Union Bank Retired Employees Association Bulletin

I : NEGOTIATIONS FOR 10TH B.P.SETTLEMENT When Office Bearers of United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) last met to the negotiating team of the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA), the management improved its offer from 10% to 11% of salary components. But UFBU asked for 25%. Owing to such a vast variance between the expectations of UFBU and the offer from IBA, the meeting ended in a deadlock. The representatives of UFBU thereafter met the Finance Minister, who said he would call for details from the Banking Division, Ministry of Finance and then form his views. No further round of discussions has taken place thereafter. UFBU has, therefore, decided to call on the Finance Minister again. It is understood that the Officers’ Organizations are firm not to accept less than 20.35% of the salary components. The rational put forward by them is that out of the total 17.5% financial load in 9th BP Settlement, the increase in salary slip components was 11%. In terms of amount, it was certain crores of rupees. Atleast if the same amount is allowed as increase in salary slip components, in terms of percentage, it comes to 20.35%. This is probably because of reduction in numerical strength of the Officers and vast scale retirement of the Officers drawing higher wages. On the other hand, Award Staff Unions consider the present offer of IBA as, by and large, reasonable. Amidst these controversies, negotiations on 10th Bipartite Settlements are likely to be delayed further. II : VISIT OF OUR GENERAL SECRETARY TO THE BANK’S CENTRAL OFFICE Our General Secretary had been to Mumbai for attending a Meeting of Office Bearers of All India Bank Retirees’ Federation. Simultaneously he visited the Bank’s Central Office also. Shri S.L.Joshi, Secretary of our Association and Shri R.K.Powar, General Secretary of our Maharashtra Association accompanied him. Certain individual issues were discussed by them with the Executives, outcome of which is communicated to the concerned members separately. Following two matters discussed there may be applicable to several members and hence mentioned in this Bulletin.

(a)  Gratuity on DA portion of FPP Fixed Personal Pay (FPP) consists of (i) Increment (ii) Dearness Allowance (DA) and (iii) House Rent Allowance. Out of these, Increment and DA portions are to be taken in to account for computing Gratuity. But, owing to discrepancy in the software for Gratuity, our Bank was ignoring the DA. Consequently several retirees have got Gratuity less by about Rs.1,400/-. Now, the Bank has rectified the software according to which the employees retired after 30 April, ’14 are paid correct Gratuity. Cases of those who retired prior to April,’14 will be considered by the Bank on getting representations from the individuals or collective information through their Associations. We shall take up such cases with the Bank provided copies of their (i) Salary Slip of last month prior to retirement and (ii) Work Sheet of Gratuity received from the Bank are furnished to our Association before the end of August, ’14. Ofcourse, those who have already received maximum Gratuity of Rs.3.5 lacs or 10 lacs (according to ceiling at the relevant time), they are not entitled for any further amount and hence need not send the particulars to the Association. (b)  Mentioning names of physically / mentally challenged children in PPO We know, there are few cases of our members whose children are handicapped / retarded physically or mentally. In such cases, after demise of the retiree and his / her spouse, the children are eligible for family pension during their entire life time. After repeated persuasions, now the Bank has agreed in principle to change format of the Pension Payment Orders (PPO) to specify names of such children also in the column of Family Pensioner. And till format of PPO is revised, representations, if any, received from the employees / pensioners will be acknowledged by the Bank. Ofcourse, it will be necessary to submit a Medical Certificate specifying that the particular child is physically / mentally incapacitated and unable to earn his / her livelihood. Such members are requested to write to our Association, so as to enable us to guide them further.

VII. ABSTRACTS  OF CIRCULAR   ISSUED BY AIBRF AFTER ITS  OFFICE BEARERS’ MEETING AT MUMBAI ON 16 & 17 JULY, ‘14 1.    The house expressed satisfaction on the progress made on two key demands of the retirees (i) 100 percent DA to pre-November 2002 retirees and (ii) improvements in family pension.  DA proposal has been sent by IBA to the government for final approval and IBA is inclined to consider improvement in family pension. a.     The meeting expressed full confidence in negotiated settlement to achieve retirees’ demands and shall continue to work in this direction in coordination with UFBU. Simultaneously AIBRF will draw independent action plan wherever necessary to protect interest of retirees. b.    The meeting had also resolved that the other key pending demands of the retirees, Up-dation of basic pension for past retirees, uniform medical benefits, pension option to leftover retirees are equally important and AIBRF shall continue to vigorously follow them for their achievement in the ensuing wage settlement. 2.    Based on the above analysis it was decided that we shall continue to follow up our issues with UFBU leadership. We shall contact and meet political leaders, IBA and ministry officials to pursue our issues. If required we shall organize agitation program in the coming days to meet our demands. OTHER ISSUES a.     The meeting appreciated the Joint appeal issued by three retiree organizations on retiree demands. However the house was of the view that while taking such steps in

future it should be ensured that AIBRF interest is fully protected and AIBRF should continue to work for strengthening UFBRO setup. b.    The house approved audited accounts for the year ended December, 2013 and constituted committee under convener ship of Shri B.G.Raithatha  to look into some financial aspects like capping in annual subscription payable by the affiliates, norms for levy etc. VIII : DEARNESS RELIEF (DR) ON PENSION There is an increase of 17 slabs in Dearness Relief to Pensioners. Therefore, pensioners retired during different periods mentioned hereunder will get DR on their BASIC PENSION at the following rates for next six months - from August, ’14 to January, ’15. (i) Pre-’86 retirees (1242 slabs over 600 points) Rs.350 + DR @ 832.14% (Rs.2,912)=Rs.3,262 (ii) Widows of pre-’86 retirees (1242 slabs over 600 points) Rs.175 + DR 832.14% (Rs.1,456) =Rs.1,631 (iii) Retired between 1.1.’86 to 31-10-’92  (1242 slabs over 600 points) Up to Rs.1,250 Rs.1,251 to 2,000 Rs.2,001 to 2,130 Above Rs.2,130 832.14% 683.10% 409.86% 211.14% (iv) Retired between 1.11.’92 to 31.3.’98 (1105 slabs over 1148 points) Up to Rs.2,400 Rs.2,401 to 3,850 Rs.3,851 to 4,100 Above Rs.4,100 386.75% 320.45% 187.85% 99.45% Retired between 1.4.’98 to 31.10.’02 971 slabs over 1684 points) Up to Rs.3,550 Rs.3,551 to 5,650 Rs.5,651 to 6,010 Above 6,010 233.04% 194.20% 116.52% 58.26% Retired between 1.11.’02 to 31.10.’07 820 slabs over 2288 points 147.60% on entire basic pension Retired after 1.11.’07 683 slabs over 2836 points 102.45% on entire basic pension

 EXTRACTS by R.B.KISHORE,VP,AIRIEF

5 lac hits, yet going great !

Part of LIC's history...
(Editor's interview with Prof. Ishwar Dayal published in 'Yogakshema' was 
reproduced in the Golden Jubilee special issue of 'Yogakshema' (3 pages).

Why you hit us so hard !

Here's the post we published on November 22, 2013 announcing 2 lac visits.
During the next 9 months, we received 3 lac more hits. We only ask:
why hit us so hard !

In amplification of the Dearness Relief Chart for the period 

August, 2014 to January, 2015.

100% neutralisation in DA/DR ; updation of pension 

- A case study for clarification 

__________________________________________________________________

Shri Ramanmurthy retired in February, 1997. Five- six months before August, 1997. His pension has not been updated along with revision of pay scales in 1997, 2002 and 2007. He being a pre August 1997 retiree / pensioner , he isn't yet entitled for full - 100 % neutralisation in dearness relief. The hundred percent neutralisation in DA/DR is (supposed to) to neutralise / to make ineffective the price rise, the cost of living, the inflation( ever increasing- exceptions like May to July 2014 quarter - reduced percentage of DA for serving employees - are very rare ). But, 100 % neutralisation in DA/DR alone does not compensate

we had a problem. A table sent to us failed to reach us with
the correct alignments.  Finally through Gmail we could get
the same when Geeta Saboo commented as above.

the (real) cost of living in the disproportionately high anomaly, disparity in the basic pension of a retiree, it works well only when periodic updating of pension takes place.

Shri Ramanmurthy's commuted pension has been restored in 2012. His basic pension is Rs.3557/-.

The rate of percentage of DR for Feb. 2014 to July 2014 was 380.80 % when the number slabs were 1088. If and when he (and all others retired on or before 31 st July, 1997 ) gets 100 % neutralisation, he would get the advantage of full 380.80 % DR on his basic. 

As he gets DR on reducing percentage basis ( In short : for those retired between 01-08-1992 and 31-07-1997 : up to Basic Rs.2400/- : 380.80 %; Between Rs.2401/- to Rs.3850 /- : Rs.9139.20 + 315.52%....) .DR eligibility has been therefore, pegged to Dearness Relief Factor for easy assimilation. In his case, it is 11.7553 per slab (of increase / decrease). There has been 17 slabs increase. Total : 1105 (1008 + 17). Shri Ramanmurthy's DR for August 2014 would be 1105 x 11.7553 = Rs.12989.61 plus basic pension - Rs 3557.00. His total pension will be Rs.16546.61. Had there been 100 % neutralisation, he would have drawn Rs.17313/- ( Rs.3557.00 + Rs.13756.69 DR @ 386.75 % on Rs.3557/- A meagre benefit/ increase of Rs.767.08 ! Khiss khushikeliye : not withstanding the saying that something is better than nothing. No, no compromise : mere ( maska ) of 100 % DR neutralisation does not meet the end justice.

