 |
| writes Srinivasa Murty |
(on Oct 1 and earlier in the recent past), to garner support from
an unsuspecting community of LIC pensioners by spreading
lies and distorting facts. I shall limit this Note to only where
my name was directly dragged in to a controversy or a negative
picture was attempted to be drawn on my role in the on-going
fight for justice to LIC Pensioners. If I may elaborate the point
further, there have been a number of burning issues (financial
and otherwise) between Mr Asthana & Mr Agarwal on one side
and Mr S N Chhabra & Mr B R Mehta on the other, long
before I even knew the latter duo. (HK, I don’t know even now
except through his mails). I am deliberately avoiding any
comments on their private issues, as I have no right to talk
about them and they are all capable of handling them as
they want.
I am also keen to take this opportunity (graciously given by PC, following an editorial
review of its own earlier stand) to make certain honest observations and do some loud
thinking which may serve the interests of LIC Pensioner community in the Final
Hearing by the Supreme Court, on 12 Nov 2014.
Here is my response to some of the more prominent and more objectionable comments from KML & HKA.:
From KML’s Post in PC on 21.09.2014
LIE No 1. “IT IS REALLY STRANGE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO TALK WITH ME ON THIS SUBJECT (for making a mention before the Supreme Court) TILL DATE EITHER BY MR MS MURTY OR MR GN SRIDHARAN STILL THEY ARE TAKING MY NAME”
Truth: Apart from my several posts in the PC, I sent him a
personal E mail on 16th Sept which was also immediately followed up with him by SNC. Here is what I wrote to KML:
Dear Sri Asthana,
- Hope all is well with you. As you are well aware, the CAs which were all tagged and posted for Final Hearing before the SC Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, virtually remained where they were (around Sl No 48) for the last few weeks. I am sure you would agree that at this rate of disposal, our matters have no chance of reaching for arguments, in the near future.
- Our colleague-pensioners all over the country are naturally restive about the delay and many think something should be done.
- Mr Jay Savla, has been consulted. Mr Savla feels that we have a good case to 'Mention' before the Bench and request that the CAs be heard 'out of turn'. The fact that the CAs are already posted for Final Hearing and that ALL the Respondents are Senior Citizens, a good number of them being past 80, are sufficiently good grounds to pray for 'out of turn' hearing, according to Mr Savla.
- In the circumstances and with the concurrence of the Respondents/Pensioners in CA No 6995, Mr Savla proposes to 'Mention' before Justice Dipak Misra either on 24th or 25th Sept (before the Court goes on Puja vacation). Mr Savla thinks that if the 'other two Counsel' representing Pensioners in Jaipur and Delhi (ie., yourself & Mr Sridharan) support the prayer and make a strong similar plea, we have a fair chance of the Bench agreeing for out of turn hearing.
- This mail is to request you to give your best thought to the proposition and instruct your Counsel suitably. Will be obliged if you could let me know your response and action taken in the matter, at the earliest.
- I propose to be in Delhi on 24th and 25th Sept, for this purpose. It will be beneficial to all, if you too can make it convenient to do so.
While KML attacked SNC in his reply raising several other
irrelevant issues, he chose not to respond to my above
personal mail but went on to tell half the world that
nobody spoke to him on the subject.
LIE No 2. “THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT OF THE APPLICATIONS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY MOVED IN THE COURT FOR SEGREGATION OF THE DA/DR SLP AND UPGRADATION OF PENSION SLP AND MADE A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT OF ARREARS OR AT LEAST FROM THE CURRENT MONTH AND DISMISSAL OF THE TWO SLPS”.
Truth: Take credit? For the Applications already moved by him? When I have been crying hoarse all these months that such Applications (and his two new Writs in Rajasthan HC) are all a futile exercise and will take him nowhere, do I want to take any credit for those Applications? If I get associated with such Applications, what I get is only ‘discredit’. Am I not proved right (in his own words now), that SC had virtually thrown them out on his raising these grand IAs on 23rd Sept?
“NONE OF THE TWO HAS ANY SAY IN JAIPUR SLPS”
He is right, for once. Delhi & Chandigarh have no say in Jaipur matter – What KML should know and admit is that likewise, Jaipur has no say in the other two. (More on this aspect in my concluding observations).
“EXCEPT CREATING HURDLES”.
Wrong again. The real hurdles are his own IAs. And his propensity to rush to SC whether there is a case or not. Luckily they all stand dumped now by SC.
“DELHI SLP, WHICH IS THERE, SLP CONCERNS ONLY DA/DR
MATTER WITH WHICH I HAVE LEFT IT OVER TO THEM”.
He rightly left. But to GNS – I or Panchkula have nothing to do with it either.
“I AM MORE CONCERNED WITH UPWARD REVISION”.
All of us are. But up-gradation will not come without DA/DR (on proper basis) for pre-97 retirees coming first. There again LIC is out to cheat – by its ridiculously wrong interpretation of its Board Resolution.
“AS FAR AS EARLY DECISION IS CONCERNED IT IS TO INFORM
ALL CONCERNED THAT EVEN FOR THE PRESENT
SLPS ARE NOT FOR FINAL DECISION BUT ON THE IAs ALREADY PENDING”
This is the biggest weak point of KML. One hopes he is ready to eat his words back. He is not only wrong (as proved already) but his postures on issues like this suggest avoidable arrogance. One can hold a view of his own but when an opposite view comes to his notice, should he not be prepared to double check? When all CAs were directed on 4.4.14, to be tagged and posted in the second week of August 2014, there was perhaps some uncertainty, whether it was for final hearing of CAs or not. But any Advocate worth his salt should know that when all the CAs were in fact tagged and listed and shown in the advance weekly cause list BEFORE A REGULAR BENCH (of Justice Dipak Misra in our case), to persist and insist that only IAs are listed and not the CAs for final hearing, is nothing but betrayal of one’s ignorance coupled with his unwillingness to correct himself.
“FURTHER MORE UNTIL AND UNLESS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
OF DECEASED RESPONDENTS ARE ISSUED NOTICES FINAL DECISION
DOES NOT SEEM TO BE POSSIBLE”.
Thanks to KML for the portion underlined. He conceded he is not sure. But the point is well taken and it got already examined long back. When SLPs are admitted and numbered as CAs, who served the Notices on each of the surviving Respondents? Obviously LIC, the Appellant. In respect of the LRs of the deceased Respondents, is not the onus to serve Notice still on LIC, the Appellant? Does it shift to the surviving Respondents because KML thinks differently and raises a false alarm? If the Appellant (LIC) failed to serve on some, for one and half years, can it take that by itself as a plea before SC not to take up cases for Final Hearing?
More on this too in my concluding observations.
“IN CASE THEY WANT TO WORK TOGETHER THEY SHOULD NOT PLAY THE GAME AT MY BACK AS HAD BEEN DONE WHILE MOVING THE APPLICATION IN CHANDIGARH SLP, OF WHICH THERE IS NO INFORMATION FROM EITHER OF THEM NOR A COPY HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT THAT CLUBBING IT WILL CREATE PROBLEMS.
FOR US OTHERWISE I COULD HAVE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION. I HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THAT APPLICATION TILL TODAY AND NOW THEY SAY MY CONSENT IS IN THE OFFING, REALLY STRANGE”.
Nobody is interested in playing any games either at his back or in front. When there was no application in Chandigarh SLP, how can a copy be given, even if it has to be given? What was proposed was only to ‘mention’ verbally before the Bench on 24th or 25th Sept. for ‘out of turn hearing’ with Notices to all the other Advocates on Record. All that happened about it, is now on record and exposed the sneaky way in which the ‘mention’ was made. It was an avoidable ‘gamble’ though.
“MY APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AND INTERIM RELIEF IN CHANDIGARH MATTER IS ALREADY PENDING SINCE APRIL. THEREFORE WHAT WAS THE NECESSITY OF MOVING ANOTHER APPLICATION”?
KML should know (probably he knows), as he has not ‘repaired’ it even after the Registry raised objections on his implead application, it was not numbered and will remain pending for all time to come.
“SIMILARLY EARLIER ALSO MR GNS HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN DELHI HC SLP FOR DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT DUE TOWARDS DA/DR ON THE LINES AS HAD BEEN DONE IN JAIPUR HC, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS NOT PROPER AND OPPOSED BY ME. MOREOVER, WHERE WAS THE QUESTION OF DEPOSIT WHY NOT PAYMENT AND TO WHOM THE NAMES HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. THEY ARE CONFINING THEIR CASE TO THEIR ASSOCIATION ONLY AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING THE NAMES IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS SOUGHT TO BE DEPOSITED. TILL DATE HE HAS NOT GIVEN ME A COPY OF THIS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS APPLICATION EXCEPT TO HINDER THE SMOOTH PROGRESS OF THE CASE UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES”.
This was one of the few areas of agreement between me and KML. He was actually persuaded by me to file an objection to GNS’s untenable IA, as I had no legal right to do so myself, at that time. Eventually he filed some half-hearted IA but luckily it was not before the Bench on 4.4.2014. If it was available, LIC would have asked for and got some time to file a reply and there would have been no directions to tag and post all Appeals together. God helped where our friends were unwittingly messing up.
HOWEVER I AM READY TO WORK TOGETHER BUT IF THE INTENTIONS OF ALL THE PARTIES ARE FAIR AND CLEAR, LET THEM CONTACT ME AND TELL ME THEIR STRATEGY BEFORE I CAN GIVE MY CONSEN
(For this and the paragraph below, my response may be seen in the concluding remarks).
“FOR IMPLEADMENT KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT DELHI SLP HAS BEEN CLUBBED WITH JAIPUR - IT WAS PROPER FOR HIM TO HAVE PROVIDED ME A COPY OF THE PAPER BOOK SO THAT I CAN BE READY TO BEAR THAT ATTACK WHILE OPPOSING SLPS IN JAIPUR CASE. BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THIS SMACKS SOME ULTERIOR MOVE”.
“MR MURTY IS NOW MENTOR OF CHANDIGARH. DOES HE KNOW HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE EXPIRED AND WHETHER THEIR NAMES HAVE BEEN CONVEYED TO THE COURT”?
My so called mentor role – the utility and the help being extended by me has been accepted by the P& H HC Petitioners with open arms. I don’t know why it should cause any heartburn to anybody. I am happy the term used is ‘mentor’ though there is visible sarcasm. Panchkula pensioners told me they were victims of attempted sabotage in their case earlier. Let me leave it there. To KML’s two-part question - if I knew how many of them expired and if the names are given to the court, my answers are ‘YES’ and ‘NOT REQUIRED’ .
“IN ANY CASE THE SLPS CANNOT BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION UNLESS ALL THE LRS HAVE BEEN SERVED AND ABETMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. I HAVE BEEN TAKING ALL THE EFFORTS TO GET THE MATTER EXPEDITED AND PAVING A WAY OF QUIET AND EASY VICTORY WHILE THE APPLICATION MOVED IN THE RECENT PAST WITHOUT INFORMIG ME AND PROVIDING ME A COPY IS LIKELY TO GIVE A JOLT IN THE EFFORT. MR GNS AND MSM BELONG TO CLASS I OFFICERS FEDERATION AND THEIR EFFORTS ARE CONFINED TO DA/DR BUT MY EFFORTS ARE MORE ON UPGRADATION OF PENSIONS AND ALSO ON DA/DR”.
If anybody has done anything after 4.4.2014 to expedite matters, it was the Counsel engaged by Panchkula Unit who systematically followed up with the SC Registry to ensure that the proceedings to ‘Post along with All Appeals’ has been done. What KML was busy with during that period was to pursue his two new Writs in Jaipur (holding out big hope for Pensioners all over). That the said two new Writs are still ‘NON-STARTERS’ (yet to be admitted, leave alone being ‘allowed’) is a writing on the wall.
“I HAVE NO OBJECTION IN A MEETING BUT THE MEETING SHOULD BE FAIR AND OPEN MIND. IT CAN BE HELD AT A PLACE FIXED BY MR VC JAIN OUR GS AIRIEF. BUT NOT DURING THE NAVRATRI DAYS. IN THE MEANWHILE THE SLPS ARE NOT COMING UP.
BUT THE FIRST CONDITION THAT THE PERSONS COMING UP FOR MEETING SHOULD HAVE FAIR MIND AND OPEN CARDS”:
Is this a genuine offer to meet or an escape route to avoid any meeting? Fair mind and open cards? By whose standards? KMLs? Let me make it clear I don’t make that grade. My standards and ethics are higher. One thing I am happy about - KML has now recognized Sri V C Jain as AIRIEF’s GS. One should hope he extends the same courtesy to his All India President also. He is known for his scant regard to anybody who does not blindly toe his line. Has he ever cared for any of the senior office bearers of AIRIEF itself? Does he think he is accountable to anybody in any matter?
“AT LEAST IN BETWEEN AND NOT LIKE THE PREVIOUS DAYS WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN PLAYING A GAME OF HIDE AND SEEK”.
KML to say this? Let him recall what hide and seek game he played on 26 April 2014 in the Supreme Court chambers of Sri P S Narasimha, the Sr Advocate (since elevated as Additional Solicitor General). When seven of us (including Mr RK Singh, KML’s fulltime Counsel and me on invitation) were sitting waiting for Sri Narasimha to join us any moment, KML stands up suddenly and asks me who was paying for this consultation?. Some more incoherent remarks and he calls off the meeting without giving any sensible reason. All this was recorded on the spot.
From KML’s Post in PC on 26.09.2014
“IT MUST ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT SO FAR THERE IS NO ORDER OF CLUBBING THE CHANDIGARH SLP WITH ME, I AM NOT PARTY TO IT. DELHI HC HAS BEEN CLUBBED BUT I HAVE NO RECORD OR NOTICE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HOW COULD I HAVE MADE A MENTION ABOUT THEM? BUT IT HAS TO BE TOLD THAT IN SPITE OF REQUESTS AND APPLICATION MADE IN THE SC TO PROVIDE ME A COPY OF DELHI HC SLP THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME AND STILL YOU ARE TRYING TO DEFAME ME, WHY THIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME. WITHOUT SLP I CANNOT BE BLAMED.
SIMILARLY A COPY OF THE APPLICATION MOVED BY HYDERABAD UNIT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO ME IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUESTS. YOUR STAND IS NOT THAT CLEAR, WHY LIC WAS MADE TO APPEAR ON THE NEXT DAY BY GIVING NOTICE FOR MENTION WHEN ALREADY THE DATE HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE COURT”?
Read the above lines along with the following by his ‘yours ever’ follower, posted on 27.9.2014:
“AS PER SUPREME COURT SITES "CASE STATUS" CIVIL APPEALS AT SR NO. 2 & 3 BELOW STAND CONNECTED TO Appeal Civil 8959-8962 of 2013 FIXED FOR 12.11.2014 -FOR FINAL HEARING BY THE DIVISION BENCH COMPRISING OF
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN.
1. Appeal Civil 8959 -8962 OF 2013
LIC OF INDIA AND ORS .Vs. KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANR ETC.
2. Appeal Civil 6995 OF 2013
LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS. .Vs. MADAN LAL GANDHI (D) THR. LR. & ORS.
3. Appeal Civil 9223 OF 2013
L.I.C OF INDIA & ANR. .Vs. FEDERATION RETIRED LIC CLASS 1 AS. & ORS.,
IN THIS REGARD PLEASE REFER TO SH KML ASTHANA'S MAIL OF 26TH SEPT. THAT HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN LICPC IN WHICH HE HAS INTER-ALIA STATED AS UNDER:-
"STILL I SAY ... ... IT WILL BE BETTER IF WE SIT TOGETHER AND
DISCUSS OUR STRATEGY AND PROCEED ON THOSE LINES,
OTHERWISE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR HYD UNIT TO INTERVENE IN THE CASE." - KML ASTHANA”
The Guru says SO FAR THERE IS NO ORDER OF CLUBBING THE CHANDIGARH SLP WITH ME. The Chela interprets: “AS PER SUPREME COURT SITES "CASE STATUS" CIVIL APPEALS AT SR NO. 2 & 3 BELOW STAND CONNECTED TO Appeal Civil 8959-8962 of 2013 FIXED FOR 12.11.2014. Which part of the above SC status Report tells them that any items are clubbed with any other item? They should know that they are listed together being connected matters. Let them talk with responsibility and circumspection.
Finally, when they say OTHERWISE IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE FOR HYD UNIT TO INTERVENE IN THE CASE." Is this the decree of a Khap Panchayat?. Let them allow SC to function.
From KML’s Post in PC on 1.10.2014
(Most of it concerns SNC and Panchkula Unit. I am in the picture very marginally)
“Can Mr. BR Mehta, or Mr. SN Chhabra or Mr. MS Murty tell me whether they are being paid correct pension as per Rules?”
Can anybody explain the meaning of this question? If we are all being paid correct pension as pr Rules, what are all the Court cases for?
“Though I am not required to give any explanation but I am sorry to say that it is falsely being made an Issue against me by Mr. BRM. It is totally false and frivolous to say that I ever opposed to make a mention. But who was to do? In case I had not agreed who prevented Mr. Mehta or Mr. Chhabra or Mr. Murty from making a mention? Why they did not make a mention earlier”
My personal E Mail dated 16.9.2014 to KML reproduced earlier should answer all these questions. In fact, I am on record that one of the three Respondents shall ‘mention’ for out of turn hearing and the other two will stand in support. If ever KML said “I am ready to mention on such and such day’ that’s it - the issue is over. He never responded till LIC PC exerted pressure. How can he deny what is in public domain?
“When the SLPs were continuously being listed none had come to Delhi, why? If I have made a mention and have done their work that is also objectionable to them and when I did not do that was also objectionable. They have no stand? Had that been correct why I had made an application for impleadment or early hearing or in the alternative for a direct to make payment of difference from the current month subject to decision. In my message I had only said that a mention was made on my behalf by my Advocate on the applications which I have moved for separation of the two SLPS – DA/DR and upgradation of pension and for direction to pay the difference by way of interim relief and the Court was pleased to pass the order for the case to be listed on12/11/2014 a Wednesday which is a full hearing day. Why it pinched them so much so that even MENTION has been made an Issue. The underlying idea can very well be appreciated.”
This ranting is an example of inconsistent defence of the indefensible. If he was for mentioning for out of turn hearing of the CAs, where was the controversy? Does this make sense if he still harps on his IAs on Nov 12?
“I had been in consultation with Mr Murty since long but when I saw that he is not clear in his mind about the legal formalities I had to calm down. Has he formed any strategy in the matter of defence of Chandigarh case, of which mentor and guide he has now become as has been given out by Mr. SN Chhabra “
Let KML rest assured that opposing of CA No 6995 of 2013 in P&H HC matter is in SAFE HANDS. The Respondents, their Advocate and their ‘Mentor’ are fully focussed. Because their minds are not clustered or confused.
“Though he is not a member of AIRIEF”
Let KML check with AIRIEF Hyderabad Unit. I am their Life Member. Unfortunately, both GNS’s Federation and the AIRIEF permit dual membership. GNS wants to put a ban. I don’t know AIRIEF’s stand on that. I wish the ban comes. There will be no division of loyalty. .
“did he oppose the condonation of delay, why not?”
Because it was a bizarre idea to do so in the first place and the outcome would have been disastrous. If KML is still keen to do it, he should first explain his own delay (of almost one year from Sept 30 2013) in raising the question. If such a suggestion (to file an SLP questioning the unfettered discretion of the Supreme Court) came from a youngster, I would have advised him to do a refresher course in a good Law school. In the case of someone like my or KML’s age, it would be counterproductive to do so.
“I have never sought any credit then why this is being made the Issue. Nothing can be done when I am the forerunner and all the SLPs are the outcome of my case, therefore, first my SLP will be heard and the judgment therein will be binding on others, and that will be a history in legal arena in either manner they are decided (good or bad) and so whenever reference will come the name of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana will be referred whether I claim or not or anybody has any objection or not. No help, no excuse, no control”.
Credit will go where it should. When the CAs are dismissed (or suitably disposed of in favour of the Pensioners) on or after Nov 12, 2014, the names of parties will be there on record. KML is legitimately entitled to derive pleasure and draw comfort from the same as far as the Jaipur matters are concerned. He is however wrong if he thinks that his cases will be decided first and separately. It is the function of LIC the Appellant to commence its arguments in one go on all the tagged CAs. The Counsel for each Respondent or group will thereafter place their arguments opposing the CAs and defending the judgments subsisting in their favour. Appellant gets opportunity to wind up. There may be directions to the Respondents to submit written arguments. There will be one common Order with all cases shown in the title. That is the usual scheme of disposal when similar matters are tagged together. If KML is imagining any special treatment for his cases (he is on record that once his cases are decided it is binding on the other two and there is no need to separately say anything for the latter. Doesn’t he know that Supreme Court decides only points of Law and will not go in to trivial claims of the contending parties?
I may add here some thing interesting. According to Sri GN Sridharan, LIC’s CA No 9223 of 2013 (against the Delhi Judgement) alone will be dismissed. He said to me (when he was on talking terms with me – now he is not) the other two CAs of LIC (against Jaipur & Chandigarh Judgments) will be ALLOWED. I laughed asked him ‘is it your prediction or your wish’? He replied ‘take it in whatever way you want’.
“An impossible proposal was made to me for filing suits for recovery of the money through civil court on the basis of judgment in writ petition that was not approved by me and had given the proposer the position of law and since then he is averse to me. Neither the Civil Court can work since there is no decree and before filing execution petition first court fee at 10% of the amount claimed will have to be deposited which is not refundable”
This is by far KML’s biggest LIE. In fact this outrageous allegation against me (deliberately ignoring the evidence on record) made me realize how cheap his strategies are. I then decided to let him go his way rather than expect him to be rational ever. On this single point I challenge him to prove his allegation. If he cannot, the minimum he should do is to publicly apologise.
“Now the same thing is being tried to be followed at Chandigarh to calculate their dues and file the same, why? it is not understood, do we have all the data? whether we know that correct pension is being paid to us and as per the Pension Rules what should be our pension and what is being paid? If we give our calculations that will become admission on our part and we will be bound by the same. Instead they should seek a direction that LIC should give month wise detailed calculation sheets. First of all they should oppose the deposit of the money in the Court when it is a decided case. When stay has been refused mere pendency of SLP or CA does not give the respite and non compliance is contempt of court, what action has been taken in this direction?”
I am afraid KML is imagining that all he failed to do in Jaipur, is happening in Chandigarh also. To his observation: If we give our calculations that will become admission on our part and we will be bound by the same, let me tell him, we have calculated what is due to the petitioners. we are sure of our figures and happily be bound by what we demanded. He was wrong in NOT doing it likewise in Jaipur
“In is wrongly stated that I am a practising lawyer. Though I am a Law Graduate but I never made an application for enrolment”
KML should have kept this in mind when he argued his Contempt Petition himself on 12 & 13 Feb 2014. (to save money payable to a Lawyer) Although the rules permit argument by Party in Person even if he is not an Advocate, one is advised against such a misadventure where the stakes are high.
“Though I have already explained about the fate of the contempt petition and had always been keeping informed to one and sundry about the proceedings which had been taking place. Under what circumstances the contempt petition has been dismissed has also been informed to all, yet reference to this decision is unfortunate and shows lack of knowledge of Contempt of Courts Act. But they are trying to reap advantage out of the same. I had no authority to withdraw the contempt petition howsoever I may have desired, no clarification was required since Supreme Court had already clarified not once but thrice, that is why it has not avoided to be mentioned in the order as to what clarification is required and if at all it was for the court to have sought the same but before that should have made a mention in the order. Further when some clarification is required the Contempt petition should have been kept waiting till then”.
ON KML’s handling of his Contempt Petition in Jaipur and the Order dated 13.02.2014, he secured of ‘Dismissed as withdrawn’, I feel LESS SAID THE BETTER. Why is he telling all these things to us now, instead of filing a RECALL Application in Jaipur itself?
“I have already challenged the dismissal of Contempt petition by filing SLP in the Supreme Court at my cost. Will these persons contribute any amount if not why not?”
His decision to approach Supreme Court against the ‘Dismissed as withdrawn Order with an SLP, is immature and ill-advised, if I may quote a former HC Judge. As to cost being his own, and not even of AIRIEF, does it prove it is a wasteful expenditure?
LET me conclude now:
1. DA/DR anomaly rectification for pre-97 Retirees and UPGRADATION OF PENSION WITH EACH PAY REVISION, are imminent and very much in sight. Government’s tacit support in principle is very likely. What needs to be secured from SC is the effective date. It can be any day between 1.11.93 to 1.4.2014. That is where our efforts should get focussed.
2. LIC will resist everything but will lose.
3. I request Sri KML Asthana to shed his big brother attitude and note that the Jaipur, Chandigarh and Delhi Judgements are independent of each other in the eye of law and they are under challenge through three separate CAs filed by LIC.
4. The respective Respondents have to oppose the CAs meeting the grounds cited by LIC the Appellant. It is a fact that Delhi and Chandigarh judgements are based on the Order passed by Jaipur, but it is not enough if the counsel appearing for those Respondents simply take shelter under the Jaipur Order and say ‘we have nothing to add’.
5. Looking from one angle, after the request for early hearing has been agreed to, there is no big need for any united approach as such, as the Counsel for all the Respondents know how to oppose the CAs in their own way.
6. However, it does make sense if the possible strategy of LIC is anticipated by all the defending Counsel and discussed among them so that a cogent counter strategy can be planned and executed.
7. It is also possible if the Counsel agree, to divide the larger issues among the three of them for better and full focus, avoiding repetition.
8. Once SC is hearing the CAs for final disposal, there is no scope for any one-upmanship and we the clients with huge stakes need not and should not consider one another as arch rivals. We are all ‘comrades in distress’ on and after Nov 12, 2014.
9. There is one great advantage if only all of us (and our Counsel) can meet in advance. There can be questions from the Bench on issues like “total out lay” for LIC to pay retrospectively, so called impact on the Banking sector etc., In such a case, it is not desirable that our Advocated respond different from one another.ly. We should be able to develop a commonly accepted response to such larger issues supported by authentic inputs from us to our Counsel.
10. If we agree to meet, we can fully prepare on the issues to be discussed in the meeting.
LET US LEAVE THE ACRIMONIOUS PAST BEHIND ONCE FOR ALL AND PREPARE FOR THE TASK AHEAD JOINTLY –
WE OWE IT TO A VAST NUMBER OF LIC PENSIONERS
Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla
Oct 5, 2014