This is the concluding part of the article 'the confusion' by Shri V.S. Prakasarao, Visakhapatnam.
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE UPDATION IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE PRE-1-8-1997 RETIREES IS NOT TENABLE. IF WE ACCEPT THIS LINE, THEN RETIREES AFTER 1-8-1997 FORM A NEW GROUP WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF UPDATION WHEN THE PRE AUG.97 RETIREES GOT UPDATION. SO IT AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION AGAIN AND ANOMALOUS WHICH AGAIN TANTAMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE MANAGEMENT SHOULD REMOVE THE TAPERING EFFECT IN D/R AND ALLOW THEM ONLY 100% NEUTRALISATION OF D/R AS IS BEING ENJOYED BY THE RETIREES AFTER 1-8-1997. THEN THERE WILL NOT BE UPGRADATION OF BASIC PENSION TO THE RETIREES FROM 1-1-86 TO 31-7-1997 WHO SUFFERED TAPERED D/R. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS WE HAVE TO REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RESOLUTION IS ONLY FOR PRE AUG.1997 RETIREES.
THE MANAGEMENT OBVIOUSLY TOOK THE CUE FROM OUR DEBATE AND DISCUSSIONS AND TOOK THE STAND IN ITS REPLY TO I.A. NO.7-8 THAT THE BENEFITS ARE AVAILABLE ONLY TO PRE AUG.97 RETIREES AND NOT TO POST AUGUST 97 RETIREES WHEREBY CALCULATIONS WERE NOT MADE FOR 5 PETITIONERS OF THE 27 PETITIONERS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE MANAGEMENT DID NOT TAKE THIS STAND BEFORE JAIPUR H.C. NEVER THEY PLEADED THAT 5 PETITIONERS OF THE W.P. 654/2007 BE DEBARRED FROM FILING THE PETITION. BUT NOW THEY PRESENTED THE NEW ARGUMENT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR DIVERGENT VIEWS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS. THUS WE WERE DIGGING OUR OWN GRAVE.
FURTHER THE MANAGEMENT WAS SILENT ON THE 11.25 % WEIGHTAGE MENTIONED IN THE RESOLUTION. MUCH WORSE, THEY PRESENTED THE AFFIDAVIT DT. 4-5-2011 SUBMITTED BY G.O.I. BEFORE THE ALLAHABAD HC WHICH STATED THAT THE L.I.C. PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DEPT. IN CONSULTATION WITH THE BANKING DIVISION. PARA 7 OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS REPRODUCED "THAT THE ABOVE PROPOSAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE DEPT. IN CONSULTATION WITH THE BANKING DIVISION WHO INFORMED THAT ANY MODIFICATION WITH REGARD TO UPGRADING OR CHANGE IN THE DEARNESS FORMULA IN THE INSURANCE SECTOR MAY HAVE REPERCUSSIONS ON PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS AS WELL AS OTHER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND ADVISED THIS DIVISION NOT TO AGREE TO THE REQUEST MADE BY L.I.C AND TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN PARITY WITH REGARD TO D/R WITH THE PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS." HENCE THE PROPOSAL OF LIC AS PER THEIR BOARD RESOLUTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED.
PARA 8 OF THE AFFIDAVIT. THAT ON THIS ISSUE REPLIES WERE ALSO GIVEN BY FINANCE MINISTER ON VARIOUS REFERENCES FROM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT STATING THAT THE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME IS BROADLY BASED ON THE PENSION SCHEME OF BANKS EMPLOYEES AND SINCE NO CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE IN THE PENSION SCHEME OF THE BANK EMPLOYEES, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO CHANGE THE SCHEME FOR THE INSURANCE EMPLOYEES AS THE SAME WOULD CAUSE RIPPLE EFFECT IN THE BANKING AND IN OTHER SIMILAR SECTORS. FURTHER IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE EMPLOYEES RETIRED UPTO JULY 31,1997 ARE BEING GRANTED D/R AND 100% NEUTRALISATION IN THE CASE OF THE PENSIONERS RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1-8-97 WAS PART OF THE PENSION PACKAGE AGREED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND TO OPEN THE AT THIS STAGE WOULD LEAD TO HOST OF PROBLEMS.”
PARA 10. THAT ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE PENSION ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE LIC PENSION RULES IS PAYABLE FROM A SEPARATE FUND MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH IS VALUED ACTUARIALLY EVERY YEAR FOR SHORTFALL OR EXCESS. THE LIC PENSION IS CONTRIBUTORY IN NATURE AND THE CORPORATION IS CREDITING 10% OF THE BASIC PAY IN RESPECT OF EACH PENSION OPTED TO THE PENSION FUND MAINTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE. THE PENSION FUND IS VALUED ACTUARIALLY EVERY YEAR TO ASSESS SHORTFALL IF ANY. SUCH SHORT FALL IS BEING FUNDED BY THE CORPORATION BY ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION. THE COMPARISON OF BENEFITS UNDER LIC PENSION RULES WITH THOSE ADMISSIBLE UNDER CCS PENSION RULES PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE OF A SEPARATE FUND FROM WHICH PENSION PAYMENTS ARE TO BE MADE WHEREAS THERE ARE NO SUCH CONSTRAINTS AS REGARDS FUNDS ARE APPLICABLE FOR CCS PENSION SCHEME. FURTHER THE PENSION SCHEME APPLICABLE TO LIC EMPLOYEES IS CONTRIBUTORY IN NATURE..”
THE AFFIDAVIT IS FAR FROM REALITY AND FACTS. THE G.O.I INCREASED THE BASIC PENSION OF S.B.I EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THE EXISTING PENSIONERS IN APRIL 2006. WHEN BANKING DIVISION OBJECTED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE LIC RESOLUTION OF 2001 HOW THE S.B.I EMPLOYEES GOT UPDATION IN 2006. G.O.I WHICH DID NOT SUBMIT ANY AFFIDAVIT IN JAIPUR H.C OR PREFER ANY APPEAL ON THE SINGLE JUDGE DIRECTION CHOSE TO SUBMIT AFFIDAVIT IN ALLAHABAD H.C IN 2011. THE LIC WANTS THIS AFFIDAVIT TO BE ADDED TO THE S.L.P RECORDS. BY THIS AFFIDAVIT THE G.O.I. IS MISLEADING THE COURT AND ALSO MISLEAD THE M.PS. IF CCS RULES ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO LIC WHAT FOR THE RULE 56 OF LIC PENSION RULES.
HOW LIC AND G.O.I ARE SILENT ABOUT THE G.O 553(E) DT 22-6-200 WHICH EMPOWERED THE CORPORATION TO AMEND THE RULE ON MIN. PENSION, D/R AND FAMILY PENSION. WHEN PENSIONERS DRAWING MIN. PENSION CAN GET UPDATION WHY NOT THE OTHER PENSIONERS. WHEN THE CCS RULES WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THE LIC PENSIONERS WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE EX CHAIRMEN OF LIC. ARE THEY ELIGIBLE FOR UPDATION .
- IT IS HIGH TIME THAT INDIVIDUAL PENSIONERS SHOULD INTROSPECT AND DEMAND THEIR LEADERS TO PLAY THEIR DUE ROLE EFFECTIVELY TO ENSURE JUSTICE TO THE PENSIONERS BE THEY PRE-86 EX-GRATIA PENSIONERS, PRE AUG97 RETIREES, OR POST-AUG 97 PENSIONERS, OR THE FAMILY PENSIONERS.
- THAT APART, THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ORGANISATIONS OF THE PENSIONERS SHOULD COMBINE TOGETHER AND ENLIST THE SUPPORT OF THE INSERVICE EMPLOYEES ORGANISATIONS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GAINS OBTAINED BY THE RAJASTHAN H.C., PUNJAB & HARYANA HC AND DELHI HC. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY THAT THE CASES IN KERALA AND ALLAHABAD HC ARE REVIEWED TO STRENGTHEN THE EMPLOYEES' CAUSE OR COUNTER LIC ARGUMENTS. IF THESE CASES ARE LOST, THE ADVANTAGE GAINED IN OTHER H.C WILL BE LOST.
(Concluded.)