Tuesday, August 4, 2015



IN the first page of our e-magazine, EASTERN NEWS August'15 issue, the name of our former President DR APJ ABDUL KALAM's  has been mentioned as DR ABJ ABDUL KALAM. WE REGRET THE MISTAKE.

Subir Kumar Mazumder


Dear Mr Gangadharan,

I am V . lakshmi Narayana, Retd SDM, Rajahmundry DN, AP,settled at Hyd. I am a regular visitor of your chronicle which is doing unique service in disseminating information of interest to the pensioner community.

I am sending an attachment containing a speech delivered by late Dr Abdul Kalam which is inspiring and showcases his vision of developed India of his dreams. I thought it would be worth finding a place in our Blog. If you feel the same this may be published for the information of our community. 

Please click here to read SPEECH

With regards
V LakshmiNarayana

Monday, August 3, 2015

The Chandigarh Platform – To benefit all LIC Pensioners

The Chandigarh Platform – To benefit all LIC Pensioners

अज्ञ:सुखमाराध्य: सुखतरमाराध्यते विशेषज्ञ:
ज्ञान लव दुर्विदग्धं ब्रह्म्मापि नरं रंजयति।।

Mr B S Hegde and the likes of him should take off the blinkers on their eyes and start seeing the world beyond Jaipur & Asthana, if they are really interested in LIC Pensioners as a whole.  All of them including the mighty AIRIEF have gambled enough on Asthana all these years and by Hegde’s own admission in his latest Post in the PC full of his random thoughts, he fears that LIC Pensioners are not going to get anything from the on-going litigation before the Supreme Court. He therefore wants someone to start a country-wide campaign to create awareness on OROP. What a brilliant suggestion? Mr Hegde, why don’t you start one yourself after walking out of the KML bandwagon if you fear that ‘in rem’ is not going to work? KML had already left all of you in the lurch and so you now look to AIRIEF to implead itself before the Supreme Court to take care of your interests. And achieve for all its members (and others), what KML is unable (or unwilling?) to achieve? KML is anyway busy collecting from LIC, some eighteen thousand rupees each, to his pre-97 retiree-petitioners including himself, leaving behind his other co-petitioners not to talk of Mr B S Hegde and his forty thousand co-victims as far as interim relief is concerned.    

Like KML had confessed, this BSH also waited a whole week after the Chandigarh HC on 20 July dismissed and threw LIC’s petition out (for withdrawing 20% of the money deposited) to comment on what happened in the Court on 28 July. From what I could notice on Hegde’s calibre to evaluate the implications of the Chandigarh developments on 20th & 28th July 2015, I am convinced it is beyond him to comprehend.

Without wasting time on the uninformed comments by half-baked lawyers, I wish people (who are unable to digest how LIC’s deliberate mischief in twisting the 7 May Order of Supreme Court was stubbornly checkmated in Chandigarh) answer the following questions honestly.

1.   When LIC tried to withdraw Rs.3,92,727.60p at Jaipur and Rs 6,73,567/- at Chandigarh, was it right to allow it or was it right to oppose the move?

2.   If they are not sure or do not want to answer the first question because they have scores to settle with their Panchkula counterparts, can they at least visualize whether the LIC Pensioners as a whole, are better or worse off AFTER LIC withdrew Rs.3,92,727.60p at Jaipur?

3.   Now that LIC’s Application at Jaipur has been allowed unopposed, does anybody (other than KML) expect that LIC will not use the sum of Rs 3.92 Lakhs to pay to the 21 Petitioners and exclude others? Or does anybody expect LIC would add some Rs 2 crores and pay at least to all the Petitioners in Jaipur?

4.   Those who think LIC’s attempts to withdraw 20% of the amounts deposited should not be opposed as a piece of divine strategy - can they explain why the whole amount deposited was not drawn all these years? 100% of what was deposited was bad money then and 20% of it is good money now? And this ‘one of its kind’ somersault is sought to be explained with a very original (I called it bizarre – I stick to it) theory that the ‘withdrawal’ and ‘payment’ have nothing to do with each other.

On the Organizational policy decision by AIRIEF to implead itself before the Apex Court and the renewed clamour for the move by the bystanders like Mr Hegde, let them be prepared fully to answer some awkward questions that they may face before the Supreme Court. Whatever may be the real compulsions and reasons behind this belated move (more difficult to explain than Union of India filing its SLPs five years after the impugned Judgement was delivered), the grounds for impleading to be adopted officially in the Application are not going to be easy. AIRIEF can neither own nor disown KML & Co - the original Petitioners, while trying now to directly enter the fray. That it had ‘invested’ over half a crore of rupees so far on one individual heading a small batch of private litigants, is at best good enough to give it the status off the record, of a surrogate mother. But such a claim will be wholly untenable and irrelevant before the altar of the country’s highest judiciary. I find the path slippery. Before taking the first formal step to enter the fray, the Organization may have to ‘rope in’ and activate its think-tank to mull on the major move and not be swayed by any wrong priorities.

We are passing through not only the final phase but the most critical one too. Let us not play with the interests of forty thousand of our own colleagues – both senior and contemporary. Let debates be issue-based and not for scoring points over others.

I said this before but I need to repeat – what is being attempted in Chandigarh and on behalf of the Petitioners there, is being done with utmost diligence and responsibility. It is intended to win points that should ultimately benefit our Pensioner community as a whole. Our immediate focus is not to let LIC browbeat us and get away without properly implementing the 7 May Order of the Supreme Court.

Before concluding this Post (thank you Mr B S Hedge), I wish to caution all our Pensioner-friends – that no doubt 23 Sept 2015 is not too far – but don’t expect much to happen either on that day or soon thereafter. LIC would give way to Union of India to press for the latter’s SLPs on the ground that its own case is wholly dependent on what UoI had to say. And both of them together, are known experts in seeking and getting long adjournments at the drop of a hat. We should be alert to oppose such moves stoutly. Our co-petitioners are also known for their susceptibilities in contributing by themselves, towards avoidable adjournments. Recent history is evidence enough.

Then the 7 May Order of the SC should come to our rescue in a big way. We need to prepare the ground for it from now on. The Chandigarh HC Order of 28 July is not a set back – far from it. It directly helps focus attention on the SC interim direction of 7 May, for the benefit of ALL – across Organizations.

Support us emotionally. Fund raising is not our business
Nor is it the subject matter of this Appeal.

M Sreenivasa Murty


Happy Friendship Day (02-08-2015) to All

There is much to learn from the write up of Shri M V Venugopalan. He is free and frank in his observations. He is also cautious and neutral in his approach onongoing internal bickering and unhealthy war of words among leaders of repute. They may or may not heed to his request. They are at liberty to argue and fight their cases independently of one another. However, they may without interfering or questioning wisdom of others. None of them are in politics or playing political games. There is no need to open the old wounds. There is no need to oppose the others for the sake of opposition.

If we coolly examine the Chandigarh High Court order of 28-07-2015, we understand that the Judge has given a miss to the 'Ad Interim' ruled by the Apex Court and has ordered to await the Apex Court decision on the appeals to be heard on and after 23-09-2015. The order is not intended to be favourable or unfavourable to Shri MSM, the pleader or to the petitioners / pensioners.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )


Rule 56 of LIC of India (Employees’) Pension Rules, 1995 reads as follows:

“Residuary provisions-

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 the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for central government  employees.”

Besides the other strong points in our favour of our upgradation, the above Rule can be cited very strongly to justify upgradation of pension with every wage revision. Upgradation of pension is a matter relating to pension in respect of which no express provision has been made in the Pension Rules, 1995.Express provisions can be in the form of either providing a benefit or excluding a benefit. As neither of such provisions has been made in the pension rules relating to upgradation of pension, the Central Government rules cited in the above Rule will have to be applied.

Originally, the above Central Government rules of 1972 did not provide for upgradation  of pension for its employees, but the Vth Pay Commission Recommendations provided for  upgradation of pension effective from 1/1/1996 and it was accepted by the Central Government  to the extent that pension of all pre 1.1.96 retires including pre-86 retires shall be consolidated as on 1.1.1996 as recommended, but the consolidated pension shall be brought on to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement.

LIC Pension Rules explicitly exclude the pre-1986 retirees from their purview.
But the benefit that arises from the Jaipur Single judge Bench Order provides for parity of pension on upgradation instead of revision to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement as provided for in the Central Government rules..

Whatever may be the final verdict of the Apex Court in the event of a favorable outcome, besides other strong grounds, the Rule 56 can be deployed successfully by our counsel in the 23rd September hearing to justify our case for upgradation of pension in tandem with wage revisions.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Putting Record Straight‏

Dear Editor,

     I have just read a post from Sh. B.S.Hegde on your blog. 

      I feel that our highly learned friend Sh. Hegde is either misinformed or   has  misinterpreted  what ever brief he has been provided to him by his sources.

      Let me make a humble attempt to put the record straight.

1. Both Panchkula and Jaipur are affiliated Units of AIRIEF.

2. AIRIEF  decided long back that expenses incurred on legal battle upto high court level will be borne by respective Divisional Units .

3.  In addition to total expenses incurred by Panchkula AIRIEF Unit till date on  legal battle at chandigarh high court level, we have been contributing to AIRIEF Legal Fund also.

4. Yes, we are Thankful to AIRIEF for taking care of our legal battle expenses at supreme court level as per its decision.

5. Yes, it is another issue that even AIRIEF could not execute its own decision and has been financing Sh. Asthana for his expenses incurred even  at Jaipur high court level . 

6. Sh. Asthana despite being a very big  AIRIEF leader could not remit even a single Rupee to AIRIEF Legal Fund till date from Jaipur AIRIEF Membership base whatever little  same is  despite no of LIC Pensioners must be approx one thousand plus there.

7.  Unlimited no of IAs and writ petitions in addition to main case were filed both at Jaipur high court and supreme during last more than two years span at the expense of AIRIEF Legal Fund with zero outcome and hence entire expense has proved to be a total waste at the cost of poor LIC Pensioners.

     Let everyone see now  who is greedy and who has grossly misused AIRIEF Legal Fund ? 


