S-29 threatens to oppose BPS impleadment:They feel Court is under impression that CAT judgement of 01.11 2011is applicable only to S29From: Pratap Narayan
To: HARCHANDAN SINGH
Cc: SHYAM SUNDER Secretary General BPS
Sent: Tuesday, 8 May 2012 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal to file Impleader in WP 1535 - 2012 in Delhi HC
Dear Shri Harchandan Singh
Thanks for your mail.
Normally, when a Writ petition is filed, the procedure is that first a
Notice is issued to the Respondent(s) and sufficient time is given,
generally a month or two, to appear for preliminary hearing whether or
not to admit the same. If it is admitted then further time of a few
months is given to the Respondents to file their reply with a copy to
the petitioners, who are also allowed time thereafter to file their
Rejoinder. This means at least 6 months time before hearing on merits
can start and during the period stay on the operation of the lower
Court order is stayed.
You will observe that in this case these preliminary procedures have
been dispensed with and the hearing on merits has started in less than
one and a half months. In fact, in order to expedite the process, on
the very first day, we gave up our right to file a written reply and
pleaded hearing on merits straight away by indicating the age profile
of our members, including 14 having died during CAT proceedings. As a
result, the case has been listed for ,final disposal' and it is our
understanding that it would conclude on the next date. Also please
note that no stay on CAT's judgment has been granted nor has the
Contempt proceedings initiated by us in CAT been stayed; we have only
voluntarily agreed not to press for it until HC decision on the Writ.
In view of the above, I am still not clear about the rationale for
your anxiety to intervene. It will only delay the matters and in no
way strengthen the merits of the case. On the other hand, intervention
by other parties will give an opportunity to the Government to plead
and frighten the Court that the issue involves serious financial
implications, which at present the Court thinks that it involves only
S 29 pensioners. This will only delay the outcome, which we old people
can not afford and, for that reason, even we may be compelled to
oppose your being made a party. I wish you had joined the battle when
we were struggling before CAT instead of becoming active now after we
have been successful.
You must appreciate that that with the quashing of the OMs dated
3-10-2008 and 14-10-2008, the benefit accrues to all the pensioners,
irrespective of the grade, and not only to us who were before CAT.
From this point of view also, your intervention at this stage is not
called for or be of any advantage except delaying the proceedings. You
should also appreciate that we have engaged the topmost Advocate who
has successfully piloted similar cases right upto Supreme Court and
your coming up with some other Advocate(s) is in no way going to
strengthen the case.
In view of the above, I would once again appeal to you to have
patience and not complicate matters. Hope you appreciate the position.