* 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, September 14, 2015

MY FINAL RESPONSE TO MR T LAKSHMINARAYANAN


I thank Mr Lakshminarayanan for the good words he has written about me. While I fully concede his right to differ with me and hold his own views, I would request him to note the following excerpts from the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dated 12/1/2010 which has been upheld by the Division Bench besides the LIC ‘s review petition having been dismissed and which judgment  has also been refused to be stayed by the Supreme Court while converting LIC’s SLPs into Civil Appeals:
 “In view of the aforesaid, benefit of dearness allowance at the first step being 0.35% remains upto basic pension of Rs.2400/- only whereas aforesaid percentage of dearness allowance is allowed on the basic pay upto Rs.4800/-. To understand the aforesaid difference, a comparative chart was submitted by the petitioners, which is quoted hereunder:-
 Comparative Chart
Pay upto
Rate of DA/DR
Pension
Upto 4800
0.35% of pay
Upto 2400
From 4801 to 7700
0.29% of pay
From 2401 to 3850
From 7701 to 8200
0.17% of pay
From 3851 to 4100
Above 8200
0.09% of pay
Above 4100
 Perusal of the aforesaid Chart shows that increase in the DA/DR was less for the pensioners because the benefit of DA/DR was reduced to the extent of 50% on Proportion basis from the basic pay as an employee having qualifying pensionable service of 33 years or more gets 50% of the pay as pension.
Learned counsel for petitioners prayed that slab of dearness allowance should be kept the same as is payable to the employees. In other words, it should not be reduced proportionately to the basic pension. Thus, first grievance of the petitioners is in regard to reduction of benefit of dearness allowance.
…………………………
Learned counsel for petitioners, advancing the arguments for first issue, submitted that non-grant of due benefit of dearness allowance to the retired employees is not only arbitrary but discriminatory in nature. After filing of the writ petition by Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, the LIC itself passed a resolution in its meeting held on 24.11.2001. On realizing the mistake, the LIC decided to sort out the issue by proper remedy, but finally left it to the discretion of the Union of India to take a final decision. If the resolution dated 24.11.2001 is implemented, then grievance of the petitioners can come to an end.”
The operating part of the judgment states,”In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed.”
Perhaps if the Supreme Court Bench agrees with Mr T Lakshminarayanan while disposing of the Civil Appeals,the judgment  may get overturned. But I am sure that till then  he will agree that my view is borne out by the aforesaid judgment. If he still chooses to hold his view, we will agree to disagree.
Greetings.

C H Mahadevan