Hitting the nail on the Head

The Cartoonist, of late, may be because of unpardonable delay in solving our pension cases in H.Cs. and in the Apex Court, has become restive and uncompromising. 

He wouldn't spare anybody's mishandling. His cartoon on advocates (in general) is hard hitting but the intent of the cartoon is not at all misplaced. 

The advocates may appreciate the same and take it sportively. They must also honestly endeavour to erase the 'bad (to the bone) impression' at the earliest.
 
SN

Points To Ponder by MV VENUGOPALAN

Sri Venugopalan has lucidly analysed the various aspects confronting us in the pension case. I would like to add a few more points for consideration:

1. Sec..21 is a general provision and Sec.48 is a special provision. In case of conflict between the two special provision will take precedence.
 
2. If an unconstitutional act is done invoking Sec.48, only that act can be declared void by courts and not the entire Section 48.
 
3. DS Nakara judgement should be viewed in the context in which it was delivered. The point in dispute in that case was the the Central Government Civil Services Pension Rules were amended from 1-4-1979 liberalising the rules for fixing the quantum of basic pension and the liberal provision was applied prospectively in respect of those retired on or after 1-4-1979 and denied to earlier retirees. 

The court held that if in an ongoing pension scheme the rules are amended conferring greater benefits to pensioners, then the benefits should be extended to all pensioners - past.present and future and not restricted to future only. It should be seen as to what extent that judgement will fit into our case.

T. Lakshminarayanan

Comments

28 Mar 16, 08:45 AM

JM Aboobucker: 

Mr MVV has put all the vital and important points of our case in a nut shell. Hope our case Managers would find it useful in presenting and arguing our case on 30th effectively and get justice for us.

MV VENUGOPALAN

Dear Editor,

The main objective of our legal fight is to gain some monetary benefits for our pensioners. It was not without any basis or rhyme or reason.In the evening of our lives we wanted to lead a dignified, decent and respectful life. We wanted to be treated on equal footing with our friends who retired at different points of time after us. In other words, we wanted to end the blatant discrimination being perpetrated and practised by LIC /GOI between two sets of pensioners; those who retired earlier and those who retired subsequently, but at different intervals. Our fight is for justice and equality for all before law. It is for parity in DR and upgraded pension, as and when the revision of pay scales is taken up for the in- service employees. Let us now examine the meandering path we have travelled in our journey so far and the points for our Case Managers to dwell deeply’

THE BOARD RESOLUTION

We are aware that this, in effect, provided the platform for us to launch our legal struggle. While the Resolution was categorical about removal of disparity between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensioners, was it equally categorical and firm about up-gradation of pension? It is argued that every time the revision takes place for the in-service employees, revise the basic pension by merging the DR (as for in-service employees) with the existing pension, with weightage of 11.25%, as on 1-8-1997,1-8-2002,1-8-2007 and 1-8-2012. The logic being , having done it on 1-8-1997, LIC is not justified in giving it a go-by in the subsequent revisions. The argument, on the face of it appears to be convincing. However, our captains should probe how much water it holds, legally.

THE JAIPUR H.C. JUDGMENT

Justice Bhandaris judgment in 2010 lay emphasis , mainly on three points. They are:

1)He ruled that for implementing the Board Resolution LIC need not go to the GOI for approval .He added “ if the Resolution dt.24-11-2001is implemented the grievance of the petitioners can come to an end”. In other words, he is emphatic that the LIC Board enjoys the autonomy in taking such decisions affecting the employees and it need not rush to the Govt in matters of regular administrative importance. Our Case Managers would do well to ascertain from LIC as to what type of resolutions have been referred to the Govt. in the past for approval invoking Sec.48 of the Insurance Act.This is all the more important since Justice.Bhandari has re;ied entirely on the Board Resolution.

2) While Justice Bhandari mentioned that “ The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of Dearness Allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31-7-1997” nowhere in the judgment he is talking about the up gradation in such clear terms. No doubt, he was eloquent when it came to the glaring disparity in the pensions drawn by the two categories of pensioners, the fact that a retiree in the lower cadre drawing much more pension than an employee who retired in a much higher cadre etc. This is one aspect which should engage the attention of the Case Managers and our counsel.

3) He has quoted the rationale and logic behind D.S Nakaras judgment (constitutional Bench) extensively , thus underpinning the gaping discrimination prevalent .He adds “In the case of pensioners it is necessary to revise the pension periodically as the continuous fall in the rupee value and the rise in prices of essential commodities necessitates an adjustment of the pension amount”. This is the crux of the issue for which we are fighting the legal battle. The Chairman of the 7th Pay Commission has also endorsed this view, unconditionally.

SECTION 48

In view of the existence of Article 14 of the Constitution, Section 48 becomes anti-constitutional. It is , generally agreed in the legal circles that no law can be enacted which runs counter to a constitutional provision. Therefore, in case Sec 48 is invoked we have all the reason to raise a hue and cry. Again, our leaders should find out in how many cases Govt. has invoked Sec.48 in the past and disapproved a Board Resolution referred to the Govt.for approval. Moreover, in this case, the Govt.has taken an unduly long time to convey their decision. Does not silence mean acquiescence? Again, the Govt.has created discrimination within discrimination by making the up-gradation applicable to the Chairmen and MDs by calling them their appointees. It is evident from all these, that Sec 48 is bad in law and deserves to be struck down.

OUR PENSION RULES

Our Pension Rules are silent about periodical up-gradation. That is exactly the reason it provides for adopting CG Employees Pension Rules 72, wherever our Pension Rules are not clear about it. The fact remains that our Pension Rules have been framed after the CG Employees Rules and hence this cannot be quoted by LIC for denying us up-gradation.

By conceding our demand, the Govt. will not be making a major departure from its stand on such issues because the Civil Servants, Central Govt Employees, a number of State Govt.Employees and now the Defence Employees are all enjoying the benefits of OROP already.

OTHER MATTERS

Make impleadment a reality as quickly as possible. The leaders may also check whether any verdict or Order passed by either the H.C or the S.C are automatically applicable to all the stakeholders. If so, why then the ‘IN REM’ decision of Delhi H.C was not made applicable to all the pensioners.

The above are certain points which I had gathered from the columns of the PC which I have tried to put them in one corner. I have borrowed in the process ideas and opinions from regular contributors to the PC like MESSRS. M.S.Murty, C.H. Mahadevan, A.S. Ramanathan, S.N (1992), K.M.L Asthana, G.N.Sridharan and others. Most of them being legal luminaries, I trust, they will not proceed against me for ‘plagiarism’!!. May I request our Case Managers to give the above write-up a quick run-through before finding their way to the Supreme Court?

With Greetings,
M.V.VENUGOPALAN

Mr B R Mehta's post on DA Parity & 20%

I refer to the above post by Mr B R Mehta. It is true that 100% DR neutralisation was not the prayer in 1997 when the WP was  filed originally by Mr K M L Asthana as I understand..The prayer was only to remove the disparity arising out of taking 50% of average emoluments for fixing pension  and again slashing the tapering slabs by 50%  for the purpose of calculating the DR.The  prayer for 100% DR neutralisation was made only in the Class I Retirees' Federation's  WP in Delhi HC filed in 2007,if I remember right. But as and when time elapsed with another WP 654/2007 filed in Jaipur Bench,the prayer for removal of DR disparity gained strength with the Jaipur Bench allowing the first WP with the prayer that the DR formula cannot be different from that for in-service employees, which principle was followed for employees who retired after 1/8/1997 and that principle enjoined 100% DR neutralization as well for the retirees after the 2000 wage revision notification w.e.f 1/8/1997. There was no question of 100% DR Neutralisation either for in-service employees or retirees before 1/8/1997.

Ironically, when Jaipur Bench  allowed the petition  to remove the DR disparity and directed LIC to implement the Board Resolution, LIC instead of recognizing that the LIC Board Resolution had in fact decided that DR disparity should be removed for pre-August 1997 retirees and pension should be upgraded with weightage of 11.25% as was done in case of in-service employees, chose to only merge the existing anomalous DR with the existing Basic Pension as at 1/8/1997 that too  without providing the weightage when it was  directed  to deposit the amounts due to the petitioners at Jaipur & Chandigarh.This was also done as an one-time process of revision instead of consistently adopting the method followed on 1/8/2002 and subsequent wage revision dates.

Such an act on the part of LIC resulted in the revised pension being less than what the existing gross pension would have been if only LIC had simply removed the DR disparity without any upgradation.LIC's Board Resolution could not have been intended to provide a disadvantage to the affected pensioners instead of  paving  way for improvements in pension.If pension for pre-August 1997 retirees had to be only revised through the method followed by LIC for their court deposits,it only proves that the Board Resolution had been grossly distorted in interpretation by LIC. Implementation of LIC Board Resolution has no meaning if (1) DR anomaly is not removed from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever is later; (2) Merger of the correct DR is not done with weightage on 1/8/1997 with repetition of the process  on every  wage revision date for the pre August 1997 retirees.If (I) &(2) above are taken care of  upgradation of pension on OROP will result.

Once this is ensured, then perforce,LIC will have to upgrade pension for post July 1997 retirees on a similar basis.This is where the correct 20% determination of IR becomes very relevant

I have dealt with the above points  ad nauseum in many of my earlier writings and thought it proper to reiterate them   in addition to clarifying  the point raised by Mr B R Mehta.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

Comments

27 Mar 16, 07:49 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: Basic question is discrimination in doling out pension. Between various categories among lic pensioners. Among pensioners and serving employees. And also between lic pensioners & central govt pensioners.

The HCs have held that discrimination between various categories of employees is not valid. The SC has held in various cases that discrimination in the benefits of pension is not permissible. Apart from nitty-gritty details of calculations and points of law, there is the question of equity in treatment. But the slow process of law also stares at us. These realities must be swallowed by us.

When the going gets tough...

 When the going gets tough the tough get going

 What Shri Sunil Mitra ( a 2000 pensioner) has said in "20% versus 100%" is not different from what a few well informed others have suggested. But, Shri Mitra has touched  only the heart of the matter, the core issue which is getting murkier and bigger by the day. The gullible pensioners are made to grope in dark as LIC has not yet disclosed the details of payment made. A+B+C=D; but, it is not possible to know what exactly is D without knowing what exactly A, B, and C stand for.

Many, including the 'undersigned' have put pressure on Shri C.H.Mahadevan on "20% vs 100%" or on some other issues. He must be strong enough to beat all odds and put up with pressures. All in order to meet the public demand. All for his fellow pensioners' good.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Comments

26 Mar 16, 04:49 PM

a v subbaraman: sh a. s. ramanathan's post 'divided,we fight together' is the correct stand of  pensioners. Regarding 100% sh chm has already calculated the amount. So there is no difficulty in presenting the amount in SC.

Comments

26 Mar 16, 10:01 AM

B. Ganga Raju:

In the interregnum between the adjournments there are many interesting discussions in the blog about quantification of amount due to pensioners by way of DR parity and updation. Every pensioner is not an expert at calculations but there are qualified people to help us. 

A leader is basically a good organiser and he need not be a subject expert as long as he can draw from the well of abundant expertise available in the industry. Only thing required is the expert's advice must be examined without prejudice or blinkers.

Hope our case managers have by now a correct idea of what is 20 per cent and what is 100%. CHM proved that what is paid is less than 20%. Those who want to concentrate on 100%, I hope, have arrived at correct quantification of what is 100 per cent. Otherwise the entire discussion on the topic will be like an unending philosophical discourse about Brahmapadardha. Discourses in the style of " nethi nethi " ( not this not this ) will not deliver justice to our fraternity. CHM is providing detailed calculations of what is 100 per cent ? Others appear to be unwilling to share their knowledge about this in public domain. Be it so. It is sufficient if they project the matter correctly before the bench and foil the likely mischief of counsels for LIC/GOI.

20% versus 100%. (Attention: Shri KML and Shri CHM)‏

Enough number of discussions have been held regarding this issue. I am trying to enlist the necessary steps here:

The 100% amount has to be first ascertained correctly in order to calculate what the correct 20% is. Hence, the 100% amount has to be calculated immediately for the Jaipur petitioners (taking into account both the writ petitions), although the final verdict has not been passed yet.

Then we can challenge LIC on 30 March 2016, following our method of calculation.

In that case, the court may order LIC to pay the correct amount to the petitioners right now.

If and when the final verdict goes in our favour, LIC will not be able to get away with faulty calculations.

Otherwise, if the 20% amount is not correctly calculated at this point, then, even if we win the case finally, LIC will simply multiply the incorrect 20% by 5 and render the judgment partially a farce.

Regards,

Sunil Mitra (2000 pensioner)

AS RAMANATHAN

SN (A 1992 PENSIONER)

The operative part of the Rajasthan (Jaipur) High Court judgement dt.12-01-2010 is as follows:

" In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for implementation of the resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board. The respondent Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of dearness allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. Costs made easy. (M.N. BHANDARI) "

In LIC , DA/DR was on tapering- reducing percentage basis till 01-08-1997. In short, .35 rate per slab DA hike up to Rs.4800/- for working employees and up to Rs.2400/- for pensioners. Shri KMLA in his first petition (1998) prayed that the rate per slab hike in DA/DR for pensioners should be the same as applicable to employees. In other words, the pensioners drawing pension up to Rs.4800/- should get .35 rate per slab hike like serving employees. For further details, the Judgement copy available on PC may kindly be referred.

[As per 4th CPC, the GOI employees and pensioners too got DA/DR on tapering basis. viz. 100% neutralisation in DA to employees drawing pay up to Rs.3500/- and to pensioners drawing pension up to Rs.1750/-. Pensioners getting reducing percentage of DR thereafter - on their pension amount - half of basic pay, while working employees got on their basic pay. There was no 'equal' treatment , there was no 'parity' in DA/DR in GOI between the working employees and pensioners as pleaded by Shri Asthana.

It is to the credit of 5th CPC - it asked ( recommended) for the impossible to get (got) the best possible- the GOI granted 100% DA/DR to its employees, pensioners as well as to its family pensioners from 01-01-1996. (100% DA /DR immensely helped the seniors and those in higher category drawing higher pay or pension.)

All those retired before 01-01-1996, got updation on notional basis on certain norms.]

While LIC granted 100% DA to its all serving employees from 01-08-1997, it did not extend 100% DR to pensioners retired before 01-08-1997. No updation to anybody.

Shri KMLA in his second petition along with few others have pleaded for 100% DR ( full neutralisation in DA/DR for those retired before 01-08-1997 and periodic updating of pension along with pay revision of in- service employees.

At the P&H Court - in brief :

The petitioners at the Chandigarh High Court are retired Class I officers of L.I.C. They have challenged the discrimination against employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.8.1997 while framing Rules with regard to grant of Dearness Relief to pensioners at par with in-service employees, up-gradation of pension and have prayed for removal of anomaly in the matter of rate of Dearness Relief to pensioners and Dearness Allowance to serving employees on the same amount of pension/salary and up-gradation of pension on pay revision and to implement the decision passed by the Corporation in its meeting of the Board of Directors dated 24.11.2001 and to fix pension of the petitioners as per the substituted scales of pay equivalent to the stage applicable to them in the scrapped pay scale as on the date of their retirement and pay,pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on and from 1.8.1997 and thereafter on and from 1.8.2002 with all consequential benefits with 12% interest. The petitioners have given a note in the index of the writ petition that a similar case i.e. CWP No.654 of 2007 titled as KMLA Vs. LIC of India and others was allowed by the Rajasthan High Court directing the respondent-Corporation to take a decision for implementation of the Resolution dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Board holding that the Corporation cannot provide different criteria for grant of Dearness Allowance to the existing pensioners based on cut off date i.e. 31.7.1997 and as such, the benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit.

The operative part of Chandigarh High Court is as follows:

" After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that since it is not in dispute that similar relief prayed for by the petitioners has been granted by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of KMLA which has been maintained in appeal and the petitioners are satisfied with the same order, the present writ petition is thus, allowed, in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid case."

A lot of water has flown under the Ganges since above two judgements and the judgement of Delhi High Court, a lot more has happened in the courts, including in the Supreme Court, during the last one decade and more.

Our learned leadership and their counsellors alike, with empathy in their heart of hearts, are standing on the threshold of justice for quite a longtime, all praying for the favourable justice to the pensioners.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

(From various sources

Part II

Dear Editor,

I plead guilty that in the Ist Part,  I put the cart before the horse by directly approaching the subject proper. I mean, I must have started by congratulating our Editor for the superb manner in which he covered the court proceedings on 16th. We also owe our gratitude to Mr.Murty for the series of messages sent to the Blog from Delhi, encompassing the court-room happenings. His summing-up, after the hearing was over, deserves special mention.

Since sending my earlier Post I happened to see the correction regarding our first writ filed at Jaipur H.C. by Mr.Lakshminarayanan. I stand corrected, though, in essence, the aspect of discrimination and disparity between the pre-1997 and post –1997 remain unaltered. The 20% Enigma is a real one and not the result of a flight of imagination. I have no doubt in my mind that if at all our case is taken up on 30th of this month, LIC is going to repeat and maintain that the amounts deposited by them in the Registries of the respective HCs are the correct one, according to their method of calculation. To support their claim, they may also quote the arrears paid to the members of the Federation, which was meekly accepted by them. Then, it is for the Hyderabad group to bring to the notice of the Bench the fallacies in their arguments and establish the correctness of their calculations. In so far as no worthwhile hearing has taken place with regard to our core issues, don’t they think that the 20% conundrum will hijack both the Up-gradation and the DR issue in its totality? It will be time again for the Jaipur and Hyderabad camps to indulge in their favourite game of blaming each other for the delay.

Let me now try to answer some of the questions raised by Mr.M.S.Murty in his Post to PC dt. 19-3-2016. They are as follows:

Question: Assuming that SC dismisses all LIC appeals and the SLPs by UOI and consequently the Jaipur judgment is upheld, how does anybody visualise LICs compliance on up-gradation. And correct DR formula for pre-1997 retirees?

My Answer: I still believe that we have not completely lost our respect for the judiciary. Any Order emanating from the Apex Court should be and will be implemented by LIC, may be,perhaps, by creating temporary hurdles in the process. Neither LIC nor the GOI cannot openly challenge or defy the Order. Are we trying to say that we have no faith in the SC ? Once the final verdict is out, who knows that both GOI and LIC may sense the situation and implement the SC Order as early as possible.

Question: What compels LIC to act differently from what it is doing now?

My Answer: We are responsible, to a large extent, for the way both GOI and LIC are behaving now? When the 7th May Order was fraught with ambiguity, what prevented our case managers from seeking a clarification from the SC as to whether the 20% arrears referred to DR or it included Updated pension arrears also, and whether the 20% arrears of DR would satisfy the methodology adopted by Mr. Mahadevan in calculating it? This created the mayhem subsequently witnessed by us in the ridiculous pursuit of the 20% arrears of the dues to the pensioners, as per the impugned H.C. Order.

Question: How will the benefit go to all AIRIEF members not to talk of other 40,000 pensioners? Do they invoke Delhi Order? At what stage?

My Answer: How is the above poser a justification for raising the inaccuracy factor involved in the calculation of 20% arrears?. The Delhi Order, if I have correctly understood, pertains only to all the members of the Federation, as evidenced by the Federation to the fullest satisfaction of LIC. That is perhaps the reason why the ‘in rem’ of Delhi Order got confined to the Federation members and not all pensioners. If it be so, how can AIRIEF invoke the Delhi Order? (If I am factually wrong, I am amenable to correction).

Once bitten, twice shy. From our experience in the past it is natural for Mr. Murty to have raised the above doubts. But how on earth it justifies anybody deviating from our core issues and accord overwhelming importance to the accuracy of 20% calculation of the arrears? How it will be “..suicidal for the fraternity of LIC pensioners to isolate the 20% IR as paid by LIC from the 100% due to them...” Mr.Mahadevan, is on course in taking up the cause of the family pensioners. We have a case here and in the interest of the surviving members of the pensioners, we have a moral duty to take it up with LIC and see that their benefits are on par with what is paid to the RBI family pensioners or even better. This is altogether a different issue and NOW is not the time to take it up, bringing in the 20% ENIGMA? Why mix Oranges with Apples?

On the other hand, what really matters right now is, SECURE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE HEARING, WHEN THE COURT REGISTRY SAYS OUR CASE IS NO 1 ENSURE THAT IT IS REALLY NO.1 AND NOT 1 AFTER ALL THE MISC.CASES ARE TAKEN UP. HIRE THE SERVICES OF SUCH EFFICIENT COUNSEL WHO ALSO HAS A CERTAIN RAPPORT WITH THOSE WHO MATTER IN THE SC AND LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST ACCORD PRIORITY TO UP-GRADATION, WHICH ONLY CAN BRING SUCCOUR TO ALL THE PENSIONERS.

The community of LIC pensioners, today is a hapless lot. They don’t enjoy the support of the Govt. nor even the Institution for which they gave their sweat and blood for 30/40 years. They are already suffering from mounting medical expenses and multifarious age-related problems. It is almost two decades since we started the legal battle. Even after the case has reached its last stages, final verdict from the Apex Court is eluding them. Whatever a few of them received as arrears is definitely not what they should have. It is out of desperation, perhaps, they had to take the ignominious decision of accepting it. It does not serve any purpose our shedding crocodile tears as and when one of them bid good-bye to this world. We have a duty to set aside our personal egos and a craving for fulfilling our pet whims and fancies and do everything in our power to see that they get justice – justice without any further delay, a delay created and nurtured by us.

With Greetings,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN

DA PARITY plus 20% PAYMENT

Dear Editor,

While joining discussions on two basic issues D.A Parity + 20% Payment, first let me endorse views expressed by our friend Sh. T. Lakshminarayana that GOI notification for wage agreement wef 01.08.1997 was issued in year 2000 only which for first time allowed 100 % D.A neutralisation to working employees which is the sole basis of our legal battle for D.A Parity for pre 01.08.1997 retirees. Under such situation how writ can be filed in 1997 for this core issue coming before our then pensioners in year 2000 only. Since Sh. C.H. Mahadeven was in active service in year 2000 so we request him to kindly clarify this point for our satisfaction.

Next coming to 20 % payment issue, I differ with Sh. M.V. Venugopalan since he has not touched core issue why LIC has not paid 20 %( which works out to be only 1.3 % of actually due ) interim payment as per supreme court order dated 07.05.2015 followed by another order dated 07.09.2015 to all retirees of pre 01.08.1997 category as per Delhi High Court Verdict directing implementation as per in rem principle . Our two case managers namely KML + GNS are also not willing to ensure payment to all eligible pensioners . Why this fact should not be brought to the notice of Bench hearing our case ? And when Sh. Murty makes an honest attempt on this issue, there seems to be no logic that KML who himself did not perform this duty should criticise Sh. Murty.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

Thumb not amenable

(Thanks SN for the image. Why not thumb? It can also bend and join the rule.)

DR DISCRIMINATION

In his post Sri Venugopalan has stated that WP No.6667/1997 filed by Sri Asthana in Jaipur HC was for parity in DR between pre-Aug.97 and post-Aug.97 pensioners. It is not so. In fact, when this Writ was filed in the year 1997, the discrimination in DR formula had not arisen at all. The Government Notification dt. 21-6-2000 providing for 100% neutralisation in DR for post-1-8-97 pensioners and denying same for pre-1-8-97 ones brought the discrimination.

Sri Asthana!s Writ Petition No.6667/1997 was for parity in DR formula between employees and pensioners from inception of Pension Scheme i.e.1-11-1993. His contention is that Pensioners and Employees were not paid DR/DA at same rates. My view on this is different and according to me there is no case at all.

T. Lakshminarayanan

NOIP WRITES ALSO ON MEDICLAIM RELATED ISSUES

   

Date: 22-03-2016

The Executive Director (E&OS),
Yogakshema, MUMBAI

Dear Sir,

Re: Mediclaim related issues

Please find herewith enclosed the copy of a letter written by an aggrieved pensioner of Meerut Dn.

In fact the problem of Meerut Dn is the representative case encompassing the whole of country. We request you to bestow your personal attention in the matter in respect of the following issues involved in the scheme.

1) The mediclaim data master in each Division is not pucca with so many discrepancies. We get a lot of complaints from Divisions especially Meerut Dn where the situation is the worst as depicted in the enclosed letter. Till now master is not purified and during availing cashless and claims, members face a real difficulty.

2) Proper in time communication to pensioners is not being done in many a Divisions.

3) ID cards for cashless are yet to be issued in many offices.

4) Despite MOU with New India, claim settlement is delayed even beyond 3 months where cashless not availed due to many problems involved in the implementation of cashless.

5) The staff dealing with pensioners has to be empathetic, caring and helpful. This needs no explanation.

6) Many pensioners go out of the scheme on the ground that premium payment was not done in time. There are thousands of such cases and we request you to issue general instructions to all Divisions to include such left out cases on representation by the aggrieved.

7) Now that monthly recovery of premium is approved by you, the problem is obviated. But Divisions have to ensure that monthly recovery is ensured properly in respect of all retirees where communication is a bottle neck.

We urge upon you to issue proper instructions to all the offices in this regard and oblige.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,
(General Secretary)

NOIP WRITES TO LIC

22-3-2016

The Executive Director (F&A),
Yogakshema, MUMBAI

Dear Sir,

Re: Wage revision arrears to retirees vis-à-vis IT recovery issues

We have been receiving a lot of complaints from various divisions in the country regarding IT deduction related issues and we urge upon you to issue clear cut instructions to all the offices of LIC of India. We acknowledge your instructions vide circular dtd.1-1-2016 ref EDA/ZDB/998 and those instructions are also not being followed by the offices. Some of the aberrations/grievances are detailed here below.

1) Relief u/s 89 of IT Act- Despite your clear instructions to allow relief u/s 89, some of the offices are interpreting that relief is allowed only to in-service employees and not to retirees. We have to pity their ignorance. Retirees had to fight to get this relief. Your clarification circular in this regard is solicited.

2) Taxing the PF portion- Another great injustice is being perpetrated on the retirees. The difference in PF recovered from wages is shown as taxable income and huge tax is recovered. Retirees do not mind this portion of PF being diverted to Zonal PF Dept and then payment of the same to retirees from PF Dept. Instead of this they have shown this portion as income without allowing deductions from total arrears (as is being done in case of in-service employees) and huge IT is recovered on this non-taxable portion. It is pertinent here to note that many retired persons have not reached Rs.1.50 lac limit u/s 80 ©in each FY of wage revision period. Hence it is requested that this portion of PF recovery should be shown under the same Head and necessary deductions be allowed in IT for respective FYs u/s 89. Whether the retirees claim this PF portion for IT rebate or not but the PF portion does not come under the Head “income” for taxing purpose. Had the wage rise would have been given in time from 1-8-2012; the retirees would not have faced this situation. They are not at fault. This matter needs your immediate attention as it has become a burning issue to retirees who are getting wage arrears.

We implore upon you to immediately issue clear cut instructions in the matter and oblige.

Thanking you anticipating your immediate necessary action in the matter,

Yours faithfully,
(General Secretary)

Dear Editor,

It is both amusing and agonising to find that the scene has shifted from Sec 48 to 20% of the amount due to the pensioners as per the Interim Order of the SC dt 7-5-2015. Shri.Asthana says that unless you know what 100% is, you will never know what 20% is. Mr.Mahadevan argues that as per his calculation 100 divided by 5 is not 20 but only 1.3%. The ordinary onlooker-pensioners are bewildered and utterly confused. They are under the impression, perhaps, that the basics of arithmetic is going through an evolution - it is changing.

We filed two petitions, 6667/1997 for parity in DR between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensioners and 654/2007 for up-gradation of pension as and when the pay scales are revised for the in-service employee in the Jaipur H.C. In 2010, we also got a favourable judgment from Jaipur H.C. upholding our contention. We filed those writ petitions with the sole purpose of eliminating the glaring disparity in pension between the past and present pensioners and ensure a dignified living condition for the otherwise beleaguered pensioners. At that point of time, we never had the intention of wresting from the relevant court an order which was perfect in all respects; one which gave no room for any anomalies. That being so, I don’t understand the logic behind the Hyderabad group getting stuck up in the quagmire of the multifarious facets of calculations involved in the accuracy and correctness of the 20% arrears as ordered by the SC by their IR dt 7-5-2015. We criticised Mr.Sridharan, left ,right and center for only spearheading the DR issue and sidelining the up-gradation issue. He had his own reasons for doing it. Being the General Secretary of the Federation championing the cause of the Class-I Pensioners, we felt, he can't be only taking up the cause of a section of the members but all of them. In raising the issue of the correctness of 20% arrears deposited by LIC, we have, in fact, narrowed down the number of the beneficiaries. There is no clear indication anywhere in Mr.Murty's write-ups, that when they rake up this issue, the 20% arrears they are talking about includes the arrears of updated pension too. Otherwise, wouldn't it mean that he is also batting for Mr.Sridharan? If it is so, are they not leaving the entire 45000 pensioners in the lurch, and the post-1997 pensioners in particular.

From what Mr.Asthana has written, it looks like he doesn't want to get entangled in the 20% enigma and instead vote for 100% settlement of DR. It doesn't seem that he also expects the arrears to include the updated pension too. Both Mr.Asthana and Mr. Murty, when the SC Interim Order dt 7-5-2015 was delivered averred that the Order meant both DR as well as Up-graded pension arrears. A number of them, particularly Mr.Tyagi was very right in directing their ire against the Case Managers as they were shocked to find that they, the Case Managers, have lost direction and are paving the ground for prolonging the case to the positive detriment of our “Up-gradation Issue”. When Mr.Asthana filed a contempt petition in Jaipur H.C against LIC and when he raised the maintainability issue at a later stage in the SC, the other two, rightly so, bombarded him for unnecessarily stretching the case. By enticing the SC now to dwell on the micro-details of the methodology of calculation of arrears, are they not exactly doing it. It is still a mystery as to whether the Bench has any idea as to what this calculation is all about, especially on a previous occasion, when they made it amply clear that they are not concerned with the “computational facet” of the arrears .Everyone of us is aware that in any settlement there are bound to be anomalies and they can be treated as a separate issue and dealt with later on. Are we so sure that even if the SC rules in our favour with regard to the Up-gradation of pension, it will be on stage to stage basis as contemplated by us. The fact of the matter is that both in respect of DR and Up-gradation, even if we get a verdict in our favour, its implementation will throw up points of disagreement and dispute, more so when the implementing authority is LIC. So, is it not wise on our part to shelve the 20% –100% ENIGMA for the time being, focuss on securing a verdict from the SC, favouring in principle our claim and sort out the less important issues like the accuracy of calculations subsequently, if necessary, through legal means. This only can be an acceptable approach as far as the entire community of pensioners are concerned.


M.V.VENUGOPALAN

(To be continued)

Comments

22 Mar 16, 03:36 PM

Perumalmaruthu: 

"Veg Patriot" is also one of the BEST cartoons!

This blog, that blog, the other blog, another blog...

IN A SHOP WE HAVE TO KEEP ALL ITEMS

Dear Editor,

Following trends being observed for the last few proceedings at Supreme Court have now almost become like a normal practice .

1. AIRIEF appointed Sh. G. Krishnaswamy as its official spokesperson who was earlier its Treasurer and presently being its General Secretary with his H.Q at Banglore and it was communicated very clearly that no body else (KML also included) will be authorised to speak on behalf of AIRIEF except its official spokesperson.

However, normal trend being seen by all of us is that only KML is speaking and its official spokesperson is silent.

2. On the day of SC Proceedings date, Sh. Murty through your blog tells all concerned what is latest and as such your blog has emerged as fastest source of information. That is the reason for record number of hits for your PC on any such date.

After a few days gap it is not AIRIEF Spokesperson but unauthorised person Sh. KML who will place his version on another blog first followed by LICPC later on and his version is primarily based on lesser reporting but more misreporting targetting Sh. Murty.

3. Since after reading KML Version, we are eager to ask him a few questions about his so called Facts. We send our such questions to another blog first where his version was uploaded initially. But Editor of another blog refuses to upload our questions addressed to KML due to reasons best known to him only.

Next, we send our questions to your blog and we are obliged to you that you happen to be a neutral editor providing an opportunity to your readers to know the opposite side also.

But the normal trend becoming a practice is that KML never replies such questions .God bless him.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

(We have only a cartoon interest in this matter. Thru the editoral cartoon, we have explained the point. Otherwise we wish to keep aloof from the matter which is sought to be explained by Shri Mehta in so many words. -Ed.)

The vegetarian 'patriots'

Revision of Family Pension

There is a long pending issue relating to family pensioners. Everyone knows that our family pensioners receive a pittance. Everyone also knows that the family pensioners of GOI and RBI are getting family pension at 30% of the basic pay reckoned for pension of the retired employee. Some senior leaders have tried in the past but without success in getting the family pension increased on par with GOI/RBI.

In a meeting held with the leaders of AIRIEF, the Management expressed (inability) that the revision/updation of family pension at 30% requires amendment to Pension Rules. The Management says the revision requires Government's approval. It also requires issue of government notification under Sec.48 of the LIC Act, 1956. But, unless the matter is initiated with the GOI and moved, pursued seriously, majority of family pensioners would not get increased pension in the immediate or near future.

There are few successful bidders. It is in the hands of persons like Shri C.H. Mahadevan, who are held in high esteem by those at (the helm of affairs) the Central Office. His letter, his requisition, about two months back, regarding payment of enhanced premium received a positive response and prompt action by the office. He received a few words of praise from some quarter.

A simple request : Shri. Mahadevan may take the up the matter with higher ups. He is not going leave things half done. Nothing succeeds like success.

Incidentally, there is need to boost the sagging morale and to awaken the insipid inner spirit of the family pensioners and (old) pensioners. It is possible only by rekindling the fire of hope within their hearts. May God bless.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner)

Chat-n-Chat column comments

MEDICLAIM: DINESH NAIK'S QUERY

Dear Gangadharan,

Today I read the question in ur blog. I do not have his address. If it is available with u, kindly advise him to send application under RTI both to Divisional Office, New India under Mumbai Regional office and also to ED, RTI, LIC CO, Mumbai to get written reply from New India and also LIC.


I can say with all the authority at my command that the REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES ON HOSPITALISATION SCHEME TO EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS IS NOTHING BUT A FRAUD. WE ARE BEING CHEATED JOINTLY BY LIC AND NEW INDIA. IF THE MATTER CAN BE SENT TO ME AS AN ATTACHMENT, I CAN TAKE UP WITH NIA AND LIC UNDER RTI.

CS MURTY,  09441242417   

SN: "Something good going to happen"!

FLOATER GROUP MEDICLAIM POLICY

Dear Editor,

Namaskar, hope this first communication from me shall be received by you in your good health.

I am  an  Pre.AUG,1997 HGA retiree from BHARUCH BRACH, BARODA DIVISION (GUJARAT).  I thought it fit to approach you for  clarification.

• TAILOR-MADE FLOATER GROUP MEDICLAIM POLICY (Floater Benefits)  

(Definition No. 12)

• Floater benefits  means the sum insured as specified for  a particular Insured and the members of his/her family as covered under the policy and is available for any or all  the members of his/her family for one or more claims during the tenure of the policy.

To the above definition, I would like to have your  opinion  for following query.

A pensioner has opted for Rs.15,00,000/- cover and paid premium for self and two  dependent members (premium separately paid for all  as per schedule TABLE-A & B)

To the extent of my  understanding,  the pensioner has paid premium separately as per Tables A and B for all the three persons covered, and therefore cover of Rs.15,00,000/- is available to each member separately, for one or more claim to the extent of S.A.  If it is so,  here it is fixed that all the three members will get cover of a fixed S.A. for one or more claim to the extent of S.A. What shall then the Floater Benefit be?

Now, if a pensioner or any member covered under this cover, happens to have hospitalisation expenses more than the cover (SA), here 15,00,000/-, what shall be the position?

Whether the pensioner has to bear the expenses above the SA cover for self or the said member? Or  anything shall float to cover the excess expenses incurred, from cover for other members of the family when the policy is titled as FAMILY FLOATER GROUP MEDICLAIM POLICY.

If the answer of this query is negative to say that  the over-expenses shall be borne by the pensioner,  I feel the policy should be called Fixed Cover Policy and not the floater cover policy. Will somebody give me a clarification ? 

DINESH NAIK

Reply to Bhargava's comments

B.D.Bhargava’s remarks:

C.H.Mahadevan has calculated arrears of Mr Asthana up to 7.5.2015.
Whereas he should have taken arrears up to date of Jaipur High Court
judgment.

My response:

I have not calculated the arrears of Mr Asthana upto 7/5/2015, but
had calculated them as at 31/8/2015 as LIC had paid IR to the 1200
plus pensioners as per the SC directions on 7/9/2015 for payment
within two weeks. The payment was made by LIC in September 2015 for
pensioners identified by it.

I have not calculated upto the present date,viz., 29/2/2016 because, I
wanted to compare the percentage of IR paid to the dues actually
payable on the relevant date. As stated by me the IR worked out to
1.3% of the dues as at 31/8/2015 against the percentage of 20%
stipulated by SC.

Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

Court proceedings in retrospection

This refers to Shri Asthana’s note on the Supreme court’s proceedings on 17 March which is very eloquent in its detailed narration of the court’s proceedings. 

• What I understood was that unless you know what comprises the 100 % of DR you cannot say that the 20 % calculation on the 100 % DR arrears is right or wrong which poses a riddle! As of now the beleaguered pensioners some of them suffering from dementia, some not mentally alert due to advancing age, and for few others solving any riddle is anathema and for one like me this 20 % 100% riddle is mind boggling. Suffice to say that what a layman like me in a very advanced age understood when the 20 % arrears was received by him was that he was fortunate to receive some payment and call it adhoc or in whatever name it suits one and for the time being he could pocket something which others were deprived of. Some time back Shri Mahadevan has worked out how LIC has deliberately erred in the calculation and how they have flouted the Rajasthan HC order but for whom we would not have understood the nitty gritty of the calculation. Thanks to him.

If the anomaly is not brought to the notice of the court at the right time LIC would think that ignorance to us is a bliss will go scot free to calculate the 100 % arrears as they like and is it not prudent to raise our voice on this issue rather than fearing that should we do so the much desired upgradation pension will get into the back burner?

What I wrote should not be construed as an act to besmirch the image of any one. Take it in a lighter and humorous vein.

R.K.Viswanathan

Thanks

• We all appreciate with thanks, the efforts of LIC Pensioners Chronicle in conveying the valuable information of LIC Pensioners so speedily.

• I am simply a pensioner interested in the welfare of all my brother pensioners, with a humble request that 'this is not the time to play blame game'. All should come on one platform and fight in the interest of all the pensioners & you will realize that entire 40000 Pensioners' Community is behind you like a 'ROCK'.

 N K Vaid, New Delhi

SN (A 1992 PENSIONER)

SHRI KML ASTHANA'S VERSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SC ON 17TH MARCH 2016

TO READ, CLICK BELOW.

M.Sreenivasa Murty

They need to answer the following simple questions:

1.     

     Assuming that SC dismisses all LIC Appeals and the SLPs by UoI, AND consequently the Jaipur Judgement is upheld, how does anybody visualize LIC's compliance on up-gradation? And correct DR Formula for pre-97 retirees?

2.      What compels LIC to act differently from what it is doing now?. 

3.      How will the benefit go to all AIRIEF members not to talk of other 40000 Pensioners? Do they invoke Delhi Order? At what stage?

4.      What is the justification for AIRIEF's repeated somersaults on impleading before SC?

5.      If upgradation in principle and to PAY ALL components are not ensured even for interim Order purposes,, how will anybody ensure it in the FINAL ACT? 

If one cannot answer the above questions satisfactorily, the least one can do is to let the doers do their job.  Let all other Agendas be kept aside.

Finally, our strategy has worked already because, both LIC and SC are now compelled to look at Final decisions on Appeals because each time it gets delayed,, we keep raising our demand

‘PAY 20% CORRECTLY & AND TO ALL’.

I really don’t know why anybody should have any problem with this strategy.. Where does it hurt them?  

Our case 101 on 30th * Court sits upto 1 PM * Misc. cases might eat up avl time * So rest is GOK!

18 Mar 16, 11:01 PM

JM Aboobucker: At last we have been put on the TOP OF THE LIST for 30th hearing, our rank being 1 with Sl No.101.

But we do not know how many Misc. Cases will be listed on 30th before our turn One more hitch is also there. Our Court will sit only upto 1 PM, hardly about 2hrs and 30 minutes. So we have to keep our fingers crossed despite being on the Top of the List

Discussion

AS RAMANATHAN

(A representative image only)

At 2 pm when I opened my laptop to see

the SC score board, I found the number 5

and that prompted me to remember the

Cricket commentary of the Maharajkumar

of Vijayanagaram, called Vizy in cricket

circles, in the test match between India and

England. In that Test Match Ken Barrington

was facing Bapu Naekarni. The bowling

was so accurate and Vizy commented that

if a nail is driven on the pitch at good length

point, Bapu Nadkarni will hit all his balls

on the head. Barrington was defending all

those balls with the full face of the bat in

a forward defence, without any score.

Overs and overs were bowled and the great Vizy started 

changing his commentary, saying Borinton to face Nadkarni, 

in exasperation and in lighter vein.

Many of us were in the same state of mind on seeing item No.5 not moving, then came the shock of 103 disappearing with later stories telling differently. The Ides of March really came to haunt many. 

Caesar of course died but Mark Anthony did arse to make his pulpit speech. Hopes never die but aspiration may, sometimes. I am reminded of the Malayalam saying “appam thinnano, kuzhni ennano”, which will literally nearer to saying should we count the dipressions in the appa chatty or eat the kuzhiappam. 

Let us pray that the Hon. Bench will make us see the centum and not the two scores. Believe me ours is a very simple case, that has somehow reached the SC to take our blood pressure go high. There is no technicality nor any legal theory or evidence to be evaluated. The irony of it all is that the case has not been even presented at all. Let us search our conscience and stop playing up emotions. 

As septuagenarians or octogenarians let us not lose our balance. Take the adjournment in lighter vein. Test Matches are going to be a thing of the past, giving room to T-20s, and adjournments will become advantages. Similarly let us hope, like 5 days ordeals left to give 120 balls, Judgement will also, we get in 120 days instead of so many months.

A.S.Ramanathan

SC CIRCULAR RE LISTING OF CASES

(5) Wednesday and Thursday of the week have been fixed exclusively for listing regular hearing matters/appeals. 

However, any miscellaneous/final disposal matter henceforth directed by the Hon'ble Court to be listed on either of these days will also be listed.  

If such miscellaneous/final disposal matter listed on Wednesday and Thursday is not taken up by the Hon'ble Court on the notified date, the same will be listed on miscellaneous day through next Advance List.

(Thanks to SN)

Comments

18 Mar 16, 07:25 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: Thanks to PC, update of the case has been seen by thousands of pensioners. 

The silver lining: Adjournmen by LIC has been declined. 

Adjournments as a tactic of dealing with the case has been negatived. 

And awareness of pensioners has been steadily rising about the LIC's negative attitude, thanks to PC. 

Now patient wait, wait & wait. Our grand success is round the corner.

Pensioners sat glued to Chronicle

CHRONICLE Editor at work !

17 Mar 16, 03:27 PM

P.G.Vijairengam: After 10-42 AM...time of posting not appearing.Pl. look in to the matter and update with time pl.

17 Mar 16, 03:44 PM

Ed.: Continuous news is being added to the same post. No separate page is opened. All details given thru scrolling news only. As in the case of LIVE REPORTING, late comers will not know what happened before they came to watch the show.