Dear friends,
I am seeing lots of talks and remarks from Shri B.R.Mehta against me for no reason. Hence these comments once for all. Since he has hurled a threat to see at the Bangalore AGM, I am not afraid of the same, but then he should come with replies to the following questions.
I agree that I may have used some words which may not be to the taste of some one. If that be so I am sorry, but at least I am also a human being. I have been busy preparing myself for the imminent hearing which may come up anytime as the cases were continuously being listed every week and call may come any time to rush to Delhi with all material and then this unwanted and uncalled for remarks hurts every one. I am unable to understand when I did not raise any objection to any one coming up and have been helping every one without any personal interest therein why all this mudslinging.
Though I am not required to give any explanation but in order to make the things clear and advise the mischief mongers to desist from such nefarious activities instead concentrate on working for the benefit of the pensioners and if they are unable to do anything let others work.
I have never met or talked to Mr. BR Mehta but his remarks show his hurt burning or hurt to his ego, unmindful whether this is the time for fighting collectively against our common adversary LIC and these persons are trying to take unconnected issues and even making false statements and unauthorized calls? What does it show? Where was Mr. Mehta or SN Chhabra when Mr. Madan Lal Gandhi and I were working together even in the Chandigarh case and at the last moment on the call of Mr. Gandhi I had gone to Chandigarh and talked to the Advocate, Will these persons reimburse the loss sustained by me in my professional work and toils and travails in the journey? Will the pensioners of LIC at Chandigarh not take the benefit of these? Why these persons did not file caveat when they had already known that LIC has filed SLP.? They could have done so and got the matter dismissed then and there? Why did they not file cross-SLP in the matter of not giving any clear verdict on upgradation of pensions? When they have been always criticising their writ petition to be better why a judgment was sought on the basis of Jaipur judgment and not better judgment? Why these legal luminaries do not understand that without the help of the judgment in my case their writ petition is restricted to only DA/DR revision and not to revision of pensions. Instead of thinking on the correct lines these persons are hurling unwanted slogans against me to cover up their follies. There are so many things which they did not do nor even conceived by them but were necessary. I could not have taken any action directly because I was not a party to their case. When I saw that no action is being taken in spite of advice I had to move application for impleadment, which is still pending before the SC.
Mr. SN Chhabra had sent a letter to all the Units of AIRIEF against the Federation, against me. Does this not amount to indiscipline? Otherwise he says that I am not conversant with law and legal procedures when things come to be unanswerable to him otherwise he is making false allegations against me and AIRIEF. I had managed the presence of Sr Advocate on the first date of hearing of Chandigarh SLP with his consent and he was present in the Court but he says that no Advocate was arranged, he was called to Delhi when I had gone there for his case, so that he can meet the Sr. Advocate but he did not reach in time why? He did not know of the proceedings in the SC when LIC had obtained hearing on mention in April but I managed the presence of our Advocate on telephone and sent the requisite documents on Inter and the second attempt for stay by LIC was rebuffed by the SC and I informed him. Why they did not take objection when LIC had given undertaking to deposit the money within six weeks, a clarification was required but not wanted, no objection to the deposit of only DA/DR anomaly removal and that too in a false manner? Why deposit when it is a decided matter then why not payment directly? Why objections have not been raised so far about the method of calculation, where is 11.25% weightage, where is revision on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007? Why no opposition to a long date of seven months? He did not inform me of the application which he had filed nor has provided me a copy of the same so far in spite of demand? Why? He has changed the mentor to Shri MS Murty then why he is hurling accusations on me amounting to defamation? When already had been working with success why a separate Advocate for the same cause and since I have also to engage a Sr. Advocate for ensuing proceedings because of my Sr. Advocate becoming Advocate for the Union of India, why he did not divulge the name of his choice when I asked for the same so that I can also settle on the same Sr. Advocate? He has also hurled the question of payment of expenses in our SLP by AIRIEF? When it is known that AIRIEF had been financing the litigation in SC where was the reason to raise objection and why a separatist attitude? What useful purpose of engaging a separate Advocate will be served because when the matter is the same the Court is not going to hear again and again on the same matter and when the judgment is reproduction of Jaipur judgment what new ground can be raised by the second Advocate? Then why not work together? Why does he not ask LIC under RTI the expenses incurred by it on this unwanted litigation prolonged by it with details of fees paid to various Advocates and making us to defend their onslaught for seeking our fundamental right?
Can Mr. BR Mehta, or Mr. SN Chhabra or Mr. MS Murty tell me whether they are being paid correct pension as per Rules? Have they ever tried to find out. As well wisher to pensioners the interests of poor family members are also our liability, have they ever checked whether correct pension is being paid to them?
Mr. BRM has been questioning the contribution made to me by several donors for the litigation expenses and has been making false allegations, then firstly he has to show what is his locus or authority to seek all the clarifications and what is his contribution therein both financially, professionally and positively in the interest of pensioners except hurling abuses on me? Did he ever come to Delhi when the case was listed and bore the travails and troubles there about the attitude and way of working of the Advocates? Whatever contribution was received was credited to a separate account opened for this purpose. Not a single pie was credited to my personal account. My Pensions and Saving Banks accounts are separate and in separate Banks too. Mr HK Aggarwal did nothing wrong in writing to make contribution to this separate account because he had full faith in me and for the convenience for many individuals and associations who were not ready to contribute due to their own affiliations. I or Mr. HK Aggarwal never said only and only to my account. We have always been saying that the amount be remitted to Indore or to Jaipur. There is nothing wrong in it.
To Jaipur Panchkula Unit has not contributed anything, they are trying to take credit of the contribution made by Chandigarh people. They have no right to ask for account without an undertaking to repay the balance outstanding therein for expenditure before and from 1998 and the amount which I have incurred and not taken from AIRIEF. A question monger should bear the responsibility also.
Before I give the account Mr BR Mehta or Mr. SN Chhabra should give me an assurance that he will reimburse me the expenses which I have incurred since 1997 when the issue was for the first time raised before the Corpn and then before the Court. Does he know how many dates were fixed, how many applications for early hearing and interim reliefs were moved and what was the expenditure thereon? What fees had to be paid to Advocates at Jaipur? What I was to gain after the revision takes place, merely Rs. 1000=00 then why does he expect me to spend lakhs of rupees?
Did he pay his attention on immediately filing objection to the deposit of the amount in the HC. It is better to exercise his energies in the right direction because such false and intentional accusations with wide publicity may entail defamation proceedings against him. Therefore I request and advice him to be fair and act for the pensioners, he is not going to get anything out of this.
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? 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 on 12/11/2014 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.
He only wants to have a common meeting for publicity sake but has not come out so far “when and where”. I had already communicated my acceptance to meet at any place after Navratra, then where is the question of not agreeing. I had even gone to Delhi on his call. Mr. BR Mehta as usual has been hurling sarcastic remarks on this issue.. 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 though he is not a member of AIRIEF and how to defend the Delhi SLP on the issue which was not raised there. Except hurling allegations nothing practical has come from his side as has been said by me earlier. Has he prepared any reply to SLP, either Delhi or Chandigarh SLPs which has to be filed to vindicate our stand, did he oppose the condonation of delay, why not? I do not want to enter into all this but in case they do not want to work together I pray to these persons to work as they want and let me work as I have been doing since the beginning and that too with victory, when they actually do not want to work but only raising accusations in others’ working.
On this point Mr BR Mehta is over anxious since one way or the other he has to blame and defame me. which I suggest he should deter, I always welcome healthy and fruitful criticisms and suggestions.
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.
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. 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?
In is wrongly stated that I am a practising lawyer. Though I am a Law Graduate but I never made an application for enrolment. However, I am actively working in the field of law. And many Law firms get their work done from me. I have also filed with success some PILs at my own cost and did not seek any benefit monetary or otherwise from any one. The entire drafting from 1998 till date both at Jaipur and Delhi was done by me, rulings were searched out. I know persons like BR Mehta may say it to be boasting but it is a fact that it was me who had searched out the rulings and raised the issue of non-maintainability of appeal against dismissal of review petition and the result is known to all.
It must be remembered that the Gold Coin writ was filed by me and it was only thereafter that Rs. 3000 were paid to all the retired employees and the said writ petition is still pending for final adjudication, did any one pay any amount for that either personally or through their respective Association to me or to AIRIEF. Or did any out of we too asked for the same? Mr. BRM or Mr. SNC is not aware of the same? At least Mr. SN Chhabra got that benefit. ? Will the account seekers reimburse me the expenditure?
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. 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?
Any way in case you do not want to have a dialogue with me in the right earnest shedding your ego, please do whatever you want to do in your cases and don’t try to encroach upon my cases and please act in the interest of the pensioners at large and do not create confusion in regard to the credit because you are not capable of changing the chain of events which has already taken place so far. I give all the credit to you all but for God’s sake do not create confusion in the minds of the Pensioners and create hurdles and obstructions so as to make a strategy to win the case as far as possible. Rest rests on the will of the Almighty and the fate and fortune of the pensioners. I have been doing and will continue to do the best possible so long as I am able to do, which I can only assure the pensioners fraternity.
In future any uncalled for and false remarks hurled on me or acted in my name will not be proper, which please note.
KML Asthana
1/10/2014
(Font colour changes do not mean to highlight any portion of statement. It is employed for reading convenience only.-Ed.)
(Font colour changes do not mean to highlight any portion of statement. It is employed for reading convenience only.-Ed.)