As regards the reference to the Circular of July 2012 on Agenda Note opining that the LIC Board Resolution provides only for full DR neutralization and not updation, I wish to differ with the view.
I do feel that the Resolution could have been more clear in its wordings
so that diverse interpretations would have been avoided. But reading
between the lines of the Resolution, it is not difficult to conclude
that it provides for removal of DR anomaly right from 1/11/1993(or
the date of retirement, whichever is later), 100% DR neutralsation
from 1/8/1997 and upgradation of pension with weightage. If it was
only for the purpose of 100% DR neutralization for pre-August 1997
retirees, what is the relevance of the mention in the Resolution of
upgradation with weightage of 11.25% as was done in the case of in-
service employees?
so that diverse interpretations would have been avoided. But reading
between the lines of the Resolution, it is not difficult to conclude
that it provides for removal of DR anomaly right from 1/11/1993(or
the date of retirement, whichever is later), 100% DR neutralsation
from 1/8/1997 and upgradation of pension with weightage. If it was
only for the purpose of 100% DR neutralization for pre-August 1997
retirees, what is the relevance of the mention in the Resolution of
upgradation with weightage of 11.25% as was done in the case of in-
service employees?
Secondly nowhere in the Board Resolution there is an indication that
such type of upgradation was meant to be a one time exercise. If it
indeed was the intent of the LIC Board on 24/11/2001, would it not
amount to a situation where one type anomaly sought to be removed
would give rise to and perpetuate another type of anomaly, not only
for the same generation of pensioners, but also for future
generations as well?
such type of upgradation was meant to be a one time exercise. If it
indeed was the intent of the LIC Board on 24/11/2001, would it not
amount to a situation where one type anomaly sought to be removed
would give rise to and perpetuate another type of anomaly, not only
for the same generation of pensioners, but also for future
generations as well?
Thirdly, my analysis on the family pension arising out of such method
of ‘upgradation’ adopted by the LIC for depositing dues to the
family pensioners of the petitioners in the Chandigarh, has revealed
that LIC’s adopting the principle of mere 100% neutralization instead
of progressively weighted upgradations will result in reduction in
revised family pension and consequent cumulative recovery. There are
more than 12000 family pensioners in the Corporation as at
31/3/2013.When there will be an adverse impact on such a large number of
family pensioners, would the LIC want to upgrade pension in order to
effect recoveries?
of ‘upgradation’ adopted by the LIC for depositing dues to the
family pensioners of the petitioners in the Chandigarh, has revealed
that LIC’s adopting the principle of mere 100% neutralization instead
of progressively weighted upgradations will result in reduction in
revised family pension and consequent cumulative recovery. There are
more than 12000 family pensioners in the Corporation as at
31/3/2013.When there will be an adverse impact on such a large number of
family pensioners, would the LIC want to upgrade pension in order to
effect recoveries?
No Corporate Board, especially a Board of an organization of the stature of a giant public sector Financial Institution like LIC would, in all its collective wisdom, wish to take far-reaching decisions which would smack of inconsistencies giving rise to perpetual anomalies.
As regards the reference to the LIC deposits made in Chandigarh HC
Registry, there can be no two opinions that LIC has paid inadequate
amounts without including upgradation as directed in the Punjab &
Haryana High Court Order allowing the petition.
Registry, there can be no two opinions that LIC has paid inadequate
amounts without including upgradation as directed in the Punjab &
Haryana High Court Order allowing the petition.
As regards the IA filed in the Supreme Court in the CA against the
Delhi HC judgment, in my view, as the Supreme Court is likely hear all
the three CAs on 12/11/2014, the IA is as good as having become
infructuous.
Delhi HC judgment, in my view, as the Supreme Court is likely hear all
the three CAs on 12/11/2014, the IA is as good as having become
infructuous.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
C H Mahadevan