Hyderabad Association's petition

Dear Editor, 

We are listed for tomorrow's hearing before the designated Court. Extract of the Cause List is appended.  

Thanks and regards,

Sreenivasa Murty M

SALIENT POINTS OF MEDICLAIM POLICY

SALIENT POINTS OF MEDICLAIM POLICY: CLICK HERE

SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

The leaders would solve the problems ; better, if they, sooner rather than later !

      

As said by Shri K. Vijayaprasad in his "Kudos to Pensioner Leaders" (PC: 30-05-2016), the GOI employees' Basic Pension is fixed at 50% of the average of last ten months pay or last pay drawn whichever is more beneficial to the employees.  The old rule of 50% of ten months average pay was changed as per recommendations of 6th CPC and from 01-01-2006. If LIC (other institutions like banks and RBI also may) changes the rule of 50% average of the last ten months pay to 50% of the last pay drawn or ten months average whichever is more beneficial to employees, on the lines of the Central Government pension rules, Shri Vijayaprasad's basic pension would have been at Rs.38203/- half of Rs.76405/- , the last month's Basic Pay, FPA and allowances drawn by him. (Rs.36353/-, the 11th Stage of ADM - as shown in the Chart posted in PC on 29-05-2016, plus FPA plus allowances 'reckoned' by him) The B.P. of Rs.38203/- worked out based on the last month's pay is much more than Rs.32214/-, worked out by him based on the existing rule of last ten months average (Pay + DR). The solution for such a problem of Shri Vijayaprasad  and few other problems mentioned below, lies no where else, all lies in amending our pension rules. 

The GOI employees get full pension (no prorata) w.e.f. 01-01-2006 after putting in 20 years of qualifying service. Their family  pension is at 30% of the last pay drawn (or ten months average pay, whichever is more) of the retired / deceased employee. Pensioners (and family pensioners) who are 80 and above get 20% and more pension. 

The leaders of the in- service and retired employees should jointly resolve all the above mentioned four issues with the Chairman. The changes should be made from a retrospective date. There is a provision in the LIC Employees (Pension) Rules, 1995 to make amendments to a rule or rules, retrospectively.

It may be known to many that the GOI pre 2006 pensioners had to fight a sustained legal battle for about six years to get full pension with 20 years qualifying service. The GOI finally implemented the CATs and the S.C. judgement by issue of notification dated 06-04-2016. The Government has instructed to pay arrears from 01-01-2006 to all the 'eligible' (who were paid on prorata) pre 2006 pensioners at an early date. Sorry, I am repeating (recalling) this for the pensioners (public) knowledge for the third time this year !

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Hyderabad Association

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) NO. 4894/2016, CM No. 20434/2016, CM No.

20435/2016, CM No. 20436/2016, CM No. 20437/2016

RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

HYDERABAD ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. G. Banerji, Sr. Advocate

alongwith Mr. Saurav Agarwal and

Ms. Astha Gaur, Advocate.

versus

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate

alongwith Mr. Sudeep Singh,

Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

O R D E R

25.05.2016

It is submitted that these matters are listed on 12.07.2016.

In this view of the matter, list the matters before the

concerned bench which is seized of the writ petition nos. 184/2007,

3984/ 2016 and 3983/2016. The said writ petitions have been 

consolidated pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court which had 

transferred proceedings from the other High Courts. The 

respondents urged that the present petition is not maintainable in 

view of the order of the Supreme Court dated 31.03.2016. The 

issue of maintainability would also be appropriately dealt with.

List on 01.06.2016.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

DEEPA SHARMA, J

MAY 25, 2016

What's the fate of AIRIEF impleadment

Dear Editor,

The other day Sh. Asthana expressed his happiness that his writ is coming up at

Delhi high court on July,12 whereas similar writ from Hyderabad is coming up later than him on July 13.

Yesterday, you put my message on your blog that this self derived happiness for Sh Asthana is going to be a short lived affair only. Today, every body knows that writ for Hyderabad at Delhi High Court is coming up on June 1st.

One thing more. AIRIEF Legal Committee Meeting held at Bhopal in June,2015 decided that AIRIEF will implead itself in legal battle. Can any body tell us whether AIRIEF has filed their fresh writ petition at Delhi High Court or not. They could not implement their own decision taken almost one year ago during proceedings at Supreme Court.

Regards,
B.R. Mehta

CH MAHADEVAN writes

Dear Mr Gangadharan, 

Although you have published the post sent by Mr Sreenivasa Murty promptly conveying the developments in Delhi High Court this forenoon, you have omitted to publish the last paragraph reading as follows for reasons best known to you: 

 “In the meantime, let the prophets of doom mind their business. They are already guilty of delaying the proceedings by several weeks by their sheer indifference. They accuse us of the damage they are causing. It's time; well informed Pensioners across the country make these mighty Federations accountable. Wish me luck, I keep praying for me and for ALL LIC Pensioners.” 

While conceding your freedom of discretion for editing materials received for publication, you would have observed more recently posts made by Mr G N Sridharan in another blog where no chance has been missed to attempt to sully our Hyderabad Association’s reputation and to claim undeserved credit where it did not belong.

In this context the omitted paragraph above very much deserved to be published to keep the visitors of the PC informed of what we wanted them to know.  I hope you will appreciate. 

Kind regards. 

C H Mahadevan

Delhi High Court developments

NOW ABOUT THE HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION

My concern about the date of posting of our WP No 4894 got addressed and resolved at 10.40 AM itself (I wish to call it a miracle again, even if it is not so for some). I have been waiting (social service) in the Court to watch and report what happens to AIIPA's Application for impleadment in GNS WP. I have done that already.

I had reported on 25 May that on being mentioned by my Counsel, Justice Bhat had agreed to post our WP before the designated Bench for hearing on 30th May i.e., today. The Order was not uploaded and the WP was not listed before the relevant Court for today DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE DATE AS NOTED BY THE STAFF. 

This was duly pointed out this morning as planned by me and my Counsel to the Bench Officer, who readily offered to get it corrected. Normally they would need an Application from us, but the officer was sympathetic and took the liberty to take the file inside the Judge's chamber and obtained his Lordship's approval to put up an amended Order. It has since been signed and official.

We would have preferred to have our case listed for tomorrow but our Sr Counsel is free and available on 1st. So we got it posted to 1st June. The amended Order will be uploaded today and the matter listed on 1st. People may look for the cause list tomorrow evening, if they cannot wait till I report. 

I wish to thank ALL those who have been more watchful of Hyderabad's progress, than myself.
Sreenivasa Murty M
Camp: New Delhi.

AIIPA RECEIVES DELHI HC NOD TO FILE SUBSTANTIVE WRIT PETITION

Delhi High Court developments

AIIPA APPLICATION DISPOSED OF giving liberty to file a Substantive Writ Petition. GNS counsel not present, not needed. No chance to oppose.

HYD WP COMES UP BEFORE DELHI HC SOON *** AIIPA PLEADS FOR IMPLEADMENT ***

From the High Court of Delhi

High drama before the designated Bench at 10.30. It was on account of AIIPA's Application for permission to Implead in Delhi WP. GNS Counsel was ready to oppose but the Applicant's counsel was not present, the matter got passed over. Will come up again shortly. Bench mistook the presence of our Sr Counsel for something to do with the Application. When it was made clear we have nothing to do with it, Bench said OK, let the Counsel come.

In the process, Justice Khanna made an observation 'why Application for impleading, let them file a fresh WP'. (Possibly hinting at what we did, though our case is altogether different). Anyway we have to wait for an hour more.

About Hyderabad Association's WP No 4894, I request all our well wishers to wait for the good news - Any time - we are on firm ground.

MC JAIN CASE - CH MAHADEVAN'S REPLY

Mr B S Gopalakrishna’s remembrance is correct. The M C Jain case
judgment has got implications for all Class I Officers who were in the
Class on 1/8/1992 and retired after 1/4/1993 or died thereafter. I
reproduce the following remarks that I had circulated soon after the
SLP was dismissed by the Supreme Court:

"READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE MC JAIN CASE JUDGMENT

Wider Implications flowing from the judgment

1. These benefits will also have to be extended to similarly place
retired Class I Officers.

2. It is presumed that the benefits of the judgment will also be
available to spouses of Class I Officers who unfortunately died
between 1/8/1992 and the date of retirement due before 1/4/1993 , if
the former are being paid family pension

3. Even when refixation of pension is done from 1/11/1993,DR
anomaly will persist which has to be removed in terms of the Jaipur
SJB Order dt 12/1/2010 where re-fixed basic pension exceeds Rs 2400 ;
unless the DR anomalies are removed ,there will be no tangible
benefit to this category of pensioners from this judgment.

4. Salary revision will also have to be done for Class I
pensioners who retired after 1/4/1993 w.e.f 1/8/1992 with
consequential benefits like revision of pension ,if any; In-service
Class I Officers who entered the cadres before 1/8/1992 will also
be entitled to the salary revision w.e.f. 1/8/1992 and arrears on
account of difference in salary from August 1992 to March 1993 ;

5. In respect of Class I Officers who retired after 1/4/1993 and
died thereafter, the spouse/nominee will be entitled to difference in
salary from August 1992 to March 1993, and difference in pension up
to the date of death and also refixation of family pension as well
as the arrears of family pension from the date of death of the
retired officer.

6. In respect of family pensioners, where regular Class I
pensioners retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/3/1993 expired during
that period, Family Pension will also have to be revised besides
payment of arrears of salary from 1/8/1992 ;

7. Also family pensioners where the officers entered the Class
I cadre before 1/8/1992 and continued in service till their death
after 1/4/1993 will be entitled for arrears of revised salary due
from 1/8/1992 to 31/3/1993, and revised family pension from the date
of death of the officer;

8. Interestingly, Class I Officers who were appointed to the post
of MD or Chairman (from among Class I Officers in LIC) after 1/4/1993
will also be beneficiaries of this judgment."

Now that we are in the thick of our final legal battle for
upgradation of pension in the Delhi High Court, we have to address
the above-said issues through dialogue with the LIC Management or
through ultimate separate legal fight if warranted separately
after the Delhi HC judgment is delivered and the matter is finally
settled even perhaps after an appeal in the Supreme Court thereafter
by the aggrieved parties.The more practical proposition is for the
MC Jain category pensioners to pursue the matter separately through
a case filed in the Supreme Court."

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

K VIJAYAPRASAD

KUDOS TO PENSIONER LEADERS 

I appreciate the efforts being put by the greatest leaders of the LIC pensioners. Though they are very old in age but wise and young in planning and thinking. But for their incessant efforts and initiative, LIC pensioners would have been disheartened and succumbed to the ill-treatment of higher authorities of the corporation.

Special mentions and lakhs and lakhs of appreciations should be conveyed to the legal battle king Sri M.Srinivasa Murthy and to his prime advisor, guide, friend and philosopher Sri C.H.Mahadevan. Both of these leaders are our pensioners Heroes! They are waging the battle for the good cause of all deprived poor pensioners, neglected by the topmost bosses of the corporation, who enjoy all the benefits being provided by GOI.

Sir, before you I am as little as an ant. But I still dare express my agony and feelings.

I do not know how many unlucky fellows in all over India are suffering like myself due to wrong time of retirement (from August 2012 to April 2013). Though we have drawn or copied our pension rules from GOI rules, we are unique in fixing the basic pension rule. In most of the Governments or companies for the fixation of basic pension only last month’s pay will be considered. Thus the pensioner will get 50% of his last pay as basic pension. Moreover in some government pension rules, if someone gets promotion just a few days before his retirement (not even one month, only days, for ex. Even for 1 or 2 days) that pension is eligible to draw the pension as per the promoted scale, even though he is not confirmed in that cadre scale.

But in LIC, to our fate, our corporation is calculating 10 months average emoluments while fixing the pension. In normal course it may not give much difference. But if that period becomes interim wage revision period, the pensioner is likely to undergo heavy loss. 

Our case managers are fighting for updating of pension as and when wage revision is done. But they should also make it a point to rule out this odd situation. Unless they succeed in changing the pension fixation rule of 10 months average salary, like myself people will continue to suffer in future also. As our M.Ds and Chairman are blessed with GOI pension rules and are enjoying pension privilege of up gradation etc., they may be kind enough to change this odd pension rule of ten months average pay and make the unlucky pensioners happy by endowing 50% of terminal basic pay as pension.

I am such an unfortunate fellow that I have had lost around 14 normal grade increments in my service. Still unfortunate, that I would have retired atleast in the cadre of S.D.M. (as I was selected as direct AAO in professionally qualified first batch but could not join as I was posted to Calcutta division. Later after the introduction of 1-B, after a prolonged gap I was over aged by 15 days – even though it was first batch, introduced very late and though qualified fellows were very less, the corporation was not kind enough to relax age criterion. Incidentally by the time I-B was introduced I was the young oldest fellow of Kadapa division. In every cadre I reached maximum and stayed there a couple of years to draw stagnation increments). Now after retirement also I become unlucky and get recovery from my pension 4000+p.m. till DR increases by 49.72% I will continue to suffer recovery, not to speak of any enhancement to my present pension.

Again the Corporation has made us suffer miserably by issuing circulars too late. Had the corporation given instructions to settle the arrears of salary, PL encashment, gratuity etc., and revision of pension and commutation payment simultaneously or at least in the same financial year I would have paid income tax 52000/- less. Due to belayed recovery from pension I have had to unnecessarily pay around 52000/- I.T. more from my pocket.

The Corporation is kind enough to make good the loss of pension drawn before commutation. But I think nobody will be there on earth not to commute their pension, for fear of uncertainty of living. So not many more pensioners are getting these benefits.

So in these circumstances I request the case Managers and Officials to be kind enough to bestow pity on a few of misfortune pensioners. Kindly amend the laws to make all the pensioners happy.

Though we have retired in the new scales, our equal rankers and juniors are getting more pension. (giving tension to the unlucky).

I am hereunder giving my calculations as per recent circulars (if any mistake occurs kindly pardon me) sir.

Annexure – I PLEASE CLICK HERE

Annexure - II PLEASE CLICK HERE

Lastly I request you sir to extend your appeal to the in-service employees and officers also to contribute liberally to the legal fund who are going to get the fruits of your efforts in future.

I really appreciate Mr Gangadharan sir for publishing this Pensioners’ Chronicle but for the same we are in unity. Without PC LIC pensioners are shattered and lost in darkness. So salutations to PC and its Managers. Lot of best wishes to our legal case leaders and I am sure there are going to win the battle without any doubt and they will become torch bearers to so many other loser - pensioners.
K.VIJAYAPRASAD
KURNOOL

SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

Pension of DOs and AAOs to EDs retired 

in different Pay Scales for the period 

February to July, 2016 as per the latest 

wage revision of 1st August, 2012

Our leaders would surely succeed in their legal battle with LIC and UOI and obtain 100% DR to pre  Aug. 1997 pensioners and updation of pension to all pensioners, all the pre and post Aug.1997 pensioners.

A Chart showing the Basic Pension (B.P.), Dearness Relief (DR) - [ 359 slabs @ 0.10% = 35.9% on B.P.- applicable for the period February to July, 2016 ] and Total Pension (T.P.) computed with reference to the latest wage revision of Development Officers, AAOs to EDs in terms of Government Gazette Notification dated 14-01-2016 and the C.O. implementation instructions is furnished below.  

It is an exercise to know the pension rightfully due for the current half year Feb. to Jul. 2016 on the fundamental principle of periodic updating of pension along with wage revision of in- service employees and on the basic rule of equality among the pensioners - of same rank with same length of service - call it OROP or by any other name, irrespective of their dates of retirement or pay scales in which they had retired.

The commuted amount of pension, if any, (those who have not completed 15 years as pensioner), may be subtracted from the total pension to arrive at net pension.

Those who are in receipt of FPA etc. may add the amount to the Total Pension mentioned in the Chart to know the Total Pension. The revised FPA : AAO & AO - 1745; ADM & DM - 2300 ; SDM- 2590; ZM(O) - 2685 and E.D.- 3265.

Many do not retire at the basic pension as per the chart. In their cases, the ' Ten months average' will be different. An example : Shri Damodaran retired as DO. His basic was at 20th stage for 4 months and 21st stage for 6 months. (Rs.25928/- for 4 months and 21st stage at Rs.26733/- for 6 months). His ten months average pension works out to Rs.26411/- and DR @35.9% is Rs.9482/- .His Total Pension works out to Rs.35893/-.

B.P.and D.R. have been rounded off to next higher rupee. 

As individual cases differ, the fine tune calculations necessary and must be done only with the detailed instructions of the Office.

The King Can Do No Wrong!

Dear Editor,

The  eye opening, forthright Judgement of the Allahabad High Court  as recent as 18th May  speaks volumes on the attitude of the Bureaucrat Class even though the Common Law Dictat "King Can do No Wrong" is buried five fathoms deep long ago by the Crown Proceedings Act.

Indian Constitution too is firmly against such autocratic whims as enshrined in the Articles 226 & 311. Even after more than 60 years of the rule by the Constitution, mind sets are not changing. 

One wonders what the initiation courses at the Administrative Training Centers are doing. And no wonder LICs bureaucrats are not falling behind in this autocracy.

We must feel doubly assured on the outcome of our struggle for justice with the judiciary being strongly supportive in principle.

M.B. Joshi

MC JAIN CASE

Dear Editor,

How are you? I have come across an article by Shri C.H.Mahadevan that the benefit of Shri M.C.Jain's case is applicable to all those Class I Officers who retired during the period from 01-08-1992 to 31-03-1993. 

If I remember correctly, some time back Shri Mahadevan had opined that the benefit should be made available even to those Class I Officers who were in service as on 01-08-1992 and retired subsequent to 01-4-1993. I shall be extremely happy if Shri C.H.Mahadevan clarifies on this doubt.

Thanking you and with best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(B.S.Gopala Krishna)

"OURS & THEIRS"

Dear Editor,

I have read below mentioned message from KML. My only request to all concerned is to please see the real face of our hero KML who is full of arrogance and always underestimates other players in our legal battle. Let him wait for few days to know how his self derived happiness in seeing failure of others as a short lived affair only.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

CH Mahadevan

MC Jain category of Class I Pensioners‏

All of us are aware of the non-implementation by LIC of the M C Jain case judgment delivered in 2012 by the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court for all similarly placed retirees,the SLP(C) No 16713/2014 relating to which that was filed by LIC was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 2/7/2014. Even to Mr M C Jain, LIC has not paid the correct amount due as per the Jaipur judgment.

As per the judgment, the following benefits are legally and legitimately due to this category of pensioners:

1. LIC has to refix the salary of Mr M C Jain and all similarly
placed retired Class I officers on 1/8/1992 and arrears of
difference in salary have to be paid for the months from Aug 1992
upto the date of retirement the latest date in this category being
31st March 1993;

2. Consequently, Provident Fund deductions have to be effected on
the difference of Basic Pay and PF & interest thereon up to the date
of payment of arrears. have to be paid

3. Difference in salary in lieu of Leave encashment as on the
date of retirement has also to be paid if eligible.

4. Pension has to be refixed based on revised scale of pay from
1/11/1993;

5. Arrears of difference in pension from 1/11/1993 till date have
to be paid.( As a result of this LIC will also have to pay difference
in 40% interim relief arising out of refixation of pension from
1/11/1993 as per the Supreme Court Order dated 31/3/2016 as they
would have paid to all similarly placed pensioners only the amount
calculated without factoring the refixation of pension as per the
judgment)

6. Difference in commuted value of pension has to be paid on
account of revision of pension; (As commuted value of pension is
structured with a loading for interest rate, besides mortality factor,
interest will have to be paid by LIC on the difference in commuted
value of pension at least at the rate which has been reckoned in
the CV factor, upto the date the commuted value of pension was
restored. The difference in commuted value of pension payable, if not
paid with interest, will result in much of the arrears of pension
being eaten away).

7. Restoration of consequential difference in commuted value of
pension to be done from the date of completion of 15 years from the
date commutation became absolute;

I suggest that a representative group of three or four out of the 86 pensioners as listed in the attachment, may seek an appointment with the Chairman, MD and ED(Personnel) and press forth their claim for implementing the judgment.

If there is no positive response from LIC, this group of pensioners may consider legal action in the Supreme Court jointly with Mr M C Jain who has been paid inadequate amount. Any omissions or errors in the attached list may be communicated to me with the particulars,so that I may update/ correct the list.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF MC JAIN GROUP PENSIONERS

GK Viswanatham

ACTS OF DESPONDENCY AND FALSE POSTURING

Indeed Sri Mahadevan gave a fitting reply to Sri GNS. What a pity that such grotesque leaders have ruled the class I officers of LIC for so long while in service and continue post retirement. 

The wage structure for class I was and is inextricably linked to that of class 3 & 4 employees for parity purposes. Conditions of work or dignity of self even for meritorious direct recruits were grossly unjustified or abysmal what with the attitude of subordinate staff discreetly supported by the top or executive management at all times in order to buy peace.

Many officers including class III promotees thanked their stars and prolific computerization when dependence on lower rung of the workers gradually reduced. All this, one has to attribute to the inept leadership of CL I officers spearheaded by GNS and his likes. I have to state that the scales or fringe benefits for class I are just ignominious not to mention about any comparison with identically placed officers in any other industry. Seniors and super senior officers will recall the ceilings on DA and gross emoluments at Rs.2750 and Rs.2950 while the Superintendents of class III were drawing more than Rs.3400 or more. From that rut to come out there was no strategy with the then only Class I officers Federation the only union representing officers, except to wait for the first wage revision after 1974 that was to come with effect from 01.04.1983 with actual effective date of 11.04.1985. Now too it is no better compared to any sector which is why this pension struggle. If not the ancestral leader/s who is responsible for this sorry state of affairs and splintered groups of officers under different banners? 

The fight unfortunately seems no holds barred, more among unions than between Management and unions. Truth shall prevail at the end, bringing justice to pensioners under the able and ambidextrous leadership of Hyderabad Assn.

Sure, soon members of all groups or assns. will read any foul game and respond aptly. Rebuff from members alone and not leaders will propel dissipation of discordant notes from all and sundry.

G K Viswanatham

Perumalmaruthu

A public functionary cannot be permitted to act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.”

“If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be” – Allahabad HC on Delaying retiral Benefits

Read more at: “If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be” – Allahabad HC on Delaying retiral Benefits"

				“If this is not unconstitutional then what else can be” ... The Allahabad High Court, in a scathing criticism to the Government laxity and delay in paying retiral benefits to the employees, has asked the state to pay
				View on www.livelaw.in	Preview by Yahoo

MV VENUGOPALAN

Dear Editor,

Mr.G.N.sridharan’s circular under the caption “Matters of Urgency” needs thorough analysis and a fitting reply. Let us first take up his assertion “... the Hyderabad Leaders were totally against any benefit accruing to the old generation of pensioners...” He makes it amply clear that not only he wants to divide the pensioners on the lines of DR and upgradation of pension, but on the lines of older and younger generation of pensioners. Are those who have crossed age 80 his target group?. Being the General Secretary of Class I Officers’ retiree Association, he had a duty to take up both the issues ,as then only he would have covered the interest of all the pensioners. Instead, he chose to take up only the DR issue which benefits the pre-1997 pensioners. And, amongst the beneficiaries, his chief concern was for the ‘older generation’ of pensioners. We too have ample concern for the relatively older pensioners.But as a General Secretary he had a duty to protect the interests of all the members of the Association. He stuck to his stand like a leech and till today has only espoused the cause of the pre-1997 pensioners. That the Hyderabad leaders didn't care for the older pensioners is a totally unfounded and baseless accusation. Not only they fought for pensioners of all ages but also they took up both the issues with equal vehemence. While considering acceptance of 20% of IR they didn’t subscribe to questionable methods of approaches by LIC like Mr.GNS did, but stuck to the principle that the settlement of 20% DR should be as per the right and acceptable method of calculation and not as preferred by LIC. In addition to the older generation of pensioners, they have been well entrenched in the unique problems faced by the family pensioners.

Coming to the other assertion “ that the contribution of 5% out of 40% IR shall legitimately be due only to our organisation....” since the same was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the specific prayer of ours...” This, by any stretch of imagination, is not only unacceptable, but even inconceivable. In the first place , the Order of 31st March 2016 was not a final one. The judgments of all the three H.Cs having been set aside, God knows on what basis Mr.GNS is laying claim to the IR of 40% arrears as his achievement. Right from inception, we knew that DR was a non-issue. It became an issue only after we filed a writ petition. It assumed the present complexity once it was inter-linked with up-gradation. The Ministry showed inclination to agree to the proposal and we had 100%, unequivocal support of the Board resolution to boot it. How then can anyone take credit for wresting an Interim Relief on an issue, which is a non-issue. No doubt, all the three of them have filed writs and fought the issue in different High Courts. Some of them can be credited with part-victory. Therefore, should the 40% IR be projected as an achievement, the credit belongs to all of them. The very fact that an Order purporting

Interim Relief has to be construed, in a larger sense as a precursor to a decision in the offing. Otherwise, can we imagine a decision in the future, let it be any court, nullifying it exposing the beneficiaries to the prospect of refunding the amount received as arrears. I am trying to say that there is no way that Mr. GNS to claim the 5% is “legiti-mately due to them”. By the way who fixed this 5% and what is its basis? The credit for 40% belongs to the judiciary as corroborated in the Order of 31st March which sums up the reason as “keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the corporation shall pay 40%.....”It is not because Mr.Panchu argued against para 3A of Appendix IV of the Pension Rules. In fact, Hon’ble Deepak Misra has dwelt at length on what Mr.Nidesh Gupta pleaded on behalf of the hapless pensioners. By the way, the prayer was not for granting 40% arrears of DR as IR and the same was granted by the Hon’ble judge . The prayer was for parity in DR between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensioners, which was not granted.

It is unfortunate that a person of Sridharans stature, a seasoned trade union leader for decades to have decided to put spokes in Mr.Murty's efforts to get the writ filed before the Delhi.H.C. Before long Mr.Sridharan will come to know that he has grossly underestimated Mr.Murty and his team. When the three of them have decided to part ways, I don’t see any earthly reason for any one of them interfering with the other; trying to erect obstacles on the way. It doesn't befit or match the reputation of a time-tested leader of the LIC Class I Officers retiree Association. From what I have stated above, it is abundantly clear that neither the 20% DR relief nor the 40% relief came as a result of exclusive efforts put in by Mr.GNS. The pensioners have already been taken for a ride by collecting Rs.1000 for membership to claim 20% arrears and now 5% on 40% arrears. The fact that the Hyderabad Association is a breakaway Association doesn't make them fugitives. They are very much here and are doing a splendid job in getting our case going on the right lines. I would appeal to Mr.Sridharan through the PC to allow them to do their job, and by all means, he can go ahead with his plans. 

Let us operate in an atmosphere total freedom and let non-interference in others matters be the new motto. Living in a country, practicing democracy, LIVE AND LET LIVE should be the over-riding consideration of every right-thinking citizen. Let us hope that better sense will prevail and Mr.GNS will wipe off , intentions if any, to create hardship in the court room in Delhi, when the writ petition of the Hyderabad Association comes up for admission on 30th May 2016.
Greetings,
M.V. VENUGOPALAN

Shri Murty's reports

Dear Shri Gangadharan

The Reporting made by Shri Murthy makes very thrilling reading, coming as if from some war correspondent or a Bobby Talyarkhan! Bravo! I dont think these are miracles, to me these appear to be the fruit of Shri Murthy's keen watchfulness & a sharp shooting posture. This makes most of the downtrodden pensioners like me getting a warm feeling that the fight is worth & is in capable hands. Short sighted petty opponents who are out only to sap energies must realise the grave injustice they are doing by these mischievous monkey business. Our salute to Shri Murthy. MAY HIS TRIBE INCREASE!

M.B.Joshi

Delhi High Court developments

Dear Editor,

In my Post to the PC this afternoon, I referred to certain miracles that helped the Hyderabad Association to get over the series of hurdles and move forward with reference to our Writ Petition filed last week. The miracles have nothing to do with GNS playing the spoilsport. That part of it needs separate write up and I will be doing it later.

Yesterday, on being mentioned before Court No 2, our WP was directed to be posted before the designated Bench of Justice Khanna. But the Registry still posted the case for today before the routine Admissions Bench of Justice Gita Mittal. We had no choice other than to appear there and plead to transfer the matter to the designated Bench.

Then we learnt that the Admission Court is not going to sit today at all. It was a shocking development. We didn't want to give up. We approached the Registry at 10.30 and got the case posted before a substitute Bench (as Admissions Bench not sitting today). The first miracle happened. It was a specially typed Supplementary Cause List pasted outside Court No 5 of Justice Bhat exclusively for our case. It would get added at the end of the Board. Then there is the risk of the item not reaching at all. So we decided to mention at 2.15 PM (post - lunch) and request for transfer of the case to the designated Bench where we should finally go as per the SC Order.

Our attempt worked. We were heard. LIC Counsel was waiting quietly. Did not oppose, as per the undertaking given in SC on 31.03.2016. But Mr Garg the counsel for GNS butted in and vehemently opposed our Petition saying it is not maintainable. He tried to move a quote the SC Order of 31 March. It took just a few minutes for our Counsel to expose the fallacy of his argument, by reading out relevant portions from the SC Judgement. Justice Bhat understood the game and dictated the Order.
The final miracle took us where we wanted to go. I noticed Mr RK Singh outside the the Court (and possibly a colleague of his inside) to watch what is happening and enjoy Mr Garg's performance.

It is possible that GNS would persuade his counsel to repeat the drama on 30th May 2016. I wish he does. His brinkmanship and spoilsport role will get further exposed. It is never too late to learn lessons. It would benefit GNS if he is ready to learn.
We succeed today against many odds, in the sense that we didn't get stuck before another unconcerned Bench. It is a bundle of miracles and due to the good wishes of thousands of 'understanding' Pensioners across the country.
BIG THANKS TO ALL.

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Hyd petition posted before designated bench

Miracles do happen. And they did for the Hyderabad Association today. In spite of spirited opposition by GNS counsel Our WP, as requested by us (before the Substitute Bench of Justice Bhat), has been transferred and posted before the designated Bench of Justice Khanna for admission. Will come up on Monday 30th May 2016. 

Sreenivasa Murty M

CH Mahadevan

             
                              MATTERS OF URGENCY

Referring to the Circular of Mr G N Sridharan, Gen Secy of the Class I Retirees’ Federation, I feel some response is warranted.

It is amusing when the Gen Secy writes “Our Fedn has taken a policy decision to oppose any petition from any quarters other than the parties involved in the three WPs remanded by the Supreme Court to the Delhi HC, and accordingly we have suitably instructed our counsel.”

I would like to only ask him what was the Federation doing when the Hyderabad Association filed an Intervention Application in the Supreme Court? Now, why this sudden possessiveness on their Writ Petition which has been set aside by the Supreme Court on 31/3/2016? Of course, as and when our Writ Petition is opposed, our Hyderabad Association leadership will handle the matter suitably.

Incidentally, protagonists of the move for unity of approach for winning the pensioners’ legal battle, kindly note this proposed move of the GNS Federation!

No doubt Hyderabad Association is a breakaway Association, but we are not a breakdown organization.We don’t break down our membership into pre-August 1997 and post July 1997 retirees for espousing the cause of one group at the cost of the other group which constitute a majority in membership. We also don’t believe in claiming that we have achieved benefits for a section when actually they have been betrayed in the matter of securing proper benefits that they were entitled to get.

At this stage even though Supreme Court had ordered on 31/3/2016 that LIC should pay Interim relief of 40% of entitled amount to all similarly placed pensioners as per para 3A of Appendix IV, is the Federation at least aware that the basic DR anomaly created from 1/11/1993 still lingers and any benefit provided without rectifying the anomaly will not render justice to the pensioners concerned? Is the Federation aware that what LIC has paid to the pre-August 1997 retirees is not as per the Supreme Court order? Or is the Federation aware that perhaps tens of thousands of family pensioners have got IR of Re1/- and Rs 2/- perhaps because of rounding off to the higher Rupee? Even though the large number of recipients of the benefits has been disappointed with the short-payment made by LIC, there has been no word from the Federation in public domain. I am not aware of any snail mail circular that might have been issued dealing with that problem.

Hyd.writ petition may be delayed

Our Writ Petition before Delhi High Court. There is going to be some more delay to take up our Petition. It is learnt just now that the concerned Court (No 4) is not sitting today. We are exploring alternatives to get over the problem.  Should find a way out. There is nothing to panic except some more delay.  All in the game. 

Sreenivasa Murty M

Camp: New Delhi

Hyderabad Association's writ petition

Dear LIC Pensioners,

Our Writ Petition No 4894 of 2016 before the High Court of Delhi, (Retired LIC Class I Officers Association Hyderabad Vs. LIC of of India & Another) is listed as item No 1 of the Supplementary Cause list in Court No 4 of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal & Hon'ble Mr Justice I S Mehta. it is expected to come up for hearing soon after 10.30 AM.

There is a change in the CORAM for the Bench from what I reported this morning. I am informed by our Counsel, that the change is inconsequential in terms of the expected disposal of the matter following tomorrow's hearing. Rest from the Court Premises tomorrow.

​Warm regards,
​M Sreenivasa Murty 

Camp: New Delhi 

LIC ISSUES INSTRUCTIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ

TODAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

A SMALL PROCEDURAL HURDLE HAS BEEN CROSSED TODAY

Dear LIC Pensioners,

Our Writ Petition was being posted by the Registry for hearing today before Justice Gita Mittal, the usual Admissions Court. Our Counsel who made a specific request that it should be posted before the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna  (before whom our referred matters were already listed) was advised to make a 'mention' to that effect and secure a 'nod'.

The mention was done this morning at 10.30 before the designated 'mentioning bench' (Court No 2 - Bench headed by Justice Badar Durrez) and we secured the much needed 'Nod' to have it heard by the right Bench and to be posted TOMORROW.

LUCKILY for us, the Sr Advocate Mr Gaurab Banerji is available tomorrow and will argue before Justice Sanjiv Khanna's Bench. We also have a conference with him scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9.30 before the WP comes up for hearing.

Friends and well wishers - so far so good. We (also) are on the right track. 

Hyderabad Association needs your good wishes and support in every possible way. 

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Sec.48 notifn for DA increase required

23 May 16, 11:15 AM

A.S.Ramanathan: Can any one of our pensioner friends send a copy of the Sec 48 notification, increasing the DA from 1.8.97. I mean the notification dated 22-6-2000, preferably the gazettee notification. This is required to examine a subtle legal point which may be of help to our case.

B Ganga Raju

LETTERS TO BE ADDRESSED TO LIC CHAIRMAN

Draft of letter to be addressed by pre-August 

1992 retirees (in case of Class I pre-April 1993   PLEASE CLICK HERE 

retirees) to Chairman, LIC

Draft of letter to be addressed by those who 

retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997 

(in case of Class I officers, those who retired      PLEASE CLICK HERE 

between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997) to Chairman, 

LIC

TO ALL PRE-AUGUST 1997 RETIREES

By now, the reports received from various quarters indicate that pre-August 1997 retirees at various centres have received the "40% interim relief" paid by LIC although it was gathered by me from some pensioner friends at Chennai that till yesterday payments had not been made.

From the reports received by me from friends who have received the payments from LIC, it turns out that LIC have adopted the same faulty method applied by them for calculating the 20% IR as per the SC order dated 7/5/2015.

This act is in complete contravention of the SC order dated 31/3/2016 which had directed payment of 40% IR as per para 3A of Appendix IV which can be done only with revision of pension with weightage as per the scales made effective from 1/8/1997.

As a result of the faulty method followed by LIC, the pre-August 1992 retirees (pre-April 1993 Class I retirees) have got only about 12-13% of the amount that they were entitled to get as 40% IR. Those who retired after 1/8/1992(Class I Officers who retired after 1/4/1993) have only got about 30% of their entitlement as per the SC Order dt 31/3/2016.

So I felt that those who want to protest against this short payment may like to send a letter to Chairman,LIC as per the draft attached. Draft as per Annexure A can be used by those who retired before 1/8/1992 ( Class I Officers who retired before 1/4/1993) and Draft as per Annexure B can be used by those who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997( Class I Officers retired between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997). I leave it to the pensioners to decide whether they want to send a letter as per the drafts attached or not.

Those of the pre-August 1997 retirees who desire to have the comparative calculations of amounts payable by LIC and amount paid by LIC may send a mail to me with their details of Basic Pension, Date of Retirement and cadre in which retired(including placement in higher cadre at the retirement) so that I mail the calculations to them to support their claim. from LIC.

Those who send the mails to me may also kindly send their mobile numbers for seeking any clarification required.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

P.S Kindly donate liberally to our Association's legal fund with
reference to the following details: FOR DETAILS, PLEASE CLICK BELOW

NV Subbaraman

Visit NV Subbaraman's blog: http://nvsr.wordpress.com

M Sreenivasa Murty

FROM THE HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION

A clarification, an explanation and renewal of an Appeal.

Dear LIC Pensioner colleagues,

We from Hyderabad have crossed the first milestone as of yesterday, in the path we chose to fight to protect the interests of our Pensioner community. We filed a comprehensive Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. It is expected to come up for admission on Tuesday the 24^th May 2016. 

We have been coming across well-meaning questions and doubts raised by some colleague pensioners as to why we are plunging independently in to this prohibitively expensive legal adventure. Similar questions in the past were answered by me and Mr Mahadevan, in different contexts in the past but I think it is necessary to touch upon some of the more relevant aspects of our ‘issues’ once again now.

You are all aware that different Federations and individuals have been pursuing legal cases for many years in different High Courts for revision of Pension and removal of anomalies and all those cases ended up in Supreme Court of India and a Judgment was delivered on 31 March 2016.

In terms of the SC Judgment, all parties are required to approach the High Court of Delhi and make fresh submissions.

Here's an article published in Lawyersclubindia.

Regards.
C H Mahadevan

When you are 'Dead', while still alive

BAPOO M. MALCOLM on 18 May 2016

Dad collapsed at lunch. We were at home and rushed him to hospital. One of Bombay’s best doctors, son of mom’s friend, immediately examined dad, on the lobby floor. ‘Khotto sikko chey,’ he said. A ‘counterfeit coin’. He gave us two days, to make ‘preparations’. Did dad have a Will? No. Was he going to make one? No. Frankly, his love for us was worth more than the billions he could not give. We simply did not care. 

Should our family have been worried? A definite ‘Yes’. A big ‘YES’. We have had a lot of seminars at Moneylife, dealing with Wills. The one thing we learn from them is that we cannot foresee everything. We have to do the best we can.

Dad, being dad, came home a month later. But we knew better. A wooden nickel. Did we do anything then? No. A month later, we were back in hospital. This time, we knew for sure. The doctor asked us to forego all artificial resuscitation. It may then last for years, he explained. Mom agreed. No suffering.            

We kept vigil. Day and night. One night, while I was sleeping on the bench in the corridor, a junior doctor, uninformed, started resuscitation. By then, dad was in a coma. When I awoke, I panicked. Dad was entombed in equipment, cylinders, pipes and meters. I called our doctor. We had agreed on letting him pass silently into the night.