IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE

DEAR ALL,

I reproduce the post of  Mr M Sreenivasa Murty in the LIC Pensioners' Chronicle published  a short while ago.

Is LIC Counsel  raising the prayer  for adjournment to escape a review  of their compliance with the SC Orders dt 7/5/2015 & 7/9/2015 for reasons best known to them?

The Hon'ble Justice Misra  has rightly reminded the LIC Counsel of the priority of SC Orders' compliance over any move for adjournment.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

"M Sreenivasa Murty

 Dear Editor,

OUR CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT –

FACTS BEING MISREPRESENTED

In continuation of my Post this afternoon on what happened in SC today, I wish to confirm that AFTER LIC's request for adjournment was turned down with a direction to raise it when the matters are taken up as per the Cause List, the Bench (Justice Dipak Misra) has put LIC on Notice that its compliance of the interim directions to pay 20% would be reviewed at that time. The Advocate representing Chandigarh Petitioners who was present has not herself raised it today, as it was not the issue before the Court. Can’t the issue be fresh in Judge’s mind as it was already raised by us in the mention exercise on 23rd? 

It was a double jeopardy for LIC - its request for adjournment rejected and also told to report compliance on 20% payment.     

In this background, what a skewed reporting of even a favourable development? Why was Mr KML Asthana feel rattled so much?  

Who said a review on compliance of 20% payment order delays final hearing? BTW, since when Mr KML Asthana became the champion of early Final Hearing? Was he not on record from April 2014 onwards that the Final Hearing was nowhere in sight in spite of SC Order on GNS IA to post all Appeals for Final hearing? With his own absurd arguments like Notices not yet served on LRs, Final Hearing is not for the CAs but it is on his IAs etc.,? They say public memory is short; Is Mr KML Asthana's memory also that short? Today he questions our efforts and asks 'don't they want final hearing?' For his information our preparation for the Final hearing is much more serious and professional if he has not cared to notice the Additional documents we filed (served on his Counsel also) as listed in the 2^nd Supplementary Cause List for 29 Sept (Extract reproduced below)

REGULAR HEARING MATTERS --

 [ 101 - 120 ITEM Nos. 101 - 120 SHOWN BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY LIST FOR29.09.2015 ISSUED ON 26.09.2015]

NOTE: I.A.NO.7 (APPLN.(S) FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS) MAY BE TREATED TO HAVE BEEN LISTED ALONGWITH C.A.NO.6995/2013.

***WHICH IS CONNECTED
WITH ITEM NO.105 I.E. C.A.NO.8959-8962/2013 ETC.

Please accept that our efforts to expose LIC’s contemptuous non-compliance on 20% payment are paying dividends. It is my firm conviction that SC’s directions to pay 20% was applicable to ALL LIC Pensioners but not on ‘pick & choose’ basis. That the payment shall include up-gradation also. If on a review of LIC’s (non) compliance so far, SC were to clarify its Order and direct LIC clearly on the lines our IA No 6 of 2015 prayed, is it to be welcomed or should it cause any heart-burn to anybody? In the event of no such directions coming and the issue gets linked to final disposal by the SC itself, we are where we are now and certainly NOT WORSE OFF. What is Mr KML’s problem? That his ‘strategic inaction’ when action is called for, would get exposed?

If what to pay and whom to pay is not clarified to our advantage now, how are we in a stronger position on those things later?  

PS: There is some chance (very remote though) of the matters reaching on Tuesday (29^th) itself. I will be attending the proceedings on 29^th & 30^th Sept.  "    
***  ADDED BY "PENSIONERS VOICE & SOUND TRACK"