RB KISHORE'S ARTICLE CONTINUED....2.

                RB KISHORE                

Executive Director (Retd.)

Vice President, All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation

 PROGRESSION STEP BY STEP

  LIC Board Resolution - aftermath of series of letters from CO to MOF/UOI      -  planned efforts & litigation by Sri Asthana.

(i) It will be gratifying to note that hectic efforts and strategies were employed to meet all top executives of LIC, Ministry of Finance (MOF) officials right upto Secretary for many years, submit various Notes and Charts for all cadres clearly pointing out such gross differences.  Finally all independent Board Directors we met, submitted memorandum and clarified the issues.  The 110 minute closed door meeting with Sri GN Bajpai with the AIRIEF team led by Sri Sunil Shastri, S/Sri HC Mehta, CS Murty, RB Kishore, JK Karulkar with in-depth analysis led after few months to the birth of the now eternally famous Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 to allow Full DR to pre-8/97 pensioners & same weightage in pension as will be granted in wage agreements.

(ii) Board Resolution cannot be treated as a scrap of paper, it is a sacred Document containing solutions and seed for solution of pensioners problems and the demands  are real and modest, genuine and legitimate.

Here is the important and CRUCIAL line in the Note prepared by EDP paving the way for the Board Resolution:  

“It may be mentioned that such a  provision to upgrade the pension due to periodic revision in case of Central Govt. employees is incorporated in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, on the basis of which LIC of India (Employees ) Pension Rules 1995 have been drafted."

Further, it is to be borne in mind that LIC itself, in its SECRET letter dt. 31/12/2001 secured under RTI & 11/8/2003, to MOF/UOI state clearly 

“there is an urgent need to rationalize the DR structure available to different groups of pensioners in order to reduce the administrative  inconvenience  and also to see that  different  generations of pensioners are protected by merging the pension to a suitable index.”  

This clinches the issue of successive pension revisions with every wage revision.  It has a vital bearing on continued pension upgradation.  It stretches and goes beyond Board Resolution to capture full and continuous pension revision at CPI 600, 1148, 1740, 2328, 2994.

It is also added “Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, on which LIC  (Employees) Pension rules has been broadly designed, contains such an upgradation formula corresponding to revisions effected for Central  Govt. Employees.”       

Please click on 'read more' below.

COMMENTS ON RB KISHORE'S ARTICLE...

I went through the article.
Points have been nicely brought out.
I am becoming aware of the MOU of 1994 regarding 
uniformity in DA/DR formula for in service employees and 
Pensioners only now.  How was this MOU allowed to be violated 
from 1/11/1993 for so long  i.e. for about 20 years?  

What have been the 

Federation of LIC Class I Officers' Associations and AIIEA  doing all these 

years when they ought to have vehemently protested this violation of MOU?

Regards.

CH MAHADEVAN

                R.B. KISHORE                

Executive Director (Retd)

VICE PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION 

THOUGH  I HESITATED SO FAR NOT TO ENTER ANY AREA OF CONTROVERSY 

OR ARENA FOR PENSIONERS RIDDLED WITH INTERPRETATIONS 

AND  MISINTERPRETATIONS GALORE, THANX TO LACK

OF KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENTS, ’PICK AND CHOOSE’ TO COMMENT, 

IGNORANCE OF MANY PROVISIONS IN PENSION RULES OF LIC AND OTHERS, 

PLUS COMMUNICATION GAP AND ABOVE ALL THE LETHARGY OF PENSIONERS 

CONTENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND RESIGNING TO FATE.   

IN THIS SENSE THE LAST 3 YEARS AND MORE ACTED AS A CATALYST WITH 

PLENTIFUL DEVELOPMENTS ON LEGAL FRONT AND A MORALE BOOSTER TO ENTIRE PENSIONER 

FRATERNITY.  NONE CAN DENY THIS RAY OF HOPE AND A NEW SENSE OF DÉJÀ VU AND ALIVENESS AND 

AWARENESS COUPLED WITH CURIOSITY.

 BACKGROUND AND COMPELLING REASONS.

(i)  Basic  pension for the  wage revisions 8/92-7/97  &   8/97-7/02  stand  at   Rs. 3210 ----Rs.7000  &  Rs. 4498 ---- Rs. 11,800/-  respectively &  for the  wage agreement 8/2002 –7/2007, Rs. 8845--18050 & wage agreement 8/2007—7/2012,  Rs. 10525—29925/-.      

(ii)  Pensioners are always granted the Same DR as the DA for the Same Basic Pay/Pension of Employees/Retirees.  However, Pension Rules, 1995 in Appendix IV, provided for reduction of slabs of DR to Half.  Look at DR per slab difference Rs. 0.93 to 11.50 for pre-8/97, after 8/2007 wage revision rising to a whopping Rs. 6.37 to Rs. 29.25 per slab from Asst to ED cadre, resulting in such a serious loss year after year.  MOU dated 14/1/1994  between LIC & Employees unions was explicitly clear to grant ‘Same DR for pensioners as Same DA for Employees’.  So, it was a gross violation and  transgression of announced equality of DR/DA.

(iii) (a) The V Pay Commission (1/1996) noted that there was growing disparity in pensions  in   varying degrees drawn by persons retiring from comparable posts over the years.

      (b) Even Commuted Pension (CP) after 8/2002 is higher than Basic Pension of pre 8/97        pensioners.  After 8/2007 wage revision,  CP is even equal to ADM’s Total Pension app.

      (c) Even a Sub-staff or a Driver gets more pension than pre-8/1997 ED.

(iv) This  shows such a shabby, miserly pension to the pensioners  and it is ridiculous that Basic Pension continues UNCHANGED for 19 long years, when revision of pension takes place automatically to Govt pensioners, CG, SG & RAILWAYS  as  ordained  in  IV, V, VI PC pronounciations.

Denial of relief  to insurance pensioners  is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory  violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

(v)  Supreme Court 5-Judge Constitution Bench presided by Hon’ble Justice Y.V.Chandrachud,  in D.S. Nakara vs Union of India  case (AIR1983 SC130), regarded as the Magna Carta for pensioners, thundered  that (a) by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria, for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class -- violates Article 14 and  is unconstitutional.  "Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending on the sweet will of the employer.  It is not an ex-gratia payment, but it is a deferred wage for the past services rendered by him…..  Pension is their statutory, inalienable and legally enforceable right.  It has been earned by the sweat of their brow. As such it should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in ways, not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees. 

(To be continued)

' LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT '.

I HAVE A  FASCINATION FOR UR BLOG. EVEN IF 
LIKE POLES REPEL & UNLIKE POLES ATTRACT, 
UR BLOG INVITES LIKE & UNLIKE POLES & 
U HAVE THE KNACK OF DIVERSE VIEWS, 
SOMETIMES EVEN DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE. 
THAT IS THE UNIQUENESS OF UR BLOG SIGNIFYING ABUNDANTLY 
THE DEMOCRATIC ASSENT OR DISSENT AS THE CASE MAY BE. 

HEARTY CONGRATS ON THIS WONDERFUL ACHIEVEMENT.  PLUS UR  SNIPPETS,  SNAPSHOTS, QUINTESSENCE IN UR OWN INIMITABLE ENGLISH IS AN EXCELLENT INVITATION TO UR BLOG . U ALSO UPDATE SO FAST & EVER SO MANY HITS IS A BAROMETER OF UR BLOG POPULARITY.

RB KISHORE

WHEN AIIPA MEMBERS MET AT SAROJ BHAVAN, CALICUT...

UPLOADED FROM 'Saroj Bhavan' !

A group of 
20 to 25 pensioners
meet every wednesday
at *Saroj Bhavan
(aiipa office),
 Calicut. 

*Saroj Bhavan named after
Com. Saroj Chaudhary.

IFs & BUTs....

WE CAME ACROSS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS IN OUR MAIL BOX.

"Now that Contempt of Court proceedings is listed on 17-05-2013, we pray it is admitted .

In that case, the image and prestige of LIC will be tarnished. To get out of the mess and 

save its face, LIC should withdraw its SLP in Supreme Court giving an undertaking to 

implement HC order.  Will it happen?"

( IF ADMITT... IF IMAGE TARNI..., IF SLP WITHDR......, IF UNDERTAKING GIV..., IT WILL SURELY HAPPEN!)

"Let us be prudent to clinch what is immediately possible."

The above views are of Shri GN Sridharan. But my point is

 why he has not been able to clinch what is immediately possible,

i.e. TO GET DR ANOMALY REMOVED.

WHY LIC IS NOT LISTENING TO GNS OR WHY GNS

COULD NOT GET IT IMPLEMENTED WHEN IT IS 

POSSIBLE.

HK Aggarwal

Mohali, Chandigarh.

GN SRIDHARAN REPLIES...

              GN SRIDHARAN              

I refer to the posting of a circular issued by me three years back, retrieved from the archives. I wish, my (green) circular dated 27/3/2012 had also been pulled out and posted since my stand will be clear when both are read together. I maintain that there is no change in my stand on any aspect of the issue involved in the going litigations on pension. The insertions in the blog this week therefore require my following comments and clarification. 

1. Letter to GOI on upgrading pension - It is contended that the letter of LIC forwarding the Board Resolution carries a recommendation for upgradation for all. I wish it is true but opinion can differ. However my view after reading the Resolution and the supporting Office Note is that the upgradation applies only to the category of pensioners referred to therein as explained below. The following is extract from the management letter. 

• "For this purpose, upgrading the pensions linked to 600 points of index and 1148 points of index to 1740 points of index and payment of Dearness Relief on the pension so upgraded at the rate of 0.23% for every four points of index were being considered and the approval of the Board." 

The whole purpose of the Board Resolution as contained in its preamble as well as the back note leading to the Resolution is to introduce uniform DR rate in the place of three separate DR rate-schedules while neutralizing the DR at 100%. If DR basis is changed, upgrading will have to happen when the Board Resolution is implemented faithfully. 

The words/terms ‘revision’ and ‘upgradation’ have been used almost interchangeably, by different people and different points of time. I have not seen clear distinction in any communication. The upgrading is in the context of establishing uniform rate of DR, is a corollary of merging DR with basic pension of retirees, analogous to merging DA with basic salary for in-service employees during periodical wage revisions. In this, the total pension increases because of 100% neutralisation only. However, the upgradation that one longs for would truly occur only when 11.25% increase or ‘point-to-point’ fitment is granted, based on each/successive wage revision so far (and for all times to come).
Please click on 'read more' below.

"PLEASE, MR. SRIDHARAN, KEEP DISTANCE!"

ABOUT THOSE WHO FORGET SINGLES 

AND HIT ONLY SIXERS !

            nithin_pb@yahoo.in            

( The writer is a regular contributor to 'LIC Pensioners Calicut'.  He may be trying to look at the court developments from a different angle.  It is our feeling we should be watchful and vigilant and also learn to live with criticism while attempting to perform better in the courts.  - Editor )

Just one run!  Yes just a single run would clinch victory. The batsman was asked to carefully bat for that single run... a twist, a 'turn' or a stroke, in his inimitable style. But, sorry, he just missed it...  bad luck..  it was a sixer!

We have among us persons who always hit sixers even when they want just a single only! For no reason of course. There are tall talks. One would wish if all these words had brought victory to the LIC pensioners. Unfortunately in the courts these words do not hit fours or sixers or centuries. 

Shri Subir Kumar Mazumdar has commented today: "Please, Mr.Sridharan, keep distance from doing any damage under cover of acting in the interest of pensioners.  We shall offer you garland and bouquets for your keeping distance."  That's the immediate reason why I pen down this note.  Shri Mazumdar thinks (honestly so) that Shri Sridharan should keep quiet till things are set right by Shri Asthana through Rajasthan HC and then through the SC.  Let him have such pious hopes but he should remember for a while what transpired in SC on 15-4-2013.  Let us have a look....

We made heated arguments in the SC and submitted "your lordships, only meagre amounts are remitted for DR." But SC didn't appear to heed this submission. Hon. Judges asked: "After review petition what more remains, why the SC is again approached."

After these arguments came the SC order:"Heard learned counsel for the parties. In our view, no case is made out for issuing any further direction to the petitioner in the matter of deposit of the amount in terms of the initial order passed by the Court. The applications are accordingly dismissed." But our  guns continue to roar and hit sixers even now!

Please click on 'read more' below.

FROM THE ARCHIVES ... GNS CIRCULAR TRACED OUT!

IN HIS CIRCULAR DATED 20-5-2010 Shri GN Sridharan has admitted as follows (We have underlined the sentences.)  A point is being discussed whether Shri GNS has since changed his stand ?   - Editor.

FEDERATION OF RETIRED CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS, CHENNAI-600020

Please click on 'read more' below.

GARLANDS AND BOUQUETS...

Please, Mr.Sridharan, keep distance from doing any 

damage under cover of acting in the interest of pensioners.

We shall offer you garland and bouquets for your keeping distance.

Subir Kumar Mazumder

Following message has been received from Mr.GN Sridharan, as found in the Blog of LIC PENSIONERS' CALICUT.

"RETD. CLASS I ( OFFICERS FEDERATION APPROACHES FINANCE MINISTER...

In keeping with our Federation’s policy of approaching Management and Government,rather than relying on judiciary alone, we have this week approached the Hon’ble Finance Minister for a favourable look at our Federation’s demand. We hope that something good will happen. GN SRIDHARAN" )

RETD. CLASS I OFFICERS FEDERATION APPROACHES FINANCE MINISTER...

In keeping with our Federation’s policy of approaching Management 

and Government,rather than relying on judiciary alone, we have this     

week approached the Hon’ble Finance Minister for a favourable 

look at our Federation’s demand. 

We hope that something good will happen.

GN SRIDHARAN 

MADRAS HC HELD: Different groups of pensioners being paid different pension is violative of Article 14, reports THE HINDU.

High Court order to benefit retired government medical officers

K.T. SANGAMESWARAN

Government medical officers, who retired prior to October 23, 2009, will benefit from a Madras High Court order as they will get pension on a par with similarly placed doctors who retired subsequent to the date of the government order.  -   The court did not agree with the government’s argument that if its order is implemented, it would incur heavy expenditure.  -   The benefit could not be given only to a particular group of medical officers and denied to another similar group on the ground that heavy expenditure was involved.  -   This would violate Art.14 of the Constitution (Equality before law), the court said. 


Justice S. Tamilvanan was allowing a writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Government Retired Medical Officers Association, Madurai district, by its president, T.Rajagopal, seeking a direction to the authorities to pay the revised pension to the members as per a Health Department G.O of October 23, 2009. 

They also sought payment of arrears pursuant to the revised pension. The Judge made it clear that so far as other retired medical officers of the State government were concerned, they are also entitled to get their pension on a par with similarly placed officers who retired subsequent to the date of G.O. The petitioner’s counsel said the association members were paid only a meagre pension. 

The government submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to seek pension as per the fresh G.O. as it was a policy decision.
Please click on 'read more' below.

NO NEED WORRY ABOUT PROPHETS OF DOOM !

                N.KASILINGAM                

nkasilingamlic@gmail.com

“Deliver justice tempered with sensitivity and social cause.  By disposing of matters without hearing people, without hearing counsels, you are doing more injustice than justice.” This is the advice rendered by the Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir to his fellow judges while addressing the Calcutta High Court’s sesquicentennial celebrations on 05.05.2013. 

( LIC may raise the point that SC has already considered the
 issue and passed the above orders. So we have to be careful.- Editor.)

This advice is equally applicable to Hon’ble Judge Sarma of  Jaipur High Court, who, as you said in your IA 7-8/2013 in the supreme court, in a hurry passed his impugned order dated 15.01.2013 even though no reply was filed by LIC of India nor the counsel for them appeared before the court on 15.01.2013.  Inspired by the provisions of Board Resolution dated 24.11.2001 after in-depth study of the same, Hon’ble Justice Mr.M.N.Bhandari passes his verdict and insists on the periodical revision of pension on 12.01.2010 as and when the pay scales of in service employees are revised. This is a time- tested and unassailable judgment. 

The judgment came unscathed in the hands of Hon’ble judges Mr. Justice Dalip Singh and Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati on 21.01.2011 while dismissing the appeal by LIC of India against the verdict of Justice Mr.M.N Bhandari on 12.01.2010. The same fate was meted out to the review petition filed by LIC of India. The review petition was dismissed on 19.08.2011. 
Please click on 'read more' below.

HERE'S AN OPEN FORUM FOR DISCUSSION OF YOUR MEDI-CLAIM PROBLEMS...

Next time when you have a
problem with the Insurance 
company or the hospital...

some of your bills are
disallowed, hospital
charged more, refused
to give you details...

or any problem you
face and there is nobody
to help you...

SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE
OR PROBLEMS WITH US...

we would like to publish such details in LICPENSIONERSCALICUT.

WHILE WE MAY NOT HAVE  A SOLUTION TO OFFER

our pensioner-readers  may come out with a solution.

"THRASH OUT..." IS A NEW FEATURE WE'RE INTRODUCING WITH THIS END IN VIEW.

So feel free to write to us.

 I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE VARYING VIEWS ON THE PROBLEMS OF PENSIONERS AS POSTED IN YOUR BLOG.

WE (SHRI RAMAKRISHNA, ADM RETD, SHRI RANGARAJAN, HGA RETD, SHRI SUBRAMANYA,   DEV.  OFFICER, RETD.  AND MYSELF) ARE PENSIONERS BADLY AFFECTED BY THE DR ANOMALY AS PRE 97-RETIREES.  WE ARE NOT CLOSELY ATTACHED TO ANY OF THE 3 ORGANISATIONS.

WE FIND AIIPA`S STAND AS PER THEIR NOTE PUBLISHED BY YOU DOES NOT INDICATE  THAT THEY  EXPECT  ANY UPGRADATION  FOR ALL.  VARIOUS ORGANISATIONS GIVE HOPES AND WE ARE STRANDED IN BETWEEN.

CLASS 1 ORGANISATION`S SECRETARY GNS, IN OUR VIEWS, IS  ADOPTING A PRAGMATIC APPROACH  TO BENEFIT PRE 97 RETIREES.   I  HAD VOLUNTARILY SENT  TO SRI GNS A TOKEN DONATION.  SOME OF THE LATER RETIREES  DWELL  MAINLY ON UPGRADATION WHICH SHOULD NOT HARM  VERY SENIOR RETIREES IN  GETTING  IMMEDIATE RELIEF. 

WITH MY PRAYERS FOR AN EARLY SOLUTION

  

SINCERELY URS

 K. SUNDARARAJAN, BA., BA(HONS), FFII, RETD SUPDT. LIC, BANGALORE. 

CONGRATULATIONS FROM FAR AND NEAR...

Dear Shri Gangadharan,

I am a regular visitor to your blog.

Congratulations for publishing all the views

of different Pensioners Associations in LIC.

Hats off to you.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(B.S.Gopala Krishna)

A PENSIONER'S VIEW POINT... (so simple?)

i find the following points noteworthy

1.  asthana contested that all pensioners should be declared as one class and pension paid at enhanced rate to corresponding pay scales at the time of retirement   2.  provision to upgrade pension due to periodic revision in the case of central govt employees is incorporated in central govt pension rules 

on the basis of which lic pension rules are framed   3.  sec 21 provides for approval by govt on issues involving public interest and not on day to day matters. hence board resolution need not get govt 

approval (judgment)   4.  counsel for govt never contested lic board resolution or merit and contents thereof or its competence to pass such a resolution and has not chosen to appeal and this can be treated as approval (judgment)  5.  the review petition by lic was also dismissed by court.

hence i think lic should not have preferred slp in supreme court wasting policyholders money.

Vasudevan S (sabari.pollachi@gmail.com)

05-05-2013

CH MAHADEVAN SO ABLY PRESENTED HIS ARGUMENTS !

              nithin_pb@yahoo.in              

( To an observer, the presentation of Shri CH Mahadevan would appear to be a pleasing affair, something one would like to swallow from ‘a-to-z’ and Shri Sridharan will find it difficult to defend the arguments so ably put forward by Shri CH Mahadevan. Yes, Shri CH Mahadevan is the star – a defender and a centre forward – both in one! - writes the author. )

The latest news development is that though Shri MP Subramanian from Madurai chose to make a scathing attack on Shri GN Sridharan but Shri Sridharan took a noble stand and avoided a direct confrontation with him saying, Shri Subramanian is “not kept abreast of the facts in its entirety”.

Shri MP Subrahmanian had taken recourse to the much familiar union-style of attacking its opponents.  

Sh. Subrahmanian made allegations in his words “There is one more criticism that those who have not paid a single pie towards court case all these 16 years right from Rajasthan to Delhi would be the first persons in the queue to receive DR difference with Pension Arrears on the day of disbursement."

Shri Subramanian has taken the credit for the fight for these 16 years.  Let us ask what  role Sh. Subramanian was playing in the whole affair all these 16 years ...  And what is his qualification to make such an allegation.   He may have given a contribution of a thousand or two and written a letter to Shri Sridharan.  What other sacrifices he has done.  The whole legal fight would have taken its natural course even in the absence of his ‘positive’ letter.

Shri T. Lakshminarayan also joins the fray. He said: " I am pained to see that many people are trooping out to find fault with Shri Sridharan who is speaking the bare truth. The observation by some that "the people who have not supported the persons fighting the cases in Jaipur etc.  will first calculate the amount each will receive and stand in the queue..." was not in good taste.

  

Now the latest letter has come from Shri Sridharan.  And from the side of Federation and Shri Asthana,it would appear they have ‘deputed’ Shri CH Mahadevan to defend their case and answer Shri Sridharan.  Shri CH Mahadevan always does a magnificent job!  He won’t mention anybody’s name  as far as possible.  To an observer, the presentation of Shri CH Mahadevan  appeared to be a pleasing affair, something one would like to swallow from ‘a-to-z’ and Shri Sridharan will find it difficult this time to defend the arguments so ably put forward by Shri  Mahadevan.

Yes, Shri CH Mahadevan is the star – a defender and a centre forward – both in one !

SWEET (WORDS) FROM KOLKATA !

        

Dear Sri Gangadharanji,

If Sri G N SRIDHARAN remains silent and inactive till the disposal of our case in Rajasthan High court and SC, sweet words and rose petals will be showered upon him.

 regards,

 Subir Kumar Mazumder 

SERIOUS ISSUES - When Shri CH Mahadevan and Shri GN Sridharan
discussed serious issues, we came across these comments. )

CH MAHADEVAN'S RESPONSE...

Dear Mr Gangadharan,

I give below my comments in response to the comments

of Mr GNSridharan & Mr. Lakshminarayanan on the limited 

issue whether LIC Board resolution covers upgradation 

and also the extended DR anomaly before 1/8/1997 

dating back to 1/11/1993.

Kind regards.

C.H.Mahadevan

I am not inclined to agree that the LIC Board resolution of 24/11/2001 only recommends removal of DR anomaly. One has to read between the lines and also the forwarding letter of the then ED(P)s letter dt 31/12/2001 to the then Joint Secretary( Insurance) where in it has been made clear as follows:- 

• 3.Besides this item, the matter of upgradation of basic pension to AICPI 1740 points and 100% DA neutralization thereon in respect of employees of the Corporation, who have retired on or after the 1st day of January,1986 but on or before the 31st day of July 1997 was also under our consideration. In this connection, we would like to draw your kind attention to our letter dated 29th August 2001,Ref:Per/ER/A/G/345/GovtV/MMS(copy enclosed),wherein it was mentioned that there is an urgent need to rationalize the Dearness Relief structure available to different groups of pensioners. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid communication that for this purpose, upgrading the pensions linked to 600 points of index and 1148 points of index to 1740 points of index and payment of Dearness Relief on the pension so upgraded at the rate of 0.23% for every four points of index were being considered and the approval of the Board shall be sought for this purpose shortly.
• 4. This matter was also put up to the Board for its approval in the aforesaid meeting. The Board has approved the proposal as contained in the Board note and has suggested that the matter shall be given a prospective effect after seeking the approval of the Government.

It is worth noting at this juncture that on the date of the said Board resolution only the then latest wage revision as at 1/8/1997 was in vogue. When we extend the principle adopted by Board resolution and lucidly clarified by the ED (P) in his letter dt 31/12/2001, it goes without saying that upgradation of pension has to be adopted from the date of every future wage revision. Even Delhi HC in its judgment dt 30th January 2013 has allowed the petition only making its order dependent on the outcome of the SLP pending before the Supreme Court. My view is that the Delhi HC judgment implies that the issue of DR anomaly cannot be segregated from the issue of upgradation of pension. If it was segregable, the Delhi HC would have allowed the petition without any riders.   Please click on 'read more' below.

"PEOPLE TARGET ME WITH UNKIND REMARKS," Says GNS.

Shri Sridharan says, he went to court for setting right DR anomaly - While Delhi HC disposed the writ, Kerala writ is pending - some people describe the delay as "disgraceful"  -   IT IS NOT CORRECT  TO SAY THAT THE RETD. CLASS I OFFICERS FEDERATION MIXED UP DR AND REVISION. "WE DID NOT PUT ALL IN ONE BASKET -  FEDERATION TREATED DR AS A PRIORITY ISSUE - SHRI GN SRIDHARAN EXPLAINS HIS STRATEGY.... 

NOW read the full text of his reply below:-

Please click on 'Read more' below.

PROUDLY ANNOUNCE 50,000 PAGE HITS * THAT'S A RECORD * THANKU READERS

YEARS LOST IN REPEAT CONTEMPT PETITIONS...

              GN Sridharan              

oppilisri@gmail.com

Sri Lakshminarayanan has realistic views. As I have been repeatedly
mentioning, the note leading to the Board Resolution of 24.11.2001 is to
bring about uniformity in DR and nothing beyond. Drafting the resolution
has allowed ambiguity which has lead to different interpretations.

T.LAKSHMINARAYAN'S NOTE

LIC maintains the above contention in its various responses, and adds that petitioners are overstretching the benefit of the Resolution. LIC is also unfortunately contesting that even this Resolution is not absolute without approval from the GOI. Thus, the DR rectification itself is hanging.

Sri Lakshminarayanan feels that 11.5% increase is the maximum that we can
aspire for. He adds that we have to explore other avenues for redressing
our other grievances. I totally agree with him and we have to take
different routes to clinch pension increase as Judiciary has its own
limitations.

While we pressed for early hearing of DR Anomaly in Kerala HC, a leader is reported to have said that it is ‘disgraceful’, forgetting that three long
years have been lost in repeat contempt petitions (without thrashing out
the SLP) which are futile and fruitless. We pray, God bestows the
benefits, however little they are, in the limited span of our lifetime to follow.

MIRAGE BEING CREATED IN THE MINDS OF PENSIONERS...

     t.in2000@yahoo.com

T. LAXMINARAYANAN, CHENNAI 

Dear Gangadharan,

          

I am giving below certain thoughts on court cases.  Request you to publish same in your Blog.

Too much hype has been created by certain people in the minds of pensioners that Justice Bhandari’s judgment in Jaipur HC was going to solve all the grievances of LIC Pensioners and in my view it is not going to be.  The best we can expect finally is the implementation of the Board Resolution dated 24-11-2001. Because Justice   Bhandari’s judgment directs LIC to implement the Board Resolution only.  And as per Supreme Court orders in SLP, LIC has deposited certain amount in Court.  But it appears that the said remittance does not include the 11.25% weightage mentioned in the resolution. There is scope for pressing for inclusion of 11.25% weightage.  In my view Justice Bhandari’s judgment cannot bring any more benefit beyond what is stated above.  We may have to explore other avenues for redressal of other grievances.

I am pained to see that many people are trooping out to find fault with Sri Sridharan who is speaking the bare truth. The observation by some that "the people who have not supported the persons fighting the cases in Jaipur etc.  will first calculate the amount each will receive and stand in the queue much ahead of others to receive payment" was not in good taste.

A mirage is being created in the minds of pensioners that the Jaipur judgment is going to bring revision of pensions to pre 1-8-97 pensioners on every subsequent revisions  in 2002, & 2007.  In my view there is no scope for this in the said Board Resolution.

IN VIEW OF CONSIDERABLE INTEREST EVINCED BY READERS IN AIIPA NOTE, THE SAME IS PLACED IN 'Pages' FOR FUTURE REFERENCE PURPOSES...

SHARING PROUD MOMENTS WITH 'LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT' .....

i am really thankful to aiipa of which i am a member since my retirement from lic in 2002
and ' lic pensioners calicut'  for publishing aiipa note on court case.  

it is brief and has enlightened me about the true facts since inception. 
i am proud to be a member of 'lic pensioners calicut'.

AV SUBBARAMAN, Coimbatore Division.