LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE

Dear Sri RBK Sir, Though you end up saying 'with malice to none...' it is quite evident from all your writing, that you have not taken kindly to what GNS has claimed, in his recent Circular regarding meeting with the Secretary (Finance). 

I had a rather surprising experience on the train to Mumbai to attend the Gen. Council recently: the gentleman sitting next, after knowing I was from LIC Pensioner Class, asked me about Jaipur HC judgement and the fate of the SLP in SC! He was not from any insurance related background! That is possibly the result of all the hype and hoopla unleashed on the matter, without perhaps being fully aware of the consequences of a possible crash, in the minds of ageing pensioners, if things do not turn out the way it has been projected all along.

This was a matter we discussed in our Gen.Council too. In fact most people who are basking in expectations of a big 'bonanza' are blissfully unaware of what the Justice Bhandari judgement is all about. I happened to also explain to members, that even if we came thro' in the SLP as we expect, what it can give us does not include any 'upgradation' of the type you have been talking about.

The HC judgement only discusses and offers (Orders) two things: one, that within one class of Pensioners there can be no discrimination in terms of benefits ( meaning only the DR rates of three categories) through artificial cut-off dates.The other point is about the Approval by Govt.  which it says is not required because this matter does not relate to Policy or Public Interest. It gives nothing more than what GNS has been asking for in his Court cases. The rest ,if you are drawing out projections, is only a figment of fertile imagination. We have problems getting Court orders implemented. And here you talk about a principle or logic being taken out of this judgement to move on to 'Upgradation', thereby meaning continuous revision for Pensioners, as and when Employees get a Revision!

Please stop for a moment to go thro' the Judgement for the umpteenth time now, to make sure what I am saying is not true. Yes, I agree, Asthana has Prayed for such rolling revision in his 2007 Petition to Court. But do remember, what is granted is only what is expressly Ordered by the HC. And nowhere has that judgement(Order) expressly come on a rolling Revision of the kind you repeatedly keep bandying about.This is where, in your enthusiasam, you seem to have missed out on what they term 'balance' in your averments.You have also taken thousands of Pensioners on a Dream run, that may not necessarily come true.


In fact I confronted GNS once saying why are you so cynical about the Asthana case. He told me he was not being cynical, but only remained poised and balanced to realities. It was then that I got from him copies of the Bhandari judgement, the Asthana Petition of 2007, and the copy of LIC Note prior to the Proposal being put up to Board in 2001, which carries even the notings of ED Persl. MD and Chairman, by hand. 

I also ran into K Chandrasekaran who was ED Board Sectt.then, who told me that the only purpose of that Board Proposal was rationalising the three different benefit structures of DR within the Pensioner Class. and that too, more for administrative convenience than anything bigger. The Upgradation referred to in the Board Proposal (11.25%) was to only facilitate the process of the one-time rationalisation of DR rates, and that 11.25% was incidentally equal to the average percentage hike given to employees in the 1993 Revision process. And make no mistake, the Bhandari Order does not refer to this aspect of one-time upgradation of 11.25% even remotely. It only talks of removing anomalies in DR.

True there is a logic that emerges for later Revisions too, and that is what Sri Asthana has so cleverly given open expression to in his Petition in 2007. But that will have to come up separately as a matter for court to examine and decide on and does not seem to be automatic as many of us now come to expect. In the present Bhandari Judgement, there is no 'Order' for anything more than the discriminatory practice of differential rates of DR being done away with. Let us be happy, post such success, if we land on one, rather than create big hopes in the minds of trusting followers, which may not come through later, resulting in big disappointment.


Yes, the 30,000 Pensioners you talk about, need to know about this gap between expectation and the reality as it now obtains. You have a duty to keep them informed rather than deal in projections that are our own.

As for GNS, and your inimical writings on him, I feel you should know that he is a veteran of many a battle, and who by his methods of talking to people in Govt. who matter, did win for us our automatic DA principle thro such negotiations. Many of us in Class I who were looking rightly at career advancements then, did not tread that risky corridor of the Fedrn. for obvious reasons, but to turn around now, and project his attempts in poorer light, I think we just don't have the moral authority to do so. All of us are pushing in the same directions and it only weakens our general cause when we raise such internal differences, rather unthinkingly. Hope in the process of talking about 'balance' I have not myself lost it out here. Pardon me if I have carried hurt, anywhere, ahead of the sense I intended to espouse.Thanks.