Latest Indian Business News Financial World - Latest Articles Latest World News

Contempt Petition filed by pensioners of LIC in Rajasthan High Court -   Failure of LIC to  Giving Pension Parity in LIC As per HC directions

 

 

In March 2011, we have uploaded a judgment of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur under the heading  Pension Parity in LIC -Division Bench Dismissed Appeal by LIC (See below the details).  However, it appears that LIC has failed to act as per the directions and poor pensioners have been left with no alternative but to move to Rajasthan HC with a contempt petition.  We have been sent a copy of the petition by Mr N Pradeep Kumar, Advocate at Supreme Court for the benefit of our readers.  This clearly indicates that the top management of banks, LIC and other financial institutions are totally callous and do not want to pass on any benefit to the old and helpless pensioners.  They try to do their best to stop any benefit that may accrue to pensioners under any law of the land.

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 21^st 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 22^nd 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 9^th December, 2010 Shri T.S. Vijayan, then Chairman and now Managing Director had issued Circular whereby the pensions of those who retired after 1^st August, 2007 were revised but the pensions of the earlier pensioners including the Petitioner were not revised. A copy of this Circular dated 9^th 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 21^st January, 2010.

 

4.           That this Hon’ble Court on 6^th 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 15^th 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 19^th 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 13^th 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 31^st 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 31^st 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 14^th 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 1^st 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 23^rd 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 1^st 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 14^th 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 16^th 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 21^st 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

 

1.                Misc. application for direction

                   in the Contempt petition

 

2.                Affidavit in support of the above

                   application

 

 

 

(ABHINAV SHARMA)

Advocate

 

====================================================================================

Now we give below an old article published in AllBankingSolutions.com sometime in March, 2011.  This is being given to understand the background of the present petiton :

 

PENSION PARITY IN LIC - DIVISION BENCH DISMISSED APPEAL BY LIC By MOHAN.P    mohanputhan@rediffmail.com   01. Single Bench of Rajasthan High Court -Hon. Justice M.N. Bhandari - has  declared an important verdict on 12 January 2010,against Management of LIC, in a WP filed by M/s Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and others   to implement Parity in Pension to LIC  employees. The Board had made decision to allow parity in pension payment to its employees earlier. But same was not implemented so far 02. Again, after the above verdict of Single Bench , Management of LIC preferred for Appeal against the verdict before Division Bench. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI pulled down Management of LIC for dragging the matter further to court and dismissed their appeal. on 21.1.2011 The above verdict pertaining to LIC employees have much impact in similar cases of Bank Pensioners, pending in Supreme Court and High Courts etc. 03. Copies of Judgment of Hon. Single Bench and Division Bench are  forwarded herewith for the benefit of employees in Banking sector /other sectors.     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.