Thursday, 3 October 2019
Extra Increment case came up today which was numbered at 43.
DOT lawyer was not available. It appeared that he had asked BSNL lawyer to attend in his absence if the case came up.
Our lawyer left his junior because he had to attend a case in HC. He also informed Com N K Srinivasan who worked in our department earlier and now a practicing lawyer to take care of the case for Passover to argue in the afternoon . Since DOT lawyer was absent , pass over was not possible and automatically would be adjourned .
When the case came up BSNL lawyer wanted adjournment as the clarification asked from DOT was not received. Since stay was there, they were already enjoying and nothing was going to happen. The judges asked whether there was a stay from Supreme Court ?
NKS told that since there is Ernakulam HC judgement there is no need to further delay the case.
Both the judges asked BSNL lawyer whether this case is similar to that case for which that lawyer replied "Yes".
If it's so then what is the problem? Judges asked.
Then Judges gave the directive to both sides as "Petitioners should submit a memo incorporating the points that the case is similar to the case of Ernakulam HC case."
Similarly Respondents should submit a memo incorporating the points that it is dissimilar.
We shall hear the case and decide on 7/11/19 judges pronounced.
But Com NKS tried to advance the date but judges told that there are many holidays in between and hence not possible to prepone.
Today Com Sukumaran, CHQ VP, Com Kalidasan, our Treasurer and myself attended the court