Thursday, September 10, 2015

M Sreenivasa Murty


Dear Mr Gangadharan,

Actually there are ‘several’ sides to what I have been doing for some time in Chandigarh and has done on 7 Sept 2015 in Supreme Court. So Mr. Hegde’s side is only a wayside. That he is a member of a bandwagon which totally lost its relevance and is now reduced to a motely crowd, is known to all your readers. He was last heard through his gibberish when I secured an Order from Chandigarh HC on 20 July 2015 and has now resurfaced immediately after the Supreme Court came out with a stunning Order in my I.A., on 7 Sept.

The great discovery by Mr. Hegde of the ‘mouse’ coming out of Court No 5 on 7 Sept would not have been normally a provocation for me to respond in detail. But dear Editor, you have more than made up with your wonderful color scheme for the Post, which has otherwise no stuff of any value, barring the display of one’s heartburn.

I don’t know why Mr. Hegde chose to drag Mr.Mahadevan’s name in to his Amusement.  Perhaps because Mr Mahadevan publicly asked what is the status of AIRIEF’s decision to implead before SC. (Btw, that question asked by many others too remains unanswered till date).

Before I provide answers to Hegde’s questions where necessary, I would ask him to go through the SC Order of 7 Sept 2015 once again, carefully and never to misquote something available in black and white in an important document.

For everybody’s ease of reference let me reproduce what he wrote in the Blog:

“What is so great about it? It looks like a repetition of the Interim Order of 7-5-2015 except for the sentence which states that the Chairman would be summoned for Contempt if the Order is not complied within two weeks”

Mr.Hegde, where did you find the above sentence in the SC Order? You can discover and catch a mouse but please don’t meddle with Supreme Court Orders adding/substituting your own words.

Now my replies/comments:

‘…..about defects and ambiguity in the order dated 7-5-2015. Are those defects and ambiguities cleared now?

No, not fully. But that was not my prayer in the IA. However, the difference between the 7 May Order and 7 Sept Order is that the latest one does not talk of withdrawal of 20% from the amount deposited in Courts.     

1. Will the petitioners of Chandigarh case get what Mr. Murthy claims as rightfully due to them as Interim relief? (In other words will they get more than what the Jaipur petitioners got?)
Yes, eventually, Petitioners in Chandigarh as also Jaipur will get higher than what LIC would credit directly (as it did in Jaipur) - what it wanted to withdraw and pay.
2. Would LIC pay the Interim relief to the Chandigarh petitioners without withdrawing the amount deposited in the Court?
It is LIC’s problem. To pay or commit contempt of the 7 Sept Order. Its Application for withdrawal was dismissed by Chandigarh HC on 20 July on my objection. Does Hegde’s legal knowledge and practicing experience tell him that LIC may re-apply?
The latest SC Order is to ‘pay’ and not ‘withdraw and pay’. 
3. Is this order applicable in rem? In other words will other affected pensioners (other than the petitioners and members of LIC Retired Class I Officers Association on rolls before that date on which the petition to the SC was filed) also get the Interim payment?
Was my IA on this point? However I have answered this question elsewhere (in my Post to the Chronicle a little while ago).
Btw, why is this question put to me? Did Hegde try with his Guru?
4. Would the post 1997 retirees also get the Interim relief? If so, what would be quantum of relief?
Yes, if all the three Respondents in the CAs make a common plea. Can Hegde ensure KML’s participation? As to the quantum it has to be 20% of the amount ‘under the impugned judgements’.
B. R. Mehta, who is constantly engaged in spreading disinformation about the way AIRIEF and Mr. Asthana handling the case has raised a big hue and cry about Mr. R. K. Singh, the counsel for Mr. Asthana having objected to pronouncement of order on IA raised by Mr. MSM. What did Mr. R.K. Singh tell the Court? - Nothing more than mentioning that the hearing of the case comes up on Sept. 23rd and that he is the Counsel for the main petitioners.
Great explanation. My question: What was his purpose in enlightening the Bench that the main CAs are posted for 23rdThat too after LIC Counsel had already said it repeatedly?  To support my I.A or to oppose it?
Did Mr. Murthy invite him to be present in the Court on 7th Sept. or not?  
Why would I? Does he take instructions from me?
No doubt he was snubbed by the Judge.
You have no qualms about it? Why did it happen? For following whose instructions? Should they not feel bad and apologize to him, at least privately?  
With lots of piled up cases before them Judges sometimes are impatient and dont want to hear pleadings from Advocates as rightly pointed out by Mr. MSM in in his earlier communication published in PC.
Good, you remember it.
What difference did that (pleading of RKS) make to the outcome of the case to be heard on 23rd Sept.?
It did not make any. But he (and whoever instructed him to do what he did) got exposed. That they don’t want Murty’s I.A to succeed.
In fact your Guru was on record that in his view the IA would be dismissed  being ‘infructuous’ since the amount was already paid (in Jaipur).  
By the by, what difference did the pleading of Mr. Salva (Mr SAVLA) on 7-9-2015 make to the outcome of the Pensioners case to be heard by the S.C. Bench on 23-9-2015?
NONE. Because they are independent of each other.
I feel that the whole thing was an exercise in futility and waste of money just for the satisfaction of egos of someone like Mr. Murthy.

Pl feel free to think so. It gives you lot of peace and satisfaction. You deserve some peace of mind anyway.
As to my ego satisfaction do you think it happened? If so why do you grudge it?        


This Part runs like questions hurled at each other. Mr.Mehta’s questions are never answered by anybody and Mr.Hegde accuses Mr.Mehta of not answering his questions. I wouldn’t like to come in the way of Mehta fending for himself. I am sure he can and will do it.

But I must allude to BSH’s last sentence:  

P. S.: ………….As regards your assumptions that the order is applicable in rem, I am sorry to tell you - it does not.

This completely betrays the hollowness of his approach.  Read this operative portion of the Delhi Judgement:

“LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in rem”

If LIC declines to recognize this direction (at its own peril) should we also do so? Or Mr.Hegde is not comfortable that such direction came from Delhi and not from Jaipur, because KML and some of his devotees follow an  ‘apartheid’ policy for anything except the Jaipur judgement. 

After the final judgement is delivered others will have to fight for it.

Most preposterous, dangerous and irresponsible statement.

Is this your ‘legal’ advice to the Orphaned Pensioners? If so how do you reconcile your Guru’s tall claims all these years that he is working for the 40,000 pensioners and not for himself.

Btw, are you both on same page in any of these outbursts against Murty and the Panchkula Unit?

To conclude, Mr Hegde, after the Supreme Court passed its Order on 7 Sept 2015 in my IA., while I was coming out of the Court Hall to catch up with the waiting Mr Jay Savla, I noticed Mr RK Singh briefing some Jaipur friends about what happened in the Court. I wanted to talk to Mr RKS and send a personal message to Mr KML through him. But I couldn’t do so as Mr Savla was already waiting for me a few feet away. So I just quickly greeted RKS and asked him politely why he intervened supporting LIC ‘when the going was good for us’? He responded equally politely and offered his clarification, which I couldn’t register, as I was already moving.

Now the real thing, I am eager to report:

I completed my discussion/review with Mr Savla on what happened in the Court earlier and was planning to leave. To my pleasant surprise, I saw two senior members of AIRIEF (known confidants of Mr KML, waiting patiently to talk to me. I know one of them very well. They wanted to know from me what transpired in the Court. I replied, ‘I saw you people being briefed by Mr RK Singh. Has he not told you’? My acquaintance in the duo is a seasoned, mature gentleman. He rarely speaks but he is an example of rock solid support to Mr KML.. He made me feel humble and said in chaste Hindi: “RK Singh ji to hame bataaya thaa magar hum aapse bhi sun na chahte hai’’.

We had a longish, friendly and genuinely open discussion; I gave my version and requested them to convey my Pranaams to KML, elder to me in age, with a personal message:


While checking a missed call in the evening, I happened to talk to the other of the two gentlemen with whom I had interacted in the Court. He told me that my message was promptly conveyed to Mr KML and that it was received by him very well and positively and we can hope for better times from now on.

Who knows, KML, GNS & MSM may meet in Delhi before or around 23 Sept and declare a lasting TRUCE to convey a joint message to LIC.
M Sreenivasa Murty