Thursday, April 30, 2015


To Chairman, L I C of India, Mumbai

Dear Sir,
  • Arising out of the reports in the media that the Government of India has decided to increase the minimum pension to Rs 1000/-p.m., kindly consider increasing the minimum pension( for both regular pensioners and family pensioners)keeping in view the same rationale adopted by the Government.
  • It is worthwhile to recall at this juncture that the RBI in 2012 not only revised the family pension upwards, but also increased the minimum family pension to Rs 3500/-p.m.
  • Thanking you in anticipation for an early and positive decision in the matter,
Yours faithfully,
C H Mahadevan
Executive Director(Retd)(LIC)



Dearness Allowance from May,'15 for the employees in service - NO CHANGE FOR PENSIONERS

Please see the attached circular.

General Secretary


Six Days to go
Dear Editor,

Much has been said by many on the wisdom or the lack of it in KML’s Sr Advocate arguing on the maintainability of LIC’s SLPs. Sri Mahadevan was almost poetic when he said that Mr Nidhesh Gupta was doing the right thing at the wrong time. Mr Gupta was yet to touch the SC Order dated 30/09/2013. When he or some other Advocate takes it to the notice of the Bench, the futility (with due respect) of Mr Nidhesh Gupta’s exercise will be clear on 7th May.  

Without prejudice to the above, I invite the urgent attention of everybody to the last sentence of the Bench Order dated 08/04/2015 which goes as:

“Apart from hearing this preliminary objection, we also intend to hear the case on merits. Learned counsel for the parties are requested to come prepared to argue the matter on 22nd April, 2015”. (Now deferred to 7th May)
In the light of the above, will Mr Nidhesh Gupta be right in persisting with arguing the maintainability and that ‘merits’ should wait for another round later?  Unfortunately we don’t know whether it is the chosen strategy of the Sr Advocate himself or it is as per the ‘instructions’ of the client. As the Sr Advocate is not accountable to anybody except the client and as in our case, the client never accepted any accountability to anybody in any matter at any time the Pensioners as a whole appear helpless. But I do hope that the AIRIEF which owns the case as its own should also either own or disown the strategy adopted by the Sr Advocate who gets paid by AIRIEF. The common concern is avoidable delay in the SC proceedings

M.Sreenivasa Murty

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Mr B S Hegde's post on maintainability of SLPs‏

NOW SOME HEALTH TALK: Banana is better than apples..

Bananas contain three natural sugars - sucrose,
fructose and glucose combined with fibre.
A banana gives an instant, sustained and
substantial boost of energy.
Research has proven that just two bananas provide enough energy for a strenuous 90-minute workout.
No wonder the banana is the number one
fruit with the world’s leading athletes.
But energy isn’t the only way a banana can help us keep fit.
It can also help overcome or prevent a substantial number of illnesses and conditions, making it a must to add to our daily diet.
Muscle Cramps
In two Mintues Cramps is gone that power full And amazing Fruit
According to a recent survey undertaken by
MIND amongst people suffering from depression,
many felt much better after eating a banana.
This is because bananas contain tryptophan, a
type of protein that the body converts into serotonin, known to make you relax,
improve your mood and generally make you feel happier.
Forget the pills
eat a banana.
The vitamin B6 it contains regulates blood glucose levels, which can affect your mood.
Anaemia :
High in iron, bananas can stimulate the production of hemoglobin in the blood and so helps in cases of anemia.
Blood Pressure:
This unique tropical fruit is extremely
high in potassium yet low in salt, making it perfect to beat
blood pressure. So much so, the US Food and
Drug Administration has just allowed the banana
industry to make official claims for the fruit’s ability
to reduce the risk of blood pressure and stroke.
Brain Power:
200 students at a Twickenham (Middlesex)
school ( England ) were helped through their
exams this year by eating bananas at breakfast, break,and lunch in a bid to boost their brain power.
Research has shown that the potassium-
packed fruit can assist learning by making pupils more alert.

I am amused reading comments about `maintainablily' voiced by some of most learned pensioners. Objections citing maitainabilty is the initial weapon any experienced lawyer would use to weed out attempts to drag the cases by the opposing party and Mr. Asthana's lawyer (not Mr. Asthana himself) has done the right thing to bring the issue under litigation (appeal by L.I.C.) against the Jaipur H.C. judgement (and also other H.C. judgements, which have specifically quoted and agreed with the decision of Justice Bhandari) to the right course. If the Spl leave petitions are dismissed then the court can concentrate on the points raised by L.I.C. in its Civil appeal and by the GOI through its affidavit. 

Courts (except in some spl. cases) generally follow traditions  and Advocates cannot break these traditions though on several occasions they attempt to do that. True that L.I.C. Pensioners are getting older and older and as time pass by some of them leave for heavenly abode; but simultaneously  the cases already piled up in the courts also get loaded with years as time pass by. It should be the constant endeavour of Advocates to attract attention and sympathy from the hearing judges so that his clients' case is heard of speedily. But we should also remember that Advocates of every other case would also try the same trick and in the process clients of those who fail to convince the Court for speedy disposal naturally get frustrated.

I am 75 and like all other pensioners I am also anxious for a favourable judgement from the Apex Court. Meanwhile let us not waste our energy huffing and puffing and instead try to find the most effective armoury to counter the tricky points raised by Advocates of L.I.C. and GOI. As I can see from the correspondences published in PC that we have right weapon, which our Advocates in S.C. should use effectively. Let us pray that they would do that.

B. S. Hegde


Sr. Counsel of Shri KML Asthanaji 
raised the 'Maintainability of SLPs ' in 
the Supreme Court on 08-04-2015 
(may not be at the cost of core 
issues?). Shri. Asthanaji is the 
right person to enlighten his comrades, 
fellow pensioners why they preferred 
to take resource to raise the issue of 
'Maintainability'. He may disclose the 
facts if the court etiquettes do not 
come in the way to share information 
or divulgence is not inappropriate.

A brief on the legal concept of "Maintainability" : for understanding of common/lay persons 

The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave, to appeal against any judgment or order or decree in any matter or cause, passed or made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. This is special power, bestowed upon the Supreme Court of India which is the Apex Court of the country, to grant leave to appeal against any judgment in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or gross injustice has been done. "Special leave petition" or SLP hold a prime place in the Indian judicial system. It provides the aggrieved party a special permission to be heard in Apex court in appeal against any judgment or order of any Court/tribunal in the territory of India.

Special Leave petition or SLP can be presented under (among other) following circumstance:
  • SLP can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any High Court /tribunal in the territory.
  • SLP can be filed against any judgment of High Court within 90 days from the date of judgement.
  • Or SLP can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.
Contents of SLP:
  • This petition is required to state all the facts that are necessary to enable the court to determine whether SLP ought to be granted or not. The petition should also contain statement that the petitioner has not filed any other petition in the High court.
The scope of power vested with the Supreme Court of India under Article 136
The constitution of India vest "discretionary power" in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India may in its discretion be able to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or decree or order in any matter or cause made or passed by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. The Supreme Court of India may also refuse to grant the leave to appeal by exercising its power.
It is discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its discretion refuse to grant leave to appeal. The aggrieved party cannot claim special leave to appeal under Article 136 as a right, but it is privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant leave to appeal or not. 

SN.(Summarised from net information)


    Seven Days to go

    MY VIEW - POST NO 5.
    Dear Editor,

    You raised the expectations 

    of all your readers with 

    the daylong flyer in the 

    PC on the ‘Need of the 

    Hour’ Post by Mr Venugopalan 

    that you were going to upload. 

    When it was published eventually, 

    it proved to be a damp squib 

    being some arm chair musings 

    of a distant dreamer full of rhetoric 

    and no substance. 

    Mr Venugopalan filled his Post in three parts, first to convey his appreciation for the coveted distinction achieved by LIC PC, the second to his own analysis of the Anonymous Writer’s role vis a vis your editorial policy and in the third part finally to his sage advice that we should take the adjournments in their stride philosophically and not make any fuss. I am still searching for what Mr Venugopalan wants to suggest as the Need of the Hour, as an action plan, instead of routine pep talk.

    Mr M V has no good words for GNS (nor do I), he wants me to come out of my syndrome and all that KML is doing is also wrong according to him. But all three of us (if we are the case managers in his view), should work with determination and renewed vigour bla-bla-bla.… That is the need of the hour. Very good, no dispute.

    I want to tell Mr M V and all Pensioners that any more adjournments without bringing the arguments on both sides to a closure can be disastrous to our interests. That is why I have been appealing to KML to think of working on those lines. Mr M V cannot describe my actions as ‘directions’ to Asthana.

    My efforts are on and in full swing to try to put the cases back on track on 7th May.   

    I seek from each of you for now – POSITIVE AFFIRMATION. 
     It sure will lead us to our coveted destination.

    M.Sreenivasa Murty



    Honestly, I felt amused reading through
    the two letters written by the AW and
    the correspondence of the well known
    persons, reacting to the contents
    of these letters, not very charitably.

    I am reminded of an incident which may not be parallel completely but is definitely relative to the present issue.

    It happened about 55years back. Prof. Ish Kumar, Head of the English Dept, Govt College Ludhiana wrote an article in the Tribune, the only English Daily published in the Punjab those days. I read the article with interest because once I had interacted with Prof.Kumar when he had visited my College earlier to give a lecture on LIfe in Cambridge.

    The subject of this article was WE INDIANS HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOUR. All hell broke loose and from next day onwards there were upto six letters a day condemning the foreign language and education and eulogising the ancient Indian culture.

    It continued for weeks.. At the end of 30 days, Prof.Kumar sent a brief note -

    I have read with interest all the protests.
    Very fact that we cannot accept any criticism 
    proves my point that we Indians have no sense 
    of humour.

    At the bottom was a note from the Editor "This correspondence is closed."


    SN Chhabra



    Dear Editor,

    I have read on your blog today morning two posts from Sh. Venugopalan as well as Sh. Mahadevan. Both are highly learned as well as respected personalities and hundreds of regular visitors of your blog like me feel enlightened.

    While trying to recollect an overview of our current legal battle, I observe that more than six months period was consumed by our Case Managers seeking an early hearing and a new twist and turn game is being played currently after we succeeded in our first mission..

    This new game called Twist and Turn is being played neither by GOI nor LIC but by one of our key Respondent cum Case Managers which is really very difficult to understand by our very senior pensioners above 75 years age and most of them start blaming current judicial system.

    My simple question is why hurdles are being created again and again under the cover of Maintainability resulting in frequent adjournments so as not to allow the case to reach a stage of continuous argument first by Petitioners LIC/ GOI followed by three Respondents.

    Will some one throw some light on this issue disturbing me or may be many others like me ?





    Mr M V Venugopalan’s post, he has cited the views of the protagonists of removal of DR anomaly only with 100% DR neutralisation to the exclusion of upgradation of pension in chain reading “We are on a shaky ground as far as our demand for upgradation of pension is concerned but 100% sure of wresting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court in the matter of parity in DA. If differential DA between pre 1997 and post 1997 pensioners is an anomaly and discrimination between two sets of pensioners, doesn't the same logic apply in the case of differential pension drawn by pensioners with the same designation and length of service but retired at different intervals?”

    May be the anxiety of this group of pensioners is understandable as such pensioners relatively older in the age group of 74-85 years ( including retired employees of erstwhile insurers) are desperate to obtain whatever benefits they can secure even if they fall short of what they are legally and legitimately entitled to.

    But there is a subtle and fine difference in the type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees and that being suffered by post July 1997 retirees. The type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees is additional to the discrimination arising out of non –up gradation of pension suffered by all pensioners retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/2007. The additional discrimination suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees springs from the anomaly of differential DR formula adopted in respect of pensioners vis-à-vis the in-service employees unlike in the case of post-July 1997 retirees for whom no anomaly exists on the DR front.

    • It is quite another matter that the Supreme Court may not necessarily provide partial justice to pensioners considering the fact that Jaipur Bench has allowed two distinct writ petitions – one allowing removal DR anomaly and the other allowing upgradation of pension- with reasoned observations. Even if – by a remote chance in my view-the Apex Court only allows DR anomaly removal & 100% DR neutralisation for pre-August 1997 pensioners, the matter will not end there as the removal of DR anomaly will have to be done according to the decision taken in the LIC Board Resolution of 24/11/2001 which while providing for removal of DR anomaly also provides for merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 with suitable weightage. If such a process is not adopted for post-July 1997 retirees, then there is bound to be a spate of vexatious litigations from post-July 1997 retirees. May be it will be a painful process for the affected ageing pensioners, but it may be inevitable. 

    I am sanguine that judicial wisdom will ultimately prevail in the disposal by Supreme Court of the three CAs and justice will be done to all affected pensioners without exception. With strong grounds in favour of pensioners, it is up to the three sets of case managers and counsel to make things happen in favour of pensioners.

    With greetings,
    C H Mahadevan

    Tuesday, April 28, 2015



    Letter dated 28.4.'15 by UFBU to IBA to 
    expedite negotiations of 10th BP Settlement


    General Secretary​



    Dear Shri.Gangadharan,

    Kindly accept my HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS on your BLOG hitting one million readers!. It is a commendable achievement, measured by any standards. I have no doubt in my mind that the Pensioners Community will ever feel grateful to you for this stupendous and selfless service. May God be with you in all your future, productive, endeavours!

    I admire your openness in publishing your views on the Anonymous Letters and the Maintainability aspect of our case, though I have difficulties in fully endorsing them. While it is the Editor's prerogative to decide whether a certain contribution from a person merits publication or otherwise, the CHRONICLE being essentially a mouthpiece of the LIC Pensioners, the Editor needs to accommodate their viewpoints and if necessary swing in the direction of the majority. As already pointed out by me, having published the first instalment of the letter, going ahead with the publication of the second letter of Mr. Anonymous, especially when the contents of which appears to be innocuous, will be perfectly O.K. However, for the reasons cited by many, it will not subscribe to the health of the Chronicle if a policy decision is not taken by the Editor not to publish any contribution from a person who wants to hide his/her identity for reasons best known to them only. 

    You will agree with me that we should not allow any devious intruder to hijack the smooth and harmonious flow of communication established through the Blog by dropping a bombshell which cuts at the very roots of the cause for which we have launched a legal fight. Let us not forget that we are living in an era of Adhars,Voters ID, Pancard etc etc to prove that we are citizens of this country and further whether it is opening of a Bank Account, applying for a mobile connection, pancard, or Insurance Policy, we have to submit a copy of our Photo. Therefore, I leave it to your Editorial wisdom and compulsions, if any, to consider whether Nameless-faceless writers should be encouraged!?

    All of a sudden, some of our friends have started nurturing a
    baseless and totally unwarranted doubt. We are on a shaky ground as
    far as our demand for Upgradation of pension is concerned but 100%
    sure of wresting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court in the
    matter of parity in DA. If differential DA between pre 1997 and post
    1997 pensioners is an anomaly and a discrimination between two sets
    of pensioners, doesn't the same logic apply in the case of
    differential pension drawn by pensioners with the same designation 
    and length of service but retired at different intervals? First of all,
    we should believe in what we are pursuing and the results it has
    produced so far. We are not seeking upgradation because 1) the Board
    Resolution says so 2) Article 14 and 16 of the constitution decries
    discrimination between two similarly placed person/s 3) aging
    pensioners are leaving this planet one after another 4) similar
    benefits were extended to central govt employees and state
    govt.employees. None of these. We are seeking this benefit since we
    feel that for a decent and dignified living, in these days of runaway
    inflation and ever-increasing age-related expenses this is something
    which we should legitimately get. The other reasons given above come
    as tools which help us prove our point. Three judgements in the
    Jaipur High court has vindicated this stand of ours. Why then this
    'butterflies in the stomach' feeling at the eleventh hour? Mr. G.N
    Sridharan is a strong advocate of this school of thinking. He even
    went to the extent of saying that the kind of fitment we are seeking
    is unheard of in the history of pensionery benefits granted by any

    The NEED OF THE HOUR, therefore, is to march ahead with renewed determination taking the adjournments and other minor hurdles in our stride. It is the bounden duty of our Case Managers to understand the simple truth that victory will only be in our imagination if they don't put their heads
    together and move as one unit. Mr.Sreenivasa Murty has to come out of the " I AM O.K YOU ARE NOT O.K" SYNDROME. How can he expect Shri.Asthana to act according to his directions?.
    Shri.Asthana is definitely not doing the right thing by keeping his intentions under cover by raising the 'Maintainability" card. If it is for some strategic reasons let him share it with the other case
    managers, though not with all the pensioner friends. Right now, by keeping silent, he is giving the impression that he is paving the way for stretching the case, detrimental to a possible, positive outcome. Why not the case managers to whom the pensioners have entrusted their future be totally pro-active and positive in their dealings?

    Adjournments are not threats but opportunities provided by the Almighty for having a wholesale re-think on the part of our Case Leaders and counsels for repositioning themselves in the Supreme Court when our case comes up on 7th. Please utilise this golden period for a peaceful, co-ordinated and well orchestrated onslaught against the GOI and LIC forgetting, for the moment they were our caregivers in the past; like perhaps Arjuna did in the war of Kurukshetra.

    I may be excused for making it so long.

    Once again wishing the 'CHRONICLE' LONG LIFE AND HAPPY ASSOCIATION' with its readers.

    Warm regards,



    Eight Days to go

    MY VIEW - POST NO 4.

    Dear LIC Pensioners,
    • Mr PG Gangadharan, is known so far as a very successful Editor of the illustrious Pensioners’ Chronicle. We all know now something more – that he remained a towering personality through his chequered career in LIC. 
    • My hearty felicitations to him. Anything more than that if I say here, he may be embarrassed and find it difficult to publish this Post. I will only conclude that his passion for his work is his ‘life time achievement’. We should all be proud to have him amidst us. 

    I promised to myself that with the willing cooperation of PG, I will Post a few lines each day on our burning topic and try not to be repetitive.

    I hope (and am working for) the scene before Justice Dipak Misra’s Bench in the Supreme Court will be different on and from 7th May 2015, from what we have been watching for several weeks now. There shall be NO SELF GOALS, the heat shall be turned on LIC & UoI to start arguing their Appeals & their SLPs and we the Pensioners’ custodians keep our weapons well-oiled, to fire when our turn comes. There may also be a fervent appeal to the Bench to hear our matters continuously and conclude the same before the summer vacation starts. It is not easy but certainly not impossible.

    I seek from each of you for now – POSITIVE AFFIRMATION.                                  
    It sure will lead us to our coveted destination.

    M.Sreenivasa Murty


    Nobody wants to be privy to the Anonymous! Nobody would like to subscribe to the views of the anonymous or the pseudonymous or for that matter to the views of any person or persons, which are conflicting with or against the concept of updating of pension.

    A learned judge had observed that the pension is not a booty. It has been earned by sweat of hard work. Periodic updating of pension is a must to compensate for reduced value of money / rupee and to compensate for inflation. It is a fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.....

    Majority of readers have expressed reservation for posting the letter of the anonymous. But not without reasons. The reasons are obvious. The anonymous is not suffering from paranoia. Nobody would appreciate the views of persons which are analogous or similar to the views of the opponents in the Courts, the GOI and the LIC. The long drawn legal battle is in progress. 

    The justice has been delayed ; the justice should not be denied.

    Der to ho gayi hai, andher naho ; Fikar mile, lekin fareb naho.

    SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

    Monday, April 27, 2015


    God, Devil and Poor Woman

    A very poor woman with a small family called-in to a radio station asking for help from God.

    A non-believer who was also listening to this radio program decided to make fun of the woman.

    He got the address of the poor woman. called his secretary and ordered her to buy a large amount of foodstuffs and take to the woman.

    However, he sent it with the following instruction: "When the woman asks who sent the food, tell her that its from the devil.''

    When the secretary arrived at the woman's house, the woman was so happy and grateful for the help that had been received. She started putting the food inside her small house.

    The Secretary then asked her, ''Don't you want to know who sent the food?''

    The woman replied, ''No, I don't even care because when GOD orders, even the devil obeys!

    Do you know who was the non-believer 
    who equated himself to the devil?

    It was the person who wrote an anonymous 
    letter dated 04-04-2015, followed by 
    another letter dated 17-04-2015.

    SN (a 1992 pensioner)
    (From sources and all in lighter vein)

    AW thinking in line with LIC arguments

    Dear Editor,

    I regret my comments regarding payment of arrears to you after reading your editorial views in response to my post.

    Still I will repeat my request to you for not publishing views of our dear AW friend which are nothing but a line of thinking of very senior advocates engaged by LIC/GOI in supreme court against poor and helpless pensioners.

    Yes, let me assure you that I will accept gracefully your decision even if otherwise.


    Need not shun debate, but do it at a time chosen by us !

    At the outset I wish to say that it is an Editor's Prerogative to publish a particular item or not. But it is not for the reader to say you publish this or omit that. That would be as bad as curtailment of editor's liberty by the jute press.

    Matters relating to Pensions are important economic matters, they affect both the individual and the state. The state does not feel bad about increase in the number of billionaires, amending labour laws to suit the employers (both foreign and indian), Astronomical increase in NPAs of Banks all due to businessmen and industrialists etc. The parliamentarians also do not feel it bad to sanction increased
    pay and perks for themselves. The state wants to curtail the meagre benefits that accrue to the working population be it provident fund, pension or other retiral benefits. 

    Is there any thing new or innovative in this economic decision to curtail retirement benefits by the state? This virus crept into our system alongwith the policy of L P G . At the macro level our government is only apeing the model of American economy.

    In USA it was done in the name of " promoting an ownership society," implying that the risks that were shared by many workers and employers are now shifted on to the shoulders of individuals. So the defined benefit pension plans were replaced by Defined contribution plans. As everyone 
    knows in Defined contribution plan the employee saves a certain amount of money which is accumulated and invested by the EMPLOYER ( mind you, the employer does not contribute anything but only administers the fund.) There is no guarantee of returns and no guaranteed pension at retirement. THIS PLAN IS NOW PUT INTO PRACTICE BY OUR RULERS. SIMULTANEOUSLY PROPOGANDA IS UNLEASHED AGAINST THE EXISTING DEFINED BENEFIT CONTRACTS.

    Anyway the number of persons who would receive defined benefit pension decreases year after year. If a small improvement is sought by this dwindling tribe powerful propaganda is unleashed as if this section of pensioners is looting the funds and assets of an institution.

    In the present scenario you have to run to stay at the same spot. The nefarious design of government to keep our pensions as low as possible and deny any improvement means what? There are several ways of fighting back but for some reason or other, in LIC the legal fight appears to be the only fight that is being carried on.

    We may win or lose. But we will have the satisfaction of dying while fighting. It is for all who choose to remain silent or indulge in mudslinging to understand the sentiments and aspirations of pensioners'  community. 


    Persons like Mr. Anonymous must have started their debate ( or tirade) a few months before. He is not talking about the cost of a benefit. He is championing the ideology behind the economic decision. That ideology needs to be defeated on all fora. I would like to say that there is no need to run away from debate but I would again say " at the time chosen by us and on the ground chosen by us." Was not this present scheme of pension in  LIC the fruit of a powerful debate about 2nd and 3rd retirement benefits?

    Regards, B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad

    Protests again - Editor in a quandary

    Dear Editor,

    Referring to your post entitled “Anonymous Letter-Maintainability Issue”, I am in full agreement with all the rationale and reasoning about your decisions on publication of posts in the Chronicle.

    But I have some views on what you have written in the last paragraph. While I concede your prerogative to publish whatever you decide to based on merits and circumstances of the matter, by allowing an anonymous writer to post materials especially where some judgmental remarks are passed leads to the absence of a level playing field for contributors to the blog. An anonymous writer is thereby given full freedom of expression without an element of accountability and responsibility. 

    The reason that he/she may have to send it for publication may be the self-perceived expectation of a hostile response from the target group which he/she may like to avoid by hiding his/her true identity. Another purpose - which in my view cannot be ruled out – may be that the message conveyed may also be intended to convey to another target group viz. the adversaries of the pensioner fraternity such points which can be marshalled to counter the strong legal grounds that the Pensioners’ counsel are taking to obtain justice for pensioners. In other words, we cannot rule out an anonymous writer having a vested interest in creating confusion among the members of the pensioners’ fraternity 

    By entertaining an anonymous writer, LIC Pensioners Chronicle might have religiously followed the principle of journalistic ethics of publishing his/her post while the anonymous writer has not displayed an ethical behaviour. We have also seen wide-spread and indignant reactions sparked by the anonymous letter from regular identified visitors to the blog. In such circumstances, would the Pensioners’ Chronicle, being a very popular blog visited by a large number of LIC Pensioners like to encourage such writers?

    I agree with you that it is the job of the Pensioners’ bodies to boost and keep up the morale of their constituents, but being a journal largely visited by LIC Pensioners, should not LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle avoid giving room for demoralization of old LIC pensioners by any unidentified individual through allowing anonymous writers to post their written views unaccompanied by responsibility for such writing?

    I leave it to your editorial wisdom to ponder over the above points and take decisions as you may deem proper.

    Kind regards.

    C H Mahadevan

    Editorial policy

    A sudden interruption by Editor about his LIC days !

    Dear Sh. Gangadhran,

    Let me congratulate you first upon rising popularity of your blog with your very special efforts for value additions like beautiful cartoons and redesigning of blog with colorful presentations proved by crossing of One Million Hits along with a new record of One Lac Hits in almost one month span against your previous average of two months. True you had to lose many sleepless nights.

    Regarding your editorial, I do not agree with you on a few issues raised therein.

    Providing a Platform with free press policy is all right. But L.I.C.Pensioners Blogs are being run by Editors who happen to be a part of L.I.C Pensioners Community and in case of favorable Supreme Court Verdict regarding Pension Up gradation (being denied by GOI/ L.I.C with creation of artificial cut-off dates of retirements with every wage revision taking place at five years interval which is a clear violation of Articles 14 & 16 of Indian Constitution and Supreme Court famous Judgement in D.S. Nakara Case), You despite being Editor are also likely to be a beneficiary resulting in payment of arrears.

    So my request is let your blog stay as a platform for L.I.C/Banks.Pensioners only and not for identified or unidentified well wishers of GOI/L.I.C. We can not endorse a line of any AW since Senior Advocates like A.M. Singhvi and Pinky Anand are being paid a very heavy fee for this job again at the cost of our valued Policyholders.

    Please revisit your decision of uploading AW 2nd Version on your blog. We agree that final decision remains at your editorial desk only. We can only express our views on your blog and nothing more can be done at our level.


    CAN this be a consideration for a work? 

    When the Editor was invited to visit LIC Central Office (as an LIC employee) he refused to submit a TE Bill although Central Office had informed the Divisional Office that his visit had been treated as official and on-duty. 

    On another occasion, LIC HOUSING FINANCE asked him to submit a bill for a WORK STUDY conducted and report submitted to them. He refused to submit a bill, saying the Editor was honoured by the LIC HFL assignment. 

    ** For an article written in a Kolkata journal, your Editor had received honorarium but they were asked to convert it to subscription. 

    ***A Chief (Personnel) asked the Editor to visit Chennai and talk to Shri NM Sundaram, Gen. Secretary, AIIEA and submit a confidential report about Shri Sundaram's views on certain matters. He stayed in a Guest House, slept on a Sofa (no room was available) braving mosquitoes for two days but no official bill was submitted. 

    He lost his promotion the same year of LIC honouring him by publishing his Photograph and  a brief resume in Yogakshema of the contributions done by him but he did not represent in the usual manner for a promotion by writing a representation letter. 
    • The then Sr.DM at Kozhikode Division who later retired as ED (Marketing) Shri MS Natarajan, M.Com.,LL.B., FFII (who always claimed that there are "a few letters" after his name and  considered himself to be a great intellectual) did not like the 'VIP profile' of the Editor, seeing the visiting dignitaries asking for 'PG Gangadharan', or the dignitaries spending some time with this odd man.  Shri Natarajan and the Reporting Officer  Shri KKP Namboodiri (a culinary expert who entertained all visiting dignitaries from Zonal Office with choicest home made vegetarian food, a person about whom a whole article could be written) thought that Editor did not meet the 'high standards' set by both of them). They were Review and Reporting Officers when the Editor missed promotion as AO. 
    • Shri MS Natarajan also did not attend a function to release 'Initiative' edited by PG Gangadharan held in Chairman's cabin in  Mumbai which was attended by, besides the Chairman Shri Narasimhan, MDs Shri Salunkhe, Shri Jambusaria  and Shri Bajpai (all of whom later adorned the post of  Chairman in LIC) although Shri Natarajan was in Mumbai and was invited to attend the function.  
    A petition about promotion was filed in Kerala HC which was withdrawn at the instance of the then RM (P&IR) who arranged a transfer for the Editor from Kalpetta to Calicut to look after his ailing wife (who later succumbed to her illness at her 'young' age of 52 years). 

    A person of this nature perhaps may not have any fascination for money. We are sorry, we had to write all this when the attraction of  "payment of arrears" was seen. We may add, the Editor is a post 1997 retiree. -Ed.)

    *  Order treating  trip to Mumbai as official visit and on duty was received a little late. By the time he had availed of LTC which he did not want to cancel for his own reasons.

    ** He has always accepted official cheques for honorarium for writing articles in 'Yogakshema'.

    *** The Chief (Personnel) had personally asked the Editor to visit Chennai and meet Shri NM Sundaram. Official formalities did not deter the Editor from executing the request of the Chief. He just moved to Chennai, talked to Shri Sundaram for two days and returned to Calicut to send a report thru Sr.DM Shri Murali.

    (REVISED AT 8.55PM)


    Although alerted not to send any congratulatory message on the Blog hitting one million I am so much wedded to it I cannot refrain from offering my bouquets to Shri Gangadharan for his unique achievement in making the Blog popular. I have noticed from his mail that he keeps awake as early as 3 AM to do his work when most of the folks would not forgo the blessed early hours of sleep. Such is his devotion to duty unmindful of his advancing age. I used to wonder but for this blog where would I get so much information concerning us.

    I wish Shri Gangadharan health, happiness and an enviable long life to carry on his mission for ever and ever


    (We have not published congratulatory messages for the reason that Chronicle is a self-motivated venture. -Ed.)

    Comments in Chat-n-Chat column


    Nine Days to go

    MY VIEW - POST NO 3.

    No, we are not helpless. Each of us can do something. Some are actively working to prepare and update material for the case, provide inputs to and instruct the Advocates, many can join to build ‘public opinion’ on what could be done and what should not be done while ALL can pray.

    I have been trying to canvas my views that Jaipur Petitioners should not become instrumental for delaying the hearing. When I say this, I am sure they DO NOT forego any of their rights to oppose the Appeals. They should clearly instruct their Senior Advocate to comply with the Court’s directions Vide the concluding part of the Order dated 08.04.2015 which said:

    Apart from hearing this preliminary objection, we also intend to hear the case on merits. Learned counsel for the parties are requested to come prepared to argue the matter on 22nd April, 2015. (Now 7th May 2015)

    Let LIC & UoI first argue their Appeals/SLPs. My appeal is being addressed to the leadership of AIRIEF & Federation of Retired Class I Officers Associations, to commit not only to their respective members but also to ALL Pensioners that they will endeavour to secure early disposal of the matters.
    I wish to invite Pensioners’ attention to what Ella Wheeler said:      

    To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards out of men’’



    M.Sreenivasa Murty

    Sunday, April 26, 2015

    Editor earns a Million !

    Let us enter into academic discussion !




    Thank you. Interesting indeed. I would prefer to focus on preparing for the hearing possibly on 29th. This chain may only turn out to be academic. Will certainly convey my response in good time. We don't gain anything by convincing this person on how strong our case is.
    Thank you once again,

    Sreenivasa Murty M


    Dear Sh. Gangadharan,

    My very sincere Thanks to you for giving me special privilege of sending me an advance copy of 2nd in series letter of AW.

    My request is same as mentioned by Sh. Murty that let us have our full focus on developments in our case at supreme court.

    Being Editor, you have a final say in this matter and we always respect yours decision.



    Dear Shri Gangadharan,
    Thank you for sending me the second letter sent by the Anonymous Writer.
    The person who is writing these letter is either a retired senior Officer of LIC, or an existing LIC Officer writing on behalf of the Corporation just to make the moral of the pensioners down. Whosoever he or she may be, I feel his letters should not be published and made public.
    Although as an Editor, this is your discretion to publish the letters or not. But I feel his letters should not be published. The person, if he is really a pensioner, should be bold enough to give his identity. What for he is afraid. Everybody has a fundamental right to come forward with his views. There is no bar on sending one's views.
    It appears that the person is not bold to show his identity. So IGNORE HIM.

    P.P. Dhamija