REG. RAMANATHAN'S POST

Referring to Mr Ramanathan's post, all that I can say is ,whatever 

post-mortem examination we may do now of the SC judgment dated 

31/3/2016 , we have to take the judgment as supreme.

If all the strong 

points brought forth by Mr A S Ramanathan 's copious writings have 

not been considered by the Supreme Court, then it only means that the 

counsel have not brought forth these points before the SC 

convincingly. Does it mean that the strong ideas have not reached the 

appropriate quarters effectively?

Our discussions in meetings and writing reams of paper although 

containing pertinent points will be of no avail unless the points 

reach where they should.

We should also ponder over whether the focus has been given too much 

on the validity of Sec 48 & Sec21, instead of the more fundamental 

issue of violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

The fact of DR anomaly existing right from 1/11/1993 has not been 

adequately stressed before the SC. This is the root of all anomalies 

existing in our pension dispensation.

The fact of family pensions getting recoveries on account of LIC's 

faulty method was unfortunately nowhere brought up before the SC.

The fact remains that we have failed legally to convince the Supreme 

Court of the strengths in our case for removal of DR anomaly before 

1/8/1997 and the case for upgradation.

In the circumstances it will be futile to fault the Apex Court. 

Let us learn the lessons for fighting the case in the Delhi High 

Court to obtain justice before 31/8/2016.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

NOIP LETTER TO LIC CHAIRMAN FOR INTERIM RELIEF

NATIONAL ORGANISATION OF INSURANCE PENSIONERS 

(Affiliated to Bharateeya Mazdoor Sangh) 

BMS Office, Vishwakarma Bhavan, 185, Shaniwar Peth, 

Pune 411030. Tel.: 020-24454040 

President: S. L. Burman General Secretary: Ashok J. Joshi 

                                                                                              Date: 09-04-2016

To

The Chairman,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
CO, Yogakshema, MUMBAI

Dear Sir,

Re: SC Judgment dtd.31-03-2016- Civil Appeal Nos. 8959-8962 of 2013 with Civil Appeal No.6995 of 2013, Civil Appeal No.9223 of 2013 & Civil Appeal Nos.9409-9410 of 2013

We would like to bring to your kind attention the SC Order dtd.31-03-2016, uploaded in SC website on 07-04- 2016 in respect of the captioned cases. The honourable judge has ordered the LIC of India to pay 40% Interim Relief of the total payable to all the similarly placed pensioners who have retired prior to 01-08-1997. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted here under verbatim for your ready reference-

“Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3(A) of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect……….”

As narrated elsewhere in the order, the honourable judge refers to Para 3(A) of the Appendix IV of Revision Rules 2000 dtd 22-06-2000 (wage revision of 1997). The clear import of his order without an iota of confusion, is that all those pensioners who retired prior to 01-08-1997, have to be fitted in revised basic pension as on 01-08- 1997 giving the same up gradation of basic pay as was given to in-service employees as on 01-08-1997. In view of the unambiguous verdict aforesaid, we implore upon you to arrange to issue suitable instructions duly including the following points-

1) Interim Relief of 40% as depicted herein above, should be paid to all the pensioners who retired prior to 01-08-1997.

2) It should also be paid to all eligible family pensioners.

3) The basic pension/family pension has to be revised duly up grading the basic pay consequent upon wage revision as on 01-08-1997 in an exactly similar manner in which in-service employees as on 01-08-1997 were fitted in revised basic pay.

4) On arriving revised basic pension as in (3) above, Dearness Relief at 0.23% of such revised basic pension has to be calculated up to 30-04-2016. (of course from 01-08-1997)

5) 40% of the total arrears payable as in (4) above has to be paid to all pre 8/97 pensioners.

6) While making payment to eligible pensioners, necessarily each pensioner has to be supplied with the copy of calculation sheet to verify the correctness of the payment strictly as per the SC Order aforesaid.

7) Since the SC has come out with a clear cut verdict without giving any scope to any party to misinterpret/manipulate the true intent of the verdict, we implore upon you to take abundant precaution in releasing the payment instructions to avoid any wrong/less payments in contravention to the verdict. Lest it may lead to further anomalous situation warranting plethora of contempt petitions to the SC.

8) The individual calculation sheets to eligible pensioners are to be necessarily supplied well before the LICI files the affidavit to Delhi HC in full compliance of the order of the SC.

We eagerly await the blemish less and true compliance of the said verdict.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
(General Secretary)

Rreporting that confused pensioners

9 Apr 16, 07:05 PM

namdev: what is the use of getting clarifications about what gns and rbk said before the release of sc order. rbk has clearly expressed his views after sc order. nobody has any doubt about it.

9 Apr 16, 09:24 PM

gopalakrishnannu: he is only responsible for wild reporting. being an all india VP, he should have avoided it.

AS RAMANATHAN

After a careful reading of the Judgement of the SC in our pension case, I feel the Hon. Judges have perhaps missed certain important points in the Judgement of the SB and DB of the Jaipur High Court, that persuaded them to the conclusions they have arrived. Our learned counsels also seems to have failed to point out the apparent errors. 

I am referring to the point made out by the Hon.SC Bench that the SB has taken its decision on the basis of the LIC Board Resolution but actually the learned Justice Bhandhari has examined in detail the Nakaras Case and pointed that the grouping of the pensioners is discrimination as per the decision in the Nakaras case. Of course there was reference to Sec.21 of the LIC Act, which in my humble view, was irrelevant to our case. If at all there is any relevance, it was only Sec.48 and Sec.23, nothing more. 

Similarly Appendix IV of the Pension Rules dealing with various rates of DR is not important to consider the crux of the issue, although it may have relevance after deciding the crux of our contention. That crux of the matter is only grouping of the pensioners on the basis of their date of retirement. If that is illegal, being discriminatory and violating Art.14 of the Constitution, as held in Nakaras Case, in our case also the grouping of the pensioners as those retired on or after 1-8-1997 and earlier to that date, is also illegal on the same analogy. 

It is an established legal principle viz. “quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur”, meaning what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely and what is prohibited by law to be done, cannot be legally effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance. That is to say, that an Authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by shift or contrivance. Of course Sr. Counsel Krishnan Panchu, as briefed by Shri G.N.Sridharan, has briefly referred to the Bench, the constitutional violation which only has prompted the Bench to refer the case to the Delhi HC, giving us the final chance to put forth our case correctly and to get appropriate relief but at the cost of some more time and expenses. I once again reiterate, we have a strong case to argue.

On the relevance of Sec.48, I have been repeatedly writing after a very detailed examination of the points quoting very many decisions, including the points on which the Nakaras case was decided, to show when there is a violation of the Constitution, no law enacted by Parliament will hold water not to speak of a rule made under subordinate Legislation like under Sec.48. This point, I have been speaking in Retired LIC Class I Officers meetings since 2010 and many write ups to our case Managers. Of course I could not make my arguments public and expected they will be used to brief our counsels. To our luck, we are getting another chance to put forth the arguments, which only is going to give us victory. I could not understand how Rule 55 of the Pension Rules can be pulled out in isolation to support our contention that Chairman can act for implementation of the rules. Under the doctrine of ‘Election’, you cannot own in isolation that rule alone that favours you and discard that is against you. Suffice to say, that we have a temporary setback but we have every chance to succeed ultimately.

LET ME CONCLUDE BY APPEALING TO ALL THE CASE MANAGERS TO PUT THEIR SHOULDERS AND FIGHT UNITEDLY FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE RETIRED IN THE LIC. PLEASE JOIN TOGETHER IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE A COMMON APPROACH. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT SEC.48 NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIC ACT FOR THE BENEFIT OF NOT ONLY THE RETIRED BUT ALSO THE SERVING EMPLOYEES BECAUSE IT IS OBNOXIOUS AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE THAN TO HOLD THE BULL BY ITS HORNS.

A.S.RAMANATHAN

Now any clarification from RBK Sir ?

Dear Editor,

My home internet being out of order kept me out of touch with your blog for three days . Thanks God and BSNL both that the same is restored just now. I have been able to read all posts on your blog in one go right now after release of much awaited supreme court judgement dated 31.03.2016 on 7th April.

First, my personal appreciations for you for a beautiful piece of your creativity through a cartoon on "my property".

Next, all LIC Pensioners had a chance to read three different versions on your blog on same subject of supreme court proceedings dated 31.03.2016.

Now all of us have already read original verdict and hence we have every right to raise a few basic questions.

First, we were told by Sh. GNS that supreme court has referred matter to respective high courts but in fact it is only one high court at Delhi. Any clarification from our GNS Sir ?

• Next, Sh RBK holding a very high stature in AIRIEF also placed his version on this issue on basis of his telephonic talk from Chennai with Sh. BSVerma ( From Meerut ) and Sh. D.D.Gupta (From Delhi) who were personally present in supreme court on 31.03.2016 on behalf of AIRIEF and were briefed by AIRIEF Counsel Sh. R.K.Singh after coming out of court . RBK Version clearly assured all of us that 40 % IR Payment Order also includes Pension Up Gradation Benefit upto latest wage revision wef 01.08.2012 . And further , Sh Angurajan Organising Secretary AIRIEF was very active in giving a very wide scale publicity to RBK Version through his Whatsapp Groups for AIRIEF Members despite my repeated requests to him not to raise hopes of Pensioners unnecessarily before release of said verdict but he preferred to ignore my logics 

Now any clarification from RBK Sir ?


Regards,
B.R.Mehta

IR CALCULATION BY LIC HAS TO BE DIFFERENT?

As per para 27 of the SC judgment dt 31/3/2016, LIC will have to
calculate IR by taking DR as per para 3A of Appendix IV. This means
that pre-August 1997 retirees will have to be fixed at a Basic Pension
as if their pay scales are revised on 1/8/1997. Otherwise how can para
3A be used which is applicable only for those who retired or died
after 1/8/1997 (& before 1/8/2002) and who had got the benefit of wage
revision on 1/8/1997?

We have to wait and see whether LIC will adopt this approach. If they
don’t, It has to be considered whether SC can be approached and what
will be the outcome. If SC directions are followed, there will have to
be an one-time upgradation of pension with weightage on 1/8/1997
before calculating IR.

Greetings

C H Mahadevan

A dissection of the SC ORDER

The order of Justice Dipak Misra belied our expectations and made us to wait for another four months, call it a destiny. Major portion of the order relates to the Board resolution and the discriminating DA formula which were already thrown open in lower courts, discussed and argued and hence becomes superfluous in the order. Except that the order confers doubling of the IR and will be paid to all who are similarly placed but discriminated there is nothing in the order for us to cherish but only to lament. The following observations made in the order has not gone well with us and needs to be addressed by the case mangers before the Delhi HC and atlast we hope to see the end of the tunnel in the Delhi HC and no more waiting :

1. On scanning of anatomy of rule 55 of 1995 rules WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT IT DOES NOT CONFER POWERS ON THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CORPORATION TO ISSUE ANY INSTRUCTIONS THAT CAN TRAVEL BEYOND THE RULES.

2. Where the issue of constitutional validity of Para 3A to the Appendix was raised the same deserves to be addressed by the HC.

3. We are inclined to set aside the orders passed by the HCs of Rajasthan, Delhi and P&H and transfer the petitions to the High court of Delhi WHICH WILL DECIDE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF Para 3 A OF THE APPENDIX TO THE RULES.

4. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case EXCEPT THAT THE RESOLUTION COULD NOT BECOME OPERATIVE UNLESS IT WAS CONFIRED THE STATUS OF A RULE AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC 48 OF THE ACT.

5. We have no option as THE PLEADINGS ARE NOT ADEQUATE AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHILE ASSAILING A CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF A PROVISION. It is well settled in law that he who has assailed the constitutional validity of a statutory provision or a rule has to specifically assert the grounds for such a challenge.

R.K.Viswanathan

God not in the heaven ?

Shri Anand (Chat n Chat column) is right that there is no word - 100% neutralisation in the Judgement. He may please read para.27 and para. 3A, reproduced below for ready reference. My interpretation may be right. If this interpretation is considered ok by the seniors, there is scope to interpret - 4 points over 1740 points. Does it involve merger of DR with basic of those retired on 31-07-1997 and earlier ? (weightage ??)

" 27.Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect. The Corporation is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in the Courts so that it can pay the employees who....

@3(A). In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in he quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of 1960 – 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall be at the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension; "

The S.C. Order dt.11-05-2015 probably did not invite attention to Para.3A, may be because, it was a very brief order.

I sincerely agree with Shri Subbu Sir and others. It did not occur to me to read the 'operative part of judgement' before browsing it from 'Reportable'. The judgement is very lucid, sympathetic, empathetic, half way through, and favourably inclined towards the pensioners (old in particular) in some paragraphs and apparently gives a feeling that the Judge is going to give a good package, all clear cut judgement to grant updation and DR- 100% - under article 14 of the Constitution of India, which has been extensively discussed in the judgement, subject to deciding Sec.21, 48, 55 etc. of LIC Employees Pension Rules, 1995 by (further) examination (once again) by another bench. May be because the SC has not much time at its disposal. But, at the end, a shocker : the judgement is not at all favourable to pensioners. It is equally painful difficult to understand why the judge has taken much pains to explain IR.

The Hon. Justice concludes "..We ingeminate (reiterate) that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to any of the aspects of the matter, except what we have finally concluded, namely, the resolution could not have been given effect without framing a rule by the central government..."

It would be imprudent for a layman like me to pass a judgement on a judgment by the highest authority or by any authority or by the learned. The Hon. Judge may have reasons to pass on the matter to a lower court. But, I do take some liberty to express and share my views like many others do. I may be right or I may be wrong.

Three days back, the Cabinet headed by the PM gave ex post facto approval on OROP to defence personnel - pensioners w.e.f. 01-07-2015. The GOI civil pensioners (judiciary- judges etc. included) going to get OROP retrospectively from 01-01-2016 as per recommendations of 7th C.P.C.

It is all going well elsewhere with GOI pensioners. But, this judgement is harsh. The judgement couldn't have been more harsher on the beleaguered pensioners. Helplessly waiting period has once again begun. No one should hereafter, (I won't) take any thing for granted. Bye up till next....

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

DR ANOMALY NOT RESOLVED

8 Apr 16, 06:15 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: The glaring anomaly in the the DA formula has been set aside and payment ordered within six weeks to ALL pre 1997 reitirees. Updating the pension with each pay-revision of in-service employees. This could also could have been conceded, with a recommendatory note. But then the Judge also with sympathy for the weak, has put the finer points of Law to be decided within the time-limit 31/8/16. We live in times where sympathy for the weak is to be extracted by the force of law. Where has gone that Angel called Grace, in employer-employee relations? Even in Corporation fully run by the Govt. Not by profit-driven Big Privare Corporates

8 Apr 16, 07:48 AM C H Mahadevan: Mr Narayanaswamy, the DR anomaly prevailing from 1/11/1993 has not been resolved. Applying para3A without removing the anomaly before 1/8/1997 does not do justice.If only the DR formula for pre August 1 Retirees is provided on par with in service DR formula prior to 1/8/1997, the gross pension on 1/8/1997 will be more than if para 3A is applied as LIC is known for not providing weightage. Even after SC order family pensioners will only get recoveries in payment of 40% IR. Now the only hope is Delhi HC to remove all anomalies and provide upgradation.

"My Property"

SC Judgment : More comments

7 Apr 16, 10:43 PM

Anand: It is pathetic that there was so much infighting among the pensioners rather than interpretation of constitutional provisions. Stop the mud slinging and resort to United fight!

Pensioners pls realise SC has ordered to release 40% despite setting aside jaipur HC judgement. Now it is not BR or UOI. Pls understand it is validity of 3A which determines anomaly or revision. 

Dear Mr.SN, where did you get word 100% neutralisation in the judgement?

7 Apr 16, 10:40 PM

Perumalmaruthu: Advantage Sri GNS! Cue for the DHC is given as "...the resolution could not have been given effect to without framing a rule by the Central Government."

7 Apr 16, 09:27 PM

subbu: 

SN Sir ! How I wish I knew your cell number or gmail id so that we can converse freely ( of course in serious vein).The very fact that the judgments of the HCs have been thrown overboard, itself conclusively proves what was obvious. I am the opinion that SC has already decided. Only the cosmetics part is left to Delhi HC to say. Reasons for throwing them out is also spelt out in no unequivocal terms and language. 

7 Apr 16, 09:50 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: Mr.K. Bhakthavatsaarao has put it correct. The SC has just passed the buck to HC Delhi with comments. It seems to be a case of wrong pleading and a desire for oneupmanship that has cost us heavily.

Case Managers take note and conduct yourselves with dignity, please.

7 Apr 16, 10:06 PM

Ashok shrivastava: Thank you very much Sir .I was under a wrong notion based on the information gathered from one of the bank officers .I could understand the rationale.Thanks once again.

Dear Editor,

The much awaited Judgement delivered on 31 March 2016 by Justice Dipak Misra is now available in black & white. 

While we can expect dozens of interpretations, scores of comments and hundreds of opinions on the implications of the Order, I hasten to congratulate the entire LIC Pensioner community for the UNPRECEDENTED Order handed down by Justice Misra, at a time and under such circumstances when we could have been languishing for ever, having gone down the drain, irretrievably. 

I am flooded with calls and queries by all categories of Pensioners. Well, the written Order is fully on expected lines as far as I am concerned and as reported by me on 31 March 2016. The other versions by or on behalf of, the other stakeholders have been proved wrong wholly or partly. 

I have been discussing with Sri Mahadevan and we both analysed the Order jointly. The following points emerge clearly.

1. The Jaipur Judgement (and the other two along with it) has been set aside. 

2. I wonder if there is a precedent in the annals of judicial pronouncements, when certain relief is granted to the 'losing petitioners' after setting aside the Judgement - a relief which is not appealable.

