VS PRAKASARAO

I find the recent write-ups of Sarvasri CHM, SN, ASR and MSM very interesting. As victims of the Indian Judicial Process we need patience

and perseverance and pray God to provide Justice to us. We should be positive that each adjournment gives us fresh opportunities to flex our brain and brawn to outwit the enemy within and outside. But alas we are continuing with our blame game. But the present situation need a thorough study of the points raised by the L.I.C and the G.O.I in their petitions. I gather that the L.I.C presented some 20/22 points .How about the G.I.O. The basic approach even now is to work out points to counter the petitions of the L.I.C and G.O.I. I wish our learned gentlemen evincing great interest to make in depth studies to ensure justice to the pensioners take this aspect also into consideration to prepare solid, valid points to counter the L.I.C and G.O.I. The million dollar question is will the S.C simply endorse the verdict of the Rajasthan H.C which directed the L.I.C to implement the Board Resolution as per the Sec.21 of L.I.C Act ignoring Sec.48 of the Act. The G.O.I is vested with the authority to frame Rules on some listed matters U/S 48 . The employees’ Service matters is one them which includes Pension to Employees.

Our Pension rules are framed U/S 48 so have the force of law. Some amendments were made to these rules over the period. One of the important one is Rule 55A (Power To Relax) where by the G.O.I is bound to remove the hardships faced by the pensioners because of these rules.

The G.O.I by their G.O Dated 22-6-2000 empowered the L.I.C to amend the rules of pension relating to Minimum Pension(Rule 36), D/R , and Family Pension.The E.D(personnel) pointed out certain hardships in the implementation of Rules of D/R , suggested 100% D/R nutralisation to Pre Aug.97 Retirees and also Updation of Pension. The LIC Board considered the note of the E.D and passed the resolution on 20-12-2001 to provide the benefit of 100% nutralisation of D/R and Updation of pension.

L.I.C was empowered by June 2000 notification to amend Rules on Updation of pension under Rule 36 (minimum pension) and the D/R. Thus L.I.C could have proceeded with the implementation of the Board Resolution especially in view of the Rule 56 (Residuary Provision).Yet , may be, as a measure of abundant caution the L.I.C sought the clearance from the G.O.I .The G.O.I as per Rule 55A should have acted to give clearance to the Resolution. But the G.O.I put the matter in cold storage.

So this is a clear case of flouting the Rules which have the force of law by the creator of the Rules( G.O.I) and the persons responsible to implement the Rules that is the L.I.C Management. The L.I.C which was empowered by G.O.I to amend the rules is afraid to amend the Rules. The G.O.I did not act on Rule 55A.So both G.O.I and L.I.C paid scant respect to the Statutory Rules which is an offence, dereliction of duty by public servants which put the pensioners to untold misery , hardship and mental tension.

Justice Bhandari of the High Court of Rajasthan understood the matter , found the Rules are discriminatory and violative of the constitutional provisions. So directed L .I.C to implement the Board Resolution in a routine manner as per Sec.21 of the L.I.C Act. The basic function of any Management is to implement the Rules specially when they are aimed at the welfare of the retirees.So the Sec. 48 has no relevance here. This was confirmed by the rajasthan Bench and the Hon.Judges of the High Courts of P&H and Delhi.One of them Justice Sikri was elevated to the Supreme Court.

On the face of it the L.I.C and Govt. are playing great mischief with the Rules.This aspect should be high lighted to gain sympathy of the Apex Court.Can Sec.48 be taken advantage by the Govt. to frame Rules in violation of the Constitution.Can Management which found the Rules very bad and wanted to improve upon them keep quite to the detriment of the pensioners despite the Orders of the various High Courts.Nay , but the matter is dragged to the Supreme Court by the L.I.C.

Further if we compare the provisions of the Rule 56 of L.I.C pension rules and the similar Rule of the SBI pension Rules the permission of G.O.I is not necessary for L.I.C where as the permission of G.O.I is necessary for the Bank.So L.I.C should have invoked Rule 56 to provide updation to the L.I.C retirees just on the lines of central govt Employees.So we have to expose the mischief played by the L.I.C /G.O.I combine though the rules are very clear to help the pensioners.

Another important aspect which the Management is taking advantage of is the dissensions and differences between pensioners organizations. we indulge in blame game even at the cost of depriving the benefits to the pensioners in general. The Jaipur Court did not disqualify the post Aug. ’97 retirees as petitioners. It did not declare that the Board Resolution is not to benefit them. L.I.C also did not take a stand that these petitioners are unfit to raise the dispute.But now wisdom donned on the L.I.C to take a stand that the Post Aug.97 retirees are not entitled to the benefits of the Resolution. Does it mean the Resolution is for only preAug.97 retirees. The organization which has no faith in the courts and which enjoys  maximum membership of the retirees published two notes which the management took advantage off to deprive the post Aug. 97 pensioners. Similarly the organization that fought the case in Delhi H.C is more sympathetic to L.I.C than to their own members reired after Aug97. Similarly the organizations of the inservice employees are mere spectators to the foul game being played by the L.IC/G.O.I combine in the implementation of the Pension Rules. Will they keep quite if L.I.C violates the Rules to the disadvantage of inservice employees. Afterall the retirees were their past members who participated actively in the struggles launched by them. It is really very unfortunate situation for the retirees, especially those of the post Aug.97. In this back ground are we on firm ground to fight the L.I.C /G.O.I combine at the Apex Court .

I am at loss to understand why the Post Aug.97 petitioners at Rajasthan H.C remained silent without raising the matter before S.C complaining on the unreasonable stand taken by the L.I.C which deprived them the interim relief.Shall we have to accept the interpretation given by some pensioners’ Organisations that was taken advantage by the Management.

If Sec.48 is accepted as supreme there are many instances when benefits were given to the employees without invoking this Section. The regularisation of the Temporary Employees in L.I.C is an apt example in this regard.So why L.I.C is very particular on this Section and strangely the militant employees organisations are extending their tacit support in the matter. It is strange that the in service employees agitate for better wages and other benefits compared with their counter parts in the central and state Govt. and the other financial institutions ,ports ,Railways etc.It is public knowledge that the pensioners in these sectors enjoy Updation in their pension with each wage revision. But the organisations of the inservice employees of L.I.C do not want updation of pension for L.I.C retirees though the Pension Rules provide for updation. Further they try to explain the inadequacy of the pension fund to meet the burden of updation. So they want that L.I.C pensioners should get lesser pension than the pensioners of the central and state Govt. and others who enjoy the updation with each wage revision and also the junior retirees in L.I.C itself.T he recent experience of the pensioners of OROP clearly show the approach and attitude of the Govt. in providing updation . The Govt. is dragging its feet on the implementation of the orders of the Apex Court. So what is in store for L.I.C pensioners even if the case is decided favourable to the pensioners. Will the Govt allow L.I.C to respect the judiciary and the statutory Rules. What is the fate of the pensioner of the R.B.I and the Banks. It is time for L.I.C pensioners to think and take a decision to fight the POWERS THAT BE WHO ARE HELLBENT ON DEPRIVING THE PENSIONERS OF THE BENEFIT OF UPDATION. CAN WE GAIN THE ACTIVE SUPPORT OF THE HIGHLY MILITANT ORGANISATIONS OF OUR INSERVICE EMPLOYEES. CAN WE WORK OUT A UNITED PLATFORM OF THE PENSIONERS OF BANKS. GIC. LIC AND WORK OUT A STRATEGY TO ENSURE UPDATION OF PENSION FOR THE PENSIONERS OF THE PREMIER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT PROVIDE VERY GOOD FUNDS TO THE GOVT.

V.S.PRAKASARAO VISAKHAPATNAM.

AIRIEF impleadment application

Dear Editor,

I have read an appeal from Sh. H.K.Aggarwal on your blog today which seems to be quite reasonable and logical. He is of a clear view that nothing should be done at this stage which can cause further delay in hearing of our main case.

Sh. H.K. Aggarwal already knows it that an application for impleadment by AIRIEF has already been filed at Supreme Court on 11th January 2016 through their advocate Sh. R.K.Singh. Now let Sh. H.K.Aggarwal tell us very clearly whether he approves this specific action of AIRIEF or not.

Looking forward to know a straight reply to a straight question addressed to Sh. H.K.Aggarwal.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

LIC ISSUES ORDERS FOR MONTHLY RECOVERY OF MEDICLAIM PREMIUM

Miserable life!

Time to concentrate and clinch the issues in SC

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

My Question To AIRIEF leadership

Dear Editor,

First, let me extend my warm greetings to you as well as your esteemed readers for new year 2016, Lohri festival being celeberated today in Northern India and Makar Sakranti / Pongal festivals being celeberated tomorrow. Sh. Murty tells now that number of players are likey to be five on 20th at supreme court. Looking forward for further details from him after he concludes his Delhi visit today and tomorrow to meet his senior counsels.

I have one question to be answered by AIRIEF. This question was raised by some other participant during recently held AIRIEF EC at Bhopal on Ist November, 2015 but no satisfactory answer was provided. It has become a trend now for top leadership to put all unpleasant issues under the carpet and promote only one theme song which according to me is Operation Cover Up forgetting basic principle that truth has finally to prevail upon.

Coming to my basic issue and my Question is that AIRIEF had decided to implead itself at supreme court in its legal committee meeting which was also held at Bhopal in June,2015 and why leadership has taken seven months time to execute its own decision ? Will any body tell so many ordinary AIRIEF Members like me ?

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

ON 'JALLIKATTU' AND OUR SC CASE

Apropos to my post, and some doubt that without the fabric in Sec.48, from where does LIC get powers to act. This is exactly the main theme of the argument in the Appeal. LIC is not a robot, life is breathed into it with its formation and it is person that can sue and sued. It has a head in the Board, a CEO to act and life and limb in the form of employees to work for it. It has inherent powers to act independently but it is not a man. Law says all men are not persons also.

This is not to belittle anybody else. So far you have not seen my arguments. Certainly without Sec.48, LIC can Act. Has not the Jaipur HC said there is no need for any approval from the Govt with which other HC’s also agree. Moreover, I have to again hide from public gaze of my fellow pensioners, the full arguments, in my anxiety to keep it with the case managers for consideration of our counsel on whom we have faith. Be that as it may, everything in a case, is an opinion including a judgement subject to review by a higher court. 

The SC has powers to review its own decisions. Decisions may change with times also and that is why law is called dynamic. A look at newspapers for the day is encouragingly supportive of the line of our arguments. Some extracts from today's editorial on Jallikattu in the Hindu: “The Centre will have to explain why it tried to get around a court verdict through a mere executive notification, when it is common knowledge that it can be done only through legislation that removes the basis for the judgement and not merely by tweaking some regulation”.

It is also reported the opinion of Legal Experts, on the suggestion to issue an ordinance, is that if promulgated “would be seen as the legislature usurping the judicial powers. Secondly the ordnance would go against the very essence of the SC judgement…”. They say that delegated legislations in the nature of ordinance have no validity if they violate the legislative intent of an existing statute on the same subject, passed by Parliament and reinforced by the Supreme Court in a judgement.

It is also reported that “in the Dr.D.C. Wadva Vs State of Bihar case, the Constitution Bench of the SC held that Executive has no arbitrary right to promulgate Ordinances. The apex Court held that it is the right of every citizen to insist that he should be governed by the laws made in accordance with the Constitution and not law made by the Executive in violation of the constitutional provisions”. “Promulgation of the Ordnance now would also be seen as defeating the very basis of the 2014 SC judgement…..”.

To remove doubts I may add Executive law, order, ordnance, notification, regulations etc. refer to a resolution of the Govt. such as the one issued in our case under Sec.48 of LIC Act.

Let us hope we will be suitably rewarded.

Be prepared for anything may happen on 20th January 2016 !

Fallacy of LIC's Calculations for pre-August 1997 retirees‏

Please click below for the Tables.

MV Venugopalan

Dear Editor,

On reading Shri.M.Sreenivasa Murty's “Views, Reviews and Counter Views”, a particular observation struck me. While dwelling on Sec 48 and the Jaipur judgment, he had this to say;” the Jaipur Judgment is no doubt the fulcrum of our cases after

all, but it can also prove the Achilles Heel and land us in major trouble if the counsel is not fully prepared to face and overcome a situation where the directions to LIC to implement the Board Resolution sans Govt.approval doesn't find favour with the Bench”. 

This came as a response to Mr.Ramanathan's belief that Sec 48 is arbitrary and authoritative and hence violative of Article 14 of the constitution. We all know that equality before law is more fundamental than anything else guaranteed under the constitution. There can be no law whereby all are declared equal, but some more equal than the others; I mean what we call in a simple language, ‘discrimination’’. We are all aware of the effort put in by Mr. Ramanathan in finding ways and means of invalidating Sec.48 and prove the inalterable efficacy and import of our Board Resolution, which as rightly observed by Mr.Murty is the fulcrum and crux of Shri. Bhandari's judgment.

Mr.Murty's doubt is what happens if the Bench thinks otherwise i.e. Sec.48 has relevance in as much as it vests in the Govt. the ultimate power of approval of LIC’s Board Resolution. Mr. Mahadevan also has raised the same doubt in his latest reply to Mr. Ramanathan’s letter. Expecting the judge to strike down section 48 as anti-constitutional to pave the way for our winning the case may be a far-fetched view. While the possibility cannot be ruled out, it shouldn't be our sole expectation. In this connection, I think it may not be out of place to quote the remarks made by Hon’ble Judge, Shri.Deepak Misra in one of the recent hearings, when one of our counsels referred to our Board resolution; “ if the Resolution was not statutory and if it required Govt.approval to become effective that is how it is” and , therefore, the counsel cannot defend the Jaipur decision to the contrary with his line of approach. He went on to add “ there are different categories of Pensioners who receive different rates of pension. Forget Govt. for a while, how do you defend your position? 

Notwithstanding Article 14 of the Constitution, there is no way anyone can stop our judges from thinking differently. I am nobody to express a contrary opinion to what Mr.Ramanathan has stated for the simple reason that I don’t have as much in-depth knowledge about legal matters as he has, I am only trying to drive home the fact that in case Sec.48 creates a road block, we should have Plan B or even Plan C to move forward changing our direction altogether, if need be.

And as regards the DR conundrum, as already mentioned by me, on 20th of this month, in the Supreme Court, priority should be given to updation of Pension and everything else, including the DR issue can take a back seat. Mr.Mahadevan, is unarguably , the best brain we have in delving deep into the intricacies involved in the calculation of the DR. I am sure, by now, he has enough material with him to write a Book on the subject. However, as expressed by him in his letter to Mr.Ramanathan, will we get time to even deliberate on substantive issues like Sec.48 before the Supreme Court. If past experience is any clue or indicator, the answer is an emphatic NO. It will be a major achievement on the part of our counsels if they are able to forestall any move by LIC/GOVT for an adjournment. Moreover, while the pre-1997 pensioners got, in principle, part justice the post-1997 feel orphaned due to the pension issue showing no progress so far. Don’t forget, they are in the majority and democratic norms demand that they are accorded the priority that they deserve.

Better late than never, yes, I mean the application for Impleadment by AIRIEF in the Supreme Court, yesterday. Hope, the other two group leaders also must have taken necessary action to do it . If only our Case Managers take a holistic view of all that transpired in the past, make the best use of the inputs they have received all these days from various sources, both legal and otherwise, and last but not the least, if only they have analysed all possible scenarios emerging in the SC on 20th and equip their counsels suitably, success is bound to knock at our doors on 20th January.

With Greetings,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN

SN (a 1992 Pensioner)

DR and Updation of pension have been discussed umpteen number of times in the LIC PC. To recapitulate the 100 % neutralisation in DA/DR , anomaly etc.

LIC granted 100% neutralisation in DA to in-service employees and to those retired w.e.f. 01-08-1997. IBA granted full neutralisation in DA from 01-02-2005 to serving employees and those retired w.e.f. 01-11-2002. RBI followed suit and granted 100 % neutralisation in DA/DR w.e.f. 01-02-2005 to its employees and pensioners. RBI subsequently extended the benefit of 100 % DR to all pensioners from 01-02-2005, without cut off date like LIC and banks.

IBA has not granted full-100% DR to its pensioners retired before 01-11-2002 on one or another excuse. IBA has been crying hoarse that the matter is sub judice (DR related cases are pending in some courts) but are ready to extend the benefit of full DR to pre 01-11-2002 retirees on 'humanitarian point of view' based on detailed costing exercise. IBA has repeated the same thing in their letter dated 07-12-2015 addressed to the General Secretary, All Indian Banks Association, Chennai, not different from what they stated six months back in the Record Note dated 25-05-2015 with the leaders of employees associations. IBA has also repeated its desire to do feasibility exercise to grant family pension at 30% as given by GOI / RBI. It is surprising that IBA is unable to get details though more than six months have elapsed since the date of note. How many more months does IBA require to collect required data in this computer age? (Leaders of bank UFBU may like to ponder and decide with IBA). It is quite prudent of IBA that it has not repeated in its latest letter referred above that there is 'no contractual obligation between banks and pensioners!' IBA seems to keep the Bank leaders at peace by stating that unlike the GOI, the Banks Pension is a funded scheme and it is examining the cost implications and sustainability of each member bank at future date and will decide. They must quickly, in a month or two.

Pension schemes introduced by RBI, Banks and LIC in 1990s were on the lines of Central Government Pension Scheme. DA / DR was based on IV CPC. It was on reducing percentage basis to both serving employees and pensioners. While the serving employees in Banks and LIC (Pre Nov.and Aug.1992 respectively) got 100% neutralisation in DA upto the basic pay of Rs.2500/- and some percentage reduction on remaining pay, the pensioners got 100% neutralisation in DA /DR only Upto basic pension of Rs.1250/- and percentage reduction on remaining pension amount. Subsequently, on revision of pay scales, the serving employees (during Nov.Aug. 1992 to Oct./July, 1997) got full DA neutralisation up to Rs.4800/- and balance of pay on reducing percentage basis. The pensioners got full DA/DR only Upto Rs.2400/- and balance of pension on reducing percentage basis.

2. Shri C H Mahadevan has given two tables indicating the loss meted out to pensioners because of wrong method adopted in calculation and non compliance with Jaipur H.C. judgement. It is advisable to read the judgement to fully appreciate Shri Mahadevan. Extracts furnished below:

"...The grievance of the petitioners : dearness allowance benefit has been attached on the basic pension and not on the basic pay.

Basic Pay Rate of DA for every 4 points

i) Upto Rs.4800 ----- 0.35% of pay

ii) Rs.4801 to 7700-----0.35 % [not 0.25 % as typed in the judgement copy] of 4800 plus 0.29%
of pay in excess of Rs.4800

iii) Rs.7701 to 8200 -----0.35% of 4800 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.7700 and Rs.4800
plus 0.17% of pay in excess of Rs4800

iv) Rs.8201 and above----- 0.35% of Rs.4800 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.7700 and
Rs.4800 plus 0.17% of difference between Rs.8200 and Rs.7700 plus 0.09% of basic pay in excess of Rs.8200.

Under the Pension Rules, the benefit of dearness allowance was provided in the following manner :
Rate of dearness relief as a percentage of basic pension.

i) Upto Rs.2400 ----------0.35%

ii) Rs.2401 to 3850 ------0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of basic pension in excess of Rs.2400

iii) Rs.3851 to 4100 ------0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of the difference between Rs.3850 and
Rs.2400 plus 0.17% of basic pension in excess of Rs.3850

iv) Above Rs.4100 -------0.35% of Rs.2400 plus 0.29% of difference between Rs.3850 and
Rs.2400 plus 0.17% of the difference between Rs.4100 and Rs.3850
plus 0.09% of basic pension in excess of Rs.4100

In view of the aforesaid, benefit of dearness allowance at the first step being 0.35% remains upto basic pension of Rs.2400/- only whereas aforesaid percentage of dearness allowance is allowed on the basic pay upto Rs.4800/-.

Learned counsel for petitioners prayed that slab of dearness allowance should be kept the
same as is payable to the employees. In other words, it should not be reduced proportionately
to the basic pension.."

"...non-grant of due benefit of dearness allowance to the retired employees is not only arbitrary
but discriminatory in nature....This is more so when the pensioners who retired after 31.7.1997
are getting the benefit of dearness allowance on the basic pay and not on the basic pension,
thus pensioners have been divided in two categories in a discriminatory manner..."

Shri Mahadevan may 'expand' by way of one or two examples- the figures indicated in columns :

gross pension as per LIC's method ..and Total DR - anomaly free..

SN
(a 1992 pensioner)

Comments

11 Jan 16, 09:07 PM

JM Aboobucker: It is heartening to note at long last wisdom has dawned upon AIRIEF to cause an application of impleadment of AIRIEF also as a party to the SC case to be filed. Hope that AIRIEF will also board the bus to enable the benefits that will arise on our success in the SC will flow not only to a few Petitioners but to the entire LIC Pensioners. Thank you AIRIEF for your thoughtful action though belated.

chandrasekharan: Sri. mahadevan has stated categorically that the pre august 1997 retirees have been miserably discriminated against through a wrong DR formula. Is LIC management aware of this point, if so since when. Why LIC did not attempt to rectify the anomaly.

OUR PENSION CASE

Dear Shri Mahadevan,

Very happy to see your very hard work relating to the effect of the revision of D.A etc. as appeared to have been done by the LIC while depositing the 20% interim payments into some of the pensioners bank a/cs. It is really a wonderful effort in the absence of the details of working by the LIC. Your working will be useful for placing before the S.C our contention that without the revision, the anomalies will only persist. Hope Shri KMLA has been appraised of your work. I shall also remind him.

From what Shri RBK is writing, I understand that there was a MOU with the LIC as per which the percentage and method of neutralization will be the same for serving employees and the retired. A copy of the MOU also seems to have been obtained. However the DA formula is not as per that MOU in the Pension Rules. The MOU will add further legal strength to our case. In my opinion, we have half won our case as far as parity of DA neutralization with that of those retired after 31-7-97. 

For revision, we have the Board Resolution to support our contention. But LIC’s contention is that irrespective of the Board resolution, any MOU, High Court Judgement etc. the Sec.48 notification is a must, as Sec.48 has given the Govt the sole prerogative of revision. You may recollect, that I was toiling to defeat this argument. I approached this problem in two ways. One was to say that the Jaipur H.C has not struck down the Sec.48 notification, but only has given a benevolent reading, which it was entitled to, and hence there is no necessity for any fresh notification for which I have also cited S.C judgements. 

But for revision we have only the Board Resolution to support. LIC will argue, that is a recommendation, and that communication between LIC and the Govt is a private communication and not having any force. Hence I examined and found out there is a case for declaring Sec.48 as arbitrary, authoritative, giving unbridled power to the Govt. to make rules, even discriminatory offending Art.14. Art.14 also provides for equal protection of all laws, besides equality before law. Equal protection of all laws is difficult to prove and sustain. But Sec.48 made it easy to argue because in one stroke, it makes this legislative saving provision of inapplicability of even Judgements, other legislations such as I.D Act etc. enabling the Govt to frame even regulations opposed to Fundamental Rights. 

You may recollect the voluminous judicial decisions quoted by me to show that the Sec.48 is arbitrary delegation. The famous quote “the tail shall not wag, when the head is present” from Maneka Gandhis case by V.R.Krishna Iyer J on subordinate legislation is the proof . Therefore when there is a MoU by the LIC, on equal neutralization of DA formula, it becomes enforceable too when Sec. 48 is held void being against the principles of equal protection of all laws and the rule of law.

I am alo of the opinion that the SC will only give direction to the LIC to see that anomalies of the nature pointed out should be avoided and therefore revision is to be allowed. Let us hope for the best.

With regards,
A.S.Ramanathan

A hidden message

Interpreting the Cartoon "THE FALLACY IN LIC's APPROACH"

Many must have found it difficult ( I was unable to decide whether ) to laugh or cry seeing the cartoon depicting fallacies of different kind under the caption " The fallacy in LIC's approach".

The cartoon carries a hidden message to all.

SN

So busy these days !

THE FALLACY IN LIC's APPROACH

IN RESPECT OF PRE-AUGUST 1997 RETIREES


Further to my post in response to Mr VVLN Sastry's post, I attach a table of calculations to prove how the method adopted by LIC ostensibly for implementation of LIC Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001 is badly flawed.

For one thing, LIC has not recognised the fact that DR anomaly has to be removed right from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever is later.

Secondly LIC has adopted the method of one- time merger of a faulty DR with basic pension on 1/8/1997 without repeating the process on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007.

It is another matter that LIC has conveniently omitted providing 11.25% (average) weightage after merger of DR.

The table of calculations clearly demonstrate that the pre-August 1997 retirees -especially Assistants and above- would have been better off even if LIC had not adopted the method of merger of DR with Basic Pension if only the DR formula was followed for retirees on par with in-service employees as directed by the Single Judge Bench at Jaipur while allowing WP No 6676/1998.

In the light of the calculations, it is also clear that the 1200 retired Class I officers who have been paid some interim relief have perhaps been taken for a ride by LIC cleverly withholding the supporting calculations from them. May be they are satisfied with whatever they have got instead of not getting anything as happened in the case of more than 20000 other pre-August 1997 retirees/family pensioners.

Will these flaws be brought up before the Supreme Court on 20/1/2016 by the counsel of the petitioners?

When such mischief is taking place in respect of removal of DR anomaly, what can be expected from LIC on the issue of upgradation?

Only judiciary can save LIC pensioners.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

 Click below for the Tables.

CH Mahadevan

AS Ramanathan

A different view

Fifth Central Pay Commission effective from 1-1-96 granted 100% D.A. to their pensioners. Earlier to this it was only 50%.

LIC granted 100% D.A. to its pensioners from 1.8.97 taking a cue from 5th Pay Commission but denied the same to earlier pensioners, intentionally or unintentionally.

So 100% D.A. to LIC pensioners earlier to 1.8.97 can take effect from 1.8.97 only and not from their dates of retirement because discrimination arose from 1.8.97 only. This is my opinion.

V.V.L.N. Sastry. Kakinada.

MV Venugopalan

Comments

S.R. Nagarajan: Mr. R.K. Viswanathan has correctly put it. It may be late in the day now to get details under RTI. LET us hope that SC will render Justice as the final arbiter. As of now we can only Pray.

Karunakaran: There is nothing new to be analysed in LIC case. Already NAKHARA judgement has given clear cut solutions as far as pensioners are concerned. One thing that SC may define a punishment to those who violate NAKHARA case judgement.

G. Narayanaswamy: How long to wait with patience by CHM is a frank narration. Exposing our powerlessness in the face of repeated adjournments and eluding Justice due to our legal process and justice delivery.. It is really shocking to read from TOI that our Courts will have one crore of pending cases by the end of one year. Rooted in colonial 18th century justice delivery and leisurely hearing of cases and Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, our justice delivery does not fit with needs of the modern citizen and his relations with the State. We have no other option except to fight with our resources and the strategies suggested. We are sure to win as justice is on our side. Negotiations  also without compromising our stand will also help.

RK Viswanathan

M Sreenivasa Murty

(BUT THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING)

LIC Pensioners are obliged to the Chronicle 

for periodically keeping its readers well informed, 

through the inputs from several eminent contributors, 

with their views, reviews and counter views throwing 

valuable light on ‘life & litigation’.

   

The New Year started with a brilliant two-part exposition (looking back…..looking forward) of the whole gamut of our ‘case’ (or is it our ‘fate’?) before the Supreme Court and the roles being played by the various dramatis personae, by Sri MV Venugopalan.

Then followed a couple of well researched articles by the redoubtable SN (a 1992 Pensioner) - ‘updating of Pension – some mute points’ & the more striking ‘how long to wait – with patience?’

We certainly had the inevitable interventions by the Oracle on the subject – Sri C H Mahadevan – with his ever authentic inputs, as also responding to SN, through his two write-ups ‘Pre-August 1997 retirees taken for a ride’ & ‘Pension updation as per SPC Recommendations’ 

I too like many others, have enjoyed and am benefitted by reading each of the Posts I listed above. But I must admit that I was tempted (or provoked?) to respond and write back only on reading the latest Post by Sri AS Ramanathan titled ‘What can be expected from the SC?’

Sri MVV has been playing the role of an ‘elder statesman’ whenever he writes, to address ‘all concerned’. He skilfully and purposefully skirts controversial content on the subject per se. It is up to the ‘concerned’ to see the point and act for the common good or get miffed and get lost, as far as MVV is concerned.

M/s SN & CHM (and some contributors, elsewhere) come from a different background – their inputs and analyses flow from undisputed hard work, original deep knowledge & command over the subject, fortified by continuous research. Ordinary mortals like me can only go through their facts & figures and their elucidation in awe and admiration, own and act upon, by using the info judiciously and with advantage.  (Disagreement and dissent on their logic and conclusions sometimes is unavoidable though).

Mr A S Ramanathan, started his article (‘what can be expected from the SC?’) so well, inviting serious attention with concurrence to what he said, when one reads the first paragraph. To me he even raised big hopes to eagerly look for something in the rest of the write up, consistent and equally sensible, as seen in the opening lines. I hoped he would suggest something striking and original, by way of ‘action points’. 

But alas, he drifted from his own initial opening logic so routinely and unfortunately ended up with ‘political’ conclusions. If this remark of mine is uncharitable, I owe him and all the esteemed readers of PC, an explanation. I readily offer one but before I do so, a little background info I possess about Mr ASR and his solid work, to put things in perspective.

It should be said to the full credit of Mr ASR that he produced and placed at the disposal of the Jaipur Petitioner, enormous volume of material touching upon the Statute, Rules, Subordinate Legislation and the case law pertaining to Sec 48 of LIC Act and its subsequent amendments.    I have not been one of his chosen few, in his early mailing lists for his long narratives, that could be categorized (in a positive sense) as ‘research papers’ covering our case before SC, meant for consumption and possible use  exclusively by the Jaipur case proprietor (only others could be called case managers and not he). I was later getting the opportunity to read ASR’s arguments, during the second or third round of circulation in public. When these ‘papers’ entered into limited public domain, Mr ASR’s punch line used to be ‘we should keep our strong (law) points to ourselves and not let our opponents get any hint of them’. This so-called caution line was somewhat overdone with the result that there was little scope for the contrary view to be presented much less accepted or appreciated.

Over a period of time, the write ups became so voluminous and at times repetitive & monotonous that I suspect even the original Petitioner for whom they were meant, became sceptical and lukewarm in response. Then the continuing inputs were let sneak in to a slightly larger circle. Results of course, remained hazy. I felt then and feel even now that all the hard work he has been putting in, would not serve the desired purpose unless he himself takes part (if allowed to take part) in briefing the Sr Counsel on the line of arguments the client would like the counsel to adopt and marshal.  I am not sure whether such a move is in the scheme of things for Jaipur. If not, all the efforts and inputs of Mr ASR will only qualify and be useful as excellent material for a PhD on Sec 48 of LIC Act.

My disillusionment about Mr ASR’s line of arguments started and remained unchanged with his stand as I understood that the Jaipur Judgement is unassailable and the Government cannot rope in the mischief of Sec 48 to fight the Jaipur judgement. He seems to be anxious to challenge the constitutional validity of Sec 48, at the present stage of CA being heard by the SC, even without ever challenging its vires before the HC. He may pardon me if my reading of his mind is factually incorrect.

Be that as it may, in his current article (‘what can be expected from the SC?’) he made a couple of observations that I am personally not comfortable with. One - he will disclose something after the arguments conclude and the judgement reserved. What for? For academic discussion on what went wrong? Instead, he should rather confide it with his good friend in Jaipur, if it has any purpose to serve. Second - his claim that all arguments to counter Govt/LIC’s pleas are prepared extensively and shared with all the case managers. Obviously this has no way of being a fact. Barring Jaipur (if at all) there are no buyers for this strategy. In fact Mr GNS, the Delhi Petitioner, owns Sec 48 and defends its sanctity as much as the Govt & LIC, if not more. The Counsel for the Chandigarh Petitioners has his views on the topic varying from Mr ASR’s. Another reason for my disappointment is that Mr ASR writes “The Judge said that the way to remove the anomalies is only to revise the Pension’.  A person of Mr ASR’s legal acumen should be more accurate in quoting from a Judgement.

If I am allowed to echo my views public yet again, the Jaipur judgement is no doubt the fulcrum of our cases after all, but it can also prove the Achilles heel and land us in major trouble if the Counsel is not fully prepared to face and overcome a situation where the Directions to LIC to implement the Board Resolution SANS Govt. approval, does not find favour with the Bench. Mr ASR should revisit his own first paragraph to appreciate this concern of mine. My more serious concern is that unless a miracle happens (in other words, unless one of the parties before the Supreme Court makes a miracle happen), LIC’s Civil Appeals will get dismissed but the Pensioners will not be better off.

I am writing separately, to share my other thoughts focussing on the ‘action points’. It is something like, ‘ask not what the country has done for you, ask what you can do for the country’. In my case:

Ask not what you want the other players to do (because they will never listen to you) but tell all what you wish to do for the LIC Pensioners.   GOD BLESS LIC PENSIONERS          

CH Mahadevan

Health insurance claims

Earlier there were no regulations at all in the medical industry since its inception, even for basic issues like claims settlement, policy renewal, senior citizens premiums, etc and Rs 13,000 crore worth claims were passed annually, without any rules or regulations.
Based on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL 12 of 2011) filed by Gaurang Damani (author of this website), IRDA came out with Health Insurance Regulations, 2013 for the entire medical insurance (mediclaim) industry in October 2013. These regulations should benefit the over 7 crore citizens, who own a medical insurance policy in India.

Comments

5 Jan 16, 11:05 PM

Perumalmaruthu: 

Will the LIC's surplus transfer of Rs1804Cr to the MoF effect a change of the heart of the FM to consider 100% DR & Updation?

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

"Union Sandesh" Bulletin published by Union Bank Officers'

Association (Gujarat) for the month of December,'15

FORWARDED HEREWITH CLICK HERE

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha, 

General Secretary

CH Mahadevan

THE HYDERABAD ASSOCIATION PUTS LIC ON NOTICE

'BANK NEWS'

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION

Date: 1st January,'16

Group Medical Insurance Scheme for Retired Bank Employees - Claim Process
Thanks for your e-mail attaching therewith soft copies of the following.

(1) Master Insurance Policy issued to our Bank by United India Insurance Company Ltd.
(2) A Chart showing Claim process.

The first one was downloaded by us from the web site of Union Bank of India and forwarded to our members , whose e-mail IDs. are available with us.

The second attachment i.e. Chart showing the Claim Process is being forwarded to all our members now. CLICK HERE

Thanking you once again,

Yours sincerely,
B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary

SN

Pre-August 1997 retirees taken for a ride‏

Further to my post on the flawed calculation being adopted by LIC based on their interpretation of the Board Resolution,I happened to work out a sample illustration for an officer who retired on 31/7/1997 to arrive at the gross revised pension as at 1/8/2015 under two scenarios.

The calculations are given below:
1.Existing Pension
Basic Pension : 4700
Existing DR Per slab: 13.57
Total existing DR as at 1/8/2015: 13.57x 1187=16107.59
Total existing Gross pension : 20807.59= 20808

Scenario 1
Method followed by LIC while depositing amounts in the two High Court Registries.
Existing Basic Pension : 4700
DR as at 1/8/1997 : 13.57x148=2008.36
Basic Pension +DR as at 1/8/1997 =6708
Revised Basic Pension from 1/8/1997 = 6708
Revised DR per slab from 1/8/1997 =15.4284
Total revised DR as at 1/8/2015 = 15.4284x1039 =16030.1076
Total revised gross pension as at 1/8/2015 = 22738

Scenario 2
If only DR is neutralized as done for in service employees without revising the basic pension as at 1/8/1997;
Existing Basic Pension = 4700
DR per slab if in service DR formula is applied =4700x0.0035 =16.45
Total DR as at 1/8/2015 =19526.15
Total gross pension as at 1/8/2015(even if basic pension is not revised on 1/8/1997)=24226.15 =24226

Thus, although the method adopted by LIC may boast of "upgrading pension" as on 1/8/1997, in real terms the pre-August 1997 retirees stand to lose if pension is revised as per LIC's method.They would be better off with a mere equitable DR neutralisation on par with in service employees.

In the present example, the officer is subjected to a loss of Rs 1488 p.m as at 1/8/2015.The cumulative loss from the date of retirement till date will run into at least a few lacs of rupees even if full arrears are paid on the basis of the method followed by LIC.

Is it not now crystal clear that the so called interim relief received by the " fortunate" few is in reality an interim deception?
Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

COMMENTS

1 Jan 16, 08:51 PM G. Narayanaswamy: Wish a Happy New Year 2016 for all. Our thanks are due to Shri Gangadharan for his efforts for providing a space for discussing our problems. All the legal aspects have been discussed threadbare. Legal aspects apart, our case rests on equity and humanitarian grounds. Delaying Justice is there. In this critical time, all of us can hope for the best. Certainly 2016 will see us As WINNERS. 1 Jan 16, 05:08 PM JM Aboobucker: With the good news on the new year for the pensioners that the Family Floater Policy premium will be deducted in 12 monthly instalments asper CO decision is a welcome news break. 1 Jan 16, 09:57 AM S.R. Nagarajan: BEST WISHES FOR A MEANINGFUL NEW YEAR FOR OUR BROTHER PENSIONERS AND THE WORLD AT LARGE.. May ALMIGHTY GRANT THE POWERS THAT BE THE WISDOM AND SENSE OF FAIRNESS IN DEALING WITH ISSUES.

M. Sreenivasa Murty

RETIRED CLASS I OFFICERS FEDN CIRCULAR 

What a wonderful way to close the year 2015 for all the achievements of his Federation?

I wish to call the drama of this meeting, a cruel Joke on LIC Pensioner community. It needed nothing short of such a bonhomie to celebrate the Federation’s open collusion with the Corporation in successfully ditching the 49,000 Pensioners including family Pensioners. In exchange for  a few rupees doled out to some hand picked and chosen by him to save LIC’s (thick) skin from SC Order dated 7 Sept 2015.

Yes, the achievement did call for a bear-hug ceremony which could be used to plan and decide to what other areas the mutual co-operation could be extended in 2016 starting from 20.01.16.

What is bewildering is that the meeting has nothing to report on why at least the other pre-97 retirees have not been paid, why not even a single family Pensioner been paid and what is the basis of paying what is paid. Perhaps one should not expect reference to any of these questions because the occasion is not meant for it. The occasion is to celebrate officially, the Federation’s enrichment by a possible million Rupees through exploited donations and LIC’s successful hoodwinking (not realizing, it is purely temporary) of the Apex Court in complying with the latter’s  Orders.

The unholy nexus is in the process of being exposed. Good that the dark 2015 ended. 2016 shall be the new era for LIC Pensioners. All the machinations of all the ‘professional’ leaders, not withstanding.

Camp: New Jersey

Projected DR Slabs from 1/2/2016‏

In the allbankingsolutions.com web site,it has been projected that the dearness allowance may increase by 3.2% for the quarter from 1/2/2016.This means an addition of 32 slabs of DA for in- service employees.Adding the 34 slabs of DA that the in- service employees got from 1/11/2015,we can project that pensioners will get 66 slabs of DR from 1/2/2016.
Any other estimate?

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

Here is a small story ... will really define how to be happy... 

Who will make you happy...

After years of hard & dedicated service to his Company, Ajay was being appointed at an elegant reception as the new Director. It was a small function where his wife Anita, a Home Executive & some of the wives of the other persons in top management were also present.

In an adjacent room, Ann, the wife of the CEO of the Company, asked Ajay's wife a very odd & usual question; "Does your husband make you happy?"

The husband, Ajay, who at that moment was not at her side, but was sufficiently near to hear the question, paid attention to the conversation, sitting up slightly, feeling secure, even filling his chest lightly in pride & hope, would definitely not publically lower or degrade her husband, would answer affirmatively, since she had always been there for him during their marriage and generally in life.

Nevertheless, to both his & the others' surprise, she replied simply; "No, no he doesn't make me happy…"

NV SUBBARAMAN

CLICK HERE: Editor http://www.youngpoet.org

THE POWER OF NO.9 AND THE YEAR

VS RAJAMANI

No: 9 has unique characteristics. Any number multiplied by 9 attains nine's characteristics (ie sum total of numbers is 9) In other cases (divide, add or deduct) the characteristics of the original basic number is retained - except when the Basic number sum total is 9 ( for eg 2016) while dividing by 9 the remainder is 0, which is a complement number of 9.

No:9 is most adjustable number with everybody and incidentally year 2016 is a 9 number (sum total) and it will do good to every one. It is a year of HOPE and prosperity. Lord of No: 9 is Mars. 2015 is a 8 number year (sum total) and the Lord of that number is Saturn, which has given anxiety, anger, disappointment (side by side maturity of mind) to everybody It had been a year of adjournments. 

Let us say thank you and good bye to 2015 and welcome year 2016 wich is to do good to ALL (including our Organisation LIC). We believe LIC's prosperity is our Prosperity. 

Editor ji (Sri. PG. Gangadharanji) special wishes to you for Happy New Year. Let it bestow all happines, prosperity and good health; and let PC reach pinnacle of its Glory in the years to come. 

The PC has carried lots of information, knowledge, fun, frolic, discomforts , dejection, outpours of the participants, immaculate catoons of the Editor etc. I used to imagine what not it contains. I anticipate that one day, when the edited and compiled version of the PC contents may emerge as a Novel which may form a reference material in the elite circle. 

Hearty Welcome for the year 2016 for bestowing bountiful Gifts of our liking.

EASTERN NEWS JANUARY 2016

TO READ, CLICK HERE

LOOKING BACK...LOOKING FORWARD (POST2)

POST-1 LOOKING BACK...LOOKING FORWARD