Dear Shri Hegde,
I request you to please don’t be
misguided by the uvaach of our great MSM. All this is nothing but his
face saving act to cover up the damage done by him to the cause of the
pensioners at least in Chandigarh. He has given an excuse to LIC for not
complying with the order of 7/5/2015. He has not so far been able to give any
justification for contesting the said application in a very bold manner and
then celebrating the same. This was an achievement that in a hurry as the
SC was at that time had granted at least 20% amount by way of interim relief.
He has not been able to explain as
to why I should have opposed withdrawal in Raj HC and commit the same folly as
he has done there. Moreover I have let LIC an occasion to aggravate the
contempt which is already increasing on day to day basis and finalise the same
when it makes the payment. MSM has still not been able to understand the
difference between his case and my case. His all the pensioners are pre-1997 while
in my case there are some post-1997 pensioners.
He has also not been able to
understand the implications of the judgment of Jaipur and Chandigarh
judgment. Jpr judgment includes revision of pensions also and is also
applicable to all the pensioners at large. It is not necessary that the
words in rem be used or not, Jaipur judgment uses the word ‘pensioners’
and not ‘petitioners’ and now when the judgment will be delivered by SC their
jurisdiction will be applicable to whole of the country. But it suits him
to conceal this so that his lack of knowledge can be covered up.
At least KML is interested and is
fighting for 40000 pensioners while he is restricted to pre-1997 pensioners
only. Unless one understands the implications of the verdict of the
judgment one cannot proceed correctly which requires legal acumen.
MSM had raised the issue that AIRIEF
should make an application for its impleadment but has not been able to explain
the reason just to delay. After forming an association he had made an
application for impleadment, what had happened to that? Moreover the purpose of
such a move is nothing but dwelling in ignorant’s paradise.
I have been keeping quite so far but
my silence is being taken as my weakness. He has always been depicting
his acts beyond legal conception and lack of knowledge and always whatever such
suggestions he had made have proved to be against the provisions of law and now
when he utterly failed to convince the pensioners of his act against their
interests, he has no other way except to hurl allegations against me.
It is only the time will tell as to
how I will act when the payment is made but at least it is clear that he is
happy with the closure of ways of payment of at least that amount to Chandigarh
pensioners.
I am fighting my case for the
benefit of the pensioners and I have succeeded while he is fighting the case
for the benefit of the other party and the explanation should be taken in that
manner. Incase his interest are the benefit of pensioners he should come
out clearly and correlate his activities with me instead of making it a
personal fight with me. He cannot subdue me by such acts.
Both of them do not know that the
Chandigarh writ is my origin, I and Mr ML Gandhi had worked together, I had drafted
the writ and was approved by his Advocate. I was associated with the
trial of the writ upto the last date.
He knows only hurling remarks
unwontedly on others for his mistakes done deliberately to assist the other
side. His subordinate has been hurling financial remarks against me. But
he is unable to give reply to the fact that since 1998 I have been fighting of
myself and even till now I have not claimed any expenditure on the litigation
at Jaipur which took five rounds. Will he reimburse the same. The remarks are
against the GS since all the payments at the SC have been made by the GS
directly. It will not be that I have to seek reimbursement of expenses
incurred by me because it has gone beyond my competence and resources. He
is harping because he has not been given money to share in between. While my
Advocate had made mentions and took dates his Advocate is said to have claimed
Rs. 50000 for the mention which had already been done and when it was not
allowed to be paid he has become so frustrated that he has waged a personal war
against me forgetting that this amounts to defamation a criminal and civil
both.
KML
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM,
LAKKAPRAGADA SIVARAMAKRISHNA RAO <lakkapragada_rao@yahoo.com>
wrote:
As expected Shri Srinivasa Murty and Shri B. R.Mehta were quick
in their responses to my comments on Chandigarh High Court Contempt Case,
hurling abuses not only at me but also against Mr. Asthana and the AIRIEF.
Whereas Mr. Murty's utterings `Mr. Hegde's calibre to evaluate the implications
of the Chandigarh developments...' and uninformed comments of the half baked
lawyers..' etc. show his arrogance and unrealistic assessments of his abilities
as lawyer, Mr. Mehta's statements are full of untruths about seeking demand
from AIRIEF for refund of donations made by the Panchkula unit towards Legal
Fund and Mr. Asthana not contributing a single Rupee for the Legal Fund, and
AIRIEF taking financial care of the Chadigarh case in Supreme Court. AIRIEF
Treasurer should immediately clarify whether Mr. Mehta's assertion is true or
what he said in the General Body meeting of Udupi LIC Pensioners Association is
right.
Mr. Murty has posed some questions about implications of the
withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited in the Courts by LIC letting loose
his imagination on what will happen in consequence. Mr. Murty's knowlege of law
is very very limited as he has never practiced law in any Court in his life.
Being R.M.(Legal) he might have read the notes prepared by his staff and
Officers in the Legal Dept. with regard to Consumer Forum cases and Mortgage
cases and he had little opportunity of a deep insight into law related to
Service matters. It is very vast subject and it is better to seek counsel from
experts in the matter than asserting opinions based on views and suggestion expressed
in the columns of Pensioners Chronicle. Mr. Murthy has passed bitter comments
without really knowing what had happened in the Jaipur High Court when LICs
application for withdrawal of deposit made in the Court but has gone to the
extent of commenting that Mr. Asthana could rest happily receiving the sum of
Rs. 8000 and odd as interim relief. Did Mr. Asthana tell him what he will do if
LIC offer to pay him the said amount?
I feel that Mr. Murty and Mr. Asthana (or their lawyers) erred
in not utilising the opportunity offered on the occasion of hearing of the
LIC's application for withdrawal to emphasise that there are more than 40,000
pensioners, who also deserve to be compensated and the amount of compensation
ordered by S. C. on 7-5-2015 should be correctly calculated before such payment
is made. In that situation decision on LICs application would have been
indefinitely deferred, with the Courts noticing that there are other similarly
aggrieved people.
B. S. Hegde
