04 Nov 2014
M.N. Subramani, M.Com, LLB.,President,
VeKare Ex-Servicemen Trust (VKET),
No. 645, 1st Floor, N.S. Road,
K.R. Mohalla, Mysore – 570024
Telefax: 0821-2459555
Mobile: 9448471811
To,
General Officer Commanding,
HQ K& K Sub Area,
Cubbon Road,
Bangalore – 560001
KIND ATTN: MAJ GEN A.K. SINGH, VSM
Sir,
DENIAL OF CSD FACILITIES TO HAPLESS WIDOWS OF SERVICE PERSONNEL
OTHER THAN OFFICERS WHO ARE NOT IN RECEIPT OF FAMILY PENSION
Army order 2/2006 para 4 (g) & (h) is discriminatory & retrograde in nature?!
Discrimination among widows of officers and widows of hapless PBORs
Specific Cases:
Smt. M.N. Kamala wife of No. 2532793 late SepM.M. Nanaiah (Madras Regiment), Smt. K.T. Lilly wife of No. 84341 late LPM K.B. Thimmaiah (IN)
Smt. B.N. Indira wife of No. 7106570 late Sep BB Nanjappa (EME)
1. We presume that your Sub Area is well aware of the existence of our Trust as, invariably, most of our correspondences addressed to Chief of the Army Staff and other competent authorities, exposing the problems of not only retired officers / PBORs / their widows, but also the dependent family members of martyrs decorated with gallantry awards, are marked to your office as well.
2. To substantiate our claim, you may kindly refer to our mail dated 18.11.2013 addressed to Chief of the Army Staff with a copy to your office, among other authorities, on the subject of ‘SAGA OF A FORGOTTEN INDIAN ARMY MARTYR IC-24877 2/Lt S. MANJUNATH, VrC (Posthumous) & HIS VICTIMISED 87 YEAR OLD DEPENDENT MOTHER SMT. R.G. SHANTHAMMA’.The news on this subject was also reported in the National Daily ‘The Hindu’ & ‘Bangalore Mirror’ edition dated 04.12.2013 & 02.12.2013 respectively. The issue of Smt. R.G. Shanthamma was resolved in lightning speed & she has received all her facilities and benefits, including the arrears of Liberalized Family Pension, subsequent to our intervention, which you may be well aware of.
3. We also wish to inform you that in the past two and a half decades of our Trust’s existence, we have resolved the problems of innumerable military veterans and their widows. Besides, we were instrumental in changing quite a few retrograde and anomalous policies, by taking up the causes of ex-servicemen / widows of ex-servicemen as a matter of principle, & a few of them concerning CSD policies as well, which is history now.
4. Through this correspondence we wish to expose cases pertaining to the above said three widows of ex-servicemen who are being denied canteen facilities. Two of the cases pertain to Golden Palms Extension Counter (Unit Run Canteen) in Madikeri, Kodagu district, & one case pertains to URC Golden Palm Canteen, Bangalore. We presume that, the above hapless widows are being denied CSD facilities due to the ignorance of the CSD policy in vogue, at your end. In order to understand these three cases at hand, we request you to read the attached representations addressed to our Trust, submitted by Smt. M.N. Kamala, wife of No. 2532793 late Sep M.M. Nanaiah (Madras Regiment), Smt. K.T. Lilly wife of No. 84341 late LPM K.B. Thimmaiah (Indian Navy) and Smt. B.N. Indira wife of No. 7106570 Late Sep B.B. Nanjappa (EME) which are self-explanatory, before reading succeeding paragraphs / contents. The above said deceased ex-servicemen had served for Eight years, Ten years and Nine years, respectively. All the three deceased combatant Ex-soldiers were covered under the definition of ex-servicemen & all of them were availing CSD facilities during their life time.
5. You are well aware, Sir, that prior to Nov 1990, as per Army Order 32/84, ‘Guide to Resettlement of Ex-servicemen, 1984’, published by Ministry of Defence, Directorate General of Resettlement & Sainik Punarvas Special Edition Vol 4, for the period Dec‘89/Jan’90 – Feb/Mar’90, published during the tenure of Maj Gen RP Limaya, as the Director, DGR, MoD, regarding ‘Benefits to Widows of Ex-servicemen’ in which it was specifically indicated that only widows of ex-servicemen who were in receipt of family pension were only entitled to avail of canteen facilities. Hence, none of the widows of regular officers /SSC/EC Officers & ex-servicemen belonging to PBORs cadres, who were not in receipt of family pension, were extended any of the canteen facilities.
6. This retrograde policy was highly discriminatory among widows of ex-servicemen who were in receipt of family pension, and such of those who were not in receipt of family pension.Hence, when an opportunity presented itself on this very issue, we impressed upon late Mrs. MN Gangawwa to take up the matter with the Three Service Chiefs soon after her husband L/Nk Mandetira A Nanayya left for his heavenly abode on 13.02.1990, as a matter of principle, to remove the discrimination in the retrograde Army Order 32/1984 pertaining to canteen facilities.
7. The contents of Mrs. MN Gangawwa’s representation addressed to DGR with copies to three Chiefs is appended which is self-explanatory. We have also attached the scanned copy of the clarification given by QMG, Canteen Services vide letter No. 36341/Misc/Q/CS dated 05.12.1990. The contents of QMG (CS) letter is reproduced for your ready reference along with QMG’s letter addressed to late Mrs. MN Gangawwa.
__________________________
From,
Smt. MN Gangawwa,
W/o Late L/Nk M.A. Nanayya,
(S.No. 123635 of IEME),
H. No. LIG-3, (KHB),
“Cauvery Nilaya”,
II Stage, Udayagiri,
MYSORE – 570 019.
To,
Director General,
Directorate General Resettlement,
Ministry of Defence,
Government of India,
NEW DELHI – 110 066.
Dear Sir,
REQUEST FOR C.S.D. FACILITY TO WIDOWS OF SSC / EC OFFICERS ANDORsWHO ARE NOT IN RECEIPT OF PENSION PAID OUT OF DEFENCE ESTIMATES.
With due regards, I have the following to state for your kind consideration and necessary clarification, please.
2. I am a widow of an Ex-Serviceman and I wish to avail CSD facilities. But, I am given to understand that only widows of ex-servicemen who are in receipt of family pension from Defence Service Estimates are entitled for Canteen facilities. This retrograde policy again has been amply substantiated by your publication “A guide to Resettlement of Ex-servicemen” with regard to category of widows who are eligible for CSD facilities under Chapter IX para 53 (ii) and chapter IX para 49 of the 1980 and 1984 editions respectively, which I quote as under:
“Widows of service officers and personnel and are in
receipt of pension from Defence Service Estimates”.
3. My husband was released from the army neither at his own request nor for his disinclination to serve in the Indian Army. He was released from the Indian Army on 09 Oct 1946 under Release Regulation ‘a’ i.e. in the consequence of Reduction of the Indian Army on Demobilization, ending his army career half way through for no fault of his. It is not out of place to mention here that this rule is vague. In my opinion this rule is framed without any foresight totally contrary to the principles of Natural Justice.
4. Here, I wish to compare myself to a widow whose husband has put in just the same amount of service or perhaps even less during the same period as my late husband but released on medical ground, with pension, which entitles her of the Canteen facility, unlike me since, the deceased pensioner’s widow receives family pension. However, this policy of extending CSD facilities only for those widows of ex-servicemen who are in receipt of family pension forbid the widows of the following categories of Ex-defence personnel from availing C.S.D. facilities:
- Widows of Short Service and Emergency Commissioned Officers.
- Widows of personnel who are released without pension due to reduction in forces / demobilization. (after II World War)
- Widows of Airmen/Seamen who were released on completion of their initial term of engagement without pension since the initial term of earlier were 9 years and 10 years respectively for Seamen&Airmen respectively.
5. It is highly unjustifiable to deny the C.S.D. facilities to the above categories of widows. This discrimination among widows is not based on any principle whatsoever. Hence, you are requested to review this antique CSD policy from a broader perspective and rationally reconsider it in the wider interest of the widows of Ex-defence personnel who are not in receipt of family pension. It would be more in the interest of the Armed Forces if a comprehensive rule is brought about which encompasses the entire community of Ex-defence personnel’s widows. My late husband’s service particulars are as follows:
1. No. 123635 2. Rank L/Nk 3. Name MA NANAYYA 4. Served in IEME 5. Date of Enrollment01.07.1940 6. Date of Discharge 09.10.1946 7. Reason for Discharge: Release Regulation ‘a’ in the consequence of Reduction of the Indian Army on Demobilization.
6. I once again plead you Sir, in all humility to view the subject passionately and modify this existing rule in respect of the widows quoted in Para 4 (a) (b) (c) to bring greatest happiness to the greatest number of widows whose husbands were released from service before the stipulated pensionable service and stop discrimination among widows whose husbands covered under the definition of ex-servicemen. I shall be grateful if you could intimate me in advance your opinion pending finalization of this suggestion.
7. Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Place: MYSORE (MN GANGAWWA)
Date Oct 90.
Copy to :
1. Chief of Army Staff,
Army Headquarters,
New Delhi.
2. Chief of Air Staff,
Air Headquarters,
New Delhi.
3. Chief of Naval Staff,
Naval Headquarters,
New Delhi.
*****************************************************************
Telephone: 3016208 DyDte Gen Canteen Services
Quartermaster General’s Branch
Army Headquarters,
DHQ PO New Delhi – 11.
36341/Misc/Q/CS 05 Dec 90
Headquarters
Southern Command
Eastern Command
Western Command
Central Command
Northern Command
CANTEEN FACILITIES TO WIDOWS OF EX-SERVICEMEN
1. We have been receiving various representations regarding the category of widows who are entitled to canteen facilities and the type of canteen facilities to which they are entitled. In this regard, it is hereby clarified that widows of all entitled ex-servicemen are authorised to canteen facilities for all items including mopeds and refrigerators from CSD.
2. This may please be promulgated down to all concerned.
Sd/-
(AGJ Swittens)
Lt ColOffg DDG CS
for Quartermaster General
Copy to:-
Air Headquarters(Dte of Org) – 20 copies each
KendriyaSainik Board
RK Puram, New Delhi – 5 copies
********************************************************************
Tele: 3019572 DyDte Gen Canteen Services
Quartermaster General’s Branch
Army Headquarters,
DHQ PO New Delhi – 110001
A/02704/Q/CS 07 Dec 90
MN Gangawwa
H. No. LIG-3, (KHB),
“Cauvery Nilaya”,
II Stage, Udayagiri,
MYSORE – 570 019.
CANTEEN FACILITIES TO WIDOWS
1. Reference your application dated Oct 90.
2. As per our existing policy, you are entitled to canteen facilities for all items including mopeds and refrigerators. You may, therefore, approach the local station HQ along with the necessary documents for attachment to the nearest canteen.
Sd/-
(AGJ Swittens)
Lt ColOffg DDG CS
for Quartermaster General
Copy to:-
Q1 (C) – wrt their Note No. B/98111/COAS Sectt/Q1(C) dated 09 Nov 90.
COAS Sectt-wrt their Note No. 50914/Petn/COAS Sectt/QMG/867 dated 01 Nov 90.
***********************************************************
8. Subsequent to the dissemination of the above mentioned QMG’s letter dated 05.12.1990, which was the outcome to Smt. Gangawwa’s representation dated Oct 1990, the Army Order 32/84, DGR’s Guidelines & Sainik Puranvas special edition, making family pension a mandatory condition for widows of ex-servicemen to avail of canteen facilities, has been clearly superseded & clarified. As such it puts to rest any confusion created by the so-called pseudo-intelligent babus in uniform, & retired officers manning the URC. Consequently, URCs located in the entire country started extending the canteen facilities to widows of ex-servicemen. Sub-Area’s URC Golden Palms & its extension counters all over Karnataka & Kerala also followed suit.
9. However, a wise babu-in-uniform, i.e., Col AVS Andrews, OIC Ex-Servicemen Helpline, signing for the GOC K& K Sub Area, shot out a misconceived letter bearing No.7242/ESM HL/Canteen, dated 22nd Feb ’11, addressed to the URC’s coming under your Sub Area, creating confusion, and passed a verdict as if he is the quasi QMG (Canteen Services), denying canteen facilities to widows / dependents of ex-servicemen who are not in receipt of family pension.
10. The above said gentleman officer clearly over stepped his brief, & has brought embarrassment to himself & the K&K Sub Area by this official communication, wherein in para 6 of the said letter he has directed the URCs which are operated under the K&K Sub Area’s jurisdiction to withdraw Canteen Cards / Smart Cards and deny canteen facilities to Widows / Dependents of ESM who are non-pensioners with immediate effect. This resulted in your Sub Area’s URC, Golden Palm canteen and its extension counter at Madikeri, Coorg Dist withdrawing the smart cards & denying canteen facilities to the above said three widows, among scores of other such widows, who may not be in receipt of family pension.The letter dated 22.02.2011 originated by Col AVS Andrew is reproduced below.
*************************************************
FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF CSD CANTEEN MANAGERS
BY SDS/POST
Tele No. 25559934/6230 ESM Helpline
Email – oicesmbangalore@yahoo.co.in
C/O HQ K& K Sub Area
Cubbon Road
Bangalore-560001
7242/ESM HL/Canteen 22 Feb 11
Golden Palm Canteen
Cubbon Road
Bangalore-1
SCRUTINY OF DOCUMENTS FOR ENTITLEMENTS OF CSD
CANTEEN FACILITIES FOR EX-SERVICMEEN AND THEIR
WIDOWS / DEPENDENTS
1. Refer to AO 2/2006/QMG.
2. As per above mentioned Army Order, Non-Pensioner ESM and their widows/dependents as also ESMs having less than 5 years service are not entitled for CSD Canteen facilities.
3. It has been observed that a large number of non-entitled categories of ESM and their widows/Dependents are availing CSD facilities and also approaching this office for renewal of the CSD Smart Cards which is contrary to the govt orders. This practice is going on in quiet a few CSD Canteens as follows:-
(a) Some CSD canteens are carrying out attachment without obtaining proper Station Order for attachment for this HQ.
(b) Enrolling ESM without checking of date of enrolment and date of discharge of the ESM from Army.
(c) Enrolling ESM without observance of cause of the discharge from Army.
(d) Enrolling ESM without the possession of ESM I-Card issued by concerned DSWR office.
(e) Enrolling ESM without PPO copy.
4. The above explained lapses have been views seriously by GOC at this HQ. It is requested that all CSD Canteen ensure correctness of the aspects mentioned at Para 3 (a) to (e) in r/o the ESM and their widows/dependent who are attached for availing CSD Canteen facilities.
5. As and when it has come to your notice that any individual is in possession of CSD Smart Cards without fulfilling the requirements as per the AO, you are requested to intimate the details of the CSD Card to this HQ at the earliest please.
6. You are also requested to carry out necessary review for the entire strength of dependency/CSD Canteen Smart Card issued from your URC till dated and fwd details of non-entitled ESMs as per appx attached so as to reach this HQ by 15 Apr 2011 positively. The Canteen Cards of widows/Dependents of ESM who are non pensioners are required to be cancelled imdt.
Sd/-
(AVS Andres) ColOIC ESM Helpline
For GOC
Encls: As above.
*****************************************************************
11. The same Col Andrews, not satisfied with his illogical decision of withdrawing the canteen facilities, shoots out yet another letter, vide No7242/ESM HL/Canteen dated 21 Apr ’11, to the QMG’s (Canteen Services) seeking clarification on the canteen facilities. This man wishes to endorse his own inefficiency & ignorance. The letter is reproduced below for your reading pleasure.
*****************************************************************
BY SDS/POST
Tele No. 25559934/6230 ESM Helpline
Email – oicesmbangalore@yahoo.co.in
C/O HQ K& K Sub AreaCubbon Road
Bangalore-560001
7242/ESM HL/Canteen 21 Apr 11
Integrated HQ of MOD (ARMY)
Quartermaster General’s Branch
DyDir Gen Canteen Services
Room No. 14A, L-1 Block,
Church Road, New Delhi – 110001.
CLARIFICATION ON CANTEEN FACILITIES TO ESM
1. Ref tele conv between Maj Atul Yadav, JCDS your HQ and the undersigned of date.
2. You are requested to intimate the clarification sought on the u/m aspects:-
(a) WW-II Veterans who were disch from service before completion of 5 years service due to reduction of Indian Army on de-mobilisation/disbandment of units.
(b) Widows of ESM who are not in receipt of pension (eg Widows of SS Offrsetc).
(c) Widows of WW-II Veterans.
(d) Widows of ESM who have opted for civil pension.
3. An early clarification requested please.
Sd/-
(AVS Andrews)ColOIC ESM Helpline
For GOC
***************************************************************
12. We wish someone would educate this Col AVS Andrews and his ilk, at your Sub Area, that canteen facilities are strictly under the purview of the QMG (Canteen Services), & all the policies formulated by the QMG applies universally to all the URCs under the territory of the Indian Union, whether it is run by the Indian Army, Indian Navy or the Indian Air force. K&K Sub Area certainly has no Locus Standi to formulate any local policy which is in direct contravention with the QMG Canteen Services’ policy. We also wish to bring to your notice that Mrs N Swarup, widow of Late Major (Dr) N K Mysore, was denied the use of canteen facilities by your Station HQ URC Golden Palms on the ground that she is the widow of a SSC officer, & not in receipt of family pension, until our Trust had to intervene on the request of a retired colonel of the MEG. However, we are given to understand that this hapless widow of Major (Dr) NK Mysore preferred to avail CSD facilities from MEG’s Canteen at Bangalore by getting a smart card made at that establishment, rather than from your Sub Area’s URC Golden Palm Canteen.
13. Many a times even the bigwigs in the Army Hq’s are ill briefed by some of the babus in uniform, who keeps their own interests & their family’s/ilk’s interest in mind, to formulate discriminatory policies such as the one in Army Order 2/2006. The discriminatory para 4(g) & 4(h) is reproduced below. In the said paragraph the author of the paragraph who is certainly a wise officer using his wisdom has kept his & his ilk’s family’s interest first by not stipulating the family pension clause for widows of officers but conveniently and deliberately stipulated ‘Family pension clause’ for personal other than officers. Whether the welfare of officers and their widows always come first and the welfare of others come next or never ?!
ENTITLED CATEGORIES as per Army order 2/2006
4 (g) Widows of Service officers including Honorary Commissioned/EC/SSC (whether the officer expired while in service or after retirement). (Liquor authorized at the scale of 50% of the authorization of the deceased.)
(h) Widows of service personnel other than officers who are in receipt of pension from Defence Services Estimates (whether the PBOR expired in service or after retirement). (Liquor authorized at the scale of 50% of the authorization of the deceased.)
14. The above mentioned two mischievous paragraphs discriminate against two classes of widows, though widows cannot be segregated purely on the basis of the ranks/class of their late husbands. However, it is pertinent to mention here, it was only because of Mrs. MN Gangawwa’s representation that the widows of EC/SSC officers, among other widows, were extended canteen facilities w.e.f. Dec 1990 though they are not in receipt of family pension as per QMG’s letter bearing No. 36341/Misc/Q/CS dated 05.12. 1990.
15. However, as per the discriminatory Army Order 2/2006 while widows of Service Officers are authorized to avail of canteen facilities, including 50% of the Liquor Quota, whether they are in receipt of family pension or not. How come, the widows of service personnel below the rank of officers who are not in receipt of family pension deprived of the same privilege vide Para 4(h)? Why is the receipt of family pension clause applied strictly to widows of service personnel below officer rank begets an answer, as this is purely discriminatory & mischievous, played by the person who drafted this retrograde anomalous policy.
16. This discriminatory Army Order 2/2006 will not stand the test of judicial scrutiny, since, this is against the principle of natural justice. The ‘battle for bottles’ has been reignited with this army order, as it appears to treat widows of personnel below officer rank as second class citizens, against the tenets of human rights. Hence, this particular clause need to be redrafted, as widows are widows, be it that of a General’s or a lowly Sepoy’s.
17. We are also given to understand that, widows of those ex-servicemen below PBORs are being denied CSD facilities only under the URC and its Extension Counters run and managed by your Sub Area.The other URCs throughout the country are strictly following what is stated in the QMG’s clarification, issued vide letter No. 36341/Misc/Q/CS dated 05.12.1990, subsequent to late Mrs. Mandetira Nanayya Gangawwa’s representation in the month of Oct 1990.
18. In view of the above, the Canteen Manager at your extension counter of URC at Madikeri, and the Officer I/C, GPC, Lt Col Choudhary may kindly be directed to restore the canteen facilities to Smt. M.N. Kamala wife of late Sep M.M. Nanaiah, Smt. K.T. Lilly wife of late LPM K.B. Thimmaiah and Smt. B.N. Indira wife of Late Sep B.B. Nanjappa, forthwith, by returning their CSD smart cards, which are claimed to be withheld by the canteen management at Madikeri as well as at Bangalore.
19. This wanton action of the Col Andrews needs to be condemned in the harshest manner possible, who unabashedly acted unilaterally, whether he is still serving or retired. It is beyond our comprehension as to how this Col could issue an order which deprives innocent widows / dependents of ESM a simple CSD facility. If the Colonels / authorities concerned with the running of URCs, and their extension counters under your Sub Area’s jurisdiction, are familiar with the definition of ex-servicemen & those who are not, such `faux pas` can be conveniently avoided.
20. In order to educate the widows of Ex-servicemen who are eligible for CSD facilities, but were unjustly denied by this ill-informed Col AVS Andrews & his ilk, we are posting the contents of this email, in full, on our website www.exservicemen.in.
21. Kindly accord priority in restoring the CSD facilities to the above said three widows in question with a tangible intimation to our Trust.
JAI HIND
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
M.N. Subramani.
COPY TO:
1. Integrated HQ of MOD (ARMY)
Quartermaster General’s Branch, DyDir Gen Canteen Services
Room No. 14A, L-1 Block, Church Road, New Delhi – 110001.
2. Smt MN Kamala
Widow of No. 2532796 Sep M.M. Nanaiah,
Nisarga Layout, Panjarpet, Virajpet – 571218.
3. Smt. K.T. Lilly,
Wife of No. 84341 Late LPM K B Thimmaiah
C/o C.B. Chinnappa, Vill&PO :Hoddur, Murnad, Kodagu Dist.
4. Smt. B.N. Indira,
Wife of No. 7106570 late Sep B.B. Nanjappa,
C/o A-3 Navya Elite Appartment, 27th Main, Ashwini Layout,
Koramangala Extension, Bangalore – 560047.
-This is for your information.
The amendments to official policies being carried out by HQ K&K Sub area are discriminatory in the extreme and smack of some personal vendetta on the part of the officer involved.He must be brought down from his high horse and be put firmly in his place.Disciplnary action too might be considered as well as financial compensation to the three widows to be paid from the officers own pocket.
D Fernandes
Gp Capt Retd.
The case taken up by your Trust for extending of canteen facilities to widows of ex servicemen who are not in receipt of family pension due to various reasons, is just, fair and need of the hour. We had turned “Nelson’s Eye” on this issue.
I totally agree that current CSD policy be reviewed from a broader perspective and rationally reconsider it in the wider interest of the widows of Ex-defence personnel, who are not in receipt of family pension.
It is not out of place to mention here that present rule is vague and contrary to the principles of Natural Justice. It would be more in the interest of the Armed Forces if a comprehensive rule is brought about which encompasses the entire community of widows of Ex-defence personnel.
Col Lava Kumar ( Veteran)
The letter of QMG’S B r of 05 DEc 90, it self is vague, What do they mean by all entitled ex-servicemen as copy & pasted from your mail.
In this regard, it is hereby clarified that widows of all entitled ex-servicemen are authorised to canteen facilities for all items including
mopeds and refrigerators from CSD.
Sir, myself I am Ex Hav Kodaganti Sreenivasulu, belongs to AP, Anantapur dist, neighbour dist to Karnataka.
In our Golden palm canteen has raised new system for CSD collection.
As per their rules initially register our mobile no. Personally, then they inform us certain date in which we collect CSD items.
In this carona situation it’s not possible to visit twice in a month. My humble request and suggestion is register our mobile no. by their electronic registration system either land or computer carried mobile system.
Next their land no. Which they given us is not available, its ringing only no one is responding, it’s going on since so many days. Please instruct them to avoid our difficulties.
Thanks and Jai Hind.
Sir, This is smt N. Muniyamma w/o Late(1096265)SWR. B.Nagappa 61 Cavalry. Today I went to the Prtc canteen. JC NAGAR, even though my token number was 1,I was issued my items after 12 peopl,who came after me n wn v asked them, they brushed me aside saying that it will come
I reminded them 2-3 times but to no avail. V asked d JCO who didn’t gv a reply properly. I even wanted to go n meet d OIC Canteen but I was not allowed to meet him in person or on telephone saying d officer is not interested in meeting u n u can go ahead n report to anyone u want. This msg was passed to me by Sub Sohan Ram. I kindly urge u to take serious action on this n also to intimate d same yo me. Rgds.