Dear Shri.Gangadharan,
Kindly accept my HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS on your BLOG hitting one million readers!. It is a commendable achievement, measured by any standards. I have no doubt in my mind that the Pensioners Community will ever feel grateful to you for this stupendous and selfless service. May God be with you in all your future, productive, endeavours!
I admire your openness in publishing your views on the Anonymous Letters and the Maintainability aspect of our case, though I have difficulties in fully endorsing them. While it is the Editor's prerogative to decide whether a certain contribution from a person merits publication or otherwise, the CHRONICLE being essentially a mouthpiece of the LIC Pensioners, the Editor needs to accommodate their viewpoints and if necessary swing in the direction of the majority. As already pointed out by me, having published the first instalment of the letter, going ahead with the publication of the second letter of Mr. Anonymous, especially when the contents of which appears to be innocuous, will be perfectly O.K. However, for the reasons cited by many, it will not subscribe to the health of the Chronicle if a policy decision is not taken by the Editor not to publish any contribution from a person who wants to hide his/her identity for reasons best known to them only.
You will agree with me that we should not allow any devious intruder to hijack the smooth and harmonious flow of communication established through the Blog by dropping a bombshell which cuts at the very roots of the cause for which we have launched a legal fight. Let us not forget that we are living in an era of Adhars,Voters ID, Pancard etc etc to prove that we are citizens of this country and further whether it is opening of a Bank Account, applying for a mobile connection, pancard, or Insurance Policy, we have to submit a copy of our Photo. Therefore, I leave it to your Editorial wisdom and compulsions, if any, to consider whether Nameless-faceless writers should be encouraged!?
All of a sudden, some of our friends have started nurturing a
baseless and totally unwarranted doubt. We are on a shaky ground as
far as our demand for Upgradation of pension is concerned but 100%
sure of wresting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court in the
matter of parity in DA. If differential DA between pre 1997 and post
1997 pensioners is an anomaly and a discrimination between two sets
of pensioners, doesn't the same logic apply in the case of
differential pension drawn by pensioners with the same designation
and length of service but retired at different intervals? First of all,
we should believe in what we are pursuing and the results it has
produced so far. We are not seeking upgradation because 1) the Board
Resolution says so 2) Article 14 and 16 of the constitution decries
discrimination between two similarly placed person/s 3) aging
pensioners are leaving this planet one after another 4) similar
benefits were extended to central govt employees and state
govt.employees. None of these. We are seeking this benefit since we
feel that for a decent and dignified living, in these days of runaway
inflation and ever-increasing age-related expenses this is something
which we should legitimately get. The other reasons given above come
as tools which help us prove our point. Three judgements in the
Jaipur High court has vindicated this stand of ours. Why then this
'butterflies in the stomach' feeling at the eleventh hour? Mr. G.N
Sridharan is a strong advocate of this school of thinking. He even
went to the extent of saying that the kind of fitment we are seeking
is unheard of in the history of pensionery benefits granted by any
Organisation.
The NEED OF THE HOUR, therefore, is to march ahead with renewed determination taking the adjournments and other minor hurdles in our stride. It is the bounden duty of our Case Managers to understand the simple truth that victory will only be in our imagination if they don't put their heads together and move as one unit. Mr.Sreenivasa Murty has to come out of the " I AM O.K YOU ARE NOT O.K" SYNDROME. How can he expect Shri.Asthana to act according to his directions?.
Shri.Asthana is definitely not doing the right thing by keeping his intentions under cover by raising the 'Maintainability" card. If it is for some strategic reasons let him share it with the other case
managers, though not with all the pensioner friends. Right now, by keeping silent, he is giving the impression that he is paving the way for stretching the case, detrimental to a possible, positive outcome. Why not the case managers to whom the pensioners have entrusted their future be totally pro-active and positive in their dealings?
Adjournments are not threats but opportunities provided by the Almighty for having a wholesale re-think on the part of our Case Leaders and counsels for repositioning themselves in the Supreme Court when our case comes up on 7th. Please utilise this golden period for a peaceful, co-ordinated and well orchestrated onslaught against the GOI and LIC forgetting, for the moment they were our caregivers in the past; like perhaps Arjuna did in the war of Kurukshetra.
I may be excused for making it so long.
Once again wishing the 'CHRONICLE' LONG LIFE AND HAPPY ASSOCIATION' with its readers.
Warm regards,
M V VENUGOPOALAN