Source –Keshav Saini
DEAR SIRS, AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT,THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 OF DELHI HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER——–
1 AN ADJOURNMENT SLIP HAS BEEN CIRCULATED WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES.
3 WE BOTH ARE IN DIFFERENT BENCHES AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THE MATTER AS PART-HEARD MATTER.THE MATTER IS RELEASED AS PART-HEARD MATTER.
4 LIST FOR DIRECTIONS BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE BENCH ON 22ND AUGUST,2016.
The above is the news, as already published in the NEWSPAGE of this blog, the source being K R Saini. This enables the pensioners/ readers to read necessary perspective in relations to pensioners case being heard of Delhi High Court.
PS:The latest news as received from KR Saini about the Bench and the team is like this:
…… NOW OUR CASE NO W.P(C)1875/2013 WILL BE HEARD BY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA AND HON’BLE MS JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA IN COURT NO 6 BENCH NO VII ON 22.08.2016.
WITH BEST REGARDS.
Published below is an article submitted by a close reader of this blog Gopalji Tandon the contents of which have sumptuously a meaningful orientation relevantly applicable to the scenario that is obtaining in relation to pension issues in State Bank of India titled as JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED sub titled as HUM HONGEY KAMYAB EK DIN BUT POSTHUMOUSLY ( हम होंगे कामियाब एक दिन किन्तु मरणोपरान्त) which saying aptly fits into the theme as the pension is an issue that concerns exclusively the retired people including those who are 75 years and above old, very much a wrong side of age.
It is surprising that our case No.WP(c ) 1875 of 2013 which was transferred to Delhi High Court for disposal from Supreme Court on some technical grounds was listed for final hearing on 14-10-2014 but unfortunately it could not be heard before the close of court’s proceedings on 14-10-2014 & the next date for hearing has been fixed on 27th November 2014. Earlier in the similar situation when our case No.WP(c ) 184 of 2011 was listed in Supreme Court on 26-2-2013 and the case could not be heard before the close of court’s proceedings it was heard on the next date i.e on 27.2.2013. It is strange that if our APEX court can hear the case on the next day why it can not be heard on the next day or next Monday/Tuesday by Delhi High Court.
2- Although Our case No. WP(c) 184 of 2011 was completely heard in Supreme Court of India for one and a half year but the Bank and the Government had succeeded in getting it transferred to Delhi High Court on some technical grounds with a view to linger it on. The obvious reason for the Supreme Court to divert our Writ Petition to Delhi High Court is the adamant stand of Central Government. The Government is reported to have taken a stand that any further increase in pension payment would have an impact on the part of profitability of SBI.
3- The Honourable Supreme Court in their order dated 27-2-2013 specifically mentioned as Since the pleadings are complete and the matter is pending before this Court for the last one and a half years we deem it proper to transfer the petition papers to Delhi High Court and request the learned Chief justice to assign the writ petition before a Bench of his choice for early disposal of the matter, at any rate within the outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of records.
There should be a contempt case against the Delhi High Court for not obeying the instructions of Supreme Court to decide the case within given time frame i.e six months. I have reached more than 74 and the case will not be decided in the next 10 years as per speed of the case in the court and the date given after the gap of one and a half month. Mr. K.R. Saini has once again narrated the whole (*all cases) pending in the different High Courts and the bad intention of the Govt. as well as judiciary. Why the Supreme Court has transferred the case to Delhi High Court and why our lawyer accepted it to transfer the case to Delhi High Court. It is evident that step motherly treatment was created by the Government of India.
There has to be revision of pension for 7th bipartite in terms of which other banks are getting pension @50%.
Keeping in view the attitude of the Bank, Govt. and speed of judiciary I can very well say that HUM HONGEY KAMYAB EK DIN BUT POSTHUMOUSLY ( हम होंगे कामियाब एक दिन किन्तु मरणोपरान्त).
Gopal Ji Tandon
Mumbai remained closed for a day on sad death of Balasaheb Thackeray. He did deserve it by all means. In fact the popularity he had at his command was enough to claim a shutdown of the whole country. Exceptions apart, he was loved, respected and revered by all and sundry. He was a legend. But what is unwarranted is the arrest of the two girls, Shaheen and Shrinivasan, for very simple a reason that there was some facebook comment questioning the shut down of Mumbai. Shaheen made a comment and it was liked by a friend of her’s Shrinivasan. Both were found guilty of hatred speech and were taken into police custody. Actually, as per law, there was nothing like any hatred speech in the comment so made by Shaheen and endorsed by Shrinivasan by way of a ‘Like’ on the face book. If democracy has any meaning, the right to speak out one’s mind can’t be throttled like this. Both the girls have apologised saying that they loved and respected Balasaheb Thackeray most. If one respects some body, it doesn’t mean that her/ his right to offer some sort of even a minor criticism on some point or the other dwindles for ever. Markandey Katju, a former justice of Supreme Court of India, rightly remarked in his letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister this way:
“….We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship”
Something that was in no manner any issue at all is unnecessarily dragged to a situation much out of proportions. Arrest of the two innocent girls by the local police in Maharashtra just can’t be justified by any means. It is nothing but a sheer injustice and is required to be condemned in a sumptuous measure.