(1)
My dear Gangadharanji,
To me it looks most of our advocates and case managers are with LIC and GOI. Instead of bringing to the notice of SC that LIC has no intention of paying to all pensioners and 20% of amount, even if withdrawn, may not be sufficient to pay 20% of arrears even to the petitioner, because it depends on up to what date the arrears are to be paid and up to what date the arrears were calculated, when deposited. Instead of putting everything being said on the web site it will be wise to put up relevant points.
Excuse me for being curt but as I am not a petitioner I am more interested as a pensioner.
With best wishes, B.D.Bhargava
(2)
OROP is the talk of the town these days. Bank retirees demand pension and DA upgrades. LIC retirees want similar upgrades. Their case is in Supreme Court of India after many hurdles and favorable High Court judgment to that effect. They all have one thing in common and that is “natural justice” Article 14 and 16 of our constitution, Nagara case judgement by Supreme Court.
As a common man, I understand the case as follows:-
Case (a): If an employee retires in 2000, he gets 50% of his basic pay as basic pension plus DA as applicable.
Case (b): On the other hand, an employee retires in 2005 he also gets the pension as per above formula but his pension will be higher because of the wage revision.
Case (c): Now if an employee retires in 2010, he essentially gets the same but a lot more due to another wage revision.
This goes on and on. Now employee (a) says, his pension must be the same as that of (c) because both belong to same cadre. I understand that this claim is made because of the earlier SC judgments. What I fail to understand is how it is ethical for an employee in the case (a) to ask for parity when he/she has not done any work during wage revision periods to claim that right by expecting revision of pension. I really believe that SC has to revisit its past judgments.
Having said that I am not at all insisting that the situation stand as is, instead, I am encouring SC revisit their previous judgments. The Supreme Court of India being the highest judicial body has an onus of coming up with a solution that in line with our economy by formulating a reasonable plan. If we don’t, then I fear that we will go the Greece/Italy way in another decade.
C. Ramakrishnan.
As a common man, I understand the case as follows:-
Case (a): If an employee retires in 2000, he gets 50% of his basic pay as basic pension plus DA as applicable.
Case (b): On the other hand, an employee retires in 2005 he also gets the pension as per above formula but his pension will be higher because of the wage revision.
Case (c): Now if an employee retires in 2010, he essentially gets the same but a lot more due to another wage revision.
This goes on and on. Now employee (a) says, his pension must be the same as that of (c) because both belong to same cadre. I understand that this claim is made because of the earlier SC judgments. What I fail to understand is how it is ethical for an employee in the case (a) to ask for parity when he/she has not done any work during wage revision periods to claim that right by expecting revision of pension. I really believe that SC has to revisit its past judgments.
Having said that I am not at all insisting that the situation stand as is, instead, I am encouring SC revisit their previous judgments. The Supreme Court of India being the highest judicial body has an onus of coming up with a solution that in line with our economy by formulating a reasonable plan. If we don’t, then I fear that we will go the Greece/Italy way in another decade.
C. Ramakrishnan.