G N S writes.

G N Sridharan writes:




1: Prospects for 14/2 hearing DHC

From the record of proceedings in respect of the last hearing on 25/1/2017, it is noted that the matter will be heard on 'day to day basis' from 14/2. We therefore hope that that the case will be heard on at least two consecutive days and orders reserved at last so that pensioners will be relieved of further tension.

Meantime we are advised by our counsel that LIC is expected to file their court mandated addl. affidavit during next week. So far as their earlier affidavit (on which the court had reportedly found fault) is concerned we may inform that we have already filed a suitable reply.  If therefore LIC files an addl. affidavit we shall also file an addl reply. We cannot also rule out the possibility of some of the petitioners seeking time to file their replies. We have to only pray that the hearing schedule does not get upset.

2 . Status on Bank pensioners' case in SC

Members will recall that we have been occasionally referring to the issues affecting in parallel, both our pensioners and those in the banking sector. On the issue of 100% neutralisation on DR the retirees of three of the nationalised banks had initially filed a writ in the Madras HC and a single judge had allowed it. The banks' managements went on appeal to the Division bench which gave a reversed order. As against the same the concerned retirees organisations went on appeal to the SC. We learn that the said appeal was listed on 1st Feb before the bench of justices AK Goel & Pant  According to our sources the SC bench rejected the pensioners' plea. The reason is stated to be that the court observed that the settlement under which the discrimination by imposing a cut off date had not been challenged.

Arising out of this reported development we feel it relevant to recall a similar scenario when our matters were in closing stages in March 2016. Justice Dipak Misra referred to the issue on whether three petitions on our side had challenged the validity of Rule 3A. The Sr. Counsel then engaged by us promptly submitted that our Federation had directly challenged. It was only after verification of this fact by the bench, orders were passed (on 31/3/2016) remanding all the petitions to Delhi HC for a finding on the validity of Rule 3A besides ordering 40% IR. Not only that, the court also allowed amendments to the petitions. This timely effort by us created a situation to keep our matters alive till date. We took advantage of this situation by amending our writ to bring the challenge to 3A as the first prayer and expanding the same to cover Up gradation also since it was not thought of when we approached the Delhi HC nearly a decade back. We are compelled to recall this episode at this juncture because of its direct relevance to what had happened to Bank Pensioners case. While it is so, let our members be not carried away by the euphoria created by some by quoting some observations or the other by the learned judges or counsels..

We take this opportunity to reiterate that we are equally anticipating a positive verdict from the court on the two major issues.

With greetings,

GN Sridharan,

Gen.Secy Fedn.of Retd LIC Class I Officers' Assns.