SHRI KML ASTHANA WRITES:
PROCEEDINGS ON 25TH MARCH 2015
PROCEEDINGS ON 25TH MARCH 2015
I AM SORRY I COULD NOT ATTEND TO
MANY CALLS FOR I KNEW THAT MR PULKIT DUBEY HAD GIVEN INFORMATION TO MR
BANGURAJAN AND G KRISHWAMY. I WAS IN DIRE PHYSICAL PROBLEMS THEREFORE I WAS
HELPED AND ASSISTED BY HIM. ONE DAY EARLIER WHEN I REACHED DELHI I WAS NOT SURE
WHETHER I WILL BE ABLE TO REACH THE COURT, THEREFORE, ON MY REQUEST MR RK SINGH
CAME TO SAI DHAM AND WE DISCUSSED. BUT OVERCOMING ALL MY PROBLEMS I REACHED
THERE AND SAW THE PROCEEDINGS.
I FOUND THE GREAT SUPER HERO WAS
THERE IN ADVOCATE’S ROBE WITH HIS TABLET. THERE WAS NOBODY FROM PANCHKULA SIDE,
ADVOCATE FOR DELHI WITH MR GN SRIDHARAN WAS THERE AND MS PINKLY ANAND ALSO CAME
LATERON. AM SINGHVI WAS NOT THERE.
THE COURT TOOK UP CASE NOS. 1 TO
5 IN SEARTIM FIRST AND THEN ONE CASE MUCH BELOW. THEREAFTER THE COURT TOOK UP
CASE NO. 101, TILL NOW OUR SR ADVOCATE WAS THERE AND THEN 105 WHICH WAS ON THE
ISSUE OF MAHATMA GANDHI. IT WAS DECIDED THEN IT TOOK UP CASE NO. 121 IT WAS
PASSED OVER TO 2 PM AND OUR CASE WAS AT NO. 122. FINDING THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME
TIME HE TOLD MR RK SINGH TO INFORM HIM WHEN THE CASE AND KEEP TAKING NOTES OF
WHAT IS RAISED BY SINGHVI AND WHEN OUR TURN COMES HE WILL RAISE OUR ARGUMENTS,
WHICH DID NOT COME THOUGH LATER MR GUPTA HAD COME.
MR SINGHVI TRIED TO CONFUSE THE
COURT THAT HE IS COMING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/1/2011 AND AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT IN REVIEW, BUT AVOIDED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DISMISSAL OF SLP AGAINST
REVIEW JUDGMENT WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT BY RK SINGH HAS BEEN
DISMISSED AND CANNOT BE REOPENED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THEN AMSINGHI SAID THAT
THE BURDEN WILL BE 9700 CRORES, WHICH WAS REBUFFED BY RK SINGH THAT THIS IS NOT
LIC’S CASE BUT FOR ARMY PERSONNEL, THE COURT SAID WHATEVER BE THE AMOUNT, WHAT
IS TO BE PAID THAT HAS TO BE PAID WHETHER 9000 CRORES OR 90000 CRORES.
THEN HE CAME OUT THAT THERE ARE 1
LAKH PENSIONERS OF LIC WHICH THE COURT SAID SO WHAT BUT RK SINGH BROUGHT BEFORE
THE COURT THAT EVEN TODAY THERE NOT EVEN 80000 EMPLOYEES BOTH IN SERVICE OR
RETIRED. THEN AM SINGHI CAME TO 48 BUT RK SINGH SAID THAT THIS MATTER WAS
CONSIDERED BY COGNATE BENCH IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2015, AND THAT TOO WAS
AGAINST LIC. HE GAVE TO THE COURT THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WHEN AM SINGHVI COULD
NOT SAY AS TO WHAT WAS THE MATTER AND ASJ SAID I DO NOT KNOW, OUR RK SINGH SAID
THAT HEARING ON A RUMOUR HE HAS ALREADY FILED CAVEAT ON 27TH JANUARY
BUT A COPY HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO HIM SO FAR. THEN AM SINGHVI HAD TO COME OUT
THAT IT IS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT KML ASTHANA. THE COURT ASKED THE COURT MASTER
TO CALL FOR THE FILE OF THAT CASE AND BOTH THE MATTERS WILL BE DECIDED TOGETHER
INSTEAD OF HEARING THE SAME MATTER AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT BEFORE THIS COURT SAID
THAT HOW COME AFTER FOUR YEARS YOU HAVE COME, WHICH RK SINGH CORRECTED AFTER
FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DISPUTE IS OF JANUARY 2010 WHEN JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY
JUSTICE BHANDARI.
THE COURT ENQUIRED AS TO WHO HAS
TO PAY THE MONEY ON WHICH AM SAINGHVI COULD NOT SATISFY THE COURT, BUT RK SINGH
SAID THAT IT IS FOR LIC ONLY.
ONE MORE REMARK THE COURT SAID
THAT WHATEVER BE THE JUDGMENT IT WILL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL PENSIONERS.
RK SINGH ALSO SAID THAT EVEN
TODAY THE PENSIONS ARE NOT CORRECTLY BEING PAID, THEN THE COURT SAID THAT WE
WILL HEAR ALL THESE ARGUMENTS ON THE NEXT DATE.
AND DIRECTED THE COURT MASTER TO
CALL FOR THE FILE AND TAG TOGETHER AND THE ASJ TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE SLP AND
ALSO TO US TO FILE REPLY IF LIKE.
AT ONE STAGE THE COUNSEL FOR
DELHI ROSE AND RAISE THAT THEIRS IS THE CASE ABOUT REMOVAL OF ANOMALY IN DA/DR
THEN COURT SAID OK WE WILL HEAR TOGETHER.
IT IS TO BE INFORMED THAT AGAIN
UOI HAS FILED FOUR SLPS AND SINCE THEY ARE ON THE SAME SUBJECT IT IS BETTER
THAT ALL OF THEM ARE DECIDED ONCE AND FOR ALL OTHERWISE ON THAT GROUND LIC WILL
NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE OF THIS JUDGMENT WHEN IT COMES IN OUR FAVOUR.
IT IS ALWAYS THAT FIRST THE
APPELLANT HAS TO PLACE AND PROVE ITS CASE AND THEN ONLY THE DEFENDANT IF
REQUIRED HAS TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSIONS, BUT IF THE COURT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH
THE APPELLANT AND DISMISSES THE APPEAL THEN THE RESPONDENT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
TO ARGUE. MR NIDESH GUPTA WAS THEREFORE FOR LONG BUT LOOKING TIME TO BE TAKEN
HE HAD GONE TO OTHER COURT. EVEN ON CALLING OF THE CASE AM SINGHVI WAS NOT
THERE AND LATER ON HE CAME RUNNING. WHEN
THERE ARE MANY CASES ONE ADVOCATE CANNOT KEEP SITTING FOR INDEFINITE PERIOD.
BUT GOING FOR SOMETIME LOOKING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE CASE COMING UP CANNOT
BE TAKEN TO HAVE FLOWN AWAY. THIS IS THE PROCEDURE.
THE ARGUMENTS OF LIC ARE NOT
CONCLUDED AND THOSE OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT STARTED, FIRST WE WILL BE HEARD
THEN IF NEED BE THE OTHER RESPONDENTS.
BUT BY THE TIME THE CASE CAME TO
A CLOSE MR MSMURTY WAS NOT VISIBLE IN THE COURT ROOM BECAUSE HE HAD FLOWN AWAY
TO SEND FALSE REPORTS. AFTER COMING OUT OF THE COURT IN THE VERANDAH WHEN OUR
ADVOCATES AND ADVOCATES OF DELHI WERE PRESENT I TILD MR SRIDHARAN THAT MSM IS
HARPING ON MEETING OF ADVOCATES, CALL HIM BECAUSE HE IS PLEADING TO BE YOUR
REPRESENTATIVE. NOW THAT WE KNOW THE PROSPECTIVE STAND OF LIC AND ALL THE
ADVOCATES ARE HERE LET US FIX UP TIME FOR A FRUITFUL MEET, HE SAID HE IS NOT
ABLE TO SEE HIM AND WILL LET ME KNOW WHEN HE IS FOUND OUT.
IT IS MR MSMURTY WHO IS CAUSING
CHAOS IN THE MINDS OF PENSIONERS ABOUT THE ROLE OF MYSELF AND MY ADVOCATES THAT
WE ARE BENT UPON TO SPOIL THE CASE AND WE ARE BOUND TO LOSE IT, AS IF IT WAS HE
WHO HAD BROUGHT THE CASE UPTO THIS STAGE AND I AM OPPOSING. OTHERWISE HE IS GOD
AND HE WILL GUARANTEE WIN. HE IS FOLLOWED AND SUPPORTED BY BR MEHTA OF
PANCHKULA. PL SEE AND ENJOY HIS COMICAL MESSAGES ON THE CHRONICLE WEBSITE AND
IT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO BELIEVE. HOWEVER, I AM NOT BOUND BY
HIS ADVICE UNLESS IT IS IN LINE AND SUPPORTING MY CASE WHICH HAS WON ME THE
SUCCESS. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT HIS STATURE WAS/
I WANT TO KNOW FROM THESE
PERSONS, IN CASE MY ADVOCATES WERE NOT THERE OR MR RK SINGH DID NOT SPEAK WHO
PREVENTED HIS ADVOCATE, WHOSE NAME IS NOT KNOWN, OR HIMSELF WHEN IN BLACK ROBE
TO SPEAK, AFTER ALL THE THREE CASES ARE BASED ON THE JUDGMENT IN ASTHANA’S CASE
AND SO FAR HE HAD BEEN PUBLISHING HE HAD HAD DISCUSSIONS FOR SO MANY HOURS ON
SO MANY DAYS THE CASE WITH HIS ADVOCATE BUT NONE OF THEM ARE READY TO COME AND
DISCUSS. THIS IS ONLY AN ALIBI SOMEHOW TO BLAME ME. HE WANTS TO KNOW MY
ARGUMENTS AND MAKE COMMENTS AGAINST US. WHEN ALL HIS EFFORTS HAVE FAILED
NATURALLY FRUSTRATION PREVAILS. OTHERWISE NOBODY CAN GUARANTEE THE FUTURE BUT
CAN PUT HIS BEST POSSIBLE EFFORTS AND THAT I AM DOING.
THANKS FOR BEARING WITH ME FROM
THE TIME THESE BLACK CLOUDS HAVE APPEARED AND NOW THAT I AM TRYING TO CLARIFY
THE MATTER TO WHICH I AM NOT BOUND.
KML ASTHANA