3. Interim relief is granted to the most deserving section of the Pensioners. They stand to gain in two ways - the amount ordered earlier has been doubled and it now covers ALL, who are  ‘similarly placed’. Obviously the Apex Court came to their rescue in a big way while on both the counts, these pensioners were badly disowned or let down by their own leaders

4. The post- Aug 97 retirees are genuinely aggrieved (that the up-gradation has not been conceded) but they should realize that they now got a fresh lease of life, to plead their case afresh in a fool-proof manner.     

  

When everything could have been lost,

virtually nothing is lost.

The little time gap could be used to pool all resources,

human & intellectual, if not financial.

Let us grab the opportunity provided to us to work and ensure that the final victory is ours.

Comments

7 Apr 16, 09:14 PM SN: The Hon. Judge is highly appreciative of every word of pensioners' grievances. But, alas, the judgement is much short of expectations: Appendix 3 A - 40% of difference in 100% neutralisation in DR to all pre-August, 1997 in six weeks 'seems' only the gain for now. Final deliverance of justice on or before 31-08-2016. As on date, no smile on the face of pensioners, no joy in their hearts.

Comments

7 Apr 16, 07:59 PM

JM Aboobucker: 

At last the moon has been sighted. 

The judgment has been uploaded in the SC website for the information of all. 

It is sad that all the 3 HCs orders have been SET ASIDE by the SC.

Only because of the arguments of counsel for Mr.GNS raising the constitutional validity of Rule 3(A) to Annexure IV of LIC Pension Rules 1995, the case has been remanded to the Delhi HC for de novo consideration of our case. 

The redeeming factors in the judgment are 

1. A time limit has been fixed for giving Delhi HC judgment before 31-8-2016

2. The judge has taken a sympathetic view of the plight of Pensioners and ordered for payment of IR at 40% as per Impugned Para 3(A) to Annexure IV, not only to the petitioners but also to those persons who are similarly placed within a period of SIX WEEKS.


7 Apr 16, 07:54 PM

Bhaktavatsalarao.k: The breaking news is only Heart breaking. The bottom line is that the resolution of the Board needs Central Government approval. The SC approval is limited to DA anomoly. The legal pundits may throw some more light in the matter.

7 Apr 16, 08:17 PM

subbu: What is there to throw some light? Everything is crystal clear.

BREAKING NEWS *** SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT NOW AVAILABLE * PLEASE PRESS BELOW TO READ JUDGMENT ***

CLICK HERE TO READ SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT

Pension commutation

6 Apr 16, 07:22 PM Ashok shrivastava: Shri Mahadevan Sir,Thank you very much for everything you have done for pensioners. I express heartfelt gratitude.The commuted part of pension is reinstated after 15 years by LICI but in banks after 10 yrs.

Kindly let me know if we have ever demanded reinstatement of our full pension after 10 yrs like banks.This can be genuinely demanded Sir.Thanks

6 Apr 16, 08:44 PM subbu: Ashok Shrivatsav Sir !  If for 15 yrs value of 1/3rd pension was commuted and availed, it will be restored only after 15 yrs. Pl check up for Banks as to how many years of pension or 1/3rd of it, they are allowed to commute.

7 Apr 16, 06:49 AM Mohan.P: Restoration of 1/3 rd portion of Basic Pension (maximum) is only after 15 years in Banks too.Not 10 years as mentioned by Mr Ashok srivastava

Implementation of One Rank One Pension

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its ex-post facto approval for implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP). The details are as follows:

1. The benefit will be given with effect from 1st July, 2014.

2. Pension will be re-fixed for pre 1.7.2014 pensioners retiring in the same rank and with the same length of service as the average of minimum and maximum pension drawn by the retirees in the year 2013. Those drawing pensions above the average will be protected.

3. The benefit would also be extended to family pensioners including war widows and disabled pensioners.

4. Personnel who opt to get discharged henceforth on their own request under Rule 13(3) 1(i)(b), 13(3) 1(iv) or Rule 16B of the Army Rule. 1954 or equivalent Navy or Air Force Rules will not be entitled to the benefits of OROP. It will be effective prospectively.

5. Arrears will be paid in four half-yearly instalments. However, all the family pensioners including those in receipt of Special/Liberalized family pension and Gallantry award winners shall be paid arrears in one instalment.

6. In future, the pension would be re-fixed every 5 year. 

NOIP WRITES TO THE CHAIRMAN

Dear Shri. Gangadharanji,

NOIP has written to the Chairman, LICI as per the attachments. 

I request the favour of publishing the same in your esteemed blog.

With regards,

Ashok J Joshi,
General Secretary, NOIP (BMS)

1. READ LETTER TO CHAIRMAN

2. LETTER TO ED (F&A)

Pension Credit -May be a matter of interpretation of Rules

Rules Nos. 55 and 55A of LIC Employees Pension Rules, 1995 reproduced below : 

55. Power to issue instructions - The Chairman of the Corporation may from time to time issue instructions as may be considered necessary or expedient for the implementation of these rules.

55A. Power to Relax - Where the Central Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in respect of any class or categories of persons, it may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the requirement of the provision of that rule in a manner not inconsistent with these rules.

Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 have also the similar Regulations : 54 and 55 : CMD substituted for Chairman. (SBI Pension Fund Scheme is quite old)

RBI instructions mandate all authorised banks to spread over disbursal of pension to governments' pensioners during the period of last four working days of the month, except for the month of March, which will continue to be credited on or after the first working day of April.

It is gathered that IOB pays pension to its pensioners on the last working day of the month. SBI to its pensioners during last few (4-5) working days. 

It may be a matter of interpretation of Regulations 55 by the banks that it is not incumbent to amend Regulation 54 to pay pension to their pensioners a few days before or the banks' last working day of the month. It is in order not to cause undue hardship to the persons, not to inconvenience the pensioners.

LIC may replicate the banks in order to be advantageous to pensioners' fraternity.

SN

AWAITING JUSTICE

We have all waited with suspense for a week now after the SC Bench dictated the orders on 31/3/2016.

Although we are restless and impatient, the longer it takes, the more hopes of a beneficial order may arise in my view.

When the judge goes through the draft for corrections, inconsistencies if any may be removed and perhaps aspects of justice in favour of the weaker party (i.e. the pensioners) may get reflected provided they are not contrary to what has been argued in the open court.

Also as it is almost a final disposal of the CAs at the SC barring keeping them alive for hearing at Delhi HC and order for IR, the Bench may like to be doubly sure  that ambiguities are avoided and clarity is ensured on directions to be followed by the parties concerned.

Let us complete our remaining waiting period (hopefully not more than another 12 hrs) with a sense of optimism & hope.

Greetings.

C. H. Mahadevan

Bank practice

Sri. Mahadevan has has brought out the reality experienced by LIC pensioners which is applicable to Bank pensioners too.

Monthly pension payment is made to pensioners of LIC as per Life Insurance Corporation of India (employees) Pension Rules ,1995 which stipulates as follows:

Rule:54. Manner of payment of pension –

“A pension fixed at a monthly rate shall be payable monthly on or
after the first day of the following month.”

This is the case with Bank Pensioners too.Unfortunately LIC or Bank management have not amended the rule as “on or before 1st of every month” in favour of pensioners.(Exceptions are there in few Banks like SBI etc received on Saturdaywho make pension payments before last day of the month which it pertains).

Mohan.P ( Bank Pensioner)

(This mail received on Saturday was temporarily misplaced. We regret the delay in publishing the same. ed.)

PENSION CREDIT

Dear Editor,

Thanks for forwarding discussions on Pension Credit well in time to LIC Pensioners either on last working day or last but one working day of respective month uploaded on your blog to our Chairman. Really a very nice initiative on your part.

Hope most of Leaders of all LIC Pensioners Organisations are regular readers of your blog. Let them tell us through your blog that they have also taken up this issue with central office.This issue can be resolved favorably within few months in case all pensioners organisations jointly take up this issue.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

'PENSION CREDIT' DISCUSSION FORWARDED TO THE CHAIRMAN

5 Apr 16, 07:52 AM C H Mahadevan: The post of Mr SN on Rule 54 may be mailed to LIC Chairman. I am sure that LIC will initiate the change in the Rule through due process. 5 Apr 16, 10:06 AM ed.: the whole discussion has been forwarded to the chairman today with a request to examine the matter at the earliest.

Management should turn pro pensioners

In terms of Rule 54 of Chapter IX - General Conditions of LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995, the pension shall be payable monthly on or after the first day of the following month.

Where there is a will, there is a way. A small amendment to Rule 54 of Pension Rules is called for. The Management may do the needful early.

SN

EASTERN NEWS * APRIL 2016

TO READ, CLICK HERE

Pension credit - Kerala practice

In the Chat columns, I noticed, many are complaining about non-receipt of pension even on 2nd. 

None of our Associations has so far demanded LIC to follow the practice of Kerala Government (to my knowledge). 

They are paying pensions every month in advance. 

On death of a pensioner, there is no recovery. 

Instead, the family pension starts on the 1st of the month following. 

On the death of the family pensioner the fraction paid in excess is ignored.

With regards,

P.Janardhanan Nair

(Mail was received on saturday, but could not be uploaded earlier.)

High Time the Management turns pro pensioners

As per SBI website : "Bank makes pension payments on behalf of the Government to the retired employees of Central and State Governments, Defence, Railways etc. All pension payments are subject to rules and procedures prescribed by the Government(s), RBI and the concerned departments/organisations from time to time. The pension will be credited by the branch to the pensioner's savings or current account during the last four working days of the month. The pension for the month of March will be credited on or after 1st working day of April. The pension will not be paid in cash or through a joint account"

Mrs......retired from .....(GOI) maintains her SB account with SBI,...Branch. Her pension is credited regularly as stated in the website : during last four working days. She gets pension for March on 1st working day of April. She confirmed that she got her pension late (may be on second working of April) only once in last ten years.

Mr..... retired from GOI maintains SB account with CBI. His pension is credited on first working day of every month including for the month of March. There are two or three occasions during last ten years when the pension credit was delayed by one or two days.

The delays can be attributed to some (human) technical error.

As confirmed from a long time RBI friend (a pensioner) that RBI pensioners were getting their pension credited to their account on the last working day of the month except for the month of June. Since the introduction of five days week in RBI (excepting few departments) few years back, the pensioners get their pension credited on the last working day of the month except for month of June. If the last day of the month happens to be holiday, Sunday or Saturday, the pension is invariably credited on Friday or previous working day. As the closing of accounts of RBI is on 30th June, RBI pays salary and pension almost a week in advance.( Banks do not have five days a week. They are closed on second and fourth Saturdays since September, 2015)

Incidentally, there are GOI/RBI instructions that the banks can credit pension to a joint account with spouse.

Our leaders may take a leaf from what is stated above and from what Shri. S.K.Mazumder has suggested. There seems to no difficulty to release/pay pension one or two days in advance or on the last working day of banks and all twelve months. All depends on the Chairman / the Top Brass /the Management. They may take proactive stance. It is high time to turn pro pensioners.

SN 

PENSION CREDIT

If the  1st of the Month on which the pension is supposed to be credited happens to be a Holiday,  pension is credited to our account only on the 2nd of the month. In case, 2nd or the subsequent days also happen to be Bank Holidays or Holidays  for LIC, then , the pension will be credited only on the first working day after the Holidays are over. This practice is being followed only  by LIC of India. In State Bank of India, it is paid  on the last working day of the month, or whenever the salaries are paid to the in-service employees. On enquiry, I find  that  a similar procedure as followed by SBI is being followed for CG pensioners also. In fact, during festivals like Onam etc., the pension is paid  well in advance to the CG pensioners.

 

  The rationale, perhaps, bothering LIC seems to be, being pensioners or annuitants, pension payment is contingent upon survival of the  Pensioner. In other words, the liability of payment of pension  ceases once the pensioner dies (not where the family pension is opted) and ,therefore, if full pension is paid without  ensuring that the pensioner  was alive till the last working day of the month, it may be contrary to prevailing rules regarding payment of annuities. However, if my memory serves me right  LIC has issued a circular  clarifying that  irrespective of at which point of time during a month the pensioner dies , pension is payable for the full month and not for the period till the date of death of the pensioner. This has to be verified and in case  this is the position, there is absolutely no justification for LIC to continue doing what it is doing now. All streams of pensioners should take up this issue with LIC with the urgency it deserves,as we have scores of pensioners, even now, looking forward to the all important 1st of the Month.

 

And as for Self-certification of ‘existence’, as far as my knowledge goes , even though there has been a proposal by the Central Govt. no Public Sector Institution seem to have put it into practice.

 

  M.V.VENUGOPALAN

Credit pension on last working day

In central Govt. pensions are credited on the last working day of a month. Since our pension rules are modeled on the Central Govt. pension rules LIC should follow suit in the aspect of pension credit by taking corrective steps.

V.V.L.N.Sastry.

CREDIT OF MARCH 16 PENSION

I have seen the mail from Sri CH Mahadevan in the last evening and the various posts in LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE today on the issue. We are used to credit of March pension on 2nd April every year. The March pension has been credited today, by afternoon of today, the 2nd April'16 in Kolkata (Four Divisions and EZO).    Next year, it will be credited not earlier than 3rd April as 2nd April'17 will be Sunday.

April'16 pension will be credited not earlier than 2nd May'16 and April'17 pension will be credited not earlier than 3rd May'17.The problem will be more acute for the pensioners in Eastern Zone in general and West-Bengal & Tripura in particular for September'17 pension payment because first few days of October will be holidays under NI Act. 

The same problem occurred in 2014 but could be avoided after LIC RETIRED CLASS-I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Kolkata met the Zonal Manager and he issued instructions to the pension paying offices for payment of September'14 pension before commencement of Durga Puja festival.

Now that the Pension module having been made operational, such adjustments of advancing the pension payment date may not be possible unless intervened at CO.

The leaders of different associations or forums are earnestly requested to intervene and demand for necessary amendments in the pension rules for making provision of pension payments on the last working day of the month of pension if the first day of the payment month is a holiday or bank closing day.

         

The CO may be pursued for changes in the EXISTENCE CERTIFICATE rules allowing self-certification.  

 

Subir Kumar Mazumder

Pension credit

2 Apr 16, 03:34 PM

Hasmukh Raval: Pension credit is yet not received in my bank account till today on 2nd April, 2016 as these may be applicable to other pensioners also..... Hasmukh Raval Ahmedabad.

Fraction of what ?

On 31st March Justice Deepak Mishra awarded 40 per cent IR to all eligible pensioners. Thank God! This order is from SC and unlike earlier 20 per cent is not capable of being interpreted in favour of members (only) of a Union which supplied list of their members to LIC and expressed satisfaction at whatever was paid. 

If my memory serves me right LIC did not supply calculation sheets showing how that 20 per cent was calculated and quantified. Some said why we should worry about 20 per cent when we are about to pocket 100 per cent. Again the question is what is 100 per cent?

When we calculate the value of fraction of a quantity, both the numerator and denominator determine the result. In our case the numerator is important. The denominator is what is fixed by the court. (divide by 5, divide by 2.5 etc.).

LIC is escaping without disclosing the value of numerator and it is dishonesty. If we know how the earlier 20 per cent was calculated, that would indicate the method that is likely to be adopted by LIC now.

Some suffer from Dyspepsia and would not want more than first course of dinner. It is better they keep away from the group of diners who are kept starved at each wage revision. 

B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad

Comments

2 Apr 16, 01:45 PM  R.K.Viswanathan: Suspense galore as we do not know what the written order contains.It is the SC which tied up the civil suits and it is the same SC untying the knot. Ball is tossed from one court to the other and we have to wait for another 4 months. 2 Apr 16, 10:05 AM subbu: CHM Sir ! Please calm down. Possibly they are calculating that 40% IR and adding it to our regular pension. !! CHM Sir ! Sorry for interrupting u again. Employees can never be equated to pensioners. They will get angry. They have to be present inside the office, u must know that. The delay may also be due, when I thought over the matter in depth, possibly LIC wanted to know how many are still alive after hearing the SC Order. It could suffice, possibly according to them, to credit pension only who survive on 1st april 16. 2 Apr 16, 01:15 PM JM Aboobucker: Where were you Mr. Subbu. We felt your absence in our chat column. The comic relief to reduce our stress and tension was missing without you. 2 Apr 16, 08:41 AM namdev: till this minute,i am unable to download from supreme court web site. it shows status as pending.i think we will be able to get orders only on monday. 1 Apr 16, 10:41 PM r.govinda rao: can anybody help us what will be the extent of increase and amount of arrears on 40% IR. i have retired on 31.12.1994 with basic pension of 4346 before commutation and da 1099/-. 1 Apr 16, 10:32 PM BVS PRASAD: All Central Govt. Employees and state Govt employees get pension on the last working day. (EXCEPT FOR MARCH) WE, PENSIONERS ALSO SHOULD ASK LIC TO PAY PENSION ALONG WITH EMPLOYEES 1 Apr 16, 09:18 PM dilip dutta: 40% IR of what ? only DR or with upgradation. Confused, please through some light on this point.

Non-credit of March 2016 pension

I checked through ATM a little while ago whether the pension for the month of March 2016 was credited to my pension account in my Bank.I found there is no credit for the same.May be because today happens to be a Bank holiday for yearly closing they have not credited pension.I may not be the only pensioner to suffer this default.

In-service employees get the credit of March salary 7 days before the end of the month ,but pensioners get March pension one day later than the due date.

The question arises as to (1) whether pensioners are employees & (2) whether pension is the same as salary.

Even the Income tax department is treating pension as salary for tax purposes.

How are we going to get this discrimination removed?May be this also requires a legal struggle.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

Comments

1 Apr 16, 03:52 PM

Hasmukh Raval: 

As per GNS, 40% IR is payable to all pensioners who are affected by faulty D.R. formulae as applicable to retirees of 7/97 & prior. As per RBK 40%  will be paid for pension updation as at Aug.2012.

So, whether 40% IR is payable for DR. only for pre-Aug.97 pensioners or it would be paid for updation also for all retirees including post 97 retirees as per Aug 2012 wage revision. ?

OUR SC CASE

• Seen many anxious inquiries. 

• Nothing can be better than seeing the actual order.

• I feel that as the Delhi HC has already disposed the case agreeing with the Jaipur HC judgement, another Bench cannot decide the issue as the appeal lies only with the SC.

• May be the HC has now been directed to look at the bolts and nuts of the composition of the increase, in stead the SC spending their valuable time.

• I am not able to say whether the SC will say something else.

A.S.Ramanathan

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CHAT COLUMN COMMENTS AND CONGRATULATIONS !

Hats off to PC for the live relay and ball to ball comment from SC! You are bound to outwit tonight's Cricket Semi Finals "Ankho Deka Hal" live relay! Keep it up!

V. Gopalan

You have done a very admirable job in reporting today's SC proceedings. Pensioners' fraternity will always feel grateful to you. 

Dattatraya B Deshpande,

HATS OFF TO YOU SIR FOR RUNNING COMMENTARY OF PROCEEDINGS IN APEX COURT!

NS JADHAV

Viewing updates in Pensioners Chronicle. Happy to see your commentary on the proceedings in the Court.

R SURENDRAN

31 Mar 16, 12:09 PM

Bhaktavatsalarao.k: A request to our cartoonist..The person waiting looks young. Pl make him old without hair on the head,with 2 to 3 teeth waiting with smile on his face. (He represented a person waiting, and not a pensioner waiting. -ed.)

31 Mar 16, 12:18 PMR.K.Viswanathan: Bouquets to PC and to its mentor for flashing the court proceedings. Our demands being justifiable justice will be on our side. That LIC counsel is confused and confusing is not strange as he is arguing for a bad cause like Karnan fighting for a wrong side.

31 Mar 16, 12:17 PM

Nagarajan: Editor Sir, Thanks for your efforts

31 Mar 16, 12:12 PM

ramesh rao: i appreciate editorji the manner in which is depicting the proceedings of sc is marvelous and keep it up.

31 Mar 16, 12:56 PM

v.s.rajamani: It is just like watching cricket minute by minute. Kudos to Gangadharan ji. God be with all the pensioners.

31 Mar 16, 01:05 PM

G SRINIVASAN: From Singapore, watching the pc's chronicle. Still praying for a favourable orders.. Good work by PC to the pensioners

31 Mar 16, 01:20 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: Editorji, Words cannot express the feeling of elation, we LIC pensioners experience for the minute to minute reporting.

31 Mar 16, 01:38 PM

M L Bhatia: Hats off to all for giving updates. I am presently in Dubai and curiously watching the updates posted by you Let us hope and Pray for a favourable judgement. Regards: M L BHATIA, Delhi, camp: Dubai

31 Mar 16, 02:18 PM

BALA_38: Very clear and prompt messages from LICPC kept we, the pensioners. All the great job of LIC Pensioners Chronicle and the great editor. Thanks very many.

31 Mar 16, 03:12 PMJKS: METICULOUS COVERAGE. HATS OFF TO EDITOR SIR.

G SRINIVASAN: From Singapore , watching the pc's chronicle.praying for a favourable order. Good work by PC to the pensioners.

1 Apr 16, 03:41 PM

NPSRenkarajan: Good live coverage of proceedings of SC

Other comments

31 Mar 16, 12:40 PM B.D.Bhargava: Why back to Delhi H.C. S.C.Should decide on merits.

31 Mar 16, 01:38 PM

namdev: bonus for 3 years from 1979-80 with interest was received by us by the orders of great krishna iyer. the story of beginning and end of the struggle by whom is not known even now. it is a pity for trade unions the present struggle will not be forgotten because of information technology which we witness today.

31 Mar 16, 03:08 PMJM Aboobucker: The plight and anguish of the Pensioners do not seem to come to an immediate end, Our case is being returned to Delhi HC for adjudication. The little light at the end of the tunnel seen by the Pensioners suddenly vanished. Only the venue is getting shifted from SC to Delhi HC. But our anxiety continues endlessly.

31 Mar 16, 03:14 PMnamdev: if the delhi hc is not favourable, we will come again to sc due to the tenacity of working people. i will tell the story of bonus struggle some other day.

31 Mar 16, 03:23 PM Perumalmaruthu: All hopes dashed to dust!...DHC can not finalize it within 5 Months. SBI Pensioners Case was also referred back to DHC on technical grounds to be decided within 3 months...but even after 2 years nothing has happened!

31 Mar 16, 03:27 PM JM Aboobucker: So the Interim Relief though raised to 40% is not payable to all Pensioners as "in rem".. But with a rider --ALL SIMILARLY PLACED PENSIONERS. This rider will give rise to foul play by LIC who will increase in IR indicates longer road to be travelled to reach final destination!

31 Mar 16, 03:29 PMJM Aboobucker: Decide who are all SIMILARLY PLACED PENSIONERS. Maybe they may restrict the IR ONLY to the Pre8/1997 Pensioners.

31 Mar 16, 03:40 PMB Ganga Raju: Anxiously awaiting the full order of the court. A sentence here and another one there will not give a full picture. I think we may have the order before the court rises.

31 Mar 16, 03:48 PM ramesh rao: only sri chm will give the clear definition to the wordings "similarly placed pensioners"whether similarly placed pensioners refers to both pre and post pensioners or only pre 97 pensioners

31 Mar 16, 03:56 PM ramesh rao: in my opinion similarly means may be only pre 97 pensioners the question of post97 may not be covered once again a partial judgement

31 Mar 16, 05:23 PM ramesh rao: just i gone through sri sn feelings reg the sc notes i endorse the same feelings to that extent i also humbly request case managers to look in to the matter if we ignore the same we have strive to get the clear wordings

31 Mar 16, 05:53 PMa v subbaraman: i saw rbk's post that 40% includes upgradation of pension also to be paid in 6 week's delhi hc has to constitute 2 member team to decide legal points. the payments are to be made to all pensioners

31 Mar 16, 09:02 PM JM Abobucker: Clarification needed. Mr RBK in his reporting of SC case today says 40% of wage settlement from 1-8-2012. If this is correct, then the order should apply to both pre and post 1997 pensioners. We have to wait and see the Order of the Court in black and white tomorrow.

31 Mar 16, 09:20 PM SN: Different versions of today's S.C. verdict are circulating. Reminded of a story, ' Blind Men and the Elephant'. Better await to see the judgement copy to know details as stated by S/S.GNS and MSM. Pl.do not allow unattended/ uncleared even the smallest of doubt, if any, in the judgement.

1 Apr 16, 05:46 AM B.D.Bhargava: The only clarification is about the date upto which arrears are to be taken. I hope it is 31.3.2016.

1 Apr 16, 07:37 AMa v subbaraman: sh gns has put a bomb shell that the order is only for da neutralisation for all affected parties and not pension updation is it true?

M Sreenivasa Murty

Dear Editor,

Some genuine doubts and well-meaning queries

I came across a couple of well-meaning queries in the PC on yesterday’s developments in the Supreme Court. I am able to answer them as they pertain to facts.

1. Was a reference to Delhi High Court (instead of disposal by SC itself) not resisted?

Ans. It was stoutly and repeatedly opposed by Mr Nidhesh Gupta. He offered to have the matters given a short adjournment, so that ‘we will file an Affidavit or a Petition under Art 32 with necessary amended prayers, keeping the observations made by your Lordship’. NG also highlighted the inevitable additional delay in the matter involving Petitioners who are in their eighties. Not agreed to because, the points of law vehemently raised by LIC Counsel should be addressed and resolved at the original stage and not in the Appeals for the first time. Plus it was an escape route to overcome LIC Counsel’s strong objection that HC gave an ‘out of the hat’ Order. As far as we are concerned, we got a fresh lease of life and can try to put the derailed vehicle back on track and make it move.

2. Appendix IV is also included in reference to Delhi HC.?

Ans: Yes, That actually is the main reference. It was opposed by NG. But in vain. When it was being discussed, lot of confusion prevailed. It was referred because of the confusion created by LIC Counsel. Even now it can be a problem area because; I heard NG mentioning that we have no quarrel with it. Our grievance is elsewhere. I am waiting for Mr Mahadevan’s interpretation.

MURTY'S CHAT COLUMN COMMENTS

1 Apr 16, 06:57 AM M Sreenivasa Murty: Hopefully the Order should get uploaded by EOD. As one of our Sr Pensioners said, LIC closed its business for the year yesterday and ours just started. Once the Order is out, we can expect reams of Posts and relentless discussions. Blogs can open special editions.On a serious Note, we need to start working without losing a single day, to realize (for whomever it applies) whatever is ordered, without allowing LIC to go in to 'destroy enemy' mode as it did Post- 7 May Order. Mr C H Mahadevan is traveling South and is expected to return this afternoon, Hyderabad Association has convened an emergency informal General Body Meeting on Saturday 4,00 PM. to take a number of decisions and chalk out a plan of action.We are now formally admitted as a Party in the future proceedings. I think GNS was right and true ONLY in that part of his Post. The rest of what he wrote is a Joke. I am eager to share some highlights of the impending Order. Justice Misra pulled up LIC in clear terms and expressed surprise how LIC has been treating its Pensioners "who contributed' to its growth. He gave us an opportunity to say before Delhi HC (before the Specially constituted Bench) with a deadline to dispose of the cases. The tricks tried by the new Sr Counsel for LIC (unsuccessfully though,thanks to Mr Nidhesh Gupta's persuasive stubbornness) to deny any relief to Pensioners, were many. One was to limit the 40% relief to Petitioners only. This found tacit support from GNS Team (if not their Counsel). All of us with mainly Nidhesh Gupta and Mr Jay Savla literally shouted 'NO. NO' & Judge was furious. 'How can you limit it to a few? It was agreed after great fighting. It shall be to ALL SIMILARLY PLACED. We succeeded but without paying a price. LIC Counsel succeeded in getting it reduced from 50% to 40%. NK Kaul claimed it costs LIC 300 Crores. NG shouted Your Lordship may please record it. My learned friend is misleading the court. Another trick tried by NK Kaul was 'let those eligible for payment under this Order apply individually to LIC claiming their dues. we examine each case and respond. The suggestion was shot down by the Judge himself even before we objected.

PUBLISHING RB KISHORE'S VERSION

DEAR ALL LIC PENSIONERS FRIENDS,

What I heard over phone from Sri BSVerma, Sri DDGupta & finally from Sri RKSingh, I make mention:

• i) Pension Upgradation is agreed to the extent of 40 % of latest Wage agreement as at 1/8/2012

• ii) This is applicable to all Pensioners

• iii) As 1/8/2012--31/7/2017 is taken as benchmark, DR is also approved, same as it will be for employees for 1/8/2012 wage agreement

• iv) He informed me that LIC has to release the arrears in 6 weeks time , may be 31/5/2016

• v) When I specifically asked him what is the effective date, he said, obviously from the date of retirement

• vi) When he said legal points alone are being referred to Delhi HC & SC has directed Delhi HC to constitute 2-Judge Bench within a month & must complete the hearing on those law issues within 3 months thereafter

• vii) I conveyed why SC Bench must be restrictive to 40% of 1/8/2012 wage formula,he said that now this has come into being, if any issues are left out, when SC reopens after vacation, we can take up, no harm.

• viii) I had no time to ask him, whether we could not prevent a reference back to Delhi HC on law points & as Apex Court itself,they could have heard further arguments. Of course, I did ask him SC Bench cld have graciously ordered in principle full pension upgradation, as Hon Dipak Misra himself in his Judgement dt 1/7/2015 for Rajasthan teachers etc granted full pension revision, characterising 6 grades below getting higher pension as 'hostile discrimination '

• ix) We have to get a fuller version including Sri Nidish Guptas arguments to confirm above with or without modifications,from Sri KMLAsthana, as some say Appendix IV is also included in reference to Delhi HC.This looks funny as ALL the 3 HCs basically & fully concurred with Full DR & pension upgradation by Hon SJ Bhandari & upheld by DB Jaipur HC too greetings, a wonderful day, tremendous progress, unity still needed in full,150/160 minutes Case 101 on, Order dictation from 1250 or so to 1 PM , again after lunch for quite some time. Must be 3.4 pages or more.

RBKISHORE
VP,AIRIEF