WE HAVE REACHED A STAGE WHEN ALL THE FIFTY THOUSAND PENSIONERS ARE
WAITING FOR THE JUDGMENT FROM DELHI HIGH COURT. LET US PRAY FOR A FAVOURABLE DECISION ON BOTH THE ISSUES OF REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALY
AND UPGRADATION OF PENSION.
ALL THE PARTIES WHO FILED THEIR PETITIONS
HAVE PRESENTED THE CASE WELL THROUGH THEIR COUNSELS. THE OBJECT OF EVERY ONE
WAS THE SAME. THE WAY OF PRESENTATION
MAY BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. HOPEFULLY THE
DICISION SHOULD COME IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS AND THE CREDIT SHOULD GO TO
ALL THE PARTIES. IN ANY CASE THE MATTER WILL HAVE TO GO TO THE SUPREME COURT
FOR FINAL VERDICT.
HOWEVER, SOME FRIENDS ARE SPREADING A
MESSAGE THAT THEY PRESENTED THE CASE MORE FORCEFULLY AND WANT TO TAKE THE
ENTIRE CREDIT. BEFORE TAKING THE CREDIT LET THEM WAIT FOR THE JUDGMENT AND THEN
COME OUT WITH SUCH TYPE OF PUBLICITY. BUT NO—THEY HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED THAT
WHAT THEY ARE WRITING IS A WRITING ON
THE WALL.
LET ME GO BACK WHEN HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION
WAS AFFILIATED WITH THE FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS
ASSOCIATIONS. IT IS TRUE THAT OUR ORIGINAL CASE IN DELHI HC WAS ONLY FOR
REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALLY AS THAT WAS THE NEED OF THE HOUR. IT MAY BE STATED THAT
IN THE PETITION OF THE FEDERATION, REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATION RULE 3(A) AS
ULTRAVIROUS WAS SOUGHT WHICH NO OTHER PARTY HAD TAKEN UP. THE CASE WAS DECIDED IN OUR FAVOUR ON THE
BASES OF JAIPUR HC JUDGMENT. HOWEVER, THE COURT DID NOT TOUCH RULE 3(A) IN THE
JUDGEMENT ALTHOUGH THE FEDERATION HAD
SOUGHT JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE. THIS OMMISSION WAS TAKEN UP BY THE SUPREME COURT AND REFERRED THE ISSUE
BACK TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT. AT THIS STAGE ALL THE OTHER HIGH COURTS WERE
ADVISED NOT TO PROCEED WITH SIMILAR MATTERS. THE COURT ALSO ALLOWED THE
PETITIONERS TO FILE REQUISITE AMENDMENTS. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE SUREME
COURT REFERRED THE CASE BACK TO DELHI HIGH COURT ON RULE 3(A) AND FURTHER
AMENDMENTS, IF ANY.
THE FEDERATION TOOK THIS OPPORTUNITY AND
FILED A FRESH PETITION AND REQUESTED FOR UPGRADATION OF PENSION IN ADDITION TO
REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALY. A CORRECT DECISION WAS TAKEN BY OUR LEGAL COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. OUR COUNSELS TOOK UP THE ISSUES VERY WELL ON
BOTH THE ISSUES.
IN BETWEEN WHEN THE CASE WAS IN PROGRESS IN
THE SUPREME COURT, AN INTERIM APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED FOR EARLY DECISION AS
MOST OF THE PENSIONERS ARE RUNNING BETWEEN THE AGE OF 70 AND 80 YEARS. THIS
APPLICATION, AS I CAN RECOLLECT, WAS SUBMITTED TO EXPEDITE THE MATTER AND NOT
COMPLICATE ANY ISSUE. AT THIS POINT OUR HYDERABAD COLLEAGUES WHO WERE
AFFILIATED TO THE FEDERATION WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERATION AND DECIDED TO GO ON
THEIR OWN PATH. SOME WELL-WISHERS
PURSUADED THEM NOT TO CHOOSE A SEPARATE PATH AND BE ON THE MAIN STREAM. BUT NO CHANGE.
O.K. WHATEVER HAS HAHPPENED HAS HAPPENED AND EVERY ONE IS HAPPY IN ITS OWN
PLACE.
AT THIS STAGE MAKING A WRONG PROPAGANDA IS
NOT DESIREABLE. THE CASE WAS NOT FOUGHT BY ONE ORGANISATION ONLY. OTHER PEOPLE
HAVE ALSO CONTRIBUTED. MAY BE THAT ONE SR COUNSEL TOOK A LONG TIME AND
PRESENTED THE CASE WITH LARGE NUMBER OF RULINGS. IT IS APPRECIATED WELL BY
ALL. ON THE LAST DAY i.e. 21.02.2017
WHEN SOME INFORMATION WAS SOUGHT BY THE COURT ON TECHNICAL ISSUES LIKE LIFE
FUND, RESERVE, BONUS etc., MR. MURTHY WHO BEING AN ADVOCATE AND ALSO A RETIRED
OFFICER FROM THE CORPORATION GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE SAME. ANY SENIOR
PERSON HAVING WORKED IN L.I.C. COULD EXPLAIN THE SAME. BUT THIS COULD BE DONE
BY A PERSON WEARING THE GOWN ONLY. SUCH A HUE AND CRY HAS BEEN MADE ON THIS
ISSUE AS IF ALL THE CASE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY HIM ONLY.
NOW FOR SOMETIME PAST A NEW SERIES OF
LESSONS ARE COMING UNDER THE CAPTION “ WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE VERDICT”. I DO NOT
KNOW IF ALL THE PENSIONERS ARE READING THE SAME. AT LEAST I DID NOT READ ANY
ONE TILL I DECIDED TO WRITE THIS SMALL NOTE FOR INFORMATION OF THE PENSIONERS.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SMALL OBSERVATIONS FOR THE BENEFIT AND INFORMATION OF
PENSIONERS.
“WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE VERDICT” PART 1
DATED 13.03.2017:
“WE PLAYED A KEY ROLE IN SHAPING THE
PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING IN THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT DATED 31.03.2016. THE
JUDGEMENT IS WRITING ON THE WALL “GIVE LIC PENSIONERS WHAT IS DUE TO THEM”.
STRANGE? I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED ABOVE THE
POSITION. OF COURSE THE JUDGMENT IS HISTORIC IN THE INTEREST OF LIC PENSIONERS.
BUT ONE GROUP WANTS TO TAKE THE ENTIRE CREDIT FORGETTING THE BARE FACT THAT IN
THE WP OF THE FEDERATION RULE 3(A) OF THE PENSION RULES WAS SOUGHT TO BE
DECLARED ULTRAVIROUS OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT WAS ON THIS POINT ALONE THAT THE
ENTIRE MATTER WAS REFERRED BACK TO THE DELHI HC WHERE THE ORIGINAL WP WAS
FILED. EVEN THE ORDERS OF PAYMENT OF 40% BY THE
SUPREME COURT WERE BASED ON RULE 3(A) WHICH WE HAVE BEEN SEEKING TO
ABOLISH.
“ I HAVE PLANS READY TO TRAVEL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY AND INTERACT WITH LIC PENSIONERS.”
NICE—BHARAT DARSHAN AT WHAT COST?
PART –2 DATED 14.03.2017 .
“ THE SC HAS GIVEN TIME UPTO 30TH
APRIL’ 2017 AND JUSTICE KHANNA REQUIRES TIME. ”HOPING FOR A POSITIVE OUTCOME
FOLLOWED BY CELEBERATIONS. THE PETITIONERS WOULD HAVE TO FILE A CAVEAT IN THE
SC. I WANT TO THROW THIS TOPIC FOR OPEN
DISCUSSION NOT ONLY FOR THE LEADERS BUT MORE FOR MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT
ORGANISATIONS. WE FROM HYDERABAD
ASSOCIATION ARE OPEN FOR ANY DIALOGUE
WITH ANY BODY WITHOUT ANY PRE-CONDITION.”
NICE— TALK
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL THE PARTIES AND FIX A MEETING IF ALL AGREE
ON THIS.
PART—3.DATED 19.03.2017.
“ I WAS
TRAVELLING AND COLLECTING VALUABLE FEED BACK BESIDES RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS
FOR OUR LEGAL FUND.”
“THE PLAYERS ALREADY IN THE FIELD
....RECKLESSLY WORKING....ACCOUNTABILITY BEING NIL.”
EVERY ORGANISATION HAS A CONSTITUTION AND
AN AGREED AND DISCUSSED AGENDA AND THEY MUST BE WORKING ON THAT. HOW ANYBODY CAN SAY THAT ACCOUNTABILITY IS NIL.
“NO OTHER PETITIONER (CHANDIGARH &
HYDERABAD SUPPORT EACH OTHER) SEEMS TO BE ENTHUSIASTIC ON ANY ADVANCE PLANNING
JOINTLY TO TAKE THE POST-JUDGEMENT SITUATION.
.... COMING TOGETHER AT THAT POINT OF TIME IS MOST CRITICAL. YOU TAKE THE LEAD, WE SUPPORT, ASSIST AND
FOLLOW. IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING OR READY, WE DON’T RUN AWAY FROM OUR
RESPONSIBILITY. WE LEAD FROM THE FRONT.”
HOW ANY ONE CAN SAY THAT OTHERS ARE NOT
ENTHUSIASTIC? WE IN THE FEDERATION ARE ALREADY ON THE JOB OF FUTURE PLANNING.
ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PUBLICISE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO AND WHAT NOT. IF YOU ARE
READY TO JOIN ANY BODY WITHOUT ANY PRE-CONDITION, WHAT WAS THE NEED TO RUN AWAY
FROM A LARGE ORGANISATION? ONE MAY DIFFER ON SOME ISSUES FOR WHICH SOLUTIONS
ARE ALWAYS THERE. RUNNING AWAY AND LEAVING THE ORGANISATION IS NOT THE
SOLUTION. NOW YOU WANT TO SUPPORT,
ASSISST AND FOLLOW,
PART—4.24.03.2017.
“DELHI HC HAS ASKED THE LIC COUNSEL TO FILE
A REJOINDER TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 5TH MARCH’ 2017 FILED BY
HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION ON 8TH MARCH’ 2017.”
THE FEDERATION HAD ALREADY FILED THE
WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND HANDED OVER A COPY OF THE SAME TO LIC COUNSEL. THIS IS A
PROCEDURE AND THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN THIS. DO NOT MISLEAD THE PENSIONERS.
PART—5.24.03.2017.
“JUDGEMENT IS RESERVED. IS IT NORMAL THAT
ONE PARTY IS CALLED AND DIRECTED TO FILE A REJOINDER TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION? IT IS NOT NORMAL, BUT RARE. THE JUDGEMENT IS BEING
DICTATED”
HOW ONE CAN ASSERT THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS
BEING DICTATED AND THE JEDGE CALLS A COUNSEL FOR CLARIFICATION?
PART—6.30.03.2017.
“THE JUDGEMENT MAY BE PRON OUNCED ON OR
AFTER APRIL 10, 2017 AND NOT BEFORE AS THE DELHI HC WILL BE ON VACATION FROM 1ST
APRIL TO 9TH APRIL AND LIC HAS TO FILE ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION.”
IT IS SURPRISING HOW A PERSON CAN HAVE ACCESS
TO INSIDE OF A COURT AND KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. GOOD THAT HYDERABAD
PEOPLE WERE PERFORMING GANAPATHI PUJA FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PENSIONERS AND
THEY COULD GET INSIDE INFORMATION ALSO FROM TIME TO TIME..
PART—7.30.03.2017.
REPITITION OF PART 6. IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER NEWS FOR
THE PENSIONERS.
WELDONE HYDERABAD PEOPLE FOR KEEPING THE
PENSIONERS INFORMED MORE THAT WHAT WAS REQUIRED. BY THIS SMALL NOTE I DID NOT HAVE ANY
INTENTION FOR OR AGAINST ANY ONE. I HAVE
JUST EXPRESSED MY VIEWS ON THE ISSUES RAISED SO THAT NO ONE IS MISLED.
THANKS.
P.P. DHAMIJA
9810186067
No comments:
Post a Comment