The positive indication is that LIC has adopted the principle of merger of DR with Basic Pension (notionally) on 1/8/1992 wherever applicable and/or merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 to revise the pension on 1/8/1997 albeit as an one-time exercise.
The negative points that emerge from the approach followed by LIC are manifold:
The upshot of the above approach will be that all generations of pensioners including post July 2012 retirees need to recognize that settling for any compromise in the matter of upgradation short of revision of pension with every wage revision will in the long run result in perpetuation of anomalies to the detriment of all generations of pensioners and family pensioners.
So it is only proper that all in-service employees ‘ and pensioners’ representative organizations should strive for a scheme of upgradation that will serve the interests of 100% of the present and future retirees. This will be possible by a principled upgradation of pension with every wage revision. This can only happen if the judgments of the Jaipur Bench and the Punjab & Haryana High Court are implemented by LIC and all pensioners’ representative bodies need to concertedly strive towards this objective to be achieved on 12/11/2014 in the Supreme Court.
The negative points that emerge from the approach followed by LIC are manifold:
- 1. While a principle of merger of DR with Basic Pension on the date of each wage revision on 1/8/1992 and 1/8/1997 has been adopted revising the pension, it has been halted as an one time exercise and the same principle of merger of DR with Basic Pension 1/8/2002 and subsequently on 1/8/2007 has not been followed, which indicates a glaring inconsistency in the approach to remove an existing anomaly and failure to prevent creation of new anomalies;
- 2. No attempt has been made by LIC to remove the anomaly in DR existing from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement (whichever is later) before 1st August 1997 which is highly discriminatory while compared to the DA formula followed for in-service employees;
- 3. No weightage has been provided on merger of DR & Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 as decided in the LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001.( In my view for pre-August 1992 retirees also there should have been a weightage on the notional merged DR plus Pension as was done for in-service employees for the sake of consistency).
- 4. Such an absence of weightage and successive upgradations on mergers on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 have resulted not only in faulty upgradation of pension for pre-August 1997 retirees adopted by LIC in their payments to the Courts, but also glaring anomaly in family pension where recovery arises on pension upgradation/revision!)
The upshot of the above approach will be that all generations of pensioners including post July 2012 retirees need to recognize that settling for any compromise in the matter of upgradation short of revision of pension with every wage revision will in the long run result in perpetuation of anomalies to the detriment of all generations of pensioners and family pensioners.
So it is only proper that all in-service employees ‘ and pensioners’ representative organizations should strive for a scheme of upgradation that will serve the interests of 100% of the present and future retirees. This will be possible by a principled upgradation of pension with every wage revision. This can only happen if the judgments of the Jaipur Bench and the Punjab & Haryana High Court are implemented by LIC and all pensioners’ representative bodies need to concertedly strive towards this objective to be achieved on 12/11/2014 in the Supreme Court.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan