COMMENTS OF MR VENUGOPALAN

24/7/15

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 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 7^th 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 “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 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, 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 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

28/7/2015

Mr. Venugopalan,

I had written the earlier messages but then thought to withhold to see the proceedings today.

Now have u seen that Asthana was not hiding but he is acting in the right direction.  He is not interested in fake publicity. 
What I had said the same thing happened the case has been adjourned to October because no HC can take the overriding SC. 
But one thing people have failed to understand the direct effect of withdrawal of the

application for permission to withdraw 20%. LIC must be happy with the objection raised from our side, because it will close the door of  payment of a single pie what to say 20% on the reason that the Petitioners themselves have not allowed us to withdraw the money

how we could make payment.
That is why patience is required and one should act within the limits of the law and procedure. Is it not correct?

Now you may judge whether the direction was right or wrong?

Anyway God bless them and give them a failure in their efforts to create hurdle in smooth progress of litigation by AIRIEF through Asthana, nor Mr. Murthy expect that Asthana will do as per his desires without judging the pros and cons. 
My Murthy is a mentor and guide and conducting the proceedings for Chandigarh why he does not take action what he is suggesting for all.  He has not so far been able to understand the implications of the verdict of P&H HC, which contains neither revision nor interest.

Mere saying sinking the differences will not serve the purpose, I am and have been ready but he never came forward for the same.

Can Mr. Mehta tell why this deliberate act to oppose the application of LIC to withdraw the amount and block the way of payment, if at all?

No further unwanted comments please in my name.

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana

A step in the Right Direction‏

Dear Editor,

Shri. Murty deserves our congratulations 

for the  manner in which he handled  the

hearing in the Punjab and Haryana HC.

We can, perhaps, call it  a step in the

right direction and a value addition to our

case to be re-opened before the Apex court

in September. 

The order,  in effect,  can be viewed as  a certain blow to LIC  in the sense that if they had any dubious intention of dumping the 20% amount already  deposited on the pensioners, regardless of whether it was the correct one, it  was defeated.  As a consequence, the question now would  be whether the amount  correctly arrived at (according to us)  will be acceptable to LIC or a contention in this regard by them cannot be ruled out. Unfortunately, if they question our  figures  and build up a case to argue  that  it is totally flawed, do we have plans or any strategy to disprove  them lock, stock and barrel! In the event of such an eventuality, wouldn't  LIC get an opportunity to  convince the court that all their attempts to pay the 20% of the arrears have been frustrated by the petitioners and , therefore, there is no contempt of  the interim SC  Order.  The H.C Order only says that the application has been treated as withdrawn for the reason that the petitioners claim that the actual amount  to be deposited by LIC is  way off from what they have now deposited.

The words ‘enhancement of pension’ and  the mention in the P&H H.C Order, “ it is a matter pertaining to the pensionary  benefits of the retired employees...” have been presumably  taken to mean that the order  speaks  about both the arrears of DR and upgradation of pension.  When it is as clear as the day that the SC Order of 7th of May  was not a speaking order and loaded with ambiguities, how based on the above pieces we can come to the conclusion that both the orders  refer to arrears of DR and arrears arising out of upgradation of pension? Shri.Murty has mentioned in his write-up that  this will become clear once  LIC  rushes to SC for clarification of the 7th May Order. He has further added,  let us “sink our differences and fight together for proper interpretation and implementation of the interim order 2015”.  

Then, the discrepancy between our  estimate and that of the LIC. Shri.Murty wants Shri.Asthana also to  pinpoint  this  when LIC makes a similar application to the Jaipur H.C. Shri.Asthana has narrated as to how this was already done during the hearing on 7th May and  also has claimed that the 20% interim relief  has emerged as a result of the  special request made by his counsels. We all know that the ideal solution would be for all the three case handlers to sit together and arrive at a consensus  as far as the amount to be claimed in respect of all the pensioners. Imagine a situation, whereShri.Murty and his associates  claim some amount, Shri Asthana settles down for another and Shri.Sridharan for  a totally different DR arrears estimate. Will not such a situation call for a more serious legal intervention?  This is a tricky area where unless we are extremely prudent circumspect, LIC is bound to take undue advantage, especially  in further dragging on the case.

Having said so much, thanks to THE CHRONICLE, it could bring Shri.Asthana out of his hiding. That he has decided to speak out his mind ,through the columns of the Chronicle is a welcome development. Let it not be a “One Off”; let him present whatever he wants to regularly, through the pages of The Chronicle. Probably, there are signs that  the Captains of all the three Camps are willing to come closer  and take both the LIC and the GOI upfront.  This is what I would like to call a major Step in the right direction.

I was on cloud nine when I read that the 20% of the arrears, if both DR and upgradation are taken together would be 600 crores for 40000 pensioners or in other words, Rs.1,50,000 for each. If my arithmatics is not wrong, 100% of it per pensioner would be Rs.7,50,000. I did’nt want to question the methodology of how these figures were arrived at. At least till 23rd  of September, let me have the luxury of being at the top of the world!

With warm Regards,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN