before this Hon’ble Court that compliance will be made within four weeks, but on account of ill-designs on the part of the Respondents the said commitment was tried to be withdrawn by making an application on false and forged averments.



10. That after the order dated 31st October, 2011 a copy of the S.L.P. which Life Insurance Corporation had filed was given to the Counsel for the Petitioner, who was a Caveteer, and in those S.L.Ps also the Senior Counsel for the Respondent Life Insurance Corporation gave an undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they are ready to make payment but some direction may be given to the Central Government and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had on 14th November, 2011 directed that notices be issued returnable within ten weeks to the Respondents which were acknowledged by the Counsel for the Respondent-Petitioners and the proceedings in the Contempt Petition were stayed subject to the LIC of India depositing the amount due to the employees within eight weeks from that date. A copy of this order is already on the record of this Contempt Petition.



11. That the ill intentions on the part of the Respondents did not stay there and when the contempt petition came up for hearing on 1st December, 2011 an application was filed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the proceedings in the contempt petition therefore, the contempt petition may be “consigned to records”, which means that they were on their legs to get the contempt petition be dismissed at any cost without compliance while there was no such order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.



12. That now the Respondents have deposited a sum of Rs. 4,35,513/00 on 23rd December, 2011. No details as to how this amount has come to be arrived at. The Respondents have deposited the difference of DA and DR from the month of February, 2010 that is subsequent to the date of judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge but it is not known as to upto what date this amount has been calculated and in what manner. No payment has been sought to be paid to five Petitioners in the writ petition and in the case of one pensioners they have shown a deduction of Rs. 132.00.



13. That the Respondent is already paying less family pension to Smt. Kamla Devi then what is prescribed in the Pension Rules and for which representations have been made but the arrogant Respondents have no care to give justice and now they have come out with a recovery of Rs. 132/00. No calculations have been provided.



14. That in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 even the difference of DA and DR comes to Rs. 2,30,303=00 upto pension payable in December, 2011. Thus the amount deposited even does not meet with the requirement of the case of the Petitioner No. 1.



15. That the Respondents have acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner and have not even felt careful about compliance of the judgments in their true perspective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not directed for payment of difference of DA/DR only to the twenty Petitioners. The order has been passed for depositing the amount due to the EMPLOYEES, which means all the Pensioners but in sheer disregard the Respondents have played mischief by show of a paltry amount in the Court.



16. That no compliance has been made in respect of five Petitioners since in the cases of Petitioner Nos. 12, 15, 16, 27 and 28 no amount has been shown to be payable to them. This is in direct contempt of the directions of this Hon’ble Court.

17. That there is absolutely no compliance in the subject matter of the present Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010. It is submitted that this Contempt Petition was filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, which was on the subject of revision of pensions as and when the pay scales were revised and pension of a particular group was revised and not for payment of difference of DA and DR. The Board had in its Resolution sought to upgrade the pensions as on 1/8/1997 and the Hon’ble Single Judge has also directed that the “Pensioners cannot be treated discriminately on the basis of date of retirement”. This itself meant that the pensions of all the Pensioners have to be revised commensurate with the pensions payable from time to time to one group of pensioners and not to the writ petitioners alone. But in the present case the Pensions have not been revised of even any of the Petitioners what to say of the Pensioners as were the directions of the Hon’ble Court. Thus there is no compliance in the subject matter of the present writ petition. This amounts to contempt of the Court.



18. That if the case of the writ petition with regard to D.A./D.R. is taken in that case it is submitted that the said writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676 of 1998, is concerned then it is submitted that the same had been filed by only one Petitioner, i.e. the present Petitioner Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and in his case he has to be paid the arrears from the date of filing of the writ petition at least, i.e. from December, 1998 if not earlier. But in the present case the arrears have been calculated from February, 2010. Thus even in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 there is no compliance even to that extent, though no contempt petition has been filed in this writ petition. The amount deposited is not sufficient even to fulfill the judgment in the case of the Petitioner No. 1 since his arrears comes to more than Rs. 6.25 lakhs by November, 2011.



19. That the Respondents are agitating the question of Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, this is just to some how avoid making compliance of the judgments. This question has already been decided by the Hon’ble Single Judge and confirmed in Special Appeal and then in Review Petitions and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find favour to consider this question. Thus this question has already come to be decided finally and the present S.L.Ps. are in all probability going to be dismissed in view of mandatory bar on appeal against dismissal of review petitions. But with a view to avoid compliance they are raising this issue time and again and even in the earlier application which they had filed on 1st November, 2011 this question had been raised knowing fully well that the merits of a decision cannot be looked into in the contempt petition.



20. That it is further submitted that even otherwise the question of Section 48 of the L.I.C. Act does not come into picture, since that Section nowhere gives any power to the Central Government to interfere in the day to day working of a statutory Corporation as the Life Insurance Corporation is. At the most they can make rules and which powers the Central Government has exercised by framing the Pension Rules wherein the Pay reckonable for pension and the rate of Pension has been prescribed. No extra power has been given to the Central Government since it does not require any amendment in the Pension Rules and the Pay scales as are revised from time to time are substituted by way of Revision of Pay Notifications notionally from 1/1/1986 and factually from the effective date. Thus as on the date of payment of pension the basic pay on which the pension is paid did not exist and therefore, the same has to be paid at the upgraded pay as has been the spirit of the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 also.



21. That the Central Government had given its consent at bar before the Single Judge that there was no necessity for approval of the Board Resolution and that the Corporation is competent to take its own decisions. Thus the question of Section 48 of L.I.C. Act does not come into play and the Central Government is thus bound by the said consent. The whole action on the part of the Respondents is nothing but to delay the compliance and harass the elderly persons and dragging them to unwanted litigation at the cost of the money of the Policyholders and make mockery of the judgments of this Hon’ble Court as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court.



22. That Pension Rules provide in Rule 55 that the Chairman has the power to issue instructions to implement the Pension Rules and he has been exercising these powers as in the case of Circular dated 9/12/2010 but for ulterior reasons these instructions are issued to provide financial gain to a particular class of employees and thus there have arisen already four classes of pensioners, while the Constitution provides for equal treatment of all the Pensioners and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again right from 1982 in D.S. Nakra case and to 2009 in S.P.S. Vains case that there cannot be mini-classification amongst the homogeneous class of pensioners. But the Respondents are making merry at the cost of policyholders and grievous hurt to the pensioners in the December of their life.



23. That the Pensioners are EMPLOYEES as defined in the Pension Regulations and they are getting deferred wages in the name of Pension. Therefore, while the Pay scale of other employees are revised, this class cannot be treated discriminately.



24. That in view of the submissions made herein above it is clear that the present action is not compliance of the judgments and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 14th November, 2011 but a mockery of the court, which has aggravated the contempt committed by the Respondents for which they are liable to be punished.



25. That the Respondent Shri T.S. Vijayan has ceased to be the Chairman and thereafter Shri D.K. Mehrotra has taken over as Current-in-charge, Chairman of the L.I.C. of India, therefore, both of them are liable to be punished for committing contempt of court.



26. That in the same manner the Respondent No. 3 Smt. D. Vijaylakshmi was also shifted from the post of Executive Director (Personnel) but she did not comply with the directions of this Hon’ble Court and so the Respondent No. 5 Shri B. Manivannan, who had taken over as Executive Director (Personnel). Therefore, both of them are also liable for committing contempt of Court.



27. That the Respondent No. 2 Shri A.K. Dasgupta, Managing Director is in charge of Personnel Department but he has been avoiding to take any action to make compliance on the other hand since he is retiring in the Month of January, 2012 he has been trying to somehow defer the compliance so that by the time some action comes to be taken he is away from the scene and thus escape his responsibility. It is therefore, in the interest of justice that he is summoned by issue of bailable warrants on 16th January, 2012 when the Contempt Petition is scheduled to be listed to explain his conduct or in the alternative payment of his retiral benefits are seized during pendency of the contempt petition so that he cannot quietly escape the consequences of contempt for which he is directly or indirectly responsible.



28. That the Respondents are required to explain as to when a paltry sum of Rs. 4,35,513/00 lakhs was payable then they have been spending lakhs of rupees on this futile litigation, such expenditure is liable to be recovered from them.



29. That the action of the Respondents is also in breach of the National Litigation Policy, 2010 which prohibits unwanted appeals in the matter of pensions and retrial benefits.



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

i) summon the Respondents to make their personal appearance before the Hon’ble Court and explain their conduct and they be punished for committing contempt of the Court deliberately, intentionally and persistently, in a suitable manner;



ii) the attendance of the Respondent No. 2 be ensured by issue of bailable warrants and his pensionary benefits may be seized since he is retiring in the month of January, 2012 itself till the decision of the case;

iii) direct the Respondents to deposit the amount payable to all the Pensioners in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge and to submit the statements showing as to how such amounts have been arrived at;



iv) during pendency of the litigation the Respondents be directed to deposit every month the amount which becomes due to the Pensioners in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 21st January, 2011 with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court, and



v) impose adequate penalty on the Respondent-contemners and Life Insurance Corporation of India so as to compensate the toils and tensions which the Pensioners have been put to bear on account of their illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional acts and delaying tactics adopted by the Respondents;



vi) direct the Respondents to disclose the amount spent on this contempt petition and direct Life Insurance Corporation of India to recover the same from the concerned contemners since as per the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act this has to be borne by the contemners themselves;



vii) pass such other and further relief as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to give full relief to the Petitioner.

Humble Petitioner

Through his Counsel:

(ABHINAV SHARMA)

Advocate

Jaipur

January ____, 2012

Notes:

1. A copy of this application 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.



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN



JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR



***

S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. ________ of 2012

in

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010

in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007

***

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Petitioner

Versus

Shri T.S. Vijayan and others Respondents

***

AFFIDAVIT

IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 72 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lal Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, do hereby take oath and state as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the present Contempt Petition and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That the annexed application has been drafted by the Counsel under my instructions and the contents of the same have been read and understood by me well.

3. That the facts contained in paras 1 to 28 of the annexed application are correct to my knowledge and the legal averments made therein are based on legal advice and the same are believed by me to be correct.



Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paras 1 to 3 above are correct to my knowledge, nothing material has been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false. SO HELP ME GOD.

Verified at Jaipur this ______ day of January, 2012.



Deponent





















IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN



JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR



***

S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. ________ of 2012

in

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010

in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007

***

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Petitioner

Versus

Shri T.S. Vijayan and others Respondents

***

I N D E X

Sl. No. Particulars Page Nos.



1. Misc. application for direction

in the Contempt petition



2. Affidavit in support of the above

application



(ABHINAV SHARMA)

Advocate



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

.1 03.09.2011
==============================









No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment