Dear Editor,
This is with
reference to Mr. C.H.Mahadevan’s response to my post mainly on the issue of
clubbing of D.R.issue and Up-gradation in a single writ petition.
I hasten to begin with a promise that I have no intention
of prolonging the debate; these things never end. I will just close with one or two points before
the possible Editorial announcement that discussion on this subject is closed!
After nearly
two decades of controversy over correct understanding of the famous ‘ Board
Resolution’ and the issue of ‘clubbing ‘, Mr. C.H.Mahadevan has come up with an
answer (after deep research) which is
not acceptable to the more experienced
in our circles. I will not go into that.
On
the 100%
D.R.issue, after keeping quiet for so many years, he has suddenly come
up with a new work-out as to how 100% D.R.nutralisation to pre-Aug.1997
retirees will create an anomaly and adversely affect a few in-service
HGAs and
AAOs. In the process even the new “tapering” formula adopted by the DHC
appears
to be open to question. I do not claim to understand what exactly he is
driving
at, but it is doubtful whether LIC itself is aware of this so called
anomaly? Is that why Mr.CHM is hinting that
LIC itself may challenge the verdict by RP or SLP to possibly deny even
the so called “pittance” allowed by
the Court to the pre-Aug.1997 retirees.
In that case,
if he and his friends have the interest
of all sections of pensioners at heart,” Pre as well as Post”, what are the
proactive steps if any taken by them to allay the fears of old pensioners who
are apprehensive they may be cheated out of the so called pittance also in all
these exercises. These so called ‘anomalies’ are LIC’s problems assuming they
are aware of it, and our role is to fight for justice to pensioners. We need not waste our time
giving ideas to LIC.
I
do not
doubt the competence of Mr. CHM or his good intentions, but he has to
concentrate on restoring for the old
pensioners what they have been deprived of from Aug-1997, and ,if that
is not possible without further
court cases, at least do not put road blocks in their way of getting a
marginal
relief provided by the DHC verdict in their short life time ahead. If
LIC tries
to do that they should resist that with all their might. These academic
discussions on relative merits of “to club or not to club” can wait.
Yours truly,
No comments:
Post a Comment