Friday, August 1, 2014

SN (a 1992 Pensioner) writes...


Shri S.Ananthmurthy may go through the Pension Anomaly
Chart by Shri. C.H.Mahadevan posted by the Editor
on 31/7/2014. Shri Ananthmurthy can know what would be his
August 2014 pension, approximately, had there been updation
of pension and 100% neutralisation of DA/DR.

An exhaustive exercise, enormous job, worthy of compliments.

The anomalies are so much glaring that it is incredible that the
GOI and LIC are not ready to accept, to acknowledge the reality.
The chart/ statements could be submitted as exhibits in the
Courts. The exhibits, the statements may serve as eye opener.

MC JAIN vs LIC OF INDIA judgment and implications

Dear Mr Krishna Rao,

I do not think that this judgment will help us to get stage to stage fixation of pension. This judgment only provides relief to 92-93 Class I retirees by way of correct fixation of pension w.e.f 1/11/1993 besides revision of salary w.e.f 1/8/1992 which they were denied at the first instance.
Stage to stage fixation of pension can only be achieved if the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order of 12/1/2010 is implemented by LIC which has been reinforced by Chandigarh HC judgment specifying upgradation on 1/8/2002 and ordering interest payment @ 12% p.a.
But according to me, once the judgment in the M C Jain case is implemented by LIC, by wider implication, Class I Officers retired after 1/4/1993 will also have to be given the benefit of revision of salary w.e.f 1/8/1992 instead of the actual effective date 1/4/1993 and pay arrears of salary for 8 months with consequential benefit of PF.
Let us wait and see what LIC does in the matter.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

MC JAIN vs LIC OF INDIA - Judgment published for information of readers





D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1492/2012
Stay Application No.15341/2012
 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mahesh Chand Jain
 Date of Order ::: 17.12.2012
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq
Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mrs. Meena V. Gomber
 Shri O.P. Gandhi for
Shri Rajendra Arora, Counsel for appellant
 By the Court:-
This appeal has been preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the LIC') against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2012 in Writ Petition No.1454/2009 filed by Mahesh Chandra Jain (respondent herein). In the writ petition, he firstly prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to give benefit of Rule 27 of the L.I.C. Of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules of 1995') to the extent it falls short of 33 years of qualifying service and determine the pension on full basic pay as come to be fixed under the revised pay scales; secondly, he prayed that respondents be directed to fix his basic pay in revised pay scale of Zonal Manager at Rs.11,750/- as effective from 01.08.1992 and after giving benefit of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, pay pension at 50% of Rs.11,750/- with commensurate dearness relief as payable on such amount from time to time. While first prayer of Mahesh Chand Jain was rejected by learned Single Judge, his second prayer was allowed and thus the writ petition was partly allowed. It is against that direction that present special appeal has been preferred by the LIC.

Learned counsel for appellant has argued that respondent was not entitled to benefit of revised pay scale in term of proviso to Rule 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 1996, (hereinafter shall be referred to 'the Rules of 1996'). No direction can be issued for payment of arrears to him for the period from 01.08.1992 to 31.03.1993 because the respondent already stood retired from service on 31.03.1993 and therefore he could not be held entitled to arrears of pay revision prior to that date. Learned counsel referred to notification dated 18.07.1996 issued by the Chairman of the LIC of India. The Chairman issued such direction on 19.07.1996 providing for the method of fixation of scale of pay and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He argued that effective dates for revision of different components of wage were fixed as per aforementioned notification of Government of India. It was contended that since Mahesh Chand Jain retired prior to issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996, he could not be granted benefit of pay revision  particularly the basic pay and dearness allowance with was given with effect from 01.04.1993, wheres the respondent retired on 31.01.1993. Since he was not granted benefit of revision of pay, there does not arise any question for fixing him in revised pay scale as pension has to be calculated on the basis of actually drawn pay during last ten months of service. Learned counsel argued that the Chairman has power under Rule 51 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 to issue instructions with regard to adoption of method of fixation of scale of pay in new scale of pay, according to which his components of basic pay and dearness allowance was to be taken with effect from 01.04.1993, whereas HRA, CCA and Hill Allowance with effect from 01.08.1993, Gratuity, Conveyance Allowance with effect from 01.08.1994 and Computer Increment with effect from 01.11.1993. In terms of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the employees, who were in service of the Corporation on or after 01.01.1986 but had retired before 01.11.1993, after exercise of an option in writing, were allowed pension with effect from 01.11.1993 subject to refund of Corporation's Contribution to Provident Fund with accrued interest with a further simple interest. In terms of Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995, basic pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments of last ten months. Pension was therefore to be calculated on actually drawn pay and not on notional pay.
We have given our anxious consideration to submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment.

In so far as first prayer in writ petition is concerned, learned Single Judge in impugned judgment has referred to and reproduced clause 2 of said notification dated 18.07.1996, which extended benefit of revised pay scale to employees with effect from 01.08.1992. We reproduce that part of Clause 2 of the Notification, which reads as under:-

“Save as otherwise provided hereinafter, the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the 01st day of August, 1992:
Provided that where any Class I officer gives a notice in writing to the Corporation, within thirty days of the publication of these rules in the official Gazette, expressing his option to be governed by the provisions of any of these rules from a date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force, then the Corporation may be order/permit such officer to be governed by the said rule with effect from the said date:
Provided further that no such option may be exercised by a Class I officer in respect of rule 9A of these rules:
Provided also that no arrears for the period prior to the date so chosen shall be payable to such officer.”

Aforesaid clause of notification dated 18.07.1996 clearly indicates that the provisions of said Rules came into effect from 01.08.1992, the date on which respondent Mahesh Chand Jain was very much in service. However, an option was given to Class I officers to give a notice in writing within thirty days of the publication of the said Rules expressing there willingness to be governed by the provisions of any clause of these rules from the date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force. This means that a given officer could opt to be governed by the benefit of pay scales from the date later than 01st August, 1992. If what the appellant is contending is accepted, this would mean that even a Class I officer, who could not otherwise exercise the option because he stood retired when the said notification was issued, then he would not get benefit of revision of pay with effect from 01.08.1992 on which date the revised pay scale rules came into force, even though he was physically in service on that day. 

There is no exception made in the Rules that such benefit would not be admissible to those Class I officers who were actually in service between the date the aforesaid Rules came into force i.e. 01.081.992 and the date of issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996. Their retirement in between was a fortuitous circumstance. Non-grant of such similar benefit to him, would be  wholly discriminatory because his co-employees who have yet not retired and continued in service, shall be granted benefit of revision of pay even for the period such retired employees like the respondent, were actually working with them.
Contention that pension has to be computed as per Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995 on the basis of last pay actually drawn during the period of ten months preceding the date of retirement and not on the basis of notional pay, is noted to be rejected only because once adoption of revision of pay scale rules is made with effect from 01.08.1992, the respondent became entitled to benefit of revised pay scale. It would then be taken to be his actual pay and not the notional pay because he was actually working during that period and all his co-employees were also paid the enhanced revised pay. Action of the appellant LIC in refusing such benefit to the respondent only because he has retired between the aforesaid two dates, indeed was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995 does not create any bar for treating the revised pay pursuant to enforcement of revision of pay scale rules from anterior date if the date on which such rules are made effective, the employee was actually in service. The Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others – (2008) 9 SCC 125, in identical circumstances held the action of the Union of India in treating  such officers who retired as Major General prior to 01.01.1996 and those who retired after 01.01.1996 dissimilarly by making them payment of different amount of pension, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, and held that it would otherwise cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, if what is contended by the appellant is upheld, that would amount to treating equals unequally and would be discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not therefore find any infirmity in the judgment of  learned Single Judge.

The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of special appeal, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.    (Mohammad Rafiq) J.

Let us wait for SC decision

Sri. Gangadharan,

I am from Hospet (Bellary Dist.) retired on 31st Oct.1992 as Dev.Officer. At the time of my retirement my basic pay was Rs.3880. Since my service was only 30 years my basic pension was fixed at Rs.1764. Of course for the same basic pension of  Rs.1764 DA is calculated and now I am getting total amount of Rs.15486.
I was  a founder member of South Zone alongwith Sri. N.S.Murthy and others. I was active till 2001 and actively participated in all activities. Now, of course, all Associations merged and called All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation. I am regularly getting 'Varista Vani' for which  l am a life member. l have also, to a little extent, helped form a new unit under Raichur Dn.
Many of my friends enquired about calculation of DA as when DA slab changes and also about the total amount of pension likely to arrive per month when the High Court of Jaipur is upheld. you may please give a rough idea on this. Probably we may meet in Bangalore at the time of General Council Meet  to be held during this October. SORRY for this trouble in the midst of your sending e-mail regularly covering.

With warm sravana greetings,
but he looks more like a Federation or
Class I Federation guy...

(thank you for your mail. i am not good at calculations myself, and it may not be advisable to refer the matter to somebody since it is too early to make calculations based on jaipur high court judgment. supreme court is seized of the matter and we do not know what is going to be the judgment. my feeling is that the demand for 100% neutralisation is justifiable and no body can deny the same. upgradation too we may achieve. that's all that i can say at the moment. let us wait for a supreme court order in this matter.

2. as for attending the bangalore conference, i will not be coming over there since i am not a federation member. attending the conference as a journalist is a different matter.  i belong to aiipa. my union affiliation and blog are different matters. i keep the blog as a vehicle for carrying all views so that people at least know different view points. the editor is a AIIPA member and proudly so, and there is no hiding of this matter. thank you. keep in touch.

3. Shri Ananthamurthy's mail since forwarded to Shri RK Sahni. He may like to clarify. Ed.)

Senior pensioners leaving us without getting justice‏

Shri Mehta's mail on the captioned subject makes a heart-rending reading. It is really very unfortunate that those valiant fighters who wanted to fight against the injustice perpetrated on the LIC Pensioners at large by LIC ably abetted by the GOI/MOF are no more in this world.

The LIC who has chosen a lofty Sanskrit slogam YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAAMYAHAM from the Holy Geetha for their Emblem does NOT LIVE UPTO TO THE SAME and keeps it only for the name-sake. It is high time that they REMOVE THIS SLOGAM from their Emblem and declare their true colour.


Thursday, July 31, 2014



Period of retirement
Gross Basic Pension( on Maximum of Scale)
DR as at 1/8/2014
Total Gross Pension as  at 1/ 8/2014
1/8/1987 to 31/7/1992
1/8/1992 to 31/7/1997
1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002
1/8/2002 to 31/7/2007
1/8/2007 to 31/1/2015( pending revision due on 1/8/2012)

Period of retirement
Gross Basic Pension( on Maximum of Scale)
DR as at 1/8/2014
Total Gross Pension as  at 1/ 8/2014

1/8/1987 to 31/7/1992
1/8/1992 to 31/7/1997
1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002
1/8/2002 to 31/7/2007
1/8/2007 to 31/1/2015( pending revision due on 1/8/2012)

Period of retirement
Gross Basic Pension( on Maximum of Scale)
DR as at 1/8/2014
Total Gross Pension as  at 1/ 8/2014

1/8/1987 to 31/3/1993
1/4/1993 to 31/7/1997
1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002
1/8/2002 to 31/7/2007
1/8/2007 to 31/1/2015( pending revision due on 1/8/2012)

AIBRF Letter No 2014/94 dt. 27-05-14 addressed to P.M. Shri Narendra Modi

Respected Pradhan Mantriji

We have great pleasure and proud privilege in extending HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS to you on landslide victory of your party in the General Elections under your leadership and now on your election as Prime Minister of the country. Your elevation as Prime Minister has raised new hope and confidence among the people and they have sincerely started believing that the nation will be on high growth path. Your highly popular, motivating and impressive slogan "ACCHE DIN ANNE WALE HAI" has infused new enthusiasm and inspiration among common man of the country. Your promise "This government (will be) one which thinks for poor, which listens to the poor, the government which lives for the poor" made in the historical central hall of the Parliament on the occasion of your election as PM thrilled the country with high hopes. This country is looking forward for CHANGE and better days ahead under your leadership.

2. All India Bank Retirees' Federation (AIBRF) is apex body of bank retirees. It was formed about 20 years back to assist bank retirees in resolution of their issues/ problems in particular with the bank management in the post retirement scenario. Today, AIBRF has 47 affiliates with total membership of about 1.25 lakhs retirees. All our members are SENIOR CITIZENS. Main object of our organisation is to ensure dignified and respectful life for our members. AIBRF is independent organisation of bank retirees without any political philosophy or leaning.

3. We have been struggling and fighting for the following issues for last 15 years to secure justice for our members.

It is very unfortunate that there is no structured and formal grievance redressal mechanism for bank retirees at all India level.There are more than 3 lakhs pensioners in the banking industries at present and this number is likely to cross 5 lakhs in next 2 years. Retirees have many issue connecting to fixation of pension, eligibility, calculations, review etc. We have been representing and demanding from Indian Bank Association ( IBA) for last 15 years that it should establish proper and effective grievance redressal mechanism at the industry level, consult retiree representatives on their pending issues as and when wage negotiations take place in the banking industry. In the absence of such forum, bank retirees who are senior citizens are forced to approach courts for resolution of their issues and to secure justice. Such legal cases are very large and they are still pending in various high courts and Supreme Court. To fight such legal battle for individuals who are senior citizens is very painful physically as well as financially. We are at total loss and are unable to comprehend as to why IBA/ Bank Managements are so reluctant to give even audience to the representatives of bank retirees for solution of issues across the table rather than spending huge public money in defending their stand in courts unsuccessfully. Bank Managements have gone to the extend that they are not readyto implement judgements given by Supreme Court in favour of retirees. IBA deal with retirees with highhandedness and refuse to share information on their issues on technical pretence that it is not covered by RTI act. This attitude of IBA is becoming highly humiliating and insulting for bank retirees.
We approach you with humble request that you should direct IBA and the bank management that they must immediately hold discussion with the representatives of retirees and take them into confidence before signing next wage settlement.

17 slabs of DR declared with effect from 1st August 2014

Monthly figures
JANUARY 20140237 5409
FEBRUARY 201402385432
MARCH 201402395455
APRIL 201402425523
MAY 201402445569
JUNE 201402465615

Senior LIC Pensioners Leaving Us Without Getting Justice In Their Lifetime

Thirty one LIC Pensioners residing in Tricity Chandigarh, Mohali and Panchkula under leadership of Sh.M.L Gandhi  filed a petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh in 2010 for D.A. Uniformity and Pension Upgradation. 

Though High Court gave its verdict in favour of Pensioners on 09.11.2012, yet LIC moved Supreme Court where matter is still pending.  

It is really unfortunate that  a few very senior LIC Pensioners cum Petitioners out of 31 have already left us without getting justice from LIC in their life time. With the  death of Sh.P.C.Chopra, one of the Petitioners, on 28th July 2014 , so far five petitioners have already died till date, the other four being S/Sh. M.L. Gandhi, Harkirat Singh, Amar Singh Majha and D.C.Bhardwaj.

All these five petitioners who are no more with us today were sure that LIC would give them justice in their life time but LIC Management with GOI support has been very cruel to all of them. 
How LIC is going to Listen and when ?



NEW DELHI: After asking taxpayers to validate their personal email ids and mobile phone numbers for online filing of Income Tax returns, the I-T department has now urged them to include its official email address in the 'safe list' of their inboxes.

The department has suggested taxpayers to validate and include in the 'white/safe list' of their respective inboxes the official handle of the department-- '', so that it does not land in the spam or  ..

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Thank you Chronicle !

Thank you Chronicle for greeting the Muslim retirees on the occasion of 
Eid-ul-Fitr (Ramzan Festival) in a beautiful format.
This indicates that the Chronicle is mindful of all religions.
Thank you once again.
(...and a little proud too about that secular mind. -Ed.)

Defence Ministry fixes anomalies in rank pay case

Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, July 27
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has rectified some of the anomalies contained in its orders issued earlier to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in the rank pay case pertaining to the Fourth Pay Commission.
On implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, the component rank pay had been deducted from the salary of officers, while calculating their total emoluments and fixing their status vis-à-vis civilian officials. Consequently their emoluments were fixed lower than what they should actually have been if rank pay had been included in the calculations.
Similar anomalies also existed in the Fifth Pay Commission. The anomaly was only discovered years later and thereafter commenced a long legal battle, with the apex court finally ruling in 2010 that the deduction of the rank pay had been illegal.
When the MoD issued orders to implement the SC’s judgment, some phrases were “twisted”, resulting in not only the benefits being restricted to lesser number of officers, but also denying rectification of similar anomalies in the Fifth Pay Commission.
The SC had ruled that officers were entitled to befits and arrears “with effect from” January 1, 1986, but the MoD order stated that benefits would be given to officers in service “as on” January 1, 1986.
This implied officers who got commissioned after this date would not be granted the benefits even though the same pay commission was applicable to them. The service community had contended that the MoD’s orders were not in sync with the essence and sprit of the SC judgment.
While the Service Headquarters took up the issue with the government, a number of veterans, whose arrears and pension fixation were also affected, moved a contempt petition against the MoD. The MoD had also referred the matter to the Attorney General, who had given his opinion in favour of the officers on several issues.

The MoD’s orders issued on Thursday state that the words “as on 1.1.1986” in the earlier order be substituted by “w.e.f.1.1.1986”. New clauses have also been incorporated in the new order which state that similar benefits would also be extended for recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, which too contained the same anomaly pertaining to rank pay."
Received thru RK Sahni

Welfare measures to Retirees in Canara Bank

To Executive Director (P), LIC, Mumbai

Message attached for information and appropriate decisions for the benefit of LIC pensioners as it may be deemed proper.

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
(The following Canara Bank Retirees Federation letter alongwith true extract of the H.O. Memo No.70 :2014 dated 26.07.2014 from Human Resources Wing of Canara Bank relating to benefits to retired employees/family pensioners has been forwarded to LIC.)

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Apply, apply - No reply

Dear sir,

Daily I see posts in the Chronicle about 100% DA
neutralisation and pension upgradation in RBI BANKS
BWDB B'LORE, etc but nothing about the progress in
our case. We have submitted memorandums and
met MPs, Ministers including Finance Minister
Arun Jaitely who promised to look into the matter to
settle our issues. Alas, no result has come out so far.
Association leaders want us wait patiently till 12 08 2014.
But what is the guarantee that it will not be adjourned...

We can not achieve our goals unless 1. SC gives a firm
verdict in our favour 2. LIC takes a decision to honour
HC/SC judgements (which will never happen) 3.The
Mof  directs LIC to honour HC/SC judgements.
Will any of these happen?

A V Subbaraman Coimbatore Division


Sri Arun Jaitley,
Finance Minister,
Government of India.
Most Revered Sir,

We draw your attention to the following facts for your consideration and immediate action.
1) Sri Muneeswarnath Bhandari,Single Judge of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court admitted two writ petitions filed by Sri Krishna Murari Lal Asthana on12th January 2010 with regard to
a) 100% Neutralisation of Dearness Allowance to Pre-August retirees of LIC
b) To revise pensions according to wage revisions effected in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007.
The Judge directed LIC to implement the resolution of the LIC Board dated 24th November, 2001.
The resolution was in respect of
i) Neutralisation of D.A and
ii) Upgradation of pension according to every wage revision.

The appeal of LIC challenging the above verdict was dismissed by the division bench of Rajasthan High Court on 21st January 2011. The review petitions filed by LIC on this verdict were dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on 19th August 2011. The Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh High Court quoted the judgement of Sri MN. Bhandari and ordered LIC to pay the amounts due to pensioners with 12% interest. The Delhi High Court also quoted the Judgement of Sri MN. Bhandari and made it applicable to all pensioners. Two special leave petition filed by LIC before Supreme Court to set aside the judgement of Sri M.N.Bhandari were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19th August 2013.
The Supreme court on 30-9-2013 rejected the prayer of LIC to grand stay on the operation of the judgement of Chandigarh High court in respect of Sri Mc Jain v/s LIC. This relates to fixation of pension according to wage revisions from 1992 to 2007. The above facts manifest the deliberate defiance court verdicts by LIC and its disregard for the majesty of the courts of law in our country.
We pray your good self to give proper directions to LIC to obey and take immediate steps for implementation of the verdicts of the courts. Nearly 10,000 pensioners died during this 16 year old litigation. It is not uncommon to hear regularly about the passing away of fellow pensioners. Please help us to live in peace in the twilight years of our lives by an equitable and just dispensation according to the verdicts of courts.
The memorandum dated 7th June 2014 handed over to Hon. Shri Venkaiah Naidu is already in your ministry. We earnestly hope that our prayers will be promptly addressed by you.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
KKD.Hanumantha Rao,

31st July deadline to file your tax returns

Scrambling to file your tax returns before the 31st July deadline - If you haven’t filed your return yet, it’s time to get cracking. Here are the quick steps you can take to start filing NOW!
Getting Organized
  • You will need your Form 16. Your Form 16 has all the details you need to get started. Part A of this form has information of PAN, TAN and Address details of your Employer. You will need these details since you need to fill these fields in your Return. Part B of Form 16 has your salary details. Total Taxable Salary, Deductions, Tax Deducted and any tax due or refundable to you. Luckily, if you have disclosed all your incomes to your employer, your employer would have already deducted tax on those and considered those in this Form.
  • Another document you will need is your Form 26AS : Form 26AS is a storehouse of information all linked to your PAN number. Tax Deducted on your PAN, Advance Tax paid by you, self assessment tax paid by you. When banks deduct TDS on your income, it shows up on your Form 26AS. Similarly all the TDS deducted by your employer also shows up here. Use this summary to know of all the incomes you need to report and the tax deducted thereon.
  • Other documents like your bank statement – this will have your interest income. You’ll need interest payment and principal repayment details on your housing loan.
Start E-filing
  • E-filing really is smooth sailing, embrace it! Create your login on one of the e-filing portals. Online portals like ClearTax automatically populate your return when you upload your Form 16, you can even upload multiple Form 16s. You can enter the information manually too, if that feels more comfortable.
  • You can automatically populate your TDS details, ClearTax can pull out all our TDS information directly from the IT department’s website. A few clicks and all the data you need is there on your IT Return. You always choose to enter these details manually too.
  • Make sure you have captured all Incomes you have earned during the financial year and input them under relevant heads.
  • Take some time to review your Return for omissions, if any and tally in the final tax refund/liability if there is.
  • If all looks ok to you, click on E-file!
  • You are not done yet! Once you have successfully e-filed, your ITRV will be sent to your email id. You can also download it yourself.
  • Take a print of the ITR-V, sign it in blue ink and send it by ordinary or speed post (no couriers) to CPC, Bangalore. Remember, you need to send this document within 120 days of filing your return. You can check whether CPC received your ITR-V here.
  • Upon receiving your ITR-V, the IT department will send you an acknowledgement on email. That completes your Return filing process!

Don’t wait for the eleventh hour, File your return pronto!


that unending, futile search for happiness...
(Recd thru RK Sahni)