CPI FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 2013 : 226

CLICK HERE TO VIEW CPI FOR THE MONTHS JANUARY TO APRIL 2013.

TIME IS PRECIOUS; PLEASE DON'T PROCRASTINATE...

RESPECTED COLLEAGUES,

MY BEST WISHES TO ALL.  WITH ANGUISH AND DISMAY I WRITE THIS......

1.   THE COURT CASES ARE TIME-CONSUMING , AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH SIDE THE ASS WILL KICK.

2.   THE JAIPUR COURT HAS BUNGLED IN THE 2 ISSUES  BY COMBINING BOTH.

3.   THE PENSIONERS AGED VIZ PRE 97 RETIREES DESERVE IMMEDIATE RELIEF.  MORE THAN 2-3 YEARS ARE         ALMOST OVER SINCE SLP FILED BY LIC AND THE SO CALLED LEADERS ARE ASSURING AND REASSURING  EVERY DAY THAT THE VICTORY IS NEARING.

4.   ENDLESS EMAILS CIRCULARS COME BETWEEN US ONLY AND NONE DIRECTED TO LIC OFFICIALS OR GOVT OFFICIALS.

8.00 TONIGHT:
PROCRASTINATOR'S GUIDE TO LIFE.
PROGRAMME POSTPONED
UNTIL TOMORROW.

THIS IS LIKE RIDING HORSES INSIDE AN EARTHEN POT.

5.    LET THEM NOT GIVE FALSE HOPES AND KINDLY EMBARK ON PRAGMATIC APPROACHES.

6.    MANY ARE MISUSING THE UNIONS TO SHOW THEIR ``DRAFTING AND  MANAGERIAL SKILLS`` WHICH HAS TO BECOME REDUNDANT ATLEAST NOW.

MANY ARE DEPARTING, AND ATLEAST AWAKEN NOW !

THE ONLY WAY IS TO START NEGOTIATION  WITH GOVT AND LIC BY STRIKING A VIA-MEDIA POLICY.

TIME IS PRECIOUS;DON’T PROCRASTINATE.

SINCERELY YOURS, K. SUNDARARAJAN RETD. SUPDT, LIC, BANGALORE-11.

"I appreciate the humorous cartoon, in your blog,
while posting the recent order of Jaipur H.C." :GN SRIDHARAN

"Jaipur Bench is fighting shy to address themselves to the crux of the problem," complains the writer...

Ravindra Thakur, Nagpur

I was stunned when I perused the capricious court order dated 20/05/2013 of Hon’ble Justice Sri RS Rathore of Jaipur Bench.  I really wonder why the designated court of Jaipur bench is fighting shy to address themselves to the crux of the problem, that is, whether the LIC Management has deposited an appropriate amount in the Registry of Jaipur HC in the light of the categorical judgement dated 12/01/2010 and the clarificatory order of the SC dated 17/10/2012 superseding their earlier order dated 14/11/2011. 

The SC must have never imagined that the veteran LIC Management will be at a loss to know how to calculate the amount due to the petitioner-pensioners by raising puerile queries about the date of eligibility and the amount due to the  petitioner-pensioners.

• The designated court of Rajasthan Bench has instead kept the matter of contempt of court in limbo for absolutely no reason or perhaps there is an apparent error of ignoring the SC order dated 17/10/2012 and misinterpretation of their order dated 15/04/2013 which simply implies that the SC has nothing more to add than what they have already stated in their order dated 17/10/2012.
• The Hon’ble Justice Sri RS Rathore appears to have strayed away from his task of carefully examining whether the LIC Management has properly calculated and deposited an appropriate amount within the stipulated time limit prescribed by the SC in their amended order dated 17/10/2012.  To read more, please click below.

MANY BANKS BUT ONE VOICE, LIC 'ONE' BUT DIVERGENT VIEWS !

