Supreme Court Updates

THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED

AMENDED CAUSE TITLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR

***

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010

in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2010

***

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 71 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lal Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302006

Petitioner

Versus

1. Shri T.S. Vijayan, Managing Director (ex-Chairman) Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima marg, Mumbai-400 021

2. Shri A.K. Das Gupta, Managing Director, Life insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Margm Mumbai-400 021

3. Mr.s D. Vijailakshmi, Executive Director (P), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

4. Shri Rakesh Singh, I.A.S., Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Yogakshema, Jeevan Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021

Respondents

***

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 760/2010

30.8.2013

Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Chauhan

Mr. Abhinav Sharma, for petitioner

Mr. Mahendra Singh, for respondents

The learned counsel for petitioner informed this Court that Application no. 89/2013 has become infructuous. Therefore, the said application is hereby dismissed, having become infructuous.

An application has been filed for impleading new contemners and for taking them or record. According to the applicant, Mr. D.K. Mehrotra has retired as Chairman, and in his place Mr. S.K. Roy has taken over the post of Chairman, LIC Mr. A.K. Dasgupta, who was earlier the Managing Director, he has now retired. His post has now been taken over by Mr. Sushobhan Sarkar. Likewise, Mr. B. Manivannan, who was earlier Executive Director (P), he too has retired from the said post. The present incumbent happens to be Mr. M.R. Kumar. Therefore, Mr. Sushobhan Sarkar, Mr. M.R. Kumar and Mr. S.K. Roy, need to be taken on as new contemnor-respondents.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is hereby allowed. Since the amended cause-title has already been filed, the same shall be on record.

Issue notice to newly added contemner-respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8, to show cause as to why this Contempt Petition should not be allowed for their willful disobedience of the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by this Court. Notices be given “dasti” to the learned counsel for petitioner. Rule is made returnable within two weeks.

List this case after two weeks.

(R.S. Chauhan) J.

Note:

This is the order passed on 30/8/2013. Now this will be sent to the Central Office through official process and will be served through the District Judge, Mumbai.

KML Asthana

ITEM NO.13               COURT NO.2             SECTION IVB

            S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A

                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2013

                                          CC 11603/2013

(From the judgement and order  dated 09/11/2012 in CWP No.16346/2010 of  The

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

 LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA & ORS.              Petitioner(s)

                 VERSUS

MADAN LAL GANDHI (D) THR. LR. & ORS.              Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for c/delay in filing SLP,c/delay in refiling SLP and  office

report)

Date: 19/08/2013  This Petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA

For Petitioner(s)        Mr. Ashok Panigrahi,Adv.

For Respondent(s)

           UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

         O R D E R

                 Delay condoned.

                 Leave granted.

                 The prayer for interim relief is rejected.

      |(Parveen Kr.Chawla)                    | |(Phoolan Wati Arora)                  |

|Court Master                           | |Court Master                          

ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.2 SECTION XV

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IA 12-13/2013 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No(s).29956-29957/2011 (From the judgement and order dated 19/08/2011 in DBSANo.493/2010, DBSA No.494/2010,DBCRP No.86/2011,DBCRP No.87/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

L.I.C. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS.ETC. Respondent(s)

(for substitution and dismissal of SLP and seeking permission to file additional documents and with prayer for interim relief and office report )

Date:08/08/2013These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.

Mr. R.K.Singh,Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant invited our attention to judgment dated 8.4.2013 passed by a co- ordinate Bench in S.L.P.(C) No. 4616 of 2010 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi and argued that the special leave petitions are liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has not

challenged the judgment of the High Court whereby the special appeals were dismissed.

He also relied upon the judgment in DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others (2012) 6 SCC 782 in support of this argument.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner-Life Insurance Corporation submitted that the defect pointed out by learned senior counsel for the applicant is purely technical and this should not be made a ground to deny substantive relief to the petitioner. He relied upon the judgments in Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another (2000) 6 SCC 359 and Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295 and argued that once the petitions filed for review of the main judgment were dismissed, the same stood automatically merged in the review order and the petitioner's failure to challenge the same is inconsequential.

In our view, in the absence of challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court vide which the special appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed, the special leave petitions filed against the order passed in the review petitions do not merit acceptance, more so, because the learned senior counsel for the petitioner could not show that the order under challenge is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record.

With the above observations, I.A.Nos.12-13 of 2013 are allowed and the special leave petitions are dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court stands automatically vacated.

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the SLP petitioner from filing special leave petitions against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court by which the special appeals were dismissed. It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the SLP petitioner to claim condonation of delay as a matter of right and the application, if any, filed for this purpose will be decided on its own merits.

|(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) |

|Court Master | |Court Master |

| | |

ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.3 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A.Nos.7-8 In Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29956-

29957/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 19/08/2011 in DBSA No.493/2010,DBSA

No.494/2010,DBCRP No.86/2011,DBCRP No.87/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF

RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

L.I.C. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)

(For directions and with prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 15/04/2013 These I.As were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE

For Petitioner(s) Dr.A.M.Singhvi, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr.Adv.

Dr.Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

Mr.Raj Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In our view, no case is made out for issuing any further direction to the petitioner in the matter of deposit of the amount in terms of the initial order passed by the Court.

The applications are accordingly dismissed.

(Satish K.Yadav) (Phoolan Wati Arora)

Court Master Court Master

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. Nos. 7 – 8 OF 2013

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION © NOs. 29956-29957/2011

***

IN THE MATTER OF:

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana

Applicant/Respondent No. 1

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India

and others Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors Respondents

***

REJOINDER TO REPLY TO APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION

I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 74 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lalji Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, at present at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

1. That I am the Applicant/Respondent in the above application and as such I am well conversant with the facts of the case.

2. That before adverting to the reply to the Preliminary Objections and parawise reply to the Application I crave indulgence and leave of this Hon’ble Court to submit that during the course of discussions on 15^th March, 2013 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to seek clarification from the Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner (LIC) to clarify as to whether any amount was deposited in pursuance of its order dated 17/10/2012 in the matter of revision of pensions and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct to submit the reply to the Application within two weeks and to put up after three weeks. But the Petitioner (LIC) did not submit the reply within the period, which expired on 29/3/2013 and since there were holidays on re-opening of the Court on 1/4/2013. This shows that the Petitioner (LIC) has no respect to the orders of this Hon’ble Court.

3. That the Petitioner (LIC), as in the past time and again been doing, has not furnished the reply to the specific query of this Hon’ble Court and are trying to mislead the Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court was very specific as to whether any money had been deposited in the matter of revision of pensions, which is the subject matter of the Contempt petition filed in the Writ Petition No. 654/2007 and the stay order had also been clarified to “from the date of retirement” and “the amount of eligible retirement benefits”. This meant that the amount due on account of revision of pensions as and when new Pay scales came to be substituted. The example given by the Petitioner (LIC) shows that it contends that it had revised the pension for the month of October 2012 to Rs. 6663/- while as per the judgment in writ petition this should have been Rs. 17,230=00 plus other ingredients accountable for pension and Dearness Relief. Thus it is not admitting that the compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court had deliberately not been made, but are trying to make deliberate and intentional misrepresentation before this Hon’ble Court.

4. That the Preliminary Objections again show that whatever may be the verdict the Petitioner (LIC) is not going to comply with the same for one reason or the other coined by them for their own purpose.

5. It is submitted that the I.A. under consideration had to be filed on account of the Petitioner (LIC) not complying with the judgments and orders and the High Court not taking any action. The statements made in the Preliminary submissions have already been decided not only by Rajasthan High Court on three occasions but also by Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court in the matters of LIC Pensioners wherein they have affirmed the judgment of Rajasthan High Court. But still the Petitioner (LIC) is harping on the same issue.

6. That Para ‘A’ of the Preliminary Objections shows mis-statement on their part. IA No. 3 had to be moved when the Chairman, Managing Director and Executive Director (P) had shown their ignorance as to what the term ‘AMOUNT DUE TO EMPLOYEES” used by this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 14.11.201 mean. This IA was an outcome of their own act. The sum of Rs. 1500/- crore plus 100 crore was also given by the Applicant-Respondent as was asked by this Hon’ble Court on the basis of the estimation which the LIC avoided to give inspite of the fact that all the data was with them.

7. That on account of the above this Hon’ble Court had to pass clarificatory order on 17/10/2012. In this order again this Hon’ble Court was pleased to stay the operation of the judgment in contempt petition subject to the Petitioner (LIC) depositing the AMOUNT DUE TO THE PENSIONERS I.E. WRIT PETITIONERS” from the ‘DATE OF THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO GET RETIRAL BENEFITS”. Again the Petitioner (LIC) played the same game and deposited a namesake amount, which does not at all conform to the verdict as has been submitted in the present I.A.

8. In regard to paras ‘B’ while the reproduction of the prayer in the earlier writ petition is admitted except that the Petitioner is seeking more than what has been granted. In this connection it is submitted that-

i) this is not the issue which has to be decided at this stage, here the question is non-compliance of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 wherein the High Court had after reproducing the prayer in this case and discussing the whole law on this subject allowed the writ petition with the direction that “there cannot be discrimination amongst the pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement.” This means that revisions of pensions have been directed to be done as and when substituted pay scales came into effect. This cannot be clubbed with the Board’s decision dated 24/11/2001.

ii) The judgment dated 12/1/2010 as affirmed by the Division Bench both in special appeal and review petition and also by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

iii) In contempt proceedings the validity or otherwise of the judgment cannot be gone into by the executing Court.

iv) That the question of prospectivity of the implementation of the Board’s Resolution was also examined. While it was stated at bar on behalf of the Central Government that the Board is competent to take its decision and there was no requirement of approval of the Board’s decision. Not only this the Division Bench has also given umbrella to the Petitioner to LIC to implement the Board’s decision. Yet in order not to give benefit to the Pensioners the LIC is persisting on this ground while it is not its concern but if at all it is the concern of the Central Government which has never objected to the said commitment given before the Court. It is further submitted that prospectivity has some limit but in the instant case it is made unlimited by the Petitioner. They cannot take advantage for want of such a provision in the Section 48 as has been reproduced in this reply itself.

v) That from the contents of the reply it is clear that the Petitioner (LIC) that it has no respect to the judgments of the Courts since according to it the Central Government is above the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such they are not complying with the judgments.

vi) This Hon’ble Court did not grant any stay in the earlier S.L.P. except till decision of the review petition and the High Court by specific order rejected the stay application. Thus there was no stay.

vii) On 14/11/2011 this Hon’ble Court had given only conditional stay subject to deposit of AMOUNT DUE TO EMPLOYEES. This amount can be only as per the judgments of the High Court (both Single Bench and Division Bench) but still the Petitioner (LIC) acted in such a manner as if there was no direction against them.

viii) Then this Hon’ble Court further clarified its order dated 14/11/2011 by order dated 17/10/2012 when it clarified the earlier order to the effect “AMOUNT DUE TO THE PENSIONERS I.E. THE WRIT PETITIONERS” with effect FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ELIGIBILITY TO GET RETIRAL BENEFITS”. But the Petitioner (LIC) still continued their contemptuous act and did not deposit the correct amount. Detailed submissions in this regard are given in the I.A.

ix) It is incorrect to say in para ‘I’ that the application of the Petitioner is premises on Central Government employees’ pension, no where the Central Government rules have been relied upon by the Petitioners in their writ petition. What they prayed for is to fix the pay of the pensioners in the substituted pay scales from the date they come into effect in the same manner as is done in the case of in-service employees and fix pension at 50% thereof. Rest of the contents of para ‘I’ are totally false and incorrect. For purposes of revision/updation/upgrading of pension all the pensioners who retired on or after 1/1/1986, the date from which the Pension Rules have been made applicable, are to be given benefit of revision of pensions as in the year 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2007 and future dates whenever revised pay scales come to be substituted.

x) The contention of the Petitioner (LIC) in para ‘I’ in the second para on page 62, it is most respectfully submitted, affirms that in their view the Central Government is over and above the Courts and this act amounts to contempt of this Hon’ble Court as well as the High Court and in one manner denial of their existence. What matters to them is the Central Government and the verdict of the Court has no meaning.

xi) It is submitted that the question of Sections 21 and 48 has been duly concerned. Section 21 deals with matters of POLICY INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST. This has no relevance to the present case since it is not a matter concerning Policy involving public interest. It is worth submitting that the Petitioner (LIC) is itself violating the National Litigation Policy which is a matter of public interest, similarly, it is misusing the policyholders’ money in an indiscriminate manner of which they are the trustees, no directions in this regard have been obtained from the Central Government.

xii) It is further submitted that the matter of revision of pensions is not at all concerned with Section 48 rather it is already provided in Rule 55 of the Pension Rules and the Chairman has always been revising the pensions in exercise of his powers under Rule 55 of the Pension Rules. In this connection a copy of the Circular issued by the Chairman in exercise of his powers as vested in Rule 55 of the Pension Rules is submitted herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court and marked ANNEXURE . Besides, a perusal of the Sections 48 and 49 of the LIC Act would reveal that there is no prohibition on revision of pensions. Therefore the whole contention of the Respondents is false and frivolous. These Sections in no manner apply to the case of the Pensioners.

xiii) It is further submitted that the Notifications providing for substituting new pay scales from particular dates are applicable to employees and since the Petitioners are also employees as per the Pension Rules, those substituted pay scales automatically come to be affected to them from the date such substituted pay scales comes to be substituted at the rate of 50% thereof. The “employees” cannot be distinguished on account of whether they are in service or have retired in absence of any such provision in the Notifications. For this reason also neither further approval of the Central Government nor Notification is required to be issued nor have ever been issued and the Chairman in exercise of Rule 55 has implemented the same but arbitrarily and deliberately excluded the employees getting pension.

REJOINDER TO PARAWISE REPLY ON MERITS:

1. That the contents of para 1 of the reply are denied. The very reason for moving the application has been mentioned in this para. It is because of the order of the High Court that the Applicant has to move this application. For this the Petitioner (LIC) is also responsible.

2. That the contents of para 2 of the reply are denied. This has been considered and decided not only by the Single Judge but by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and then by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court. The downloaded copies of these two later judgments are submitted for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court (ANNEXURES____). Since the SLP of the Petitioner (LIC) has not been admitted by this Hon’ble Court and since the conditional stay has not been honoured this question cannot be raised and that too at the stage of Contempt.

That in this para the Petitioner has reproduced the contents of some affidavit filed by the Central Government, but the Petitioner (LIC) has deliberately withheld the Rejoinder filed on behalf of the Respondents.

Furthermore, when Central Government gave its consent some contrary view expressed in other proceedings cannot be taken into consideration more particularly when that writ petition is still not decided, while the proceedings in the present SLPs have already been decided and at no stage the Central Government has inspite of notice come.

There is no concern between the Banks and the Insurance or between one institution with other and on this basis the fundamental rights of a person cannot be curtailed. Even otherwise there is a vast difference between Banking sector and insurance sector.

As regards modification of the Pension rules it is concerned that the judgments in the present case as referred to above have to be applied on the principle of “reading down” and those provisions have come to be amended automatically in consonance of the various judgments.

3. That the contents of para 3 of the reply are denied. In the present case the Board Resolution does not come into picture since it is a matter of revision of pensions simplicitor as and when the new pay scales came to be substituted and the matter of DR is subject matter of another writ petition No. 6696/1998 therefore, this contention is not sustainable. However, it is submitted that the Petitioner is trying to avoid revision of pensions and giving the shape of DR and with this aim in view when Allahabad High Court wanted it to submit details of the cases pending in various High Courts the Petitioner (LIC) submitted the list of cases branding all of them to be concerning DR irrespective of whether they concern DR or revision even distantly. In this connection the applicant is submitting the list of cases submitted by the Petitioner (LIC) in Allahabad High Court along with subject matter of such cases in another sheet. Since the matter in question before Allahabad High Court is strictly and solely with regard to revision of pension and verbatim the same as that of Writ Petition No. 654/2007 in Rajasthan High Court and for this they cannot mislead any court.

As regards conditional stay granted by this Hon’ble Court twice it is submitted that on both the occasions the Petitioner (LIC) has not played fairly and misused the same, therefore they are not entitled to any further latitude, rather action deserves to be taken for appearing before the Hon’ble Court with unclean hands knowingly and deliberately to mislead the Court.

The other contentions with regard to I.A. No. 3 of 2012 and the direction given are totally false as submitted herein above.

4. That the contents of para 4 of the reply are also denied being deliberate wrong statements on the part of the Petitioner (LIC). It is clear and admitted that the proceedings have been stayed in the Contempt petition No. 760/2010 and the same was in respect of revision of pension therefore, the stay was in that respect of revision of pensions only but deliberately the Petitioner (LIC) is giving the shape of DR, in respect of which no contempt petition has been filed requiring any stay. The contention of the Petitioner in this para and in the whole of the reply is thus proved to be false and deliberate mis-statement.

Furthermore the revision has also not been made properly since the Board had resolved to upgrade the pension with addition of 11.25% on the total amount of DR and basic pension as it comes on 1/8/1997. This amount of 11.25% has not been added.

Furthermore, while depositing the said amount further revisions have not been taken into consideration with the result the amount of seven pensioners has not been deposited.

The amount in respect of those Petitioners for whom the amount deposited has not been deposited from the date of retirement, which means neutralization of Dearness Relief has not been done from the date of retirement as was directed by this Hon’ble Court. As submitted above the calculation given is wholly incorrect. As on the end of the month of October the pension of the Applicant on the basis of which the amount should have been deposited comes to Rs. Rs. 17,230=00 plus other ingredients accountable for pension and Dearness Relief and the difference should have been from 1/8/1997 accordingly.

5. That the contents of para 5 of the reply need no reply, the contents of this para in the application and submissions made in this regard in the preceding paragraphs are reiterated.

6. That the contents of para 6 of the reply are denied, when the Petitioner is playing a game of hide and seek and mis-statements before the Courts they are not entitled to make any objection when the Applicant has submitted the actual position as is depicted from the order itself.

7. That the contents of para 6 repeat are reiterated. The Applicant has submitted the correct position.

8. That the contents of para 7 of the reply are denied again being a wrong statement persisted by the Petitioner (LIC). It cannot be said that the Petitioner is not able to decipher as to in what respect the contempt petition has been filed. The Board Resolution has no concern with the contempt petition.

It is incorrect to say that in respect of the five petitioners no amount of difference is payable. Does the Petitioner say that in respect of them the judgment of the High Court had no meaning. This shows non-compliance of the conditional stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court confirming non-compliance of the stay order.

9. That the contents of para 9 of the reply are totally false. The Counsel cannot be expected to give an undertaking without instructions. He was acting for and under the instructions of the client and it is binding on the client as the power has been given in the Vakalatnama. But the undertaking is binding on the client. This is a ‘U’ turn taken as always.

10. That the contents of para 9 of the reply are denied being false. The compliance was to be made of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17/10/2012 in order to avail the stay order and that was to deposit the amount due to writ petitioners from the date of retirement and in this case the Board Resolution has nothing to do. This is again a mis-statement on the part of the Petitioner and hence denied.

11. That the contents of para 10 of the reply are denied being wholly wrong. It is further submitted that the graded rates as were mentioned in Appendix IV of the Pension Rules were not the correct rate and as such the same be treated to have been read down. It is thus admitted by the Petitioner that while calculating the rate of Dearness Relief has not correctly been applied while calculating the arrears. This further shows that at no stage the Petitioner has admittedly made compliance of any judgment yet they are making false statements before this Hon’ble Court.

12. That the contents of para 11 of the application are reiterated.

13. That the contents of para 12 of the reply are denied. The amount as directed by this Hon’ble Court dated 17/10/2012 was not deposited as per the submissions made above and as such there was no stay on the proceedings in Contempt petition and the High Court ought to have proceeded to seek compliance of the judgment done.

A. That the contents of sub para (A) of the reply again makes it clear that inspite of the judgments the Petitioner is not ready to comply with the same and for this purpose they have coined a new concept other than the one as has been directed by this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court has directed for deposit of ELIGIBLE RETIRAL BENEFIT from the DATE OF RETIREMENT and not “with effect from the date of eligibility to get retiral benefits”. Furthermore, when the Petitioner (LIC) says that it had neutralized the D.A. formula as per the judgment then it had to deposit the difference of D.R. also into account, which admittedly it did not do. Even the compliance of the Board Resolution has not been made which says about neutralization of DR to 100% and then updation of pension with weightage of 11.25%.

B. That the contents of sub para (B) are denied as stated and those in the application are reiterated.

C) That the contents of sub para (C) of the reply are denied and what is mentioned in the application are reiterated.

D) That the contents of sub para (D) of the reply means undermining the authority of the Courts. Central or State Governments are amenable to the directions of the Courts and in case the contention of the Petitioner is accepted Articles 34 and 226 of the Constitution will eliminate.

15. That the contents of para 15 of the application are reiterated.

16. That the contents of para 16 of the application are reiterated. Even now the Petitioner has not submitted the statement showing the monthwise calculation of difference for ulterior reasons.

17. That the contents of paras 17 and 18 of the application have been admitted by the Petitioner since what they have not been able to show that on any date the contemners have appeared or filed their reply before the High Court.

18. That the contents of para 19 of the application be deemed to be admitted in absence of denial.

19. That the application under the circumstances deserves to be allowed and this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to award the reliefs as prayed for.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of my aforesaid rejoinder affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.3 SECTION XV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IA 7-8/2013 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).29956-29957/2011

(From the judgement and order dated 19/08/2011 in DBSA No.493/2010,DBSA No.494/2010,DBCRP No.86/2011,DBCRP No.87/2011 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

L.I.C. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA & ORS. ETC. Respondent(s)

(for directions and prayer for interim relief and office report ))

Date: 15/03/2013 These IAs in Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi,Adv.

Mr. Surajit Bhaduri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Sr.Adv.

(applicant) Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Issue notice.

Reply to the applications be filed within two weeks.

List after three weeks.

|(Parveen Kr.Chawla) | |(Phoolan Wati Arora) |

|Court Master | |Court Master

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. NO. _________ OF 2013

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 29956-29957/2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors Applicants/Respondents

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and Ors. Respondents

APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION

PAPER BOOK

(FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL

APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

INDEX

S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES

1. An Application for Direction with affidavit

2. ANNEXURE A/1

True copy of the order dated 17/10/2012 of this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) 29956-29957 of 2011.

3. ANNEXURE A/2

True copy of the order dated 14/11/2011 of this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) 29956-29957 of 2011.

4. ANNEXURE A/3(Colly)

True copy of the said letters dated 20/11/2012 Submitted by the Applicants/Respondents to the Managing Director, L.I.C of India.

5. ANNEXURE A/4

True copy of the application as filed by the Petitioners (L.I.C) along with cheque and statement, before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, dated 07.12.2012.

6. ANNEXURE A/5

True copy of the said application in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, dated 17/12/2012 before High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.

7. ANNEXURE A/6

True copy of the application for enforcement for the judgment in S.B.

Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, dated January 2013.

8. ANNEXURE A/7

True copy of the Order in Single Bench Contempt Petition No. 760/ 2010 in Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, dated 15.01.2013.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. NO. _________ OF 2013

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 29956-29957/2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors Applicants/Respondents

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and Ors. Respondents

APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION

JUDGES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE APPLICATION OF THE

RESPONDENTS HEREIN

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the Applicant/Respondent most respectfully begs to be pardoned for encroaching upon valuable time of this Hon’ble Court on account of unwanted and uncalled for order of the Rajasthan High Court directing the Applicant/Respondent to file contempt petition before this Hon’ble Court though no cause of action has arisen for the same and date of order has also been given the contempt of which is said to have been committed.

2. That the Applicant/Respondent had in the year 1998 filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6696 of 1998 for the relief of payment of Dearness Relief at the appropriate rate of 50% as is paid to the in-service employees. Subsequently, a dispute arose with regard to revision of pensions as and when the Petitioners (L.I.C) has revised the pay scales of in-service employees and those who retired on or after the various particular dates to the exclusion of those who retired prior to that date thereby creating several classes of Pensioners amongst the homogenous class of Pensioners which is in breach of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and their right to life with dignity. Therefore the Applicant/ Respondent along with 26 Applicant/ Respondents had filed another writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 for revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. Both the writ petitions were heard and allowed by the learned Single Judge, vide his common judgment dated 12/01/2010, (In page no. 47 to 68 in SLP paper books) the Special Appeal filed against this order was dismissed and similarly, Review petition was also dismissed by the Division Bench and the S.L.P. against the judgment in Special Appeal was also disposed of by this Hon’ble Court at the admission stage itself. After dismissal of the Review Petition the Petitioners have filed the above captioned S.L.Ps.

3. That since the Petitioners (L.I.C) did not make compliance of the judgment in the aforesaid two writ petitions, the Applicant/Respondent had filed S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 in the 2^nd writ petition No. 654 of 2007 which was in the matter of revision of pensions from time to time. No Contempt petition, however, was preferred in the first writ petition No. 6676 of 1998 which related to neutralization of Dearness Relief. The Petitioners (L.I.C) has time and again stated in various applications submitted before this Hon’ble Court as also before the High Court in the present Contempt petition that in case the Pensions are revised corresponding to the revision of pay scales the issue of neutralization of Dearness Relief will be taken care of automatically from 01/08/1997 as such the main relief to be complied with is that of revision of pensions as and when the pay scales of in-service employees and pensions of some were revised and the payment of revised pension and arrears of the difference of pension is made.

4. That this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17^th October, 2012 had given a clarification of its earlier order dated 14^th November, 2011 that the Contempt Proceedings before the High Court in S.B. Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 shall remain stayed subject to the Petitioners (L.I.C) herein deposit the amount due to the pensioners i.e. writ-petitioners from the date of their retirement in respect of retrial benefits within eight weeks from that date. Since the Petitioner (L.I.C) herein have deliberately repeated the same act of depositing the amount of Dearness Relief and not difference due on account of arrears for revision of pension and that too from 01/08/1997 not from the date of retirement therefore there was no stay on the Contempt Proceedings. A true copy of the order dated 17/10/2012 of this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) 29956-29957 of 2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/1.(Pages

5. That the cause of action for the present application has arisen for the reason that when the aforesaid Contempt petition No. 760 of 2010 came up for hearing before the Rajasthan High Court on 15^th January, 2013 on the Applications of the Applicant/Respondent that since No compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17^th October, 2012 had been made, there is no stay on the aforesaid Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 and the High Court should implement the judgment dated 12/01/2010.

6. That the learned High Court in a hurry said that since it is a case of non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore, the Applicant/Respondent should approach this Hon’ble Court without appreciating that there was no order of this Hon’ble Court in respect of which a Contempt Petition could be filed.

6. That the Petitioners (L.I.C) have not made compliance of the judgments and have been showing utter disrespect to the Hon’ble Courts, both the High Court as also this Hon’ble Court, which the High Court did not take into consideration and in this manner, as in the past, has been in an indirect manner assisting the Petitioner (LIC) to avoid compliance of the judgment. This Hon’ble Court had earlier also passed an order on 14/11/2011 to the same effect wherein it was directed that the proceedings on the contempt petition shall remain stayed subject to the Petitioners (L.I.C) herein depositing the AMOUNT DUE TO THE EMPLOYEES. A true copy of the order dated 14/11/2011 of this Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) 29956-29957 of 2011 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/2.(Pages

7. That though both these terms i.e. the ‘amount due’ and ‘the employees’ are specified in the Pension Regulations and the judgment of the Single Judge, the Petitioners (L.I.C) before this Hon’ble Court showed their ignorance as to what amount was to be deposited in compliance of the said order dated 14/11/2011 when the matter came up in Contempt Petition and as such I.A. No. 3 was allowed to be made for clarification. That time also the Petitioners (L.I.C) deposited the amount in respect of 20 writ petitioners in respect of D.R. difference from February, 2010 instead of difference of revised pensions and no amount in respect of five petitioners was deposited. It is further pertinent to submit that in writ petition No. 654/2007 in which the Contempt petition was filed, the matter of revision of pensions was sought for and granted and the D.R. was not involved. Thus there was deliberate and intentional utter disrespect of this Hon’ble Court but Rajasthan High Court did not proceed to enforce implementation of the judgment dated 12/01/2010.

8. That the Applicant/Respondent pointed out this fact before the High Court and prayed for taking proceedings to get the compliance of the judgment dated 12/1/2010 made then the Counsel for the Petitioners (L.I.C) gave an undertaking on 31/10/2012 that compliance will be made within four weeks and on the other day they withdrew that undertaking, but the High Court did not proceed to get the compliance made but instead kept on demanding various pieces of information on every next date though they were already submitted by the Applicant/Respondent again and again and ultimately deferred the compliance on the ground of clarification from this Hon’ble Court.

9. That as such the aforesaid order dated 17/10/2012 came to be passed by this Hon’ble Court and thereafter by way of precaution the Applicant/Respondent had submitted a letter to the Chairman, the Managing Director and the Executive Director (P) of the Petitioners (L.I.C) stating that the order dated 17/10/2012 was passed in the matter of Revision of Pensions and not in the matter of DA/DR neutralization, that the said Contempt petition is exclusively on the subject of Revision of pensions as and when the pay scales are revised by fixing the pensioners at the same stage on which he was borne at the time of the retirement and as has been granted by the Rajasthan High Court, that the retiral benefits means that the revisions of pensions are to be effected on all the dates whenever pay scales are revised, by adopting the same procedure as is done for employees, after the date of retirement of an employee from the date of retirement. It was also prayed that in order to cut short the litigation and toils of the poor pensioners in their old age the order of this Hon’ble Court is correctly appreciated and correct amount is deposited with calculation charts. A true copy of the said letters dated 20/11/2012 submitted by the Applicant/Respondent to the Chairman, Managing Director, and Executive Director (P), L.I.C of India each is annexed herewith and are marked as ANNEXURES A/3.(Colly)(Pages

10. That in spite of all this the Petitioners (L.I.C) persisted in their old activities and this time they have again deposited the alleged arrears of neutralization of D.R. but from 01/08/1997 and not from the date of retirement as directed by this Hon’ble Court. The present applicant had retired on 31/12/1996 and all other pensioners in respect of whom the D.R. was deposited had retired much earlier than 01/08/1997 i.e. from 1986 to 1995. Thus this very rider was not complied with. Furthermore, no amount has been deposited in respect of the five pensioners, who had retired after 01/08/1997. Thus there is no compliance whatsoever in respect of these five persons. No calculations have been submitted also for obvious reasons not to bring the correct picture on record. A true copy of the application as filed by the Petitioners (L.I.C) along with cheque and statement, dated 07.12.2012 before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur, is submitted herewith and the same is marked as ANNEXURE A/4.(Pages

11. That though the said amount was deposited by the Petitioners (L.I.C) in the Registry of the High Court on 07/12/2012 no intimation was given to the Applicant/Respondent and as such on completion of the period of two months instead of eight weeks the Applicant/Respondent moved an application before the High Court on 17/12/2012 after giving a copy of the same to the Counsel for the Petitioners (L.I.C) in advance that since no amount has been deposited there is no stay and the High Court should proceed on compliance of the judgment dated 12/01/2010. A true copy of the said application made in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 dated 17/12/2012 before High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/5.(Pages

12. That after receipt of the copy of the applicant’s application on 17/12/2012 a copy of their application depositing the aforesaid sum was given to the Applicant at 4.00 p.m. on 20/12/2012. Thereafter since there were holidays in the High Court immediately on its reopening the Applicant moved another application on 2^nd January, 2013 wherein he pointed out in detail the grounds on which the alleged deposit was short of the required actual compliance of the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17/10/2012 and stated that since the compliance has not been made the High Court should proceed further with the compliance of the judgment dated 12/01/2010. It was specifically stated that for the following reasons the compliance should be deemed not to have been made:

A) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the stay subject to the condition that the L.I.C deposits the amount of retirement benefits for which the pensioners i.e. the writ petitioners are eligible from the date of retirement, but in the present case the Petitioners (L.I.C) have not deposited the retiral benefits from the date of retirement of any of the writ-petitioners; it is beyond imagination that the Petitioners (L.I.C) do not know what the terms “retirement benefits” as also the “date of retirement” means when they are given in the Staff Regulations, Revision Rules and also the Pension Rules and that their Advocates are also ignorant of these terms except that the Petitioners (L.I.C) have for one reason or the other been harassing the Pensioners in their old age and incurring expenditure of lakhs of rupees on this litigation because nothing goes from their pocket while the Pensioners who are already suffering from financial crunch are made to spend money by cutting expenditure even on their medical expenses;

B) The Retirement benefits do not mean and include Dearness Relief, which is only given to compensate the fall in value of the pension;

C) By his judgment the Hon’ble Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petition No. 654 of 2007 and directed that the pensioners cannot be treated differently on the basis of date of retirement; and there cannot be any discrimination between the pensioners interse.

D) All the Respondents in respect of whom the alleged amount has been deposited have retired much earlier than 01/08/1997 for example –

i) the Applicant/Respondent No.1 herein has retired on 31/12/1996 but no amount has been deposited from 01/01/1997 to 31/7/1997,

ii) Shri A.P. Tiwari retired in 1986 but his difference in D.R. has also been deposited from 01/08/1997 and not earlier;

ii) Similarly in the cases of Shri K.L. Malhotra and Shri K.B. Chainani, who had retired in the years 1995 and 1994 respectively, the alleged Dearness Relief difference has been deposited from 01/08/1997 and not from the date of their retirement.

iv) This is the same position with respect to one and all other Petitioners in respect of whom this amount has been deposited though they had retired much earlier to 01/08/1997 and no benefit of revision of pensions on 1/8/1997, 01/08/2002 and 01/08/2007 has been given as awarded in the judgment dated 12/01/2010.

13. That the Applicant/Respondent filed an application for enforcement of the judgment and taking action for committing contempt. A true copy of the application for enforcement for the judgment in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, dated 2^nd January 2013 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/6.(Pages

14. That no reply was filed to the aforesaid applications nor the Counsel for the Petitioner (L.I.C) appeared before the High Court on 15/01/2013 when the case came up before the High Court. Yet the High Court has passed the impugned order dated 15/01/2013. A true copy of the Order in Single Bench Contempt Petition No. 760/ 2010 in Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007, dated 15.01.2013 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A/7.(Page ). A bare reading of the order would show that it has been passed with a view to somehow delay the compliance of the judgment as it does not give the date of the order in respect of which the contempt petition is directed to be filed and also shows that the High Court did not go through the aforesaid applications of the Applicant/Respondent though it has been said that the Court has thoroughly gone through the records.

15. That in this case throughout the Officers of the Petitioner (L.I.C.) are adopting one method or the other for avoiding the compliance of the judgment and denying justice for one reason or the other and they have not deterred from applying such tactics even before this Hon’ble Court. Though opportunity was granted to the Petitioner (L.I.C) on two occasions for compliance of the conditions as stipulated by this Hon’ble Court i.e. 14/11/2011 and 17/10/2012, they have misused the same and now they are not entitled to any further relaxation.

16. That with a view to mislead the Courts the Petitioners (L.I.C) have been taking the plea that they have deposited the amount of difference of Dearness Relief and Pension and to hide this fact the Respondent (L.I.C.) has not submitted the calculation.

17. That height of the contempt is visible from the fact that the contemnors never appeared before the High Court nor their Counsel have ever submitted reply to the Contempt petition about the compliance of the judgment. On the contrary when the contempt petition was listed before the High Court on 31/10/2011 the Counsel of Life Insurance Corporation of India and not the contemnors undertook to comply with the judgment within four weeks, which have already lapsed more than one year back giving a fresh ground for contempt.

18. The contempt proceedings were being responded to by the Petitioner Life Insurance Corporation of India and the Contemnor Respondents never made any reply or attend before the Court and the High Court has never compelled the Contemnors either to appear or submit their reply.

18. That the Pensioners are senior citizens and major proportion of them are more or less 75 years of age and are anxiously waiting to gain the fruits of the judgments of the Courts granting them their fundamental rights at this fag end of their life. On the contrary the Petitioner (LIC) is making them to toil in contesting the case before the High Court and this Hon’ble Court and spending money leisurely since nothing goes from their pocket and they have the liberty to waste the money of the Policyholders while the Pensioners are already suffering from crunch of money and weak health deteriorating day by day.

19. That in interest of justice it is essential that the Contempt petition is directed to be transferred from the present Court, which has been assigned all the Contempt cases, to the Judge who has passed the order and whose judgment has not been complied with and thus committed the contempt of the Court.

20. That the Petitioners (L.I.C) are harassing the pensioners in this old age and the applicant has to undergo heavy expenditure in his journeys from Jaipur to Delhi and back and for this uncalled for application for direction and has also been made to make uncalled for expenditure, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that adequate penalty may be imposed on the Petitioners (L.I.C) and also directed to pay interest on the arrears for the late payment from the date of accrual to the date of payment since the Respondent (L.I.C.) has been earning on this amount.

PRAYER

In light of these facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

i) Direct the Contempt petition to be heard by the learned Single Judge who had passed the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 compliance of which is required to be made; and

ii) Direct the Rajasthan High Court to get the judgment dated 12/01/2010 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007 complied with without any further delay; and

iii) Award adequate compensation to the applicant for the mental, physical and financial tensions and tortures that he has been made to suffer for this application; and

v) Also award interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accrual to the date of payment of the arrears; and

v) Pass such other and further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to grant full relief to the applicant.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

R.K.SINGH

RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL

Advocate for the Applicants/Respondents

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

I.A. NO. _________ OF 2013

IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOs. 29956-29957/2011

IN THE MATTER OF:

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors Applicants/Respondents

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Respondents

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors Petitioners

Versus

Krishna Murari Lal Asthana and Ors. Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 73 years, son of late Shri Ram Saran Lalji Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan., presently at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the Applicant/Respondent No. 1 in the aforesaid matter and I am fully conversant with the facts & circumstances of above mentioned case, hence competent to swear this affidavit.

2. That I have read over the accompanying Application for Direction at pages ___ to ___ & accompanying application for Official Translation at pages ___ to ____ and I have understood the contents therein which are true to my knowledge.

3. That the Annexure P1 to P7 are the true copy of their respective originals.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at­­­­­­­­ New Delhi on this _____ day of January 2013 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Single Bench Contempt Petition No. 760/2010)

In

Single Bench Civil Writ Petition No, 654/2007

15.01.2013

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)

Shri Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, Applicant himself preent

***

It is the statement of the Applicant that the Respondent/Contemnors are not complying with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore compliance of the order in question be got made by the Respondents/ Contemnors and they be punished for non-compliance.

Heard. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed in the past and the petition.

In case the circumstances exist as above then liberty is granted to the Petitioner that he may file Contempt Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for compliance of the order in question, because in the case Special Leave Petition is under consideration.

List the case before the Court after four weeks.

Sd.

(Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma)

COMMENTS BY SHRI KML ASTHANA

PL SEE THE ORDER IN THE ATTACHMENT

THIS IS TOTALLY A CONFUSED ORDER. THERE IS NO REFERENCE AS TO WHICH ORDER IS BEING REFERRED OF WHICH THE COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN MADE. THERE ARE FOUR APPLICATIONS BUT NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN DECIDED. IT APPEARS THAT HE WAS CONFUSED AS TO WHICH ORDER IS SEEING. WHILE THE MATTER WAS THAT SINCE THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH THE COURT SHOULD PROCEED WITH COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE BHANDARI HE TOOK IT AS IF THIS IS WITH REGARD TO NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE SC ON THE ONE HAND HE SAYS THAT HE HAS THOROUGHLY GONE IN THE FILE BUT THEN HE SAYS IN CASE THERE IS NONCOMPLIANCE THEN THE PETITIONER CAN FILE CONTEMPT PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. A TOTALLY FRIVOLOUS ORDER

ASTHANA