Comments

26 Sep 15, 06:35 PM

SDSARMA: Dear President of AIRIEF, did you not see several appeals made by Sh.MSM to kmla, why now blaming him for noncooperation. Did he ever say no for meetings? Don't try to save people who are egoistic.

Keep your personality above board and enhance the position you are occupying and continue to lead a life you are known for in the eyes of all of us including s/s Chabbra, Mehta etc.

RKV sir please keep your health in tact as your writings are inspirational to many of us. 

PART 1

Dear LIC Pensioners,

Forget what the so called ‘Leaders’ want. Forget how much more (IL) LEGAL FUNDs their Organizations want. After tasting millions of Rupees as easy money for years with no obligation to render accounts, their insatiable thirst for more, is resurfacing. They will flourish and quench their thirst for more, as long as there are gullible devotees willing to contribute/collect. Ignore the whole bunch of self-seekers. Don’t pay anything to anybody. Till LIC pays you all that is legally and justly due to you.

What exactly do the LIC Pensioners & Family Pensioners deserve?             

When the Law of the Land entitles them for it?

How to achieve the ultimate goal with a holistic approach? What are the obstacles and how to overcome them?

Here is my honest analysis. Bless all those who agree.  Also bless all those who don’t. Keep going.  Don’t abandon the cause.

Our cases for Pension are before the highest Court of Justice. Before a Bench whose eloquent pronouncements on the Law governing Pensions are too recent and too clear for anybody to miss. We are at the last bend in the race. Go full throttle and hit the Post. Don’t let others block your progress on the track, the way it happens in other races.   

In  retrospect, when the Final Hearing was not progressing at the desired velocity after the 2^nd week of August 2014 (era of self-goals) the long adjournment to 23 Sept 2015 thrust on us by the Govt-LIC combine on 7 May, the Interim Directions to pay 20% was God (Bench) sent. Let no Respondent commit the sin of claiming credit for it. We all welcomed the big relief but we also knew the gaping holes in the Order. 20% of ‘how much’ and ‘Pay to whom’ remained grey areas. None of us was prepared to seek clarifications (for good reasons, knowing the vagaries of our justice system) and the one (LIC) who should have done it, chose/advised not to approach the SC. As feared, LIC played havoc in the name of implementation, taking undue advantage of the Order as it was given) and merrily tried to drag the issue beyond 23 Sept and eventual final decision in the CAs.           

My efforts before the Chandigarh HC: Please bear with me for certain repetitions. July 20 (successful) attempt to stall withdrawal of 20% was toexpose LIC before the SC about its non-implementation of the 7 May Order. This step facilitated moving an IA before the SC on 7 Sept just in time to take the true status to the notice of the Apex Court. It was sickening if not disheartening that the wonderful platform created utilizing the 20 July HC Order, was not supported by the other players including those who later are the direct beneficiaries of the 7 Sept Order. My Counsel was surprised why the IA was brazenly opposed on 7 Sept and again more vociferously on 23^rd by the Jaipur AoR.  It is another matter that he had even flouted the clear instructions believed to have been issued by the President of the Organization funding the case and paying his fees,  making it another dark facet of the fund-crazy directionlessOrganization. To add to the mischief, come out and lie, ‘we did nothing to oppose the IA’. It was evident that the ‘surprise’ Order on 7 Sept. was too tough to accept gracefully.  

There is no need any more to mince words in exposing the small minded men for whom the popular saying fits in very well - ‘you can fool some people for all time and all for some time and not all for all time’. Thousands of your own members are asking (or crying silently) ‘you got some money and you wrote to Chairman that you should get more (but not raise the issue before the Court in any manner) – how are you taking care of us?’ You have nothing to tell while your All India Organization continues to ‘collect’ money for you. This time the leadership played safe – no commitment – donate liberally, but trust the Almighty, not us’.  They have grown wiser; they can assure nothing to their members as long as you live with your unjustified morbid hostility towards Panchkula counterparts/Chandigarh Petitioners & Murty.  

(contd.)

PART 2

I think LIC Pensioners (including your members and the poor non-member-donors) should know what happened in the Court seconds before the Bench was to rise for the day on the 23 Sept. As to the credibility of this story, it’s my word against the word if any, of those who may not own it. Here it is:

Mr Jay Savla, his Associate and I, were standing in row four, while Mr GNS and his Counsel were standing in row two. RKS was somewhere in the small crowd in between. Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana standing a couple of feet behind me (just outside the Visitors enclosure) approached me and asked me a serious and what sounded to me then like a sincere question. ‘Mr Murty, are you making any mention?’ I said, ‘we are trying to, if we get a chance, I have asked Mr Savla to request the Bench to direct LIC to file an Affidavit on its compliance of the 7 Sept Order’. Mr Asthana reacted very coolly and said ‘why any mention, if nothing is mentioned also, the matter gets posted automatically to next Wednesday?’ I told him, ‘yes, you are right. My request, if accepted, would serve a larger and different purpose, and will not certainly come in the way of posting the matter to next Wednesday’.  I added it is necessary also because GNS as I gathered is likely to make some mention, to pray for payment to all pre-Aug 97 retirees. We then parted, Mr Savla got a valuable chance to tell the Bench that LIC has still not complied with the 7 Sept Order, LIC Counsel responded in a spirited fashion that ‘they tried to pay but they were blocked before the HC etc., 

When Mr Savla was explaining to the luckily receptive Judge, that LIC was not honouring the HC Judgement on Pension enhancement etc., and before he could complete his sentence and request what I wanted him to do, RKS physically butted in, virtually outshouting Mr Savla’s submissions and it was time for the Judge to leave things there, as it was just a mention exercise and not regular hearing. If my request for a direction to LIC to file an Affidavit on how the 7 Sept Order was complied with, trust me, friends, LIC would have been in major trouble much more serious than what they faced on 7 Sept. Because, they have to admit on oath that they meddled with the 7 May Order and paid to a select few in a whimsical fashion. Mr Savla and I could not wrest yet another Order. Our failure was Mr RKSingh’s gift to the Jaipur Grand Master.   

I later recalled what all happened in the Court and told myself that possibly I made a mistake in confiding the truth with Mr Asthana in reply to his enquiry if I was planning to make any mention. That he didn’t want me wrest any direction to my advantage, is crystal clear. Otherwise, under whose instructions and for what purpose, RKS acted as he did, throwing even normal court manners to winds? Later while in the Corridor outside the Court Hall, Mr. Savla expressed his anguish to me and Mr SN Chhabra & Mr Chopra. He questioned me ‘you said Jaipur would support us on up-gradation aspect and only Delhi may not – why does Mr RK Singh prevent me from making my submissions?’ I had no answer to give him, though I know the truth.   

Now, on my perseverance not to let go any chance to expose LIC’s mischievous non-implementation and incorrect interpretation of the 7 May & 7 Sept Orders, I notice that there are conflicting opinions on this from the pensioner- community. I wish to explain my stand.

As I said in the beginning itself, the 7 May Order was God-sent. LIC was never interested in paying anything let alone pay correctly. It took undue and unfair advantage of the Court Order to withdraw 20% from the deposits and pay. It is simple logic that IF LIC had already deposited the full money payable as per the Judgements, it can withdraw 20% and pay. When what was deposited was only 7.2% in Chandigarh (and in Jaipur), why should it be allowed to withdraw 20% of that from the Court and pay 1.44% in the place of 20% ordered by the SC? If we do not intervene effectively, LIC is legitimising its wrong act. LIC would attempt similar mischief even after a favourable final Order is secured by us. The minimum we should do now is to take it to the notice of the Court and try to secure proper directions, if possible (to Pay ALL including Enhancement/up-gradation benefit) and keep it on record. 

This will not be done by GNS. For him 7.20% is 100%. He is happy to get 20% of it now and the balance after the final Judgement. After all, he doesn’t have to even ask for it, let alone fight, because LIC was always ready to pay some DR difference to the pre-Aug 97’ retirees. For him getting it now or wait still more is the only concern. 7 Sept Order in which he had no role, came handy and he and his now cash-rich Federation are having a joy ride ever since. He is also not bothered that LIC is cheating even his pre-Aug ’97 retiree members by not calculating the DR payable correctly. Two-thirds of his other members (Post Aug ’97 Retirees) have been dumped unceremoniously. They have all become philosophical. They deserve the pain of waiting, till my efforts with the invaluable support of Sri C H Mahadevan bear fruit. .   

Coming back to Jaipur Petitioners, their so called strategy to focus on 100% instead of 20% is a joke. I have something important here to share with everybody, though I have said it before several times. 

(contd.)

PART 3

IT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG (IN LAW) TO CLAIM THAT CHANDIGARH & DELHI JUDGEMENTS ARE BASED ONLY ON JAIPUR ORDER. IT IS CONVENIENT AND COMFORTABLE TO Mr ASTHANA TO CLAIM SO. BUT IT REQUIRES SOME DEEP ACQUANTANCE WITH LAW TO APPRECIATE THE REAL POSITION. 

Also, looked from another angle (purely hypothetically but firmly canvassed by GNS school of thought), if the Apex Court accepts, God forbid, LIC’s contention that Sec 48 cannot be brushed aside and LIC Board Resolution cannot be implemented without Government approval, does Mr Asthana admit that the Jaipur Judgement goes for a toss and does he then want the Chandigarh and Delhi Petitioners should give him company down the hill? That is not the case. The Chandigarh petitioners counsel is not going to argue his case as sought by Mr Asthana. If he does so, it amounts to telling the Court I am dependent on Jaipur Order (that’s what my ‘owner’ tells me), I have nothing else in support of my case. I sink or sail with him and my arguments rest here’.  

When a bunch of cases is clubbed together by an Order of the Court (remember, no Petitioner or Respondent prayed for such a ‘club-together’ Order in our matters), it means the issues involved are common and somewhat similar and therefore they permit being heard together, independently but one after the other and permit being disposed of by a common Judgement eventually. This simple principle should expose the fallacy of Mr RK Singh’s intervention the other day on 7 Sept before the Bench ‘I am the main petitioner’ in these matters, so go by my submissions rather than what others say’. He and all of us now know how the Bench reacted to his upstart interjection that day.

Mr Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Mr G N Sridharan have both shared their dreams/expectations personally with me quite some time ago in some context. Mr KML’s dream was that the Supreme Court shall uphold the Jaipur Judgement as it is, dismiss LIC’s CA against it and also add ‘As we have already upheld the Jaipur Judgement and as the other two (Chandigarh & Delhi) were based on the same, there is no need to deal with them separately. The CAs are accordingly disposed of…”. 

If KML’s dream comes true, celebrations by his camp would go sky high (One Centre in Andhra promised him an Elephant ride to display their gratitude) but the poor Pensioners would remain in the same state as now, because LIC would implement the Board Resolution as it is now doing with the 20% payment. If my fears are not baseless, I should wish some dreams like this deserve to be shattered.

 

On the other hand, Mr GNS told me emphatically in April 2014, (he is not dreaming) that he sees the distinct possibility of LIC’s Appeal CA NO 9223 of 2013) against (his) Delhi Judgement being dismissed and simultaneously allow the two CAs against Jaipur & Chandigarh Judgements. Because according to him we have no case for Pension up-gradation. We get only DR parity for pre-Aug 97 retirees. That discussion took place when GNS & I are on cordial terms, respecting each other’s views but seriously differing at the same time. So I could heartily laugh it off.

   

Let us strive (wish me luck in my efforts) to get a COMPREHENSIVE SPEAKING ORDER granting full-fledged pension up-gradation to all those who are governed by LIC of (Employees) Pension Rules 1995, an Order and a Judgement that addresses all the RED FLAGS (on the wrong formulae being followed by LIC till now) so assiduously being displayed by Sri C H Mahadevan.

(Thank you Dear Editor,

I hope not to cluster your columns any more except for news-sharing and good news-sharing henceforth. I wish to thank all those providing emotional support specially, SN (a 1992 Pensioner), B Ganga Raju M V Venugopalan, JM Aboobucker, RKV, SD Sarma, Rama Rao, B Sudhakar Dr Pritam and many others. Thinking of organizing a Camel ride for My Very Dear Subbu, shortly (as I can’t afford the other).                                                                                 -MS.

(Concluded)

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Of disparity in Interim Relief, CRs, alprax, good night sleep etc. etc..

26 Sep 15, 02:01 PM

subbu: CH Mahadevan Sir ! The disparity in their relief, as narrated by you, must have been as a result of the C.Rs. they got during their last five years of service. Then naturally they must differ.

When I was ADM, I said AOs and AAOs no good. When I was DM, I said ADMs no good. When I was SDM, I said DMs no good. You have a powerful weapon. CR. Whatever u do at the workplace, does not matter.

Be in the good books of some higher boss, even if he be not your immediate boss. That was the rule those days.

Alas ! We were at least one in our basic pension. And from what u say, CHM Sir, that too is lost. What a pity !!

hamaare sansthan mein yudhishtar to thode hi hain . agar hain bhi tho, ve bhishma he samaan mook hain. bhol nahin sakthe.

RKV Sir ! Did I not tell U earlier that these amounts are based on the CRs you got for the last five years of your service. The gentleman who got 40+ must have got outstanding,. U R .....? dont worry.

Atenolol, Amlodapine, Carvedilol, lodo , several BP drugs r available, depending on to which category u belong to. Take one tab of alprax .25 at night and have a good sleep.

• 26 Sep 15, 04:57 PM Ramachandran.s.: Subbu sir, May I interrupt! I have attended your training class HOW TO WRITE CRs. You said, take a note book, write PLUS and MINUS contribution of individual for 1 year. Consult this book to write the CRs. Then I disagreed with you. Yes, Mrs.Thankom Mathew was the Principal. 26 Sep 15, 08:13 PM subbu: Raamachandran Sir !! I dont know what u really refer to. Anyway, u may write a CR. but ur boss rewrites it. Man proposes. God not deposes.Disposes outright. In higher echolons, it is not the CR

Is IR distributed like Prasadam in a temple ?

26 Sep 15, 04:05 PM

B Ganga Raju: Different amounts of I.R. paid to 2 identically situated officers is not one and the same amount! Shri R.K.V had fluctuating B.P. 

LIC did not supply calculation sheets. Perhaps the C.O. will commence with the preparation of calculation sheets now. 

Does the I.R. paid is inclusive of any recoveries? G.O.K. ( God only knows). KMLA feels the inconsistency and inaccuracy can be rectified as and when the final payment is ordered and paid. 

Or was IR distributed like Prasadam in a temple? Some get more and some get less.

Remember the vast majority who got nothing. Thank your stars and do not get worked up and spoil your health. If our health is ruined any amount of arrears won't save us. The Mandarins in service do not in anyway care.

Is it hocus pocus

Throughout my life I never suffered hypertension and could boast of pristine health even at age 83 and ever since our legal battle started for our just demands from our institution I was telling my better half that a fortune is awaiting us no sooner the ongoing court cases are supposed to be over soon and her legitimate demands will be met. 

But when I received a paltry sum of 17581 as 20 % DA arrears my BP shot up as according to my meticulous calculation in accordance to the pension rules I have to follow, duly checked by a person good in mathematics I have to legitimately get 69948 ( 20 % on 3,49738 ). Human jealousy being a natural trait and I am no exception to it I was telephoning to known pensioners who are identically placed by me in respect of rank, same basic pension etc. and response from one revealed that he got 13431 whereas I got 17581 and my BP dropped to normal.

Am I not better! In another pensioner whom I knew and we worked together whose service and basic salary was less than mine pocketed 40000 and odd and my BP went up. 

This jugglery of figures was rattling my head and I gave up the chase of contacting any more friends for that is going to add more head ache for me. But what I wonder is how these arithmetic could go wrong in an institution glittering with Actuaries and Chartered accountants. It is for the people to judge and find an answer. 

Depressed over all these gimmicks I take solace from Shri Asthana’s advice that it is after all only a payment and not a settlement and so accept it. I hope his conjecture comes true very soon and we live to see that happen and to see that we do not succumb to mortality follow : NO WORRY NO HURRY AND NO CURRY.

R.K.Viswanathan

A letter to AIRIEF PRESIDENT

Dear Sh. Saxena Sahib,

I was the happiest person to read your first communication as President made available on LIC PC recently regarding reporting of supreme court proceedings dated 23.09.2015 in our case and it forced me to think how this miracle can happen since all these years you have been telling your views openly to all concerned that nobody from AIRIEF should express himself on blogs and hence it became the only reason for me to communicate with you openly. 

Let me raise following issues before you which are really disturbing for all of us here.

1. Your Impartial Role

Almost entire delegates and observers present in last AIRIEF GC held at Bangalore were delighted upon your taking over as AIRIEF President almost one year ago and it was expected that you will put a new life in our organisation which had suffered from multiple ailments during a very long spell of inactivity and inertia for continuous four terms of two years each by your predecessors..

It was assured to us in last GC that AIRIEF will take full care of two high court verdicts namely Jaipur and Chandigarh at supreme court without any discrimination being vigorously followed up by both Sh. KML and Sh. S.N. Chhabra.

During AIRIEF Office Bearers Meeting held at Raipur in January,2015 you took an absolutely right step to constitute a Legal Sub Committee which was being demanded since long by all concerned.

Again, I feel very sorry to say that while you were very particular to include Sh. KML in this committee but Sh. S.N. Chhabra was not included ? What message it conveys ? It puts your impartial role under a big question ?

2. Role Of Panchkula AIRIEF Unit never Appreciated

Supreme court passed an order on 07.05.2015 to pay interim 20%payment within six weeks as per impugned high court judgement .

Since LIC was not ready to make payment correctly so our case manager Sh. Murty was successful at chandigarh high court on 20.07.2015 to get an application by LIC dismissed as withdrawn.

We consider it as a big success of Panchkula AIRIEF Unit. But sorry to say that as AIRIEF President you never appreciated our this success.

Next, we decided to file an IA at supreme court since LIC failed to comply with supreme court order dated 07.05.2015 in letter and spirit within six weeks time . Sh. S.N. Chhabra kept you fully updated on phone and through mail and requested for your help in our IA being supported by our fellow AIRIEF Unit at Jaipur and you assured full help. Though assured support was not given to us on 07.09.2015 yet our case manager Sh. Murty with his hard work and God's Grace was successful to secure another favorable order dated 07.09.2015 directing LIC to make payment within two weeks and failure will lead to contempt. All this happened despite opposition by Jaipur Advocate Sh. R.K.Singh .

Entire LIC Pensioners Community was very happy over this order but you as usual once again never congratulated either Sh. Chhabra or Sh. Murty .

Will you please tell us reasons for the same ?

3. Your independent and fearless Role as President

Sequence of events at supreme court during 23.09.2015 clearly proves that you are not independent, fearless and impartial in your role as AIRIEF President .

Even a child also knows that LIC would have faced contempt charge for its non compliance of latest supreme court order dated 07.09.2015 but you have come out with a false and utterly non convincing theory through AIRIEF Version on blog that exposing LIC for its non compliance would have delayed our case.

It is more than clear that you are under immense pressure from those who are bent upon to ensure that either Sh. Murty or Panchkula AIRIEF Unit should not get any credit or success since the same remains a monopoly of one single person who is above AIRIEF as no one question him for his all types of irregular activities may be financial or mishandling of legal case.

I am ready to face music for my misadventure either from you or your so called Bhajan Mandli. Hoping for your reply once again.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

INTERIM RELIEF PAID TO TWO IDENTICALLY PLACED OFFICERS NOT THE SAME

What  the Supreme Court ordered  on 7/5/2015 was interim relief payable by LIC to  the respondent pensioners  and what LIC actually paid turned out to be an unidentified  relief to the eagerly  and desperately waiting  pre-August 1997  retirees.

I had an occasion today to talk to a retired ADM from Mysore who retired as an ADM on 31/8/1992 on the maximum of scale of Rs 5050/- and consequently placed at the Basic Pension of Rs 2525/- w.e.f 1st November 1993.He has been fortunate enough to receive an unidentified   relief amount of Rs13431/- from LIC albeit   a pittance.

Only a few days ago, another close friend of mine  from Chennai,who is also a retired ADM (w.e.f 31/1/1993) similarly placed on the maximum of scale of Rs 5050/- and consequently placed at the Basic Pension of Rs 2525/- w.e.f  1^stNovember 1993 informed me that he received an unidentified relief of Rs 17581/-

Both the retired officers with identical Basic Pensions  have  received different amounts from LIC. Both the officers  belong to the M C Jain  category still waiting for the  benefits that have been  ordered by the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court  to be paid by LIC.

As a result of  this disparity in payment to identically placed retiree officers, one who got less  may be hoping that he will get something more  towards this unidentified  relief and the other may be worried  whether  there may be a recovery from his pension next month towards excess  payment of the unidentified  relief.

I never knew that pittances will ,after all ,make a difference which they have literally done!

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

CH MAHADEVAN'S LETTER TO KML ASTHANA

IT APPEARS WHEN THE MATTER IS AT THE FINAL STAGE YOU ARE STILL CONFINED TO 20% 
MERELY BECAUSE SOME PERSONS GOT SOME PALTRY AMOUNTS WHICH WILL BE ADJUSTED OUT OF 
THE FINAL PAYMENTS. I MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AT THE INTERIM STAGE NO ORDER CAN BE 
PASSED IN REM. IT APPEARS THAT REVISION OF PENSIONS IS NOT OF ANY INTEREST TO YOU. 
WE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN REVISIONS, THOUGH WE WILL NOT EASILY LEAVE THE DR ANOMALY 
MATTER ALSO. 

KML ASTHANA

Dear Mr Asthana,

The matter may be in the final stage, but I am sure that many will agree that we
cannot allow LIC's wrong steps of calculating a wrong amount due to the
respondents and paying a resultant wrong and inadequate amount of 20% interim
relief go unchallenged.When Supreme Court has ordered LIC to pay 20% of the 

amount due as per the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is not only very clear 

that LIC has not done so, but LIC also has not given any supporting calculations to their
credit to the Bank a/cs of the pensioners concerned. How can this act of contempt
of Supreme Court by LIC of India allowed to go unchallenged notwithstanding the
fact the balance of due amount will be paid to the respondents when the case
reaches finality in favour of the original petitioners?

After all it is the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dt 12/1/2010 which forms the
basis for the other two HC judgments and when we are sure that this judgment
provides for removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralisation right from the date
of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever is later, and also upgradation of pension (in
fact constituting OROP), how can we compromise on this issue by ignoring the gross
underpayment of LIC? If we do so,we will be guilty of letting down our own other
petitioners.

• Again, we cannot forget the fact that 5 of the post-July 1997 petitioners of Jaipur have not been paid a single pie (as I presume) even though they should have got some payment if only the Supreme Court order dt 7/5/2015 had been implemented properly. Is it fair to them to proceed further in the case without challenging the wrong act of LIC?

I agree with you that we are all more interested in the upward revision of
pensions, but we should also remember that proceeding further in the case without
challenging the dubious games played by LIC will jeopardise the pensioners'
interests in the final judgment because LIC will leave no stone unturned to
mislead the Apex Court into believing that they have calculated the amounts
payable correctly while in fact they have not. If that happens, not only will the
pre-August 1997 retirees receive a grossly inadequate amount, but also the post
July 1997 retirees will sustain total loss.

Finally, I don't know whether you have checked the interim relief received by the
family pensioner in your batch of petitioners. Has she got any percentage of
arrears (excluding that due to the deceased pensioner)?

I would request you to kindly ponder over the above points, before taking a
plunge with your strategy in the SC when the matter comes up for hearing on 30th
September 2015.

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

Bringing coal to Newcastle !

"Why stick your head in the mud?", asks Chhabra

Dear Saxena Sahib,

I have gone through your joint statement and something more circulated by Mr Angurajan
all over the country and an Alaap from a bhajanmandli. I wonder what was the provocation
and need for taking all this trouble or, stated in plain language, it is a cover up for a guilty
conscience.

It has been seen the Federation Leadership bends itself double in keeping KML in all the
limelight. It is too much for their tolerance level to see Chandigarh petitioners achieving
something that shook the LIC to prompt action out of fear of the Contempt action threat.
And, you feel hurt when some body writes you treat Panchkula as a step brother.

It was an IA filed under our Petition No 6995/13 and it was necessary for us to inform the
Hon'ble Court that their orders Dated 7/9 had not been fully complied with. It was absolutely
uncalled for another Federation advocate to oppose us in a simple matter like this. Where
Jaipur or Federation interested was compromised in this?

Please be a gentleman and tell me if I am wrong in any of the following facts

1--late last month I spoke to you explaining that the SC will not take duo moto noticeof non compliance of their 7/5 orders by LIC and we must bring it to their notice..You agreed.

2--You agreed that an application under COCA will not do. It has to be an IA.

3--We filed the IA. I e-mailed the draft to you the same day. Mehta sent to you the same
next day.

4--After a couple of days we talked about it. You desired me to send you the hard copy
of the IA. I did it the same day.

5--I rang you up a couple of days later. You told me you approved of the IA and, on my
request you assured me of your complete help and that RK Singh will support us in the
Court

6--A few days later I reminded you of giving proper instructions to R K SINGH.
You told me you had talked to ASTHANA and he also agreed that PANCHKULA
should be supported in a common cause .

7--ON 7/5 RK SIMGH opposed us and was even rebuffed by the Court.

8-- On my pointing it out to you, you assured you will make enquiries and revert.

9--On my reminding you, you replied that your enquiries reveal that RKS did not
say anything in the Court and my information was wrong.

10--On 23rd as the Court was about to rise for the day, our advocate mentioned non
compliance of 7/9 orders. RKS jumped up and requested the Court in raised voice not
to take up our IA. An Advocate speaks what his principal tells him to.

11--We came out. You were sitting on a bench outside D gate I confronted you with
what RKS had done and that he must have done the same on 7th Sept also.
You almost shrieked with apparent agony. Who listens to me? Who cares for me?
I am the President but don't get the respect of a ...

Well, Mr Saxena, if things are that bad really why are you sticking your head in the mud?
For whose benefit?

Remember your views before you became President.

I remain your friend
S N Chhabra

A quick look at recent discussions

Shri B.Ganga Raju's sincere suggestions in his response to AIRIEF's
letter are worth considering. Necessary steps may be taken to clear
the organisational imbroglios, wrangles and misapprehensions.

The veterans by now know what is in the best interest of each and
every pensioner. May they play their vital role to the best of their
capacity to secure what Shri C.H. Mahadevan has summed up in the
scenario IV. A formula that could be applied to approximately to
arrive at an amount / figure that pensioners are likely to get as
"ordered " by the Hon. Justice Shri. Bhandari. The courts are of
course not interested in nitty-grittys of computation.

Shri Mahadevan has arrived at Rs.18.00 lakhs for a retired ADM with 
basic pension of Rs.2525/- (1993 pay scale). It is an 'approximation' 
of the entitlement/the amount due. A few thousands more or less.
Every one of us can make an 'approximation' of amount due to us 
or as someone has said, better await, for the final outcome.

May be that 12% interest awarded by Punjab and Haryana High 
Court is fresh on some pensioners' mind.

Pray that the Hon. Justices of the Apex Court would kindly uphold 
the judgements of Rajasthan, Delhi, and Punjab & Haryana 
High Courts.

As all are aware, there are a few positive decisions taken by GOI in
the recent past: going to implement the judgements of the Supreme
Court. OROP to military personnel and all 'eligible' pre 2006
pensioners and family pensioners to get 'enhanced' pension
retrospectively from 01-01-2006 instead of from 24-09-2012, a
prospective date.

SN ( 1992 Pensioner )

'BANK NEWS'

COMPLAINT AGAINST INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION, UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD,AND BANK OF BARODA IN THE MATTER OF GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE SCHEME FOR BANK WORKING EMPLOYEES AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES.

Posted: 24 Sep 2015 04:51 AM PDT

Shri  S. Ramchandran former General Manager of Bank of Baroda has  written a letter to the Chairman, Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (IRDA) regarding group medical insurance scheme for bank working and retired employees. The letter points out to many irregularities of the scheme and number of violations of IRDA guidelines. Legality of IBA has also been questioned in the letter.

 Click here to view the letter to IRDA

 Click here to view annexure A to the letter  (IBA Letter)

 Click here to view annexure B to the letter 

 Click here to view IRDA guidelines 

(Courtesy: Bank Pensioner)

Legal fund

MV VENUGOPALAN

Dear Editor,

Mr.Mahadevan has projected four different scenarios on the 20% receivable by the pensioners in terms of the SC Order Dt. 7th May and 7th September. Everyone by now knows on what premises he has built up those figures. He also avers that whatever is paid by LIC to the pensioners falls far short of the amounts they are legally entitled to. The effort is laudable and the logic understandable.

The safe assumption made by him is that LIC based its calculations as at 1-8-1997, revising the pension by simply merging the DR upto 1-8-1997 with existing Basic pension. But ,should the “impugned Order” be fulfilled in letter and spirit, the 20% DR will be much higher than what was paid by LIC to a select few. As per the “impugned Order” , he has added, revision of pension, as at 2002 and 2007 as well as weightage for merger of DR with Basic pension also should have been given effect to. He has shown as to how the figures will appear if the above exercise were carried out by LIC and how ridiculously low the figures appear due to LIC adopting its own method.

From this, it is clear that there is more than one way of working out the 20% arrears due to the pensioners. Neither in the 7th May SC Order or 7th September SC Order, it has not been spelt out by the Hon’ble judge what methodology should be adopted for arriving at the amount. Whether such a feasibility can be envisaged is another question. In the light of the fact that LIC is tooth and nail opposing the up-gradation issue, how can we expect them to reckon the DR taking the up-gradation aspect factored into it. Moreover, in the SC Order of 7th September, the judge has clarified that they are not concerned with the “computation facet”. LIC has gone ahead with payment of the 20% to members of the Federation, which was not questioned or refunded by the recipients as a sign of protest. What is happening in Mr.Asthanas camp is not known to anyone, except that , at the eleventh hour he has shot out a letter to the Chairman of LIC pointing out the error in calculation.

Under the circumstances, until such time we go to the SC again on 30th of this month with this problem,Mr.Mahadevans efforts to bring out the inherent pitfalls in the methodology in working out the 20% arrears by LIC will ,I am afraid, be an exercise in futility. All the same, that it is of academic interest, cannot be denied. The pensioners to whose accounts the amount has been credited having no clue about what the money means, should not be confused any further.

With warm regards,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN

Even if the S.C. Bench sat throughout 

the day on 23rd Sept.2015 nothing material 

would have happened in view of 

LIC/GOI wishing to press for the 

appearance of Solicitor General. 

The bench took a helpful position and 

adjourned the case to 30th Sept.2015.

On 30th we will be at the beginning of the final stage of the case.The statement of Shri Saxena and Bhatnagar on behalf of AIRIEF is welcome for the simple reason that it throws more light on where
KMLA and his counsel differ with ( more particularly) Chandigarh school.

Now there are 3 distinct lines pursued by respective Case Managers.

(1) D.R. only ( Shri GNS et al.)
(2) DR plus Updation of Pension ( both by KMLA/AIRIEF & Chandigarh.)

But here the hair splitting is about questioning the accuracy of calculations of 20 per cent IR by LIC at this stage and viewing this inaccuracy as one that can be handled alongwith legal fight for 100 per cent ( as and when the case is decided.)

Both Chandigarh school and KMLA and his followers view the DR only line as collaboration with LIC/GOI in the background of Jaipur verdict.

Be that as it may, in our country every MUTT has its own followers, every Guru his own disciples. And of course, there is a useful side to this. It prevents tyranny of dogmatists.

But in all this I notice there is not much difference in perception of the basic issue between followers of Chandigarh school and AIRIEF /KMLA. There is no need for any antagonistic relation between them. They can certainly collaborate with each other in the larger interests of pensioners. What is preventing such beneficial interaction? To my thinking it is the subjective thinking of KMLA and his anger on his past followers at Chandigarh, that is the cause of continuing antagonism for which there is absolutely no reason to exist any more that too in the last and crucial stage of SC hearing.

My earnest appeal is let the Counsels for KMLA and Chandigarh present their views before the bench peacefully and not act at cross purpose. Much water has flown down the Ganges and I do not see them shaking hands by 30th.

The least they can do is not provide amusement to the Solicitor General or Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Hope I will be understood in proper spirit.

With Regards, B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad

AIRIEF Statement on proceedings in Supreme Court on 23rd Sept.

As scheduled, our case was to be taken up in Supreme Court  today. M/s. KML Asthana & Trilochan Singh from Jaipur, S.S. Saxena & Pramod Bhatnagar from Bhopal. T.V.David  John and G.Krishnaswamy from Bangaluru came. From Delhi Shri. AV Tyagi & DD Gupta were already there. 

We had discussions with Shri. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate & Shri. R.K. Singh Advocate previous evening Based on our deliberations amongst ourselves, we had decided that as the payment of 20% of amount due to the pensioners as per order of the Supreme Court dt. 07.05.2015 & 07.09.2015 has not been paid to all pensioners, we should press for final decision in the case, thereby securing 100% to all pensioners. The Corporation did not pay interim relief to one & all. Chandigarh petitioners wanted 20% of both pension & DR which could not be decided and hence no payment has been made to them so far.

In view of above, we decided that instead of harping on interim relief of 20%, we should insist for 100% i.e. the finality of matter through Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Accordingly both the  Advocates were given briefing, so as to present our case in Supreme Court.

Chandigarh Petitioners still insisting for 20% which would delay the legal proceedings & judgement.

Our Advocate Shri. R.K. Singh pleaded for final decision  to get 100% of amount due to us. No conflict or disagreement with anybody was intended. We stand for pension updation & DR to all eligible pensioners, no differentiation, with any pensioner. We understand that 20% of DR as calculated by LIC, has been paid to the petitioners of Jaipur & 1300 petitioners spread over the country

Today the hearing was upto 1PM Our case could not come up for hearing. There was brief exchange of views by various parties as outlined above, and the case was adjourned to 30.09.2015.

Earlier on 22.09.2015, the Advocate for LIC, Shri. Panigrahi approached our Advocate Shri. R.K. Singh. The former probably approached Advocates of opposite parties too, Shri. Parngrahi informed that the LIC had decided to engage Solicitor General as their Advocate who was not available on 23.09.2015. LIC would therefore, seek adjournment on 23.09.2015. The Advocate for LIC mentioned to the Hon’ble Judge for adjournment but he advised to mention it when the case would come up for hearing on 23.09.2015. This is how the things moved in Delhi.

We wish to reassure our members and well wishers that AIRIEF is taking all steps to  achieve our goal. Shri. Asthana and our Advocates are seriously engaged in this exercise.

Please donot be swayed by attention - seekers who are propagating and communicating to create confusion. Have faith in Almighty and contribute liberally to legal Fund. In case of doubt, please do not hesitate to talk to us on phone to know correct position.

With greetings

                                S.S. Saxena                                          Pramod Bhatnagar

                                  President                                                 Jt. Secretary

Pension on resignation

Is Pension payable for more than 10 years LIC service ?

Referring to the query of Mr Sekhar,as far as my understanding of the LIC Pension Rules 1995  goes, resignation  before completion of 20 years of service does not entitle an employee to receive pension.

As per Rule 14 of LIC Pension Rules 1995, pension is payable  to  an employee who has served for more than 10 years ,but less than 20 years,only in the event of  normal retirement as per  LIC Staff Regulations , viz on completion of  the  age of 60 years, but not on  resignation from service.

As per Rule 31(1) in Chapter V of the said Pension Rules, pension  will be permissible if the employee seeks voluntary retirement  after completion of a service of 20 years  in the Corporation subject to the conditions mentioned in the Rule 31.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

Dear Sir,

I am herewith sending an Article showing that Denial of Pension Option to the Bank Employees, who Resigned from the Services Of Public Sector Banks is Unconstitutional.

I request you to kindly go through it and Upload on Your Website, for the benefit of My Friends, Who Resigned from the Services Of Various Public Sector Banks.

With Regards,

Yours Sincerely,
N.Pradeep Kumar

ADVOCATE.

TO READ THE ARTICLE, PLEASE CLICK HERE.

My response to Mr G Krishna Prasad‏

COULD YOU MANAGE THAT? - WHY SHOULD I?

Responding to the post of Mr G Krishna Prasad,I am rather amused by his comment that I appear to be happy that a few got only a pittance. He has failed to appreciate that my entire exercise of working out the  rightful dues entitled to by a retired officer   was because I was unhappy that he has lost heavily by not receiving his rightful dues over the last nearly 22 years. My being happy or not is beside the point.Is the retired officer concerned happy or not is the question. I know very well that he is thoroughly disappointed by the amount received by him, that too without any supporting calculations by LIC. I am also sure that he is not alone in this disappointment. All kudos to those who could manage such payments to the recipients!

The real effect of such management will be known when we get information of payment of interim relief to family pensioners which are yet to take place.

Who could manage that or who couldn’t is not the issue. The fact remains that LIC has in the name of paying interim relief in compliance of the Supreme Court order dated 7/5/2015 has paid into the bank accounts of a few pre-August 1997 retired Class I Officers amounts which are far short of those that they are legally entitled to get. If the recipient-pensioners are satisfied and happy with the payments that they received, I have no issue with that. But the fact of  a huge short payment is unalterable.

Where does one-upmanship come in this objective analysis and who is  coming in the way of a united fight? I  also go along with Mr M Sreenivasa Murty, but the answer to this question has to come from elsewhere.

Like Mr Krishna Prasad,I have no aim to provoke anybody with my comments which are based on factual analysis within the available data with me..

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan 

Negative terms

Clarify if Pension payable for more than 10 years LIC service?

24 Sep 15, 12:16 PM 

sekhar: Dear Sir, Good morning. Please clarify whether pro-rata pension is payable to those LIC employees who resign to join other Govt. posts after serving LIC for more than 10 years.(Technical Resignation).

'I am fine - how are you ?' - A Nice Piece of Verse

24 Sep 15, 12:11 PM

B Ganga Raju: " I am fine--how are you " is a nice piece of verse by one who knows what it is to be old. When we wake up every morning we must thank for being blessed with one more day.

"Could you manage even that?"

24 Sep 15, 11:41 AM

G.Krishna Prasad: Our actuarial expert appears to be happy that a few got "only a pittance" instead of being happy that they got something, if only a pittance; He couldn't manage even that.

My comments are not to provoke anybody. As Mr. Murty has said, drop 'oneupmanship' and put up a united fight.

Subbu's comments

24 Sep 15, 10:17 AM

subbu: Does anyone has idea as to amount/s spent by our organisation towards Legal expenses on the pensioners' cases till date. 

One more thing. That legal expenses is paid out of our pension fund. I need to know this, since there is a possibility of our pension fund getting depleted faster if the legal expenses, if paid out of pension fund, is mounting day by day, as by sometime in not distant future, this fund will not have enough funds to pay our present pension. Any RTI by anyone?

24 Sep 15, 10:33 AM JM Aboobucker: I concur with you. LIC is capable of depleting the Pension Fund in order to deny any benefit to pensioners on the plea of Fund crunch.

I'm fine - How are you?

POEM FORWARDED TO SHRI CH MAHADEVAN BY SHRI TNC RANGARAJAN. 

Shri Mahadevan wrote to him:-

It shows that the senior-senior citizen-poet has a commendable sense of humour with a practical outlook.

Recently when I was talking to such senior whom I respect very much saying he had an appalling will power,he quipped that it may be true,but for most of the people of the younger generation what matters more is "THE POWER OF THE WILL"!

Regards.
C H Mahadevan

CH Mahadevan

HOW THE INTERIM RELIEF PAID BY LIC IS JUST A PITTANCE

 In the past  10 days I have been  in telephonic contact with a number of pensioners  to have an idea of their having received  the payment of interim relief  by LIC as per the Supreme Court orders dt 7/5/2015 and 7/9/2015 to the pre-August 1997 retiree officers.

Based on the information received from one ADM cadre retired officer who had retired in the maximum of scale on 31/1/1993, who had received a credit of an amount of Rs 17581/- to his Bank a/c, presumably towards his interim relief amount paid by LIC,I tried to work out his possible amounts of arrears under four different scenarios as  tabulated below. The retired officer also falls under the category of M C Jain who was given the relief (through a wrong amount) as a result of the Supreme Court dismissal of SLP against the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court.I had factored the effect of the said judgment in two of the scenarios. The amounts worked out under the four  scenarios are  summarized in the following table:

ILLUSTRATION FOR AN M C JAIN CATEGORY RETIREE OFFICER

Basic pension:  Rs 2525 (Maximum)

Scenario	Methodology of calculation	Total arrears due upto 31/8/2015(Rs)	Interim relief due (Rs)	Interim relief received by the officer(Rs)
I	Faulty method adopted by LIC ·        Arrears calculated from 1/8/1997 by a simple merger of DR  upto 1/8/1997 with existing Basic Pension; ·        No removal of DR anomaly prior to 1/8/1997 ·        No weightage on merger of DR with Basic Pension ·        No repetition of the process on 1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007	88998	17800	17581
II	·        Pre August 1997  DR anomaly removed; ·        Pension revised by merger of  revised DR with existing Basic Pension; ·        No weightage after merger	349738	69948	------do……………
III	·        LIC revises pension on 1/11/1993 based on M C Jain case judgment; ·        Removes pre-August 1997 DR anomaly ·        Revises pension  by merging  revised DR  on revised Basic Pension; ·        No weightage on merger	429245	85849	------do……………
IV	(Full scale  upgradation  as per Jaipur SJB Order dt 12/1/2010 reinforced by the Punjab & Haryana JC judgment) ·        LIC gives effect to M C Jain case judgment and revises pension from 1/11/1993; ·        Removes DR anomaly upto 31/7/1997; ·        Revises pension  on 1/8/1997, 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 with weightage	18, 82,607	3,76,521	------do……………

From the above it is clear that what LIC has paid as  interim relief is not only far less than the due amount in terms of the impugned  HC  judgment but it is also  not even 1% of the amount due as full arrears.

Even under the scenarios II & III which again will be faulty if adopted by LIC, the amount received by the retired officer would constitute 5% & 4% respectively. Under  all the scenarios II,III.IV the interim relief  received is far less than 20% and hence there is no compliance of the Supreme Court Order dt 7/5/2015 by the LIC. The arrears  due of Rs 18.8 lks  under the last scenario is the  cumulative loss sustained by the retiree-officer  from 1/11/1993 till August 2015.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan