Monday, August 10, 2015


Dear Shri Hegde,

I request you to please don’t be misguided by the uvaach of our great MSM.  All this is nothing but his face saving act to cover up the damage done by him to the cause of the pensioners at least in Chandigarh.  He has given an excuse to LIC for not complying with the order of 7/5/2015. He has not so far been able to give any justification for contesting the said application in a very bold manner and then celebrating the same.  This was an achievement that in a hurry as the SC was at that time had granted at least 20% amount by way of interim relief.

He has not been able to explain as to why I should have opposed withdrawal in Raj HC and commit the same folly as he has done there.  Moreover I have let LIC an occasion to aggravate the contempt which is already increasing on day to day basis and finalise the same when it makes the payment.  MSM has still not been able to understand the difference between his case and my case. His all the pensioners are pre-1997 while in my case there are some post-1997 pensioners. 

He has also not been able to understand the implications of the judgment of Jaipur and Chandigarh judgment.  Jpr judgment includes revision of pensions also and is also applicable to all the pensioners at large.  It is not necessary that the words in rem be used or not, Jaipur judgment uses the word ‘pensioners’ and not ‘petitioners’ and now when the judgment will be delivered by SC their jurisdiction will be applicable to whole of the country.  But it suits him to conceal this so that his lack of knowledge can be covered up.

At least KML is interested and is fighting for 40000 pensioners while he is restricted to pre-1997 pensioners only.  Unless one understands the implications of the verdict of the judgment one cannot proceed correctly which requires legal acumen.

MSM had raised the issue that AIRIEF should make an application for its impleadment but has not been able to explain the reason just to delay.  After forming an association he had made an application for impleadment, what had happened to that? Moreover the purpose of such a move is nothing but dwelling in ignorant’s paradise.

I have been keeping quite so far but my silence is being taken as my weakness.  He has always been depicting his acts beyond legal conception and lack of knowledge and always whatever such suggestions he had made have proved to be against the provisions of law and now when he utterly failed to convince the pensioners of his act against their interests, he has no other way except to hurl allegations against me.

It is only the time will tell as to how I will act when the payment is made but at least it is clear that he is happy with the closure of ways of payment of at least that amount to Chandigarh pensioners.

I am fighting my case for the benefit of the pensioners and I have succeeded while he is fighting the case for the benefit of the other party and the explanation should be taken in that manner.  Incase his interest are the benefit of pensioners he should come out clearly and correlate his activities with me instead of making it a personal fight with me.  He cannot subdue me by such acts.

Both of them do not know that the Chandigarh writ is my origin, I and Mr ML Gandhi had worked together, I had drafted the writ and was approved by his Advocate.  I was associated with the trial of the writ upto the last date.

He knows only hurling remarks unwontedly on others for his mistakes done deliberately to assist the other side. His subordinate has been hurling financial remarks against me.  But he is unable to give reply to the fact that since 1998 I have been fighting of myself and even till now I have not claimed any expenditure on the litigation at Jaipur which took five rounds. Will he reimburse the same. The remarks are against the GS since all the payments at the SC have been made by the GS directly.  It will not be that I have to seek reimbursement of expenses incurred by me because it has gone beyond my competence and resources.  He is harping because he has not been given money to share in between. While my Advocate had made mentions and took dates his Advocate is said to have claimed Rs. 50000 for the mention which had already been done and when it was not allowed to be paid he has become so frustrated that he has waged a personal war against me forgetting that this amounts to defamation a criminal and civil both.