Sunday, May 29, 2016


SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

Pension of DOs and AAOs to EDs retired 
in different Pay Scales for the period 
February to July, 2016 as per the latest 
wage revision of 1st August, 2012
Our leaders would surely succeed in their legal battle with LIC and UOI and obtain 100% DR to pre  Aug. 1997 pensioners and updation of pension to all pensioners, all the pre and post Aug.1997 pensioners.
A Chart showing the Basic Pension (B.P.), Dearness Relief (DR) - [ 359 slabs @ 0.10% = 35.9% on B.P.- applicable for the period February to July, 2016 ] and Total Pension (T.P.) computed with reference to the latest wage revision of Development Officers, AAOs to EDs in terms of Government Gazette Notification dated 14-01-2016 and the C.O. implementation instructions is furnished below.  
It is an exercise to know the pension rightfully due for the current half year Feb. to Jul. 2016 on the fundamental principle of periodic updating of pension along with wage revision of in- service employees and on the basic rule of equality among the pensioners - of same rank with same length of service - call it OROP or by any other name, irrespective of their dates of retirement or pay scales in which they had retired.
The commuted amount of pension, if any, (those who have not completed 15 years as pensioner), may be subtracted from the total pension to arrive at net pension.
Those who are in receipt of FPA etc. may add the amount to the Total Pension mentioned in the Chart to know the Total Pension. The revised FPA : AAO & AO - 1745; ADM & DM - 2300 ; SDM- 2590; ZM(O) - 2685 and E.D.- 3265.
Many do not retire at the basic pension as per the chart. In their cases, the ' Ten months average' will be different. An example : Shri Damodaran retired as DO. His basic was at 20th stage for 4 months and 21st stage for 6 months. (Rs.25928/- for 4 months and 21st stage at Rs.26733/- for 6 months). His ten months average pension works out to Rs.26411/- and DR @35.9% is Rs.9482/- .His Total Pension works out to Rs.35893/-.
B.P.and D.R. have been rounded off to next higher rupee. 
As individual cases differ, the fine tune calculations necessary and must be done only with the detailed instructions of the Office.

The King Can Do No Wrong!

Dear Editor,

The  eye opening, forthright Judgement of the Allahabad High Court  as recent as 18th May  speaks volumes on the attitude of the Bureaucrat Class even though the Common Law Dictat "King Can do No Wrong" is buried five fathoms deep long ago by the Crown Proceedings Act.

Indian Constitution too is firmly against such autocratic whims as enshrined in the Articles 226 & 311. Even after more than 60 years of the rule by the Constitution, mind sets are not changing. 

One wonders what the initiation courses at the Administrative Training Centers are doing. And no wonder LICs bureaucrats are not falling behind in this autocracy.

We must feel doubly assured on the outcome of our struggle for justice with the judiciary being strongly supportive in principle.

M.B. Joshi


Dear Editor,

How are you? I have come across an article by Shri C.H.Mahadevan that the benefit of Shri M.C.Jain's case is applicable to all those Class I Officers who retired during the period from 01-08-1992 to 31-03-1993. 

If I remember correctly, some time back Shri Mahadevan had opined that the benefit should be made available even to those Class I Officers who were in service as on 01-08-1992 and retired subsequent to 01-4-1993. I shall be extremely happy if Shri C.H.Mahadevan clarifies on this doubt.

Thanking you and with best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
(B.S.Gopala Krishna)


Dear Editor,

I have read below mentioned message from KML. My only request to all concerned is to please see the real face of our hero KML who is full of arrogance and always underestimates other players in our legal battle. Let him wait for few days to know how his self derived happiness in seeing failure of others as a short lived affair only.


CH Mahadevan

MC Jain category of Class I Pensioners‏

All of us are aware of the non-implementation by LIC of the M C Jain case judgment delivered in 2012 by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court for all similarly placed retirees,the SLP(C) No 16713/2014 relating to which that was filed by LIC was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2/7/2014. Even to Mr M C Jain, LIC has not paid the correct amount due as per the Jaipur judgment.

As per the judgment, the following benefits are legally and legitimately due to this category of pensioners:

1. LIC has to refix the salary of Mr M C Jain and all similarly
placed retired Class I officers on 1/8/1992 and arrears of
difference in salary have to be paid for the months from Aug 1992
upto the date of retirement the latest date in this category being
31st March 1993;

2. Consequently, Provident Fund deductions have to be effected on
the difference of Basic Pay and PF & interest thereon up to the date
of payment of arrears. have to be paid

3. Difference in salary in lieu of Leave encashment as on the
date of retirement has also to be paid if eligible.

4. Pension has to be refixed based on revised scale of pay from

5. Arrears of difference in pension from 1/11/1993 till date have
to be paid.( As a result of this LIC will also have to pay difference
in 40% interim relief arising out of refixation of pension from
1/11/1993 as per the Supreme Court Order dated 31/3/2016 as they
would have paid to all similarly placed pensioners only the amount
calculated without factoring the refixation of pension as per the

6. Difference in commuted value of pension has to be paid on
account of revision of pension; (As commuted value of pension is
structured with a loading for interest rate, besides mortality factor,
interest will have to be paid by LIC on the difference in commuted
value of pension at least at the rate which has been reckoned in
the CV factor, upto the date the commuted value of pension was
restored. The difference in commuted value of pension payable, if not
paid with interest, will result in much of the arrears of pension
being eaten away).

7. Restoration of consequential difference in commuted value of
pension to be done from the date of completion of 15 years from the
date commutation became absolute;

I suggest that a representative group of three or four out of the 86 pensioners as listed in the attachment, may seek an appointment with the Chairman, MD and ED(Personnel) and press forth their claim for implementing the judgment.

If there is no positive response from LIC, this group of pensioners may consider legal action in the Supreme Court jointly with Mr M C Jain who has been paid inadequate amount. Any omissions or errors in the attached list may be communicated to me with the particulars,so that I may update/ correct the list.

C H Mahadevan


Saturday, May 28, 2016

GK Viswanatham


Indeed Sri Mahadevan gave a fitting reply to Sri GNS. What a pity that such grotesque leaders have ruled the class I officers of LIC for so long while in service and continue post retirement. 

The wage structure for class I was and is inextricably linked to that of class 3 & 4 employees for parity purposes. Conditions of work or dignity of self even for meritorious direct recruits were grossly unjustified or abysmal what with the attitude of subordinate staff discreetly supported by the top or executive management at all times in order to buy peace.

Many officers including class III promotees thanked their stars and prolific computerization when dependence on lower rung of the workers gradually reduced. All this, one has to attribute to the inept leadership of CL I officers spearheaded by GNS and his likes. I have to state that the scales or fringe benefits for class I are just ignominious not to mention about any comparison with identically placed officers in any other industry. Seniors and super senior officers will recall the ceilings on DA and gross emoluments at Rs.2750 and Rs.2950 while the Superintendents of class III were drawing more than Rs.3400 or more. From that rut to come out there was no strategy with the then only Class I officers Federation the only union representing officers, except to wait for the first wage revision after 1974 that was to come with effect from 01.04.1983 with actual effective date of 11.04.1985. Now too it is no better compared to any sector which is why this pension struggle. If not the ancestral leader/s who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs and splintered groups of officers under different banners? 

The fight unfortunately seems no holds barred, more among unions than between Management and unions. Truth shall prevail at the end, bringing justice to pensioners under the able and ambidextrous leadership of Hyderabad Assn.

Sure, soon members of all groups or assns. will read any foul game and respond aptly. Rebuff from members alone and not leaders will propel dissipation of discordant notes from all and sundry.

G K Viswanatham


A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.”

“If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be” – Allahabad HC on Delaying retiral Benefits


Dear Editor,

Mr.G.N.sridharan’s circular under the caption “Matters of Urgency” needs thorough analysis and a fitting reply. Let us first take up his assertion “... the Hyderabad Leaders were totally against any benefit accruing to the old generation of pensioners...” He makes it amply clear that not only he wants to divide the pensioners on the lines of DR and upgradation of pension, but on the lines of older and younger generation of pensioners. Are those who have crossed age 80 his target group?. Being the General Secretary of Class I Officers’ retiree Association, he had a duty to take up both the issues ,as then only he would have covered the interest of all the pensioners. Instead, he chose to take up only the DR issue which benefits the pre-1997 pensioners. And, amongst the beneficiaries, his chief concern was for the ‘older generation’ of pensioners. We too have ample concern for the relatively older pensioners.But as a General Secretary he had a duty to protect the interests of all the members of the Association. He stuck to his stand like a leech and till today has only espoused the cause of the pre-1997 pensioners. That the Hyderabad leaders didn't care for the older pensioners is a totally unfounded and baseless accusation. Not only they fought for pensioners of all ages but also they took up both the issues with equal vehemence. While considering acceptance of 20% of IR they didn’t subscribe to questionable methods of approaches by LIC like Mr.GNS did, but stuck to the principle that the settlement of 20% DR should be as per the right and acceptable method of calculation and not as preferred by LIC. In addition to the older generation of pensioners, they have been well entrenched in the unique problems faced by the family pensioners.

Coming to the other assertion “ that the contribution of 5% out of 40% IR shall legitimately be due only to our organisation....” since the same was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the specific prayer of ours...” This, by any stretch of imagination, is not only unacceptable, but even inconceivable. In the first place , the Order of 31st March 2016 was not a final one. The judgments of all the three H.Cs having been set aside, God knows on what basis Mr.GNS is laying claim to the IR of 40% arrears as his achievement. Right from inception, we knew that DR was a non-issue. It became an issue only after we filed a writ petition. It assumed the present complexity once it was inter-linked with up-gradation. The Ministry showed inclination to agree to the proposal and we had 100%, unequivocal support of the Board resolution to boot it. How then can anyone take credit for wresting an Interim Relief on an issue, which is a non-issue. No doubt, all the three of them have filed writs and fought the issue in different High Courts. Some of them can be credited with part-victory. Therefore, should the 40% IR be projected as an achievement, the credit belongs to all of them. The very fact that an Order purporting
Interim Relief has to be construed, in a larger sense as a precursor to a decision in the offing. Otherwise, can we imagine a decision in the future, let it be any court, nullifying it exposing the beneficiaries to the prospect of refunding the amount received as arrears. I am trying to say that there is no way that Mr. GNS to claim the 5% is “legiti-mately due to them”. By the way who fixed this 5% and what is its basis? The credit for 40% belongs to the judiciary as corroborated in the Order of 31st March which sums up the reason as “keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the corporation shall pay 40%.....”It is not because Mr.Panchu argued against para 3A of Appendix IV of the Pension Rules. In fact, Hon’ble Deepak Misra has dwelt at length on what Mr.Nidesh Gupta pleaded on behalf of the hapless pensioners. By the way, the prayer was not for granting 40% arrears of DR as IR and the same was granted by the Hon’ble judge . The prayer was for parity in DR between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensioners, which was not granted.

It is unfortunate that a person of Sridharans stature, a seasoned trade union leader for decades to have decided to put spokes in Mr.Murty's efforts to get the writ filed before the Delhi.H.C. Before long Mr.Sridharan will come to know that he has grossly underestimated Mr.Murty and his team. When the three of them have decided to part ways, I don’t see any earthly reason for any one of them interfering with the other; trying to erect obstacles on the way. It doesn't befit or match the reputation of a time-tested leader of the LIC Class I Officers retiree Association. From what I have stated above, it is abundantly clear that neither the 20% DR relief nor the 40% relief came as a result of exclusive efforts put in by Mr.GNS. The pensioners have already been taken for a ride by collecting Rs.1000 for membership to claim 20% arrears and now 5% on 40% arrears. The fact that the Hyderabad Association is a breakaway Association doesn't make them fugitives. They are very much here and are doing a splendid job in getting our case going on the right lines. I would appeal to Mr.Sridharan through the PC to allow them to do their job, and by all means, he can go ahead with his plans. 

Let us operate in an atmosphere total freedom and let non-interference in others matters be the new motto. Living in a country, practicing democracy, LIVE AND LET LIVE should be the over-riding consideration of every right-thinking citizen. Let us hope that better sense will prevail and Mr.GNS will wipe off , intentions if any, to create hardship in the court room in Delhi, when the writ petition of the Hyderabad Association comes up for admission on 30th May 2016.

Friday, May 27, 2016

Shri Murty's reports

Dear Shri Gangadharan

The Reporting made by Shri Murthy makes very thrilling reading, coming as if from some war correspondent or a Bobby Talyarkhan! Bravo! I dont think these are miracles, to me these appear to be the fruit of Shri Murthy's keen watchfulness & a sharp shooting posture. This makes most of the downtrodden pensioners like me getting a warm feeling that the fight is worth & is in capable hands. Short sighted petty opponents who are out only to sap energies must realise the grave injustice they are doing by these mischievous monkey business. Our salute to Shri Murthy. MAY HIS TRIBE INCREASE!

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Delhi High Court developments

Dear Editor,

In my Post to the PC this afternoon, I referred to certain miracles that helped the Hyderabad Association to get over the series of hurdles and move forward with reference to our Writ Petition filed last week. The miracles have nothing to do with GNS playing the spoilsport. That part of it needs separate write up and I will be doing it later.

Yesterday, on being mentioned before Court No 2, our WP was directed to be posted before the designated Bench of Justice Khanna. But the Registry still posted the case for today before the routine Admissions Bench of Justice Gita Mittal. We had no choice other than to appear there and plead to transfer the matter to the designated Bench.

Then we learnt that the Admission Court is not going to sit today at all. It was a shocking development. We didn't want to give up. We approached the Registry at 10.30 and got the case posted before a substitute Bench (as Admissions Bench not sitting today). The first miracle happened. It was a specially typed Supplementary Cause List pasted outside Court No 5 of Justice Bhat exclusively for our case. It would get added at the end of the Board. Then there is the risk of the item not reaching at all. So we decided to mention at 2.15 PM (post - lunch) and request for transfer of the case to the designated Bench where we should finally go as per the SC Order.

Our attempt worked. We were heard. LIC Counsel was waiting quietly. Did not oppose, as per the undertaking given in SC on 31.03.2016. But Mr Garg the counsel for GNS butted in and vehemently opposed our Petition saying it is not maintainable. He tried to move a quote the SC Order of 31 March. It took just a few minutes for our Counsel to expose the fallacy of his argument, by reading out relevant portions from the SC Judgement. Justice Bhat understood the game and dictated the Order.
The final miracle took us where we wanted to go. I noticed Mr RK Singh outside the the Court (and possibly a colleague of his inside) to watch what is happening and enjoy Mr Garg's performance.

It is possible that GNS would persuade his counsel to repeat the drama on 30th May 2016. I wish he does. His brinkmanship and spoilsport role will get further exposed. It is never too late to learn lessons. It would benefit GNS if he is ready to learn.
We succeed today against many odds, in the sense that we didn't get stuck before another unconcerned Bench. It is a bundle of miracles and due to the good wishes of thousands of 'understanding' Pensioners across the country.

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Hyd petition posted before designated bench

Miracles do happen. And they did for the Hyderabad Association today. In spite of spirited opposition by GNS counsel Our WP, as requested by us (before the Substitute Bench of Justice Bhat), has been transferred and posted before the designated Bench of Justice Khanna for admission. Will come up on Monday 30th May 2016. 

Sreenivasa Murty M

CH Mahadevan

                              MATTERS OF URGENCY

Referring to the Circular of Mr G N Sridharan, Gen Secy of the Class I Retirees’ Federation, I feel some response is warranted.

It is amusing when the Gen Secy writes “Our Fedn has taken a policy decision to oppose any petition from any quarters other than the parties involved in the three WPs remanded by the Supreme Court to the Delhi HC, and accordingly we have suitably instructed our counsel.”

I would like to only ask him what was the Federation doing when the Hyderabad Association filed an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court? Now, why this sudden possessiveness on their Writ Petition which has been set aside by the Supreme Court on 31/3/2016? Of course, as and when our Writ Petition is opposed, our Hyderabad Association leadership will handle the matter suitably.

Incidentally, protagonists of the move for unity of approach for winning the pensioners’ legal battle, kindly note this proposed move of the GNS Federation!

No doubt Hyderabad Association is a breakaway Association, but we are not a breakdown organization.We don’t break down our membership into pre-August 1997 and post July 1997 retirees for espousing the cause of one group at the cost of the other group which constitute a majority in membership. We also don’t believe in claiming that we have achieved benefits for a section when actually they have been betrayed in the matter of securing proper benefits that they were entitled to get.

At this stage even though Supreme Court had ordered on 31/3/2016 that LIC should pay Interim relief of 40% of entitled amount to all similarly placed pensioners as per para 3A of Appendix IV, is the Federation at least aware that the basic DR anomaly created from 1/11/1993 still lingers and any benefit provided without rectifying the anomaly will not render justice to the pensioners concerned? Is the Federation aware that what LIC has paid to the pre-August 1997 retirees is not as per the Supreme Court order? Or is the Federation aware that perhaps tens of thousands of family pensioners have got IR of Re1/- and Rs 2/- perhaps because of rounding off to the higher Rupee? Even though the large number of recipients of the benefits has been disappointed with the short-payment made by LIC, there has been no word from the Federation in public domain. I am not aware of any snail mail circular that might have been issued dealing with that problem.

Hyd.writ petition may be delayed

Our Writ Petition before Delhi High Court. There is going to be some more delay to take up our Petition. It is learnt just now that the concerned Court (No 4) is not sitting today. We are exploring alternatives to get over the problem.  Should find a way out. There is nothing to panic except some more delay.  All in the game. 

Sreenivasa Murty M
Camp: New Delhi

Hyderabad Association's writ petition

Dear LIC Pensioners,

Our Writ Petition No 4894 of 2016 before the High Court of Delhi, (Retired LIC Class I Officers Association Hyderabad Vs. LIC of of India & Another) is listed as item No 1 of the Supplementary Cause list in Court No 4 of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal & Hon'ble Mr Justice I S Mehta. it is expected to come up for hearing soon after 10.30 AM.

There is a change in the CORAM for the Bench from what I reported this morning. I am informed by our Counsel, that the change is inconsequential in terms of the expected disposal of the matter following tomorrow's hearing. Rest from the Court Premises tomorrow.

​Warm regards,

​M Sreenivasa Murty 
Camp: New Delhi 

Tuesday, May 24, 2016





Dear LIC Pensioners,
Our Writ Petition was being posted by the Registry for hearing today before Justice Gita Mittal, the usual Admissions Court. Our Counsel who made a specific request that it should be posted before the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna  (before whom our referred matters were already listed) was advised to make a 'mention' to that effect and secure a 'nod'.

The mention was done this morning at 10.30 before the designated 'mentioning bench' (Court No 2 - Bench headed by Justice Badar Durrez) and we secured the much needed 'Nod' to have it heard by the right Bench and to be posted TOMORROW.

LUCKILY for us, the Sr Advocate Mr Gaurab Banerji is available tomorrow and will argue before Justice Sanjiv Khanna's Bench. We also have a conference with him scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9.30 before the WP comes up for hearing.
Friends and well wishers - so far so good. We (also) are on the right track. 

Hyderabad Association needs your good wishes and support in every possible way. 

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Sec.48 notifn for DA increase required

23 May 16, 11:15 AM

A.S.Ramanathan: Can any one of our pensioner friends send a copy of the Sec 48 notification, increasing the DA from 1.8.97. I mean the notification dated 22-6-2000, preferably the gazettee notification. This is required to examine a subtle legal point which may be of help to our case.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Sunday, May 22, 2016


Draft of letter to be addressed by pre-August 
1992 retirees (in case of Class I pre-April 1993   PLEASE CLICK HERE 
retirees) to Chairman, LIC

Draft of letter to be addressed by those who 
retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997 
(in case of Class I officers, those who retired      PLEASE CLICK HERE 
between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997) to Chairman, 


By now, the reports received from various quarters indicate that pre-August 1997 retirees at various centres have received the "40% interim relief" paid by LIC although it was gathered by me from some pensioner friends at Chennai that till yesterday payments had not been made.

From the reports received by me from friends who have received the payments from LIC, it turns out that LIC have adopted the same faulty method applied by them for calculating the 20% IR as per the SC order dated 7/5/2015.

This act is in complete contravention of the SC order dated 31/3/2016 which had directed payment of 40% IR as per para 3A of Appendix IV which can be done only with revision of pension with weightage as per the scales made effective from 1/8/1997.

As a result of the faulty method followed by LIC, the pre-August 1992 retirees (pre-April 1993 Class I retirees) have got only about 12-13% of the amount that they were entitled to get as 40% IR. Those who retired after 1/8/1992(Class I Officers who retired after 1/4/1993) have only got about 30% of their entitlement as per the SC Order dt 31/3/2016.

So I felt that those who want to protest against this short payment may like to send a letter to Chairman,LIC as per the draft attached. Draft as per Annexure A can be used by those who retired before 1/8/1992 ( Class I Officers who retired before 1/4/1993) and Draft as per Annexure B can be used by those who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997( Class I Officers retired between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997). I leave it to the pensioners to decide whether they want to send a letter as per the drafts attached or not.

Those of the pre-August 1997 retirees who desire to have the comparative calculations of amounts payable by LIC and amount paid by LIC may send a mail to me with their details of Basic Pension, Date of Retirement and cadre in which retired(including placement in higher cadre at the retirement) so that I mail the calculations to them to support their claim. from LIC.

Those who send the mails to me may also kindly send their mobile numbers for seeking any clarification required.

C H Mahadevan

P.S Kindly donate liberally to our Association's legal fund with
reference to the following details: FOR DETAILS, PLEASE CLICK BELOW

NV Subbaraman

Visit NV Subbaraman's blog:

Saturday, May 21, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty

A clarification, an explanation and renewal of an Appeal.

Dear LIC Pensioner colleagues,

We from Hyderabad have crossed the first milestone as of yesterday, in the path we chose to fight to protect the interests of our Pensioner community. We filed a comprehensive Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. It is expected to come up for admission on Tuesday the 24th May 2016. 

We have been coming across well-meaning questions and doubts raised by some colleague pensioners as to why we are plunging independently in to this prohibitively expensive legal adventure. Similar questions in the past were answered by me and Mr Mahadevan, in different contexts in the past but I think it is necessary to touch upon some of the more relevant aspects of our ‘issues’ once again now.

You are all aware that different Federations and individuals have been pursuing legal cases for many years in different High Courts for revision of Pension and removal of anomalies and all those cases ended up in Supreme Court of India and a Judgment was delivered on 31 March 2016.

In terms of the SC Judgment, all parties are required to approach the High Court of Delhi and make fresh submissions.
Here's an article published in Lawyersclubindia.
C H Mahadevan

BAPOO M. MALCOLM on 18 May 2016

Dad collapsed at lunch. We were at home and rushed him to hospital. One of Bombay’s best doctors, son of mom’s friend, immediately examined dad, on the lobby floor. ‘Khotto sikko chey,’ he said. A ‘counterfeit coin’. He gave us two days, to make ‘preparations’. Did dad have a Will? No. Was he going to make one? No. Frankly, his love for us was worth more than the billions he could not give. We simply did not care. 

Should our family have been worried? A definite ‘Yes’. A big ‘YES’. We have had a lot of seminars at Moneylife, dealing with Wills. The one thing we learn from them is that we cannot foresee everything. We have to do the best we can.

Dad, being dad, came home a month later. But we knew better. A wooden nickel. Did we do anything then? No. A month later, we were back in hospital. This time, we knew for sure. The doctor asked us to forego all artificial resuscitation. It may then last for years, he explained. Mom agreed. No suffering.            
We kept vigil. Day and night. One night, while I was sleeping on the bench in the corridor, a junior doctor, uninformed, started resuscitation. By then, dad was in a coma. When I awoke, I panicked. Dad was entombed in equipment, cylinders, pipes and meters. I called our doctor. We had agreed on letting him pass silently into the night.

Friday, May 20, 2016


19 May 16, 09:01 PM

shriram bhise: AIIPA was against going to court for updation and 100% neutralisation. they want to solve the demands by discussion with managemant.but when favourable decision by court is in sight they too join the fray...

20 May 16, 09:49 AM

gopalakrishnan: shri bhise may read the reasons why AIIPA was not willing to move the court. the reasons are there in their Notes which are available below (see PAGES). By the way Shri Bhise may ascertain from AIRIEF (before giving any donation) why they did not fight the case from 1999 to 2010 when Asthana was independently fighting case at Jaipur. It is only from 2010 they joined the fray and extended financial support to Asthana. Why? Bhise and his AIRIEF should explain. When they explain, I will join the discussion later to say more...





Thursday, May 19, 2016

Warm Greetings and Salutations !

Warm salutations to Shri Mahadevan and to the Editor.

I salute each and every sentence of what Shri C H Mahadevan  has written except for filing a contempt case. Of course, it is not that he has not touched the reasons of time factor. He has mentioned and rightly so.

The contempt is related to IR. As somebody had said IR is IR and adjustable. (Oh, if we see the Office letter of 13-04-2016, it is 'abundantly' made clear that it is IR ...recoverable etc.! shit !! The Office kept the beneficiaries of 20% IR in 'dark' for a year and now they release 40% IR with 'mild' warning ! No one, nor I should forget that the continuance of pension is subject to good conduct...I should not use (have used) unparliamentary word!

May be, Shri B.Ganga Raju and or some other had opined that the faulty method adopted by LIC (the Office) to pay 40% IR may be brought to the notice of Delhi HC. No need to file contempt case.

Yes, WE must concentrate on getting periodic updation of pension, revision of pension along with every pay revision, once in five years, and retrospectively.

The main thrust of arguments at the H.C. be on Nakara case ; Article 14 of the Constitution of India as often emphasised by Shri Mahadevan and some others.

When the updating of pension is upheld by the Delhi H.C., every thing (DR) will automatically come. I repeat that the issue of correct 100% neutralisation in DR, gets solved automatically. For example, when the pension of a pensioner retired in 1987 or 1993 pay scale (or some other year - in some cases) is updated as per pay scales of Aug.1997, he or she would definitely be paid DR at 0.23% (i.e.full) on the revised updated pension. When pension is updated as per subsequent pay revisions, in 2002, 2007 and 2012, he or she will get 0.18%, 0.15% and 0.10% DR (i.e. full) from the respective dates of pay revision.

Hence, better avoid filing filing contempt contempt case..

It is possible to share individual views as the Editor, LIC PC has allowed us freedom of expression. To the best of my understanding, the articles etc. are not 'just' posted in PC as received, not withstanding a few exceptions to the rule. The Editor does lot of exercise, lot of home work on the materials, on the contents, on the formats received. He does 'shringar', as if, giving a 'beautician's touch' to a 'bride.' The articles etc., thus, become lively, interesting and appealing.

Two Charts.. Mind Boggling Difference__(PC dt.18-05-2016) has become 'note worthy' because of the Editor's touch. He has instilled 'life and soul' to enhance its merit, it's get up. He always does the same in respect of many other articles / mails received. He always has instilled life and soul in the articles that have seen the light of the day / have been posted in his LIC PC. 

Personally, I owe him more for his generosity. think I am in the habit of sending a write up, the same write up, revised more than once or twice. (I do not venture / dare to send the same article corrected for the third or the fourth time)

I end this mail with warm salutations to Shri Mahadevan and to the Editor.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Right Path and Non-Right Path

When the need of the hour is to get united and firmly remain so, a fight is likely to erupt over the Right Path and non-Right Path and the numerical strength of either side. The fight over the numerical strength would be an unfortunate development. Will the number create a pressure lobby?

The unity of Pensioners is likely to prove elusive. We remained divided while in service, and will continue to remain so as Pensioners, searching new issues for bickering giving the Management an upper hand.

Dattatraya B Deshpande,
Kolhapur DO

Short payment of 40% IR and the road ahead‏

Mr SN’s  comparative  presentation of the IR paid and IR payable as per SC Order and Mr Ganagraju’s  comments assume a lot of significance in the context of the legal response that LIC’s action warrants both at the Supreme Court and Delhi HC.

At Delhi HC, an opportunity is available to original petitioners and the fresh petitioner/s to file a response to the affidavit that has to be filed by LIC on the 40% IR paid by them in ‘compliance’ with the Supreme  Court order dated 31/3/2016.

Concurrently, an opportunity is also available at the Supreme Court for filing a contempt petition against LIC.Understandably there is a general reluctance on the part of pensioners at large to support the idea of filing a contempt petition on the fear that it may delay the case at Delhi. But we must also remember that the stakes are high for the following reasons:

1.     The eligible pensioners retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1992(31/3/1993) have received an IR of hardly 13% of the entitled amount;

2.     The eligible pensioners retired between 1/8/1992(1/4/1993) and 31/7/1997 have received an IR of hardly 31%( in the case of the Class III employee  with basic pension 3442 and retired on 30/9/1994,the amount received is just 11.2% of the entitled amount as per Mr SN’s calculations(12% as per my calculations), as lower the basic pension, the lower the percentage of amount paid to entitled amount);

3.     The pensioners in the first category with basic pension of less than 1250 and those in the second category with less than 2399 would have got single digit amounts as for more than 212 months they would have got negative differences.

4.     Family pensioners would have also got at the most single digit amounts thanks to rounding off of revised Basic family pension to higher rupee.

In the light of the above the case managers have to decide upon the legal strategy for response to LIC’s action on this issue.

* I attach a note prepared by me on ‘How LIC is wrong on IR calculations’.


C H Mahadevan

* Published as separate post. 

How LIC is wrong on IR calculations

What Para 27 of the Supreme Court Order dated 31/3/2016 states

“Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect……….”.

What Para 3A of Appendix IV   states
3(A) In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in the quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of 1960 = 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall be at the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension;

What items (b) & (c) of Annexure to letter dated 13/4/2016 by ED (P) to ED (IT) state:

(b) For the purpose, the basic pension /family pension  payable shall be revised  by merging the Dearness Relief payable as on 1/8/1997, and,
 (c) On the pension so upgraded, Dearness Relief of 0.23% of basic pension is to be calculated for every 4 point rise or fall of AICPI from 1740 points.

Why the method of calculation as per (b) & (c) is incorrect?
The Basic Pension stated in para 3A applicable to the pensioner   will not be the same as the revised Basic Pension   calculated as per (b) above as the former carries a weightage provided in wage revision w e f 1/8/1997 while the latter does not provide for such weightage. In other words, the basic pension  arrived at as per (b) above cannot be taken for calculation of interim relief as per para 3A  above.

Consequently (c) is not correct as there is no upgradation, and it is erroneous to calculate applying 0.23% of the wrong (lesser) basic pension which will result in underpayment of interim relief to the eligible pensioners.

For the same reason the payment made under this  method will be in contravention of the Supreme Court order dated 31/3/2016 and will attract  charge of contempt of court .



19 May 16, 01:30 AM

B Ganga Raju: SN 1992's calculations need to be studied by all. It is obvious LIC wanted to pay and paid DR difference only based on notional revised pension. LIC took care to see that even the difference is kept as low as possible by not touching the fitment formula of 1997. May be LIC did not want to incur the displeasure and wrath of bureaucrats in Finance Ministry. LIC could not but honour SC's order and wanted to appear as if they honoured SC order to avoid contempt.In this dubious exercise LIC put the pensioners to big loss. Without deviating from the main fight before Delhi HC, there is need to protest about this dishonesty.

Chat Column comments

18 May 16, 04:22 PM

SDSarma: Right path wallas left the right path long Back and sought a place in the delegation led by the great SM Banergee, and the South Indians have not come out of the deepest slumber they are still in.

18 May 16, 08:47 PM

gopalakrishnan: What a sight, a 15% all india Federation (AIRIEF) rules the Chat column while the 80% AIIPA is simply at the receiving end but enjoying the drama! Balance 5% is nowhere to be seen.

19 May 16, 01:51 AM

B Ganga Raju: Shri Gopalakrishnan touched upon percentages (15% AIRIEF 80% AIIPA) perhaps out of old habit. We are retired people in 70s and 80s and percentages do not mean much except for collections. More so in Court Cases.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

Two Charts giving 
(1) 40% IR - Condensed Sample Calculation as per LIC method prepared by Shri CH Mahadevan-(For ready reference) and 
(2) 40% IR with 100% DR on tapering basis with weightage -- with reference to the fitment chart of 1997 pay revision are furnished below for information. 


18 May 16, 08:37 AM

namdev: in the context of would be 4 case managers' target of one crore each, allegation of misappropriation of money by kmla, and raising in future such things anyone who is aware of all these things will clarify in the interest of all without malice sarcasm and indecent language? how many people and how much each how much total money was collected by kmla? how much money he has spent for a private  case for all these 18 years? still it is a private case in name, others being interveners and any number of groups can be formed, collect money and intervene if delhi hc special bench permits. why this confusion instead of concentration on the case. each manager should work without bothering about others and accusations. hero worship is there and followers of each case manager think their leader alone will deliver things and others are on wrong path. let it be so and face fate accordingly.a request to gangaraju sir who is well experienced over 50 years in tu movement should offer his comments on what is happening during the last few days in these columns.

18 May 16, 09:23 AM

B Ganga Raju: At the request of Shri Namdev, but in the interests of all pensioners: When there are floods, useless scum also appears on surface. It is the water which is important. Water is life giving and so also donations for a good cause. Excess water also chokes. Here we are donating in our own interest for a fight being carried on our behalf. The saying goes that Danam should not be " apathra danam," meaning it should not go to undeserved. Articles/posts in LICPC must have given everybody a fair idea of who is carrying a good fight. At present the call for donation targets those who received 40 % IR.  If one has the capacity and inclination he can help every good fighter. Some danams are open and some are "Guptha danam," i.e., silent and unpublicised. As for use/misuse of funds, proper accounting or lack of it, let it be left to the organisations concerned to judge.I know revolutionaries who collected funds for their political party and parted with only a fraction of it. Talk about such matters can be a sensation for a day only. It is for their organisation to discipline such people.

We are benefited by discussions in the columns of LICPC about legal points, how the cases are to be handled or argued, what constitutional points are to be raised, how to deal with provisions in LIC Act, important case laws etc. We must thank the contributors and editor for enlightening us and making us realise the enormity of the task history entrusted to us. When we win not only we, but future pensioners also stand to benefit.Coming back to posts making accusations about individuals, I think such posts appear when people run out of good ideas. The dramatis personae are same. the accusations also are not new, then why give space for them?

AIIPA Right path... Right Path...