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

Monday, August 17, 2015

Chat column comments : CH Mahadevan's reply


I send my response to Mr Aboobucker's query below
C H Mahadevan

17 Aug 15, 07:59 AM

JM Aboobucker: 17 Aug 2015

The amount deposited by LIC for Jaipur Petitioners defies any reasonable reckoning as to how it was arrived at. Could Mr CH Mahadevan with sharp acumen for figures throw some light in this matter?

My response:

It is very clear that the amount was arrived at by LIC by working out the DR at the existing anomalous rate upto 1/8/1997 and merging it with the existing Basic Pension.The merged total was taken as revised pension on 1/8/1997.No weightage of 11.25% was provided as required under the LIC Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001.The arrears were calculated upto 31/10/2013 by applying the DR slab percentage of 0.23% of gross basic pension per slab at the time of depositing the final (third) instalment in the Jaipur Registry.The principle followed in revising the Basic Pension was also not followed to revise the Basic pension similarly on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 and the revised Basic Pension was kept static even after two more wage revisions.

Also as per the Jaipur SJB judgment reinforced by the PB & H HC judgment,the pensions have to be updated in substituted scales of pay on the date of every wage revision,viz, 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 (& on 1/8/2012,when the next wage revision takes place).This has also been completely ignored by LIC.

For the above reasons, the payments made by LIC in the Jaipur HCB Registry and the Chandigarh HC registry are not even 9% of what was due legally to the pre-August 1997 retirees as per the above two stay-refused judgments.Unfortunately,this fact was not stressed before the Supreme Court on 7/5/2015 when the order for interim relief was issued by the Apex Court. There is no doubt that the pensioner-respondents have been given a raw deal, not to speak of the sad plight of 40000 plus pensioners at large.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan