VISIT 'LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE' - THE MOST POPULAR WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Pensioners, weep we must !

Dear Editor,

For the last few years, many doubts (may be in hundreds) were raised by our poor pensioners whether the Jaipur HC judgement is applicable only for the petitioners or to all LIC pensioners..and another point is that the judgement is for the rectification of DR anomaly for pre 97 pensioners only or also for upgradation of pension for all LIC pensioners. My dear pensioner friends no need to have any doubt. The judgement is applicable for all LIC pensioners and it is also for upgradation of pension for every wage revision i.e., 2002, 2007, 2012 as in the case of in service employees and also in future wage revisions.

Only foolish officials are asking for the list of so and so and so on. How they are asking the list of pensioners of pre.97 pensioners who are members of a particular association? And how the so called Boss (said to be) is furnishing the list? Is it not arbitrary. Whenever a wage revision is made, it was and is applicable to all the officials working in the ORGANISATION and not for particular members of a union/unions who have participated in the wage negotiations. This naked truth is known to all. This is a shameful act on the part of LIC officials to ask for the list of the so called union members and it is more shameful that the so called union furnished the list as asked (rather trapped) by LIC.

No need to panic. LIC is going to cheat the so called union in one way or the other. How they cheat we have to wait and see. (It is not my intention that they should be cheated..it is only my prediction with my little knowledge).

Only Supreme Court can solve our problem. Unless the SC gives a clear verdict, LIC is going to take some more years to their advantage and keep pending the implementation of Jaipur HC judgement. And in the time scale, one by one pensioner will disappear from the books of LIC and the present officials who are opposing the judgement will join in pensioners community and then they certainly WEEP AND WEEP TILL THEY DIE.

Bhaktavatsala Rao. K.

M.Sreenivasa Murty



Who is more insensitive to today’s plight of LIC Pensioners?
LIC/Govt OR Some of ‘our own’ Leaders?

Cut-throat competition among Leaders of Associations & Federations for one-upmanship (ostensibly to protect the interests of their own members), is common knowledge. It is so whether one likes it or not and we have been living with it. The trend seems to have changed for the worse in recent times, badly affecting LIC pensioners.

Our leaders have virtually declared themselves immune from accountability while remaining at the helm of the Organizational hierarchy. Like some cheap politicians. I am talking of the self-snatched immunity from accountability – not to the outside world or public at large but to THEIR OWN LOYAL, COMMITTED AND SUBSCRIPTION-PAYING MEMBERS. Questions are raised here and there, some loud and some feeble – but nobody to answer. Can such leaders be at peace with themselves, permanently?  

I was internally searching for the probable causes. As far as LIC is concerned, there has been steady erosion in values of individuals constituting ‘top management’. Safe (aka ‘selfish’) actions are preferred to bold (aka ‘right’) actions. It is a trend. We have to live with it for now. Current LIC management has no concern or respect for the ex-employees. They know these retirees are a spent force and can do nothing by way of posing a threat, unlike those still in service. So, why bother, ignore the retirees and take care of the Unions of serving workforce. Life will be smoother and better.

The fact that the Pensioners are physically weak, unorganized and less visible, is playing havoc when it comes to Pensioners’ Organizations also. Our own Leaders are taking us for a ride. They are able to do what they want to and the way they choose to and practically get away.

Let us get down to brass tacks. The Leader of one Federation (of undoubted integrity and invincible conviction in what he believes as right) is able to ride roughshod over the discomfort of two thirds of his loyal members and keep projecting the cause (absolutely just, no doubt) of hardly one-third of his members. Never tolerates dissent. Doesn’t find it necessary or worthwhile to carry the crowd. My search for the likely causes in this case tells me that the ‘weak, unorganized’ syndrome of the pensioner class is the reason. What is handy to LIC proved equally convenient in this case also. What can the majority do? Nothing. So let them suffer. They deserve to.

The other Federation is beyond anybody to describe. It has a hierarchy and vast network on paper. They all like their positions but most of them have no role to play. Main activity, perhaps the only, has been fund raising. For over half a decade, it has allowed its identity as an organization to be obliterated and allowed itself to be seen wholly through one individual. Someone who enjoys and has been accustomed to the blind loyalty of the ‘cult’ followers. The Organization woke up a bit late and has been trying to take control of the reins. Not able to and so paying a heavy price and losing face. Ordinarily, the above profile of the Organization notwithstanding, it need not sound the death knell to the members’ interests. Unfortunately however, the De jure leadership is choosing to keep silent when they are actually required to speak. One Regional satrap talks and writes non-stop – on all matters except the most critical subject. Because he (like all others) has no clue of what is happening in that crucial area. The De facto boss rarely speaks in public. His silence should be accepted as ‘strategy’.

The real irony is that the latter Federation was able to lure a few thousand non-members to lend support and to fill its coffers, promising the moon. Today not only its members but all those ‘outside’ supporters are left high and dry and are left with no clue of how their interests are safe in the hands of the ‘silent strategists’.

Who is more insensitive to today’s plight of LIC Pensioners? 
LIC/Govt OR Some of ‘our own’ Leaders?                            
Pensioners, awake before it is too late.

Sept 2, 2015

Letter to Shri RB Kishore


I refer to the feedback of Mr V S Prakasa Rao reproduced in your mail received by me  which states inter alia,“How  is (KMLA) going to take care of the 5 petitioners  of post Aug.97 , especially  when GNS and AIIPA took the stand that  the benefit  of the Nov.2001 resolution relate to only the Pre Aug 97  pensioners to get 100% D.R neutralisation  which was taken advantage by the L.I.C “.

I wish to hasten to air my opinion  that we need not dwell too much  exclusively on the Board Resolution of 24/11/2001 passed by LIC.What is more important as far as Jaipur SJB judgment is concerned is that the Bench allowed two writ petitions.

The first writ petition  was for removing the DR anomaly and neutralisation of DR on equitable basis  on par with in-service employees.This means that the DR formula  has been  in fact ordered to be amended  w.e.f  1/11/1993  with the slabs which were applicable to in-service employees  as per 1/8/1987 & 1/8/1992 wage revisions instead of cutting the slabs by half.
The other writ petition (654/2007) was for upgradation of pension on substituted scales of pay with every wage revision. This means that irrespective of the LIC Board Resolution, pensions will have to be upgraded for all eligible pensioners on 1/8/1997, 1/8/2002, 1/8/2007 and all future wage revision dates.

No doubt the operative part of the Jaipur judgment has directed LIC  to take steps to implement the LIC Board Resolution.It is true that considering the context in which the Resolution was passed ,the decision applies to  only pre-August 1997 retirees. LIC is taking advantage of the ambiguities in the wordings of the Resolution to interpret it to its own advantage  taking only the merger of DR as on 1/8/1997 and revising the pension and leaving weightage  as done for in-service employees and similar upgradation on 1/8/2002 and future effective wage revision dates. If the true spirit of the LIC Board Resolution is understood, it provides for upgradation of pension for pre-August 1997 retirees on all wage revision dates from 1/8/1997 onwards, besides removing the DR anomaly from 1/11/1993.

As a corollary, once the Jaipur judgment is properly implemented, the Board Resolution gets automatically implemented besides the removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralization besides providing upgradation of pension for all post-July 1997 retirees also.I am sure Mr K M L A sthana is very well aware of this and definitely press for  justice for the five post-July 1997 retirees  also. 

Consequently, as long as the Jaipur SJB judgment remains  stay-refused, our focus should  be on  emphasizing on implementation of the Justice Bhandari  judgment without segregated reference to the Board Resolution.At best the LIC Board Resolution is only to be taken as an enabling document  even considering the that the Jaipur Bench has taken cognizance of it.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan 

Obituary : Sakhi Chand,Chandigarh

Dear LIC Pensioners Friends,
With a very heavy heart I have to inform all of you that one more LIC Pensioner Friend Sh.Sakhi Chand at Chandigarh has left all of us .Our heart felt condolences to bereaved family and prayers to Almighty for granting peace to departed noble soul. Sh. Sakhi Chand worked as PA to then Sr DM Chandigarh in AO cadre at SrDM Sectt DO Chandigarh for a very long time. So he was very known to all LIC Pensioners Friends at Tri City. Mournfully yours, BRMehta ,Panchkula 

Pensioners join Insurance Week celebrations

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Hyderabad Association of LIC Pensioners writes to LIC



If LIC’s non-compliance of the Supreme Court’s Interim directions dated 7 May 2015 is bad, its communication dated 6.7.2015 sent to Sri GN Sridharan, is worse.

It is felt necessary that the Corporation should be put on Notice for its flagrant violation of the directions of the Apex Court.

It is done now as per the copy attached.

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Circular issued by Fedn of Retd Class I Officers Associations - observations


It is gathered that as of now a list consisting of 1266 pre-August 1997 retiree members of the Federation has been submitted to the Central Office by the Federation. From the  above circular  it is clear that the Federation is  not  quite hopeful of a positive response from LIC .

It is gratifying to note that “Should LIC fail to implement fairly and appropriately, we will be vigilant and bring matters to the attention of Hon'ble Supreme Court at the right time.”

But I am sure that the Federation is aware that that the right time should be the earliest time before 23/9/2015 which is now hardly 22 days away.

The best opportunity for the Federation to expose before  the Supreme Court  the  arbitrary approach adopted by LIC to avoid complying with the Supreme Court’s order of 7/5/2015 will be available on 7/9/2015 when the IA filed by Chandigarh petitioners  comes up for hearing. The Federation’s counsel should  also vehemently submit before the Supreme Court the audacity of LIC in not only not complying with the SC order of 7/5/2015 within the deadline of 6 weeks, but also its high- handedness of adding its own arbitrary conditions for the Federation submitting the list of eligible members over the head of the Supreme Court order. If the Federation’s counsel does not use this golden opportunity to drive home our points forcefully in this regard, ‘the right time’ will  not arrive in time and the Federation’s having submitted the list would turn out to be a wasteful exercise.

Let us hope that the Federation would definitely not like its  eagerly waiting members to suffer by default.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Circular dated 8-8-2915 of Fedn.of Retired Class I Officers' Assns.


Re: Implementation of SC order dated 7/5/2015 for IR and our response to LIC

It was exactly a month ago, with whatever was the motive LIC demanded of us to submit a list of those who were affected by the discriminatory basis on DR to enable them to extend the benefit of interim relief granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court .

Their letter to us was dated 6/7. As our Federation had gone to the court on the said single issue we took the LIC's unusual step as a challenge and we would like to inform our members that we have now sent to LIC the first list of pre- 97 retiree-pensioners. The lists furnished by all our units so enthusiastically carry a number of 870 members from 15 out of 16 units. Our premier affiliate at Mumbai who have a stupendous task of collating the data for nearly 400 persons will be completing their list shortly. The same will be sent as the next batch. We would also like to confirm that in compiling the list we have ignored the unwarranted cutoff date of membership imposed by LIC. We have also informed that supplementary lists and also the Family pensioners list will follow.

We did considerable thinking before sending the list, and wrote to our units on our views. It is good that we received a number of feedback. Importantly, we did not want to be at default. Let us wait and see what LIC does.

It is to be noted that while LIC is under compulsion to act and implement the SCorder of 7th May 215, how completely and correctly they would implement is still uncertain, We would therefore like our members not to entertain undue hopes.

Should LIC fail to implement fairly and appropriately, we will be vigilant and bring matters to the attention of Hon'ble Supreme court at the right time.

Meantime we are consulting our counsels on the question of our approaching the SC on securing extension of interim relief to all pensioners affected by DR anomaly irrespective of their affiliation of any organisation. We shall keep members informed of our further steps in due course.


With Greetings to all,
GN Sridharan
Gen Secy
Fedn.of Retired Class I Officers' Assns.

Monday, August 31, 2015

READ EASTERN NEWS SEPT.2015

CLICK HERE

AIRIEF -Where does it stand?


31 Aug 15, 07:59 AM

subburathinam: AIRIEF -Where does it stand? !!! Mahadevan Sir !! Like LIC which always looks at GOI for clear directives, AIRIEF looks for directions from the parent organisation. And as U and I know well, AIIEA does not usually take the legal route, unless it is very sure of a positive result, like in bonus case. Any union for that matter more relies on its organisational bargaining strength and that strength as we know well is just wasted when u take the legal route. It is a pity that AIIEA has not taken up this updation issue as a front level issue. May be they feel, it is impractical. or the proposal will cut into the benefits to be conferred on existing employees. I wish I am wrong,

So, Mahadevan Sir, it is futile to expect them to come forward with more clarity on the issue.

TIME IS TICKING‏


is staring at us.still we are agog with 20%
relief. L.I.C made a mockery of S.C Order and prepared to face the consequences.But one thing is made clear that only Pre Aug.97 pensioners will be the beneficiaries,thanks to the support given by the AIIPA and Class I officers' Assn.of GNS.

The Order " in rem " made by the Delhi H.C, I think is
applicable to all the Class I officers but not to the team of
GNS only. But the indication is that GNS members only will
benefit. In that case the alert given by CHM to AIRIEF will
benefit only its members. What about the members of other
Organisations. Mr. Sudhakar expressed his worry and
anguish which deserves the urgent attention of the Post 97
Pensioners.


Our own Leaders interpret the Board Resolution to our
disadvantage which the L.I .C is taking advantage of. It is
high time that the Leaders should realise their responsibility
and pay immediate attention to 23rd Sep. The Order of
S.C gave some HOME WORK to the Respondents which
should be done diligently and honestly by the concerned.


WITH GREETINGS V.S.PRAKASARAO VIZAG.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

AIRIEF impleadment - Where does it stand?


A couple of months ago a decision was 

reportedly taken by the AIRIEF to get 

impleaded in the Civil Appeals pending in the 

Supreme Court. Thousands of pensioners, 

especially members of the AIRIEF, are 

anxiously waiting to know the developments in 

the matter.


Lot of restiveness and anxiety is being experienced after the SC order dt 7/5/2015 passed for payment of 20% interim relief to the Respondent-employees under the three Civil Appeals. LIC has not acted as per the directions of the Supreme Court within the deadline specified and even after belated steps taken by LIC, it appears hardly 1200 to 1300 pensioners (if at all) will be able to receive whatever pittance LIC chooses to pay by way of interim relief. Even there is a doubt whether LIC will pay anything to anybody before 23rd September 2015 when the SC hears the Civil Appeals.

Fear and anxiety is building up in the minds of 40000 plus pensioners and family pensioners as to what is in store for them if the legal process continues in this manner and whether all the pensioners will get the final benefits even if Supreme Court gives a favourable verdict or whether LIC will confine the payments to a small group only.

Now it has become imperative that AIRIEF needs to act very fast on its decision to implead in the Supreme Court case in the interest of the large number of its members.

Has the AIRIEF leadership got anything to report on the progress in this direction? Time seems to be running out.


Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

Post August 1997 retirees' “WORRY AND ANGUISH”‏


Dear Editor,
I read our dear P.C daily to know what is happening to our legal fight in various Courts. I sincerely thank you for your arranging such a fast online media which has well contributed with latest news and analysis of our experts regarding the happenings and proceedings in the matter.
Now, we are all waiting for the start of S.C. proceedings on 23.09.2015. Reading regularly the posts published in the P.C. so far as a very common pensioner with not much legal expertise I give below our understanding of the proceedings in different courts so far briefly :
Rajastan High Court : S. J allowed both the writs and ordered L I C to implement ‘ BOARD RESOLUTION OF 2001 ’. Pursuing delaying tactics L I C went on appeal to Division Bench, R.B and lost both the cases. LIC then filed SLPs at S.C where they lost the case. Also the request of LIC to stay the judgment of Rajastan H C is turned down. Continuing its dogged fight LIC made C.A. This matter is still under consideration at S C . On 07.05.2015 S C ordered LIC to pay 20 % of amount due to PETITIONERS as per impugned Judgement of Rajastan High Court as interim relief before 18.06.2015. When LIC pleaded that they have already deposited the amounts due in the Court, SC permitted them to withdraw 20% of the amounts paid into Court. After one month from the stipulated date LIC leisurely approached the H C and requested for refund of 20% of the deposited amount so that they can make the payment of Interim Relief.
While making the deposit as per the court order, mischievously interpreting, LIC excluded all post 1997 retirees from the benefit of Upgradation. Instead of opposing the inadequate or improper calculations arrived, our Case manager has gleefully decided to accept  the refund of the 20 % amount by the Court.
When the shocked Post 1997 retirees who are the source and main contributors to the legal expenses here humbly enquire about their fate now, those responsible to answer, feebly say now things like – We have a strategy which cannot be revealed for obvious reasons – let us wait and see what payments LIC Makes – Legal Committee meetings will finalise further action etc.
“ ANY TAKERS”
All the Pensioners are so far led to believe that the benefits Under SC order flow to all of them. This is to convey our WORRY AND ANGUISH through this post because AIRIEF concentrated all its financial might and efforts here.
DELHI HIGH COURT: Here the case is filed on behalf of Pre 1997 retired Officers. Therefore here the post 1997 pensioners belonging to all other cadres are not taken care of .
Punjab and Haryana High Court : Here all the petitioners are pre 01.08.1997 retirees. Here also LIC repeated what all they did at Rajasthan High Court. To pay the interim relief they petitioned for refund of 20% of the amount deposited in the court. Fortunately this is opposed by the case manager explaining the mischievous game of LIC and the inadequacy of the amount they deposited in the court. The petitioners presented to the court the amounts due to them as per the judgement and what a low amount is deposited by LIC. LIC petition for refund of 20 % of deposited amount is dismissed subsequently an I A is made in the SC by the case manager regarding non payment of Interim relief which is coming up for hearing on 07.09.2015

But Sir, here also the Post 1997 retirees are not represented. In his recent post Sri M S M wrote that they are working out on the strategies to get SC order benefits to all 40000 retirees. As I see presently, for the post 1997 retirees this is the only hope and solace. Let us wish him success in his efforts .


B.Sudhakar
Retd. SDM/ Dy.ZM, Visakhapatnam

Insurance Week 2015



29 Aug 15, 10:30 PM

B Ganga Raju: COME SEPTEMBER and Insurance Week commences on the first day of September. The celebrations, opening of enquiry counters etc. are routinely done every year.

Is it not odd that LIC Pensioners do not get invited to participate in Insurance Week celebrations or the valedictory?

Each D.O. can invite the Pensioners to participate in the event by sending mails or SMS messages. (The offices have mail IDs of pensioners).

LIC belongs to all...the serving employees, pensioners, field force, officers, the public at large.

Once an LICian always an LICian.


30 Aug 15, 10:50 AM

subburathinam: Ganga Raju Sir !! U r having poor memory.R U not aware of a C.O.circular regarding DESTRUCTION OF OLD RECORDS, depending on the type of document, various time limits are given.

I remember that in all most all the Branches, including DOs, we from Audit will have a major query. And this query will be repeated every year. In some of these offices however, a document will be created which will contain names of files destroyed.

Last few years, after our retirement, they have included in this list of documents to be destroyed, all pensioners too perhaps.


30 Aug 15, 12:54 PM


k s murthy: In Rajahmundry division pensioners are invited for insurance week celebration

30 Aug 15, 05:14 PM

v.s.rajamani: In Coimbatore DO pensioners are being invited for Insurance week celebrations. Pensioner's grievances were listened to and problems that could be solved at DO level were taken care of.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

M. Sreenivasa Murty



Apropos the 7 May Order of the Supreme Court that LIC shall release 20% of the amount ‘as per the impugned judgement of the High Court’ (which is yet to be implemented), it is clear that LIC is playing the game by setting its own rules.

LIC was successfully challenged at Chandigarh and it had to eat the humble pie by withdrawing its application for withdrawal of money.
In Delhi, we a see a different ball game – let us watch.

In Jaipur, LIC took two years to deposit a total sum of Rs. 19,63,638/- in three instalments between 23.12.2011 and 20.11.2013. The amount withdrawn viz., Rs 3,92,727.60 cannot be the amount to be paid because even as per its faulty formula, LIC has to add what is due after 20.11.2013 up to 30 April 2015 to appear as honouring the 7 May Order. So when the amount released/paid eventually is more (by a few thousands each) than the amount withdrawn, one may claim, ‘See, I told you, the amount withdrawn has nothing to do with the amount payable - both are different’. ‘My theory stands proved, I am vindicated.

The fact of the matter by way of a real example is, in a given case in Chandigarh, LIC deposited Rs. NIL up to 31.07.1997 as against Rs 19,680/- due. Obviously there is no weightage till then. Continuing the faulty formula till 31.07.2014 in the same case the amount deposited (of course without weightage) was Rs 34,883/- as against Rs 12,41,310/- due with weightage.

The mischief at Chandigarh shown above was only a repeat of what was done in Jaipur. So, as and when any payment is made in Jaipur (Rs.3,92,727.60 or even after adding a few thousand more to take it up to April 2015), Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana should cry foul, blow the whistle, join the platform at SC already secured for 7 Sept 2015 by the Chandigarh Petitioners and collaborate in exposing the highhandedness of LIC and the shabby interpretation given by it to the 7 May Order. If he has a different agenda, that is a different matter.

If the Respondents in all the three CAs cannot have identical views on the import of the 7 May Order, it amounts to compromising the interests of the Pensioners community as a whole.

May God be with us…
                 

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

A decision of the Central Information Commission to provide 
required information to a Pensioner / Senior Citizen

We forward herewith a soft copy of the above decision made available to us by Shri J.P.Shah, RTI & Consumer Activist 
Yours sincerely,
B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary

LIC watching Pensioners Chronicle



Encouraging words the need of the hour from Sri Sreenivasa murti : ‘ Let all the orphaned pensioners wait till 7 th September. They will not remain orphaned thereafter’ provides the much needed solace at this hour of suspense and we hope that his revelation comes biblical.

Meanwhile our good and erudite friends out of sheer enthusiasm and anxiety did a postmortem of the Board resolution and the Jaipur judgment came out with their own diagnosis relating to the upgradation of pension some being negative and some being positive and in the diagnosis some moot points surfaced which does not go in our favor which may provide necessary ammunition to the appellant to use them in their defense. 

Suffice to say that as LIC/GOI will be closely watching what is written and said in the Pensioners chronicle,  it would be wise for anybody for the time being until the SC rises refrain from giving their own observations which does not go in our favor.


R.K.Viswanathan

                       

Crossfire


Dear Editor,

I have really enjoyed today morning reading divergent views on your blog from our two learned friends under the caption Crossfire.

I also wish to join both of them by raising a few issues as below.
1. Caption should be Healthy Debate..

2. Yes I agree that GNS must have written to LIC for immediate release of payment to all pre 01.08.1997 retirees in stead of falling in LIC Trap for providing list of in force members and this one single step by GNS would have made him a real hero of LIC Pensioners Community. But it seems that this match was already fixed.

3. LIC has interpreted supreme court order dated 07.05.2015 as usual in its own style and more so LIC did not show any respect and regard for said court order with its act of non compliance within six weeks time.

Why non compliance within six weeks time limit by LIC has not been highlighted or taken up by our two great Leaders means GNS & KML

4. LIC did not deposit correctly amount actually payable to petitioners at two high courts, means no money for pension upgradation or even DA to pre 1997 retirees also calculated wrongly means same being without any weightage of 11.25 % as stipulated in LIC Board Resolution.

Is there any sense to support LIC Application or Move for withdrawal of this petty amount and that also not within six weeks time limit ?

We have also read a new theory floated by KML that there is lot of difference between amount withdrawn and amount to be paid means that LIC will withdraw amount  but is likely to pay much higher amount to petitioners.

I hope that our learned friends and esteemed readers will initiate a healthy debate on this issue also.

5 Yes, I agree with a view that being a member of any pensioners organisation does not mean extending blind support to every wrong action or theory of our top leaders. All Members have their own identity and enjoy full freedom to expose any wrong action or misdeed by our so called leaders.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula

Friday, August 28, 2015

Crossfire


28 Aug 15, 05:55 PM

m.manohar: 

Subburathinam's joke is interesting. Persons who remained outside Unions did receive monies out of wage revisions. They enjoyed non-member status, criticised all, lost no wage-cut for participation in any form of agitation have made themselves as successful and such persons can be seen in any organisation. Any settlement is their right. Such persons have also throughout criticised Unions for any form of agitations. 

Here also those who remained outside Associations expect that they should get all benefits made available even though court cases are initiated by members of Union and benefit is available to members of the Union which filed the suit. If they wish to receive benefits, they should better approach LIC for their kindness and need not cry unashamedly in public. In private they can shed their tears. In court cases in Jaipur and P&H HC only those who went to the court are receiving benefits which Shri Asthana has decided to receive. Though lakhs of Rupees were spent for conduct of the court cases, Asthana will jolly well enjoy all the monies. Then nobody has any complaint. Even Sridharan's list is not available, yet paragraphs are written for receiving the benefits.

Try to be atleast part of organised union movements, fight for your rights. And it is a sorry picture that those who never joined any movement, now stand up and speak for those who have always received benefits in the past even without any struggle which is a normal union activity.Those who were in the galleries all these days and enjoying the play are also demanding their 'fees' for watching the show. And there also persons out to plead for the cases of these orphans. Let us continue to watch this interesting show!




28 Aug 15, 06:11 PM

subburathinam: 

Mr.Manohar !! u r missing the crux of the issue. I have already said I am not among pre 97 retirees. I may add that I was also not only member but also held responsible posts in Fedn from 1975 till 94. I continue to be a member till this day. That is not the point here. U r talking about the relationship between a union and its member. I am talking about the legal obligations of an employer towards its own employees to ensure that they make no discrimination amongst workers who fall in the same category. Please avoid abusive words in your chat. 

I have known people who did not pay membership fee but made considerable donations. How do u treat them now? They avoided membership for obvious reasons.  I do not know anything about Asthana. Even with regard to GNS , I asked only for facts. All that I said was that and will continue to say is that GNS should say at least that he stands for all Class I officers who are pensioners now. I expect GNS to declare that LIC should have straightaway paid 20% or any amount direct to all the officers/pensioners for whom he had filed the case. Of course, he could represent only class I, not others. But even this, he did not do. Manohar Sir ! Let me repeat, that I am a post 1997 pensioner, but still was with GNS when he said DA neutralisation for pre 97 was the main issue and he is not averse to taking updation alongside.

Manohar Sir ! U may be correct when u refer to employees who are not members of any union and criticize everybody but receive the benefits after settlement of pay scales. This point is well received.

But the issue i am raising is different. Having said that, I expect GNS sir to come forward with facts and affirm that he represents and represented the case of all pre 97 pensioners, at least Class I among them. 

Manohar Sir !! I am not with any other group. I still continue with GNS assn only but that does not deter me from raising my voice against something which I honestly feel is not correct.

Subburathinam's chat


Dear Editor,


Subbu is known all these days for his wonderful chats with a refined humor. Like many Readers/Pensioners I feel better each time I read his posts.

Today he is angry. He said he was writing his latest Post 'with a heavy heart'. It is actually his righteous indignation. He is fully justified and all his points are valid. Like him many, including GNS's members feel let down.

But I am eager to appeal to Subbu, JUST TO IGNORE GNS & THE FEDERATION. GNS was brilliantly trapped by LIC. But he and LIC combined, CANNOT do any damage to the interests of Pensioner community.

Let all the Orphaned Pensioners wait till 7th Sept. They will not remain orphaned thereafter.

Thanks and regards,
Sreenivasa Murty M

Subburathinam


28 Aug 15, 07:48 AM

subburathinam: In any organisation, many many employees prefer to remain outside the control and membership of any union. When a wage agreement arrives, no question is raised as to whether u r a member.

The wage agreement is for all, though negotiations are done with recognized unions only. So, any union recognised notionally represents all employees, not its members alone.

I have a good many number of colleagues who preferred to remain outside the Fedn for good reasons. A leader envisions good of the people in entirety. Not to his chelas. I write this with a heavy heart.

Secondly, LIC implemented wage revisions for all employees, not for only members of Associations with whom they conducted negotiations. Any decision conveying an enhanced benefit must encompass all.

Having a motto, YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM, LIC now says probably GNS kshemam vahaymaham. Let me add I am not a beneficiary if 100% neutralsation comes for pre 97 retirees. But I felt it was just as it tended to remove anomalies amongst pensioners. Not GNS and orgn dividing even pre 97 retirees appears to be inhuman. I want to be enlightened as to the exact facts of what exactly goes on NOW.

GNS and our orgn appear to divide even pre 1997 retirees. This is to say the least heart breaking. Let wisdom prevail on all sides.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

IA No 6 of 2015 in CA No 6995 of 2013


Dear Editor,


The IA is shown at Sl No 22 of the Advance Cause List for 7 Sept 

2015 as per the extract attached. PLEASE CLICK HERE


Thanks and regards,
Sreenivasa Murty M

FAMILY PENSION ANOMALY

Dear Mr Chandrasekaran,

Referring to our telephonic talk today, I attach a letter by email  written by me to Chairman in Sept 2014 CLICK HERE FOR LETTER TO CHAIRMANalong with an illustration CLICK HERE FOR ILLUSTRATIONto demonstrate the anomalies in Family Pension arising if the method adopted by LIC  for depositing the amounts in HC Registry of Chandigarh is followed.

This illustration -besides other  arguments-is sufficient to nail LIC  on its faulty approach towards pension revision.

Let us hope LIC gracefully recognises their fallacious approach and graciously and rationally rectifies the anomalies before being pulled up be the Apex Court.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan


The most, unkindest cut of all !

He cannot be reminded of even a small slip !

Whose turn it will be in AIRIEF
to talk about Pension?





Shri P. Ramanathan writes: This is the most unkindest cut of all,  KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT CHIEF (Personnel), Central Office, CAN DO ABSOLUTELY - repeat ABSOLUTELY - NOTHING IN RE PENSION AT ANY TIME, ESPECIALLY IN THE PRESENT SCENARIO and so DISCUSSING "PENSION" WITH HIM  WILL SERVE NO PURPOSE, IT WILL BE AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY.


(When a Pensioner Association leader talks to the Chief (P), he in fact talks to LIC. Any issue/pension issue including release of 20% as per SC order could be discussed with him and the pensioners informed of latest position in the matter. Ed.)

Chat column comments


27 Aug 15, 10:48 AM


subburathinam: GNS in his Delhi case, appears not to represent even all Class I for which he was GS for well over two to three decades, but a restricted group loyal to him. 

I am not one in the pre 1997 group. But justice demands that at least there should be no discrimination amongst all pensioners.  I was supporting GNS. Now I learn to my dismay that he does not even represent the Class I officers for whom he was GS for well over three decades. Will Uppiliappan approve this !! I wonder.!!


27 Aug 15, 11:37 AM

m.manohar: 

POINT OF NO RETURN: CH Mahadevan's response


Mr M V Venugopalan has reflected on the ground realities on the manner in which the three cases are handled in the Supreme Court with no unity of purpose. We have to accept it as a fact  of organisational life of the pensioners' fraternity. But we can, in my opinion, have faith in the judiciary to arrive at an objective decision irrespective of the notes of discord wherever they arise among the three sets of respondents, purely  based on points of law.

As regards his remarks on the sketchiness of both 
the Board Resolution and the Justice Bhandari 
judgment,my reading and re-reading of  both the 
documents leads me to conclude that there is no 
need to have an iota of doubt that both provide 
for upgradation of pension.

The Board note uses the word "upgradation of pension with 11.25% weightage as provided for in service employees".

The pages 9 to 18 of the Jaipur judgment deal with not only the dearness relief anomaly,but also the discrimination in regard to."dearness allowance or other benefits"(page18).

The last sentence of the operative part of the judgment clearly states that there cannot be discrimination while stating ."......so that every retired employee may get the same benefit"

The D S Nakara judgment has also come up for considerable length of discussion which would not have been necessary if only DR anomaly was to be ordered to be removed. A mere  consideration of Art 14 & 16 of the Constitution would have sufficed. Of course these two Articles are  very much relevant for upgradation of pension also.

LIC  was in a mood to address the issue of DR anomaly while wage revisions w.e.f 1/8/2007 were to be finalised in 2010.But the moment the Jaipur judgment was delivered, LIC  put the DR anomaly removal in cold storage because LIC knew very well that the judgment covered upgradation also and decided to appeal.Rest is history. If LIC believed that Jaipur judgment covered only DR anomaly, they would have very happily implemented the judgment and we could all have forgotten about any possibility of getting upgraded pension for ever.

Now at least there is a ray of hope for a possible redress  in the Supreme Court.
Let us hope for the best in the meantime.

I attach the copy of the Jaipur judgment for ready reference CLICK HERE TO READ JAIPUR JUDGMENT in case  the readers may like to gain fresh insights by reading it again (It may already be in the archives,but still I thought it will be useful for ready reference).

Greetings.
C H Mahadevn

Chat column comments



27 Aug 15, 09:04 AM

JM Aboobucker: The odds against our case appear to outweigh the favourable points. 1. Bickering and infighting among the 3 litigants leading to different approach to the common issues of LIC Pensioners.

2. The much relied about LIC Board Resolution by the Litigants is only for 100% DA according to LIC.

4. Our Pension Scheme is a Defined Benefit Scheme which has to be viable by our own pension fund management. The DB pension scheme according to any countries of the world is unsustainable and become obsolete. Hence they are changing to the Contributory Pension Scheme now called in India as New Pension Scheme which is supposed to sustain on its own without State Subsidy.

5. The oft repeated Ripple Effect by GOI. Any favourable judgement will certainly create more headache to the MOF/GOI from the bank pensioners. Even if all these odds are surmounted to get a favourable Judgement, as Mr Christian has rightly pointed out, the biggest odd is the implementation by the GOI. Hence September may come and go but the woes of the pensioners will remain ever.


27 Aug 15, 09:10 AM 
jn christian: @ ms rao sir and because of that monopoly syndrome of so called namo's gujarat model presently gujarat is facing patidar's agitation. IS IT NOT MISUSE OF PEOPLE'S (ELECTEROTE) TRUST.

 @ JM Aboobucker: SIR, EVEN LICIANS MANAGE TO GET FAVOURABLE SETTLEMENT IN THEIR FAVOUR FROM JUDICIARY STILL THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND ENACTED BY POLICY MAKERS..

