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.

Resolution Adopted by the 19 Th Annual General Body meeting of New India Assurance Retirees Association on 5^th May 2018.

Resolution. 1 - Pension Reforms

The Annual General Body Meeting unanimously demanded GIPSA and member companies to update Pension/Family Pension commensurate with Para 54B & 55 of General Insurance (Employees) Pension Scheme. 1995 which clearly express that "the pensionary benefits shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions contained in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. 1972 and the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as applicable to Central Government servants and in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government there under from time to time." The House deplored the lackadaisical approach of GIPSA in not recommending any reforms as above, cone awning the Pension Scheme.

Resolution. 2 – One More Option for Pension

 New India Assurance Retirees' Association - Kerala unanimously demand Notification of one more option for pension to all employees & Retirees who could not submit their Pension option earlier and express its serious concern over the delaying attitude of Government of India in notifying the same.

Resolution. 3 Issue of Pension Documents

The House observed that tho Public Sector General Insurance Companies are denying Pensioners and Family Pensioners Their Privilege to copy of the updated Copy of Pension Scheme. 1995 and Pension Book Containing Joint Photo Graph, Pension Payment Order & Annuity Number.

Reslution. 4 - Removal of anomalies in Pension

The House unanimously urge upon the Government and Ministry of Finance to remove anomalies in calculation of pension and family pension , Doing away with Pro-rata reduction of Pension as Modified in the CCS pension rules & Enhancing the limit minimum pension and family pension as per Central Govt Rules

Resolution.5  – Increase in GMC Eligible Sum Insured

The House wholeheartedly welcomes the Initiative of the GIPSA in increasing the Eligible Sum Insured under GMC to 5/6/10 Lakhs as per the Requests of our last year AGM. The AGM of the New India Retirees' Association -Kerala (NIARAS-Kerala) Express its Sincere Gratitude to GISA & New India Management for this Gesture.

Resolution. 6 – Out Patient Facilities(OP)

The House Unanimously Demand Introduction of OP Treatment Faculties In GMC Or to make a Fixed Lump sum payment to Retired Employees for OP treatment.

Resolution. 7 – Revision of Pension along with every wage Revision.

This AGM Demands the revision of Pension along with every wage revision in order to avoid prolonged legal battle as going between LIC management & Retirees association. Thus urges the GIPSA Management to start meaningful negotiation with Pensioners association with out further delay.

Resolution. 8 – Overseas Medical Extension

The House observed that due to domestic compulsions many of the retired people visit foreign destinations to stay with their children who are settled there The House unanimously demand GMC may be extended to cover overseas mediclaim.

Resolution.9 – GMC Claim settlement by HITPA the New TPA

While the house whole heartily welcomes the initiative of GIPSA Management in setting up our own TPA, Requests the Concerned authorities to exercise maximum precaution to manage the transition period & expedite the transfer of records from old TPA to HITPA. It has come to our Notice in many places cashless treatment treatment has been denied to the members of GMC. Hence Requests the HITPA Executive Director to open sufficient offices in the sate to handle claims. All the hospitals which were under the former TPA may be brought under HITPA to facilitate continuous consultation Since Case files of many retirees are held with them. Where there is no office of HITPA is not available, temporarily the the responsibility may be assigned to the Regional/Divisional offices.

Resolution.10 – Automatic Renewal of GMC Policy

The AGM of NIARAS-Kerala feels that GIPSA should introduce automatic renewal of GMC Policy by ducting premium from pension amount as provided to LIC Retirees to avoid non renewal of policy by very elderly retirees who are not aware of this.

Resolution.11 – CMD Ex-gratia for High cost of Medical Treatment

The house resolved that CMD ex-gratia for critical illness may  be extended to retirees also .

Resolution.12 – Grievance Redressal Mechanism

The House observed with Great Concern that retired people have to run from pillar to post whenever they or family members are hospitalized. We demand that the company should start a grievance cell or a service window at every Regional Office to monitor claim settlement giving proper and timely directions to TPA and Hospitals.

Resolution.13 – Intimation about Renewal of GMC Policy

The NIARAS-Kerala AGM feel neglected of the Company's attitude in keeping the retirees in the dark about renewal of Mediclaim policy and premium remittance despite the fact that the company has the facility to reach out to every retiree through SMS alert, like It is demonstrated in the case of renewal of 'Pradhan Manthri Suraksha Biala Yojana Policy' or in the marketing of 'Griha Suvidha Policy' assuring hassle-free claim settlement. The house expects positive response from the company from next renewal onwards.

Resolution.14 – Sigle Service Window

The House in unison demand that New India should take immediate steps to start a single window at every Regional Office in the country to address and redress the grievances of retired people like delayed pension disbursement. mediclaim imbroglio, inordinate delay in paying terminal dues. delay in issuing Form 16, restoration of full pension. Issue of identity cards etc.

Resolution.15Uninterupted Communication Channel

As it is said that lack of communication leads to Misunderstanding &  Suspicion, The House univocally demand that the Public Sector General Insurance Companies to establish proper & continuous communication channel with Pensioners/Retirees Associations in frequent interwel for feedback on pension disbursement/GMC claim settlement. The denial of even Acknowledgement of memorandum/representation from the former Pillars of this institution do not seems to be a good gesture from our Esteemed & Reputed company.

Details of Court Proceedings on 16-04-2018 ... Hearing listed for Tuesday 24-7-2018

E circular No.DK/21                                       18-04-2018

 (MAY BE PUBLISHED  IN THE BLOGS PLEASE)

Friends,   

I have just returned after a fairly detailed meeting with Sri G N Sridharan and Sri M Arunachalam  who attended the S C Hearing on the 16th at Delhi. Though substantively nothing changes from the brief information that was passed on in our communication  DK/19 , some highlights of the proceedings could be gathered and I thought these may be of interest to our members. 

1.  The Hearing on 16th came up at around 12 noon, and our Federation was represented in the Court by our Advocate on Record, Sri Rajiv Garg and our Senior Counsel Sri Hansaria.

2. Sri K T S  Tulsi, the Senior Counsel for AIRIEF was also present representing his client , one of the six  Petitioners.

3. Our Senior Counsel,  made out some basic points which included:

    a. Interim Relief of 40% paid to Pre-97 Retirees, over 2 years ago, had just remained as a one-time payment, and had not been followed up by monthly payments based on the Interim Relief ---- also they had been defectively calculated.

     b.   Anomalies in Pension amount  between Retirees of post 97 , because of periodic Revisions to the in-service stream and no changes for the Retirees.

4. Sri Thulsi, Sr. Counsel for AIRIEF, spoke strongly of the ageing  group of Pensioners,  and the need  for speedy disposal of our matter.   He also submitted a written Note to the judges .

5. LIC's Counsel Sri Panigrahi, intervened to ask the Bench for two weeks time, which was opposed by our counsel. The Bench, though appeared to be in a mood to pass orders, but after mutual consultations, agreed for an adjournment to July, and later, the Court Record of Proceedings for the day, shows the listing of our case for 24th July.

6. Since the Court itself had listed the Hearing for Tuesday, the 24th of July 2018, the reasonable inference is that there would be no change in that date .

7. Another inference is that the Hearing, on a Tuesday, when no miscellaneous/ admission cases would come up, could go on for extended hours if it is needed.

8. Normally when admission of SLP is ordered by the Court, it will automatically get numbered as a civil case, and  would go through much delay in disposal finally. If at admission stage itself the arguments suggest completeness, it can also go in for final disposal without getting numbered as a civil case.

With Greetings and Best Wishes

D.Krishnan.                                                                                 GENERAL SECRETARY

MY SUPPLEMENTARY RESPONSE TO MR SN’s POST ON ‘APPLICABILITY OF CCS PENSION RULES’

Mr SN, sometime ago, has more or less penned his thoughts on the same wave length of mine. However, I thought I can supplement his views by conveying my thoughts based on my understanding of the issues in the context of the case before the Supreme Court. I could not respond immediately because of some other urgent pre-occupations.

THE DHC JUDGMENT

The DHC judgment although disappointing to pensioners as a whole, provided some partial relief to pre-August 1997 retirees in the form of an improved DR formula, non-refund of 40 % interim relief paid by LIC and upgradation in minimum pension. Basically,the Bench rejected the prayers of the six petitioners for upgradation of the pensionagainst which SLPs have been filed before the Supreme Court for adjudication.

Although pre-August 1997 retirees have got some benefit by some improvement in the DR formula ordered by DHC,an anomaly has been created in regard to the principle followed for modification of the DR rate followed in the wage revisions effective from 1/8/1992 where the DR  rate fixation for each tapering slab had followed a pattern  depending on the change in AICPI which has been unsettled by the DHC judgment. The only anomaly that had to be rectified was the disparity between the DR formula for retirees and the DA formula for in-service employees for the same period, which the DHC failed to do.100% DR neutralisation  happened after 1/8/1997 and so what is of crucial relevance for pre-August 1997 retirees is equitable neutralisation of DR with that of  in-service employees for the period upto 31/7/1997.What is of importance from 1/8/1997 is the need  for  upgradation of pension for all generations of pensioners,past,present and future.

The relief provided by the DHC by way of upgradation of minimum pension although intended to remove violation of Article 21 has in its wake created another discrimination in the sense that borderlineregular and family pensioners who are drawing just a few rupees above the minimum pension are not fortunate enough to get the relief but instead have to draw less gross pension than the ‘minimum pensioners’ besides being deprived of arrears. This effectively means that Article 21 continues to be violated because right to life extends beyond sustenance to ‘right to living with dignity’ which is denied to the pensioners who are on upper borderline to ‘minimum pensioners’. While the number of minimum pension cases may be confined to a small number of regular pensioners in the lower cadres with substantially lower period than that of the required qualifying service of 33 years, the number affected among family pensioners may be much more because of the dismally low rate provided by the family pension formula which-like everything else- remains static in our Pension Rules. Interestingly, the fixation of minimum pension for post July 2012 retirees has been done in such a manner that the retirees of the period 1/8/2007 to 31/7/2012 are better off without upgradation in minimum pension.

The distinction drawn between ‘Pay as you go’ approach and ‘Actuarial and Annuity Method’ makes very little legal sense considering that both are different approaches to fulfil the same object, viz, that of fulfilling a legal obligation of payment of pension to employees, be it the Central Government or LIC.

Much is made of the so called “self-funded’ scheme.Let us be clear that LIC Employees’ Pension Scheme is not a self funded scheme, but an additionally funded scheme as is evident from additional contributions made to the Pension Fund every year as a result of the annual actuarial valuation. Being a funded scheme is not an impediment for upgradation; if it is so, it also makes the existing pension payment unsustainable. The basic question is whether upgradation of pension is warranted or not in terms of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then whether it is a funded scheme or any other kind of scheme makes no difference. 

The Rule 55B seems to have been kept hidden from the public domain until it was discovered by the pensioners themselves after the Jaipur Bench judgment. Even though the Notification 05/09/2005 regarding wage revision w.e.f. 1/8/2002 is appearing as a footnote in the LIC Pension Rules 1995 which is in public domain, Rule 55 B which was inserted by a Notification dated 13/8/2001, the section is conspicuous by its absence in the copy displayed in the LIC web-site. Thiswas brought into public notice only in the Writ Petitions filed before the Delhi High Court. This is the rule that is very crucial forus in conjunction with Rule 5(3), Rule 11, and Rule 13(b) for our current fight in the SC.

If CCS Pension Rules are applied to LIC Pension Rules under Rule 56, the following incidental benefits beyond upgradation should also accrue to LIC pensioners:

1.    Improvement in the formula for computing average emoluments;

2.    Full pension after completing 20 years of service;

3.    Increase in the family pension rate of 30% of last pay;

4.    Increased pension after completion of 80 years of age.

It is settled law that pension is deferred wage in recognition of past service rendered and is not a bounty, but a right. So, it carries with it all the properties of ‘salary’. When there is a revision of salary periodically, there has to be a revision of pension as well.

Mere index- linking to pension does not compensate for the loss of capital value of the basic pension. The quarterly or half-yearly revision of DR based on AICPI is just to give relief to employees/pensioners against the increase in the cost of living faced by them in the short to medium term. But inflation erodes the capital value of the salary/basic pension which constitutes a financial asset. For salaries ofLIC employees five-yearly wage revision off-sets the effect of inflation. In case of Central Government employees ten- yearly revisions of salaries as well as pension are provided for the same purpose. It defies reason and logic that upgradation of pension has been denied to LIC Pensioners despite Rule 56 which is crystal clear.

Let us hope that these issues are adequately argued before the Apex Court and justice secured for LIC pensioners.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

IBA -CPI 1166-1184 AREARS CALCULATOR

CLICK HERE

Status of Filing of Rejoinder by the LIC Petitioners

Status of Filing of Rejoinder by the LIC Petitioners

ATTENTION LIC PENSIONERS,   AS PER  THE INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE CONCERNED PETITIONERS THE LATEST STATUS OF FILING OF REJOINDERS BY THEM IS AS UNDER:  1) Federation  05.03.2018  2). AIIPA 06.03.2018  3). AIRIEF 19.03.2018 4) Asthana 19.03.2018  5). Panchkula 02.04.2018

6. Hyderabad     likely to file on 07. 04.2018 

Hearing is likely to take place on 09.04.2018