Govt to create `talent pool', may allow second option on pension for PSU general insurance Cos

New Delhi: The government is keen to  set up a `talent pool’ to deal with the succession planning for the PSU general insurance sector,even as, it has for the first time has shown favourable response to the long standing demand give one... Oct 07, 2018 Indian News >> Non Life-News, Policy Source: AIP News Bureau

Union finance minister Arun Jaitley

New Delhi:
The government is keen to  set up a `talent pool’ to deal with the succession planning for the PSU general insurance sector,even as, it has for the first time has shown favourable response to the long standing demand give one more option on pension to the older employees of the sector. 

Addressing the two-day strategic conclave- termed as Manthan- at New Delhi on Saturday, , Rajeev Kumar, secretary, DFS, Ministry of Finance , said the government will create a talent pool of officials who will be eligible for the fast track  promotions to hold the top positions of the public sector general insurance companies.

Addressing the conclave on the concluding day , Union finance minister Arun Jaitley, said the government is favourably disposed towards allowing  a second  option on pension for the employees, those who were working before 2004,  of the PSU general insurance sector.

After 2004, all the government employees  are governed by a system launched through  New Pension Scheme(NPS).

``Providing one more option on pension to the employees, who had not opted for it, will not put any extra burden on the governmemnt,'' he said.

Jaitley also assured that the post of the CMD at the New India India Assurance (NIA)will be filled up soon .

``The post of the CMD at United India Insurance hasn’t been filled as yet as the appointee- Girish Radhakrishnan, CEO, NIA’s London operation- is yet to get regulatory clearance to get relieved from his present assignment,’’ he said. 

The government for the first time had allowed pension option to the employees of the PSU general insurance companies way back in 1995 and 1996 but a lot of employees , almost 20 per cent of 60,000 employees had not availed it.

Since then, the demand for one more option for pension is pending with the government. 

Meanwhile, the two-day conclave that conducted brain storming session on the six-point agenda,  Product & Risk Management, HR Practices, Talent, Distribution, Technology & Digital , Customer Experience  & Operation and Inclusive Growth,has identified 36 micro issues for which action plans will be developed.

The six groups that were deliberating the six broad issues will be meeting in every two-three weeks to devise suitable action plans, said sources who had  attended  the two-day conclave. 

 Subhash C  Khuntia, chairman, IRDAI also addressed  the conclave.The MoF had roped in two consultants McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group(BCG).Vikas Agnihotri, director, Google India, had addressed the conclave on `The New Internet Users’.

However, the scheduled address by Arundhati  Bhattacharya, former chairman of State Bank of India didn’t happen.

Senior officials including CMDs and directors, general mangers, senior deputy general managers  of state-owned insurers, NIA , United India Insurance,  Oriental Insurance, National Insurance, Agriculture Insurance Company and GIC Re had attended the event. 

Though the merger of three companies, UII, NIC and OIC have been announced,, the issue was not a part of the agenda at the convention.

LIC CASES ARE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 24/07/2018 IN SUPREME COURT

[AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]
14	SLP(C) No. 19799/2017 XIV	ALL INDIA INSURANCE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION THR. ITS PRESIDENT AND ORS.	M. RAMBABU AND CO.
		Versus
		UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-2], [R-3]
14.1	Connected SLP(C) No. 20929/2017 XIV	ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE EMPLOYEES FEDERATION	RAMESHWAR PRASAD GOYAL
		Versus
		LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-1], ANIL KATIYAR[R-2]
		and IA No. 141188/2017 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
14.2	Connected SLP(C) No. 21206/2017 XIV	FEDERATION OF RETD. LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.	T. L. GARG
		Versus
		UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-2], [R-3]
		FOR ADMISSION and I.R.
14.3	Connected SLP(C) No. 27963/2017 XIV	RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS ASSOCIATION	GYAN PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA
		Versus
		LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-1]
		IA No.70987/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
14.4	Connected SLP(C) No. 30000/2017 XIV	KRISHNA MURARI LAL ASTHANA	PETITIONER-IN-PERSON[P-1]
		Versus
		LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ORS.	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-1]
		IA No.91874/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES and IA No.95721/2017-I/A FOR DELETION OF PERFORMA RESPONDENTS
14.5	Connected SLP(C) No. 28873/2017 XIV	MADAN LAL GANDHI AND ORS.	JAY SAVLA
		Versus
		UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPT. OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND ORS.	ASHOK PANIGRAHI[R-2], [R-3], [R-4]

OUR ONGOING LEGAL BATTLE IN SUPREME COURT

DEAR ALL,

IT IS ONE YEAR SINCE MSM LEFT US.

It is exactly a year ago on 8/7/2017 that Mr M Sreenivasa Murty left us for his heavenly abode leaving not only his near and dear ones in his family in grief, but also about 50000 LIC Pensioners grieving when he was in the midst of handling the health issues of his better half (besides his own health issues to which he gave lesser attention) besides being intensively engaged to take a plunge in the final legal battle in the Supreme Court. He was more preoccupied with his mission to secure justice for the Pensioners in the last lap of the legal fight about to commence at the Supreme Court. He literally sacrificed his life and resources for the just cause of the pensioners. Just before his demise he was vigorously preparing to finalise the draft of the SLP of our Hyderabad Association to be filed in the Supreme Court, but destiny did not allow him to continue in his mission. His unfortunate demise dealt a severe blow to the fraternity of pensioners and created a traumatic vacuum in our Association's effort to carry on with the legal fight.   

We had to gradually come to terms with the shocking development and MSM's soul guided us during the critical periods during the past one year of his absence and enabled us to go through the legal process in the midst of financial constraints faced by our Association to the extent possible with the blessings and cooperation of pensioners from across the length and breadth of the country. We are now on the path of the final management of the struggle from 24/7/2018 when our SLPs are scheduled to be taken up by the SC for admission and hearing.

As far as the SLPs and rejoinders filed by the various petitioners are concerned, I believe that all the petitioners/Petitioner Associations would have highlighted and emphasized  the strong grounds in favour of the Pensioners. As far as the SLP and Rejoinder filed by our Hyderabad Retired Class I Officers' Association are concerned, we are confident that we have made them as comprehensive and sound as possible. We have especially tried to highlight the apparent glaring errors in the DHC judgment and also to effectively refute the unsustainable  points made in the counter affidavit filed by LIC.

While on this, I may inform our pensioner friends, that, notwithstanding our contest of the verdict of the Delhi High Court through our SLP, we have made constant efforts to get LIC to comply with the direction of the said High Court to LIC to provide partial relief by way of payment of arrears of DR besides revising the DR as per modifications ordered in the judgment and also upgradation of minimum pension ordered by the Bench. But unfortunately, LIC has chosen not to comply with the Court order although they had not challenged the High Court Order dated 27/4/2017 during the past more than one year and there being no stay of the DHC judgment. I had even sent queries through an RTI application made to LIC CO to which I received only an evasive reply. I have made an appeal to the Appellate Authority (in LIC) on 21/6/2018.Going by my experience with the RTI response of LIC in a number of cases , I am not sure whether I shall get a positive response  from the Appellate Authority. If I do not receive a satisfactory reply to my Appeal, I propose to make a final appeal to Central Information Commission.

Now, coming to the final battle in the Supreme Court on our SLP, no doubt our SLP and Rejoinder have enormous strength of grounds. But unless these strong grounds are argued before the SC bench by a senior counsel engaged by us, all our efforts cannot fructify easily. This is the area where we are constrained financially. With MSM handling the case, we had assured comfort both from the point of legal front and the financial front besides the cooperation rendered by the pensioners from all over the country. Now the situation has become different on the financial front. We are in dire need of funds for engaging a senior counsel and carrying on the legal fight ahead. It is now a 'Do or Die' situation we are in, to put it in short.

I therefore appeal to all my pensioner friends to liberally contribute to our legal fund so that we will be in a position to carry the legal fight to a successful conclusion thereby benefiting the long-waiting pensioners through upgradation of pension. Individual contributions at the rate of  at least Rs 5000/- will be greatly useful for our purpose although we shall value contributions of lesser amounts  from pensioner friends with gratitude.

Nothing can be a better tribute to the memory of MSM than achieving the desired successful outcome in our case in Supreme Court for the benefit of all generations of pensioners for which all of us need to contribute our mite.

The particulars of our Association's Bank Account are mentioned below for your ready reference:

PARTICULARS FOR FUND TRANSFER

ACCOUNT NAME: RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD

SB A/c No 053310100000317

Bank : ANDHRA BANK SAIFABAD BRANCH,HYDERABAD,

IFSC  No ANDB0000533

Cheques may be drawn in favour of "RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD" and sent to Treasurer at the following address:

Shri Y V Subba Rao,

Block No 4, Flat No G1, Diamond Estates,

Ram Murty Nagar,CBCID  Colony,

Hyder Nagar,

Hyderabad 500072

Mob No 9491124614

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

 

LIC CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM BANK CASE

The case of the Bankers for judgment was delivered on 16/05/2018

The case of the Bankers for which judgment was delivered on 16/5/2018 has no relationship with our case.

Their prayers seem to have been for 100% DR neutralization  for pre Nov 2002 retirees instead of for equitable neutralization on par with in-service employees.

There is also a limitation of a package  for Rs 1288/- cr in the settlement including for pension.

There was no prayer for upgradation of pension.

We have rules on our Pension Rules in our favour  like 55 B which are not there in Bank Pension Rules.

So the case is not comparable with our case.So it is better not to connect their case with ours for any purpose.Even if LIC cites it in their arguments,we need to argue that it is not comparable.

Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

SC CASE FOR DA AND UPDATION

SC CASE FOR DA AND UPDATION

                                                                                        AN APPEAL  TO CASE MANAGERS

 WE ARE HAVING HEARING DATE  WHICH IS VERY CLOSE NOW.HOPE YOU ARE READY WITH WRITEUP  AND COURSE OF ACTION AND ARGUMENTS TO BE PLACED IN SC. I HAVE A SUBMISSION TO MAKE.   IT WILL BE BETTER THERE IS COORDINATED EFFORT BY ALL STAKEHOLDRES,REPLY TO BE FILED AND LINE OF ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE THE SAME TO AVOID CONFUSIONS.WHEN GOAL IS D SAME FOR ALL TO GET DA AND UPGRADATION    THEN REPLY TO LIC.GOI SHOULD ALSO BE THE SAME, LINE OF ARGUMENTS SHOULD ALSO BE THE SAME.

 PENSION IS NOT A BOUNTY ,NOT A FAVOUR  AS PER SC VERSION.IT  DOES NOT REQUIRE   FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS  AS PER SC  OBSERVATIONS. IT IS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT IN LIEU OF PAST SERVICES. THERE IS DISCRIMINATION  BETWEEN SIMILARLY PLACED RETIRED EMPLOYEES.SAME CADRE  SHOULD GET SAME PENSION  AS PER OROP CASE /CENTERAL/STATE EMPLOYEES AS DECIDED BY SUPREME COURT IN NUMBER OF CASES TO AVOID DISCRIMINATION.

SO WE SHOULD CONTEST WITH ONE VOICE  BOTH IN LETTER AND SPIRITS.LAST TIME  THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED IN VIEW OF DIFFERENT VOICES IN THE SC. WHICH SHOULD BE AVOIDED. ALL CASE MANAGERS SHOULD SIT TOGETHER TO HAVE

COMMON  STRATEGY TO BRING HOME POINTS UNDER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AN DISCRIMINATION  LEAVING ASIDE INERIM RELIEF  WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY WILL BE COVERED WHEN DA AND UPGRADATION IS DECIDED.

HOPE ALL OF YOU WILL JOIN  YOUR HEADS    ,HANDS  AND  HEARTS  TOGETHER FOR THIS COMMON CAUSE   ie      TO GET DA AND UPGRADATION FOR ALL PENSIONERS IRRESPECTIVE OF CLASS.

 WISH U ALL THE BEST AND GOD SPEED.

WITH BEST REGARDS,

MS SACHDEVA

9416174537

Need Corrections in Write Up for Final Submissions Prepared by Shri R V Ramesh

Need Corrections in Write Up for Final Submissions Prepared by Shri R V Ramesh

I wish to respond on the points raised by Shri Ramesh in his detailed write up which has lot of material relevance to our desired strategy for final arguments in the Supreme Court when our SLPs come up for admission and hearing on 24/7/2018.

1.No doubt our Pension Scheme is not an additional scheme but a scheme in lieu of payment of Corporation's Contribution of PF on retirement with an option provided  for retirees and employees to join the scheme when it was notified in 1995.But the Scheme was compulsory for employees joining the Corporation from the date of the Notification.It cannot be strictly be termed a substitution scheme for the CPF Scheme because actuarially the Corporation's  10% share of  Contribution to PF is not sufficient for the Pension Fund to meet its defined benefit liabilities towards the pensioners and hence LIC is required to make additional contribution to the Pension Fund every year based on actuarial valuation of the Fund at the end of every financial year.So our ground for claiming upgradation of pension should be adduced by invoking the settled position that  pension is deferred wage and hence whenever wage revision takes place pension should also get upwardly revised.This is the rationale behind the periodical upgradation of pension for Central Government employees .As our Pension Scheme is admittedly patterned on CCS Pension Rules, it is only fair that the same rules should be made applicable to LIC Pensioners also considering the clear provisions in Rule 56.Added to that is Rule 55 B which is discriminatory as it provides benefits applicable to Central Government pensioners to officers in the cadre of Chairman and MD even though they are also governed by the same Pension Rules as pensioners from lower cadres.

2.I do not think that we can invoke the MOU dated 14/1/1994.The point of same DR as DA applicable in the Corporation was dealt with in the SB judgment of Jaipur dated 12/1/2010.The MOU has been superseded by the Notification issued by the GOI on 28/6/1995.The MOU ,in my opinion, cannot have the force of law considering that it was between the unions and the LIC Management and the GOI was no party to the MOU. The GOI notified the Pension Rules 1995 after considering the recommendations of the LIC Management.Also the MOU was not on the exclusive subject matter of Pension Scheme but also for cooperation of employees for  IT front end modules.In the Union Bank case which recently went against the pensioners,the bipartite settlement entered into  on 29/10/1993 by the Bank unions and the IBA  was not recognised by the Supreme Court.So it is better not to stress on the MOU but rather fight on constitutional grounds of violation of Articles 14 & 21 as DR anomaly  for pre-August 1997 retirees arose due to disparity in DR formula between retirees and in-service employees upto 31/7/1997 which was not the case for post July 1997 retirees.

Another point that I wish to stress is that resolving DR anomaly for pre-August 1997 retirees and upgradation of pension are inseparable as Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001  clearly provided for the same.Even the calculation of the 40% IR as also the earlier payments made by LIC in Jaipur and Chandigarh were done by merger of DR with Basic Pension and revising the Basic Pension as at 1/8/1997 although incorrectly. 

3.The Index-linked  pension simply means linking DR on the Basic Pension to the AICPI so that increase can be given in tandem with increase in cost of living once in 6 months.It does not imply upgradation of pension.But that does not mean upgradation of pension is not warranted. The capital value of basic pension has undergone an erosion at a compounded rate of 6.3% p.a over the last 22 years for the earliest generation of pensioners.The in-service employees get protection against such erosion through five yearly wage revisions while pensioners have got stuck up at  the basic pension fixed long ago.The Central Government pensioners are well protected against such erosion.This point needs to be emphasized before the Supreme Court.

Mr Ramesh has mentioned that 16000 pre-August 1997 retirees have  died during the two decades.Do we have authentic figures to prove this obtained by invoking RTI Act 2005? There were 21762 pre-August 1997 pensioners on 1/8/2003 and about 17000 pensioners were identified in 2016 by LIC for payment of 40 % IR.So probably 5000 pensioners died  between 2003 & 2016.I do not know how many pensioners were alive on 1/8/1997.I asked for the information from CO under RTI Act, but I did not get the information.

4.The rules quoted by Mr Ramesh from Chapter III  are definitely strong grounds for us to  take in our arguments in the SC.

The LIC Pension Scheme is restricted to  existing employees and closed to new recruits  from 1/4/2010 and not from 1/5/2010.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

A Writeup for Final, Sharp, Penetrating Submissions to SC Bench by Sr Counsel

A Writeup for Final, Sharp, Penetrating Submissions to SC Bench by Sr Counsel

 A Writeup for Final, Sharp, Penetrating Submissions to SC Bench by Sr Counsel

R.V.RAMESH

1)The LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 is not an additional benefit to employees but an optional scheme only.

  i)The most important thing is that our lawyers and more particularly our Senior Advocate  should abundantly make it very clear to the Hon'ble Judges of the SC that the pension offered to  LIC employees under the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 was not an additional benefit to the employees but only an optional scheme in lieu of the pre-existing Provident Fund Scheme and loaded with a big onerous pre-conditionthat the employees should surrender their entireP.F accumulations along with interest accrued together with interest thereon till the date of exercising their option.

     ii)It must be emphasized before the Court that each and every employee in service  or who had retired and who opted for the Pension Scheme, had refunded his entire life time PF accumulations inclusive of accrued interest with interest thereon up to the date of exercising the option to LIC of India in the pious hope that in the twilight of his life, the LIC Mgmt. would extend the same pattern of benefit to him as the benefit that would be offered by LIC Mgmt. to the in service employees in the successive Wage Settlements in future .

 2)M.O.U. dt. 14-1-1994 signed by LIC Mgmt. with in-service Employee Unions before implementation of the Pension Scheme

  i)This is a very important and sacrosanct agreement documentoutlining some lofty principles to be followed. It was agreed upon that Dearness Relief to pensioners will be granted on basic pension at such rates as may be determined from time to time in line with the Dearness Allowance formula for in service employees. Under any universally accepted Pension Scheme,  '' basic  pension "  is generally half of the basic pay at the time of retirement. For revising DA to in service employees, the entire pay range in the organization irrespective of the hierarchy / class   or cadre is divided into specific slabs of pay and a  higher percentage of neutralization (of CPI  Index) is applied to the first few slabs pf pay, and a gradually reducing neutralization to the subsequent slabs of pay to determine the DA payable . To be equitable, following the same pattern,the slabs of pension and the percentage of neutralization should be the same as that of the pay slabs mentioned above in order to determine the DR payable to the pensioners.

    ii) However, the Pension Rules 1995 contained a villain in the form of Appendix IV, which provided reduction of slabs of DR to half—as a result, in one stroke the DR got reduced to about 50% . This was a stab in the back of the pensioner and a gross violation of the principles enshrined in the M.O.U. This is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and the rectification of this truncated DR imposed on Pre 1997 LIC Retirees still eludes them and they continue to draw during the last 2 decades the same ''basic pension" based on the last pay fixed for them at the time of their retirement, thus creating wide disparity among different classes of pensioners based on their dates of retirement.

  iii)Fairness and Equity demand that the pattern of DR Fixation and Upgradation and Revision of Pension should have been the same as that of DA Fixation and upgradation and Revision of pay for in service employees during the successive  Wage Settlements for in service employees.

  iv)  Basic Principles of fairness and prudence and financial canons of equity and justice should be strictly observed by the LIC Mgmt. Other parameters and limits of ratios in the matter of deciding the different pay scales between the lowest and the highest cadres and the consequential relativity in pay scales amongst the different cadres should be maintained for a workable solution.

 3)Index linked Pension  is a misnomer

 i)An index linked pension by its very nature presupposes that the  "basic pension" determined  and fixed at the time of retirement of any employee will be upgraded /revised by merging a part of DR to the "basic pension" to arrive at the "revised pension" and the neutralization factor based on the then prevailing CPI Index will be applied on that " revised pension" to arrive at the consolidated pension payable to the pensioners.

   ii)It must also be noted that nowhere in the Pension Rules 1995 document it is stated that the  "basic pension" will never be revised.

   iii)It must also be equally emphasized that nowhere on the Pension Rule 1995 document , it is stated that only the "basic pension" fixed at the time of retirement will be paid to the pensioner till the end of his life.

    iv)Neither do we have any amendments in this regard nor do we have any option for the pensioner to exit or withdraw from this pension Scheme which in its present form has become a millstone round his neck.

 v)But, LIC Mgmt. all these years has insisted that the "basic pension" fixed at the time of retirement say for example 20 yrsback , cannot be  revised at all , and also asserts that neutralization based on the current CPI Index will only be applied on the "basic pension" fixed at the time of retirement 20 yrs back to arrive at the current pension payable to him. This is not only anachronistic and illogical, but also arbitrary, unfair, unethical, and discriminatory and violative of the  Fundamental Rights of equity and equality and right to live with dignity under Articles 14,16, and 21 guaranteed under our Constitution.

  The LIC Pensioners number is 46,000 . Many of the pre1997 pensioners are in their 80 s  and many more are in the late 70s . While our Court cases are going on during the last 2 decades, 16,000 of them have died without even seeing any revision in their pension and LIC Mgmt. and GOI is solely responsible for this tragedy.

vi) It must also be mentioned here that there was no pay revision for Class I officers for  10 long yrs from 1973 to 1983. But promotion from clerical to class I cadre  of course continued. No compensation for this huge loss has been made by LIC Mgmt. and the pre 1997 pensioners are again the most affected group here. 

vii) The delaying tactics of the LIC Mgmt. is akin to their using a sledge hammer to kill flies . GOI'S attitude is more despicable. It uses LIC as a milchcow for whatever purpose and whenever it wants . GOI is very benevolent to its own  Central Government servants offering their own very senior citizens accelerated pensions from age 80 onwards and even allows doubling of their pensions at higher ages, while in the case of LIC   which is a Maharathna financially in every sense of the term, they are standing in the way of LIC Mgmt. granting even the standardized and time honoured  revision of pension to LIC Pensioner employees .viii)This act of GOI is vindictive, patently partial, arbitrary, unfair, discriminatory and violative of the Fundamental Rights of equity and equality and the right to live with dignity under Articles 14.16.and 21 guaranteed under our Constitution.

 4)Provisions in LIC Pension Rules 1995 for Pension upgradation/Revision

The clear provisions  are :- Chapter iii of Pension Rules 1995 states:-

Rule 5(2) creating a separate LIC of India (Employee) Pension Fund, " the Rule states that the fund shall have for its sole purpose the provisions of the payment of  Pension or Family Pension in accordance with these rules to the employee or  his family".

Rule 5(3):- forcefully and specifically  confirms that "the Corporation shall be a contributor  to the Fund and shall ensure that the sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the Trustees to make due payments  to beneficiaries under the Rules".

Rule 13(b):- The Trust shall, subject to the availability of the additional sums in the Fund to be provided by the Corporation as required under Rule 5(3) purchase additional annuities as and when it becomes necessary to revise upwards the benefits payable in accordance with these Rules.

  LIC Pension Funding is strong being built and administered on sound, prudent and scientific lines. The New Pension Scheme (NPS) had come into force in LIC w.e.f -1-5-2010 , and all new recruits of the last 8 yrs and further new recruitment will not come under the purview of pension upgradation, and hence , pension payment under the LIC Pension Rules 1995 has become a close ended scheme.

R.V.RAMESH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fervent, Ardent & Earnest Appeal For Legal Fund

Fervent, Ardent & Earnest Appeal For Legal Fund

Fervent, Ardent & Earnest Appeal For Legal Fund

Dear Colleagues,
   Warm Greetings !  I do not wish to write much about the progress we
have been maintaining in conducting our case at Supreme Court, as,
time and again, our President and  General Secretary have kept you all
informed of the same in detail through periodical circulars. Now, it
becomes my foremost duty to write about our legal fund.
   You are aware that our demands of DR neutralization and upward
revision of pension, at par with enhancement of wages for in-service
employees at the interval of five years, cannot be dreamed of
securing, just like that, at the hands of the present
bureaucracy,unless we are thoroughly prepared to fight it out with
strong conviction and sufficient fund in reserve. Realizing the
prevalence of the toughest stand of LIC / UOI in negating our just
demands, our leaders took the unanimous decision of engaging an
eminent and reputed lawyer. After deep consideration and without
minding a little higher side of fees and allied expenses, it was
decided to seek the counsels of Sri. K.T.S.Tulsi, a senior most,
expert and prominent counsel. Urgency was also there to put forth our
reasonable arguments based on legal grounds, in such a fine way as to
convince the court that the counters preferred by the other side lack
proper basis.
   Our present Sr.Counsel has gone through our case and is fully
convinced that we are unnecessarily taken for a ride by LIC / UOI all
these years and that he is hopeful of winning our case. Our leaders
and legal committee members have apprised him of all our demands and
other connected details.
   All the cases are listed to 24th July and we presume that we could
come out with favourable orders after half-a-dozen sittings. My
personal opinion is, the period may not go beyond September.
   Friends, think a while, about the cost involved in it. No doubt
that we have spent a lot all these years and our efforts have
definitely done some thing good in not allowing our cases to be
dismissed at any stage. As we are now at the crucial final leg of our
legal battle, every penny we contribute towards our exchequer matters
much. Approximately, we may need a reserve of 40 to 50 lakhs. Our
AIRIEF has taken the lead in advancing our arguments ahead of other
sister organisations. This we do for the benefit of all cadres of
pensioners, including those who retired on and after 1-8-1997.
   So, participation of all members in the process of fundraising
campaign, at least from now on, becomes the dire need of the hour We
cannot dream of leading a decent standard life,if not a comfortable
and luxurious one, once we are forced to lose the case for want of
funds. As elders, you may not need any more clarifications on this
aspect. We have got sufficient amount of ammunition in our armoury and
we have chosen the seasoned fighter to fight against the evil designs.
Certainly, we will emerge from Supreme Court with colourful victories.
Short of funds should not be a hurdle to achieve our avowed goal.
   So, dear members, rise up to the occasion and exhibit your
participation, to the awe of others, by forwarding your contributions
to our General Secretary at Bengaluru, through your Divisional Units.
                                    " United We Stand,
                                      Divided We Fall "
Affectionately Yours,
B.Angurajan
All India Organizing Secretary.

P.S :  The recent judgement on Bank pensioners case on 100% DR
              neutralization is nothing to do with ours. It is
entirely a different one.

B.Angurajan

EXCERPTS FROM TODAY JUDGMENT IN 100 % BANK DA/DR CASE -DIARY NO. 4266/2017

What is prayed for is also not the same rate but the

same principle, namely, flat rate be made applicable to pre 01.11.2002

retirees as well but at a rate of 0.24%.

24. Would that be the correct approach? The tapering formula

undoubtedly begins with 0.24% for the first segment of Rs.3550/- of basic

pension and then progressively steps down and finally reaches the level of

0.06% where the basic pension is in excess of Rs.6010/-.

25. In our view any attempt to tinker with either the formula or the rate

would make the whole scheme unworkable as was cautioned by this Court in

the case of P.N. Menon and Others (supra). As held in the case of Indian

Ex-Services League and Others (supra) the decision of this Court in D.S.

Nakara (supra) is one of limited application and there is no scope for

enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all schemes made by the

retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the

date of retirement. The reliance on the resolutions/circulars issued by

Reserve Bank of India was also misplaced. It is true that the tapering

formula was done away with by Reserve Bank of India but that by itself

cannot entitle the retirees prior to 01.11.2002 either to be conferred the

advantage at the same rate made applicable by Reserve Bank of India or at

the flat rate of 0.24% as was sought to be projected.

In our considered view, the assessment made by the Division Bench of

the Madras High Court was absolutely correct. The settlement has to be

taken as a package deal and it would be impossible to hold certain parts

good and acceptable while finding other parts to be bad. Moreover, the

recitals D, E and F in the Bipartite settlement dated 02.06.2005 (quoted

hereinabove) show that a package deal was entered into and Rs.1288 crores

per annum towards all the benefits was set apart for the benefit of the

employees. Any stepping up of benefit for a section of employees is bound

to inflate the figure of Rs.1288 crores per annum though that by itself is not

a ground that weighs with us. In our view both the categories of retirees,

namely, pre November 2002 and post November, 2002 stand on different

footing, the parameters which govern the computation of dearness relief are

also on a different level. The decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well

as by the Division Bench of the High Court failed to appreciate these aspects

and in our view, the said decisions are completely erroneous.

26. It may also be noted that the decision of the Division Bench of the

Madras High Court having been confirmed by this Court, the matter stands

concluded. As has been observed in paragraphs 32, 41 and 44 of

Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another11, once leave to

appeal had been granted and the appellate jurisdiction of this Court was

invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger. Be

that as it may, we are satisfied that the Bipartite Settlement did not create

any distinction which was inconsistent with the principles laid down by this

Court.

27. We therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgments and orders

passed in the appeals and dismiss Writ Petition No.507 of 2012 preferred by

respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein. No order as to costs.