Tuesday, May 10, 2016

T Lakshminarayanan

Appendix IV deals with the rates at which the DR is to be paid 

to different groups of Pensioners. Rule 1 defines the rates at 

which the DR is to be paid to the Pensioners of 600 points 

group and Rule 2 deals with the same question in respect of 

1148 points Pensioners. 

  • After wage settlement to employees effective from 1-8-97, it became necessary to define the DR rate linked to 1740 points at which DR is payable to employees retiring on or after 1-8-97. This was done by issue of Govt. Notification dt.22-6-2000 fixing the DR rate at 0.23% . While doing so, the earlier practice of calculating the DR by following a tapering scale - the more the pension less the DR was- given-up and 0.23% rate made applicable on Full Pension. This was the point where discrimination arose. While persons retiring after 1-8-97 are paid DR at full rate (100%), the same treatment is denied to persons retired earlier to 1-8-97 and their DR rates remain to be less than 100%.

How the discrimination should be removed? Not in the way in which the LIC is trying to do by adding the actual DR drawn on 1-8-97 to the basic pension and calculating DR @ 0.23% on such total. This is a ploy employed to deny the pensioners what is justly due to them.. In the method adopted by LIC the total DR on 1-8-97 will be "ZERO". Calculating DR at 0.23% will not bring removal of discrimination.. What is to be done is by extending the principle of 100% DR neutralisation to the earlier two groups of Pensioners covered by Rule 1 and 2. If this is done , Rule 1 Pensioners (600 pts) will receive DR at 0.67% on Full pension from 1-8-97 and those covered by Rule 2 @ 0.35% on full pension from same date. In this method, the total DR payable on 1-8-97, which was zero in L:IC method, will be substantial 0n 1`-8-97 and the cumulative arrears due as on date will be much higher. If LIC wants to merge the various groups, it should be done only after first removing the discrimination .in the manner enumerated above. 

The thinking in certain quarters that Rule 3A can be interpreted to include pension upgradation also is far-fetched in my view. Also, the view held by a few that the existing DR formula under Rule 1 & 2 is discriminatory is not correct. The total DR p;aid to such pensioners is exactly half of the DA received while in service. So, instead of wasting our time and energy in these matters we should try our best to get full justice to pre-August 97 pensioners. 

Upgradation is an issue common to all groups of pensioners and the same should not be mixed with the removal of DR discrimination to pre-August 97 pensioners, which is of paramount importance. 

T. Lakshminarayanan