• home button animated and flashing
    • JOIN THE STRUGGLE FOR DE-LINKING 33 YEARS FOR 50% OF LAST DRAWN SALARY & PENSION UPDATION ALONG WITH EVERY REVISION OF SALARY FOR EMPLOYEES

    Saturday, 30 June 2018

    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

    Thursday, 21 June 2018

    Wednesday, 20 June 2018

    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

    Tuesday, 12 June 2018

    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
    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 himThis 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
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------