Board Resolution

SN

BD BHARGAVA

Section 11 of LIC Pension Rules 1995‏

REPLY TO PERUMALMARUTHU

Dear  Sir,

I  Have  Seen  The  Missive Of Mr. Perumalmaruthu, “On LIC Pensioners’ Chronicle”, “I  Thought   Of  Sending   My  Reply  Instantaneously”, “The  Same  Day” Rebutting   All  His  Contentions, Regarding  The   Content  Of My  Article “On  The  Advantages   Of  A  Bank  Employee ”, “If  He  Opts  For   Voluntary  Retirement   Under  Regulation  29(1) And 29(5)Of Bank Employees’ Pension  Regulations,1995” ,“Instead  Of  Waiting  For  Retirement  On  Superannuation Under  Regulation  28  Of  Bank  Employees'  Pension Regulations, 1995”, “In  The  Normal  Course”.

I  Would   Like  To  Refer  To  The  Exact  Content  Of  Mr.Perumal  Maruthu’s    Missive,  Finding   Fault   With  The Entire Content  Of   My  Article,  Flinging  A  Lot Of Vituperative    Accusations  At  Me. I Am Not  At  All  Worried   And  Upset  About   The Vituperative  Abuses Or  Objurgations That  Were  Foisted   On  Me  By  Mr.Perumalmaruthu  At  All Provided   There Is   Truth / Veracity In The   Imputations   That  Were  Thrust /  Cast On  Me By  Him. But,  At  The Same  Time,  “If  The  Statements  Contained In   His  Write-Up / Letter Are Supported  By  Facts, I Am The First  Person  To  Apologise  To  Him, For  The  Canards  That I Have  Been  Purveying, Through Websites. But, The   Truth Is   Quite  Contrary  Thereto.

TO CONTINUE READING, CLICK HERE

MV VENUGOPALAN

Dear Editor,

As for the comments of my three friends on my last Post, I 

don’t think that I need to give any specific reply except to say 

that in writing that I had no intention,whatsoever,  to kick-

start any  new controversy. I wanted only to impress upon the 

pensioners that if only our three leaders had adopted a totally 

pro-active approach, instead of whiling away the time in 

accusing each other, and accusing LIC and the Govt. for all the 

ills, the pensioners would have been the beneficiaries; they 

would have received what was actually due to them as 20% 

arrears,both DR and up-graded pension provided the 7th May 

SC interim Order really meant so.

I have also indicated as to how much harm it is doing in hurling abuses at each other, forgetting the basic tenets of decency and decorum. However, I need to clarify to Mr. Mahadevan what I meant by describing Mr.Sridharan as  a non-state actor.  I fully agree with him in  that Mr.Sridharan is still left with playing a major role in fulfilling the aspirations of the Post-1997 pensioners, particularly in regard to the up-gradation and other related issues. He has an unfinished Agenda. But, even  though  he is the General Secretary of the ClassI Officer pensioners Federation, by disowning up-gradation all along, he has distanced himself  from the Establishment espousing this cause  and has given the unmistakable impression that  he does’nt belong there. This is the reason why I had to refer to him as a ’non-state actor’, of course , in a very limited sense. Let me also make it clear, that I am not batting for any one in particular, but for the pensioner friends, as a whole.

Well, the task awaiting our leaders is not going to be simple on 18th in the Supreme Court; it is definitely not going to be a cakewalk. While summing up the SC proceedings on 30th of September, Mr. Sreenivasa Murty quotes the Judge having said  “...if the resolution was not statutory and if it required Govt. approval to become effective that is how it is...” and the counsel cannot defend the Jaipur decision to the contrary with his line of approach. The Hon’ble Judge had also added “there are different categories of pensioners who receive different rates of pension. Forget Govt. for a while,how do you defend your position? (addressed to LIC). The same judge during another hearing ,

earlier, had asked our counsel “Is Pension Up-gradation provided for in the  Pension Regulation ?” Again, when Mr.Nidesh Gupta tried to point out Shri.Misra relying on DS Nakaras judgment , the judge seemed to be not relishing it. All this pieced together,  should send a certain strong signal to us: The Board resolution, which also forms the backbone of  Shri.Bhandari’s judgment is not all that reliable. At least, we should guard against it proving to be an ‘Achilles heel’ for us.

We need to understand and realise that no two cases are so similar that  one can be replicated in the place of another.  At the most , whether it is Nakaras case or for that matter the OROP of the Defense Personnel or any other decided case laws running parallel to our case, can be quoted only as supportive arguments and not as something which will clinch the issue for us. The cliché-ridden examples should, as far as possible, be avoided as it might not cut much ice. The wage structure, the nature of the benefits enjoyed by our employees, the history of pay revisions, the manner in which  our pension fund  is constituted  are all different from the way  it is for other institutions, whom we may be tempted to draw an analogy. Our counsels must make exhaustive preparations to  answer any questions posed by the Judge. It should not be like some of the students preparing well to answer some of the questions the previous day and in the Examination Hall they find the questions to be all different.  

  

Lots of our right-thinking and legally mature pensioners have sent in their legal points  which might come in handy while arguing out our cases. There is nothing like one-size-fits-All solutions  which can be applied freely, irrespective of the context and stage of the  argument. It boils down ultimately to between the Case Managers and their counsels. Even if a thousand people surround to watch a lady delivering, it is only  the lady on the table who can deliver the child,  and not the spectators. Therefore,  the Points that should engage the attention of our leaders on 18th Nov are:

    i) Engage a counsel of proven capability and specialised  in cases such as ours.

    ii) Set aside cliché-ridden quotations vulnerable points  and  do some out of the box thinking, suitable and in conformity with our own issues

   iii)  Have a sound idea about how our “Pension Fund” works and whether it is self-sustaining (affordability will be another bogey LIC may raise).

    iv) Have a definite game-plan, strategy and  absolute clarity of the end-purpose

    v) More than anything else, without wasting anytime try for a co-ordinated approach. (Now that there seems to be a melt down in the relations between the people of Panchkula and Jaipur)

         A cursory glance of the proposed pay scales will show how much we have to gain if only the up-gradation is granted, and how glaring will be the discrimination in case we don’t get it. This should, therefore, act as an added incentive to our leaders to put their heart and soul in the hearing coming up on 18th November in the SC.
 

     With best of Regards,

    M.V.VENUGOPALAN

For kind attention of NPK

20 Oct 15, 09:11 AM

Perumalmaruthu: A request to Mr Adv. N. Pradeepkumar...it is painful to read every word in CAPITAL letters...Judges reading your submissions may get irritated! (For editing purpose also, we find it difficult. -Ed.)

20 Oct 15, 09:31 AM

sudhakaran: Glad that my 2 line response has elicited such a lengthy reply from Adv. NPK. Thanks a lot.

Chandigarh meeting

20 Oct 15, 08:24 AM

B.R.Mehta: Sh. S D Sarma Sir, Panchkula Unit also invited Sh.

Observers from Panchkula

Asthana in his role as AIRIEF Northern Zonal President but he preferred to ignore our invitation. Then we sent a very loud and clear message to our counter part leadership of Chandigarh AIRIEF Unit that a few of our members will attend this meeting only in case Sh. Asthana does not utter a single word against Panchkula or Sh. Murty and we are happy to report that our chandigarh friends listened to us and hence Sh. Asthana did not touch either Panchkula or Sh. Murty. Rest was self praise and nothing else.

Comments

19 Oct 15, 10:42 PM

SDSARMA: Good, Asthana visited Chandigarh and addressed the pensioners and the same is published in various blogs including our pc. But what he spoke no body reported in the blogs. Is there any emergency in Chandigarh and scissors used to cut the reports? Why secrecy of public meeting reportage? Or is it a private meeting of Sh.Asthanas bhajanmandal! 

I am not against Sh.Asthana personally, I also appreciate his efforts from the beginning and only differed with him on his withdrawal of contempt petition from Jaipur HC. I have no grudge against him in any manner as I do not know him personally. Even now I wish him best of LUCK in SC next month.Through Sh. CS Murthy of Hyderabad I learnt about the Jaipur case and Sh. Asthana.

REPLY TO MR. SUDHAKARAN'S COMMENTS

DEAR SIR,

I HAVE GONE TO THE BRIEF NOTE OF MR.SUDHAKARAN. I AM UNABLE TO MAKE OUT, AS TO WHAT IS HIS CONTENTION / OPINION,”CONTRARY TO THAT OF MINE”., AND ALSO,”AS TO WHERE EXACTLY Adv.NPK FORGOT,“AND WHERE EXACTLY MR.SUDHAKARAN REMEMBERED”. WELL, IF HIS REFERENCE IS TO THE 6 PART SERIAL ARTICLES, PUBLISHED IN LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE, “ I AM UNABLE TO MAKE OUT AS TO WHERE DID I SAY”, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW / JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE”, “ SAYING THAT ONCE REVISION OF PENSION COMPUTATION FORMULA IS EFFECTED”, “THE SAME MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALL THE PENSIONERS”, “IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT” ,”WHICH GOES WITHOUT SAYING IT SO”, ‘IN SO MANY WORDS”, “IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENT”.

THE QUESTION IS — DID I SAY ANYTHING, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN NAKARA’S CASE”, ANY WHERE?”

THINKING / TAKING IT THAT HIS REFERENCE MAY BE TO, “ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE ENTITLED”—

“AN ADVICE TO ALL BANK EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT”, “AS SOLICITED BY MOST OF THEM”—

“OR ANY SINGLE PART OF THOSE ARTICLES”--

I HAVE GONE THROUGH “ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN LIC PENSIONERS’ CHRONICLE”,”WITH THE ABOVE TITLE”, “ONLY (AS, “BY THE TIME, MR.SUDHAKARAN SENT IN HIS NOTE”, “ONLY 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE”, “WITH THE ABOVE TITLE WERE PUBLISHED”) BEING UNABLE TO FIND OUT ANYTHING”, “CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”, “IN NAKARA’S CASE”. THERE IS NO REFERENCE AT ALL “IN ANY OF MY 6 ARTICLES”, SAYING THAT-

“NAKARA’S CASE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT”,“APPLICATION OF ANY REVISED PENSION FORMULA TO ALL THE EXISTING PENSIONERS ALSO IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT”. IN FACT, UPON GOING THROUGH ALL THE 6 PARTS OF MY ARTICLE, ENTITLED—

“AN ADVICE TO ALL BANK EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ON THE VERGE OF RETIREMENT”, “AS SOLICITED BY MOST OF THEM”, “ONCE AGAIN”, I FOUND THAT--

“THERE WAS JUST NOT ANY REFERENCE TO NAKARA’S CASE AT ALL”, NOT TO SPEAK OF THE RATIO OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THAT CASE .“

AND NOW, REGARDING REPRODUCTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKARA’S CASE---

“I MYSELF MADE IT CLEAR AT THE VERY OUT SET THAT I WILL CONFINE MYSELF TO JUST REPRODUCTION OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN NAKRA’S CASE”, “AS MANY PENSIONERS OF INDIA DO NOT HAVE THE FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”, “IN NAKARA’S CASE”, “WITH OCCASIONAL INTERFERENCE FROM MY SIDE”, “WHEREVER IT IS FELT THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS”, “IF I EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF WHATEVER MAY BE NECESSARY FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN—

“NAKARA’S CASE”.

Paperless transactions to curb black money menace ?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday said the government has initiated a series of banking reforms, including recapitalisation of PSU banks, change in rules for hiring top management and paperless transactions to curb the black money menace.

“The banking sector is seeing changes. Mobile banking is coming up. Banking will be premises-less and paperless,” he said at the launch of IDFC Bank in Delhi.

Mr. Modi further said India is slowly moving towards a situation where the currency printing cost will come down.

“We have to take the country in that direction. As we use technology, we move to paperless banking, currency-less business operations; the possibility of black money will gradually become negligible,” he said.

(the hindu)

TRICITY MEETING

AIIEA CIRCULAR: Wage revision reaching its finality

N PRADEEPKUMAR, ADVOCATE

TO READ, CLICK HERE.

SN CHHABRA

My part response to Mr M V Venugopalan

 

CAN THE GENERAL SECRETARY 

OF THE CLASS I FEDERATION BE IGNORED?

Mr M V Venugopalan writes, “Mr.Sridharan, being a non-state actor as far as the up-gradation issue is concerned, we can safely ignore him for the time being. Having said that, the interests of the Pre-1997 pensioners are very safe in his hands.”

It passes one’s comprehension, how a General Secretary of the Federation of Retired Class I Officers’Associations which comprises a major proportion of post-July 1997 retiree Class I members can be treated as a non-state actor. May be he has secured a  High Court judgment in favour of the pre-August 1997 retiree- members and also interim relief  for them albeit not adequate (thanks to the pressure mounted on LIC by the 7^th September order of the Supreme Court).

In my view he has a vital role to play in the legal journey to the 18^th November hearing in the Supreme Court. If as Mr Venugopalan thinks, he can be safely ignored for the time being, what is the accountability that the Federation has towards its majority members – especially the post July 1997 retiree members - who are very much significant stakeholders in the Federation as much as the pre-August 1997 retiree-members? The Federation has a compelling responsibility to actively espouse the cause of post-July 1997 retiree-members also  by actively crusading for upgradation of pension instead of passively taking the position that it is not against upgradation of pension. All  of us are of course happy that some breakthrough has been achieved in case of pre-August 1997 retirees through  the latest developments. But the positivity will not be complete unless the very same group of pensioners is helped to enjoy the benefits of upgradation of pension through active legal interventions besides taking up the upgradation issue for all members actively.

We should also remember that obtaining justice to the family pensioners in the pre-August 1997 category continues to remain as an unfinished task.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

DOES MR ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN HAVE

 A CASE FOR FILING A REVIEW PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT?

In the operative part of the judgment 

in the CA No 10251/2014, the Supreme 

Court has ordered as follows:

“We thus hold that the termination of services of the Appellant, in essence,

was voluntary retirement within the ambit of Rule 31 of the Pension Rules of

1995. The Appellant is entitled for pension, provided he fulfils the condition of

refunding of the entire amount of the Corporation’s contribution to the

Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon as provided in the Pension

Rules of 1995. Considering the huge delay, not explained by proper reasons, on

part of the Appellant in approaching the Court, we limit the benefits of arrears

of pension payable to the Appellant to three years preceding the date of the

petition filed before the High Court. These arrears of pension should be paid to

the Appellant in one instalment within four weeks from the date of refund of the

entire amount payable by the Appellant in accordance of the Pension Rules of

1995. In the alternative, the Appellant may opt to get the amount of refund

adjusted against the arrears of pension. In the latter case, if the amount of

arrear is more than the amount of refund required, then the remaining amount

shall be paid within two weeks from the date of such request made by the

Appellant. However, if the amount of arrears is less than the amount of refund

required, then the pension shall be payable on monthly basis after the date on 

which the amount of refund is entirely adjusted.”

This raises a question of equity among the pensioners. When the LIC Pension Rules were notified in 1995, all the employees retired from 1/1/1986 and the spouses of deceased employees retired after 1/1/1986 opting for pension were asked to pay the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest within 180 days from the notified date. When that was done, pension was payable from 1/11/1993 or from the 1st date following the month of retirement whichever was later.

In the case of the resigned officer (Mr Asger Ibrahim Amin) under the above Civil Appeal,he has also been directed by the Apex Court to refund the Corporation’s contribution of PF with interest,but as he had filed the writ petition in the High Court with considerable delay, the Supreme Court has restricted the payment of arrears of pension to only three months before the date of his filing the writ petition in the High Court.There is no remission/restriction on what he has to refund to the Corporation, but there is a limitation on the arrears of pension that he could get upto 29/3/2012, the date he filed his Special Civil Application in the High Court. In other words, he will be required to refund 100% of the Corporation’s Contribution of PF while the arrears that he will be entitled to get upto March 2012 will be only 25% of total pension arrears from 1/11/1993.

Legal experts may give their views on whether there is a case for Mr Amin to file a Review Petition to release the pension arrears for the full period from 1/11/1993 as a wrong has been committed by the Corporation in not treating his resignation as deemed voluntary retirement notwithstanding his delayed application in the High Court..

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

RESPONSE TO SHRI MV VENUGOPALAN

Sir,

I am glad to find the write up by Shri MV Venugopalan “September 30^th and after”.  My immediate doubt after reading what Shri Venugopalan has written is that why he waited for the heat to die down. He could have joined the discussion any time.

There were two different versions about the Supreme Court proceedings. Shri Asthana was in the visitors enclosure in the court room (since unfortunately he is not an advocate and cannot wear the “black”)  and Shri Murty was right before the Hon.Judges in the court room. Shri Asthana could have come out with his arguments when the issues were discussed and it was proved beyond doubt that Shri Asthana had no reply to offer to Shri Murty despite reminders published in the blog.

• Shri Venugopalan writes: “…7th May SC interim judgment, according to which all the pre -1997 pensioners must have got 20% of the DR arrears. The fact of the matter is none of them received what they ought to have. It is quite obvious by now that this happened as a result of the whimsical methods pursued by our so-called three leaders in its implementation.”

While Shri Venugopalan blames “the so-called three leaders” for his own reasons, he doesn’t say anything about the role played or not played by Shri Asthana. Being the main petitioner, Shri asthana failed to take any action in the matter. While the Jaipur judgment provided for payment of difference on account of 100% neutralization and upgradation, he was satisfied with a paltry amount and even the 5 post-97 petitioners were simply ignored.

• Again Shri Venugopalan writes: “Mr.Murty went to the extent of calling Shri. Asthana a liar and a mentally disturbed person. As long as we have not heard what exactly transpired on 30th in the SC from an independent source, how can we take Mr.Murty’s version as a gospel truth and Mr.Asthana’s a fabricated and calculated lie? Supposing, if I say that it was Mr.Murty who was lying and not Mr.Asthana, can anyone deny my claim. Or, together were they fooling the entire community of pensioners? The law itself propounds that a person continues to be innocent as long as he has not been proven guilty. It is grossly unfair and against all norms of decency that Mr.Asthana has been caricatured as a person taking a “Holy Dip” to wash off his sins for hiding the truth. No one can escape responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Therefore, at least in the future before making any accusation about any body,the person indulging in it must possess in controvertible proof or evidence.”

I quoted the long narration of Shri Venugopalan to show how weak are his arguments. When Shri Murty asserts the details and challenges Shri Asthana to ascertain the facts from his own (Shri Asthana’s) advocate, Shri Asthana should have clarified the position and there was no need for Shri Venugopalan to award the benefit of doubt to Shri Asthana.

• Shri Venugopalan continues: “God knows whether Mr.Murtys counsel got any opportunity to speak at all, leave alone making an impression on the judge! On the other hand, though informal, the Hon’ble judge called upon only Sri.Asthanas counsels to present the case. How can,therefore, we disbelieve Mr.Asthana when he asserts and affirms that being the prime party to the case, only his counsels will be heard in the future. “

Let me comment, the whole court proceedings lasted about 90 minutes only. Shri Asthana’s advocate got the opportunity to commence the arguments since Shri Asthana is the main respondent having won the case in Jaipur before others could move the courts. Shri Murty has only said that there was no direction from the court that only Shri Asthana’s advocate shall be permitted to argue.

In these matters, there must be clear court procedures. So nobody need discuss and decide such matters outside the court. Shri Murty’s advocate may or may not be permitted to intervene in the matter. But everything will be decided as per court procedures in the matter and not as per the wishes of Shri Asthana or Shri Venugopalan.

K. GOVINDASWAMY

Comments

17 Oct 15, 10:53 AM

B.D.Bhargava: According to me what is ailing our judiciary is it adjourning the cases every now and then. If a limit is put on adjournments things will drastically improve.

17 Oct 15, 09:16 AM

k.bhaktavatsala rao: The Supreme Court has taken only six months time to decide the validity of NJAC and 99th constitutional amendment. The short time may be because of the future of the Judges is involved. Where as the case of age old pensioners, they require so much of time and many more adjournments..still it is hanging in the air. Quick justice required for ordinary people like us also.If the Judges think of this point also, our case will be decided at the earliest atleast before some more deaths of pensioners take place.

MV VENUGOPALAN

Dear Shri.Gangadharan,

I have been waiting for the heat to die down to continue my contribution to the Chronicle. Now that the people are back in their respective places , I thought it is time we did some stock-taking or is it post-mortem?. Good six months have elapsed after the 7th May SC interim judgment, according to which all the pre -1997 pensioners must have got 20% of the DR arrears. The fact of the matter is none of them received what they ought to have. It is quite obvious by now that this happened as a result of the whimsical methods pursued by our so-called three leaders in its implementation. At least, Mr.Sridharan can have the satisfaction that he managed to secure some measly amount for 1000 and odd pre-1997 pensioners,of course, at a cost to them. In a nutshell, all the three of them, without exception, wasted away the precious six months without the pensioners gaining anything worth the salt.

What were they doing all these six months except throwing allegations at each other?. While Mr.Sridharan chose to keep a safe distance, the other two continued the diatribe against each other. Mr.Murty went to the extent of calling Shri .Asthana a liar and a mentally disturbed person. As long as we have not heard what exactly transpired on 30th in the SC from an independent source, how can we take Mr.Murty’s version as a gospel truth and Mr.Asthana’s a fabricated and calculated lie? Supposing, if I say that it was Mr.Murty who was lying and not Mr.Asthana, can anyone deny my claim. Or, together were they fooling the entire community of pensioners? The law itself propounds that a person continues to be innocent as long as he has not been proven guilty. It is grossly unfair and against all norms of decency that Mr.Asthana has been caricatured as a person taking a “Holy Dip” to wash off his sins for hiding the truth. No one can escape responsibility and accountability for one's actions. Therefore, at least in the future before making any accusation about anybody,the person indulging in it must possess in controvertible proof or evidence.

The IA filed by Mr.Murty was supposed to revolutionise the SC verdict on 30th. According to him, it was prophecied to be THE cure or panacea for all the ills of the pensioners The fact remains, that there was no mention, even in passing, by the judge about the correctness or otherwise of LIC’s calculations. God knows whether Mr.Murtys counsel got any opportunity to speak at all, leave alone making an impression on the judge! On the other hand, though informal, the Hon’ble judge called upon only Sri.Asthanas counsels to present the case. What transpired between the Sr.counsels and the judge is another matter , which I have discussed elsewhere. How can,therefore, we disbelieve Mr.Asthana when he asserts and affirms that being the prime party to the case, only his counsels will be heard in the future. It is anybody’s guess that but for the Jaipur H.C verdict for which Sri.Asthana has been hugely responsible would the other two parties seen the corridors of the Supreme Court. Let us be gentlemen: Give the devil its due!

Of all the three groups, I hope I am right when I say the Panchkula Unit represent the minimum no of stakeholders. The history of our legal battle unequivocally proclaims the dominance of the Jaipur Group, who successfully navigated three successive victories. The Panchkula group looked at from any angle represent the minority . In a democratic set up, we have to throw our lot with the majority , though in the process, the voice of the minority is not stifled. My appeal, therefore, to my fellow pensioners is not to encourage the unjustified craving of the Panchkula leaders (self-styled) for importance. Mr.Asthana, even though guilty of a few erroneous steps here and there, is capable of pulling off a final victory for us. Let us allow him to focus on the ensuing SC hearing on 18th November, undisturbed by petty politics and attention-seekers. Mr.Sridharan, being a non-state actor as far as the up-gradation issue is concerned,we can safely ignore him for the time being. Having said that, the interests of the Pre-1997 pensioners are very safe in his hands.

Our all-inclusive Editor permitting, my next post will be very soon on the Blog dealing with the probable scenario on 18th November in the Supreme Court and my suggestions, as a purely non-legal entity.

With warm Regards,

M V VENUGOPALAN

Resignation is voluntary retirement

DEAR ALL,

I attach the judgement of the SC dt 12/10/2015 in which it has been held that resignation of an employee who was in service as on 1/1/1986 and resigned before the notification dt 28/6/1995 of LIC Pension Rules 1995 is deemed to be voluntary retirement for the purpose of eligibility of the pension provided the conditions of voluntary retirement for eligibility of pension are satisfied by the resignee.

But the intriguing part of the judgment is that the Apex Court has ordered that arrears of pension will be payable only for three years prior to the date of filing of the Writ in the High Court.

So it may appear similarly placed resigned employees may need to approach the High Court/s with fresh writ petitions unless LIC management decides to pay them pension and arrears for three years from the date they make their applications to LIC for similar treatment.

From our experience in the M C Jain case implementation, the similarly placed resignees may decide whether they should resort to legal action to get pension and arrears.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

TO READ SC JUDGMENT, CLICK HERE

PANCHKULA CALLING...

In his letter to Shri KML Asthana, Shri Chhabra admits of "hostilities" between him and Shri Asthana. "The pensioners are apprehensive that our mutual friction may harm our case in the Supreme Court. I am very clear that we are not in for any upmanship in the court and will attempt to fill your gaps there. Still, it is the need of the hour that we send the right type of signals across the country that we are united in our fight," writes Shri Chhabra while inviting Shri Asthana, Zonal President, to visit their Panchkula Unit and meet the members, other retirees living in and around Panchkula. The letter is reproduced below.

Subbu to Pradeepkumar !

16 Oct 15, 12:04 PM

subbu: To NP Sir ! I am not a practising lawyer . The question of application of THE RULE OF A MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE,to my knowledge applies only in circumstances where there are no apparent laws, earlier judgments, or even similar case laws in other countries. 

When a party to the case talks on the basis of a prevailing law or a procedure or an earlier judgment, where is the question of MOP? 

For instance, if you lend me 100 rupees and get a promissory note, and i have not repaid it till after three years, the PN lapses and is not legally valid. But still if you apply MOP i am ethically bound to repay. This is just an example. (I will not ask you anything, and even if i ask, u will not pay to a pensioner! That is another point.) But where the law, an established procedure exists it invariably overrules any rule of a man of ordinary prudence.

What is ailing in our judiciary system and why adjournments are frequent?

Fortyfive lakh cases are pending in 24 High courts. Appeals can take up 30 years to be heard. However it is said delay in hearing appeals is as good as justice denied. As at the end of June 2014 there are 45 lakhs cases pending in the nation’s 24 High courts an average of two lakhs cases per High court. In Rajasthan High court alone appeal in civil cases are pending for 28 years with only 25 of 40 judges post filled. Stars favored Shri Asthana when his civil suits came up much earlier for hearing defying the usual time lag.

Why this malady ? As at the end of June 2014 there were 265 vacancies for judges in the High courts as against the sanctioned strength of 906 a short fall of almost 30 %. Imagine the plight of a judge who is over loaded with too many cases with too little time to study, ponder and decide, often hopping from one bench to another some times on the same day and he has to pass the order under pressure which ultimately suffer from clarity giving rise to doubts in the minds of the contestents.One convenient way to reduce the pressure of work is perhaps to give adjournments as and when asked .

Why this pathetic situation which remains eternal much to the inconvenience and irritation of the litigants. Read what `Justice VN Khare, Former Chief Justice of India said:

No Government, be it central or State, is interested in giving priority to the judiciary. We have one of the world’s poorest Judge- to –population ratios. Deterioration in the law and order situation gives rise to new cases. In some High courts appeals are pending since 1985. No substantive hearing takes place ( Mark the word ‘ substantive hearing ‘ ) Only stays and interim orders are passed as we have seen earlier in our case. These are the reasons that contribute to delays.

Come 18 NOV with the existing scenario let us pray that there is no more adjournments though cleverly asked for on flimsy grounds and the curtain be down once for all and result of this ‘ Kurkshetra war ‘ is known. Let our defense as well as arguments be cogent, forceful and to the point as to convince the learned judges, keeping in mind they have to fight against the limited time available to them, not to digress in arrears which are irrelevant and we are sure and confident our leaned Counsels are well versed in this art.

R.K.VISWANATHAN

Comments on Pradeepkumar's article

16 Oct 15, 11:32 AM 

G. Narayanaswamy: N.Pradip Kumar's write-up of Rule of Man of ordinary prudence is fantastic. How I wish that SC comes heavily on those who sanction such litigation on a hapless community. Thanks for the light you shed.
 
16 Oct 15, 09:47 AM

B Ganga Raju: It will be useful if LICPC brings all the contributions of Shri N.Pradeep Kumar Advocate as a single article which can be down loaded and printed. This is my suggestion.

Advancing the idea of 'advance'

N PRADEEPKUMAR, ADVOCATE

TO READ, CLICK HERE

Eligibilities of Resignees for pension

The Chairman,

LIC of India,

Mumbai

Dera Sir,

I reproduce  below an article published  in the LIC's Pensioners' Chronicle blog for your  considering  needful in the case of similarly placed LIC Resignees.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

'BANK NEWS'

(Reproduced from 'BANK PENSIONER'

Supreme court judgement on LIC resignee case Posted: 15 Oct 2015 01:53 AM PDT We reproduce below article by Shri R.K. Pathak in light of recent judgement by Supreme Court in LIC Resignee case. SUPREME COURT DISTINGUISH M R PRABHAKAR Vs CANARA BANK JUDGEMENT ON RESIGNATION It is now known fact that Banks and IBA [ Voluntary Association of Management of Bank] are unjustifiedly denying the legitimate claim of the Bank Resignees despite clear cut judgments in following cases:-  1) D. Malleshwar Rao Vs Andhra Bank 2) S. K Kool Vs Bank of Baroda 3) Smt. Shashikala Devi Vs Central Bank of India 4) Vijaya Bank Vs M Narsimhappa  Banks and IBA are not only denying lawful claims of Resignee [ Left Over Category] but also through battery of lawyers taking advantage of its own wrong and seeking judgments against  financially weak litigants by suppressing the facts & also filing special leave petitions and review in the High Courts.    Banks and IBA are relying on UCO Bank Vs Sanwarmal, Canara Bank Vs M R Prabhakar judgments and  with forceful argument from battery of lawyers made successful attempt to sideline the principle laid down in Sheel Kumar Jain Vs New India assurance Company. The very good example of such attempt is reflected in the recent judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of IDBI Bank Vs Roshan Lal Gupta [RSA 189 of 2010] dated 16/05/2014, wherein honorable Justice by allowing appeal of Bank madeoll following observations:-

HAPPY NAVRATRI AND HAPPY DUSSEHRA

Shri B.R.Mehta, Panchkula Unit, has extended an Olive Branch in An Open Letter To Members of AIRIEF, Legal Committee on the auspicious day of Navaratri (PC : 15-10-2015). 

Holding out an Olive Branch is a symbol of peace, to end disagreements, misunderstandings, inimical feelings. 

All Members of AIRIEF and Shri K M L Asthanaji may like to reciprocate and make it convenient to meet each other to demonstrate camaraderie. 

Happy Navratri and Happy Dussehra to all readers of LIC PC. 

A Pensioner.

N PRADEEPKUMAR, ADVOCATE

TO READ, CLICK HERE

Dear Sirs,

Since legal battle for all LIC Pensioners has already entered its final phase at Supreme Court with next hearing being fixed for 18.11.2015 so it is high time that AIRIEF Legal Committee holds its crucial meeting during AIRIEF Two Days EC Meeting proposed to be held at Bhopal on November 1&2.

As a very small and humble AIRIEF soldier from Panchkula Unit, I wish to request all of you to kindly consider my following suggestions during your next meeting.

1.Discrimination with Panchkula must end immediately

At the cost of repetition, I wish to say that Sh. S.N. Chhabra Secretary Panchkula Unit is fully involved with taking up current legal battle with his utmost sincerity and commitment on behalf of Petitioners at Chandigarh High Court through contempt case at chandigarh high court as well as at supreme court with full guidance and support from Sh. Murty.

Constitution of AIRIEF Legal Committee was being asked for by Sh. Chhabra since long on the plea that collective wisdom is always better than an individual wisdom. We are happy to note that Sh. Saxena AIRIEF President agreed with Sh. Chhabra and constituted said legal committee during Raipur Meeting held in Jan.,2015.

Now AIRIEF has two important stake holders at Supreme Court taking care of Jaipur and Chandigarh High Court verdicts.

How is it that one of these two stake holders namely Sh. S.N. Chhabra has not been included in this legal committee ?

Is it not a very clear case of discrimination with Panchkula Unit ?

We are sure that said legal committee will be reconstituted urgently at Bhopal by including Sh. Chhabra as its member.

2. Infighting between Jaipur and Panchkula must end immediately 

Sh. G. Krishna Swamy is official spokes person for AIRIEF .

Supreme Court Proceedings dated 30.09.2015 were communicated by AIRIEF President through Sh. Krishna Swamy in a very brief and balanced way.

Myself and Sh. Chhabra were not present at Supreme Court on 30.09.2015.

But Sh. KML Asthana came out with his own version of supreme court proceedings dated 30th September on various blogs where true reporting was missing and his version was primarily focused on hitting three persons namely MSM, SNC and BRM

Despite all this bitterness, Sh. S.N. Chhabra has shown a bigger heart by inviting Sh. Asthana in his capacity as AIRIEF Northern Zonal President to meet and address Panchkula Unit Members over a cup of tea on 18th evening after we came to know about his proposed visit to chandigarh for lunch meeting with chandigarh LIC Pensioners on 18th october.

Is it not an attempt on our part to end in fighting ?

No confirmation till date from Sh. Asthana to visit Panchkula in response to invitation dated 06.10.2015 from Sh. Chhabra. Most likely Sh. Asthana will be at chandigarh on 18th but will skip Panchkula.

Can AIRIEF Legal Committee in its next Bhopal meeting take notice of all such developments and take a final call to end this infighting which may harm our current legal battle ?

Regards,
B.R.Mehta
Panchkula

Reminds of 1970s situation

15 Oct 15, 08:22 AM

B Ganga Raju: Shri Subbu's comments make interesting reading. Pensioners are divided by LIC depending on their dates of retirement. So Subbu speaks of diverse interests and associations This reminds me of the situation in 1970s when LIC employees got divided on account of promotion policy: 1965 automatic promotions, Section Heads' forum, Qualified but unpromoted employees' forum, HGAs Association, Stenos Association, etc. etc.

Management and Government divide. We have to unite, multiply our strength and fight.We now have 2 issues..Pre and Post 1997, Updation. If our pensioners' associations play their cards well our interests would be safe.

SUBBU'S COMMENTS

14 Oct 15, 07:41 PM

SUBBU: As India is diverse of multiple regions, languages, culture, and heritage so pensioners of India also have diverse associations representing their different interests. Perhaps in future,

associations of pensioners may come into being for post 97, post 2002, post 2007 etc. The only place which unites them all is SC.

NOIP LETTER

14 Oct 15, 08:27 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: The letter of 13/10/15 by NOIP has put forth all basic issues relating to pensioners. If LIC decides these issues humanely it will earn the gratitude of all categories of pensioners. A Big Thanx. 

PLAYING WITH WORDS

NOIP

Dear Editor,

Contrary to the belief of S/Shri SN & JM A, this organization represents pensioners only.

Dattatraya B Deshpande,
Kolhapur.

Aboobucker's comments

14 Oct 15, 09:56 AM 

JM Aboobucker: It is heartening to know at least one of the many LIC serving employees unions has taken some interest in the Welfare of the Pensioners of LIC by writing to the Chairman highlighting the issues which needs resolution by the Management. Thank you NOIP for your concern of the demands of the 40000 LIC Pensioners.

The Management which has 

YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAAMYAHAM 

as its lofty motto should try to live upto it by solving at least the non-litigation matters like 1. 50% of last pay drawn to be taken for reckoning Pension 2.30% of the last pay drawn to be taken for reckoning the Family Pension which are in vogue in the Central Govt and RBI for their Pensioners and earn the Goodwill of the Erstwhile employees who have now become Pensioners. The monetary outlay for extending these benefits will a pittance for the Giant Financial Institution. All that is required is only a benevolent and helpful attitude on the part of the Management. Will it be too much to expect this from our Chairman?

Compliments

The letter dated 13th October, 2015 addressed to the Chairman, LIC by the General Secretary, NOIP is v. very comprehensive, covering meticulously almost all (A to Z ?) issues / grievances of all the LIC pensioners and family pensioners.

Parkinson's Law says, "Work expands to the availability of time for its completion." Horstman's Law says, "Work contracts to fit in the time we get."

NOIP and other Associations / Organisations of retired and serving officers / employees may pursue pension matters seriously. All issues, not in the courts of law, may be decided forthwith / along with wage revision. No long time respite in between, please.

Best of luck to all leaders : from all Pensioners. SN.

NOIP WRITES TO LIC CHAIRMAN

Dear Shri Gangadharanji,

NOIP delegation would meet LIC's top brass during the course 

of ensuing wage revision talks to press for the demands.

With regards,

Ashok J Joshi

General Secretary, NOIP (BMS)

Date: 13-10-2015

The Chairman,
LIC of India, Yogakshema,
Mumbai

Dear Sir,

Re: Long pending issues relating to pensioners

We are happy to learn that employees' unions have been called for wage revision talks on 16th & 17th of this month. NOIP has submitted the Charter of Demands on 23-07-2012, on the BMS Foundation Day, to the then Chairman. We request you to call NOIP for discussions on the matters raised in the said Charter and also on pending issue/grievances.You may appreciate that by calling Pensioners' Organisations for discussions; you would be listening to the voice of more than 40,000 pensioners/family pensioners of LIC. Such a big chunk of pensioners cannot be left unheard. As a leader of mammoth organization LIC, your baby step in this direction would be worthy of appreciation and other PSUs may follow the suit. We would like to draw your kind attention to the following pressing demands/issues.

1) Amendment to LIC of India (Employees') Pension Rules, 1995
Since the last 4 years we have been insisting that there is a dire need to amend the pension rules and urge upon you to recommend amendments to obviate the glaring anomalies in pension rules-

a) Computation of Basic Pension- VI Pay Commission has recommended computation of pension as average of last 10 months' basic pay or 50% of last drawn basic whichever is beneficial to the retiree. This ensures non anomalous situation if one retires in the intervening period of new wage revision. We request same rule to be applied to LIC pensioners as thousands of pensioners are affected in LIC due to the faulty method of computation of pension, being followed in LIC in such cases.

b)  Family Pension- VI Pay Commission has also recommended 30% of last pay drawn as family pension and full pension if one completes 20 years of service. For RBI pensioners, the Govt issued gazette notification dtd 12- 18 Jan, 2013, granting flat 30% of last pay drawn as family pension and full pension if 20 years service is completed. We request the same to be adopted for LIC pensioners.

c) Increased pension to pensioners of age 80 and above- VI Pay Commission has recommended increased pension to very senior citizens of age 80 and above. The same may please be granted to LIC Pensioners too.

d) One more pension option- We have been demanding one more option for pension to those who did not opt earlier. The said facility was given to Bank Pensioners during the 2010 wage revision. But LIC employees /pensioners were deprived of this offer. Hence we request you to grant one more option to opt for pension as there are hardly 15% who have been left out of the pension net. Option may please be given to those who took VRS/resigned to take care of family/had normal retirement.

e) Implementation of the Order dtd.17-12-2012 in DBSA 1492/2002 passed by the HC of Rajasthan at Jaipur - M.C.Jain's case

We learn that LIC's SLP (Civil) No.16713/2014 and Petitions for SLP to Appeal-CC No.8094/2014 arising out of the impugned order captioned above, have been dismissed by the Honorable Supreme Court vide its order dtd 02-07-2014. We request you to immediately arrange to initiate the implementation of the captioned order to similarly placed Cl I officers who retired after 01-08-1992 and up to 31-03-1993.

f) Up gradation of basic pension with every wage revision-
Provision for up grading the basic pension with every wage revision in consonance with the revision to existing employees; be also included in the amendments.

g) Anomaly of Dearness Relief- 50% reduction in rates of DR prior to 01-08-1997 and tapered DR slabs to those retired prior to 01-08-1997 have to be done away with. (Granting 100% DR neutralization).

2)  Mediclaim related issues-We are thankful to you for having finalized the floater scheme and MOU signed with New India Assurance Co Ltd. But many aspects contained therein simply remain on paper without seeing the light of implementation. (a) Even after lapse of 2 years hapless pensioners are yet to be issued ID cards either by LIC or by TPAs or by NIA for cashless hospitalization. (Except in SZ)  Though substantial efforts are done by P & IR Dept, CO, they have failed to produce the desired results. (b) Though time limit of maximum 30 days is prescribed for reimbursement , even now ground reality remains the same- TPAs are taking more time  to settle the claims after all queries are submitted. We request you to remedy the situation by your kind intervention. In some of the Divisions even pensioners' data is not up dated resulting in delay in reimbursements.

3)  Cash medical allowance- NOIP has been demanding cash medical allowance in line with in-service employees to mitigate the outpatient medical expenses that run in thousands every month. RBI's recent circular dtd.11-03-2015 in this regard is worth appreciating, as they have granted Rs.3900-6500 to their pensioners as medical allowance per year. Your benevolent gesture to LIC pensioners is requested in granting the allowance immediately.

In addition to the above to discuss the remaining demands in our Charter of Demands, we once again urge you to call NOIP also for discussions.

Awaiting your favourable action in the matter,

Thanking you,