REVIEW PETITION

Dear Editor, 

The comments aired through the Chronicle as well as in personal mail threads by many of our well-informed colleagues, are only representative samples of the feelings of thousands of LIC Pensioners. 

It is necessary that ALL the Respondent groups immediately file Review Petitions on Monday/Tuesday, mention before the Bench,pray and secure modified Orders before the PETITIONCourt closes for vacation. 

It is possible to make out a strong case for getting the Order changed to make the benefit payable to 'Pensioners' instead of 'Petitioners' and to direct LIC to pay 20% of the amounts payable under the 'impugned Judgments' without reference to the amounts deposited. We should try hard and we cannot be worse off if we don't succeed. 

It is hoped that Jaipur being the Lead Petitioner (in HC) and Lead Respondent (in SC), would take the lead and the other two groups should follow suit.

I am doing my bit to contact all those whom I can and am willing & ready to extend my support with material. Panchkula/Chandigarh group being the 'poor cousin' of the Federation, are waiting for the big brother to set the first foot forward.

Mr GNS being the worst hit, can ill afford to keep quiet because even the few rupees he wants to secure for his members would elude him unless he gets the Order duly changed.                  

Thanks and regards,

M Sreenivasa Murty 

My comments on the Chat-n-Chat posts

10 May 15, 08:46 PM 10 May 15, 08:48 PM T sampath iyengar: situation would have been more clear in to-day's circumstances but let us not live in the past and let us see what may happen to contempt case coming up on 21st in punjab and Haryana H.C. PB & H contempt case is independent of the SC situation. There the issue is that LIC has not complied with the HC judgment which has been refused to be stayed by the SC although the petitioners have given the calculations of their entitled amount as per the judgment to LIC demanding payment. The petitioners’ counsel has only to convince the HC that LIC have failed to pay the correct amount due and thereby committed contempt. The cause for contempt also arises from the fact that the monthly pensions in respect of the petitioners have not been revised consequential to the HC judgment. 10 May 15, 08:46 PM T sampath iyengar: that LIC will be committing contempt if it faultily implements the latest SC Order--- LIC will be only too happy to implement the interim order of SC and avoid contempt. There is no scope for faulty implementation. Even the correct implementation suits LIC to persist with its wrong and inadequate ad interim payment only to the original petitioners and get away with it at least till 23/9/2015!   With greetings, C H Mahadevan

K BHAKTAVATSALA RAO

        HHHA...

               HHHA...

                       HHHA...

Whose time is running out my dear LIC pensioners? 

Don't you know "time and tide waits for none"?

For all these years, I am almost every day ... a regular visitor of "LIC PC". During earlier visits I found very interesting information on our issues in various courts (it is not that now a days the information is not floating .. it is .. but it is not that much interesting .. 

Words like COURT ADJOURNMENTS have become very common in which we have no interest rather not so sweety. 

I used to inform my wife and children (almost regularly) the status of our cases and the benefit that we are going to get and they too were very much enthusiastically asking me when they expect arrears and revised pension and they were dreaming some thing...something with the arrears because I promised them whatever arrears I get, the amount will be distributed in four parts i.e., myself, my wife, my only daughter and my only son and hoped let them enjoy keeping my part in a savings account. 

The days passed by..
months passed by...
then years...

My children got married and they have gone on their own jobs/businesses...finally my children forgot it. Only my aged wife is enquiring once in two/three months intervals regarding the status of our case. 

Even if we get any arrears, we have to clear our debts spent on our health and other expenses. Now she has no interest in our case and she has left all hopes. Only, I was having a RAY of hope till 7th May, 2015.

If the pensioners are treated as employees .. why all these cases in high courts and the supreme court? The pensioners are to get wage revisions .. food coupons etc., etc., automatically on par with the employees. Employees are paid their salaries one day prior to the next first of a month, if it falls on a saturday or a holiday, one more day in advance .. if it is in the month of March atleast eight to ten days in advance... where as for pensioners it is only on or after first of next month .. why this kind of discrimination? Are we a discarded section of people in the society/administration?

Thousands of LIC pensioners are at their ages ranging from 70+, 80+ and very small number with 90+ are eagerly waiting for a favourable judgement from the SC bench and observing the case for years..particularly from August,14, November 14, January 15, March 15, April 15 (all were adjourned) and with top expectations on 7th May 15.. Finally what we saw - an order which was without a clear clarification on HC judgement ( an IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT). The Jaipur HC judgement was very clear that the DR anomaly should be removed and upgradation of pension as per LIC 2001 Board decision.

All these years since Jaipur HC judgement, LIC litigating the implementation of the HC judgement misleading the SC saying that they have deposited in the registry of the concerned HCs .. the arrears as per Jaipur HC judgement. Nowhere LIC has given the list consisting of basis for new pensions, period of pension arrears etc., that too they have remitted to the respondent pensioners only i.e., very few of whom we can count on fingers after reducing the candidates who have already left this world.

Are the three pensioners organisations and the LIC/GOI are fighting only for few respondent pensioners for few thousands of rupees by spending crores of rupees towards legal expenses? IT IS A BIG JOKE DIGGING A BIG MOUNTAIN TO CATCH A SMALL RAT on the part of LIC. It is a shameful act by an organisation like LIC.

LIC/GOI are encashing the weaknesses of three pensioners organisations. Let us keep aside the LIC/GOI combine who have POLITICAL POWER and MONEY POWER. Our three organisations (pensioners) are looking like big enemies - none of them will support the other. These three are not coming on to a single platform and with one idealogy. Always they differ with each other. Where is the end for this fight? Definitely at the end - LIC/GOI are going to benefit - THE BIG LOSERS ARE THE POOR PENSIONERS. It makes no difference for the pensioner organisations/LIC/GOI whether they loose or win the case. WE THE PENSIONERS ARE THE SUFFERERS.

Without a clear cut order from the SC - 99.9% of pensioners are not going to get any relief immediately. Another waiting of four more LONG months for next hearing in the SC that too for another adjournment with in few minutes of our case being taken up (if at all) on 23rd Sept.15.

In the mean time, let us see how many of us will leave this world without the case being decided.

Justice Unfair

Bolt out of the blue.
20% arrears qua petitioners,
numbering about 40 pensioners
or to all pre 1997 pensioners or ...

The Apex Court has recently given the benefit, in rem, to all the affected pre 2006 pensioners on a writ filed by a few aggrieved pre 2006 pensioners.

Here, in the instant judgement, it has also been stated that the Court release 20% of amount deposited...etc. 

These wordings lead to interpretation of extending benefit selectively only to those pensioners who did petition to the Courts disregarding all other similarly aggrieved pensioners. Isn't it discriminating? Isn't it unfair?

"Needless to say, the payment in continuum shall be considered when the appeals are taken up for hearing..." the judgement continues....the payment in continuum ? to whom ? To all pensioners or only to a few petitioners?

Hardly a week for the S.C. to go on summer break.
The Case Managers and the Counsellors are
requested to seek clarification forthwith.

If the case managers are unable to seek clarification from the Court within the limited time schedule next week? The respondent employees (pensioners) shall have to accept the arrears as directed by the Supreme Court. Is there any option?

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

A clarification

The court order says:

" As an ad-interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner-Corporation shall release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court, in favour of the respondent-employees within six weeks hence, subject to final result in the appeals." 

Please click below to read SHRI KML ASTHANA'S CLARIFICATIONS GIVEN TO SHRI BD BHARGAVA

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Time is running out.
The SC is going on "summer vacation"
for 45 days from 17th inst. 

Any clarification needed arising out of the
Court Order should be obtained within
the next few working days left.

Case Managers awake and arise to
get a purposeful clarification order to
ease the implementation of the
SC order of 7th idem,
lest we will be missing the bus.

J.M. ABOOBUCKER           

Interim (oh, sorry, it should be a scholarly 'ad-interim') order

This was before the days of internet and mobile telephony. Mr S. Sriraman, a simple, always cheerful and witty soul and a friend of mine, was employed by a small private life insurance company before becoming an employee of the great, one-and-only L I C of India.

One of his favourite jokes was :
"Ramanathan, do you know how to answer a policyholder's query? I'll tell you. Start off by quoting the policy number as the header of the letter to the policyholder and then go on to the first paragraph which should INVARIABLY be : 'With reference to your ABOVE policy No. we HAVE TO STATE as UNDER.

The second paragraph should be a mishmash of castor oil, colocasia andokra, raw okra slices
all mixed in such liberal proportions so that it will beat a greased eel hands down and neither the writer nor the recipient would know what it is supposed to mean or convey. And, Ramanathan, don't forget to conclude the letter always with : 'We hope the matter is clear to you now' even though you yourself haven't the foggiest notion of what the goddamn thing is all about!' "

Thanks are due to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the apex court, the repository of 101-time distilled wisdom, for affording an opportunity to indulge in some nostalgia and hats off to it and, of course, to the legal fraternity too.

"SUPREME" confusion

Dear Editor,

Supreme Court has brought Supreme Confusion for all of us and hope all the three case managers must be feeling heat of so called Supreme Confusion.

Let us see how our three case managers work next week by seeking a clarification from relevant bench to bring all of us out of this supreme confusion.

Time at disposal of our case managers is just three working days from 12th May to 14th May ear marked for final hearing before supreme court closes for summer vacation next week end.

We wish all success to our case managers.

Your cartoon showing confusion before and after release of said orders is really superb.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula

Dear Shri Gangadharanji, 

Will the  confusion continue till september? We all thought it will be  a speaking order without the need for clarification and interpretation.

LIC is aware of the pensioners problems and what they are reasonably asking for. In six weeks time they should be able to workout,and carry out the orders without resorting to spending time for obtaining clarifications.

It is time our case managers submit to the court, what is due to the individual pensioner, since he retired. Sh. Mahadevan has the calculations, I think.

Independent of what has already been deposited in the courts, LIC should come forward to settle the issue and effect 20% payment to all eligible pensioners.   

Chandrasekharan

"Problems" insoluble !

1. I observed that the Courts in the SC have more than 50 to 60 cases for hearing in a single working day. And hence they rush through the proceedings in their anxiety to take up maximum cases fixed for that Day, leaving very little time for each case.

2. Our case being a Part-heard Final Hearing Case demands more time for submitting the full details of Cases not by a single but by 3 Rspondents Counsels. For this it appears that the Court was not inclined for reasons stated in 1 above. This has resulted in our Counsels getting very little time - to be exact - only 13 minutes.

3. In this short time all our counsels rushed and tried to talk lacking clarity of the details of the cases to the learned Judges. This led to the judge to say "stay vacated" as if the Respondent Counsels are demanding for the same, whereas there was no stay at all in the cases.

4. LIC Counsel informed the court that they had already deposited the "amount" due to the Respondent Employees (pensioners). Taking it for granted the court has ordered release 20% of the amount deposited by the LIC into the HCs as an interim relief to the Respondent Employees (which means here Pensioners).

5. The Counsels could not explain to the Court HOW the "amount due" is expected to be calculated and what forms the Components, which according to the pensioners are the twin benefits of 100% DA/DR and Pension Upgradation for every wage revision for serving employees. This being a moot question between the litigants, and our counsels could not explain to the court the "nuances", LIC stands in ADVANTAGE position having successfully misled the court that they had already deposited the "amounts" due to the Respondents by remitting a pittance in the HC. I wish the court should ask LIC "is it for denying this pittance that you are spending several lakhs of policyholders money over decade and half?"

6. Unless our Counsels approach the court again for clarification of their orders by successfully explaining the Correct Components of the "amounts due" there will be no use of the much awaited and late received Court Order.

7. " In rem " application of the benefit flowing of court order be expexted only when the Final Judgement is given by the SC in our cases. Till then the interim order will be between the respondent employees(pensioners) and LIC only and not for all pensioners.

J.M. ABOOBUCKER. LEAMINGTON SPA (U.K)

WHAT SHOULD BE OUR NEXT STEP ?

Interpretation of the SC order dt 7/5/2015

As an ad-interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner-Corporation shall release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court, in favour of the respondent-employees within six weeks hence, subject to final result in the appeals. 
---------
In case, where the amount has not been deposited, needless to emphasize, the Corporation shall pay and question of any kind of withdrawal from court does not arise

• This means that payment has to be made by LIC as per all the three HC judgments. While the payment for Chandigarh petitioners will also be required to be made on the lines of  that for Jaipur petitioners, the payment in case of Delhi HC  judgment( for pre-August 1997 retirees) will be made to all eligible pre-August  Class 1997 retirees.
• But there is a possibility that in respect of Delhi HC judgment,LIC will again play the same game as done in respect of the other two HC judgments –of course with a larger number of ‘beneficiaries’. We have to see whether the Federation will be content with  pre-August 1997 retired Class I officers accepting the interim payment of an inadequate and  deliberately erroneous amount when offered by LIC.
• As a result of the SC order, post-July 1997 retirees are left high and dry.

How are AIRIEF and Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers’Associations going  to tackle the situation?

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

SC order dt 7/5/2015 and its implications

The Supreme Court has ordered inter alia,

"If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees. "

My view:

Our counsel must have pointed out to the court immediately how the relief provided is not only inadequate but also erroneous-even for the respondent- pensioners for the following reasons:

1) LIC has not acted as per the directions of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench allowing writ petition no 6676/1998 as per which the anomaly in DR arising out of disparity in DR formula between pensioners and in-service employees prior to 1/8/1997 was to be removed and payment of difference in pension was required to be made from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever was later;

2) LIC has restricted the revision of pension only
from 1/8/1997 without adopting the same principle of merger of Basic Pension and DR on 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 and paying difference thereof on further revisions of pension;

and

3) LIC had completely overlooked the fact that the Jaipur SJB order had allowed the W P No 654/2007,whereby pension of all retirees was to be upgraded based on revised scales of pay on all future wage revision dates after 1/8/1997 also.LIC had not deposited any amount in Jaipur HC Registry in respect of some post- July 1997 retiree-petitioners

I hope the case managers will consider ways and means of bringing it to the notice of the Apex Court before 15/5/2015.

For the above reasons, my view is that the respondent- pensioners should refuse to accept the interim payment when made by LIC so as not to weaken our case for final verdict of the SC.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan

The supreme confusion

Dear Editor,

While ordering releasing of 20% of what
was deposited in the Courts by LIC,
the Bench had obviously assumed that
what was deposited is what is 'payable'.
Most unfortunately we could not take it to
the notice of the Bench that the principal
contentious area between the Petitioners
and LIC pertains to the amounts payable
on account of our demand for 'Enhancement'
of Pension. Here LIC played foul by
misleading the Bench (successfully) that
they had already deposited the amounts
'payable', that too under the Hon'ble
Supreme Court's directions in the contempt
proceedings.

Although the contempt proceedings in the Rajasthan High Court are not pending, the case is very much open in Punjab & Haryana High Court in Chandigarh with the next date of hearing fixed for 21st May 2015. Further LIC was very much put on Notice in Chandigarh on the exact amounts payable to each of the Petitioners there, month-wise.  

All this, just to establish that the Petitioners' claims on amounts payable, are very much before the concerned HCs.

I think we have a good case to discuss among ourselves and to appraise our Sr Counsel, on what went wrong and what can be done to retrieve the lost ground.

By approaching the Court for clarification and correction, we have nothing to lose and we will not be certainly worse off.           

Thanks and regards,

M Sreenivasa Murty

SUPREME COURT ORDER

DEAR ALL,

The Supreme Court order  is no doubt disappointing to the large fraternity of pensioners, but the silver lining in the cloud is that the Apex Court has recognised the importance of the issue of enhancement of pension as is evidenced by its order to list the CAs for hearing between items 1 to 5 in the hearing list on 23/9/2015.

Considering the trend of the Supreme Court ordering interim relief only to the respondent employees (original petitioners), I feel it is high time that the AIRIEF considered the desirability and necessity of getting itself impleaded in the CAs in the Supreme Court so that benefits - if and when ordered by the Apex Court - will be guaranteed for all the eligible pensioners. This  step of course will have to weigh the possibility of the legal processes involved and the time element in carrying on the litigation that may entail further delay.

But if  all the three Civil Appeals are decided in favour of the  pensioner-petitioners, the 'in rem'  principle adopted in the Delhi HC  judgment should come to the rescue of pensioners at large. However, legal experts may be able to enlighten us in the matter.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan 

SC Order is OUT - Full of ERRORS APPARENT

Dear Editor, 

With due regard to the Bench, the Order is full of 

ERRORS APPARENT.

It is EGREGIOUS to say the least 

Apart from the issues affecting the Pensioners, LIC may have to approach the Bench for clarifications. 

What is LIC supposed to do in the case of Delhi? Who are the Petitioners there? What about in REM? In their case one doesn't know how to apply this Order. Obviously unintended confusion.  

I am sure Mr Nidhesh Gupta and Mr Sreeram Pachu would like to approach the Court on 12th or 13th May, to correct the errors apparent.. If so the other Respondents should follow suit.

Let us wait for the Counsels' reactions first.

HIGH TIME THAT ALL RESPONDENTS MOVE IN ONE DIRECTION AFTER OBJECTIVE DISCUSSIONS AND FULL PREPARATION    

M Sreenivasa Murty 

AMOUNT PAYBLE TO RESPONDENT-EMPLOYEES ONLY

"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 

O R D E R

C.A. Nos.8959-8962/2013, 6995/2013, 9223/2013 and 9409-9410/2013 

Let these matters be listed for hearing on 23rd September, 2015. 

As an ad-interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner-Corporation shall release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court,

in favour of the respondent-employees 

within six weeks hence, 

subject to final result in the appeals."

Readers may send their comments.

SUPREME COURT ORDER DATED 7TH MAY 2015

CA 8959-62/13 1 

ITEM NO.19 COURT NO.5 SECTION XV 

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal Nos.8959-8962 of 2013 LIC OF INDIA AND ORS 

Appellant(s) VERSUS KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA AND ANR ETC. 

Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for directions and dismissal of appeal and permission to file additional documents and office report) WITH C.A. No.6995/2013 (With appln.(s) for impleadment as party respondent and appln.(s) for implementation of court's order and office report) 

C.A. No.9223/2013 (With appln.(s) for intervention and Office Report) 

C.A. Nos.9409-9410/2013 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) 

S.L.P.(C).....CC Nos.5437-5440/2015 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in refiling SLP and appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP and Office Report) 

Date : 07/05/2015 

These appeals were called on for hearing today. 

CORAM : 

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA 

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT 

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following 

O R D E R

C.A. Nos.8959-8962/2013, 6995/2013, 9223/2013 and 9409-9410/2013 

Let these matters be listed for hearing on 23rd September, 2015. 

As an ad-interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner-Corporation shall release 20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court, in favour of the respondent-employees within six weeks hence, subject to final result in the appeals. 

If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees. 

In case, where the amount has not been deposited, needless to emphasize, the Corporation shall pay and question of any kind of withdrawal from court does not arise. 

Needless to say, the payment in continuum shall be considered when the appeals are taken up for hearing. S.L.P.(C) No.....CC Nos.5437-5440/2015 Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay, as also on the special leave petitions. 

Learned counsel who are appearing in the other appeals accept notice. They undertake to file counter affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any be filed within four weeks. Let the matter be listed along with the appeals on 23rd September, 2015. 

Parties are at liberty to file additional documents and those which are already filed, be taken on record. 

As the matter relates to grant of enhancement of pension, it shall be listed between item Nos.1 to 5 in the hearing list. 

(Chetan Kumar) 
Court Master 

(H.S. Parasher) 
Court Master

FEDERATION OF RETD LIC CLASS I OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONS

President:         S.K. Kapahi                                       Gen Secretary’s Office:

Gen Secretary: G.N. Sridharan                                  7/4, II Cross St, Karpagam Garden

                                                                                    Adyar, Chennai 600020                                                                                                                   Date: 9th May 2015

OUR CASE IN SUPREME COURT 

- A STEP FORWARD AT LAST!

The Appeals filed by LIC against the verdicts of the Division Benches in three High Courts, in regard to the twin issues of pensioners came up before the Bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice PC. Pant on 7th May 2015. Our Federation was represented by Senior Counsel Shri Sriram Panchu and Counsel at Delhi Shri RK. Garg.

The Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India drew the attention of the Bench to their SLP against the judgement of Rajasthan HC. The Court ordered issue of notice on the said SLP, and directed that the Respondents to file their Counter/Affidavits, and posted the matter to 23rd Sept 2015.

It was only at this juncture, in the context of long adjournment and possible delay because of UOI's intervention, our Senior Counsel pointed out that the Government's SLP did not relate to the Delhi HC order where we had raised the issue of the DR Anomaly affecting pensioners. It was also mentioned on our behalf that while deposits were made in the case of petitioners before Jaipur HC and Punjab & Haryana HC, nothing had been done by LIC pursuant to the judgement of the Delhi HC in the Writ Petition filed by our Federation. The argument was aptly supported by our Counsel Shri Garg. No other counsel pleaded for or against it.

The Court then said that there will be no stay in any of the cases, and passed orders directing LIC to pay employees, as an interim measure, 20% of the amounts due to them till date, within six weeks (which time stipulation will end on 18th June 2015.

There has been some delay in getting copy of the order this time, we are sure that the order of the SC with direction of interim relief definitely means that we have got out of the rut and taken a positive step forward. For the past three or four years, unwarranted and unfair propaganda was being made and accusations hurled that our Federation was not for upgradation of pension when, in fact, we have repeatedly made it loud and clear that we stand for upgradation though, it is true, we expressed reservation on the prospects of point-to-point re-fixation of pensions, and the modus operandi of getting it through judiciary or over-reliance on the 2010 verdict of Jaipur HC . However, it is good that staunch propagandists of the said kind of upgradation themselves climbed down to expect and express the same in the form of any formulae like percentage related to periodical wage revision for the in-service workforce. Pensioners, baring a few individuals with damaged vision will be able to see the WRITING ON THE WALL.

COUNTINUING JOURNEY

It must also be said that when appeals are taken up in Sept 2015, we shall certainly have scope for demanding updation for all, and our Federation will not lag behind others in impressing and taking steps for the same. All efforts will be made to take the pension quantum up but we may follow workable and viable path. The strategy that we have will be discussed internally amongst our leadership and will be spelt out in due course. In the meantime, we will be in touch with our CO on the action that gets taken on the SC order.

It is a matter of gratification for our organisation to have made sure of a solution to the major issues confronting the pensioners. We sincerely thank all members for their kind support and co-operation.

With Greetings and all good wishes for further march in the months to come.

(GN Sridharan)
Gen Secretary

Dear Editor, 

I too chose to remain silent till the official version of the Order is out. But after seeing a few Posts particularly the statement issued by Sri KML, I am obliged to rush with this. 

I was standing in the Court near row one, throughout the proceedings. But I admit, quite a few things said by some Advocates were not clear having been drowned by what others were saying simultaneously. I was focusing purposely more on how Justice Misra was responding. Here is my brief summary of what happened. 

When our number was called, UoI's Sr Counsel was the first to stand up and pressed for admission of her SLPs.  There was suggestion from LIC Counsel to adjourn the hearing till after the vacation. Some dates, after a week from the Court reopening were being considered. 

There was loud cross talk by all (like in 'Times Now' Channel). Who said what is irrelevant now. But the Bench decided that the amount should deposited for ALL Pensioners (not merely the Petitioners) it shall be allowed to be withdrawn. When Mr Nidhesh Gupta and RK Singh were trying to convey to the Bench what is payable, Mr KML joined his Counsel and tried hard to tell them something on Pension up-gradation, it was full scale melee, Justice Misra was already dictating the Order. He concluded that 20% of the arrears payable "UNDER THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT". No other elaboration on what is the actual amount payable of which 20% should be paid as interim relief. 

• An important correction in what is reported by KML During the dictation, Justice Misra said "Stay vacated..." It was then that Mr Nidhesh Gupta and others hastened to tell the Bench there was no stay and that actually stay was not granted to LIC. It was news to the Bench. 

Further, my understanding is that UOI's SLPs stand admitted. I heard "Leave granted - SLPs admitted". Notice to the Respondent was to file its Counter to the SLPs not against their admission. That was the reason for LIC to have asked for and obtain long adjournment. I am open to correction on this.

Mr KML's comments on Chandigarh Petitioners' Counsel being not there (nobody else was there ) etc. are factually incorrect and were twisted to suit his own claims. He will come to know of the whole truth very soon and he has to gracefully withdraw his aspersions. A lot more will come to public notice shortly.   

The real issue as he himself indicated rightly, is how LIC is going to act on the Order now. I am sure he is ready for the shocks and surprises.  I had met and personally alerted him and Mr SS Saxena soon after we all came out of the Court Hall, that he needs the active collaboration of Panchkula/Chandigarh Petitioners now, more than before, to pursue the common cause. More on that too. 

Let us now wait for the Order.                               

Thanks and regards,

Different reactions...

INCREASING 'HITS' INDICATE ANXIETY OF PENSIONERS

Dear Editor,

Being personally present in Supreme Court to watch our case proceedings live on 07.05.2015, I released an update immediately through Whatsapp to all concerned after coming out of court No. 5 based on my interpretation and assessment with a precaution that Exact Order to be available on supreme court website will throw some more light thereby finally indicating my message either fully or partially correct. Still waiting for Supreme Court Orders. Increasing no of hits on your blog indicate anxiety of all L.I.C.Pensioners.

Two most frequently asked questions by all friends on phone during our entire journey by train from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 7th evening are as below.

1. Whether said order is applicable to Non-Petitioners or not ?
2. Whether said order is for D.A.only or it includes Pension Up gradation also ?
I wish to add a third Question also.
3. Whether L.I.C. will interpret Supreme Court Order dated 07.05.2015 correctly ?

Past experience tells us so far L.I.C. has made a mockery of Two High Court Verdicts namely Jaipur and Chandigarh while depositing amount due to Petitioners which actually is pure D.A for. pre 01.08.1997 retirees without any weightage of 11.25 % for 1997 wage revision as well as two further wage agreements for 2002 and 2007. We can not blame any one for this situation as our whole judicial system ensures quick relief to rich and resourceful citizens and poor L.I.C. Pensioners do not belong to this class. See recent case for actor Salman Khan. Trial for 13 long years and bail in just four hours. Courtesy Renowned Advocate Sh. Harish Salve charging Rs 30 Lacs Per Appearance in Court besides so many other charges like stay and dinner in a five star Hotel for him and his entire Team.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

SHRI KML ASTHANA has made available the following information. 

He adds "I have been giving detailed informations these two days on the mobile and phone."

Procedings on 7th a brief resume

"PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING STATMENT and beware of misleading

informations. kml asthana"

SHRI KML WRITES

I have been waiting for the copy of the order of the Hon’ble SC which was passed on 7/5/2015 in our case.  But since I have not seen the copy of the order, I am writing this note of the proceedings in short to apprise you of the said proceedings.  I have been giving detailed informations these two days on the mobile and phone.

 When the case was taken up the SC felt that looking to two other part-heard cases it will not be possible to take up and complete the hearing of our cases therefore, it was proposed to be shifted in the last week of September.  Then our Sr. Advocate Shri Nidhesh Gupta and Shri R.K. Singh protested the same that for the last year it is being adjourned for one reason or the other and many have passed already and with every due to dejectment some go away.  The youngest of the pensioners is aged about 78 years on average.  We have already won our cases more than five times from three High Court and twice from the SC still the litigation is going unwontedly.  In case the Court still fells to adjourn the same interim relief be granted more particularly when there is no stay on the judgment dated 8/8/2013 by the Court itself. 

On this the Court suggested to give 20% out of the arrears. LIC’s Advocate said that they have already deposited the arrears in the Courts, then the Court making it easy said that then 20% be immediately paid to the pensioners.  I immediately stated that this is wrong statement of LIC counsel. The said deposit was not acceptable to us otherwise we would have drawn the same then and there, that is not AT ALL acceptable, the deposit has not properly been made and is based deliberately on incorrect calculations that too for DA/DR only in violation of the directions of the SC while our main case is of upgradation of pension with every wage revision and further that amount is not for pensioners and not even of all the petitioners. 7 have been left out, whether they are not entitled to get the benefit of the same judgment when our writ petitioners were allowed without exception.

ANXIETY

Dear Editor,

Having waited for thirteen long years it is natural that pensioners have come out with their own interpretation about the court oral order and the conflicting interpretation given by Sarvashri Mehta and GN Sridharan. 

Who is correct will be known when the order comes in black and white.

What ever may be the interpretation it is beyond doubt that the DA anomaly has to go and say good bye to it.

However here again we have to wait and see whether the order mentions about the interest to be paid on the arrears.

If the interest is not to be paid the net amount we get out of the arrears after IT deduction will not be substantial for the IT rules say that whatever arrears of salary/pension received in the financial year (2015-2016) will be clubbed with the other income falling in the same financial year and taxed accordingly.

Regarding updation of pension let us wait for the written order.

R.K.Viswanathan

BANK NEWS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

'Union Sandesh' journal published ​by 

Union Bank Officers' Association (Gujarat)

​for April,'15​

​ATTACHED​(CLICK BELOW)

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

CLICK HERE FOR UNION SANDESH

SHRI MV VENUGOPALAN'S POST

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM LIC.

Referring to the post of Mr M V Venugopalan,I do not agree with his statement  “------ while the arrears of difference in DR is easily quantifiable, the arrears arising out of difference in pension is not”.

Once the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dated 12/1/2010 is correctly interpreted, there cannot be any difficulty for LIC for quantifying the arrears on removal of DR anomaly, 100% DR neutralisation and up- gradation of pension.

What may perhaps  pose a minor difficulty will be the determination of the revised Basic Pension on up- gradation of pension on 1/8/1997,1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 corresponding to the existing pension by preparing a fitment chart based on the statistical method of interpolation/extrapolation. With the computer software resources and expertise available with the L I C, it is not difficult for the Corporation to complete the exercise and make the payment of the court-ordered amount of 20% of arrears within 6 weeks to all the eligible pensioners. Of course the CO personnel experts and the IT software experts will need to sit together before deciding upon the algorithms required for the purpose keeping in mind the directions of the Jaipur Bench and Supreme Court.

It is worth recalling at this juncture that even while paying the deposits in the Jaipur Bench & Chandigarh HC Registries, LIC did not strictly adhere to the Jaipur Order dt 12/1/2010 allowing the first writ petition No 6676/1998 according to which the DR formula itself (from 1/8/1987 onwards) was required to be revised from the date of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever was later, on par with that adopted for in-service employees. On the contrary LIC chose to adopt  the more convenient option of simple merger of existing DR on the existing basic pension (without weightage) on 1/8/1997 and freezing such merged pension as basic pension without revising it upwards on1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 ignoring the fact that the Jaipur Bench had also allowed the W.P. No 654/2007 ordering upgradation of pension. This approach adopted by LIC was clearly against the Jaipur Single Bench Order.

All that is required of the LIC/UOI is the willingness to implement the Supreme Court order in   letter and spirit.

Having said this, let us await the written order of 7^th May 2015 of the Supreme Court.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan