No grudge! All are losers.

Dear Editor,

I  refer to Mr. CH Mahadevan’s post under heading "Hidden Implications....” wherein he  inter alia attempts to make out a case for payment of  non-refundable  40%  to post-July 1997 retirees also. Nice point. I hope LIC will agree to this. Some consolatory , though paltry,  relief for having struggled so far without avail.

My only concern is use of word  “grudge” in his post  (unwittingly, of course). I reproduce here the relevant passage .

“In any case when the Court has disallowed the prayer for upgradation, equity demands that the same principle of payment of non-recoverable 40% IR should be adopted for post-July 1997 retirees based on one-time upgradation of pension on 1/8/2002, 1/8/2007 & 1/8/2012 as the case may be without weightage applied on respective wage revisions.

Pensioner friends may consider whether this point makes sense. I hasten to add the post- July 1997 will not at all  grudge this  additional benefit being  granted by the judgment to pre-August 1997 retirees which thankfully  gives a ground for claiming similar benefits for the later generations of retirees.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan  

May be I am taking this  slightly out of context here. My point is there is no question of any ‘grudge’  being nursed by post-97 retirees for the paltry sums to be received by Pre-97 retirees which is only a portion of what the former have enjoyed right from day of retirement.. When Hon’ble Justice Misra ordered interim relief, he was obviously convinced the  petitioners  had a case but  remitted the case to DHC for addressing Constitutional provisions. How did DHC take it upon themselves to disturb the existing DA formula based on which LIC gave interim relief (though with mistakes) and even upheld the LIC’s calculation when it was challenged . That was not SC mandate to them nor the adequacy of funds which the Court has dealt  with presumably as “dictated” by UOI and as rightly  surmised by Mr. MSM.

All these points are in the legal domain which the experts from all WP groups will handle appropriately. Speaking as a layman , a section of pensioners had dual agenda viz (i) DA nutralisation (partly answered) and (ii) Up-gradation, and one section had one agenda only ie Up-gradation.  All are losers on in this judgment.

We have also to address the concern of the octogenarians: whether to let  go of the bird in hand for the uncertainly of prolonged appeal process in SC which may result in stay of whatever little reliefs the DHC has granted.( LIC itself may resort to this just to buy time to  study and understand the DHC judgment!) Fears of a stay may be unfounded, but for heaven's sake do not take it lightly. These 80 plus friends would not like to ‘bequeath’ any problems to the family pensioners.

Thank you,

Yours truly,

G.Krishna Prasad.

5-5-2017.