Sampath Iyengar's query

Dear Mr Gangadharan,

Referring to the post of Mr T Sampath Iyengar, I attach the Annexures C & D of draft letters to be addressed by Class I Officers retired on or after 1/4/1993 and their family pensioners (where 
applicable) respectively.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

Please click on 'read more' for the draft letters.

Minutes of the 5th Grievances Redressal Cell Meeting on 09.08.2014
We furnish overleaf for your information the text of the Minutes of the 5th
Grievances Redressal Cell Meeting held at Bengaluru on 9th August 2014. Minutes
are self explanatory.
One of the important challenges retirees face in general is age-related ailments. It
has been our considered view that retired employees of our bank are to be
adequately covered by medical insurance, even if contributory in nature. While we
find that there is forward movement in our bank with regard to Group Mediclaim
Insurance (Floater) Policy for the benefit of retirees, we need to pursue the same
with appropriate authorities in the days to come.
We are happy that as a sequel to our discussion in the Grievances Redressal Cell
Meeting, quite a good number of individual grievances, more particularly, those
falling under the jurisdiction of recently formed Circle Offices were resolved
satisfactorily. Our retired colleagues will please note that some of our pending
demands have been referred to the respective functional wings for their views so
as to enable the administration to take decisions. Many of our pending demands
and appeals are justified from our point of view. Nevertheless, the approach of
the management to the longstanding grievances of retirees such as, Death Relief,
Festival Advance etc. needs more positive and benevolent orientation for
effectively addressing these concerns.
Friends! at the industry level, in course of time, core demands of pensioners such
as Pension Updation, 100% Neutralisation of DR, Improvement in Family Pension,
another pension option to compulsorily retired and resigned employees who were
denied the same earlier, Uniform Hospitalisation Scheme to retirees etc., are likely
to be achieved and in our Bank, we shall continue to strive for making the best of
the rest of our lives a reality.

With Greetings,

Yours Sincerely,

(S.V.Srinivasan)

General Secretary

Please click on 'read more' to read minutes.

"I am a teetotaller but even I see no logic ...how do you distinguish here?"‏

 "Pay the amount due to the employees"

This one sentence in the order of the Supreme Court of India to L I C of India in the case relating to pre-01/08/1997 LIC pensioners has stuck in my throat.

Ever since then the highest court in the land, the repository of distilled wisdom, has helped enliven many a tedious hour of mine with its pronouncements/orbiter dicta/whatever and one such gem appears in column No.1 on the front page of today (Thurs., SEP 11, 2014)'s "The Hindu" :

    

 "No logic in Kerala bar closure : SC

      Krishnadas Rajagopal

     NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the logic behind the Kerala Government's new liquor policy under which 730 bars are being shut down while letting those in five-star hotels function.

     "There is no logic. What do you mean by substandard [ a reference to 418 bars closed earlier as the government found them substandard]? I am a teetotaller but even I see no logic ...how do you distinguish here?" Justice Anil R.Dave said. ............."

(Emphasis supplied --- P.Ramanathan)

     I understand Justice Anil to mean that if he were not a teetotaller and were a tippler instead, it would have been possible for him to see the logic.

     Howzzat?! 

(P Ramanathan)

Difference in salary from 8/92 to 3/93‏

When the S C judgement turned out to be favourable there were comments that the principle enunciated therein covers all those who were in service during that period. I retired in June 1994 and the fixation of that particular wage settlement saw different dates for salary fixation and gratuity payment to Class I officers etc. 

While the differential date of effect of gratuity was rectified by SC and paid to all affected Cl 1 officers the different date for salary fixation to Cl. 1 was not taken up. Since there was glaring difference in pension of Class 1 officers retired during this period Mr. Jain filed a case and won. The principle appears to be that there cannot be a different dates of implementation of salary fixation between classes of employees, it would be applicable to all class I officers, whether they retired during this period are died on other dates.

My point is Mr Mahadevan's draft excludes those who were in service at that interval and surviving now. Does it mean that that those who are living are not entitled for this benefit.

T SAMPATH IYENGAR
BANGALORE

Missing files no excuse for denying info: CIC

New Delhi, September 2
Public authorities cannot take excuse of “missing files” for denying information under the RTI Act as such claims have no legality under the transparency law for withholding records, the Central Information Commission has held.

“Unless proved the record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by the public authority,” Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said in his order.

The case came before the CIC after one Om Prakash sought to know information from the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Government regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of his land acquired by the government.

The department admitted before the commission that the relevant file was missing and it could not be traced even though the officers personally inspected room of the department after receiving the RTI application.

The official representing the department said there was no possibility of retrieving the missing record.

In a terse order, the commissioner said loss of records that were required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, should invite criminal complaint against officials under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to seriousness of offence charged from seven to 10 years and for life.)

“Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it is not recognised as exception by the RTI Act. By practice “missing file” cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. PTI"

(RK Sahni)

Amutha Surabhimm

MC Jain case judgment implementation‏

Although the Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the above case more than two months ago,there is no report of the implementation of the judgment by LIC so far.

I have drafted letters to be addressed to Chairman, LIC, as follows :

ANNEXURE A:
Letter to be addressed by pensioners similarly placed as Mr M C
Jain( having retired as Class I Officers between 1st August 1992 and
31st March 1993) to LIC Chairman.

ANNEXURE B1
Letter to be addressed by family pensioners of the above category
where death of the regular pensioner occurred on or after 1/11/1993
to LIC Chairman.


ANNEXURE B2
Letter to be addressed by family pensioners of the above category
where death of the regular pensioner occurred before 1/11/1993 to LIC
Chairman.

When such letters are sent in good number,LIC management can be expected to consider the matter seriously. If no response is forthcoming to these letters,the above three categories of pensioners can undertake concerted legal action.

Pensioners/family pensioners who address letters as per draft attached may kindly be advised to furnish their particulars with SR no,Pension file,Name of pensioner,date of retirement, Designation at the time of retirement, office disbursing pension etc so that further guidance can be given in case any legal action is required to be resorted to.Mr Sreenivasa Murty and myself are discussing modalities of helping this category of pensioners if the need for legal action arises.

My contact email ID is:

chmahadevan@rediffmail.com 

I hope you will find it convenient to upload the draft letters and this message for the benefit of such pensioners in LIC Pensioners' Chronicle blog.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

Please click on 'Read more' below for the annexures. Download facility could not be arranged due to blog limitations.

GN Sridharan's Kozhikode visit

It was home coming for GN Sridharan who visited Kozhikode and met selected friends on 7th and 8th September 2014.  Shri Sridharan has worked in Kozhikode for a period of over 3 years in the Eighties.
He met the Editor, LIC Pensioners Chronicle
at LIC Guest House here.

Pre 1997 pensioners lot‏

                          JM ABOOBUCKER

Pension option to Compulsorily Retired Employees

You are aware that during the year 2010, when another option for pension was 
extended to past retirees who missed the same earlier, such an option was 
denied to those employees who were compulsorily retired from the bank’s service. 
Aggrieved by the denial of pension option, such compulsorily retired employees 
belonging to Canara Bank joined together and filed Writ Petitions in Karnataka 
High Court and also in Madras High Court as a last resort. Similarly, compulsorily 
retired employees from Andhra Bank had sought judicial remedy by filing Writ 
Petitions before Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

While Writ Petitions of Canara Bank retirees are still pending before the respective 
High Courts in different stages, retirees from Andhra Bank succeeded in their 
efforts for getting pension option at the level of Honorable Andhra Pradesh High 
Court. However, against these judgments, the management of Andhra Bank filed 
Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court Viz: {SLP(C) No. 35389/2013 
Andhra Bank & Ors. Vs Y.Shivaji & another SLP (C) No.35449/2013 Andhra Bank 
& Others Vs Sreeram Murthy} against the order of Division Bench of Andhra 
Pradesh High Court allowing Pension to Compulsorily Retired Employees. 

We are happy to inform that upon hearing the matter in the Supreme Court on 
05.09.2014, Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya & Hon’ble Mr.Justice Prafulla 
Chandra Pant passed an Order dismissing above SLPs filed by the Andhra Bank 
management. As a sequel to this order of the Apex Court, all compulsorily retired 
bank employees will be eligible for another pension option which was denied 
earlier. 

While we heartily congratulate such compulsorily retired Andhra Bank retirees for 
their perseverance in seeking justice, we have requested our National 
Organisation, All India Bank Retirees’ Federation (AIBRF) to take up the matter 
with appropriate authorities organisationally for extending pension option to all 
the compulsorily retired employees of all the banks. We will keep you informed of 
further developments in this regard in due course. With Greetings, 

 Yours Sincerely

ALL INDIA CANARA BANK RETIREES’ FEDERATION 

WE HAVE TO WAIT - CIVIL APPEALS OF LIC IN SUPREME COURT.‏

FRIENDS,

ANXIETY, GRAVE CONCERN, FEAR, HOPE ETC. ARE SOME OF THE FACTS THAT ARE LIT LARGE ON THE FACE OF MAJORITY OF LIC PENSIONERS. THE REASON IS ONLY ONE - ABNORMAL DELAY IN SETTLEMENT/ ACCEPTANCE OF THE LEGALLY HELD VALID DEMANDS OF UPDATION OF PENSION AND REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALY.

WHOM TO BLAME OR HOLD RESPONSIBLE?

IN MY OPINION IT IS ONLY LIC AND FINANCE MINISTRY, GOVT OF INDIA WHO

INSTEAD OF TAKING A PRAGMATIC VIEW TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES BY HONOURING COURT VERDICTS, HAVE PREFERRED TO DRAG THE OLD PENSIONERS IN APPEALS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF CENTRAL GOVT.'S LITIGATION POLICY. MANY OF OUR FRIENDS HAVE DIED WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE DELIVERED AND THERE SEEMS NO EARLY SOLUTION EXCEPT TO WAIT FOR THE FINAL VERDICT FROM THE APEX COURT.


WE MUST SALUTE ALL THOSE WHO DESPITE THEIR ADVANCED AGES AND ILL HEALTH HAVE BEEN UNTIRINGLY & SUCCESSFULLY FIGHTING THE LEGAL BATTLE FOR THE LAST OVER 15 OR ADD YEARS WITH FULL DEVOTION AND DETERMINATION. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE PATIENCE, MORE COURAGE AND UNITY TO CONTINUE TO EXTEND WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT TO THEM FOR THE COMMON CAUSE.

SH. SNM/SH.RBK ARE RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THE CASES ARE NOT COMING UP FOR HEARING IN SC ON 9.9.2014.

THERE MAY BE MANY REASONS BESIDES THE FACT THAT NO OFFICIAL REPORT HAS YET BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SC TO THE CONCERNED BENCH IN THESE CPs. FURTHER IN CIVIL APPEALS ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAVE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY SERVED NOTICES AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE PETITIONERS HAVE DIED THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY/DELAY IN SERVICE OF NOTICES OR SUBSTITUTION OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED.

FRIENDS WHEN WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WAIT FOR 15 YEARS, LETS WAIT FOR SOMETIME MORE. IT IS ONLY THE IN-BUILT FAULTY LEGAL SYSTEM, STUBBORN, CALLOUS & UNHELPFUL ATTITUDE OF LIC/ FM,GOVT.OF INDIA THAT HAVE STOOD IN THE DELIVERY OF FULL JUSTICE. HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR FIGHTERS. TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH AND FULL JUSTICE WILL BE DELIVERED.

WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS TO ALL.

H K AGGARWAL

Problems of LIC Pre 1997 Pensioners

Kerala Govt. has declared only FIVE STAR
Hotels shall have BARS.

Pay arrears within 3 days - Punjab & Haryana HC order to Punj. govt.

(RK Sahni)

Government bureaucrats don't mend their ways

The GOI bureaucrats do not want to mend themselves. They seem no longer fear contempt of court orders, including the orders of the highest court !

Reproduced below is a letter dated 07-07-2014 addressed to Dr. Jitendra Singh, Hon.Minister of State, GOI, Min. of Personnel, PG & Pensions, New Delhi by Bharat Pensioners Samaj. 

The GOI bureaucrats are trying to pay arrears of  pension from 01-01-2006 ( i.e. with retrospective effect from the date of revision of pay scales - 6 th CPC ) ONLY TO THE PETITIONERS who filed the cases in the Courts. The 'unprecedented' treatment now being given to Pre- 2006 GOI Pensioners  (Family pensioners) is unfortunately similar to the treatment being meted out to LIC pensioners - ' some amount payable ' to a few dozen petitioners deposited by the LIC in the Jaipur and Chandigarh High Courts. 

The petitions are in fact for common demand of updation of pension and 100% DR  to pre August 1997 retirees and in the 'representative capacity' on behalf of one and all aggrieved / affected pensioners - the petitioners had / have moral and monetary support by many pensioners/ associations.

How the Hon. Ministers 'meekly' accept the 'ill advice' of the Babus who ' in their wisdom ' misguide against the Courts' dictum/s or order/s is  a 'difficult' question which the Hon. Ministers may not be in a position to answer or willing to answer.

 " Subject : Payment of arrears  of pension for the period form 01-01-2006 to 23-09-2012

Kindly stop driving every affected individual pensioner to the Courts of law. instead extended automatically to similarly placed pensioners Court Judgment confirmed or delivered by the Apex Court as was recommended by 5th CPC also vide their Para 126.5.

Sir. with reference to then MOS (P) answer dated 12.02.2014 in Lok Sabha to UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3406 regarding PAYMENT OF ARREARS TO PENSIONERS your kind attention is drawn to the facts that Principal CAT order dated 1. l l .2011 in OA No.655/2010 quashed clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006. based on the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No. 1535/2012 of UOI on 29-4-2013. Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT-PB. Dismissing SLP (C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C) No.2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No. 126/2014 on 30-4-2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. With this CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011. referred to, has attained legal finality,

But unfortunately instead of implementing the said judgement in letter & spirit of all pre 2006 Pensioners DOP & PW going against the judgement. has taken a decision to implement it qua petitioners.

Sir. as is admitted in the answer to Lok Sabha unstarred Q.No 3406 Honerable CAT -PB order under reference has already been implemented from an arbitrary date 24.09.2012. Thus in all legality the arrears w.e.f. 01 .01 .2006 too should he paid to all & not only to a small section of pensioners who could afford to go to the Court of law.

Sir, Bharat Pensioners Samaj in its capacity as the largest & oldest organization of C.G. Pensioners over 550 Pensioners Associations affiliated/associated to it, appeal to you to ensure correct delivery of justice by implementing the judgement under reference to all pre 2006 pensioner so that other affected Pensioners in the evening of their live are not pushed to seek justice from court of law. "

(SN - A 1992 PENSIONER)

SC appeal not coming up 9th Sept.or nearby date

Dear Sri Gangadharan,

There have been frantic inquiries from across the country, 

for confirmation whether the Appeals (or the Jaipur Case alone) 

are really coming up for hearing before the Supreme Court 

on 9th Sept.

Pensioners will promptly know through the Chronicle, any developments of interest to them, from time to time.

On the agonizing delay due to the cases not reaching for early hearing and disposal, something needs to be done and something can be done. We will reach out shortly, to all the Respondents in the Appeals, to know their views on specific proposals. If they all agree, we can hope to move forward.

Thanks and regards,

M. Sreenivasa Murty

CH Mahadevan writes

CALCULATION OF DR SLABs

Dear Mr Gopalan Subramanian,

I give the following example for calculation of DR slabs

Average CPI for Oct 2013 to Dec 2013=(241+243+239)/3=241-->241x4.63x4.93=5501.042( for 1/2/2014)

Average CPI for April 2014 to June 2014  =(242+244+246)/3=244--->244x4.63x4.93 =5569.52( for  1/8/2014)

We have to take the first figure as a multiple of four viz 5500 and the second figure as 5568.

The half yearly  difference is  5568-5500=68 

Dividing 68 by 4 we get 17 which were the no  of slabs released from 1/8/2014.

LIC's action on MC Jain's case is not known,but they will have to comply with the Jaipur judgment sooner or later.Once they do it similarly placed pensioners can also claim the benefits as per the judgment.

Mr Krishnan and all those who retired after 1/4/1993 are entitled to the difference in salary  from August 1992 to March 1993 including PF benefits as these retirees  were  similarly placed as Mr M C Jain while in service on 1/8/1992.But all such pensioners will have to demand the benefits from LIC  and obtain them if necessary through legal action.In fact both in-service   Class I Federation and retirees' Class I Federations will have to take it up with the management.

All 31 petitioners in Chandigarh case are pre-Aug 1997 retirees.

LIC has not given 11.25% weightage;nor have they removed the DR anomaly prior to Aug 1997 arising out of differential DR formula for in-service and retired employees prior to 1/8/1997.

I agree with you  on  what you have stated  in the last para. of your mail. All the Retired Employees' Federation/Associations have got  a  legitimate  and  legal right to demand  being called for negotiations  before wage revisions are finalised considering that three HC judgments are binding on them to  pay upgraded pensions  as Supreme Court has refused to stay the HC Orders. In my view all the  retirees Federations/Associations can even apply to the courts to stay the finalisation of the wage revisions until the Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court are disposed of unless they adopt the same process for pension revision  for retirees  as well.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE
wish our readers a very
HAPPY ONAM 

Government to release additional installment of Dearness Allowance

The Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi today gave its approval for the release of an additional installment of Dearness Allowance (DA) to Central Government employees and Dearness Relief (DR) to pensioners with effect from July 2014.

This is an increase of seven percent over the existing rate of 100 percent of the basic pay/pension, to compensate for price rise.

The increase is in accordance with the accepted formula, which is based on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

The combined impact on the exchequer on account of both Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief would be of the order of approximately Rs 7691 crore per annum and Rs 5127 crore respectively in the financial year 2014-2015. (ANI)

Jest a while

GNS visits Kozhikode

Correction mail by Bank retiree friends

Bank pensioner joins to give us more details

Let's wait for the truth, nothing but the whole truth...

We wish to inform our readers that the news published on 3rd September about the Bank pensioners winning their case of 100% DR was not based on an authentic report. This 'source' did not have dependable details with him.  It appears this reader from Pune who had sent this piece of information (not 'report') was trying to have more details from LIC pensioners. The post we had published and withdrawn later is reproduced here.

We received some comments from the readers, now that a 'constitution' bench has also held that any cut off date is arbitrary, 100% DR neutralization is a certainty.  And so these readers visualised a possibility of GNS retiring. This resulted in a cartoon, also since withdrawn, reproduced here.

Plucking the easier ones... GNS was more practical in his approach.

We have now received a letter, reproduced below,

The above mail too appears to carry mistakes. 

Supreme Court site shows the present position of the case as follows:-

MAIL FROM M. PERUMAL

After the unfavourable Judgment of the DB-MHC, 

the Litigants filed SLPs in the Supreme Court.

The Court heard the SLPs  SLP (Civil)    

28220-28221 / 2013 on 16/9/13 and converted 

them as Civil Appeal vide CA8420-21/2013

Though the Judges ordered " List it expeditiously", 

the CAs are still pending and not yet listed for SC's 

regular hearing.

***********************

   Case Details

Appeal Civil 8420-8421 / 2013

STATUS PENDING

Petitioner A.B KASTHURIRANGAN & ORS

Vs.

Respondent CANARA BANK & ORS.

Advocate(Petitioner) MR. V. G. PRAGASAM

Advocate(Respondent) Not Available

Appealed Against High Court Details - Not Available

Matter is Connected To Connected Details - Not Available

Subject Matter SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFITS

Listing Details Last Listed On - 16/09/2013

Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 1:57:21 PM

*************

M.Perumal (Bank Pensioner blog)

It appears, *the writ petitions by the bank men were allowed by the  SB of Madras High Court vide order dated 14.12.2012. The Appeals by Bankers  against the above order were allowed and writ petitions dismissed by DB vide order dated 17.06.2013. Aggrieved bank employees filed SLP before the SC which was converted into Civil Appeal by the Court. Details of Supreme Court judgment if delivered can be awaited now. 
*as informed by RK Sahni.

Madras High Court judgments in Bankmen case now reproduced and SC judgment is awaited.

It appears, the writ petitions by the bank men were allowed by the  SB of Madras High Court vide order dated 14.12.2012. The Appeals by Bankers  against the above order were allowed and writ petitions dismissed by DB vide order dated 17.06.2013. Aggrieved bank employees filed SLP before the SC which was converted into Civil Appeal by the Court. Details of Supreme Court judgment if delivered can be awaited now. 

M. Sreenivasa Murty writes as follows:-

There is some cloud hovering on the news since this morning. The original source was the mail I and some others forwarded to you yesterday. I am now on the job of getting the real picture through my reliable contact. Will revert as soon as possible..

If you think it will help, you may kindly publish this.    

STOP PRESS

We have sought a clarification about the news item published regarding Supreme Court judgment in view of a mail received as given below:-

Dear Sri Somasekaraji,

The above *posting is not giving the correct position.

After the unfavourable Judgment of the DB-MHC, the Litigants filed SLPs in the Supreme Court.

The Court heard the SLPs  SLP (Civil)    28220-28221 / 2013 on 16/9/13 and converted them as Civil Appeal vide CA8420-21/2013

Though the Judges ordered " List it expeditiously", the CAs are still pending and not yet listed for SC's regular hearing.

***********************

   Case Details

Appeal Civil 8420-8421 / 2013

STATUS PENDING

Petitioner A.B KASTHURIRANGAN & ORS

Vs.

Respondent CANARA BANK & ORS.

Advocate(Petitioner) MR. V. G. PRAGASAM

Advocate(Respondent) Not Available

Appealed Against High Court Details - Not Available

Matter is Connected To Connected Details - Not Available

Subject Matter SERVICE MATTERS - RETIRAL BENEFITS

Listing Details Last Listed On - 16/09/2013

Thursday, September 04, 2014 - 1:57:21 PM

*************

M.Perumal

*our news item.

P Sathasivam appointed Governor

Bank staff case for 100% DR - Madras High Court Single Bench judgment dated 14-12-2012 and DB judgment dated 17-6-2013 allowing appeal against SB judgment.

Madras High Court Judgment dated 14-12-2012 and 

Division Bench judgment dated 17-6-2013 reproduced below 

(click on 'Read more')

May be at the cost of repetition - some reflections

" If you ask for the impossible, you obtain the best possible "

- Italian Proverb.

The proverb was quoted on pre- page to the Index page of the 5 th Central Pay Commission Report. It was, as if, a golden promising prologue to the recommendations that the Committee headed by Justice S.R. Pandian would make in the following pages of the 5th CPC Report. 

The Central Government employees and pensioners including family pensioners were immensely benefitted. The pay, pension and perks recommendations were 'Na bhuto' never before/never in the past in the history of government servants. It would be wrong to conclude the sentence by 'Na bhavishyati' never hereafter/never in the future because the recommendations of the next 6th CPC Report by the Committee headed by Justice B.N. Krisnha were a bonanza / a windfall to GOI employees and pensioners/to very senior pensioners including family pensioners of eighty and plus getting 20% to 100% more! Let us not forget that Shri P. Chidambaram, the former Finance Minister and Dr. Manmohan Singh, the former Prime Minister were at the helm / instrumental to implement the 5th and 6 th CPC recommendations.

The Fifth CPC had very clearly observed in its Report why periodic updating of pension is a must. 

To quote verbatim from the Report :
"We owe it ( pension ) to pensioners that they live, not merely exist"
"As such, the pension should be fixed, revised, modified and changed in a way 
not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees. "

Another one year and few months to go and the 7th CPC Report with significant recommendations shall be out to cheer the Central Government servants

FM (PC) or PM ( MS) did not do any good to - LIC pensioners - to old and v. old pensioners in
particular ; post 1997, 2002 and 2007 retirees have less/ lesser/ least to complain - as on date.
GOI,MOF and LIC have failed in their solemn duty to implement the judgements delivered by the Hon. Justices of High Courts/ the Supreme Court.

'Hope is life - living ; one should have die hard positive attitude ', the learned say. No, the pensioners cannot, any longer, live on ' hopes' ! When is the final deliverance of Justice to LIC pensioners ?

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

MC Jain case

Dear Editor,

Shri Hussain has asked about the progress of M C Jain Case after the dismissal of SLP by SC. The ball is in CO court. Those who are benefited by the Jaipur HC judgement in WP NO 1454/2009 dated 13-9-2012 have to claim their right by writing to CO. So far there is no news regarding compliance of the court order.

R.K.Viswanathan

Former CJI's appointment as Governor sparks off controversy

(The indian express)

Sathasivan keeps his fingers crossed.

Protesting against the appointment of former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam as the Kerala Governor, the Congress on Tuesday questioned the reason behind the decision, asking if he was being “honoured” because he had done “some work” which had “pleased” Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP president Amit Shah and “gladdened their hearts”.

Asking the NDA government to explain what prompted it to choose the “most recently retired” CJI over many of his predecessors, Congress spokesperson Anand Sharma said, “This raises a question. Had he (Sathasivam) done some work which has pleased them? Prime Minister Modi is pleased, Amit Shah is pleased… for which he (Sathasivam) is being honoured?”

He was responding to a question on whether Sathasivam was being given the gubernatorial assignment for granting relief to Shah in a fake encounter case last year. A bench led by Sathasivam had quashed the CBI’s FIR against Shah in the Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter case.

“Arun Jaitley, as Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, had repeatedly said that retired judges of Supreme Court, let alone the Chief Justice, should not be given any office or position. So the BJP should now clarify why have they made a departure from their stated position… why only an exception (was made) here,” said Sharma. 

Kerala Bar Council passed a resolution against appointing the former CJI P Sathasivam as Governor of Kerala.

Sarfaras Husain

Amutha Surabhimm

RuPay PaySecure

We are pleased to inform that RuPay Debit Cards can now be used for online transactions and payments through RuPay PaySecure an e-Commerce solution of National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI). RuPay PaySecure not only provides a platform for e- transactions but also gives the customers a complete unique shopping experience. The RuPay Card can be used at all ATMs, merchant establishments in India for online transactions and payments. 

Key Features

• The solution offers enhanced security measures in addition to 
• the RBI mandated 2-Factor authentication viz. registration, OTP, image based authentication and anti-phishing measures.
• Highly secure with unique anti-phishing properties
• User friendly and smooth adaptability
• Simplified architecture & transaction flow reduces transaction time, resulting in faster transaction processing and reduction in drop-outs
• Customer Experience: During the online payment the cardholder’s authentication data is collected in a secured manner. Further, with help of a bank themed (Looks exactly similar to the card that the customer is holding) PIN pad the cardholder has to enter the PIN number while making the payment. The pad shuffles each time a digit is entered as an additional security measure.

Target Customers

• All RuPay Debit Card Holders for online transactions viz. bill payments, online purchases etc.

• It is mandatory for every customer to be registered with PaySecure to avail RuPay E-commerce services
• Customers will be authenticated by their issuing bank using methods like OTP (One Time Password)/net banking credentials or challenge questions etc. or any other parameters defined by the issuer bank for the first successful transaction. The customer will have to complete one successful transaction to be registered.
• Customer will have to select an image and enter a phrase to register his RuPay card for online usage during his first transaction on e-merchants website.
• In subsequent transactions, the customer will have to identify the correct registered image in order to get primary validation and acknowledge the phrase along with last three online transactions. This is an anti-phishing measure.
• Subsequently the image and phrase become level one validating factors (please note there validations only permit customer access to PIN Pad page and is not considered for final transaction authorisation). In case the customer forgets or exceeds the number of attempts for image selection they will need to wait till next business day for card to be unblocked or re-register to enter new phrase and select a new image.
• Customer is required to use a valid ATM PIN for authorization of the e-Commerce transactions. Customer will have to enter PIN on the “bank themed” (Look of the page will be exactly similar to the physical card used by the customer) scrambling PIN pad using mouse clicks only. The PIN pad will shuffle each time a digit is entered. This is an additional security measure.
• The customer will now be notified about the successful transaction on submitting a valid PIN.

'Eastern News' Sept.2014 issue.

Shri Basudeb Das, Editor, Eastern News

Sir,

Your 34 pages E-Magazine for Sept 2014 is a marvelous attempt by you and your team. Congratulations to all of you for doing a great service to entire LIC Pensioners Community. Your editorial regarding very large Ego of Top Leadership Of Various L.I.C. Pensioners Associations is very touching and hence appears to me an inner voice of not only me but thousands of our Pensioners who are unbiased and are interested only in welfare of whole community.

B.R.Mehta

Panchkula

Fine tuning required

                                                            Dear Mr Deivanayagam,

On going through the  Group Mediclaim Policy for 2014-15 and the CO Circular  ref: CO/PER/ER-A/066/2014 dt 28/4/2014,I understand the position as follows: Dependent children of retired employees and deceased retired employees (not earning  more than Rs  3500 p.m) are covered by the Scheme.But sharing of premium for compulsory floater cover  is available  only for  dependent disabled children of retired employees and not able  dependent children of retired employees, You may however kindly  get it confirmed by  the OS  dept of the  Chennai I Divisional  Office.

                                                                  Kind regards.

                                                                CH Mahadevan

What is RuPay card?

MUMBAI: RuPay cardholders will have dual insurance covers, with the government roping in the Life Insurance Corporation of India a day before unveiling its financial inclusion programme Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana.LIC, the country's largest financial institution, will offer a life cover of Rs 30,000 while HDFC Ergo will provide a Rs 1-lakh personal accident cover to RuPay cardholders. (The Economic Times)

Recent developments saw Government passing on instructions to state owned banks to issue RuPay debit cards to their customers. This looks like a clear indication to promote these cards. But, what exactly is this RuPay card and how does it function? Let’s look into it now.What is it?
RuPay is a combination of two words – Rupee and Payment. RuPay Card is an Indian version of credit/debit card. It is very similar to international cards such as Visa/Master.
Who initiated it?
National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) initiated the launch of RuPay card in India. It was done with the intention of integration of payment systems in the country. It has also tied up with Discover Financial Services firm for promoting this.
How will it work?
RuPay debit cards are similar any other debit cards that you might hold now. You can access them in the 1.45 lakh ATMs and 8.75 lakh POS terminals across the country. It will also be accepted on 10,000 e-commerce websites. All major public sector banks, including SBI, have started issuing these cards to all their customers. The card also comes with a high end technology chip named EMV (Europay, Master Card and Visa) especially for high end transactions. It also has an embedded micro processor circuit with information about the card holder.
What are the Benefits of RuPay card?Lower transaction cost – International transactions lead to higher transaction costs. Such costs can be reduced by using RuPay card since processing will be done within the country. Also, transactions will be faster.

Sms alerts – Users will get alerts for every transaction made through this card.

Reduced processing fees – Processing fees for RuPay card compared with regular debit/credit cards will be considerably lower.

Source: Investment Yogi