Periodical revision of pension .

Friends,

                SH. KML ASTHANA WRITES.   

     

Please go through Sh. KML Asthana's mail below. It will be very  unfortunate & pathetic  if he withdraws. Thus pensioners fraternity must come forward to save the poignant  situation.

With kind regards,

H K Aggarwal.   

---

From: KML ASTHANA
Sent: 09 December 2017 17:29
To: H K Aggarwal

Dear Shri Aggarwal,

In case my case is taken into consideration it will be found that I have made out a case that no amendment in the Pension Rules is required for revision of pension.  The definition of Pension is to be read vis-a-vis the definition ofPAY. This was my case also before Delhi HC. There is no bar in the pension rules on enhancement of pension, rather the provision with regard to Pension Fund has a mention of the provision for enhanced pension.  But our President and other members of the socalled Legal Committee refused to understand the same. The Legal Committee's constitution has been done with a view to support the decision as has been made as has been taken by the President.  I have won the case right from the beginning upto SC.  But since they wanted to take over the case in order to advance the name of the President and under the influence of MSM they have filed separate issue without appreciating the legal issues and for this they have misrepresented the case before the pensioners that the case of Asthana is only for the petitioners though the judgment is for all the pensioners which fact is proved from the fact that 40% has been made to be paid all over India. Looking to the case law and facts as pleaded in my case I had suggested to hri SSSaxena to file review petition but since that would not have served his purpose he in one way or the other avoided to do that, first he gave the plea of heavy expenditure because he did not know the procedure and that is why he avoided the whole procedure. In case review petition had been filed much of the expenditure could have been saved and by the long time back the final decision could have been achieved but with going to DHC not only heavy expenditure had to be incurred and still it will be required to be incurred. nyway it is the fate of the pensioners.

Shri Aggarwalji a huge amount of mine has been retained by the President and Secretary and because a huge experience is required to be spent I am not able to bear and I am feeling disapponted and unable to bear further expenses which in the first instance required is Rs. 30,000/- for purpose of service of the notices with copies of the SLP as is being required by the SC Registry.  The Registry requires the Petitioners in Jaipur to be made parties and to serve notices on them.  Since I am already under more than Rs. 1,70,000 and there is no likelihood of support of the AIRIEF in the conduct of the case engaging senior advocates there.  I have filed application for condoning the service of notice on the Petitioners here in Jaipur because they are Proforma Respondents and their interests will not be hurt if they are not made partes.  I am therefore inclined to withdraw myself from the legal fight.  My physical condition is also compelling me to do this, which though I will try to overcome but finance is not possible for me to do. I apprehend that in case I withdraw then there is every likelihood of the 40% being withdrawn because that has been passed in my case which is of the year 1998 and not of AIRIEF or Hyderabad association or AIIPA which are of the year 2016. Moreover if any benefit o the basis of their writ petitions is given that can be given only from the year 2016 when those writ petitions were filedd while my writ petition was filed in the year 2007 and the benefit of revision if given will come from 2007.

KML Asthana