THIS HAS REFERENCE TO YOUR REMARKS “………………… a protest of a pensioner is published only to show pensioners' resentment in the matter. - Ed.)”
WHILE IN A DEMOCRACY ALL HAVE THE EQUAL RIGHT TO SAY OR EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS INCLUDING RESENTMENT AND PROTESTS, MY QUERY (NOT QUESTION) TO SUCH FRIENDS IS AS TO WHOM THEY ARE EXPRESSING OR SHOWING THEIR RESENTMENT/PROTEST AND FOR WHAT?
IT WILL BE A WELCOME SIGN IF THEY ARE SHOWING IT TO THE LIC AUTHORITIES OR THE GOVT. OF INDIA/FM FOR THEIR CALLOUS ATTITUDE OF UNNECESSARILY DELAYING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HC/SC ORDERS AND ARE TEASING AND HARASSING ALL OF US, MANY OF WHOM ARE ABOVE 75 BY NOT RELEASING THE RETIRAL BENEFITS EVEN WHEN LIC’S SLPs STAND DISMISSED BY HON’BLE SC ON 8.8.13, 19.8.13 AND PROBABLY ON 30.9.13 ALSO AND NO STAY HAS BEEN GRANTED ON HIGH COURTS ORDERS,
BUT IF THEIR GROUSE IS AGAINST THEIR OWN BROTHERS WHO, FOR THE LAST 15 YRS, HAVE BEEN RELENTLESSLY SACRIFICING THEIR PRECIOUS TIME, MONEY, HEALTH AND EVERYTHING FOR THE COMMON CAUSE OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES (INCLUDING THOSE RETIRED LIKE US), THEN IT IS VERY PAINFUL & SAD, AND I WOULD REQUEST ALL TO HAVE SELF INTROSPECTION AS TO WHAT IS MY PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION (MORAL AND FINANCIAL) FOR THE COMMON CAUSE OF THE PENSIONERS. I AM A 77 YRS. OLD 1994 RETIREE, BUT I AS AN ORDINARY MEMBER OF THE PENSIONERS FRATERNITY GOT INVOLVED IN THIS BATTLE ONLY AFTER 12.1.2010 WHEN SH KML ASTHANA WON IN RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. AGAIN MY QUERY IS WHERE WERE WE ALL SINCE 1998. EVEN TODAY OUT OF ABOUT 30-35 K PENSIONERS HOW MANY ARE CONTRIBUTING MORALLY AND FINANCIALLY - MAY BE LESS THAN 10-15% ONLY IF I AM NOT WRONG. LETS ALL BE POSITIVE AND HAVE UNITY AND CONTINUE TO LEND MAXIMUM SUPPORT FOR THE COMMON CAUSE.
NOW THE HIGH COURTS HAVE TO ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR ORDERS AND GIVE US FULL JUSTICE. SO PLEASE LET'S HAVE PATIENCE AND IF RESENTMENT/PROTEST HAS TO BE SHOWN DO SO IN FRONT OF YOGKSHEMA/LIC, PARLIAMENT, FM/PM.
WITH BEST WISHES TO ALL.
HK AGGARWAL
ORD. MEMBER OF PENSIONERS FRATERNITY,
MOHALI, CHANDIGARH.
( * Pensioners resentment referred to in Sh. Mahadevan's letter to Editor is over not disclosing issues discussed in SC. Even when it is possible to say that there is no stay over Rajasthan HC judgment, other issue like condonation of delay in filing SLP is not referred at all. -Ed. )