* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN THE CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE THE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

               
                                   

Friday, April 17, 2015

M SREENIVASA MURTY



Mr AW has unwittingly 

done me/us an immense service. 

We are already fully prepared 

to meet all the arguments put 

forth by him to oppose pension 

up-gradation. Even if LIC and/

or UoI borrow any or all of his 

points for arguing in the Supreme 

Court, we know now how to 

handle them better.


However, his views and some of the so called facts cited by him, do need rebuttal/correction. My purpose in continuing this discussion is not merely to prove the AW wrong in most of what he wrote, but ALSO to reassure our own Pensioner colleagues that our case is as strong as before and the AW's spirited exposition has only helped us to fine-tune our arguments further on the Funded Scheme concept and how according to him, CCS Rules do not ipso facto, apply to LIC Pension Rules etc., 

Let me come to more substantive points from the AW's diatribe. His aspersions on our Organizational loyalty first: 

Doubting the Pensioners' (including who retired in senior positions) loyalty to the Organization which made them what they are today and equating such perceived ungrateful behaviour with disrespecting the Nation itself, I am afraid, is most uncharitable and even irresponsible on the part of the AW. Some of my colleague pensioners have already countered this accusation effectively. Our loyalty levels are known to us and need no fresh ISO certification from the AW. I would still ask the AW to once look at the whole thing from the Pensioners' angle - "I have done so much to this Organization for Forty Years, why am I being disowned today?". "Why should I be denied what is legally due to me?" I may sum up by saying that a sense of hurt is fully known only to the one who is hurt. Not to the bystander. Money part is incidental. 

The AW described the demand for pension up-gradation as unfair and unjust on the part of those who are well off. He referred in his PS to those Pensioners who drive in Mercedes Benz and who live in Bungalows worth few crores of Rupees as also enjoy foreign jaunts, post-retirement - it only betrays his skewed view of the issue. Does he or does he not know that there are hundreds and may be thousands of Pensioners who may have retired in different positions and who need the Pension they are paid so desperately that they visit the Bank at 10.30 AM on the 1st day of the Month to withdraw some cash? Luckily for them there is no rush in the Bank due to the working (?) staff having already got their salaries two days before. The PS (which the Editor has since withdrawn) establishes that the views of the AW came more out of deep rooted prejudice towards the Pensioner class and not based on objectivity. I know I shouldn't over-react personally but let me confess that I do drive around in my Mercedes and live in a Bungalow like the one referred to by the AW. But I don’t feel guilty for my strong conviction that non-up-gradation of Pension in LIC with each pay revision as in Government, is unlawful. If a 'test' is possible and necessary on those who need more pension and those who do not, let the AW use his clout to make LIC & the Government invite the so called affluent LIC pensioners to voluntarily forego up-gradation. And give it only to those who need. I had voluntarily opted to forego my cooking gas subsidy (even before PM's Appeal) and I and many more LIC Pensioners may forego higher Pension as well, if it works that way. But first commit to give to those who need it badly. Can you? 


Funded Scheme: The much talked about non-issue. It is a statutory requirement to meet the legal obligation and liability but not a backdoor way-out to deny what is payable. It further mandates that a fool proof mechanism should be in place, so as to ensure that Pension is paid as is 'payable' and not denied on the pretext of lack of funds. As to the numbers, let the AW not unduly worry about the adequacy. We have experts among us (who were handling the subject themselves till they left Yogakshema, to call it a day for active service) and who can't be bullied by the MoF. Suffice it to say that if liability on account of pension payments has to pass the test of a scientific yardstick like compare it with LIC's Premium Income - here are the numbers: For the year 2013-14, outgo on account of staff salary stood at 6.21% of the Total Premium Income whereas the outgo on account of Pension payment (including commuted value) was 0.33%. If Pension outgo is expressed as a ratio of the outgo under the head ‘staff salaries’, it constitutes just 5.39%. Any lessons learnt? If there is scope to protect policyholders' interests by cutting or containing any outgo, one has to start with staff salaries before looking at Pension payments. We know it doesn't happen because working employees can extract more by arm twisting while pensioners have no muscles to flex. If we go to the root of the issue, why should any pensions be paid at all? Does the AW see any justification? Or is he against up-gradation only and not the basic pension? The entire discomfort of the AW and the section of the constituents which he represents, to the outgo on account of pension payments emanates from an unenlightened self-interest. We want the maximum pie to ourselves - don't want to part with any part of it for the 'spent force'. it is like a son considering the old parent as an unproductive liability on the family resources. Very sad culture gap, in my view.

The AW dwelt at length on my inputs of legal angle and my welcoming the UoI's direct entry as an Appellant. My area of comfort appears to bother him. I can't help it after all. I was accused of not validating my charge that in its claim of rejecting the Board Resolution Union of India had indulged in a blatant lie under oath (Refer Para 5 h. on page 62 of the SLP – reading:

“Because the High Court erred in construing.....…….as a deemed approval of the LIC Board’s proposal, when in fact the proposal had been rejected, and the stand of the present Petitioner has been made clear throughout the proceedings”. 

According to the AW I should have followed up with more information to support my charge by quoting from the Appeal/Affidavit of UoI. When the UoI had claimed to have rejected the Board Resolution but DID NOT furnish any other information like the date of the communication, to whom sent etc., how can I furnish the non-existing information? That is my charge actually. If UoI chose to commit a blunder, don’t I use it to my advantage, in the legal battle? I will - to the hilt, for sure. I am familiar with bureaucratic arrogance in dealing with their 'subjects'. That it can display such disrespect even towards highest judiciary is baffling. Deserves to be exposed squarely.

To the fellow visitors to the Chronicle – let us not waste our time on guessing who the AW could be. He is not a Pensioner, because if he is one, he should also be a Saint (a rare commodity). He is not planted by LIC (or Government) either. Because, they don't care. But he is one with strong conviction, he genuinely believes in all that he wrote. For that part, I respect him. End of the day, I have no ill will at all.

When the Apex Court finally decides the issue, 

I hope to call the AW and say ‘Better luck elsewhere'.

M Sreenivasa Murty
PS: I had to withhold a certain indisputable fact from public discussion for tactical reasons, which would have deflated most of the thrust in AW’s arguments. We are going to use it as our Brahmastra and make both UoI & LIC look PALE before the Bench.
Thru Sorting Office ?