AIIPA NOTE, RB Kishore's sane reflections...

We had uploaded a mail and reply thereto saying 

" You may keep your counsel to yourself " under 

the head ‘no comments’. Subsequently we received 

more comments. We found that judged by the 

nature of the discussion taking place in these mails, it was of no interest to the Chronicle. And as such we have since withdrawn the post ‘no comments’. We do not intend to publish any more mails containing the contentions in this matter, let us put the unfortunate episode behind us and go forward with our business. 

AIIPA NOTE – We enjoyed the comments of Shri CH Mahadevan on AIIPA note. He writes: ”I refer to the AIIPA’s note on court cases posted in the PC. The note is quite comprehensive giving the historical and chronological developments on the LIC pensioners’ litigation interspersed with the perspective taken by the AIIPA."

He continues:"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 neutralisation 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? ....”

The discussion of this nature will no doubt enhance the quality of discussion in the Chronicle. It is more so when another contributor Shri Murty has also referred to the AIIPA Note and said:“I appreciate the sheer conviction with which the then prevailing situation was methodically analysed and presented by who ever was its author.”

It should be appreciated that AIIPA has a stand on the subject whether one likes it or not. The Note was lying on the right side bar of the blog for the last 3 years. Nobody made any comments on the two notes made available by the Chronicle and the third one published just a

few days back. And one day people appear on the scene and say, Sir let us ignore the same. Harping on criticism without reading the note is sheer prejudice and such people will go on criticizing. They will never seriously go through the contents and come out with any comments. But let us assure you, we are for discussion.  The fact that no query was ever raised on this Note clearly indicates that AIIPA has only just made a survey of the situation obtaining on the legal front and it is meaningless to say that AIIPA is against upgradation.  If any one thinks that upgradation is just a 'cake walk', and if that belief is based only on what is written in the Board Resolution and Jaipur judgment, we have serious reservations, more so, when it is admitted and said : "the Resolution could have been more clear in its wordings so that diverse interpretations would have been avoided. "



Shri RB Kishore had contributed some sane reflections on supreme court case and we had carried the same in our columns in a special format appreciated by some of our readers but subsequent discussion disappointed us. While it should be our endeavour to boost the morale of the pensioners, just after reading Shri Kishore's well argued article, it cannot be said that we are winning the case on 12th November 2014. We have to “ secure an unambiguous Judgement in our favor. It is not a cake walk but a very intricate exercise”  That being the case we want the pensioners be told that we are taking all possible steps to win the supreme court case. But it should not mean that we should celebrate 12th November 2014 as victory day. We have made many such mistakes in the past. Let us not repeat such mistakes once again.