This refers to the letter under the caption’ Difficult to digest’. Yes digestion would become difficult if the stomach is fed with wrong diet. None of us who were writing in the Chronicle at any time ever imagined to malign our organization as the anonymous writer feels. Having served this institution for well over three decades the records speak about our loyalty. Could the anonymous writer please ponder over the following matters and then give his appraisal : -
1. Is LIC OF INDIA justified in having different DA formula, one for those who retire before 1-8-1997 and one for those who retired after 1-8-1997 thus giving rise to discrimination. Does not this irrational and artificial discrimination a blatant violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution as held by the SB of Rajasthan HC and later endorsed in several legal platforms. A violation of the constitutional provision cannot be remedied other than by removal of the discrimination. Why this delay in this regard.? Should it not be voluntary as a gesture of good will when it is well within the power of the Chairman.
While recommending updation of pension the Board has taken into account the financial implication and got the liability valued actuarially and on 24-11-2001 announced that the total outlay is 51.37 crores and the annual expenditure will be to the tune of 6 to 8 crores and the effective date for calculation is taken as 1-11-1993. How could this be 9700 crores disclosed by the Appellant counsel and where from this figure came ? The financial liability never figured in any of the earlier arguments and why it suddenly cropped up?
The writer has pointed out that the CCS Pension rules does not provide for pension updation. The corollary to that is the pension updation figuring very much in the 5 th and 6 th pay commission reports thus giving the indication that GOI is disposed for giving pension updation and LIC pension rules are based on the model of CCS pension rules.
The writer has pointed out LIC pension is a funded scheme and every year it is pumping into the fund additional sums to keep the fund solvent thus depriving the policyholders their legitimate share in the surplus. Is not the expenditure of 336 crores spent in the employees ‘NOON MEAL SCHEME’ an erosion in the policy holders share in the surplus, rob Peter to pay Paul !. Further the pensioner’s class is dwindling their average age being 70-75 and during the 13 years of the ongoing litigation several have kicked the bucket and some more are unfortunately in the queue waiting for their turn. So the pumping mechanism need bother neither LIC nor GOI.
What we have been asking is with regard to our legal rights at the altar of justice and what is being asked is on humanitarian grounds too.
R.K.VISWANATHAN