Analysis of the SC Office Report – Why we are in "Motion Hearing" status
Sanjay J
Dear Members,
The Common Office Report (dated May 4, 2026) shared by Shri P. Mohan provides a clear roadmap for our hearing on May 6th. For those concerned about the change in status from "Final Hearing" to "Motion Hearing," this document provides the necessary clarity.
To understand where we stand, we must look at the focused progression of this case over the recent months:
The Road to May 6th: A Strategic Timeline
- Nov 2023: Leave granted — Hearing expedited.
- 5 Feb 2026: Court heard Senior Counsel at length. The Bench specifically ordered year-wise pension computations for all three retiree groups (including our 1986-87 batch).
- 25 Feb 2026: Respondents filed computations — Adjourned to 12 March.
- 9 April 2026: Adjourned to 15 April at the request of the Additional Solicitor General (ASG).
- 29 April 2026: Listed for 6 May — Positions retained.
- 6 May 2026: Motion Hearing — Dedicated 3:00 PM slot (Item 302).
1. Why "Motion Hearing" instead of "Final Hearing"?
Legally, this is not a "downgrade." As the timeline shows, the court is currently managing several Interlocutory Applications (IAs).
There are pending procedural matters: an application by the appellants' counsel has a technical defect that needs to be cured, and there are pending impleadment applications from individuals seeking to join the case. These need to be resolved before final arguments can proceed.
By listing the case as a "Motion Hearing," the Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta) can formally admit new mathematical facts into the record and dispose of the matter finally without moving it back into the slow "Regular Hearing" queue.
2. The Status of our Evidence
As confirmed by the Advocate-on-Record (AOR), the Appendix-I computation—which highlights the "Loading Factor" and the hidden updation component—has already been filed before the court.
3. Dedicated Time Slot
The report confirms the case retains its priority position. The 3:00 PM fixed slot is a special provision for "Part-Heard" matters, ensuring the Judges intend to give our Senior Counsel, Dr. Manish Singhvi, substantive time to drive home the mathematical proof of intent.
Conclusion:
In my humble assessment, the Court is no longer debating "if"
updation exists; they are scrutinizing the actual arithmetic to decide
"how" it should be implemented. We have done our part in providing
the arithmetic evidence, and it is now in the hands of the Hon'ble Bench.
With regards,
Sanjay J.
Ramakrishnan S
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLAAzLWuRZPoPWhX1W3CPO0kO3TmV1B6K0cTxOAzGXbCA%40mail.gmail.com.