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

Thursday, November 12, 2015

NOIP LETTER: CH MAHADEVAN'S RESPONSE


No doubt the letter addressed to Chairman is a good move, but I doubt whether LIC will respond positively to the request going by their insensitivity in regard to pensioners similarly placed as Mr M C Jain.

 
The only effective option is for the retiree employees' Federations/Associations to take legal action to ensure that all similarly placed resigned employees get justice.

An inconsistency seems to have occurred in the SC direction in the case providing for payment of arrears of pension only from a date three years prior to the date of filing the application in th High Court while the resigned employee was directed to refund the entire Corporation's contribution to PF with interest.

According to the LIC Pension Rules 1995, the retirees from 1/1/1986 to the date of notification were required to refund the Corporation's contribution to PF whereupon they were made entitled to receive pension from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever was later.

In such circumstances,the Apex Court's direction requiring Mr Amin to refund the entire PF Contribution of LIC received by him while restricting the benefit of pension arrears to only three years instead of from 1/11/1993 seems to create an inequality between the mutual financial obligations of LIC and the resigned employee in the scheme of LIC Pension Rules 1995.

I don't know whether Mr Amin has sought or is proposing to seek review by the SC in this regard. Even if the benefits are extended to all similarly placed resigners,the above inequality has to be legally sorted out, as LIC may choose to adopt an option that minimizes its quantum of liability.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan