This and that

Dear Mr Mahadevan,

     The 'learned' Mr Justce Sanjeev Khanna of the Delhi High Court, who was apparently careful enough to add 'retired employees' after 'pensioners' in his "ORDER", allowing for the fact that among the retired employees there may be those who would not have opted for pension, could have added 18/12/1998 (even though justice and fair play demand that the date be 01/08/1997) after ' the date when the first Writ Petition was filed ' in his ORDER to avoid ambiguity or our lawyers could have pointed this out to the judge and obtained a clarification to the effect that the said date of 18-12-1998 by an interlocutory application (?) like doing "siroveshtanapraanaayaamam"!

     I tend to think there is an element of skulduggery involved in our litigation, especially in instances like the present, forcing us to spend our time and resources in ' extraneous, AVOIDABLE issues ' as part of the strategy of LIC to distract us from the main issues.

     You have advised that AFTER RECEIVING THE (PITTANCE OF) " ARREARS " 'DOLED OUT' BY LIC, we are to register our protest to LIC.

     Kindly inform the ' Authority ' (such an impressively-sounding word!) IN LIC to whom  such protest is to be addressed - Central Office? Or the office of the Corpn. which paid the arrears?

     Thanks and regards.P. Ramanathan.

P. Ramanathan.