Can/should we not do something now?
I came across an E-mail
dated 17th June 2015 (this morning) sent by Sri Narayenen NAN to Sri KML Asthana and the latter’s immediate
reply putting things in proper perspective. Good to also note that Sri
Narayenen appeared convinced about the factual and logical clarification
provided to him by Sri KMLA.
Mr Narayenen’s point and his
reasoning (that it is not correct for anybody to stand in the way of the long
overdue relief coming to pre-97 retirees) is so appealing and perhaps very
timely. His plea is not new but
unfortunately the idea did not catch up with many, as it could have, despite
best efforts by GNS, all through. There are reasons to justify but those are
not relevant now.
It looks almost certain now that LIC
would approach the Supreme Court on one point or the other, because payment to
Delhi Petitioners is impossible without clear guidance of SC. Ultimately LIC
has no escape from paying to ALL pre-97 retirees as a minimum compliance of the
SC interim Order even as per its own admitted liability. But it may be
preparing for a license from SC to play cruel by limiting even that to 20% only
of what it deposited in Jaipur & Chandigarh which is meant for pre-97
petitioners, as their ‘admitted’ dues. If such an approach by LIC happens (hope
it does not), one has to feel sad to have ever worked for such an Organization.
What I am trying to propound and
propose is that interim relief, which is set by the Supreme Court at 20%, has
to be to ALL Pensioners on payment arising from pension up-gradation also. We
continue to work for it in every possible way. It takes care of both pre-97 and
post 97 retirees. On the other hand if the interim relief finally gets limited
to the DR anomaly rectification of pre-97 retirees only, why pay 20% of what is
deposited? Release it fully being
the liability admitted by LIC’s own reckoning.
The suggestion now is that the
Respondents in all the three CAs should jointly expose the unfair game plan of
LIC (abusing the 20% directive) before the Supreme Court and make a common
prayer to Supreme Court to direct LIC to pay full money deposited to those whom
it was meant for WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR DEMAND for 20% of the total dues to
others including on account of up-gradation. If we succeed in this plan, all
pre-97 retirees are not deprived of what LIC was always willing to pay them and
even Government should not come in the way. In fact, such a stance in the
Supreme Court, if we take very carefully, may give us an edge before the Bench
on proper interpretation of the SC Order dated 7th May.
I have no doubt that GNS would
support this approach fully and I equally hope that Sri KMLA should have no
reservation against it. Chandigarh hopefully would fall in line.
M Sreenivasa Murty