Friday, February 5, 2016



5 Feb 16, 10:22 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: Yes, Shri, Asthana might have unwittingly expressed certain things. Let us remember his unique contribution to the cause and as age advances, we, humans do have tolerance deficit.


Mr AS Ramanathan has boosted the sagging morale of the old pensioners by his reassurance that there is nothing ominous in the remark of the Bench that the issue is one to determine whether the power to approve the Board Recommendations is that of the Government or whether LIC can go ahead with implementation of its own Board decision without approval of the Government.

Let us for a moment imagine two scenarios,viz one where Sec 48 is upheld by the Supreme Court and the one where Sec 48 is struck down by the SC.

Scenario 1: Sec 48 is upheld by SC

This means that Government approval is required for implementation of the Board Resolution. But the question arises, whether this will lead ipso facto to allowing the Civil Appeals of LIC thereby setting aside the judgment dt 12/1/2010 of the Single Judge Bench at Jaipur. My answer is ‘No’.

Scenario 2 : Sec 48 is struck down

This means that Government approval is not required for implementation of the Board Resolution. But the question is still open whether the Civil Appeals will be dismissed without any directions to LIC or with some directions clarifying apparently grey areas in the judgment or Board Resolution lending themselves to varying interpretations.

Here we have to go into the cause of legal action that arose leading to the Jaipur Bench judgment and subsequent legal proceedings leading to CAs filed by LIC in the Supreme Court.

The first writ petition 6676/1978 was filed because the DR formula for pre-August 1997 retirees was anomalous whereby the DR was reduced to 50% of that for in-service employees while 100% DR neutralization was adopted for in-service employees as well as those who retired after 1/8/1997.

The second writ petition No 654/2007 was filed because of discrimination between pensioners who had retired on different dates whereby a retiree after a subsequent wage revision period was getting more pension than a pre-wage revision retiree, sometimes even belonging to a higher cadre. This anomaly could be removed only by upgradation of pension of earlier pensioners in tandem with wage revisions effected for in-service employees.

The Single Judge Bench Judge in Jaipur allowed both these petitions by its judgment dt 12/1/2010 which is still sta-refused although LIC’s Civil Appeals re pending in Supreme Court. The effect of this judgment is as follows:

1. The DR formula as per Annexure IV of  LIC Pension Rules is to be modified on par with that applied for in-service employees as is done after 1/8/1997 wage revision.This should take effect from the date of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever is later.

2. The pension should be upgraded on 1/8/1997 as decided in the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 by providing weightage of 11.25% after merger of DR (without anomaly) with Basic Pension as is done for in-service employees. (It must be noted that 11.25% should be taken only as an average as the actual weightage may range from 8% to 13% depending on the cadre).

Two points to be noted in this context is that (i) the Board Resolution was passed to benefit the pre-August 1997 retirees who were victims of the DR anomaly which came in sharp relief after the wage revision w.e.f 1/8/1997 was notified in the year 2000; and (ii) subsequent wage revisions were yet to be notified. It should also be noted that the Board did not specify that this suggested upgradation is an one-time benefit given to pre-August 1997 retirees.

The operative part of the judgment states,” In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same”.

The directions on implementation of the Board decision is only one part of the judgment. That the Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut –off date i.e. 31.7.1997 only means that LIC should modify Annexure IV of the LIC Pension Rules on par with the DR formula for in-service employees from 1/8/1992 to 31/7/1997..The last sentence stating “the benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit.” Has to be construed as a direction for upgradation of pension with every wage revision as prayed for in the WP No 654/2007 allowed by the Bench.

Thus the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dt 12/1/2010 has to be viewed from an integrated perspective providing for DR anomaly removal and equitable DR neutralization for pre-August 1997 retirees and upgradation of pension for all pensioners with every wage revision, whereas the tendency of LIC has been to equate the judgment wholly to implementation of the Board Decision dt 24/11/2001 only that too according to its own convenient interpretation .This has resulted in its playing havoc with the interpretation of the LIC Board Resolution and making payment of an inadequate amount of arrears due to the petitioners while depositing in Jaipur & Chandigarh HC Registries and also while paying interim relief to the 1200 pre-August 1997 retiree-Class I Officers recently.

So my view is that in the Scenario 1, even if the powers of the Government under Sec 48 are upheld, it need not necessarily ipso facto lead to allowing of the CAs by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court will still have to consider the aspects of anomalies in DR and lack of pension parity on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. So along with upholding the powers of the Government under Sec 48, the Apex Court may like to give suitable directions to the Government and LIC to remove the anomalies and disparities that violate Article 14 of the Constitution .This would mean directions for amendment of pension rules to the benefit of LIC Pensioners.

If Scenario 2 happens, and the SC finds it proper to dismiss the CAs, it may not stop with a simple order of dismissal, but may give suitable directions to LIC giving clarifications on grey areas in the Jaipur judgment and the Board Resolution which LIC has been exploiting to the detriment of pensioners.

Either way, I feel that there is no need for pensioners to be worried about- whether LIC has the powers or the Government has the powers. In my view, Supreme Court will focus primarily on justice to be done to those for whom it is denied. But there is a caveat; the case managers and the counsel have a crucial role to play to make that happen.

C H Mahadevan

Develop a spirit of compromise and mutual trust

Our revered leaders, time and again, keep telling the history of successes and failures in the long drawn legal battle with LIC and GOI. The readers of the PC are by now very much familiar with them.

The pensioners are more concerned and pray that the leaders try their best to succeed in getting the judgement on their side. It is difficult to find leaders of the same disposition.The leaders are at liberty to play their decisive roles in the matter of court cases as guided by their learned counsellors and in other aspects, within the established rules of accountability, impunity etc but above board completely. 

Some readers have rightly expressed in the recent past that there is a need for warring groups to call for permanent truce for good. It is time that our leaders develop a spirit of compromise and mutual trust.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)


Many thanks to Shri A.S.Ramanathan for his encouraging reportage. 

It is from an authority. It is from the horse's mouth. I may be permitted to repeat a few words from the last paragraph : Please be patient, do not discourage the fighters..we will succeed...our case may create history.


5 Feb 16, 12:28 PM

ramesh rao: just gone through sri asr remarks through pc it is very motivating narration and encouraging however let us proceed with strong will for winning the case with patience.


There is nothing ominous in the remark. It only gives us, in very clear terms that the Hon Judges on the Bench have understood our case. What remains to be heard is only, what reasons the SG is going to advance in support of the LIC/Govt and the reply thereto by the pensioners counsels. Normally, to my little knowledge, it appears that after the SG, it will be the turn of the main Respondent followed by others to reply. Usually other counsels will supplement, if there is any new point of argument but otherwise go with the main arguments. The Judges usually may not show interest to hear the same arguments and may ask only for any other points. Afterwards the court will reserve the judgement to be pronounced later. We should be happy if this happens in one or two hearings.

Having said that, we should remember that there are certain points to be noted. Some questions such as if the Bench says, Govt’s approval is necessary, and they are empowered to, no doubt we will lose our case. It will be na├»ve to come to such a simple conclusion and I don’t think those who are in the know of things, from the legal angle, will agree. It has to be understood that many may not be aware of the niceties of the arguments that will arise during the course of the hearing. No one, including myself, for the pensioners have come out openly with our arguments nor is it wise to disclose. So it is not ominous but necessary to foresee what can be expected. I am not in any panel on strategies planned. I was lucky to know some of those fighting and having been before the bar fighting legal battles for the LIC, I ventured to sharing my views with them.

The LIC’s civil Appeal was allowed to be listed by the SC. Counter has been filed opposing the admissibility of it, because LIC is not considered as aggrieved by the decision of Justice Bhandari. The Division Bench of the Rajasthan HC has made it clear while dismissing the LIC’s appeal. The Govt. did not appeal along with the LIC nor did they file any counter after the DB gave notice to them, even after adjournments to do so, as stated by the DB. The SLP filed by the LIC was dismissed. The litigation has come to an end then and there and nothing remains to be decided by the SC. But there is another set of SLPs filed by the Govt. after a lapse of more than three years of the Judgement of the SB of Jaipur. When the Govt. did not file an appeal itself before the DB, within the normal time for moving the SC of 90 days from the date of the judgement appealed against, how can the SC now be persuaded to admit and hear a hopelessly time barred SLP, which in effect is a permission to file an appeal, despite bold attempts through top lawyers of the Govt. with all persuasive presentations in flowery language. If in spite of this, the petitions are heard, our argument will continue.

May I also inform you that the sum up of our case by the Bench, as reported, was anticipated soon after the filing of the appeal, and enough ammunition is at hand to break the seemingly impregnable shield worn by the Govt. with the LIC hiding behind.

Please be patient, do not discourage the fighters, allow law to take its own course, we will succeed. May be our case may create history. We are all old, and in a war many soldiers and others are laid to rest but let us hope those of us now here, will be there to enjoy the fruits of our labour, which is not far away. We have, I believe very good chance to win our case hands down. Please don’t despair. All these years we have worked following the principle of ‘utmost good faith ’and have faith in those handling the case and our counsel. Let us believe that Senior Advocates is the SC are worth their salt. 

Thursday, February 4, 2016

Gratuity difference

4 Feb 16, 08:43 PM

K.Madan Mohan Rao: Ramesh Kumar, you are eligible for difference of gratuity as per staff regulations. For class I officers first 15 years full basic plus FPA will be taken and after 30 years half basic plus FPA will be taken. The amount of gratuity received above 10 lakhs is taxable.


4 Feb 16, 04:28 PM

Karunakaran: Dear Mr.Aboobucker, if GOI approval is necessary for LIC's Board Resolution, then the NAKARA and other court cases regarding pensioners rights lose the relevance.



4 Feb 16, 02:59 PM

r.ishwar.dayal: Shri KML Asthana has unfortunately become a favorite subject for your cartoonist.
An interesting side of these cartoons is that nobody comes forward to defend KMLA from Fedn side, not even ramanathan from the South who usually goes to the victims of your cartoon subjects with consoling words. 

What I observe is that when it was LIC Pensioners Calicut, you never appeared to come out with cartoons against Asthana. But as Chronicle you have changed your editorial policy, especially after Asthana came to attack the Editor over phone saying what you write is “non-sense” as I remember to have seen in one of your old write-ups. It is true Asthana has many weaknesses. He has no knack to keep public relations. When one has a public mission, sober conducts must be a MUST. 

He may have under-estimated your striking power. It is well known that he doesn’t keep good relations with AIRIEF leadership. After the Jain (?) era, it is not easy going for Asthana especially after the emergence of the Hyderbad faction of GNS Federation as separate entity with Shri Murty at the helm of affairs. 
  • All said, I have a feeling that the long fight Asthana had against LIC and the tremendous advantage he was able to bring about for the pensioners shouldn’t be forgotten. For thousands of pensioners, he is still a hero although Shri RB Kishore in his inimitable flattery style made him a Kurukshetra hero which perhaps played havoc and Shri Kishore’s flattery went into his head and if I may borrow your cartoonist’s words, that song has to be surgically removed as he is still suffering from the ‘hero’  status thrust upon him. 
That is one side of the picture. On the other wide, I wish you had changed your editorial policy to make Shri KMLA successfully complete his unfinished task. I am a person who believes he has a pivotal role to PLAY.


4 Feb 16, 01:17 PM

R.RAMESH KUMAR: I retd from LIC services in march 2015 and got a sum of rs.10 lacs as gratuity. now after the revision my monthly emoluments is Rs 96000/-. Am I eligible to get arrears of gratuity? 

Modern avatar !


Dear Editor,

All of us were very happy when we read A Rejoinder from Sh. KML Asthana in response to Part -2 Version of Supreme Court Proceedings dated 29.01.2016 from Sh. Murty on your blog day before yesterday asking a few questions addressed to Sh. Murty.

Yesterday, we were extra ordinarily happy to read answers from Sh. Murty to all questions raised by Sh. KML.

Now, I also have a few questions to be answered by Sh. KML honestly. But before raising my questions , I wish to place on record my deep appreciations for Sh. KML as a chief architect of current legal battle on behalf of all LIC Pensioners.

My Questions to Sh. KML

1. Is it not a fact that he happens to be one of an All India Vice Presidents of AIRIEF and expenses for his entire legal battle so far are being reimbursed to him in total by AIRIEF out of its legal fund ?

2. Being an All India Vice President of an All India LIC Pensioners Organisation called AIRIEF, how can he accept donations from LIC Pensioners in his personal bank account ?

3. Whether till date he has submitted a detailed account statement of funds collected by him in his personal bank account to AIRIEF and further whether he has transferred amount collected by him in person till date to AIRIEF Bank Account ?

4. In organisational command, he happens to be at Third Place after President being no One and General Secretary being no Two. Now, whether he had sought prior approval from AIRIEF President before filing An Impleadment Application at Supreme Court seeking himself to be a party in pending LIC Civil Appeal against Chandigarh High Court ? And what is current fate of such application filed by him ?

5. On 07.09.2015 during hearing of IA filed by Panchkula AIRIEF Unit before Justice Dipak Misra bench at Supreme Court, his AOR Sh. R.K.Singh opposed our IA despite very clear telephonic instructions by AIRIEF President to him and RKSingh both to support our IA. Can Sh. KML tell why he over ruled his President ?

6. The contempt Petition against LIC filed by him at Jaipur High Court was disposed in February 2014 with an order " Dismissed as Withdrawn "

Will Sh. KML tell us reasons for withdrawl of his contempt petition ?

7. Will Sh. KML tell us whether he had sought prior approval of AIRIEF President before filing his latest stay application at Supreme Court against current Wage Revision for LIC Working Staff wef 01.08.2012 ? And what is current status of this stay application filed by him?


To be or not to be upgraded is the question

4 Feb 16, 11:37 AM

JM Aboobucker: The sum and substance of the issue in our case according to the observation of Justice Misra is whether LIC by its Board Resolutions implement decisions or the approval of GOI is necessary.

Supposing the Court decides that the GOI approval is required for implementing LIC Board Resolutions, I am afraid the matter will not get resolved in SC but the issue will revert to the GOI for final decision. This situation will place us the poor pensioners again at the mercy of the Babu's of MOF who are known for their negative approach on the vexed question of 'to be or not to be upgraded'.

Clear the air

Justice Misra made a specific remark intervening in the arguments on 29-01-2016 that ‘as we look at this matter, the issue before us is whether the LIC through its Board can take its own decisions and implement or it needs Government Approval for the same’. 

The SGI .......endorsed the observation of the Bench responding: ‘that is exactly the
issue My Lord’. (Shri M.Sreenivasa Murty in LIC PC on 31-01-2016).

It is the sum and substance of the cases pending at the Apex Court? 

What is bit worrisome is that Shri Murty has said that it is ominous.

There can be no other person than Shri Murty himself to make the doubt / point clear. He may kindly elucidate the observations for better understanding of pensioners, at his convenience and not at the cost of personal front.

Let us clear the air. Let the sky be clear, bright and beautiful.

Meaning of these idioms, in short : to eliminate confusion, dispel controversy, emotional tensions, to get rid of hard feelings nurtured over a period of time knowingly or unknowingly.

The idioms allude to an atmosphere cleared of thick black clouds, torrential, heavy to very heavy rains accompanied by storm, thunder, lightening etc.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

SC order

A copy of the Order dt 29/1/2016 is attached.
This is in connection with the IA No 5 filed by the Retired Officers'
Association, Hyderabad and the Additional Affidavit filed in that
C H Mahadevan

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Programs getting ready for arrears payment

3 Feb 16, 07:52 PM

K.Madan Mohan Rao: Programs for release of Salary Arrears getting ready. most probably by next week ending salary arrears P.L. Encashmennt medical benefit difference and gratuity Difference may be paid. For commutation and pension fixation as well as pension difference payment will take some time as separate instructions are required.

M.Sreenivasa Murty

KML never answered my straight and simple questions. But I will answer each of his questions as below: 


I made several statements in my Post (Part 2) exposing KML’s bungling of the legal fight. I stick to my charge that he is a compulsive liar and a ‘case wrecker’ in the words of his Federation’s senior co-functionary. 

KML should address them point by point, instead of escaping with sweeping and vague remarks. I committed no misdeeds and so my face is safe. 

WHERE HE WAS WHEN HE RETIRED, I was in Hyderabad doing the post-retirement Training job which I liked and enjoyed (for eight years). I worked hard to earn money. Did not choose any fund collection ‘business’. 


No, I did not know anything of what and how KMLA was fighting for. I was too busy otherwise. But I was admiring his efforts from a distance. That is why in spite of a ban by GNS Federation (of which I was a member) I too contributed some money to KML’s personal account. I can retrieve proof if he disputes. 


My Legal wisdom was safe with me. It did not go anywhere. Then and now. It is more useful to me and LIC pensioners now than before. 


Absolutely correct. I acknowledged it publicly many a time. But the success he tasted till then, together with the name, fame, followers and the flood of funds received (collected) literally reached his head and KMLA became arrogance personified. Also his success spree ended with that phase. He was a fish in the small Jaipur Pond. Once he left Rajasthan, Delhi did not treat him well. It was a rough weather without break. The phases to follow were non-stop failures for him. His handling of the contempt matter in Supreme Court and in Jaipur HC, were examples of his mishandling the subsequent legal battle and his focus shifted to money making, based on past laurels.


No, not true. I stepped in and visited Delhi to assist him soon after the SLPs were admitted. The CAs then were nowhere near Final Hearing. I goaded him (and succeeded, thanks to Sri RBK) to oppose GNS Federation’s IA No 4 of 2014. He and RK Singh did not do the Registry follow up effectively. But due to a chance development in the Court on 4 April 2014, (LIC Counsel’s over enthusiastic strategy boomeranged) the Bench kept the IAs in cold storage and ordered all CAs to be clubbed together and posted for Final Hearing in the 2nd week of Aug 2014. There was no effort of GNS or KML in that mini-miracle. What KML did thereafter was only to block the Final Hearing with all cock and bull stories, while money continued to pour in, for the AIRIEF as well as his own fat private fund, the latter due to a high pitch campaign by the Mohali Astrologer and some others.

Why delay salary arrears to post August 2012 retirees ?

3 Feb 16, 10:41 AM
Mc pawar: ANY NEWS -- At least salary arrears, leave encashment & pension commutation arrears need to be paid immediately to retired as on 1.08.2012 like other serving employees.


2 Feb 16, 09:17 PM

sudhakaran: LIC employees should thank KMLA for his filing the stay applications 'correctly'; otherwise they would not have got the revision benefits. Whether the other applications were filed 'incorrectly'?

Tuesday, February 2, 2016


2 Feb 16, 03:34 PM


From MSM Sir's letter part 2, it is understood that KMLA had filed STAY PETITION AGAINST IMPLEMENTATION NOTIFICATION. In this regard I would like to know WHO HAS AUTHORISED SRI KMLA to file such application against implementation notification and on whose behalf the vakalat was given? what purpose will it serve? Our fight is for upgradation and not against wage revision. By filing too many petitions we are complicating the matter before the Court. Let there be consensus amongst our leaders and Advocates.

2 Feb 16, 05:08 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: Delay for the pensioners, it is all. Delay in getting Justice is distressing. Only silver lining is the observation of the Judge on delay. All seems to be a riddle wrapped in mystery inside an enigma. Let us unite in our experiences. And get what is due to us and just.


To read the full text of his statement, please click below.

Shri Murty has made things clear

Dear Editor,

First my heartiest Congrats to you and your valuable readers for your PC hitting very hard creating a new history of securing 19th Lac hit in just 19 days. Great. Waiting for crossing of Two Millions Mark. My best wishes to you.

Two contributors for your PC namely KML and his deputy HKA who are very popular in LIC Pensioners Community were very quick to hit Sh. Murty when he was really very upset on the outcome of Supreme Court Proceedings dated 29.01.2016 going much against their expectations. Sh. Murty has now made every thing crystal clear about his version on your blog through Part One and Two. Let us wait for feedback.




2 Feb 16, 07:59 AM

R.K.ViSWANATHAN: Apropos the cartoon, if medication does 
not work meditation will certainly work. Best thing for all of us including the case managers is to indulge in meditation till March 10.

M Sreenivasa Murty

(Part 2)

It has been proved that these leaders and these Federations will not protect our interests. We need to fend for ourselves, look for alternative routes.

I had explained more than once, how LIC had been systematically playing truant with its Pensioners, while the role of the existing players from Delhi and Jaipur (and Bangalore & Bhopal, lately) has become more and more suspect. On top of it, AIRIEF, the ‘non-playing Captain’ till now of the one-man Jaipur Brigade, claims to have made a grand entry in the Supreme Court arena, on 11 Jan 2016 (after dilly-dallying for many months on its own policy-decision) via its belated Implead Application. God knows what is its basis against its own Jaipur Unit matter (CA No 8959-62 of 2013) and what if any, happened to it after it was duly filed. May be it is collecting dust like KML’s own Implead Application that just re-surfaced as claimed to have been filed in March 2014 itself. And also like the host of his other Applications including the two WPs he filed in Rajasthan HC on which he and his blind followers were talking non-stop for a whole year. All those junk petitions would have `made the AIRIEF poorer by a few Lakh Rupees while he or his fulltime Counsel would have made a killing as in the past. I concede it is their ‘business’ to fleece, make money for the Federation and enjoy their ‘All India positions’. But what baffles me is that they let the Jaipur wrecker hold and express an ‘opinion’ and comment on my IAs and my role. And the Mohali Astrologer springs up suddenly every now and then to preach others what they should or should not do. He implores that nobody should do anything which would delay the Final Hearing, while it is always his supremo who is the chief cause for delay in the hearing and is the main impediment for the cases to move on. My research in to the archives is midway – I will come out shortly with the facts on delay in the final hearing apportioned among the different culprits from August 2014 till 21 Jan 2016.  

One has to give First rank to KML under the ‘compulsive liar’ category. Records are replete with dozens of instances when KML indulges in spreading deliberate falsehood. I asked him openly not long ago, to make at least his own fulltime Lawyer endorse a canard that he chose to spread, failing which to take a dip in the holy Narmada to wash his sin. I thought he tried to cleanse instead by remaining silent for some time. But habits die hard. On 2nd Dec when his Sr Counsel caused a big kick for the final hearing by over one and half months, a strange story was woven (Counsel’s father was to undergo surgery, which he never mentioned himself and he was very much seen in the same Court the next day) and circulated in an unnecessarily aggressive style by KML. This, to cover up his earlier tall assertion that the hearing will commence and conclude on 2 Dec, come what may. Also to cover up the real reason for the Counsel not to let the hearing happen on 2nd and 3rd Dec.  Result: 48 days of avoidable delay, which was bad enough for several Pensioners to leave this world.     

KML’s latest misadventure is his reference (from the distant Jaipur) to the hearing of my IA on 29 January when he writes ‘AND MURTY SIR DID NOT SPEAK ANYTHING AND HE DESIRED OUR ADVOCATE SHRI RK SINGH TO SPEAK,’’ 

Pity you; there cannot be anything cheaper than this. Mr KML should choose a river of his choice to dip in, if he wants to get out of the compulsive liar category. 

We have ‘colluders’ for company. The other Federation is ever available to facilitate LIC’s game plan to deny and collude with it, in the colossal mischief being played against the distraught Pensioners. Allowing LIC to rewrite the 7 May Order and not raise even a little finger against it, is a brilliant level of camaraderie. Don’t expect any change, its half-hearted public statements to the contrary, notwithstanding  

Today AIRIEF, (the once bigger of the two Federations) is completely at sea, with no sense of direction for itself.  It can’t bank anymore on the one-time Arjuna (as Lord Krishna himself had conferred a well-deserved new title on the warrior – a WRECKER.

I await the amended version of Kurukshetra, though I never ventured to read the original.                                                                            

One may think one is taking DRASTIC STEP, but there is a limit to all such UNWANTED & EXCESSIVE NEGATIVE EXUBERANCE

I am afraid,many are asking why NOW DELAYED AIRIEF Impleading Also,KMLA WANTED FROM Sri RKSahni CL 1,3 NOTIFICATION for ARGUMENTS & SUBMISSIONS. We shd not confuse the SC & LIC, UOI will then want time to analyse Implications of 1/8/2012. Even if we win as it EXISTS & SC grants Pension upgradation, later after arrears, we will have to be placed in LATEST wage scales, PROVIDED we SUCCEED. Too many UNCERTAINTIES.
Dear Pensioners, what do you expect from these players? Will they or can they really help our cause? 
May I remind you all, of the concluding lines in Part-1 of my Post (reproduced below):
“Justice Misra made a specific remark intervening in the arguments that ‘as we look at this matter, the issue before us is whether the LIC through its Board can take its own decisions and implement or it needs Government Approval for the same’. I was not surprised but I noticed with concern that the SGI…….jumped to fully endorse the observation of the Bench responding: ‘that is exactly the issue My Lord’. To me it is all OMINOUS’’.

(To be concluded with Part-3 to follow, where I wish to clearly unfold the Hyderabad Plan of action to offer our solution to the daunting problem).

The eluding verdict !

1 Feb 16, 03:46 PM

ramesh rao: after going through all the narrations of our seniors can we have the final verdict on our issue on 10.3.16? Can any one clarify?

Sunday, January 31, 2016

SC proceedings on 29th Jan

Dear Shri Gangadharan, 

I refer to the post made in Chronicle at about Noon today carrying the report of Mr. Sreenivasa Murty of Hyd. on what according to him transpired on 29/1. Let me make it clear that I am not at all concerned with the controversy going on in the matter.

I would however like your readers to be informed that Mr. Murty's statement that our Federation's Senior Counsel Shri. Sriram Panchu was present in the court on 29/1 is an absolutely wrong. As a matter of fact Shri Panchu took ill with bronchial problem immediately on his return to Chennai after the previous hearing on 20/1 and he has told me that he cannot perhaps attend any hearing during whole of Feb.

GN Sridharan 
Gen.Secy fedn of Retd. LIC class 1 officers' Assns.

M Sreenivasa Murty

This is a simple factual narration of what 

exactly happened in the Court on 29 Jan 2016. 
My responses and comments on the false 
report released by Mr KML Asthana as well 
as some uninformed remarks/predictions 
made by Mr H K Aggarwal, will come through 
Part 2 of this Post.

At the cost of repetition, I state that what we mentioned on 22 Jan 2016 (and again on 28th and got permission to file) was an additional Affidavit in the IA No 5 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013, which was already on Board. The additional Affidavit was to bring on record the colossal mischief being committed by LIC with active support by the Delhi Respondent in LIC’s CA 9223 of 2013.

Although the matter was listed at Sl No 55, as hoped by us, it reached for hearing well before the Court was to rise for the day. As expected, LIC and GNS Federation took the matter so seriously that Mr Sriram Panchu, the Sr Advocate for GNS Federation as well as Mr Ranjit Kumar, the Solicitor General of India, were personally present in the Court to oppose my Affidavit. Mr RK Singh, KML’s Counsel was also there (though he was not a party to the matter before the Court on that day).

Two gentlemen from Bhopal and KML’s Delhi representative were there (and met me too with their questions). Two Associates of Mr Gopal Jain, Sr Advocate appearing for Hyderabad, besides Mr Jay Savla and his Associate were there too.

When my item reached at about 12.30 PM, (in the absence of our Sr Advocate, who was caught in a matter in another Court) the SGI vehemently opposed the Hyderabad Association’s move (the Additional Affidavit) as according to him, an Intervener cannot make any plea and added that he wants to file a reply against my I A No 5 itself. GNS Counsel joined the chorus in full support. All this was exactly on expected lines.

The non-availability of my Sr Counsel when my item reached for hearing and the inability of his Junior Associates in effectively facing the onslaught by the Solicitor General of India was certainly a set back to me and to the Hyderabad Association’s bold initiative to put the case back on track. I had reported this fact briefly immediately after I came out of the Court.

Upon Justice Dipak Misra announcing that my matter listed for that day would also be heard on the next date of hearing of the main CAs, there was detailed discussion on what should be the next date. Someone pointed out that the matters were already listed for 2nd & 3rd Feb 2016, but multiple voices were heard that the said dates do not suit them. Then 10 Feb was considered but turned down. As is always the case, any date suggested or that comes up for consideration, does not suit somebody or other. This drama repeated on 29th also and 10th March was the final choice.


As I said already, the absence of our Sr Counsel at the proper moment, was indeed a

set back to my efforts but the Court’s sympathetic observations were certainly my gain. I will conclude the Part 1 of this Post, with a more serious factual input on what more had happened during the hearing of my item on 29th Jan 2016.

While the Solicitor General of India and the Sr Advocate for GNS Federation were on their feet, Justice Misra made a specific remark intervening in the arguments that ‘as we look at this matter, the issue before us is whether the LIC through its Board can take its own decisions and implement or it needs Government Approval for the same’. I was not surprised but I noticed with concern that the SGI as well as the Sr. Advocate of GNS Federation - both jumped to fully endorse the observation of the Bench responding: ‘that is exactly the issue My Lord’.

To me it is all OMINOUS.

(To be continued)


31 Jan 16, 04:19 AM

Bhaktavatsala rao.k.: Mr.kml asthana's letter dt. 29.1.16 to be answered by mr.msm. If kmla is truely speaking, it is the time for mr.msm to clarify as to what happened in SC on 29.1.16. Why the senior advocate was absent on such an important time. Is it true that mr.msm was silent and asked for mr. singh's intervention. The case in SC decides the dreams and fate of thousands of lic pensioners and their families.

We want to know the truth. My dear case managers, kindly do not play with the lives of pensioners. It is a life and death question for many pensioners. Please do not play games. Let the case be finalised as early as possible. Adjournments are happening not only at the request of lic/goi but also by our case managers' interventions. Pl end this power/money/time pass game. Act sincerely for the welfare of thousands of lic pensioners and their families.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

SN Chhabra


29th Jan Supreme Court proceedings

Dear Editor,

By now it is crystal clear that Sh. Murty did his best to make an honest attempt to draw kind attention of Justice Dipak Misra bench towards a bitter fact how LIC had made a mockery of Supreme Court orders dated 7th May, 7th September and 4th December 2015 but due to certain technical reasons desired result could not be secured. Sh. Murty has already assured that he will come out with his version shortly.The net result of yesterday initiative is that our case has been posted for final disposal to 10th March, 2016 at the top of list.

Sh KML describes Murty's yesterday step as publicity stunt through Panchkula case managers calling me as his Bhakt in order to mislead and confuse LIC Pensioners.

My view is that no body including KML can confuse or mislead LIC Pensioners. They know very well the reality of all the case managers as well as other activists.

I am happy to say that I happen to be a Bhakt of a person who is committed for cause of entire LIC Pensioners Community and I refuse to be a follower of a person who himself has become a very rich person while fighting for poor Pensioners through his unfair activities by collecting donations towards legal fund in his personal bank account which remains unaccounted till date besides using entire AIRIEF Legal Fund.

Further, these reactions of both KML and his Bhajan Mandli Head over yesterday SC development clearly show them in a celeberation mode since they think themselves as the only Champion in this field and none else can enter their space. God bless both.


Interim Relief received vs Monthly loss as at 1ST FEB


We are all grateful to LIC that at least about 1190 pre- August 1997 retiree Class I Officers were paid interim relief 'as per the SC Order dated 7/5/2015'.

But a peep into the last column of the Pension Anomaly chart circulated by me as at 1/2/2016 by those who have received the interim relief will convince them that what they have received does not equal the total loss for even two months on account non-upgradation of pension as per the Jaipur judgment.In fact,the pre-April 1993 retiree Class I Officers will notice that their IR received is less than the current loss for even a single month.

To add insult to injury, the M C Jain category retiree officers numbering about 90 have also been denied the revision of pension from 1/11/1993 although SC had dismissed the SLP of LIC against the Jaipur Bench judgment in favour of Mr M C Jain.


C H Mahadevan



I attach the Pension Anomaly Chart as at 1/2/2016 after taking into 
account the addition of 62 DR slabs from 1/2/2016. I have also shown 
the current monthly loss in the last column. 

C H Mahadevan


29 Jan 16, 07:15 PM

JM Aboobucker: The next hearing date of our case in SC as also other IAs which stand clubbed with the main case hearing is 10th March 2016.

This date falls on Thursday which is the last day of the week for final hearing of cases. Our case with so many respondents needs more time for hearing. So the much awaited D-day may still be elusive with further adjournments to the benefit of the LIC, the Appellant.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Let us be positive

Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty's latest initiative of filing a fresh affidavit containing up to date position to plead  for the entire class of LIC pensioners and family pensioners has not gone in vain. 

Hon.Judge has kindly acknowledged the fact that the case has been pending for long and has posted the matter on 10th March, 2016 for final disposal on top of the list.



Following the arguments today in Supreme Court, culminating in the posting of our cases to 10 March 2016 for FINAL disposal, I find a flood of emails and Posts in the Blogs which looks like a 'free for all'. 

I would like to caution the overwhelming majority of unbiased Pensioners, that what is being seen today is spreading of irresponsible misinterpretation to cover up their own follies and pursue their individual agenda. 

I will come out very shortly with my version of the whole matter and request Pensioner friends to bear with me in the meantime. 

M Sreenivasa Murty 


Consideration of Hyderabad petition deferred to 10th March 2016

Hyderabad petition stoutly opposed by Solicitor General.  Judge observed the matter is pending for long.

After tough arguments, matter Posted to 10 March for final disposal on top of the list. Our intervention efforts did not work for technical reasons. LIC succeeded in deferring once again, informs Shri Sreenivasa Murty from New Delhi.

Hyderabad application

Dear Editor,
  • We have filed last week (after seeking the Bench permission) an Additional Affidavit in our IA No 5 of 2014 in CA No 9223 of 2013.  Happy to inform you that the Additional Affidavit has been taken on record for today's hearing by the Bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra.
As to the Bench not sitting after 2.00 PM, there is nothing unusual about it. And we have no control over it. So we take our chance.

I am on my way to Delhi.

M Sreenivasa Murty