Referring to the post of Mr S Ramakrishna,it was a known fact as far as Class I Retirees’ Federation was concerned that only 100% DR neutralization on 1/8/1997 for pre-August 1997 retirees was its priority and not upgradation of pension right from the day the writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court in 2007.
Even the process of merger of DR(without weightage) that is being adopted for revision of pension is done as an one time exercise by LIC and similar revisions have not been effected on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007,not to speak of the upgradation in the true sense of the term.
In the absence of upgradation of pension, the pre-August 1997 retirees are not on par with post-July 1997 retirees as Mr Ramakrishna thinks, as post-July - 1997 retirees had at least got one revision of salary on 1/8/1997 with weightage after merger of DA with Basic Pay while pre-August 1997 retirees have been suffering from a prolonged DR anomaly with relatively reduced amount of pension even forgetting upgradation.
Even this pittance amount that LIC is reported to have paid by way of interim relief has not been paid to all eligible pensioners. Let us not forget that at least about 12000 pre-August 1997 retirees are not going to get even this pittance when the Delhi HC has ordered the benefits in rem.
It looks as though membership of a Federation or being a petitioner in a case is the criterion for receiving even a small interim benefit ordered by the Apex Court from a reputed financial institution like LIC.Are we retired employees first or members of any Association or Federation first ? It is for the Supreme Court to take a call on 23rd inst.
Also as far as I have heard, the lowest amount of IR received was Rs 750/- while the highest amount so far was Rs 63000 plus(for a retd ZM).In most cases the IR may not even come to two month’s gross pension.
If Mr Ramakrishna is aggrieved that upgradation of pension has not been effected while paying interim relief, then he has only to ask the question why it is not coming forth to the Retiree Class I Federation leaders.
The developments that have taken place since 7/5/2015 have already vertically split the retiree group in the collective sense, but we must all admit that the post-August 1997 retirees are happy that pre-August 1997 pensioners are getting some relief-however negligible it may be-as the former are aware of the huge loss they have incurred since their retirement on account of chronic DR anomaly and lack of equitable neutralization.
The worst hit in the present dispensation is the group of family pensioners of pre-August 1997 retirees who will get reduced family pension if LIC’s method of calculation for pre-August 1997 arrears is followed for them. In all cases without exception, there will be recovery of pension. Does a family pensioner have to be orphaned when an eligible Federation member has unfortunately passed away?
Are not we surviving pensioners more fortunate?
C H Mahadevan