M. ARUNACHALAM, RETD. SDM, CHENNAI

I may not add my view to controversies, confusion, interpretations and indictments, but let me mention a couple of concerns:

•  Many to one: Banks are many but voice is one for their retirees as a whole. In contrast, LIC is one but views are divergent for its retirees although problems are almost identical.  The two streams, DR and Revision, which should have been complementary, are found to be competing.  As for one like me, the benefit is huge whichever is clinched (hopefully in lifetime) as my retirement dates back to pension notification in 1995.  Convergence of organisations’ efforts is the need of the hour. 
• Time factor: Can our organisations not tailor a faster approach? Else, we, the pensioners as a whole, run the risk of disadvantageous (deferred) effective date, not to speak of unfortunate exits that are occurring often. This merits ‘out of the box’ thinking, although I believe that (a) the Ministry is going over the issue, and (b) the bank demands will quicken the pace of our legitimate demands being met.  Judicious view by champions is another need of the hour.

I look forward to your blog being catalyst and eye-opener for right vision so that the best is ahead for pensioners. It is nice to see familiar names in your blog, probably my colleagues in early days but not seen for decades, and your blog becomes a virtual platform of reminiscences.

M Arunachala​m (arunachalam.m9@gmail.com)

______________________________________________________ INCIDENTALLY, I had an opportunity to  study for my passing qualifying exam. for Pension Administration in UK when I could go through pension plans of major organisations like Tube (Rail) of London. 

It is a shocking and very very sad news.

Sh C R Sankaran  of Chennai, was a good friend and an active member of  LIC pensioners fraternity and it is a big set back for us also.

I express my deep condolences  and may GOD rest his soul in peace,  and grant 
strength to the bereaved family to bear the irreparable loss.

HK Aggarwal,

Mohali, Chandigarh.

WARM APPRECIATIONS FOR THE "INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE BLOG" !

Editor, editorial and technical
staff - all in one !

I join our friends in complimenting you for the interesting 

and informative blog, with depictions and editorial notes. My appreciation to your technical staff too, involved in the blog.

You do it for your satisfaction with no reward to expect. 

Warm appreciations which you richly deserve.

M. ARUNACHALAM (SDM Retd.) 

Chennai 

EXPRESSION TO OUR THOUGHTS,EVEN ILLUSTRATION TO IMAGINATIONS...

Our very best wishes to lic pensioners calicut 

for long , useful and successful service for all.

T. RAJAGOPALAN, CHENNAI

With warm Greetings, L S R KRISHNA RAO

In my opinion we have to thank the persons responsible for the following resolution in whatever the cadre they are, since it has become the basis for our struggle for the up gradation of pension in Jaipur High Court, Punjab and Haryana High court also.  Even the Class I officers Federation has made use of the Judgment given by Justice MN BHANDARI in their petition filed in Delhi High Court.

•  “Executive Director (Personnel) introducing the subject mentioned that there was three different rates for different groups of pensioners at present depending on their dates of retirement, which cause considerable administrative inconvenience.  Chairman pointed out that he has since received a communication from Dr. S. Ram Khanna, Board Member, which refers to his meeting with the Retirees Federation and requested examining the proposal in detail. The Note is in line with the demands made by the Federation, viz., giving effect to the proposal from 1.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of in service employees. Chairman pointed out that these have been considered before placing the matter to the Board and it was felt that the same would increase the financial burden very substantially and may be unaffordable for the corporation. Chairman pointed out that the implications of the proposal made have been actuarially determined at Rs.51.37 crores and the annual outlay be in the region of 6 to 8 crores.  After some discussion the Board approved the proposal and suggested that it should be implemented prospectively and after obtaining Government approval.”

Please click below to read more.

COMMENTS ON ASTHANA'S LETTER...

IT IS INDEED A SAD SITUATION CREATED BY THE HON'BLE HC
WITHOUT GOING INTO THE LEGALITY OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED.
YOU HAVE RIGHTLY OBSERVED   " HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE PENDING BUT

ASTHANA'S LETTER

SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THE PAYMENT MADE WITHOUT DELAY".

ANYWAY PENSIONERS HAVE TO HAVE MORE PATIENCE AND BEAR THE STRANGE WAYS OF OUR SYSTEMS AND INBUILT DELAYS IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.  HOWEVER, WE STILL HAVE HOPE AND FAITH IN THE JUDICIARY AND PRAY GOD TO GIVE YOU STRENGTH TO FIGHT THE LEGAL BATTLE TO ITS ULTIMATE WINNING GOAL.
HAIL PENSIONERS UNITY.

PRAISES, KUDOS...

Dear Sir,

• I read aiipa circular regarding 'LIC Pensioners' vis-a-vis court cases'.  It is wonderful and has brought out true facts, kudos to 'licpensionerscalicut'.

a.v.subbaraman 

coimbatore divn

ENRICHED CONTENTS MAKE "CALICUT BLOG" A READY REFERENCE GUIDE...

Dear Shri Gangadharan,

  

We are indeed very happy with your ‘Calicut Blog’, it has become a ready reference guide to all of us.

We have to thank you for your patience. Some times you are giving timely news to update our position. 

Your services need be appreciated by every one of us and we wish you that you do maintain the BLOG with the same spirit in the days to come.

With revolutionary Greetings,

L S R KRISHNA RAO

WE PROUDLY SAY AGAIN 'LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT' IS THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE DIARY IN INDIA COVERING LIC PENSIONER NEWS !

63000 NOW (50,000 during last 6 months).

We are indeed happy! And a little sad too. Happy, because we are becoming a part of your daily habits. You come to us very often daily for some news, information about matters concerning pensioners. Sad, because LIC pensioners could not clinch the final victory.  Victorious we were.  And the battles we won were many.  At Jaipur and across the country in other High Courts, we could do it.  Successfully we argued.  Successful we were in getting verdicts that fortified our cause.  LIC pensioners were emerging victorious.

But there were temporary setbacks.  We could not make LIC deposit the 

entire amount in respect of DR, pension updation etc. in respect of the entire retired hands.  But 

we have convinced them.  In certain aspects, we should admit, we could not get all the

POST PUBLISHED ON 19-11-2011.

verdicts we wanted.  But the day is not far off however when we will achieve the final victory in the Supreme Court.

'LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT' was with you all these days...  solidly behind you...    We saw your victories... your setbacks..... trials and tribulations, difficulties and distresses too...   conducted discussion about your weak points and strong points.  

You sharply reacted about many developments, criticized your fellow pensioners about what should be done and what should not be.... 

You selected us for giving expression to your thoughts, your anger, your anguish and what not... Something that we enjoyed... And we are proud, we could become a part of your life, come up to your expectations in a modest, humble way.  And we will continue to lend you all support in the days to come.  that is a word..   a  promise indeed !

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENTS...

              nithin_pb@yahoo.in              

Last night I slept well.  Tired I was.  You know, Rajasthan High Court orders had brought no relief to an average pensioner.  For him, it meant the beginning of a new chapter.  A chapter all about SLP.  Now nothing more remains to be discussed.  Only SLP.  That will be a long waiting.  All of us will be helpless spectators.  Since I felt, I have nothing more to be done in the days to come, I thought of retiring early to bed last night and sleep well.

I had pointed out in my last post, it is difficult to convince a lower court (Jaipur Bench, in our case) after Supreme Court had heard all arguments.  No court in India would venture to say something after you have once argued your case before SC.  The minimum requirement was a positive remark from SC that it was a matter the petitioner (respondent in SLP) should argue before HC, in which case, the Judge in the Jaipur Bench would have got the message that the whole matter was to be looked into or so afresh.  This was not the case in the matter of Contempt Petition.  

WHITHER WE ?

And an independent observer had no hope of anything happening to the pensioners’ advantage. So, after the SC orders, we played  "EXTRA TIME" in Jaipur HC.  Again emerged goalless.  Now the all important sudden death goal will come from the Supreme Court.  That will seal our fate.  We have a good case as far as DR is concerned.  …and I am but an ignoramus gentleman as far as other matters are concerned.  So I won’t bother you with my ‘knowledge’ in the subject.  I leave it to the experts and the courts to decide.

No land mark to be seen... what to do now !

But the courts are unpredictable.  In a meeting attended by the aiipa boss Shri K. Natarajan, I had the audacity to say that pension related court cases may sometime bring a ‘landmark’ judgment from the Supreme Court as to the powers of the Board in a government undertaking and we may win in SC, but soon came his reaction “what if a landmark judgment comes” to the contrary!  

CARTOON THAT
INVITED CRITICISM!

Shri SK Majumder appreciated in many words the cartoon published in the blog.  But another gentleman seems to have criticized that “you made a mockery of Asthana’s efforts….”  But it is my feeling that this so called controversy is squarely the Editor’s creation only.  If he (the Editor) had ignored this letter, there should have been Shri Majumder’s letter only. But it looks, you wanted to do justice to criticism also….  Good cartoon do enhance the prestige of the blog.

Tail-piece: "From the rooftops...."  Sury siva has vehemently complained about LIC top management men. "Those who continued at the top most levels of management did not probably murmur or sigh..."  But you know, for survival it was the barest minimum they should have done!  Perhaps Sury Siva may know that Shri TS Vijayan (former LIC Chairman) retired as Mg. Director from LIC and not as Chairman.  Shri Vijayan was a sad man. But he didn't raise a protest though Times of India had announced, he would resign.  He is proved to be correct in his approach; now he is the Chairman of IRDA!

NITHIN_PB

_________________________________________
By the way, your Editor is publishing my articles as a regular column under the title “Between the lines”.  Let me thank him (but there is no indication of any cheque being sent to me!)

ASTHANA'S COMMENTS 
ABOUT HC ORDER DATED 20-5-13

IT IS A SURPRISING ORDER.  IT IS FULLY AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE.

CONFUSED ?

• HE IS RELYING ON THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2011 THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED BY SC BY ORDER DATED 17/10/2012.  
• HE HAS TAKEN THE ORDER DATED 15/4/2013 TOTALLY INCORRECTLY AS IF MY PRAYER WAS THAT SC SHOULD DIRECT LIC TO DEPOSIT THE BALANCE MONEY AND GET THE STAY.  
• HE HAS KEPT THE CONTEMPT PETITION PENDING TILL DISPOSAL OF SLP WHILE I HAD GIVEN THE RULING THAT UNLESS SPECIFIC STAY ORDER IS GRANTED IN APPEAL THE PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT STAY BEFORE THE LOWER COURT. 
• HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDGMENT ABOUT PAYMENT OF THE DUES. 
• BY KEEPING THE CONTEMPT PETITION PENDING HE HAS GRANTED STAY TO LIC BEYOND HIS AUTHORITY.  
• HE COULD HAVE KEPT THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE PENDING BUT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED THE PAYMENT MADE WITHOUT DELAY. 

WHEN THE MATTER WAS ON APPLICATION HE HAS NOT MADE ANY MENTION OF THE THREE APPLICATIONS.

KML ASTHANA

JAIPUR BENCH ORDERS: "CONTEMPT PETITION TO REMAIN PENDING TILL SLP DECIDED" BY SUPREME COURT.

JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HC ORDERS

" The present contempt petition before the High Court  to remain pending and not to be proceeded with until the SLPs (29956/2011 and 29957/2011) pending before the Hon’ble Supreme  Court are decided. "

To read full text of Judgment of Rajasthan HC, Jaipur Bench, please click below.

WE ARE HAPPY TO PUBLISH aiipa's SECOND MOST IMPORTANT NOTE ON COURT CASES FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES.  EARLIER NOTE CAN BE SEEN IN 'PAGES' ALONGSIDE.(CLICK HERE FOR AIIPA's EARLIER CIRCULAR ON THE SUBJECT...)

.

LIC PENSIONERS' ISSUES VIS-A-VIS COURT CASES

      

“ IF THE NUANCES OF THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTE AND RESOLUTION ARE DECIPHERED, ONE MAY UNDERSTAND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF UPGRADING EARLIER BASIC PENSION TO CORRESPOND TO WAGE STRUCTURE AT 1740 POINTS AND THERE WAS A SPECIFIC DECISION FOR IMPLEMENTATION AFTER GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION. ”

THUS AVERRED THE CIRCULAR OF ALL INDIA INSURANCE PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION (AIIPA), ISSUED ON 7-9-2012 AFTER ITS CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEETING IN JULY 2012 HELD AT NAGPUR; THE CIRULAR TALKED OF TWO ASPECTS OF THE LIC’S BOARD NOTE AND RESOLUTION OF 24-11-2001, ONE THAT RELATED TO DEARNESS RELIEF NEUTRALISATION AND THE OTHER RELATED TO THE METHODOLOGY OF IMPLEMENTATION.

Why the Circular was issued ?

THE ORGANISATION HAD TO COME OUT WITH SUCH A CIRCULAR AS THERE WERE CONFUSING AND MISLEADING INTERPRETATIONS OF ONE PART OF THE LIC’S NOTE AND BOARD RESOLUTION CONCERNING FULL NEUTRALISATION VIS-À-VIS UPDATION OF PENSION.

IN THE CIRCULAR GIVING THE EXAMPLE OF HGA SCALE, THE ORGANISATION ASSUMED NOTIONALLY FULL NEUTRALISATION IN DEARNESS RELIEF UPTO 1740 POINTS AND ON THE OTHER HAND, LIC HAD ASSUMED ONLY MERGER OF ACTUAL DEARNESS RELIEF IN ITS TRUNCATED FORM PAYABLE  -  AS MENTIONED IN ITS LEGAL DOCUMENTS.  THUS, THE CIRCULAR SHOWED HIGHER MODIFIED PENSION AS COMPARED TO THE MODIFIED PENSION AS ARRIVED AT BY LIC.

THE PENSIONER/S HAD CLAIMED UPDATION OF PENSION FROM THE DATE OF THEIR RETIREMENT ON THE PLEA THAT THE LIC BOARD RESOLUTION IMPLIED UPDATION OF PENSION.  THEY HAD ALSO BASED THEIR CLAIM FOR DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT FOR UPDATION OF PENSION ON THE GROUND THAT JAIPUR HIGH COURT SINGLE JUDGE BENCH ORDER OF JANUARY 2010 HAD ALLOWED BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, ONE OF WHICH HAD PRAYED FOR UPDATION OF PENSION.

THEY HAD ALSO CLAIMED REMITTANCE OF DEPOSIT FOR UPDATION OF PENSION ALSO ON THE PLEA THAT A LETTER FROM LIC DATED 31-8-2001 TO THE GOVERNMENT, HAD CONTEMPLATED UPDATION OF PENSION BEFORE THE MATTER WAS PLACED BEFORE THE BOARD.  HOWEVER, THE LETTER DATED 31-12-2001 AFTER THE BOARD RESOLUTION WRITTEN TO THE GOVERNMENT SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT BOARD HAD APPROVED THE PROPOSAL AS PER THE NOTE PLACED BEFORE IT.

LIC HAD FILED AN SLP AS THE ORDERS OF JAIPUR HIGH COURT UPTO THE DISMISSAL OF ITS REVIEW PETITION HAD HELD THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS BOARD RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 2001.

 CONTEMPT PETITION.

A contempt petition in relation to one of the cases in Jaipur High Court was pending when the SLP came up before the Supreme Court and the apex court ordered stay of proceedings in the contempt petition subject to LIC depositing the amount payable to the employees within a time frame and LIC deposited certain amount in the Jaipur High Court.

Please click on 'read more' below.

THOSE WHO WERE AT ROOFTOPS...

• THOSE who were at rooftops when the pension rules were finalized and put up to the Board and later then to the Central Government for approval.

• THOSE who were ED/ HRD  and above at the time when the resolution for rectification of anomaly in fixation of pension and/or revision of DA was prepared and put up to the Board for passing 

• THOSE who continued at the top most levels of management who did not even probably murmur or sigh, to our knowledge, when the Govt. continued its silence and reluctance even to reply to the resolution of the Board,

• THOSE who believed ( while they were in service ) that for every action LIC proposes the approval of Ministry is a must and also possibly believed that under the same section they needed approval even to write a reminder to the the powers that be....

now..... now... 

write hundreds of pages to pour their woes, on disparity in pensions. 

My friends !! 

We are a class of intellectuals clinging to our own beliefs. 

One such belief you know is 

YOUR BOSS IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

Now, your boss cries. 

He is right. As he ever was. 

You also cry with him. 

Who was ED (Personnel) /HRD 

when the pension rules were framed? Where are you?

My good Friend !

Why U were silent at that time ?

Please write a line in reply to whatever

Kishore Bhaiyaa says.

 FROM: sury Siva meenasury@gmail.com

MAZUMDER'S RESPONSE A GREAT RELIEF !

Respected Sri Gangadharan,

Pained to find the brickbats for your depicting beautiful cartoons with enjoyable comments. As for myself, I can say that I visited your blog last evening at intervals of 5 to 10 minutes.But your cartoons with comments provided me relief each time. 

I firmly believe that struggle led by Asthanaji with RB Kishoreji, VC Jainji and others beside him shall be won by us.The crimson red SUN rising in the eastern horizon shall be ours.

-- 
Subir Kumar Mazumder

(BOUQUETS) AND BRICKBATS....

PROBLEM: CARTOON MADE A
MOCKERY OF SHRI ASTHANA's
 EFFORTS...!

Dear Sir,

I am a regular and very frequent visitor of your blog.
I was pained to see your cartoon on Contempt Petition depicting in 
bad light and making mockery of Shri Asthana's efforts.(Cartoon:'Why no news from Jaipur!'reproduced.)

In fact I forwarded the mail of Shri V C JAIN AT 07.54 PM. 

With regards,

rksahni

(All of us do not always appreciate a cartoon. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, it is said, used to enjoy cartoons by the great Cartoonist Shankar criticizing him. - Editor)

SOLUTION: PUBLISH A CARTOON OF GN SRIDHARAN,
THEY WILL BE HAPPY - AND GNS WILL BE NOBLE
ENOUGH NOT TO PROTEST ALSO !

THANK U NITHIN FOR YOUR COMMENTS....

Dear Shri Nithin,

Please accept my sincere thanks for your contribution.  I want to do the

same but little courtesy has come in my way to comment on him.  Placing

a cartoon stating the time and “ * NO NEWS AT 5.00 P.M.  NO NEWS

AT 7 P.M.” is not at all good.  It created an allergy to my mind.

In the court matters everything will not move as expected by us, a delay

in the communication is possible despite all the sophisticated equipment

and machinery.  If we could not have that much of patience we cannot move

court to court.

Shri Asthana is doing a selfless service for the benefit of every pensioners.

Let the GOD ALMIGHTY GIVE HIM THE STRENGTH COURAGE AND

CONVICTION when other organisations with sufficient strength

were silent over the years on our legitimate demands.

AIRIEF is the beckon light to all the pensioners’ community.

At the cost of repetition please accept my thanks.

With warm Greetings,

L S R KRISHNA RAO

________________________

 * Since there was a steady flow of visitors to the blog, we were only telling them

that CALICUT BLOG was live and ready to announce any news.  Otherwise we

agree with your views. - Editor.  

THE ART OF MAKING COMMENTARIES FROM THE GALLERY...

              nithin_pb@yahoo.in              

Those sitting in the Galleries cannot score the goal!  Therefore I am not entitled to write or comment on court developments.  And Jaipur High Court bench is no exception.

But I find that you had no news.  Calicut Blog should think of having a special correspondent to report court matters ‘live’.  People these days are not satisfied with anything short of ‘live’ commentaries! Therefore your inability to get news is a sad commentary.  But I found you ‘live’ on the screen with announcements: “No News 4 PM”, No News – 5 PM.  At 7 PM you had no news!  At least you were honest enough to confess you were ignored.  Only on 21^st morning you came with the announcement that court orders are awaited!  So far so good.

Then you say, good news travels fast.  Means, bad news doesn’t travel at all!  Is it so?  It appears to be true here. An SMS from the court should have made the difference. From SMS, it transforms into an email.  Email, to a news item in your blog.  People would have got some news!

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am growing wiser after the incident as you may sometimes tempt to tell me….  It is only that I did not write.  I should not throw an argument, but it is difficult to convince a lower court (in this case Jaipur Bench) that the court is competent to deal with contempt petition after the same has been once looked into by the Supreme Court.  When we could not convince the SC to say “You may approach HC” (the least), there was no case for you in the High Court.  That’s what perhaps happening here also…

Asthana’s line of action is not altogether a mistake.  “Knocking at all doors” is not a poor strategy.  ASK is the secret word of success. Rather it is the magic word as Gordon Bryan would tell you.  Let us keep trying, though Sridharan may say otherwise.  Then we often say: we should leave no stone unturned!  Asthana’s sincere efforts must be supported.  His efforts will yield fruition - an ordinary pensioner like me has no doubt about it at all.

So that’s it: Those sitting in the Gallery cannot pelt stones at the players, score goal or say how the goal should have been scored etc. 

With these words, let me withdraw to my den for now.  Bye till we meet again!  

JAIPUR COURT DEVELOPMENTS...COURT ORDERS AWAITED.

MR. ASTHANA AND OUR ADVOCATE SHRI ABHINAV SHARMA FORCEFULLY POINTED THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF SUPREME COURT DATED  14 NOV 2011 AND CLARIFICATION  OF 17TH OCT 2012  

ARE SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE DECISION ON CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE.   BUT L.I.C.ADVOCATES 
THOUGHT OTHERWISE AND CONTINUOUSLY TRIED TO "MISGUIDE THE COURT."  

COURT ORDERS ARE NOW AWAITED.

NO NEWS OFTEN MEANS 'NO GOOD NEWS'....(7 PM)

My response to the comments of Mr G.N. Sridharan 
on the issue of ‘upgradation of pension’ and 

‘revision of pension’ in the context of the 

Board Resolution dated 24^th November,2001.

                CH MAHADEVAN, HYDERABAD                

It is quite interesting to read the comments of Mr G.N.Sridharan giving his views on the intent of the LIC Board Resolution and the distinction between ‘upgradation’ and 'revision’ of pension. I am sure all the pensioners will indeed be enlightened with his interpretation.

What puzzles me is, when the Board Resolution recommended upgrading the pensions linked to 600 points of index and 1148 points of index to 1740 points of index and payment of Dearness Relief on the pension so upgraded at the rate of 0.23% for every four points of index, how could it have been done effective from only a prospective date unless the purpose was   to combine both the aspects of 100% DR neutralization and revision of pension at the same time?

We all know very well that DR anomaly has been existing right from 1/11/1993 on account of differential DA/DR formula for in- service and retired employees under (both the categories 600 pts & 1148pts pension). If the Board’s intention was only to remove the DR anomaly without revision of pension, they that  could very  well have recommended   making  a uniform DR formula on par with in-service employees starting from 1/11/1993 for all retirees who retired  before 1/8/1992(1/4/1993 for Class I/II Officers)  and all other pensioners  retired upto 31/7/1997 from the dates of their retirement. In my view, the purpose of the recommended convergence for merger at 1740 points  effective from 1/8/1997 clearly establishes  the intent of the Board Resolution to effect  an upgradation-cum-revision for pre Aug 1997 pensioners. Once this approach is followed, logically the same approach will have to be followed   w.e.f wage revision dates for all pensioners retiring during the inter-wage revision periods  after 1/8/1997.

Instead of following this approach brought out in the Board Resolution and the Jaipur Single Bench judgment, LIC seems to have resorted to a very narrow interpretation of both restricting the upgradation only to merger of DR actually applicable to the pension actually drawn by the retiree  instead of  upgrading the pension  to the amount applicable to an employee who retires at the same stage of pay after 1/8/1997.This narrow puts a pre Aug 1997 pensioner into a highly disadvantageous position as illustrated below.

Please click on 'read more' below.

WITH GREETINGS, RB KISHORE.

MY DEAR KK SHERI,

1) HOW COULD ONE EXPECT THAT WITHOUT THIS CRUCIAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY, THE CASE IN SJ JAIPUR HC WOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED. THIS IS THE THE CRUX, PIVOT & MAIN PLANK, U SEE HON'BLE JUSTICE BHANDARI ALSO HAS CERTAINLY MADE A CATEGORICAL REFERENCE TO SALIENT NAKARA JUDGEMENT PROVISIONS & CONCLUDES--

"Perusal of aforesaid Paras reveals that there exists difference between introduction of new Scheme than the existing Scheme. In the light of the aforesaid, if the facts of this case are looked into, then it becomes clear that amongst the pensioners there exists discrimination more specifically when the pension has been made admissible to the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1986.  In view of aforesaid, there can be no different basis for dearness allowance or other benefits to those retired on or before 31.7.1997.  The existing pensioners are entitled for the benefit of dearness allowance with the same measure as is admissible to the pensioners on or after 31.7.1997.  The discrimination amongst the pensioners on that count is not permissible and if there exists rule, making discrimination amongst the existing pensioners, it is held to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India."

2) Earlier, Jaipur Single judge Hon'ble Bhandari in his order dt 12/1/2010 has observed as follows:-

“Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that there exists anomaly even in regard to the revision of the pay scale.  The benefit of revision in the pay scale from time to time was not extended to the pensioners.  In view of aforesaid, even an officer retiring in the higher pay scale started getting less pension than to the employee retiring subsequently in lower pay scale. Aforesaid aspect was also considered along with the first issue, by the Board in its meeting held on 24.11.2001.

Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held that on the basis of date of retirement there cannot be any discrimination between the Pensioners inter se.  All pensioners are entitled to revision of pensions as and when pay scales are revised. The decision of the Board taken in its meeting dated 24/11/2001 but not implemented on account of misnomer of approval of the Central Government has been directed to be implemented with the above modifications.

GREETINGS,

RBKISHORE

COMMENTS ON RB KISHORE'S ARTICLE...

Dear Sir,

We have carefully gone through the submissions made of Shri R B KISHORE in the Calicut Blog.

Firstly, we are indeed grateful to ‘CALICUT BLOG’.  It has created a source to all the pensioners to understand the realities of the legal position to claim up gradation of Pension to all retirees irrespective of class, cadre and also the date of retirement.  We have a reasonable claim.  Secondly all the High Courts, namely, Jaipur, Punjab and Haryana and the Delhi High Court, endorsed Hon’ble Justice M. N. Bhandari’s judgment in favour of the pensioners.

As L I C employees, we had a long drawn history in the court matters in respect of Bonus or in the matter of promotions.  The Judgment given by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was not implemented, the employees had gone on indefinite Strike.  At that time, the Supreme Court had given a date for the payment of Bonus. To facilitate LIC for making the payment of bonus, the employees called off the strike and joined the office….

We now understand from the contributions of Shri R B Kishore (“My submissions on pension matters’’ published in your blog) that  there is a strong case on the legal front.

Please click on 'read more' below.

SHRI MAHADEVAN'S LATEST

POST WILL BE RELEASED ONLY ON MONDAY MORNING 

(watch! sharp 8 a.m.) 

since we have to allow ample time for the readers to go thru 

Shri Kishore's 

lengthy discourse.