I am Extremely Busy For The Last Few Days And Hence I Have Just Now Seen The Write-Up Of Mr.T.Sudhakaran On My Article, Entitled— “An Advice To All Bank Employees, Who Are On The Verge Of Retirement”, “As Solicited By Most Of Them”.
“The Entire Content Of The Message Of Mr.T.Sudhakaran Is A Bundle Of Lies”.
“Without Going Into The Content Of My Article, As It Reads”, He Had Gone “From Wrong Premise After Another Wrong Premise”, As Mentioned By Me In My Reply To Mr.Perumalmaruthu’s Missive”. Not A Single Contention Of Mr.Sudhakaran’s Write-Up Stands For “Scrutiny Of Any Objective Assessor Of My Articles”, “As Well As The Readers Of LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle”. This Is Fortified By The Countless E-Mails And Phone Calls That I Have Been Receiving From My Fellow Bank Pensioners On The Content Of My Articles Under The Above Head, “Expressing Their Extreme Happiness On The Content Of My Articles, Published IN / On LIC Pensioners Chronicle”, “Throughout The Length And Breadth Of India” .
It Just Does Not End At That. From What They Have Been Mentioning, Showing And Saying, I Can Make Out, That, My Fellow Bank Pensioners Have Been Sending The Extracts From My Articles Under The Above Head Published In LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle, “To Some Other Websites As Well”. In Fact, From What My Fellow Bank Pensioners Have Been Saying In Their E-Mails To Me And Also Telephonic Conversations With Me, I Can Easily Make Out The Extreme Elation Of My Fellow Bank Pensioners, Upon Going Through My Articles Under The Above Head And If The Content Of My Articles Under The Above Head “Is Fictitious”, “By This Time ”,“My Fellow Bank Pensioners Would Have Flung Stones At Me” .My Fellow Bank Pensioners Know Me Very Well, As Well As The Content Of My Articles And Also My Accomplishments “In Respect Of The Correct Position Existing And Subsisting In So Far As Application Of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations” ,“To Different Fact Situations is Concerned.”
“Mere Dry Statements” “And Angry Outbursts”, “Without Having Any Regard Whatsoever ” “To The Veracity And Accuracy Of The Content Of My Articles” “Will Do Disservice To My Fellow Bank Pensioners”, “For Whose Benefit These Articles Are Intended”.
“Mere Dry Statements” “And Angry Outbursts”, “Without Having Any Regard Whatsoever ” “To The Veracity And Accuracy Of The Content Of My Articles” “Will Do Disservice To My Fellow Bank Pensioners”, “For Whose Benefit These Articles Are Intended”.
So As To Enable Me To Give “A Befitting Response ....
To Mr.T.Sudhakarans’s Missive”,I Request Mr.Sudhakaran”, “Through This Message”, To Give “Even A Single Example / Illustration”, Showing, “As To Where Exactly I Erred”; This Is Because, I Gave All The Examples, “Right From The Time Of Completion Of 20 Years’ Service” “Till Completion Of 32 Years’ Service”, “To Get The Benefit Of Regulation 29(1) / 29(5) Of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995”, “By My Fellow Bank Pensioners”. As I Mentioned Hereinabove “Mere “Dry Statements” And “Angry Outbursts”, Will Not Do And “Will Not Help My Fellow Bank Pensioners, For Whose Benefit These Articles Are Intended”.
Mr.T.Sudhakaran Speaks Of Acknowledgement Of My Error / Guilt And I Will “ Firmly Say Once Again”, That If He Gives / Shows, “Even A Single Case”/ “Example” / “ Instance Of”, “Where I Exactly Erred”, And “If I Indeed Erred”, I “Firmly Say Once Again”, That I Will “Apologise “Not Just” To Mr.Perumalmaruthu”, “For Spreading Canards Through Websites”. If Mr.Sudhakaran --
“CAN GIVE EVEN A SOLITARY INSTANCE”/“EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE”
“OF WHERE I EXACTLY ERRED”,
I WILL NOT “ JUST ACKNOWLEDGE”,MY GUILT / ERROR / FAULT / MISTAKE / INABILITY TO COMPREHNED THE CONTENT CONTAINED IN REGULATION 29(1) / 29(1) OF BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995”, “BUT APOLOGISE” “NOT TO JUST MR.PERUMALMARUTHU ALONE”, “BUT TO MR.T.SUDHAKARAN, AS WELL”,AND THAT WILL NOT END AT THAT. AGAIN THOUGH MR.T.SUDHAKARAN HAS “KINDLY”, “MUNIFICENTLY” “GRACEFULLY” “MAGNANIMOUSLY”,”WITH A BROAD-MIND” “AND LARGE-HEARTEDLY” “DIRECTED ME”---
“TO ACKNOWLEDE MY ERROR/ GUILLT”-
1.“TO MR.PERUMALMARUTU”
2.”TO THE EDITOR, LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE”
3.”TO THE READERS OF THE LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE”,
I SAY IT “FIRMLY” THAT, “IF MR.SUDHAKARAN CAN PROVE” THAT “THE CONTENT OF MY ARTICLE UNDER QUESTION“ ”READ WITH MY REPLY TO MR.PERUMALMARUTHU”, “IS GROSSLY AND CRASSLY ERRONEOUS”,I WILL GO “A STEP AHEAD”/“FURTHER” AND TELL MR.T.SUDHAKARAN--
“TO SHOW / EXEMPLIFY”, AS TO “WHERE I EXACTLY ERRED”—
“BY JUST GIVING A SINGLE EXAMPLE” / “A SOLITARY INSTANCE”—
“AS CONTAINED IN MY ARTICLE UNDER CONTEST”,“READ WITH MYREPLY TO MR.PERUMALMARUTHU”---
And The Moment Mr.Sudhakaran Gives Even “A Single Example“/ “Illustration”/ “Instance” Showing That Pradeep Kumar’s Version Of The Effect Of Regulation 29(1) / 29(5) Of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, “Is Incorrect To The Extent Of” “Even 1%”,
And He Need Not Show That “My Article Under Question”,“Read With My Reply To Mr.Perumalmaruthu’s Epistle Is 100% Wrong”, I Will Apologise Not Only To –
1. Mr.Perumalmaruthu, But To—
2.Mr.T.Sudhakaran
3. The Editor, LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle And
4.The Readers Of LIC Pensioners Chronicle As Well.
There Is Absolutely No Doubt About It At All. First, “If Mr.T.Sudhakaran Does “His Job” “Of Showing “Even A Single Example / Instance / Illustration, Establishing That I am Spreading Falsehood”, “Through LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle”, I Will Do “My Job Of Apologiging To All The People Mentioned Hereinabove”, “Plus Whatever I “Categorically Promised”, In My Reply To Mr.Perumalmaruthu , Whose Message Contested The Veracity Of My Article Under The Above Head”, “Will Be Done”. “There Is Absolutely No Doubt About It At All”., “And This “Includes My Statement”, As Contained In My Reply To Mr.Perumalmaruthu’s Epistle “, “That If He Proves That The Content My Article Under Contest Is Erroneous”—
“PRADEEP KUMAR SAYS IT “FIRMLY“, THAT HE IS UNFIT TO WRITE ANY ARTICLES ON BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION RELATED MATTERS AT ALL”,”AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF GOING BACK ON THIS SOLEMN STATEMENT / PROMISE OF PREADEEP KUMAR ALL”, “AND LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT AT ALL”.
As I Said Hereinabove, Mr.T.Sudhakaran Need Not Prove That The Content Of My Article Under Question Is 100% Wrong As Mentioned By Him In His Epistle, “But If He Proves By Giving “Even A Single Instance Of Where Exactly I Erred”, I Repeat, That I Will Not “Just Acknowledge “My Error” / Guilt”, “But I Will Apologise To All The People Mentioned Hereinabove By Me”.
I May, Once Again Repeat Here That—
“Mere Dry Statements” And “Angry Outbursts”, “Without Having Any Regard Whatsoever” “to The Factual Position Obtaining” “In This Matter”, “Will Not Yield Any Fruitful Results”.
I May Add Here That First—
I Have To Send My Reply To Mr.Subbu’s Views On My Article Entitled--
“The Rule Of A Man Of Ordinary Prudence Must Be Applied In Pension Related Matters”, “FIRST”, As His Letter Was First Published In LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle, “As I Have To Go By The Principle Of Whoever “First Gives His Views On The Content Of My Articles”, “His Matter Must Be Addressed First”. In Fact, I May Add Here, That, “For Sheer Length Of The Content Of The Missive Of Mr.Subbu”, It Is Longer Than The Letter Of Mr.Perumalmaruthu ; Mr.Subbu’s Message Also Questions The Veracity Of The Content Of My Article Entitled—
“The Rule Of A Man Of Ordinary Prudence Must Be Applied In Pension Related Matters”—
“Published In LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle”.
But, On That Account, “Can I Criticise Mr.Subbu” / “Question The Accomplishments Of Mr.Subbu?”
I Always Welcome “Fair-Criticism” Of My Articles / Write-Ups And In Fact I Look Forward For Those “Who Subject My Articles / Write-Ups To Fair-Criticism”. Now, Since This Matter Has Come Up For Discussion, I Want To Say That—
“Mr.Subbu’s Message / Write-Up/ Article”, Criticising The Content Of My Article, Entitled—
“The Rule Of A Man Of Ordinary Prudence Must Be Applied In Pension Related Matters”, Published In LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle Is A—
“Model”And “Good Example Of Fair Criticism”. Since, Our Matters Are “In Public Domain Now”, “The Writer Of Any Article / Write-Up Must Be Prepared “To Receive Fair Criticism”“From The Readers Of Those Articles / Write-Ups”.
Now, With This, I Close This Matter, With A Request To Mr.T.Sudhakaran To Give “Even A Single Example” / “Instance”, “Showing That The Content Of My Article With The Above Head”, “Read With My Reply To Perumalmaruthu’s Letter”, Is Wrong, “So As To Enable Me To Give “A Befitting Reply To Mr.T.Sudhakaran”, “In Respect Of This Matter”.
With Regards,
YOURS SINCERELY
N.PRADEEP KUMAR.