LET MR G N SRIDHARAN GIVE HIS OWN
INTERPRETATION OF THE POSITIVES IN
LIC BOARD RESOLUTION, JAIPUR
JUDGMENT & DELHI JUDGMENT
I recently happened to read the “Rejoinder to Sri M S Murthy” dated 5th January 2016 and also “The Note for attention of Retd.LIC Class I Officers of Hyderabad dated 06.02.2016” circulated by Shri G N Sridharan, a copy of which each was received by me from Mr Sreenivasa Murty who got them from a local source. The latter note is reported to have been circulated in an almost secretly arranged meeting of retired officers at Hyderabad behind the back of the Retired Class I Officers’ Association, Hyderabad ostensibly for the purpose of sharing legal information, clarifying legal issues but presumably to explore ways of creating a splinter affiliate Association of retired Class I Officers at Hyderabad.It has been gathered that about 40 retired Class I Officers attended the meeting.Whatever degree of success achieved my Mr GNS will be known as events unfold in the days to come.
Mr Murty,I suppose, will respond to the accusations hurled at him by GNS at his separately convenience. However as my name has also figured in these two circulars, I wish to respond to Mr Sridharan on the issues raised by him in his Note dated 06/02/2016 reserving my option to respond to his remarks made in his circular dated 5th January 2016 at a little later date.
Yes, I concede that I still hold the view that the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dated 12/1/2010, by allowing WP No 6676/1998 undoubtedly provided for removal of DR anomaly before 1/8/1997 by equitable neutralization of DR for pre-August 1997 retirees on par with in- service employees of the period 1/8/1987 to 31/7/1997 which was denied for pre-August 1997 retirees ( There was no 100% DR neutralization even for in-service employees before 1/8/1997 and 100% DR neutralization was effected only from 1/8/1997 onwards in successive wage revisions) and upgradation of pension whenever wage revisions are effected as a consequence of allowing WP No 654/2007.By directing LIC to implementation of the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001,the Jaipur Bench had reinforced their allowance of both the Writ Petitions in respect of the pre-August 1997 retirees. Allowing of the WP No 654/2007 paved the way for upgradation of pension at every wage revision. When the Board approved the proposal for giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees, does it not mean upgradation on point-to-point basis?
While I agree with Mr GNS that the last word has to come from the Apex Court only,Mr GNS’ contrarian view with all due respect to his legal eminence,experience and expertise is also bound by the same caveat. So let us wait for the Apex Court verdict before prejudging the issue.
In the meantime, we have heard from GNS only dissenting views what the Jaipur and the Board Resolution do not provide for in the context of others’ interpretations. I would like to have the benefit of his clear views on what according to him are the benefits accruing to the pensioners from the LIC Board Resolution, the Jaipur SJB Order dt 12/1/2010 and the Delhi HC judgment dated 30/1/2013.I am sure tens of thousands of pensioners may also be keen to know his interpretation of the outcomes of these three sets of proceedings. I am sure pensioners will also be interested to know how DR anomaly has been proposed to be removed by LIC as is evidenced by payment of the 20 %(?) Interim relief paid to 1200 plus pensioners when there is no means of verification by the recipients of IR as to how the amounts credited to their Bank A/Cs have been arrived at. As a seasoned lawyer, does Mr GNS believe that the LIC has indeed legally complied with the Supreme Court Order dt 7/5/2015 when the recipient pensioners have no document received from LIC to show how the amount was arrived at?
I stand by my contention that only a small number of pensioners have been benefited by the (20%) payment made. When the Delhi HC had stated “LIC would give benefit of the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court to all pensioners and would treat the decision in
rem”,was not LIC legally obliged to pay the interim relief to at least 22000 pre-August 1997 retirees and family pensioners ?(21762 pre-August 1997 retirees were receiving pension as at 1/8/2003 as per the illustrative chart prepared by LIC and sent to the GOI.This number has dwindled to 16494 on 20/2/2009 as per a communication addressed by LIC to MoF).My rough estimate is that the present surviving pre-August 1997 retirees may be at the most 10000 if not less.Nevertheless,LIC is legally bound to pay either to the surviving retiree or the family pensioner the dues payable to the 22000 pensioners in all. The percentage of less than 6% of this number for whom the Federation has claimed that it has managed to get the payment of interim relief is by no stretch of imagination significant. It is another matter that those who got interim relief did not receive 20% of the amount due under the impugned judgment but hardly less than 10% on a liberal estimate. The only saving grace is that these few people got at least some amount after having been deprived of their entitled dues for over to 19 to 23 years.
Will Mr Sridharan be able to recognize that what the few family pensioners who have got the payments if at all would only have got what the deceased retirees were due to get upto the date of their death , less the amounts recoverable from family pension owing to a consequential reduction in family pension according to the faulty formula followed by LIC for revision of pension of pre-August 1997 retirees? Has Mr GNS been informed by LIC Management that The 354 family pensioners identified by the Federation will have to suffer reduction in monthly family pensions on revision of pension? The Federation will do well to officially examine the calculation sheet of LIC at least in case of one family pensioner to check whether my statement is correct.
I am sure Mr GNS may like to respond on the points raised by me for the benefit of over 49000 pensioners of LIC.
C H Mahadevan
TO READ GN SRIDHARAN'S NOTE, PLEASE CLICK BELOW.