Thursday, June 30, 2016

MV Venugopalan

Bonanza for Government Pensioners

A fabulous 2.5 rise in pension for the Government pensioners with arrears from January 2016 in response to the 7th Pay commission recommendation reveals the government's philosophy that the pensioner's welfare also is their concern. 

While the beleaguered pensioners in LIC appreciate this enlightenment of the government we expect that this philosophy is not given adieu when our case comes for hearing in the Delhi HC shortly.

We hope that the learned judges unearth the injustice done to us. Although many have sounded the victory bugle for us it all depends on how well we orchestrate our argument on that fateful day and use the court craft in our command.


No balance!

Forwarded message
Please note in July banks will be closed total eleven days - 


because, 2nd & 23rd is first & forth saturday, 
3,10,17,24,31 are Sundays, 
6th is Ramazan id, 
13th - all india bank strike, 
12 & 28 the State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur staff on strike & 
29th July- strike by union of united forum of banks.


30 Jun 16, 01:45 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: Wide publicity is there in the Media on the salary-hike for CG employees.
But a welcome reform will be to abolish income-tax for all salaried employees. This will considerably reduce the work-burden on the various offices and also in the IT dept. Simultaneously simplification of tax-return form may be taken up. Incentivizing prompt submission of Tax-returns will go a long way to ensure better collection.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Payment of revised pension, difference in commutation

Forty percent not correctly paid

Dear Editor,

Sh. C.H. Mahadeven has worked very hard to prove to entire LIC Pensioners Community that 40 % IR Payment to all Pre 01.08.1997 LIC Retirees has not been paid correctly by LIC and hence LIC must face supreme court for not complying with its order dated 31.03.2016 in letter and spirit.

Now all case managers supported by their respective Pensioners Organisations who make very loud claims are requested to come forward to support Hyderabad Association to raise this issue before supreme court.

My request to Sh Murty to address  open letters to all other case managers also as sent to GNS today followed by uploading those letters on LIC PC so that every body understands who is with whom.


7th Pay Commission

All channels announced that the recommendations of 7th pay commission are approved by the Cabinet. The announcement is "BONANZA FOR EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS." When will we the LIC Pensioners hear such an announcement? Our wage revisions are for employees only. Pensioners are not in their reckoning.

Hope 12th July 2016 will see all case managers working towards a single objective of Updation of Pension.

B.Ganga Raju 


M Sreenivasa Murty


28 Jun 16, 10:40 AM

G.Krishna Prasad.: At the cost of repetition I submit that we, the subscribers in the Chronicle, should refrain from discussing threadbare the law points for or against our case before the Delhi HC. We cannot afford to take
 the chance of LIC counsels making a 'detailed study' of them and countering them in the court.

28 Jun 16, 05:27 PM

A.S.Ramanathan: Shri Krishna Prasad may please note that the affidavit filed by the LIC earlier contained sentences copied from SC decisions which gave me clues as to their line of thinking. That made me search for a solution & am able to give a good legal solution. Considering the volume of case laws I have no doubt we have a sound case to win. Already of late much criticisms are there against the judiciary & let us hope for the best.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016


The information received by Mr  C S Murty  under the RTI Act  reveals the following information:-

Total number of Pensioners/Family Pensioners who have been paid 40% Interim Relief:   15286

Total amount of 40% IR paid  : Rs 27,23,17,955

Average IR paid per pensioner=  Rs 17815

It will be worthwhile to compare the number of pensioners who have received the 40% IR with the  total number of pre-August 1997 retirees  as at 1/8/2003.
The following table gives the statistics of pre-August 1997 retirees as at 1/8/2003 and 20/2/2009 as per the information obtained under RTI Act:

This  indicates  that  out of 21762  as many as 5264  constituting 24.2% have  expired  resulting in addition of as many family pensioners less  a small number where spouses might have predeceased the retirees.

MV Venugopalan

Monday, June 27, 2016

AS Ramanathan

MV Venugopalan

CH Mahadevan


Since my offer through the pensioners’ blogs inviting request for calculation of actual dues of 40% IR as per Supreme Court Order, I received more than 40 requests till date.Taking into account calculations made by me for pensioner friends prior to that I tried to understand whit the calculations revealed in regard to payment of the 40% IR by LIC for pre August 1997 retirees from the calculations made for a total number of 97 pensioners:

I have received a request from a retired Section Head and I have sought some details in view of some apparent mismatch between Basic Pension and IR.

1. Generally higher the cadre, higher the IR.The only exception seems to be between ADM & AO who got minimum IR because of proportionate pension on qualifying service of less than 33 years.

2. Higher the amount of IR, higher the percentage to the amount due as per the Supreme Court Order.

3. M C Jain category retired officers mostly ADMs got the same IR of Rs 39088 as ADMs who retired prior to 1/8/1992,This indicates the non-implementation of the MC Jain case Jaipur judgment by LIC has affected this category of pensionewrs adversely.

4. The minimum percentages were mostly in respect of employees retired before 1/8/1992 and the M C Jain category retired officers. This indicates that non -application of para 3A has adversely affected the pre August 1992 retirees more than post July 1992 retirees(among pre-August 1997 retirees) who themselves have been adversely affected by financial losses ranging from 68% to 78% on account of under payment of interim relief.

5. Class III retirees and Development Officers have been hit harder in terms of percentages by non-application of para 3A.In case of Development Officers , the percentages have worked out to much less than other cadres probably because of the difference in wage revision structure.

6. Besides the above family pensioners either got no IR or single digit amounts not worth being called ‘interim relief’.


C H Mahadevan

MV Venugopalan

Sunday, June 26, 2016

While comparing the Pension Rule 56 of the banks and the L.I.C., Sri ASR missed one very important point. As per this rule the benefits available to the Central Govt. employees can be extended to the employees of the banks and the L.I.C. The GOI has to grant prior permission for the banks for the said purpose. But our pension Rule does not provide for such prior permission of the G.O.I to extend the benefits available to the Central Govt. employees to the Retirees of the L.I.C.

He concluded his article stating that the GOI can frame the RULES at its will and pleasure under Section 48 of L.I.C Act. Such Rules can not be challenged before any Court and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. This is really distressing and demoralizing especially when the L.I.C Pensioners are to plead before the Delhi High Court on 12th July on the Constitutional validity of Para 3 of Annexure IV of Rule 37. If we were to endorse the views of Sri ASR the Pre Aug.97 Pensioners must be prepared to refund the 40% I.R paid to them. If we can not contest the pension Rules how the Supreme Court called upon the septuagenarian Pensioners to fight our case before the Delhi H.C. 

No doubt the GOI can frame Rules under Sec. 48 covering matters (a) to (j). Yet the militant struggles by the trade unions in L.I.C won hands down very good wage revisions and other monetary benefits from 1981 onwards apart from the pension scheme of 1995. Rules or no Rules the fighting spirit that counts. The pertinent question is whether the G.O.I can frame Rules which violate the Constitution, the principles of Equity and Justice, and the Human Rights.

L.I.C Retirees are entitled to the benefit of updation of pension with each wage revision as per Rule 56 as enjoyed by the Central Govt. Employees for which prior approval of the GOI is not necessary. The Supreme Court Constitution Bench held in DEOKINANDAN PRASAD Vs BIHAR: “This Court authoritatively ruled that PENSION IS A RIGHT and the payment of it DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNMENT but is GOVERNED BY THE RULES and a Govt. Servant coming within those RULES IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PENSION.” This judgment is quite appropriate to our case.

Once Rules are framed by the GOI they are meant for implementation. It is the duty and responsibility of the management (L.I.C) to implement the RULE without let or hindrance. The GOI CAN NOT POKE THEIR NOSE INTO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RULES. Much more the GOI has the morally duty to ensure due implementation of the RULES. So Rule 56 should have been implemented by the L.I.C to provide the benefit of updation to the Retirees as per the Central Govt. Employees Rules. But L.I.C and GOI have been flouting the Rules to deprive the Pensioner of their legitimate dues for which the militant trade unions remained mute spectators.

It is pertinent here to recall the observations of the National Human Rights Commission which highlighted the Role of the Executive in implementing the pension RULES. NHRC is on record: “ The Commission expects that the Executive in India will understand their important Role in strengthening the SOCIAL SECURITY REGIME in the country and take all necessary steps to PROMOTE AND PROTECT the RIGHTS OF THE ENTITLED PERSONS TO RECEIVE THE RETIRAL BENEFITS. NHRC has strong belief that when all the stake holders contribute to this resolve a happy and developed India will not be a distant dream. (Just contemplate on the role of the officials of Finance Ministry and the L.I.C)

Pension is the deferred portion of the compensation for long and devoted services rendered by an employee with the employer. It is a SOCIAL WELFARE measure as well. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees every one a fundamental RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD, which includes entitlement to receive his deferred wages in accordance with RULES after retirement. Non-payment of retiral benefits, therefore, is violation of one’s fundamental right under Art.21. The right to receive the same is not only a fundamental right but is also a RIGHT TO PROPERTY under the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away except by Authority of Law.( under which Rule LIC Pensioner is denied the benefit of updation or the benefit of 100% D.R)

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Chairman NHRC observed in the booklet “ RETIRAL BENEFITS AS A HUMAN RIGHT - NHRC INITIATIVES” observed “ Retiral Benefits are the accumulated savings of life time service. Denial , non-payment or delayed payment of the same is not only tantamount to denial of an Individual’s RIGHT TO PROPERTY but is also A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE VICTIM AND THEIR NEXT OF KIN WHEREIN THEIR LIVELYHOOD IS AFFECTED OFTEN TIMES RESULTING IN UNTOLD MISERY, STARVATION AND POVERTY.”

Are we the LIC Pensioners VICTIMS? Yes, we are the victims of the foul play being played by the GOI/ LIC combine depriving us of our Constitutional and property rights and which violates the HUMAN RIGHTS AS WELL. LET US FIGHT UNITEDLY TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS. FIGHT WE MUST WIN WE MUST.

v.s.prakasarao, visakhaptnam 

25 Jun 16, 08:05 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: With hope and despair alternating, LIC pensioners are waiting. The inadequacy in his salary  - after 35 years of service - forces the top executive to quit. Amidst all this, the Diamond Jubilee is waiting to happen in a month or two. By one stroke of administrative action the LIC-GOI could redress all grievances, taking advantage of this historic occasion.

But the Big Question is: will they?

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Celebrations !

25 Jun 16, 09:17 AM

T.S.Venkataraman.: Men may 
come and men may go. We hope the incoming Chairman is sympathetic towards the pensioners. Let there be light......Will there be Insurance Week and Diamond Jubilee celebrations next month?


I refer to the circular dated 21/6/2016 of Mr GNS.

Although it has been written therein that the matter relating to 
MC Jain category people is being pursued with LIC, that the
delegation led by Federation President MR N P Bali had met the 
LIC Management on the issue, and a memorandum has been 
submitted to the ED(Personnel), the response from LIC 
has been conspicuously omitted to have been 
mentioned in the circular.

The concerned retired Class I Officers not only continue to 
be in the same position where they were, but are also under 
more stress and anxiety on account of the lack of complete 
communication and advanced age without any indication of 
early justice.

Any amount of follow up or submission of memoranda and 
stressing before the LIC Management will be of no avail unless 
there is a semblance of a positive response from LIC through 
affirmative action.We will be living in a fool’s paradise if we 
expect LIC to render justice without judicial intervention going 
by its track record of not attaching much importance to court 

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

Old Age Needs !

24 Jun 16, 11:29 PM

karunakaran: Poor man. Resigned for poor salary. He should have taken some lesson from the pensioners how to pull on with what the Corporation pays.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Late realisation !

A wonderful fact reflected upon after 35 years of deliberations!
He joined the Corporation in 1981.
LIC chief quits 2 yrs ahead of term

Mayur Shetty| TNN | Jun 23, 2016, 05.44 AM IST

Mumbai: Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) chairman S K Roy is understood to have put in his papers two years before his term ends. According to sources, the chief executive decided to resign due to personal reasons.

Roy was appointed as chairman in June 2013 for a term of five years. The position of LIC chairman is of the rank of secretary in the finance ministry — the same as the chairman of State Bank of India.

Sources said that Roy had been talking about resigning in recent weeks. He had also been complaining about being poorly paid. The corporation's chairman is paid a gross salary of Rs 1.7 lakh per month. The corporation has assets worth over Rs 21 lakh crore and is more than 20 times larger than the next life insurance company.

LIC's huge cash stash has come to the aid of the government in the past in recapitalizing public sector banks and in stemming volatility in the capital market. In recent years, the government has been using the LIC funds for boosting investments in infrastructure.

Roy could not be reached for comments and text messages to the top management did not elicit any response. LIC sources ruled out any irregularity, saying that Roy adopted a cautious committee approach to investments. Besides being the executive chairman of LIC, Roy is also on the board of LIC group companies and the corporation's nominee director in some private companies.

In terms of performance, the corporation has seen its sales pick up during the fourth quarter of FY16 and in the first quarter of the current fiscal.

Sources said that the government might not relieve Roy immediately. Appointing a new chairman would take a few months as the process involves shortlisting eligible candidates, interviewing them and finally obtaining all clearances. In the absence of a chairman, the senior-most managing director of the corporation is usually appointed as current-incharge (CIC).

While the CIC is empowered to oversee day-to-day operations, he is not in a position to take policy decisions. The two senior managing directors in the corporation are V K Sharma and Usha Sangwan. Although both were appointed on the same day, Sharma is understood to be senior.

Top CommentThe government has been Pushing LIC to invest in failed PSUs and PSBs. Cash stashed from Public by selling them overpriced Insurance is being squandered on PSBs so that they can give loans to Modi Cronies.Brown American

This is the second time that a chairman of the corporation is resigning midterm. Around four decades back, former chairman J R Joshi had resigned following a government proposal to split the LIC into five regional entities. The proposal never fructified.

Roy had joined LIC in 1981 as a direct recruit officer. Prior to taking charge as chairman, he was managing director of the corporation.

(the times of india)

AS Ramanathan

Tuesday, June 21, 2016


1. Name:
2. S R No :
3. Date of Retirement:
4. Basic Pension:
5. Cadre in which retired:
6. "40% IR" received from LIC : Rs

In case of family pensioners, the following 
additional information may be given:
1. Name of the family Pensioner:
2. Date of death of Retiree:
3. Basic Family Pension


Delhi HC case

In the interest of the Pensioners, I am sure this Appeal will be aired to the "Heads of all the Groups". Once the AIM of all the Groups is one " ie INTEREST OF LIC PENSIONERS", we fail to understand "What is preventing them in joining and fighting the case together" with the Mighty Organisation. Most of the Pensioners are having something BIG (?) in their mind, because they do not know the "ifs and buts" of the Case and Group, and are reluctant to come out openly with any of the Groups. Time is running out but still they should sort out the differences, and give a "TOUGH JOINT FIGHT". With this " MIGHTY WEAPON OF TOGETHERNESS",rest assured, "VICTORY WILL BE OURS". 

N K. Vaid 
New Delhi


Sri M S Murthy in his latest write up on fund collection by pensioners’ associations, while not questioning their right to collect funds raised some pertinent points which all of us should ponder and ensure that history does not sadly repeat in our post retirement life also. True, every individual or collective can collect funds if there are givers for any cause. But at this particular juncture of the legal battle of LIC  pensioners, Hyderabad Association has been prompt and transparent in passing on information to the members in general on a continuous and routine basis through the columns of LIC pensioners blogs. We hardly heard anything from the other groups or associations except criticism of Hyderabad Association but not a word on the status of their petitions, what is their time bound (31.08.2016) strategy, progress made so far in the preparation of legal battle like appointing case managers juniors included etc. The society is becoming more and more transparent in this digital age. Therefore, publishing in the public domain like our pension sites is a must in-so-far-as amount so far collected, how it was spent, how much left and how much more is the requirement. Just because they are registered Trade Unions, do not get immunity to accountability and not certainly  the limited accountability to the registrar of TUs or to the members who rarely care to attend their all India General Body Meetings usually held once in a year or two. Technicality is not important but transparency is. The observations of Sri Ganga Raju may suit trade union environment but not retired community. Pensioners of wisdom should do everything not to encourage cavalier attitude and support those who are transparent irrespective of their affiliations. 



19 Jun 16, 12:23 PM

B. Ganga Raju: After retirement I thought inter-union rivalries are no more relevant. After becoming a pensioner I found that is not the case.

Shri MSM's post about fund collection by AIRIEF does not make a happy reading. Every organisation must have loyal members and it is not fair to question and brand their loyalty as "Blind Loyalty." After retirement what does a pensioner need? He need not worry about transfer, promotion or posting. So how can a pensioner be pressurised? The local leaders of AIRIEF at Hyderabad are retired class I officers known for their friendship with all. It is their duty to collect funds as per the call of AIRIEF and because of that it is not correct to brand them as collection agents.

An agent, as the word implies, works for a commission. The office bearers of AIRIEF render service at their expense. All the case mangers in Pension updation case (now) before Delhi court have a right to inform the pensioners that their way of handling the case and the points they stress are correct.
Most of the pensioners are in age group 70 to 80 and know how to separate grain from the chaff. It may not be possible to avoid criticising altogether the stand of other organisations . One can say how his stand is correct and how others have gone wrong. But this can be said without offence to anyone. Hope my sincere advice will be appreciated.

(Agent is a person who does business for another person : a person who acts on behalf of another. Not necessarily on 'commission' basis. -Ed.)

No mention of WP in Delhi HC

I have read the mail of Mr Agnihotri in the PC this morning. He has avoided mentioning the status of their WP in the Delhi H C which people are keen to know. No problem if they want to keep it under wraps.

I am in no mood to enter any controversy with any body at this time, but to put the record straight, I do want the people to know that

Yes, I have been told by the legal experts that our WP is complete in every aspect and does not need any improvement.The consideration before our advocate is whether to file an application stating our views on para 3a of Appdx 4 of the Pension Rules or to thrash out this matter at the argument stage.

No issue at all to fly at each other's throat. Let us relax.

20th June 2016

Monday, June 20, 2016

Shri C.H.Mahadevan is consistent and eloquent in exposing the management’s reluctance to implement the verdict in M C Jain case to similarly placed pensioners who were in active service on 1-8-1992 when the revised pay scales came into force. These pensioners at one time were 100 in number and who were eligible but due to deaths the number has shrunk to around 80.

There has been enough parleys between the management and Officers union on this issue and the management’s dodging and ducking indicate that they are insensitive  to what is legitimately due to this small number of aggrieved pensioners who are in the twilight of their lives and they are pursuing their own philosophy, let them go to the court and we will see them there. In this scenario it is felt by our leaders that knowing that the wheels of the judiciary is grinding slow rushing to legal remedy should be the last resort and one wonders how many more parleys are needed to get the management to act amicably and in good spirit especially when the financial outlay involved is a pittance to the mammoth  gigantic financial institution. Incidentally the aggrieved pensioners are helpless due to their advanced age and age related incapacities to fight for their right individually thus leaving the option for the leaders to think of a legal solution and should any finance is required this small number of aggrieved pensioners would not hesitate to gang up and come forward  if a call is given. In the present context this appears to be the one and only solution left to wriggle out of the situation.

I am constrained to quote here although reluctantly what the National litigation policy says as it has become now hocus pocus :Government is not an ordinary litigant and that a litigation does not have to be won at any cost. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded.


Sunday, June 19, 2016


Dear Sir,

Apropos the post of Mr. B R Mehta captioned “AIRIEF leadership shares less, conceals more” published in LIC Pensioners Chronicle, I would like to state that I shared the information as per my knowledge and understanding. My purpose is not to conceal anything. However, those having more information or finding any inaccuracy, may kindly complete or correct it. As regards AIRIEF’s decision of impleading in the case, I may request to refer to AIRIEF Circular no. 7 whereby information in this regard was conveyed to all the members. AIRIEF’s prayer was mainly for allowing the benefits to all LIC pensioners and not to the petitioners only. In my opinion, cognizance of AIRIEF’s IA was taken by the Bench of SC while directing LIC to make payment of the IR to all the similarly placed persons despite ASG’s contention that the parties to the litigation would only get the benefit (vide para 27 of SC order dated 31/3/2016). Further, as regards the information about Chandigarh petitioners’ case, it is based on the post of Mr. B R Mehta sharing Shri S N Chhabra’s message on whats app (group ** AIRIEF02** on 13/6/2016 addressed to Shri Chandel reading as “----In the opinion of our Advocate original Writ is so complete, thanks to Late Mr. Gandhi, it does not require any amendment.” 

It is said, “When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself”. 

Thanks & regards,

M P Agnihotri

Saturday, June 18, 2016

AIRIEF leadership shares less, conceals more

Dear Editor,

Yesterday, I happened to read a report from AIRIEF Legal Matters Spokesperson Sh. M.P. Agnihotri regarding LIC Pensioners case at Delhi High Court. This report covers A to Z of entire issue. It is my view that AIRIEF top leadership believes in concealing more and sharing less with its cadres.

For example, it was decided in June,2015 AIRIEF Legal Committee Meeting held at Bhopal that AIRIEF will also implead itself in Pending Supreme Court Case but AIRIEF could not implement its decision and nothing was conveyed to its cadres.

Next, AIRIEF again decided in its OBs and Legal Committee Meeting held at New Delhi on 02.05.2016 that AIRIEF will implead itself at Delhi High Court. However, yesterday's report and earlier Circular No 11 issued by AIRIEF GS is again silent on this issue. All concerned wish to know whether AIRIEF has filed its fresh Writ at Delhi High Court or not and what is its writ no and what is current status of its further listing before Designated Bench at Delhi High Court.

The report posted in AIRIEF Blog says that Sh S.N. Chhabra is not interested in filing amended petition on behalf of Chandigarh High Court Petitioners at Delhi High Court. This is not true. The fact is that he has already signed an affidavit prepared by Advocate representing Chandigarh Petitioners at Delhi High Court and hence amended writ on behalf of Chandigarh Petitioners is likely to be filed at Delhi High Court at the earliest. Rest assured it will be communicated with all concerned through LICPC. We believe not in concealing any thing or wrong reporting.

As per decision of AIRIEF Meeting held on 02.05.2016, Sh S.N. Chhabra was advised to hand over papers related to Chandigarh Petitioners to advocate engaged for Jaipur Petitioners but all 23 surviving out of 31 petitioners at Chandigarh High Court did not agree for the same and have engaged their own independent advocate for Delhi High Court matter since their trust level in AIRIEF Jaipur Case Manager is almost Zero. Expenses for engaging our independent advocate for Delhi High Court will be borne by Panchkula AIRIEF Unit only.


Hyderabad pilgrimage

Friday, June 17, 2016


I reproduce hereunder a message by email received from Mr M Sreenivasa
Murty who is presently in Delhi on Hyderabad Association's work in
connection with the Writ Petition filed in Delhi HC:



I am baffled to learn that teams of local leaders of the AIRIEF are on
a 'house to house' visit to Pensioners and have stepped up their
campaign like never before. I said I am baffled because I receive
calls and queries from some of our members who are almost pressurized
by the visiting leaders by their 'more loyal than the King' approach
in the race to collect as much as possible from as many people as

I can't question the democratic right of anybody for fund raising from
anybody, in any manner for any cause. It all depends on the skill of
the 'taker' and the willingness of the 'giver'.

But I have been trying to put things in perspective to who ever I come
in contact with. There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation
being spread and avoiding questions on facts.

I have a serious suggestion to ALL PENSIONERS who are approached by
anybody for fund collection in the name of fighting our pension cases
in Delhi:


1. What is the exact status of our Cases in Courts, as on today?
2. Who are all the Organizations that pursued the cases in Supreme
Court till its Judgement was delivered on 31 March 2016?
3. Where do we stand today and who have done what, till now AFTER 31st
March 2016?
4. What are the plans of each Organization and what are their goals?
5. How was the money spent earlier and why do they need more?
6. Is fund raising a need-based campaign or a competition among
different centers?
7. As all our cases are referred to the Delhi High Court, to be
decided in a time bound schedule, who is doing what, now?
8. Are the local leaders able to answer any of the above questions
truthfully and confidently or have they simply reduced themselves to
the position of COLLECTION AGENTS for their all India leadership?

As the local Leaders are exhibiting blind loyalty and are in darkness
themselves, let Pensioners be sure of why they are paying what they
are paying.






Thursday, June 16, 2016


16 Jun 16, 06:39 PM

T Sampath Iyengar: Some time back there was a query in the Chronicle regarding the eligibility of the pensioners who have retired post after April 93, for the difference of salary, on the same principle as demand for recalculation. As the salaries were revised from 8-92 for class III and for Cl. I from 4-93, just as Gratuity was allowed from 8-94 but subsequently given, may I know if this group can legitimately claim difference of salary from 8-92 to 4-93. Some one kindly throw light.

16 Jun 16, 07:35 PM

C H Mahadevan: If M C Jain and similarly placed post Aug 92 retiree Class I officers are to be fixed on revised salary from 1/8/1992,by logical implication all Class I officers who entered the class before 1/8/1992 and continued in service till their retirement thereafter will also have to be given refixation of salary from 1/8/1992 and arrears for eight months will have to be paid. But LIC will not extend the benefit automatically.We have to knock at the doors of the judiciary.

Re-fixation of pensions for retirees of the period 1/8/92 to 1/4/93

I refer to the post of Mr G N Sridharan on the above subject.

All of us are aware that for about two years, LIC has been evading  extending the benefits of the M C Jain case judgment  to .similarly placed retiree Class I Officers .Even Mr M C Jain has not been paid the correct amount but was paid  about Rs 12000/- plus only against his entitlement of more than Rs 2lks.Now there is a very strong link between  the MC Jain case  benefits and the  issues arising in the  cases  to be taken up for hearing  by the Delhi High Court. As there is a mandate  by Supreme Court that  the  writ petitions should be decided by Delhi HC latest by 31/8/2016,is it not expedient for the Federation  to take up this case  legally as a representative  body of a large number of retired Class I Officers? .This becomes all the  more pertinent especially considering that the MC Jain case judgment has implications of revision of pension  from 1/11/1993 for this group of retiree officers even though the others  will –if the Delhi HC   gives the verdict in favour of the pensioners- benefit by way of revision  only in respect of DR anomaly removal and 100% DR neutralization and if more lucky ,by upgradation of pension  from 1/8/1997 only.

 All the dialogues with LIC Management, with whatever cordiality, is not likely to yield any positive results for pensioners as past experience indicates.  Although there has been no valid point made out by the management on why they cannot extend the benefit to the eligible pensioners, there has been no assurance from the management that they will. There is every possibility that LIC will wait till at least 31/8/2016 before taking a decision in the matter.  The last option to go to the court should not become the lost option as it is already a case decided in favour of Mr M C Jain in the Apex Court about two years ago. We should also remember that all the MC Jain category retired Officers are octogenarians and the General Secretary himself being an octogenarian will be able to fully appreciate that there is no time to  lose in moving  legally in the matter.

It can also be explored whether  all the Associations/Federations with retired Class I Officers as members can  move a single application before  the Supreme Court  for justice to this category  of pensioners by collecting the contribution to the legal fund for the purpose and one Federation/Association  managing this fund.


To read GNS letter, click here.


 15 Jun 16, 08:53 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: The detailed write-up by Sh C.N. Venugopalan makes a sad-reading & details how the bank pensioners have been cheated.

It can be seen that pension is only a deferred salary paid from the contributions made by the employees themselves. The popular concept of "pension" is an ex-gratia paid by the Employer needs to be dispelled. Especially when the employer is in a position to pay. With cost of living sky-rocketing, MPs do not hesitate to revise their pensions periodically. As at present, we can only rely on Courts to deliver justice. 

It is sad that TUs and Employees' organizations are not responding to these new challenges and establish that pension is deferred pay made by the contributions by employees themselves.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

CN Venugopalan's post

EPF & Miscellaneous PROVISIONS ACT, 1952.

It was interesting to note from the Post of Shri C.N.Venugopan the provisions. After reading, I referred to the Act itself. I am quoting the extract of Sec. 16 of the Act. He may kindly examine whether this section has undergone any amendment to decide on the applicability of the Act itself to the Nationalised Banks and Corporations like the LIC.


1[(l) This Act shall not apply. -

(a) To any establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 (2 of 1912), under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to co-operative societies, employing less than fifty persons and working without the aid of power; or

2[(b) To any other establishment belonging to or under the control of the Central Government or a State Government and whose employees are entitled to the benefit of contributory provident fund or old-age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government governing such benefits; or

(c) To any other establishment set up under any Central, Provincial or State Act and whose employees are entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund or old-age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed under that Act governing such benefits;


C N Venugopalan


Retired bank employees / organizations are clamoring for up-dation of pension for years unable to establish that it is an already sanctioned benefit vide regulation 56 and demanding it as a fresh claim, thus strengthening the stand of the managements in not giving it.

Regulation 56 viz. Residuary Provision states that “in case of doubt in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions ofCentral Civil Service Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)Rules, 1981 applicable to Central Government employees with such exemptions and modifications as the bank, with the previous sanction of central government, may from time to time, determine.  So long as IBA / banks have not sought any exemption or modification, it is in derogation of regulations that up-dation of pension is denied so far for years. 

The regulation makes limpid, beyond nay conundrum, that bank pension has invariably to be on the pattern of pension of central government employees and non-revision of pension with each bipartite settlement (unlike in the case of revision with each pay commission in the case of central civil pension) is in gross breach of the PensionRegulations put in place in banks with the nod of the Parliament.  Denial of revision is apparently in derogation of the pension regulations and rebelliousness to the IndianParliament.

Regulation 56 is an inbuilt provision for up-dation of pension; but all are under an impression that  it has to be sanctioned by IBA / government not knowing that it is a statutorily vested benefit.  The demand for it without seeking enforcement of regulation 56 as per the intentions is preposterous.

In terms of regulation 3, all categories of employees had to exercise option within 120 days of notification, i.e. on or before 26.01.1996.  Unless the regulation 3 is amended, no one can be granted an option after 26.01.1996. the option  given under the joint note isultra virespowers of IBA/ banks. Having granted pension to 50,000 plus retired and conferred the coverage to about 5,00,000 employees on rolls, IBA / banks  can have no roll back on this.

Banks granted pension to VRS retirees who had  15 years of service  when qualifying service for pension to VRS retired was 20 years in terms of regulation 29.   The pension so paid was unauthorized by pension regulations and pension fund trust rules.  PensionFund Trust has no provisions to  pay such pension. To escape from the accountability aspect of the erroneous payments, banks amended regulation 28 relating to superannuation pension by adding to it a clause that “with effect from 1stsept.2000, pension shall also be payable to an employee who opts to retire through any scheme formulated y by the bank with the sanction of the government, after purring in a service of 15 years.   The net result is that regulation 29 on pension on Voluntary Retirement remains the same and the pension so paid is still unauthorized.    Confusion was created in regulation 28 on Superannuation Pension by adding to it that an employee who has put in 15 years of service can get pension on superannuation.  Are these not stupidities?

Clause 10 of Joint Note stipulates that IBA  should send it to government for its approval and further action in terms of section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980.  Section 19 (4) of the Act  stipulates that the  amendment to regulations carried out has to be laid by the government,  as soon as it is made,  in the houses of the Parliament for 30 days and will have effect only if approved by the Houses , or be of no effect, if not approved.  The Joint Note framed on 27.04.2010 has not so far laid in the houses albeit lapse of 6 years and cannot be laid foreverimmediatelyon account of passage of six years.  It is thus obliterated and is void.   It is on the basis of the void joint note that banks denied pension from the date of retirement to the arbitrary date 27.11.2009 fixed in it to employees retired prior to the date of the JointNote. 

Regulation 5 (3) fixes the banks as sole contributor to Pension Fund.  And the contribution banks make is not a gratuitous one, but is the statutorily payable EPFcontribution, which the banks were to make pursuant to EPF and MiscellaneousProvisions Act, 1952 prior to notification of Pension Regulations.  Any contribution toPension Fund is thus the deferred wages of the employees statutorily payable by banks . It is not the money of the banks;  but the money of the employees.