Writ Petition fails.....DK/77 dated 8.8.19. KERAL HC CASE.

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS

President :    N.P. Bali 705, Sur, Veena Saaz, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400 101 Mob : 9820324213 Email Id - npbali@hotmail.com

General Secretary :    D Krishnan No.6/1, Sreshta Riverside Apartments, Wood Creek Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600089 Tel : 9176635967 / 044 42850049. Email Id - dkrishnan1@gmail.com

Ecircular No.DK/77                                                  08-08-2019

Dear Friends,                   

Reg:  The Kerala HC Case dismissed by single Judge 

It is a matter of regret that a good and just Case, has been lost. On reading the 6 page Judgment, I cannot but feel sad that the whole issue has been confused. Our main and substantively single point was that the principle accepted by the Supreme Court in respect of M C Jain case, should be extended to all similarly placed retirees , who retired between 1-8-1992 and 31-3-1993.  The judgment very casually accepts the contention of LIC Counsel, that the M C Jain Case "was not one in Rem and that the benefits would be available only to the Petitioner therein."

Instead of going deep into the angle of 'justice to one is justice to all', the most potent point in favour of the petitioners has been brushed past in a manner that leaves us stunned. The judgment is pretty confused on dates and that makes us feel that the real point of denial for these retirees of the 8 month period has been missed out.

The judgment talks of the Powers of the Chairman under Staff  Regulation 51(2), as if it is so absolute, that it cannot be gone into, even where the said Power is not used fairly.

There is also evidence in the Report that the Prayer of the Petitioners has been confused with the Gratuity judgment : "It was the specific case of the Petitioners, who were represented by the first Petitioner, Retired LIC Officers' Assn, that the persons who retired from Service from 1-8-1992 onwards had been discriminated in the matter of reckoning  of Gratuity though they were treated as eligible for pay and allowances from March 1993." Our position was just the opposite. Our contention was that we were given Gratuity from 1-8- 1992 whereas pay and allowances from 1-4-1993!

The point that , by fixing different effective dates for different classes of employees, in the exercise of Powers of the Chairman, the simple principle of "Equals being treated unequally", was totally overlooked by this judgment.

There are errors and inconsistencies in the judgment which gives an overall impression that the crux of our fair Demand had not been understood or appreciated.

 Unfortunately, a no of points which were part of the Counter Affidavit of LIC, were simply accepted by the Court without an argument. The judgment also echoes the 'Belated' response to the matter : "It is stated that the Petitioners, having retired from Service during the period from 1-8-1992 to 31-07-1994 have not raised their claim for nearly 15 years and the claim is therefore hopelessly belated". The Revision itself came in 1996 and the Gratuity Case went on upto 2008. The Petition of Krishnan and Kurup was filed in 2009 itself. How could one say that there was an aspect of Delay!

After all this, the judgment deals the final blow in its final sentences: "As such the Petitioners have been granted all the Benefits to which they were entitled in terms of Exhibits P7 and P9 judgments. Any further claim for Arrears with effect from 1-8-1992 is therefore misconceived. The Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed"

Friends, it is now upon us to collectively think of what next on this. My personal opinion is that we should not leave it, at this very unsatisfactory verdict, based not on correct understanding of issues involved. 

 I only hope that the LIC Management, with whom we have been in long conversation on this, does not see this Court Verdict as an excuse, to not take its own considered Decision as discussed. That would only extend the impasse, and thereby delay justice to these retirees, as we cannot let matters lie here as they are. 

D.Krishnan

General Secretary