Dear Shri Gangadharan,

I am a regular reader of our LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE. I find that the Pensioners Unions are trying to establish their Superiority on all counts except fighting with the LIC/UOI combine super power. 

After all we are all retired persons and we can not force the so called super power to get our genuine demands implemented by them. Even our present unions of the regular employees/officers are not at all thinking of helping us (I do not understand why they are not thinking that in the future they will also become PENSIONERS which is CERTAIN - pension or family pension). 

At the time of negotiations for charter of demands, usually the management offers certain percentage of expenses towards increase in wages. Do they (the unions) feel that if they demand upgradation of pension to the pensioners, the present employees/officers get less percentage of wage increase because it is to be shared by the existing staff and pensioners. It is only my doubt. If it is wrong, please correct it. If I am correct, one simple example I would like to quote here that IF SOME FOOD IS FOUND BY A 'CROW' IT WILL NOT EAT THE FOOD SINGLY BUT IT WILL CALL ALL OTHER CROWS BY CALLING kav kav i.e. eat eat AND ALL CROWS HEARING THE VOICE OF THE FIRST CROW COME TO THE PARTICULAR PLACE SHARE THE FOOD ALL TOGETHER. Being human beings we lack this kind of cooperation.

Mr.Dhamija has suggested some points. All are welcome except the point No.(iii) wherein he has suggested to withdraw the application for intervention in SC should be considered by the JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE with the consultation of all our legal experts.

Here I would like to give you all a LIVE EXAMPLE. i.e., FORMATION OF TELANGANA STATE bifurcating it from ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. All the political parties from Telangana region have fought for separate Telangana forgetting their political issues and they have finally SUCCEEDED in getting separate Telangana State. If this kind of spirit we develop in our unity, we are going to achieve our final goal of DA/Upgradation of pension on every wage revision.

LET US UNITE FIRST - UNITY ONLY BRINGS US THE VICTORY.
LET US START OUR JOINT ACTION BEFORE SOME MORE PENSIONERS LEAVE THIS WORLD.

BHAKTAVATSALA RAO KANTAMNENI, HYDERABAD.

While doing some "PLAIN SPEAK" Sri S.M. Mulukutla has  drawn some such conclusions which only reveal how  hard feelings can be generated and motives attributed. Though it does not augur well still I   appreciate Sri Mulukutla's frank views. I only expressed my apprehensions about the unity move. And still I have my own doubts

because while we talk of 'unity', we are ready to pounce upon those who differ with us.

I wish success to all my pensioner friends for making efforts to forge unity at this crucial juncture.

S.P.SOOD

M SREENIVASA MURTY

REPLY TO SP SOOD

For once, I want to do some plain-speak, to put things in perspective.

So far we have come across instances of mutual maligning among Associations and their leaders. There was therefore some sort of an awakening of the silent pensioners (belonging to those very Associations) who started 'crying' for unity - among Associations/Leaders/Pensioners, as a whole. As there is a groundswell in the number of Unity mongers, I now see a veiled maligning of the Unity moves, without even understanding what is being sought by the ordinary silent Pensioners. if I understood Mr S P Sood's tirade correctly, he (and others who may be equally uncomfortable with the unity movement) may kindly appreciate that these new enthusiasts and unity-seekers are NOT 'outsiders'. They are all part of you, your own members and supporters. Don't try to put yourselves on one side and all of 'them' on 'another' side. 

Mr. Sood now, and just one or two others earlier, have been asking a question: 'where were you all, all these years and before 12/01/2010 etc.,?' My answer, on my behalf and on behalf of hundreds of others, is that 'we were where we should be, supporting Mr KML Asthana, Mr GN Sridharan, the Panchkula Team and all leaders like you, in OUR OWN way'. Silently but substantially, without intruding, waiting and hoping for the best outcome of your efforts'. In fact, it continues to be so even now. Except that some are asking openly for Unity - Inter-Association Unity, Intra-Association Unity, Unity in the 'approach' towards the common cause and finally uniformity and Unity in the strategies adopted to pursue to win cases in courts. The appeals for Unity were spontaneous because the required Unity in any of the areas listed has been lacking and it is seen to be hurting the cause. I really don't understand what is bothering Mr Sood. Does he claim, 'everything is fine, we are in control', and tell us 'you keep watching'? 

Let it be clearly understood that the protagonists of Unity never doubted or discounted the value of the past achievements of any or all the people named in your mail, Mr Sood. The unity mongers are also aware of but not unduly worried about the adverse fallout of the setbacks, some of which were certainly 'avoidable'. The Appeals for a 'united approach' is to ALL ASSOCIATIONS & INDIVIDUAL LEADERS. To sit together, exchange views and adopt a combined strategy and not to tread on the toes of one another. 

There was a question. 'to whom will the committee be accountable?' What committee are we talking of? It will be the Committee comprising the nominees/office bearers of all the Associations and the individuals who are actually spearheading the court cases; it shall be accountable to their respective Associations/members, besides the entire community of Pensioners. What is objectionable here? 

The appeal for Unity is very relevant and the need for Unity is imperative because there have been fundamental differences in the perceptions on the interpretation of the Pensioners' case, among Associations and leaders. This situation does not augur well for the common cause. We should bring about a change. 

Can Hyderabad host a Round Table Session? Or can it be Delhi, in which case, the Sr.Advocates representing all Associations can possibly participate and enlighten the stakeholders? 

This phase of the action plan should conclude before the Supreme Court goes on vacation from 12/05/2014. 

I am purposely not responding to the concluding part of Mr Sood's mail. It is too sensitive for public debate. 

I fully endorse the thought of RKV and an effort should be made after confirming the 

utility and feasibility of approaching the CJI. 

The wait is becoming eternal and we lost so many colleagues and many like me are 

over 75-80yrs. 

There is no harm in trying I think. Better counsel is still welcome.

 C.L. Janakiram (Hyderabad)

                                         

Justice P. Sadasivam is retiring on 27TH Inst. Justice Rajendra Mal Lodha takes over charge who will retire on 27 TH SEPTEMBER this year. 

People who are acquainted with Justice Sadasivam say that he is an upright person keen to dispense justice fearlessly without hesitation and compassionate towards human sufferings. Both the Officers associations should spring into action in sending a letter to the retiring CJI pleading for his intervention for the speedy disposal of the suits which could not reach any finality due to unnecessary appeals and several adjournments cleverly manipulated by the respondent Corporation causing mental worry and enormous expenditure to the petitioners.

The human tendency is and more so with people holding high positions to do some good before they lay their office. Should we not cash on this which our letter could do. Even if the new incumbent is expected to deal with our matter we can expect some favorable action from him as he will be laying office in coming SEPTEMBER. All that what we are going to ask is quick disposal of our suits so that a finality could be reached without further loss of time.

R.K.Viswanathan

There have been several mails from enlightened Pensioner friends stressing the need for unity; formation of Joint Committee and so on. All these suggestions are no doubt appreciable. But can we really achieve unity as desired by our friends ? We have retired from LIC after putting in 30/40 years service in different cadres. Have we forgotten as to how many Associations were there ? Even on crucial issues viz Promotion Policy, Bonus, Charter of Demand, Automation every Association was guided by its political alignment.

So why this sudden spurt of mails for unity ? Obviously, the Updation of Pension and removal of DA anomaly are crucial issues for all pensioners. But my simple question to our friends is as to how many amongst us were aware of these issues before the Single Bench Judgement of Hon’ Justice Bhandari ? 

How can we forget that this judgement was the result of decade long legal battle waged by Sh. KML Asthana with the active support and guidance of AIRIEF. Victory after victory has been achieved by Sh. Asthana in different courts.  Even the Hon. SC has not stayed the operation of single bench judgement.

If the fruits have not reached the pensioners, the reasons are apparent. Even in the wildest of dreams we never thought that LIC will stoop so low and deny the legitimate benefits to the pensioners who have toiled hard to lay solid foundations of this empire called LIC which is now out to circumvent the legal process with the help of money power.

Though Sh. Asthana has been the chief architect of our legal case but he is being guided by the Federation. Can we nourish any doubt about the competence, proficiency and acumen-ship of AIRIEF leadership which include Sh. S.K. Shukla, President, Sh. R.B. Kishore, VP, Sh. G.T.Parikh, VP, Sh. V.C. Jain General Secy and several others with solid legal background. And they are all accountable to the Executive Committee of the Fed. Even ordinary members do question them from time to time. There is an uncalled for apprehension and malicious propaganda that Sh. Asthana is functioning all alone.

By the way to whom the proposed Committee/s will be answerable ? Pensioners who wish to give any suggestion can approach any of the office bearers of the Federation or convey these through Pensioners Chronicle which is playing an important role to spread the message and has encouraged healthy debate, though at times, some of the pensioners have misused this *media only to score some points or to down-grade the efforts of those who have been in the forefront to create awakening amongst the pensioners.

Those who are really well wishers of pensioners should form Committees in every city for mobilizing Legal Fund and send it to the Federation so that services of some prominent Advocates are engaged to forcefully plead the case at the SC on behalf of pensioners.

In fact, this is the need of the hour.

With Greetings,

S.P.SOOD

SECRETARY CHANDIGARH UNIT AIRIEF.

________________________

* Pensioners will be free to express their views 
and LICPC pages will remain open to them to 
voice such views freely as always. Ed.

JAIPUR CASE: CW '3508' of 2014 - R

PENDING

Date of query : 11/4/2014	Time : 5:42:32 PM
CW'3508' of 2014 - R	6604/2014
Petitioner :	ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE ORS
Respondent:	L I C OF INIDA
Petitioner Advocate:	SANJAY GANGWAR
Respondent Advocate:
Class Code : 0521	Registered on : 27/3/2014
Bench : SB	Stage : INCOMPLETE
DATE GIVEN BY: PESHI CLERK DATE
Date of Listing : 7/5/2014
Listed in court No. 5 on 09/04/2014

CH MAHADEVAN

BY PP DHAMIJA

MY RESPONSE ON 

SOME OF 

THE POINTS RAISED BY MR. P.P. DHAMIJA 

* For those employees who retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1987, as per Rule 35 of the Pension Rules, 1995, basic pension and additional pension were updated as per the formula given in Appendix-III.

In Appendix III,the principle that was followed was:

(1) for upgrading the basic pension and additional pension to the above category of employees by increasing the basic pension by a percentage ranging from 50% to 40% in three tapering slabs,

(2) calculating Dearness Relief at index no 600 in the All India Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960-100 on the total arrived at 1) above , and

(3) Arriving at the total increased basic pension as at 1/11/1993 by adding the total as per1) &2) above to the 50% of average monthly emoluments.

By a careful study of Rule 35 and Appendix III of the Pension Rules 1995, it can be observed that the principle of upgradation of basic pension has been adopted by upgradation of pension by merger of DR with basic pension even on 1/11/1993 for the above category of retirees, but without any increase as is provided for in-service employees on wage revision.

•  Besides, DR for the Class III & IV pensioners who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997 was calculated by a different formula from that of Class I & II Officers who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/3/1993.This category of pensioners were also denied fixation of pension on 1/11/1993 based on wage revisions effected w.e.f 1/8/1992. the Only the officers of the latter cadres who had retired from 1/4/1993 to 31/7/1997 had the benefit of Pension Fixation and DR parity on 1/11/1993( or the date of retirement if later) on par with retired Class III & IV employees retired between 1/8/1992 & 31/7/1997. 

This anomaly was the subject matter of the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) judgment by the Single Judge dated 13-09-2012 in Writ Petition No. 1454/2009.The matter is now under Civil Appeal in Supreme Court.

•  I beg to differ on the view that the Jaipur verdict revolves around the Board Resolution only. 

The operative part of Justice M.N.Bhandari’s judgment in three sentences reads as follows:

> “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;

> “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.

> “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, deals with merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 only with a weightage of 11.25%, the last sentence of the operative portion of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dt 12/1/2010 extends the scope of revision of pension beyond the Board Resolution.

* If the Jaipur verdict revolved around the Board Resolution only, Justice Bhandari need not have added the last two sentences.

• I agree that the LIC Board Resolution confines itself only to pre-August 1997 retirees, may be providing restrictive upgradation only as at 1/8/1997.( The wage revisions w.e.f.1/8/2002 were notified only in 2005). 

• But the judgment of Justice Bhandari, not only provides for upgradation as decided by the Board Resolution w.e.f 1/8/1997,but also provides for further upgradation-in-chain on subsequent wage revision dates, not only for pre-August 1997 retirees, but also for post- July, 1997 retirees on all wage revision dates 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 and also wage revision now overdue w.e.f 1/8/2012.We have also to remember that five out of the 27 writ petitioners in the Jaipur Writ Petitions were those who retired between 1/8/1997 and 31/7/2002 and the court had not excluded them from receiving the benefits that flow out of the judgment. 

While it is the Court which has to interpret the judgment in case of LIC disputing the aforesaid interpretations, while implementing the same, in my view, it will be too early to term a favourable interpretation as wishful thinking.

LET'S MOVE TO NEW DELHI...

Phase-I: Jaipur, Phase-2: New Delhi

Thanks for publishing my note "LIC Pensioners - An overview of Legal Fights" in the LIC Pensioners Chronicle.

The suggestion of Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty and endorsed by Shri B.R. Mehta are welcome. In the past also some efforts were made to have a joint legal front, but failed. On 4th April, after our case was over in the Supreme Court, Shri S.K. Shukla, President of the All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation accompanied by some colleagues met Shri V.K. Jain, President of our Delhi unit and our Legal Coordinator and suggested to have a common legal front. He suggested the President and Secretaries of both the Associations  and take further action.

Incidentally, on 4th April I was also present in the Supreme Court. The whispering which could be heard from the legal experts was as if we were not fighting against the LIC for pension, but the associations were fighting for getting their own credit. I feel this is the right moment as we have lost a number of years and much water has flown in the legal process. 

Before any concrete shape is given, I would like to give a few suggestions:

(i) We should form a team of 4/5 persons with equal representation from the involved Associations.

(ii) The legal proceedings should be shifted from Jaipur to S.C. New Delhi.

(iii) The application for intervention in the S.C. should be withdrawn.

(iv)  Personal attacks on any member/Office bearer should be stopped.

(v) Writing to the Chief Justice may be helpful. But it will be more beneficial if this is done jointly.

(vi) The details can be worked out by the joint committee.

Let the process be started before the S.C. goes for summer vacation.

Thanks.

P.P. Dhamija

I FULLY ENDORSE THE SUGGESTION OF SH R K VISWANATHAN THAT ALL THE 

THREE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD APPROACH THE SC CHIEF 

JUSTICE TO PREPONE ALL PENDING CASES TO BE DECIDED BEFORE THE SC

GOES FOR SUMMER VACATION.

A V SUBBARAMAN COIMBATORE DIVISION

Dear Fellow Pensioners, 

Mr P P Dhamija has done an immense service to the 'informed' as well as the 'uninformed' among the LIC pensioners through his posting in the Chronicle under the above caption. My hearty congratulations and sincere thanks to him for his wonderful contribution, which is the most authentic and comprehensive narration of all the relevant facts of our case.  To me and many others, this Note will be handy for easy reference while we work for battling the cases hence forth.

Mr Dhamija's views and interpretations of the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 and the Jaipur judgement dated 12/01/2010, however, constitute 'one view'. Could be right, could be wrong. Apex Court may finally hold accordingly or differently. There are and there can be, completely contrary views also. Several other colleagues and I happen to hold those contrary views. It helps in a big way if we dispassionately exchange and understand each others' views, to be able to instruct the Sr Advocates appearing for us, suitably. 

Will revert in a day or two with my personal views and my humble logic in support of those views.

Thank you once again, Mr Dhamija.            

M. Sreenivasa Murty

HYDERABAD 500090

BR MEHTA

While joining an issue currently being debated on LIC Pensioners Blog, I would like

to place my views on this subject as under.

CRITICISM

1. Agreed that legal battle of all L.I.C.Pensioners has gone very lengthy and or fellow pensioners who are 75 plus or even above 80 are just fed up while thinking whether current legal battle will conclude during their life time or not or in other words whether all of them will be able to see with their own eyes that their very small pension amount being credited every month is hiked soon at par with all recent retirees pertaining to their respective cadres.

2. Whether we like it or not, one major reason for this very sorry state of affairs is our divided battle or fighting more against each other and not against common enemy. While top leadership of both camps is highly mature and they never say any thing against their counterparts pertaining to other camp, yet a few learned friends fond of circulating one mail per day at all India level and projecting themselves as biggest champions of L.I.C. Pensioners do not hesitate to attack or hit even top leadership of other organisations simultaneously claiming to work for Pensioners Unity. How Unity can be achieved through criticism route?

3. Discussing now that somebody should come forward as a writer to CJI is just a diversion.

4 Even thinking of filing of fresh petition at this stage amounts to same thing.

5 Rather our pending cases at various high courts should be got deferred for success of this great mission.

6 While showing complete patience, our whole energy should be focused on mission of joint legal battle.

with my regards for all,

B.R.Mehta

Panchkula

PP DHAMIJA

        

THE PENSION SCHEME FOR LIC EMPLOYEES CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 1ST NOVEMBER 1993 AND COVERED EMPLOYEES WHO WERE IN SERVICE ON 01.01.1986 AND RETIRED THEREAFTER AND WERE IN SERVICE ON 28th JUNE’ 1995, THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION AND ALSO WHO JOINED AFTER 28.06.1995.

• THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 01.01.1986 WERE NOT COVERED BY THE PENSION SCHEME. HOWEVER, ON REGULAR FOLLOW UP BY VARIOUS ASSOCIATIONS, AN EX-GRATIA WAS GIVEN TO SUCH RETIREES.

THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED AFTER 01.01.1986 AND BEFORE 01.11.1993, THE DEARNESS RELIEF WAS TO BE PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE ON THE BASES OF EVERY 4 POINTS OVER 600 POINTS IN THE QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF ALL INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN THE SERIES 1960=100.

THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1st NOVEMBER’ 1993, DEARNESS RELIEF WAS TO BE PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE ON THE BASIS OF EVERY 4 POINTS OVER 1148 POINTS IN THE QUARTERLY AVERAGE OF THE ABOVE SERIES 1960=100.

THE PAY SCALES OF THE EXISTING EMPLOYEES WERE REVISED IN 1997 AND PART OF D.A. WAS MERGED IN THE BASIC PAY AND BENEFIT OF 100% NEUTRALISATION WAS GIVEN AFTER 1748 POINTS. THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1st AUGUST’ 1997, THE RATE OF DEARNESS RELIEF PAYABLE/RECOVERABLE WAS DIFFERENT.

SHRI K.M.L. ASTHANA FILED A W.P. IN JAIPUR BENCH OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (SBCWP NO. 6676/1998) FOR PAYMENT OF D.R. AS WAS BEING PAID TO IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND THOSE WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 01.08.1997 (AND ALSO FOR GRANT OF STAGNATION INCREMENT WHICH WAS NOT PRESSED). SHRI K.M.L. ASTHANA FILED ANOTHER W.P. (SBCWP NO.654/2007) FOR INCREASE IN PENSION WITH REVISION OF PAY SCALES OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES FROM 01.08.2002, 01.08.2007.

SIMILAR CASES WERE FILED IN OTHER COURTS LIKE CHANDIGARH, DELHI, ALLAHABAD, KERALA ETC.

• THE CASES OF MR. ASTHANA WERE DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 12.01.2010 BY SINGLE JUGDE AND IS CONSIDERED AS THE BASIC REMARKABLE JUGDMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS. THE JUDGMENT OF SINGLE JUDGE WAS UPHELD BY THE DIVISION BENCH AND APPEAL OF L.I.C. WAS DISMISSED.

THE CHANDIGARH CASE CWP NO. 16346/2010 MADAN LAL GANDHI AND OTHER VS. U.O.I. WAS DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 09.11.2012 ON THE SAME LINES AS JAIPUR H.C. DECISION WITH ADDITION THAT INTEREST @ 12% WAS ALSO PAYABLE.

THE DELHI H.C. CASE ( NO. WP 184/2007) THE FEDERATION OF RETIRED CLASS I OFFICERS FEDERATION AND OTHER VS. UOI AND LIC WAS ALSO DECIDED FAVOURABLY ON 30.01.2013 ON THE LINES OF JAIPUR H.C. DECISION WITH FURTHER ADDITION THAT THE DECISION WILL APPLY ‘IN REM’ i.e. TO ALL CONCERNED. 

THERE ARE TWO MAIN ISSUES ON WHICH THERE IS LOT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND CONFUSION.

1. THE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 24.11.2001.
2. THE JAIPUR H.C. DECISION BY HON’BLE JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI DATED 12.01.2010.

1. LET US FIRST STUDY THE BOARD RESOLUTION:

• “ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) INTRODUCING THE SUBJECT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS THREE DIFFERENT RATES FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS AT PRESENT DEPENDING ON THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENT, WHICH CAUSE CONSIDERABLE ADMINISTRATIVE INCONVENIENCE. CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT HE HAS SINCE RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM DR. S. RAM KHANNA, BOARD MEMBER, WHICH REFERS TO THE MEETING WITH THE RETIREES FEDERATION AND REQUESTED EXAMINING THE PROPOSAL IN DETAIL. THE NOTE IS IN LINE WITH THE DEMANDS MADE BY THE FEDERATION VIZ. GIVING EFFECT TO THE PROPOSAL FROM 01.11.1993 AND UPGRADATION BY GIVING WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% AS IN THE CASE OF IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES. 

• "CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THESE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PLACING THE MATTER TO THE BOARD AND IT WAS FELT THAT THE SAME WOULD INCREASE FINANCIAL BURDEN VERY SUBSTANTIALLY AND MAY BE UNAFFORDABLE FOR THE CORPORATION. 

• "CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSAL MADE HAVE BEEN ACTUARIALLY DETERMINED AT RS. 51.37 CRORES AND THE ANNUAL OUTLAY BE IN THE REGION OF 6 TO 8 CRORES. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION THE BOARD APPROVED THE PROPOSAL AND SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED PROSPECTIVELY AND AFTER OBTAINING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.”

THE BOARD RESOLUTION IS VERY CLEAR. SINCE THERE WERE PREVAILING THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PENSIONERS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULA FOR CALCULATION OF THE DEARNESS RELIEF, THE E.D.(P) SOUGHT TO GET THE DR FORMULA MADE APPLICABLE ON UNIFORM BASIS. THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING UNIFORMITY IN THE PROCESS OF CALCULATION OF DR FOR ALL THE PENSIONERS. FOR THIS IT WAS SUGGESTED TO GIVE WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% IN THE PENSION OF EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO 01.08.1997 AS WAS DONE FOR IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES AND MAKE THE DR UNIFORM FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS.

DIFFERENT PERSONS HAVE BEEN INTERPRETTING THE BOARD RESOLUTION DIFFERENTLY IN THEIR OWN WAY.

• (i) THERE IS ONE OPINION THAT THE BOARD RESOLUTION WAS MEANT TO MAKE THE PATTERN OF DR UNIFORM FOR ALL PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF RETIREMENT.
• (ii) THE OTHER VIEW IS THAT THE PURPOSE OF GIVING WEIGHTAGE OF 11.25% WAS TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF REVISION OF PAY SCALES GIVEN TO IN-SERVICE EMPLOYEES MAY BE GIVEN TO THE PENSIONERS ALSO AND SIMILAR BENEFIT WILL BE GIVEN IN FUTURE ALSO WHENEVER THE PAY SCALES ARE REVISED.

2. NOW LET US COME TO THE SECOND ISSUE — THE FINAL DECISION OF HON’BLE JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI:

THE JUDGMENT OF SINGLE JUDGE RELATES TO TWO W.PS. — ONE FOR RESTORATION OF DR AND THE OTHER FOR UPGRADATION OF PENSION. THE LEARNED JUDGE HAS DISCUSSED THE BOARD RESOLUTION AND IMPRESSED UPON THE CORPORATION FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION. THE SINGLE JUDGE HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS DECIDED CASES AND ALSO SECTION 21 OF L.I.C. ACT AND OBSERVED THAT 

THE APPROVAL OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS NOT REQUIRED.

IN REFERENCE TO THE SECOND W.P. No. 654/2007, THE JUDGMENT ALSO STATES:

• “LEARNED COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE EXISTS ANOMALY EVEN IN REGARD TO THE REVISION OF PAY SCALES. THE BENEFIT OF REVISION IN THE PAY SCALES 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 ALONGWITH THE FIRST ISSUE BY THE BOARD IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 24.11.2001 AND FOLLOWING DECISION WAS TAKEN”.

THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE HAS GIVEN HIS FINAL JUDGMENT AS UNDER:

• “ 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 THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS 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.  31.07.1997. 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”.

NOW IF WE GO THROUGH THE JUDGMENT, THE VERDICT REVOLVES AROUND THE BOARD RESOLUTION ONLY. THE JUDGE AGREES THAT THERE IS DISPARITY IN THE PENSION WHEN A SENIOR EMPLOYEE RETIRES TODAY AND A JUNIOR EMPLOYEE RETIRES AT A LATER STAGE THE JUNIOR WILL BE GETTING HIGHER PENSION. BUT THE JUDGMENT STATES THAT THE BOARD RESOLUTION SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.J. IS REVOLVING AROUND THE BOARD RESOLUTION WHICH REQUIRES TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE APPROPRIATE COURT/AUTHORITY.

WE ALL ARE INTERPRETING THE JUDGMENT IN OUR OWN FAVOUR AND ARE HOPING THAT OUR BASIC PENSION WILL BE REVISED FROM 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 AND SO ON AND WE SHALL BE GETTING THE SAME PENSION AS EMPLOYEES RETIRING TODAY OR YEARS LATER IN OUR CADRE/GRADE. I WISH IT SHOULD HAPPEN WHICH WILL BE THE HAPPIEST OCCASION FOR ALL L.I.C. PENSIONERS. BUT THIS IS  WISHFUL THINKING. WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT GRANTED ANY STAY TO THE CORPORATION WHICH IS ANOTHER FAVOURABLE FACTOR. BUT TO GET IMPLEMENTATION FROM THE HIGH COURT THROUGH CONTEMPT CASES OR OTHERWISE IS NOT GOING TO HELP AS THE CIVIL APPEAL IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. MOREOVER THE S.C. IS LIKELY TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF L.I.C. ABOUT SECTION 48 WHERE THE POWERS VEST IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE GONE AND IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW MANY MORE YEARS WILL BE LOST IN THE LEGAL BATTLE. HOW MUCH MONEY THE PENSIONERS HAVE PAID TOWARDS THE LEGAL EXPENSES CAN BE IMAGINED. WITH OUR LONG EXPERIENCE WE KNOW THAT L.I.C. HAS NO POWERS AND CANNOT TAKE ANY DECISION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT GIVE ANY DECISION UNLESS THERE IS A FINAL DECISION FROM THE SUPREME COURT. THEN WHY TO WASTE OUR TIME, ENERGY AND MONEY IN THE LOWER COURTS AGAIN AND AGAIN.

I HAVE TRIED TO GIVE A BRIEF PICTURE ABOUT THE PENSION CASE. THESE ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND MAY DIFFER FROM SOME SENIOR LEGAL EXPERTS. BUT LET US BE REALISTIC AND WAIT FOR A CLEAR VERDICT FROM THE APEX COURT.

HAPPY RAM NAVMI TO ALL RETIREE FRIENDS.

P.P. DHAMIJA,09810186067 

Letter to Chief Justice of India

wanted a 'writer'!

Someone has to take the lead in unifying our efforts in tackling the pending  civil suits which has seen too many adjournments. Thanks to Sri Srinivasa Murthi, my longstanding colleague for taking the plunge. Otherwise the human tendency is that let someone do it and I will fall in line what it is worth. Once a question arose in a matter like this who is to bell the proverbial cat ? Srinivasa murti did it or rather could do it. We are birds of the same feather and why not we flock together, shed all our differences and go together to wage a common fight against the heartless UOI and our institution helplessly toeing the UOI.

Now that we are in a crucial stage having been pushed to do or die situation it is high time there is synergy of mind and action from all directions, each one being in touch with each other  to chalk out the urgent future course of action. One such action endorsed by everybody is to write at once to the Chief Justice of India bringing to his attention how callous are the HIGH COURTS in not implementing his instructions in giving priority in disposal of suits where Senior citizens are involved. Certainly Chief Justice would lend his ears to our plea. This should be our top priority requiring urgent action lest LIC will be tutored by the Government to prolong the case as far as they can which they have been successfully doing. Justice being on our side  which the LIC and the UOI very well know  and established law cannot be turned topsy turvy our concern should be to get the hearing in pending cases as early as possible and get tagged  for the Supreme court to decide.

R.K.Viswanathan  

I am thankful to Shri B S Gopalakrishna, for his suggestion to collaborate with the Sr Citizen's Forum and the core committee formed at Dehradun. 

Honestly, I had no idea of such an outfit already functioning for the common cause of LIC Pensioners. 

Now that it is known, I will certainly establish contact with all of them at the earliest and move forward.   

M. Sreenivasa Murty

ALL ABOUT PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS MADE BY SHRI MURTY

I have gone through the above article and the practical suggestions made by Shri M.Srinivasa Murthy and other readers. Shri Murthy has been giving some good suggestions one of which is that he will approach various leaders who are fighting the issues of parity in DA/DR and upgradation of Pension with each revision of salary to in service employees. 

• In this connection, I have to inform that a Senior Citizens' Forum has been formed with the office at Dehradun & with Shri O.P.Vasisht, Former General Secretary of LIC Class I Officers' Federation as the Secretary. The Forum has formed a CORE COMMITTEE FOR PENSION UP GRADATION with some Office bearers of the Federation of Retired Class 1 Officers Association and Shri V.C.Jain, General Secretary, All India Retired Insurance Employees' Federation. 

• My suggestion in this regard is that the Office Bearers of different Pensioners' Associations of LIC can meet under the auspices of the said Senior Citizens' Forum, thrash out their differences and arrive at a common approach beneficial to all the Pensioners of LIC leaving aside their egos, if any.

Thanking you and with best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

(B.S.Gopala Krishna)

Jaipur Court Case - CW 3508 of 2014 -09.04.2014.

Adjourned - Likely date 30.04.2014.

(to be combined with CW 3471 of 2014)

Await Court Order by Friday for confirmation. 

Regards,

T.R.Madhava Rao.

Should Shri Srinivasa Murty draft the petition to

the Chief Justice of India or not is the crux of the issue discussed here.

We had carried the suggestion of sending a petition to CJI 

with the caption 

Here, by putting

the word 'ALSO' we meant, while Shri Murty goes

ahead with whatever initiative he has taken in certain matters

which is appreciated by others, we may 'also' send a petition to CJI 

at the appropriate time, yes of course, by those 

conducting the case. We have already

taken such initiatives like Petition to Cabinet Secretary,

Letter for intervention of Rahulji etc.  Petition to CJI should

be a matter like this.  And such a petition need not be 

signed by the pensioners.  Suffice it to mention before the CJI 

in an appropriate but brief petition that the pension

matter involves a matter of grave importance involving pensioners 

and a decision in the matter is sought during their life time itself and this

will be well appreciated by the CJI/SC judges most of  whom are very 

senior citizens. We can also cite the example of Mumbai HC

in the matter. -Ed.

Dear Friends,

Can we 'write' to the Chief Justice of India? Why not? Anybody can do any thing. I think Shri Panchamiya has already done it recently. Let's wait for the outcome.   

And one active co-pensioner wants me to draft the petition citing Mumbai HC Circular dated 12/08/1999 in support of his suggestion. My good old friend Shri R K Viswanathan has already responded through the Chronicle, discounting the utility of the suggested move giving his logic. 

Even if the circular under reference can be taken seriously, please refer to its concluding sentence which reads; "This Circular shall be applicable to the High Court and its Benches as well as Courts subordinate to it".  So, the Circular per se doesn't help us, the super senior citizens, at least before the Supreme Court. Let us focus on more serious steps ahead.  

Having said so, the fact that the petitioners in our on-going pension cases before any Court, are all senior citizens (and that many are over seventy and even eighty already), is certainly a strong point to press for.  We have to make sure that the Sr Advocates arguing for us do sensitize the Bench, at the right point of time during the course of arguments in the right manner. I am never tired of repeating and sharing my first hand experience of watching Their Lordships of higher judiciary, that they are never un-receptive to any relevant point properly presented by the Counsel. That is part of the court-craft and a treat to watch, if we choose our Advocates right. We no doubt need Counsel with big name and high standing who receive due attention from the Bench, though the most expensive Advocate, need not be the best, if he is not 100% sure of the facts of the case. Quite often, he is too busy to take the full brief from the client and harps unduly on one or two finer points of law and bungles on essential facts. We will be watching helplessly from the visitors' gallery and end up heart broken. I have no doubt that this time around, we and our leaders don't let things go wrong on any of these critical aspects of the 'case management' which includes (a) perfect drafting of the petition comprehensively, clearly and with zero errors and (b) the Advocate on Record as well as the Sr Advocate, allow us sufficient time to brief them fully and (c) the Counsel 'own' the case as much as we the clients do. 

One may have an excellent case in law and in equity like what the LIC Pensioners undoubtedly are fighting now, but the success in Court can still elude if the petitions are shabbily drafted and the Advocates are inadequately briefed. 

I am sorry, I drifted. I am only rehearsing the tasks to be able to assist our leaders better.                             

Thanks and regards,

 M. Sreenivasa Murty

Formerly RM (Legal) & Law Officer, SC Zone

106, Hill County Nizampet Road, Bachupally

HYDERABAD 500090

Dear Editor,

This refers to High court circular in the matter of giving precedence to cases wherein one of the parties has crossed 65 years of age. The said circular was 

reproduced in the Blog under the caption "We can approach Chief justice of India". 

It is pertinent to note that the said circular was dated 7-8-1996. 17 years have expired and I don't think any High court was serious in implementing the circular. 

This I think is another hog wash like the National litigation policy which is lying in the cold storage. 

However I am with those who suggested that we should approach Chief justice in the matter and in this Federation and AIRIEF should expedite action.

There could be a request for preponing those adjourned cases and decided before the court goes on vacation and at the same time highlighting the deaths that have taken so far and the average age of the Pensioners who are affected by the delay.

R.K.VISWANATHAN          

No words to praise Sh . Sreenivasa Murty from Hyderabad for a very big initiative Mission Unity Plan which is difficult no doubt but not impossible. I feel myself fortunate enough to be in touch with him on phone as well as through email. 

He is very clear in his thinking that without a joint legal battle in Supreme court by both camps led by S/Sh.G.N Sreedharan/S.K Kapahi and V.C.Jain/S.K.Shukla LIC Pensioners Issues cannot be resolved. He knows about hurdles on the way but determined to bypass them. He is not willing to waste even a minute and wants to give his hundred percent. 

Though I have not met him personally yet I am sure that he is going to succeed finally.
He is going to get all support even from unexpected quarters since God is always with such clean and clear hearted persons who can come forward for welfare of whole LIC PENSIONERS community without any personal or vested motives.

Let all of us pray on a very auspicious day today being Ram Navami for his victory in his noble mission.

Hope everyone connected with LIC Pensioners Chronicle will extend his total support to Mission Sreenivasa Murty.

With my thanks, regards and best wishes,

BR Mehta

Panchkula

Jaipur Court - CW'3471' of 2014 - LISTED ON 30/4/2014.‏

Date of query : 8/4/2014 Time : 11:02:32 AM 

CW'3471' of 2014 - R 6653/2014 

Petitioner : KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA 

Respondent: L I C OF INDIA 

Petitioner Advocate: ABHINAV SHARMA 

Respondent Advocate:  

Class Code : 0521 Registered on : 26/3/2014 

Bench : SB Stage : INCOMPLETE 

DATE GIVEN BY: PESHI CLERK DATE 

Date of Listing : 30/4/2014

Dear Friends,

I am obliged to everyone who is supporting the Mission Unity Plan, through their posts in the Blog, through private mails and calls. I am also, thankful to those who are offering valuable suggestions and indebted to those who are cautioning me on the inherent pitfalls in the way ahead.

I had valuable inputs from Dr Pritam Singh whom I met for over an hour this morning. I gained a lot by renewing my forty-year old contact with Shri S S Saxena. I am in touch with Shri Banda Ganga Raju and we agreed to meet shortly.

This interim report is to convey to all concerned that I am highly encouraged by the initial goodwill generated from every corner and what remains is to fine tune the plan in to specific step by step tasks to be achieved with well defined time lines.

Intend to seek audience and sit with some more of the key players starting with Chennai after ascertaining the convenience of veterans like Shri RB Kishore (to break the ice which he only can), Shri GN Sridharan & Team Chennai (to cover fresh ground and move forward) and get introduced to stalwarts like Shri K Natarajan, (who I am told, has strong reservations and obviously his own sound reasons, against the pursuit of litigation for pension) and many more stakeholders in down South.

A quick visit to Visakhapatnam is very much on the cards before April ends.

Wish to liaise soon with Mr Brijjit Singh & Team Chandigarh, resume contact with Mr Amritlal & his fellow members of Delhi area pretty soon.

Good ground needs to be covered by getting over formidable obstacles in putting in place an ACTION PLAN ACCEPTABLE TO ALL before the Supreme Court closes for vacation from 11th May. By the time it reopens on June 29, we would have covered huge ground.

Concurrent lobbying with the new Government is also a priority.

There is not a day to lose. Age is not on the side of many of LIC Pensioners.

Camp: New Delhi

Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla