" let’s all enjoy
browsing the wonderful information-sharing
platform provided by Mr Gangadharan and keep
ourselves updated. It looks like many
became addicted to it already;
who doesn’t relish being offered a feast
after prolonged starvation (of information)?"
- M. Sreenivasa Murty
From the cross roads towards the right path
Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) said what it wanted to say on 13/02/2014 – that the CCP No 760 of 2010 (contempt petition) has been “dismissed as withdrawn”.
Mr Asthana insists that he never withdrew his petition and therefore the Order was wrong. He is as much intrigued as anyone else about the content of the Order. Let’s leave it there.
The need arises now, more than ever before, for the interested parties like all other pensioners, to stand by him in his continuing crusade before the appropriate higher judicial forums.
He is on the job of evaluating various options before him. Best legal advice is being sought and the matter will be pursued to its logical end.
In the meantime let’s all enjoy browsing the wonderful information-sharing platform
provided by Mr Gangadharan and keep ourselves updated. It looks like many became addicted to it already; who doesn’t relish being offered a feast after prolonged starvation (of information)?
Mr Sampath Iyengar suggested through LIC Pensioners Chronicle that Mr Asthana should demand release of the amounts deposited by LIC. I assume he said so in a lighter vein or perhaps to generate some healthy discussion among the Pensioner community. I am tempted to respond to the suggestion.
For the amount in deposit to be released and paid to the petitioners, at least two conditions should be fulfilled.
provided by Mr Gangadharan and keep ourselves updated. It looks like many became addicted to it already; who doesn’t relish being offered a feast after prolonged starvation (of information)?
Mr Sampath Iyengar suggested through LIC Pensioners Chronicle that Mr Asthana should demand release of the amounts deposited by LIC. I assume he said so in a lighter vein or perhaps to generate some healthy discussion among the Pensioner community. I am tempted to respond to the suggestion.
For the amount in deposit to be released and paid to the petitioners, at least two conditions should be fulfilled.
One – LIC should concede that the money is due to those petitioners and
is deposited in the court registry to enable them to draw the same.
is deposited in the court registry to enable them to draw the same.
Two – Court should permit such a withdrawal.
However the fact of the matter is otherwise – neither of these two conditions is satisfied. So there is no scope for such a payment to happen.
Let’s us look at it from the other side. Hypothetically speaking, if the amounts deposited are actually allowed to be withdrawn, would the petitioners concerned opt to accept the same? Certainly not - because the petitioners are entitled to receive much more. In fact, the amount deposited was NIL in respect of some of the petitioners. That is why Justice Chauhan in his Order dated 22/01/2014 directed LIC to emphatically state through an Affidavit whether the amount deposited is in consonance with or contrary to the Resolution dated 24/11/2001. But strangely, LIC’s Affidavit did not comply with the directions at all, leave alone doing it emphatically.
Mr Asthana’s further action would now include restoration of the contempt proceedings and take them to their logical end and more importantly to obtain clarification through court for proper interpretation of the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001. As everybody knows, the real area of conflict between LIC and its
Pensioners is the scope of benefit intended to flow from the Resolution. LIC displays no will to play fair and as far as the Government is concerned, 40,000 LIC pensioners perhaps do not matter, as they do not pass the test: Are we a VOTE BANK?
No room for despair. Let’s all display patience. India has a robust judiciary. Coming days would see some mature court craft in play on behalf of KML & Co.
Let’s us look at it from the other side. Hypothetically speaking, if the amounts deposited are actually allowed to be withdrawn, would the petitioners concerned opt to accept the same? Certainly not - because the petitioners are entitled to receive much more. In fact, the amount deposited was NIL in respect of some of the petitioners. That is why Justice Chauhan in his Order dated 22/01/2014 directed LIC to emphatically state through an Affidavit whether the amount deposited is in consonance with or contrary to the Resolution dated 24/11/2001. But strangely, LIC’s Affidavit did not comply with the directions at all, leave alone doing it emphatically.
Mr Asthana’s further action would now include restoration of the contempt proceedings and take them to their logical end and more importantly to obtain clarification through court for proper interpretation of the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001. As everybody knows, the real area of conflict between LIC and its
Pensioners is the scope of benefit intended to flow from the Resolution. LIC displays no will to play fair and as far as the Government is concerned, 40,000 LIC pensioners perhaps do not matter, as they do not pass the test: Are we a VOTE BANK?
No room for despair. Let’s all display patience. India has a robust judiciary. Coming days would see some mature court craft in play on behalf of KML & Co.
Sreenivasa Murty, Mulukutla
RM (Legal) & Law Officer (Retd)
Feb 22, 2014 SC Zone, Hyderabad