Wednesday, September 09, 2015

The Other Side (Replies to points raised in discussion)

I need to answer the irrelevant and misleading comments (atleast as related to points raised in my latest communication) of Mr. B.R.Mehta and others even at the cost of repetition of some of the points already made out. The whole fraternity of LIC Pensioners know the answers but, it looks like Mr. Mehta is still searching for the truth. Mr. Mehta, please read my letter once again carefully. You will find answers to many of the queries raised by Mr. Mehta there itself.

1. The Advocates have to report to the Court issuing any Interim orders about its implementation on the day of its next hearing. This is the usual practice. However, parties seeking urgent relief no doubt can file Interlocutory application. There is no guarantee that the Court would act immediately on such IAs. They usually post such IAs for hearing on the next date of hearing. However, if the Advocates are successful in impressing upon the Judges about the urgency of hearing the case, they may do so. Here in our Pension case, the Bench heard the pleadings and issued order repeating whatever is already said in its order dated 07-05-2015. The mention about Chairman would be liable for contempt, if the order is implemented within 2 weeks is the new clause added to the order.

Irrespective of the above clause in the order, the LIC Chairman has become liable for contempt for not implementing the order within the stipulated 6 weeks. Since then 7 more weeks have elapsed and within another 2 weeks the case would in any case be heard (barring any unexpected adjournment). Aggrieved parties have the liberty to place before the Court - the failure of the respondent party in compliance of the order in letter and spirit and seek necessary relief from the Court.

2. It is the petitioners who should say whether LIC has deposited the correct amount as per directive of the Supreme Court Bench. Since Mr. Mehta and his advisers have expressed that LIC has not calculated the exact amount payable correctly, it is left to them to clarify and guide the aggrieved petitioners. Mere kite flying takes you nowhere. In any case, being post 97 retiree, the matter has no relevance.

3 & 4. The whole fraternity of LIC Pensioners know that LIC management is not keen on implementing Justice Bhandari's judgement that is why Mr. Asthana, Mr. Sridharan's Retired LIC Class I Officers Association and Panchakula Unit of AIRIEF pursuing the case of M/s M.L.Gandhi and others are spending money and their time in the corridors of Supreme Court. It is a very expensive and time consuming affair and as such the litigants need to be cautious about the pros and cons of any action on their part.

5.Mr. Mehta, please read Mr. M.S.Murty's appeal dated 02-09-2015 published in P.C. for the appearance of Mr. Mr. Asthana, Mr. Sridharan and their lawyers on 07-09-2015, while his IA is being heard. Please don't sidetrack issues by referring to trivial technicalities.

6. You have asked me whether Mr. Murty was trying to expose LIC or not. Mr. Mehta, did I ever cast any doubt about Mr. Murty's intentions and sincerity? A few times I might have questioned Mr. Murty's competence to handle this important issue and your perverted criticisms of Mr. Asthana and the esteemed Advocates appearing for AIRIEF. Why do you want to propagate disinformation about Mr. Asthana's sincerity and Mr. R. K. Singh's competence? Do you think that you and Mr. Murty only have the final word on legal issues?

7. How do you say that Mr. R.K. Singh on 07-09-2015 opposed your IA in the Supreme Court. He only said that `the case would come up for regular hearing on 23-09-2015 and that he is the Advocate for the main petitioners. He was stopped from talking further. How can you impute motives to the Advocate, who has been fighting for the cause of LIC Pensioners for long?

8. Mr. Mehta, you have not answered the issues raised by me in my communication dated 08-09-2015, i.e.,As a result of the interim order dated 07-09-2015 (1) whether Chandigarh petitioners would get 20% of what they think is justly due to them? (in other words more money than the Jaipur litigants got); (2) whether the order becomes applicable in rem? (will other eligible pensioners other than the litigants would also get the interim payment); (3) are you sure that LIC would not withdraw the amount deposited in Chandigarh H. C. before making payments? (4) What would be the fate of post 97 retirees? Did your Advocate plead a word about payment to these poor guys (of which I am also one)? In other words, what difference did the pleadings of Mr. Salva make to the fate of LIC Pensioners other than the litigants?

Mr. Mehta you have been passing wild comments about the proceedings of the case as well as about the intentions and functioning of other co- litigants and their Advocates. Please stop this henceforth and allow them to apply their wisdom to the best interests of LIC Pensioners.

P. S.: Mr. Subbu, Please note that I have never worked in Audit Dept. As regards your assumptions that the order is applicable in rem, I am sorry to tell you - it does not.