Thursday, November 26, 2015


25 Nov 15, 04:56 PM
subbu: Let Someone advise Lord Yama to adjourn and adjust the date of death suitably accordingly for all the pensioners as and when adjournments are made. We hope that at least there will be a single pensioner left in earth to hear the decision of this much awaited case. We know well that Lord Yama is more customer friendly .

25 Nov 15, 06:06 PM
JM Aboobucker: Mr Subbu sir, I share your anguish over the ad infinite adjournments at the behest of LIC. I also enjoyed your joke about the customer friendly Lord Yama.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Tuesday, November 24, 2015


Dear Editor,
On 7th Nov. I wrote in CHAT-n-CHAT column as under:
“Seen the 'preface' of Adv. NPK.  A 'befitting' reply is awaited. NPK may include a line on 'it does not take him beyond the date of retirement'.  

I was waiting for the “befitting reply” from Adv. NPK, mainly because 2nd para of his letter started with the proclamation that “The Entire Content Of The Message of Mr.T. Sudhakaran Is A Bundle Of Lies”. 

I was eager to know as to whether “the bundle of lies” was the contents quoted by me from his “Advice To All Bank Employees, Who Are On The Verge Of Retirement”, “As Solicited By Most Of Them” or “something else”.

The delay on his part is understandable, as he is busy with (in his own words) “Countless E-Mails And Phone Calls From Fellow Bank Pensioners On The Content Of Articles Under The Above Head, “Expressing Their Extreme Happiness On The Content Of Articles, Published IN / On LIC Pensioners Chronicle”, “Throughout The Length And Breadth Of India” .  
Still I thought I should gently remind him as to what are the ”lies bundled by me” in my  “epistle” so that I can clear my views and join his “Fellow Bank Pensioners (who) Have Been Sending The Extracts From (his) Articles Under The Above Head Published In LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle, “To Some Other Websites As Well”. I hope, NPK will give me an opportunity to do so.
regards, Sudhakaran


Referring to the post of Mr R K Viswanathan,I do not think that the provisions of Sec 89 of I-T Act  will apply as the amount  paid by LIC is in the form of interim relief in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court. 
The amount does not constitute arrears of pension for the past periods in the strict sense of the term. 
It is premature to presume  their representing arrears of past pension when the pension amount has not been revised. 
The amount will just be treated as an additional  cash payment for the financial year and clubbed with the income of the year.
Perhaps if the final judgment goes in favour of the pensioners,when the arrears are paid  for identified past periods, it has to be ascertained whether the amount of interim relief already received  can  be deducted from the taxable income in  the financial year in which the arrears are paid.
In that event, Sec 89 benefit can be availed of for the  past financial years for the arrears paid in that year if the retiree  so desires.The views of our chartered accountant fellow pensioners will be welcome.
C H Mahadevan

Income tax

Income tax on DR arrears from 1-8-1997 till date of settlement

Those who have received 20 % of DR arrears in accordance with the court order would have received a letter from LIC stating that the payment made towards 20 % of DR arrears will form part of the earnings and shall qualify for Income tax review for the financial year 2015-2016.

As per the IT ACT 1961 tax has to be paid on income earned irrespective of the year of receipt. However under SEC 89 any salary income received in lump sum that belongs to various years different from the year of receipt one can claim relief for the income so received. It is therefore imperative that LIC should give yearwise accrual of DR arrears when LIC settles the full 100 % DR arrears which we hope will be done before the current financial year ends and should it be delayed LIC should give year wise statement of the 20 % arrears of DR paid.

The respective associations should take up the matter with LIC.



24 Nov 15, 03:50 PM

R.K.ViSWANATHAN: In a theft case of two hens it took ten years for the court to pass the judgment. Are we not better when our case is coming on 2 DEC and we hope that all are available including the Solicitor General.

Dear  Editor
While being out of country I could  inform  and update our Panchkula Unit Members and a few other friends in  our LIC Pensioners Community regarding out come of supreme court proceedings in our case  today.
My very special Thanks to  LIC PC 
BR Mehta 
Camp  Dubai


24 Nov 15, 02:26 PM

JM Aboobucker: Our case stands adjourned to 2-12-2015 Wednesday at the request of LIC advocate as Solicitor General is not available on 26-11-2015.

(Shri Murty had informed us over phone of these developments like non-availability of the Solicitor General on 26th Nov. and it was our editorial discretion that we published the main news of adjournment as breaking news which was more important for the blog at that point of time. Ed.)


Our cases in Supreme Court.‏

BENCH IS HEARING MISC. CASES ONLY *** We are awaiting details about these developments *** Press 'refresh' button for latest news ***


CASE NO.8959-62 OF 2013

Let's Wait And See!


24 Nov 15, 06:34 AM

SDSarma: Is there any live commentary of SC proceedings to-

day, Editorji?  Is there any chance of  hearing taking place to-


Monday, November 23, 2015



Arising out of legal compulsions following the renewed interim order dt 7/9/2015 by the Supreme Court,LIC hurriedly got some amounts credited to the bank accounts of some pre-August 1997 retirees before 30th September,but consciously and deliberately refrained from furnishing the calculation sheets in respect of the amounts credited.

Let us pause for a moment and imagine the implications that may emerge if LIC had provided the calculations.

It is very well known that the methodology followed by LIC would have been as follows:

1.Calculate the DR as at 1/8/1997 on the existing pension and merge it with the existing basic pension;

2.Take the resulting merged total as the revised basic pension as at 1/8/1997.

3.The DR per slab is calculated at 0.23% of the revised basic pension as at 1/8/1997.

4.Calculate the arrears by calculating the total of the revised basic pension and revised DR from 1/8/1997 to the date upto which the calculations are done and deducting the corresponding existing gross pension including existing DR upto the same date and credit 20% of the difference as the interim relief.

Issues arising out of the above methodology.

1.The revision of pension according to the above methodology is in fact upgradation of pension for pre- August 1997 retirees on 1/8/1997 without weightage of 11.25% extended to in-service employees on 1/8/1997 while revising wages.

2.The question that will next arise is why such upgradation was not worked out for post July 1997 retirees on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 using the same methodology when this was required to be done in terms of the impugned judgments of Rajasthan and Punjab & Haryana High Courts which provided for upgradation of pension.(It has to be especially borne in mind that the SC order dt 7/5/2015 did not confine interim relief to only pre- August 1997 retirees).

3.Even for pre-August 1997 retirees,LIC failed to show consistency by extending the same methodology for further revision of pension on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007, instead freezing the revised pension at 1/8/1997 levels. 

4.Such anomalous and inconsistent approach of LIC has also resulted in anomaly in family pension getting reduced and necessitating recoveries when the aforesaid method is followed for family pensioners.

If LIC had given calculation sheets in respect of interim relief paid by it,the Corporation would not only have got exposed for their inconsistency and inadequacy in payment,but also its case in the Civil Appeals before SC further weakened.So it can be safely presumed that LIC deposited the amounts in the bank accounts of pensioners only to escape being hauled up for contempt by the Supreme Court. It is another matter that more than 20000 pre- August 1997 retirees and family pensioners have been denied even this inadequate relief as they were not fortunate enough to be respondents in the Civil Appeals, not to speak of post July 1997 retirees and family pensioners.

The point that has to be kept in mind by the three case managers is that the need to expose the deliberate lapse on the part of LIC in the matter of payment of interim relief cannot be delinked from the forceful arguments for upgradation of pension.

It does not appear likely that either Mr K M L Asthana or the Class I Retiree's Federation will raise the issue of non- compliance of the interim order dt 7/5/2015 at the Supreme Court on the next hearing date.But I am sure that the Chandigarh petitioners will definitely raise it before the SC Bench when the opportunity arises.

C H Mahadevan

Sunday, November 22, 2015



22 Nov 15, 08:54 AM

justin n christian: 

Do not expect much from 7 cpc report.... as 6 cpc report was also having many employee friendly recommendations but when implemented the implementation circular has contradicted the report itself.. 

The 6 cpc anomalies r still not rectified and the litigated court orders r still not implemented by govt.  the recommendation of 7 cpc says the pension as fixed by 6 cpc will be multiplied by 2.57 as on 01/01/2016.

The irony is the pension of pre-2006 pensioners having less then 33 yrs of service is still not fixed....then how the 7 cpc report will be implemented??? just think licians.

Are there bright chances that 7 cpc report will be implemented in right spirit???



Date: 21st November,'15

Group Medical Insurance Scheme floated by IBA-

Unilateral decision of the Insurance Com. to exclude certain benefits to retirees

-Protest Letters by UFBU and AIBOA to IBA


Yours sincerely,
General Secretary


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Parity in Pension between Pre and Post 7th CPC Retirees - Ref. Para No.10.1.53 to 10.1.71

The captioned matter has been dealt with in detail by the Commission in the Para Nos. of its Report given above.

In order to avoid any confusion or hardship to the beneficiaries (Pensioners) the Commission has  also given two worked out Examples as to how the Option 1 and 2 are to be applied to two different cases. In short it is a SPEAKING RECOMMENDATION giving no scope for different interpretations by different parties to the issue as happened in the SC Order for our IR of 20%.

Anticipating delay in collecting relevant data for computing the revised Pension under Option 1, the Commission has also recommended that initially Option 2 may be applied to all Pensioners and the resultant benefit be passed on to them post haste.  Later on wherever necessary Option 1 can be extended on the basis of necessary data collected in due course and the difference paid to them as arrears.

I have no words to express my appreciation of the Commission's Great Humanitarian and Egalitarian  Approach to the Pensioners lot.  How much sympathy and empathy they have shown in their dispensation to the pensioners issue?  Simply Hats off to them.

The  Commission has dealt with the CG Pension subject by retracing the history of CPC right from CPC 1 to CPC 6.   Upto 3rd CPC, the past Commissions' view were  that there was no need to revise the Pension of Past Retirees.  This unjustified and illogical policy was thrown to dust by the 4th CPC and they made a small beginning  to ameliorate the hardships faced by the CG Pensioners with the galloping inflation in the country. This step was further improved by the 5th CPC and followed by the 6th CPC which has gone to the extent of giving quantum jump in the Pension to the very senior pensioners of 80 plus.  These rational thinking of the 4th, 5th and 6th CPC and the recent sanction of OROP to the Veterans  by the GOI have paved the way for the 7th CPC to recommend  the perfection in the Upgradation of pension almost on stage to stage basis to the CG Pensioners.

It is heartening to know from the newspapers that GOI is going to accept the 7th CPC recommendations in toto.   If this news is correct, the GOI has no rhyme or reason to oppose the similar demand of the LIC Pensioners in the SC for we are also the pensioners of the GOI's own Business venture.  Our Counsels have now a more strong case against our opponents in the SC hearing on probably 26th inst for wresting a favourable order from the Hon. Judges.


Memory problem ?

7th CPC. - OROP for Civilians, too. - Revised Pension Formula

Friday, November 20, 2015


It looks like the enthusiasm is a bit premature. Mr Jay Savla called me to say that there is another list of 25 miscellaneous matters before the same Bench and some possibility of the Bench not sitting  in the AN. 

In that view of the matter, OUR WAIT CONTINUES. NOTHING MAY HAPPEN ON 24th for us. Also, Wednesday 25th is a holiday in Delhi.

So let us look for Thursday 26th. 

Sreenivasa Murty M

earlier we had reported -

M.Sreenivasa Murty


What a timing? The 7th Pay Commission Report could not have come out at a better time than now, as far as we in LIC are concerned. 

Is it wrong to expect that on 24 Nov 2015, when the Final Hearing in our matters resumes before Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra, the mood of everybody supporting our cause for full-fledged pension up-gradation should be upbeat? 

The strength or the weakness in our case remained what it has been, for many years. What has changed for the worse, are only 

1) the level of insensitivity of the Corporation towards its past employees bordering on hatred and 

2) most dogmatic polarization of Pensioners’ representatives, both individual leaders and Organizations, who come in the way of what is legitimately due to the Pensioners. 

Now is the time to seriously review our strategy. We can ill afford to lose the golden opportunity.

I, on behalf of the Hyderabad Association have been making hectic preparations for the last few weeks and focus on what needs to be done in the eleventh hour, not to let the situation slip out of our hands. I am fortunate to receive the unstinting support of Sri C H Mahadevan and all my seniors in the Hyderabad Association.
In the meantime, I renew my appeal to all the doubting Thomases, the Prophets of doom, ‘I only act - you all follow me’ clan’s high chiefs, to lie low, if not step aside. 

Please don’t revel any more in your unique status of speaking LIC’s language on Pension, directly or indirectly. 

Your members will also get up-gradation soon, whether you want them to or not, whether you are working for it or not.

Good days are ahead. 
 It’s the writing on the wall!

7th Pay Commission recommends PENSION PARITY

The Commission in its Report submitted to the Finance Minister yesterday evening recommends 

"a revised Pension Formulation for the Civil Employees as well as Defence Personnel who have retired before 1st January 2016. This Formulation will bring about PARITY between past Pensioners and Current Retirees for the same length of service in the pay scale at the time of retirement" Justice Mathur explained.

"Past Pensioners will first be placed in the proposed Pay Matrix on the basis of where they stood in the existing pay band and pay grade structure when they retired. This amount is to be raised to arrive at the Notional Pay of Retirees taking into account the number of increments they earned in that level while in service at the rate of 3%.  

50% of the total amount arrived at in this manner will be the New Pension."

A VERY GOOD NEWS FOR US.  It is like a silver lining in the dark clouds.  We are also fighting For Pension Parity in LIC.  This news will certainly be a shot in our arms and certainly strengthen our just cause and help our Counsels to argue our case with redoubled vigour. The GOI would be fighting a losing battle in the hearing coming up on 24th inst in the light of the Pay Commission's Recommendation for PENSION PARITY.


Thursday, November 19, 2015

Straddling the fence

This refers to " Time for Govt to resolve OROP row amicably" by Vinay Kumar (Nov.17, FPJ). The leaders consider that all is not well with the government's offer in its notification (Nov 17, 2015). But, is it not too much to demand for revision equalisation of pension every year ?

The leaders are well aware that no country in the world has annual revision of pension. They should honourably accept the government's offer to update pension once in five years instead of once in ten years along with revision of scales of pay of serving employees.

Majority of the military personnel, after retirement, take up jobs in other organisations. A good number of them get promotions. All on reaching superannuation age, retire with  'second pension' and / or other superannuation benefits.

The government on its part must agree to grant OROP to personnel retiring voluntarily.

R.G. Nakhate, FPJ, 19-11-2015.

Pension Matters

Shri Sudhakaran's exercise of pension eligibility of officers - retired in Aug. 2012 to May, 2013, from AAO to ZM, from minimum to maximum of the different stages of revised pay scales in comparison with the position as of July, 2012 (based on old pay scales) is highly commendable. The task is Herculean requiring lot of patience. 

Salutations to him for his extraordinarily brilliant, clear and transparent chart. The retiree concerned can easily access to know how much benefit he is going to get with revision on cards.

Shri C H Mahadevan Sir, Shri Sudhakaran and I have been trying to 'console' Shr. K. Vijayaprasad for loss in his pension. He, like any other employee, must have been entertaining thoughts of updation of pension approved by the SC, by GOI, by LIC well before his retirement and hence, he is quite right expecting to get a difference of Rs.5000+ in his take home monthly pension. All of us, seniors retired in pre 1997 pay scales, without the benefit of 100% DR and those retired in subsequent 2002 and 2007 pay scales have also been entertaining the similar thoughts of updation for long.

Shri Vijayaprasad cannot feel fully satisfied to the figures given till date (equally applies to all of us - if we are honest to our wants). He has till date maintained the gentleman's cool. He has not reacted to the figures.

Had the SC decision come by now, probably, every pensioner would have entertained the thoughts of getting their pension re- fixed from 01-08-2012, based on the latest revised pay scales. It is the amount - new basic pay - May, 2013 indicated in Shri Sudhakaran's Chart. That is the OROP or simply put, stage to stage fitment in the revised pay scale/s relevant to the post and the pay the ensioner has retired. 

When the SC judgement comes in favour of pensioners, Shri Vijayaprasad shall get what he has been asking for. Viz : Fifty percent of the maximum of revised pay of the post he retired - ADM : Rs.74670 /- plus FPA and from 01-09-2012 and admissible DR from time to time. No less.

Let's succeed. Let's shake hands.



  PARA 52:“Having  Examined  The Matter  On  Principle, Let  Us  Turn  To Some  Precedents. In  D.R.Nim  V.Union  Of  India, The  Appellant  Questioned  His  Seniority   Which  Was  To Be  Determined  In  Accordance  With  The  Provisions  Contained  In Indian  Police  Service (Regulation Of Seniority)Rules,1954.These Rules  Required  First  To  Ascertain  The  Year  Of  Allotment  Of The   Person  Concerned  For  Determination  Of  His  Seniority. 

Please click below


Posted: 18 Nov 2015 03:50 AM PST

General Secretary ,All India Bank Retirees Federation has, taken up the matter with Chairman ,IBA,on exclusion of claim on Domiciliary treatment by retirees, under new Medi Claim Insurance Scheme vide letter dated 16.11.2015.

Please click below

Wednesday, November 18, 2015


Dear Editor,

This is with regard to the pension issue raised by Mr. Vijayaprasad and the replies given by SN Sir and Mahadevan Sir. This issue would have been there at the time of every wage revision. DA of the pre-revised period was included with the basic salary for calculating the average emoluments, to rectify the major anomaly.

While the calculation given by Mr. Prasad is correct, I give below the basic pension + DA of those in the same basic salary of Rs.39,260, but retired in the succeeding months from July 2012: (A comparative statement is also attached). CLICK HERE

July 12    Aug 12    Sep 12    Oct 12    Nov 12   Dec 12
32615     31718     32387     33057    33726    34339
Jan 13     Feb 13     Mar 13    Apr 13    May 13
37294     37949     38845     39207    39836
In respect of the officer retired in July 12, the basic pension is Rs.19,630 with DA Rs.12,985, i.e., Rs.32,615 whereas for the officer retiring in the very next month, it is Rs.31,718 with no DA. Pension for those retired in Aug 12 and Sep 12 are less, compared to the one retired in July 12. This is equally so at all stages in all cadres. 
There is a need to ensure that gross pension of those retired in Aug. 12 and Sept.12 is not less than what is eligible to a July 12 retiree, with the same basic.

At the same time Mr. Prasad may compare his position with the one who had retired in July 12. He can commute more than Rs.4,000 over the one who had retired in July 12 and get roughly Rs.5 lacs extra. He can be satisfied that by contributing just Rs.2,541 for one month he is getting this additional benefit.


Letters: Resolve pension issues


It is a fact widely known that bank employees are key to the socio-economic development of India. Whether it is the Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana, the 20-point economic programme, the Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana, the Micro Units Development & Refinance Agency Ltd, priority sector lending or self-help groups, each of them is implemented by bank employees. But after retirement the same employees face monetary problems and agony as they do not get their rightful pension due to anomalies, deviations and violations.

It is evident that the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) has failed to grasp the relevance and significance of the pension concept. A divisional bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Deepak Misra and Abhay Manohar Sapre made it clear in civil appeal number 1123 on July 1, 2015 that pension is equal to wages paid to retired employees. Hence, whenever wages are revised, pension should also be revised. Pension is not an act of mercy towards retired employees; it is their right. It is not at the discretion of the employer that employees are to be paid pension. Lack of funds is not a justification for non-payment of pension. Litigation for the sake of it should be avoided
The main anomalies in pension payment are as follows. Although wages have been revised four times in the last 20 years, the pension scheme in banks, since its inception in 1995, has not been revised even once. Family pension paid to wives of deceased retired employees is a meagre 15 per cent of the latter's last monthly pay. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) revised family pension for its retired staff from 15 per cent to 30 per cent of pay a long time ago. Yet the amount under family pension, included in the bank pension rules which are based on the RBI pension rules, was not revised at all. Moreover, thousands of eligible bank retirees were denied pension.

Even after the Supreme Court's verdict, the IBA did not rectify the anomalies. Appeals made from time to time to the IBA also did not bear fruit. Hence, I am glad that the Supreme Court's Bar Association has extended a helping hand to bank retirees by taking up their case without any fee. I appreciate their gesture. The Supreme Court could, on humanitarian grounds, direct the Union Ministry of Finance and the IBA to resolve the above-mentioned issues without further delay because justice delayed is justice denied.

K L Rao Visakhapatnam
(Reproduced from Business Standard)


Date: 17th November,'15
Imposing certain exclusions and conditions in Medical
Insurance Scheme applicable to retired bank employees

Copies of Letters written by AIBRF & AIBEA are sent to you before few minutes. However, probably the attachments are corrupt and hence you many of you may find it difficult to open the same.
 We forward herewith same material in two separate attachments 
Yours sincerely,
General Secretary


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Is the date 24-11-2015 confirmed?

17 Nov 15, 08:27 PM

k.bhaktavatsala rao: As per Mr.Jay Savla's message to Mr.MSM, our case in SC appears to have been adjourned and posted to 24.11.15. APPEARS means what. Is the date 24.11.15 confirmed ? Can any one clarify?

Adv N Pradeepkumar

Para 45:”Let Us Clear One Misconception. The Pension Scheme Including The Liberalised Scheme Available To The Government Employees, Is Non-Contributory In Character. It Was Not Pointed Out That There Is Something Like A Pension Fund. It Is Recognised As An Expenditure, And It Is Voted And Budgeted Every Year. At Any Given Point Of Time There Is No Fixed Or Pre-Determined Pension Fund, Which Is Divided Amongst Eligible Pensioners. There Is No Artificially Created Fund Or Reservoir From Which Pensioners Draw Pension Within The Limits Of The Fund, And The Share Of Each Being Co-Extensive With The Available Fund. The Payment Of Pension Is A Statutory Liability Undertaken By The Government And Whatever Becomes Due And Payable Is Budgeted For. One Could Have Appreciated This Line Of Reasoning Where There Is A Contributory Scheme And A Pension Fund From Which Alone Pension Is Disbursed. That Being Not The Case, There Is No Question Of Pensioners Dividing The Pension Fund, Which, If More Persons Are Admitted To The Scheme, Would Pro-Rata Affect The Share. Therefore, There Is No Question Of Dividing The Pension Fund. Pension Is Liability Incurred And Has To Be Provided For In The Budget. Therefore, The Argument Of Division Of A Cake, Larger The Number Of Sharers, Smaller The Share, And Absence Of Residue, And Therefore By, Augmentation Of Beneficiaries, Pro rata Share Is Likely To Be Affected And Their Absence Making Relief Impermissible, “Is An Argument Born Of Desperation”, “And Is Without Merits”, “And Must Be Rejected As Untenable”.

Please click below to continue reading.

Monday, November 16, 2015


An apology from SN

In continuation of Note, " Life is a compromise with the reality", posted in PC on 14-11-2015. Kindly read the relevant paragraph , reproduced below, duly corrected.
"Hurry burry spoils...the curry", the learned say. I must at least say sorry for the errors. I'm profoundly sorry.

" Sorry, there can be no immediate remedy to the problems of Shri Vijayaprasad. The loss would be comparatively less for who retired in September, 2012 to April, 2013 ( wrongly typed as Jan 2013 to April, 2013) or no loss to who retired on 31-05-2013 ( wrongly typed as 31-08-2012), till next revision of pay scales.: this is valid in respect of ADMs at par with Shri Vijayaprasad. "

As per extant rules, the pension receivable for the month of August, 2015 by Shri. ABC, ADM retired at the maximum at the end of ten months service in the new scale, that is, on 31-05- 2013, will be as under:
Rs.39070.00 : Basic FPA + Rs.11604.00 : DR = Rs.50674.00 minus Rs.13024.00 : Commutation = 
      Rs.37650.00 : Net of commuted amount. 
      Commutation as per revised pension: Rs.15.33 lakhs.

      If the rule is amended to fix pension based on the last pay drawn or ten months average, whichever is  more beneficial to the employee, as in GOI, the basic  pension of those retired in August, 2012 to April. 2013 will be the same as of employees retired in May, 2013. DR will be as per admissible rates.

      There will be, by and large, no disparities, in pension, when the pension updation is approved to re-fix pension on stage to stage basis ; same rank same pension with same length of service ; irrespective of date of retirement. The anomalies will be less in number and could be easily addressed by the office administration. 

Writing judgment is also an art...