Tuesday, May 24, 2016





Dear LIC Pensioners,
Our Writ Petition was being posted by the Registry for hearing today before Justice Gita Mittal, the usual Admissions Court. Our Counsel who made a specific request that it should be posted before the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna  (before whom our referred matters were already listed) was advised to make a 'mention' to that effect and secure a 'nod'.

The mention was done this morning at 10.30 before the designated 'mentioning bench' (Court No 2 - Bench headed by Justice Badar Durrez) and we secured the much needed 'Nod' to have it heard by the right Bench and to be posted TOMORROW.

LUCKILY for us, the Sr Advocate Mr Gaurab Banerji is available tomorrow and will argue before Justice Sanjiv Khanna's Bench. We also have a conference with him scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9.30 before the WP comes up for hearing.
Friends and well wishers - so far so good. We (also) are on the right track. 

Hyderabad Association needs your good wishes and support in every possible way. 

M Sreenivasa Murty 

Sec.48 notifn for DA increase required

23 May 16, 11:15 AM

A.S.Ramanathan: Can any one of our pensioner friends send a copy of the Sec 48 notification, increasing the DA from 1.8.97. I mean the notification dated 22-6-2000, preferably the gazettee notification. This is required to examine a subtle legal point which may be of help to our case.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Sunday, May 22, 2016


Draft of letter to be addressed by pre-August 
1992 retirees (in case of Class I pre-April 1993   PLEASE CLICK HERE 
retirees) to Chairman, LIC

Draft of letter to be addressed by those who 
retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997 
(in case of Class I officers, those who retired      PLEASE CLICK HERE 
between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997) to Chairman, 


By now, the reports received from various quarters indicate that pre-August 1997 retirees at various centres have received the "40% interim relief" paid by LIC although it was gathered by me from some pensioner friends at Chennai that till yesterday payments had not been made.

From the reports received by me from friends who have received the payments from LIC, it turns out that LIC have adopted the same faulty method applied by them for calculating the 20% IR as per the SC order dated 7/5/2015.

This act is in complete contravention of the SC order dated 31/3/2016 which had directed payment of 40% IR as per para 3A of Appendix IV which can be done only with revision of pension with weightage as per the scales made effective from 1/8/1997.

As a result of the faulty method followed by LIC, the pre-August 1992 retirees (pre-April 1993 Class I retirees) have got only about 12-13% of the amount that they were entitled to get as 40% IR. Those who retired after 1/8/1992(Class I Officers who retired after 1/4/1993) have only got about 30% of their entitlement as per the SC Order dt 31/3/2016.

So I felt that those who want to protest against this short payment may like to send a letter to Chairman,LIC as per the draft attached. Draft as per Annexure A can be used by those who retired before 1/8/1992 ( Class I Officers who retired before 1/4/1993) and Draft as per Annexure B can be used by those who retired between 1/8/1992 and 31/7/1997( Class I Officers retired between 1/4/1993 and 31/7/1997). I leave it to the pensioners to decide whether they want to send a letter as per the drafts attached or not.

Those of the pre-August 1997 retirees who desire to have the comparative calculations of amounts payable by LIC and amount paid by LIC may send a mail to me with their details of Basic Pension, Date of Retirement and cadre in which retired(including placement in higher cadre at the retirement) so that I mail the calculations to them to support their claim. from LIC.

Those who send the mails to me may also kindly send their mobile numbers for seeking any clarification required.

C H Mahadevan

P.S Kindly donate liberally to our Association's legal fund with
reference to the following details: FOR DETAILS, PLEASE CLICK BELOW

NV Subbaraman

Visit NV Subbaraman's blog:

Saturday, May 21, 2016

M Sreenivasa Murty

A clarification, an explanation and renewal of an Appeal.

Dear LIC Pensioner colleagues,

We from Hyderabad have crossed the first milestone as of yesterday, in the path we chose to fight to protect the interests of our Pensioner community. We filed a comprehensive Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. It is expected to come up for admission on Tuesday the 24th May 2016. 

We have been coming across well-meaning questions and doubts raised by some colleague pensioners as to why we are plunging independently in to this prohibitively expensive legal adventure. Similar questions in the past were answered by me and Mr Mahadevan, in different contexts in the past but I think it is necessary to touch upon some of the more relevant aspects of our ‘issues’ once again now.

You are all aware that different Federations and individuals have been pursuing legal cases for many years in different High Courts for revision of Pension and removal of anomalies and all those cases ended up in Supreme Court of India and a Judgment was delivered on 31 March 2016.

In terms of the SC Judgment, all parties are required to approach the High Court of Delhi and make fresh submissions.
Here's an article published in Lawyersclubindia.
C H Mahadevan

BAPOO M. MALCOLM on 18 May 2016

Dad collapsed at lunch. We were at home and rushed him to hospital. One of Bombay’s best doctors, son of mom’s friend, immediately examined dad, on the lobby floor. ‘Khotto sikko chey,’ he said. A ‘counterfeit coin’. He gave us two days, to make ‘preparations’. Did dad have a Will? No. Was he going to make one? No. Frankly, his love for us was worth more than the billions he could not give. We simply did not care. 

Should our family have been worried? A definite ‘Yes’. A big ‘YES’. We have had a lot of seminars at Moneylife, dealing with Wills. The one thing we learn from them is that we cannot foresee everything. We have to do the best we can.

Dad, being dad, came home a month later. But we knew better. A wooden nickel. Did we do anything then? No. A month later, we were back in hospital. This time, we knew for sure. The doctor asked us to forego all artificial resuscitation. It may then last for years, he explained. Mom agreed. No suffering.            
We kept vigil. Day and night. One night, while I was sleeping on the bench in the corridor, a junior doctor, uninformed, started resuscitation. By then, dad was in a coma. When I awoke, I panicked. Dad was entombed in equipment, cylinders, pipes and meters. I called our doctor. We had agreed on letting him pass silently into the night.

Friday, May 20, 2016


19 May 16, 09:01 PM

shriram bhise: AIIPA was against going to court for updation and 100% neutralisation. they want to solve the demands by discussion with managemant.but when favourable decision by court is in sight they too join the fray...

20 May 16, 09:49 AM

gopalakrishnan: shri bhise may read the reasons why AIIPA was not willing to move the court. the reasons are there in their Notes which are available below (see PAGES). By the way Shri Bhise may ascertain from AIRIEF (before giving any donation) why they did not fight the case from 1999 to 2010 when Asthana was independently fighting case at Jaipur. It is only from 2010 they joined the fray and extended financial support to Asthana. Why? Bhise and his AIRIEF should explain. When they explain, I will join the discussion later to say more...





Thursday, May 19, 2016

Warm Greetings and Salutations !

Warm salutations to Shri Mahadevan and to the Editor.

I salute each and every sentence of what Shri C H Mahadevan  has written except for filing a contempt case. Of course, it is not that he has not touched the reasons of time factor. He has mentioned and rightly so.

The contempt is related to IR. As somebody had said IR is IR and adjustable. (Oh, if we see the Office letter of 13-04-2016, it is 'abundantly' made clear that it is IR ...recoverable etc.! shit !! The Office kept the beneficiaries of 20% IR in 'dark' for a year and now they release 40% IR with 'mild' warning ! No one, nor I should forget that the continuance of pension is subject to good conduct...I should not use (have used) unparliamentary word!

May be, Shri B.Ganga Raju and or some other had opined that the faulty method adopted by LIC (the Office) to pay 40% IR may be brought to the notice of Delhi HC. No need to file contempt case.

Yes, WE must concentrate on getting periodic updation of pension, revision of pension along with every pay revision, once in five years, and retrospectively.

The main thrust of arguments at the H.C. be on Nakara case ; Article 14 of the Constitution of India as often emphasised by Shri Mahadevan and some others.

When the updating of pension is upheld by the Delhi H.C., every thing (DR) will automatically come. I repeat that the issue of correct 100% neutralisation in DR, gets solved automatically. For example, when the pension of a pensioner retired in 1987 or 1993 pay scale (or some other year - in some cases) is updated as per pay scales of Aug.1997, he or she would definitely be paid DR at 0.23% (i.e.full) on the revised updated pension. When pension is updated as per subsequent pay revisions, in 2002, 2007 and 2012, he or she will get 0.18%, 0.15% and 0.10% DR (i.e. full) from the respective dates of pay revision.

Hence, better avoid filing filing contempt contempt case..

It is possible to share individual views as the Editor, LIC PC has allowed us freedom of expression. To the best of my understanding, the articles etc. are not 'just' posted in PC as received, not withstanding a few exceptions to the rule. The Editor does lot of exercise, lot of home work on the materials, on the contents, on the formats received. He does 'shringar', as if, giving a 'beautician's touch' to a 'bride.' The articles etc., thus, become lively, interesting and appealing.

Two Charts.. Mind Boggling Difference__(PC dt.18-05-2016) has become 'note worthy' because of the Editor's touch. He has instilled 'life and soul' to enhance its merit, it's get up. He always does the same in respect of many other articles / mails received. He always has instilled life and soul in the articles that have seen the light of the day / have been posted in his LIC PC. 

Personally, I owe him more for his generosity. think I am in the habit of sending a write up, the same write up, revised more than once or twice. (I do not venture / dare to send the same article corrected for the third or the fourth time)

I end this mail with warm salutations to Shri Mahadevan and to the Editor.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Right Path and Non-Right Path

When the need of the hour is to get united and firmly remain so, a fight is likely to erupt over the Right Path and non-Right Path and the numerical strength of either side. The fight over the numerical strength would be an unfortunate development. Will the number create a pressure lobby?

The unity of Pensioners is likely to prove elusive. We remained divided while in service, and will continue to remain so as Pensioners, searching new issues for bickering giving the Management an upper hand.

Dattatraya B Deshpande,
Kolhapur DO

Short payment of 40% IR and the road ahead‏

Mr SN’s  comparative  presentation of the IR paid and IR payable as per SC Order and Mr Ganagraju’s  comments assume a lot of significance in the context of the legal response that LIC’s action warrants both at the Supreme Court and Delhi HC.

At Delhi HC, an opportunity is available to original petitioners and the fresh petitioner/s to file a response to the affidavit that has to be filed by LIC on the 40% IR paid by them in ‘compliance’ with the Supreme  Court order dated 31/3/2016.

Concurrently, an opportunity is also available at the Supreme Court for filing a contempt petition against LIC.Understandably there is a general reluctance on the part of pensioners at large to support the idea of filing a contempt petition on the fear that it may delay the case at Delhi. But we must also remember that the stakes are high for the following reasons:

1.     The eligible pensioners retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1992(31/3/1993) have received an IR of hardly 13% of the entitled amount;

2.     The eligible pensioners retired between 1/8/1992(1/4/1993) and 31/7/1997 have received an IR of hardly 31%( in the case of the Class III employee  with basic pension 3442 and retired on 30/9/1994,the amount received is just 11.2% of the entitled amount as per Mr SN’s calculations(12% as per my calculations), as lower the basic pension, the lower the percentage of amount paid to entitled amount);

3.     The pensioners in the first category with basic pension of less than 1250 and those in the second category with less than 2399 would have got single digit amounts as for more than 212 months they would have got negative differences.

4.     Family pensioners would have also got at the most single digit amounts thanks to rounding off of revised Basic family pension to higher rupee.

In the light of the above the case managers have to decide upon the legal strategy for response to LIC’s action on this issue.

* I attach a note prepared by me on ‘How LIC is wrong on IR calculations’.


C H Mahadevan

* Published as separate post. 

How LIC is wrong on IR calculations

What Para 27 of the Supreme Court Order dated 31/3/2016 states

“Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect……….”.

What Para 3A of Appendix IV   states
3(A) In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in the quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of 1960 = 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall be at the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension;

What items (b) & (c) of Annexure to letter dated 13/4/2016 by ED (P) to ED (IT) state:

(b) For the purpose, the basic pension /family pension  payable shall be revised  by merging the Dearness Relief payable as on 1/8/1997, and,
 (c) On the pension so upgraded, Dearness Relief of 0.23% of basic pension is to be calculated for every 4 point rise or fall of AICPI from 1740 points.

Why the method of calculation as per (b) & (c) is incorrect?
The Basic Pension stated in para 3A applicable to the pensioner   will not be the same as the revised Basic Pension   calculated as per (b) above as the former carries a weightage provided in wage revision w e f 1/8/1997 while the latter does not provide for such weightage. In other words, the basic pension  arrived at as per (b) above cannot be taken for calculation of interim relief as per para 3A  above.

Consequently (c) is not correct as there is no upgradation, and it is erroneous to calculate applying 0.23% of the wrong (lesser) basic pension which will result in underpayment of interim relief to the eligible pensioners.

For the same reason the payment made under this  method will be in contravention of the Supreme Court order dated 31/3/2016 and will attract  charge of contempt of court .



19 May 16, 01:30 AM

B Ganga Raju: SN 1992's calculations need to be studied by all. It is obvious LIC wanted to pay and paid DR difference only based on notional revised pension. LIC took care to see that even the difference is kept as low as possible by not touching the fitment formula of 1997. May be LIC did not want to incur the displeasure and wrath of bureaucrats in Finance Ministry. LIC could not but honour SC's order and wanted to appear as if they honoured SC order to avoid contempt.In this dubious exercise LIC put the pensioners to big loss. Without deviating from the main fight before Delhi HC, there is need to protest about this dishonesty.

Chat Column comments

18 May 16, 04:22 PM

SDSarma: Right path wallas left the right path long Back and sought a place in the delegation led by the great SM Banergee, and the South Indians have not come out of the deepest slumber they are still in.

18 May 16, 08:47 PM

gopalakrishnan: What a sight, a 15% all india Federation (AIRIEF) rules the Chat column while the 80% AIIPA is simply at the receiving end but enjoying the drama! Balance 5% is nowhere to be seen.

19 May 16, 01:51 AM

B Ganga Raju: Shri Gopalakrishnan touched upon percentages (15% AIRIEF 80% AIIPA) perhaps out of old habit. We are retired people in 70s and 80s and percentages do not mean much except for collections. More so in Court Cases.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

SN (A 1992 Pensioner)

Two Charts giving 
(1) 40% IR - Condensed Sample Calculation as per LIC method prepared by Shri CH Mahadevan-(For ready reference) and 
(2) 40% IR with 100% DR on tapering basis with weightage -- with reference to the fitment chart of 1997 pay revision are furnished below for information. 


18 May 16, 08:37 AM

namdev: in the context of would be 4 case managers' target of one crore each, allegation of misappropriation of money by kmla, and raising in future such things anyone who is aware of all these things will clarify in the interest of all without malice sarcasm and indecent language? how many people and how much each how much total money was collected by kmla? how much money he has spent for a private  case for all these 18 years? still it is a private case in name, others being interveners and any number of groups can be formed, collect money and intervene if delhi hc special bench permits. why this confusion instead of concentration on the case. each manager should work without bothering about others and accusations. hero worship is there and followers of each case manager think their leader alone will deliver things and others are on wrong path. let it be so and face fate accordingly.a request to gangaraju sir who is well experienced over 50 years in tu movement should offer his comments on what is happening during the last few days in these columns.

18 May 16, 09:23 AM

B Ganga Raju: At the request of Shri Namdev, but in the interests of all pensioners: When there are floods, useless scum also appears on surface. It is the water which is important. Water is life giving and so also donations for a good cause. Excess water also chokes. Here we are donating in our own interest for a fight being carried on our behalf. The saying goes that Danam should not be " apathra danam," meaning it should not go to undeserved. Articles/posts in LICPC must have given everybody a fair idea of who is carrying a good fight. At present the call for donation targets those who received 40 % IR.  If one has the capacity and inclination he can help every good fighter. Some danams are open and some are "Guptha danam," i.e., silent and unpublicised. As for use/misuse of funds, proper accounting or lack of it, let it be left to the organisations concerned to judge.I know revolutionaries who collected funds for their political party and parted with only a fraction of it. Talk about such matters can be a sensation for a day only. It is for their organisation to discipline such people.

We are benefited by discussions in the columns of LICPC about legal points, how the cases are to be handled or argued, what constitutional points are to be raised, how to deal with provisions in LIC Act, important case laws etc. We must thank the contributors and editor for enlightening us and making us realise the enormity of the task history entrusted to us. When we win not only we, but future pensioners also stand to benefit.Coming back to posts making accusations about individuals, I think such posts appear when people run out of good ideas. The dramatis personae are same. the accusations also are not new, then why give space for them?

AIIPA Right path... Right Path...







We all have been fighting a long drawn legal battle for upgradation
of pension with a favourable outcome possibly still a few months

But let us not get disheartened.There is one area where pensioners
have been getting indirect upgradation of pension notionally after
every wage revision.

LIC had clarified vide their circular CO/Per/ER-A/CL22 dt 28/3/2014
that the retired employees applicable to pensioners will be the same
as was applicable on their date of retirement for the purpose of
Mediclaim coverage.

Now that the Group Mediclaim Policy has been renewed for the year
2016-17,we can expect the same principle of categorisation
consequent on the wage revisions w.e.f 1/8/2012.

But the interesting aspect of this 'upgradation' of category involves
only possible higher outgoes for increased premium for enhanced
cover and not for getting arrears of monetary inflow from LIC!
Nevertheless we have reason to feel happy that we are
psychologically upgraded!

My good friend however cautions me that we should not press this
point legally in our fight for upgradation,lest older pensioners
should run the risk of getting downgraded in the categorisation
after every wage revision losing the benefit of whatever cover and
subsidy that are being extended to them presently!
Let us just let the sleeping dogs lie!

C H Mahadevan

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

More about what BR Mehta and AK Shukla said...

17 May 16, 01:28 PM

A K Shukla: We have one crying child in AIRIEF who always keeps asking the same things which have been explained to him many times in many platform of AIRIEF but all in vain. Why? Because when you ask baseless questions, no body on earth can reply those. This weeping child himself has used the platform of AIRIEF, where he is an office bearer, makes appeal for a separate donation for an organisation whom every financial help has been tendered by AIRIEF... ... 

17 May 16, 08:01 PM

Nitin_pb: Interesting to see reference abt  HK Aggarwal by BR Mehta. Aggarwal  prefers to call himself an “ordinary” member. Now he has elevated himself to full “Member” status. His role is to create problems or settle such problems. Either way he keeps himself busy.
He is a soldier of AIRIEF as per comments in  chat columns. My doubt is
why such an able person  remains an ordinary member/ soldier. Why he doesn’t take up responsible positions in the organization. Chandigarh unit is ignoring this ‘soldier’.

For a long time it was his practice to contact Mr.Asthana and with whatever information he gathered  from such talks, he would issue circulars. In return for Mr.Asthana  giving these bits of information regularly, it was his practice to give calls for donations to be sent to Mr.Asthana’s personal account.

Lots of money thus got credited to Mr.Asthana’s account. now there are allegations of gross misuse of money so collected. Last time Mr. Aggarwal came out with the theory that SC has not set aside the JAIPUR JUDGMENT. This is also, it appears, Asthana’s mind - a bit of information he must have gathered after talking to Mr. Asthana.

Your blog  used to carry what Mr.Aggarwal  was writing. Now I don’t find your carrying his mail. So he moved to the other blog RKSahni. Here also you will find Mr.Aggarwal’s shrewdness.  All his mails carry a slogan to please RKSahni “Most widely read blog ….or”. Exact slogan I do not remember. Now that both the blogs do not give any importance to this gentleman, he has taken to Whatsapp or Email groups. 


Updation issue


17 May 16, 01:01 AM

G. Narayanaswamy: I have gone through the thought-provoking comments of Sh MVV.

There is one more qualitative content in the present situation. It is the hostility of the bureaucracy to liberality in the interpretation & implementation of rules.

It was Sh T.A.Pai former Chairman who brought a whiff of fresh air in the functioning of LIC by rejecting rule-dominant stagnancy in LIC's working. And made it market-friendly and settling disputes with employees.

I am afraid that unless such qualitative change takes over, we will get bogged down in law-courts and stagnation of disputes for years. Do we have any other option except to continue our fight? Regrettably, no.

Monday, May 16, 2016


16 May 16, 02:55 PM

BALA_38: From my first reading of PC the great names of 
CHM, MSM,  and their group got fixed in my mind and today Mr. M.V.Venugopalan.

I am of the opinion that MSM AND CHM ALWAYS WRITE MEANINGFUL AND LOGICAL ARTICLES IN PC and I started feeling that this group of great people will do something good for the pensioners !

After retirement I left Bombay and came to my village home. I got no news about the possibility of any further benefit to pensioners. Accidentally one day I happened to see the site of PC. 
Then I became a regular reader of PC.

I liked MSM and CHM's articles very much. I believe whatever they write is sense. I came to know that they are very active and will bring improvements. Always my wish was that other unions of LIC also join with this group.

Finally when AIIPA decided to join the legal battle I was overwhelmed with joy. This news brought us some peace and confidence. I am now concentrating in the activities of this great amalgamation. I wish all others also may join and make a great victory.

At this juncture I want to ignore all the bikerings heard from the sides. We will march forward with this strength. Of course few words make a sentence and many sentences make a paragraph and many paragraphs will make an article.

However, if all these make some sense it is good and great. Otherwise, useless.Thanks.

AIIPA decision welcomed

16 May 16, 02:03 PM


Class and Cadre even for Pensioners !

Click here to read Shri BR Mehta's mail.

Dear Editor,

Much water has flown under the bridge since coming to the Blog with my Post. Let me take first things first. Yes, I am alluding to the appeal for donations/contributions from different pensioner Associations. I had given my reasons for going with the Hyderabad Association in my previous post. It is heartening to note that many have started responding positively. If not in one instalment, it can be in two or three instalments. I chose to take the instalment route. Mr.MSM is already in Delhi doing what is most needed now. Time being the essence, those who have the mind and heart to contribute may do it without losing time. 

A wrong impression is being created from interested quarters that Shri.GNS being the author of the DR arrears,deservedly his Federation should be the sole beneficiary. The verdicts of all the three HCs having been set aside, none of the three can claim victory for the IR of 40% or on the other hand, I would say that the credit , if there is any at all, belongs to all the three or it is ,perhaps, the outcome of the pity taken by Justice Deepak Misra on the Septuagenarians.. So, for the efforts put in by MSM, CHM and others in this regard, it will be in the fitness of things to send a decent portion of the arrears receivable by the pre-1997 pensioners to the Hyderabad Association. Since their fight is for one and all, cutting across Class,cadre etc, I would appeal to each and everyone to join this venture.

As already mentioned above, the SC verdict is a clear set back for us. LIC/GOI can claim victory of sorts. Despite their non-participation in the Jaipur HC, time-barred filing of SPLs and affidavits in the Supreme Court, Government’s silence over consideration of the Board resolution for 9 long years constitutional provisions being in our favour, the time-tested landmark DS Nakras case to back us up solidly , the SC ruled that GOIs contention that the decision of the Jaipur SB was bad in law and remanded the case to HC. Even though Justice.Misra, in the Order of 31st March, twice mentioned that they are not expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, all the same, made such observations as “It is a case where we are constrained to speak that the end does’nt bring the finality” and” though the controversy relating to pension should be put an end to in quite promptitude,yet for some reason or the other it doesn't happen” We are forbidden from questioning the wisdom of the Judge or the natural urge would be to ask why..why..why..? This is exactly the reason why in two of my earlier posts I hinted that there is something more to it than what meets the eyes. Indications are that unless the Updation issue has the blessings of the MOF, it is not going to see the light of the day. And, unless a similar demand from the banking sector pensioners is settled amicably, its applicability in our case will be a far cry. Please don’t tell me that I am seeing ‘ghost’ everywhere, but try to accept it as a ground reality.

I am saying the above not with a view to deter our fighting the case in Delhi HC with all our might but to have a change in our perspective or in other words, a paradigm change. While for the present we have no other option but to continue the battle in Delhi HC, practical wisdom would suggest that we keep an eye on the happenings in the Banking Sector, where due to intervention of IBA there is semblance of things beginning to happen. It is time we changed our stand towards LIC,our parent Organisation. No doubt, presently, the action of LIC towards the pensioners is patently antagonistic . But it is a product of circumstances and clearly motivated by the GOI. The Chairman and the two MDs who keep on changing from time to time and are responsible for decisions in these matters can never be pronouncedly inimical or hostile to us. May be some are overdoing the dictats of the Government and some adopt a businesslike attitude. It is like quarrelling all day with ones wife and going to bed with her in the night (don’t put ideas into your head-we are well past that age!). Here, I think we have to take a leaf from both Mr.GNS and the AIIP in this regard. It is an ongoing relationship and therefore, while there can be circumstantial and situational criticism of LICs actions, we cant afford to treat them as sworn enemies. We need to keep harmonious working relationship with them. Let us re-establish the link that we have temporarily lost with LIC and build up a sound rapport. I am sure, Mr.Mahadevan, having been in the ZMs seat, very much understands what I am recommending.

I fully endorse our Editors views on the ‘Unity Efforts” over which many of our members have become vocal. If one reads AIIPA circular, between the lines, one can't miss their subtle reference to the fact that they have decided to plunge into the legal battle not because we are in it, but because of the new-found necessity,nevertheless keeping their overall philosophy and approach towards the twin issues confronting the pensioners. I don’t think there is any need for us to give undue importance to them, a possible hangover of the larger than life image projected by AIIEA in their hey days. As rightly observed by Mr. Gangadharan, let not any of the four players play the spoilsport to one another; that will be their greatest gift to the pensioners. Let us stick to one group , support them to the hilt and extend to them all the financial help they need. 31st of August being the deadline given by the SC to find a finality to our issues, we have absolutely no time for even giving a second thought to the so-called Unity Efforts.

And as regards, para 3A of Appendix IV to the Pension Rules ,section 48,section 55 and a host of other roadblocks, many of our legally erudite friends have examined them thoroughly. What I want to remind is that the SC referral had come only after travelling through them. Justice Misra’s judgment has zeroed in, ultimately, on para 3A of Appendix IV to the Pension Rules and section 48 and their constitutional validity and applicability. One of the columnists has suggested an out of the box thinking on the part of the Case Managers to meet the objections. I would call them a PARADIGM SHIFT. The SC has given an opportunity for us to invest in total re-thinking and file writs afresh, suitably amended, if need be. This is where our Case Managers should apply their minds and arrive at legal points not thought of hitherto and avoid treading the beaten track.

As for the Calculation Conundrum, the steps taken by Mr.Murty is ideal for the time being. Being an interim payment, it is subject to corrections/alterations when the final verdict is delivered. Let us wait for the affidavit to be filed by LIC as to compliance of the SC Order in the Delhi H.C to decide future course of action. Wishing the pensioners happy tidings ,positively before 31st of August 2016 and wishing Mr.Murty and his team success in their efforts at Delhi.



Further comments after response to Mr SN

For the past month and a half, we have been focusing on the interim benefit of 40 % IR ordered by SC on 31/3/2016 to Pre-August 1997 retirees.Many of us have also been fortunate to get whatever LIC chose to pay, although many including family pensioners got single digit money or no money.

Mr SN has rightly taken us on a retour to visit the Justice Bhandari judgment of Jaipur Bench (albeit set aside by SC)where the anomalous rates of DR inserted in Appendix IV which were just 50% of what was applied for in-service employees.This discrimination arose because LIC/GOI did not honour the MOU of LIC with LIC employees' Associations/Federations entered into in 1994.

We must admit that in our excessive obsession with a desire for invalidation of Sec 48,we failed to stress this kind of discrimination which was created right from 1/11/1993 ,the date from which the Rules became effective.

If this aspect had been sufficiently highlighted before the SC in the final hearing, perhaps the 40% IR would have been ordered also including the difference in DR from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement whichever was later. It is quite another matter LIC in its own characteristic manner would have found a way of implementing the SC order in a manner expedient to it.But what is important is to recognize that such an order would have added further strength to our case in Delhi HC. At least now, let us now conduct the cases at Delhi HC with the right focus within the limited time available at our disposal.

The destiny of over 45000 pensioners and more importantly the helpless family pensioners and the legal heirs of the unfortunate ones hinges on the outcome in the Delhi High Court proceedings. Every one amongst us is anxious and impatient for removal of DR anomaly,100% DR Neutralisation and wholesale upgradation of pension with every wage revision. But we must also remember that things can work out in favour of pensioners only when those who take the lead are supported with all resources adequately and in time. There is, after all, no scope for free lunch!

C H Mahadevan

Waves of dismay and disappointment...

Sunday, May 15, 2016



Kindly go through the attachment and 

respond..positively and generously.

C H Mahadevan


Unity moves

Dear Editor,

I have read a post on your PC today from Sh. Subir Kumar Mazumder duly endorsed by you.

I agree that desired Unity is a distant possibility and let success be shared by all stake holders.

Sh Mazumder has raised a point regarding my silence about Petitioners at Chandigarh High Court. My reply is in my word KML Federation in stead of AIRIEF.

Whatever KML says in AIRIEF same is final word or decision of AIRIEF and hence it is KML Federation. Chandigarh Petitioners are non existent in AIRIEF Agenda and hence it is better to be silent.


Method of wage revision followed in August 1997‏

Referring to the post of Mr SN to know how the wage revision was effected on 1/8/1997, I believe that the following methodology was followed:-

The DA applicable for AICPI 1740 as at 1/8/1997 was merged with the existing Basic Pay. On this merged total a weightage (of % increase) was applied on 1/8/1997 on the merged figure was arrived at, which became the revised Basic Pay.

The tapering DA formula applicable to in-service employees was only followed as per 1/8/1992 rates and not the 100% neutralised rate of 0.35%.

I attach an example of AO with a Basic Pay of Rs 7590 before revision and the Basic Pay became Rs 12575 after revision on 1/8/1997 which worked out to 11.54% more than the merged Basic Pay plus DA as at 1/8/1997. 11.25% was only an average and it varied according to cadre and stages in the scale.

This is what I presume that LIC must have done while revising wages on 1/8/1997.

C H Mahadevan

How wage revision has been effected on 1/8/1997?

Example of AO with Basic Pay  of 7590
Existing Basic Pay  as per 1/8/1992 scales
DA  as per tapering formula as at 1/8/1997
  Merged  Basic Pay +DA
Revised Basic Pay  as at 1/8/1997 as per fitment chart
Weightage given after merger of Basic Pay & DA
( 11.25% is only the average percentage of weightage. It can vary according to the cadre and according to the stages in the scale)


AIIPA decision to involve in the legal battle indicates a significant change in their strategy.

In many meetings they decried the attempt of finding a legal solution and emphasised their belief in negotiation and struggle. 

They reportedly engaged in serious negotiation with LIC regarding pensioners problem and claimed but for the cases in courts, the pensioner's problem would have been solved long back as LIC, during negotiations, advanced sub judis arguments.

When one of their Joint Secretaries was elected to Parliament and again when their ideological bosses were powerful partners of UPA, nothing was done to solve the pensioners problem.

AIIPA's change of strategy is welcome but I am afraid it is rather late and may cause delay.

I appeal to AIIPA to consider to convince their parent organisation AIIEA to jump into the fray directly, call upon LIC to negotiate pensioner's problem, give a call for token strike in LIC and follow it with a notice of indefinite strike.

We have seen when the SBI pensioners were agitating for equal treatment of all pensioners, how the then Central Government came down within days of serving employees gave a notice of indefinite strike.

Sampath Iyengar

Two Notes

SN WRITES for the attention of Shri C H Mahadevan

Everyone was in 'dark' about the method adopted by LIC when 20% arrears was paid to petitioners as per the S.C. order dated 07-05-2015 as the Office did not disclose the  details nor did give the calculation sheets to beneficiaries. When the letter dated 13th April, 2016 and its Annexure was made public, it was clear that revised basic pension will be notionally arrived at by merging DR slabs as on 01-08-1997 at the DR rates applicable to pensioners on tapering basis. Shri CHM and Shri RKS, combine, both masters at maths, were out with figures, overnight!
The working details of arrears going to be paid became more transparent when the 'example' of 'x' drawing basic pension of Rs.3442/- was disclosed subsequently on 13-05-2016.
After seeing the letter dt.13-04-2016, its Annexure and enclosure,  I am entertaining a doubt. I may be wrong  But, I prefer to share it in some detail.
The Addl. Solicitor General had told the S.C. Bench that LIC has deposited / paid (20%) without revision. Now, the LIC, the Office has disclosed that they have revised the existing basic pension by 'a kind of DR merger' without giving the benefit of weightage.
DR as per pay scales 1987 and 1993 was on tapering basis both for employees and pensioners. The rates were not the same. The Single Judge of Jaipur had examined it, admitted it. The rates applicable to in- service employees and pensioners as per 1993 pay scales are as under :
"DA / DR Chart for in- service employees & pensioners retired in Aug.1993 pay scales"
Rate of DA/DR .....................of Pay up to.............................of Pension up......................
0.35%...................................Upto 4800.............................,. Upto 2400 ..........................
0.29% ............................. ....From 4800 to 7700..................From 2401 to 3850 ..............
0.17% ..................................From 7701 to 8200..................From 3851 to 4100..............
0.09% ..................................Above 8200.............................Above 4100 ........................


15 May 16, 10:02 AM

B Ganga Raju: S.K.Mazumder's conclusion about Unity which is duly endrosed by Shri P.G. is reality. The more we talk about Unity it recedes more into horizon. Pensioners memory is not short inspite of advanced age. We still remember the battle for pension. We also remember who fought for 3 benefits and who stood for pension in the present form. If someone says belief is stronger than reality, I concur. The present phase is fight for updation and not about who should get credit for introduction of pension in LIC. Just ask those who did not opt for pension in time and they will certainly tell you who landed them in such condition. 12th July 2016 is not far away and hope all case Managers show practical wisdom.



14 May 16, 09:17 PM

M Sreenivasa Murty: Mr M Vithal Rao and many others like him may please note that LIC's interpretation of Para 3A of Pension Rules and Para 27 of the SC Judgment has been already rejected by the Hyderabad Association in a communication sent to Chairman and ED (P). We are going to pursue the matter to its logical end. But first things first. We go with a clear priority of actions. Let me add here that LIC's action in paying about a third of what is due to the pre-97 retirees, will not go unopposed. We have an unassailable case to knock at the doors of Supreme Court and we will do it. Let us also wish that some of the parties in the battle do not repeat their past performance as they did on 20% payment.

We Rest Assured

4 May 16, 10:57 PM

BALA_38: Finally AIIPA joined the legal battle and we can surely rest assured!

Saturday, May 14, 2016


14 May 16, 09:10 PM

S.R. Nagarajan: Let no one belittle the role of AIIEA in getting benefits to Insce. employees in general, and more so of LIC comrades. Like wise getting Pension benefit is one of them.

14 May 16, 09:08 PM

rajagopala.kidave: AIIPA can surely ignore a 40 member all india asson. Shri Viswanatham need not have any worry about the same.

14 May 16, 07:30 PM

r.govinda rao: I donot know whether Mr. Namdev is writing in ignorance or frustation that AIIPA, in turn AIIEA did nothing for pensioners. He might be having very short memory. Everybody knows and acknowledges that Pension is the brain child of AIIEA, in particular Com. N.M.SUNDARAM.