PART II
You narrated on the arguments on Sec
48. There were views aired on both sides. Judge also intervened at times. But
it was wrong on your part to conclude: The
Court observed that whenever pay scales are revised it is automatic that the
pensions will be revised. The CG has no power to intervene. If as quoted by
you, it was the clear conclusion of the Court, we have already won the case.
The fact is when Mr Nidhesh Gupta was citing the precedents of Chairman giving instructions
amending Pension Rules, to support his argument that the Board Resolution can
be implemented by the Chairman, (was he reading from Chairman’s Circular dated 9
Dec 2010?) LIC Advocate was eager to rebut it stating that he can explain how
Mr Gupta was wrong on that point etc.
In my view this point is as unreliable as
the other on the Counsel admitting something and make it binding on the
Government. You have falsely claimed that the Court’s response was in your
favour. IT WAS NOT. Actually Mr Nidhesh Gupta gracefully retracted when he
found that the Judge was not in agreement. I don’t know what you gain by
narrating facts differently.
You said, ‘The Court gave last opportunity and was shifting the final hearing to
December but on our insistence it was fixed …………. Another joke. 18 Nov was Judge’s choice. Your Sr Counsels
have no request to make for quicker hearing and Mr Savla’s appeal had no
supporters.
You are at
the height of your arrogance and wishful thinking when you dared to go on
record and say:
The Court
made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC
judgment and no other Counsel will be heard.
Even if
you are the Judge, you cannot make such a statement. If you want to
canvas to your members on these lines and collect more funds, please try.
Because later on in due course, when Mr Jay Savla and Shri Shree Ram Panchu
argue against CA Nos 6995 of 2013 and 9223 of 2013 respectively, (and
effectively cover the gaping holes in the line of your arguments if you don’t
take any hints from the Bench), you need not refund the funds you now collect.
Also to
make my point simple and to put you in a place that you deserve, please check
with your Counsel on your reporting (The Court
made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC
judgment and no other Counsel will be heard) and come back and report it publicly
again. If you are able to get your claim confirmed by your own Counsel
I hereby undertake NOT TO VISIT THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN TILL OUR CASES ARE
DECIDED. If you cannot do so, just go to any sacred river in Rajasthan and take
a holy dip thrice. You can wash the sin of lying you are indulging in.
Then you
say:
It was also
said that whatever will be the judgment that will be applicable to one and all.
Is it so?
I have no problem if you can approach one and all
for FUNDS on the basis of this statement also.
Rest of your ranting in the name of reporting on 30 Sept proceedings
against me and the Panchkula team (whom
and whose questions you cannot face in the next hundred years) is perverse,
demeaning and does not deserve separate response. I shall pray for strength to
ignore it and forgive you and would request Mr S N Chhabra (a victim of
your subterfuges and blackmail following the untimely passing away of Mr M L
Gandhi, the main Petitioner in Chandigarh) and Mr BR Mehta (whose constant
tirade against your monumental avarice for Funds, deprives you of peace and
sleep), to do likewise.
I may close for now as I am on a Mission to
win the cases for forty thousand LIC Pensioners and Family Pensioners. My
strategy includes covering the areas where your arguments run the risk of being
rejected (as is evident in the Court on 30 Sept) and make sure that our case
which is otherwise very strong is not lost due to your faulty approach and your
arrogant postures.
(Concluded)