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

Tuesday, April 12, 2016




As regards the chat column comments of Mr S Anand, my response is that
the Notification of the Central Govt dt 22/6/2000 was the first
Notification for wage revision after the LIC Pension Rules 1995 were
notified by the Central Govt,where some changes in the rate of
Dearness Relief, Minimum Pension and Family Pension slabs were
necessitated based on the principle of merger of Basic Salary and DA
before effecting wage revisions w.e.f 1/8/1997 were effected. These
changes were only in the nature of arithmetical adjustments applicable
in respect of these aspects for which no major change of rules that
would warrant the exercise of the powers of the Central Government
under Sec 48 was involved.

These arithmetical adjustments were to apply only to the employees
who retired after 1/8/1997 and before 31/7/2002. So these
powers were conferred in terms of the Rules 36,37 and 39 and
para 3B of Appendix IV of the LIC Pension Rules themselves
which were used by the Corporation after subsequent wage revisions
effective from 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007. Perhaps the instructions of
similar nature might have been issued by the Corporation for the
latest wage revision effective from 1/8/2012 also or may be issuing
the same in the very near future. As the Corporation derives the
powers from the LIC Pension Rules themselves, there is no need for any
fresh Gazette Notification for making changes of the above nature.

As regards the power to implement the Board Resolution, the para 15 of
the Supreme Court judgment has very clearly ruled that Rule 55 does
not confer power on the Chairman to inclement the Board Resolution
because the decision taken in the Board Resolution is not part of
the Pension Rules, but within the domain of the Govt of India in
terms of Sec 48.

So all that we can do at the Delhi HC will be to focus on the
discrimination among pensioners retired at different periods of time
and establish before the Delhi HC that not providing upgradation of
Pension in our Pension Rules is violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitutions in respect of all pensioners especially when
admittedly the LIC Pension Rules are patterned on the lines of the
Central Govt Pension Rules,1972 which provide for upgradation from the
time the Vth Pay Commission Recommendations were accepted by the
Government.


As far as pre-August 1997 retirees are concerned, the duality of the
DR formula for retirees and in-service employees whereby the former
are subjected to cumulative financial loss through inadequate DR
right from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever is later can
also be established as a proof of discrimination violating articles
14 & 16 of the Constitution when that disadvantage is not suffered by
employees who retired after 1/8/1997.The Supreme Court has already
recognized this anomaly by ordering 40% payment of IR in terms of
para 3A of Appendix IV( in effect providing one-time upgradation as
at 1/8/1997 for the purpose).This should also strengthen the case for
successive upgradation as one-time upgradation will ultimately be
also anomalous.

Again, creation of another separate Class of pensioners viz, retired
Chairmen and MDs who are entitled to be governed by the Central
Government Pension Rules while employees in the Cadre of Executive
Directors and below are not , has also to be stressed before the
Delhi HC as a discriminatory action by LIC/UOI under the same Pension
Rules which attract the application of the rulings in the D S Nakra
case judgment.

So we have both a challenge (both legally and financially) and an
one-time opportunity to fight the case successfully in the Delhi High
Court. All the stakeholders need to fight the case collectively
through Federations/Associations with all pensioners being prepared to
share the huge financial burden of the cost of the litigation as the
litigation at the Delhi High Court level may cost a fortune.


Greetings.

C H Mahadevan