Saturday, April 30, 2016

B Ganga Raju

Two recent posts one by Shri G.K.
Viswanatham and another by 
Shri V.S. Prakasa Rao reflect the 
general thinking among the 
fraternity of LIC Pensioners.

Shri GK Viswantham decried the silence of AIIPA & others which he attributed to their dogmatic principle that legal recourse is not the solution and he advised the " highly resourceful organisation of AIIPA" to join the fray instead of trying to indoctrinate the aged and senile on world economy, domestic intolerance etc. No comment on the "resourcefulness" of the organisation he is addressing. If they want to conduct a legal battle certainly they have plenty of " resources." Compare with the organisations which are in the thick of legal battle and seek everyone's help and donations.

Shri V.S.Prakasa Rao cautioned the pensioners to " Guard against being cheated of Your Pension grants." He skilfully dissected the Constitutional Provisions, Sec.48 of LIC Act, our own pension rules in particular Rule 56, the pronouncements of NHRC, enlightened us on the case law " Deokinandan Vs. Bihar," which laid down that pension is a right and does not depend on the discretion of Government, opined that LIC should not have sought the approval of Government and how Art.21 is violated.

He bluntly concluded that Management and Government are flouting the rules to CHEAT us. When soft spoken Shri VSP thunders about the Cheating, certainly we must think about the huge loss that is being caused to us.  

Both GKV and VSP are echoing the strong feelings among pensioners. In this scenario there are appeals for liberal donations for legal fund both from AIRIEF and Retd.LIC Cl.I Assn of Hyd to carry on the fight to its logical and successful conclusion.  It is time everyone loosens the strings of their purses and invest to secure a better future . If it means less money for the current month's expenses let it be. 

Have we lived with sufficient money throughout our service? I was getting sceptical about the possibility of unity or atleast mutual consultation among the parties to the legal fight, viz. AIRIEF & Hyd. Assn. But it looks there is scope for optimism.  I say this based on 2 mails that I saw both from Shri KML Asthana, the Chief Architect of the legal battle.

When Shri CH.M informed that work is going on in C.O. to speed up payment of 40 per cent IR Shri KMLA doubted ( on 26th) whether the payment is going to be made ( at all ) and the news is only for befooling the pensioners and to spend time upto 15th May. 

But on 28th there is a positive change. He wrote " May God fulfil the desire and my apprehensions go wrong. I will be happy in the interests of pensioners if any payment is made in compliance of the order dated 31.3.2016. But I would request Mr. CH.M. to give me an inkling of whether there is any method of calculating 100 per cent so that 40 per cent can be given. In case he gives the formula it will be of much help to all the pensioners in the days to come." This certainly is happy augury.

We have a good number of competent knowledgeable leaders. What is lacking is coordination and working with a unity of purpose. In one of my earlier posts I said a leader need not know all subjects. All that is required is an open mind willing to take the help and assistance of experts in the various subjects. Law books will show our case as " KML Asthana vs. LIC " in future. But the present requires that both AIRIEF &  Hyd.Assn., share their expertise, knowledge and hammer out a united approach before Delhi HC. Miracles are known to happen.

Let this also materialise. Clouds of mistrust must vanish. 

B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad


A Sr.Counsellor contended that Para. 3A of the Appendix IV to the Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision rendered by the S.C. in D.S.Nakara & others v/s UOI 

Another Sr. Counsellor tried to convince the Bench that the employees once covered under Para. 3 A, the benefit cannot remain static but has to change with pay revisions regard being had to the price index, for otherwise, the provisions do not spring to life, and paves the path of arbitrariness. He presented the case in detail emphasising the need for DR at the same rate to both employees and pensioners and updation of pension along with pay revision of serving employees.

Hon. Justice held that Delhi and P&H.H.Cs have disposed off writ petitions placing reliance on the decisions of Rajasthan H.C. When the issue of the constitutional validity of Para.3A of the Appendix IV to the Pension Rule was raised, the same deserved to be heard by the Court. He ordered 40% IR to all the 'similarly placed' pre August, 1997 pensioners and family pensioners as per Para. 3A of the Appendix to Pension Rules and directed Delhi H.C. to decide the constitutional validity of the said Para.3A. The applicants are at liberty to file amended affidavits, if they so advised. All actions to be completed by 31-08-2016.

The constitutional validity of Para.3A..? What is / are the broader issue / s involved in its adjudication? What would be the repercussions of the outcome, if it is in the positive or if it is in the negative? All beyond a Layman's grasp!
RBI, Banks and LIC Employees Pension Regulations / Rules are framed mainly on the lines of GOI Pension Rules. All these institutions, had / have different pay scales but had extended the DR rates to its pensioners on tapering basis as was the practice with GOI.

LIC introduced pension scheme in 1995 and effective from Jan.1986.
Appendix IV of LIC Rules contained sub paras. as under : (in short) 

(1) To pensioners retired on or after 01-01-1986 but before 01-11-1993 : DR on basic pension shall be payable for -- 4 points over 600 points : up to Rs.1250...0.67% (i.e.100% neutralisation in DR) ,and thereafter on graded basis [ For working employees , it was ...up to Rs.2500/- ...0.67% ]

(2) To pensioners retired on or after 01-11-1993 but before 01-08-1997 : DR on basic pension shall be payable for ..4 points over 1148 points : up to Rs.2400/-...0.35% (I.e.100%) and thereafter on graded basis. [ For working employees : up to Rs.4800/- ..0.35% ]

GOI implemented the 5th CPC recommendations in Oct.1998 and GOI employees and pensioners started getting 100% DA/DR from 01-01-1996. No graded DA or DR to any of its employees or pensioners, the same of rate of DR to all, thence forward. [ HAD the pension was introduced in LIC in 2000 instead of 1995, the Scheme would have, probably, included, 100% DA/DR that GOI introduced from 01-01-1996. ] 

The wage revision of Aug. 1997 in LIC was delayed too much. However, it is to the CREDIT of LIC that it was the first institution to introduce 100% DA from 01-08-1997 to its employees. LIC with the approval of GOI vide its gazette notification dated 22-06-2000 introduced / incorporated Para.3A and 3B to the Appendix IV to its Pension Rules. But, it is DEBIT (it was wrong on the part of LIC) to the LIC that it did not make it (100% DR) applicable to pre Aug.1997 pensioners. They failed to adopt the GOI pension rules in its letter and spirit. After about fifteen long years, in May, 2015, the Hon. Justice Shri Dipak Misra advised LIC to pay 20% IR - now, on 31-03-2016 : 40% IR to 'similarly placed'


Dear Editor,

Three weeks have elapsed after the 31st March SC Order was uploaded. Various shades of opinions and interpretations of the Order have appeared in the Blog. Quite a few of them, well versed in matters of law, have dug deep and come out with suggestions as to how to overcome or tackle certain intimidating provisions appearing in our Pension Rules, LIC Act 1956 and provisions closely inter-related to them. All of them need to be congratulated, as it is a proof of the abiding interest they are taking in our legal battle with LIC/GOI. No doubt, the Order has quite a number of grey areas and it gives ample scope for the legal pundits to pick holes and view it from the angle in which they are adepts at. It reminds me of Bernad Shaws “The Doctors Dilemma”, in which doctors belonging to different specialities, try to trace the origin of the patients complaint to each ones area of specialisation. Having said that, we are lead to think that it is time to say, enough is enough, and get on with the show; the scene of action having been shifted from the Apex Court to HC,Delhi.

Among the analysts, Shri.S.N seemed to have hit the nail on the head. In his write-up, he has brought out very clearly that our friends, both the Banks and the RBI are also sailing in the same boat. You will find a common thread running through the pensionary problems confronting the three of them. If it is Sec.48 for us, it is Sec 58 for the RBI pensioners, and Sec 19 for the Banks. The Govt. wants to hold the reins tightly and never let go off the ultimate authority to have a final say in the matter. I heard, in regard to State Bank of India pensioners too, there was a case pending in SC which was later transferred to Delhi High Court a couple of years ago. The case is facing adjournment after adjournment and was not decided within the date stipulated by the SC. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is possible that there are more things than what meets the eyes and we need to be aware of it. Otherwise, despite a slew of past judgments, constitutional provisions and three favourable judgments from Jaipur High Court, one does’nt see any reason to postpone the decision by referring it to the Delhi HC. Though not on any other ground, purely on humanitarian grounds, the case could have been decided in our favour. There is no benchmark to determine whether certain “pleading” is adequate or not . It is like asking somebody a question like “how much is too much?” Under the circumstances, apart from pursuing the legal battle in the Delhi HC , our leaders should also keep track of the aftermath of the recent meeting between the IBA representatives and the bankers Forum and how their follow-up progresses with the GOI.

I must congratulate Mr.Rajamani for the beautiful blue-print prepared by him with flow charts and the process by which it can be implemented. Any right-thinking person would hundred percent agree with him. But the ground reality is what Mr.Ganga Raju has narrated. Everyone knows, that many of us tried to bring all the three of them on a single platform but failed miserably. This is a great opportunity given by Justice Misra for the three of them to see reason and put their heads together and carry on the legal struggle. It is a tragedy that it is not going to happen Hence, let us accept things as they are and explore as to how we can make the three of them carry on without inflicting positive harm on each others effort and consequently jeopardise the interests of the pensioners. Let us now examine how to get on and get ahead.

We have three leaders eager and wanting to help us. There is no doubting the fact that we may be on a long haul in the Delhi H.C. We cant also rule out the possibility of the case coming back to the Supreme Court. Therefore, we need to choose one of the three right now and lend them all necessary help, chiefly financial. My choice naturally falls on Mr.M.S.Moorthy and Mr.Mahadevan. From our experience so far, we cant doubt their sincerity, honesty, single-minded devotion to the cause, knowledge base, transparency of operations, and overall handling of the case. I am extremely happy to learn that he is already in Delhi with his team to finalise matters with regard to filing of the petition. I wish him all success. As a token contribution , today, I have transferred a sum of Rs.1000 to their Account being the first instalment. Being a relatively small Association, Hyderabad Association may not be able to meet the huge expenditure required as legal fee and other related expenses. Therefore, on their behalf, I appeal to all those who are visitors to this Blog and those who have known me, especially my friends in Kerala to contribute any amount you think, you can comfortably afford. Let us remember that their fight is not confined to the DR issue alone or to any particular Class of pensioners, but for all of them.

There is not much time left for us to act; it should be NOW. Let us get going under the leadership of Mr.M.Sreenivasamoorthy and Mr.Mahadevan.Let us have full confidence in them. A piece of advise to Mr.Murthy, as a well meaning friend. Please avoid getting into the habit of reacting overly to unfounded accusations from the opposite camps. It will not only sap ones energy but pull down ones level of performance. Let us just remember what the divine Gita has to say in this regard and leave everything to Him. Wishing the team All the Best!



Friday, April 29, 2016

Shri Chhabra's letter dated 15th April 2016 is released now absolutely at the discretion of the Editor since some of the points he has raised are relevant and our pensioners are entitled to know the same. -Ed.

Thursday, April 28, 2016


 The  Govt. of India  created web site Senior Citizens Corner  states” Senior Citizens are the treasure to our Society. They have worked hard all these years  for the development of the nation as well as the Community .They possess a vast experience in different walks of life . The youth of to day can gain from the experience of the Sr. citizens in taking the nation to greater heights.  At this age of their life they need to be taken care of and made to feel SPECIAL. Indian Govt. provides several benefits through its Schemes in various sectors of Development With  various Tax Benefits , Travel and  health care facilities provisioned for them the Govt. has created reasons for Sr.Citizens is aimed at  providing  details on various aspects concerning them.”
PENSION RELATED ACTS/RULES :                                              
To safe guard the interests and rights of Sr.citizens the  GOVT. has framed various Acts and Rules. It helps to have a thorough knowledge of these Acts and Rules to keep track on pension matters and the process of getting HASLE FREE PAYMENTS. Another Benefit of knowing about these Acts IS TO GUARD AGAINST BEING CHEATED OF YOUR PENSION GRANTS.
The following RULES and ACTS are administered by the Dept. of Pension  and Pensioners’ Welfare .
Pensioners  procedures.
Central Civil Services (pension) Rules 1972
The pension Act 1871
Central Civil Services ( commutation of pension) Rules 1981 etc.
Life Insurance Corporation of India  is a STATE. The  employees of the Corporation are public servants. A thorough knowledge of our Pension Rules is very necessary for us. These Rules made U/S 48 of L.I.C  Act 1956 are mandatory and provides  rights to the pensioners to avail pension benefits. The Central Civil Services (pension) Rules 1972 and Central Civil Services (commutation of pension)Rules 1981  are relevant to us  because they are specifically mentioned in our  pension Rule 56. We are entitiled to enjoy the benefits  of these Central Govt. Rules. But our management  is  ignoring to implement this rule .Thus  we the pensioners are being cheated by the L.I.C because of our lack of knowledge of the Rule 56 which provides for updation of pension with each wage revision in terms of the Central Govt. Rules provided for in our Rule 56.



LIC acts super fast. The C
orporation filed an application today in the P & H HC for refund of the money it deposited vi!z Rs. 34, 97,116/- and to dispose of the contempt petition.
One should hope LIC would act equally promptly to release 40% as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

M. Sreenivasa Murty 


We are in the crucial phase of our legal struggle to protect our pensions from erosion of rupee value. The authors or the case managers of the legal battle are literally fighting for posterity than for themselves considering their ages. But what is unfortunately missing is the direction of the struggle for lack of unanimity; understanding and appreciation of vital legal points.  Instead they are being carried away by a temperament of ‘I KNOW ALL‘ stand taken. The attitude on the part of the LIC CL.I OFFICERS FEDERATION (G N SRIDHARAN), AIREF (Jaipur) not to talk of champions of class 3 employees AIIPA who are blissfully silent in the entire struggle may be perhaps because of their dogmatic principle that legal recourse is not the solution to the problem and has to be taken up across the table with LIC Management is appalling. Because in the process Govt. gets upper hand to deny what is legitimately due to the pensioners. Now in the horizon, SC willy-nilly threw open an opportunity for most of the pensioners in their twilight of most of their lives, without summarily dismissing all petitions and judgments. It is now up to the prudence of grey haired and nil haired to rise to the occasion and strengthen the hands of those who ever one feels fairly competent to take us to shore even though the group or leadership entered the fray in the very last moment.

Prolonging the battle by filing review petitions in the SC may endanger the sympathy already gained in the corridors of SC and not in the larger interests of vast majority of pensioners. It may be suicidal in the circumstances and limiting the relief to 40% DR arrears to pre 1997 retirees only. I therefore appeal to the conscience and wisdom of the leaders of all organizations to sit together, share fundamentally strong legal points, pool together all resources financial and otherwise and come to a consensus to engage the best in the business of law practice, meet all expenses from a common fund to be created at once by pooling together whatever is collected/to be collected. Ego should have long left all septuagenarians' minds to come together than any other sections of people. Recently formed Hyderabad class1 officers Association has also done commendable job to keep the legal issue live when Supreme Court is inclined to set aside but actually set aside all previous judgments should be the front runner of the platform to be launched. Highly resourceful organization, AIIPA (AIIEA) should join the fray instead of indoctrinating the aged and senile on world economic and domestic intolerance (so called).              

[Shri G K Viswanatham, Retd. from Vijayawada as Manager (Admn)]

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Tuesday, April 26, 2016


(Here we may clarify, our role will be limited to publishing suggestions received at our end. This will continue to be done at all times. -Ed.)


M Sreenivasa Murty


Our Association’s Executive Committee met on Sunday the 24 April 2016 and approved the proposals placed before it, on the action plan and the timetable.

We wish to scrupulously fall in line with the timelines mandated by the Judgement dated 31 March 2016, irrespective of what others do or don’t. We feel that if we the Petitioners themselves lag behind in complying with the schedule prescribed by the Bench (in the interests of the beleaguered LIC Pensioners, we will have no legal or moral right to complain about the delays by others, especially LIC.

Accordingly, Hyderabad Association has zeroed in on the choice of the Senior Advocate as the Lead Counsel (a former Additional Solicitor General – and an eminent Supreme Court Senior Advocate - name will be announced by Sri C H Mahadevan, after 1st May 2016) and the team of Advocates to assist him.
We have confirmed continuous sessions from 29 April to 1 May 2016, in Delhi to finalize the Petition to be filed, seeking comprehensive relief to ALL CLASSES & CADRES of LIC Pensioners governed by LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995.
We are getting ready to file our Petition before the Delhi High Court on   5 or 6 May 2016.

May I renew our Appeal for contributions from ALL THOSE who wish to support us, by way of direct remittance in to our Bank Account or by Account Payee Cheques in favour of:

SB Account No     :  053310100000317
Bank                      :  Andhra Bank, Saifabad Branch, HYDERABAD
IFSC No                 :  ANDB0000533

We see the light at the end of the tunnel                                   


26 Apr 16, 08:48 AM

C H Mahadevan: "We are inclined to set aside" is not an opinion but a decision by Justice Dipak Misra. The Appeals of LIC have been disposed of with directions to LIC, Delhi HC and options and relief to Pensioners. 

On 18/4/2016, the LIC's counsel had replied to Justice Misra that the Intervention Application has been allowed when it has been stated as 'disposed of '. So Hyderabad Retired Class I Officers' Association has been recognised as a party in the case before Delhi HC.

Monday, April 25, 2016



25 Apr 16, 07:17 AM

C H Mahadevan: It is reliably learnt that work is going on in Central Office for payment of 40% IR to all eligible pensioners with the help of IT dept program for the purpose. But we have to wait and see whether LIC will make calculations on the earlier faulty basis or in compliance with para 27 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 31/3/2016. It will be known only when the pensioners receive the payment with the calculations.

Sunday, April 24, 2016


23 Apr 16, 08:54 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: The complexity of the DR formulae & upgradation due to pay revisions of existing employees is mind boggling for pensioners and family-pensioners. 

It lies within the executive competence of the LIC to set right these anomalies which create categories of pensioners and family pensioners. 

All that is required is sympathetic reading of the rules, regulations and laws. This has been abandoned & the Pensioners are forced to knock at the doors of Courts. 

Finally let us hope that the sympathy denied by bureaucracy is given by Courts. Sometimes under rule-making powers of bureaucracy defeats even the very purpose of legislation. 

This has been found to be true in UK. As an old pensioner, I can only pray that enough goodwill and sympathy. at all levels secure us justice.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Updating of Pension in Banks, RBI and LIC - Some Retrospections & Some Introspections


The pay of bank employees who had retired between 01-11-1986 and 31-10-1987 and opted for pension was updated effective from 01-11-1987 and their basic pension and additional pension updated as provided in Regulation 35 of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. There has not been any subsequent pension updation in banks.

The bank pensioners retired in November, 2002 pay scales have been getting 100 % neutralisation in DR from Feb. 2005. Those retired in subsequent wage revisions in November, 2007 and 2012 get 100% DR. But, the pensioners retired in 1987, 1992 and 1997 pay scales continue to get DR on tapering basis.

Family pensioners are getting a meagre sum of pension. They are not getting 30% of the last basic pay, and other allowances reckoned for pension like GOI or RBI family pensioners. There are positive developments, but extremely slow, since last nine months. The bank pensioners and family pensioners are entertaining strong hopes of getting 100% DR to pre 2002 pensioners, updating of pension and family pension in a few months from now.

The pay of RBI employees who had retired between 01-01-1986 and 31-10-1987 and opted for pension was updated effective from 01-11-1987. The pension of pensioners who retired in the pay scales 1987 and 1992 were updated as per 1st November, 1997 pay scales but from a prospective date during the tenure of Governor, Dr.Bimal Jalan. All the pensioners retired in pre and 1997 pay scales who were getting DR on tapering basis started getting 100% neutralisation in DR from February, 2005.

RBI's decision of updating pension of pre 1997 pay scales pensioners was not found favour with MOF, GOI. They asserted that RBI has no powers to revise pension without seeking government's prior approval. The Centre held that the pension cannot be granted by the Bank without amending pension regulations.

RBI had no alternative but to go with the directions of GOI and withdrew the updation granted with the sanction of the Bank's Board meeting held in August 2008. No recoveries of pension already paid as per 1997 pay scales was effected. Three officers (RBI Retired Employees' Association) moved the Bombay High Court against the RBI order. The court stayed implementation of the order withdrawing updation already granted to pre-1997 retirees. But, subsequently, no updation in pension has been given to the RBI pensioners though there have been three more wage revisions effective from 1st November, 2002, 2007 and 2012. The family pensioners of RBI have started getting 30% of the pay fixed for pension on certain norms from January, 2013. It is not 30% of the 'updated pension with weightage' but updated with reference to notionally updated pension of the pensioners at the 2007 - DR merger point vis a vis earlier merger points of previous wage revisions. This administratively helped RBI to compute DR at uniform percentage applicable to working employees. RBI employees have started getting full pension from Jan.2013 after putting in 20 years of qualifying service as against 33 years of service required earlier, subject to other conditions. This change of granting full pension after 20 years of qualifying service has been there in GOI since 01-01-2006, as per 6th CPC. GOI employees' pension is fixed on the last ten months average or the last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial. The GOI defence pensioners have been given OROP from 01-06-2014. As per 7th CPC recommendations all the pensioners are going to get OROP from 01-01-2016.

RBI pensioners have not been successful to get updation of pension despite united struggle by the leaders and members of both the RBI Retired Employees' Association and all the four serving employees associations.

Hon.Justice Shri Dipak Misra has ordered 40% IR to the similarly placed pensioners - pre Aug. 1997 pensioners and family pensioners as contemplated in 3A of Appendix IV. He has directed much more (Sec. 48 of Act etc) to be adjudged by Delhi High Court by 31-08-2016. Pensioners keep their hands folded before the Almighty.



Constitutional validity of para 3A of Appendix IV

In my view the constitutional validity of para 3A of Appendix IV has to be considered in relation to the DR formula followed in respect of retirees of the period 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 from 1/11/1993.

Para 3A does not become invalid per se, but what has become invalid is the Appendix IV which was applicable for retirees from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 as the pensioners were placed at a financial disadvantage on account of the dual formula for DA/DR for in service employees and retirees during that period. This discrimination was remedied in respect of retirees after 1/8/1997 beginning with the amendment of LIC Pension Rules introducing para 3A w.e.f 1/8/1997 and adopting the same pattern of DR from subsequent wage revision dates.

If para 3A is invalidated, what will it mean for retirees from
1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002? Does it mean that their DR formula will have to be brought on par with those of pre-August 1997 retirees making them suffer similar loss in DR? Then the constitutional validity of all amendments in DR formula in subsequent wage revision dates will also have to be questioned.

Unfortunately the DR anomaly prevailing right from 1/11/1993 for pre-August 1997 retirees has not been adequately highlighted by the Respondents’ counsel and Supreme Court should have been convinced to direct the GOI to equalize the DA/DR formula for both in-service employees and retirees for that period so that there will be no discrimination in the matter of DR for employees retired at different points of time.

So what needs to be stressed before the Delhi HC is not the
constitutional validity of para 3A but the constitutional invalidity of Appendix IV as notified in the LIC Pension Rules in respect of pre-August 1997 retirees in the context of amendment by para 3A of Appendix IV.

It has also to be particularly noted is that with all the gracious
direction of the Apex Court to LIC to pay 40% IR to all similarly place pensioners as per para 3A, the financial loss suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees and family pensioners of that category still begs to be made good.In fact if the case had been properly argued,the 40% IR could also have included that loss component. Let us hope that at least in Delhi HC ,this aspect is adequately taken care of.

Another area where injustice prevails is the non-implementation of the M C Jain case judgment which should benefit at least about 90-100 pensioners(including family pensioners). When the question of upgradation of pension is considered,the implementation of this judgment becomes very relevant as it will make a lot of difference in the benefits secured by this category of the people on upgradation right from 1/11/1993.

Alongside, the injustice to the family pensioners on account of the archaic AppendiX V (relating to Rule 39) should also be adequately emphasized before the Delhi HC especially when the LIC Pension Scheme has been patterned on the Central Government Pension Rules, 1972.

Let us hope all the case managers (sorry to use the term although it creates some palpable discomfort among some leaders), address the above aspects in the ensuing legal battle at the Delhi HC.

C H Mahadevan


PENSIONERS PORTAL: With constant follow up
by AIRIEF, what is agreed to (?)
 in 2012 has become a "Good Idea" in 2016!






Friday, April 22, 2016



In the last two presentations, we have seen the cause for our grievance, giving us the right to move the Courts. Now let me argue from the LIC/Govt. point of view against our claim for the benefits. Since the whole case rests on discrimination only, I hope the LIC/Govt. (now both are the same as the counsel for the LIC can easily argue both ways without any contradiction) will heavily depend on the power of Sec.48, which many times, I have referred to as the harping on the same strings. In the law relating to defamation, the best defence for a person called upon to answer, is affirming the statement. If proved the defamation case will be dismissed, if not he fails to face the consequences. It is in this situation the LIC is placed today.

They have only on point to try their luck before the Bench, and Sec.48 is what it is. It has the force of law, the power having been given by a Special Law, the LIC Act. While passing the Bill, there was clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill by the members of the Parliament, criticism by the members and reply from the Govt. for the need of the clauses in the Bill and the Bill would have been passed. The passed bill has received the assent of the President and sanctified with his signature to make it an Act. That has given the Act the respectability to be governed in all matters relating to life insurance. During the course of years of administration, the Govt. has found the need to amend the LIC Act, for better administration and control and consequently incorporated into the Act, new regulation through amendments of the LIC Act. Certain provisions were to be effective from 1979 & 1981. Parliament passed the amendments the Govt. wanted and they were incorporated as Sec.48 2 (A, B & C) and 2 (cc), thereby authorizing the Govt. to make Rules under the Section. All the process for enactment have been complied with and therefore, the Rules by virtue of the powers delegated is valid and enforceable. It is to be emphasized that such rules cannot be called into question by the provision incorporated in the section. The action of the Govt. in issuing the Pension Rules cannot be assailed either. It is under such rules issued by the Govt., the retired, are getting their pension, to be also called pensioners! You cannot eat the cake and have it too, either eat i.e accept it or don’t eat i.e don’t complain.

Thus the government is exercising its mandate and the Govt. is doing its duty of carrying out the provisions, in this case the pensioners are the beneficiaries. If the LIC extends the benefit to those to whom it is not prescribed to be paid, it will be illegal, as it is against the Rules made under Sec.48. The Govt. is not under any obligation, especially now that the SC has stated “In the absence of a rule, in our considered opinion, no benefit can be granted on the basis of the resolution passed by the Corporation”. To issue or not to issue a Rule is an Executive prerogative. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have no legal claim to be decided by the HC.

How to meet the challenge is our concern and in the process to find out if something was wanting in our arguments or the methodology of presentation. With due respect to our friends, they seem to have presented the case lightly . However, I had a feeling that there was some hesitation 
to stoutly argue first hand on the point of discrimination and violation of the Constitution, in spite of the fact that the Nakaras case was a discussion on the constitutional principles and the case was therefore dealt with a Constitutional Bench. If not, there was no need to refer that case to the Constitution Bench, but a two Member Bench could have decided that case. Neither was it seen to have been mentioned to the SC, that our case is in pari passu the same as the Nakaras case, which would have made the judges to think otherwise. Briefing is an art by itself and briefing a Senior counsel is a difficult task to be experienced. Be, that as it is, I am in no way competent to comment on anyone and foremost Senior Counsels we have engaged.

I am making a reference to the point that this time we should hit the nail on the head, let us start from discrimination to show how it has hidden the established principles of law to the extent of extinction. That will raise the serious discussion on the cause, nature and unconstitutionality of the whole matter. To argue breach of Fundamental Rights is a task by itself, but will not be so in our case. We have the decision of the Constitutional Bench followed by a catena, which in Latin means a chain of cases decided, applying that decision, making our task easy. We have nothing other than the Sec.48 and the Rules made thereunder, to beat them back, which LIC is trying to do with us. We will use the rules, how justified our claims are, but how such rules are abused to the detriment of the majority of the pensioners and misused for a few. Seeking parity is a good claim in a case of discrimination and proving abuse and misuse will add further strength to our claim and is as easy as a pie.

Then we have to be specific for the relief sought. We may ask the court to declare that the Sec.48 2 (A,B,C) & 2 (cc) are sections loaded with unguided, wide powers resulting in the violation of Art.14, 16 & 21 and which invites the Courts intervention in the matter. The LIC and the Govt. are well aware of the law of precedence established by the Nakaras case, yet refuse to abide by that rule of law and the poor elderly are fighting an eighteen years battle, living on a measly pension, should have the sympathy of the Goddess of Justice to award a decree favouring them with interest considering the long period of the struggle. Needless to pray for award of cost also, as this is a simple case but for the refusal to hear the reasonable appeals from the pensioners, sleeping over a reasonable Resolution of a Board of this financial giant of the Country, declaring its motto as YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM, but not practicing it for the tired shoulder and limbs of its foster parents, the retired employees.






22 Apr 16, 09:29 AM

how a call given by 
ch mahadevan and srinivasa murty for donation can be misunderstood as a call for don. to airief.



Thursday, April 21, 2016


21 Apr 16, 09:16 PM

R.seshasayee: I wait eagerly for asrji 3rd part.he could explain what our 3 case managers failed to do in the apex court.

Revision of Family Pension - Long Overdue

One may feel like hitting his or her head on the walls of Yogkshema and Parliament after reading Shri C H Mahadevan's reply to Shri Kishore,"Pitiable state of family pensioners" Shri Mahadevan has been writing often highlighting the pitiable treatment meted out LIC family pensioners.

5th CPC recommended that the family pension should be at uniform rate of 30% of pay for all categories of employees. It also recommended the removal of then existing ceiling of Rs.1250/- on family pension which ( as rightly opined by the CPC) operates harshly against the families, against surviving family members of the deceased employees. Ever since 01-01-1996, GOI family pensioners have been getting 30% of the pay recognised for pension of the employee.

Shri Mahadevan's example of arrears of a paltry sum of Rs.786/- to Shri Kishore on behalf his mother is as an eye opener.

As stated above. The GOI family pensioners got enhanced family pension from 01-01-1996, the date of their revision of pay and pension. The legal heirs are entitled to whatever is justifiably due to the pensioners as well as family pensioners.

In order to do fair justice to 12000 plus family pensioners, living or departed, it should be ensured to get family pension on par with GOI family pensioners. It should not be from a prospective date, it should be retrospectively from 01-08-1997, the date of revision of pay scales in LIC.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )


Referring to the above, I give the calculation (at minimum basic family
pension) of 40% IR on arrears of FP due to the deceased Family
Pensioner upto 31/8/2010. It works out to only Rs 786 with marginal
additional difference for 19 days in Sep 2010.
This is the pitiable state of family pensioners.
C H Mahdevan



Wednesday, April 20, 2016


Dear Editor,

The hike in the Mediclaim premium has come as a shocker. For those in the age brackets 75 and above, the increase is almost 50% over last years premium. To cite my own example, for a coverage of 20,00,000 for me and my wife, I paid a premium of a little less than Rs.12000/- for the Year 2015-2016. For the same coverage, for the year 2016-2017, according to the new rates, it works out to almost Rs.18000 (approximately). If I opt for a higher coverage of 30,00,000, the premium for both will be Rs.24,000/-.

In these days of low inflation, the increase in DR during a year may not go beyond Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- (post August 1997 retirees). Should this trend continue in the coming years, for the reasons best known to New India Assurance and LIC, every succeeding year we will find a huge reduction in the net pension. One can very well imagine the plight of those who unfortunately live beyond 80 or 85. The cost of medicines going up from year to year is another story.

Both in-service employees and pensioners should take up this issue with LIC with the immediacy it deserves and the threshold for subsidy should be raised considerably from the present limit of 6,00,000. We should also find out the reason for their steep increase; is it the heightened claim experience or some other factor? Is it not a solid reason for us to insist on pension revision?

With Greetings,


First an apology for some goof up that has happened in the penultimate para of my last write up. I don’t know how it has happened. Everything became incoherent. May be because of the noncooperation of the hand with the head or mix up at the time of editing at my end, for which I seek to be excused. I have removed the ambiguous part and to show what I intended to write, in the next para.

It is also imperative to bring out that the discriminations brought out are the only ones, but many may recur with each revision of pay scales, that it is necessary to follow the procedure decided in the Nakaras case and in the Central Civil (Services) Pension rules, as a result of the 1982 Nakaras case decision. Our Pension Rules were also framed under powers delegated under Sec.48, which have the force of law, which can also be directed to be followed by a judgement of the HC. Here it may be also pointed that Sec.56 is binding on the LIC as well as the Govt. and about which neither of them have bothered. Without such a direction, there is every chance for multiple future litigation, robing the valuable time of the Court, creating a docket explotion threatening the system of judicial administration.

After seeing our grievance, we have seen a cause for action. Whatever words have been used to describe our grievance, it finally boils down to calling it a discrimination, the sounding of which is enough to raise the interest of the court as indicated by the SC, and we will have no problem to call it violating our Fundamental Rights.

Earlier when LIC filed an appeal against the judgement of the Jaipur HC raising one of the contention that in the absence a notification u/s 48 of the LIC Act, I pointed out the fact that there is no need for a fresh notification because the notification issued u/s 48 giving higher benefits of DR to those who retired earlier to 1-8-1997, is valid and subsisting because Hon. Justice Bhandari of Jaipur HC has not stuck down that notification. What the Hon. Judge did was to give a benevolent reading that all pensioners are entitled to be treated alike, in view of the decision in the Nakaras Case (Nakaras case itself and another SC decision in Pradip Kumars case supports the legal fiction that such judicial interference is permissible and is not amounting to invasion of the legislative powers of Parliament). That case has also been elaborately dealt with, discussed in his judgement, applied to our case, as our case is pari passu the same as that case; what was pleaded by us quoting Nakaras case, was discrimination and what the Hon. Judges finding was also discrimination. Under Art.226, the HC is empowered to the issue writs of the type described and also issue such direction as are deemed necessary under the circumstances of the case. The LIC Board Resolution has only evidentiary value, as a proof of our grievance that would have eclipsed all other arguments of the LIC/Govt. As contended by Shri KMLA’s counsel, upholding plea of discrimination by itself and the order to treat all retired pensioners as a single homogenous class by the Hon. Judge in view of the Constitutional Bench decision in the Nakaras case, (which is binding on the HC as well as the SC Bench that heard our case), is sufficient to uphold our contentions. Now I am opening another door to our arguments to support our contention.

Our only grievance is discrimination. Our case is similar in all respects to the Nakaras case and the decision of the Constitutional Bench is applicable on the points of removal of discrimination but also highlighting the recurring nature of the anomaly resulting in the recurrence of it with every revision of pay scales, if not addressed to. Going further that Constitutional Bench also gives a solution to avoid it by directing to re-fix the basic pension by revising as if it is a pay revision.

All our Pay Revisions were codified as was the case of our Pension Rules through the Sec.48 route. Forget for the time being whether such rules are within the Constitution, whether the LIC itself could have done it rather than the Govt. etc. As the notifications are done by the Govt. by virtue of the powers u/s 48, the rules have the power of law and they are valid. But if the rules are afflicted with virus of discrimination, Art.14, 16 & 21 are attracted and the HC’s and SC gets power under Art. 226 or 32 to interfere either by way of declaring them inoperative or striking down certain words alone, if the other words used serves the purpose, or even give a new direction to remove the infringement as per Art.13, which empowers them to make the rules not to be in conflict with the Constitutional provisions. The Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land none, even the Parliament can legislate, ignore or overrule against conflicts detected. Therefore so long as the HC/SC have not ruled against our Pension Rule No.55 (now 55 (A) & (B) as well as 56, they are valid and enforceable. No further instructions are required to be issued by the Govt. to implement them as otherwise the purpose of framing the Rule itself will be defeated. We know of no such instructions issued in respect of other Rules of our Pension Rules. After issue of the notification under Sec.48, the only thing is that they be gazette and also placed before both houses of the Parliament. If Parliament does interfere with the notification, within the prescribed time, such rules, per se, becomes enforceable just like any other law.

Now we have the following subordinate legislations, that have the force law, for consideration.

1) Rule No.37 for D.A relief payable, subject to revision as a result of increase in consumer price index or the orders issued under Sec.48, as was done for increasing the rate of DR to those retired on and from 1-8-1997, which was found in conflict with Art.14 and hence made equally applicable to all as a homogenous class.

2) Rule No.55 which authorizes the Chairman to issue instructions for implementation of the Pension Rules. It is here the Hon. Bench of the SC missed the point, that Rule 55 is also a product of Sec.48.

3) Rule 56 reproduced in here.

Don’t, you pensioner friends, see this by itself gives sufficient powers to give us what we want and deserve, without any reference to the Govt. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THE POINT THAT RULE 56 OF THE PENSION RULE IS SUFFICIENT TO GIVE US WHAT IS GIVEN TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SERVANTS because the rules is emphatic in that in “Matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no expression has been made in this rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the Central civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Central Civil Services (commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees. Needless to mention it covers revision of pension, after the Nakara's case).

What is required is to include points suggested above in our further affidavit to the Delhi HC. We can openly mention this because there cannot be any twist or turn in respect of them being facts.


(to be continued)

Monday, April 18, 2016

Employees union hopeful of positive examination of its demands

Mumbai/Hyderabad, April 15:  
There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel finally for scores of retired bank employees.
The long pending demand for revision of pension has finally come up for positive examination by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA).
From 1986, pension for retired bank employees has not been revised as there is no practice of periodical revision of pension along with the Pay Commission’s review of pay scales being followed in the case of government employees.
There has also been no increase in the quantum of pension payable to family members after the death of a serving or retired employee.
However, the United Federation of Bank Unions (UFBU) has been able to break the ice in these matters in its talks with the IBA team held a couple of days ago.


Dear  Sir,

I congratulate you for taking keen interest in safeguarding the
interest of pensioners and thank you for your enoromous efforts put by
you in the legal battle.

As appealed by you to the pensioners, to day 18-04-2016 I have paid
Rs.10,000/- [Ten thousand Rupees only] in to SB A/c
No.053310100000317, Andhra Bank, Saifabad, Branch , Hyderabad in the
name of Retired LIC Class I Officers Association Hyderabad - through
Andhra Bank, Krishna nagar, Kurnool as my contribution towards legal
fund being organised by you both sirs.

In this regard if you pardon me i recomend the following eminent,
knowledgebale, efficient, eloqent and proficient Advocate to support
our legal battle.

He is well experienced in corporate matters, service matters,
constitutional matters and pension litigations. you may please utilise
his services for discussion, guidence, writ petitions etc.  Often he
goes over different courts in India on behalf of his clients.

Thanking you
Yours faithfully


Let us come to realities and remember the proverb “to err human and to forgive is divine”. So long as we are all humans we do commit mistakes, so do others but let us go further because of miles to go……..

I have not turned philosophical, but trying to be realistic and that takes me to the task ahead of us in the Pension case. The first step is to learn from our mistakes or better to say one course which we thought correct but was not that appealing. We can now correct our mistake because now there is a God given chance.

Redefine our aim first. We have realized that after the better period of our life, we have progressed to the final part. How to make our final part comfortable is our aim. In these days of high cost of living, there is no life without money. After spending whatever may be our lifes savings, we are depending on our pension. That is shrinking every day under the weight of inflation. We are humans and when we see someone whom we have guided to success while in service, feel happy to see him again smiling at you. But after coming home, we rue our fate that we are left in the lurch by the organization we served, because we are neglected and paid a paltry amount called pension, as compared to our younger brother who retired after us, perhaps three or more cadres down below, but was fortuitous to retire one month after or even much later. I hope this one sentence picturizes our plight and that is the cause for us to approach for justice. I would have pleaded that my pension is less than my junior and you might have said that it is not fair to ignore me while some other pensioner gets more. Does these two pleas or something more different than the word discrimination. But let us say this time clearly that it is also violation of Fundamental Rights, to make the Goddess of Justice hear our voice because her eyes are closed. The Court will accept your plea and ask why. Now that both sides are aware of the battle ground, we can say we are entitled to a treatment as directed by the SC in the Nakaras Case and also as the inviolable Rule 56 of the Pension Rules says: “Residuary provisions – Matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no expression has been made in these rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 applicable for central Government employees. I hope the HC will accept that the usage of the words ‘shall be governed’ is more definitive than the words “The Chairman of the Corporation may from time to time…. found in Rule 55 of the pension Rules, although our late Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in the course of a Parliamentary debate, equated the word ‘may’ as equal the word ‘shall’.

Let the next para of the affidavit to be filed afresh in the Delhi HC, make a prayer to the Bench to refer to a Schedule to be treated part of the plaint, showing in a scheduled format the anomalies that have arisen as a result of the assailed division of pensioners by their date of retirement and as a result of the cadre they held prior to the retirement, in a few cases of the top cadre pensioners in the LIC, that will serve as a snap still picture shot. I suggest this course instead of referring to various Annexures with their subsections to avoid confusion and to facilitate easy reference.

It is also imperative to bring out that the discrimination brought out are the only ones but many may recur with each revision of the serving employees and it is necessary to follow the procedure decided in the Nakaras case and followed in the Central Civil (Services) Pension rules, which have the force of law having been framed by virtue of the powers conferred by Sec.48 of the LIC Act, 1956 which can also be directed to be followed by a judgement of the HC. Here it may be also pointed that Sec.56 is binding on the LIC as well as the author and about which neither of them have bothered to see , the other Sections 48 2(A, B, C), (cc), about which much hype has been created without realizing that the section are liable to be labelled void by the HC. Without such a direction there is every chance for multiple future litigation robing the valuable time of the Court creating a docket explotion which is already an existing threat in the system of judicial administration.

I shall take a break now with a request to the Editor to find space to publish this write up and that follow.



Referring to Mr M V Venugopalan's post where he has analyzed the present legal scenario,I wish to respond on the point stated by him on 20% IR paid by LIC to selected pensioners vis-a-vis the 40% now ordered by SC.

I wish to make it clear based on my calculations that the 20 % paid by LIC was short of the entitled DR arrears as the method followed by LIC resulted in lesser monthly pension than justified on removal of DR anomaly even without merger of Basic pension and DR as at 1/8/1997.

The 40% IR mandated by SC in its 31/3/2016 order stands on a different footing.It requires LIC to revise the pension of pre-August 1997 retirees after revising their average emoluments on par with the fitment done for in-service employees as at 1/8/1997.In other words,there has to be an one-time upgradation of pension with weightage as at 1/8/1997 which carries with it much more than DR arrears.

Based on our experience with the LIC's faulty method of 100% DR neutralisation,God knows how IBA will provide an anomaly free pension for the pre- November 2002 retirees as ultimately MoF may advise them to follow the method followed by LIC.

Let us see how things turn out.
C H Mahadevan


When the Maximum cover was 20 lks,the threshold limits were justified at present levels.Now with 44% increase in premiums,the threshold limits need to be doubled for all the three categories as the maximum cover has been raised to 30 lks entailing a cascading effect on account of the 44% increase in premium.

The Federations/Associations of both the in service & retired employees need to take up the issue vigorously with the LIC Management.Otherwise many employees/Retirees may revoke their options for increased cover which is a lose-lose situation both the employees/Retirees and NIA.
C H Mahadevan


Dear Editor,

On behalf of the Hyderabad Association, a mention was made by Mr Saurav Aggarwal, Advocate, before the Bench at 10.30 AM today.

Justice Misra asked for details and heard us patiently. He said we are free to file our pleadings in Delhi High Court, along with others. Upon enquiry, if the Order 'disposed of' may be elaborated, he smiled and asked LIC counsel Ashok Panigrahi what has he to say. Ashok said My lord their IA was for intervention and disposed of would only mean 'allowed'.

Then he directed Ashok to support and not oppose, our plea to Appear before Delhi HC. To that, Ashok agreed with a broad smile.

Finally Justice Misra asked our counsel, 'you file your pleadings claiming you are admitted by us and come back and mention before us if you face any problem'.
We left profusely thanking the Bench.

In effect in the place of the earlier order which said the 'IAs are disposed of', by virtue of today's open court directions, the Hyderabad Association stands as a party to the proceedings, on par with the other three original Respondents in LIC's three Civil Appeals.

We now move to Delhi High Court for further action.

I am in Delhi today & tomorrow to chalk out specific further actin program as per the mandate I got from Hyderabad Association.

Sreenivasa Murty M
Camp: New Delhi


Dear Editor,  

   I thought I would share with you  the contents of a telephonic  talk I had   with a long time friend of mine, who was also a former LIC employee. He and his son are practising as advocates in the Supreme Court. While discussing our ongoing case in the Supreme Court, he told me very casually that  the SC  judges are not that independent or neutral as the general public perceive them to be , not to get influenced by the opinions of those in power in the Govt. We are aware as to how the CBI and the law enforcement machinery, in general, show tendency to lean towards the Govt.in power.
   As per the 31st March Order of the S.C the Honble.Judge has been kind enough to hike the DR arrears from 20% to 40%  for the ‘septuagenarians’,as an interim measure, obviously on sympathetic grounds. Does it mean that post- 1997 pensioner-septuagenarians, who bank upon arrears due to upgraded pension, don’t deserve any sympathy? In the May Interim Order for release of 20% arrears of DR by the Judge , the beneficiaries were only pre-1997 pensioners.  While all of us are extremely happy that at least a section of the more deserving pensioners received some money in their hands, my objective is to drive home the point that as far as SC is concerned, only the DR issue was in their view, not Up-gradation for which we have filed a writ too. Link it up with the view held by our Finance Ministry, things are bound to emerge clearer. You will definitely find a pattern emerging.