Sunday, August 2, 2015

Chandigarh Contempt Case

The so called brilliant arguments of Mr. Sreenivasa Murty came to nought as the case now stands where it was before. Still I see MSM and B.R. Mehta patting each others back and blaming Mr. Asthana for whatever is not happening. Mr. MVV has rightly brought out in his communication addressed to Mr. Asthana the negative pulls exerted by Panchkula people.

The Panchakula Unit people were so mean as to demand (they got Rs. 1,50,000 refund also from AIRIEF ) refund of the legal fund contribution made to AIRIEF. Their request for contribution from AIRIEF for continuing their legal battle is more deplorable since they don't see eye eye with the AIRIEF leaders. Now that all the 3 cases are taken up together at the Supreme Court, LIC Pensioners need not bother about what the Panchkula Unit does or does not. The result would be the same even if M. L. Gandhi's case is contested or not, since the Chandigarh H. C. Judgement is entirely based on Jaipur Case judgement.

It is essential that AIRIEF get themselves pleaded as a party in this case, since LIC management and the GOI seem hell bent on not according the benefits of any positive judgements in favour of the Pensioners in rem. (Whether the Court will allow that at this stage is uncertain.) It is now clear as sky that even if a favourable judgement is delivered by S.C.the benefits of it will remain a far cry for the Pensioners. The need of the hour is not the unity of 3 LIC pensioner litigants, but unity of Pensioners of all the industries and service organisations at large and a full throated political support for our demands. The need of the hour should be in the direction of creating public awareness for OROP.


My response to Mr M V Venugopalan's reply to Mr Asthana


Mr Venugopalan has stated,“It is true that our people dealing with the Punjab and Haryana H.C  did’nt act  according to how you strategised.  I also felt, that as long as the authenticity and veracity of the figures worked out by Shri.Mahadevan is not established, to the mutual satisfaction of LIC and the case handlers, how it would be possible for Mr.Murthy to argue that the amount deposited by LIC fell far short of the required amount. Moreover, in so far as they have not sought clarification of the 7th May Order from the Supreme Court, how did they come to the conclusion that the 20% referred to in the SC Order related to both DR and Upgradation? It was purely hypothetical….”

My humble opinion is that there is no scope for mutual satisfaction of LIC and the case handlers when LIC is deliberately misinterpreting the Jaipur  & Chandigarh HC Bench judgments on their writ petitions as also the LIC Board Resolution.

It should be appreciated that the Jaipur Single judge Bench judgment dt 12/1/2010 conveys the following decisions:
  1. The first  writ petition no 6676/1998  that prayed for removal of DR anomaly prior to 1/8/1997 and parity of DR formula  between in-service employees and retirees  has been allowed;
  2. The second  writ petition no 654/2007 praying for upgradation of pension  for retired employees  on revision of salaries for in-service employees has also been allowed;
  3. A direction has been given to LIC to take steps to implement the LIC Board Resolution.
Combining all the above three, it can be safely construed that the judgment provides for not only removal of DR anomaly prior to 1/8/1997and 100% DR neutralization, but also upgradation of pension in tandem with wage revisions.
Also five of the petitioners of Jaipur are post July 1997 retirees and the allowing of WP No 654/2007 by Jaipur Bench, entitles them also for upgradation of pension in tandem with wage revisions.

When the SLP of LIC was converted into Civil Appeal, Supreme Court made it clear that there will be no stay on the Rajasthan High Court judgment. Thus, pending the disposal of the Civil Appeal by the Supreme Court, the Jaipur SJB judgment dt 12/1/2010 has become binding on LIC.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dt 9/11/1992 had allowed the writ petition  for upgradation of pension on substituted scales of pay on 1/8/1997, & 1/8/2002 and also thereafter in terms of the Jaipur Bench judgment. The prayer in the Writ petition also included payment of interest on the belated payment of dues.
Here again, the Supreme Court refused to grant interim relief to LIC pending disposal of its Civil Appeal resulting from conversion of its SLP.Thus, this judgment is also binding on LIC pending disposal of the Civil Appeal in the case.
I am not discussing the Delhi HC judgment here  as it is restricted to removal of DR anomaly and 100% DR neutralization for pre-August 1997 retirees and not upgradation.

So considering the Rajasthan & Pb & Haryana HC judgments together, even if the aspect of interest for delayed payment is ignored, I am sure that any legal person will agree that both the judgments are presently binding on LIC although finality will emerge only on or after 23/9/2015.
The calculations made by us keeping in mind the above two judgments may not be authentic in the context of pending CAs,but in the context of LIC deliberately misinterpreting the judgments falling back on a deliberately erroneous interpretation of the ambiguously worded Board Resolution( denying  further revision of pension on 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 on the same principles of merger of DR with Basic Pension as at 1/8/1997),the figures can be taken as tentatively authentic unless LIC has alternative calculations to contest them  on a proper interpretation of the two HC judgments.So Mr Sreenivasa Murty was definitely  on strong grounds in arguing  that the amount deposited by LIC fell far short of the required amount .

In fact with about two years having elapsed since Supreme Court refused to stay the HC judgments, LIC has so far  got away with not implementing the judgments. It is another matter that the contempt petition at Jaipur got dismissed as withdrawn(but not on merits) and another contempt petition is pending at Pb & Haryana HC.Implementation of the judgments will not be complete unless the petitioners obtain enhanced pension every month. Aged pensioners are in a state of anxious waiting with many unfortunate ones having left this world during these two years.

For a discerning lawyer who would have perused the judgment of Jaipur, I am sure  it will be clear that LIC Board Resolution is only a part of the whole judgment. A good part of the text of the judgment has been devoted to the landmark DS Nakara judgment of the Supreme Court which focuses on upgradation of pension. But if we understand the method followed by LIC for depositing the amounts in Jaipur & Chandigarh HC Registries, it will be clearly seen that they have taken the Board Resolution as the sole basis of their calculations that too in a faulty and one-off manner as convenient to them, while the contempt petitions were for non-implementation of the HC judgments! We should remember that LIC Board Resolution was passed at a time when only wage revision as at 1/8/1997 only had taken place whereas the HC judgment dt 12/1/2010  was delivered when the wage revision effective from 1/8/2002 was also in vogue. Later in 2010 the wage revisions effective from 1/8/2007 was notified. Thus the benefits ordered by the Jaipur Bench were far more than what were envisioned by LIC Board Resolution on 24/11/2001.  

For the above reasons, my personal view is that the ‘amount due’ referred to in the Supreme Court Order dt 7/5/2015 is the amount of arrears of enhanced pension on account of removal of DR anomaly and upgradation of pension in chain. It will be appreciated that the demand is perfectly logical and legal and not hypothetical.

We need not be defensive in demanding what is legally due to us as above ,but what is more important is the deft handling of the legal fight in the Supreme Court in a non-discordant manner.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Views of a former Leader of Officers who is also now a practising Senior Lawyer at Karnataka High Court


"The record note of discussions is wholly without authority of law and neither the IBA nor the constituents of UFBU have any mandate or authority to sign it. Taking up the locus standi of IBA first unnumbered para-1 of record note of discussion states:
“The periodic wage revision exercise based on mandate from member banks cover only wages and service conditions of serving employees.”
The pensioners with whom this opinion is concerned are those who had retired from the services of banks anterior to 1st November 2012. That means on the date the dispute between the UFBU and IBA arose viz., 1-11-2012 none of them were in the services of banks. Therefore, admittedly IBA had no mandate or authority to have discussed the matters concerning those who have retired from the services of banks prior to 1-11-2012. In so far as constituents of UFBU are concerned, since the matter is squarely covered by Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the said unions had no right to represent those workmen who ceased to be employees of banks prior to 1-11-2012 and as far as officers trade unions constituents of UFBU are concerned, they also lacked jurisdiction on principles analogous to the said provision of law. Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act reads:
“18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding. –
(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration. (3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3-A) of Section 10-A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal which has become enforceable shall be binding on –
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedings as parties to the dispute, unless the Board, arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, records the opinion that they were so summoned without proper cause;
(c) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is an employer, his heirs, successors or assigns in respect of the establishment to which the dispute relates;
(d) where a party referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) is composed of workmen, all persons who were employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute relates on the date of the (d) dispute and all persons who subsequently become employed in that establishment or part.”
A reading of the above provision particularly clause (d) of sub-section (3) shows that neither the settlement nor the joint note nor the record note of discussions bind persons who cease to be in employment of banks prior to 1-11-2012 or at any event before 30th October 2012 on which day charter of demands was presented pertaining to salary revision with effect from 1-11-2012. A trade union can represent only present and future employees and not past employees the status being determined on the date of the dispute. Therefore, the record note of discussions having been signed by two parties who had no authority to sign it is a nullity in law and such a document cannot annul, alter or modify the statutory Pension Regulations. Reason for the law excluding past employees from the right of unions to represent is obvious. What is without mandate is void and unenforceable. Therefore, the record note of discussions has no effect in law insofar as those who have retired from the services of the Banks prior to 01.11.2012 .
Now, about merits of the statements made in the record note of discussions. I have already stated that pension is a statutory right and therefore, there is no need to labour upon absence of contractual relationship set out in the unnumbered first paragraph of record note of discussions. It is settled that though the employer-employee relationship as is normally understood ceases on superannuation, the right to pension as a statutory right and liability of banks to pay pension as a statutory liability arises on retirement and continues after retirement and to that extent in respect of pensioner employer-employee relationship subsists. It is settled further that in respect of services under the State which include nationalized banks as instrumentalities of the State the employer-employee relationship is one of status though it originates from a contract namely application for employment, offer of appointment, its acceptance, and joining service. That way, in so far as nationalized banks are concerned, there is no contractual relationship between the bank and its employees even when they are in service and the relationship is one of statutory status and that statutory status is not taken away by retirement but continues in a different form. In fact even the Pension Regulations recognize this relationship. To cite a few provisions of the Pension Regulations which speak of continuance of relationship – Chapter V dealing with classes of pension ends with Regulation 34 and speaks of eligibility for payment of pension from 1-11-1993 to those who have retired already and the subsequent chapters viz., Chapter-VI dealing with rates of pension, Chapter-VII dealing with family pension, Chapter-VIII dealing with commutation and Chapter-IX dealing with general conditions are pertaining only to this continuance of relationship and incidents thereof after cessation of service. Regulation 42 in particular stipulates that pension is subject to future good conduct. Regulation 43 enables withholding or withdrawal of pension and Regulations 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 speak of continued limited disciplinary jurisdiction of the bank on pensioners even after their retirement. Regulation 50 restricts right to post-retirement employment of pensioners and makes it subject specifically to prior permission of the Bank. These are enough to say that the statutory relationship between the pensioner and the bank remains after retirement and in fact commences on retirement.
perumal maruthu)



    Our Association's Bulletin No.35 : Quarter July - September, '15
        Please find herewith the captioned bulletin and the attachments relevant to it (as precisely explained here under).
    1. ​Main Bulletin - English version -  containing Pages ​Nos. 1, 2, 5 & 6 
    2. Annexure : I showing details of members joined our Association during the previous quarter i.e. April to June,'15
    3. Annexure : II Format of the Letter to be sent by the members to our Association after their financial contribution (as requested in the Bulletin) is credited to our Association's Bank Account
    4. Annexure : III : is meant for our members settled in South Gujarat
    5. Pages Nos. 3 & 4 of the Bulletin i.e. Gujarati version of Page No. 1 & 2 of the Main Bulletin

    ​    We shall be able to dispatch hard copies of all these materials to all our members after the same will be printed - probably within a week​.

    Yours sincerely,
    General Secretary

    Saturday, August 1, 2015

    Response to Venugopalan's post

    Dear Editor,

    Let me wish you first a very speedy recovery from your health related personal issue which you are facing right now so that our beloved PC is back to its normalcy. Let me also congratulate you for likely crossing of 13 million hits by your blog either today evening or tomorrow morning.

    Next, I wish to congratulate and thank Sh. MV Venugopalan for putting his views today on your blog in utmost logical way.

    I also wish to say few things in this regard as below.

    1. Sh. Asthana preferred to respond to an open appeal from Sh. Murty on your blog on another blog day before yesterday due to reasons best known to him only.

    2. An application from LIC for release of 20% deposited amount at Jaipur High Court stands approved on 30.07.2015 by this high court .There was no question of opposing said application by LIC says Sh. Asthana.

    3. We are looking forward to see the outcome of a new theory floated by Sh. Asthana saying that there is a lot of difference between amount withdrawn and amount paid. He thinks that LIC will draw only 20%from high court but will pay much more i.e amount which is actually due to petitioners is likely to be paid by LIC. God bless his theory.

    4. Since we do not agree with above theory so Chandigarh High Court dismissed as withdrawn similar application from LIC here on 20.07.2015.

    5. How Unity among three case managers is possible when Sh. Asthana openly tells every one that other two case managers do not know any thing about law and all those retired in RM (Legal ) cadres do not know any thing about law as they were simply doing clerical job only during their such tenures and hence they are like donkeys in understanding of legal issues. Live witness Sh. S. N. Chhabra Panchkula.

    6. For Unity , mutual respect and regard for other two respected case managers is a must but to expect same from Sh. Asthana is like Sun rising from west. But since he is the architect of entire legal battle so our prayers to Almighty to Bless him always.



    31 Thirty One D.A slabs  due to LIC Pensioners wef 1st August, 2015



    Dear Shri.Asthana,
        Thanks for your letter of the 28th instant and  congratulate you for speaking your mind.  Let me begin by assuring you that the entire community of pensioners is aware of  the good work done by you all these years  and the positive results  it has produced so far. There is no way  anyone can take it away from you, however much they try. Therefore, kindly shed misgivings,  if any,  you have in this regard. You are the architect of three valuable Jaipur HC verdicts which formed the very basis for all the consequent scene of actions, leading upto the Supreme Court. History is a record of facts and it can’t be re-written!
     Coming to the issues and points raised by you, I entirely agree that you may not be in a position to put out for the consumption of all the pensioners the micro-details of the strategy you are planning  in dealing with each and every  case- related situation. It is certainly not warranted  keeping in view the fact that both the GOI and LIC are always on the watch. However, I don’t think any harm will be done if you indicate the direction in which you want to move as and when a hearing is fixed, either before the HC or the SC.
       It is true that  our people dealing with the Punjab and Haryana H.C  did’nt act  according to how you strategised.  I also felt, that  as long as the authenticity and veracity of the figures worked out  by Shri.Mahadevan is not established, to the mutual satisfaction of LIC and the case handlers, how it would be possible for Mr.Murthy to argue that the amount deposited by LIC fell far short of the required amount. Moreover, in so far as they have not sought clarification of the 7th May Order from the Supreme Court ,how did they come to the conclusion that the 20% referred to in the SC Order related to both DR and Upgradation.?.It was purely hypothetical. The issue is not really that. The issue is that  you two don’t see eye to eye and  it seems to be the avowed policy of both to attach the least importance to each others views or wait for the earliest opportunity to prove the other person wrong. Unless this acrimony is buried deep down and each learns to respect  the others  views,opinions and suggestions, I don’t see any way out. That their expectations didn’t fructify and they were left high and dry after the Order of P&H ,H.C  on 28th July, is another matter. Strange and meandering are the ways of the judiciary!
      Now that Mr.Sreenivasa Moorthy has addressed you an open letter requesting you to oppose LICs  application for  withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited by them. On the premises  that the amount is grossly inadequate (only 9% of the amount actually due) in terms of Mr.Mahadevans calculations, he  has cautioned you not to fall in the trap laid by LIC in settling down for an amount worked out by them and that too covering only the DR arrears.Without going into the merits of his reasoning, please let me know whether  you will at all give any credence to his suggestion. You are not to be blamed at all for the simple reason, anyone having semblance of self-respect cannot  give the suggestion a second thought under the present dispensation. Mr.Mehta has,in his latest post in the Chronicle, described  you as ‘arrogant’ and adds that you will be the happiest person to learn about the outcome of the 28th hearing . While Mr.Sreenivasa Murthy  is making a passionate plea to Mr.Asthana to fall in line with his thinking, one of them in his camp calls Mr.Asthana  “arrogant”. Unless  the blow-hot, blow –cold  approach  and   mutual reproachment ends, the  amity and   unity of purpose between the two camps will remain a pipe-dream. May I request  both Mr.Asthana and Mr.Murthy to appreciate the ground reality and take the first step forward in bringing  about a beautiful working relationship for the common good of the pensioners!
       And, as regards the advisability of initiating contempt proceedings,notwithstanding what Shri.Katju has observed, we  should weigh whether it will prove to be beneficial to us or not.  ‘Contempt’ proceedings   is a legal remedy to the aggrieved party when we have respondents like LIC, who are bent upon  twisting the  pronouncements of Hon.judges to their advantage and treat the implementation portion with utter callousness and impunity. .So, Contempt ,per-se is not a bird word , but  having reached the final stages of our legal battle, its use should be the rarest of rare instances. Thanks for clearing the mystery surrounding the Contempt proceedings initiated by you in Jaipur H.C. In a nutshell, taking recourse to the Contempt route, at this stage is not at all advisable. The pensioners have run out of patience and ,therefore, any act which will prolong the denouement should be abandoned.
       As a fellow-pensioner and belonging to the same age group, I  think I can take the liberty of  giving you a piece of advise. May be  the ‘PENSIONERS CHRONICLE’ had its origin more recent than you started your efforts in securing ultimate justice for  the hapless lot of pensioners .But , the fact remains that  it has ,today, turned out to be a very  vital and reliable  mouthpiece of the Pensioners . The right thing for us to do is to keep on encouraging the splendid efforts  put in by its Editor, Mr.PG Gangadharan , in making it absolutely interesting and palatable to all of us.  At this advanced age, whatever little done by any of our pensioner friends calls for unqualified appreciation and support.  I hope , you will agree with me. All of us are aware that you are carrying the burden of the legal battles on your shoulders despite being plagued by indifferent health.
         Messrs.Sreedharan, Asthana and Sreenivasamurthy  are all well-meaning  leaders. Personal problems notwithstanding, all the three of them have put their heart and soul in just one objective;one aim ,that of  ensuring a decent living for their fellow-pensioners  by  fighting legal battles in various courts. The roads taken by THEM to reach the destination may be different but the destination is the same. Then, why not there be real UNITY IN DIVERSITY. 23rd of September is not far off. Please pull yourself together and present a common ,agreed strategy on that day. Hon.Judge Deepak Misra ,of late,has delivered some path-breaking judgments, the often quoted July 1st  decision is one amongst them. We have everything  going our way, except the infighting.We also have to keep in mind that LIC has access and reach to eminent and politically influential senior Advocates like, Abhishek Manu Singhvi,Harish salve,Pinku Anand etc.who can carry any given day with aplomb, leaving us in the lurch. We have to field equally efficient lawers on 23rd ,September.   Mr,Asthana, can we hope to see more and more letters being  addressed to the Editor of the Chronicle  in the days to come. Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours.
       With warm regards,


    Thursday, July 30, 2015


    (How LIC’s cheap strategy boomeranged)

    Dear LIC Pensioners,

    Many reports and comments are in circulation interpreting and reacting to the Chandigarh HC Orders dated 20th & 28th July 2015. I was a party to both. The first one dismissed the Application of LIC for withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited one year ago. The subtle point I raised and pressed for against the withdrawal request was accepted by the Judge and was also recorded in the Order at my request. The second occasion was the Hearing of the main Contempt Petition for which LIC filed its belated reply just a day before the hearing date, that too, because of the firm directions issued by the Court on 20 July 2015.

    If the Petition and the Reply are taken up and finally heard, the outcome should normally be either ALLOW the Petition (hold the respondent guilty of contempt) or DISMISS the same if the Respondent is found ‘not guilty’ as per the Court’s discretion. LIC Counsel has been pressing each time for dismissal of the Petition on the ground that it has deposited the money payable and so where is contempt? If the Petitioners are not satisfied, they have other remedies – file a civil suit for recovery of the balance if they are entitled to.

    If the contempt petition is allowed, the Court may punish the contemnors for not honouring the original judgement. Or direct for its compliance in a prescribed manner with a rider, ‘if you fail to do so’ you are liable for punishment. And the petition will remain pending for final disposal. We are interested in the latter type of outcome.

    The cheap strategy adopted by LIC was to withhold without filing, the Reply to the main Contempt Petition (though it was ready and signed on 17 July 2015 itself) but file instead, the Application for withdrawal of 20%. LIC wanted and the Counsel would walk away on 20th July with an Order permitting withdrawal of  Rs 6.73 Lakhs and directly pay some Rs 20,000/- to each on an average. If it happened accordingly, about which LIC was confident, the Contempt petition becomes infructuous and consequently there will be no need even to file any reply to the Petition. All our doors would have been closed in Chandigarh. The trick boomeranged and the Application was dismissed. LIC was obliged to file the ‘unfiled’ reply before the hearing on 28 July. During the hearing we pressed for payment of 20% of the ‘total due’ which is Rs. 93.47 Lakhs. What is ‘total due’ is before the Supreme Court because ‘up-gradation’ demand is yet to be decided. Court chose the soft option – await the outcome of final hearing. Adjourned to 5 Oct 2015. The Contempt Petition is neither ‘dismissed’, nor ‘withdrawn’, nor ‘dismissed as withdrawn’. If a few people were hoping that history (of Jaipur) repeats itself (at Chandigarh), they would have been disappointed.   

    Some friends are trying to describe the 28 July Order as a setback to Chandigarh Petitioners and/or to Murty. Let them read the Order below:

    Admittedly, the matter is sub-judice before the Apex Court.
    To await the decision of the aforesaid appeals adjourned to 05.10.2015.

    The contempt Petition is ALIVE. The Chandigarh Petitioners would take a call shortly, on their next step. All options are being explored. To me it is:                                             


    M Sreenivasa Murty





    Dear Sri Asthana,

    I understand that LIC’s Application for withdrawal of 20% of the amount deposited in Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench Registry) is coming up for hearing on Thursday 30 July 2015. I am sure you have a notice of the same.

    From the mails being circulated it looks that you do not propose to oppose the Application and you would like it to be allowed by the High Court.

    I have read your logic and your analysis which suggests that LIC would withdraw 20% but that is not for payment. According to you, payment shall be from its own funds because what is payable including up-gradation is much more than 20% being withdrawn. Talking of specific numbers, LIC deposited in Jaipur Rs.19,63,638/-(in three instalments spread over TWO YEARS between Dec 2011 and Nov 2013. (correct me if I am wrong).

    According to Mr Mahadevan’s rough calculations the total amount payable to the Jaipur Petitioners up to that date, was about Rs.2,18,18,200. What was deposited was therefore about 9% of the amount payable including up-gradation. Now poor LIC wants to withdraw Rs.3,92,727.60p to pay 21 of your petitioners, who are pre-Aug 97 retirees @ Rs.18,701 per pensioner on an average.

    If 20% including up-gradation works out to Rs 43,63,640/- which is payable to your Petitioners, do you think LIC will use the withdrawn sum of Rs 3.93 lakhs and add Rs.39,70,913/-    

    ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO ALLOW LIC                                TO PLAY THIS FOUL GAME?

    On the contrary if you oppose the application and get it rejected, what will LIC do? Can it keep quiet till 23 Sep 2015? Can’t we do anything in the meantime to expose LIC before the Supreme Court?

    LIC’s successful withdrawal and payment of Rs.3,92,727/- to the eligible Petitioners, would mean disaster to the Pensioner community.

    Please reconsider your decision in the interests of LIC Pensioners as a whole. And if you wish to oppose the withdrawal request, the unassailable argument is: 
    Supreme Court gave six weeks to pay. That time is over long ago. If the application to withdraw 20% is allowed now, it amounts to HC relaxing the conditions stipulated by the Apex Court, which it cannot. Highlight that point and let the Court either reject the application or keep it pending with a direction to LIC to secure extension of time from the Supreme Court. 

    M Sreenivasa Murty 


    Wednesday, July 29, 2015



    ​Shri D.B.Mehta,


    Our petition in Gujarat High Court for pension to resigned employees
     - recent judgment by Supreme Court supporting our contention

    ​    Our petition in Gujarat High Court is pending at the stage of filing our rejoinder. In the meantime, as we discussed, we have also to file an amendment in the petition. Next date of hearing of this case is 10th August,'15. Kindly, therefore, spare your time to prepare a draft of amendment and send it to me for my perusal. A 'Note' prepared by me and certain material received by us from Shri R.K.Pathak, practicing advocate of Pune were forwarded to you earlier. Kindly peruse the same while drafting amendments in the petition. 

        In the meantime, we have come across a recent judgment (delivered on 17th December, '14) by the Supreme Court. A soft copy of the judgment is sent herewith. 

        Though it was a case of an individual employee of Central Bank of India who had resigned on health ground, certain ratios up-held by the Apex Court in that case are squarely applicable in our case.

       ​With regards,

    Yours sincerely,
    General Secretary



    ​Shri S.C.Jain,
    General Secretary,


    Invoking provision of ID Act for 100% neutralization of DA​

        Please refer my earlier letter on the subject (copy attached for ready reference). CLICK HERE

        If you are agreeable in principle to invoke provisions of ID Act for pressurizing the Banks to grant 100% neutralization of dearness relief to workmen, please request Shri C.N. Prasad to provide a suitable draft and note to you; which you may circulate among the affiliates of AIBRF with an instruction to file petitions in their respective area.

        If, for any reason whatsoever, you do not think advisable to initiate such legal actions by all the affiliates of AIBRF, at least let our Association (from Gujarat) undertake this task as a pilot project. Only difficulty in Gujarat is that there is heavy back long in the labor courts. Therefore, it may take very long time to get outcome of the proceedings. However, we are inclined to initiate the actions if AIBRF permits and Shri Prasad provides to us 'Note' and Format of petition to the labor courts.


    Yours sincerely,
    General Secretary

    What next ?

    Dear Editor,

    I fully agree with comments from Sh. B.D.Bhargava that order or direction dated 28.07.2015 by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain at Chandigarh High Court could be given by him even on 20.07.2015.

    Myself being personally present at chandigarh high court with Sh. Murty during all the three proceedings dated 21.05.2015, 20.07.2015 and 28.07.2015, I am very clear that LIC Advocate did not place any fresh argument yesterday and repeated same old arguments placed during two previous hearings. Really, it is a mystery for us that same Judge rejected same arguments on 21.05.2015 and 20.07.2015 but agreed with same arguments from same LIC Counsel on third hearing yesterday i.e. 28.07.2015.

    Now this issue has to be closed here and let us start thinking what next ?

    Let me assure all concerned that our case manager Sh. Murty does not believe in taking rest and today he is at Delhi to discuss and chalk out what next after consulting a few renowned advocates working at supreme court and very well known to him.

    As a layman and not as a lawman I think that dismissal of LIC deliberate mischievous application at chandigarh high court for release of 20% deposited amount rejected vide high court order dated 20.07.2015 can be used as a very strong weapon for next course of action since LIC has no valid reason for non compliance of supreme court order dated 07.05.2015 within six weeks time limit.

    Yes, we are eager to know fate of similar application by LIC at Jaipur High Court .Can anyone throw some light on this issue.

    Regarding a very good mail written by Sh. Asthana to Sh M.V.Venugopalan on 24.07.2015 but released by him yesterday only after knowing outcome of chandigarh high court, it seems that he was the happiest person to know yesterday that our contempt case could not secure any favorable order from chandigarh high court since it is as per his personality traits which are known to every one and these are "I know every thing and you donot know any thing." God bless his arrogance. Our respected Mahadeven ji has sent him a very nice reply.


    Proud to be an Editor with a difference !

    *Murty's case is an exception. 
    He spends money from his pocket.

    Mahadevan's response to Asthana

    Dear Mr Asthana,

    I have received the copy of the mail addressed by you to Mr M V Venugopalan.I would like to respond on some of the issues raised by you as follows:

    • You have observed, “The SC order does not say you withdraw and pay the same. It was a facility given to LIC to withdraw and why let the money be kept idle”.
      If that is so, what is the meaning we make of the directions in the Supreme Court order as follows?
      “If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, 20% of the same shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, so that it can pay to the concerned employees (underlining and highlighting is mine).
      This may be conveniently construed by LIC as a sequence of    “withdrawal first and payment thereafter”.
      If LIC pays interim relief first, the question of payment of amount released by HC to employees does not arise. Things would have been clearer on the purport of the order if Supreme Court had stated as follows:
    ”If any amount, that has been deposited before the High Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court, such portion of the deposited amount shall be released in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as will equal the amount paid as interim relief by LIC to the respondent-petitioners as per this order”.
    If such wordings had been used, LIC would possibly have had to pay the interim relief within the 6 weeks’ period without waiting for the release of the deposits by the HC.Also, if LIC had paid the right amounts as per the impugned judgment of the HC, it could have as well got the entire amount deposited by it released instead of only 20% of the inadequately paid amount. It is not very difficult to understand that what LIC has deposited did not even constitute 10 % of the amounts due to the original petitioners.

    • You have also stated that cause of action for us arises only after the payment is made, which opportunity has been lost. But in my view, more than its anxiety to withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries before paying interim relief, LIC had possibly a very shrewd plan to justify that whatever amount they had deposited was the correct amount although their stand will not go unchallenged. If their move for withdrawal was not challenged, then LIC’s incorrect interpretation of the HC judgments and the Board Resolution will not come up for sharp focus that is crucial in the hearing that is to take place on 23/9/2015.The order of PB & H HC dt 20/7/2015 dismissing the application of LIC for withdrawal of the deposit with appropriate instructions to LIC in the CCP case provides a very good opportunity to effectively highlight this issue before the Supreme Court.
    I thought it necessary to respond to you on the above points so that things are seen in the proper perspective although different people can have different views and perceptions as do different lawyers with their similar professional expertise on the same subject.

    I am deliberately refraining from expressing any views on the other matters raised by you in your mail to Mr Venugopalan to avoid unnecessary debate (in my opinion).

    Kind regards.

    C H Mahadevan