 @ ALL WELL WISHERS THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE SUMMED UP IS “ Invention is exhausted, Reason is fatigued, Experience has given its judgement but Obstinacy remains unconquered”.


27 Aug 15, 10:03 AM

M S Rao: September may come and go but the woes of the pensioners will remain ever & Onion prices will keep rising as long as rulers keep touring ignoring home country ! Now is time ripe for an ONION SATYAGRAHA who is going to be an ONION GANDHI!

Chat column comments


27 Aug 15, 08:25 AM 

jn christian: Respected M.V.VENUGOPALAN sir strong words in right spirit presented by u. the only common thing about orop and licians pensioners struggle is both r cheated by law makers and govt...

the present democratically elected govt is not enacting the approved and sanctioned definition of orop THEN IT IS CHEATING ONLY WITH STAKE HOLDERS AND NOTHING ELSE.....

 IT SEEMS FM SRI AJ HAS TAKEN TO HEART THE DEFEAT IN LS ELECTION AT THE HANDS OF EX MILITARY PENSIONER CAPTAIN AMRAINDER SINGH AND NOT GIVING CONSENT TO APPLICATION OF OROP...

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION


​Letter from AIBRF to IBA seeking 
appointment to discuss bank retirees' issues​

    E-mail received from GS, AIBRF and its attachment are forwarded herewith.

Yours sincerely,
B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

MV VENUGOPALAN



Dear Editor,


It is unfortunate and rather sickening to see that the blame 

game is continuing unabated. The SC Order of 7th May seem 

to convey different things to the three leaders. Each is finding 

fault with the other for the strategies adopted. While both 

Mr.Murty and Asthana have made their intentions clear and 

open, what Sri.GNS is doing is under wrap. The net result, as 

on date, is that none of the pensioners has received a pie so far 

from LIC.


They are in the dark not only about the goings on but also about what is due to them as per the purported order  and how much they will be receiving from LIC.  The talk that what LIC has deposited in both Jaipur and Punjab and Haryana H.C is far short of the amount legitimately due to the ‘eligibles’ has further confused them.  The  fate of the post-1997 pensioners  is more pathetic. None of the three Case managers has any clue as to whether the Order speaks about only the DR arrears or it includes the arrears relating to up-gradation of pension too.   The wordings “ as per the impugned order” of the HC has been  mauled and disfigured beyond recognition. Each one has adduced his own reason for not making an attempt to ascertain what exactly  the 7th May Order meant and who are the targeted group.   The most gullible amongst them even showed utmost readiness to furnish  any information that LIC dared to ask for , in absolute contravention to the spirit of the Supreme Court Order. In short, 20% arrears has brought in its wake , only agony and total confusion to the pensioners. Thank God, the predicament is confined  to the expectant 1500 pensioners (approximately).

While Mr.Murty seems to have  taken some damage control measures by  filing an  IA in the SC, pointing out the dilatory and wilfully obfuscating  tactics of LIC in postponing the payments due to the pensioners  (petitioners in respect of both Jaipur and P&H HCs) and forestalling  contempt proceedings against them, Shri. Asthana is,perhaps,  waiting  in the fond hope that LIC will disburse to the petitioners under the Jaipur HC an amount  arrived at by him, which includes the 20% arrears pertaining to Up-gradation also. Absolutely ludicrous and  laughable  situation indeed!

Why not the three of them understand the simple logic of ‘tagging’ all the three cases?  The nature of the litigation being the same and the aggrieved parties being of a homogeneous nature the SC was very right in tying them together.  No one might have imagined that even though the over-riding concern viz; relief to the entire community of pensioners in the form of solving the issue of parity in DR and up-gradation of pension, is the same,  the three parties involved will pull in totally different directions. Any judge hearing our case is bound to be  entirely mislead by the line of arguments advanced by each party, thus delivering a judgment not doing full justice to all the three parties concerned.  This kind of  lack of unity is unheard of in any other Organisations who are also fighting similar such cases. This being the ground reality, the outcome of the SC hearing fixed for the 7th of September is a foregone conclusion.  As long as this divisive approach stays with us, LIC and the GOI will be further emboldened to strike us as hard as possible  and ensure that the victory is snatched away from us.  The very reason why they are treating the court directions with impunity and disrespect is because of the split which is wide open amongst the three of them.

Another bickering which greatly annoys us is the tussle between Mr.Murty and Mr.Asthana with regard to the legal wisdom under each ones command. Mr.Asthana seems to be under an illusion that he is the last word as far as legal  matters are concerned and no one else can be a match to him. Luckily for us,Mr.Sridharan is not in the ring to take the fight to the enemies camp. I must say that we are extremely fortunate to have all the three case-managers who are also legally qualified and practising even now.  Is it necessary that we have to depend too much on them  for legal advise when we are also engaging senior advocates to argue our cases. Supposing, it had turned out that none of them possess a legal qualification, will we not depend on our counsels to fight our case. Please, therefore, involve them more and more and allow them also certain independence when it comes to how they would like to handle the hearings. Let us not forget that they are paid for that. After all the legal issues we are dealing with are not ‘rocket science’ and all of us who have worked in LIC for 30 to 40 years know a little bit of what court cases mean.

The OROP  and our issue has no parallels whatsoever. Their pension is paid out of Govt.exchequer and our pension is paid out of the accretions to our pension fund. It should be self-sustaining So also the central-Govt pension ,the pension payable to the RBI pensioners etc.  The closest example can be that of Bank pensioners. Banking Industry and Insurance Industry are two sides of the same coin. Pensioners of the Banks are keenly watching the development of our case in the SC. The chief reason why the GOI is so much antagonistic is they are concerned that once the up-gradation is through for us, whatever the route, it will open up floodgates of series of similar issues elsewhere. The BUREAUCRATS   are dead against others getting the same benefits like themselves. The govt.of the day , a majoritarian one, in principle,  want only the ‘contributory ’pension to remain as the singular route for pension to the organised employee class,leaving intact,of course the social security option to the under-privileged. We cant rule out even the judiciary taking a stand favourable to the Govt for social reasons,notwithstanding the constitutional protection etc. (Article 14 and 16) we have,prohibiting discrimination of any form.

If they want to avoid a POINT OF NO RETURN  and remove the road-blocks, they have got to see the writing on the wall. During my recent talks with a few of our right-thinking pensioners, they strongly felt that not only our Board Resolution, but even Honble.Bhandari’s judgment too is sketchy  and not emphatic about up-gradation. Removal of parity in DR was,in fact, a non-issue vis-à-vis the up-gradation. It is time the three of them realised this truth  and worked towards  implementation of a common agenda which inter-alia, should ensure flow of the benefits arising out of the final verdict(hopefully)  to all the pensioners.  They must engage themselves in a consultative process with the active involvement of their counsels before entering the portals of the Supreme Court. WE CAN HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR ACTIONS  BUT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE GOVERNED BY LAWS OF NATURE. In order the consequences don’t go haywire, let us exercise control over our actions!.

  With warm Regards,
  M.V.VENUGOPALAN

Pension

Whose turn it will be in AIRIEF to talk about Pension?

Will the Class I Federation make the list public?‏


My telephonic interaction with a few pre-August 1997

retiree-members of the  affiliate Associations of  the Class I

retirees' Federation indicate that Mr G N Sridharan,

Gen, Secy has assured them that he proposes to furnish

the full list of pre-August 1997 retiree members to

LIC irrespective of their fulfilling the criteria laid down

by LIC in its letter dt 6/7/2015 to the Federation.



My information is that there is no official communication by way of a circular from the Federation in regard to the steps taken by the Federation for securing interim relief to its members as per the SC order dt 7/5/2015.
  • Will the Federation come out with the list furnished to LIC CO in public domain so that eligible members will satisfy themselves  that their names find a place in the list and any omissions can be brought to the notice of the Federation?
The more crucial point that emerges is that if the Federation  has furnished the  complete list of pre-August 1997 retiree members,whether LIC will act on the list. In all probability, they will not. To my knowledge at least one affiliated Association,viz,.Cuttack Association was formed in 2010 and if the names of members of that Association have been furnished,we can expect LIC not to consider them eligible for payment of interim relief.

The better course for the Federation would have been to reply to LIC that as the Delhi HC  judgment was  for payment of benefits in rem the Federation had no list to furnish and that LIC could act according to the judgment by reference to its own  pensioners' records.Instead it has walked into the trap laid by LIC to successfully escape from charges of contempt of Supreme Court orders.Ultimately the gap between the interim relief payment and the potential final relief is narrowing every day with pensioners' mortality taking its toll.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan  

M.Sreenivasa Murty


Our Pension Cases in Supreme Court                                

20% Payment still in thin Air 
IA filed on behalf of Chandigarh Petitioners - 

An 
Update

The IA (No 6 of 2015 in CA No 6995 of 2013) filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court on behalf of the Chandigarh Petitioners is slated to come up for hearing before Justice Dipak Misra’s Bench on 7 Sept 2015.

The chief purpose of the IA is to invite the Supreme Court’s attention to how LIC defied its 7 May Order and did not consider it necessary even to seek extension of time from the Court for complying with the Order. It is hoped that the Supreme Court would take serious note of the brazenness of LIC’s non-compliance amounting to deliberate defiance and pass appropriate directions afresh.                                                  

It should be clear to everybody by now that the six-week time limit stipulated by the Supreme Court to make 20% payment was NOT taken seriously by LIC right from day one. Not only the time limit, the Order to pay 20% itself was not to the liking of LIC and it did not hesitate first to mislead the Apex Court on 7 May (that it had already deposited in the Court, the amount payable under the Judgement), but later took all the time it wanted, to apply to Jaipur & Chandigarh HCs for withdrawal of the 20% of the amount deposited. And what it did in the case of Delhi Petitioners is the height of its impetuousness when it could add, modify and interpret the SC Order, as it chose to while taking a stand on who are entitled to be paid under the Delhi Judgement. 

Unfortunately, Mr GN Sridharan, obliged LIC by furnishing the list of his members who according to him are eligible to receive the 20% payment ordered by SC. It is not known whether Sri GNS has also certified that the list he gave contains only names who qualify the conditions stipulated by LIC. If he has not, for instance, if he ignored the validity of membership clause on a certain date, as prescribed by the Corporation, chances are that LIC will not honour the list, as it cannot waive its own conditions. 

On the other hand, if he furnished only such names who are his valid members on each of the given dates, firstly he will be dropping the names of several of his otherwise valid members and secondly his claim that all pre-Aug 97 retirees are eligible for some benefit under the Delhi Judgement, also stands negated as he would have voluntarily surrendered the in rem relief granted by the Delhi HC. What LIC does for the Delhi petitioners, is worth watching.                   

As of now, no payment was made to Jaipur petitioners although LIC had a cake walk in withdrawing Rs 3,92,727.60 through its application that had a safe passage, thanks to Mr Krishna Murari Lal’s very original and very unique strategy.

When IA No 6 of 2015 is taken up for consideration on 7 Sept 2015, one can expect LIC to make all foul noises. How much support LIC receives from the Delhi & Jaipur petitioners and with what wonderful reasoning, would probably unveil some new hues of the concerned players.

In the meantime, I am exploring options available to ensure that the benefits flowing from the final Judgement will be applicable to the forty thousand plus pensioners all over the country and not limited to the elite group of 1327. In other words, let there be no orphaned pensioners left behind while some leaders may merrily disown their members as they are not accountable for any of their actions.  

On that mission, and its roadblocks, I wish to cover in my next post.
M Sreenivasa Murty