DESPITE THE BETRAYAL, NO NEED TO DESPAIR
Referring to the
post of Mr M Sreenivasa Murty,on
LIC pretending to pay the due payment to
the pre-August 1997 retiree Class I Officer-members of the Class I Federation,
we had actually discussed among
ourselves using the calculations to discover the inadequacy of the amount of
interim relief LIC proposes to pay to the
concerned retirees.
In the example quoted
by Mr Murty,what has been mentioned is the minimum loss sustained by the pensioner in question when the
pre-August 1997 DR arrears due are taken
into account besides the required successive revisions of Basic Pension on 1/8/2002,and 1/8/2007 also following the
same principle of merger of DR with
Basic pension followed w.e.f 1/8/1997( taking
the existing reduced DR slabs in the
process of merger).
In the background
office note submitted CO Personnel dept to the Board before the Board
Resolution was passed,a reference had been made to three types of DR formulae
for the different generations of
pensioners and the need for rationalizing the DR was also emphasized. Reading
the Jaipur Bench judgment allowing the first Writ Petition for removing the DR anomaly
along with this , it is incumbent on LIC to not only apply the DR formula as applicable
for in-service employees as on 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever is
later, but also revise the Basic Pension by merger of DR(at in-service
rates) with the existing Basic Pension ( I am not going into the question of
weightage of 11.25% on 1/8/1997 mentioned
in the Board Resolution) on 1/8/1997,1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007.Once a principle of merger of DR with
existing Basic Pension for revision of Basic Pension is followed for 1/8/1997,LIC
is not justified in not following that principle on 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 and
freezing the revised basic Pension (that too wrongly) for all future months. If
the revised pension of the retired officer in question (who retired on
31/8/1990) had been calculated correctly as indicated above, the revised Basic Pension on
1/8/1997,1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 would have been much more and the arrears due to this pensioner would have
been Rs 5.5 lks as at 31/7/2014 against which LIC paid only Rs 34883/- in the court.(If
upgradation is to be effected as per the Jaipur and Chandigarh judgments,his
dues would have been more than Rs 14 lks on 31/7/2015). If LIC pays him as
interim relief only Rs 6977/-, it will be hardly 1.3%
of the amount due as per their own
method,but with suitable revisions of Basic Pension on 1/8/2002 &18/2007
also and not 20%.
I also happened to
work out the dues to a retired officer who retired on 31/12/1995 as DM on Basic
Pension of 5350/- and I found, if he is paid interim relief on the basis of the
known methodology of LIC, he will be receiving only
1.4% of the total amount due to him as at 31/7/2015 instead of 20% as interim relief. The situation may be
similar in the case of all the 1300+ pre-August 1997 retirees who are likely to
receive the interim relief payments.
While I am happy that the pre-August 1997 retirees are going to receive some interim relief when all of them are in a desperately expectant situation which is understandable, it is a matter of regret that these retirees are going to receive a shamefully inadequate amount against which there is no likelihood of a semblance of protest.
Meek acceptance of
the pittance amount without protest will definitely enable LIC to try to walk
away escaping the charge of contempt while not paying the amount due as per the
Supreme Court order dated 7/5/2015.
It is very clear that
the interest of the pensioners especially the older ones at large has been miserably compromised as it appears from
the likely inadequate payment for a few
on the one hand and denial for the
similarly placed pensioners numbering
about 13000+ in spite of the Delhi High Court judgment ordering benefits in rem.
But I am sure that
cause of the pensioners (both pre-August 1997 and post-July 1997) is still not
lost and saviors will still emerge. So pensioners have no need to lose heart.
Let us look forward to 23 rd September hearing, but not with undue hopes.
Nevertheless we have a valuable opportunity to place our strong points before
the Bench.
Greetings,
C H Mahadevan