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

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

A response to A.S.Ramanathan's invitation‏


This refers to Shri A.S.Ramanathan’s invitation 
to the pensioner’s fraternity to contribute some points 
relating to our case in order to fill up gaps on his 
ideas and also to express their opinion regarding 
this ongoing litigation. In response to ASR’s request 
I have the following observation to make :


LIC was not gracious enough to concede the legitimate and lawful demands of the pensioners. The most glaring instant case relates to the removal of the DR anomaly of the pre 1997 retirees. CWP 6676/1998 OF SHRI Asthana is a separate writ and not clubbed with his the other CWP 654/2007 for upgradation of pension. When both the writs were admitted in the Rajasthan HC LIC should have gracefully implemented removal of DR anomaly and appealed only on the second writ.LIC always been indirectly pleading their inability to do so without CG clearance.

As to the pension upgradation awaiting SC adjudication there has been enough case laws to support the pensioners demand. It has been made clear that pension is not a bounty and if the pension scheme is not a new one and one already in existence the pension cannot remain static but should be revised as and when there is a wage revision. As far as LIC is concerned the affordability or financial viability does not arise as it already had the blessings of the Board’s resolution and it was never a point of argument in any of the court proceedings.. But should it rear its head now we can rebut it with necessary statistics in our favor.

SC order in case NO Appeal ( Civil ) NO 1289/2007 in para 25 says : “ revision of scales of pay as also other allowances is technical in nature, when a benefit is extended to a group of employees the effect of such benefit, if otherwise comes within the purview thereof must be held to be applicable to other groups of employees “. In MC Jain case although the order passed by the Rajasthan HC said that the Petitioner is entitled to revised pay scales as at 01-08-1992 as per notification dated 18-07-1996 and the Chairman has committed orally that he will be implementing the court order in respect of 83 similarly placed retirees nothing happened and the corporation’s inaction is a gross injustice and only shows that what they should do they don’t want to do deliberately.

SC order d/ 7-5-2015 in CA 8959-62/13 1 says “ If any amount that has been deposited before the HC pursuant to the order passed by this court 20 % of the same shall be released in favor of LIC so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees “ Shall we interpret the word employees as those who are not petitioners also ?

I made a vein attempt to recollect what I have understood so far and what I have written may sound as old wine in new bottle and should it be so the reader may please bear the inconvenience.


R.K.VISWANATHAN