Friday, June 03, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty



Several friends have been asking to know the significance of the choice between these two. After speaking to some well-informed Pensioner colleagues who raised this issue on behalf of many, I thought I should clarify this to the best of my ability. 

Let me start with Hyderabad Association. We entered in to the Supreme Court arena in August 2014, as an Intervener Applicant, also referred to as Impleadment Application, (in CA No 9223 of 2013, of the GNS Federation) because we had no locus to enter as a direct Party in the on-going adjudication proceedings in the three Civil Appeals filed by LIC. We needed Supreme Court's permission to be able to say how we are opposed to GNS WP and why we are entitled to be heard separately. Our IA was taken on board, once heard in Chambers and finally posted for 'disposal' along with the main CAs. Accordingly our IA was 'disposed off' on 31 March along with the CAs. We tried for a specific Order allowing our IA but were told 'not necessary to amend the Order, 'your IA is allowed - unless disallowed, 'disposed off' would only mean 'allowed'. Strangely the interpretation of 'disposed off' was made in our favour came from an unexpected quarter viz., by LIC Counsel, even before Justice Misra did so. The resultant position was that the Hyderabad Association is entitled to approach the Delhi HC just like the other three original parties.  

Thus there was no need for us to approach Delhi HC for any impleadment or file any application as an intervener and hence we filed a fresh comprehensive Writ Petition seeking whatever relief we are entitled to. Unfortunately, due to the absence of a categorical Order from the SC expressly allowing us as a Party, we could not directly go before the designated Bench, but we were obliged to pass through the relevant channels and after losing a few days of time and in spite of the GNS Counsel's stiff desperate opposition to our entry, we eventually landed where we wanted and entitled to, i.e., the designated Bench of Justice Khanna. If GNS & Co are unable to digest this truth and our eventual success and give all sorts of misleading explanations to the Pensioners, we have no time to waste on them.

As far as AIIPA is concerned, they stand on a completely different
footing, altogether. They were entering in to the field, for the first time.
They chose to file an Intervention Application in the Delhi High Court.
The Application came up before the designated Bench on 30th because
their prayer was to implead in WP No 184 of 2007 (of GNS Federation)
which was already before the Bench. I was present in the Court. Justice
Khanna said, why Intervention Petition, File a regular Writ and say what
you want to say. So they were given liberty to file a WP. (There was no
‘direction’ as some are writing, it is only liberty/choice) to file if they wish
to. It is later understood from the corridors that they are on the job. It is
bound to take its time.

There seems to be yet another reason, why AIIPA wanted to intervene,
instead of joining as a Petitioner. That too only in GNS Federation’s WP.
Their main plea was that whereas GNS Federation was exclusively for
Class I Officer retirees, AIIPA claims to represent all other classes also.
Hence ‘allow us to intervene’. They were advised that it was a stronger
ground to step in. But now they received some support from the Bench
itself and the sabre-rattling by GNS about his so called ‘policy decision
by his so called highest body’ remains an untested threat and only on

Hope this factual clarification puts at rest the genuine doubts of all Pensioner colleagues.

PS: As Mr GNS found it necessary to devote three of his latest e-Circulars entirely to talk about the Hyderabad Association (and hardly anything about his own Federation or explain why it failed to do what it ought to have done by now), I shall be adverting to his campaign against us, separately and squarely. He is welcome to the meeting in Chennai on Monday the 6th June 2016 for an exchange of views.