Dear Editor,
Persistence pays, so goes the saying. However, in my case I
have been proved wrong. In three of my earlier postings I
made a passionate plea to all our three leaders as to why they
decided not to take the ‘Clarification Route’ but chose to
remain silent till the mandated six weeks were over.
- I thought, probably, they had something very vital up their sleeves and were just waiting to unleash it once the Court re-opened after the vacation. It was not to be. If they had expected that something positive would be forthcoming from LIC, during the six weeks period, then they should have had some definite plan to put into action once the Court re-opened. Nothing of that sort happened. The six-weeks was over by 18-6-2015 and the courts re-opened on 1-7-2015. Why this inaction?
They have a responsibility to keep the stakeholders informed about the future course of action or is it that in their collective wisdom they thought that SILENCE IS GOLDEN, at least till 23rd of September. I would like to humbly remind them that accountability goes hand in hand with responsibility, and especially when they are dealing with a host of problems faced by a hapless lot of pensioners. The very fact that at this age they have come forward to accept the responsibility doesn't automatically absolve them of their bounden duties. By doing this, are they not giving more leverage to LIC/GOI to perpetuate their machinations against the pensioners.
- Coming to the ‘Membership Issue’, have we, the pensioners gone to the court as ex-employees (retirees now) of LIC or as members of the Federation of LIC Class I Officeers Federation. Are we governed by what is stated in the Federations’ by-laws or the Pension Regulation 1995? The Contractual Obligation, if any, the LIC has is towards its pensioners and not members of the Federation. Henceforth, will LIC make it a pre-condition that every pensioner should be a member of one Association or the other or otherwise they will cease to derive any benefit it offers to the reirees?
In a strict legal sense, or clinging on to the technicalities, they may argue that the Association has filed the writ on behalf of its members and, therefore, the benefit of any court decision can flow only to its members and not because, essentially, the individuals are LIC pensioners? In Group Insurance, employees of an Organisation, when as members of their Union come to us for a GI the contract is between the Representative of the Union and LIC. However, when it is a Group Gratuity Insurance, since it arises in the light of Gratuity Act and is a statutory obligation, the contract is between the Employer representing the employees and LIC. I brought in this analogy to stress and highlight the legal aspect and the relationship factor between the above two contracts. All these court cases arose as a result of the relationship we are having with LIC as its pensioners and not certainly because of being members of an X,Y,or Z Association or Union.
It will be sheer highhandedness on my part
if I dabble further in legal matters, because I am
not a legal person myself. All that I have
ventured to state are the product of a perfect
lay man and hence I would request my pensioner
friends with eminent legal qualifications and
back ground to bear with me. The crux
of the matter is that this is a purely legal issue
and we should try to find, without losing any time,
a legal solution to it.. All our frontline leaders
are legal luminaries and they may kindly
examine the points I have mentioned above
and come out with their expert legal opinion.
