Dear
Mr Asthana,
I have received the copy of the mail addressed by you to Mr M V Venugopalan.I
would like to respond on some of the issues raised by you as follows:
-
You
have observed, “The SC order does not say you withdraw and pay the same. It was
a facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle”.
If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme
Court order as follows?
“If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the
order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the
Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can
pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by
HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport
of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
”If any amount, that has been deposited before the
High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, such portion of the
deposited amount shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation
of India, as will equal the amount paid as interim relief by LIC to the
respondent-petitioners as per this order”.
If
such wordings had been used, LIC would possibly have had to pay the interim
relief within the 6 weeks’ period without waiting for the release of the
deposits by the HC.Also, if LIC had paid the right
amounts as per the impugned judgment of the HC, it could have as well got the
entire amount deposited by it released instead of only 20% of the inadequately
paid amount. It is not very difficult to understand that what LIC has deposited
did not even constitute 10 % of the amounts due to the original petitioners.
-
You
have also stated that cause of action for us arises only after the payment is made,
which opportunity has been lost. But in my view, more than its anxiety to
withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries before paying interim
relief, LIC had possibly a very shrewd plan to justify that whatever amount
they had deposited was the correct amount although their stand will not go
unchallenged. If their move for withdrawal was not challenged, then LIC’s
incorrect interpretation of the HC judgments and the Board Resolution will not
come up for sharp focus that is crucial in the hearing that is to take place on
23/9/2015.The order of PB & H HC dt 20/7/2015 dismissing the application of
LIC for withdrawal of the deposit with appropriate instructions to LIC in the
CCP case provides a very good opportunity to effectively highlight this issue
before the Supreme Court.
I thought it necessary to respond to you on the above points so that things are
seen in the proper perspective although different people can have different
views and perceptions as do different lawyers with their similar professional
expertise on the same subject.
You
have observed, “The SC order does not say you withdraw and pay the same. It was
a facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle”.
If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
“If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
“If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
You
have also stated that cause of action for us arises only after the payment is made,
which opportunity has been lost. But in my view, more than its anxiety to
withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries before paying interim
relief, LIC had possibly a very shrewd plan to justify that whatever amount
they had deposited was the correct amount although their stand will not go
unchallenged. If their move for withdrawal was not challenged, then LIC’s
incorrect interpretation of the HC judgments and the Board Resolution will not
come up for sharp focus that is crucial in the hearing that is to take place on
23/9/2015.The order of PB & H HC dt 20/7/2015 dismissing the application of
LIC for withdrawal of the deposit with appropriate instructions to LIC in the
CCP case provides a very good opportunity to effectively highlight this issue
before the Supreme Court.
I am deliberately refraining from expressing any views on the other matters
raised by you in your mail to Mr Venugopalan to avoid unnecessary debate (in my
opinion).
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
PLEASE CLICK BELOW TO READ KML ASTHANA'S LETTER TO VENUGOPALAN
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 KML ASTHANA wrote
Dear Shri Venugopalan,
Asthana was never in the shelves, he has been working as is required from
time to time and will do so also but he cannot come up and open up the strategy
to LIC. We have to work as per own strategy instead of opening up the same
On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 KML ASTHANA wrote
Dear Shri Venugopalan,
Asthana was never in the shelves, he has been working as is required from
time to time and will do so also but he cannot come up and open up the strategy
to LIC. We have to work as per own strategy instead of opening up the same
to the opponent.
Have you appreciated what the withdrawal of the application means?
Where was the necessity of opposing the same? When that is not a condition
precedent to making payment by opposing withdrawal we have a rope to LIC to
stretch as you must appreciate that the proceedings have been delayed at least
by one week. Our insistence should have been for payment of the 20% without
Have you appreciated what the withdrawal of the application means?
Where was the necessity of opposing the same? When that is not a condition
precedent to making payment by opposing withdrawal we have a rope to LIC to
stretch as you must appreciate that the proceedings have been delayed at least
by one week. Our insistence should have been for payment of the 20% without
delay. The SC order does not say you withdraw and pay the same. It was a
facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle.
Yes you are correct that the above effort has given a handle to LIC to
delay the compliance of 7th May order and that is why I have been
saying let them withdraw the amount, we are not concerned and cause of action
for us arises only after the payment is made, which opportunity has been lost.
It is a good suggestion that all the three should make out a strategy and
work together, but how when two do not have any strategy so far. Merely harping
on the meeting again and again does not solve the purpose. Before that you have
facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle.
Yes you are correct that the above effort has given a handle to LIC to
delay the compliance of 7th May order and that is why I have been
saying let them withdraw the amount, we are not concerned and cause of action
for us arises only after the payment is made, which opportunity has been lost.
It is a good suggestion that all the three should make out a strategy and
work together, but how when two do not have any strategy so far. Merely harping
on the meeting again and again does not solve the purpose. Before that you have
to chalk out your strategy and then discuss the same so that all three can work
on the same. The persons asking for meeting have not so far been able to settle
themselves as to how we have to fight our case. The whole aim of the call for â
meeting is to somehow condemn or blame Asthana and to cover up their own
lacuna.
Are they not responsible for not filing their reply to their SLPs in spite
of lapse of such a long time of three years, then what will they argue their
case before the SC, the delay has not been opposed. It is essential to file a
Are they not responsible for not filing their reply to their SLPs in spite
of lapse of such a long time of three years, then what will they argue their
case before the SC, the delay has not been opposed. It is essential to file a
written reply, where is that?
They have all along been banking on Asthana but have been blaming to show
their intelligence and dedicatedness to the cause of pensioners and in that
zeal they even forget that in this manner they are not doing anything for the
benefit of the pensioners but of LIC.
There is no restraint in them.
Mr. Venugopalan, I have been fighting the cases since the very beginning
and that too with success. But Chronicle has taken birth only now. I am also not
going to be provoked by such comments and divulge my mind to the unmindful
activities being promoted by Chronicle and his supported correspondents.
I have already been raising objections to the deposit of the amount
therefore I need not do so. It is only Chandigarh who have to raise their objections,
They have all along been banking on Asthana but have been blaming to show
their intelligence and dedicatedness to the cause of pensioners and in that
zeal they even forget that in this manner they are not doing anything for the
benefit of the pensioners but of LIC.
There is no restraint in them.
Mr. Venugopalan, I have been fighting the cases since the very beginning
and that too with success. But Chronicle has taken birth only now. I am also not
going to be provoked by such comments and divulge my mind to the unmindful
activities being promoted by Chronicle and his supported correspondents.
I have already been raising objections to the deposit of the amount
therefore I need not do so. It is only Chandigarh who have to raise their objections,
if cogent reasons they have any,mere filing of the statements will not serve
the purpose, they should come forward and be prepared to fight in the SC
since nothing is going to be done in HC.
In connection with Contempt I can refer you to the comments of Justice
Markandey Katju, who has written in an article that I had dismissed contempt
petitioners 99%, In my case also the contempt petition has been dismissed as
against the law, which people are trying to make out a case of publicity
against me without understanding the law. This dismissal is a boon in disguise
and has opened a way for me to press upon the SC to get the compliance done by
itself instead of asking for preferring a contempt petition in the HC, should
this happen the arena of litigation will spread since the pensioners in every
State will have to approach their HC, the jurisdiction of HC being limited to
their State. But since their mind is restricted to opposing and blaming me they
In connection with Contempt I can refer you to the comments of Justice
Markandey Katju, who has written in an article that I had dismissed contempt
petitioners 99%, In my case also the contempt petition has been dismissed as
against the law, which people are trying to make out a case of publicity
against me without understanding the law. This dismissal is a boon in disguise
and has opened a way for me to press upon the SC to get the compliance done by
itself instead of asking for preferring a contempt petition in the HC, should
this happen the arena of litigation will spread since the pensioners in every
State will have to approach their HC, the jurisdiction of HC being limited to
their State. But since their mind is restricted to opposing and blaming me they
do not try to understand the things behind this and by provoking are trying to
make me divulge my strategy because they have none.
I am also bound by the instructions and mores of my Federation and not of
others who are not ready to sit together and come out with a strategy.
KML Asthana
I am also bound by the instructions and mores of my Federation and not of
others who are not ready to sit together and come out with a strategy.
KML Asthana