Shri Mahadevan's statement on my communication addressed in Pensioners Chronicle is a repetition of what has been said before and does not address the queries raised by me directly. In addition he has ventured to give his own interpretations to the Court orders, which may be correct according to him, but off the mark as far as I am concerned.
1. The very fact that Chandigarh petitioners have not accepted the interim relief ordered by S.C. on 7-9-2015 is a clear indication of wasted efforts.
2. I did not ask who has ordered payment of Interim Relief. My querry was `Who ordedred that interim relief is to be calculated that way (the way Shri Mahadevan did). His elaborate explanation and and other points about the history of litigation is irrelevant as far as the issue that was raised by me.
3. Shri Mahadevan has given his own interpretation by imputing meanings of the order passed by the S. C. Bench. However, there are people who hold different interpretations of the said order. L. I. C. management is one of them.
2. I did not ask who has ordered payment of Interim Relief. My querry was `Who ordedred that interim relief is to be calculated that way (the way Shri Mahadevan did). His elaborate explanation and and other points about the history of litigation is irrelevant as far as the issue that was raised by me.
3. Shri Mahadevan has given his own interpretation by imputing meanings of the order passed by the S. C. Bench. However, there are people who hold different interpretations of the said order. L. I. C. management is one of them.
Anyway, I wish good luck to Mr. Mahadevan and the Hyderabad L.I.C. Class I Officers Association in their efforts in the court of law to bring the much needed relief for L.I.C. Pensioners in the matter of implementation of L.I.C.Board's Resolution dated 24-11-2001 and upgradation of Pension.
B. S. Hegde, Udupi