Comments

With best wishes to Shri MSM and other leaders fighting for pensioners.SN 

Delhi HC hearing

M Sreenivasa Murty

In the High Court of Delhi on 12 July 2016 

(For Time-pass till the Order is uploaded)

Whatever has been reported by different Petitioners on the proceedings in the High Court, including by those who are not present in the Court, could vary in content and language. But the outcome on specific issues cannot be subjected to dispute. I would have been tempted to wait for the Order dictated by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, (it was done case by case, touching upon the admissibility or otherwise of each Application that was listed for hearing) but there have been several queries from keen followers of the cases, which need non-controversial clarifications. There are also bits of useful information worth sharing quickly with all, as these will not appear in the Order (which is getting delayed to be uploaded).

Mr R K Viswanathan’s query on the Judge’s remarks against the Affidavit of compliance by LIC, needs elaborate answer. It all started after directions were issued in all the cases, Mr Saurav Agrawal appearing for the Hyderabad Petitioners stood up and made a couple of submissions to the Bench. One – that liberty was granted to us on 1st June to file our application seeking correct payment under 40% as per para 3A, after LIC files its compliance Affidavit as directed by SC. Two: That we are ready now and can do so only if LIC’s compliance Affidavit discloses the essential details from its side. Otherwise it would be wasting court’s time. The Judge was informed that the Affidavit filed by LIC is no compliance at all and it was also not served on all.

To these submissions which received Justice Khanna’s full attention after patient hearing, his response was to ask LIC Counsel why the Affidavit was not served on all and a direction to serve the same immediately.

LIC Counsel offered a strange explanation that they served it on the lead petitioner (Jaipur, whose amended application is seen nowhere). LIC’s mischievous strategy boomeranged, with Bench directing to serve it on all, as there is nothing like lead (only mislead).

When Justice Khanna asked for the Affidavit copy and perused it, his attention was drawn to the last page by Mr Saurav Agrawal which  merely says that Rs 27.06 crores were paid to 15, 969 pensioners and nothing else. Justice Khanna was literally furious and asked LIC Counsel ‘’what compliance is this?

Did you at least say you paid to all eligible Pensioners? How did you arrive at the amount payable? How did you comply with para 3A and SC directive? This is absolutely unacceptable. File a fresh affidavit (in one week) with complete details including the manner in which you calculated and complied with the SC directive. You cannot take the Petitioners for a ride. Put yourself in their position and play fair. If this is how you treat your pensioners, one can imagine how you treat your customers/policyholders. Don’t do it’.

The concluding remark was ‘file fresh Affidavit within one week with full details including the manner of calculations. If the fresh Affidavit when filed is not to our satisfaction, you will be in trouble, tell your corporation.

It was a stern warning. Part of it will find place in the written Order (but under the Jaipur Case, as the affidavit is filed by LIC in that case) There are other highlights like: The Judge wants to conclude this case within the time stipulated by Supreme Court. The message was loud and clear. Adjournment to 4 August is to help everybody to fall in line. The court may come down heavily on future defaulters. The Petitioners were in no position to accost LIC as they themselves were lagging behind so poorly.

Candid Comments

14 Jul 16, 05:29 PM

Y.Bhagyanath: We are almost in the last stage of our legal battle. But the anxiety for oneupmanship is evident in reporting the proceedings. Why not the so called case managers concentrate on getting best results.

14 Jul 16, 10:45 AM

B.R.Mehta: Out of three versions for reporting of Delhi high court proceedings, Sh. KML Asthana version is the only one which criticises Hyderabad openly whereas the fact is that he himself was absent in Delhi High Court. Reasons not known. May be that he is unhappy with AIRIEF leadership for becoming a party in the Delhi High Court through filing of a fresh WP. Will someone who knows the reasons enlighten all of us.

14 Jul 16, 09:37 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: "One upmanship" is a human weakness. The pity in our case it is being displayed at a wrong time. Success always has many fathers; failure is always an orphan. LET US WAIT FOR OUR SUCCESS IN THE CASE, and our case managers can jolly well indulge in "One upmanship" game. This is not meant for any individual. Let us concentrate on the issue the Brain Child of the case managers and we profusely thank them. OUR APPEAL IS STEP FORWARD AND GET US THE FRUIT.

Moments of joy nearer than ever!

Pensioners Comments

13 Jul 16, 07:49 PM D.M.Naik: Different reporting has come up defending each other and showing own superiority. Looking to the said reporting a sad story comes to my mind. There was a case of a lady who was admitted to hospital for the treatment, before the child birth. She had severe pain, a doctor advised for operation. The attending relatives in a hope of better treatment referred the case to another doctor, who differed the previous one and advised differently. Now the puzzled relatives thought of more expert doctor and went for further opinion. Unfortunately the third expert doctor was altogether of different opinion. All the three doctors were differing and each trying to prove oneself right. Much time had run out in deciding the treatment and no compromise came forth, the relatives could also not take any decision, and the time was lapsing. The result that came in the meantime was “Miscarriage”. Here the pensioners are awaiting to see the ultimate result. Will they be happy, looking to the different reports from so called experts, or be unhappy facing the Miscarriage? 13 Jul 16, 06:15 PM lakshmi raman: Salary stops at age 60. but Pension is there as long as you live. Why then the LIC officials at the helm of affairs so lax. Sooner or later they have to join our band wagon whether they like it or not. 13 Jul 16, 11:14 AM Perumalmaruthu: Pranayama Cartoon portrays the stark reality!

GK VISWANATHAM

HAPPENINGS IN HIGH COURT

a review on reportage

 I quote from the text of the letter by Sri GNSji  today after the hearing for the day is over by way of report” Curiously, our Federation's amended petition was also not in the case bundle but our counsel pointed out the same was filed as early as he first week of June 2016 (our counsel  is following up with the Registry to get the matter set right). “Pointed to whom? To the judge when pulled up for not filing fresh affidavit taking things for granted that LIC would anyway ask for adjournment or what?

I would like another curious quote from another stalwart the so called author of the legal battle who cannot come out of the Jaipur High Court syndrome without appreciating the fact that SC on 31.03.2016 has in fact set aside saying in so many words that the issue was not properly presented even with regard to discrimination in DR for pre 1997 and post 1997 for them to give partially favorable verdict even, not to talk of revision of pensions periodically with every revision that takes place for in house employees. I quote from his report “SINCE ONE FILE HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED FROM JAIPUR HIGH COURT, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE CASE BEING HEARD TODAY IN ABSENCE.CASE OF KML ASTHANA WILL REMAIN ABOVE ALL”. So both were sure that the case will not be heard and they will not take or had taken any steps as the champions of legal battle to press for early hearing and settlement from a sympathetic judiciary. So indifferent was the approach, for the discerning pensioners that one is not sure of the date on which fresh affidavit was filed (if at all filed) by his counsel and the other states some papers were not received from Jaipur. Both are bereft of any initiative to press matters. Both however in one voice cry foul that because of Hyderabad as a new entrant which it is not,  (not AIIPA and AIREF though), which have filed fresh writs. As if to crown this bungling, LIC’s monumental lethargy in filing affidavit on 40% IR and or reply to the notice served by Delhi High Court on the Hyderabad’s petition presents  a rare scenario of mutual amity and understanding between petitioners and respondents. In this back ground of utter callousness on the part of aging pensioner leaders there is no wonder if the Delhi High Court has admonished all with a deserving dose to LIC.

And if members of these groups do not see anything to question and follow them doggedly God only can save them and appreciate their colossus tolerance.

Still it is not too late for the members to help themselves by taking the right choice to align with right leaders from Hyderabad.

With greetings,

G K VISWANATHAM 

To read reports on Supreme court proceedings prepared by S/Shri KML Asthana and GN Sridharan, please click below.

Comments

12 Jul 16, 03:37 PM

Sdsarma: Sri GNS said that Hyderabad petition is opposed by him since it causes delay in disposal of the case, but now his and KMLAs actions are causing delay and Delhi H C has pulled up them along with LIC for not adhering to time schedule set by SC. May be they and their collection agents are busy collecting donations from gullible pensioners instead of filing documents in the Delhi HC as directed by the SC. Pensioner are requested to be beware of the cheaters, like person who withdrew contempt petition accusing the judge is not aware of law who dismissed the contempt as withdrawn.

12 Jul 16, 12:00 PM

Bhaktavatsalarao.k: There is no surprise in the flash news. We would have been surprised had the arguments continued. Even on earlier occasion, Delhi HC directed the parties to come prepared for arguments on and from 12.7.16. What happened now. Nobody is worried of H C directive. There is no guarantee that on 4.8.16 all the parties will come prepared and participate in the hearing. The lazy officials are sleeping in the offices at the cost of public money. The Advocates are proposing repeated adjournments. The case managers are collecting funds in the name of court cases. All are happy in one way or the other. Only the poor pensioners of LIC ARE THE LONE SUFFERERS.

12 Jul 16, 01:22 PM

B.R.Mehta: LIC Pensioners must understand this game very clearly that all case managers just need funds but are not ready to expose LIC for its casual compliance of supreme court order regarding 40% IR Payment. Only Hyderabad Association exposed LIC today at Delhi High Court and hence Court directed LIC to file fresh affidavit explaining how 40% IR Payment is calculated by them.  LIC Pensioners must rise above their blind loyalty to their respective case managers to support financially the only genuine case manager which is Hyderabad Association.

12 Jul 16, 02:40 PM

G.Krishna Prasad.: I am sure that average pensioners are not gullible enough to go by the hype created by one sided version of what happened or did not happen in the court based mainly on a smile or a frown or any other mannerism. People should concentrate on briefing their counsels and do similar constructive acts instead of trying to provoke people. 

A word of advice to Pensioners!

Courtesy: SN

RK Viswanathan

DELHI HIGH COURT CASE ADJOURNED TO 4TH AUGUST 2016

Chat column comments

11 Jul 16, 02:47 PM 

P.N.Nagaraju: If any one of the Respondents or/and Petitioners seek adjournment the Delhi High Court will not be in a position to give decision as directed by SC. 

We can only Pray God for speedy disposal before the Delhi High Court and also interest of all the Pensioners is protected. It is most unfortunate that the case managers did not unite even though they had sufficient time. 

I also would like to thank the Editor for the updates by which pensioners are fully informed about the position of the case. Thanks to Editorji also for all for untiring efforts in publishing the views of experts and also the efforts of the Case Managers.

11 Jul 16, 02:33 PM

G K Viswanatham: If so much time from 31.03.16 till date is not sufficient to file supplementary affidavits on the part of Sri GNS, one of the petitioners seeking justice, who can control LIC/GOVT's efforts to delay matters seeking adjournments. What signals we are giving to the High Court, Delhi as seekers of justice on our unpreparedness or lack of will to adequately plead on behalf of pensioners The leadership should explain to the members delaying tactics if one may call it especially when SC itself has put 31.08.16 as the deadline for the dispute.

11 Jul 16, 02:20 PM
Perumalmaruthu: Sri SN's deep analysis of Rule 56 of LIC/RBI/Banks with that of the CCS Rules and subsequent CPC-Recommendations can not be wished away by Mr Anonymous!

11 Jul 16, 11:30 AM

G K VISWANATHAM: Clamour for unity in the chat columns does not serve any purpose. There were sincere efforts by MSM that he was willing to walk 9 steps if others walk at least walk one step. No positive response yet. And there would be none, therefore, it is in the best interests of all pensioners to support that association which is transparent, frank and open for discussion on any matter relating to pension. God save us when deliberately leaders are adamant to fritter away hard earned pensioners' money, not being able shed ego even at these advanced age. In this context I am reminded of Bali Vamana Charitra of ancient Hindu scripture, that all of us are Devathas in despair, unwilling LIC is Bali who is in fact not a demon ( after all our bread & butter for several decades and more ) but head strong and Lord Vishnu is anybody( my nominee Hyderabad Association ) from the case managers to save us from Sukracharya (Central Govt.). Now it is for the pensioners to select Vishnu and support to the hilt.

11 Jul 16, 09:23 AM
Karunakaran: UNITY IS STRENGTH. It is well understood by RBI,Banks and Insurance authorities in their fight against helpless, old aged Pensioners.

LIC files compliance affidavit

As expected, it is hardly any compliance. 

It says 15,969 Pre-97 retirees are paid Rs 27.06 Crores. Numbers are given Zone-wise. CLICK HERE TO VIEW AFFIDAVIT

We need to tell the Court that the Old Generation 

Pensioners are taken for a ride once again and that 

Para 3A is buried deep.

Hyderabad Association intends to raise the matter.

DELHI HC HEARING

TO VIEW CAUSE LIST, CLICK HERE

LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS! Are you SURE?

You will not foster unity even in the best interests of aging pensioner community whose life span is short, shorter and shortest depending on age or one’s own fate, even at this eleventh hour for it is never too late for a good beginning to a happy ending. Why this indifference to the word ‘UNITY’ which was and is deliberately sought to be confined to these columns and people are not questioning those who are blocking this? 

Unity at this hour is fundamental, for the following eminent reasons viz., 

1) Money is not wasted 

2) Harm is not done by individual approach to the central theme 

3) Delays do not occur by way of adjournments in the court due to half or lack of adequate preparation by too many lawyers representing the same issue 

4) More importantly to ensure case is settled well before 31.08.16 by preventing adjournments that may be attempted to by LIC/GOVT. 

Therefore, all of us should exert pressure on the unwilling leadership to come together even now when all these are at DELHI today and tomorrow under the auspices of commonly acceptable senior officer preferably ZM/ED retired. I believe it is not too late even now. Who bells the CAT?

With greetings,
G K VISWANATHAM

Unity

Dear Editor,

Majority of LIC Pensioners Community with a strength of approx. fifty thousand wish and pray for Unity amongst various Case Managers for current legal battle. The logic of said majority is also very sound when they say that expenses for legal battle will be reduced to say One Fourth and expected result may be much better. Yes no body has got any valid counter reply to said logics.

But why desired unity remains a distant dream only. My perception based on my limited exposure tells me that the case manager who considers himself as an architect of current legal battle is the biggest stumbling block in this process of unity as he tells his blind followers openly that no other case manager knows the law or understands the law. Even Judge at High Court who passed an order in February, 2014 about his contempt case with his conclusions " Contempt is hereby dismissed as withdrawn " also did not know the law. And one more reason even bigger than first one is that he is uncontrollable by his organization AIRIEF which unfortunately has no other option except to support him despite all these odds because it has already invested more than Rs Seventy Lacs on this gentleman.

Regards,
B.R.Mehta

Delhi HC hearing

An e circular from GNS is taking rounds stating that GNS counsel informed him that LIC is surely seeking adjournment by two weeks and that on the further course of action, he will talk to his counsel.

Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty's response


LIC Counsel claims he got the consent of all to seek adjournment. Hyderabad said NO. We will oppose any adjournment request so that a stiff order goes from the bench. The amended applications of the SC-referred Petitioners, are likely to be listed tomorrow through supplementary cause-list. LIC can insist on adjournment to file its reply as the amended applications are not filed so far. What choice do these Petitioners have, except succumb? God save LIC Pensioners.

All of us know that the Pension Regulations /Rules for the employees of RBI, Banks, LIC and some other organisations were framed based on the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. These Regulations / Rules are comprehensive covering all aspects viz. eligibility, types of pension, commutation of pension etc. similar to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and some other rules. In order to meet the contingencies, to meet the changes if and when made in the Government's CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and other rules, the framers of Pension Rules for LIC and Banks in 1995,  have incorporated the No.Rule 56 - Residuary Provisions. Similar regulation is incorporated in RBI Employees Pension Regulations,1990, which reads as under:

RBI Regulation 5 : In the matter of the application of these Regulations regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of the Civil Service Regulations or the Liberalised Pension Rules or the Civil Pensions (Commutation) Rules or the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government employees, as the case may be, of the Government of India in so far as they can be adapted to the service in the Bank but subject to such exceptions and modifications as the Bank may,

Rule No.56 : Residuary Provisions of Banks Employees Pension Rules, 1995 reads as under:

In case of doubt,in the matter of application of these regulations, regards may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine.( Cf.Canara Bank Employees Pension Rules, 1995).

Rule No.56: Residuary Provisions of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 reads as under: Matters relating to pension and other benefits in respect of which no express provision has been made in these rules shall be governed by the corresponding provisions contained in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or Central Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for central government employees.

All of us know that the Pay and the pension of Government employees, pensioners and family pensioners is revised once in ten years as per the recommendations of the CPCs. The recommendations of CPCs, as approved by the Cabinet are implemented by issue of Office Memoranda.

Paragraph 12 of the Office Memorandum F.No.45/86/97-P&PW(P) Part -1 dated 27th October, 1997 issued by GOI, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi implementing the government's decision on the recommendations of the 5th CPC, is as under :

"Formal amendments to CCS (Pension) Rules,1972, CCS (Extraordinary) Pension Rules, 1939 and CCS (Commutation) Rules. 1981 in terms of the decisions contained in this order will issue in due course. Provisions of all those rules which are not specifically not modified by these orders, will remain unaffected."

Paragraph of 14 of the Office Memorandum F.No.38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 2nd September, 2008 issued by GOI, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi implementing the government's decisions on the recommendations of 6th CPC is 'ditto' as para.12, stated above.

The decisions of GOI on the implementations of 5th and 6th CPCs recommendations have been incorporated (some rules deleted, substituted or amended to the extent necessary) in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

• Two examples (1) of granting of 30% Family Pension and (2) of granting additional percentage of pension to pensioners and family pensioners of 80,85,90,95 and 100 incorporated in the CCS (Pension) Rules,1972 (FOR EXAMPLES, CLICK HERE)

LIC (Employees)Pension Rules, 1995 were framed by the GOI u/s 48 of LIC Act, 1956. Rules under Chapter IV and V defined qualifying service and classes of pension. Appendix IV to Rule 37 provided for rates of D.R. Two rates of DR,first for CPI above 600 to those retired between 01-01-1986 and 31-10-1993 and second for CPI points above 1148 for those retired between 01-11-1993 to 31-10-1997. Subsequently, with wage revision from 01-08-1992, the DR rates above CPI 1148 was extended to those retired from01-08-1992.DR was given on tapering basis. The wage revision of 2000, effective from 01-08-1997,granted 100% neutralisation in DR at 0.23% per slab increase/decrease to those retired on or after 01-08-1997. Para. 3A was added to Appendix IV to the Pension Rules, in t/o government notification dated 22-06-2000. The notification also added Para. 3B to the Appendix IV that the Corporation shall determine the rate of DR corresponding to the CPI merger point to which the pay scales are linked in all future wage revisions. LIC has decided DR rates for wage revisions that took place from 1st August 2002, 2007 and 2012. The GOI Gazette notifications issued for wage revisions also indicate the DR percentage rate per slab increase/ decrease. In view of provision in Para. 3B to Appendix IV, no amendments have been effected in the LIC Pension Rules and pensioners get DR as applicable to the pay scales in which they have retired.

As all of us know that the GOI pensioners and family pensioners have been getting updation in their pension on certain terms and 100% DR since 01-01-1996. Now, the pensioners and family pensioners are going to get OROP from 01-01-2016. Hope the Hon.Judges of Delhi H.C. will shortly deliver justice to the pensioners of LIC and requisite amendments will be carried out in the LIC (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995.

SN (a 1992 Pensioner)
(From Sources)

Comments

10 Jul 16, 12:49 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: Quite apart from the niceties of law & rules, the LIC/ GOI could not & I should not take a totally adversarial stance. For it concerns middle class workers in the financial sector. TUs have to put pressure.

What is above all, Courts also have to be sensitive to the human side of the case which concerns old citizens of the country at a time when economics & high prices lower the incomes in terms of real earnings and standards.

9 Jul 16, 05:34 PM

parasuram: Justice Dipak Misra allowed 40% Interim Relief to pre-97 LIC pensioners which indicates that the court favours 100% DA neutralization. Regarding pension updation though he was sympathetic he was not convinced on the arguments placed

by advocates for the pensioners. He had given the pensioners another chance to prepare well and convince the Delhi HC the law points. The case managers have to be very careful not to fall on the trap laid by LIC.

LIC would be happy if the court agrees 100% DA neutralization but rejects updation. The aim of the case managers must be to get both. There should not be two camps - one for 100% DA neutralization and another for updation. United we win divided we fall.  LIC's tactics would be to divide and defeat both. We should remember that this is our last chance. 

A favourable verdict here would boost the morale of bank pensioners also. Our prayers are with you.

9 Jul 16, 02:46 PM

M.VITHAL RAO: YES.what Mr Naik sir said is 100% correct. Earlier I also appealed the case managers to unite and

fight. However it did not reach the right minds. Better late than never. At least now if the case managers discuss the strategies and their contentions to be placed before the Court,a more strong version on our side can be placed before the Hon'ble court. 12 th july is only the date of hearing nothing will come out on that day except next date.

mv venugopalan

Dear Editor,

It is a well known fact that the recommendations of the respective Pay Commissions’ Report is implemented by the CG by issuing Administrative Instructions and not by following the provisions in the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. This is what Sri.C.H.Mahadevan has explained in his write-up. The O.M dt 27-10-1997 issued by GOI gives a list of the CG employees/pensioners covered under this. There is no mention of LIC or Banks for the simple reason that they belong to the Quasi-Govt. institutions and not the Central Govt. The Residuary Provision under Rule 56 in our Pension Rules say “ Matters relating to Pension in respect of which no expression has been made....etc” are covered by corresponding provisions in the CCS Pension Rules 1972. Therefore, it is to be presumed that, even though no express provision is made either in the CCS Rules or in our Pension Rules for revision of Pension, in view of the fact Govt.implements it through an OM, it is deemed to form part of Rule 56 of our Pension Rules, and LIC has the powers to revise the pension by issuing similar instructions. Mr.Anonymous argues, that as long as it doesn't find a place in the CCS Pension Rules, we cannot claim that it forms part of the Residuary Provision (Our Pension Rules 1995).

Well, the Govt can issue an O.M with the assent of the President of India and go ahead with implementation of the Pay Commission Recommendations. Whereas, in our case, we cant adopt a similar procedure, since first of all we have to secure Govt.approval for implementation of the Pension Revision. Even a Resolution passed by the LIC Board is hanging fire for the past several years owing to non-approval by the Govt. and hence how far it will be correct to assume that the spirit of the O>M issued by the Govt. automatically is deemed to be part and parcel of the Rule 56 is rather questionable. Mr.Anonymous’ fear that a provision for revision of pension has not been made in the CCS Pension Rules 1972 was done deliberately by the Govt. with a view to keeping away a) LIC and Banks from its gambit and b) that even the CG employees should not claim pension revision as a matter of right, at a later date, is far-fetched. I am not aware of any Pension Rules framed making an exclusive provision for Revision of Pension at definite intervals. We have ’PF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952’ and, ’Payment of Gratuity Act 1972’, making it compulsory on the part of the employers. No such Act is in vogue making Payment of Pension to the retired employees compulsory. No doubt, as ruled by the SC Pension is a deferred salary and also a right in those institutions where it is installed but was not made compulsory through passing of an Act. In fact, we are moving gradually to a “contributory” pension scenario, where one has to pay a premium for building up once own pension corpus, though Universal Pension is the demand of the day. Under such circumstances, how far it will be feasible for providing an exclusive provision in the Pension Rules for Revision of Pension is debatable.

Again, we can't afford to forget what Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra said during one of our hearings. He said, “..if the Resolution (Board) was not statutory and if it required Govt. approval to become effective, that is how it is “ and again in the Judgment I had quoted in my previous post where the Respondent was duly corrected by Mr.Mahadevan, inter-alia, the same Judge had said “ ....this Court (Supreme Court) authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it doesn't depend upon the discretion of the Govt. but is governed by RULES AND A GOVERNMENT SERVANT COMING WITHIN THOSE RULES IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PENSION". Please note down the words ‘governed by Rules’ and ‘coming within those rules’ in particular. The message is that provisions relevant to anything concerning the pensioners should be supported by “SPECIFIC RULES” in the Pension Rules framed for the purpose.

So, friends, the bottomline is that though Rule 56 provides for following corresponding provisions in the CCS Pension Rules 1972, as long as the same provision does’nt find a place in Black and White in the CCS Pension Rules and Our Pension Rules 1995, the successive O.Ms issued by the Central Govt. for implementation of the Payment of Pension, as per the recommendations of the Pay Commission can only help us as a supportive document in our arguments and may not ,perhaps come to our aid as a clinching evidence. This is my take on the entire issue and has no bearing on what Mr.Anonymous has prophesied on seeking recourse to Rule 56. Though Mr.Anonymous is totally negative in his approach to the issues concerning pensioners and projects an image as if he is a saviour of both LIC and its policyholders, the fact of the matter is that he gives us an opportunity to think and debate, cannot be denied. Our Editor is very liberal when it comes to publishing views and opinions of contributors to the Blog, but is absolutely prudent and discretionary in his judgment of the articles. So, let us leave it to his good sense as to whether a particular write-up is worthy of publication or not.

With Greetings,

M.V.VENUGOPALAN

Comments

9 Jul 16, 10:48 AM parasuram: Let all case managers shed their ego and put their heart, soul, and mind for united fighting and the verdict should be a fitting reply to LIC, The Anonymous, and the MOF. Let the verdict be hailed as the " Nakara case" for financial sector which is self financed and not dependent on budgetary allocation or consolidated fund.

Delhi HC case

WP No 4894 of 2016 listed as item No 1 before The Designated bench at Delhi HC 

Dear All,

OUR ASSOCIATION WP LISTED NO 1 on 12/7/2016

12/7/2016

1.W.P.(C) 4894/2016

RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HYDERABAD Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR ASTHA GAUR

CONNECTED MATTERS (ADMISSION)
9.W.P.(C) 184/2007 WITH W.P.(C) 3983/2016 W.P.(C) 3984/2016. (Disposed --off case)
FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLAS Vs. UOI & ORS
MR.RAJIV K.GARG,P.GAUTAM,KAMAL MEHTA
10. W.P.(C) 3983/2016
MADAN LAL GANDHI AND ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
AS DIRECTED BY SUPREME COURT,SAVLA AND ASSO
11. W.P.(C) 3984/2016
KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
AS DIRECTED BY SUPREME COURT,

R K SINGH AND ASSO,R K SINGH


With Greetings.
C H Mahadevan

SCENARIO OF PENSIONERS CASE LITTLE CHANGED !

8 Jul 16, 08:11 PM

D.M.Naik: Scenario of pensioners case in HC has little changed from that of the SC. There were THREE Cats quarreling in between and the TWO Monkeys LIC/GOI were watching in SC. Now Four Cats are there in HC drama, and the chances of case winning reduce day by day. 

Now one more incognito Monkey has also appeared who is trying to snatch the news and views of quarreling Cats for the benefits and favour of LIC/GOI. I am sorry for this quote, but the prevailing situation is in this nature. 

Today on a blog Mr. MS. Sachdeva has appealed to the case managers to come together with Hearts, Heads and Minds and make a joint front to appear before HC. All the case managers are capable, intellectuals, and honourables. I could not find out why and how they could not compromise and could not make one strong union to defend in the case. 

I join Shri M. S. Sachdeva and appeal my leaders the case managers, if they can make UNION at the last stage of pensioners battle, if otherwise they will prove to be Cats only, and nothing else, with the result that the case is lost. May God bless and convert the minds of these case managers to forget and forgive among themselves and make Union. Sorry if this post hurts anybody, and apologies.

COMMENTS

8 Jul 16, 12:49 PM

AK Srivastava: Anonymous writing is not good for health. It will be better to write with your name.

7 Jul 16, 09:59 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: Modern grooms, have been "courting" the courts to say "yes". Like today's brides, they have been evasive. Parental (i.e. LIC /GOI) "sanction" is the stumbling block. Now with great expectations, they are waiting for a "Yes" reply on 12th. For our proposals. God bless the Grooms.

MR ANONYMOUS, Patriotism towards his organization as revealed in his recent mail to Pensioners Chronicle cannot go scot free without what the 50000 and odd pensioners, most of them in the twilight of their life feel about it. Could it be that the several thousands of pensioners have not contributed anything to the growth of their organization they served which has earned the sobriquet ‘Brand name’, ‘Kamadhenu’ or could it be that they are not as patriotic as MR Anonymous profess to be. 

SIR, can you please enlighten us. Where was this patriotism when the free noon meal was given and several other freebies were announced and of late the stupendous increase in the wage revision for the in house employees and does this not erode the profit and the interest of the policy holders ? Is he not aware of the pension rules which has formulated without regard to the constitutional validity two rates of DR for the same class of pensioners and the discrimination is struck down by judiciary as it is coming into conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. Are we unpatriotic when we questioned about this disparity? Coming to the pension upgradation is there anything wrong when our own Board recommended it in their resolution with the GOI representative in the Board anointing it?

We have no regrets if our friends in service getting some benefits. But it has to be understood that the basic pension for the aged and suffering pensioners with ageing blues remain static and should that continue forever?

COMMENTS

7 Jul 16, 12:37 PM Bhaktavatsalarao.k: Let us not react so deeply on the letters of Mr.Anonymous thereby making him a hero. His comments are like a waste item in a garbage bag. Let us forget this waste item.

7 Jul 16, 01:52 PM

S.R. Nagarajan: Mr. P.G., Editor, P.C. is to be congratulated for giving space to Mr. Anonymous to express his points. Still, we readers of the Blog should not comment on this, for it looks he is the spokesperson, LIC/GOI and wants to assess the general mood of the pensioners thro' this medium.

7 Jul 16, 03:07 PM

A.S.Ramanathan: In view of Mr.CHM's observations and reproduction of the Office memorandum nothing more is required. The judgement in then Nakaras case has also referred to the memorandum, which is an order for various offices to act, and also the striking down of the discriminatory words, the SC has shown where the pinches.

SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

There's a word, "Synergy" : the interaction or 

cooperation of two or more organisations / 

associations produces a combined effect 

greater than a sum of of their separate effect. 

But, synergy among our leaders at this juncture 

seems a remote possibility.

As stated by Shri M V Venugopalan, our leaders may not overplay the 'calculation aspects'. But, they may explain / bring to the notice of the Hon. Judges the faulty method of adopted by LIC in paying 40% interim relief in terms of Para.3A of Appendix IV to the Pension Rules to pre Aug. 1997 pensioners with two/three examples. Time at our disposal is not much.

The "Updation of Pension" is the foremost. It is the main issue. 100% neutralisation in Dearness Relief would come as corollary to the updation of pension. With updating of pension as on 01-08-1997, the pensioners would automatically get 100% DR as has already been obtained by the pensioners retired in Aug.1997 pay scales.

Article of 14 of the Constitution of India, D.S.Nakara v/s UOI etc. which uphold the sanctity of equality should receive undivided attention. Recent developments - seventh CPC, BSNL awards may be on the minds of our leaders.

At this hour of crisis, it is better for our leaders to refrain from being critical of one another. All leaders and their counsellors should concentrate on their issues with the management and not on issues with one another. Everyone should make best use of their energy, their wisdom with facts and figures to convince the Hon.Judges to direct the LIC to grant updation of pension along with every pay revision from Aug. 1997 onwards. 

We talk unity in diversity in a different context. Our leaders may be able to synergise their thoughts for good.

SN ( a 1992 Pensioner )

Anonymous' comments

7 Jul 16, 11:36 AM

Perumalmaruthu: I endorse the view of Sri CHM..." what is the need for the Residuary Provisions under Rule 56 which will remain only a dumb rule? The intention behind Clause 56 is to accord benefit in line with Pay Commission Recommendations for CCS Pensioners and can not be otherwise!

7 Jul 16, 11:29 AM

G.Krishna Prasad: Regarding the 'views' of Mr.Anonymous on Rule 56 of LIC Pension Rules : Any attempt of LIC/GOI to take the "escape route" is against Constitutional provisions which guarantee equality before Law.

7 Jul 16, 10:35 AM

karunakaran: I think that it may be the lawyer in the guise of anonymous.

A well wisher's prayers !

7 Jul 16, 06:37 AM Sdsarma: Like Mr. Anonymous, every pensioner is a well wisher of LIC and very much interested in its growth and interested in the well-being of the Policyholders.  No pensioner is interested in dwindling of the premier financial institution.  We after finishing our meal every time, we pray for the wel-being of our Master, The LIC. We do pray for the growth of both LIC and LIC Pension fund. 7 Jul 16, 07:11 AM JM Aboobucker: Mr Anonymous calls himself as well wisher of LIC and policyholders. LIC Pensioners are in no way LESSER than Mr Anonymous and they too are the well wishers of LIC and its policyholders. That in no way preclude them from fighting for their right to justice and equity.

Chat column comments

6 Jul 16, 10:07 PM

D.M.NAIK: It seems Mr. Anonymous is from LIC Camp, who has suddenly appeared on the blog to mislead the pensioners, and their leaders, and he just wants to know how the pensioners case managers respond or react  on his post, to prepare himself against the pensioners and affect the pensioners’ case at Delhi HC. If he is a well wisher of the pensioners why he should remain incognito. Specifically when he wants to remain incognito, one can say that he is pleading for opposite camp, LIC. But then he should openly express his thoughts, though for LIC favour. This blog is open for all to participate openly, and there is no reason for him to remain incognito.

CH Mahadevan

I refer to the post of Mr Anonymous on Rule 56 on Residuary Provisions.

Even though the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, do not
provide for upgradation of pension, while implementing the Fifth
Central Pay commission recommendations on Revisison of pension for
pre-1996 pensioners/family pensioners, the GOI issued an Office
Memorandum dated 27/10/1997 where the very second para states as
follows:

“2.1. These orders apply to all pensioners/family pensioners who
were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.1996 under the Central
Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, CCS (Extraordinary Pension)
Rules and the corresponding rules applicable to Railway pensioners and
pensioners of All India Services including officers of the Indian
Civil Service, retired from service on or after 1.1.1973.”

Our LIC Pension Rules, 1995 have been notified on the lines of the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and whatever changes are
implemented by the Central Government applying to pensioners/family
pensioners who were drawing pension/family pension on 1.1.1996 under
these Rules should be deemed to be covered under Rule 56, viz
Residuary Provisions.

Once a practice of revising the pensions has been decided to be
followed after the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations, the Central
Government has perhaps taken up gradation as a routine precedent
arising out of its OM dated 27/10/1997 CLICK HERE and adopted the same practice after the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations also without any need for reference to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in
its OM dated 1/9/2008.It will be erroneous to presume that Rule 56 of
LIC Pension Rules 1995 excludes upgradation because Central Civil
Services(Pension) Rules,1972 are not amended or the said Rules do not
find a mention in the OM dt 1/9/2008 of the Central Government.

If whatever improved benefits extended to the pre-1996 retirees of
the Central Government after the Fifth Pay Commission Recommendation
are not likewise to be extended to LIC Pensioners, what is the need
for the Residuary Provisions under Rule 56 which will remain only a
dumb rule? “Corresponding provisions” should be construed to include
also provisions made as per the Central Government’s Office
Memoranda from time to time by the Central Government for the
benefit of the pensioners governed by the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972.

So it is very difficult to agree with Mr Anonymous that Residuary
Provisions under Rule 56 do not cover upgradation of pension.Such a
view has a dangerous potential to provide an escape route to the GOI
to run away from its legal obligation which should not be provided to
it at any cost.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

Some Comments About 'Anonymous' Views

6 Jul 16, 11:59 AM

karunakaran: The anonymous writer has not gone through the SC verdict that Pension Revision and Salary Revision are inseparable. So if the CCS provisions are misguiding, SC verdicts will show the way.

6 Jul 16, 02:26 PM

Perumalmaruthu: Mr Anonymous...any Law or its Clause or Regulation should be interpreted not only in letter but in its true spirit! What was the need of incorporating Clause 56 if it is not for improvements?

6 Jul 16, 03:16 PM

JM Aboobucker: I think Mr. Anonymous has raised a very pertinent question about our Pension Rule 56. When CCS rules do NOT provide for Pension Revision what purpose will be served to quote that Rule.  Everybody knows that CG Pensions are revised after wage revision is given to serving CG Employees. As Mr. Anonymous says the GOI has got some ulterior motive for NOT amending CCS Pension Rules, could Mr AS Ramanathan who is very thorough with these rules throw some light in the matter.

CN Venugopalan

Breaches of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 and Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980   by IBA

Most venerable Minister,

IBA and banks have no justification for denying and depriving the employees of the sanctions of the Legislature for the following reasons:-

01. The payment of pension with revision in pension from time to time has no impact on the profits of banks as pension is paid out of specific Pension Fund available for such payment.

02. Pension Fund of all Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are abounding in resources and can foot the arrears of Pension without feeling any pinch.

03. No budgetary allocation on the part of the government is necessary for the purpose.

04. Pension Fund is built up of the deferred statutory wages of the employees which was previously payable as EPF pursuant to EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and is hence the money of the employees.

05. The Pension Fund need not service the employees recruited on or after 01st April, 2010 who are covered by PFRDA Scheme operated by the Government.

06. The Pension Fund cannot be utilized for any purpose other than payment of pension/family pension by operation of regulation 5 (2) of the Pension Regulations.

07. The annual growth in Pension Fund of all PSBs limpidly shows the capacity to pay three to four times the present pension to all the pensioners in the industry.

It is senseless on the part of IBA and banks to deny due pension with timely enhancement payable under the Pension Regulations in derogation of law and rules when enough money of employees is available for the purpose. What retired bankers need is no fresh sanction; but release of the payments already sanctioned. They need it not for amassing money; but for a frugal living. They are the people who helped the government implement its financial policies for building up the nation by sacrificing their brain, blood and brawn.

I am sure that as a seasoned lawyer and a Parliamentarian with rich exposure and experience, you will identify the derogation of laws by IBA and banks as taboo and direct IBA and banks to refrain from axing the magnificent Constitution of the nation, tormenting its democratic fabric.

I request you to take expeditious steps to restore righteousness by directing IBA to be compliant with the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 and the Pension Regulations, which is a subordinate legislation put in place by the Indian Parliament, for upholding its dignity and privilege. I feel that it will a laudable step in consonance with the National Litigation Policy that will mitigate hardships of a number of senior citizens who are pushed into the corridors of various courts in quest of justice and give considerable relief to judiciary that is saddled with vast number of avoidable petitions.

Thanks and Regards,

Yours sincerely,

C N VENUGOPALAN