Why did you congratulate Chockalingam?
However, he has tried to put the entire blame of the judgment dated 4.11.2022 not being in favour of the pensioners particularly pre- 2014 retirees on NCR.
He is not a part of NCR and has no business to assume that the suggestion given by him should have been accepted by the NCR team. Of course, NCR team considered each and every suggestion given by whosoever he may be and decided in the best interest of the pensioners.
Mr Chockalingam has tried to build up a case that had his suggestions been accepted, the Supreme Court would have acted in a particular way and the case would have been won. It is just like saying – “ghar ke na marte to fauz apni hoti” meaning that if the ancestors would not have died, the entire army would have been ours.
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court was bound to be there had there been any circumstances or any pleadings. It is wondered as to who prevented Mr. Chockalingam to himself take the course of action which he suggested for NCR. In any case, the Supreme Court decided the case of EPFO against Sunil Kumar and others and did not pay heed to any of the prayers of any of about 65 writ petitions.
Everybody knows that EPFO was given the maximum time during pleadings. Even the hon’ble court did not question the EPFO advocate who continued for 2 days counting shortcomings in R. C. Gupta’s judgements even when the same was not under review/challenge. At that time, Mr. Chockalingam’s advocate could have raised objection – “me lord, R C Gupta is not under review”.
Then how can he go on assumptions and come to conclusion that had NCR acted in the manner suggested by him, there would have been a positive judgment.
Coming to the suggestion now put forth by him, there is no sense in now filing a Review Petition which is badly time barred and is bound to be dismissed on limitation and even if considered, on merit also when a large number of review petitions have already been rejected.
Coming to the curative petition, no new grounds can be added in that petition and the same, if accepted by the SC is to be considered by circulation. The outcome would be that there is nothing new in the curative petition and is dismissed.
The best course would be that Mr. Chockalingam approaches the organisations whose Review petitions have been dismissed to file Curative petition, if he considers fit. This issue concerns the entire pensioners class and there should be no consideration that the curative petition may be filed in the name of Mr. Chockalingam.
Another thing please keep in mind that the WP was filed in the Supreme Court seeking to remove the artificial distinction created by the EPFO/Govt of exempted/non-exempted organisations.
While the distinction has been removed, a further set of two categories have been created i.e. pre 2014 and post 2014 retirees.
At this juncture, when majority of pensioners are tired of the ongoing litigation and disillusioned particularly in view of the judgment dated 4.11.2022, it would be very very difficult to get finances for any further litigation. And then – just see the order of 7/8/23 wherein all the review and clarification petitions were dismissed, there are names of 151 advocates of parties including pensioners and EPFO, some names are written two/three times because they were appearing for more than one party.
There was only one Sr. Advocate CA Sundaram representing EPFO and four Sr.Advocates for petitioners. The hon’ble Court did not pay heed to what the pensioners advocates were saying. Everybody will realise that the main reason for our defeat on 4/11/22 and 7/8/23 is that we are not united. We approached courts with hundreds of advocates with different prayers. Mr. Chakolinham himself had filed about twelve writ petitions from BHEL pensioners’ side. There is need to think over – why such different writs were filed.
Finally the suggestion is that Mr Chockalingam, instead of moving the SC in his name, should approach those organisations whose RP have already been dismissed, try to convince them to file curative petition and in case it is decided by the Supreme Court to hear in open court, then NCR may consider financial help as feasible for meeting the bill of senior counsel subject to NCR’s funds availability and non-availability of funds in the account of Mr. Chockalingam association.
And a last word of caution, it has to be, if it is, a joint effort nor like in the past that every body is ringing his own bell.
