A JOURNEY TOWARDS TRUTH, PEACE .

RETIRAL BENEFITS.  Dear Sri.Sridharan, I thank you for your email dated 5.5.2016 A few pensioners and I have decided to file a writ in Delhi High Court against the Bank listing out the irregularities it has committed ignoring,  a) the rights of the pensioners as per the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules,  b) the Supreme Court order issued to the Bank on 23.2.1989,   c) the observations in V.Kasturi vs SBI, d) its own Board resolution dated 26.7.2000 and f)several Supreme Court judgments, such as Nakara, U.P.Raghavendra  Acharya vs the State of Karnataka, the State of Jharkhand &ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava etc. . I  am also using the ruling delivered on 4.5.1971 by a Constitutional Banch of the Supreme Court  in Deokinandan Prasad vs the State of Bihar that Pension is a property and under Art 300A of the Constitution of India, none has the right to withhold the property with the authority of LAW. I have requested my advocate to ensure that t

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ  ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON 18.5.2016 YOU MAY ALSO  PLEASE CLICK HERE  In case readers may need any clarification on any news/views expressed, they are welcome to post their view point/question on which they need clarification, as a COMMENT.  Your comments  to enhance the quality of this blog are equally.  welcome.  

YOU ARE LISTENING TO A MESSAGE FROM SRI G N SRIDHARAN GENERAL SECRETARY OF FEDERATION OF LIC CLASS I RETIRED OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS. Seated by the side of Sri G.N.Sridharan is Sri M.Arunachalam, Vice President of Retired LIC Class I Officers Association, Chennai.

Why hype on a procedural matter !! When a new petition comes up before the court the first step as per procedural laws is for the court to order notice returnable on or before a specified date. When the Hyderabad  Petition was moved in the Delhi High court , the  court decided to tag it on to the three WPs remanded to it by the supreme court for which the hearing date was already fixed as 12/7/2016  As the counsels for the Respondents were readily available in the court they had taken notice on the spot and the court asked them to file their counter  within 3 weeks .  There is nothing extraordinary about this.I would therefore reiterate that I had stated only the correct procedure I had expected and that is what actually happened.  I wonder whether an average pensioner will be interested at all on such procedural niceties.  Any reporting on such matters so long as what the reporter states is not contradicted , can be clearly seen only as an action to create a hype among t

Re: Re- fixation of pensions for retirees of the p eriod 1/8/92 to 1/4/93.  We have been of late receiving several enquirers in regard to this issue and we assure that the same is being taken up with the Central Office at every opportunity. Even at the meeting our delegation led by our President Shri. Bali had with Dir (Per)  on 18/5/2016 the issue was discussed, and there has been no valid point made out by the management on why they cannot extend the benefit conferred by the Rajasthan HC in MC Jain's case. We would also like to keep going to court as the last option, not because the number of affected Class 1 pensioners is not large but because of the time involved in litigation. I spoke to Shri S Srivastav Dir (p)  on the subject again yesterday, and our office bearers at Mumbai M/S Nerurkat and Pathak will be following up the matter. Meantime we appeal to the concerned members to await the result of our current initiative after which we shall take a final call on approac