We wondered for a moment what was the need for
this correspondence.This is the reason why we didn't publish
these outbursts so far. It is our feeling that Shri Asthana shouldn't
have come out with a long statement at this crucial juncture when
the supreme court appeals are about to be heard. He issued the
statement but avoided LIC PC for reasons best known to him.
Now there may be well wishers of LIC PC who do not wish to
see a controversy raging up through Chronicle. But we feel that
Shri Asthana should have restrained himself or could have
avoided the controversy by ignoring BR Mehta by a
brief statement only. Now that Shri Mehta has also come
out with a reply, we are publishing both the letters.
Let us hope better counsels prevail. Ed.
Dear Editor,
Sir, I have read a response from our respected Sh. Asthana Ji with reference to the simple issue raised by me one week ago that as per our information from Sh. Murty as well as our Supreme Court Advocate no written order has been passed by CJI for constituting a special bench to hear our case. In stead of replying to this simple issue, he has tried to hit me and Sh. Murty personally thereby avoiding the real issue. Since he has tried to hit us, we have also every right to put the record straight. Sh.Asthana's biased and baseless propaganda against us which has no merit at all is just an attempt to cover up his own irregular activities by twisting all facts against us.
If anybody reads again my Post and the response from Asthanaji, it will be clear as to who is doing the outburst. A person, who claims all legal knowledge for himself, should try to coolly and directly answer the simple questions of ‘ignorant’ persons like me, if he wants to, instead of raking up so many old controversies exposing himself in the process.
To my understanding as I learnt on enquiry, invoking Chief Justice of India directly in the efforts of Asthanaji’s Advocate, was certainly an attempt to mislead the pensioner community and to claim some big credit. Have people forgotten that it was Asthanaji who was initially opposing the very idea of ‘mention’’ for early hearing? How many twists and turns the early hearing took so far?
I will only refer to two points from Asthanaji’s outburst. One – he claims he has been working for our case in P & H High Court incurring expenditure. Expenditure incurred from his pocket? This is just and simply false. The fact is that it was only Asthana ji and Sh. V C Jain who told Sh. S.N.Chhabra looking after Chandigarh High Court Case to instruct our local advocate here to keep our case pending and in abeyance so that it does not affect his efforts to get Jaipur Judgement implemented. Today he takes U-turn and blames Sh. Chhabra for just obeying him.
The bitter Truth is that his anger against us and his frustration started from the day when we took our case out of his clutches. Long before our ‘Mentor’ was even known to us. We know too well that he cannot ever digest this. About the fee of Rs 2.50 for our Advocate, yes, we agreed to pay this – it is transparent. Is Asthanaji ever willing to disclose how much he drew from the Federation in the name of legal fee and how much he directly collected from the innocent pensioners across the groups and Associations?
He talks of vigilance, legal acumen, caveats and so many big terms – his two new WPs in Jaipur while the CAs are pending in Supreme Court, was it a wise move based on legal acumen? Where do they stand today? What was the expenditure for them? Why did the contempt case end up as it ended up and has he ever come out with the whole truth? For the Caveat he filed against the SLPs by Union Government, has he anything to report to his legal subcommittee? Why does he treat all these matters as his private affair?
He always claims he has been winning so many cases? After the 2010 Judgment, let him quote one area where he was successful. What happened to all his legal acumen and vigilance when LIC’s SLPs were admitted? Why he failed to get them dismissed at the admission stage? Why did he fail to restore the contempt case in Jaipur? When LIC deposited a token sum in Jaipur, why did he not challenge it successfully? How did he fail to oppose Sh Sridharan’s Interim Application in Supreme Court? What happened to his Implead Application in Supreme Court in our Case in P & H High Court?
Some may think all these things should not be raised now. At a crucial time like this, I agree with them. But I only want to humbly request Sh. Asthanji that his general arrogant approach in handling the cases, condemning everybody who differs with him, should not damage the larger interests of pensioners. When one claims that he knows everything and others know nothing, there is something wrong. It is dangerous.
With Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula
(EARLIER ASTHANA WROTE -
This is an outburst of failure on their part but it shows their ignorance and lack of knowledge of law and procedure and interest to somehow create problems for those who are working and a feeling of anxiety among the retired persons.
Unconfirmed news are not circulated by me but it is most suited for him and his mentor whose name he has given in his message itself to say so. As regards the prospective date 13th the part of SC advance list was put on the net by Shri Madhavan and then by Shri Sahni and they were correct since they had taken out the same from the SC list. As usual the circular issued by his mentors failed again as in the past latest of it being that he had professed that the case will not come up on 26th still it came up and the case was partheard. When the question arose as to when it was known that the case is not listed what action their Advocate had taken, then Mr BRMehta was provoked and he a person of lower knowledge of legal affairs has burst out.
He does not know what is special bench. For us this is a Special Bench when it was constituted for our case and what difference does it make for us. Why he has shown his intelligence and legal acumen, which he does not have .When our case is to be listed on mention being made with intimation to LIC Advocate and pursued further by our Advocate the case was ultimately fixed for definite and not “likely” at 2 pm. This also is a special bench. Let somebody tell him the meaning of special.
Knowledge of law and that for SC level requires a great patience, study and time consuming, when he does not have this knowledge, how can it be expected that the knowledge of such intricacies as are involved in our cases could have traveled even near and around him.
He or his guide also does not know that UOI has filed SLPs and they are in Defect side and having come to know of the Diary number I have filed Caveats. This is vigilance and not absence of mind keeping it busy for trying to somehow spoil the case. I have also inferred from whatever little AM Singhi said as to what defence they are going to take.
In legal matters vigilance is required and it was I who had initiated the case of the pensioners in 1998 and then in 2007 but neither he nor his mentor had even conceived the anomaly and great loss being caused to Pensioners, where were they. I have won at all stages and these SLPs are the result of adamancy of LIC and the background being created by these persons.
I would like to know during so many dates of hearing where Mr Mehta or Panchkula case managers were, why they did not appear in the Court arena, why they have left the matter to me, who will bear the cost for this? AIRIEF may bear the legal expenses but other expenses I am required and have been incurring for P&H HC SLP also. They have charged 2.50 lakhs for their Advocate but without any action so far.
I do not want to say more but as a reply to what foul wording he has used to misguide the pensioners for his own benefit I have given some examples. So far no false information had ever been communicated by me. ASTHANA)