Wednesday, October 7, 2015

A response to A.S.Ramanathan's invitation‏

This refers to Shri A.S.Ramanathan’s invitation 
to the pensioner’s fraternity to contribute some points 
relating to our case in order to fill up gaps on his 
ideas and also to express their opinion regarding 
this ongoing litigation. In response to ASR’s request 
I have the following observation to make :

LIC was not gracious enough to concede the legitimate and lawful demands of the pensioners. The most glaring instant case relates to the removal of the DR anomaly of the pre 1997 retirees. CWP 6676/1998 OF SHRI Asthana is a separate writ and not clubbed with his the other CWP 654/2007 for upgradation of pension. When both the writs were admitted in the Rajasthan HC LIC should have gracefully implemented removal of DR anomaly and appealed only on the second writ.LIC always been indirectly pleading their inability to do so without CG clearance.

As to the pension upgradation awaiting SC adjudication there has been enough case laws to support the pensioners demand. It has been made clear that pension is not a bounty and if the pension scheme is not a new one and one already in existence the pension cannot remain static but should be revised as and when there is a wage revision. As far as LIC is concerned the affordability or financial viability does not arise as it already had the blessings of the Board’s resolution and it was never a point of argument in any of the court proceedings.. But should it rear its head now we can rebut it with necessary statistics in our favor.

SC order in case NO Appeal ( Civil ) NO 1289/2007 in para 25 says : “ revision of scales of pay as also other allowances is technical in nature, when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees “. In MC Jain case although the order passed by the Rajasthan HC said that the Petitioner is entitled to revised pay scales as at 01-08-1992 as per notification dated 18-07-1996 and the Chairman has committed orally that he will be implementing the court order in respect of 83 similarly placed retirees nothing happened and the corporation’s inaction is a gross injustice and only shows that what they should do they don’t want to do deliberately.

SC order d/ 7-5-2015 in CA 8959-62/13 1 says “ If any amount that has been deposited before the HC pursuant to the order passed by this court 20 % of the same shall be released in favor of LIC so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees “ Shall we interpret the word employees as those who are not petitioners also ?

I made a vein attempt to recollect what I have understood so far and what I have written may sound as old wine in new bottle and should it be so the reader may please bear the inconvenience.




6 Oct 15, 06:38 PM

subbu: ओ गंगा तुम ओ गंगा बहती हो क्यूँ? नैतिकता नष्ट हुई, मानवता भ्रष्ट हुई निर्लज्ज भाव से बहती हो क्यूँ? इतिहास की पुकार, करे हुंकार ओ गंगा की धार निर्बल जन को सबल-संग्रामी, समग्रोगामी बनाती नहीं हो क्यूँ

Seeing the Ganga Dip, I was reminded of Bhupen Hazarika song. That is it. 
kuch kaho to bhi sach kaho. 
yahi ganga maa ka aadhesh hai

How long will u be bathing in River Ganga !! Someone is shouting: Ram teri ganga maili ho gayi. uto. jaldi bahar aavo. kuch kaho to bhi sach kaho. yahi ganga maa ka aadhesh hai

                          TWO-IN-ONE FORMULA

6 Oct 15, 04:47 PM

subbu: T. Lakshminarayan Sir ! That two-in-one formula never works in the virtual real world

to the satisfaction of all. Either u have idli. Or dosai. Some combine both and prepare what they call Oothappam. 

Same way, u worship Shiva or you worship Narayana ! Some combine both and say they worship SankaraNarayana. In fact, I saw in my Audit days at a Temple , it is Harihar i think, the idol itself is Shiv from this side and Narayana the other half. Archana in vilvam this side, and thulasi the other side. They say we cater to the needs of all. But, here what exactly your grouse? 

T Lakshminarayanan Sir ! "presently attempted" !! U feel that the 20% interim relief is worked out on this two in one formula ? Pl be kind enough to enlighten this tube light. 


6 Oct 15, 01:09 PM

sudhakaran: ASR, forget about Nakara, whether basic pension in our case is not fixed based on the average contribution made in the last ten months of service?

Subbu: sudhakaran Sir ! It is 10 months.No doubt. But while checking I landed upon section 42 under chapter IX. Which says: FUTURE GOOD CONDUCT SHALL BE AN IMPLIED CONDITION OF EVERY GRANT OF PENSION AND ITS  CONTINUANCE .

i am scared . Further Sections also stipulate action u/s 39. To be honest, only after nearly 15 years  I am seeing this portion of these pension rules which speak of good conduct. 


Tuesday, October 6, 2015


B.R.Mehta: Let us see what Sh. KML has to say about second report of MSM on supreme court proceedings dated 3oth September. He may take his own time to consult his full time supreme court lawyer and his friend RKS.



This has reference to Sri A.S. Ramanathan's post. I am giving my views on the subject:

1. DR discrimination to pre-August 97 pensioners to be removed first by changing the DR rates as 0.67% and 0.35% w.e.f from 1-8-97 and DR worked-out at revised rates as on 1-8-97. Only when this is done, pre-Aug.97 pensioners will be placed on par with post-Aug.97 ones in so far as DR is concerned.

2. After doing the above first, pension updation to be done benefiting all groups of pensioners uniformly.

3. Two-in-one formula presently attempted will not be in the best interests of pre-August 97 pensioners.

T Lakshminarayanan

Contradictory approaches - how do they serve the Pensioners.

5 Oct 15, 11:59 PM B.D.Bhargava: My dear Subbu,it was nice to read your comments, but you have not touched the point I have raised. So big 
contradictory approaches how do they serve the Pensioners ?

BD Bhargava Sir ! You addressed me my dear subbu . For me u r amongst the dearest. Let me tell u, there is a gem sloka from SUBHA****HANI: Kaka: krushna: pika: krushna: Ko bheda: pikakakayo: Vasantha kale samprapte Kaka: kaka: pika: pika: Crow is black, koyal(a black, melodiously singing bird) is black. What is the difference between them? When the spring(season) sets in We know(distinguishing features in their voices (in the type of sounds they make).

Likewise, BD Bhargawa Sir ! I said what I know. When time comes for us to KNOW, we know. Till then we either run away from knowing, or we pretend knowing, we say something thinking that we are knowing.I do not want to commit that sin.(having done already enough at the training centres).Now let us wait for really serious people, who know that they know and who can also make others know what they know. Some of us who do not know that we do not know, pretending that we know, blurt and later blink when Truth springs.

  • Oh! you see here: Srinivasamurthy sir, coming like Lord Narayana demolishing the pillars of Untruth. I am a Prahaladha just trained to chant names: Srinivasa Govindha. Sridhara Govindha. Venkatesa Govindha. The Name of Govindha is only real and chanting that name will only forth greater enlightenment, greater clarification for the troubled mind.

Now let me reveal my mind a little. Having heard a good number of my colleagues, from AAO to SDM (all pre 1997) , I realised that even if 100 per cent was granted, they would be getting another 1000 more. possibly 1200 for some p.m. Is that going to relieve us from what ails us ? I do not mean the physical discomforts. The discomfort or the dissatisfaction is somewhere else. Not that I am against the people who genuinely fight for a reasonable cause. It is just no doubt.

Secondly, whether I understand the case or the arguments of all the sides fully or not, I feel honestly that it is sufficient that the person who is to receive, analyse and decide the case understands it. Let us all pray Lord to bestow on him the patience he needs , the type of pateince one needs facing a psunami. Let us wait for the D date. Till then Hare Krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare. Hare Rama Hare Rama , rama rama hare hare.. Before you start beating me, let me beat a retreat.

BD Bhargava Sir ! I am sorry I forgot to answer your principal question. It is HOW DO THEY SERVE THE PENSIONERS? During my audit period, in 80s, I happened to eat in hundreds of hotels. In some, the stuff was good, but the serving was bad. while in others, the stuff was bad but the serving was good. It is for us, consumers, to choose the right hotel.

Situation out of control !


Monday, October 5, 2015

M Sreenivasa Murty

For Mr BD Bhargava & Others who share his justifiable disgust (He was my one time Boss – I was reporting to him from Fiji)

1.     Final Hearing of our cases resumed on 30 Sept.
2.     LIC engaged Solicitor General of India. He was there and also not there.
3.     Arguments took place for about 90 minutes somewhat informally.
4.     Two Sr Advocates placed the case of the Jaipur Petitioners before the Bench.
5.     On three points briefly touched by Mr Nidhesh Gupta, (one of the Sr Counsel), Justice Misra, indicated his disagreement, (as I noticed but Mr Asthana thinks otherwise).   
6.     Mr Nidhesh Gupta then told the Bench that he is going to argue his case under Art 14 of the Constitution of India etc.,
7.     Judge appeared to be positively inclined to pension up-gradation from the way in which he briefly set the course to LIC to argue.
8.     Adjourned to 18 Nov 2015, to be on top of the part-heard cases that day.
9.     A long way to go but we are in control, for sure. 



Kindly allow me the use of your Blog to request the President AIRIEF Mr Saxena to read twice the mails put in by Mr M Srinivasa Murty this morning, juxtaposed to the reporting of Shri KML on the SC proceedings of 30th Sept.

Let the members of the Legal Cell study the whole issue thoroughly and arrive at a decision that KML will not write any more on legal matters without getting clearance from the President or some member of the legal cell nominated by him.

The members of the Legal cell have to play an active positive role, free of KML influence,other than telling me to hand over my case to the advocate appointed by KML and be doomed.

Let there be some end to this disgusting dialogue.

I am sure that Mr Murty will not indulge in any criticism if there is no provocation to do it.

As for I and Mr Mehta, well, we have never initiated any offensive. But, we have always reacted, rather forcefully.

There is immediate need for the President to take full control of the situation.

S N Chhabra

COCA No 2975/13‏

Our above numbered appeal was slated for further hearing today.
In view of the main appeal pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court we requested for adjournment of hearing till well after 18th Nov.
The Court acceded to our request and fixed the next hearing on 14th Dec 2015.
SN Chhabra


Dear Editor,

I had the privilege and fortunate enough to work under Shri Mahadevan when he was my Principal in ZTC, Hyderabad and that was the golden period in my career. 

His painstaking effort now and then in unearthing certain facts and presenting it figuratively easy to understand should not remain on paper but cleverly used in our arguments in SC should an opportunity arise. 

It is for common good he ventured into this task despite his age and physical inconvenience and it does not matter which camp he belongs to. 

With regard to the much hype on the payment of 20 % IR without the necessary accompanying calculation sheet where some people received some thing, some did not get anything and some got woefully less, the world knows how it was worked for convenience and Shri Mahadevan was the one who hastened to expose the fallacy.

We need to appreciate his timely intervention. I would even go a little further to say that we should cash on his acumen leaving aside the camp barrier as we have only the last and golden chance to defend and win on 18 NOV.


M Sreenivasa Murty


My report captioned ‘What all happened in Supreme Court on 30 Sept’ was a honest narration of what I noted in the Court from a physically vantage point. I composed the same utilizing the cosy comfort of my two-hour return flight time, the same evening, from Delhi to Hyderabad, when things are still fresh in my mind. 

After seeing Mr KML’s rejoinder like response to my report, I read my report once again to see if I made any wrong statements that might be factually incorrect and might have provoked Mr KML to indulge in his wholesale personal, below the belt attack on me and concurrently on the two activists from Panchkula, who were not even present in the Court.  I was baffled to read the diatribe of sorts absolutely unwarranted and nothing but an outpouring of venom unbecoming of any decent individual. It reflects the mind-set of a person who fears his own shadow. I would urge his local well-wishers and close friends to arrange urgently for some ‘help’ to him, without delay.  He has to feel better mentally, more than physically, by 18 Nov 2015. We all need his services, irrespective of his disposition towards me and his counterparts in Panchkula.  

Some of his comments and observations need specific rebuttal/response.     

There was no proposal for adjournment from LIC at any point of time on 30th. SGI was reported to be available. This was confirmed to me personally by Shri Prakash Chand, Chief (Per).  Where was the question of KML’s two Sr Counsel opposing the adjournment move, which was never there? Vehemently or mildly? If they have to be paid additionally for ‘vehemently opposing’ the adjournment move, please don’t pay. They did nothing in that direction.

Mr MSM has commented on our Advocate speaking first not knowing the procedures.         

The true position was, when our case was called, there was neither the Sr Counsel to represent the Union of India (who would have started his argument on the SLPs) nor the SGI, to appear for LIC (and commence arguments on the CA against the Jaipur judgement, to start with). I had reported ‘Judge was accommodative, and allowed the other Sr Counsel present to commence (what appeared to me to be informal) arguments’.   

Mr KML asserts that I don’t know the procedureIf as per the procedure known to him it is the Respondent’s Counsel to commence arguments in a SLP or CA, even before the Petitioner/Appellant’s Counsel starts his, I only pity him. If he is keen to announce that I don’t know the procedure, he should have waited for some other occasion to issue me his certificate. As to KML’s knowledge of Law & Procedure, he betrayed his colossal ignorance many a time starting with his attempt to add himself and another of his henchman as the First Petitioner in the Chandigarh Writ Petition AFTER the Petition was allowed by the HC. He later filed an Implead Application in the same WP on the ground that the WP was allowed in terms of his Jaipur Order. The said implead application for the grounds on which it was made, was a laughing stock in court circles and did not merit even being numbered by the registry. Mr KML’s handling of the Contempt Petition before the Rajasthan HC and his branding it as a wrong Order and not challenging it,  speaks volumes of his knowledge of law & procedure. What about the two new Writ Petitions he filed in Jaipur for implementation of his two judgments while the Civil Appeals were listed for Final Hearing? How much was the build-up given by him and his devotees on those two WPs? Is he still spending money on them and are they even numbered? If this is knowledge of Law and procedure, I am not a loser for not knowing the procedure. Let me assure him, I know something, certainly not all. Where I don’t know I check and learn.              

He has also branded the discussions, question and answers between the Court and Advocate as failure on the part of Nidhesh Gupta our Sr. Advocate as failure.

Wrong and baseless accusation.  This is what I reported and I stick to it:

‘It was evident that Mr Nidhesh Gupta's point did not find favor with the Bench. I also added: Mr Gupta I think sensed the mind of the Judge and gently backed out (but not fully) and referred to Art 14 of the Constitution and DS Nakara Judgement in passing’.

Does the above statement mean that I also branded the discussions, question and answers between the Court and Advocate as failure on the part of Nidhesh Gupta our Sr. Advocate as failure?  

Mr KML moves on: But then where his Advocate learned Mr. Savla was, why he did not reply and even MSM (man in black robe) was there why he did not quell the curiosity of the Hon’ble Judge?

Mr KML may not be able to hear from a distance and may not be able to understand even if he hears something, because of his generally disturbed ‘mental’ condition. But can’t Mr KML see who all are there? He knows Mr Savla was very much there sitting in row two and I (in black robe) in the chair next to him. Then what does Mr KML expect Mr Savla to do when the two Sr Advocates were arguing (vehemently, to the complete satisfaction of the Proprietor Saheb)? Physically butt in, outshout the Seniors and tell the Judge something else? Like KML’s ‘full-time but otherwise-free’ RK Singh does often? Mr KML, what is your question and what is your problem? I know you have a serious problem with my robe (and with me ever since I started attending the Supreme Court in my Advocate’s attire). And so you call it black. Do you want me to don white robe instead? Ask your ‘private’ Lawyer to start it one day. 

You let people believe for long you are a  Lawyer in Jaipur. Do you feel uneasy that you can’t wear the black robe yourself? Btw, I concede and you also know that very often an Advocate’s Munshi knows the procedure better than his boss. In your case what is important is you know the procedure better. How does it matter to anybody, if you can’t wear the robe?        

Mr KML you provoked me without good reason to say as above. It is time you realize that at our age we shouldn’t talk and act like school kids to settle our scores. Stop these cheap tricks and earn some respect even from those who differ with you.

You have narrated in some detail how your Sr Advocate opposed the SLP and how CG was not entitled to enter the fray at this point. You have correctly quoted your Sr Counsel’s line of argument on ASG’s ‘admission’ before the High Court and the UoI counsel’s opposition to it ‘that the ASG did not have the power to give this admission’ etc.

Up to this I have no problem.  But you were completely wrong when you attributed to the Judge what you did viz., ‘otherwise the Court agreed with our contention that an Advocate speaks on behalf of his client and under his instructions and if their ASG did not have the power why such a question was not raised’.

I am genuinely anxious to pull you out of this wrong sense of comfort when you claim that the Court agreed with your Counsel that when the ASG admitted about something before the Court, it is binding on the client and here the Government cannot disown the admission of the ASG. The fact (you might have missed out or had no chance later to check with your Counsel) is that the Judge had virtually disagreed with your counsel’s contention with a facile observation (happily owned by the CG Advocate) ‘we know it applies when it is on a FACT and NOT on LAW. If you (or your Sr Advocate) think that you had won that particular point/argument with the Court, against the Government, please stand corrected. I hope you don’t need any more tutorials on this point but let me go on record for what it is worth. If the ASG had admitted before the Court that Government of India had not taken any decision on the Board Resolution, it is an admission of a FACT by the Counsel. It is binding on the Client. If on the basis of such an admission the Court gave any relief to the Writ Petitioner, it is binding on the other party who cannot later disown the admission by the Counsel.  On the other hand, if the admission by the counsel is on a point of law, like ‘the Board Resolution does not need Government approval, it can be given effect to by LIC itself as per Law’, such an admission is not automatically binding on the Government unless it is ‘owned’ as being in accordance with Law, by the Government. This was the essence of what the Judge said in one brief sentence and it does not go in favour of your Sr Counsel.  

I chose to go in to this in detail, because it is a critical point and all of us were interpreting it otherwise till now. You/your Counsel may have to revisit the point and be sure whether or not to pursue it.

(To be continued)



You narrated on the arguments on Sec 48. There were views aired on both sides. Judge also intervened at times. But it was wrong on your part to conclude: The Court observed that whenever pay scales are revised it is automatic that the pensions will be revised. The CG has no power to intervene. If as quoted by you, it was the clear conclusion of the Court, we have already won the case. The fact is when Mr Nidhesh Gupta was citing the precedents of Chairman giving instructions amending Pension Rules, to support his argument that the Board Resolution can be implemented by the Chairman, (was he reading from Chairman’s Circular dated 9 Dec 2010?) LIC Advocate was eager to rebut it stating that he can explain how Mr Gupta was wrong on that point etc.

In my view this point is as unreliable as the other on the Counsel admitting something and make it binding on the Government. You have falsely claimed that the Court’s response was in your favour. IT WAS NOT. Actually Mr Nidhesh Gupta gracefully retracted when he found that the Judge was not in agreement. I don’t know what you gain by narrating facts differently.

You said, ‘The Court gave last opportunity and was shifting the final hearing to December but on our insistence it was fixed …………. Another joke.  18 Nov was Judge’s choice. Your Sr Counsels have no request to make for quicker hearing and Mr Savla’s appeal had no supporters.   

You are at the height of your arrogance and wishful thinking when you dared to go on record and say:

The Court made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC judgment and no other Counsel will be heard.

Even if you are the Judge, you cannot make such a statement. If you want to canvas to your members on these lines and collect more funds, please try. Because later on in due course, when Mr Jay Savla and Shri Shree Ram Panchu argue against CA Nos 6995 of 2013 and 9223 of 2013 respectively, (and effectively cover the gaping holes in the line of your arguments if you don’t take any hints from the Bench), you need not refund the funds you now collect.

Also to make my point simple and to put you in a place that you deserve, please check with your Counsel on your reporting (The Court made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC judgment and no other Counsel will be heard) and come back and report it publicly again. If you are able to get your  claim confirmed by your own Counsel I hereby undertake NOT TO VISIT THE SUPREME COURT AGAIN TILL OUR CASES ARE DECIDED. If you cannot do so, just go to any sacred river in Rajasthan and take a holy dip thrice. You can wash the sin of lying you are indulging in. 

Then you say:
It was also said that whatever will be the judgment that will be applicable to one and all.

Is it so? I have no problem if you can approach one and all for FUNDS on the basis of this statement also.

Rest of your ranting in the name of reporting on 30 Sept proceedings against  me and the Panchkula team (whom and whose questions you cannot face in the next hundred years) is perverse, demeaning and does not deserve separate response. I shall pray for strength to ignore it and forgive you and would request Mr S N Chhabra (a victim of your subterfuges and blackmail following the untimely passing away of Mr M L Gandhi, the main Petitioner in Chandigarh) and Mr BR Mehta (whose constant tirade against your monumental avarice for Funds, deprives you of peace and sleep), to do likewise.

I may close for now as I am on a Mission to win the cases for forty thousand LIC Pensioners and Family Pensioners. My strategy includes covering the areas where your arguments run the risk of being rejected (as is evident in the Court on 30 Sept) and make sure that our case which is otherwise very strong is not lost due to your faulty approach and your arrogant postures.


Dear Editor,

Of late there is a growing bold malicious arrogant tendency in some PS institutions managements to talk very low of their pensioners & their related issues. 

To quote a few: Bank managements opined and expressed that there is no contractual relationship with Pensioners. They also felt Pension is granted as a Generosity. Another projected in an argument before a forum that pensions are paid from their money (institution's).

The facts are; In these institutions pension schemes are introduced under Statutory Pension Rules. A cut of date defined. Retirees earlier to the date are not eligible to join the scheme. Those retired subsequently and all serving employees were asked to give their option letters to join the scheme on condition that their right to employer's contribution to their pf (accumulated and all in future) is surrendered to the institution.

Those who already received full PF were asked to pay back the employer's contribution with INTEREST. The Fund thus created by these initial payments of the EMPLOYEES & RETIREES is PENSION FUND. To this fund the serving employees', PF Contribution of the employer gets added periodically.The fund management & payment of pensions responsibility is given to Institutions.

Thus we can easily see that payment of pension is an agreed contract under pension scheme offered by Employer and accepted by the employee and joined it on paying consideration as demanded by the other. Mostly pensions are paid from pension fund but certainly not from employer's money.

Then why (knowing all this) managements are making such false utterances. Because if they get takers for these views they will be able to say nobody can claim increase in bounty as a matter of right (like upgradation etc). It should nipped in bud when it is raised at any forum.

Pension is our Right but not a Bounty.


Sunday, October 4, 2015

Charts speak better than speech‏

Dear Editor

Shri.Mahadevan, Shri.SN and Shri.Lakshminarayanan have lucidly brought out charts indicating the Pension payable for different categories.  Very illustrative.   Thank you all Sirs.

Instead of spoken words written communication, especially charts, indicate the subject matter very clearly and effectively.   Can we present charts to the Hon Court, briefly furnishing the amount payable to different cadres, for the anomalies to be removed?  The Hon.Court will be in a position to comprehend petitioners' view points.  This is my view (I don't know whether it has already been done).

Vijayee Bhava



Estimated outlay on account payment of IR to all pre-August 1997 retirees‏

Dear Sir,

Thank you for continuing with your research and the valuable results you discovered. As usual, you have also put the entire information in the public domain for everybody to see, appreciate and utilize the same appropriately for the benefit of the pensioner community. 

Having said so, I am deeply concerned about the state of things and the way in which our cases are getting handled now. What I mean is, this and the other voluminous information you have generated, should not end up as an academic exercise. We all know that the Supreme Court cannot be expected to go in to the nitty gritty of the minute calculations. Then how do we ensure that LIC acts just and fair even after a favorable judgement is handed down by the Apex Court?

That exactly is the critical area where a common strategy needs to evolve from all the stakeholders before the SC. At the moment it looks like a mirage. So let all the respected Seniors representing each shade & section of the Pensioners, take urgent lead and set necessary direction to whoever has to ACT. Only collective elderly leadership can ensure that individuals do not go astray and play with the fortunes of forty thousand families.

m sreenivasa murty




Pension upgradation or downgradation?‏

I write this in continuation of my yesterday's post on the subject.

The disparity in Basic Pensions has risen to monstrous proportions between different groups of pensioners and this needs to be addressed in full vigour to secure fair play to all pensioners. But in the process, interests of a section of pensioners {pre Aug.97} should not be compromised.

LIC in the guise of merging three groups of pensioners and bringing 100% DR neutralisation to pre-1-8-97 pensioners employed a ploy to deny the legitimate DR benefit legally and justly due to them. By accepting the methodology adopted by LIC to calculate the IR we should not fall into the trap. Our demand is twofold.- one is removal of discrimination in DR formula to pre-1-8-97 pensioners and the other is pension upgradation to all. Removal of DR discrimination to pre-1-8-97 pensioners from 1-8-97 should take place first and merger of groups etc., should follow. This procedure will bring better DR benefits to pre-August 97 pensioners and post-August 97 ones are not going to lose anything. and they should support the above suggestion whole-heartedly so that the earlier group gets FAIR PLAY.

I appeal to all to ponder over the matter.


Subbu's comments

3 Oct 15, 09:20 PMsubbu: Editor Sir ! I have been thinking very hard during the last twenty four hours whether to say this or not. I do not know whether saying this will offend you. Even if you feel you are not offended, i may feel you are offended. However, after a deep retrospection and reflection, i decided to say. Why this partiality? 

Of the three giants, you have put a very colourful picture of MSM only. Your omission of other two is glaring. Our licpensionersblog is seen by everybody, pensioners owing allegiance to all the three parties. There are people from the LIC side also, I strongly believe, who look at these columns, and report to their bosses. They may say, that see ! This is the only man PG is projecting. What will then happen to the other two?

Please reflect for a while and publish their photos also before 18th Nov to prove just one point that LIC pensioners chronicle is for all pensioners. Do you hear me Sir ! 

What ! You have already slept !! Then let me come again tomorrow. Good Night and Sweet Dreams of Updation or Upgradation ! 

I fully agree with you, Subbu sir, now Editorji has to design pictures of s/s GNS and KMLA. 

Thank U SD Sarma! GNS. To me he is God Never Seen. Had he carried like any of us, he would have easily reached the position of ED. Albeit he chose to serve his own colleagues through his Cl 1 Assn. He has sacrificed a lot, a lot of opportunities. Had he carried like any of us, he would have easily reached the position of ED. Albeit he chose to serve his own colleagues through his Cl 1 Assn. He has sacrificed a lot, a lot of opportunities at the official level, just to be and continue as Secy of Cl.I Assn. He has his own strategy, views etc. which I respect, though many times during the last 35 years i disagreed with him also. U know when we were plugged at ceiling of 2500, what efforts he put in to lobby and change the mind set of the Govt to change the fate of cl. 1. We must be grateful to him. I dont know much about  MSM Sir, whom I met also recently, is a firebrand. Had he joined politics, he could have become another Kejrival Sahib.

This upgradation and all these things are small things for him. He is not a king maker. He is a king eater. If only he sets his goals higher, one day, he may be CM of Telengana or AP. He has so much of potentials. My astrology advises me another route. But let me keep my mouth shut... 

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Estimated outlay on account payment of IR to all pre-August 1997 retirees

Based on the illustrative chart prepared by LIC in August 2003,I happened to work out  the Interim Relief amount as at 31/7/2015 for each cadre at the maximum of scale  and also the  corresponding outlay required for LIC if it decides  to pay all pre August 1997 retirees.

I attach  the two tables  containing the calculated figures.

The  outlay has been  estimated  for 21762 pre-August 1997 retirees  who were in existence as at 1/8/2003.

But as at 20/2/2009,only 16498 retirees in the category.There is a reduction of pensioners by 5264 which indicates the mortality  in the five years  upto 2009. We don't know  how many are  continuing their life journey as on date. 

As per the methodology followed by LIC, the total outlay even for the higher number of 21762 pensioners, the outlay works out to only Rs 22.2 crores.LIC could have gracefully paid this tentative amount to all eligible pensioners even without the exercise of withdrawal of the amounts from the HCs.Perhaps it is destined that pensioners should get justice only from the hands of the Supreme court.

But the sad part of this dispensation   that has come to light is  that Class IV retirees-especially those retired after 1/8/1992 but before 1/8/1997  will get a raw deal, viz  recovery of pension. I am sure that the Apex Court will  render justice to them and in that process to all retirees.

C H Mahadevan

Please click below


Referring to my earlier post today, I would like to correct myself in regard to the percentage of retired RCs & Class IV employees at 18%  which I discovered  was  overestimated by me. This was noticed by me when I went through the August 2003 illustrative chart prepared  by LIC CO  sent to the  Joint Secretary(Insurance & Banking) on 11/8/2003.

In the said chart, the number of retired employees cadre-wise has been given in one column. I am attaching a word document prepared by me based on the two charts prepared by LIC-one for pre-Aug 1992 retirees and another for Aug 1992---July 1997 retirees.

The indications arising out of the illustrative charts are as follows:

·         As per the Letter ref Per/ER dt 20/2/2009 addressed to Sanjeev Sinha ,Under Secretary to GOI,DFS,MoF, there were 16498  pre-August 1997 retirees  who were drawing pension, whereas  when the calculations were made in the illustrative chart by LIC in August 2003 which was sent to the MoF, the total no was 21762.This would mean that  during the period of about 5   1 /2 years as many as 5264  pre-August 1997 retirees have left this world without getting  justice. Their family pensioners may not also get justice if LIC continues to follow its anomalous approach.

·         Class III employees who have retired  prior to 1/8/1992, who constitute  more than 47%  of the retirees in the category, and Development Officers who constitute  more than 15% of the  retirees  are in the negative territory  in the matter of pension revision. This is an alarming situation. Interestingly retired Record Clerks in this category are in marginal positive territory compared to their higher cadre Class III colleagues
·         Among post August 1992 retirees; retired Record Clerks who constitute 2.7% and Class IV employees who constitute 5.9% are in negative territory.

These data must be sufficient to drive home the point  in the Apex Court that  the faulty approach of  LIC is detrimental  to the interest of  more than 28% of the pre August 1997 retirees who will have their monthly pension reduced  besides 100% of the family pensioners of  deceased pre-August 1997 retirees.


C H Mahadevan 


Subbu's loud thinking !

Glad to read (hear?) Subbu's loud thinking.

I have been unfailingly enjoying Subbu's inserts in your chat column. Blessed are those like him who can make people around laugh happily, each time they say something.

Hats off, Subbu, 
(if you don't mind my bald head). 
For me it is LOL every time.

Subbu seems to have attempted this loud thinking, for once as a serious thought sharing, at least less funny.  But I am glad he didn't succeed, when he referred to Officers during Probation, whether they need to sign the Attendance register or not etc.

I am reminded of a serious issue that bothered we HGAs, in 1973 & 74, when certain senior HGAs were promoted based on Service Record, purely temporarily, pending regular promotions that were already in the process. Such promotions lasted for about thirteen months. Most of them were selected for regular promotions and took charge afresh in Feb 1975. A few unfortunately did not get selected and were reverted. 

During those thirteen months Divisions raised several queries and obtained clarifications from ZO & CO. Some of us who did not get the temporary elevation were sore about the whole scheme. When a Circular was issued to clarify what were the privileges and powers enjoyed  and those not conferred on the temporary Officers, it transpired that they hardly counted as Class 1, except to exercise financial powers to do work with higher responsibility and accountability. They had to sign the attendance, cannot grant casual leave to subordinates, etc. but can sign routine letters to policy holders. In a way they were only 'used'  by LIC for work.  

Some HGAs desperately waiting for promotion for nearly a decade even after qualifying as Fellows (useless Fellows), could not control their anger about the whole thing. An unsigned mischievous circular was surreptitiously taking rounds which said that a clarification was being obtained from ZO on whether the temporary AAOs could use the Officers' Toilets or they should continue to visit their original ones as before. (There used to be three separately in a row, in each floor in our new DO Building, MEN, WOMEN & OFFICERS. 

The other jokes in circulation on the above specific categorization, may not be printable and so shall not become part of my 'loud thinking'.

Thank you, Editor and thank you Subbu. 

(How and where can I meet Subbu? I am dying to do it before I die)                  
Thanks and regards,
M Sreenivasa Murty 

Upgradation or downgradation ?

Shri CH Mahadevan in his post has brought to light the fact that all pensioners who retired in the cadres of sub-staff and RC will face reduction in their total pension as at 1-8-97 in the method followed by LIC. Not only that, for others also the total pension already drawn is treated as new Basic Pension as at 1-8-97 with no increase.

This anomaly can be remedied by first removing the discrimination in DR formula arisen on 1-8-97 by Govt. Notification on 22-6-2000 liberalising the DR formula prospectively from 1-8-97. This not only violates Article 14 of the Constitution but also violates case law established by Supreme Court in DS Nakhara case etc. 

Action should first be taken to extend the effects of the said Notification to the earlier two categories of Pensioners {600 points & 1148 points} by bringing amendments to App.IV of the Pension Rules to be effective from 1-8-97, making DR rate at 0.67%^ and 0.35% respectively on full Basic Pension.

If action is taken on the above lines, the question of reduction in total pension to any will not arise. On the contrary, all pensioners {other than those who already had the benefit of 100% neutralisation ie.,CL.IV & RC} will get substantial increase in DR on 1-8-97. It may be noted that as per LIC method the DR on 1-8-97 is NIL with no increase in total Pension.





Healthy mind, Healthy body

Dear Editor,

Encomiums are pouring to the PC and to Shri Gangadharan the architect of his wonderful blog for having hit a milestone in the publication of news. I used to wonder where would be all of us without this blog perhaps groping in the dark to get the updates in our court matters. The brilliant reporting from inside the court room as if it is a ball by ball commentary in a cricket match, does not matter who did it deserves accolades. 

Once the curtain is down in our court matters to keep the blog active PC may migrate to areas of common interest and in this context I am inclined to refer to a book I stumbled upon which I recommend reading :

The book is titled ‘ Healthy mind Healthy body ‘ ‘ New thoughts on health ‘. This book is published by Ramakrishna Mutt, Mylapore Chennai which could be ordered through This book is a repository of interesting articles contributed by well-known people famous in their own domain. The cost of the book is RS 60, an ideal gift to be given on special occasions. November 23 is bit far away so relax and spend this interval reading this book and I am sure you will benefit by it


Belated greetings...

Belated greetings to Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty for his presentation, 'What all happened in Supreme Court on 30 Sept' (Posted in PC on 01-10-2015). It was clean, unbiased and vividly flashed all that happened in a nutshell.

Eschewing unwanted is need of the hour and in the larger interest. It may not be necessary all times to pay in the same coins. May be, must be at times, some times, to pay back that too with interest, compounded.


Upgradation or downgradation ?

3 Oct 15, 08:55 AM 

B Ganga Raju: Upgradation or downgradation..Post by Shri CHM...In those days sub-staff enjoyed 100 % neutralisation and some of them on promotion found their emoluments reduced as Cl.3 got 75% neutralisation.

If my memory serves me right, this anomaly was later corrected. In what way I do not exactly remember. But I remember emoluments were protected.

How this reflected on their pension calculation as at 31.7.1997 I have no idea. Needs to be checked with reference to old circulars.
3 Oct 15, 09:44 AM

JM Aboobucker: Due to any revision of wages there are always anomalies and in the implementation process the institution tries to set right the anomalies by protecting the loss in the present wages.

Thus the loss Mr CHM talks about may be protected by LIC witho
ut any loss to those affected by the anomaly and there might not be any recovery action from them.