IS IT FAIR GUPTHAJI ?? ASKS D.KRISHNAN OUR GEN.SECRETARY.

Reg: DR Arrears Payment .... The latest instructions ...

 Friends,

      It was just minutes ago that we sent across the communication DK 36, where we had not known about the latest instructions asking for deductions to be made from the arrears payment ,of 40% paid earlier. I have sent a protest letter to  sri Guptaji ED (P). This is virtually a betrayal of trust and violation of Court Orders. We tried to avoid further IAs on the present case to avoid delay. But now it appears such measures are unavoidable.. Here is the copy of my mail to the ED (P).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sri Guptaji,

 

Your latest instructions to pay the DR Arrears after deducting the 40% already paid is quite contrary to the DHC judgment, where in Page 89 they clearly state that the Interim amount of 40% paid earlier is not to be deducted. May be after issuing the payment instructions first, you dithered and stopped payment, only to go back on to this item of deduction which is totally in contravention of the DHC judgment. In other words you are even taking it to the level of 'Contempt of Court' and asking for extended litigation against the poor pensioners! Is it fair Guptaji? Does it meet with approval from your own conscience? 

Why do you go on creating complications on a simple matter? 

We strongly protest this action and would receive the arrears  only under protest. 

And then we will have to go to court again with a grievance of having been treated badly, and brazenly against the Court Orders. I reproduce the para 108 of page 89 0f the DHC judgment, which you have read , but are refusing to go by:

"We would also clarify that payment made in terms of interim directions issued by the Supreme Court would not be refunded or returned to the Corporation. We have issued the said direction as the amount paid is not substantial for the Corporation, whereas asking the retired employees/pensioners to refund the amount would put them in grave financial difficulty."

Guptaji, please also note that the amount already paid is on the base year of 1998 and you are now going to deduct it from the arrears being paid with the base year 2007!  We will certainly take it up for further judicial review on this matter. Please see if this matter can be re-assessed to correct this error. What the Court said on this was not recommendatory, it was mandatory

 Regards

D.Krishnan.

General Secretary of The Retired LIC Class I Officers' Federation.

WITH GREETINGS 

D.Krishnan

General Secretary