Monday, October 05, 2015



You narrated on the arguments on Sec 48. There were views aired on both sides. Judge also intervened at times. But it was wrong on your part to conclude: The Court observed that whenever pay scales are revised it is automatic that the pensions will be revised. The CG has no power to intervene. If as quoted by you, it was the clear conclusion of the Court, we have already won the case. The fact is when Mr Nidhesh Gupta was citing the precedents of Chairman giving instructions amending Pension Rules, to support his argument that the Board Resolution can be implemented by the Chairman, (was he reading from Chairman’s Circular dated 9 Dec 2010?) LIC Advocate was eager to rebut it stating that he can explain how Mr Gupta was wrong on that point etc.

In my view this point is as unreliable as the other on the Counsel admitting something and make it binding on the Government. You have falsely claimed that the Court’s response was in your favour. IT WAS NOT. Actually Mr Nidhesh Gupta gracefully retracted when he found that the Judge was not in agreement. I don’t know what you gain by narrating facts differently.

You said, ‘The Court gave last opportunity and was shifting the final hearing to December but on our insistence it was fixed …………. Another joke.  18 Nov was Judge’s choice. Your Sr Counsels have no request to make for quicker hearing and Mr Savla’s appeal had no supporters.   

You are at the height of your arrogance and wishful thinking when you dared to go on record and say:

The Court made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC judgment and no other Counsel will be heard.

Even if you are the Judge, you cannot make such a statement. If you want to canvas to your members on these lines and collect more funds, please try. Because later on in due course, when Mr Jay Savla and Shri Shree Ram Panchu argue against CA Nos 6995 of 2013 and 9223 of 2013 respectively, (and effectively cover the gaping holes in the line of your arguments if you don’t take any hints from the Bench), you need not refund the funds you now collect.

Also to make my point simple and to put you in a place that you deserve, please check with your Counsel on your reporting (The Court made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC judgment and no other Counsel will be heard) and come back and report it publicly again. If you are able to get your  claim confirmed by your own Counsel I hereby undertake NOT TO VISIT THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN TILL OUR CASES ARE DECIDED. If you cannot do so, just go to any sacred river in Rajasthan and take a holy dip thrice. You can wash the sin of lying you are indulging in. 

Then you say:
It was also said that whatever will be the judgment that will be applicable to one and all.

Is it so? I have no problem if you can approach one and all for FUNDS on the basis of this statement also.

Rest of your ranting in the name of reporting on 30 Sept proceedings against  me and the Panchkula team (whom and whose questions you cannot face in the next hundred years) is perverse, demeaning and does not deserve separate response. I shall pray for strength to ignore it and forgive you and would request Mr S N Chhabra (a victim of your subterfuges and blackmail following the untimely passing away of Mr M L Gandhi, the main Petitioner in Chandigarh) and Mr BR Mehta (whose constant tirade against your monumental avarice for Funds, deprives you of peace and sleep), to do likewise.

I may close for now as I am on a Mission to win the cases for forty thousand LIC Pensioners and Family Pensioners. My strategy includes covering the areas where your arguments run the risk of being rejected (as is evident in the Court on 30 Sept) and make sure that our case which is otherwise very strong is not lost due to your faulty approach and your arrogant postures.