I have read the comments of Mr G N Sridharan in the blog dt 24th Aug 2013.
In regard to point no. 1, while it is
conceded that the letter dt 14 th August 2013 of the Federation is in follow up of the Delhi High Court judgment
of 30th January 2013, the moment the same has been linked to the outcome of
the SLP filed by LIC, the same has got dissolved into the SLP just dismissed and any attempt
to segregate the issue of DR neutralisation & upgradation of pension for
pre-August 1997 retirees to the
exclusion of the issue of
omnibus resolution of anomalies
in pension in terms of removal of DR
anomaly and upgradation of pension for all pre-August 2007 retirees cannot
be fair to the complete fraternity of
pensioners.
- Practically speaking, LIC may be only too willing to agree to 100 % DR neutralisation and partial up gradation upto 1st August 1997 and the LIC/UOI have been prolonging the litigation only because they are convinced that the implementation of Jaipur judgment will mandate LIC to upgrade the pensions with every wage revision from 1/8/1997 onwards.
- For the above reasons, there is no question of mixing up of issues as stated in (2) merely because we demand implementation of the Jaipur Order because the issues of DR neutralisation and upgradation for all pensioners have already been well integrated in the SLP just dismissed.
- It is not fair to perceive that those who have retired after 2002/2007 do not fathom the agony of old retirees. A deeper contemplation will bring to light the empathy and pain the newer retirees feel for the older pensioners. I have even in the course of my interaction with in-service officers (including SDMs-in-charge) of various cadres listened to their words of their recognition of the sufferings of the pensioners on account of the anomalies in pension.
I agree with Mr Sridharan when he states ” People
have different interpretations for the same set of facts. It is a matter of
mind-set. Time is not far away to tell who is right and who is wrong.
An open debate may however be beneficial.” This is absolute for one and all.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan