an independent initiative...
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Comments
Thank you. Interesting indeed. I would prefer to focus on preparing for the hearing possibly on 29th. This chain may only turn out to be academic. Will certainly convey my response in good time. We don't gain anything by convincing this person on how strong our case is.
Thank you once again,
Sreenivasa Murty M
Comments
Dear Sh. Gangadharan,
My very sincere Thanks to you for giving me special privilege of sending me an advance copy of 2nd in series letter of AW.
My request is same as mentioned by Sh. Murty that let us have our full focus on developments in our case at supreme court.
Being Editor, you have a final say in this matter and we always respect yours decision.
Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula
My very sincere Thanks to you for giving me special privilege of sending me an advance copy of 2nd in series letter of AW.
My request is same as mentioned by Sh. Murty that let us have our full focus on developments in our case at supreme court.
Being Editor, you have a final say in this matter and we always respect yours decision.
Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula
COMMENTS
Dear Shri Gangadharan,
Thank you for sending me the second letter sent by the Anonymous Writer.
The person who is writing these letter is either a retired senior Officer of LIC, or an existing LIC Officer writing on behalf of the Corporation just to make the moral of the pensioners down. Whosoever he or she may be, I feel his letters should not be published and made public.
Although as an Editor, this is your discretion to publish the letters or not. But I feel his letters should not be published. The person, if he is really a pensioner, should be bold enough to give his identity. What for he is afraid. Everybody has a fundamental right to come forward with his views. There is no bar on sending one's views.
It appears that the person is not bold to show his identity. So IGNORE HIM.
Thanks.
P.P. Dhamija
COMMENTS
Nothing new in the letter dated 17-04-2015 of the Anonymous. He or she, serving or retired or pensioner of LIC or LIC Agent or..... does not want to bend. Sticks to what he said in his first solo on 04-04-2015.
SN (a 1992 pensioner)
COMMENTS
Dear Shri PG,
I am grateful to you for including my
I am grateful to you for including my
name too in your chosen few of the
enlightened bloggers of our PC with
whom you wanted to be privy to
the second letter from the AW
through your personal email.
The tone and tenor of this letter appears to be little bit subdued and softened. It speaks more of apology and regret for his/her kindling of frustrated and disgusted feelings amongst the senior citizens who are waiting over 14 years for a D Day to their difficulties and aspirations through the only saviour left before them viz. the portals of the Supreme Court of India. That is why it is no wonder that without exception every reader was indignant on reading the AW' s first letter and many illustrious writers had chosen to rebut the arguments advanced by the AW giving out exhaustive and unassailable rebuttals.
In spite of scores of rebuttal responses from many learned bloggers of our PC justifying our case, it is regrettable that the AW has not been convinced about the Pension Upgradation Demand of LIC Pensioners and the AW stay put where he/she wrote his/her first letter.
In fine I feel that the second letter of AW does not deserve to be published by you, for the simple reason that even after your indulgence to give the AW a platform to give vent to the feelings/expressions on the burning issue of LIC Pensioners, despite being an anonymous letter, the AW care a fig about the PC platform and still chose to remain anonymous in the second letter too.
As the Editor of our PC of course you are the ultimate judge/authority and I leave it to the Editorial Wisdom to decide about the publication of the second letter of AW after seeing the mollified feelings the first AW letter had aroused.
J.M. ABOOBUCKER. LEAMINGTON SPA (UK).
(The above mail was received at our end after the second letter Chronicle had distributed to selected contributors.)
In spite of scores of rebuttal responses from many learned bloggers of our PC justifying our case, it is regrettable that the AW has not been convinced about the Pension Upgradation Demand of LIC Pensioners and the AW stay put where he/she wrote his/her first letter.
In fine I feel that the second letter of AW does not deserve to be published by you, for the simple reason that even after your indulgence to give the AW a platform to give vent to the feelings/expressions on the burning issue of LIC Pensioners, despite being an anonymous letter, the AW care a fig about the PC platform and still chose to remain anonymous in the second letter too.
As the Editor of our PC of course you are the ultimate judge/authority and I leave it to the Editorial Wisdom to decide about the publication of the second letter of AW after seeing the mollified feelings the first AW letter had aroused.
Thanking you and with kind regards
J.M. ABOOBUCKER. LEAMINGTON SPA (UK).
(The above mail was received at our end after the second letter Chronicle had distributed to selected contributors.)
COMMENTS
Dear Shri.Gangadharan,
I went through the letter sent by the AW. In as much as he assures
that there will be no further letters from him, I don't see any harm
in publishing this letter too and be done with it. From the Editorial
side, you may hint that the matter discussed in his letter do not
I went through the letter sent by the AW. In as much as he assures
that there will be no further letters from him, I don't see any harm
in publishing this letter too and be done with it. From the Editorial
deserve any response or reaction and by doing that we shall only be,
unnecessarily, digressing from our core issue, you don't expect
unnecessarily, digressing from our core issue, you don't expect
too many contributions. In any case I shall not be responding to his
second instalment in any way.
Regards,
Regards,
M. V. Venugopalan
COMMENTS
I do not wish to give any comments on the contents of the letter of Mr/Ms Anonymous as he/she chooses to enter into discussion remaining invisible. A person with some ideas ,if he/she wants to contribute for a cause should come out in the open as many have done in your blog and participate in the blog instead of shooting comments incognito.
I suggest that you may adopt an editorial policy to publish matter contributed only by writers who identify themselves and not by those who prefer to write whatever they want by remaining anonymous. Any matter received from an anonymous writer only means that the writer does not want to take responsibility for what he/she writes.
Even reputed newspapers make it clear that those who wants their letters to be published should write their name and address.
With kind regards,
C H Mahadevan
BANK NEWS
UNION BANK RETIRED
EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
Bipartite Talks - Meeting of IBA with Officers' Organizations on 22.4.'15
After their meeting with IBA on 22/4/'15, AIBOC has conveyed following message.
"In the meeting of Sub-Group of IBA held on 22-04-2015 on other issues of officers at Mumbai many issues including PQA, FPA, CAIIB Increment, tax on perquisites, allowance for naxal affected areas, LFC etc, were discussed, Our concerns of structuring of pay scales were also shared and discussed with the IBA, The meeting was positive, Next round of talks is expected to be held next week"
-B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary
ARE THE LIC PENSIONERS HELPLESS?
Ten Days to
go
MY VIEW - POST NO 2.
The queries, the replies and the comments are all BONAFIDE. But they can wait. The general Pensioner community should get concerned with what is MALAFIDE.
I described Mr Nidhesh Gupta’s (Sr. Advocate appearing for Jaipur) performance on 8th April 2015 as a SELF GOAL. I stand vindicated on 24th April. Some of us have been blaming the judicial processes and court procedures when we are frustrated due to adjournments every time. When ‘our own’ Counsel is instrumental for a long adjournment, whom should we blame? Our own fate? We tasted a bit of it on 24th, when the Sr Advocate declared ‘inability’ for 30th April thus by pushing the hearing to 7th May – precariously close to the summer vacation.
I have no idea whether there is any understanding between the Counsel and the Client on the ‘availability’ factor. But that is not my real worry. Quite often the clients are helpless and are at the mercy of the Counsel. But I am scared at the prospects of the SELF GOAL drama repeating on 7th May. Here the Client has to be accountable - to the forty thousand Pensioners.
In the early days of my service in LIC, a section of Class III employees (HGAs), used to find themselves victims of a declared antipathy from the majority Union of which they were all members (till they parted ways to protect their interests). Some of the present activists among the pensioner groups like SS Saxena, SN Chhabra and R Rajagopalan and I were all ‘comrades in distresses’ in the very queer situation then. I find a sort of repeat of history now. All the Pensioner groups are supposed to be on one side, facing a mighty LIC and UoI. But in reality, one dominant group claiming to be represented by ONE INDIVIDUAL with zero accountability is treading a dangerous path and perhaps unwittingly play havoc with the interests of its own loyal and trusting members and the rest, looking to them with hope..
ARE THE LIC PENSIONERS HELPLESS?
I am aware a few uninformed individuals may pounce on me for this Post. I am prepared because I have a bigger Mission to pursue and achieve. Will certainly open up with each of my further Posts, thanks to the million-hit-strong LIC PC.
M Sreenivasa Murty
Saturday, April 25, 2015
A QUERY, A REPLY AND SOME COMMENTS
BR MEHTA'S QUERY
" As per information reaching us ,Supreme Court Bench today had offered to hear our case on 30th April i.e. next Thursday but Senior Counsel for Jaipur expressed his inability to accept this offer and hence matter was posted for 7th May i.e. next to next Thursday."
ASTHANA'S REPLY  |
SHRI JM ABOOBUCKER'S COMMENTS
Dear Editor
According to Mr Asthana, what Mr Mehta writes was not correct as to what transpired in the Court room on 24th. Okay, Let us accept it. But should not Mr Asthana bring to light
for the benefit of the anxious LIC Pensioners who are counting days in this world what "exactly" has transpired in the court room on 24th, having been physically present in the court?
Mr Asthana owes it as a duty to the LIC pensioners fraternity to come out clean and present a true picture in the court matters as when it happens instead of being secretive and lacking transparency of a matter of public interest .
Until Mr Sreenivasa Murty came into the scene, all the court proceedings were kept by Mr Asthana as a closely guarded secret and a very minimum information was let out by him that too taking his own time. Thanks to Mr Murty and of course with the active help of blogs, we the LIC Pensioners get the details of the proceedings instantaneously, almost as a running commentary of cricket matches.
According to Mr Asthana, what Mr Mehta writes was not correct as to what transpired in the Court room on 24th. Okay, Let us accept it. But should not Mr Asthana bring to light
Mr Asthana owes it as a duty to the LIC pensioners fraternity to come out clean and present a true picture in the court matters as when it happens instead of being secretive and lacking transparency of a matter of public interest .
Until Mr Sreenivasa Murty came into the scene, all the court proceedings were kept by Mr Asthana as a closely guarded secret and a very minimum information was let out by him that too taking his own time. Thanks to Mr Murty and of course with the active help of blogs, we the LIC Pensioners get the details of the proceedings instantaneously, almost as a running commentary of cricket matches.
As usual Mr Asthana would either keep mum about the matter discussed or come out with a cryptic remark that it was a false statement. That is all and nothing more. Of course he would not come out clean even then about the correct position. That is his style of functioning perhaps!
J.M. ABOOBUCKER LEAMINGTON SPA. (UK)
(Shri JM Aboobucker had sent us the above letter. Pensioners Voice, it was seen, had published Shri Asthana's reply to Shri BR Mehta's query. Let the readers decide. We have no comments to offer. -Ed.)
(Shri JM Aboobucker had sent us the above letter. Pensioners Voice, it was seen, had published Shri Asthana's reply to Shri BR Mehta's query. Let the readers decide. We have no comments to offer. -Ed.)
ARE THE LIC PENSIONERS HELPLESS ?
Is there anything we can do about it (apart from our Prayers)?
YES. We should appeal to our case managers to work in that direction. They on their part should ‘instruct’ their Counsel to let the Appeals be argued by LIC & UoI first (as is normal) and to plead with the Bench on 7th May 2015, to decide this matter before vacation, by offering our cooperation.
The Respondents’ groups have every right to follow their own strategy and oppose the Appeals on any and every ground including ‘maintainability’. For Pensioners’ sake, they should wait for their turn. Instead of LIC & UoI indulging in filibuster, why are we adopting it?
LET US ACT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE
M Sreenivasa Murty
Friday, April 24, 2015
OUR CASES IN SUPREME COURT
At least it is comforting that the case was not
adjourned beyond summer vacation.
But based on past experience
whether anything tangible will
happen on 7th May 15 is to be seen.
Let us pray to Almighty.
Greetings.C H Mahadevan
YET ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT !
Dear Editor,
Much to the disappointment of the
hapless LIC Pensioners fraternity, AS USUAL our cases stand ADJOURNED
for TWO WEEKS. It appears that any adjournment in SC takes a Minimum of
two weeks. Some pensioners fondly hoped that the case would be
adjourned to 29th April 15 and there were some sanguine hopes amongst
the Pensioners that the cases should be decided FINALLY at least before
the summer vacations starts.
All the hopes and
expectations stand shattered now. Even in the next adjoured date of 7th
May 2015 no useful purpose would be served except to give a further
adjournment after the SC summer vacation. As per the Calendar of the SC
the Court will be on SUMMER VACATION for a period 45 days from
17-5-2015
to 30-6-2015. All court activities will come to a grinding halt till
then.
Therefore it would be better for our poor
Pensioners not to be on tenterhooks till SC reopens after Summer
Vacation. Till then let us also enjoy the forced vacation on us by
turning to the other activities of our mundane life and relax our tensed
up minds. So friends, let us take care of our fragile health in the
interregnum.
J.M. ABOOBUCKER, LEAMINGTON SPA. (UK)
Today's developments in Supreme Court
Dear Editor,
Mr Jay Savla the Advocate representing Panchkula/Chandigarh Petitioners and his Associate Ms Renuka Sahu, called me separately during their lunch break.
They confirmed the next date of hearing to be 7th May 2015.
On my inquiry as to what actually transpired in the Court today, I was informed that there was no move from the Counsel of either LIC or UoI but Mr Nidhesh Gupta, Sr Advocate, appearing for Jaipur stood up. THE BENCH OFFERED TO HEAR THE MATTERS NEXT THURSDAY ie., 30TH APRIL 2015. But Mr Nidhesh Gupta told the Bench that he cannot appear on that day. Thereupon the Bench Posted the cases to the following Thursday Viz., 7th May 2015.
To my question as to why the usual Wednesday was not considered, Mr Savla said, as 30th April & 7th May were both given by the Bench, we have to presume that the Bench may not be free on the preceding Wednesdays.
As regards the Post by GNS that Mr Gupta wanted to argue today itself on the maintainability aspect, which was declined by the Court, I have no information as of now.
I see a red flag in the 'goings on' to our detriment and unless some openness comes to the fore, we will be the losers and we cannot blame anybody except ourselves.
Thanks and regards,
M Sreenivasa Murty
SC CASE
Dear Editor,
As per the information I just received on phone from Sri Jay Savla, Advocate representing Panchkula/Chandigarh Petitioners, our cases are Posted to 7th May 2015.
Please await more details to be posted shortly
Thanks and regards,
Sreenivasa Murty M
CHRONICLE EARNS RECORD OF HAVING ONE LAC HITS IN 30+ DAYS !
 |
| We had estimated on 15-4-2015 that we will be hitting ONE MILLION page views on 25-4-2015. Is it coming true? |
"YOU ARE DOING A VALUABLE SERVICE FOR THE
PENSIONERS. MAY GOD BLESS YOU!".
This message is very genuine, simple and apt. The Editor thanks the readers for the wonderful opportunity they have all given to him to serve them all.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Our perception about on-going negotiations for 10th BP Settlement
UNION BANK RETIRED
EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
Several friends are anxiously inquiring by telephones and by meeting personally about the progress / developments in the on-going negotiations for 10th BP Settlement and more specifically inquiring whether it will benefit the pensioners.
All the retired employees of various Banks have seen earlier nine BP Settlements. There are several bottle necks and road blocks in the negotiations every time. This time, it seems, most of the obstacles are cleared by now. The negotiations are going on at a slow pace, but satisfactorily. However, it seems that many matters are yet to be sorted out among the constituents of United Forum of Bank Unions and then with the Indian Banks' Association. Therefore, it is probable that final agreement will not be reached within 90 days as agreed in MoU. The talks may continue even after 90 days, as more rounds of talks will be necessary.
As regards pensioners, our legitimate demands and expectations are as under.
All the retired employees of various Banks have seen earlier nine BP Settlements. There are several bottle necks and road blocks in the negotiations every time. This time, it seems, most of the obstacles are cleared by now. The negotiations are going on at a slow pace, but satisfactorily. However, it seems that many matters are yet to be sorted out among the constituents of United Forum of Bank Unions and then with the Indian Banks' Association. Therefore, it is probable that final agreement will not be reached within 90 days as agreed in MoU. The talks may continue even after 90 days, as more rounds of talks will be necessary.
As regards pensioners, our legitimate demands and expectations are as under.
Improvement in Pension
Up-dation
100% neutralization of dearness relief to pensioners retired prior to 1st November, 2002.
Family Pension - flat 30% (on the line of pensioners of Central Government and Reserve Bank of India) instead of present tapering rates 15/20/30% in our Banks.
Reasonable - uniform Medical Assistance Scheme for retirees of all the Banks
Our apex organization - All India Bank Retirees' Federation, during last three years, has done its best to high light and ventilate our demands at all levels viz. the Government, the Indian Banks' Association and various constituents of the Uniform Forum of Bank Unions.
Several leaders of the constituents of the United Forum of Bank Unions have repeatedly assured in various forums and in their circulars that they are fully seized of the retirees' issues and will do their best to redress / settle our grievances / demands along with the revision of salary and service conditions of the employees in service.
It is categorically agreed between the negotiating parties that the total monetary load of 15% will be only on salary slip components of the employees in service. Financial burden for changes in (i) medical assistance scheme for serving and retired staff as well as (ii) for improvements in pension, if agreed, will be computed over and above the 15% agreed in MoU.
On the other hand, Bankers are repeatedly expressing their financial constrains owing to decreasing profitability and increasing non performing assets of most of the Banks. The government has made its stand clear saying that the public sector banks have autonomy to decide these issues.
Even amidst such contradicting situation / circumstances, we are optimist to get reasonable benefits out of this 10th BP Settlement. However, obviously, first the matters pertaining to serving employees will be discussed and finalized. Our issues will be discussed and settled during last rounds of talks. It is, therefore, not possible to predict anything at this juncture that how much improvements in pension and medical assistance scheme will be there and from which date. Obviously when nothing tangible is discussed yet, why to make mere forecasts.
Whatever news / circulars we are getting from various sources in this regards are promptly sent to all of you by e-mails. As a matter of policy, our Association is reproducing / forwarding only those messages / circulars which are received from substantially reliable sources. We can not be instrumental in spreading any rumor or hearsay.
Please, therefore, wait and watch patiently the developments, which are taking place in the on-going BP Talks.
With good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Up-dation
100% neutralization of dearness relief to pensioners retired prior to 1st November, 2002.
Family Pension - flat 30% (on the line of pensioners of Central Government and Reserve Bank of India) instead of present tapering rates 15/20/30% in our Banks.
Reasonable - uniform Medical Assistance Scheme for retirees of all the Banks
Our apex organization - All India Bank Retirees' Federation, during last three years, has done its best to high light and ventilate our demands at all levels viz. the Government, the Indian Banks' Association and various constituents of the Uniform Forum of Bank Unions.
Several leaders of the constituents of the United Forum of Bank Unions have repeatedly assured in various forums and in their circulars that they are fully seized of the retirees' issues and will do their best to redress / settle our grievances / demands along with the revision of salary and service conditions of the employees in service.
It is categorically agreed between the negotiating parties that the total monetary load of 15% will be only on salary slip components of the employees in service. Financial burden for changes in (i) medical assistance scheme for serving and retired staff as well as (ii) for improvements in pension, if agreed, will be computed over and above the 15% agreed in MoU.
On the other hand, Bankers are repeatedly expressing their financial constrains owing to decreasing profitability and increasing non performing assets of most of the Banks. The government has made its stand clear saying that the public sector banks have autonomy to decide these issues.
Even amidst such contradicting situation / circumstances, we are optimist to get reasonable benefits out of this 10th BP Settlement. However, obviously, first the matters pertaining to serving employees will be discussed and finalized. Our issues will be discussed and settled during last rounds of talks. It is, therefore, not possible to predict anything at this juncture that how much improvements in pension and medical assistance scheme will be there and from which date. Obviously when nothing tangible is discussed yet, why to make mere forecasts.
Whatever news / circulars we are getting from various sources in this regards are promptly sent to all of you by e-mails. As a matter of policy, our Association is reproducing / forwarding only those messages / circulars which are received from substantially reliable sources. We can not be instrumental in spreading any rumor or hearsay.
Please, therefore, wait and watch patiently the developments, which are taking place in the on-going BP Talks.
With good wishes,
Yours sincerely,
B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary
Problems within the camp
Dear Editor,
Personally I agree with line of thinking or action of Sh.Murty. However, I feel sorry to say there is no taker of his views even in AIRIEF Camp due to so many reasons.
Personally I agree with line of thinking or action of Sh.Murty. However, I feel sorry to say there is no taker of his views even in AIRIEF Camp due to so many reasons.
- First and top most is that our Principal Case Manager for Jaipur High Court though being in same AIRIEF Camp has no working dialogue with Sh. Murty due to his very large Ego Problem leading to trust deficit on all issues related with legal battle.
- And on the top of it, any one including Sh. Murty who differs with our respected Sh.Asthana ji will be projected as L.I.C. Management Man and hence so called gap which is quite clear and visible to all concerned.
But this is just a bend and not end of road. Sh. Murty is very capable and strong enough to handle all such like challenges to ensure final victory for all L.I.C. Pensioners.
Regards,
Regards,
B.R.Mehta
PanchkulaTESTING TIMES FOR LIC PENSIONERS - LET US BE PROACTIVE IN PLANNING AND ACTING
Unlike on some earlier occasions, this time around (22nd & 23rd April) we missed out a possible serious hearing of our cases in Supreme Court for no fault of ours. All of us therefore took the adverse development in its stride.
I am looking forward to Friday the 24th April to open up yet another valuable opportunity for all the Pensioner groups' representatives to TRY and take control of the situation.
Apart from filing belated Appeals before the Apex Court which is nothing but abuse of the legal process and system, LIC & UoI have been sitting pretty without honoring the judgments. They made a mockery of the SC Order of 30 Sept 2013 which said among other things 'there shall be no stay' of the judgement challenged in Appeals. Respondents Counsel should be able to sensitize the Bench on this point which is in our favor in a purely legal sense.
That the Respondents in the matter consist of forty thousand Sr citizens who are in the late evening of their lives, may also be appropriately highlighted. Each adjournment and each week of the delay is making it 'too late' for many.
It requires OUR OWN COMMITMENT FIRST
That the Respondents in the matter consist of forty thousand Sr citizens who are in the late evening of their lives, may also be appropriately highlighted. Each adjournment and each week of the delay is making it 'too late' for many.
It requires OUR OWN COMMITMENT FIRST
transforming in to the willing COOPERATION
FROM OUR COUNSEL to play their expected role.
On behalf of Panchkula/Chandigarh Petitioners and on my own behalf I have Mr Jay Savla's strong support for the above approach. I hope and expect all other key players to chalk out their strategies suitably so as not to let things slip out of hands at a crucial juncture like now.
Thanks and regards,
On behalf of Panchkula/Chandigarh Petitioners and on my own behalf I have Mr Jay Savla's strong support for the above approach. I hope and expect all other key players to chalk out their strategies suitably so as not to let things slip out of hands at a crucial juncture like now.
Thanks and regards,
M Sreenivasa Murty
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
TRANSFER IN THE CADRE OF ADM/SBM TO ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE
Please click below for LIST - TRANSFERS ADM/SBM
LIST - CONTINUATION/FRESH TENURE ON MARKETING SIDE - ADMs
Please click here for LIST - ADM - MARKETING SIDE
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
MEDICLAIM READY RECKONER
DEAR ALL,
I attach the ready reckoner prepared by me based on the Tables of Premiums included in the CO Circular dt 13/4/2015.
Pensioner friends may work out the expected refunds by comparing the subsidised premiums with the premiums paid already.
I attach the ready reckoner prepared by me based on the Tables of Premiums included in the CO Circular dt 13/4/2015.
Pensioner friends may work out the expected refunds by comparing the subsidised premiums with the premiums paid already.
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
C H Mahadevan
Charges of Favour to Reliance General Insurance: CBI probing former Irda chairman
Penalty for unapproved policy changes allegedly reduced from Rs 17,500 crore to Rs 20 lakh
The Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) has started a preliminary enquiry into allegations that the
former chairman of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Irda), J
Hari Narayan (bottom left)unduly favoured Reliance General Insurance
Company more than five years ago.
The investigating agency is
inquiring into whether there was any mala fide intent in a decision taken in
July 2009 by Narayan to reduce from Rs 17,500 crore (Rs 175 billion) to Rs 20
lakh (Rs 2 million) the potential penalty that could have been levied on the
insurance company in the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group for violating provisions
of the Insurance Act, 1938.
CBI spokesperson Kanchan Prasad
confirmed the agency had registered a preliminary enquiry against "unknown
officials" of the Irda and "a private firm" to look into
"the allegation that a penalty of Rs 20 lakh was imposed on the said firm
instead of Rs 17,500 crore (approximately) for 3.5 lakh instances of violation
of the Irda guidelines".
Reliance General Insurance
Company, when contacted, declined to provide an official comment.
Narayan confirmed CBI officials
had questioned him at his residence in Hyderabad and recorded his statement.
He, however, said the insinuation that he had favoured Reliance General
Insurance Company was unfounded.
After retiring from the Indian
Administrative Service as chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh on June 11, 2008,
Narayan joined the Irda as its chairman, from which post he retired on February
20, 2013.
The CBI has also questioned other
serving and retired officers of the Irda, including a former member (non-life)
of the authority. A preliminary enquiry is initiated when a complaint is
received or information obtained by the CBI which does not contain enough
material to file a regular case. It is not known if and when the preliminary
enquiry [No. (8)(A)2014ACU-vi-New Delhi] relating to the episode involving the
IRDA, its former chairman and Reliance General Insurance Company, will be
converted into a regular case.
Sources said in late September
and early October, the CBI sought information from Reliance General Insurance
Company about the circumstances that led to the IRDA imposing a penalty on the
company in 2009.
On August 8, replying to an
unstarred question raised in the Lok Sabha by BJP Member of Parliament Dr Udit
Raj whether the Irda had reduced the penalty of any private insurance company
and whether the government had conducted any inquiry in this regard, Minister
of State for Finance Nirmala Sitharaman confirmed the imposition of the penalty
on Reliance General Insurance Company but added that the "penalty imposed
by the competent authority was not reduced" and hence, the question of
conducting an inquiry "does not arise".
Soon after this reply was
furnished by the government, the CBI decided to commence a preliminary enquiry
against the former Irda chairman.
The episode goes back to December
2005 when Reliance General Insurance Company filed a healthcare insurance
scheme called Reliance Health Care Policy before the Irda for its approval.
This policy, which was approved in February 2006, sought to provide insurance
cover under various health conditions subject to certain exclusions at a
specified range of prices.
In September 2006, the Irda
issued revised guidelines and procedural requirements for "file and
use" of insurance products. These required the prior approval of the Irda
in case there were changes in the name or price of insurance products or other
terms and conditions.
Different strokes
|
The Irda
apparently believes in different strokes for different folks. The Irda has
been adopting different yardsticks for penalising different insurance
companies for the same purported offence.
In 2011, the public sector United India Insurance
Company was fined Rs 5 lakh under the provisions of Section 64VC of the
Insurance Act for opening 35 new branches across the country without
permission from the authority. The IRDA, however, fined Bajaj Allianz Life
Insurance Company the same amount for opening 582 offices without its
permission. The fine was imposed on Bajaj Allianz under the same provisions
that had been invoked in the case of United India Insurance. According to an
order dated March 14, 2011, it was observed that United India Insurance had
opened 35 "new places of business" in 2009 and 2010. The insurer
was issued a show-cause notice on December 27, 2010. United India Insurance
contended that the error had been "inadvertent" and that such
future action would be undertaken only with prior approval of the authority.
The Irda said in its order that United India Insurance was well aware of the
requirements and asked the company to remit the fine of Rs 5 lakh within 15
days of the order. The authority had issued a similar show-cause against
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance in 2007 over what it called "alleged"
violation of the Insurance Act by opening 582 branches across the country
with only the approval of its own board, and not that of the Irda. The same
order had pointed out that the company had been issued a show-cause notice
earlier as well in 2006 for opening 28 branches and 189 satellite offices
without the prior sanction of the authority. The insurer was subsequently
fined the same amount of Rs 5 lakh for opening 15 times the number of
branches that United India Insurance had!
|
VS PRAKASA RAO
Dear Mr. Editor
I have just seen
the amusing anonymous letter of
4th April. Hats off to your
Democratic Values and Journalistic
Standards. Kindly permit me
to interact with the new correspondent
through your columns. I may
bring to your kind notice that this
gentleman is silent on the Board
Resolution and 100% D/R
neutralization to pre Aug.97 retirees.
Dear Anonymous self styled well-wisher of the corporation and its Policy Holders. Congratulations for creating a great flutter in the Chronicle by your seemingly forthright comments against the pensioners’ cause in general and against some persons in particular. I think when you want to remain anonymous it does not behove well of you to talk about the thinking and actions of the persons named by you.
Let us take up the matter of the welfare of the stake holders of L.I.C our esteemed Policy Holders. The pensioners can take legitimate pride in rendering world class services to our valued customers. You cannot deny the fact that the pensioners are the proud partners in building the great Financial Gaint the L.I.C. Then who is acting against interests of our esteemed customers. Who reduced the Bonus Rates after opening up of the insurance. Why the much needed conventional insurance products which highlighted the Security were neglected and who promoted the Unit Linked policies promising very high returns on the investment. The myth of this investment returns was exposed. Who benefited in the process. The Private Insurers. What is the Role of the Regulator the I.R.D.A. in protecting the policy holders. No doubt the Govt. Of India should be blamed for all this globalization.
Coming to the welfare of the great financial institution L.I.C. What is L.I.C – THE PEOPLE associated with it the SALES AND THE SERVICING personnel who worked day in and day out for its growth and made it the Goliath in the Life Insurance. Do you know the amounts paid by L.I.C to Govt. every year as Dividend apart from the Income Tax and the Service Tax. What about the Investments made by the L.I.C in the Development of the Nation apart from administering the Social Security Schemes of the Govt. Ultimately the L.I.C became a stooge of the Finance Ministry. Do you know how the shares of the O.N.G.C were purchased in the last minute by a phone call from M.O.F.
As a result of the globalization the market share of the L.I.C came down to 73%. Whom to blame for this? Why the L.I.C can not expand its global operations? Why the L.I.C diversify into Banking when banks are allowed to do life insurance business. The policy holders will be a good customer base and the policy proceeds would be good source for the finance of the Banking Division. L.I.C with its net work in the remote rural areas can easily flourish in Banking. L.I.C need additional staff to take up this task. More recruitment means more amounts added to the pension fund. But L.I.C has no such vision and the G.O.I do not have interest in the growth of L.I.C for it is very much satisfied with present position in L.I.C. So why blame the pensioners as waiting for the dooms day of L.I.C. It is very unwarranted and uncharitable remark against the pensioners which you will regret, I hope. By the by what is your opinion of the recent action of the G.O.I in enhancing the F.D.I in Insurance. What is the impact of this on L.I.C.
Coming to the legal battle, ho is responsible, undoubtedly the L.I.C. The resolution dt. 24-11-2001 was passed by the L.I.C Board to set right the matters on the pension. The then U.P.A-1 Govt. which survived on the crutches of the Left Parties was well aware of this matter. As per Rule 55(A) the G.O.I was duty bound to O.K the resolution. So much so the matter was taken up with judiciary. Your opinion on Rule 56 is not correct. The decision to update the pension was taken by the G.O.I and is being implemented from 1996. The State Govts. also followed to extend the benefit to their pensioners despite huge deficit budget. The Railways and the Ports are also offering the benefit to their pensioners. The Apex Court order on OROP recently clarified the matter.
Rules are created for implementation especially when they relate to the welfare of the recipients lest it amounts to flouting the Rules for which one must reap the consequences. Further your opinion on Case Law is not correct. Judge-made law is also law. Precedent is valid in dispensation of Justice.So the High Courts applied and accepted the points in Nakara Case.Any way the matter is before the Apex Court and will be decided taking in to account the facts and the matters of law, constitutional provisions etc. but not as per the whims and fancies of an anonymous person unless he impleads as party to the case to strengthen the hands of the L.I.C / G.O.I combine to defeat the pensioners cause which is declared justified by three High Courts and which decision is not stayed by the Apex Court.
Coming to your comments on the 9700 crores, burden is on L.I.C. for your clarification. The burden is not 9700 crores but much less. Further you quoted the Court Ruling that L.I.C can not wish away from its duty in the name of financial burden. But I am sure that your prediction on L.I.C doomsday will not be materialized even when the pensioners win their case hands down very much to your dislike. I wish you all the best as well-wisher of L.I.C.
With regards
V.S.PRAKASARAO
VISAKHAPATNAM.
BANK NEWS
UNION BANK RETIRED
EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
Circular issued by AIBOC after last round of BP Talks on 16th April,'15
The circular issued by AIBOC - reproduced by Union Bank Officers' Association (Gujarat) is forwarded herewith.
PROMOTION, POSTINGS AND TRANSFER LISTS - SDM/DM
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan
C H Mahadevan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)