Sunday, July 31, 2016



Live basic pension figures

Recently we called for data of post August 1997 retirees for comparison of pre-revised basic pension and revised para 3A compliant basic pension.We have with us data for 11 such pensioners.

Now in order to calculate the revised basic pension of pre-August 1997 retirees by para 3A application to prove the wrong methodology of LIC,we urgently require particulars of pre- August 1997 retirees with any of the following basic pension amounts:


Retirees from the above cadres and basic pensions within a range of Rs 5/- either way I n difference may send the following details urgently:

S R No
Pension ID No
Date of Retirement
Basic Pension
Amount of 40% IR received from LIC

The details may be mailed to me urgently at the following email ID:

With greetings.
C H Mahadevan

Saturday, July 30, 2016

mv venugopalan

Our Delhi HC case

30 Jul 16, 04:10 PM

JM Aboobucker: Mr Namdev's statement that SC was not interested in deciding about violation of FR. The correct position is our Counsels have failed to convince the judges on this vital issue And hence our case was dismissed. It is our failure. At least in the DHC our Counsels should not repeat their performance in the SC. Sufficient preparations are required for an effective presentation of Case to the Judges of DHC and win our case. Let us wait with bated breath for the coming 4th.

30 Jul 16, 05:05 PM

namdev: with respect to shri jma's views, i still feel that justice misra was interested to give judgment on that day itself, without giving any time to our counsels of 4 case managers giving few minutes  ie less than giving dictation of orders. having set aside all previous judgments on the plea of insufficient pleadings in all the 3 hcs and wanted to hear ab initio by delhi hc which is not the duty of sc. i think that is why shri rbk thought delhi hc will forward its judgement to sc for final orders. i don't know his present thoughts. my presumption is we have to ask for a constitution bench for final victory, as it involves whole financial sector and a lot of pressure from goi unless the latter want to decide politically just like 7th cpc from aug'16. i think rbi gov himself is not able to convince our fm even though he gave some hope. we should have patience having waited two decades to have. all is well that ends well.

Chat Column Comments

29 Jul 16, 10:02 PM

B.R.Mehta: Reference your chat column report on the issue AIRIEF Control of Court Cases on your blog just today. It is crystal clear now that Sh. KML Asthana did not want AIRIEF to be a petitioner at DHC. But Sh. Asthana could not stop it and it is a fact now that AIRIEF is one of total six petitioners at DHC. Pl note its fall outs. Senior Counsel Sh. Nidhesh Gupta told the bench at DHC on 12th July that he is appearing on behalf of AIRIEF. How this new scene can be digested by Sh Asthana and hence staying away from court proceedings is the only option for him which he availed on last hearing.

29 Jul 16, 10:40 PM
Sdsarma: It is good that Airief has taken control and kmla is out. Modest Gupta represents only Airief and not Jaipur petitioners. No petition dismissed as withdrawn (as happened in Jaipur).

30 Jul 16, 08:03 AM

namdev: even if there is no unity of thinking between shri kmla and airief, we need not bother, as it is a baby talk in the appraisal of shri chhabra. Shri Chhabra also endorsed my views of political parties of which i have written a lot in the chat column some time back. all those who are abusing shri kmla day and night for real or imaginary reasons have entered the case arena recently compared to long fight by shri kmla, but for him the case would not be in light even though all the positive judgments have been set aside and remanded back to delhi hc ab initio. we are back to square one, that is why hon.justice raised a question of viability. he has not confined to constitutional points. even sc is not interested in deciding our fundamental rights. only saving grace is i.r. whether it is 20% or 40%. i earnestly request all veterans to ponder deep into the case, rather than talking and writing superficially.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

BR Mehta, Panchkula

The dawn of wisdom !



27 Jul 16, 10:13 PM
G. Narayanaswamy: Anand Tyagi's post gives hope. This must reflect in the official position that the GOI takes in the Court. RKV has rightly pointed out how the lethargic delay has resulted in gross injustice to pensioners and needless long litigation, forcing the pensioners to Courts. Let us think positively of the future with all anomalies rectified and justice ultimately done to the aging pensioners.

27 Jul 16, 10:32 AM
G.Krishna Prasad.: Just as War is too serious a business to be left to soldiers,so is Insurance (including service and allied matters) too serious a business to be left to Actuaries.

27 Jul 16, 09:59 AM
sudhakaran: Mr. Ramakrishnan has given a ray of hope to those retirees who had not opted for pension.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty

To continue reading,CLICK BELOW.

Attention: Pensioners retired between 31-5-1998 and 31-5-2000

In response to the call of Mr M Sreenivasa Murty, we got a good number of responses and we are working on the same.

Now in order to counter the method followed by LIC in calculation of 40% IR more effectively on para 3 A application, we need the following data from the pensioner friends who retired on 31/5/1998 or later but before 31/5/2000:

The above information may be sent to my email ID: < chmahadevan@gmail.com>

This information is urgently required for expeditious filing of the counter.
C H Mahadevan 

Chat column comments

Delhi HC case

Dear Editor,

I had a longish meeting (in two sessions) with our Counsel in the Supreme Court Library yesterday and we discussed the possible ways to respond to LIC's compliance Affidavit dated 22 July 2016 and question the correctness of  its manner of calculating the 40% IR payment. 

The material assiduously prepared by Shri Mahadevan and the additional inputs from me were gone through personally by  Shri Gaurav Banerji, Sr Advocate & Shri Saurav Agrawal, Advocate. They made themselves available to me between the hearings of their other matters in Supreme Court.

As our discussions were inconclusive, we agreed to meet again today.

A REQUEST: Can any of your readers provide me IMMEDIATELY, with particulars (contact No) of any officer in any rank (preferably AO to DM) who retired between 30 SEPT 1997 & 31 JAN 1998? This would help Mr Mahadevan and me to prove a point which we are trying to present to our Counsel. 

Thanks and regards, 
M Sreenivasa Murty
Camp: New Delhi

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Let's not despair, let's act..

असतो मा साद गमय, तमसो मा ज्योतिर् गमय...
Asatoma Ma Sad Gamaya, Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya..
Lead us from ignorance to truth, lead us from darkness to light..

Sarvashri RR, CHM, Namdev and host of learned others have enlightened on Pension Liability and related matters.

As everyone is aware, Rules 5(3) and 13(b) of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules. 1995, deal with the Pension Fund. In short,

Rule 5 (1) The Corporation shall constitute a Fund to be called the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Fund under an irrevocable trust within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the notified date. (2) The Fund shall have for its sole purpose the provision of the payment of pension or family pension in accordance with these rules to the employee or his family. (3) The Corporation shall be a contributor to the Fund and shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to beneficiaries under these rules

Rule 13 (b) the trust shall, subject to the availability of additional sums in the Fund, to be provided by the Corporation as required under rule 5 (3) purchase additional annuities as and when it becomes necessary to revise upwards the benefits payable in accordance with these rules; (c) the trust shall, in the event of the benefits payable under these rules being revised downwards for any reason whatsoever, credit the benefits received from the Corporation under the annuities purchased as exceed the benefits payable under these rules, to the Fund.

Shri RR has clarified that once a certain quantum of pension benefit ( updation) is agreed upon, the liability in respect of pension payable will have to be made as per Pension Rules.

LIC is a mighty institution. It has the capacity to pay increased wage bills of working employees once in five years. It has capacity to pay 100% DR to 30,000 plus pensioners retired in Aug.1997 and subsequent pay scales. It has capacity to pay higher and higher pension to every pensioner retired in the revised pay scales. It is incredible that the institution cannot make provision for 100 % DR to 20,000 plus pre Aug. 1997, pensioners and for updation of pension. Some time back. LIC has provided Rs.3500 crore to Contingency Reserve Fund from surplus available for distribution between the shareholders and policy holders.

The Pension Fund position has been on the increase over the years and the LIC has been providing as per the " requirement" as revealed by the Annual Reports of 2013-14 and 2014-15. 

As stated by Shri CHM, the foremost must be on the mind of our Case Managers and the Counsellors is to win the cases in the Delhi High Court. Equality .. Articles 14, 16 , 21.... of the Constitution of India.....All this has been explained on several occasions by Shri Mahadevan.

What may be the quantum of arrears to be paid to 50,000 pensioners? It is definitely going to be a big amount. If the amount of arrears is taken on an average of Rs.0.30 Cr. per pensioner, the total works out to Rs.15,000 Cr. (50,000 x 0.25). It may be around Rs.21,000 Cr., if pension option is reopened for the benefit who did not opt for pension.

Here, I would like to recall what GOI did while implementing the 6th CPC recommendations. It paid the pay and pension arrears to its employees and pensioners in two instalments; 40% arrears were paid 2008-09 and 60% arrears in 2009-10.

Where there is will, there is way.

SN (a 1992 Pensioner)

Chat column comments

Shri R.Ramakrishnan writes to the Editor

Chat Column Comments

26 Jul 16, 08:37 AM

namdev: this is with reference to the article of shri r.ramakrishnan actuary. without going into nitty-gritty of actuarial calculations, i wish to place my observations that in 1995 then lic chairman who is also an actuary told he is not prepared to liquidate lic by granting pension,as rs 12000 crores is not available for it. now after two decades, the pension fund available is nearly rs 40000 crores. pension was introduced by goi due to staunch persuasion of iba and aibea in spite opposition from lic in all financial sectors. further nps is there from 2004. so pension fund is a 'closed one' and may last another four decades and will be viable till that time.for the reason that pension payment is 1.82% of total premium collections for the last seven years,where as wage benefits have increased from 1.56 % to 4.24% during that period. in case of emergency, which is not going to happen, suitable amendments can be made in pension rules then and deficit can be met from over all expenses. so lic can't discriminate between various groups of pensioners who will win on the basis of fundamental rights, even by going to constitutional bench of sc.

25 Jul 16, 07:08 PM

G K Viswanatham: I too have gone through the article published by Sri R. Ramakrishnan. I am afraid the publication is untimely juxtaposed to the likely crucial hearing of our case. May be we are giving clues to the clueless.

Under Rule 5(3) of our pension rules 1995 Corporation shall contribute and also ensure sufficient funds are made availabe to pay pensions. Likely shortage of funds might have been contemplated while preparing Rules. Therefore, can it be construed that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide for retiral benefits as a welfare measure. Govt. might print currency to meet pension obligations, and LIC has to provide from expenses earmarked and within the permitted percentage of expenses of the Corporation.

26 Jul 16, 11:37 AM

G.Krishna Prasad.: Excellent analysis, Mr.Namdev. This is how Hon'ble Judge's query re: Pension fund should be addressed. Mere hypes and rigmaroles will not help in a Court of Law.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Chat column Comments on LIC's Amended Affidavit

23 Jul 16, 02:46 PM

JM Aboobucker: The much awaited LIC's Amended and Detailed Affidavit has come out and as expected LIC justifies the method of 40% IR calculation as per 3(A). Could we have the observation of Mr CHM on this.

23 Jul 16, 03:35 PM

C H Mahadevan: The revised Affidavit is on the expected lines. Now it has to be countered at the Delhi HC suitably.

23 Jul 16, 06:19 PM

parasuramLIC has not taken into the upgradation component prescribed under board resolution in arriving at the TR figure. But it is for the legal experts to see whether the board resolution would alone be sufficient to support the argument for upgradation. The order of 31/03/2016 has analysed all these matters and fortunately not closed the case. It is for the case managers not to go off track and take full opportunity given by SC

23 Jul 16, 08:16 PM

C H Mahadevan: Now Board Resolution is only a document in the bunch of Writ Petitions. For IR purposes,para 27 of the SC Order dt 31/3/2016 is paramount. For arguments on upgradation the Board Resolution can be used as one of the documents in our favour. But that alone will not suffice.

23 Jul 16, 09:17 PM

R.S.SUBRAMANIAN: The affidavit is on the expected lines only. Now it becomes the duty of our case managers to prove that the calculations are wrong and they have not taken the fixation benefit for calculation. Also we have to prove to the court that even if fixation benefit is taken into account it will not cost much and we have to prove what is the exact volume to be required for the above.


23 Jul 16, 01:49 PM

B.GangaRaju: LIC PC a model for other organisations also. It is a beautiful bouquet of different kinds of flowers. My felicitations to Shri P.G. He proved age is no bar for intellectual work. 
Wish him continued good health.

24 Jul 16, 01:28 AM
G. Narayanaswamy: A fantastic & awesome achievement having touched 2.5 million readers of PC. Many pensioners, spread all over globe, are addict. Should I say I am also an addict? All thanks to Sh. Gangadharan for all this innovation in the service of the aged.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Ladder-and-Snake Game!

Ack. * It is Shri Sampath Iyengar who wrote to us 
This is last instalment of Messages.

Friday, July 22, 2016


Revised Affidavit

We have received LIC's REVISED AFFIDAVIT. Unfortunately due to some technical problem, the attachment to the mail received is not opening. We are hopeful to set right the problem and upload the Affidavit soon. Ed.

M Sreenivasa Murty

Thursday, July 21, 2016



I reproduce the following extract from the order dt 12/7/2016 of the Delhi High Court in respect of WP No 3984/2016:

“We are not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India in compliance with the directions given in paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The Life Insurance Corporation will file a detailed affidavit within 7 days clearly stating that they have complied with the direction given by the Supreme Court to pay 40% as per para 3A of the appendix to each of the employees (pensioners) within six weeks. The manner in which computation has been made for payment of 40% of the amount as per para 3A of the appendix would be stated. The affidavit would also specify whether the pensioners have been disbursed the amount payable to them”.

The points that emerge from the above are:

1.       The affidavit filed by LIC on 40% payment of interim relief is not satisfactory to the Court.
2.       LIC has to  clearly  establish through the fresh affidavit  to be filed that the payments of IR have been  made as per para 3A of Appendix IV;
3.       The manner in which computation has been made for payment of 40% of the amount as per para 3A has to be stated in the affidavit. This means not merely the manner in which they have prepared the calculation sheets for the payment, but LIC has also  to establish in the affidavit how the calculation sheet to the satisfaction of the Delhi High Court  conforms to the para 3A of Appendix IV;
4.       The affidavit should also specify whether the pensioners have been disbursed the amount payable to them.

This becomes relevant because, against 21762 pre-August 1997 retirees alive on 1/8/2003, only 15969 pensioners have been paid   what LIC determined as interim relief. The remaining  5769 pensioners have not been accounted for in the payment.LIC  needs to explain  why the amount  due to these 5769 pensioners has not been paid besides explaining how the amount paid to the 15969 pensioners have been paid the due amounts in conformity with para 3A.
Let us now wait and see how LIC complies with the directions of the Delhi High Court in this regard.

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan


21 July 16, 06:05 AM

parasuram: Hearty Congrats to PC  for having crossed 2.5 million hits with the blog doing yeomen service to the retired community in financial sector.

20 Jul 16, 12:15 PM

B.R.Mehta: Heartiest Congrats and best wishes to Editor LIC PC for crossing of Two and a half million hits by this most popular blog for LIC Pensioners

20 Jul 16, 11:08 AM

SN: The circular dated 13th July, 2016 issued by AIIPA is self-explicit. Also, suffice to know what Shri MSM in the concluding paragraph of "Chasing ....Mirage" (PC/18-07-2016) has said,"On the approach to our case as a whole, we distinctly see the advantage of commonness of approach between AIIPA and Hyderabad." Hence, he need not give summary of the petition filed by Hyderabad. Others too need not attempt to ...in view of the 'founded fears' explained by Shri ASR..

20 Jul 16, 10:09 AM

parasuram: Sir, I beg to differ from Sri ASR"s view as modified affidavit to be filed by LIC will expose the game played by the corporation with regard to calculation of 40% DA IR. I think LIC should have filed this affidavit as the time limit specified on 12th order was to submit the same within seven days. I am surprised to note that some of the comments here are posted as early as 12.19 am, 12.27 am etc. This shows how much anxious are LIC pensioners in getting there issues solved by DHC. Hope our case managers dont disappoint them by losing a winnable case.

20 Jul 16, 12:19 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: The beneficiaries of the case are the aging pensioners whose number is dwindling. The enormity of the injustice done to them is aggravated by the unwillingness of LIC to enforce Orders of the Courts in letter & spirit. The time-limit fixed by the SC viz 31/8/16 should be the guiding star for all parties and the Court. For justice delayed is justice denied. I wish and pray that all parties stay focussed on getting full justice and above all get the Court Orders fully implemented by LIC without delay. Long live our unity for this unique battle.

19 Jul 16, 09:38 PM

JM Aboobucker: From the uploaded orders of the Delhi HC dt 12-7-2016 it appears that the prayers of LIC Counsel for adjournment was NOT OBJECTED by any of the Petitioners EXCEPT HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION. All these Petitioners who chose not to object adjournment felt it is to their advantage also as they were also not fully ready to. take forward the case. Adjournments are the lifeline for the Advocates without which they will not survive. Let us hope the HC will be able to keep to the time table given by the SC. Of course with the co-operation of the parties to the case and their Counsels. The Petitioners having gone upto 6 now it is doubtful whether the court could give sufficient time to hear the Six counsels within the time frame of SC.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

B Ganga Raju


19 Jul 16, 08:31 PM
B. Ganga Raju: In recent days I did not join the chat column. Mainly because I was weighed down with the anxiety about the health of my son-in-law. However I am following the opinions of other contributors. I do not see anything new. We are now entering the arena for the crucial phase of the fight. Discussions on matters like which organisation has the best brains, to whom our contributions have to go, finding faults with some, singing hallelujahs to one's favourite organisaion  etc etc. in my view are fit just for " time pass " and publicity.

Similarly thinking about who championed 3rd benefit and who settled for the existing scheme, is of no relevance now. Suffice to remember that those who championed the present scheme and those who condemned it, both accepted the scheme and enjoyed the fruits of it. The number of organisations fighting for the pensioners has gone up from one to five now. Some have hopes that the entry of one organisation into the arena changed the whole game and hoped that " unknown legal points" would be unearthed now. Those who draw a comparison with Bonus case must keep in mind that in 1980s we fought against a law enacted by the Parliament on depriving LIC employees of their right to Bonus. The present fight is for the same justice to pre and post 8/97 pensioners as also implementation of pension regulation 56 in letter and spirit for allowing updation of pension as is given to C.G. Pensioners. Our legal fight will have repercussions for the entire financial sector viz., RBI, Banking, LIC & GIC. In a lighter vein I recall the last scene in our Cinemas, when the Police enter in the last scene only. Hope the police would arrest the culprits.

Right Path !

B.R.Mehta: One thing is more than clear that both original stalwarts in our legal battle namely KML and GNS are not ready to utter even a single word against 4th player AIIPA in legal battle field.

DELHI HC ORDER - Hyderabad Association


HYDERABAD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurav Agrawal,
Ms. Vaidehi Mitra and Ms. Astha, Advocates.
Through Mr. Ashok Panigrahi and Mr. Surajit Bhaduri, Advocates
for LIC. Mr. Vivek Goyal, CGSC for UOI.



Adjournment slip has been circulated on behalf of the respondent No.1. However, the counsel for the petitioner has objected to the adjournment.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Life Insurance Corporation of India states that they require 10 days’ time to file a counter affidavit to comprehensively answer all the contentions raised. He has drawn our attention to the legal issue and the facts. We accept the prayer made by the counsel for the respondent No.1 and grant 10 days’ time to file counter affidavit. One of the reasons why we have accepted the said request is that in W.P.(C) No. 5903/2016, All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr., we have granted the said respondent 10 days’ time to file counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that they do not have a copy of the writ petition. A copy of the same would be supplied to them during the course of the day. Union of India will file their counter affidavit within 10 days. Rejoinder, if any, within 10 days thereafter.

Relist on 4th August, 2016.


JULY 12, 2016

Click below to read

1.Order for KML Asthana & others.
2.Federation of Retd.Class I Officers Association
3.Madanlal Gandhi & Ors.

AIIPA - Delhi HC order

AIIPA entry welcomed !

18 Jul 16, 02:26 PM

JM Aboobucker: Any news about the HC written Orders dt 12-7-2017?

18 Jul 16, 03:03 PM

M Sreenivasa Murty: To Mr JM Aboobucker's query, Order in our case is not yet uploaded. But in Five other cases disposed of on that day (12th) Orders are uploaded today. We can expect ours too by EOD.It is a long one.

18 Jul 16, 07:34 PM

M Sreenivasa Murty: 12 July Order of the Delhi HC has been released under WP No 5868 of 2016 (AIIPA's Petition).. Unfortunately due to a nagging problem with the Delhi HC Website, the Order as attached is not opening. Will keep trying till the error message goes and the site becomes available.

18 Jul 16, 01:45 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: I welcome the entry of AIIPA and as rightly stated by Mr. J.M. Abubacker let every petitioner confine to their own strategyy instead of bringing to the surface the disunity. Entry of AIIPA will make a lot of difference. Let us PRAY FOR SUCCESS.

18 Jul 16, 12:32 PM

a v subbaraman: but for the efforts of aiiea pension for employees would have been only a dream.similarly our dream of pension upgradation would become a reality by the entry of aiipa in the legal battle.

18 Jul 16, 04:35 PM

R.seshasayee: All of us want unity among case managers. We want unity among chatters also.

18 Jul 16, 03:51 PM

Sdsarma: Rightpathwallas wanted pension as a third retirement benefit, have u forgotten? We are still

blind followers even after leaving the LIC and not come out of the shackles..

Monday, July 18, 2016

AIIPA entry

18 Jul 16, 05:14 PM

Ashok Desai: The entry of AIIPA has changed the whole game. AIIEA is known for bringing out unknown legal points, as was

done in famous bonus case, by arguing our bonus as our property, article 31 violated.

Sunday, July 17, 2016


17 Jul 16, 08:20 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: The AIIPA's entry in the Court cases is very welcome development. It covers all pensioners. All the major points that result in discrimination are taken up, resulting in quantitative & qualitative change. We are bound to succeed. Long live our unity for a common cause.

17 Jul 16, 05:26 PM

a v subbaraman: the aiipa's circular dt 13th july is regarding their averment in their w p is loud and clear and definitely we will get justice. long live aiipa.

17 Jul 16, 05:25 PM

SN: My friend and I are happy to go through the Cir. No.19/2016 dated 13 July, 2016 issued by the General Secretary, AIIPA - Reg. Our Case in the Delhi H.C. Comprehensive, dealing with all or nearly all aspects of our court cases.


17 Jul 16, 02:08 PM
JM Aboobucker: A very good *cartoon pregnant with lot of meaning, Editorji. Leave alone the much spoken and desired UNITY by the pensioners fraternity. Let the appellants confine independently to their own strategies instead of bringing to the surface the disunity to the learned Judges and jeopardise and weaken our common goal of the twin benefits of 100% DA and periodical Upgradation.

* Cartoon we carried along with comments of  Shri G.Krishna Prasad.


A mirage ?

Saturday, July 16, 2016

m.v. venugopalan

Commuted Pension – A Money Minting Business of the Government
By J.K. Khanna -

Startled? Bitter but true. It is a harsh reality that the Government has made a profitable business out of the apparently innocuous ‘welfare measure’ called “Commutation of Pension”. Calculations show that the Government recovers much more than the amount it extends ostensibly as a welfare measure to the retiring personnel. The main reason projected by the Government for excess recovery is the ‘mortality risk factor’ as the balance recovery is waived in case of death. The hard fact remains that commuted pension is like any other advance/ loan on which the Government charges interest (currently 8%) at market rate! The Government keeps on chewing on the pension for 15 years though it recovers the full amount with interest in 10 years and 10 months (in case of post-1.9.08 retirees). In the case of earlier retirees, it fully recovers in less than 13 years.

As per extant rules [Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981], commuted pension is restored 15 years after the date of drawal of the commuted amount. This period of 15 years is arbitrarily fixed, without any legal or mathematical basis. This amounts to an unjust and immoral enrichment of the Government at the cost of the pensioners/ senior citizens. This affects all the services, irrespective of the rank/ level of the pensioner. What right/ justification has the Government got to overcharge the pensioners and recover even a penny more than what it has paid? The Government is behaving like a typical rural money lender and is knowingly milking the pensioners.

In the succeeding paragraphs, I will mathematically and legally prove how the pensioners are being fleeced. The calculations, made on the basis of one particular pay, are only illustrative but the principle/ method applies equally to all the ranks, leading to exactly similar results.

Chat column Comments

16 Jul 16, 03:34 PMM Sreenivasa Murty: Obliged, Sri SN Sir, for your generosity in comparing me with Sanjaya in Mahabharata. Whether I deserve the symbolic elevation or not, the comparison holds good for the scene of action also.
To me, the Delhi High Court is the Dharma Kshetra and Kurukshetra.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Chat column comments

15 Jul 16, 10:26 AM

T Sampath Iyengar: Increase in pensions. What about state of our pension fund? Someone please enlighten.

15 Jul 16, 02:11 PM

JM Aboobucker: The Judge has raised a question that how a funded pension scheme can sustain the impact of upward revision of pension to all lic pensioners every 5 years as is done for in-service employees.

This is a serious question which our case managers should be well prepared to answer with facts and figures in the next hearing.

C H Mahadevan: If upward revision of pension is constitutionally required to be given, the Pension Fund will have to be made to sustain it by additional contributions by LIC after actuarial valuation of the pension fund every year. Under Chapter III of LIC Pension Rules 1995, the Pension Fund has to be maintained adequately by LIC to meet its obligations under the Rules including upgraded pension when legally required to be paid. It is not discretionery, but mandatory to ensure that the Pension Fund is able to sustain itself with the impact of adverse macro-economic and life expectancy factors so that LIC is able to fulfill its legal obligations under the Pension Rules.

15 Jul 16, 03:00 PM

parasuram: It is better to have a correct knowledge of the pension fund position. 
Bank Retirees have assimilated the pension fund position through RTI. 

15 Jul 16, 07:18 PM

C H Mahadevan: As at 31/3/2015, there is an amount of Rs 32503.52 cr in the LIC employees'Pension Fund. For 2014-15, LIC has paid Rs 839.42 cr including commuted pension paid. The interest income alone is Rs 2425.16
Cr. So the position of the LIC Pension Fund is very sound. No worry.

15 Jul 16, 08:56 PM

JM Aboobucker: What would be the annual outgo from the Pension Fund for meeting the current pension payments?

15 Jul 16, 10:16 PM

C H Mahadevan: Even if our pension is upgraded with an increase by 100% on an average, the pension outgo will still be less than 1% of the operating surplus.


With best wishes to Shri MSM and other leaders fighting for pensioners.SN 

Delhi HC hearing

M Sreenivasa Murty

In the High Court of Delhi on 12 July 2016 

(For Time-pass till the Order is uploaded)

Whatever has been reported by different Petitioners on the proceedings in the High Court, including by those who are not present in the Court, could vary in content and language. But the outcome on specific issues cannot be subjected to dispute. I would have been tempted to wait for the Order dictated by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, (it was done case by case, touching upon the admissibility or otherwise of each Application that was listed for hearing) but there have been several queries from keen followers of the cases, which need non-controversial clarifications. There are also bits of useful information worth sharing quickly with all, as these will not appear in the Order (which is getting delayed to be uploaded).

Mr R K Viswanathan’s query on the Judge’s remarks against the Affidavit of compliance by LIC, needs elaborate answer. It all started after directions were issued in all the cases, Mr Saurav Agrawal appearing for the Hyderabad Petitioners stood up and made a couple of submissions to the Bench. One – that liberty was granted to us on 1st June to file our application seeking correct payment under 40% as per para 3A, after LIC files its compliance Affidavit as directed by SC. Two: That we are ready now and can do so only if LIC’s compliance Affidavit discloses the essential details from its side. Otherwise it would be wasting court’s time. The Judge was informed that the Affidavit filed by LIC is no compliance at all and it was also not served on all.

To these submissions which received Justice Khanna’s full attention after patient hearing, his response was to ask LIC Counsel why the Affidavit was not served on all and a direction to serve the same immediately.

LIC Counsel offered a strange explanation that they served it on the lead petitioner (Jaipur, whose amended application is seen nowhere). LIC’s mischievous strategy boomeranged, with Bench directing to serve it on all, as there is nothing like lead (only mislead).

When Justice Khanna asked for the Affidavit copy and perused it, his attention was drawn to the last page by Mr Saurav Agrawal which  merely says that Rs 27.06 crores were paid to 15, 969 pensioners and nothing else. Justice Khanna was literally furious and asked LIC Counsel ‘’what compliance is this?

Did you at least say you paid to all eligible Pensioners? How did you arrive at the amount payable? How did you comply with para 3A and SC directive? This is absolutely unacceptable. File a fresh affidavit (in one week) with complete details including the manner in which you calculated and complied with the SC directive. You cannot take the Petitioners for a ride. Put yourself in their position and play fair. If this is how you treat your pensioners, one can imagine how you treat your customers/policyholders. Don’t do it’.

The concluding remark was ‘file fresh Affidavit within one week with full details including the manner of calculations. If the fresh Affidavit when filed is not to our satisfaction, you will be in trouble, tell your corporation.

It was a stern warning. Part of it will find place in the written Order (but under the Jaipur Case, as the affidavit is filed by LIC in that case) There are other highlights like: The Judge wants to conclude this case within the time stipulated by Supreme Court. The message was loud and clear. Adjournment to 4 August is to help everybody to fall in line. The court may come down heavily on future defaulters. The Petitioners were in no position to accost LIC as they themselves were lagging behind so poorly.

Candid Comments

14 Jul 16, 05:29 PM

Y.Bhagyanath: We are almost in the last stage of our legal battle. But the anxiety for oneupmanship is evident in reporting the proceedings. Why not the so called case managers concentrate on getting best results.

14 Jul 16, 10:45 AM

B.R.Mehta: Out of three versions for reporting of Delhi high court proceedings, Sh. KML Asthana version is the only one which criticises Hyderabad openly whereas the fact is that he himself was absent in Delhi High Court. Reasons not known. May be that he is unhappy with AIRIEF leadership for becoming a party in the Delhi High Court through filing of a fresh WP. Will someone who knows the reasons enlighten all of us.

14 Jul 16, 09:37 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: "One upmanship" is a human weakness. The pity in our case it is being displayed at a wrong time. Success always has many fathers; failure is always an orphan. LET US WAIT FOR OUR SUCCESS IN THE CASE, and our case managers can jolly well indulge in "One upmanship" game. This is not meant for any individual. Let us concentrate on the issue the Brain Child of the case managers and we profusely thank them. OUR APPEAL IS STEP FORWARD AND GET US THE FRUIT.