Tuesday, July 7, 2015


7 Jul 15, 03:15 AM


Chronicle is a public property--the article is a good rebuff to 

the people who wants keep matters concerning the pensioners 

to their chest and cheat the retirees. I congratulate the editor 

for achieving journalistic distinction and I wish him in the 

days ahead many more such distinctions.

Monday, July 6, 2015

CHRONICLE is public property...


Shri G. Krishnaswamy had kicked up

a controversy when the Chronicle published

AIRIEF Circular No.4 which had made

known to the pensioners their (AIRIEF)

decision to implead themselves in our

Supreme Court case.

Normally Chronicle published circulars of LIC pensioner organisations. This has been appreciated by the pensioners as it provided to them the much needed information especially the news relating to court cases. We have been regularly publishing important circulars of the in-service and pensioners organisations. All Bank inservice and pensioner organisation circulars are also being published by us. That exactly is the very purpose of having this free platform: Chronicle. 

The news regarding AIRIEF joining the court fray was promptly published in the Chronicle. We had ample reasons to do so. The Chronicle had conducted a detailed discussion following our own Editorial on the subject. It was our original idea to send a personal cheque for an amount to the Federation. Displaying the image, we wanted to give a call to all the pensioners to contribute to the fund. But before we could do anything in the matter came embarrassing mails how the circular in question reached the Chronicle and why this was published. The main point of discussion was about leakage of their circular prior to the date it was intended to be released. It was then, and only at this point that we realised that we had really achieved a journalistic distinction of publishing an association circular even before the same was published. Had we this realisation that we had achieved something of this dimension we would have flashed the news in more captivating words. 

A reader made a comment in the comment box whether this news was a bogus one. So to confirm the news, we made enquiries through our own sources and we got the circular in question from 3 (three) such sources. As we have a practice of keeping the source as secret (since it is a question of integrity of the Editor) we found no reason to disclose the source and promptly carried the circular. 
  • It is only later we realised that the circular was released one day before the official date of release. IT WAS A PROUD MOMENT FOR THE CHRONICLE AND AN EMBARRASSING MOMENT FOR THE FEDERATION.  In future our readers may rest assured whenever it is possible, we will try to do such feats again. That gives a proud moment for the Editor, a feather in the cap of Chronicle. The other occasion when we could such a job of journalistic excellence was when we published the news of dismissal of Contempt Petition. Two more such distinctions were denied to us when the news published in Chronicle was withdrawn at the instance of AIRIEF functionaries.

Our publication of Federation circular was followed by a spate of embarrassing remarks by many tall leaders of the Federation. Shri Krishnaswamy asserted that the circular of the Federation was their PROPERTY.  Others joined the chorus and brought a lot of publicity to the Chronicle. But one claim of the Federation that the Circular was the property of the Federation did not satisfy us. What was it ? It has to be examined.

An exclusive Chronicle news is referred to in the Circular of AIRIEF as can be seen above. 

It says, "as it was being aired that no such letter was received by them (GNS & others) right from Tuesday & Wednesday, I wanted to direct my efforts....".  What is interesting in the above news is that the Federation is indulging in double standards. While it says that the Federation circular is their property, they assume that the exclusive news appearing in CHRONICLE is a public property and so they can access it. This is beyond our comprehension.

  • It may be pertinent to add here that SHRI KML ASTHANA says he gives the Federation news concerning court cases to his personal friends only. While he laboured to say so, he had forgotten that he had himself promptly and directly sent us a long statement (a very long one) prior to their Bangalore conference. We had then given the exclusive privilege of his own statement being published while replies filed by Shri Sreenivasa Murty and Shri BR Mehta were not published at all. Why Shri Asthana sent the statement to the Chronicle when he faced rough climate in Bangalore is yet to be explained. Why the Chronicle space was utilised then to carry his statement ?

Again the Federation's prominent leader Shri RBK made use of Chronicle space till recently when we refused to publish his statements. For the last 3 years or so, we had been telling him  that we cauld publish only a max of 500 words, but gave him a privilege of 1000 words, and we told him that his repetitive statements
which exceeded 3000 words cannot be published. Then he stopped sending any statements to Chronicle. After about 3 months, he resumed sending statements to Chronicle. He requested to publish his statements in red and violet font colours. We told him, rather we explained to him in so many words that ours is an humble venture. It has a format. We cannot deviate from our editorial policy and allow an individual a choice of colours. Despite this exchange of mail, we continued to accommodate him. Many times we could not give him front page, still we published the long statements on the second  page. On a couple of occasions, we made it simple for us by giving a LINK to AIRIEF blog which lessened our burden. And finally when our problems assumed huge proportions, we refused to publish a clarification he had filed about a Chronicle discussion. We had only made a general discussion about articles being published, about our decision to format all pre-edited materials etc. There was no mention of anybody's name. Yet he wanted to explain thinking that the whole discussion was about him. We said NO. Beyond this, we do not wish to say anything more. We have closed that chapter much to the relief of the Editor and the readers.
  • The point being emphasised here is that while the Federation functionaries including Shri HKA one-time spokesman utilised Chronicle space to meet their requirements whenever they wanted, what is their right to emphasise that their circular is their property. We feel that Shri G. Krishnaswamy should apologise to the pensioners if he ever understands and appreciates our submission. 
We assure our readers, Chronicle Editor is doing a service not for the purpose of getting any recognition from anybody or any organisation. We didn't start our work when a Jaipur court gave a verdict in favour LIC pensioners or since when the case was adopted and supported by the Federation in 2010.  We also do not have any funds...

On the right-hand bar, the Chronicle Editor has published a few sentences about his contribution to the Corporation. Thousands of Rupees have been spent for this work, never a Rupee is accepted as a token of recognition for these services and finally when the Editor lost even promotion, he did not even submit a representation to the Corporation for promotion. He thought in his wisdom that the treatment of denying promotion is apt and the Editor deserved to be kicked. 

You can kick us again. 

But to the Editor it is a way of life. 

He will have no complaints. 

Only questions, no answers forthcoming

Dear Editor,

You are correct while saying that a  leader 
of any LIC Pensioners organisation can not 
discuss their strategy in public particularly 
when LIC is playing games with its pensioners.

But you have to look at other dimensions of same issue. Can any top leader has the right to play games with his members.Why blaming Management when leaders are also involved in similar type of activities ?

Let us look at what is happening inside  LIC Pensioners organisations and not outside i.e. related with LIC Management or Finance Ministry/ GOI

Let us do the job of soul searching

and find answer to following questions 

concerned with all LIC Pensioners

1. When all top leaders of various LIC Pensioners Associations say that they are fighting for genuine demands of all LIC Pensioners then why are they fighting with each other instead of fighting unitedly with Management/ GOI ?

2. Whether all LIC Pensioners have a right to be informed by their respective leaders or not ? I believe that right to information is our fundamental right irrespective of LIC Pensioners Association which we belong to.

If yes, why members of a particular organisation 
have a perception that what was discussed with 
MD has not been conveyed to its members ? 
Concealment is always much higher than disclosure.

If yes, why some so called big 

AIRIEF Leader is

disturbed over their recent 

circular no 4 being made available 

on your blog ?

If yes, why an ordinary member of AIRIEF like me has not been informed till date that why our contempt petition at Jaipur High Court was withdrawn at its climax point ?

I am sure that our learned friends being regular contributors for your blog will be frank enough to come out openly on these issues through your blog.


CH Mahadevan's reply

I am an admirer of the posts occasionally made by CH Mahadevan in this Chronicle. However, I would like to reply to his comments made on 6 July 2015 thus:

(1): If we lose the case in SC, everything is lost.

I did not mean that it is useless to go to courts. Of course, whatever success we have achieved so far has been because of our fight in the courts. I was trying to imagine the future after SC passed a verdict. There can be only two possibilities: if we lose, it will be a blackout, even if temporarily. If we win, MOF will, as usual, do its best not to implement the verdict, in which case we shall fight in every possible manner.

(4): Why then are our leaders (of all the associations) meeting the officials of LIC and GOI/MOF? Are they hoping to change the latter’s attitude? Or are they trying to inject in them any modicum of sympathy or ethics?

Yes, we have to meet the LIC officials for various issues like mediclaim, pension anomalies etc. I only objected to meeting them for pension issues which are sub judice and about which LIC officials will not hold a candid discussion.

Finally, at the risk of repeating myself, I would like to say that we should immediately approach the SC for:
1. Post-1996 retirees must also be included (which LIC is vehemently trying to avoid for updation issue)
Is there any news about contempt proceedings in SC? If yes, then the above-mentioned points must be emphasised.

Best wishes, 

Sunil Kumar Mitra


6 Jul 15, 09:20 AM


Does the Editor know what exactly the present leaders of AIIEA have in their mind about updation of pension. For them pensioners problems are the last item, which they can not ignore for just for one reason: they do not want to embarrass past leaders who are pensioners today, and because of whose tireless efforts, their unions are strong.
Sunil Mitra, u r also a 2000 retiree like me. Your hopes and beliefs in the present judicial system I admire, but alas, the struggle is long drawn. possibly may go upto 2030s.

'Human element'

Dear Editor,

I really feel very happy to read old memories narrated by Sh. B. Ganga Raju under the caption Remembering Great Souls and fully endorse his views.

Personal Touch with your members or colleagues or team down the line appears to be a matter of past only. I can narrate just one example which is sufficient for me to fully agree with said issue.

During my Class One tenure and just two years before my retirement, I was part of first Divisional level conference normally held in May end or June start after close of a financial year to be attended by all Branch Marketing Officials including Branch Incharges and ABM (Sales) along with all Divisional HODs and myself being a part of Divisional HODs Team. Such Conferences are normally addressed by Z.M. Incharge and venue is a very good Hotel of area.

During this conference, Our ZM Incharge entered venue, went straight to dias without shaking hands with participants, No personal introduction of participants and above all did not join for lunch with participants as it was arranged in his room of same hotel. Reviewed Branch wise performance, rebuked publically all poor performers, delivered his address at the close of conference and left venue again without any personal interaction or even hand shake with any one before his departure.

Personal Touch has gone where ?



Dear Mr.Subburathinam, I'm afraid, you're mistaken !

Dear Mr Gangadharan,

Thank you so much for uploading my previous post so promptly. May I submit the following as reply to a comment made on my previous post:

"Dear Mr Subburathinam,

I’m afraid you are mistaken. The great leader of AIIEA was the late Sunil MAITRA. He, along with the people you have mentioned, fought for the employees. To these should be added the name of Chandrasekhar Bose who was the founder of the great institution. However, times have changed, the politics have changed; the tasks and priorities of the trade unions have also changed. We, the pensioners, cannot expect help from others. Why would others join our struggle? Today’s motto is give and take. What help can we give those in other, similar industries? The strength of the organisations is different; the financial strength of the industries is also different. How can a joint front be mobilised? The representatives of the people are busy with their fat remunerations. And anyway, they shall focus their attention on the whole people rather than only a certain section (like LIC pensioners). Our efforts should be:

1. To coordinate our pensioners’ associations as far as possible
2. To appoint a team of expert and celebrated lawyers to monitor the cases
3. To appeal to SC to henceforth hear and complete our case at a stretch 
4. To enlist the help of national media for highlighting the non-compliance of judgments of different courts by LIC/GOI.

In my opinion, futile pursuit of mild measures will only waste our energy, time and money.

Sunil Kumar Mitra, 2000 pensioner


5 Jul 15, 11:19 PM

Thanks Gangaraju for recalling the services renderèd to tu movement of lic employees in particular and tu movement in general and in the process the services of com Drk reddy com Ykm of Hyderabad and com Ananth Subbarao and com Narayana of Bangalore and stalwart leaders from Machilipatnam and com like Chandandas Gupta cannot be forgotten. 

May be the present generation lic employees may not have heard about them. But their services are invaluable. They are selfless people and never afraid of calling a Spade a Spade and never sought any favours from the management.

I was present in the meeting of joint front held in the Federation office in Mumbai in the year 1987 where Comrades Chandrasekhar bose, Saroj, Aaron, Patel, mms , bhaskaran and others participated to chalk out program to fight LIC management.

I must thank editor for giving us opportunity to remember the leadership of yester years.

6 Jul 15, 07:04 AM


Com.Bhaskaran, Com.Dhandapani, Com.Krishnan, Dindugal Narayanan, later at Thanjavur, Com.R..Govindarajan. Salute to all these selfless Comrades .

Mohan Kumaramangalam was the President, when I joined LIC at Madurai and Com.Umanath president of our AIIEA when in 1962, in pouring rain, Com.Umanath came leading the procession fully drenched.

I am afraid that the present leadership of AIIEA is not fully convinced of updation, possibly taking a stand that it is not pragmatic. What exactly the AIIEA feel and why do not throw their hat in favour of pensioners we are not fully aware of. This AIRIEF ishould be able to seek the support of AIIEA.

Editor adds...

Editor had the proud privilege of interviewing Com.NM Sundaram, Com. R. Govindarajan for two days in Chennai and Com AV Nachane for one day in Mumbai. 

Publishing these interviews may be considered though these interviews done in the year 1990 may not be of much interest to many of us since the mood of pensioners is different at present and stands focused on other subjects. -Ed. 


Referring to Mr Sunil Kumar Mitra’s 

post entitled “ Is any body listening?”, 

I give below my response on the points 

mentioned by him:

S.M: (1). If we lose the case in SC, everything is lost.

C H M.: Theoretically, yes. If the cases had not been fought in the courts, even the success achieved so far would not have happened. Now sufficient strength has been built into our cases even to the extent of LIC having been ordered to pay interim relief to the petitioners. If the cases had not been fought in the courts, pensioners would have permanently lost forever.

S M : (2). Even if we win the case, the LIC will merely ask the boss (GOI/ MOF) for instructions, who will try their utmost to avoid implementation of the order (as has been our experience), in which case, we shall continue to fight in all possible ways.

C H M: We must have faith in our judiciary for getting its orders implemented, just as we have faith for obtaining a favourable order. Did not LIC implement the SC order in the gratuity case for all beneficiaries, even beyond the petitioners? Now that AIRIEF is going to get itself impleaded in the Civil Appeals before the SC, the cases will  gain further strength of on  a well organized legal struggle.

Once the Supreme Court issues an order to LIC/UOI, can they avoid implementation forever? Merely because the GOI is dragging its feet in OROP case, does it mean that they can deny justice forever to the ex-servicemen?

Fortunately, in India, Supreme Court can step in when needed, in my opinion.

S M: ( 3). LIC and GOI have no sympathy for pensioners. The top management of LIC is busy oiling the boss in MOF. The MOF is stubbornly bent upon depriving the pensioners of their legal and rightful due.

C H M : Yes,apparently so.So we have to explore our appropriate responses within our limitations.

S M : (4).  Why then are our leaders (of all the associations) meeting the officials of LIC and GOI/MOF? Are they hoping to change the latter’s attitude? Or are they trying to inject in them any modicum of sympathy or ethics?

C H M : What is wrong in meeting the officials of LIC and GOI/MOF? Irrespective of outcomes, efforts have to be on through meetings where possible and necessary. After all, legal issues are not the only ones(although major) that have to be  discussed with the LIC/UOI.There are  also issues which are not sub judice, like Mediclaim and pension anomalies which are not under litigation.

S M : I think it is necessary to ignore the LIC/GOI/MOF altogether, and that any communication regarding pension should be made through lawyers only. Is anybody listening?

C H M : There cannot be an one-track approach but one based on multiple strategies.
My general observations:

If only the in- service employees’ Associations had been seriously insisting on upgradation of pension as an essential part of wage revisions from 2000, things would not have come to such a sorry pass today for the fraternity of pensioners. The gravity of injustice on account of lack of upgradation becomes only visible to the pensioners only after at most two wage revisions after retirement. Then they join the earlier retirees in cursing their fate. Now it is a ‘do or die’ battle in the Supreme Court for the pensioners.

C H Mahadevan

Sunday, July 5, 2015


Mr.M S Rao's worry that LIC has so many notable tasks to carry on for nation building purposes and they have no time and man power to issue ID cards to the PENSIONERS is a big joke of the century. 

In his opinion, issue of ID cards to pensioners may be a PETTY ISSUE. In all matters, the treatment of LIC to its pensioners is a step motherly treatment.  Now a days even the step mothers are behaving better than a own mother.  When the ID cards are issued to the in service employees, why can't to pensioners. Because these age old pensioners can not raise their VOICE like in service employees and unfortunately LIC has soft corner from people like MS Rao.  

Unless the pensioners have one voice and one word, we can not force the LIC management to fulfil our genuine demands. No CHAMCHA GIRI please.. Come and join hands together.   

Bhaktavatsala Rao Kantamneni.

(Shri MS Rao had jocularly put some remarks. I wonder why the joke is not understood or appreciated. Anyway Shri Bhaktavatsala Rao's remarks are posted here. Ed.)

NM SUNDARAM, R GOVINDARAJAN - Are you listening ?

5 Jul 15, 01:43 PM

Sunil Mitra !! R U the erstwhile firebrand Gen Secry of AIIEA with Saroj Chaudhary ? If U r so, why dont you pursuade the AIIEA to include updation of pension also in the charter of demands 

I belong to the age when NM Sundaram and R Govindarajan like stalwarts were working for the entire working class. Where r they now? R they listening ? if your voice not heard by AIIEA?? !!!


Dear Sir,

Greetings. I would like to submit 
the following remarks to the LIC 
Pensioners' Chronicle. I hope you 
find it suitable for publishing 
on the website:

Is anybody listening?

I have been following the LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle for quite a long time now, and I feel obliged to make the following observations:

1. If we lose the case in SC, everything is lost.
2. Even if we win the case, the LIC will merely ask the boss (GOI/ MOF) for instructions, who will try their utmost to avoid implementation of the order (as has been our experience), in which case, we shall continue to fight in all possible ways.
3. LIC and GOI have no sympathy for pensioners. The top management of LIC is busy oiling the boss in MOF. The MOF is stubbornly bent upon depriving the pensioners of their legal and rightful due.

Why then are our leaders (of all the associations) meeting the officials of LIC and GOI/MOF? Are they hoping to change the latter’s attitude? Or are they trying to inject in them any modicum of sympathy or ethics?

I think it is necessary to ignore the LIC/GOI/MOF altogether, and that any communication regarding pension should be made through lawyers only. Is anybody listening?

Sunil Kumar Mitra, a 2000 pensioner."

Best wishes,
Sunil Mitra

ID card for cashless service

4 Jul 15, 10:58 PM

D.P. suggests preparation of ID card for 

cashless service by pensioners themselves! 

Did the TPA suggest it? 

Serving employees are issued ID Cards. 

Why pensioners are given this suggestion?

5 Jul 15, 06:09 AM

M S Rao: LIC has so many noble tasks to perform for the sake of nation buildng. Pensioners should not bother LIC with petty issues like issuance of ID cards.
Pensioners with enormous experience behind them can get them easily prepared. Plz don't bother CO with such petty issues. Plz concentrate on asking for more bigger things / issues.

Saturday, July 4, 2015


For information of the viewers of your blog,

the circular issued by GNS is sent in attachment.

This circular was circulated in the AGM of


at Kolkata on 27th june'15.

Subir Kumar Mazumder

Sec.48 notification in our pension case


I have been writing on the powers vested in the Govt. to make regulations. For the information of our friends, I am quoting two opinions that appeared in the Hindu dated 4-7-15.
The Government of India have recently under Black Money(Undisclosed foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition Act notified Rules for the implementation of the Act. These rules are called subordinate legislation, in legal parlance, akin to the LIC Act and the rules like those under Sec.48 made by the Govt.
  • Former Addl. Solicitor General Bisvajit Bhattacharya commending on the validity of the above notification said that a delegated delegation cannot amend the parent legislation. Parliment alone could have altered the date of coming into force of the Act.
  • Sr. Advocate and M.P Shri K.T.S. Tulsi also said “if a date is mentioned in the statute, the Govt. can change the date of implementation only through an amendment by the parliament”.
The two quoted opinions reiterate that a rule making power of the Govt. cannot be used to completely change the provision in the substantive law. This is more so of a Constitutional principle of non-discrimination. The Constitution of India is the supreme law and all other laws have to be within the Constitution. Hence the Jaipur HC Judgement is in line with the decision with Nakaras case. Even in the absence of a notification or a notification specifically denying higher DA neutralisation will not be valid. Above all a final Judgement of a HC or SC have to be obeyed and nothing more is required to be done by the Govt. for the enforcement of a judgement. In other words a final judgement of a HC/SC cannot be pocketed by the Govt. without complying with the order.

This reinforces our contention that once that discrimination is proved, the rights arising are enforceable. Many decided cases can be cited in support. It is clear that the claim of the LIC/Govt. as to the need for a notification over and above the decision of the HC is fatuous.

A.S. Ramanathan


4 Jul 15, 08:24 AM


SC 'Avoid unwarranted litigation ' a big hog wash. 
Such remarks from SC go unheeded



Option letters to be submitted for availing difference of 
 by the employees / officers retired ​after 1st November,'12

    We forward herewith a circular and the relevant format of the option form 
issued by our Bank
. Please bring this to the notice of the members of our Association who are retired from the Bank after 1st November,'12. If possible, our Association will issue a circular to such members. However, it may take some time to issue the circular.

    Though getting difference in commutation will result in some reduction in pension, you may advise the members that availing commutation difference will be beneficial because -

  1. ​The commuted amount kept in Fixed Deposit will earn interest, which will be more than reduction in pension​ in most of the cases
  2. Whether commutation is availed or not, in cases of sad demise of the Pensioner, Family Pension will be same @ 15% of the last drawn basic (in most of the cases of officers and clerical staff). 
​    A Circular issued by AIBEA in this respect, giving few illustrations of clerical and sub staff, was forwarded to you earlier. It is repeated with this e-mail. Taking base of this, Officers may also work out increase in commutation and decrease in pension.  
    With greetings,​
Yours sincerely,
General Secretary



Circular from Indian Banks' Association regarding medical 
assistance scheme to serving and retired employees

​    Now All India Bank Retirees' Federation has provided to us a soft copy of the aforesaid circular. It is forwarded herewith.​ CLICK HERE

Yours sincerely,
General Secretary

All blog information freely consumed but what logic own circular treated secret and property !

4 Jul 15, 06:39 AM

Sdsarma: To be honest to their members a leader should declare the gist of discussion with the authorities

4 Jul 15, 07:10 AM

Editor: Can a strategy be discussed in public. When LIC wants to play a game, should we not be cautious. Have faith in God and the leader, seems to be perhaps GNS' plea,

4 Jul 15, 07:22 AM

ngopal: I agree with editor. Recently even a fund raising request in a circular is treated by AIRIEF as their property. They think, all information in blog is open & consumed freely by them;but CIR.secret


Referring to the above, Mr GNS may be literally correct because by ‘communication’, perhaps he seems to be referring to written communication. 

With reportedly no detailed circular so far issued by the General Secretary as promised, there are speculations -especially among the post–July 1997 retirees –on what was actually discussed with MD & ED (P).

Will the Class I Federation come out openly on what was orally  agreed to in the meeting, if at all?


C H Mahadevan

Implications of SC judgment on pension

Implications of the Supreme Court verdict  in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 321 OF 2015]


The most recent judgment delivered on 1/7/2015 on pension.

The judgment has been delivered by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Justice Deepak Misra who has displayed a good comprehension of pension case laws including the landmark judgment in D S Nakra case and who is heading the Bench hearing the Civil Appeals in our cases.

The judgment has also recognized that revision of pension and revision of pay scales are inseparable.

It has also reiterated that on revision, the basic pension cannot be less than 50% of the basic pension in the minimum of the pay band in the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale.

When pension is upheld to be a right and not a bounty, as a corollary to 3 above, upgradation of pension is also a right and not a bounty.

Because the principles enumerated in the above judgment and also those in case laws like D S Nakra & others are not followed by LIC while implementing the LIC Pension Rules, 1995, a plethora of anomalies have arisen and imposed prolonged   injustice on LIC pensioners right from the date the Rules became effective.

C H Mahadevan

Friday, July 3, 2015


States should avoid frivolous litigations
​against pensioners 

- Full text of the judgment by Supreme Court

Shri J.P.Shah, a RTI & Consumer Activist Member of our Association has made available to us full text of the judgement and hence it is forwarded herewith. In this Judgment, the Apex Court has also stated that the Government cannot take a plea of financial burden to deny legitimate dues of the pensioners. The relevant portion of the judgment are high lighted by Shri Shah.
Yours sincerely,
General Secretary

SC - avoid unwarranted litigation

We are uploading a report received from Shri BG Raithatha.  The report contains certain remarks of SC not to encourage litigation for the sake of litigation. 

It is our feeling that these general remarks are of no use to the pensioners since the lower courts will take the plea that the cases before them have altogether different facts and that the same merit fresh orders of the Court. It is thus a matter of discretion of the lower court to take a particular decision. We are however publishing the report just for information of the readers.

20% pay out - Who is lying ?

Dear Editor,

Somebody is lying on the subject of GNS's Federation being asked to furnish a list of his members. The only escape route for all concerned is that the communication left 'Yogakshema' by snail mail and is yet to reach the addressee, be it the President at Mumbai or the General Secretary at Chennai.

while on this one hopes that the Federation members received the promised written circular when GNS was reported to have written on 21st June 2015 

Kindly await our detailed written 
Circular in a couple of days.

If they have not, is not something cooking? In some parts of the country. such a situation is described as 'Daal me kutch Kaala hai'.   

Thanks and regards,
Sreenivasa Murty M

Thursday, July 2, 2015


Referring to the post under the above

caption by Mr R K Viswanathan, it will

be interesting to know,in response to the

belated requirement of LIC from the

Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers’

Associations, who will all be included

in the list that will be submitted by the


  1. Will the list contain the names of all the members of the Federation or will it only contain the names of members who retired on or before 31/7/1997, considering that the Delhi High Court has only allowed the petition of the Federation for removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralization?
Even, for the sake of satisfaction of the post-July 1997 retiree members, if a complete list of all members of the Federation is furnished to the LIC, the Corporation will have the laborious task of separating the wheat from the chaff(pardon me for the metaphor), unless the lists are submitted separately  for both the categories.
  1. Presumably the list will contain the names of the family pensioners also in respect of pre-deceased Class I retirees with their contact details.
With already about two months having elapsed since the interim order of SC, let us hope  LIC is able to pay the interim relief  to the petitioners  in this group well before 23/9/2015 when the next hearing is to take place in the Supreme Court.

Another question that arises is whatever payment the Corporation makes to the beneficiaries, will LIC give supporting calculations, as experience in the past indicates that LIC gives its calculations only if asked for by the court? 

I hope that the Federation, while submitting the list to LIC, will clearly insist on the calculation sheet being provided to each of the beneficiaries in respect of payments made. Merely because interim benefit is paid, it does not mean calculations need not be given as LIC needs to establish that the interim relief is 20% of the amount due to the beneficiary in terms of the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Pay 20% - some visible action‏

Dear Editor, 

Hon'ble Supreme Court said on 7 May 2015, "Pay 20% of the amount due under the HC Judgement". That the interim Order could have been less complicated is a different matter.

Some action now visible is that Sri GN Sridharan's Federation was asked by the benevolent LIC to furnish a list of its members. Some raised a myriad (relevant) questions through the Chronicle, because one does not know the format of the questionnaire given. On this reported action of LIC I have my own serious concerns.

Is this move of LIC a 'Divide & Rule' attempt or a big trap for the Federation itself? Or may be both?  

It is possible that LIC wants to use this as a clever attempt to deny the up-gradation which is the quintessential part of the ongoing epic battle for fair pension to its Pensioners. Limiting its liability to DR anomaly removal for pre-97 Retirees only by securing certain legitimacy to the move at least in the interim? And there is the ever-willing GNS & Co to go the extra mile to facilitate LIC and the Govt  to do what they want to do.

It is a little too early to predict the likely outcome of these sinister attempts and the cost of any brazen collusion by any party. But if GNS allows himself and his Federation to fall in this trap, whether he gets correct 20% to some of his members or not is uncertain but it is certain his Federation will be left with 20% of his one-time membership.  

Other stakeholders are not only watching but will act too.        
Thanks and regards,

M Sreenivasa Murty 

ULTA action

2 Jul 15, 05:51 PM

J.M. Aboobucker

Mr Viswanathan says LIC has Paid into the Registry of Jaipur & Chandigarh HCs the required amount. The SC order says draw from the amount you paid into the Registry and Pay to the Petitioners.Is it not a ULTA action of LIC?

LIC calls for members list from Retd. Class I Officers Federation


2 Jul 15, 10:22 AM

B Ganga Raju

Times of India reported a very patriotic recommendation by parliamentary panel to increase salary and pension of the representatives of the poor.



​30th June,'15​

​Shri S.C.Jain,
General Secretary,
All India Bank Retirees' Federation,
Indore (MP).


Registration of the Banks' Pension Fund Trusts

As we communicated to you earlier, from the replies which we received from (i) Union Bank of India as well as (ii) Public Trusts Registration Office, Mumbai, the Pension Fund Trust of Union Bank of India is not registered with the Public Trust Registration Office. It seems that it is not registered with any other authority also. Anyhow, with a view to reconfirm the fact, we have filed a fresh RTI application specifically asking a pointed question that with which authority it is registered. A copy of the said new RTI application is sent herewith for your perusal.

Shri D.A.Masdekar, President of our All India Union Bank Retirees' Federation informed us that the Pension Trusts of (1) Bank of India and (2) Bank of Baroda are also not registered. This may be the position of other Banks also.

We know, nowadays you will remain extremely busy for other organizational matters. However, whenever your time permits, please advise affiliates of AIBRF to inquire with their respective Banks and let you know whether their Pension Fund Trusts are registered. Thereafter we may think for some collective steps.

With regards,
Y ours sincerely,
General Secretary


New Delhi: The Congress found fresh ammo to fire at foreign minister Sushma Swaraj after a leaked email on Wednesday said former IPL chief Lalit Modi had offered her husband, lawyer Swaraj Kaushal, a position on the board of his family-run company, Indofil.
The offer via email was made in April 2015 and Kaushal rejected it over the phone.
“I have been a lawyer for Lalit Modi for over 20 years. I did not give my consent to be the director. The request was withdrawn,” Kaushal said on Wednesday.
He was offered the powerful position of “alternate director”, which would have enabled him to represent Lalit Modi and take decisions on his behalf at board meetings.
Majaa me... (Happy with the clean govt.!)

The Congress rejected the clarification and seized on the job offer to escalate the demand for his wife’s resignation from the government.
(the hindustan times)

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Mr Subburathinam's post

I fully agree with Mr Subburathinam.

Sometime last year, I wrote to IRDA with copy to a Chartered Accountant-LIC Board Member pointing out the need for LIC to make provision of the liability as per the unstayed High Court judgments in accordance with the principles of corporate governance. I did not get any reply there to.

As I am in USA at present, I propose to pursue this matter further after I return to Hyderabad in August 2015.

Meanwhile, I will be happy if someone - especially a Chartered Accountant - authentically confirms whether LIC's liability towards pension arrears have been provided for in the Balance Sheet as at 31/3/2014 and 31/3/2015.


C H Mahadevan