Dear Sh Gangadharan
In Chronicle comments appearing in LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE dated 14.6.2014 (given below) you & (as you say Mr Asthana) have referred to Chandigarh People are convinced by Sh MSMurty. ...
In this connection it is clarified for your information and all the pensioners of the country that in Tricity Chandigarh consisting of Chandigarh, Mohali & Panchkula there are about 700 pensioners, and sh MSM had met only 3/4 petitioners (out of the about 30) in the Pb & Hry Chandigarh case.
More than 99% of the Chandigarh people (pensioners) including a number of petitioners do not support Sh MSM proposals, and they have been supporting/are supporting/continue supporting SH KML ASTHANA & AIRIEF and their line of action in getting full justice for the twin demands of UP GRADATION & REMOVAL OF DA ANOMALY.
We will request Sh Asthana also to correct the wording of his statement -- CHANDIGARH PEOPLE TO FEW PETITIONERS IN PB & HRY HC CASE.
It is without any malice for any one please.
With best wishes and regards,
In this connection it is clarified for your information and all the pensioners of the country that in Tricity Chandigarh consisting of Chandigarh, Mohali & Panchkula there are about 700 pensioners, and sh MSM had met only 3/4 petitioners (out of the about 30) in the Pb & Hry Chandigarh case.
More than 99% of the Chandigarh people (pensioners) including a number of petitioners do not support Sh MSM proposals, and they have been supporting/are supporting/continue supporting SH KML ASTHANA & AIRIEF and their line of action in getting full justice for the twin demands of UP GRADATION & REMOVAL OF DA ANOMALY.
We will request Sh Asthana also to correct the wording of his statement -- CHANDIGARH PEOPLE TO FEW PETITIONERS IN PB & HRY HC CASE.
It is without any malice for any one please.
With best wishes and regards,
I K Thakral
Org, Secretary, Chandigarh Unit of AIRIEF.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editors comments (published on 14-6-2014) reproduced:-
The
points raised by Shri Asthana mainly concern legal points regarding
Jaipur and Chandigarh High Court judgments and follow up actions to be
taken in respect of these judgments. Shri Asthana says that Shri
Srinivasa Murty has convinced Chandigarh people “when he failed to
convince me”. Normally it should have been so simple then. When
Chandigarh people are convinced about what should be done in respect of
the Chd. Judgment, what is the role Shri Asthana has taken over himself
in respect of the same, is not clear. It is more so when he is silent
about Delhi HC judgment where he doesn’t assume any role or do not like
to interfere for obvious reasons.
It
would appear to an independent observer that Shri Asthana can get the
advice of yet another Senior Supreme Court advocate, if he so desires,
especially in the backdrop of dispute about advice tendered by present
advocate and proceed accordingly without any interference. In respect
of Chandigarh judgment, Shri Asthana should have no role and the
attempts to own the same will not fetch any useful purposes or
dividends. Delhi HC judgment will be taken care of by Shri Sridharan.
And in the Supreme Court, it will be advantageous to have a common plea
which is the demand of the pensioners. An average pensioner is not
interested in any gimmicks or dishonest tricks played by different
pensioner Associations to satisfy their own ends, whims or fancies.