My response to the
comments of Mr G.N. Sridharan
on the issue of ‘upgradation of pension’ and
on the issue of ‘upgradation of pension’ and
‘revision of pension’ in the context of
the
Board Resolution dated 24th November,2001.
CH MAHADEVAN, HYDERABAD
It is quite interesting to read the comments of Mr G.N.Sridharan giving his views on the intent of the LIC Board Resolution and the distinction between ‘upgradation’ and 'revision’ of pension. I am sure all the pensioners will indeed be enlightened with his interpretation.
What puzzles me is, when the Board Resolution recommended upgrading the pensions linked to 600 points of index and 1148 points of index to 1740 points of index and payment of Dearness Relief on the pension so upgraded at the rate of 0.23% for every four points of index, how could it have been done effective from only a prospective date unless the purpose was to combine both the aspects of 100% DR neutralization and revision of pension at the same time?
We all know very well that DR anomaly has been existing right from 1/11/1993 on account of differential DA/DR formula for in- service and retired employees under (both the categories 600 pts & 1148pts pension). If the Board’s intention was only to remove the DR anomaly without revision of pension, they that could very well have recommended making a uniform DR formula on par with in-service employees starting from 1/11/1993 for all retirees who retired before 1/8/1992(1/4/1993 for Class I/II Officers) and all other pensioners retired upto 31/7/1997 from the dates of their retirement. In my view, the purpose of the recommended convergence for merger at 1740 points effective from 1/8/1997 clearly establishes the intent of the Board Resolution to effect an upgradation-cum-revision for pre Aug 1997 pensioners. Once this approach is followed, logically the same approach will have to be followed w.e.f wage revision dates for all pensioners retiring during the inter-wage revision periods after 1/8/1997.
Instead of following this approach brought out in the Board Resolution and the Jaipur Single Bench judgment, LIC seems to have resorted to a very narrow interpretation of both restricting the upgradation only to merger of DR actually applicable to the pension actually drawn by the retiree instead of upgrading the pension to the amount applicable to an employee who retires at the same stage of pay after 1/8/1997.This narrow puts a pre Aug 1997 pensioner into a highly disadvantageous position as illustrated below.
Please click on 'read more' below.
I worked out an illustration taking the case of a DM who retired between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997 at the maximum of the scale, i.e. Rs 5225, for three assumed scenarios of pension upgradation/revision as follows:-
I worked out an illustration taking the case of a DM who retired between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997 at the maximum of the scale, i.e. Rs 5225, for three assumed scenarios of pension upgradation/revision as follows:-
ILLUSTRATION OF PENSION ANOMALY FOR
DM RETIRED BETWEEN 1/4/1993 TO 31/7/1997 UNDER THREE SCENARIOS OF ANOMALY
REMOVAL
|
|
BASC PENSION ASSUMED AT
MAXIMUM OF SCALE = 5225
|
|
Existing Basic Pension
|
5225
|
Existing DR on 1/2/2013
|
13439
|
Gross Pension on 1/2/2013
|
18664
|
SCENARIO A. LIC DECIDES TO MERGE BASIC PENSION AND DR AT 1740
POINTS AND NO FURTHER
|
|
Existing Basic pension
|
5225
|
DR as at 1/8/1997
|
2078
|
Gross Pension as on 1/8/1997
|
7303
|
BP after merger on 1/8/1997
|
7303
|
DR as at 1/2/2013
|
13589
|
Gross Pension on 1/2/2013
|
20892
|
SCENARIO B: DR MERGER CONTINUED
ON 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007
|
|
Merged BP on 1/8/1997
|
7303
|
DR as at 1/8/2002
|
2469
|
Merged B.P. On 1/8/2002
|
9772
|
DR as at 1/8/2007
|
2709
|
Merged B.P on 1/8/2007
|
12481
|
DR as at 1/2/2013
|
9511
|
Gross Pension as at 1/2/2013
|
21991
|
SCENARIO C:PENSION IS REVISED IN EVERY WAGE REVISION MAINTAINING
PARITY ON 1/8/1997,1/8/2002,&1/8/2007
|
|
Existing BP on 1/8/1997
|
5225
|
Revised BP on 1/8/1997
|
8575
|
Revised BP on 1/8/2002
|
13290
|
Revised BP on 1/8/2007
|
21430
|
DR on last revised BP as at 1/2/2013
|
16330
|
Gross Revised Pension as at 1/2/2013
|
37760
|
Scenario
|
BP +DR as at 1/2/2013
|
% increase in monthly gross pension as at 1/2/2013 over existing
gross pension
|
Existing on 1/2/2013
|
18664
|
|
If only merger done on 1/8/1997( Scenario A)
|
20892
|
11.9
|
If merger principle
continued upto 1/8/2007( Scenario B)
|
21991
|
17.8
|
If revision is effected
maintaining parity
(Scenario C) |
37760
|
102.3
|
The following
graphics bring out the differences very clearly between the three scenarios.
There may be differences in the degree of variation for lower and higher cadres of pensioners. But the fact remains that justice can be done to all pensioners only if revision of pension as defined by M.r G.N.Sridharan is effected right from 1/11/1993 or at least from 1/8/1997. I believe that the case being assiduously fought in the courts by Mr. Asthana aims to achieve justice through scenario C which, in my opinion, stands on a strong ground, thanks to the reiterated orders of the Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court.
There may be differences in the degree of variation for lower and higher cadres of pensioners. But the fact remains that justice can be done to all pensioners only if revision of pension as defined by M.r G.N.Sridharan is effected right from 1/11/1993 or at least from 1/8/1997. I believe that the case being assiduously fought in the courts by Mr. Asthana aims to achieve justice through scenario C which, in my opinion, stands on a strong ground, thanks to the reiterated orders of the Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court.
Merely pursuing 100% DR neutralization bypassing – even temporarily - the option to fight for revision of pension in my opinion is not worth the cost and effort considering the relatively meager potential increase in gross pension and persisting anomalies and disparities in pension highly detrimental to aged pensioners and family pensioners even if LIC implements it.
