Dear Editor,
As for the comments of my three friends on my last Post, I
don’t think that I need to give any specific reply except to say
that in writing that I had no intention,whatsoever, to kick-
start any new controversy. I wanted only to impress upon the
pensioners that if only our three leaders had adopted a totally
pro-active approach, instead of whiling away the time in
accusing each other, and accusing LIC and the Govt. for all the
ills, the pensioners would have been the beneficiaries; they
would have received what was actually due to them as 20%
arrears,both DR and up-graded pension provided the 7th May
SC interim Order really meant so.
I have also indicated as to how much harm it is doing in
hurling abuses at each other, forgetting the basic tenets of decency and
decorum. However, I need to clarify to Mr. Mahadevan what I meant by describing
Mr.Sridharan as a non-state actor. I fully agree with him in
that Mr.Sridharan is still left with playing a major role in fulfilling the
aspirations of the Post-1997 pensioners, particularly in regard to the
up-gradation and other related issues. He has an unfinished Agenda. But,
even though he is the General Secretary of the ClassI Officer
pensioners Federation, by disowning up-gradation all along, he has distanced
himself from the Establishment espousing this cause and has given
the unmistakable impression that he does’nt belong there. This is the
reason why I had to refer to him as a ’non-state actor’, of course , in a very
limited sense. Let me also make it clear, that I am not batting for any one in
particular, but for the pensioner friends, as a whole.
Well, the task awaiting our leaders is not going to be
simple on 18th in the Supreme Court; it is definitely not going to be a
cakewalk. While summing up the SC proceedings on 30th of September, Mr. Sreenivasa
Murty quotes the Judge having said “...if the resolution was not
statutory and if it required Govt. approval to become effective that is how it
is...” and the counsel cannot defend the Jaipur decision to the contrary with
his line of approach. The Hon’ble Judge had also added “there are different
categories of pensioners who receive different rates of pension. Forget Govt. for
a while,how do you defend your position? (addressed to LIC). The same judge
during another hearing ,
We need to understand and realise that no two cases are so
similar that one can be replicated in the place of another. At the
most , whether it is Nakaras case or for that matter the OROP of the Defense
Personnel or any other decided case laws running parallel to our case, can be
quoted only as supportive arguments and not as something which will clinch the
issue for us. The cliché-ridden examples should, as far as possible, be avoided
as it might not cut much ice. The wage structure, the nature of the benefits
enjoyed by our employees, the history of pay revisions, the manner in
which our pension fund is constituted are all different from
the way it is for other institutions, whom we may be tempted to draw an
analogy. Our counsels must make exhaustive preparations to answer any
questions posed by the Judge. It should not be like some of the students
preparing well to answer some of the questions the previous day and in the
Examination Hall they find the questions to be all different.
Lots of our right-thinking and legally mature pensioners
have sent in their legal points which might come in handy while arguing
out our cases. There is nothing like one-size-fits-All solutions which
can be applied freely, irrespective of the context and stage of the
argument. It boils down ultimately to between the Case Managers and their
counsels. Even if a thousand people surround to watch a lady delivering, it is
only the lady on the table who can deliver the child, and not the
spectators. Therefore, the Points that should engage the attention of our
leaders on 18th Nov are:
i) Engage a counsel of proven capability
and specialised in cases such as ours.
ii) Set aside cliché-ridden quotations
vulnerable points and do some out of the box thinking, suitable and
in conformity with our own issues
iii) Have a sound idea about how our
“Pension Fund” works and whether it is self-sustaining (affordability will be
another bogey LIC may raise).
iv) Have a definite game-plan, strategy
and absolute clarity of the end-purpose
v) More than anything else, without
wasting anytime try for a co-ordinated approach. (Now that there seems to be a
melt down in the relations between the people of Panchkula and Jaipur)
A cursory glance
of the proposed pay scales will show how much we have to gain if only the
up-gradation is granted, and how glaring will be the discrimination in case we
don’t get it. This should, therefore, act as an added incentive to our leaders
to put their heart and soul in the hearing coming up on 18th November in the
SC.
With best of Regards,
M.V.VENUGOPALAN