* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Friday, August 07, 2015

BS HEGDE WRITES


As expected Shri Srinivasa Murty and Shri B. R.Mehta 
were quick in their responses to my comments on 
Chandigarh High Court Contempt Case, hurling abuses 
not only at me but also against Mr. Asthana and 
the AIRIEF. 

Whereas Mr. Murty's utterings `Mr. Hegde's calibre to evaluate the implications of the Chandigarh developments...' and uninformed comments of the half baked lawyers..' etc. show his arrogance and unrealistic assessments of his abilities as lawyer, Mr. Mehta's statements are full of untruths about seeking demand from AIRIEF for refund of donations made by the Panchkula unit towards Legal Fund and Mr. Asthana not contributing a single Rupee for the Legal Fund, and AIRIEF taking financial care of the Chadigarh case in Supreme Court. AIRIEF Treasurer should immediately clarify whether Mr. Mehta's assertion is true or what he said in the General Body meeting of Udupi LIC Pensioners Association is right.
Mr. Murty has posed some questions about implications of the withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited in the Courts by LIC letting loose his imagination on what will happen in consequence. Mr. Murty's knowlege of law is very very limited as he has never practiced law in any Court in his life. Being R.M.(Legal) he might have read the notes prepared by his staff and Officers in the Legal Dept. with regard to Consumer Forum cases and Mortgage cases and he had little opportunity of a deep insight into law related to Service matters. It is very vast subject and it is better to seek counsel from experts in the matter than asserting opinions based on views and suggestion expressed in the columns of Pensioners Chronicle. Mr. Murthy has passed bitter comments without really knowing what had happened in the Jaipur High Court when LICs application for withdrawal of deposit made in the Court but has gone to the extent of commenting that Mr. Asthana could rest happily receiving the sum of Rs. 8000 and odd as interim relief. Did Mr. Asthana tell him what he will do if LIC offer to pay him the said amount?

I feel that Mr. Murty and Mr. Asthana (or their lawyers) erred in not utilising the opportunity offered on the occasion of hearing of the LIC's application for withdrawal to emphasise that there are more than 40,000 pensioners, who also deserve to be compensated and the amount of compensation ordered by S. C. on 7-5-2015 should be correctly calculated before such payment is made. In that situation decision on LICs application would have been indefinitely deferred, with the Courts noticing that there are other similarly aggrieved people.

B. S. Hegde