an independent initiative...
Friday, August 12, 2016
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Monday, August 08, 2016
Sunday, August 07, 2016
Saturday, August 06, 2016
Friday, August 05, 2016
News and comments
 B.R.Mehta: Besides always first available version of DHC Proceedings dated 4th August from Sh. Murty through LIC PC , two more versions on this issue were available for all of us - one from GNS and 2nd from Both versions have not touched high velocity drama yesterday by KML due to obvious reasons.
GNS MISSING 'AMENDED WP' FINALLY LOCATED
|
GNS circular dated 5th August 2016 says that there was a technical fault that got rectified on the spot and the amended petition was duly tabled and was very much taken up.
KML ASTHANA BRINGS DR. ABHINAV SHARMA FROM RAJASTHAN
Readers will recall it was Dr. Abhinav Sharma who had originally argued KML Asthana's case in Rajasthan High Court.
The progress of the case halted
4 Aug 16, 08:40 PM
G. Narayanaswamy: The progress of the case is halted. Due to several factors. The delivery of justice is clouded. And uncertain with the rising expectations of powerless pensioners. Power, Greed, and absence of leaders mar the scene. With our very slow justice-delivery system. Only the GOI/LIC should see the justness of our cause & render justice.
Thursday, August 04, 2016
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
Pradeepkumar's dissertation on Para 3(A)
3 Aug 16, 03:11 PM
JM Aboobucker: Mr Pradeep Kumar's long dissertation on Para 3(A) is thought provoking. After reading his article I feel that impugned Para 3(A) itself cannot be called unconstitutional since this rule only brought uniform DR rate abolishing the 4 slab DE. Uniform DR rate prevailing before this Amendment.
JM Aboobucker: Mr Pradeep Kumar's long dissertation on Para 3(A) is thought provoking. After reading his article I feel that impugned Para 3(A) itself cannot be called unconstitutional since this rule only brought uniform DR rate abolishing the 4 slab DE. Uniform DR rate prevailing before this Amendment.
So instead of calling the whole Para 3(A) unconstitutional, we can amend our objection only to the restrictive portion conferring this BENEFIT ONLY TO A PARTICULAR GROUP LEAVING THE OTHERS TO LURCH.
Thus our objection should be to the creation of CUT OFF date as 1-8-1997 instead of allowing the benefit to the ENTIRE PENSIONERS AS A CLASS. The outright objection to Para3(A) will be detrimental to our interest.
Comments
2 Aug 16, 02:45 PM
Anand Tyagi: I differ from the views as expressed by ASR that lic was not interested to formulate pension scheme. It's an absolutely a very incorrect statement, and he is not aware how lic persuade the issue before Shri Subedar MD played a crucial n major role to frame n implement the scheme. even young generation at that time in all classes were opposing n did not opt even. But that is not the case now. Now each n every body wishes to get Up gradation in pension. Let the Almighty Divine Grace shower blessing for up gradation in pension.
Amended para 3a of pension rules
The first sentence states " in case of employees retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997............." The pensioners who retired before 1-8-1997 who are living have neither retired or died after 1-8-1997. When it is so the Supreme Court in its wisdom ordered payment of IR those retired before 1-8-1997 in terms of para 3a, only means that they should be treated on par with serving employees as on 1-8-1997 calculating DA. It only leads to the conclusion that the basic pension updated in a manner done to those who were in service on 1-8-1997. Hence the basis adopted by LIC for payment of IR is faulty if not mischievous. I hope this is noted by all the concerned in opposing LICs affidavit on IR payment.
T SAMPATH IYENGAR
Tuesday, August 02, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)