Dear Mr Sahni,
Attached is my Post with a request to upload in the Blog.
--
Thanks and regards,
Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla
M SREENIVASA MURTY April 10,
2017
FROM THE HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION
WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE VERDICT……..Part-9
Dear LIC Pensioners and Family
Pensioners,
Here is my combined response to
Shri PP Dhamija & Sri G N Sridharan.
Why do a few people target me
so unkindly and the Hyderabad Association, so unfairly? Fortunately they are
very few, hardly half a dozen. But why do they do it? In my opinion, they do so
mostly due to DISTRUST & DISCOMFORT. Distrust emanates from lack of authentic
information at their disposal (could also be unwillingness to know).
In my opinion again, Mr PP
Dhamija’s recent tirade personally against me, his sprinkling of a few rational
observations here and there notwithstanding, falls under the first category and
Mr GNS’s picking up from something that was so readily served on a platter that
too by a soft-spoken, suave and respected gentleman like Mr. Dhamija, falls
under the latter. I put GNS under the second category although the term
‘discomfort’ in his case, is a euphemism for unbridled despise, arising from
first-rate phobia for Hyderabad, myself and Sri C H Mahadevan.
Let me start with PPD’s write
up. I am surprised to learn that he has been silently nurturing and
accumulating internally, so much animosity towards us, purely due to
disinformation and
misinformation
even on basic facts. GNS mentioned that some senior Pensioners got brainwashed
by me. That is a ridiculous allegation and even unfair to those whom he was
having in mind. But PPD certainly got brainwashed perhaps from what all he has
been hearing from his GS.
PPD claims that the
Constitutional validity of Para 3A was challenged by GNS in his WP No 184 of
2007 and that their Federation was the only Party to do so. I feel sorry for
PPD and would request him to go through the WP carefully or at least check this
with his GS. The facts are just otherwise. The whole thrust of WP No 184/2007
was that not extending the benefit of Para 3A to those who retired before
1.8.97, was discriminatory etc., In fact the concluding lines of the Prayer in
the Writ Petition read as: ‘Direct the Respondents to fix Dearness Relief allowing
full neutralization in accordance with Rules 3 (A) and 3 (B) of the Appendix to
the Pension Rules 1995 and to pay…….’
The above facts should also
expose the hollowness of PPD’s claims that Justice Misra referred the matter to
Delhi High Court based on his Counsel’s pleas and his prayer in the original
WP.
Similarly Mr Dhamija seriously
erred on facts, on the contents and the purpose of the IA filed by GNS while
the Civil Appeal No. 9223 of 2013 was pending. This is evidently due to lack of
access to papers, which is the characteristic feature of GNS and his
Federation. It is unlike a person of PPD’s seniority (certified by GNS himself)
to commit such a factual blunder in claiming that the
IA
was filed to expedite decision as the Petitioners were all old etc., Is this
what your GS told you Mr Dhamija or is it a figment of your own imagination? IA
No 3 dated 06.02.2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013 was NOT to expedite hearing or for
a decision but it was filed to seek payment to his members also, what was
deposited in the Jaipur HC in KML’s contempt matter. Payment of an amount which
was far less than what was due and which was being seriously contested by KML
himself. It was this IA filed sneakily keeping many EC Members of the
Federation also in dark that was the last nail on the undivided Federation’s
coffin. If it was not successfully opposed by us or allowed by SC, the fate of
pre-97 retirees as also that of post-97 retirees would have been sealed
permanently because GNS knowingly endorsed the mischief played by LIC’s wrong
interpretation of its own Board Resolution, through the dangerous IA. Anybody
who reads it carefully shall not miss to see a ‘pliant’ General Secretary with
hidden agenda. I always had my doubt if the said IA was filed with the tacit
consent from ‘Yogakshema’. But it is all history now.
As to PPD’s choice of phrases
to describe Hyderabad’s exit from the Federation, I can only say we left after
several serious efforts to make the GS see reason, had failed and we have not
only no regrets but we (and many more continuing members at other centres) are
happy that we left. It was for self-preservation.
Mr Dhamija had a more serious
problem to accept what I mentioned in Part – 4 of my series – ‘while we wait…’
He
doesn’t
want to believe my report that LIC’’s Sr. Advocate was directed to file a
Rejoinder to the Hyderabad Association’s Written Submissions. I am now in a
position to reaffirm what I reported on 24 March, as the Rejoinder by LIC to
our Written Submissions in WP No 4894 was in fact filed by LIC on 31 March and
a copy officially served on us. Why does PPD confuse it with his own
Federation’s W/S, which was filed like what others have also done? As to why
the Court asked LIC to file a Rejoinder in Hyderabad’s W/S only and not in GNS
Federation’s or any other W/S, cannot be answered by me. If Mr Dhamija cared to
go through our W/S (widely circulated by me) he would probably get an answer.
Having explained at this length, the ‘unusual’ direction by the Bench, I may
conclude the topic by happily reporting that LIC’s rejoinder was a repetition
of its old pleas and a damp squib. They could not make any dent in to our forceful
written submissions supported by incontrovertible facts and figures.
Mr Dhamija tried to discount
the advantage we gained following the unexpected and unique opportunity I got
to address the Bench in the last fifteen minutes before the Court rose after
reserving the Judgement. He said we were raising a hue and cry etc., I don’t
see any hue or any cry anywhere and if PPD sees some, let him ignore it. I
should certainly thank him as he did not dispute the fact of my addressing the
Bench. Perhaps he was present in the Court. I am thanking PPD because while
scores of pensioners were very happy for the opportunity I got and how I could
use it, a couple of Federation supporters/Hyderabad baiters had their own
way
to describe my addressing the Bench. One said I ‘made a mess of it’. Another
followed him to say I was pulled up by the Bench and I had to say ‘Sorry’. Both
these urchins picked the news from what I myself reported. They chose to
believe one part of it and decided to question the correctness of another part.
If this is organizational loyalty, woe unto it.
Lastly, PPD’s sarcasm referring
to our Ganapathi Puja was not in good taste. Compared to the rest of the
vitriol, this is nothing. So I leave it there.
Mr GNS, while claiming to
merely clarify PPD’s musings, came out with his true colours, yet again. I am
sure Sri Mahadevan’s comprehensive response has put everything in perspective.
If I may add a point or two, GNS being a practicing lawyer of more than two
decades, compared to mine, I am glad he offered to stand corrected after making
a wild guess that I enrolled myself after his Federation’s litigation heated up
in the Supreme Court.
Dear GNS, my Enrolment Number
with the AP Bar Council is 3825/1999 which can be verified at the Bar Council’s
website. Please note I did not enrol myself to practice law after I retired,
but I got enrolled while in service as stipulated by LIC to function as its Law
Officer. Our (common) good friend Mr David Chandrasekharan as RM (P&IR)
(ZM/Selection grade) encouraged me to go through the process. After the Central
Office appointed me as the Law Officer, David was happier than me when he
announced my appointment in a SDMs’ Conference at Hyderabad.
As
to the length or duration of one’s practice, as a Lawyer, if it has to be
measured in terms of the value of experience gained, I am afraid yours was put
to test when you tried to oppose Hyderabad Association’s entry in DHC. I was so
much provoked by your desperate though legally untenable attempts to block us
at DHC then that I had to rudely ask you which Law School you went to pick your
degree from. Let us leave it there and not go further down.
I am beholden to the few who
defended me so stoutly while responding to the write-ups of PPD & GNS,
particularly Sri Mahadevan, whose passionate recollection of our working
relationship in the service of the mighty Corporation made me feel ‘very good’.
If I may add to what all Sri Mahadevan wrote, our big achievements, outside the
routine, were quite a few and many of them are not for that day or for that
year but will stand testimony even now and for several decades to come. There
are many senior officers enjoying their retired life across the Country, who
would unhesitatingly vouch for what all I am bragging here today. Ask Mr E I Thomas,
(I lost touch with him for quite some time) the then ED (OS) how he converted
an imminent challenge in to securing the Board Approval almost in the last
minute (by talking his way through with the Chairman, in the face of resistance
from the Govt-nominee Member on the Board), for LIC striking a deal with the
Govt of Andhra Pradesh. It was possible due to E I providing me with an
opportunity to produce a miracle at Hyderabad when I acted ten times the
capacity of any RM
(Legal).
The visible-for-all-time, result - many would have seen the SC Zone’s ZTC
Campus, acclaimed as one of the best in the country, built on the 7½ Acre land
in the heart of Hyderabad city, near Indira Park, reclaimed BY ME from the Govt
of AP, ending the litigation pending in the High Court, for the preceding
quarter century. ZM’s & other Officers’ Qrs and the VIP Guest House Complex
are part of it. That Sri Mahadevan and I were specially invited (years after we
both retired from service) to join the then Chairman and other dignitaries, to
light the lamp for the inauguration of the imposing edifice, was a testimony
for our outstanding contribution. If Mr GNS accuses us of working for our
career enhancement, I wish to assure him he is thoroughly mistaken and I can
narrate to him many more such outstanding achievements to the credit of Sri
CHM, the ZM and his RM (Legal). We earned and deserved everything we received
from LIC and we are genuinely proud of it.
I don’t care if anyone wants
even to call this ‘mutual back-scratching’ but let me shout from the roof top –
forget the positions he held, viz., Zonal Manager I/C or ED. Tell me if anyone
knowing Sri Mahadevan closely, does not vouch for his impeccable integrity,
pristine character, genuine humility, hard work and of high moral values. If
GNS is an exception for such a universal perception about Sri Mahadevan, so be
it. Nobody is a loser.
I
had no chance or curiosity to know what Sri Mahadevan wrote in my CRs during
those concluding years of my service, but his open and public assessment of me
now, in the context of our combined post-retirement efforts to serve the cause
of LIC Pensioners, makes me feel immensely happy.
Thank you, GNS for being the
cause of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment