Today's developments in Chandigarh

Dear Editor,

  

There are two items listed for hearing today. 

A new application dated 11 July but filed only on 17th with advance copy served on us, was listed as an urgent case first. 

The other case is the regular contempt petition posted for today with a direction on 21 May 2015 to file a reply to our 310 page Petition of objections on the deposit made in Aug 2014. 

No reply was filed by LIC in the latter.

The entire game was a mischievous strategy for delaying any payment to any Pensioner and still protect itself from the possible charge of contempt of 7 May Order of Supreme Court. It is not too far to see.

The Sr. Advocate appearing for LIC briefly explained, at the instance of the Judge, the background of the contempt case and descended on today's application to withdraw 20% of the amount deposited, purporting to be in terms of SC Order of 7 May. He made it looks like a faithful compliance of the Apex Court Order, which the Judge had almost accepted. Justice Jain looked like pleased with the plea and asked me (I was on my feet waiting for my turn) what is your problem?

I explained that the application for withdrawal is not as innocuous as it appears and made out to be, it is not in compliance with but in contravention of the SC Order of 7 May, it is made just to delay payment to me, not made within six weeks granted by the Supreme Court and is  liable to be rejected. I added there is yet another reason fatal to its validity namely SC Order does not apply to the deposit made in Chandigarh because it was not made in the first place in pursuance of any instructions issued by the Supreme Court. For these reasons I argued that the application has to be rejected. 

Other Advocate tried some tricks but by then Judge appreciated my point. Withdrawal request was thus not allowed. I requested my objections to be recorded - a longish order was dictated.

On my submission that non filing of reply was jeopardizing our interests, ( I mentioned that the youngest of the petitioners is 76 and the oldest is 88 while six out of 31 have already left us), Justice Jain turned to the LIC Counsel and said very firmly 'I cannot allow this' I am posting the matter to 28th. Some pleas of the counsel including a reference to Supreme Court Order, were rejected stiffly.

I have some thing more to share on further plans here, which I will do after today's Order is out. Court's message is loud and clear. We succeeded only partly in putting a break on LIC's mischief. We have much more to do and we will do.

I owe a word of thanks to Dr Pritam. When I called him yesterday to report that Ms Alka may not be able to attend the Court today, he asked me 'can you argue'? I said, 'I can' his reply: 'Then you do'. I said I need Alka's consent. His response: 'Take it'.

Mr SN Chhabra, Mr BR Mehta and I went straight to Alka and saw her in Fortis Hospital where her Father is critically ill and on a ventilator. We enquired about his condition and comforted her for some time. I had no courage to broach the topic of our case. When it was time to leave suddenly she said, Mr Murty, I cannot attend to your case tomorrow. Why don't you argue it? You Can easily do.'

That's it. Next several hours through the night several calls and message to and from Mr Mahadevan in US and me. His inputs are just unbeatable.

All went well. One small step forward. Much more to do. TOGETHER

M Sreenivasa Murty 

CAMP: CHANDIGARH