MEDICLAIM - CASHLESS FACILITY

I came to know of renewal of mediclaim policy for LIC Employees/Pensioners through LICPC. There is also a small post by Mr. Sanjay Gupta of C.O., LICI. Full circular is, of course, awaited.

As far as Cashless facility is concerned it was said in Sanjay Gupta's post that the existing process for cashless facility will be followed " till the i.d. cards are issued from T.P.A." Till then cashless requests will be processed by TPA on the basis of certificate issued by OS dept. of LIC and photo ID.

The main hitch lies in the words " till the ID Cards are issued from T.P.A." It was promised that TPA would issue ID cards for cashless service even last year and till now I am yet to see one such card . It is not unusual for business people to forget after-sales-service once they pocket the money. Will the Central Office, LIC compel the TPA to provide prompt service and issue ID Cards? Or is it the NEW INDIA that has to ensure that the TPA gives prompt after-sales-service? It will be an important aspect of the after-sales-service by the Insurer, New India itself. As Newton said " every body continues to be in its state of rest, unless compelled by an external force."

Will it require an agitation by pensioners to compel the Insurer and TPA to do their jobs promptly?

Needless to say that pensioners' organisations have to act with speed.

Regards, 

B. Ganga Raju 

Hyderabad

Sound Legal Aspects for Updation of Pension - Retired Bankers Must Get Updated Pension

Date :27^thMAR 2015

    MOST URGENT  

To                                              

Shri Hasmukh Adhia,                                                               

Secretary, Departmental of Financial Services,                                   

Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building,                                           

3^rd Floor, 10, Parliament Street,                                                            

New Delhi -100001.                                                                                 

DEAR SIR,

RE- ILLEGAL ARBITRARY DENIAL OF

1 100%DANEUTRALIZATION TO SENIOR CITIZENS WHO RETIRED FROM THE BANKS SERVICE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER2002.

2.DENIAL O0F FAMILY PENSION AS PAID TO GOVT AND RBI EMPLOYEES

3. DENIAL OF PENSION UPDATION FROM TIME TO TIME AS GIVEN TO GOVT AND RBI EMPLOYEES WHICH IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

4. Protection of Bank employees’ interest under Banks Nationalization Act, namely The Banking Companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 and

5. honouring the Memorandum of Settlement dated 19.10.1993 between IBA and Officers Associations and Workmen Unions in toto.

 In continuation of my letter dated 24thFeb,2015 & 20^th march 2015 on the above subject which was delivered to your office on 27^th Feb,2015 & 24^th March respectively, I would like to state as under.

01. The Section 10(7) of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 says

After making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation in assets, contributions to staff and superannuation funds and all other matters for which provision is necessary under any law, or which are usually provided for by banking companies, a corresponding new bank [may out of its net profits deal are a dividend and retain the surplus if any. 

This section and sub section says that after making provision for

a. for bad and doubtful debts,

b. depreciations in assets,

c. contribution to staff and superannuation funds

d. and all other matters for which provision is necessary under any law, or which are usually provided for by banking companies and then the net profits arrived thereafter can be appropriated towards dividends. Therefore, the staff cost and superannuation funds ranks first among other things over the dividend to the owner.

Provisions for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation on assets, staff cost with superannuation benefits and other provisions under law, are not subordinate to each other but they are all at par with each other. Now, what has been practicing is provisions for debts, depreciation and other provisions are provided even if there is impact on reserves and capitals of the banks. However, the staff cost with superannuation benefits, which is also at par with other provisions referred above, is neglected by the men in top of the affairs of the banks. The Parliament of the country and country, while taking over the banks by nationalizing them, protected interests of the bank employees by passing legislation as above. 

The Parliament of the country speaks the will of the people of the country. When the will of people of the country is to protect the interest of the bank employees in such a manner, wherein their staff cost and superannuation benefits prevail over the net profits, the negotiating team representing the banks, cannot take a stand that there are no adequate profits, paying capacity of the banks is not sufficient. The present stand taken by the IBA and its member banks is against the Constitutional guarantees and protection given to the bank employees at the time of

LET LIES GET EXPOSED

Shri MSM has revealed some startling 

untruth he found in the latest SLP filed 

cleverly by GOI. When a person is not sure 

of winning he becomes desperate and would 

adopt any unethical means to save his skin. 

I am reminded of the Heavy weight boxing bout fought by Mike Tyson and Holyfield when Tyson could not withstand the lightning punches from his opponent all that what he did was he bite the ear of his opponent and chewed it. Well that happened in boxing and when it comes to a sober contest in a litigation the loser would find it convenient to unleash all falsehood to keep the contest going for some more time. Let us see what is the untruth averment in the affidavit filed by GOI in their latest SLP AND ALL THESE YEARS THEY REMAINED UNDER THE CARPET.

1. That the existing pension structure with Dearness relief component was the outcome of sustained negotiation with employees organizations which ought not to have been reopened. The truth is LIC had held talks with various employees/Officers Associations and had circulated  agreed conclusions vide their letter dated 14-01-1994 that the DA will be paid at the same formula as is applicable to employees but while notifying the pension regulations the rates were mischievously slashed to half without authority and arbitrarily.( Refer to Annexure 28 filed by Shri Asthana in the CWP NO 6676/1998) What is arbitrary is unconstitutional as held in SC

2.GOI has stated that the existing classification between two classes of pensioners ( Pre- 1997 and Post-1997 retirees) is entirely reasonable in the circumstances ! How it is entirely reasonable when it violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as voiced in several courts and in a host of judgment pronounced earlier. When such a violation comes to light all remedial steps ought to have been taken by the GOI magnanimously and should have honored the Board resolution which has pointed out.

3. GOI claims to have rejected the Board resolution and only heaven knows when it was rejected  ! If that were to be so why should a letter dated 31-12-2001 from ED (PER/HRD) to GOI was sent to Ajit M Sharan JT Secretary (Insurance and Banking) recommending rationalization of Dearness relief and upgradation of pension in accordance with LIC Board resolution and for AMENDMENT OF PENSION RULES AND ALSO SAYING THAT THE NEED FOR IT AROSE IN RESPECT OF THE CASE OF K.C.MITTAL OF CALCUTTA HC. GOI DID NOT ACT ON THEIR OWN NOTE AND RECOMMENDATIONS which reveals their malafide intentions

.

Let me reiterate that as said by many we should fight the case with all our wisdom which is not scarce as revealed in several inputs received and thanks to the Editor of Chronicle for publishing them.

R.K.VISWANATHAN

MEDICLAIM POLICY RENEWED WITH CASHLESS FACILITY FOR ALL DISEASES

Dear Sir,

Our Group Mediclaim Policy for the year 2015-16 covering in-service/retired employees and their dependents has been renewed with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with cashless facility for all diseases and treatments covered under mediclaim policy for the year 2014-15. Cashless facility will be available through TPAs in hospitals covered under their network. In cases where cashless facility is not availed or when there is some balance reimbursable amount to be claimed representatives of TPAs will be collecting the claim papers directly from Divisional Offices.

Following Zone wise TPAs have been appointed for servicing the above policy:

S.No.	Office/Zone	Name of TPA
1	Northern Zone	M/S MDIndia Healthcare Service (TPA) Pvt. Ltd.
2	Western Zone	M/S MDIndia Healthcare Service (TPA) Pvt. Ltd.
3	Central Zone	M/S MDIndia Healthcare Service (TPA) Pvt. Ltd.
4	Central Office	M/S MDIndia Healthcare Service (TPA) Pvt. Ltd.
5	North Central Zone	M/S Raksha TPA Pvt. Ltd.
6	East Central Zone	M/S Heritage Health TPA Pvt. Ltd.
7	Eastern Zone	M/S Heritage Health TPA Pvt. Ltd.
8	South Central Zone	M/S Medi Assist India TPA Pvt. Ltd.
9	Southern Zone	M/S Vidal Health TPA Pvt. Ltd.

Detailed information about premium rates, data collection, List of hospital covered under TPAs network, process, etc will be provided shortly. Till the id cards are issued from TPA existing process for cashless facility will be followed, i.e. cashless request will be processed by TPA on the basis of certificate issued by the OS department of LIC and photo id proof.

Sanjay Gupta

Administrative Officer,

PERSONNEL/ER-A DEPT.,

CENTRAL OFFICE.

OUR SUPREME COURT CASE

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Let the matter be listed on 08.04.2015 as part heard. 

It shall be shown on top of the list.

The matter be listed along with SLP (C) 

Nos.5437-5440 of 2015.

Courtesy: SC Kapur

MEDICLAIM POLICY RENEWED WITH CASHLESS ADMISSION & TREATMENT‏

Finally they gave us effective from tomorrow. 

There are a few riders but they are of no significance. 

Await details.

We have a modest role in this achievement. No credit being sought.   

M Sreenivasa Murty

BANK NEWS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

Banking News dated 30 & 31 March -

compiled by All India Bank Employees' Association

Click here to read BANKING NEWS

-B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

CASE MANAGERS

Dear Editor,

Let me congratulate you first on your very good initiative of arranging a meeting of three case managers/advocates at Delhi on 7th April. I wish you a grand success as it will be a real victory of entire L.I.C. Pensioners Community thereby ensuring us a sure Win at Supreme Court.

I remember that you took similar step in last October for arranging such meeting at Banglore.

But I cannot conceal my reservations about one of three case managers who considers himself as most important one and chief architect of legal battle to get rid of his arrogance, 'Know All' attitude and so many hidden agendas.

With a very heavy heart, I have read a few disturbing things today morning on your blog in context of proposed meeting from Sh. Asthana regarding Sh. Murty that he does not see him as a case manager for Chandigarh high court verdict. Let me mention a few things in this regard and hope every one except Sh. Asthana will see some merit in my statement.

1. Chandigarh High Court Case was initiated by late Sh. M.L.Gandhi from Panchkula being AIRIEF All India Vice President also from Northern Zone. An independent unit at Panchkula was also created by late Sh. Gandhi just few days before his sad demise in December 2010 and Panchkula AIRIEF Unit was carved out of AIRIEF Unit Chandigarh. Sh.S.N. Chhabra from Panchkula also being a petitioner along with Sh.Gandhi took over as Secretary AIRIEF Panchkula Unit and started looking after this legal case after unfortunate death of Sh. M.L.Gandhi. Next, Panchkula AIRIEF Unit in April 2014 authorised Sh. Sreenivasa Murty from Hyderabad to work as our Case Manager and he happily acceded to our request. We informed then AIRIEF top leadership in this regard.
2. During last G.C. of AIRIEF held at Banglore, Sh. Murty was invited as a Guest and since Sh. Asthana could not attend said G.C. so Sh. Murty was requested by AIRIEF President to brief delegates and G.C about an item on agenda - Review of Legal Case.
3. Sh. Murty was also our chief guest during 4th Anniversary Celebrations Meeting of AIRIEF Panchkula Unit held here on 14.12.2014 attended by both Secretary/President of AIRIEF Chandigarh Unit
4. Sh. S.N. Chhabra being 83 years old and not keeping good health is not in a position to travel quite frequently to Delhi. Again, Panchkula Unit has its complete Trust in competence of Sh. Murty to perform the role of our case manager. I am not attending Supreme Court being a recent retiree and also not being a petitioner. To say that nobody from Panchkula was there does not mean any thing when our case manager is always at his best during each court proceeding
5. Even top AIRIEF leadership recognises Sh. Murty as a very capable case manager for chandigarh high court verdict. Questioning Sh. Murty as our case manager at this stage by Sh. Asthana clearly proves two things. First his malafide intentions and second that he happens to be much bigger than our common organisation AIRIEF as well as its top leadership.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula

KC GUPTA COMMENTS IN 'CHAT' COLUMN

CONGRATULATIONS AGAIN

Congrats again on reaching the peak of our visitor’s gallery and for your timely flashes that enlivened the blog . “Mr.Singhvi is on his feet at 11-26 A.M on 25th March”. The immediate flash by 11-58 A.M said ” Supreme Court Appeals adjourned to 8TH of April “. The period of these thirty minutes at the S.C as per the despatches of Sri. M.S.Murty and the ensuing comments from others added the pepper and salt to put the blog in the limelight.

Setting aside the comments and controversies there is urgent need to take note of the facts which need to be tackled business like by the pensioners’ case managers to counter the double game of L.I.C and G.O.I aimed at depriving the benefit of the updation envisaged in the resolution passed by the L.I.C. It is unfortunate that the day exposed the hollowness of our united Fight at the S.C. Some how or other we should not allow Sri. GNS to play second fiddle to the management moves. All should persuade him to see reason to ensure maximum benefit to maximum number of pensioners. He has to realize the that updation secures 100% D.R neutralisation but his argument of removal of D.R neutralisation only will help the L.I.C, G.O.I combine to deprive the pensioners of updation though the resolution provided for it.

The real news is G.O.I. filed 2 appeals against Jaipur Judgment. How we can allow the G.O.I who remained silent all the while to enter the fray and initiate action to restart the process. The Jaipur Division Bench remarked that if at all there is any grievance it should be for the G.O.I to contest on the grounds of Sec.48. But they (G.O.I) remained silent. The division bench said how L.I.C having passed the resolution now prefer an appeal when the Single judge provided an umbrella for implementation of the resolution by his order. Our issue was studied by almost 7 judges at the H.C of JAIPUR, HARYANA &PUNJAB, and DELHI. One of them Justice Sikri is in Supreme Court now. Is it correct to allow an appeal by G.O.I when S.C. IS BUSY CLUBBING THE 3 CIVIL APPEALS AND STARTED HEARING THE MATTER. Earlier S.C DISMISSED THE 3 S.L.Ps of the L.I.C. but gave them an opportunity to file S.L.PS ADVISING THE L.I.C TO SEEK CONDONATION OF DELAY. ACCORDINGLY THE LIC ACTED AND WE COULD NOT GET THE S.L.Ps DISMISSED AND WE ARE FIGHTING THE CIVIL APPEALS NOW. It seems now the G.O.I is advised to do some repair work at jaipur basing on which judgment two more H.C passed orders inconvenient to L.I.C and G.O.I. IT SMELLS FISHY THAT ANOTHER GAME IS BEING COOKED UP BY THE LIC-GOVT. COMBINE TO FRUSTRATE OUR STRUGGLE FOR UPDATION OF PENSION. SO OUR BLOG SHOULD LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND GET THE DETAILS OF THESE APPEALS BY THE G.O.I SO THAT LEARNED PENSIONER FRIENDS STUDY THE MATTER AND LOOK TO IT THAT THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED LOCK STOCK AND BARREL. IT IS HIGHLY RISKY TO ALLOW THE APPEALS TO BE HEARD NOW.

Coming to the aggressive skills of Mr. Singhvi, do we have the confidence and courage to counter him. His statement LIC pension Rules do not provide for UPGRADATION. IS IT SO THEN LET US KEEP QUITE. I THINK THE RULES HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW AS THEY WERE CREATED U/S 48 OF THE L.I.C ACT. THE PRINCIPLE OF UPDATION IS ENSHRINED IN RULE 36 AND IS BEING IMPLEMENTED. THE GOVT. NOTIFICATION DT. 20-6-2000 EMPOWERED THE L.I.C TO AMEND THE RULES ON MIN. PENSION (RULE36) DEARNESS RELIEF AND FAMILY PENSION. IT IS A FACT THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF L.I.C UPDATED THE MIN. PENSION IN 2002 AND 2007 WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE CLEARANCE FROM THE GOVT. BECAUSE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN HIM BY THE G.O. DT.20-6-2000. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS G.O., THE L.I.C REVIEWED THE POSITION OF THE DEARNESS RELIEF TO THE PENSIONERS. THE MANAGEMENT FOUND DIFFICULTIES IN ADMINISTERING THE TAPERING D.R STRUCTURE TO PRE AUG1997 RETIREES AND ALSO THE NEED TO UPDATE THE PENSION IN THE LIGHT PROVISIONS OF RULE 56 WHICH AIMED AT PROVIDING BENEFITS WHATEVER THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES RULES 1972. UPDATION WAS PROVIDED TO CENTRAL GOVT. EMPLOYEES BY THE CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION BY 1996 AND IN 2006 ALSO. IN THE LIGHT OF ENABLING PROVISIONS OF RULE 56 AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE G.O. WHICH GAVE POWER TO LIC CHAIRMAN TO AMEND THE RULES AFTER SOME CONTEMPLATION THE LIC BOARD PASSED A RESOLUTION TO BENEFIT THE PRE97 RETIREES AND UPDATING THE PENSION. AS A MEASURE OF ABUNDANT CAUTION LIC SOUGHT THE FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE GOVT. THUS RULE 36 AND 56 GAVE MUCH SCOPE TO UPDATE THE PENSION.

FURTHER L.I.C WAS DECLARED AS A STATE IN A DECIDED CASE. THE RESOLUTION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY GOVT. OF INDIA BY ADHERING TO THE RULE 55-A (POWER TO RELAX). GOVT OF INDIA ADDED THIS RULE TO PENSION RULES BY A G.O. IN THE YEAR 1999. THIS IS AIMED AT HELPING THE RETIREES FROM THE HARDSHIPS AND DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THEM BECAUSE OF THE PENSION RULES. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA TO IMPLEMENT THIS RULE MORE SO WHEN THE L.I.C BOARD PASS A RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER. IN INSTANT CASE THE G.O.I KEPT QUITE. THE RULES ARE TO BE RESPECTED AND IMPLEMENTED TO MAKE THEM BENEFICIAL. OTHERWISE IT AMOUNTS TO WAIVER OR ABDICATION OF AUTHORITY. IN SUCH CASES THE IMPLEMENTER OF THE RULE HAS TO IMPLEMENT BUT SHOULD NOT TORTURE THE BENEFICIARY ESPECIALLY SR.CITIZEN WHO IS AT THE FAG END OF HIS LIFE.

SO THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE RAJASTHAN H.C. AND LATER AT P&H AND DELHI H.CS . ALL THE COURTS DECIDED THAT THE L.I.C SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION . THE JUDICIAL PROCESS REACHED THE SUPREME COURT AND THE RETIREES ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES BECAUSE OF THE VEXATIOUS LITIGATION PURSUED BY THE L.IC SPENDING HUGE FUNDS OF THE POLICYHOLDERS .

ANOTHER POINT RAISED BY MR. SINGHVI IS - THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE THE POINT OF LAW, WHETHER SEC.48 COMES INTO PLAY. THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE THREE HIGH COURTS IN THIS MATTER . THE SIMPLE QUESTION IS SEC. 48 OF LIC ACT SUPREME OR THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SUPREME. CAN SEC. 48 GIVE AUTHORITY TO CREATE RULES WHICH ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. WHEN IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE MANAGEMENT ITSELF THE PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE RULES CREATED BY SEC.48, AND JUDICIARY ORDERED REMOVAL OF THE ANOMALIES CAN GOVT. OF INDIA INDIRECTLY FORCE THE LIC MANAGEMENT TO PERPETUATE WITH THE ILLEGAL RULES AND ENCOURAGE THE MANAGEMENT SPEND HUGE AMOUNTS ON THE LAWYERS HAVING POLITICAL CLOUT TO PROLONG THE LITIGATION.
Please Click Below

LIC PENSIONERS – DO YOU KNOW?

That Government of India claims to have in fact ‘rejected’ LIC Board Resolution dated 12.01.2001?

That the existing Pension structure with the Dearness Relief component was the outcome of sustained negotiations with the employee Organizations which ‘ought not to have been reopened’?

That the existing classification between two classes of pensioners (pre-97 and post-97 retirees?) is entirely reasonable in the circumstances?

If you don’t know so far, please know now – because Union of India SAID SO on oath, in the four SLPs filed FIVE YEARS after the impugned Judgements were delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. Copies of the SLPs are served today on the parties in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

Friends, it is simply appalling that the Republic of India’s Central Government can make such brazenly false statements before the country’s Apex Court with complete impunity. When I read and re-read these averments which are nothing but damn lies and malicious twisting of facts, I felt an inexplicable chill down my spine. What type of adversary are we fighting with? One for whom truth has no value?

The new developments are least expected. Till now we tasted the strategy of an insensitive Corporation. We now have before us a monstrous leviathan, in the Union of India, out to mercilessly crush the genuine aspirations of the pensioners whose role in building the mighty Corporation, is indisputable.

We have to sharpen our tools, pool fresh thoughts and launch an all-out attack on the UoI – LIC combine. May God give us the strength to do so.

M Sreenivasa Murty                                

Hyderabad      

Dear Shri.Gangadharan,

My wholehearted congratulations on your taking the initiative for bringing our case managers and counsels on a common platform on 7th April to discuss the modalities to be followed on 8th April and to discuss our case coming up on that day threadbare, proactively, for the emergence of a positive and fruitful outcome.

It was not my intention to kick up a controversy when I pointed out a couple of unpleasant things going on amongst our case managers and the total unpreparedness of some of our counsels. I am thankful to Mr.Sreenivasa Murthy for clarifying a few of my doubts though I must say they were not fully convincing. My association with Mr.Sridharan is not two decades but four decades old and I have nothing but respect and regards for him for the yeoman services he has rendered to the entire community of Class I Officers ever since the early seventies. However, as far as his stand on upgradation of pension is concerned, it is an open secret that he had never thrown his heart and soul into it as he had done in regard to the DR issue.His approach was segregational.

Shri.Asthana has been the architect of three favourable decisions in the Jaipur High court. It is uncharitable to sideline such an important person at this stage of the case. Government's thinking on our demands is as clear as the daylight. Their response towards the RBI pensioners is loud and clear. Under the circumstances , it is the fervent appeal of all right thinking pensioners that OUR CASE MANAGERS buried their differences deep and down and laid a strong foundation on 7th when they meet so that the poor pensioners taste victory on the 8th of April. What matters at the end of the day is the BIGGER PICTURE and not the small pinpricks. Let us not MISS THE WOODS FOR THE TREES!

Dear Sridharanji, I did watch both the quarter-finals and Semi-Finals at the Sydney Cricket Grounds as advised by you!

Wishing that your sincere efforts bore fruit on the 7th and with regards,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN
(Camp: New South Wales, Australia)

KML ASTHANA'S CLARION CALL FOR MEETING OF CASE MANAGERS AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS, READ THREE POSTS AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES *** WE HAVE NO COMMENTS TO OFFER

POST-1 : ASTHANA SAID "YES"

Here're Asthana's words.
These are not his words
quoted by somebody
who heard him talking
something somewhere.

In fact, what's quoted is a portion
of his statement published in a
blog.

Shri Asthana wrote: "I told
Mr. Sridharan that
MSM is harping on
meeting of Advocates,
Call him...."

"NOW THAT WE KNOW THE 
PROSPECTIVE STAND OF LIC AND ALL THE ADVOCATES ARE HERE LET US FIX UP TIME FOR A FRUITFUL MEET."

Shri Krishna Murarilal Asthana has made his point loud and clear without any ambiguity, doubt or vagueness that 

he wants to meet Shri M. Srinivasa Murty 

of Hyderabad and 

to "fix up time for a fruitful meet."

THE CHRONICLE took a cue from the above words and wanted to arrange a meeting, yes, as desired by Shri KML Asthana.

POST-2: GN SRIDHARAN AGREED TO ATTEND THE MEETING; ASTHANA SAID 'NO' ?

We discussed the matter with all concerned Case Managers. While Shri GN Sridharan and Shri Srinivasa Murty were very positive about this meeting, the discussion with Shri KML Asthana who had originally mooted the idea of the meeting, created a lot of confusion in our mind. We could not say exactly whether he agreed to the meeting or not.  He was making a lot of conditions for the meeting, talking of apologies from Shri Sreenivasa Murty, agreeing at times, then disagreeing most of the time. Then towards the end of the talk, he completely disagreed, he said he was not prepared to attend the meeting. When we feared, he would shift his stand again and again, we prepared the following report and sent to him.  It was a piece of responsible journalism that we prepared the report and informed the person whom we interviewed that the report would be published only after 24 hours of the same having been received by him. That was to allow him ample notice and time to own his stand and his words. 

The Report We Prepared

"There are ever optimistic people among the pensioners. They always think that something is definitely happening on the legal front to their advantage. They keep telling Shri Asthana who was instrumental in getting a favourable judgement from Rajasthan High Court that he is our beacon of hope for justice. And justice they expected from LIC, Government of India and from the Courts. They have been time and again told that they have won the court case in Rajasthan, in some high courts and to bring about finality to all these victories they have the hope that they will definitely win the supreme court case. The LIC pensioners are thus having a lot of eagerness, surely keenness when they look forward with bated breath the supreme court verdict which they think for reasons well argued time and again will be in their favour.

Pensioners are old, very weak, most of them living with borrowed time. They do not want any mistake to happen in the conduct of the supreme court case. They do not believe in quarrels, union rivalries, political points. They believe only in a positive verdict, early orders from Government, nay from LIC for the disbursement of arrears, pension with full DR, updation of pension and they want peaceful days for the rest of their life. There are prayers not only from LIC pensioners but others too who belong to the Bank and other similar institutions.

When Shri Asthana recently made a clarion call for a meeting, for discussion, for a united approach, these pensioners were hopeful of a fruitful outcome this time.

Shri Asthana said

"BUT BY THE TIME THE CASE CAME TO A CLOSE MR MS MURTY WAS NOT VISIBLE IN THE COURT ROOM BECAUSE HE HAD FLOWN AWAY TO SEND FALSE REPORTS. AFTER COMING OUT OF THE COURT IN THE VERANDAH WHEN OUR ADVOCATES AND ADVOCATES OF DELHI WERE PRESENT I TOLD MR SRIDHARAN THAT MSM IS HARPING ON MEETING OF ADVOCATES, CALL HIM BECAUSE HE IS PLEADING TO BE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW THAT WE KNOW THE PROSPECTIVE STAND OF LIC AND ALL THE ADVOCATES ARE HERE LET US FIX UP TIME FOR A FRUITFUL MEET, HE SAID HE IS NOT ABLE TO SEE HIM AND WILL LET ME KNOW WHEN HE IS FOUND OUT."

Taking a cue from the statement "Now that we know the prospective stand of LIC and all the Advocates are here, let us fix up time for a fruitful meet.....” we contacted the concerned case Managers Shri Asthana, Shri GN Sridharan and Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty and proposed that there could be a meeting at Delhi when all of them could exchange ideas as to how we should meet the arguments of Government of India and LIC.

Shri Sreenivasa Murty readily agreed to meet. We made contacts with Shri GN Sridharan and Shri KML Asthana. Both of them had many things to say. Despite this, Shri GN Sridharan agreed he would try to persuade his Advocate-On-Record to attend such a meeting.

Shri Asthana demanded that Shri Sreenivasa Murty should "apologise" first, then only he would agree to a meeting. It was our thinking which we explained to Shri Asthana in so many words, there could be no question of somebody apologising. Such a demand should not be a pre-condition for any talks. Nobody is going to apologise. We should meet and discuss without prejudice or pre-condition, with an open mind, frankly and sincerely. Shri Asthana however made many overtures, he did say he will attend a meeting, but changed his stand even during the telephone talk many times and finally we were sufficiently confused about his stand whether he will attend the meeting or not, whether at all he found any need for such a meeting and what exact impression we must carry as to his stand in this matter at this crucial juncture.

To the suggestion that we would send a written note to Shri Asthana and he might communicate his stand in writing, he said he was not interested in giving anything in writing. That made things difficult. It is our impression that he said he was not interested in this meeting. However there may be misunderstanding, we may have misunderstood his words, it is possible that he may have clearly communicated that he was interested in such a meeting as clearly said in his statement. So as a matter of abundant precaution, we are sending this write up to Shri Asthana. We propose to upload this post only 24 hours later.

Our impression is: Shri GN Sridharan and Shri Sreenivasa Murty are positive about this initiative. But Shri Asthana is not willing to attend.

We are sending this note for his final reaction in this matter. This note will be uploaded 24 hours later, sometime on 1st April 2015."

(To be continued)

POST-3 : ASTHANA SAYS, MURTY LET'S DISCUSS; THEN HE WONDERS WHO IS MURTY, HE IS NOT A PARTY IN ANY OF THE CASES ?

DIFFICULT TIMES

My dear Gangadharanji,

Sometimes, when we are at a difficult time in our lives, we do not reach out for help. Maybe it is because we are proud, maybe we think we would be bothering someone with our troubles. Perhaps we are embarrassed. Or we might think that what is troubling us have never bothered anyone before and we are afraid to show our fears or feelings. Is it correct? We should learn to share our miseries, in a tactful manner, just as we would like to share our joys, and take guidance. It is as such times that we need BLESSINGS.

I am a confirmed believer in 'blessings in disguise'. I prefer them undisguised when I happen to be the person blessed. But the theory that blessings in disguise are constantly happening to other people I find consoling. It enables me to bear their troubles without feeling miserable. 

So let us PRAY for Blessings for all on 8th April, with clear vision that all those fighting our case will have the Courage to exchange and collectively face the Problems.

With best wishes,
B.D.Bhargava

RK VISWANATHAN

GOVERNMENT BACKS OUT ON RBI PENSION UP-GRADATION?

Dear Editor,

The Circular dated 22 March 2015 of the United Forum of RBI Officers' & Employees so kindly posted in the Chronicle by Mr B G Raithatha, is a serious and timely RED FLAG for us the beleaguered LIC Pensioners.

Government earlier gave clear signals that the RBI Governor's recommendation for pension up-gradation for RBI retirees (comprising clauses like, once in ten years and effective from a via media date - was it 1.4.2012?) would be cleared.

Unfortunately news has been in the air for some time that the Government seems to be reneging on its promise for Reserve Bank Pensioners. Reasons could be many. But what we have seen in the Supreme Court in our own case on 25th March - Government taking a tough posture against our Pension up-gradation is certainly indicative of a negative approach on its part. Call it policy shift, call it what ever, we should take the signals with utmost seriousness.

A strong and clear mandate from Supreme Court only should set things right for all. Pensioner community in the entire country is looking to LIC Pensioners in our crucial battle for justice. Recent developments suggest that what is in store for us on and from April 8 before the Supreme Court, should be taken so seriously as 'now or never' 'do or die' and anything similar.

Thanks and regards,

Sreenivasa Murty M

BANK NEWS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

Banking News compiled by AIBEA

Please click here for BANKING NEWS

-B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

BANK NEWS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

 Recently the organizations of serving officers / employees as well as retired employees had organized a silent protest program in front of Reserve Bank of India to high light their demands for up-dation and one more option of pension. For more details, please see the e-mail and its attachment forwarded herewith. (Please click below for attachment).

-B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

CLICK HERE FOR THE CIRCULAR.

NV SUBBARAMAN'S POEMS

Dear all,

Today's posting in http//nvsr.wordpress.com  an essay with the above title.

Last six days we had six of my English poems.

GIFT OF LIFE

ALL I NEED TO PRACTICE

BLESS ME WITH THOSE EYES

DOES NOT MEAN

END TO ALL

AN ELEGY

I hope you will continue to enjoy reading and responding.. Thanks aplenty.

Have a happy week ahead!

N V Subbaraman

GNS writes

FAKE TELEPHONE CALLS

Issued in public Interest

Dear Policyholder,

We have been receiving certain complaints where our policyholders received phone calls promising undue amounts/Bonuses to them. Caller normally poses as if he is calling from LIC office or IRDA office.

Before disclosing any information you are requested to check the genuineness of the call. It can be checked through your regular agent. You can also call on IVRS number 1251 or send an e-mail at co_crm_fb@licindia.com.

In case, it is known that you had received a fake or spurious call please file an FIR with the police and lodge complaint at TRAI regulated phone number ‘1909’ with your mobile/landline on which spurious call was received within 3 days of receipt of such call. Please send a copy of complaint to LIC also.
Assuring you of our best services always.

Executive Director (CRM)
LIC of India

Temptation to contribute to Chronicle

A COOL BREEZE

Sir,

The responses by respected Shri CH Mahadevan to various doubts expressed through your columns by the eager and worried pensioners are like a cool breeze in the otherwise hot air.

Dattatraya B Deshpande,
Kolhapur

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

SHRI CH MAHADEVAN'S REPLY TO SHRI RS AHUJA

You are very right. Ultimately it boils down to the fact whatever may be the grounds that LIC/UOI may be adducing to deny justice for pensioners, they cannot get away with violating fundamental rights & right to  equality of employment under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Even  fixing an artificial cut off date will be tantamount to violating the above Articles of the constitution because  the deceased pensioners and family pensioners become victims of such discrimination.

I am sure the case managers & the Counsel will emphasize on the above points.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

Earlier Shri RS Ahuja wrote:-

"I believe, the  following points, which I am sure must have engaged the attention of our colleagues and the Senior Counsels, should be emphasized before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

1. The Union of India did not respond to the Resolution unanimously passed by the Board (which included their representative also) for  14 long years.  How can they sit over a reference, without accepting or rejecting it for such a long time.  This is an indirect way of tiring the suffering pensioners.  

2. The Constitution of India grants equality to all citizens.  How can they differentiate pensioners who retired on  a particular cut off date and who retired at a later date?  The Govt. has itself accepted the principle of One Rank One Pension in case of Armed forces."  

A MEETING ON 7TH APRIL PROPOSED AT DELHI

MAIL SENT

We have sent an email communication to Shri KML Asthana, Shri GN Sridharan and Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty about the meeting proposed at Delhi on 7th April 2015 and sent SMS to inform that mail has been sent. 

SHRI KML ASTHANA WRITES

PROCEEDINGS ON 25TH MARCH 2015

I AM SORRY I COULD NOT ATTEND TO MANY CALLS FOR I KNEW THAT MR PULKIT DUBEY HAD GIVEN INFORMATION TO MR BANGURAJAN AND G KRISHWAMY. I WAS IN DIRE PHYSICAL PROBLEMS THEREFORE I WAS HELPED AND ASSISTED BY HIM. ONE DAY EARLIER WHEN I REACHED DELHI I WAS NOT SURE WHETHER I WILL BE ABLE TO REACH THE COURT, THEREFORE, ON MY REQUEST MR RK SINGH CAME TO SAI DHAM AND WE DISCUSSED. BUT OVERCOMING ALL MY PROBLEMS I REACHED THERE AND SAW THE PROCEEDINGS.

I FOUND THE GREAT SUPER HERO WAS THERE IN ADVOCATE’S ROBE WITH HIS TABLET. THERE WAS NOBODY FROM PANCHKULA SIDE, ADVOCATE FOR DELHI WITH MR GN SRIDHARAN WAS THERE AND MS PINKLY ANAND ALSO CAME LATERON. AM SINGHVI WAS NOT THERE.

THE COURT TOOK UP CASE NOS. 1 TO 5 IN SEARTIM FIRST AND THEN ONE CASE MUCH BELOW. THEREAFTER THE COURT TOOK UP CASE NO. 101, TILL NOW OUR SR ADVOCATE WAS THERE AND THEN 105 WHICH WAS ON THE ISSUE OF MAHATMA GANDHI. IT WAS DECIDED THEN IT TOOK UP CASE NO. 121 IT WAS PASSED OVER TO 2 PM AND OUR CASE WAS AT NO. 122. FINDING THAT IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME HE TOLD MR RK SINGH TO INFORM HIM WHEN THE CASE AND KEEP TAKING NOTES OF WHAT IS RAISED BY SINGHVI AND WHEN OUR TURN COMES HE WILL RAISE OUR ARGUMENTS, WHICH DID NOT COME THOUGH LATER MR GUPTA HAD COME.

MR SINGHVI TRIED TO CONFUSE THE COURT THAT HE IS COMING AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/1/2011 AND AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN REVIEW, BUT AVOIDED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DISMISSAL OF SLP AGAINST REVIEW JUDGMENT WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE COURT BY RK SINGH HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND CANNOT BE REOPENED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THEN AMSINGHI SAID THAT THE BURDEN WILL BE 9700 CRORES, WHICH WAS REBUFFED BY RK SINGH THAT THIS IS NOT LIC’S CASE BUT FOR ARMY PERSONNEL, THE COURT SAID WHATEVER BE THE AMOUNT, WHAT IS TO BE PAID THAT HAS TO BE PAID WHETHER 9000 CRORES OR 90000 CRORES.

THEN HE CAME OUT THAT THERE ARE 1 LAKH PENSIONERS OF LIC WHICH THE COURT SAID SO WHAT BUT RK SINGH BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT THAT EVEN TODAY THERE NOT EVEN 80000 EMPLOYEES BOTH IN SERVICE OR RETIRED. THEN AM SINGHI CAME TO 48 BUT RK SINGH SAID THAT THIS MATTER WAS CONSIDERED BY COGNATE BENCH IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2015, AND THAT TOO WAS AGAINST LIC. HE GAVE TO THE COURT THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WHEN AM SINGHVI COULD NOT SAY AS TO WHAT WAS THE MATTER AND ASJ SAID I DO NOT KNOW, OUR RK SINGH SAID THAT HEARING ON A RUMOUR HE HAS ALREADY FILED CAVEAT ON 27TH JANUARY BUT A COPY HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO HIM SO FAR. THEN AM SINGHVI HAD TO COME OUT THAT IT IS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT KML ASTHANA. THE COURT ASKED THE COURT MASTER TO CALL FOR THE FILE OF THAT CASE AND BOTH THE MATTERS WILL BE DECIDED TOGETHER INSTEAD OF HEARING THE SAME MATTER AGAIN AND AGAIN BUT BEFORE THIS COURT SAID THAT HOW COME AFTER FOUR YEARS YOU HAVE COME, WHICH RK SINGH CORRECTED AFTER FIVE YEARS SINCE THE DISPUTE IS OF JANUARY 2010 WHEN JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY JUSTICE BHANDARI.

Please click below.

ROLE OF CASE MANAGERS

Dear Editor,

The very purpose of creation of a Blog by any L.I.C.Pensioner is to keep our entire L.I.C. Pensioners Community well informed thereby enhancing their awareness level. I am happy to share with you that you are doing duty exceedingly well.

Now, role and responsibility of our three Case Managers towards L.I.C. Pensioners is making full use of available blogs and communicate True Reporting of Issues related with all Pensioners through the blogs.

Current Scenario of Supreme Court Proceedings indicates that true reporting is available to Pensioners community from two case managers looking after Chandigarh and Delhi High Court verdicts whereas same is not available to any one of us from third and Principal Case Manager for Jaipur High Court. It happened on 13th March and again on 25th March.

Now the basic issue is that how the said case Manager can deprive all of us to know what exactly happened in Supreme Court on 13th/25th March ?

One thing more being observed is that many of our learned friends are quite uncomfortable with reports being published on blogs from other two case managers. I humbly request them to please help us know true version in case they do not agree with so called versions being available on blogs.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula

(We cannot expect Shri Asthana to look into the discussion taking place and reply any point. Such a distraction from his work is not expected. But the AIRIEF has to do this work. Even for the last crucial hearing on 25-3-2015 not a word has been said by the organisation for the consumption of the poor pensioners. It amply shows, there is no coordination between Shri Asthana and the organisation in these matters. -Ed.)

MY RESPONSE TO MR M V VENUGOPALAN'S THOUGHT PROVOKING POST‏

The post captioned ‘SC Arguments – Latest Developments’, by Mr M V Venugopalan from the distant Australia, needs some response.

I concede he has clear views backed by forceful arguments and his emotional involvement in the on-going court battle is indisputable. Some of his advices like the one he offered to GNS are very aptly worded. But I must tell him he was very uncharitable in his sweeping observations especially when he said ‘all the case managers have fumbled, bungled and ultimately paved the way for a perfect failure of our case’. Come on MV, don’t be a prophet of doom. We are very much in control.

To help him appreciate my response, I would ask him to imagine he was sitting in the Court hall himself, (as I was, by the side of the Counsel). Then tell me dear MV, what exactly you would have done, to pave the way for the proceedings to go differently? Don’t bother, I don’t need an answer.

Mr Venugopalan got certain facts wrong. Chief among them was his assumption that the Judge got irritated due to the absence of Mr Nidhesh Gupta and therefore asked ‘a strangulating question to put him in place’. This is far from truth. Perish the thought, MV. That Mr Nidhesh Gupta was absent when our case was called was just a factual observation and it was a non-issue as far as the Court was concerned. Why he was not present, having been there minutes earlier was also not known to anybody except himself and perhaps Mr RK Singh and his clients. Let us not allow our imagination to function extra fertile on a sensitive topic like that and hurt anybody, albeit unwittingly.

Mr Venugopalan also seems to be pretty confused on the reference to the Board Resolution vis a vis, the Jaipur Judgement, during the proceedings of 25th. Mr. Singvi’s allusion to the Resolution as he actually did was part of LIC’s mischievous but known strategy. As far as we are concerned we should never trivialize the Board Resolution, Actually it is our trump card to prove with enjoyable ease that 1) serious anomalies admittedly existed in the Pension benefits for pre-97 Retirees and 2) LIC itself attempted to remove the same through the great Resolution (I want it to sound like the Great Revolution). If M/s Singhvi & Co want to read it as they want to, (openly abetted most unfortunately by GNS & Co) let them do so merrily. On that point their version is not final after all. According to us, the Resolution has three parts, DR formula correction, weightage principle (which is in other words, Pension up-gradation on wage revision) and Govt approval followed by Pension Rule Amendment with Gazette Notification. We shall ask the SC to ORDER implementation of all the three parts. Anybody has any doubts on the powers of the Supreme Court to issue such Order if it wants to? Our role is to convince the Apex Court that there is the need to do so to remove anomalies and unlawful discrimination permanently, including for the later generations of Pensioners.

Justice demands it and the Law permits the same.

I heard some ‘murmurs’ that inviting Government on board now, with its ill-fated Appeals, was avoidable. I see their point. I had the benefit of knowing the mind and logic of Mr Jay Savla (whom I am assisting for Chandigarh) in making such a suggestion which was accepted by the Court. If I may make a quick but brief disclosure at this stage, Government coming on board directly is necessary for us to seek and obtain directions from the Court not merely to LIC but direct to the Government. Don’t we see that the real culprit in pushing us to this state is the Government? For those who are not familiar with a fine point of law, let me inform that Govt is already a party to the proceedings in the on- going Appeals of LIC, but only as a supporting Respondent (its Affidavits are filed in the SLPs/CAs). Through them it can only submit its views in support of LIC. But as a direct Appellant, it can challenge the Jaipur Judgement and ask the SC to set it aside. When it is allowed to do so, as it is happening now, we should meticulously expose its grounds as untenable and get the Appeals dismissed. Only in that event we can hope to secure a comprehensive, categorical and unambiguous speaking Order from the Apex Court without which an ever unwilling LIC would continue harassing its Pensioners. There is solid evidence against LIC that it has scant respect for judicial pronouncements. It is an expert in abusing the system.

One point about Section 48. Mr MV is among a host of well-informed Pensioners who always know, believe and are on record that this section could be a stumbling block. No big discovery that. All of us are equally aware, except one important stakeholder. I already renewed my humble appeal to them to REVISIT their strategy.

I feel, nothing adverse happened on 25th. I mean of any irreparable consequence. We lost no vital ground and we can retrieve whatever ground we may have lost. All these days we are fighting the opponents somewhat in dark. From now on, there is focus. Let Mr Venugopalan and all other supporters continue their support with ideas, their best wishes to the so christened ‘case managers’ and step up their prayers for the success of the LIC Pensioner community.

M. Sreenivasa Murty
Hyderabad

SC ARGUMENTS

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POWERS

U will remember I raised 

my concerns that Sec. 48 

will come in the way...  

Dear Sir.

• Yes, you are right. Sec 48 undoubtedly gives the powers to the Central Govt. But it does not give powers to them to not amend existing LIC Pension Rules which violate Articles 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution. Any rules & powers are circumscribed by the constitutional provisions. I am sure the various counsel will argue accordingly before the SC Bench.

Kind regard.

C H Mahadevan

CHRONICLE CARTOONS

ABHISHEKH SINGHVI FEARS ONLY TERMITES

afraid of only termites...

I-T panel rejects Singhvi's claim that termites ate his vouchers.

NEW DELHI: The Income Tax Settlement Commission has levied a penalty of nearly Rs 57 crore on Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi after the Rajya Sabha MP failed to furnish documents supporting his claims of expenditure for running his office.

The Settlement Commission, which is a dispute resolution entity which a taxpayer can approach once, rejected Singhvi's plea for immunity from prosecution, while levying penalty at 100% of the tax attributable to income for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13. Singhvi had approached the panel on his own.

(He is LIC's counsel, but no prejudice is meant. Cartoon added. Report recd thru P.Ramanathan. -Ed.)

A REMARK FOUND IN OUR CHAT COLUMN

COURT PROCEEDINGS ON 25TH MARCH

Dear Editor,

Information has trickled down as to how the arguments went during the hearing in SC which would be continued  in the next sitting.  

Two points emerged during the proceedings :-

1. The Judge asked Asthana's counsel ' whether your pension rules have a clear mention of pension upgradation (Mark the word CLEAR MENTION)
2. Counsel for GOI said that the cost of upgradation of pension would be 9700 crores.

Arguments on the above points is likely to continue on 8 APRIL when the bench assembles again I have this to submit at the cost of repetition as already this would have been taken note and this may be brought into our argument :-

1.The pension scheme contain a residual provision that matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made in the pension rules shall be governed by corresponding provision contained in the central government services ( Pension rules) 1972 or the Central services ( Commutation of pension rules) 1981 applicable to Central government employees. There was no updation of pension in the Central GOVT EMPLOYEES PENSION RULES 1972.IT WAS ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF 5 TH AND 6 TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION and the representation of the employees Union GOI   decided to revise pension twice wef 1-1-1996 and 1-1-2006.Not a single revision of pension so far has taken place in LIC for those who have already retired.

2.LIC being an autonomous body governed by Board of Directors PENSION UPDATION was discussed in their Board meeting in the presence of GOI Nominee and after thorough discussion about the cost factor passed an unanimous resolution without dissent for updating pension by giving a weight age of 11.25 % and in the meeting it was announced that the cost was ACTUARIALLY VALUED TO BE 6 TO 8 CRORES PER ANNUM.. The figure of 9700 crores for such updation quoted by the GOI counsel is borne out of his own imagination and has no validity.

GOI counsel is trying to confuse and influence the learned judges .

R.K.VISWANATHAN

ONWARD TO APRIL 8TH, 2015

The report of proceedings in the 

Supreme Court yesterday are quite 

interesting.

For one we know the names of counsels for appellants and respondents.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sushma Suri, Nidheesh Gupta, R K Singh,
Jay Savla, Shriram Panchu ..names of these legal luminaries are by now
known to all LIC Pensioners (or atleast to those who go through LICPC).
That adds to our knowledge and makes us wiser.

The forceful point made by Abhishek Manu Singhvi was that the updation
would cost Rs.9700 crores, involves policy matter of Government etc.
He emphatically stated that LIC Board is not autonomous.

Shri CH. MAHADEVAN rightly said that the figure 9700 should not make
us nervous. If any one should be indignant that he is denied a portion of
this figure all these years. Students of mathematics are not scared by
the bigness of figures. Figures are important for politicians and in highlighting
SCAMS. What is 9700 compared to the huge figures revealed by CAG ? Just
peanuts for Government and LIC.

If anyone has to take notice of the figure 9700 Crores I feel it is the
organisations and trade unions representing LIC Employees (those still
in service). Time they say something in this matter.

Hon'ble Justice J Misra quipped: " Are LIC Pensioners governed by pension
rules or not? Whether pension rules provide for updation?"

We would have been the happiest lot if only pension rules explicitly
provided for updation of pension instead of stating that C G Pension Rules
will apply in all residual matters. Perhaps there would not have been
a need to encroach upon the precious time of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Our cases are now PART HEARD. It was said 'heard melodies are sweet
but those unheard are sweeter.' The unheard portion is going to be
crucial. Scoring points over one another, bickerings are all part of the
game and may be unavoidable when more than one organisation
appear on the stage. But nobody should feel hurt at live telecast. Nobody
disputes that maturity should prevail.

So friends and Comrades, time to pull up our trousers, tighten the belts,
go fully prepared before the bench and most importantly ensure
that the Counsels, all of them, are present in the Court Hall on the next
important day, I may add, would it not be better and wiser if all the 

counsels representing pensioners consult each other even if informally
and fire their salvos without missing the target.

So, onward to April 8th, 2015.
B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad

INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

Retirements Benefits - Income Tax Exemptions 

    Some of the new retired / retiring employees might be seeking your guidance for  provisions of income tax exemptions on various types of retirement benefits. 

    In this context, we forward herewith an e-mail sent to us by Shri P.C.Desai, Vice President of our Association from Vadodara (Gujarat). It contains precise 'Note' on various provisions exempting these incomes.

-B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

Please click below.