CWP No.16346 of 2010.
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CWP No.16346 of 2010
Date of Decision: 09.11.2012
Madan Lal Gandhi and others
. . . .Petitioners
Union of India and others
. . . . Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Tarun Singla, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
Mr.B.R. Mahajan, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioners are all retired Class I officers of Life
Insurance Corporation of India (for short ‘the Corporation’),
who have challenged the discrimination against employees
retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.8.1997 while framing Rules
with regard to grant of Dearness Relief to pensioners at par
with in-service employees, up-gradation of pension and have
prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing order dated 3.6.2010 rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for removal of anomaly in the matter of rate of
Dearness Relief to the pensioners and Dearness Allowance to
serving employees on the same amount of pension/salary and
up-gradation of pension on pay revision and further prayed for
issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to implement the
decision passed by the Corporation in its meeting of the Board
of Directors dated 24.11.2001 and also for issuance of
direction by way of mandamus for striking down the words “as
on 1.8.1997” in clause (3) of Section 1 “Short title,
commencement and application” in the notification dated
22.6.2000 and words “as on 1.8.2002” in Notification dated
5.9.2005 with consequential effects and for issuance of
direction to fix pension of the petitioners as per the substituted
scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable to them in the
scrapped pay scale as on the date of their retirement and pay,
pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on
and from 1.8.1997 and thereafter on and from 1.8.2002 with
all consequential benefits with 12% interest.
The petitioners have given a note in the index of the
writ petition that a similar case i.e. CWP No.654 of 2007 titled
as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs. LIC of India and others was
allowed by the Rajasthan High Court directing the
respondent-Corporation to take a decision for implementation
of the Resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board
holding that the Corporation cannot provide different criteria
for grant of Dearness Allowance to the existing pensioners
based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997 and as such, the benefit
arising out of the directions above would, however, be
considered by the Corporation so that every retired employee
may get the same benefit.
The text of the directions of the order in CWP
No.654 of 2007 titled as Krishna Murari Lal Asthana Vs.
LIC of India and others decided on 12.1.2010 by the Single
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, attached as Annexure P-20
with the writ petition, is as under:
“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
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 24.11.2011
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.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid
judgment which has been further upheld by the Division
Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) No.494 of 2010 titled as Life Insurance Corporation
of India Vs. Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others
decided on 21.1.2011, with the following observations:
“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 the 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.
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
Although counsel for the Corporation has
submitted that SLP has been preferred against the aforesaid
order of the Division Bench but its operation has not been
stayed by the Apex Court.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are
of the considered opinion that since it is not in dispute that
similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by
the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the
case of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana (Supra) which has been
maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the
same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed, in terms
of the order passed in the aforesaid case namely Krishna
Murari Lal Asthana (Supra).
(A.K. SIKRI) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
NOVEMBER 09, 2012
PENSION REVISION WRIT PETITIONS AT CHANDIGARHMonday, November 19, 2012 8:57 PM
From: "asthana_jaipur ASTHANA"
I HAVE JUST COME TO KNOW FROM SHRI SN CHHABRA
THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED IN CHANDIGARH HC
HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON 9TH OF THIS MONTH ON THE
BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KRISHNA
MURARI LAL ASTHANA VS UOI AND OTHERS.
THE SAME RELIEFS HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
I AM AWAITING A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
WHEN I WILL SEND YOU THE DETAILS THEREOF
THIS IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION PLEASE
To: Seetha And Kishore
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:23 AM
PL PUT THE FOLLOWING MESSAGE ON THE BLOG FOR INFORMATION OF ALL CONCERNED KML ASTHANA
I AM GETTING INFORMATIONS FROM SOME QUARTERS
THAT SOME UNION/ASSOCIATIONS ARE PLANNING TO
MAKE APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT IN OUR SLP.
THESE PERSONS EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR AS OFFICE
BEARERS OF SOME ASSOCIATION ARE APPARENTLY AND VIVIDLY PLAYING IN THE HANDS OF MANAGEMENT AND ARE OUT TO DELAY THE RESULT OF SLP ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHILE I EXPECT TOGET THE SLP DECIDED WITHIN TWO THREE MONTHS ANY SUCH MOVE ON THEIR PART SHOULD IT COME WILL DELAY THE DECISION AT LEAST BY THREE FOUR YEARS AND THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE MANAGEMENT TO SOMEHOW FRUSTRATE OUR MOVE IN THE BATTLE WHICH THEY HAVE ALMOST LOST.
PL BEWARE AND OPPOSE ANY SUCH MOVE WHICH IS DESCTRUCTIVE AND ADVERSE TO THE WELL BEING OF LIC PENSIONERS. OTHERWISE IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHAT PURPOSE THEY WANT TO GAIN BY THIS MOVE BECAUSE ONCE WE WIN IN THE SLP THE BENEFIT WILL BE PAYABLE TO ONE AND ALL THROUGH OUT THE LENGTH AND BREADTH OF THE COUNTRY, FOR THEY SHOULD REMEMBER THE GRATUITY CASE AS ALSO THE PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT ONE REGULATION CANNOT BE APPLIED DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT PERSONS.
MAY GOD GIVE THEM BETTER COUNSEL THAT THEY SHOULD NOT DELAY OUR COURSE OF VICTORY WHICH IS FOR ONE AND ALL.
23.10.2012. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Case Status Status : PENDING
Status of : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 29956 -29957 OF 2011
L.I.C. .Vs. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC.
Pet. Adv. : MR. ASHOK PANIGRAHI Res. Adv. : MR. RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
Subject Category : SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFITS
Listed 2 times earlier There are no further orders of listing
Last updated on Oct 20 2012 Click Here for Latest Office Report
Click Here for Latest Order
Click here for Archive Orders
many occasions to refer on any point concerning the LIC.
I will be failing in my responsibility if I could not thank him for his good work
which is much more useful to one and all particularly the pensioners of LIC. It
gives a comprehensive picture on all counts. It is almost an Encyclopaedia for
The Blog helps the new to know the history of the movements developed in
LIC to achieve the victory on every point.
Besides the history there are many more acts to refer, many a tips that are useful
in the daily routine. Tips not only casual but it gives or suggests immediate first
aid that has to be done for domiciliary treatment. They are the suggestions of
the age old people where from we can have a ready made solution.
The entertainment portion gives quick relief with jokes and songs whenever we
need some relief rather than coffee or tea.
Above all, it is an useful blog as it gives important information and the blog has
a clock also.
There are several benefits almost it is cooked food which we have to digest.
I hope whoever could go through this blog could enrich their knowledge.
Let GOD SRI SARASWATHI help him to make it available with all the knowledge
of the universe.
At the cost of repetition I thank Shri Madhava Rao garu for the wonderful work he
has done and continue to do in future to improve this blog useful to one all.
With due regards,
L S R KRISHNA RAO
Please donate liberally
. Cheque in favour of
1) Sri. KML Asthana. State Bank of India,Hatwara Road,Jaipur,302001.
2)All India Retired Insurance Employees’ Federation.
1)Sri. KML ASTHANAB-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road,Jaipur-302006.
2)Sri R. B. KISHORE . A-6, "Pratignya" 8 (Old 22), 2nd Street , B.N. Road , T. Nagar CHENNAI - 600 017 Tel.: 044-28155810, M.: 09600006582
3) T.R.Madhava Rao.116/2.Durai Arasan Street,Kaveri Rangan Nagar.Saligramam.Chennai - 600093. Tel.23762274.
From: asthana_jaipur ASTHANA
Subject: Re: - Judgement and Similarly placed persons
Date: Sunday, October 21, 2012, 12:07 AM
I am reproducing the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17th October 2012
on my application for clarification of its order dated 14/11/2011 for your information. According to this order LIC has now to deposit the entire amount
of difference of pension and DR in respect of the Petitioners before the Rajasthan HC so that the proceedings in the Contempt petition are stayed. Though this amount relates to 27 petitioners, but this amount is not being paid for the present to us. The payment will depend upon the ultimate decision of the SLP filed by LIC in SC wherein this clarification has been given. The directions given in he SLP will be the final verdict and will be applicable to all the pensioners throughout.
Pl don’t’ be misguided by the notorious propaganda by interested persons
which in the past also proved to be utterly false.
Pl have patience and wait for the result of the SLP. I will be filing application
for early hearing of the SLP on reopening of the SC on 29/10/2012.
IA No.3 In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29956-
KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for clarification and office report)
Date: 17/10/2012 This I.A. was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
For Petitioner(s) Dr.A.M.Singhvi, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Parag P.Tripathy, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.
Mr.Surajit Bhaduri, Adv.
For Respondent(s)/ Mr.Amarendra Sharan, Sr.Adv.
Applicant Mr.R.K.Singh, Adv.
Mr.Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
Mr.Aakash D.Pratap, Adv.
Ms.Vimla Sinha, Adv.
Ms.Sushma Suri, A.O.R.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A.No.3 of 2012 In SLP(C)No.29957 of 2011
This is an application by the respondent for clarification of
order dated 14.11.2011.
We have heard Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for
the applicant and Dr.A.M.Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the SLP-
petitioner and are satisfied that order dated 14.11.2011 needs to be
clarified so that neither party may remain under a mistaken impression
about the purport of this Court's order.
In view of the above, paragraph 3 of order dated 14.11.2011 is
substituted with the following:
"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 pensioners i.e. the writ petitioners with
effect from the date of their eligibility to get retiral benefits."
I.A. No.3 of 2012 is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of I.A.No.3 of 2012, I.A.No.4 of 2012
in I.A.No.3 of 2012 in SLP(C)No.29957 of 2011 is also disposed of.
In the order the phrase “eligibility” will mean that the difference on account of revision of pensions and Dearness allowance from the date of retirement.
However, before closing I wish to request to all to please contribute to the heavy expenditure on the litigation in the SC and thereafter on getting the compliance
made by the mighty organization like LIC so that the litigation can be fruitfully
fought for our benefit. The contribution may be sent to me at Jaipur or All India Retired Insurance Employees’ Federation.
With best wishes,
From: t.r.madhava rao
Sent: Saturday, 20 October 2012 12:44 PM
Subject: Re:- Judgement and Similarly placed persons
Please refer to my earlier E-mail.
Supreme Court order is traced and appended below.
I am not able to locate another similar order.
SUPREME COURT DATED 04 SEPT 2012: IV CPC RANK PAY CASE
O R D E R
I.A. No. 9 in T.P. (C) No. 56 of 2007:
We have heard Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Solicitor General
of India and Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned
senior counsel for the respondents.
2. On thoughtful consideration of the entire matter, we are
satisfied that the order dated March 8, 2010 does not require any
modification or variation save and except the interest part.
3. As regards interest, on totality of the circumstances
including the circumstance that Special Leave Petition arising from
the judgment dated July 4, 2003 in the matter of Major A.K. Dhanapalan
was dismissed by this Court in August, 2005 and the Kerala High Court
had not ordered payment of interest on the arrears of pay, we direct
that the interest shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondents
@ 6% p.a. from January 1, 2006 instead of January 1, 1986. It is
clarified that this order shall govern all similarly situated
officers who have not approached the court and also those who have
filed Writ Petitions which are pending before various High
Courts/Armed Forces Tribunal.
4. We record and accept the statement of the learned
Solicitor General that arrears of pay with interest, as directed
above, shall be paid to the
concerned officers expeditiously and positively within twelve weeks
5. I.A. No. 9 of 2010 stands disposed of accordingly.
W.P. (C) Nos. 268/2010, 192/2012, and I.A. No. 1 of 2011 in W.P. (C)
34/2009 and T.C. (C) Nos. 11/2010, 14-19/2010, 31/2010, 32/2010,
33/2010 and 35/2010:
The above matters and pending I.As. therein, if any, stand
disposed of in terms of the above order passed in I.A. No. 9 of 2010
in T.P. (C) No. 56 of 2007.
AS ON 04 SEPT 2012
The IV CPC Rank Pay Case was finally heard today ie 04 Sept 2012, in Court no 7, in the court of Hon’ble Justices RM Lodha, TS Thakur and Anil S Dave. The appeal file by UOI for recall of order of the Hon’ble Court dated 08 March 2010 was dismissed by the Court. The court upheld its order of 08 Mar 2010. The Solicitor General spent marathon four hrs to convince the court about the legitimate deduction of the rank pay but was not able to justify the deduction of rank pay and as to fitment of pay of AF officer vis a vis a civilian offr drawing same basic pay as on 1/1/1986.
The said order will be applicable to all affected offrs of the AF wef 01/01/1986 to 01/01/2006 across board. It would also be applicable to all pending cases in various courts and AFT’s across the country on the subject case.
The interest will be applicable @ 6% wef 01/01/2006 and not 1986. This is the only change made by the court. The court has also directed that all arrears should be paid within outer limit of 3 months from today ie 04 Sept 2012.
So, the pay and pension of all affected officers of the AF are set to revise from 01/01/1986.
Finally Three Cheers!! SATYAMEV JAYAT------------------------------------------------
Re: - S.C. - IA in SLP 29956 -29957 /2011 - 17.10.2012 - QuerySaturday, October 20, 2012 1:14 AM
Court Orders refer to petitioners.
At the time of actual implementation payments are made to all affected persons..
My friends( lawyers) are confirming this view.
Supreme Court Judgement is there in this respect (Details are not traceable at present.)
Madras High Court has relied on this while delivering a Judgement in 2010.(Appended below)
If my recollection is correct,LIC has also followed this in Raman Kutty's '220 Case','Bonus Cse','Gratuity Case','Temporay Employees Case' etc..
Board Resolution is also for all pensioners
We need not be perturbed.
On Mon, 8/23/10, t.r.madhava rao wrote:
The Times Of India,Chennai.
Home dept officials rapped for denying promotions
A Subramani, TNN, Aug 23, 2010, 05.57am IST
CHENNAI: The entire top brass of the home department is on the brink of being hauled up for contempt of court by Madras High Court for its "continuous and wilful disobedience" of a judicial order delivered in 2007 with regard to the promotion of 11 DSPs.
Irked at only the partial implementation of its September 10, 2007 order, despite the fact that the Supreme Court refused to grant any stay on its implementation, a division bench comprising justice Elipe Dharma Rao and justice KK Sasidharan has given the government time up to August 30 to set right the anomaly or face contempt action.
A total of more than 280 sub-inspectors of police were selected in 1976 by way of direct recruitment. After selection, they underwent training at the Police Training College in Vellore. As per Rule 25 of the Special Rules of Tamil Nadu State Police Subordinate Service Rules, the seniority of directly recruited SIs was fixed on the basis of the marks they scored during training. Accordingly, two DSPs -- G Rajamoney and S Durairaj -- were assigned seniority of 17 and 13 respectively.
However, on March 28, 1985 the government issued an order amending the rule to the detriment of those who got seniority as per the training college marks. After the GO was issued, Rajamoney's seniority slipped to 195 and that of Durairaj went down to 132. When they challenged the amendment, the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal rejected their plea.
However, a division bench headed by justice Elipe Dharma Rao rapped the Tribunal and ruled that the executive order cannot give retrospective effect to an issue which was decided as per the unamended rule. The amendment had deprived the DSPs of their vested right to promotion, it said, adding that the officials should be assigned their original seniority.
Though the state government's special leave petition is still pending in the Supreme Court, the apex court had refused to stay the HC order at least on four occasions. Last month, Rajamoney filed a contempt petition against the home secretary, director-general of police and the public service commission, on the ground that though he had won the case against the government, he had not been given seniority. While his juniors were given promotions with a condition that the promotion was subject to the result of the pending SLP, the really affected officials who have won a round of litigation in the high court were not shown similar courtesy.
Worse, he retired from service in April 2009, without ever enjoying the fruits of his successful battle. When the contempt petition came up for hearing before the division bench on August 16, the government informed the bench that it had given due seniority to the two officers who had come to court. What was left unsaid was the fact that there are nine more similarly-placed officers, who too had not been given seniority. The bench gave the authorities two more weeks to set right the anomaly in respect of the entire batch and report compliance of its order in letter and spirit.
Even the V Central Pay Commission recommendation, citing Supreme Court rulings, says service litigation involving similarly placed employees could be avoided if due benefits were given to all the eligible candidates and not just to those who were before the court. Selective benefits would lead to needless litigation, it said.
But, now, the remaining nine officials too have filed a joint contempt petition, stating that they had been wronged too long. In 34 years, they have been given only two promotions. All these 11 officials are left with service periods ranging from just six months to one year.
Sub-inspectors who were selected in 1987, nearly 11 years after the 1976 batch, too have become DSPs now. After the litigation was started in 1987, the government constituted three temporary panels to promote DSPs to additional superintendent of police (ADSP) cadre, and one to promote ADSPs into superintendents of police.
But, no effort was made to clear the 1976 batch, which has only 11 DSPs waiting to be promoted to the next cadre despite the fact that they face no charge memo or any department proceedings
--- On Thu, 10/18/12, P Ramanathan
From: P Ramanathan email@example.com
Subject: Re: - S.C. - IA in SLP 29956 -29957 /2011 - 17.10.2012
To: "t.r.madhava rao" firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012, 8:01 PM
"the petitioner shall deposit in the Registry of the High Court the
amount due to the pensioners i.e. the writ petitioners with
effect from the date of their eligibiity to get retiral
Dear Mr Madhava Rao,
Thanks for your mail.
Does the portion of the order quoted above mean that ultimately
only "the writ petitioners" will get the benefits?
1 DISPOSED30/08/2012 - Judgement Awaited upgradation of Pensionb and 100% neutralisation of DR for all pensioners of Banks High Court of Karnataka WRIT PETITION 32475 to 32602 2010 Retd. Bank Officers Confederation ? http://causelist.kar.nic.in/caseStatus_CaseNumber.asp
2 Disposed13/09/2012 - Judgement Awaited Revision of Pay Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 1454 2009 MAHESH CHANDRA JAIN LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
3 6/10/2012 Pay fixation - rectification Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 14446 2010 KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA L I C AND ANR http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
4 10/10/2012 Revision of pension Bombay WRIT PETITIONS (DIVISION BENCH) 2403 2009 All India Reserve Bank Retired Employees Union Reserve Bank Of India &Anr http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/casequery_action.php
5 25/10/2012 D.R.Anamoly,Revision of Pension. AHMEDABAD SCA-SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 1507 2007 ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION UNION OF INDIA THRO' MINISTRY OF FINANCE http://gujarathc-casestatus.nic.in/gujarathc/tabhome.jsp
6 29/10/2012 Qualifying Service Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 7841 2008 RAMESH CHANDRA KHANDELWAL L I C AND ORS http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
7 30/10/2012 D.R.Anamoly Delhi W.P.(C) 184 2007 FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLAS UOI & ORS. http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/case.asp
8 9-11-2012 Revision of pension Chandigarh CWP 16346 2010 MADAN LAL GANDHI AND ORS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS http://courtnic.nic.in/courtnic_chandigarh/AdvocateDetail.aspx
9 20-Nov-12 Revision of pension etc. Chandigarh CWP 17138 2010 HARCHARAN SINGH VIRDI AND ORS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS http://courtnic.nic.in/courtnic_chandigarh/AdvocateDetail.aspx
10 26/11/2012 SLP (Civil) SUPREME COURT SLP (Civil) 29956/29957 2011 L.I.C. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC. http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/querycheck.asp
11 29/11/2012 CCP Jaipur Bench CCP 592 2011 KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA RAKESH SINGH AND ANOTHER http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
12 9/1/2013 SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFITS SUPREME COURT Writ Petition (Civil) 184 2011 FEDERATION O SBI PENSIONERS ASS.&ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/querycheck.asp
13 ? Nationl.Ins.Vol Retd/Retd.Emp.Asn.& Ors. SUPREME COURT T.C 1096 -1099 2008 Nationl.Ins.Vol Retd/Retd.Emp.Asn.& Ors. ? http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/querycheck.asp
14 ? D.R.Anamoly,Revision of Pension. Allahabad WRIT-A 24580 2007 JAGDISH NARAIN KHANNA AND OTHERS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/casestatus/typeG1A.html
15 ? D.R.Anamoly Ernakulam Bench WRIT PETITION (CIVIL 27863 2006 GOPINATHAN & ANOTHER LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION & 2 OTHERS http://courtnic.nic.in/kerala_new/content.asp
16 ? Revision of pension -1.8.1992 Ernakulam Bench WRIT PETITION (CIVIL 6228 2009 C.KRISHNAN LIC OF INDIA http://courtnic.nic.in/kerala_new/content.asp
17 ? Periodic revision of pension Kerala WRIT APPEAL 1903 2010 SBI T.R.VIJAYAN AND OTHERS http://courtnic.nic.in/kerala_new/content.asp
18 ? restoration of commutation Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 2264 2005 A P TIWARI LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
19 ? Gold Coin Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 9174 2006 K L MALHOTRA AND ORS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
20 ? THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPAN Jaipur Bench CIVIL WRITS 1908 2007 U.K.PRADHAN AND ORS. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPAN http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp
21 ? CIV. CONTEMPT PET. Jaipur Bench CIV. CONTEMPT PET. 760 2010 RISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND T S VIJAYAN AND OTHERS http://rhccasestatus.raj.nic.in/smsrhcb/rhbcis/index.asp