26 Jul 16, 08:37 AM
namdev: this is with reference to the article of shri r.ramakrishnan actuary. without going into nitty-gritty of actuarial calculations, i wish to place my observations that in 1995 then lic chairman who is also an actuary told he is not prepared to liquidate lic by granting pension,as rs 12000 crores is not available for it. now after two decades, the pension fund available is nearly rs 40000 crores. pension was introduced by goi due to staunch persuasion of iba and aibea in spite opposition from lic in all financial sectors. further nps is there from 2004. so pension fund is a 'closed one' and may last another four decades and will be viable till that time.for the reason that pension payment is 1.82% of total premium collections for the last seven years,where as wage benefits have increased from 1.56 % to 4.24% during that period. in case of emergency, which is not going to happen, suitable amendments can be made in pension rules then and deficit can be met from over all expenses. so lic can't discriminate between various groups of pensioners who will win on the basis of fundamental rights, even by going to constitutional bench of sc.
25 Jul 16, 07:08 PM
G K Viswanatham: I too have gone through the article published by Sri R. Ramakrishnan. I am afraid the publication is untimely juxtaposed to the likely crucial hearing of our case. May be we are giving clues to the clueless.
Under Rule 5(3) of our pension rules 1995 Corporation shall contribute and also ensure sufficient funds are made availabe to pay pensions. Likely shortage of funds might have been contemplated while preparing Rules. Therefore, can it be construed that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to provide for retiral benefits as a welfare measure. Govt. might print currency to meet pension obligations, and LIC has to provide from expenses earmarked and within the permitted percentage of expenses of the Corporation.
26 Jul 16, 11:37 AM
G.Krishna Prasad.: Excellent analysis, Mr.Namdev. This is how Hon'ble Judge's query re: Pension fund should be addressed. Mere hypes and rigmaroles will not help in a Court of Law.