M Srinivasa Murty

writes Srinivasa Murty

Mr Asthana and his chief devotee, Mr HK Agarwal attempted 

(on Oct 1 and earlier in the recent past), to garner support from 

an unsuspecting community of LIC pensioners by spreading 

lies and distorting facts. I shall limit this Note to only where 

my name was directly dragged in to a controversy or a negative 

picture was attempted to be drawn on my role in the on-going 

fight for justice to LIC Pensioners. If I may elaborate the point 

further, there have been a number of burning issues (financial 

and otherwise) between Mr Asthana & Mr Agarwal on one side 

and Mr S N Chhabra & Mr B R Mehta on the other, long 

before I even knew the latter duo. (HK, I don’t know even now 

except through his mails). I am deliberately avoiding any 

comments on their private issues, as I have no right to talk 

about them and they are all capable of handling them as 

they want.

I am also keen to take this opportunity (graciously given by PC, following an editorial 

review of its own earlier stand) to make certain honest observations and do some loud 

thinking which may serve the interests of LIC Pensioner community in the Final 

Hearing by the Supreme Court, on 12 Nov 2014.

Here is my response to some of the more prominent and more objectionable comments from KML & HKA.:

          

From KML’s Post in PC on 21.09.2014

LIE No 1. “IT IS REALLY STRANGE THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO TALK WITH ME ON THIS SUBJECT (for making a mention before the Supreme Court) TILL DATE EITHER BY MR MS MURTY OR MR GN SRIDHARAN STILL THEY ARE TAKING MY NAME”

Truth: Apart from my several posts in the PC, I sent him a 

personal E mail on 16^th Sept which was also immediately followed up with him by SNC. Here is what I wrote to KML:

Dear Sri Asthana, 

• Hope all is well with you. As you are well aware, the CAs which were all tagged and posted for Final Hearing before the SC Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, virtually remained where they were (around Sl No 48) for the last few weeks. I am sure you would agree that at this rate of disposal, our matters have no chance of reaching for arguments, in the near future. 
• Our colleague-pensioners all over the country are naturally restive about the delay and many think something should be done. 
• Mr Jay Savla, has been consulted. Mr Savla feels that we have a good case to 'Mention' before the Bench and request that the CAs be heard 'out of turn'. The fact that the CAs are already posted for Final Hearing and that ALL the Respondents are Senior Citizens, a good number of them being past 80, are sufficiently good grounds to pray for 'out of turn' hearing, according to Mr Savla.
• In the circumstances and with the concurrence of the Respondents/Pensioners in CA No 6995, Mr Savla proposes to 'Mention' before Justice Dipak Misra either on 24th or 25th Sept (before the Court goes on Puja vacation). Mr Savla thinks that if the 'other two Counsel' representing Pensioners in Jaipur and Delhi (ie., yourself & Mr Sridharan) support the prayer and make a strong similar plea, we have a fair chance of the Bench agreeing for out of turn hearing. 
• This mail is to request you to give your best thought to the proposition and instruct your Counsel suitably. Will be obliged if you could let me know your response and action taken in the matter, at the earliest.
• I propose to be in Delhi on 24th and 25th Sept, for this purpose. It will be beneficial to all, if you too can make it convenient to do so.

While KML attacked SNC in his reply raising several other 

irrelevant issues, he chose not to respond to my above 

personal mail but went on to tell half the world that 

nobody spoke to him on the subject.  

LIE No 2. “THEY ARE TRYING TO TAKE CREDIT OF THE APPLICATIONS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY MOVED IN THE COURT FOR SEGREGATION OF THE DA/DR SLP AND UPGRADATION OF PENSION SLP AND MADE A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND PAYMENT OF ARREARS OR AT LEAST FROM THE CURRENT MONTH AND DISMISSAL OF THE TWO SLPS”.

Truth: Take credit? For the Applications already moved by him? When I have been crying hoarse all these months that such Applications (and his two new Writs in Rajasthan HC) are all a futile exercise and will take him nowhere, do I want to take any credit for those Applications? If I get associated with such Applications, what I get is only ‘discredit’. Am I not proved right (in his own words now), that SC had virtually thrown them out on his raising these grand IAs on 23^rd Sept?     

“NONE OF THE TWO HAS ANY SAY IN JAIPUR SLPS”

He is right, for once. Delhi & Chandigarh have no say in Jaipur matter – What KML should know and admit is that likewise, Jaipur has no say in the other two. (More on this aspect in my concluding observations).  

“EXCEPT CREATING HURDLES”. 

Wrong again. The real hurdles are his own IAs. And his propensity to rush to SC whether there is a case or not. Luckily they all stand dumped now by SC.

“DELHI SLP, WHICH IS THERE, SLP CONCERNS ONLY DA/DR 

MATTER WITH WHICH I HAVE LEFT IT OVER TO THEM”.  

He rightly left. But to GNS – I or Panchkula have nothing to do with it either.

“I AM MORE CONCERNED WITH UPWARD REVISION”.

All of us are.  But up-gradation will not come without DA/DR (on proper basis) for pre-97 retirees coming first. There again LIC is out to cheat – by its ridiculously wrong interpretation of its Board Resolution.  

“AS FAR AS EARLY DECISION IS CONCERNED IT IS TO INFORM 

ALL CONCERNED THAT EVEN FOR THE PRESENT 

SLPS ARE NOT FOR FINAL DECISION BUT ON THE IAs ALREADY PENDING”

This is the biggest weak point of KML. One hopes he is ready to eat his words back. He is not only wrong (as proved already) but his postures on issues like this suggest avoidable arrogance. One can hold a view of his own but when an opposite view comes to his notice, should he not be prepared to double check? When all CAs were directed on 4.4.14, to be tagged and posted in the second week of August 2014, there was perhaps some uncertainty, whether it was for final hearing of CAs or not. But any Advocate worth his salt should know that when all the CAs were in fact tagged and listed and shown in the advance weekly cause list BEFORE A REGULAR BENCH (of Justice Dipak Misra in our case), to persist and insist that only IAs are listed and not the CAs for final hearing, is nothing but betrayal of one’s ignorance coupled with his unwillingness to correct himself.     

“FURTHER MORE UNTIL AND UNLESS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 

OF DECEASED RESPONDENTS ARE ISSUED NOTICES FINAL DECISION 

DOES NOT SEEM TO BE POSSIBLE”.

Thanks to KML for the portion underlined. He conceded he is not sure. But the point is well taken and it got already examined long back. When SLPs are admitted and numbered as CAs, who served the Notices on each of the surviving Respondents? Obviously LIC, the Appellant. In respect of the LRs of the deceased Respondents, is not the onus to serve Notice still on LIC, the Appellant? Does it shift to the surviving Respondents because KML thinks differently and raises a false alarm?  If the Appellant (LIC) failed to serve on some, for one and half years, can it take that by itself as a plea before SC not to take up cases for Final Hearing?

More on this too in my concluding observations.  

“IN CASE THEY WANT TO WORK TOGETHER THEY SHOULD NOT PLAY THE GAME AT MY BACK AS HAD BEEN DONE WHILE MOVING THE APPLICATION IN CHANDIGARH SLP, OF WHICH THERE IS NO INFORMATION FROM EITHER OF THEM NOR A COPY HAS BEEN GIVEN, IT WAS NOT THOUGHT THAT CLUBBING IT WILL CREATE PROBLEMS.

FOR US OTHERWISE I COULD HAVE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION. I HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THAT APPLICATION TILL TODAY AND NOW THEY SAY MY CONSENT IS IN THE OFFING, REALLY STRANGE”.

Nobody is interested in playing any games either at his back or in front. When there was no application in Chandigarh SLP, how can a copy be given, even if it has to be given? What was proposed was only to ‘mention’ verbally before the Bench on 24^th or 25^th Sept. for ‘out of turn hearing’ with Notices to all the other Advocates on Record. All that happened about it, is now on record and exposed the sneaky way in which the ‘mention’ was made. It was an avoidable ‘gamble’ though.  

“MY APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AND INTERIM RELIEF IN CHANDIGARH MATTER IS ALREADY PENDING SINCE APRIL. THEREFORE WHAT WAS THE NECESSITY OF MOVING ANOTHER APPLICATION”? 

KML should know (probably he knows), as he has not ‘repaired’ it even after the Registry raised objections on his implead application, it was not numbered and will remain pending for all time to come.

“SIMILARLY EARLIER ALSO MR GNS HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN DELHI HC SLP FOR DEPOSIT OF THE AMOUNT DUE TOWARDS DA/DR ON THE LINES AS HAD BEEN DONE IN JAIPUR HC, KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE SAID DEPOSIT WAS NOT PROPER AND OPPOSED BY ME. MOREOVER, WHERE WAS THE QUESTION OF DEPOSIT WHY NOT PAYMENT AND TO WHOM THE NAMES HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN. THEY ARE CONFINING THEIR CASE TO THEIR ASSOCIATION ONLY AND THAT TOO WITHOUT GIVING THE NAMES IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS SOUGHT TO BE DEPOSITED.  TILL DATE HE HAS NOT GIVEN ME A COPY OF THIS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS APPLICATION EXCEPT TO HINDER THE SMOOTH PROGRESS OF THE CASE UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES”.

This was one of the few areas of agreement between me and KML. He was actually persuaded by me to file an objection to GNS’s untenable IA, as I had no legal right to do so myself, at that time. Eventually he filed some half-hearted IA but luckily it was not before the Bench on 4.4.2014. If it was available, LIC would have asked for and got some time to file a reply and there would have been no directions to tag and post all Appeals together. God helped where our friends were unwittingly messing up.      

HOWEVER I AM READY TO WORK TOGETHER BUT IF THE INTENTIONS OF ALL THE PARTIES ARE FAIR AND CLEAR, LET THEM CONTACT ME AND TELL ME THEIR STRATEGY BEFORE I CAN GIVE MY CONSEN                                                                      

(For this and the paragraph below, my response may be seen in the concluding remarks).

Please click below.

A letter to the Editor

Dear Sh Gangadharan,

Editor LICPC.

THANKS FOR THE EID GREETINGS. MAY SUCH FESTIVALS BRING MORE JOY AND PEACE. I ALSO CONGRATULATE YOU ON LICPC's SIX BIRTH DAYS- LET THERE BE MORE.

FURTHER, THERE IS NO NEED NOR I AM REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO UNNECESSARY AND UNCALLED FOR QUESTIONS RAISED YESTERDAY ON LEGAL FUND.

SINCE YOU AS EDITOR HAS OPTED TO OPEN/CARRY ON THE DEBATE I MAY WRITE THAT:

1. AIRIEF HAS LARGER ISSUES OF WIDER INTEREST OF ALL THE PENSIONERS OF LIC. ALL KNOW THAT IT IS A NON ISSUE IN THE 9TH GCM OF AIRIEF AT BANGALORE FROM 14 -16TH OCT,2014 AND I AM NOT A DELEGATE THERE. SIR, ITS NO TIME TO DISTRACT THEIR ATTENTION BY RAISING SUCH ISSUES TO SATISFY PERSONAL EGOS AND ITS AGONIZING THAT TWO DELEGATES FROM PKL ARE GOING THERE WITH THEIR OWN DIFFERENT AGENDA AS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THEM IN THEIR VARIOUS MAILS PUBLISHED IN THE LICPC.

3. IN A DEMOCRACY EVERY ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS OR WRITE ANY THING BUT ALSO ONE HAS A DUTY & RIGHT TO SERVE THE ORGANISATION, IN ANY CAPACITY ,IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF ALL. BUT IT IS AN IRONY THAT MY YOUNG FRIEND COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE POWER OF AN ORDINARY MEMBER AND IS STILL HARPING UPON NON ISSUES LEAVING BEHIND THE REAL BURNING ISSUES ON WHICH ALL PENSIONERS HAVE THEIR EYES AND EARS AND WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE DELIVERED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY.

4. PENSIONERS THROUGH OUT THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN/ARE VOLUNTARILY CONTRIBUTING TO THE LEGAL FUND OF SH KML ASTHANA ALSO TO ENCOURAGE HIM AND IN APPRECIATION AND SUPPORT FOR HIS LONG, SUSTAINED AND DETERMINED & DEDICATED SUCCESSFUL LEGAL FIGHT.BESIDES PENSIONERS, IN SERVICE EMPLOYEES IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR CLASS CADRE OR AFFILIATION ARE CONTINUING TO SEND THEIR VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS AND I AM PROUD TO BE ONE OF THE HUMBLE WORKERS IN THE CAMPAIGN OF MOBILISING LEGAL FUNDS - EVEN FROM NON-MEMBERS OF AIRIEF WHO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITING IN THE LEGAL FUND ACCOUNT OF SH ASTHANA AND MEMBER UNITS IN AIRIEF ACCOUNT.

MAJORITY OF THE PENSIONERS DO NOT APPRECIATE OR ENCOURAGE SUCH MAILS AT THIS POINT OF TIME. SO INSTEAD OF EXCHANGING MAILS AND WASTING OUR TIME AND ENERGY ON NON ISSUES WE ALL SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON THE REAL ISSUES OF PENSIONERS, BY LENDING OUR SUPPORT BOTH MORAL & FINANCIAL IN THIS LEGAL STRUGGLE WHICH HAS REACHED ITS ULTIMATE PLACE ie. SUPREME COURT ON 12.11.2914.

I EXPRESS MY REGRETS IF MY PLAIN SPEAKING HURTS ANY BODY. LETS COLLECTIVELY AND UNITEDLY CARRY ON THE FIGHT OF PENSIONERS DEMANDS TILL WE REACH OUR GOAL.

WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS,

H K AGGARWAL

Legal fund collection

Dear Editor,
I have seen a post from our learned friend Sh.H.K.Aggarwal in your P.C. today appealing to all delegates and leadership of AIRIEF to ignore mails from Sh. S.N.Chhabra and myself since the same are false.
I wish that Sh. Aggarwal will be there in person to make such an appeal .
We are simply asking one simple question for which they are not sending us any reply and in stead they are telling all the delegates well in advance that both S. N Chhabra and B.R.Mehta are 'false' persons.

• Let me repeat my simple question from our learned friend Sh. Aggarwal.
• In what capacity and under whose authorisation Sh. Aggarwal was making his frequent appeals to all LIC Pensioners to deposit legal fund in personal bank account of Sh.KML Asthana ALL India Vice President AIRIEF and which rule such legal fund donations become personal property of Sh.Asthana as only personal funds can remain unaccounted?

I will be personally obliged to Sh.Aggarwal ji in case he can justify his action before all delegates in upcoming AIRIEF GC at Banglore.
B.R.Mehta

Congratulations and thanks

I was too busy preparing for my Delhi visit on 10th, 

which may help our case at a much higher plane. 

Thought sitting to write to rebut KML's (do you really 

believe it was his own language? - It was ..A's) 

Oct 1 Statement will not be worthwhile if you wish 

to close the discussion. I now feel better knowing 

you are never for stifling. SNC had already poured 

his heart out. I will do it now.  Incidentally, I personally 

feel that 'this washing' process is not necessarily a 

 damaging exercise.  It could prove to be damage 

controlling also. 

Will try my best to portray KML truly and honestly.   

Thanks and regards,
M. Sreenivasa Murty

9th GCM of AIRIEF

Friends,

I have also been forwarded a mail of Sh SN Chhabra by Sh BR Mehta.
This totally false and malicious propaganda by them at the time when 

9th GCM of AIRIEF is going to be held at Bangalore deserve to be ignored
without any comments by one and all.
However one thing cannot be overlooked ie. on one hand they themselves 

claim to be the best unit of AIRIEF, but on the other they have exposed 

their real intentions of their league with the camp /association of 

Sh. Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla. This one line "A proposal that we 

have the same advocate, MR. Murty had discussion with Asthana who 

later backed out." from their mail speaks volumes of their real move.

My humble request to the leadership of AIRIEF and all attending meeting 

at Bangalore to please think and act in the interest of a cordial environment.

With best wishes and regards,

H K Aggarwal

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, GANGADHARAN PG <pggangadharan@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ref. Shri Aggarwal's mail.
Comments "Does it mean you are pre-empting further discussion even if his scribe tried to spread bundles of lies? are by M. Sreenivasa Murty. We had edited and removed the word 'scribe'. These comments have been published as you will find in the post 'QUICK RESPONSES'.

We may add that Shri Murty had also written "if his scribe tried to spread bundles of lies, meaning that the statement was prepared by not Mr. Asthana but his "scribe".

Sir,

May I request you to kindly include my following mail in your blog. It is written in response to the one sent by Sri Asthana on 1st Oct. The mail filed by Asthana is verbose, full of half truths, lies with events dislocated in time.

It all betrays nervousness of Asthana. He is out to emotionally blackmail the assembly at BANGALORE to win sympathy and a clean chit. Asthana admits he is basically a petition writer. Such professionals learn instinctively how to camouflage truth and create confusion to get at least benefit of doubt for their clients.

There is nothing in the mail which has not been discussed already. He has collected all the old issues and presented them in a new packing.

Though disgusting for me to do so, I cannot simply ignore them. The best way to contain evil in public life is to expose it.

Asthanaji says I am a human being and mischief mongers should desist from nefarious activities. We all are human beings and desire that mischief mongers should desist from nefarious activities.

In our relationship the mischief started when Asthana refused to give me Receipt of Rs.56000/- deposited by me into his personal account.

The nefarious activities started when I wrote to the FED

1-It is time to institutionalise the functioning of the FED.
2-There is need for financial discipline. And
3-There is need for a committee of legal advisers.

Mr Asthana feels anything spoken or done against his personal interest or gain is anti FED. I may inform the readers that Panchkula is one of the best units of the FEDN. All the 52 Rtd Officers living in and around PKL are our members. The last one is Sri J.P.Aggarwal,88yrs old Rtd SBM. We offered him honorary membership last month.

Mr Asthana is never tired of pointing out my lack of legal knowledge. Right. When Asthana invited me to Delhi to meet with our Sr advocate I myself suggested that it will be of no use unless I bring along Mr Brijjit Singh. He is Rtd Chief Legal LIC. He is a Petitioner and was associated with late Mr Gandhi in preparing our Chandigarh WRIT.

Asthana refused to accept the presence of B.S. Later events have proved that Asthana is wary of working with any LIC Legal person lest his designs are exposed. Mr Brijjit Singh is actively helping in our COC case in Chandigarh H C.

Yes, Mr Murty is helping us in the Supreme Court. He is dependable and not a thug. As regards Mr Asthana's boast of coming to Chandigarh to help late Gandhiji, I may confirm to my readers that I was there at the Rly station with G all the time, from receiving to sending him off. G was President of CHG Unit and wanted to glorify the FED by inviting A to speak to the members. That's all. I was a confidant of Gandhi and know he never required any legal help from Asthana.

Mr Asthana accuses me of not filing a Caveat in the Supreme court, the SLP would have been dismissed straight away. If that is as simple as that why Asthana did not file it in his Jaipur case?

Legal advice given to me was filing Caveat will be waste of money. Once the LIC files an
Appeal, the SC will take two years to serve Notice to each and every petitioner. What Caveat will do.

I had explained the position to Asthana.  He had agreed.  Now he is trying his petition writer skills.

Asthana has made a long story about not filing a suit of recovery in Jaipur case. He wanted to force enter our case in Chandigarh. He drafted a writ petition for us for recovery of arrears. He added new petitioners to the old list. Our advocate rejected it for being bad in law.

The CHG Writ requested for correct DR Updation of pension 
and interest on arrears. It has been allowed. What would have 
happened if Jaipur case was not there. I don't know. Hundreds 
of cases are quoted while deciding legal matters. What would 
have happened to a particular case if another particular case 
was not there, only a brilliant lawyer can answer.

I may inform that our Objection Application to be filed in the PB and Hyna HC against LIC depositing amounts much less than ordained in the Nov 2001 Resolution and the writ in our favour is ready to be filed in the HC. It is complete in every respect. I am under no obligation to submit it to Mr Asthana for his approval.

Our calculations for correct pension and arrears have 
been done by Sri C.H. Mahadevan to whom we are 
grateful. Asthana taunts us, are we aware of the 
correctness of family pension etc. My question is was
he aware of it before Sri Mahadevan pointed these out 
and wrote to the LIC Chairman about it?

Mr Asthana finds nothing wrong in Sri Aggarwal's appeal for funds to be deposited in Asthana's personal account. But under what rules these donations sent in the personal account of Asthana become his property?

Asthana says I was not taking proper action in the 
matter and that is the reason for him to file a petition 
for his own impleadment in our case. May I know 
what action was pending to be taken at the end of 
April this year when he filed his application for 
impleadment?

Mr Asthana wants to know why a separate advocate for two similar cases. 

There are three Appeals. Each one is a distinctly separate case. Three 

separate senior advocates, in tune with themselves are likely to create 

better impression on the Bench.

Mr Asthana says he has not been informed who our advocate is. Now, this is completely wrong.
On being informed of our advocate, first reaction of Asthana was they are only a legal firm. After some days Sri VC Jain contacted me with a proposal that we have the same advocate. Mr. Murty had discussion with Asfhana who later backed out. It was suggested that the FED should be aware of our strategy. I offered to get Asthana introduced to our advocate for direct confabulations.  No response yet.

Why can't he behave and live like gentleman?

Regards,

S.N. Chhabra.

Shri SN Chhabra's statement to follow

We had published a very long statement by Shri KML Asthana.  Almost simultaneously we had published Editor's note saying that "there may be still issues which Shri Mehta, Shri Chhabra and for that purpose Shri Srinivasa Murty would like to raise...... but the time is not suitable enough for them to choose such a course and file replies."  So friends, the Editor's note continued, "please avoid discussion. We can ill-afford another long and arduous round of discussion on any issues at present."

While writing these notes, we had in mind only the 
Supreme Court case listed on 12th November 2014.  
It was our desire to resume the discussion immediately 
after supreme court hearing. But all along we felt that 
an injustice was done by suddenly closing the discussion. 
An opportunity to come out with the arguments in 
defence of persons who were specifically mentioned 
in Asthana's statement was denied to them.  The 
Pensioners Chronicle was under severe pressure 
ever since to publish the story as may be put forward 
by the 'other' side.  And they were also justified in their 
arguments and we felt that ends of natural justice were 
denied to them.

Shri BR Mehta had come out with a note on the same very night of publication of Asthana's statement, but we found no reason to include the same.  Shri Mehta had since sent the same note to about 470 email addresses.  Again we were not bothered as our editorial policy and our principles were never under question and the Editor was very clear in his mind and there was no conscious bite on this account whatsoever. 

Shri SN Chhabra has now come with a statement.  Inter-alia it is his burden to say that the statement issued by Shri Asthana is prepared having the Conference of the AIRIEF to be held sometime this month in Bangaluru in mind. An independent observer will find this point sufficiently convincing as also appealing. The statement by Shri Asthana may be intended to be circulated to the conference delegates. For the same reason, we have been approached with a request that the statement issued by Shri Chhabra may also be published.  And  Shri Srinivasa Murty will also be fully justified to say what he wants to speak out in this matter.  Shri Mehta need not be included in this list for the reason that his own statement has been widely circulated and the senior leader Shri SN Chhabra is given the privilege to intervene in the matter and represent the Panchkula Unit. The Bangaluru conference factor had escaped Editor's attention.  We had only the Supreme Court hearing in our view. 

With this brief explanation, we are publishing Shri SN Chhabra's statement tonight.

Editor.

LIC receives huge incometax refunds

Mumbai: Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) has received more than Rs.11,500 crores in incometax refunds and a big chunk of the amount would be passed on to policy holders, an official said.

" We received I T refunds in two trenches aggregating to more than Rs.11,500 crore, after winning a dispute with the IT Department after Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)" an LIC official who wished not to be named, said.adding that this refund happens to be the largest which the company has received so far. This could not be ascertained with the LIC chairman S K Roy. A text message sent to him also remained unanswered.

In the order dated April 3, 2013 ITAT Mumbai had delivered a judgment in favour of LIC with respect assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, the official said.

(T Sampath Iyengar)

एक आदमी कभी भी तनावग्रस्त नहीं रहेता था‏

एक आदमी कभी भी तनावग्रस्त नहीं रहेता था, और उसके सभी पड़ोसी इस बात से चकित थे। और जानने के लिए यह वार्ता पढ़े।

हमारी दुनिया कभी कभी एक तनावपूर्ण जगह हो सकती है। हमने इसे कुछ अधिक जटिल एवं द्रुत बना दिया है। लोगों की अपेक्षा यह है कि सब कुछ तुरंत हो जाना चाहिए। मानव दक्षता को अब दिन, सप्ताह और महीनों के स्थान पर घंटे, मिनट तथा क्षणों में जांचना शुरू कर दिया गया है। क्या ऐसा करना आवश्यक है? यह हमारे शारीरिक एवं भावनात्मक स्वास्थ्य को प्रभावित करता है और इसने हमारे जीवन में तनाव को और बढ़ा दिया है। आप एक झटके में अचानक पूरी दुनिया को तो नहीं बदल सकते। वास्तव में, आप स्वयं में भी एक झटके में परिवर्तन नहीं ला सकते। परंतु आप अपने जीवन, अपनी यात्रा तथा अपनी प्राथमिकताओं पर चिंतन अवश्य कर सकते हैं और अपने जीवन की गति निर्धारित कर सकते हैं। एक ऐसी गति जिस से आप को सुख एवं आंतरिक शांति प्राप्त हो। कहा जाता है कि पॉर्श ऑटोमोबाइल का मुख्य इंजीनियर एक बार उत्साहपूर्वक डॉ. फेरी पॉर्श (कंपनी के मुख्याधिकारी) के पास पहुँचा और उनसे कहा कि उसने दुनिया के सर्वश्रेष्ठ वाहन की रचना की है।

“वह कैसे?” डॉ. पॉर्श ने पूछा।
“क्योंकि, इस का त्वरण दुनिया के अन्य सभी वाहनों से अधिक है।”
“उस से यह दुनिया का सर्वश्रेष्ठ वाहन नहीं बन जाता। जिस दिन तुम्हारा वाहन उसी गति से रुक पाता है जिस तीव्रता और त्वरण से वह आगे बढ़ता है, तब मेरे पास लौट कर आना। तीव्रता से आगे बढ़ना उत्तम है परंतु तीव्रता से गति को रोकना उस से भी बेहतर होता है।”

वास्तव में यह एक मार्गदर्शक सिद्धांत हो सकता है - क्या आप सही गति से जा रहे हैं? जब आप को रुकने की आवश्यकता हो तब क्या आप स्वयं को रोक सकते हैं? आप संभवत: और तीव्र गति से जा सकते हैं, परंतु क्या आप को उस की आवश्यकता है? यदि आप अपनी गति के साथ संतुष्ट हैं, तो दुनिया की गति की आप को चिंता नहीं होनी चाहिए। जब आप दूसरों के अनुसार अपनी गति को बदलने का प्रयास करते हैं तब ही आप अपना संतुलन खो देते हैं। परंतु समाज में जीने के लिए क्या अन्य व्यक्तियों के अनुसार जीवन की गति बदलना आवश्यक नहीं है? कदापि नहीं क्योंकि वे स्वयं भी आप को देखकर अपनी गति को बदलने का प्रयास कर रहे हैं। गति को धीमी करने का यह अर्थ नहीं कि आप अपने अनुशासन या आकांक्षा को त्याग दें अथवा आप नौकरी से लम्बा अवकाश ले कर दुनिया के एक दौरे पर निकल पड़ें (हाँ यदि आप की ऐसी इच्छा हो तो आप अवश्य कर सकते हैं)। गति धीमी करने का अर्थ है वर्तमान क्षण में रहना, उस पर ध्यान देना। मानसिक तनाव को दूर करने का यही सबसे निपुण प्रतिविष है। सही निर्णय करने हेतु आप का यह जानना आवश्यक है कि आप का उद्देश्य क्या है और क्यों आप उस लक्ष्य को प्राप्त करना चाहते हैं। 

जब आप हर क्षण पर ध्यान देने लगते हैं तब आप स्वाभाविक रूप से वर्तमान क्षण में जीने लगते हैं। और वर्तमान में जीना ही आंतरिक शांति का आधार है। यही सत्य है। मुझे एक कहानी याद आती है -

एक छोटे से गांव में एक सुखी परिवार रहा करता था। वह परिवार एक ऐसे पुरुष का था जो ना कोई धनी व्यापारी था ना ज़मीनदार, केवल एक साधारण लोहार जो अन्य गृहस्थियों के समान कईं चुनौतियों का सामना करता था। उसके पड़ोसी इस बात से चकित थे कि उस घर में कभी कोई लड़ता नहीं था अथवा बहस नहीं करता था। जब लोहार घर पहुँचता था तो सबसे पहले घर के आँगन में एक वृक्ष की एक शाखा को पकड़ कर उस की पूजा करता था फिर घर में प्रवेश कर के अपने बच्चों के साथ प्रसन्नता से खेलता था। चाहे वह जितना भी तनावग्रस्त घर आता शाखाओं को छूते ही ऐसा खिल उठता मानो उसने कोई दूसरा रूप धारण कर लिया हो। कईं पड़ोसियों ने अपने घरों के बाहर भी वैसा ही एक वृक्ष लगाया तथा उस लोहार की शैली को भी अपनाया परंतु उनके हालात ना बदले। एक दिन, उनसे और रहा ना गया और उन्होंने उस से पूछा -
“आप किस प्रकार सदैव घर के अंदर प्रसन्न रहते हैं? आप तो पर्याप्त धन भी नहीं कमाते हैं फिर भी आप घर में बहस भी नहीं करते। उस वृक्ष को छूते ही आप अति प्रसन्न एवं उज्ज्वल हो जाते हैं। कृपया हमें वृक्ष का रहस्य बताएं।”
लोहार हँसने लगा। “वृक्ष का कोई रहस्य नहीं है,” उसने कहा। “घर में प्रवेश करने से पहले, मैं वृक्ष की एक शाखा को पकड़ कर अपने सभी दैनिक समस्याओं का एक काल्पनिक थैला उस शाखे पर लटका देता हूँ। मैं यह कभी नहीं भूलता कि मैं पूरे दिन बाहर था ताकि मैं अपने घर के अंदर प्रसन्न रह सकूँ। मैं कभी अपनी बाहरी समस्याओं को घर के अंदर नहीं ले जाता हूँ। इसलिए प्रतिदिन मैं थैले को बाहर लटका कर ही घर में प्रवेश करता हूँ। इतना ही नहीं हर दिन सुबह मैं उस थैले को अपने साथ काम पर लेकर जाता हूँ।”
“आप ऐसा क्यों करते हैं?”
“क्योंकि बाहरी दुनिया में मुझे अब भी उन समस्याओं का सामना तो करना ही होगा। परंतु दिलचस्प बात यह है कि सुबह सदैव मेरा थैला स्वयं ही और हलका लगता है। अधिकतर समस्याएं रात के अंधेरे में खो जाती हैं।”

आप बाहर जाकर नौकरी क्यों करते हैं? ताकि आप घर में एक आरामदायक एवं शांतिपूर्ण जीवन जी सकें, है ना? माना कि कभी कभी घर में भी जीवन जटिल हो सकता है परंतु फिर भी आप बाहर की समस्याएं बाहर ही छोड़ सकते हैं। यह है वर्तमान में जीना। क्या अधिकतर ऐसा नहीं होता कि मनुष्य की अधिक पाने की तथा अधिक सम्पत्ती प्राप्त करने की इच्छा बाहरी वस्तुओं को देखने से प्रभावित होती है? और तो और इन महत्वाकांक्षाओं एवं इच्छाओं के कारण आप ना तो अपने भोजन का आनंद ले पाते हैं ना अपने प्रियजनों के साथ चैन से समय बिता पाते हैं। जब आप अपने साथी के साथ समय बिताने का प्रयास करते हैं, तब आप या तो नौकरी के विषय में सोचने लगते हैं अथवा यह सोचने लगते हैं कि आप के पास क्या वस्तु एवं सम्पत्ति होनी चाहिए। नौकरी पर आप उत्तम रूप से काम करना चाहते हैं ताकि आप और धन अर्जित कर सकें तथा आप अपने और अपने परिवार के साथ और अधिक आनंदमय समय बिता सकें। परंतु जब परिवार के साथ आनंदमय समय बिताने का समय आता है तब नौकरी के विषय में विचार उन क्षणों को नष्ट कर देते हैं।

परंतु क्या आप इस से बच सकते हैं? अवश्य। अपनी प्राथमिकताओं को लिख लें और उन की नियमित रूप से समीक्षा करें। हो सकता है कि आप की बाहरी दुनिया ना बदले। लोग आप को भावनात्मक रूप से थकाते रहेंगे, नौकरी पर तनाव अत्याधिक रहेगा, टीवी पर बुरी खबरें आती रहेंगी, दुनिया के पतन का कोई अंत नहीं दिखाई देगा, महँगाई कभी कम नहीं होगी - परंतु यदि ऐसे में आप शांति का अनुभव करना चाहते हैं तो आप को अपनी सोच तथा अपने विचारों पर ध्यान देना होगा। आप के जीवन में, आप के मन में, आप को एक ऐसा स्थान बनाना होगा जिस में केवल आप निश्चित करते हैं कि क्या और कौन उस में प्रवेश करता है। इस प्रकार अपने आप को बुरे विचारों से सुरक्षित रखें। यह एक कला है। तनाव एक प्रतिक्रिया है एक भावना नहीं। किसी समस्या का सामना करने के लिए आप स्वयं इस प्रतिक्रिया को चुनते हैं।

यदि आप के पास कोई बोझ है, इस का यह अर्थ नहीं कि उसे सर पर उठाए चारों ओर ले कर चलना आवश्यक है। बोझ को नीचे उतार कर भी रखा जा सकता है। जीवन में आप को जो बोझ दुख पहुँचा रहा है उस को उतार कर नीचे रख दें। वास्तव में मनुष्य स्वत: तनाव का शिकार नहीं बन जाता, वह स्वयं ही तनाव का चयन करता है।

शांति।
(Recd thru SC Kapoor)

On the Bank front : UFBU Talks with AIIBA on Wage revision,Mediclaim etc‏

.... there was a detailed discussion on our demand for 100% reimbursement of hospitalisation expenses incurred by the employees/officers and their family members and the group mediclaim scheme offered by the IBA in response thereto. We explained our various apprehensions about the implementation of the scheme and hassle-free reimbursement of claims thereunder. We reiterated that employees/officers should not be required to deal directly with the insurance company or their Third Party Administrators. IBA has agreed and accordingly clarified that even though employees would be covered by the mediclaim scheme, they would continue to submit their claims to the management as hitherto and the reimbursement would be made by the Banks with the improved benefits of the scheme accruing to the employees. IBA also agreed to incorporate the suggestions submitted by the UFBU while finalising the scheme. Hence a broad in-principle consensus was mutually agreed upon and the final scheme would be worked out accordingly on the above lines.

Please click below to read more.

Asthana's Oct.1 statement

RANDOM MUSINGS

Dear Sri Gangadharan,

I am prompted to write following few lines after seeing your post dated October 1, 2014 under the 
caption "Let's concentrate on ..........." and the pocket strip "Other's are watching". I have been going through the posts in LIC PC for a fairly long time . 

TIMELY AND APT

• I appreciate the way you have been handling the posts in an impartial/non-partisan way, as much as possible. By your own admission, you had many times exercised the Editor's prerogative of editing/filtering the posts whenever controversial issues are raised or non-positive statements are made which may lead to unpleasantness or which may go against the interests of the pensioner community. 
• For instance, today's post as also a few related posts from you are timely and apt. Of late I have been observing your clever way of moderating the discussions amongst the frequent contributors whose submissions may not add value to the cause of the pensioners' interests but only help to sharpen the differences at the cost of the pensioners' groups. 
• The eager and enthusiastic contributors fail to see that "the whole world is watching" with/without interest/personal stake in the goings on through the columns of the LIC PC. It is because LIC PC is in public domain and is not operating as a closed group. Some times in their enthusiasm they may post their views, only to be "visible" and/or to show their literary abilities. If such post lead to acrimonious debates though unintended, may embarrass the leadership of different pensioners' groups. As a group of matured intelligent discerning individuals we have to exercise utmost caution before we commit anything to writing. It is what will segregate us from uninformed, casual, careless, irresponsible and disinterested sections of human beings - like "grain from chaff".

         COMING TOGETHER IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR

What I have written above are my purely personal views which I thought of sharing with you, as my 
friend. I DO NOT - repeat DO NOT - wish to be posted in LIC PC. It is only for personal consumption of 
Sri P G Gangadharan. I am confident that you will sincerely accede to my personal request.
Regards

T K S Narayanan

2.

BR Mehta: My humble request once again to Sh. Asthana ji is to please submit a very brief and specific reply to following specific questions. (To be published later.)


3.

   

Let's concentrate on Supreme Court cases now...

* defamation as suggested by Shri Asthana.

Dear friends,

I am seeing lots of talks and remarks from Shri B.R.Mehta against me for no reason. Hence these comments once for all. Since he has hurled a threat to see at the Bangalore AGM, I am not afraid of the same, but then he should come with replies to the following questions.

I agree that I may have used some words which may not be to the taste of some one.  If that be so I am sorry, but at least I am also a human being.  I have been busy preparing myself for the imminent hearing which may come up anytime as the cases were continuously being listed every week and call may come any time to rush to Delhi with all material and then this unwanted and uncalled for remarks hurts every one. I am unable to understand when I did not raise any objection to any one coming up and have been helping every one without any personal interest therein why all this mudslinging.

Though I am not required to give any explanation but in order to make the things clear and advise the mischief mongers to desist from such nefarious activities instead concentrate on working for the benefit of the pensioners and if they are unable to do anything let others work.

I have never met or talked to Mr. BR Mehta but his remarks show his hurt burning or hurt to his ego, unmindful whether this is the time for fighting collectively against our common adversary LIC and these persons are trying to take unconnected issues and even making false statements and unauthorized calls? What does it show?  Where was Mr. Mehta or SN Chhabra when Mr. Madan Lal Gandhi and I were working together even in the Chandigarh case and at the last moment on the call of Mr. Gandhi I had gone to Chandigarh and talked to the Advocate, Will these persons reimburse the loss sustained by me in my professional work and toils and travails in the journey?  Will the pensioners of LIC at Chandigarh not take the benefit of these?  Why these persons did not file caveat when they had already known that LIC has filed SLP.? They could have done so and got the matter dismissed then and there? Why did they not file cross-SLP in the matter of not giving any clear verdict on upgradation of pensions? When they have been always criticising their writ petition to be better why a judgment was sought on the basis of Jaipur judgment and not better judgment? Why these legal luminaries do not understand that without the help of the judgment in my case their writ petition is restricted to only DA/DR revision and not to revision of pensions. Instead of thinking on the correct lines these persons are hurling unwanted slogans against me to cover up their follies.  There are so many things which they did not do nor even conceived by them but were necessary.  I could not have taken any action directly because I was not a party to their case.  When I saw that no action is being taken in spite of advice I had to move application for impleadment, which is still pending before the SC.

Mr. SN Chhabra had sent a letter to all the Units of AIRIEF against the Federation, against me. Does this not amount to indiscipline? Otherwise he says that I am not conversant with law and legal procedures when things come to be unanswerable to him otherwise he is making false allegations against me and AIRIEF. I had managed the presence of Sr Advocate on the first date of hearing of Chandigarh SLP with his consent and he was present in the Court but he says that no Advocate was arranged, he was called to Delhi when I had gone there for his case, so that he can meet the Sr. Advocate but he did not reach in time why? He did not know of the proceedings in the SC when LIC had obtained hearing on mention in April but I managed the presence of our Advocate on telephone and sent the requisite documents on Inter and the second attempt for stay by LIC was rebuffed by the SC and I informed him.  Why they did not take objection when LIC had given undertaking to deposit the money within six weeks, a clarification was required but not wanted, no objection to the deposit of only DA/DR anomaly removal and that too in a false manner? Why deposit when it is a decided matter then why not payment directly? Why objections have not been raised so far about the method of calculation, where is 11.25% weightage, where is revision on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007? Why no opposition to a long date of seven months? He did not inform me of the application which he had filed nor has provided me a copy of the same so far in spite of demand? Why? He has changed the mentor to Shri MS Murty then why he is hurling accusations on me amounting to defamation? When already had been working with success why a separate Advocate for the same cause and since I have also to engage a Sr. Advocate for ensuing proceedings because of my Sr. Advocate becoming Advocate for the Union of India, why he did not divulge the name of his choice when I asked for the same so that I can also settle on the same Sr. Advocate? He has also hurled the question of payment of expenses in our SLP by AIRIEF? When it is known that AIRIEF had been financing the litigation in SC where was the reason to raise objection and why a separatist attitude? What useful purpose of engaging a separate Advocate will be served because when the matter is the same the Court is not going to hear again and again on the same matter and when the judgment is reproduction of Jaipur judgment what new ground can be raised by the second Advocate? Then why not work together? Why does he not ask LIC under RTI the expenses incurred by it on this unwanted litigation prolonged by it with details of fees paid to various Advocates and making us to defend their onslaught for seeking our fundamental right?

Can Mr. BR Mehta, or Mr. SN Chhabra or Mr. MS Murty tell me whether they are being paid correct pension as per Rules? Have they ever tried to find out.  As well wisher to pensioners the interests of poor family members are also our liability, have they ever checked whether correct pension is being paid to them?

 Mr. BRM has been questioning the contribution made to me by several donors for the litigation expenses and has been making false allegations, then firstly he has to show what is his locus or authority to seek all the clarifications and what is his contribution therein both financially, professionally and positively in the interest of pensioners except hurling abuses on me? Did he ever come to Delhi when the case was listed and bore the travails and troubles there about the attitude and way of working of the Advocates? Whatever contribution was received was credited to a separate account opened for this purpose. Not a single pie was credited to my personal account.  My Pensions and Saving Banks accounts are separate and in separate Banks too. Mr HK Aggarwal did nothing wrong in writing to make contribution to this separate account because he had full faith in me and for the convenience for many individuals and associations who were not ready to contribute due to their own affiliations.  I or Mr. HK Aggarwal never said only and only to my account.  We have always been saying that the amount be remitted to Indore or to Jaipur.  There is nothing wrong in it.

To Jaipur Panchkula Unit has not contributed anything, they are trying to take credit of the contribution made by Chandigarh people. They have no right to ask for account without an undertaking to repay the balance outstanding therein for expenditure before and from 1998 and the amount which I have incurred and not taken from AIRIEF. A question monger should bear the responsibility also.

Before I give the account Mr BR Mehta or Mr. SN Chhabra should give me an assurance that he will reimburse me the expenses which I have incurred since 1997 when the issue was for the first time raised before the Corpn and then before the Court.  Does he know how many dates were fixed, how many applications for early hearing and interim reliefs were moved and what was the expenditure thereon? What fees had to be paid to Advocates at Jaipur? What I was to gain after the revision takes place, merely Rs. 1000=00 then why does he expect me to spend lakhs of rupees?

Did he pay his attention on immediately filing objection to the deposit of the amount in the HC. It is better to exercise his energies in the right direction because such false and intentional accusations with wide publicity may entail defamation proceedings against him. Therefore I request and advice him to be fair and act for the pensioners, he is not going to get anything out of this.

Though I am not required to give any explanation but I am sorry to say that it is falsely being made an Issue against me by Mr. BRM. It is totally false and frivolous to say that I ever opposed to make a mention. But who was to do?  In case I had not agreed who prevented Mr. Mehta or Mr. Chhabra or Mr. Murty from making a mention? Why they did not make a mention earlier? When the SLPs were continuously being listed none had come to Delhi, why? If I have made a mention and have done their work that is also objectionable to them and when I did not do that was also objectionable.  They have no stand? Had that been correct why I had made an application for impleadment or early hearing or in the alternative for a direct to make payment of difference from the current month subject to decision. In my message I had only said that a mention was made on my behalf by my Advocate on the applications which I have moved for separation of the two SLPS – DA/DR and upgradation of pension and for direction to pay the difference by way of interim relief and the Court was pleased to pass the order for the case to be listed on 12/11/2014 a Wednesday which is a full hearing day.  Why it pinched them so much so that even MENTION has been made an Issue.  The underlying idea can very well be appreciated.

He only wants to have a common meeting for publicity sake but has not come out so far “when and where”.  I had already communicated my acceptance to meet at any place after Navratra, then where is the question of not agreeing.  I had even gone to Delhi on his call. Mr. BR Mehta as usual has been hurling sarcastic remarks on this issue.. I had been in consultation with Mr Murty since long but when I saw that he is not clear in his mind about the legal formalities I had to calm down.  Has he formed any strategy in the matter of defence of Chandigarh case, of which mentor and guide he has now become as has been given out by Mr. SN Chhabra though he is not a member of AIRIEF and how to defend the Delhi SLP on the issue which was not raised there.  Except hurling allegations nothing practical has come from his side as has been said by me earlier.  Has he prepared any reply to SLP, either Delhi or Chandigarh SLPs which has to be filed to vindicate our stand, did he oppose the condonation of delay, why not? I do not want to enter into all this but in case they do not want to work together I pray to these persons to work as they want and let me work as I have been doing since the beginning and that too with victory, when they actually do not want to work but only raising accusations in others’ working.

On this point Mr BR Mehta is over anxious since one way or the other he has to blame and defame me. which I suggest he should deter, I always welcome healthy and fruitful criticisms and suggestions.

I have never sought any credit then why this is being made the Issue.  Nothing can be done when I am the forerunner and all the SLPs are the outcome of my case, therefore, first my SLP will be heard and the judgment therein will be binding on others, and that will be a history in legal arena in either manner they are decided (good or bad) and so whenever reference will come the name of Krishna Murari Lal Asthana will be referred whether I claim or not or anybody has any objection or not. No help, no excuse, no control.

An impossible proposal was made to me for filing suits for recovery of the money through civil court on the basis of judgment in writ petition that was not approved by me and had given the proposer the position of law and since then he is averse to me. Neither the Civil Court can work since there is no decree and before filing execution petition first court fee at 10% of the amount claimed will have to be deposited which is not refundable. Now the same thing is being tried to be followed at Chandigarh to calculate their dues and file the same, why? it is not understood, do we have all the data? whether we know that correct pension is being paid to us and as per the Pension Rules what should be our pension and what is being paid? If we give our calculations that will become admission on our part and we will be bound by the same. Instead they should seek a direction that LIC should give month wise detailed calculation sheets. First of all they should oppose the deposit of the money in the Court when it is a decided case. When stay has been refused mere pendency of SLP or CA does not give the respite and non compliance is contempt of court, what action has been taken in this direction?

In is wrongly stated that I am a practising lawyer. Though I am a Law Graduate but I never made an application for enrolment.  However, I am actively working in the field of law. And many Law firms get their work done from me. I have also filed with success some PILs at my own cost and did not seek any benefit monetary or otherwise from any one. The entire drafting from 1998 till date both at Jaipur and Delhi was done by me, rulings were searched out.  I know persons like BR Mehta may say it to be boasting but it is a fact that it was me who had searched out the rulings and raised the issue of non-maintainability of appeal against dismissal of review petition and the result is known to all.

It must be remembered that the Gold Coin writ was filed by me and it was only thereafter that Rs. 3000 were paid to all the retired employees and the said writ petition is still pending for final adjudication, did any one pay any amount for that either personally or through their respective Association to me or to AIRIEF. Or did any out of we too asked for the same? Mr. BRM or Mr. SNC is not aware of the same? At least Mr. SN Chhabra got that benefit. ? Will the account seekers reimburse me the expenditure?

Though I have already explained about the fate of the contempt petition and had always been keeping informed to one and sundry about the proceedings which had been taking place.  Under what circumstances the contempt petition has been dismissed has also been informed to all, yet reference to this decision is unfortunate and shows lack of knowledge of Contempt of Courts Act.  But they are trying to reap advantage out of the same. I had no authority to withdraw the contempt petition howsoever I may have desired, no clarification was required since Supreme Court had already clarified not once but thrice, that is why it has not avoided to be mentioned in the order as to what clarification is required and if at all it was for the court to have sought the same but before that should have made a mention in the order. Further when some clarification is required the Contempt petition should have been kept waiting till then. I have already challenged the dismissal of Contempt petition by filing SLP in the Supreme Court at my cost. Will these persons contribute any amount if not why not?

Any way in case you do not want to have a dialogue with me in the right earnest shedding your ego, please do whatever you want to do in your cases and don’t try to encroach upon my cases and please act in the interest of the pensioners at large and do not create confusion in regard to the credit because you are not capable of changing the chain of events which has already taken place so far.  I give all the credit to you all but for God’s sake do not create confusion in the minds of the Pensioners and create hurdles and obstructions so as to make a strategy to win the case as far as possible.  Rest rests on the will of the Almighty and the fate and fortune of the pensioners.  I have been doing and will continue to do the best possible so long  as I am able to do, which I can only assure the pensioners fraternity.

In future any uncalled for and false remarks hurled on me or acted in my name will not be proper, which please note.

KML Asthana

1/10/2014
(Font colour changes do not mean to highlight any portion of statement. It is employed for reading convenience only.-Ed.)

Shri.R.B.Kishore,VP,AIRIEF wrote in LICPC on 27-08-2014 under the caption, ' Some more light on pre 1986 pensioners'.  

Shri Kishoreji said " How frequently RBI has done the revision speaks high of RBIs concern for all types of pensioners & exgratia retirees." 

The pre 1986 retirees of RBI  and banks get the same amount of ex gratia and the same percentage of DR on basic.The pre 1986 LIC retirees too get the same amount of ex gratia and the percentage of DR on basic like banks but at times after a few months delay. The RBI Governors have been empathetic to the health and age related problems of the pre 1986 ex gratia recipients and have sanctioned medical allowance. The medical allowance which was Rs.300/- few years ago has been revised upward periodically and at present ranges between Rs.3400/- and Rs.5600/- p.m. to different staff and officers. It is Rs. 1000/- pm to pre 1986 retirees of LIC. (R.K.B.)

Shri Kishorji had added in his write up that AIRIEF has in its Charter of Demands requested the LIC Management to increase the medical allowance to different categories of staff and officers on the lines of RBI, may it be a bit less. The matter must be pursued vigorously.

Shri C.H.Mahadevan in his recent letter addressed to the Chairman (posted in PC on 22-09-2014) had mentioned about the anomaly in family pension at the minimum and maximum  ( Rs.1250/- and Rs.2400/- ) of the pensioners retired in August 1987 and 1992 pay scales. The inadequate pension that the family pensioners of our late colleagues are getting is very much glaring. With the cost of living going up every month, the family pensioners of a junior cadre Assistant to Senior most Executive Director getting five to ten thousand rupees a month, definitely might not be able to maintain the kind of standard of living they lived for years. It is pity that the authorities that matter in GOI and /or  in LIC are reluctant to play their role effectively to address to the unresolved issues of updating of pension,100 % DR, family pension at 30 % of the last pay drawn, improvement  in the amount of ex gratia to  and medical allowance to pre 1986 retirees.

The ceiling ( maximum ) on Family Pension Basic at Rs.1250/-( later revised to Rs.2400/- ) was as 4 th CPC. THE 5 Th CPC RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF THE CEILING OF Rs.1250/- ON FAMILY PENSION WHICH, THE COMMISSION OBSERVED, OPERATES HARSHLY AGAINST THE FAMILIES OF EMPLOYEES. THE COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED REMOVAL OF VARYING RATES ( 30, 20, 15 PERCENT ) OF FAMILY PENSION FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES. IT RECOMMENDED A UNIFORM 30 % OF PAY FOR ALL CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES.  GOI family pensioners have been getting 30 % of pay since 01-01-1996. The family pensioners also like pensioners get ' updation of pension' on ' certain norms ' once in ten years along with revision of scales of working employees. The family pensioners also get additional 20 %, 30 %, 40%, 50 % and 100 % pension when they turn 80,85, 90, 95 and 100  years old. The minimum family pension in GOI  is Rs. 3500/- and the maximum Rs.27000/- (the Cabinet Secretary ). The  latest DR is 107 % for the period 01-07-2014 to 01-12-2014.

RBI family pensioners were also getting very meagre pension like banks and LIC. Their leaders prevailed upon the management and MOF, GOI. The GOI as usual after long persuasion, consented for Family Pension at 30 % of the ' last pay drawn' to all from 12-01-2013, from the date of GOI gazette notification.  With a view of doing away with multiple DR rates, RBI consolidated the basic pay eligible for pension at CPI 2836 merger - effected from 01-11-2007 revision of pay scales in banks and RBI. The pay revisions of 1987, 1992, 1997 and 2002 were at merger point of 600, 1148, 1684 and 2288.The RBI adopted a simple formula for consolidation to arrive at the new basic pay. An example of consolidation of pay of an employee retired in 1987 pay scale : 1200 (basic pay) x 2836 / 600 =5672  is the revised consolidated pay and 30 % of the consolidated / revised pay of an employee is the basic family pension. The minimum  and maximum family pension in RBI from January 2013 is Rs.3500/- and Rs.24495/-. They get DR at uniform rate( as revised from time to time on half yearly basis ) irrespective of date of retirement / death of employee, as payable to post  01-11-2007 retirees whose pay scales are based on CPI 2836. The latest DR for the period 01-08-2014 to 31-01-2015 is 102.45 % of the basic family pension. Majority of the family pensioners are reportedly getting since January 2013 double or more than double the pension they did draw when there was ' ceiling' etc. The minimum and maximum family pension including DR for the month of August 2014 is Rs.7086/- and Rs.49591/- respectively.

  The last revision of pay scales in LIC was from 01-08-2007 with merger point of 2944.The pay revisions of 1987, 1992, 1997,  and 2002  were at  merger point of 600, 1148, 1740 and 2328 respectively. There is an urgent need to revise the Family Pension. Our family pensioners, like family pensioners in GOI /RBI should get 30 % of the eligible basic pay for pension with the minimum of Rs.3500/-. Shri GNSji in one of his writings in LICPC some months back had said,
  

" We are at it " The matter may be pursued at the highest level with all the seriousness that it 

   deserves by all leaders including Shri GNS ji.
   

   SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

Arrears to retd officers: "Happy to see Shri Mahadevan's painstaking efforts," writes MP Subramanian

Respected Sri CHM,  

It gives great pleasure to go through your message addressed to top brass of  LIC Management on calculation of Family Pension, arrears payable to retired class 1 officers based on the judgment in respect of Sri M.C.Jain case, etc and also your pains taking replies to the queries raised by our pensioner colleagues irrespective of the associations in which they are members.
It is amazing to find that you continue to have rapport with M/s R.B. Kishore, K.M.L. Asthana, Madhava Rao and at times you never failed to point out your disagreement with them in rare circumstances through never-mistaken language.

We used to appreciate your method of approaching issues without hurting anybody's feelings. Some how matters have gone too far and Hyderabad Unit had to plant a new organisation; certainly it is not an un-welcome development. Evolution is nature's choice. .... .... ....

Now it is time to observe caution in ventilating objectionable comments against any one petitioner.
A NEGLECTED SPARK MAY BURN THE HOUSE. Let us avoid a small murmur too that may cause unnecessary bickering among the petitioners.
LET US ALL HOPE THAT OUR YEARS' LONG SUFFERINGS WOULD COME TO AN END WITHIN A MONTH OR TWO AFTER 12-11-2014.
Restraining our personal emotions is the need of the hour. We will certainly be coming closer in the coming months.

 M.P. Subrahmanian, RIEA, Madurai.

Jan Dhan scheme - 3500 crores collected in deposits

PTI MUMBAI, SEPT 29:

Banks have opened a whopping five crore accounts under the Jan Dhan

scheme till September 25 and collected over Rs. 3,500 crore in deposits, 

a top Finance Ministry official said here today.

Led by state-run banks, the system has opened over 5 crore accounts under 

the Jan Dhan scheme as of September 25 and the deposits collected 

through the scheme have crossed Rs. 3,500 crore, Financial Services 

Secretary GS Sandhu told the annual meeting of the Indo-American 

Chamber.
The average deposit per account through this scheme is Rs. 800-900, 

he said.
Giving a major push to the Aadhaar scheme, Sandhu said, all these 

accounts will be seeded to the Aadhar number and will have biometrics 

to avoid the duplication.

The Jan Dhan scheme was announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi 

during his Independence Day address and was formally launched on
August 28.

On the opening day itself, banks opened over 1.5 crore accounts. The 

government has set a target to open 7.5 crore such no-frills accounts
by Republic Day next year.
Each of these accounts comes with Rs. 5,000 overdraft facility and 

Rs. 1 lakh accident cover and is linked only to the RuPay cards.

(Courtesy: R.B.KISHORE)