MY RESPONSE TO MR M V VENUGOPALAN'S THOUGHT PROVOKING POST‏

The post captioned ‘SC Arguments – Latest Developments’, by Mr M V Venugopalan from the distant Australia, needs some response.

I concede he has clear views backed by forceful arguments and his emotional involvement in the on-going court battle is indisputable. Some of his advices like the one he offered to GNS are very aptly worded. But I must tell him he was very uncharitable in his sweeping observations especially when he said ‘all the case managers have fumbled, bungled and ultimately paved the way for a perfect failure of our case’. Come on MV, don’t be a prophet of doom. We are very much in control.

To help him appreciate my response, I would ask him to imagine he was sitting in the Court hall himself, (as I was, by the side of the Counsel). Then tell me dear MV, what exactly you would have done, to pave the way for the proceedings to go differently? Don’t bother, I don’t need an answer.

Mr Venugopalan got certain facts wrong. Chief among them was his assumption that the Judge got irritated due to the absence of Mr Nidhesh Gupta and therefore asked ‘a strangulating question to put him in place’. This is far from truth. Perish the thought, MV. That Mr Nidhesh Gupta was absent when our case was called was just a factual observation and it was a non-issue as far as the Court was concerned. Why he was not present, having been there minutes earlier was also not known to anybody except himself and perhaps Mr RK Singh and his clients. Let us not allow our imagination to function extra fertile on a sensitive topic like that and hurt anybody, albeit unwittingly.

Mr Venugopalan also seems to be pretty confused on the reference to the Board Resolution vis a vis, the Jaipur Judgement, during the proceedings of 25th. Mr. Singvi’s allusion to the Resolution as he actually did was part of LIC’s mischievous but known strategy. As far as we are concerned we should never trivialize the Board Resolution, Actually it is our trump card to prove with enjoyable ease that 1) serious anomalies admittedly existed in the Pension benefits for pre-97 Retirees and 2) LIC itself attempted to remove the same through the great Resolution (I want it to sound like the Great Revolution). If M/s Singhvi & Co want to read it as they want to, (openly abetted most unfortunately by GNS & Co) let them do so merrily. On that point their version is not final after all. According to us, the Resolution has three parts, DR formula correction, weightage principle (which is in other words, Pension up-gradation on wage revision) and Govt approval followed by Pension Rule Amendment with Gazette Notification. We shall ask the SC to ORDER implementation of all the three parts. Anybody has any doubts on the powers of the Supreme Court to issue such Order if it wants to? Our role is to convince the Apex Court that there is the need to do so to remove anomalies and unlawful discrimination permanently, including for the later generations of Pensioners.

Justice demands it and the Law permits the same.

I heard some ‘murmurs’ that inviting Government on board now, with its ill-fated Appeals, was avoidable. I see their point. I had the benefit of knowing the mind and logic of Mr Jay Savla (whom I am assisting for Chandigarh) in making such a suggestion which was accepted by the Court. If I may make a quick but brief disclosure at this stage, Government coming on board directly is necessary for us to seek and obtain directions from the Court not merely to LIC but direct to the Government. Don’t we see that the real culprit in pushing us to this state is the Government? For those who are not familiar with a fine point of law, let me inform that Govt is already a party to the proceedings in the on- going Appeals of LIC, but only as a supporting Respondent (its Affidavits are filed in the SLPs/CAs). Through them it can only submit its views in support of LIC. But as a direct Appellant, it can challenge the Jaipur Judgement and ask the SC to set it aside. When it is allowed to do so, as it is happening now, we should meticulously expose its grounds as untenable and get the Appeals dismissed. Only in that event we can hope to secure a comprehensive, categorical and unambiguous speaking Order from the Apex Court without which an ever unwilling LIC would continue harassing its Pensioners. There is solid evidence against LIC that it has scant respect for judicial pronouncements. It is an expert in abusing the system.

One point about Section 48. Mr MV is among a host of well-informed Pensioners who always know, believe and are on record that this section could be a stumbling block. No big discovery that. All of us are equally aware, except one important stakeholder. I already renewed my humble appeal to them to REVISIT their strategy.

I feel, nothing adverse happened on 25th. I mean of any irreparable consequence. We lost no vital ground and we can retrieve whatever ground we may have lost. All these days we are fighting the opponents somewhat in dark. From now on, there is focus. Let Mr Venugopalan and all other supporters continue their support with ideas, their best wishes to the so christened ‘case managers’ and step up their prayers for the success of the LIC Pensioner community.

M. Sreenivasa Murty
Hyderabad