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

Thursday, November 05, 2015

BUILDUP TO 18TH NOVEMBER AND OTHER MATTERS




Dear Editor,

This refers to Mr.Murty’s outburst against me in his Post dt.30th October. In my last letter to the Blog, I had mentioned that whatever I wrote in the previous Post was not to kick-start yet another controversy. However, after going through the choice epithets and expletives he has showered on me it occurred to me that it invites a fitting rebuttal. I want to reiterate here that I stand by each and every word of what I had said. To be precise and brief my intention was to bring to the notice of all the pensioners that the spat going on between Mr.Murty and Mr. Asthana is detrimental to the overall interests of the pensioners and that in the aftermath of the 7th May Interim Order, nothing worth the name has been delivered by anyone of the Case Leaders.

I am aware that my statement “Supposing , if I say that it was Mr.Murty who was lying and not Mr. Asthana, can anyone deny my claim?” has irked him the most. His hurt was palpable. The fact remains that it was just a poser to the readers and in the absence of any solid evidence or proof to show what really transpired within the four walls of the court room, it will be unethical to vilify Mr.Asthana, a co –passenger in this long journey and call him from the roof-tops “a liar and a person of unsound mind”. If one can understand the context in which I had to raise a poser like that, there can be no room to believe that my intentions were malicious. Both of them belong to the same profession. It is highly essential that a code of conduct and professional ethics are followed while jibing at each other. One needs empathy to realise how vituperative, unbridled and totally unfounded statements made about others hurt them-harm them. I am not assuming the role of a moralist while saying all this. I have no love-lost for neither Mr.Asthana nor Mr.Murty. I do not know either of them close enough to make any comments. But my interest is that of the interest of any one of the 40000 pensioners. These are the two persons we have elevated to the position of custodians of our future. As experience so far has shown, the acrimony,animosity and rivalry between the two of them will eventually affect the outcome of our case adversely. Now that the cases from three HCs are tagged and moved over to the Apex Court, he has to play the role of a national leader. Like Modiji, who shifted gear the moment he became the Prime Minister of this country, Mr.Murty needs to understand that whatever approach he adopts in the Supreme Court on 18th of November it will impact not only the Panchkula petitioners but all the 40000 pensioners. The same applies to Mr.Asthana too.


MV VENUGOPALAN


Now about the failure on the part of all our Case Handlers in delivering positive and beneficial results. The ‘7th May Interim Order’ of the SC was ambiguous and unclear. Instead of seeking clarification, at least both Mr.Murty and Mr. Asthana clung on like life dear to the words, “impugned order of the HC’ and went about interpreting it variously. Was there any legal bar in asking for clarification when the respondents are in doubt? Or is it only the prerogative of the appellants? In this process, the 20% arrears of DR order got mutilated and disfigured. It is history now that not a single soul received what he or she should have received. The blame game got perpetuated. Then came the IA by Mr.Murty and the 7th September SC Order. Not only the Order was a replica of the 7th May Order but it came with an assertion that the Bench is not concerned with the computational facet of the DR. While Mr.Murty claims that Mr.Sridharan was riding piggy-back on this Order, Mr.GNS grumbles that it is this add-on which emboldened LIC to make calculations of their own whims and fancy. What about the figures arrived at by Mr.Mahadevan, so painstakingly prepared by him? If anyone cares to flip through my earlier postings, I had pointed out repeatedly that unless it is one accepted by the Court and LIC has been made a party to it, where is the need for LIC to accept it as the right methodology of working out the DR arrears and implement the SC Order in that vein? Moreover, if LIC does it, we are expecting LIC to willingly invite repercussions of sorts. It is not going to happen unless and until such time this becomes a subject of litigation in itself. Right now, we don’t find anyone willing to own Mr.Mahadevans baby,which formed the basis for the P&C HC hearing when LIC was held back from withdrawing the amount deposited by them in respect of the petitioners. It is another matter that LIC twisted this to their advantage and deposed before the SC that the 7th May Order didn’t pertain to them. I don’t think any greater proof is necessary than what I have narrated above to show that nothing ,in effect, has happened on the ground during these 6 months due to lack of prompt and timely action and due to the methods adopted, which were ,to put it succinctly unwarranted. Let us hope, at least on 18th November, they become more prudent,circumspect and alert and take only such steps benefitting the pensioners.

All of us agree that the DR disparity issue is a non-issue, fait-accompli or it was an already settled issue. In fact, the 7th May Order for payment of 20% arrears as IR has created more problems than it has solved. For some of them it has become nightmarish in the sense that the amount landed in their accounts unannounced, without any trace of accountability on the part of the remitter etc.Some of them are aggrieved that a few of their counterparts received more money than them , even though both of them have identical criteria for eligibility. I entirely agree with Mr. J.M.Aboobucker that we rake up this issue alongwith the other more important ‘Up-gradation issue’. The simple logic is that while Up-gradation encompasses the entire community of pensioners, the DR issue is both selective,partial and segregational. Again, we have already made certain progress in DR disparity issue and the rest will be taken care of by Mr.Sridharan. When there is unanimity amongst us that this issue is already a settled one, why hanker after smaller details like difference in the calculation of the DR,which can be taken up later , if need be. Let us not miss the bigger picture in the pursuit of less important matters on 18th, with the sole purpose of satisfying the playful whims of a few having misplaced priorities. It is for the pensioners to think deeply about it, come to a conclusion and send those signals to the Case Managers in unmistakable terms. As for my other suggestions as to the points that should engage the prime and paramount attention of our leaders I have already dealt with in detail in my previous post. Let us hope and pray that this time around, I mean on 18th of November our trusted leaders will only do things that ultimately turns out to be beneficial to the Pensioners.

Let me conclude with a quotation from the great ‘Thirukkural’ a couplet written by the saint poet ‘Thiruvalluvar’;

“ Yagavarayinum Nakakka,

Kavakkal Sogappar Sollizhukkuppattu”, the closest meaning in English means “ Whoever may be the person, if he does’nt control his tongue, he will get slandered and he may have to regret the rest of his life for this wrong action.

With Best Wishes to all our case Managers on 18th of November.

Warm Regards,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN