22/5/2017

DEAR UNCLE NAN

I AM NOT CONTROVERTING YOUR STAND AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU HAVE RESPONDED.

BUT I MUST SAY THAT I HAVE NEVER CLUBBED THE TWO ISSUES OF SIMILAR RATE OF DR (NOT NEUTRALISATION) WHICH IS CONFUSING. I HAD FILED WRIT PETITION IN 1998 ON THE SUBJECT OF DR ONLY AND IN THE YEAR 2007 I HAD FILED ASEPARATE WRIT PETITION EXCLUSIVELY IN THE MATTER OF REVISION AND AM STILL FIGHTING THE SAME SEPARATELY, BUT LIC IS MISUSING THE JUDGMENT WHEREIN BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED. I HAD FILED THE CONTEMPT PETITION SPECIFICALLY FOR REVISED PENSION AND TWO APPEALS ARE BEING FILED BY LIC AT ALL STAGES

IN THE APPEAL AT JAIPUR HC TWO APPEALS WERE FILED AND TWO SEPARATE JUDGMENTS WERE GIVEN. SIMILARLY TWO SLPS WERE FILED IN SC IN 2011 AND TWO REVIEW PETITIONS IN JAIPUR HC WHICH WERE DECIDED SEPARATELY. THEN LIC FILED SLP IN SC WHEREIN ALSO TWO SEPARATE NUMBERS WERE GIVEN THOUGH ONE SLP COMBINED WAS FILED. IN THE JUDGMENT TWO SEPARATE NUMBERS WERE GIVEN. IN THE SUBSEQUENT SLPS WHICH ARE THE PRESENT

ONE ALSO SEPARATE NUMBERS ARE GIVEN. SIMILARLY BEFORE DELHI IF YOU SEE THE CAUSE TITLE YOU WILL FIND THAT TWO SEPARATE WRIT PETITIONS ARE GIVEN. IN DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO I HAD FILED TWO ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. BUT DELHI HC HAS GIVEN ONE JUDGMENT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM NOT PURSUING THE MATTER WITH REGARD TO REVISION OF PENSIONS. I HAVE SOUGHT THE REVISION IN RESPECT OF ALL PENSIONERS ACCORDING TO THE REVISION OF PENSIONS I.E. IN 1993, 1997, 2002, 2007 AND 2012 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PENSIONERS. THIS IS INCORRECT THAT I AM NOT FOLLOWING UP THE MATTER OF REVISION OF PENSIONS OR SIDELINING THE OLD PENSIONERS. IT IS SOME SELF-INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE MAKING FALSE PUBLICITY THAT I HAVE NOT PURSUED THE REVISION OF PENSIONS. THUS IF THE PENSIONS ARE REVISED THEY WILL BE APPLICABLE TO YOU ALSO EQUALLY. REST ASSURED.

THE SC HAS ALSO GRANTED THE 40 PER CENT ON THE SLPS WHICH ARE AGAINST KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND NONE ELSE. 

IT IS ALSO BEING PROPAGATED THAT SINCE MY WRIT PETITION WAS SOLE ONE THEREFORE IF ANY RELIEF IS GIVEN THAT WILL BE TO ME ALONE. THIS IS ALSO WHOLLY INCORRECT. THE 2007 WRIT PETITION WAS FILED BY PENSIONERS OF TWO DIVISIONS BUT THE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS AND NOT THE PETITIONERS.

I HAVE TRIED TO CLEAR SOME ISSUES AND HOPE I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO TO SOME EXTENT. HOWEVER IF U WANT ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION PL DO WRITE TO ME I WILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND THE SAME.

KML ASTHANA

 On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Narayenen NAN <nanhrd@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Ashtana

Thank you for taking time off, amongst your busy schedule to respond to my points. I notice that

you have missed my point, where I have mentioned

that you have already pointed out that the percentage

awarded is less than that is existing for certain stages.

I personally felt and still feel that the TWO CASES OF (1) PENSION REVISION AND (2)REMOVING DA ANOMALY should be fought separately and should not have been clubbed together.

I do not for a moment subscribe to the view that we should not demand revision in pension.

However, it is people like you, who are at the helm of affairs, who know what is best. In the interest of the large younger group, please do not sacrifice the interests of the smaller elderly group, as they may not exist to enjoy the fruits of your victory (!) after the case is over.

Regards

Keep Going

Keep Growing

 

Uncle

Nan