* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN THE CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE THE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO !

               
                                   

Sunday, February 16, 2014

RB KISHORE




1) All eyes are on Hon Judge R.S.Chauhan’s Orders in CCP760/2010.It has been something like fact finding commission looking to the 2 day episodes of 2 hrs & next day about an hour. We have circulated in last few months many cases of Contempt Petition where Hon Judges have segregated arguments, sifted facts & ultimately sided on the side of pensioners as justice was on their side. Here too it must be so.But rumours are flying. Whatever it be, Sri Asthana will closely analyse the Final order & take necessary steps speedily. How can such a simple 5 line Affidavit confining to affirmation that LIC has complied with Board Resolution & not contravened any in Board Resolution, & replete with errors & blunders of DR calculation, merger, weightage etc be taken as the final arbiter ? Who will answer or be the Judge about main issue in CCP760/2010 which is in respect of CWP 654/2007 on pension upgradation & when Hon SJ M.N. Bhandari has admitted both the writs on DR & Pension upgradation, how can any sane person conclude his orders with CWP 6676/1998 & Board Resolution? Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice hurried is justice buried. But Justice wrongly delivered distorts, upsets, hurts & reverses the true course of justice, especially when about 9 Judges of various Courts have applied their minds & concurred with Hon SJ Verdict even with added penalty of 12 % interest, what more ?

2) When Respondent has not paid a single paisa towards pension upgradation for which alone this CCP 760/2010 was filed, it becomes crystal clear that it is direct violation of Hon SJ judgement dt 12/1/2010 admitting both the writs. This Hon Court must, therefore, straightaway dismiss LIC submission reply as of no consequence & not befitting an institution which must honourably fulfil in entirety the full & complete orders of Hon SJ.Doing something slipshod & trying to prove the wrong direction in which Respondent is proceeding without any rectification or correction in its course clearly points out the absurdity of their intentions, with only one main aim to thwart the Hon SJ verdict & deny due benefits allowed by Hon SJ in his Judgement dt 12/1/2010. If this is not contempt, what else it is ?

3) When LIC has to execute the Hon SJ verdict for which there is no embargo but an emphatic NO STAY order from the highest Court of the land & as this did not happen,& it was again becoming protracted ,even after many clarifications by Hon DB judgement of Rajasthan HC dt 21/1/2011 while dismissing Respondents Appeal & again after Respondent persisted with a Review Petition, that too was dismissed by Hon DB Rajasthan HC vide their order dt.19/8/2011The very filing of CWP 654/2007 was exclusively in respect of Pension upgradation with every wage revision.

4) It also involved pension upgradation with wage revision to counter & reduce the monstrous anomalies whereby today a lower grade employee ,many grades below, get higher pension than even much higher grade pensioners who also had put in 35 years of service & more. This matter has been delineated by learned Hon SJ with examples & adduced reason to remedy & rectify the anomalies with an extension of Respondents Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 as, with passage of time, subsequent wage revisions fell due & those employees/retirees got due uplift in pension denying the altered pension substituting new scales of pay was denied to existing pensioners still struggling with low basic pension, unaltered for 20 years & more.

5) The SC clarificatory order dt 17 October, 2012 over their earlier order dt 14 November, 2011 directing that retiral benefit payments be made from the date of eligibility, meaning thereby date of retirement is also not complied with. Respondent never calculated any amount from date of retirement, confined to DR aspect only & also eliminated from consideration post-8/1997 pensioners, thus defying & denying due benefit to all classes of pensioners without classification.Thus undertaking given to fulfil SC orders was not adhered to by distorting & misinterpreting the Judgement to suit their own erroneous interpretation & narrowly circumscribing solution to DR factor only without realizing the true intent & purpose of the impartial verdict offering solution to pensioners woes as delineated in both the writs. Further, it becomes clear that DR only interpretation is absurd & even nonsensical as HON SJ Rajasthan HC has admitted both the writs CWP 6676/1998 & 654/2007 on pension upgradation. It is further reiterated that present CCP 760/2010 is in respect of 654/2007 only exclusively on pension upgradation.

6) So too, Punjab & Haryana HC confirmed Rajasthan HC Hon SJ judgement & also added 12 % interest to be paid by Respondent for delayed payment by their order dt 9/11/2012 in CWP16346/2011 & Delhi HC also reaffirming Hon SJ judgement dt 12/1/ 2010 & added this has to be extended ‘in rem’ to all aggrieved & affected pensioners by their order dt 30/1/2013 plus SC categorical assertion of No Stay on Hon SJ verdict of 12/1/2010, only action left to be done by Respondent was to submit compliance in full to the Hon SJ judgement without any provisos or restrictions. It is erroneous to arrive at conclusion that Hon SJ judgement is under scrutiny on questions of law as SLPs 29956 & 29957 were dismissed by Hon SC on 8/8/2013. The judgement thus has attained finality & same cannot be shattered by filing appeals again & again. Mere preferment of an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of the decision under appeal & the decision continues to be operative. Indeed, non-compliance with the decision on the mere ground that an appeal is actually preferred, and that, therefore, the matter is sub-judice, amouns to contempt of Court punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is unethical & immoral to postpone compliance any longer as CCP has run for much greater length of time than warranted, more so after an assertion by Hon SC that there is No Stay on Hon SJ judgement dt 12/1/2010.

7) It has been a tedious & tortuous legal proceedings, so frustrating for pensioners waiting for long for an emphatic and empathetic order in CCP 760/2010 by this Hon Judge in disposing CCP. It is conspicuous & clear that Hon SJ adjudicated on both issues of Full DR & pension upgradation with sound submissions by all parties & citing several case laws in support of the same with valid , justifiable & justiciable reasons forcefully depicted in judgement unambiguously. To deny this is to deny full equity, justice, fair play & sabotage Fundamental Rights enshrined in Constitution which no Court can allow to be tampered under any circumstances. Fixity of notions on the part of the Respondent to deny pension upgradation is a severe contempt of this HC & not to implement for so many years by an extension of Respondents own Board sanctified Resolution dt 24/11/2001 to subsequent wage revisions as was delineated by Hon SJ in his judgement dt 12/1/2010 is a standing example of the adamancy & single track mind of Respondent to nullify hard earned judgement with heavy costs & expenses in many directions strictly not affordable by pensioners fraternity, yet borne with patience & endurance to solicit victory for the just, modest & legitimate demands of pensioners.One cannot throw all the positive & unanimous judgements from many HCs mentioned above as irrelevant & unjustifiable from any point of view.

8) It will be a travesty of justice if CCP is dismissed as, with tremendous inputs on in-depth analysis of Hon SJ Judgement, quoting in extenso Jaipur verdict with all later developments faithfully reported & supported by many clarifications, rebuttals of simplistic , narrow view & supported by wonderful facts & figures, with Tables & Charts, many thereafter veered round to the reasoned, valid & forceful arguments ventilated in the Judgement as also amplified with illustrations for the benefit of all readers & pensioners.It has indeed been a tale of strength & commitment,dedication & devotion , only to help, assist, protect, preserve & promote entire pensioners fraternity welfare & harmony with this illustrious & deserved benefit ,which is a dire& imperative need in these troubled times of monstrous anomalies, a pittance of retirement benefits & absence of perks & privileges & same, status quo pension for 20 yrs unchanged from 1/11/1993!  Whatever it be, the strident march of the caravan of pensioners cannot be permanently halted. It has been a Tale of 2 cities. The Tale can only end with a positive note ultimately as true justice always wins at the end. The brave soldiers will march on with renewed vigour & gusto.


R.B.KISHORE,VP,AIRIEF

Saturday, February 15, 2014

JUSTICE CHAUHAN'S ORDER ON JAIPUR CONTEMPT PETITION STILL AWAITED.


A NOTE ON SALIENT FEATURES OF JAIPUR JUDGMENT OF 12-1-2010



SALIENT FEATURES OF THE JAIPUR SJB ORDER DATED  12/1/2010 AND ITS MAJOR IMPLICATIONS

·        W.P. No. 6676/1998 was filed   by Mr Asthana at Jaipur HC  Bench when  there was no revision of wages  for LIC employees  due from 1/8/1997.The  petition  was only to remove the DR anomaly  that arose out of the Appendix IV  of LIC Pension Rules, 1995 which  specified slabs  which were at variance with the  slabs for in-service employees resulting in reduced  DR for pensioners  on account of unequal  DR neutralization..

·        This petition preceded the settlement of wage revision  w.e.f 1/8/1997  notified in 2000 and  was much before the LIC Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001.The Board decided  in its   Resolution  that (1) the proposal made by the Federation  of  rectifying the DR anomaly  from 1/11/1993 should be given effect to and (2) the DR should be merged  with Basic Pension at 1740 points of AICPI( as at 1/8/1997) and Pension should be upgraded with  11.25% weightage as was done for in-service employees.

·        As far as the concept of upgradation  of pension with weightage   was concerned, by implication, this principle would  have to be adopted  in future wage revisions  also, but which did not arise immediately at that point of time.( The wage revision  w.e.f  1/8/2002 was notified only in  2005).

·        From 1/8/1997 onwards, 100% DR neutralization was effected for both in-service employees and pensioners with uniform pattern of DR for both categories.

·        Mr Asthana along with other petitioners, filed another writ petition 654/2007 after the above developments .In this petition it was pointed out before the Court that there was disparity in pensions whereby later retirees (after wage revision dates) in lower cadres were paid more pension than higher cadre officers who retired before wage revisions. A case was thus made out for revision of pensions with every wage revision for existing pensioners also. The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakra  vs Union of India  and other  judgments  relevant for revision of pensions were extensively  quoted by the petitioners.

·        Five out of the 27 writ petitioners were those who retired between 1/8/1997 and 31/7/2002.

·        In its order dated 12/1/2010, the Single Judge Bench of Jaipur, headed by Justice Bhandari allowed both the petitions, i.e (1) the petition No 6676/1998 praying for removal of DR anomaly and unequal neutralization( referred to as lack of 100% neutralization) of DR from 1/11/1993 and (2) the other petition No 654/2007 praying for revision of pension whenever wage revisions are effected for in service employees.

·        The operative  parts  of the order are as follows:

Ø  “The Respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board”.

This means that the DR anomaly from 1/11/1993 existing for pre-August 1997 retirees should be removed and pension should be upgraded by merging DR on 1/8/1997 with appropriate weightage .

Ø  “The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997”.

What this means:

Here  the Court  has  taken note of  the  change in pattern of  the DR  calculation  ensuring  parity between in-service employees and pensioners with 100% DR neutralization that has been adopted in the wage revisions  effective from 1/8/1997 onwards. This is covered in the Board Resolution when it talks about giving effect to the proposal from 1/11/1993.  

Ø  “The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit”.

What this means:

By this, the Court has clearly focused on the prayer in WP No 654/2007 for revision of pension for existing pensioners whenever wage revisions for in-service employees take place. As a corollary, not only all the Pre-August 1997 retirees, but also the post-July 1997 retirees should get the benefit of revision of pension  arising out of wage revisions  taking place after their dates of retirements.

Although the LIC Board Resolution  dt 24/11/2001, by implication, is  inclusive  of merger of DR  with Basic Pension on every wage revision date with suitable weightage , the last sentence of the operative portion of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order  dt 12/1/2010 over-rules any scope  for  restrictive interpretation of the Board Resolution.

Finally another point to be borne in mind is that the “weightage” mentioned in the Board Resolution is  obviously intended to ensure that  when merger of DR  with Basic Pension and upgradation is effected , the revised pension should increase in tandem with the  increase that is secured in Basic Pay  by in-service employees on wage revision. Such parity can be achieved only by stage –to-stage revision.

WE TOO JOIN THESE PRAYERS




Pensioners are under severe stress.  Their subconscious minds 
dream of conflicting versions of court verdict because the Life 
is full of uncertainties.

A friend, a public sector bank pensioner phoned to confirm that 
he learnt from one of his retired colleagues that  LIC Pensioners 
have won the court case. 

My friend asserted : 
There has to be parity in pension. There 
cannot be discrimination. 

No one can dispute or adjudge differently
to meet the end of justice.


SN,a 1992 pensioner.

Friday, February 14, 2014


Dear Sri Gangadharan,

I have been closely and regularly following the posts in LIC Pensioners' Chronicle. 

I really appreciate your approach as also your open, unbiased and clear posts.

I hope your clarifications in your posts are being accepted in the correct perspective and are not being taken as rumour making machine churning out unconfirmed "news".

In as much as you are one among us like a co-passenger in the long and arduous journey seeking justice from the powers that be, your desire and goal cannot be different from the rest of our group members.

I hope ere long we will see light at the end of the tunnel and brighter days so that we will be able to spend evenings of our lives in a better manner.

What I have penned above are for "your eyes" and are my personal views.


T K S Narayanan 

UR EDITOR HIMSELF A PENSIONER WILL BE HAPPY IF PENSIONERS WIN


Thursday, February 13, 2014

"IT TAKES 1 OR 2 DAYS TO GET COURT ORDERS...SO PLEASE LET'S NOT SPREAD RUMOURS OR HEARSAY SENSATIONAL NEWS", SAYS SHRI HK AGGARWAL



Dear Sh Gangadharan,

THIS IS FOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL PENSIONERS PLEASE.

  • TILL NOW NO COURT ORDERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR RECEIVED BY SH ASTHANA.  IN RAJASTHAN HC JAIPUR IT TAKES ABOUT 1-2 DAYS TO GET COURT ORDERS AS HAS BEEN SEEN FOR YEARS.
  • SO PLEASE LETS NOT SPREAD RUMOURS OR HEARSAY SENSATIONAL NEWS. EVEN SH ASTHANA IS NOT CLEAR ABOUT THE ORDERS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DICTATED/ ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE JUDGE.  AND FOR THAT MATTER HOW LIC WAS ABLE TO  GET ANY INFORMATION. WHATEVER HAS BEEN PUBLISHED MAY BE BASED UPON THE DISCUSSIONS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT TODAY, VERBALLY CONVEYED ON PHONE BY SH ASTHANAJI OR SOME OTHERS PRESENT IN THE COURT.

ONE THING IS CLEAR - NO COURT ORDERS ARE YET ISSUED OR RECEIVED. WE HAVE TO BE PATIENT & WAIT.

FURTHER WHATEVER ORDERS OF THE HON'BL COURT WILL BE  WE HAVE TO FACE AND FIGHT UNITEDLY  AND CARRY ON THE STRUGGLE WITH RENEWED VIGOUR & DETERMINATION DESPITE OUR LIMITATIONS OF HEALTH & WEALTH .  ALL PENSIONERS ARE AS SUCH UNITED AND WILL CONTINUE TO LEND ALL SUPPORT TO SH ASTHANA & AIRIEF FOR THE LEGAL FIGHT.

WITH BEST WISHES & REGARDS
H K AGGARWAL.

Please click below to read views of SHRI KKD HANUMANTHA RAO & SHRI PANCHAMIA which Shri Aggarwal has forwarded to us.

BREAKING NEWS

We regret to report, sources close to LIC in Mumbai believe that the Contempt Petition has been dismissed. 
Please await court orders for confirmation in this connection.


News..Controversy..Opinion
We are publishing different versions as it is our duty to convey all information received.  It is for the readers to come to a conclusion. We feel that the Jaipur court has not come to the rescue of the pensioners at this crucial hour and we have to look for other available options to continue the legal fight. -Ed.


'CLARIFICATION' ON HON'BLE JUSTICE BHANDARI'S JUDGMENT SOUGHT


Hearing -  2.15 pm. to 3.00 pm.

Court has asked Sri. Asthana to give a note on some references (e.g. 'both the writ petitions are allowed.','so that every retired employee may get the same benefit'. ) in Justice Bhandari's Judgement.

Sri.Asthana will submit his note on Monday  -  after receiving to-day's Court Order.

Details awaited.

Regards,
T.R. Madhava Rao.
"ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED.

Order appears to be
c o n f u s i n g.

DETAILS AWAITED."
-HK Aggarwal
______________
It is understood from reliable sources that Hon'ble Justice Chauhan has not given a clear verbal order in favour of the petitioners. The legal fight, it appears to us, has not come to an end, there is every likelihood of the matter being stretched to further ends. There will be clarity in the matter only when the order is issued.  This is only our inference and as soon as an authentic hand out is received, this version will be withdrawn/supplemented.  -Ed. 

HEARING RESUMED. DETAILS AWAITED FROM JAIPUR


ARGUMENTS TO CONTINUE TODAY AFTERNOON




MORE THINGS ARE WROUGHT BY PRAYER...


Dear Editor,

  • I offered my prayers for I believe in the words of Lord Tennyson that ' More things are wrought by prayer than the world dreams of.'  Well that is the power of prayer.
  • Coming to today's hearing in Jaipur HC we are hopeful that the Hon Judge will pronounce his final verdict with no further delay to cause mental agony.However I am inclined to give here about a contempt notice issued to Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary by the Madras High court for the willful disregard and callous disrespect  shown  to the contempt petition as the court got angered over the non-submission of data relating to the backlog of vacancies for differently abled persons in various government departments.The court asked the Chief Secretary to explain as to why further course of action should not be taken under the contempt of courts act.Well this clearly explains that the Judiciary is not subordinate to the Executive.We may expect this trend to happen in today's Jaipur HC proceedings and we only wish that it should not go that far off for we are also concerned about the image of the Corporation and the umbilical chord with it is still binding.
  • May God be with us.
R.K.Viswanathan

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

ARGUMENTS TO BE CONTINUED

ARGUMENTS INCONCLUSIVE.  
IT WILL BE RESUMED TOMORROW AT 2-15 P.M. AS SHRI HK AGGARWAL INFORMS US FROM CHANDIGARH.

HEARING CONCLUDED WHEN LAST NEWS CAME IN. FURTHER NEWS AWAITED...


Hearing just concluded - @ 4.15 pm.(2 hrs.)
Details awaited by 5.00 pm.
Regards,
T.R.Madhava Rao.

PRAYER - PRAY WE MUST


Tuesday, February 11, 2014

JAIPUR CONTEMPT CASE LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING ON 12-02-2014





PRAYER

"God's in the Heaven and all's is right with the world; everything is good with the world" W.Shakespeare and R.Browne.
everything is good
with the world..
The learned say that sincere prayers for all good, just, reasonable and possible demands never go unheard or unanswered by the God, the Almighty.

It may seem crazy, but much we crave, much we wish that the Hon. Justice R.S. Chauhan, Rajasthan H.C. and other Hon. Judges may spare some time once a while to access LIC Pensioners Chronicle to get analytically brief/feed back of pensioners plea. It may be possible that some Hon. Judges at somebody's request/insistence do/might have some times run through/glance/d the pages of the Chronicle.

In fine, hope for the best that Hon. Justice would deliver the final, the ultimate justice in consonance with the Revered Justice Shri Bhandari's judgement.

We did pray and we do continue to pray as prayed entreated /entrusted by Shri. B.Angurajan, O.S.,AIRIEF.


SN.a 1992 pensioner
on behalf of pensioners

TO ALL OUR PENSIONER BRETHREN.


This message is meant for those who are having faith in belief of MASS  PRAYER

We are fully aware that our legal champion Sri Asthanaji has reached the threshold of success with the able guidance of our Sr.Advocates and we have cent percent confidence in securing the JUST JUDGMENTS in our favour on our TWIN ISSUES at Jaipur HC on 12th instant.
Invoking Almighty's Grace and Blessings at this final hour will definitely provide the needed strength to our veteran leader to beckon flawless verdict from the Judiciary to the benefit of about 45,000 innocent pensioner colleagues.
So, let all of us in en bloc PRAY THE SUPER POWER of their choice and belief to shower THEIR TENDER GRACE upon the hapless pensioner community and ensure FAVOURABLE FINAL OUTCOME through Jaipur HC.
         Date & Time of Prayer 11/02/2014
 Tuesday  1.00 P.M
          Venue :  Choice of individuals.     Duration : 3 to 5 mts.

A feed back will highly be appreciated.  
 Sincerely yours,
 B.Angurajan,
 O.S.,AIRIEF.

Pl.create   ALARMS in your cell  12.55.P.M on 11th of Feb. 2014.

Monday, February 10, 2014




A parliamentary panel has urged the Centre to raise the retirement age to 65 years, noting that growing lifespan was adding to the need for “productive ageing”.
The recommendation for increase in retirement age comes with a reminder that senior citizens would form 12.4% of the total population in 2026 from 7.5% in 2001.
“The committee feels that with the increase in life expectancy and relatively better state of health of people, the government needs to look at continuity of employment up to 65 years,” said the report of standing committee of Parliament on social justice and empowerment tabled on Friday.
It also recommended that government look at greater post-retirement opportunities for senior citizens and create greater financial support for the elderly by hiking the old age pension to Rs 1,000 per month from the present Rs 200 for those above 60 years and Rs 500 for those above 80 years.
While suggesting immediate redressal for the ageing population, the panel sought to train the government’s focus on the 60-plus group by pointing out that its growing numbers would be a serious challenge in health and social care.
Specifically, it underlined that as per population projections, the 80-plus bloc, the most-vulnerable group, would see a sharper rise in numbers.
The urgency of parliamentarians towards senior citizens comes amid growing global realization that increasing lifespan is creating a new demographic bloc requiring state intervention.
Seeking government attention, the committee noted that senior citizens comprised 7.5% of the total population in 2001 but their share is likely to increase to 12.4% in 2026. Importantly, UN projections say while India’s population will rise by 55% by 2050, that of 60-plus would increase by 326% and that of 80-plus would go up by 700%.
Given the rising challenge, the panel headed by Hemanand Biswal found the government response inadequate, noting that “issue of rapid population ageing in the country has not received due attention of the government and the community at large”.
The panel said special focus should be on the octogenarian bloc. “This age group is the most vulnerable and runs the risk of getting dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson disease, depression in their older years,” it said, and asked the Centre to constitute an expert group of relevant government departments to devise specialized healthcare programme for them.

Sunday, February 09, 2014




DEAR ALL RETIRED EMPLOYEES,

SH.VK BHASIN, CHAIRMAN, GENERAL INSURANCE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION HAS RIGHTLY SAID "PENSIONERS ARE DEFERRED WAGE EMPLOYEES AS PER SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT" AND HE HAS VERY PERTINENTLY RAISED THE ISSUE OF WAGE NEGOTIATIONS: NEGLECT OF PENSIONERS.

THE QUESTION IS WHY PENSIONERS ARE BEING NEGLECTED AND DISHONORED BY
NOT EVEN CALLING THEM TO DISCUSS THEIR ISSUES ( PENSIONERS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTING THEIR CHARTER OF DEMANDS FROM TIME TO TIME).
THIS MATTER IS AS SERIOUS AS PENSIONERS DEMAND FOR UP GRADATION OF THEIR PENSION ON EVERY GRADE REVISION OF EXISTING EMPLOYEES.

IN THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT OF A CHANGE IN THE SYSTEMS OF GOVERNANCE
AND POLITICS, THE MANAGEMENTS OF LIC/GIC MUST SHOW COURAGE AND TRANSPARENCY IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH ALL EMPLOYEES WHETHER RETIRED OR IN SERVICE WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION AND BIAS, AND SHOULD CALL FOR NEGOTIATIONS THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES TOO PERIODICALLY TO AMICABLY SETTLE THEIR DEMANDS. WHY THE SENIORS (who become handi-capped due to obvious reasons of advancing age, health problems etc.) HAVE TO STRUGGLE FOR THEIR LEGALLY, MORALLY & FINANCIALLY VALID DEMANDS AND  RESORT TO FIGHTING LONG LEGAL BATTLES AT HEAVY COSTS OF THEIR  HEALTH AND LIMITED WEALTH.

IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT MANY OF THE TRADE UNIONS ALSO FEEL SHY OF INCLUDING THE GENUINE AND BURNING ISSUES PERTAINING TO PENSIONERS, IN THEIR CHARTER OF DEMANDS FOR EXISTING EMPLOYEES. THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO SERIOUSLY & HONESTLY PONDER OVER THIS ISSUE OF INCLUDING PENSIONERS DEMANDS  IN THEIR CHARTER OF DEMANDS. 

YOU WILL FIND IN A MADRAS HIGH COURT VERDICT THAT RETIRED EMPLOYEES CAN ALSO BE MEMBERS OF THE NEGOTIATION COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES. AS A MATTER OF FACT ALL RETIRED EMPLOYEES MUST REMAIN ACTIVE AND RAISE ANY & ALL ISSUES RELATING TO PENSION, MEDICAL, OTHER FACILITIES LIKE GUEST HOUSE, MEETING ROOMS, HONORING OF SUPER SENIORS ETC.. DEVELOP HEALTHY RAPPORT WITH LOCAL MANAGERS, EMPLOYEES & THEIR ASSOCIATIONS/UNIONS.

I FULLY AGREE WITH SH BHASIN FOR HIS CALL : AS AN ACTIVIST OF PENSIONERS RIGHTS, PL. LOOK INTO THIS AND PURSUE. 

WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS
HK Aggarwal 

Saturday, February 08, 2014


Dear ALL,

Shri Asthana's reply to the affidavit of LIC, being very exhaustive and with clarity should convince and make it easy for Hon'ble Justice Chauhan to pronounce his judgment on the D-DAY leaving no further scope for the respondent LIC to look to some ways to further the proceedings knowing well that justice is not on their side and any further adjournment is a remote chance for they had enough of it and ultimately has to respect law and the constitution. Our prayers will not go unanswered and
divine hand...
let the divine hand write the judgment.

R.K. Viswanathan

WHY MOF ADAMANT ABT GOVT. UNDERTAKINGS




Dear Editor, 

The recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission of the Central Govt. will benefit NOT ONLY 50 lakhs serving employees BUT ALSO 30 lakhs PENSIONERS OF THE CENTRAL GOVT (including those retired from the Ministry of Finance!). 

Why then the MOF is so adamant as NOT TO ALLOW the GOI undertakings like LIC to consider up gradation of Pension to their retired employees. Are we asking for a Benefit which THEY are not enjoying? Why this
DISCRIMINATION AND STEP MOTHERLY TREATMENT meted out to us?

Should there not be a similarity of Pension Revision for both the Govt Pensioners and Pensioners of it's own undertakings? What are the justifications for denying them this basic Right?

The highest court of this country should come to the rescue of lakhs of pensioners of Central Govt Undertakings to declare this discrimination as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and ensure Equality before the Law. Who will bell the cat?


J M ABOOBUCKER 

Friday, February 07, 2014

AGGARWAL WRITES

FRIENDS,
SH KML ASTHANA, in his counter reply as per directions of the Hon’ble Court on 6.2.14, has submitted....:- "… that the present Contempt Petition is in S.B.C.W.P. No. 654/2007, which was entirely for the revision of pensions as on 1/8/1997, 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 by substitution of pay scales.'"(para2) , AND "the Respondents taking advantage of the decision of the two writ petitions have always been defying the judgment in SBCWP 654/2007 ..............". (para 6). AND "the Respondents were required to implement the judgment dated 12/1/2010 in so far as it relates to the revision of pensions from time to time and any payment made in the matter of Dearness Relief alone and consequential alleged revision of pension as on 1/8/1997 does not mitigate the contempt as stated in the above captioned petition No. 760 of 2010."(para 7).

As a matter of fact he has challenged all the wrong, deliberately false submissions/ calculations of LIC in a very elaborate, lucid, forceful, backed by Court Rulings, facts & figures. Dealt with all issues and concerns relating to LIC Board Resolution (24.11.2001), all High Courts & Supreme Court Judgments, Leave petitions pending in SC, etc. and has left no scope for any further adjournments by the court on the fact that LIC has committed contempt of court by not complying/implementing with many orders/directions of the courts.

In para 20 & 21 he has also added "The Respondents have been harassing and torturing the Petitioner therefore he is entitled to adequate compensation for all the toils and tortures." &"…..Pensioners are also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum…." .

As we all are aware Sh KML Asthnan has been burning mid night oils for the last over 15 yrs. fighting the legal battle to seek justice for all which is being simply denied by callous, cruel and unholy attitude of LIC & FM/GOI towards the seniors. Majority of the pensioners and AIRIEF have been actively lending all support and will continue to stand united in these crucial hours also till the achievement of the final goal.

Further whatever be the decision of the court on 12.2.14, Sh K K D HANUMANTHA RAO from Vijayawada has also suggested:-

“IN VIEW OF THE ATTEMPTS TO PROLONG THE LITIGATION BEYOND THE LIMITS OF PATIENCE OF THE PENSIONERS I AM PRPOSING THAT AIRIEF GIVE A CALL FOR DHARNAS BEFORE OFFICES OF LIC BY PENSIONERS DEMANDING IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUSTICE M N BHANDARI JUDGEMENT AND THE EVENT IS TO BE PROJECTED IN THE PRINT, VISUAL MEDIA SO THAT THIS WILL DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. HOPE THIS SUGGESTION WILL B IMPLEMENTED ON 24TH OF THIS MONTH TO SYNCHRONIZE WITH THE DHARNA OF ALL INDIA PENSIONERS AT JANTAR MANTAR,NEW DELHI.”

BHARAT PENSIONERS SAMAJ, The Apex Body of Pensioners all over India has given a call to Join Dharna at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 24th Feb. 2014.

ALL PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS / FEDERATIONS MUST SUPPORT THE SUGGESTION IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL ELECTIONS DRAWING NEARER AND THE PRESENT FM / GOI SHOULD OPEN THEIR EYES AND RECTIFY PAST MISTAKES OF ILLEGALLY & MISCHIEVOUSLY BLOCKING IMPLEMENTATION OF HCs / SC ORDERS BY LIC. LETS HAIL PENSIONERS UNITY.

WITH BEST WISHES & REGARDS
H K AGGARWAL.                        

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO REPLY OF LIC DATED 31-1-2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

                 JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR
                                  ***
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 760 of 2010
                                  in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007
                                  ***
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana                                 Petitioner
                                  Versus
Shri T.S. Vijayan and others                        Respondents
                                  
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT TO THE REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 31/1/2014

         I, Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 74 years, son of Shri Ram Saran Lalji Asthana, resident of B-8, Shanti Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, do hereby take oath and state as under:
1.      The Pension is a constitutional right of the Petitioner and is not a bounty but the Respondents are acting as if they are giving any bounty to the Pensioners who are beggars and the Respondents are the bestowers.  They are duty bound to make payment of the Pensioners as has been adjudicated by this Hon’ble High Court, Chandigarh High Court and Delhi High Court and as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2.      That at the outset the Petitioner begs to submit that the present Contempt Petition is in S.B.C.W.P. No. 654/2007, which was entirely for the revision of pensions as on 1/8/1997, 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 by substitution of pay scales. The relief sought in the writ petition No. 654/2007 was to the effect that (i) all pensioners form one class and differential treatment of pensions on the basis of date of retirement is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and (ii) direct the Respondent Corporation to fix the pay of the Petitioners in the substituted pay scales equivalent to their stag of pay in the scrapped pay scale on the date of retirements and pay pension at the rate of 50% of each basic pay as arrived at on and 1-8-92/1-11-193 and on and from 1/8/1997 and thereafter on and from 1/8/2002 with all consequential benefits and (iii) to correspondingly enhance the pension payable to the retirees as and when pay scales are revised irrespective of their dates of retirement. This writ petition was allowed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari in the following manner:
         “The legal position in that regard is quite clear. In view of the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, if there is a change in the benefit of existing pensioners, change has to be made effective to all without a cut off date inasmuch as cut off date in such cases are held to be arbitrary. In a case where pension is allowed for the first time, then a cut off date can be provided. My attention was drawn towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Kasturi Vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 61 wherein aforesaid issue has been dealt with. Same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dr. Vijayappurapu Subhayamma reported in AIR 2000 SC 3113 and was even reiterated in the case of Subrata Sen Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 8 SCC 71. In reference to aforesaid judgments, it was urged that there can be no difference in the benefit of dearness allowance to the employees retired before 31.7.1997 and those retired after the aforesaid date.

“Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that there exists anomaly even in regard to the revision of the pay scale. The benefit of revision in the pay scale from time to time was not extended to the pensioners. In view of aforesaid, even an officer retiring in the higher pay scale started getting less pension than to the employee retiring subsequently in lower pay scale. Aforesaid aspect was also considered along with the first issue, by the Board in its meeting held on 24.11.2001 and following decision was taken:-
“In view of the several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, issue regarding cut off date for providing pensionary benefits can be summarized in the following manner:-

i)       If there are change in benefit of pension then no cut off date can be provided. The benefit on account of change in pensionary benefits would have retrospective effect.

(ii)     If the pension is introduced for the first time, a cut off date can be fixed.

“Aforesaid issue has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners.
Nakara judgment has itself drawn a distinction between an existing scheme and a new scheme. Where an existing scheme is revised or liberalized all those who are governed by the said scheme must ordinarily receive the benefit of such revision or liberalization and if the State desires to deny it to a group thereof, it must justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 and must show that a certain group is denied the benefit of revision/liberalization on sound reason and not entirely on the whim and caprice of the State. The underlying principle is that when the State decides to revise and liberalize an existing pension scheme with a view to augmenting the social security cover granted to pensioners, it cannot ordinarily grant the benefit to a section of the pensioners and deny the same to others by drawing an artificial cut-off line which cannot be justified on rational grounds and is wholly unconnected with the object intended to be achieved. But when an employer introduced an entirely new scheme which has no connection with the existing scheme, different considerations enter the decision making process. One such consideration may be the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to bear the burden. Keeping in view its capacity to absorb the financial burden that the scheme would throw, the employer would have to decide upon the extent of applicability of the scheme. That is why in Nakara case this Court drew a distinction between continuance of an existing scheme in its liberalized form and introduction of a wholly new scheme; in the case of the former all the pensioners had a right to pension on uniform basis and any division which classified them into two groups by introducing a cut off date would ordinarily violate the principle of equality in treatment unless there is a strong rational discernible for so doing and the same can be supported on the ground that it will subserve the object sought to be achieved. But in the case of a new scheme, in respect whereof the retired employees have no vested right, the employer can restrict the same to certain class of retirees, having regard to the fact-situation in which it came to be introduced, the extent of additional financial burden that it will throw, the capacity of the employer to bear the same, the feasibility of extending the scheme to all retirees regardless of the dates of their retirement, the availability of records of every retiree, etc. It must be realized that in the case of an employee governed by the CPF scheme his relations with the employer come to an end on his retirement and receipt of the CPF amount but in the case of an employee governed under the pension scheme his relations with the employer merely undergo a change but do not snap altogether. This is the reason why this Court in Nakara case drew a distinction between liberalization of an existing benefit and introduction of a totally new scheme. In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupees value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount but that is not the case of employees governed under the CPF scheme, since they had received a lump sum payment which they were at liberty to invest in a manner that would yield optimum return which would take care of the inflationary trends. This distinction between those belonging to the pension scheme and those belonging to the CPF scheme has been rightly emphasized by this Court in Krishena case”.

Perusal of aforesaid Paras reveals that there exists difference between introduction of new Scheme then the existing Scheme. In the light of the aforesaid, if the facts of this case are looked into, then it becomes clear that amongst the pensioners there exists discrimination more specifically when the pension has been made admissible to the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1986. In view of aforesaid, there can be no different basis for dearness allowance or other benefits to those retired on or before 31.7.1997. The existing pensioners are entitled for the benefit of dearness allowance with the same measure as is admissible to the pensioners on or after 31.7.1997. The discrimination amongst the pensioners on that count is not permissible and if there exists rule, making discrimination amongst the existing pensioners, it is held to be violative of Articles 14& 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent Corporation has already taken up the aforesaid issue in its Board meeting and a resolution was also passed on 24.11.2001 after taking note of the fact that three different rates for different groups of pensioners exist depending upon their dates of retirement. It is not only causing administrative inconvenience but creating anomaly amongst the pensioners also. Accordingly, decision was taken but was made subject to final approval by the Central Government.

In fact, implementation of the Board's resolution would take away discriminatory treatment amongst the pensioners apart from keeping the LIC away from the administrative inconvenience. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, there cannot be a cut off date for existing pensioners for providing benefits but further fact is that to cure the aforesaid mistake, the Board's resolution should have been given effect to, which will otherwise redress the entire grievance of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that resolution passed by the Board of LIC does not need approval of the Central Government thus the Corporation may give effect to its resolution dated 24.11.2001 to avoid discrimination amongst existing pensioners.

In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy. ”
 Please click below to continue.

JAIPUR CONTEMPT CASE LISTED FOR 12-02-2014