Tuesday, April 21, 2015



I attach the ready reckoner prepared by me based on the Tables of Premiums included in the CO Circular dt 13/4/2015.

Pensioner friends may work out the expected refunds by comparing the subsidised premiums with the premiums paid already.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan

Charges of Favour to Reliance General Insurance: CBI probing former Irda chairman

Penalty for unapproved policy changes allegedly reduced from Rs 17,500 crore to Rs 20 lakh

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has started a preliminary enquiry into allegations that the former chairman of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Irda), J Hari Narayan (bottom left)unduly favoured Reliance General Insurance Company more than five years ago.
The investigating agency is inquiring into whether there was any mala fide intent in a decision taken in July 2009 by Narayan to reduce from Rs 17,500 crore (Rs 175 billion) to Rs 20 lakh (Rs 2 million) the potential penalty that could have been levied on the insurance company in the Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group for violating provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938.
CBI spokesperson Kanchan Prasad confirmed the agency had registered a preliminary enquiry against "unknown officials" of the Irda and "a private firm" to look into "the allegation that a penalty of Rs 20 lakh was imposed on the said firm instead of Rs 17,500 crore (approximately) for 3.5 lakh instances of violation of the Irda guidelines".
Reliance General Insurance Company, when contacted, declined to provide an official comment.
Narayan confirmed CBI officials had questioned him at his residence in Hyderabad and recorded his statement. He, however, said the insinuation that he had favoured Reliance General Insurance Company was unfounded.
After retiring from the Indian Administrative Service as chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh on June 11, 2008, Narayan joined the Irda as its chairman, from which post he retired on February 20, 2013.
The CBI has also questioned other serving and retired officers of the Irda, including a former member (non-life) of the authority. A preliminary enquiry is initiated when a complaint is received or information obtained by the CBI which does not contain enough material to file a regular case. It is not known if and when the preliminary enquiry [No. (8)(A)2014ACU-vi-New Delhi] relating to the episode involving the IRDA, its former chairman and Reliance General Insurance Company, will be converted into a regular case.
Sources said in late September and early October, the CBI sought information from Reliance General Insurance Company about the circumstances that led to the IRDA imposing a penalty on the company in 2009.
On August 8, replying to an unstarred question raised in the Lok Sabha by BJP Member of Parliament Dr Udit Raj whether the Irda had reduced the penalty of any private insurance company and whether the government had conducted any inquiry in this regard, Minister of State for Finance Nirmala Sitharaman confirmed the imposition of the penalty on Reliance General Insurance Company but added that the "penalty imposed by the competent authority was not reduced" and hence, the question of conducting an inquiry "does not arise".
Soon after this reply was furnished by the government, the CBI decided to commence a preliminary enquiry against the former Irda chairman.
The episode goes back to December 2005 when Reliance General Insurance Company filed a healthcare insurance scheme called Reliance Health Care Policy before the Irda for its approval. This policy, which was approved in February 2006, sought to provide insurance cover under various health conditions subject to certain exclusions at a specified range of prices.
In September 2006, the Irda issued revised guidelines and procedural requirements for "file and use" of insurance products. These required the prior approval of the Irda in case there were changes in the name or price of insurance products or other terms and conditions.
Different strokes
The Irda apparently believes in different strokes for different folks. The Irda has been adopting different yardsticks for penalising different insurance companies for the same purported offence.
In 2011, the public sector United India Insurance Company was fined Rs 5 lakh under the provisions of Section 64VC of the Insurance Act for opening 35 new branches across the country without permission from the authority. The IRDA, however, fined Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company the same amount for opening 582 offices without its permission. The fine was imposed on Bajaj Allianz under the same provisions that had been invoked in the case of United India Insurance. According to an order dated March 14, 2011, it was observed that United India Insurance had opened 35 "new places of business" in 2009 and 2010. The insurer was issued a show-cause notice on December 27, 2010. United India Insurance contended that the error had been "inadvertent" and that such future action would be undertaken only with prior approval of the authority. The Irda said in its order that United India Insurance was well aware of the requirements and asked the company to remit the fine of Rs 5 lakh within 15 days of the order. The authority had issued a similar show-cause against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance in 2007 over what it called "alleged" violation of the Insurance Act by opening 582 branches across the country with only the approval of its own board, and not that of the Irda. The same order had pointed out that the company had been issued a show-cause notice earlier as well in 2006 for opening 28 branches and 189 satellite offices without the prior sanction of the authority. The insurer was subsequently fined the same amount of Rs 5 lakh for opening 15 times the number of branches that United India Insurance had!


Dear Mr. Editor 

I have just seen
the amusing anonymous letter of
4th April. Hats off to your
Democratic Values and Journalistic
Standards. Kindly permit me
to interact with the new correspondent
through your columns. I may
bring to your kind notice that this
gentleman is silent on the Board
Resolution and 100% D/R
neutralization to pre Aug.97 retirees.

Dear Anonymous self styled well-wisher of the corporation and its Policy Holders. Congratulations for creating a great flutter in the Chronicle by your seemingly forthright comments against the pensioners’ cause in general and against some persons in particular. I think when you want to remain anonymous it does not behove well of you to talk about the thinking and actions of the persons named by you.

Let us take up the matter of the welfare of the stake holders of  L.I.C our esteemed Policy Holders. The pensioners can take legitimate pride in rendering world class services to our valued customers. You cannot deny the fact that the pensioners are the proud partners in building the great Financial Gaint the L.I.C. Then who is acting against interests of our esteemed customers. Who reduced the Bonus Rates after opening up of the insurance. Why the much needed conventional insurance products which highlighted the Security were neglected and who promoted the Unit Linked policies promising very high returns on the investment. The myth of this investment returns was exposed. Who benefited in the process. The Private Insurers. What is the Role of the Regulator the I.R.D.A. in protecting the policy holders. No doubt the Govt. Of India should be blamed for all this globalization.

Coming  to the welfare of the great financial institution L.I.C. What is L.I.C – THE PEOPLE associated with it the SALES AND THE SERVICING personnel who worked day in and day out for its growth and made it the Goliath in the Life Insurance. Do you know the amounts paid by L.I.C to Govt. every year as Dividend apart from the Income Tax and the Service Tax. What about the Investments made by the L.I.C in the Development of the Nation apart from administering the Social Security Schemes of the Govt.  Ultimately the L.I.C became a stooge of the Finance Ministry.  Do you know how the shares of the O.N.G.C were purchased in the last minute by a phone call from M.O.F.  

As a result of the globalization the market share of the L.I.C came down to 73%. Whom to blame for this? Why the L.I.C can not expand its global operations? Why the L.I.C diversify into Banking when banks are allowed to do life insurance business. The policy holders will be a good customer base and the policy proceeds would be good source for the finance of the Banking Division. L.I.C with its net work in the remote rural areas can easily flourish in Banking. L.I.C need additional staff to take up this task. More recruitment means more amounts added to the pension fund. But L.I.C has no such vision and the G.O.I do not have interest in the growth of L.I.C for it is very much satisfied with present position in L.I.C. So why blame the pensioners as waiting for the dooms day of L.I.C. It is very unwarranted and uncharitable remark against the pensioners which you will regret, I hope. By the by what is your opinion of the recent action of the G.O.I in enhancing the F.D.I in Insurance. What is the impact of this on L.I.C.

Coming to the legal battle, ho is responsible, undoubtedly the L.I.C. The resolution dt. 24-11-2001 was passed by the L.I.C Board to set right the matters on the pension. The then U.P.A-1 Govt. which survived on the crutches of the Left Parties was well aware of this matter. As per Rule 55(A) the G.O.I was duty bound to O.K the resolution. So much so the matter was taken up with judiciary. Your opinion on Rule 56 is not correct. The decision to update the pension was taken by the G.O.I and is being implemented from 1996. The State Govts. also followed to extend the benefit to their pensioners despite huge deficit budget. The Railways and the Ports are also offering the benefit to their pensioners. The Apex Court order on OROP recently clarified the matter.

Rules are created for implementation especially when they relate to the welfare of the recipients lest it amounts to flouting the Rules for which one must reap the consequences. Further your opinion on Case Law is not correct. Judge-made law is also law. Precedent is valid in dispensation of Justice.So the High Courts applied and accepted the points in Nakara Case.Any way the matter is before the Apex Court and will be decided taking in to account the facts and the matters of law, constitutional provisions etc. but not as per the whims and fancies of an anonymous person unless he impleads as party to the case to strengthen the hands of the L.I.C / G.O.I combine to defeat the pensioners cause which is declared justified by three High Courts and which decision is not stayed by the Apex Court.

Coming to your comments on the 9700 crores,  burden is on L.I.C. for your clarification. The burden is not 9700 crores but much less. Further you quoted the Court Ruling that L.I.C can not wish away from its duty in the name of financial burden. But I am sure that your prediction on L.I.C doomsday will not be materialized even when the pensioners win their case hands down very much to your dislike. I wish you all the best as well-wisher of L.I.C.

With regards





Circular issued by AIBOC after last round of BP Talks on 16th April,'15

    The circular issued by AIBOC - reproduced by Union Bank Officers' Association (Gujarat) is forwarded herewith.

General Secretary​



C H Mahadevan

Monday, April 20, 2015



Now-a-days Chat Masala has become one of the items on menu for dinners that follow marriages and receptions. Anyone who relishes Chat will attest to the fact that it has ingredients to suit the tastes of all. Something in it for everyone.

We are all convinced that our demand for updation of pension
is genuine and justified. We hail the Jaipur Judgment and would
like to see it implemented in letter and spirit. We are confident of
the legal acumen, experience and talents of our legal counsel.

We desire to see the cases concluded early and in our favour. We are irritated at the repeated adjourn-ments and the unpredictable priorities of the Court. 

LICPC carries the information available from several sources 
and its contents and posts are not like a union circular that tends to
present a monochromatic view. It is to the credit of LICPC that
it allows space to those who write on all aspects of life that
interest the pensioners' community.

The cartoons and posts reflect the mood among pensioners at any given point of time. They also delicately remind the readers of reality of external world that exists objectively. All this is meant to elevate their mood in advanced age/s and to avoid a feeling of sullenness that matters are not moving the way we would like to see them move.

Back to Chat Masala...Sense of humour and satire are great
tools to highlight the injustices in the system . They have to
be received and understood in proper perspective. So when
Mr. Aboobucker wrote about Jayalalitha's case taking
precedence over ours, I was tempted to link it with the
tidhi and yoga on 22nd. That is in lighter vein. Mr. RKV went 
into depth.

Pensioners belong to all schools of philosophy and thought. Many amongst us think of auspicious days. I wrote about adjournment, vacations for judiciary etc. All this was meant to relieve our boredom.

Mr. GNS wrote about " friends who seem to have all the time
in the world to express their personal views" in LICPC. With his
long experience as an advocate he said nothing can be done
about long vacations for judiciary. He felt we should not
say anything about that "without doing anything to create
public opinion."

I am a retired LIC employee and a pensioner without any other avocation or business of profit to pursue. I am satisfied with whatever pension I get and " have all the time in the world."
If Shri GNS wishes to start creating public opinion about
improving the functioning of judiciary, I will use all my time
to canvass supporters for the good idea.


B. Ganga Raju 



All India Canara Bank Retirees' Federation has sent to us a soft copy of the Report of its recent Central Committee Meeting held at Hyderabad. It is forwarded herewith for your perusal at your convenient time. 

General Secretary​


Dear Editor,

I received a call from Mr Jay Savla's Office. Hearing on 22nd and 23rd April is ruled out.
We are listed at Sl No 37 on Friday 24th April. It being a 'Miscellaneous' day, Final hearing shall not take place on that day. When the item reaches, the Bench would only give the next 'date'.

If LIC or UoI Counsel try to push it beyond summer vacation, all Pensioners' Counsel should oppose and make a concerted plea for even 29th April.

I am asked to cancel my ticket and wait for the next date to be known on 24th April.

Thanks and regards,
M Sreenivasa Murty 



Cartoonist: unknown.
Never mind about the inauspicious 22 APRIL

A good Samaritan among us used all his astrological knowledge to say that 22 APRIL the next date
of our hearing in SC is inauspicious for us and so if it get adjourned again it is for our good. We appreciate his concern although how far astrology could be believed is a million dollar question.

All the horoscope predictions for the current year for the years later are based to be false as the stars are not aligned as the astrologer thinks. All the zodiac signs were originally based on constellation the sun was on the day when one is born. Why ?. Because the moon has exerted a gravitational pull as it has happened in the Japanese tsunami causing the earth to wobble on its axis which disturbed the stars alignment and because of this shift from the axis the alignment of the stars went haywire thus rendering the earth over here and the sun moving to a different constellation that it was 3000 years ago when the study of stars took place. Suffice o say that coming to our court case which has taken a final shape it is better to believe in our own strength, effectively argue our case with all the court craft at our command to demolish the appellant’s defense and get going without bothering much on astrology.



Sunday, April 19, 2015

Who says Supreme Court is slow in dispensing justice?‏


There many cases in SC where
larger bench was recommended are
still pending. But the speed with
which Jayalalitha's Corruption
related case moves in the SC makes
many raise their eyebrows. One such
person is Nonagenarian political leader
and former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu
Shri M. Karunanidhi.

Notwithstanding the fact that his party DMK is the APPELLANT in this case, he expresses astonishment not only over the speed with which SC is moving to appoint the larger Bench headed by Justice Dipak Mishra but also over the speed with which the earliest hearing date is fixed for 21st April 2015 (likely to continue on 22nd also to complete the hearing without any adjournment).

Incidentally the hearing of our cases in SC which was facing many adjournments for want of time to the Bench has been set aside of the appointed date viz.22nd once more because of Justice Mishra becoming busy with the Jayalalitha's case. Perhaps SC feels "justice delayed is justice denied" in this case and accorded priority over ALL CASES.




IAS and IPS officers will 

now need to take prior permission from the central government before accepting gifts worth more than Rs 5,000.

According to the recently amended all India services rules, they also need to inform government if they accept gifts of over Rs 25,000 from their relatives or friends.

No member of the service shall accept any gift without the sanction of the government if the value of gift exceeds Rs 5,000, the new rules say.

A member of the service may accept gifts from his near relatives or from his personal friends having no official dealings with them, on occasions such as wedding, anniversaries, funerals and religious functions when the making of gifts is in conformity with the prevailing religious and social practice, but he shall make a report to the government if the value of such gift exceeds Rs 25,000, they say.



Mr Raju's suggestion to make judiciary an essential service like Armed Forces, Police, Hospitals, SurfaceTransport is a good idea. Especially when there are more than 60000 cases pending before SC and several LAKHS of cases pending before the various HC in the country, the unmindful judiciary going on summer vacation for 30 - 40 days which is a colonial vestige is to be revisited by the powers that be.

In fact the previous Chief Justice R.M. Lodha has mooted the idea that the judiciary should forego this luxury and work like other Departments of Govt. on the eve of his retirement. But this was met with stiff opposition from the current incumbent Mr Dattu and also some legal profession luminaries.

In the interest of the litigants and for the delivering the justice without delay, this matter should get priority consideration of the Judiciary and the Executive of the nation.



Saturday, April 18, 2015


LICPC is getting more and more interesting
Chat-n-Chat is real spicy chat in an otherwise
tepid fare. We have real education about
how the judiciary functions. 
  • 22nd April 2015 according to our lunar calendar is the 4th day of Shukla paksha in the month of vaisakha. Perhaps the tidhi and yoga do not suit us on that day. Otherwise how else Jayalalitha's picture pops up on that day ahead of ours. Her case (or is it case against her?) is important matter of state. So no use getting exercised over the delay in our case/s. UOI and LIC like it that way. Even on screen when Jayalalitha appears the camera is focused on her only. Everyone else gets pushed to the sides.
The summer is very much felt now. The day temperatures
are soaring up. The physical energy of old people like us
gets sapped. We must constantly rehydrate ourselves.
Otherwise there would be more obituaries.
  • A thought crosses my mind. Why should India that is Bharat continue with the colonial practice of summer vacations for judiciary? White people could not withstand the heat in tropics and they invented the summer vacations. They used to retire to Shimla in summer which has cooler climate. In the absence of white sahibs the Raj in Delhi took rest.The present BJP government which claims to be truely Indian in thought and practice must think about this aspect. These are the days of advanced technology and everyone , every office has airconditioners to keep the cool. So why summer vacations for some institutions? When the working days increase the backlog of cases also would come down. That would be setting a good example before the entire Nation. Essential Services do not get summer vacations... Armed forces, Air force, Navy,  the security organisations, the railways, the airlines, the communications , the businesses in market, the health services, the supply of products like Milk, the electricty etc., the banks, LIC ...all do not get vacations.  
The Judiciary must also be made an Essential Service. The judicial services must be available throughout the year. May be some benches operate in summer to dealmatters of exceptional urgency. But that would not be sufficient what with heavy backlog of cases. Will somebody take the initiative to invite the attention of the Law Minister and Prime Minister?
    Meanwhile switch over to light cottons and keep cool.

    B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad



    One more success story of RTI 

        Please see the following e-mail received from Shri J.P.Shah, our RTI & Consumer Activist Member.

    General Secretary


    Our SC cases - Cause List for 22nd April‏

    Dear Mr.Murty,

    In the weekly list, the captioned matter is
    not shown. Justice Dipak Misra is sitting in
    a three Judge Bench with Justice R.K.Agarwal
    and P.C. Pant. This may be the reason
    matter is not shown. However, we will
    find out from Registry on Monday and
    give you the correct update.

    Savla & Associates
    Advocates & Solicitors


    cartoonist: unknown.

    Medi-claim circular

    Dear Sir,

    Referring to your circular dt 13/4/2015 on the above, I have noticed that the subsidised premium under Category II & III under Table B for Sum Insured of Rs 6 lks for the age group of 71-75 works out to less than that for the previous age group of 66-70.This seems to be an inconsistency.

    Kindly confirm the correctness of the gross premium given in Table B and do the needful.

    C H Mahadevan

    (Letter addressed to LIC of India, Central Office, Mumbai)

    Friday, April 17, 2015

    Murty's article

    Today's lead article by MSM is a brilliant analysis of Mr. A's letter to the Editor. MSM's article reassured poor LIC pensioners that A's statements will not damage pensioners cause or our case in SC. Thanks Mr MSM.


    Are we strong in our arguments...


    Mr AW has unwittingly 

    done me/us an immense service. 

    We are already fully prepared 

    to meet all the arguments put 

    forth by him to oppose pension 

    up-gradation. Even if LIC and/

    or UoI borrow any or all of his 

    points for arguing in the Supreme 

    Court, we know now how to 

    handle them better.

    However, his views and some of the so called facts cited by him, do need rebuttal/correction. My purpose in continuing this discussion is not merely to prove the AW wrong in most of what he wrote, but ALSO to reassure our own Pensioner colleagues that our case is as strong as before and the AW's spirited exposition has only helped us to fine-tune our arguments further on the Funded Scheme concept and how according to him, CCS Rules do not ipso facto, apply to LIC Pension Rules etc., 

    Let me come to more substantive points from the AW's diatribe. His aspersions on our Organizational loyalty first: 

    Doubting the Pensioners' (including who retired in senior positions) loyalty to the Organization which made them what they are today and equating such perceived ungrateful behaviour with disrespecting the Nation itself, I am afraid, is most uncharitable and even irresponsible on the part of the AW. Some of my colleague pensioners have already countered this accusation effectively. Our loyalty levels are known to us and need no fresh ISO certification from the AW. I would still ask the AW to once look at the whole thing from the Pensioners' angle - "I have done so much to this Organization for Forty Years, why am I being disowned today?". "Why should I be denied what is legally due to me?" I may sum up by saying that a sense of hurt is fully known only to the one who is hurt. Not to the bystander. Money part is incidental. 

    The AW described the demand for pension up-gradation as unfair and unjust on the part of those who are well off. He referred in his PS to those Pensioners who drive in Mercedes Benz and who live in Bungalows worth few crores of Rupees as also enjoy foreign jaunts, post-retirement - it only betrays his skewed view of the issue. Does he or does he not know that there are hundreds and may be thousands of Pensioners who may have retired in different positions and who need the Pension they are paid so desperately that they visit the Bank at 10.30 AM on the 1st day of the Month to withdraw some cash? Luckily for them there is no rush in the Bank due to the working (?) staff having already got their salaries two days before. The PS (which the Editor has since withdrawn) establishes that the views of the AW came more out of deep rooted prejudice towards the Pensioner class and not based on objectivity. I know I shouldn't over-react personally but let me confess that I do drive around in my Mercedes and live in a Bungalow like the one referred to by the AW. But I don’t feel guilty for my strong conviction that non-up-gradation of Pension in LIC with each pay revision as in Government, is unlawful. If a 'test' is possible and necessary on those who need more pension and those who do not, let the AW use his clout to make LIC & the Government invite the so called affluent LIC pensioners to voluntarily forego up-gradation. And give it only to those who need. I had voluntarily opted to forego my cooking gas subsidy (even before PM's Appeal) and I and many more LIC Pensioners may forego higher Pension as well, if it works that way. But first commit to give to those who need it badly. Can you? 

    Funded Scheme: The much talked about non-issue. It is a statutory requirement to meet the legal obligation and liability but not a backdoor way-out to deny what is payable. It further mandates that a fool proof mechanism should be in place, so as to ensure that Pension is paid as is 'payable' and not denied on the pretext of lack of funds. As to the numbers, let the AW not unduly worry about the adequacy. We have experts among us (who were handling the subject themselves till they left Yogakshema, to call it a day for active service) and who can't be bullied by the MoF. Suffice it to say that if liability on account of pension payments has to pass the test of a scientific yardstick like compare it with LIC's Premium Income - here are the numbers: For the year 2013-14, outgo on account of staff salary stood at 6.21% of the Total Premium Income whereas the outgo on account of Pension payment (including commuted value) was 0.33%. If Pension outgo is expressed as a ratio of the outgo under the head ‘staff salaries’, it constitutes just 5.39%. Any lessons learnt? If there is scope to protect policyholders' interests by cutting or containing any outgo, one has to start with staff salaries before looking at Pension payments. We know it doesn't happen because working employees can extract more by arm twisting while pensioners have no muscles to flex. If we go to the root of the issue, why should any pensions be paid at all? Does the AW see any justification? Or is he against up-gradation only and not the basic pension? The entire discomfort of the AW and the section of the constituents which he represents, to the outgo on account of pension payments emanates from an unenlightened self-interest. We want the maximum pie to ourselves - don't want to part with any part of it for the 'spent force'. it is like a son considering the old parent as an unproductive liability on the family resources. Very sad culture gap, in my view.

    The AW dwelt at length on my inputs of legal angle and my welcoming the UoI's direct entry as an Appellant. My area of comfort appears to bother him. I can't help it after all. I was accused of not validating my charge that in its claim of rejecting the Board Resolution Union of India had indulged in a blatant lie under oath (Refer Para 5 h. on page 62 of the SLP – reading:

    “Because the High Court erred in construing.....…….as a deemed approval of the LIC Board’s proposal, when in fact the proposal had been rejected, and the stand of the present Petitioner has been made clear throughout the proceedings”. 

    According to the AW I should have followed up with more information to support my charge by quoting from the Appeal/Affidavit of UoI. When the UoI had claimed to have rejected the Board Resolution but DID NOT furnish any other information like the date of the communication, to whom sent etc., how can I furnish the non-existing information? That is my charge actually. If UoI chose to commit a blunder, don’t I use it to my advantage, in the legal battle? I will - to the hilt, for sure. I am familiar with bureaucratic arrogance in dealing with their 'subjects'. That it can display such disrespect even towards highest judiciary is baffling. Deserves to be exposed squarely.

    To the fellow visitors to the Chronicle – let us not waste our time on guessing who the AW could be. He is not a Pensioner, because if he is one, he should also be a Saint (a rare commodity). He is not planted by LIC (or Government) either. Because, they don't care. But he is one with strong conviction, he genuinely believes in all that he wrote. For that part, I respect him. End of the day, I have no ill will at all.

    When the Apex Court finally decides the issue, 

    I hope to call the AW and say ‘Better luck elsewhere'.

    M Sreenivasa Murty
    PS: I had to withhold a certain indisputable fact from public discussion for tactical reasons, which would have deflated most of the thrust in AW’s arguments. We are going to use it as our Brahmastra and make both UoI & LIC look PALE before the Bench.
    Thru Sorting Office ?

    Thursday, April 16, 2015

    SN (A 1992 PENSIONER)

    'DIFFICULT TO DIGEST' - discussion continues...

    Mr.Anonymous ( A ) has wittingly or unwittingly (not wilfully) opened up a Pandora's box. A few have responded to his call. Probably, by now, his thirst for knowing more about the pension matters must have been quenched. In the process of educating, at times, one is obliged to give out his or her piece of mind. Understandable. If A has no reservations no inhibitions and if he feels that he has benefitted by the explanatory and elucidatory writes-ups appeared in the PC, he may send another anonymous piece of letter. That would be a gentlemanly act.

    I also take liberty to briefly clarify why the pressing demand of updating of pension and 100% neutralisation in DR is as per 'Law' and not unjust or unreasonable.

    "Down down with anti-labour policy"; "Hamaari maange puure karo yaa kursi Khaali karo"; "Daadaagiri chamachaagiri nahi chalegi, nahi chalegi" etc. slogans are not uncommon during any wage revision and wage related struggles with the managements. The serving employees are compelled to go on strikes against the management inconveniencing the general public. Here, A may appreciate why such kind of hullagulla against the management and the GOI, as the management acts more often at the behest or command of the bureaucrats sitting in Delhi. Who derives the maximum benefit of every pay revision? The maximum beneficiaries are those at the top, excluding the Chairman etc. They are entitled to / enjoy HAG+, Apex or Cabinet Secretary pay of GOI. May their tribe flourish.

    Probably, by this time next year, thirty plus lakh GOI employees and fifty lakh of GOI pensioners and family pensioners would get the benefit (on certain fitment norms - approximately - 40% increase over the previous pension and family pension was ensured in the last two CPCs) 7 th CPC scales. The pensioners and family pensioners, who have crossed 80 etc. have been getting 20%... 100% more in their pension since January, 2006.

    A relative of mine is now 85 plus, He got Rs.450 plus negligible DR when he retired 30 years ago. His basic now is Rs.12189/- and he is entitled for 100% neutralisation in DR since January, 1996. It is 113% from 01-01-2015. The GOI which has been, in the true spirit of welfare society, have been benevolent not only to their serving employees but also to the pensioners, who served for nation building (no sarcasm intended- the country has grown - no denying fact - not withstanding, some dead woods and corruption in some places) and their dependent family pensioners. The GOI is also more considerate to the pre 1986 retiree, ex gratia recipients.

    But, the GOI continue to be unkind to the bank and LIC pensioners. The lot of family pensioners and pre 1986 retirees of banks and LIC is not right to say that they belong/ed to great and giant x- bank/institution-LIC.

    Oh! What a rule : the pre 1997 LIC pensioners and pre 2002 bank pensioners are not entitled to get 100% DR???

    RBI is not GOI. But, the Governors of RBI seem to wield or exercise better power. A governor gave updation of pension - the pension of all those retired prior to 01-11-1997, was fixed as per pay scales of Nov.1997. It was denied by GOI. But, the pensioners continue to get pension as per pay scales of 1997 as the Bombay High Court has stayed the GOI direction. The family pensioners of RBI get 30% of pay of retiree since last two years. RBI, the Governor, has been gracious to grant- enhanced-almost doubled, the medical allowance to the pre 1986 ex gratia recipients-retirees from 01-04-2015: Rs.6800/- to Class IV, Rs.7600 to Class III and from Rs.8800 to Rs.11200/- to different grade of officers.

    Some thing must be preventing the LIC management. LIC family pensioners and pre1986 retirees belong to 'neglected sector'. A relative of mine, a pre 1986 retiree, who moved with Shri Madhu Dandavate etc. got less than Rs.3000/- ex gartia. He died last year. He is no more to know the meagre hike in DR granted at some periodic intervals, that too at the mercy of GOI.

    Is it wrong if the pensioners seek empathy from the Top management and for that matter from A or B?

    D.S.Nakhara fought for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. His case is quoted in almost all court cases fighting for pension related matters. Recently, pre 2006 pensioners fought court cases with GOI for (re) revision of pension for about five years. They won the case at the SC of India despite half a dozen SLPs and the curative petition. To elaborate the point, I would like to mention that my Salaji of 60+, being the legal heir, expects to get arrears, in about five months,for the period his father and mother lived - from 01-01-2006 till the dates of their death.

    The LIC pensioners thirteen + years court battle for updation of pension is not different. If all goes well with the pensioners, the beneficiaries will be all, the past, the present and the future pensioners. The LIC has perpetual existence unless and until the GOI wants to cease its function...A will (no option as on date) retire as a pensioner on superannuation or earlier if he volunteers to retire after completing the required number of years service. In GOI and RBI, twenty years service must be (is) sufficient for full pension. The pension updation comes automatically along with revision of pay scales and without asking for GOI pensioners; not yet to RBI pensioners.

    A family friend was very happy when his daughter, employed in Central Government, got an alliance from an officer working in a reputed bank. His son-in-law retired in Scale V nine years back. He had not opted for pension. He had handsome superannuation including the bank's contribution, gratuity etc. to the tune of Rs.40.00 lakhs (slightly inflated figure). He had his beautiful bungalow (60x40 site) and Honda City. He could get married his children after retirement. He was left with Rs.20.00 lakhs. (inflated figure). He was one of the first persons to opt for pension when he got a chance to opt. Only agony, now left for him, is that his wife is drawing more pension than him! She retired in Scale 24 of GOI. 'Madam, aapakoto aur 8-10 hajaar jyaadaa milega das barah mahineke baad' her beloved husband laments!

    Mr.A must have seen the Pension anomaly chart as on 01-02-2015 at the maximum of scales of various cadres - prepared by Shri C.H. Mahadevanji. If not, he may see for himself, the glaring disparity among the pensioners retired on different dates. I quote here just two cases : (i) HGA retired in 2007 scale gets Rs.27085/-. Those who retired in  the previous scales draw pension of Rs.25021/-, Rs.18576/-, Rs.17747/- and Rs.15972/-. (ii) EDs retired in 1987 and 1992 scales get Rs.23229/- and Rs.25080/- as against Rs.61660 - more than double- drawn by ED retired in 2007 scale. No need to add that disparity will be much more pinching -in couple of months - when the revised pay scales are in place. A or B can imagine his or her position ten or fifteen years after his or her retirement with the ever increasing inflation.

    Mr.A has made a small mistake in stating that GOI had no go but to grant OROP to Defence Personnel as Government (Civil servants) are already getting OROP. The Central - civil pensioners-are as on date not getting OROP. Both civil and defence pensioners have/ had been fighting for it. Considering the short duration of military etc. service of majority of defence personnels/ pensioners, as ruled by the Courts, the former finance minister, Shri P.Chidambaram, introduced OROP for defence personnel from 01-04-2014. The Civil pensioners demand is not yet resolved. They get on a fitment formula, as mentioned in one of the aforesaid paragraphs and is not insignificant. OROP is one of the demands that the 7 th CPC is reportedly to examine.

    The number of serving (cf.LIC Annual Report) employees as on 31-03-2014 was 1.20 lakh including 0.26 lakh development officers. The salaries and other benefits to employees amounted to Rs.14705 crore as 31-03-2014 as against Rs.11895 crore as on 31-03-2013. The ratio of expenses towards salary and other benefits to employees to total premium income was 6.21% and 5.70% for the same period. It is self explanatory.

    The present generation LIC employees have more task to perform, (they have PLLI - such rewards -never seems to have occurred to anybody a decade ago) and shoulder heavy burden in the most competitive world of life etc. insurance today. The present day employees, by and large, are better qualified and intelligent. They should be able to find out different areas and methods to generate more income. They may strive hard to collect more premium income in order to reduce the ratio of expenses towards salary and benefits to total premium income.

    A has rightly stated that the Corporation has to provide for the Pension Fund. The Corporation shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial conditions of the Fund every year on 31 March and make such additional annual contribution to the Fund as may be required to secure payment of of the benefits under the Rules. It is also provided that the Trust shall, in the event of the benefits payable under the rules being revised downwards for any reason whatsoever..the benefits go to the Fund.

    Some twenty- twenty five years before, the money was a scare commodity. The needs were fortunately less. It was difficult to give Rs.10,000/- fees per annum to children. Now, one to ten lakhs fees/ donations have become order of the day in a few recognised institutions. Hopefully, A or B do appreciate the hard truth. No emotional atyaachaar, at all.

    Had the letter of Anonymous had appeared in the PC five/ six months back, a request letter could go to UFBU to settle for 12% hike to serving employees, may the balance of 3% be for pensioners' fund !

    The suggestion made by Shri B. Ganga Raju in his write - up is worth considering.

    The pensioners. despite the age not being on their side, will continue to fight court cases. There will be differing opinions. Loko bhinna ruchihi.

    Probably, A has not yet reached the age of discretion. He need not fear that his future shall be bleak if the pensioners obtain from the Apex court whatever is rightfully due to them. There is also no need to panic about Rs.9700 crore mentioned by Shri Abhishek M Sighvi. He must have seen court dramas in some movies or serials. Some lawyers lie, some lawyers mislead.

    The Hon. Judges will examine all the issues before delivering the final judgement.

    A may peruse some postings in the PC during last one month on Rs. 9700 crore.

    The amount of Rs. 9700 crore is not 'huge' for a mammoth organisation like LIC. The organisation has paid Rs.16681 crore as commission to Agents for the year ended 31-03-2014 and Rs.14768 crore for the previous year ended 31-03-2013. A may be a young lad or lass (Shri MSM) may in his thirties or.... He or she be worried more than necessary on his or her career.

    Avoid or better not be judgemental or cast aspersions. He must be knowing, "Discretion is the better part of valour".
    SN (1992 pensioner)




    Outcome of the Bipartite Negotiations held to-day i.e. 16th April,'15

         After one more round of the discussions held to-day, Shri C.H.Venkatachalam, General Secretary, All India Bank Employees' Association has sent following SMS.
    "To-day IBA UFBU meeting took place wherein all details of proposed new medical reimbursement scheme was discussed. Scheme will be finalized shortly. For retirees also we have asked IBA to workout a similar Scheme. 

    "In the afternoon discussions on other demands of workmen and officers were discussed. Next week Negotiating Committee meeting will be held and pay scales, etc. will be discussed".
    General Secretary 



    Communications from Reserve Bank of India Retired Employees' Association
    Please see below the attachment.



    LIC Pensioners Chronicle

    Dear Editor,

    Today, you have announced that your blog is likely to cross One Million Hits by 25.04.2015. It will be a great moment for LIC Pensioners Chronicle. 

    With my best wishes and regards,



    Dear Editor,

    I have just read an appeal on your blog from our Learned Friend Sh.H.K. Aggarwal to Editor L.I.C.Pensioners Chronicle.

    With due regards, I beg to differ with him. No body including any editor or any leader or any well wisher/Supporter of any Pensioners Leader can mislead or confuse our L.I.C. Pensioners since they are a very intelligent class and clearly understand all issues related with our legal battle and roles being played by different stake holders.



    Dear Editor,

    NO DOUBT YOU AS EDITOR AND PUBLISHER HAS THE FULL AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION, but in my opinion, at this juncture when our case has almost reached final stage, LICPC should be cautious to publish/repeat daily the mails on the same subject/identical opinions/views, raising the anxiety of ordinary pensioners who also get confused and start losing patience.

    Lets have faith in judiciary, our active petitioners and their advocates.

    Truth will triumph and pensioners get full justice including updation of pension, which is the main stake of all.

    With profound regards,
    H K Aggarwal


    Dear Sri Gangadharan,

    This AW (*Anonynous Writer) seems to have got more attention and spontaneous (at times, heated) responses than what he himself would have anticipated. Thanks of course, to the Chronicle, which has by now become an 'addiction' to many.

    It is interesting that the AW has gained something in a new and unexpected area - generating differences of opinion among the Pensioners/visitors to the Blog, on interpreting and guessing who the AW is! The latest Post by Mr MVV proves my point.

    I like Mr MVV's theory on Two plus Two making it Four etc., But if he or anybody mistook the original One and a Half as Two, the sum total in his assumption is obviously wrong. Not to provoke Mr MVV further, I want to assert that the AW is NOT a Pensioner. Let us happily agree to leave the matter there and not really worry about the identity of the AW.

    Thanks and regards,
    M Sreenivasa Murty 

    PS - My considered response to the substantive arguments of the AW's write up, is on its way. Hope it merits publication, before you exercise the Editorial prerogative to treat the discussion as 'closed''. MSM.


    Dear Editor,

    With each passing day, your blog is becoming more and more interesting in terms of value addition in contents as well as presentation which clearly speaks of rising popularity of L.I.C. Pensioners Chronicle for which you as an editor and your valuable readers cum contributors deserve full credit.

    I am really pleased to read today morning a post from our learned friend Sh. B.Ganga Raju under the title Cartoon or Caricature.

    Your cartoon L.I.C. Spy is a classic one and your creativity superb.

    I am in full agreement with Sh. Ganga Raju who narrated his personal experiences of union activities related with strike call way back in 1968.

    According to me scene has not changed much as seen by our friends during start of their career or prime time of their youth.

    Let me share that even now the moment you put your views in disagreement with a principal stake holder on blog, an immediate reaction from a few learned friends supporting him appears that such and such person is anti pensioner or management/GOI man.

    Now Latest. For first time I happened to represent AIRIEF Unit Panchkula at Supreme Court on 08.04.2015 and what I observed is really painful to describe. Technically three respondents in our case are assumed to be on same side but I observed persons of one respondent camp telling their supporters that  he (representing another respondent) need not be trusted since he happens to be a LIC Management Man. Can there be any thing more disturbing ?

    But we still have to move forward and win despite all such hurdles or bitter realities .