Report on hearing held on 5/2/2020 in SC On 5/2/2020

Report on hearing held on 5/2/2020 in SC On 5/2/2020

Report on hearing held on 5/2/2020 in SC

On 5/2/2020, like other representatives of the petitioners, I was feeling disappointed and sad while coming out of the Court Room no. 14 after adjournment of our cases to 19th Feb 2020. We reached New Delhi on 3rd Feb. 2020 and did a lot of spade work for the hearings of our cases on 5/2/20202 in SC. As agreed, representatives of 4 petitioners (AIRIEF, Federation of Retired LIC Class 1 Officers Associations, Retd LIC Class 1 Officers Association, Hyd and ML Gandhi & Ors) met on 4/2/2020 and shared salient points of the SLPs and agreed for the similar approach to be adopted by the Sr Counsels while advancing their arguments. It was a brief but highly focused meeting.

Our meeting with the Sr Advocate was quite satisfying. The Sr Advocate has already prepared his notes based on our earlier meeting. He revisited the entire records (DHC Judgment dated 27/4/2017, Our SLP, LIC's and UOI's Counter Affidavit and our rejoinders) swiftly and reinforced his noting with our inputs. On certain points (like CPI, rate of DR, Pay Scales on various CPI, etc) he sought for clarifications from us. In the process he asked for exact data with full clarity mentioning source. We provided the information as desired. We were satisfied with the preparation made by the Sr Advocate. We also shared with him the concern shown by various experts on the issue of updation of pension and parity in DR to Pre-Aug 1997 retirees that one issue should not shadow the other issue. The Sr Advocate not only discussed favourable rulings but also noted the point as to how to counter negative rulings (Bank Pensioners case decided against pensioners in May 2018 was also discussed and points to differentiate the same were noted by the Sr Advocate).

On 5/2/2020 we (Shri N K Upadhyay, Shri Sarkar & Myself) reached SC at about 9.05AM. Shri D D Gupta and Shri Anand Tyagi also joined us. After the formalities of passes etc., we went to the Court Room No. 14. Representatives of other petitioners were also there. As expected, our cases were called soon. Shri Nidhesh Gupta requested for permission to start arguments. Justice Nazeer wanted to know the Sr Number to pick up the relevant file from the lot kept before him. NG informed the Sr No. as 7.1. In the meantime, an other Sr Advocate submitted that LIC has not made correct payment while implementing DHC order as also not complied with the directions given on 26/11/2018 to submit the response within three weeks. LIC's advocate stated that DHC order has been complied with by LIC and affidavit to that effect was also submitted. The Sr Advocate insisted that response, as assured by LIC, was not submitted. LIC's advocate immediately requested for allowing two weeks time to submit the response. In the meantime Justice Hemant Gupta wanted to know whether arguments should be started on SLP or on objection filed by petitioners and insisted that arguments should be started on SLP. If petitioner's advocate wants to discuss DHC order, why the SLP was filed? Justice Nazeer asked in a lighter mood whether the Sr Advocate (who raised the issue of faulty implementation of DHC order) is not prepared for arguments. Sr Adv NG told that he is fully prepared for arguments on SLP. Justice Hemant Gupta told that he wants to dispose off the case finally and asked NG whether the arguments would be complete today. NG told that arguments would not be complete in one day, but he wants to start the arguments and cover the maximum part today. In the mean time court master pointed out to Justice Nazeer that Petitioner in Person has submitted a letter seeking adjournment as due to ill health, he was not able to attend the court. LIC advocate quickly raised the issue that letter is not served to him. UOI pleader also told that letter is not served either to them. They requested for adjournment of the case. Almost all the advocates wanted arguments to start. But, quoting some rule, Justice Nazeer told that on this issue he cannot waive and the cases have to be adjourned as the service is not complete. There was some discussions on the date and Justice Nazeer directed to list the cases on 19/2/2020. One of the petitioners advocate requested for keeping the case on the top of list. 

It is difficult to narrate the court room proceedings with hundred complete accuracy as it is hard to hear and observe all the submissions and comments from the visitors area. All the advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners are also not known so there may be a mistake of misquoting advocate's name. Information provided by the advocates is brief and limited to the main directions only. Though, I was nearer to advocates in the court room and attentive too and I tried to cover the happenings as I heard, saw and perceived, there may be some inaccuracy, which may kindly be ignored.

Coming to AIRIEF's SLP, it is for redressal of both the issues: removal of DR disparity caused to Pre-Aug.1997 retiree pensioners and updation of pension for all. In the joint meeting it was decided that our focus must be on SLP and not on faulty implementation of DHC order dated 27/4/2020. We have already submitted objection to faulty implementation of DHC order and our Sr advocate will raise the issue during the course of discussion. Talking about faulty implementation of DHC in the beginning itself would focus on DR issue only and may shadow the pension updation. We are fighting the case to win, which will make DHC order irrelevant. God forbid, if result is not favourable then correct implementation of DHC order (arrears from 1998 and refund of 40% wrongly adjusted) would give some solace. So, this aspect is also there  to be taken in last. 

Perhaps it would not be out of order to mention the devotion and sincerity of our senior activists/leaders, who, despite their advance age and physical constraint  are visiting SC, briefing the advocates and attending the courts. Looking towards them, I always get enthused to join the team, though I am too small in knowledge, experience and age. There are some well-meaning and mature super seniors who always encourage and motivate me by their blessings and nice words like revered Shri R B Kishore, Shri Sitaram Raju, Shri NAN Narayan, Shri S N Chhabra, Shri S S Saxena. These are the persons who frequently talk to me, motivate to prepare the case in the best possible manner and always bless me. In this array, other names are Shri Arunachalam, Shri C H Mahadevan, Shri D Krishnan and Shri Krishnaswamy, whose sincere and serious efforts can be realized while working with them. Contribution by way of quick response on any query or making available a document by Shri Sahani Ji is of great help in providing useful material to the advocates. Though I could not interact much with Shri Natrajan, but his maturity and devotion for the pensioners fascinate me. I am not stating all this to please someone but to acknowledge their catalytic role.   

Important information about hearing of 5th Feb 2020 has already been communicated by several activists. That way, this reporting is stale; but some of seniors, whom I respect most, asked me to send details of happening so that they would appreciate the developments and have the idea as to how the case is going on.   

With regards,

M P Agnihotr