* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

Monday, October 19, 2015

REPLY TO MR. SUDHAKARAN'S COMMENTS



DEAR SIR,

I HAVE GONE TO THE BRIEF NOTE OF MR.SUDHAKARAN. I AM UNABLE TO MAKE OUT, AS TO WHAT IS HIS CONTENTION / OPINION,”CONTRARY TO THAT OF MINE”., AND ALSO,”AS TO WHERE EXACTLY Adv.NPK FORGOT,“AND WHERE EXACTLY MR.SUDHAKARAN REMEMBERED”. WELL, IF HIS REFERENCE IS TO THE 6 PART SERIAL ARTICLES, PUBLISHED IN LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE, “ I AM UNABLE TO MAKE OUT AS TO WHERE DID I SAY”, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW / JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE”, “ SAYING THAT ONCE REVISION OF PENSION COMPUTATION FORMULA IS EFFECTED”, “THE SAME MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALL THE PENSIONERS”, “IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT” ,”WHICH GOES WITHOUT SAYING IT SO”, ‘IN SO MANY WORDS”, “IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENT”.

THE QUESTION IS — DID I SAY ANYTHING, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN NAKARA’S CASE”, ANY WHERE?”

THINKING / TAKING IT THAT HIS REFERENCE MAY BE TO, “ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE ENTITLED”—

“AN ADVICE TO ALL BANK EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT”, “AS SOLICITED BY MOST OF THEM”—

“OR ANY SINGLE PART OF THOSE ARTICLES”--

I HAVE GONE THROUGH “ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE”,”WITH THE ABOVE TITLE”, “ONLY (AS, “BY THE TIME, MR.SUDHAKARAN SENT IN HIS NOTE”, “ONLY 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE”, “WITH THE ABOVE TITLE WERE PUBLISHED”) BEING UNABLE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING”, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”, “IN NAKARA’S CASE”. THERE IS NO REFERENCE AT ALL “IN ANY OF MY 6 ARTICLES”, SAYING THAT-

“NAKARA’S CASE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT”,“APPLICATION OF ANY REVISED PENSION FORMULA TO ALL THE EXISTING PENSIONERS ALSO IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT”. IN FACT, UPON GOING THROUGH ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE, ENTITLED—

“AN ADVICE TO ALL BANK EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT”, “AS SOLICITED BY MOST OF THEM”, “ONCE AGAIN”, I FOUND THAT--

“THERE WAS JUST NOT ANY REFERENCE TO NAKARA’S CASE AT ALL”, NOT TO SPEAK OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THAT CASE .“

AND NOW, REGARDING REPRODUCTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE---

“I MYSELF MADE IT CLEAR AT THE VERY OUT SET THAT I WILL CONFINE MYSELF TO JUST REPRODUCTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKRA’S CASE”, “AS MANY PENSIONERS OF INDIA DO NOT HAVE THE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”, “IN NAKARA’S CASE”, “WITH OCCASIONAL INTERFERENCE FROM MY SIDE”, “WHEREVER IT IS FELT THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS”, “IF I EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF WHATEVER MAY BE NECESSARY FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN—

“NAKARA’S CASE”.

BARRING THIS EXPLANATION, I AM UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY IS AT THE BACK OF THE MIND OF MR.SUDHAKARAN, IN SAYING WHAT HE SAID IN HIS BRIEF NOTE.

HOWEVER, FOR THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATTER, I WILL EXPLAIN THE MATTER AS UNDER, FOR REMOVAL OF WHATEVER DOUBT THAT MAY STILL BE PERSISTING WITH MR.SUDHAKARAN—

PART-I OF THIS SERIES OF THE ARTICLES CONFINED ITSELF TO SIMPLY SHOW,”BY EXAMPLES”, THAT “VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER REGULATION 29 / 29(5) OF BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO A BANK EMPLOYEE”, “THAN RETIREMENT UNDER REGULATION 28 OF BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995”, “IN THE NORMAL COURSE”.

THEREAFTER, THE THRUST OF MY ARTICLES, UNDER THE ABOVE HEAD IS TWO FOLD—

“FIRST, TAKING THE HELP OF THE PENSION SETTLEMENT OF 29TH OCTOBER, 1993,INTRODUCING THE PENSION SCHEME IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS”—

AND ALSO “REGULATION 56 OF BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULTIONS, 1995”—

“TO BE ENTITLED TO GET UPDATION OF PENSION AND ALSO TO GET FULL PENSION WITH 10 YEARS’ / 20 YEARS’ SERVICE IN THE BANKS”, “ON THE LINES OF THE PENSION SCHEME NOW APPLICABLE TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS, AS PER THE CIRCULAR OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DATED 10TH DECEMBER, 2009”.

LOOKING AT THE CONTENT OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF HIS MESSAGE, I TAKE IT THAT HE MAY BE SPEAKING OF WHAT IS NOW GOING ON IN LIC / GIC/ BANKS---

“AS REGARDS THE PENSION COMPUTATION FORMULA THAT IS “NOW APPLICABLE” TO THE PENSIONERS OF LIC/ GIC/BANKS HE IS CORRECT”.BUT, WHAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS –

“I AM NOT TALKING OF / SPEAKING OF WHAT IS THE EXISTING POSITION”—

IN RESPECT OF PENSION COMPUTATION FORMULA TO THE PENSIONERS OF LIC/GIC/BANKS” “AND IF IT IS SO, HE IS CORRECT”. BECAUSE, THAT IS KNOWN TO MOST OF THE PENSIONERS OF THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS.BUT, WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO ELUCIDATE IS—

“PENSIONERS OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS”, “BY VIRTUE OF THE EXPRESS PROMISES CONTAINED IN THE PENSION SETTLEMENT OF 29TH OCTOBER, 1993”, “AND ALSO THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN REGULATION 56 OF BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995”—

“ ARE ENTITLED TO GET ALL PENSIONARY BENEFITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS”.

THEREFORE, I AM UNABLE TO MAKE OUT AS TO WHICH OF THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLE PROPELS MR.SUDHAKARAN TO SAY THAT:

“Adv.NPK FORGETS THAT NAKARA’S CASE IS BASICALLY ABOUT THE “REVISED FORMULA FOR COMPUTATION OF PENSION”—

BECAUSE, I AM COMPELETLY AT A LOSS TO FIND OUT AS TO –

“ WHICH CONTENT OF MY ARTICLES MR.SUDHAKARAN IS TRYING TO CONTEST”-

BY THE TIME THIS MESSAGE OF MR.SUDHAKARAN APPEARED IN LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE, 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE—

ENTITLED—

“AN ADVICE TO ALL BANK EMPLOYEES” “WHO ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT”, “AS SOLICITED BY MOST OF THEM”—

WERE PUBLISHED IN THE LIC PENSIONERS' CHRONICLE..

AND THE EXACT TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE, “WITH A SLIGHT ELUCIDATION OF THE MATTER”, “AS REGARDS THE 2 PARTS THAT THE WHOLE BODY OF LAW HAS BEEN DIVIDED”, LIKE—

1.SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND

2.PROCEDURAL LAW WAS ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE—

BY THE TIME MR.SUDHAKARAN’S MESSAGE, REFERRING TO THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLES WAS PUBLISHED.

THEREFORE, I AM COMPLETELY UNABLE TO FIND OUT AS TO WHICH OF MY ARTICLES MR.SUDHAKARAN WAS REFERRING TO.

HOWEVER, BEYOND WHAT WAS MENTIONED BY ME HEREINABOVE, DRAWING INFERENCES, IF MR.SUDHAKARAN IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENT HEREINABOVE, HE IS AT LIBERTY TO REFER THE MATTER TO ME, “ONCE AGAIN”—

“ELUCIDATING AS TO THE CONTENT OF WHICH PART OF MY ARTICLE HE IS CONTESTING”— “ AND I WILL BE GLAD TO GIVE A SPEAKING REPLY TO HIM”.