Even if the S.C. Bench sat throughout
the day on 23rd Sept.2015 nothing material
would have happened in view of
LIC/GOI wishing to press for the
appearance of Solicitor General.
The bench took a helpful position and
adjourned the case to 30th Sept.2015.
On 30th we will be at the beginning of the final stage of the case.The statement of Shri Saxena and Bhatnagar on behalf of AIRIEF is welcome for the simple reason that it throws more light on where
KMLA and his counsel differ with ( more particularly) Chandigarh school.
Now there are 3 distinct lines pursued by respective Case Managers.
(1) D.R. only ( Shri GNS et al.)
(2) DR plus Updation of Pension ( both by KMLA/AIRIEF & Chandigarh.)
But here the hair splitting is about questioning the accuracy of calculations of 20 per cent IR by LIC at this stage and viewing this inaccuracy as one that can be handled alongwith legal fight for 100 per cent ( as and when the case is decided.)
Both Chandigarh school and KMLA and his followers view the DR only line as collaboration with LIC/GOI in the background of Jaipur verdict.
Be that as it may, in our country every MUTT has its own followers, every Guru his own disciples. And of course, there is a useful side to this. It prevents tyranny of dogmatists.
But in all this I notice there is not much difference in perception of the basic issue between followers of Chandigarh school and AIRIEF /KMLA. There is no need for any antagonistic relation between them. They can certainly collaborate with each other in the larger interests of pensioners. What is preventing such beneficial interaction? To my thinking it is the subjective thinking of KMLA and his anger on his past followers at Chandigarh, that is the cause of continuing antagonism for which there is absolutely no reason to exist any more that too in the last and crucial stage of SC hearing.
My earnest appeal is let the Counsels for KMLA and Chandigarh present their views before the bench peacefully and not act at cross purpose. Much water has flown down the Ganges and I do not see them shaking hands by 30th.
The least they can do is not provide amusement to the Solicitor General or Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Hope I will be understood in proper spirit.
With Regards, B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad
On 30th we will be at the beginning of the final stage of the case.The statement of Shri Saxena and Bhatnagar on behalf of AIRIEF is welcome for the simple reason that it throws more light on where
KMLA and his counsel differ with ( more particularly) Chandigarh school.
Now there are 3 distinct lines pursued by respective Case Managers.
(1) D.R. only ( Shri GNS et al.)
(2) DR plus Updation of Pension ( both by KMLA/AIRIEF & Chandigarh.)
But here the hair splitting is about questioning the accuracy of calculations of 20 per cent IR by LIC at this stage and viewing this inaccuracy as one that can be handled alongwith legal fight for 100 per cent ( as and when the case is decided.)
Both Chandigarh school and KMLA and his followers view the DR only line as collaboration with LIC/GOI in the background of Jaipur verdict.
Be that as it may, in our country every MUTT has its own followers, every Guru his own disciples. And of course, there is a useful side to this. It prevents tyranny of dogmatists.
But in all this I notice there is not much difference in perception of the basic issue between followers of Chandigarh school and AIRIEF /KMLA. There is no need for any antagonistic relation between them. They can certainly collaborate with each other in the larger interests of pensioners. What is preventing such beneficial interaction? To my thinking it is the subjective thinking of KMLA and his anger on his past followers at Chandigarh, that is the cause of continuing antagonism for which there is absolutely no reason to exist any more that too in the last and crucial stage of SC hearing.
My earnest appeal is let the Counsels for KMLA and Chandigarh present their views before the bench peacefully and not act at cross purpose. Much water has flown down the Ganges and I do not see them shaking hands by 30th.
The least they can do is not provide amusement to the Solicitor General or Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Hope I will be understood in proper spirit.
With Regards, B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad