Dear Octavious,
Of course, nobody can teach any person, unless he has the desire to understand the reality by shunning his wrong concept.
But, I wonder, what did you want to convey by pasting link about "jurisdiction of Supreme Court", while I never raised any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not only that, the site does not refute in anyway my own conviction. That also does not confirm your views and even does not stress upon the judgments of the High Court to have wider application unless ordered to be made so. So, I am unable to understand, how the site has any connection with my last reply.
Still further, the link refers to Article 133 also, which I quoted in my last reply, as you avoided to quote while referring other articles. That itself confirms my conviction to be true.
Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a period of time," which you never intended in your original post. By such types of statements, you cannot falsify the realities. CAN YOU JUST MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I, YOU, OR THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SEARCH OF THE REASON AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE REPEAL OF THE ARTICLES 33? Had you known any reason behind their repeal, you were welcome to quote not only for my knowledge but also for the benefit of the members of the community in general. Naturally, the said articles did not contain anything which could prove that the High Court Judgments or the Supreme Court judgments should not be implemented.
To be very frank, had you wished to maintain decorum of the forum, you as a super moderator could well have made a proper research before declaring my statement as fallacies, rather than trying to declare my views as fallacies, on which , where I have already offered myself to face any court case from your side to prove me wrong.
You may also like to review your own earlier statement “discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” I merely discussed on the Articles quoted by you, as your contentions were being side-tracked to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the applicability of the P&H High Court judgment on split up of wages for PF. About argument, what is your opinion about the advocates of both sides, making arguments to attract the attention of the judges, right from the lowest court to the Supreme Court and the argument of one side is accepted even by the Supreme Court. Do both the sides exchange their ignorance, while even the Supreme Court agrees on the ignorance as his knowledge and base its judgment on that? I BELIEVE, EVEN DISCUSSION SOMETIMES EXCHANGES MERE IGNORANCE, WHILE ARGUMENT MAKES THE OTHER FELLOWS UNDERSTAND HIS VIEW POINT LEADING TO ENHNACEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
About your allegation "that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks," it is nothing except your bias and misunderstanding about me. Contrarily, your own post conveys that sense of making personal remarks, while you stated in your yesterday's post, "You tend to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization."
I wish, by virtue of being super moderator and senior member, you could have shown your super knowledge, rather than any bias after properly interpreting the legal and constitutional requirements.
Anyway, thanks for your caution. BUT I know, I do not try to reply unless I understand the the implication of the relevant law. I also admit mistake wherever I am wrong.
However, if you feel some irritation on my replies in the CiteHR, I can avoid posting my replies in CiteHR. Of course, I have already reduced my activity at CiteHR due to the fact that some members don't relish my pointing out towards wrong information, where they expect me merely to endorse their opinions, irrespective of the fact how wrong that be.
Regards
PS Dhingra
Of course, nobody can teach any person, unless he has the desire to understand the reality by shunning his wrong concept.
But, I wonder, what did you want to convey by pasting link about "jurisdiction of Supreme Court", while I never raised any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Not only that, the site does not refute in anyway my own conviction. That also does not confirm your views and even does not stress upon the judgments of the High Court to have wider application unless ordered to be made so. So, I am unable to understand, how the site has any connection with my last reply.
Still further, the link refers to Article 133 also, which I quoted in my last reply, as you avoided to quote while referring other articles. That itself confirms my conviction to be true.
Not only that, when I tried to make you aware of the repealed Articles, you have come forward with your after-thought that "the repealed post has been put there for you to search the reason, and process behind the repeal, so that you get the idea how things have evolved in judiciary over a period of time," which you never intended in your original post. By such types of statements, you cannot falsify the realities. CAN YOU JUST MAKE ME UNDERSTAND WHAT I, YOU, OR THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD DERIVE BENEFIT FROM SEARCH OF THE REASON AFTER 33 YEARS OF THE REPEAL OF THE ARTICLES 33? Had you known any reason behind their repeal, you were welcome to quote not only for my knowledge but also for the benefit of the members of the community in general. Naturally, the said articles did not contain anything which could prove that the High Court Judgments or the Supreme Court judgments should not be implemented.
To be very frank, had you wished to maintain decorum of the forum, you as a super moderator could well have made a proper research before declaring my statement as fallacies, rather than trying to declare my views as fallacies, on which , where I have already offered myself to face any court case from your side to prove me wrong.
You may also like to review your own earlier statement “discussion is an exchange of knowledge; an argument an exchange of ignorance.” I merely discussed on the Articles quoted by you, as your contentions were being side-tracked to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the applicability of the P&H High Court judgment on split up of wages for PF. About argument, what is your opinion about the advocates of both sides, making arguments to attract the attention of the judges, right from the lowest court to the Supreme Court and the argument of one side is accepted even by the Supreme Court. Do both the sides exchange their ignorance, while even the Supreme Court agrees on the ignorance as his knowledge and base its judgment on that? I BELIEVE, EVEN DISCUSSION SOMETIMES EXCHANGES MERE IGNORANCE, WHILE ARGUMENT MAKES THE OTHER FELLOWS UNDERSTAND HIS VIEW POINT LEADING TO ENHNACEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE.
About your allegation "that you tend to get personal in a professional debate, and start making personal remarks," it is nothing except your bias and misunderstanding about me. Contrarily, your own post conveys that sense of making personal remarks, while you stated in your yesterday's post, "You tend to commit fallacy when you say that a judgment in any particular case applies only to that particular case only, not to all other organizations, until that is ordered so by the competent court, or by way of amendment to the relevant law, or when the organizations decides to apply uniformly to all the organization."
I wish, by virtue of being super moderator and senior member, you could have shown your super knowledge, rather than any bias after properly interpreting the legal and constitutional requirements.
Anyway, thanks for your caution. BUT I know, I do not try to reply unless I understand the the implication of the relevant law. I also admit mistake wherever I am wrong.
However, if you feel some irritation on my replies in the CiteHR, I can avoid posting my replies in CiteHR. Of course, I have already reduced my activity at CiteHR due to the fact that some members don't relish my pointing out towards wrong information, where they expect me merely to endorse their opinions, irrespective of the fact how wrong that be.
Regards
PS Dhingra