Dear friends,
You will all be eagerly waiting for the out come of the meeting held at United India Head Office on the subject matter of payment of 5 years notional credit to SVR optees as per the Supreme Court Order on the TP/7/2011 and upon the individual WPs filed by our members at Madurai Branch of the Madras High Court  vide WPnos.6435 - 6437 of 2015. 

Our Writ Petitioners from the 4 companies, namely Mr.V.Selvaraj(New India), Rajasekaran(national), Srinivasan(United india), were present at the meeting, which included the authorised representative
of the petitioner from Oriental Sri Anandraj. who is at present at United states.- ie. myself. 
The meeting was divided in to two sessions one for the Writ Petitioners and the other for the Authorised Representative. In the first meeting, the management was represented by the General Managers of the companies vide- Sri Nayak for New India, Smt. Heamamalini for United India, and Sri.Mangaleswari for National. The GIPSA was represented by Sri.Govindarajan CEO, and the ministry by Sri. Singhal. Our petitioners were asked to explain their stand and as directed by our Association, they explained and also gave their view about the demand in writing. Then the management took the stand that there is no specific order by the Supreme court to pay the 5 years 
notional credit to them and hence they are in no position to consider the demand, also conveyed their inability to proceed further and promised to inform the petitioners in writing about their stand. 

The second part of the meeting was held around 12 30 pm with myself and in the presence of the following representatives from the Management side. The team was led by Shri Singhal representing Ministry, Sri Govindarajan CEO for GIPSA, Sri. Chakradar singh DGM for OIC with one more officer whose name i could not get. After usual exchange of greetings with Mr. Singhal, and others, Mr. Singhal explained that they are discussing with me seperately because i am not the petitioner but only an authorised person and it is out of their magnanimity. i told him that it is only as per the Court Order, but thanked him for his gesture. He invited my view points on behalf of the Petitioner Sri. Anandraj.  

While presenting my case I quoted the clauses 6,8,15 of the judgment where the Judge has clearly mentioned that we are eligible for the 5 years notional credit, and in clause 27,28, the Hon'ble judge has mentioned that the management has admitted about the payment of 5 years notional credit in their submission before the Court, and in clause 34 Which is the operative part,  the Hon'ble Judge has again mentioned that it is an admitted fact that the 5 years notional credit has been given but whereas the fact remains that it is not given. By making these points in my presentation, I substantiated my demand for the 5 years notional credit which was not actually paid.

Mr.Singhal explained his stand that because of Clause 6 c of the SVR Scheme which restricts the payment of 5 years notional credit, and since our Review petition got dismissed with which we mentioned all the above points, and finally in the written submission by the management they 
have never admitted about the payemnt of 5 years notional credit payment as stated in the judgment. He was also inviting me to suggest some way, which may enable them to pay the 5 yrs notional credit.
I was so careful and repeatedly insisted that they need not have any extraw points but for the details in the judgment, since any judgment is law and it supersedes all the other laws laid before the judgment. Once the judgment is given on the SVR scheme, the clause 6 c which was quoted in their defence, will loose its effect and they should abide by the judgment. Moreover the main point the judge has taken as reason for the dismissal of the claim for arrears is the additional benefit of payment of  5 years notional credit.

Thus the meeting concluded and when asked about their order, Mr.Singhal has assured that all the petitioners will get their order separately and he will inform the Court accordingly.

Friends, now it is left to us to take our legal recourse to get the benefit. Once the reply comes our association will consult the Advocates and proceed further in the matter. All along we thought that some wisdom will prevail in the minds of the management and will consider our demand. Now it seems that it is of no avail and as were, we will be together and fight to the end.

Our next move will be to go back to Madurai Court and inform them about the negative stand taken by the management and get suitable order and further proceed to Supreme Court, which will be natural end for all these litigation. 

Be with us in the fight and together we are the victory is with us.

with regards