Friday, October 02, 2015


Dear friends,

The hearing of our case commenced yesterday and continued for about one and half hours in two instalments.

First of all it was the endeavor of LIC to somehow get the case adjourned on the ground that the SOLICITOR GENERAL engaged is busy but someone from the Advocates present there whispered that the SG was free and is not engaged. Then the Court said let the case proceed there will be no adjournments since our two Sr. Advocates vehemently opposed. For more than half hour the proceedings continued.

First of all SLP of UOI came up wherein our Advocates objected on the question of delay, maintainability and false statements. Mr MSM has commented on our Advocate speaking first not knowing the procedures. Since we had filed objections to the UOI filing SLP we were to submit our arguments. Pl don’t be misguided by the PG message of MSM.  He has also branded the discussions, question and answers between the Court and Advocate as failure on the part of Nidhesh Gupta our Sr. Advocate as failure.  But then where his Advocate learned Mr. Savla was, why he did not reply and even MSM (man in black robe) was there why he did not quell the curiosity of the Hon’ble Judge. MSM has no other idea behind uplift his doing nothing but creating confusion. Thanks to him that he is trying to get success to assist the other party, how much you allow him that depends on you.

It was submitted on our side that since 1998 UOI was a party but they never filed reply or appeared in the case. When the final hearing had taken place before the Single Judge the Addl. Solicitor General gave his consent and the same is already recorded.  It was repeated before the Division Bench in Special appeal and then in the Review appeal.  In the first and second SLPs and even in the present SLPs this has not been challenged.  Therefore, the delay in filing the present SLP is not justifiable but has been filed with false facts and in order to support LIC against our objection of Proxy Litigation. Govt Advocate said that the ASG did not have the power to give this admission, then the question raised that is none of our concerns and if that be so then why this army of Advocates are here, let the CG come, otherwise the Court agreed with our contention that an Advocate speaks on behalf of his client and under his instructions and if their ASG did not have the power why such a question was not raised. The other question raised was Sec. 48 that was also not agreed after discussions wherein AOR of LIC also intervened.  Our contention was that Sec. 48 gives power only to make rules and not to implement the same and rule 55 of Pension Rules have given power to the Chairman to implement and he has been always issuing instructions under this rule but with discrimination, 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.

The other question was who will bear the cost of pension CG or LIC, this was explained that it is to be borne by LIC and not the CG out of the Pension Fund on which LIC has been earning lakhs of crores by way of interest besides other income. The quantum was also explained and the Court was satisfied.

In the end the Court asked for SG again but he did not come then LIC people ran to bring him from the corridor but he expressed of his ignorance of the case since he could not get time as he was busy in other important cases. The Court gave last opportunity and was shifting the final hearing to December but on our insistence it was fixed in the week just after the week in which Diwali will be performed and the Court reopens.

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.

It was also said that whatever will be the judgment that will be applicable to one and all.
Then MSM though in black robe asked his Advocate to raise the question of 20%, which the LIC Advocate replied that it was due to their own endeavour that they did not allow us to withdraw 20% as such the payment could not be made.  There was no reply from either their Advocate or MSM (in Advocate’s robe) to this.

Till now we kept silence since we were not parties to their misconduct but then LIC AOR said that we have made payment to Jaipur and Delhi petitioners then on enquiry from the Court I said that yes 20,000 has been paid to me but when was it credited to my account under what head nor the calculations have been given, this amount when checked is 20% of what was due under DA/DR anomaly upto December, 2013 while the Respondents are in the writ petition of revision of pensions and that all the respondents have not been paid and it is the fourth time that LIC has committed disobedience of the Court’s orders by playing mischief and deliberately, willing and notoriously not complying with the orders and that LIC has no choice to pick and choose.

Then the Court said that unless 100% is decided there is no question of 20% being considered.  God bless the wrong advice and the acts of MSM, BRM and SNC when they disallowed the withdrawal of the money and thus deprived the Panchkula members of whatever amount which may have been paid to them as others. Now they are saving their face by making false statements and concealing the facts and alluding the responsibility on GNS and KML.

These people for their face saving are trying to convert the dispute with LIC on the pension revision into a personal war against KML because every time they have failed in their efforts.  Unwanted allegations are leveled forgetting that there are so many allegations can be raised against them also.  When now it is difficult to save their face what will happen if such personal allegations are also leveled against them.  Otherwise there is no dispute between us but BRM is more active in it for his personal reasons. For them both Mr. GNS and KML are wrong and it is MSM alone who is correct. Never mind we will do our best in the interest of Pensioners of all classes. God bless them.

Pl forgive them for their misconduct and misdeeds because now the SC has ousted them of the limits of the parties to be heard.  Even otherwise in absence of pleadings on their part in writing nothing can be heard, which they have not been able to file.

You are not contributing anything to me but to AIRIEF who is fighting for you in the SC and God forbid it is good that these persons are not the prime persons to be heard otherwise they would have ruined the case as they have done in the Panchkula matter.

KML Asthana