National Confederation of Retirees
Dated: 08-09-21
Dear Members,
Sub: RELUCTANCE OF SOME MEMBERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE LITIGATION FUND.
Please have GREETINGS.
It is well known that : SLOW BUT STEADY WINS THE RACE.
Admittedly Progress in Our case is slow, but let us not get frustrated. Be reassured - we will win for sure.
But we - the NCR Governing Council Members are deeply concerned and disheartened about the attitude of some of the Members like FORSE / SAIL who have NOT contributed the 2nd & 3rd call money for Litigation Funds.
Please note that you have already given us in WRITTING with Signature from all Pensioner Members - the undertaking that : ( vide Annexture 1 Entitled : INPUTS FOR EPS 95- LITIGATION :: FORMAT FOR INDIVIDUAL DECLARATION CUM UNDERTAKING ) that : "... I SHALL ABIDE BY THE GROUP DECISIONS REGARDING LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ASPECT IN RESPECT TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT AND SHALL FULLY COOPERATE AND FULFIL THE REQUIREMENTS AS A LITIGANTS IN ALL RESPECT."
So the Corporate Members as well as its EPS 95 MEMBERS are Legally , Morally and Ethically obliged to Pay till the finality of the case.
Or else NCR Will be constrained to DELETE the Corporate Member - theredy forfeiting the prospect of Enhanced Pensions of all its members. And the Executive Council of such Entities will be held responsible for such colossal losses on the part of individual PENSIONERS members.
You may recall that SAIL is included in the NCR by amemding the NCR Memorandum and was granted the Associate Membership (paid fees Rs. 1000), and not permanent Membership (fees Rs. 2000).
Whereas Sh. VN Sharma of SAIL became the first party in our Case - getting precedence over NCR ! making him petitioner No.1.
It is indeed so regrettable that INSPITE OF this - they are expressing reluctance to contribute in the NCR Litigation Fund at par with other poor petitioner members.
Hope you will appreciate that when fund was collected @ Rs.100/- it was not envisaged that our case would get prolonged for 3 years. This has caused a tremendous pressure on the Litigation Fund. On the other hand we appreciate members who continue to stand up with NCR by paying in full and expressing readiness to Pay further for the sake of winning the case.
Alarmed by the uncertainty in collection of funds, it was thought to seek advice from our Advocate On Record who is taking personal pain and wants to win the case at any cost as he understands the situation of pensioners.
I am reproducing the reply received from our AOR in this regard for information and request the DEFAULTERS to please drop the HESITATION and cooperate with us, and come forward to clear the pending dues.
AOR ADVICE
"Dear Shri Gurmukh Singh ji
I thank your goodself for informing that the payment towards outstanding fee to the Senior Advocate (Mr. Kapil Sibal) and Advocate on Record will be made this week.
However I was greatly disturbed by the feedback received from your goodself that a number of similarly situated pensioners/associations who are constituents of the NCR/NCOA have refused to contribute₩ towards expenses incurred by these two associations towards Senior Engagement and AOR fees.
I have been informed that a common explanation for refusal to contribute seems to be the fact that since this is a batch matter and the judgment passed in batch matters would apply throughout the country irrespective of parties joining in the cases - judgment in rem- there is no necessity to contribute.
Please bear in mind the following :
A. Vide its order dated 24.08.2021, the Supreme Court has referred the instant batch of petitions to a 3 Judge Bench to adjudicate upon the following questions
1. Whether there would be a cut of date under paragraph 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme 1995
2. Whether R.C Gupta's case will be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of
B. Please bear in mind that the LD. Counsel for EPFO (Mr. C.A Sundaram) has been able to make a favourable impression on the judges in this round of litigation.
C. Also one of the major arguments of the Ld. Counsel for EPFO is that the LD. Single Judge of the High Court in the R.C Gupta's case has granted relief of higher pensionary benefit limited to the petitioners in the case - i.e. it was a judgment in personem -hence any similar benefit of higher pension if is to be granted must be limited to the facts of each case similar to RC Gupta.
It is an admitted fact that our case is not exactly similar with R.C Gupta where the Petitioners were in service, had filed the Writ Petition during their service, and the establishments were unexempted for both PF and Pension.
D. The main reasons for engaging Mr. Kapil Sibal Senior Advocate on behalf of NCR/NCOA was two fold
(i) His appearance ensured the non appearance of the LD. Attorney General for India
(ii) He has himself argued the Krishena Kumar's case relied upon by the EPFO and hence his role for distinguishing the judgment will be vital.
E. As you have yourself witnessed unless a collective offence is mounted by every pensioner, we will face an uphill task.
F. Given that Justice Lalit is the second senior most judge and will become the next CJI, any 3 Judge bench hearing the matter will be conscious of the fact that the 2 Judge Bench headed by Justice Lalit has expressly wanted a review of the R.C Gupta Judgment.
In this backdrop I will request that all the Associations/member pensioners please realise the fact that to win this case we will need the following:
1. We need to retain the present group of Senior Counsels - Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. V. Giri, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Meenakshi Arora as they all have worked on the case for long, have excellent court room face value and will be able to safeguard our interests.
2. If an in principle grant of pensionary benefits (judgment in rem) is not agreed to by the 3 Judge Bench then each petitioner will be forced to detail his case and seek relief individually.
3. The moment collective pressure is unable to be mounted every one will stand to lose.
4. Hence, now, more than ever, it is necessary for all parties to make a joint contribution towards engagement of good Senior Advocates.
5. One way to weed out the members/associations who refuse to contribute is to remove them from your association and also seek deletion of their names as co petitioners.
6. The other way is to ourself seek that relief of higher pension be limited to the active petitioners in these batch of petitions. This proposition will be liked by the Government of India/EPFO too who will then be able to save towards universal application of R.C Gupta's judgment.
Warm Regards,
Purushottam Sharma Tripathi*
In view of above, I humbly appeal to all NCR members (whether Permanent or Associate), who have not yet paid, to contribute their share at par with others in the common interest of all to avoid any unpleasant situation.
Thanks and regards
0 comments:
Post a Comment