Shri Ramanmurthy may see once again the Pension Anomaly Chart by Shri C.H. Mahadevan posted in LICPC on 31-07-2014. Come next September, Shri Ramanmurthy should get a total pension of about Rs.25313/- - and not Rs.17313/-, a paltry increase of Rs767.08 as stated above.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

Really informative and useful

Dear Shri Gangadharan,


Your response and further elaborate information 

from others on pension particulars of Development 

Officers are really informative and useful.

With regards,
S.Ananthamurthy.

To whom it may concern

A 85 year old had a triple Bypass surgery. He comes back to the Doctor

saying that his wife is afraid to share his bed as it would hurt him.The 

Doctor assured the old chap that he is in fine fettle, that sex cannot possibly 

hurt him. Delighted the patient asks the Doctor to put it in writing.The 

Doctor happily agreed and scribbles furiously for a moment which read as :-

Dear MRS Smith,
Your husband is in remarkable physical condition. 
He has a heart as strong as an Olympic athlete. 
I would not be surprised if he could make love 
three to four times a single evening.

Yours sincerely

The old man was delighted but he asks the Doctor for a slight amendment.

"Doctor could you please cross out MRS Smith and make it 

To whom it may concern.

Courtesy: R.K.Viswanathan

AIBRF Circular

Dear Sir

                  PENSION UPDATION OF PAST RETIREES:

                  ANALYSIS OF RELATED ISSUES

As you are aware that AIBRF has identified three major pension related issues for resolution in the 10^th wage settlement. They are (a) Uniform DA to all pensioners (b) Improvement in family pension on the lines of RBI (c) Updation of basic pension. Accordingly, we have been working for last 3 years to achieve them.

2.  We are happy to inform you that in the meeting held on 14^th March, 2014 , UFBU had raised all the above three issues for discussion and negotiation and IBA has agreed to discuss them for solution. On the basis of communication issued by UFBU after the meeting and oral feedback received, IBA is ready to consider demand no 1 & 2 on priority basis and will also examine demand of  pension updation for past retirees keeping in mind the cost factor. We have already submitted detailed note on DA related issues vide our circular no 2014/10 dated 10.02.14.   We below give some vital points/ facts related to the pension

updation issue for your information and suggestions if  any from your side on the subject.

WHAT IS PENSION UPDATION

There are three components in the pension scheme applicable to bank retirees (a) Basic Pension (b) Dearness Allowance (c) One- time payment of commutation on optional basis.

Updation exercise is related to component no (a) i.e. BASIC PENSION. It is universal practice that while reviewing pay and allowances of the employee the first and foremost exercise carried out is RE-SETTING OF THE BASIC PAY  according to the movement of inflation in the intervening period , business growth of the employer and general economic environment of the country.

The similar exercise need to be carried out periodically in the case of pensioners too as pension is nothing but deferred salary payable after the retirement. The basic pension needs to be re-set in tune with the increase given to the employees in the basic pay in the wage settlement.

Government of India has been doing exercise of updation of basic pension for its past retirees in each pay commission since 5^th Pay Commission in view of the historical decision of the constitutional bench of Supreme Court in famous case of NAKARA V/S UNION OF INDIA. 

The another important point to be noted is that whenever we talk of pension updation it necessarily relates to the past retirees. As far as employees are concerned their basic pension gets automatically updated with each wage settlement and with each increase on basic pay.

Pension updation is nothing but to realign the basic pension of the past retirees with the basic pension of future retirees. It should not happen that two members of the pension funds holding similar positions in the organisation  are discriminated  in fixation of the basic pension on the basis of their date of birth and date of retirement.

Prof. Ishwar Dayal, MG Diwan, AR Menon, BR Sethi, NN Joshi, MR Murali and MS Natarajan, M.Com, LL.B.,FFII

We are today crossing 5 lac page views. Though it took nearly two-and-half years to reach this coveted point of our humble existence, there is also yet another fact worth mentioning here - our pages are viewed by approximately 5 lac visitors in an year now, since monthly visit to Chronicle pages has reached an average of  40,000 visits. Readership improves day by day. There is also additional viewership through Google+. Officially, as per Google+ published statistics, it runs to several lacs. 

Looking back, I would proudly say that I am basically an OIC product. In that sense, I owe my career to Prof. Ishwar Dayal.  I met the Professor at Taj Coromandal, Chennai.The interview was published in Yogakshema and also in the Special Issue published in connection with LIC's Golden Jubilee celebrations. Shri AR Menon was the person behind all my initial successes. Shri Menon who was SDM, Varanasi and later Mysore, though promoted as ZM, quit LIC without joining that post.  Shri MG Diwan, Shri BR Sethi, Shri NN Joshi, Shri MR Murali and a number of other dignitaries also encouraged and helped me. I remember all of them with gratitude... 

Thank you friends for the support and encouragement given to me always.  Please note, no congratulatory messages need be sent to us. 

MS Natarajan, M.Com.,LL.B.,FFII

a person wearing ID card.

PS. I also remember one Shri M.S. Natarajan, who often used to say there're a few letters after his name. I believe he was M.Com.,LL.B.,FFII. He wore an Identity card and never insisted others to wear it for obvious reasons. He perhaps belongs to Thanjavur.  He was Chief (Mktg) and I believe he retired from LIC as ED (Mktg). Once Shri MG Diwan called Shri Natarajan to the Chairman's Conference Hall.  I hope I will be able to share the story about Shri Natarajan as the next chapter of my autobiography "MY LIC DAYS".

SN (a 1992 Pensioner)

REG SHRI ANANTHAMURTHY'S QUERY 

The rate of Dearness Relief on Pension for the period August 2014 to January 2015 be worked out as under :

   [ ( a ) Shri S. Ananthamurthy may work out increase in the dearness relief for Aug.2014 to Jan. 2015 .

( b ) The maximum basic pension of Development Officers with 33 years service is Rs.16113/-. The pension including DR  is Rs.31967/- as of Aug.2014.( Cf. Pension Anomaly Chart for Development Officers posted in LICPC on 02-08-2014 ). Shri Ananthamurthy may work out his entitlement. ]

Hyderabad split

I am a little disturbed about the development of Hyderabad Unit of LIC Class I officers Association to move away from the Federation of Class I Officers.The development coming up when the SC hearing is so close appears to be serious and alarming.

To form an informed opinion on this issue it is  desirable for all of us to  know what is GNS IA No.3? So also about the grounds of Asthana's intervention in the Delhi HC matter and also why Mr Asthana is seeking to intervene in Chandigarh contempt case? Will someone who is in know of these matters can enlighten your readers.

And the cartoon for  the article Confluence of Law Schools is a parody as they are not flowing together but are meeting at a place.

T SAMPATH IYENGAR

BANGALORE

Strongly rumoured

OROP under consideration, says MOS

It is strongly rumoured in certain circles in Mumbai that Shri Narendra Modi, the PM has instructed the MOD etc.that the GOI Notifications/ Orders regarding implementation of OROP to defence pensioners and few other matters should be issued within few days. He is committed to his election manifesto and has an obligation to fulfil. He wants to announce in his first independence speech as the PM on the 15 th August, 2014 all the best that he has done since assuming office two and a half months back.
Let us wait and see whether the OROP to defence pensioners is granted by official gazette notification in the next 10 /12 days and whether it is in the real sense of OROP.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

Is it wrong number ?

A quip by a reader

CH Mahadevan has given details reg. pension anomaly for Dev. Officers. 
DO's max.pension : Rs.1940 in 1992, Rs.6150 in 1997, Rs 10090 in 2002 & Rs.16113 
in 2007.
AAO's max.pension: Rs.2130 in 1992, Rs.7008 in 1997, Rs.10455 in 2002 & Rs.16320 in 2007

DOs have better dealing capacity with general public, all classes of people.In a way,theyare back bone of the industry. They have better bargaining capacity too! 

OROP under consideration, says MoS 

Tribune News Service 

New Delhi, August 1
The ‘one-rank one-pension’ (OROP) formula for retired soldiers is under consideration,
Minister of State for Defence Rao Inderjit Singh informed the Lok Sabha today.
In a written reply to Maj Gen BC Khanduri (Retd.) in the Lok Sabha, Rao assured that
the principle of ‘one-rank one-pension’ for the armed forces had been accepted by the
government.
He said the modalities for implementation were discussed with various stakeholders.
“It will be implemented once the modalities are approved by the government,” he said.
On July 30, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement had wrote a letter to the Defence
Minister and also chiefs of the three services saying the delay in implementing the
OROP was a cause concern.A copy of the letter was also sent to newly appointed BJP
president Amit Shah."

(Courtesy: RK Sahni)

LIC Class I Officers Association,Hyderabad being legally split on legal issues

Retired LIC Class I Officers Association, Hyderabad is likely to disaffiliate the Association from the Federation and to merge with the new Association being registered so as to lend all legal support to intervene in the Supreme Court if the Minutes of the Special meeting of the Executive Committee of RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD  (Affiliated to the Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers’ Associations) held at Athithi Inn on 14 July 2014 is any indication.  The minutes of the meeting are as follow:-

1. This urgent special meeting was called at the request of Sri M Sreenivasa Murty, member of the EC. Mr Murty, who has been interacting with Sri GN Sridharan, General Secretary of the Federation and other leaders & activists, desired to apprise the EC and the available senior members of the Association about his efforts to coordinate the on-going litigation before the Supreme Court and various High Courts. The meeting was also convened to take appropriate decisions on the next steps, after hearing him and after all the issues are thoroughly discussed in the EC and after obtaining the opinion and advice of the special invitees.

2. The meeting was very well attended. Sri C H Mahadevan, President of the Association presided and explained to the members present, the background and the purpose of the urgent meeting. He brought to the notice of the members that as a member of the EC of the Federation, he responded to various communications received from the General Secretary from time to time with particular reference to the Federation General Secretary’s Circular dated 4th June 2014 and how General Secretary appeared to be bent upon pursuing his own plan of action in the Supreme Court without subjecting the same to any worthwhile review. He also informed the EC about the conference call he and Mr Murty had with Sri SK Kapahi, the President of the Federation, on the evening of 12th July 2014. Mr Mahadevan also reported to the EC that during the fairly long call with Mr Kapahi, the latter was fully briefed about our serious concerns on how the General Secretary is pursuing his moves before the Supreme Court and how when all our efforts to persuade him to look at the other options fail, we may be constrained to protect the interests of our members by supporting those who are intervening in the SC. On being told that we may have to register our Association and convene an Extraordinary General Body Meeting to revive the proposal for disaffiliation, Sri Kapahi seriously requested us to keep on hold, all our further moves in
that direction with an assurance that he understands the seriousness of the situation and he will immediately take up the matter with General Secretary and revert to us. With these introductory remarks, Mr Mahadevan requested Sri Sreenivasa Murty, to share information with the EC on his recent efforts and their outcome.

3. Sri Murty explained in detail, the gist of his personal discussions with Sri GN Sridharan, General Secretary and other activists of the Federation on 3rd and 4th July 2014, in Chennai. He also referred to his interaction with different people (including Dr Pritam Singh) between 10th and 12th July in Delhi. The thrust of Sri Murty’s elaborate exercise is that the manner in which Sri G N Sridharan is pursuing his legal steps and his declared strategy are not in the interests of LIC pensioners, not even in the best interests of the pre- August 1997 retirees, contrary to his professed claims. In the circumstances Sri Murty feels
that the EC may have to take a view and decide on the steps to be taken to play a proactive role to protect the interests of all its members.

4. There was extensive, free and frank discussion with wide participation. All the office bearers, EC members and the special invitees present agreed with the opinion and assessment of the overall situation as presented by Sri Murty. Various urgent possible steps and their implications were discussed in depth, keeping in view the procedures involved and the legalities of the same. At the end, EC TOOK NOTE of the following:

1. Sri Sreenivasa Murty thinks that unless the General Secretary withdraws or suitably modifies his Interim Application dated 3rd March 2014 before the SC it will be necessary to suitably oppose it ourselves.
2. The only way to oppose the IA is to intervene in the Supreme Court ourselves and take to the SC’s notice that the prayer in IA No 3 is not acceptable to a majority of the members of the Federation.
3. In order to intervene, there should be a duly registered Association of members with common interests.
4. Sri Murty reported that he is ready and is making arrangements to facilitate registering such an Association, at Hyderabad immediately. He will be doing so on his own, after resigning his EC Membership of the Hyderabad Association. He suggested that the EC of the Hyderabad Unit of the Federation, in its meeting today may take a view and decide on how it proposes to go about, in the given circumstances.
5. In the above background, it has been unanimously resolved as follows:

1. EC and the special invitees present fully appreciate and agree with the analysis of Sri Murty and record their firm resolve to take all appropriate steps to protect the interests of all its members.
2 The Association shall immediately issue Notice and call for an Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association and obtain necessary mandate of the General Body on how to move forward, including, if necessary and if so decided, to disaffiliate the Association from the Federation and to merge with the new Association being registered so as to lend all legal support to intervene in the Supreme Court.
3. Our Association will keep the Federation’s Office Bearers and the EC members fully
informed from time to time, of the developments and action being taken by this Association
and some of its active members.
4. Secretary is requested to issue Notice immediately and convene the Extra Ordinary General Body Meeting at the earliest possible date providing the required notice of 15 days to members to transact the following items on the agenda:

The stage is finally set and SRI SRI SCHOOL
HYDERABAD is ready to move to Delhi.

AGENDA

1. To review the latest developments in the Federation as discussed by the EC in its special Meeting on 14th July 2014
2. To discuss and take decisions on the following:

A) To discuss and decide whether Our Association should disaffiliate itself from the Federation of Retired LIC Class I officers’ Associations, and
B) To decide on merging the Association with the new Association being formed and registered by some retired Class I Officers.
3. Any other matter with the permission of the Chair.

Pension Anomaly chart for Development Officers

Referring to the post in Pensioners' Chronicle by Mr S.N., I did not prepare the anomaly chart for retired DOs because their wage revision dates were different from other classes and the DR formula applicable to them was required to be looked into as per the latest amended pension rules.
Their wage revisions took place on 1/4/1984, 1/4/1988, 1/4/1995, 1/8/1997, 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007.
I am attaching a chart prepared for the cadre which you may upload in PC .


Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan 

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Dear Mr Vimal Chand,

Ref. : Circular No.11 dated July 31, 2014.

The official spelling of the name of my state should have been' Keralam  ' केरळम्' and not 'Kerala' 'केरला' (as has been mistakenly opted for by some ignorant politician or bureaucrat) to be further shortened and made a mockery of by those who aren't aware of the factual position into 'Keral ''केरळ', hearing which every time I wince.

The capital of Keralam is Thiruvananthapuram तिरुवनन्तपुरम which was anglicized into Trivandrum ट्रिवानड्रम  to be further made bizarre as Trivendrum त्रिवेन्द्रम by those who aren't able to differentiate between 'आ' and 'ए'.

Please write Keralam  ' केरळम्'  and Thiruvananthapuram 'तिरुवनन्तपुरम'.

Regards.

P. Ramanathan.

Worthy of compliments

The Pension Anomaly Statements by Shri. C.H.Mahadevan posted by the Editor on 

31-07-2014 are very much revealing. The anomalies, the disparities in the pension drawn by the pensioners retired on different pay scales are so much glaring that it is incredible that the GOI and LIC are not ready to accept, to acknowledge the reality. The chart/statements could be submitted as exhibits in the Courts. The exhibits, the statements may serve
as eye opener.
An exhaustive exercise, enormous job by Shri. Mahadevan is worthy of compliments. He has not given pension anomaly details regarding the Development Officer's category.
As per pay scales effective from 01-08-2007, the pension of a Development Officer at the maximum of pay scale is Rs.14433/- ( as per records available with me ). It was Rs.1940/- pension at the maximum for those retired prior to August 1992. S. Ananthamurthy's
pension, by coincidence, has been fixed at Rs.1764/- ( 3880 - maximum pay x 30 years service /33 years= 3528/2=1764 ). As per 2007 pay scale, the pension of a Development Officer at the maximum from August 2014 works out to Rs.28636/- [Rs.14433/- + Rs.14203/-(DR @ 98.40%)].
Had there been updation of pension and 100% DA/DR neutralisation,Shri Ananthamurthy's pension for August 2014, approximately, be Rs.26032/- [Rs.14433 x30 / 33 = Rs.13121+ Rs.12911/- ( DR @ 98.40%].

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

                            

CLIMB MOUNT EVEREST !

IF UR WORRY IS, HOW YOU WILL CLIMB MOUNT EVEREST, WE WILL SHOW YOU THE WAY... JUST CLICK THE LINK:http://everestavalanchetragedy.com/mt-everest-journey.html

(Courtesy: Sampath Iyengar)

MC JAIN vs LIC OF INDIA judgment and implications

Dear Mr Krishna Rao,

I do not think that this judgment will help us to get stage to stage fixation of pension. This judgment only provides relief to 92-93 Class I retirees by way of correct fixation of pension w.e.f 1/11/1993 besides revision of salary w.e.f 1/8/1992 which they were denied at the first instance.
Stage to stage fixation of pension can only be achieved if the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order of 12/1/2010 is implemented by LIC which has been reinforced by Chandigarh HC judgment specifying upgradation on 1/8/2002 and ordering interest payment @ 12% p.a.
But according to me, once the judgment in the M C Jain case is implemented by LIC, by wider implication, Class I Officers retired after 1/4/1993 will also have to be given the benefit of revision of salary w.e.f 1/8/1992 instead of the actual effective date 1/4/1993 and pay arrears of salary for 8 months with consequential benefit of PF.

Let us wait and see what LIC does in the matter.

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

MC JAIN vs LIC OF INDIA - Judgment published for information of readers

SIR, 

IN MY OPINION THIS JUDGEMENT MAY BE USEFUL 
TO A LARGER EXTENT 

TO HAVE STAGE TO STAGE

WITH REGARDS, 

L S R KRISHNA RAO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER

IN

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1492/2012

With

Stay Application No.15341/2012

 Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mahesh Chand Jain

 Date of Order ::: 17.12.2012

 Present

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mrs. Meena V. Gomber

 Shri O.P. Gandhi for

Shri Rajendra Arora, Counsel for appellant

####

 //Reportable//

 By the Court:-

This appeal has been preferred by Life Insurance Corporation of India (for short, 'the LIC') against judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.09.2012 in Writ Petition No.1454/2009 filed by Mahesh Chandra Jain (respondent herein). In the writ petition, he firstly prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to give benefit of Rule 27 of the L.I.C. Of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 (for short, 'the Rules of 1995') to the extent it falls short of 33 years of qualifying service and determine the pension on full basic pay as come to be fixed under the revised pay scales; secondly, he prayed that respondents be directed to fix his basic pay in revised pay scale of Zonal Manager at Rs.11,750/- as effective from 01.08.1992 and after giving benefit of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1995, pay pension at 50% of Rs.11,750/- with commensurate dearness relief as payable on such amount from time to time. While first prayer of Mahesh Chand Jain was rejected by learned Single Judge, his second prayer was allowed and thus the writ petition was partly allowed. It is against that direction that present special appeal has been preferred by the LIC.

Learned counsel for appellant has argued that respondent was not entitled to benefit of revised pay scale in term of proviso to Rule 2 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 1996, (hereinafter shall be referred to 'the Rules of 1996'). No direction can be issued for payment of arrears to him for the period from 01.08.1992 to 31.03.1993 because the respondent already stood retired from service on 31.03.1993 and therefore he could not be held entitled to arrears of pay revision prior to that date. Learned counsel referred to notification dated 18.07.1996 issued by the Chairman of the LIC of India. The Chairman issued such direction on 19.07.1996 providing for the method of fixation of scale of pay and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. He argued that effective dates for revision of different components of wage were fixed as per aforementioned notification of Government of India. It was contended that since Mahesh Chand Jain retired prior to issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996, he could not be granted benefit of pay revision  particularly the basic pay and dearness allowance with was given with effect from 01.04.1993, wheres the respondent retired on 31.01.1993. Since he was not granted benefit of revision of pay, there does not arise any question for fixing him in revised pay scale as pension has to be calculated on the basis of actually drawn pay during last ten months of service. Learned counsel argued that the Chairman has power under Rule 51 of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 to issue instructions with regard to adoption of method of fixation of scale of pay in new scale of pay, according to which his components of basic pay and dearness allowance was to be taken with effect from 01.04.1993, whereas HRA, CCA and Hill Allowance with effect from 01.08.1993, Gratuity, Conveyance Allowance with effect from 01.08.1994 and Computer Increment with effect from 01.11.1993. In terms of Rule 3 of the said Rules, the employees, who were in service of the Corporation on or after 01.01.1986 but had retired before 01.11.1993, after exercise of an option in writing, were allowed pension with effect from 01.11.1993 subject to refund of Corporation's Contribution to Provident Fund with accrued interest with a further simple interest. In terms of Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995, basic pension shall be calculated at 50% of the average emoluments of last ten months. Pension was therefore to be calculated on actually drawn pay and not on notional pay.

We have given our anxious consideration to submissions made by learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment.

In so far as first prayer in writ petition is concerned, learned Single Judge in impugned judgment has referred to and reproduced clause 2 of said notification dated 18.07.1996, which extended benefit of revised pay scale to employees with effect from 01.08.1992. We reproduce that part of Clause 2 of the Notification, which reads as under:-

“Save as otherwise provided hereinafter, the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the 01st day of August, 1992:

Provided that where any Class I officer gives a notice in writing to the Corporation, within thirty days of the publication of these rules in the official Gazette, expressing his option to be governed by the provisions of any of these rules from a date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force, then the Corporation may be order/permit such officer to be governed by the said rule with effect from the said date:

Provided further that no such option may be exercised by a Class I officer in respect of rule 9A of these rules:

Provided also that no arrears for the period prior to the date so chosen shall be payable to such officer.”

Aforesaid clause of notification dated 18.07.1996 clearly indicates that the provisions of said Rules came into effect from 01.08.1992, the date on which respondent Mahesh Chand Jain was very much in service. However, an option was given to Class I officers to give a notice in writing within thirty days of the publication of the said Rules expressing there willingness to be governed by the provisions of any clause of these rules from the date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force. This means that a given officer could opt to be governed by the benefit of pay scales from the date later than 01st August, 1992. If what the appellant is contending is accepted, this would mean that even a Class I officer, who could not otherwise exercise the option because he stood retired when the said notification was issued, then he would not get benefit of revision of pay with effect from 01.08.1992 on which date the revised pay scale rules came into force, even though he was physically in service on that day. 

There is no exception made in the Rules that such benefit would not be admissible to those Class I officers who were actually in service between the date the aforesaid Rules came into force i.e. 01.081.992 and the date of issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996. Their retirement in between was a fortuitous circumstance. Non-grant of such similar benefit to him, would be  wholly discriminatory because his co-employees who have yet not retired and continued in service, shall be granted benefit of revision of pay even for the period such retired employees like the respondent, were actually working with them.

Contention that pension has to be computed as per Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995 on the basis of last pay actually drawn during the period of ten months preceding the date of retirement and not on the basis of notional pay, is noted to be rejected only because once adoption of revision of pay scale rules is made with effect from 01.08.1992, the respondent became entitled to benefit of revised pay scale. It would then be taken to be his actual pay and not the notional pay because he was actually working during that period and all his co-employees were also paid the enhanced revised pay. Action of the appellant LIC in refusing such benefit to the respondent only because he has retired between the aforesaid two dates, indeed was wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Rule 35 of the Rules of 1995 does not create any bar for treating the revised pay pursuant to enforcement of revision of pay scale rules from anterior date if the date on which such rules are made effective, the employee was actually in service. The Supreme Court in Union of India and Another Vs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others – (2008) 9 SCC 125, in identical circumstances held the action of the Union of India in treating  such officers who retired as Major General prior to 01.01.1996 and those who retired after 01.01.1996 dissimilarly by making them payment of different amount of pension, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, and held that it would otherwise cause violence to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our considered view, if what is contended by the appellant is upheld, that would amount to treating equals unequally and would be discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not therefore find any infirmity in the judgment of  learned Single Judge.

The appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of special appeal, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.

(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.    (Mohammad Rafiq) J.

Let us wait for SC decision

Sri. Gangadharan,

I am from Hospet (Bellary Dist.) retired on 31st Oct.1992 as Dev.Officer. At the time of my retirement my basic pay was Rs.3880. Since my service was only 30 years my basic pension was fixed at Rs.1764. Of course for the same basic pension of  Rs.1764 DA is calculated and now I am getting total amount of Rs.15486.

I was  a founder member of South Zone alongwith Sri. N.S.Murthy and others. I was active till 2001 and actively participated in all activities. Now, of course, all Associations merged and called All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation. I am regularly getting 'Varista Vani' for which  l am a life member. l have also, to a little extent, helped form a new unit under Raichur Dn.

Many of my friends enquired about calculation of DA as when DA slab changes and also about the total amount of pension likely to arrive per month when the High Court of Jaipur is upheld. you may please give a rough idea on this. Probably we may meet in Bangalore at the time of General Council Meet  to be held during this October. SORRY for this trouble in the midst of your sending e-mail regularly covering.

With warm sravana greetings,

S.ANANTHAMURTHY.

but he looks more like a Federation or
Class I Federation guy...

(thank you for your mail. i am not good at calculations myself, and it may not be advisable to refer the matter to somebody since it is too early to make calculations based on jaipur high court judgment. supreme court is seized of the matter and we do not know what is going to be the judgment. my feeling is that the demand for 100% neutralisation is justifiable and no body can deny the same. upgradation too we may achieve. that's all that i can say at the moment. let us wait for a supreme court order in this matter.

2. as for attending the bangalore conference, i will not be coming over there since i am not a federation member. attending the conference as a journalist is a different matter.  i belong to aiipa. my union affiliation and blog are different matters. i keep the blog as a vehicle for carrying all views so that people at least know different view points. the editor is a AIIPA member and proudly so, and there is no hiding of this matter. thank you. keep in touch.

3. Shri Ananthamurthy's mail since forwarded to Shri RK Sahni. He may like to clarify. Ed.)

Senior pensioners leaving us without getting justice‏

Shri Mehta's mail on the captioned subject makes a heart-rending reading. It is really very unfortunate that those valiant fighters who wanted to fight against the injustice perpetrated on the LIC Pensioners at large by LIC ably abetted by the GOI/MOF are no more in this world.

The LIC who has chosen a lofty Sanskrit slogam YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAAMYAHAM from the Holy Geetha for their Emblem does NOT LIVE UPTO TO THE SAME and keeps it only for the name-sake. It is high time that they REMOVE THIS SLOGAM from their Emblem and declare their true colour.

J.M. ABOOBUCKER