LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT


VISIT 'LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE' - THE MOST POPULAR WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Tuesday, September 16, 2014


Founder's Day

It is indeed a very good gesture on the part of Zonal Manager, Southern Zone to invite Seniors to attend the Founder's Day. Atleast we have one Zone where seniors are respected and are called for a meeting. The Million Dollar Question is whether other Zones / Divisions follow this noble practice.
Let us hope better sense will prevail.
C T JOSHI


IBA had granted 17 1/2 % increase to bank employees in 9 th BPS. They are not ready to grant the UFBU just demand of 25 % increase in the on going 10th BPS negotiations.

GOI was magnanimous to raise the fitment formula to 40% as against 20% recommended by the 5 th CPC of the 'maximum' of the pre revised pay of the scales of pay of 4 the CPC. GOI also accepted 100% neutralisation in DA/DR to employees, pensioners and family pensioners as early as from January, 1996 as recommended by the 5 th CPC . There is no discrimination between pre and post 01-11-2002 pensioners as is in the banks or in the LIC pensioners retired before and after 
01-08-1997.
GOI also accepted the 6 th CPC recommendation of ' fitment ' in the ' form of Grade Pay ' which has been normally taken at 40 % of the 'maximum' of the pre revised pay of 5 th CPC pay scales. A few examples given below in respect of the 6 th CPC by way of clarification :
Scale-8 ..4500-7000 ( 5 th CPC scale ) ; 40 % of l7000 = 2800 Grade Pay -PB-1 (6 th CPC )
Scale-14..7500-12000 ( 5 th CPC scale ) ; 40 % of 12000 = 4800 Grade pay-PB-2 ( 6 th CPC )
Scale-21..10000-15200 ( 5 th CPC scale ; 40 % of 15200 = 6080 ; Grade Pay fixed more at 6600 -
-PB- 3 ( 6 th CPC )
Scale-25..15100-18300 ( 5 th CPC scale ) ; 40 % of 18300 =7320 ; Grade Pay fixed more at 8700 -
-PB-4 ( 6 th CPC ).
Distinct pay scales and fixed pay recommended for higher category posts like Secretary, Cabinet Secretary and the like as they are Heads of Departments /Ministries etc.

The 4 th CPC had recommended running Pay Band Scales to Defence personnel and it was implemented. The 5 th CPC recommended specific pay scales to civilians and defence personnel. The 6 th CPC made a 'conscious departure' from the previous CPCs in recommending running Pay Band Scales because of  'inherent advantage' of running scales of pay : The individual pay scales often lead to stagnation as they have a limited span. The pay scales pruned to 20 as against 35 standard pay scales in the 5th CPC. The 5 th CPC had 'merged' 51 scales that existed as per 4 th CPC to 35 scales.
There is also Modified Assured Career Progression in GOI. There is time bound three promotions after ten, twenty and thirty years of service. The earlier Assured Career Progression which had two time bound promotions in a span of 24 years had 'better features'. The matter is 'sub judice' and the courts are in employees side.
The pay in the Pay Band Scales have been computed by adding to the existing basic pay and 
'full merger ' of Dearness Allowance at 86 % ( CPC had recommended 74 % _ details unnecessary ) as on 01-01-2006. That is in short existing basic pay x 1.86 factor = revised basic pay. Full merger helps in increase in the basic pay. This benefit along with elongated Pay Band pay scales is a bonanza to Central Government employees.
RBI has also given much better pay structure in its last two revisions effective from 01-11-2002 and 2007 compared to other banks under the aegis of UFBU and almost equal to the pay scales drawn by comparable cadres in GOI - but do not have Pay Band Scales. They have assured promotional avenues. Some grade officers are fitted in the pay of next higher grade officers scale of pay one year after reaching maximum in their existing grade.

UFBU and the employees of banks should ensure to get their legitimate increase in pay, allowances, etc. and try be at par with GOI employees and Pensioners. LIC employees and pensioners too deserve the same kind of treatment to get pay and pension benefits at par with GOI.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )

Monday, September 15, 2014

'Destructive' cartoon

Not at all destructive.  It is a constructive piece of journalism. Congratulations. I think Jaipur court has asked Asthana to get clarifications from Justice Bhandari though he may deny the same.  So this confusion will continue.  The fact that there are no quotable words or sentences in the judgment to prove beyond doubt that the Court has ordered pension updation makes us quote from different documents. The cartoon has attempted to project certain facts in the proper perspective.  Readers like me had a genuine feeling that you are always projecting certain things in a particular fashion.  But your cartoon on GN Sridharan and your commentary that AIIPA has flooded New Delhi with Post cards make me believe that what you exhibit is a responsible piece of journalistic work. This may be continued in future also. All best wishes.

THOMAS JACOB
Ooty.

All in the game








Just for information - Writ petition No.654 of 2007 filed by Shri KML Asthana in Rajasthan HC is published



DEAR ALL,

For quite sometime doubts were expressed in some quarters  that the the Jaipur Justice Bhandari judgment does not envisage upgradation of pension  at the time of every wage revision.

The *attached copy of Writ  Petition No 654/2007 which was  allowed by the Jaipur Single Judge Bench on 12/1/2010 received from Mr Asthana should set at rest all such doubts once and for all.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan

*Please click on 'Read more' below.

Shri Mahadevan writes:
"It is a well written write up which is worth being read by LIC Pensioners as well."
   
BANK RETIREES’ MOVEMENT IN INDIA  
A WRITE UP

By B.G.Raithatha

I : BRIEF HISTORY

1.  Retirees of most of the public sector banks started organizing in or around the year 1995. Introduction of Pension Scheme played a motivating role to form their Associations. Much before that, retired employees of State Bank of India were well organized because the pension scheme was already there. Formation of Organizations of Retirees of Central Bank of India and few other Banks also date back prior to the year 1995. But most of them were functioning as social / cultural platforms for the
bank retirees.

2. Availing special voluntary retirement schemes launched by the Banks during the years 2000-’01 by more than 1,00,000 employees and vast scale normal retirements on superannuation thereafter boosted up the movement. Present total strength of the bank retirees in our country is around 5,50,000.

II : ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP

3. Our All India Bank Retirees’ Federation (AIBRF), with its aggregate membership exceeding 1,25,000 and by its extensive and vigorous activities, is playing a pivotal role in the bank retirees’ movement of the country. Most of its affiliates are organizations of all cadres’ retirees.

4.  Federation of State Bank of India Retired Employees’ Associations, an oldest organization of the bank retirees, has also approximate membership of 1,25,000/- and is functioning very well. Its affiliated Associations also derive membership from all cadres – ‘Chairman to Messengers’.

5.  Retired Officers of Bank of Baroda and several other Banks are organized under the banner of ‘Retired Bank Officers’ National Confederation’ (RBONC).

6.  Officers retired from the fold of All India Bank Officers’ Confederation (AIBOC) have floated their retirees’ wings in several pockets in recent years.

7.  Retirees of most of the Banks have State or Regional Associations at base level; which are affiliates of their All India Bank-wise Federations; ultimately connected to apex level Organizations of retirees of all Banks e.g. AIBRF.
8.  In many areas there are State Federations / Committees or District Units of AIBRF (as it is here in Jabalpur District) representing retirees of various Banks. It is worth mentioning that the District Unit of AIBRF at Jabalpur is an informal body and a further note-worthy fact that Shri SC Jain, General Secretary of AIBRF who was present in it’s first Convention held at Jabalpur in 2012, described it as the first District Body of AIBRF formed in India.

III : CRUCIAL ROLE BEING PLAYED BY AIBRF

9.  Our Apex Organization – All India Bank Retirees’ Federation is playing a very crucial and leading role in the bank retirees’ movement of our country. The leaders of AIBRF have not left any stone unturned to high light and represent our demands at various levels viz. Government, IBA, UFBU and also to Public. 

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Mentioning

I reproduce from:-

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE


A HANDBOOK OF INFORMATION
Third (Revised) Edition 2010
from page 43 as under :-

"x) Mentioning :
If urgent relief/directions are required in a fresh matter or in a pending matter, either the party-in-person or his advocate can give request in the prescribed form called Listing Performa to Deputy Registrar (Mentioning), on week days between 10.00 A.M. to 4.30 P.M. and on Saturdays from 10.00 A.M. to 12.30 P.M. The matter is then listed before the Court on the next working day only for the purpose of mentioning, provided the request for mentioning was received by 4 P.M., the previous day. However, no mentioning is allowed on Mondays. This facility enables the party to obtain immediate relief instead of waiting for the scheduled listing of his case. 

Mentioning Courts:
(a) Mentioning of Adjourned/After Notice Matters in which hearing of the matter is sought at a date earlier than the date fixed by the Hon’ble Court/by the Registry, as well as Mentioning of Interlocutory Applications (including Contempt Petitions) seeking urgent directions/relief in Adjourned/After Notice/ disposed of/Leave granted matters, is done only before the Hon’ble Court having Coram in that matter.
(b) Mentioning of Interlocutory Applications (including Contempt Petitions) seeking urgent directions/relief in such After Notice/disposed of/Leave Granted matters, where no coram
is available for reasons such as retirement/non-sitting of Hon’ble Judges, is done before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India or before other Hon’ble Court(s), if any, specified for
mentioning.
(c) Mentioning of Fresh Matters where listing earlier than the scheduled date and / or urgent relief such as stay/bail etc. is sought is done before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and/
or, before other Hon’ble Court(s), specified for mentioning.
(d) Mentioning of applications for early hearing of Regular Matters is done before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. If, however, His Lordship is presiding a Constitution Bench, it is
done before other Hon’ble Court(s) specified for mentioning.
(e) There is no mentioning before any Constitution Bench.
(f) (Oral Mentioning) – Direct mentioning before the Hon’ble Court , [without routing it through the Registry] is however, allowed only before the Court presided over by Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of India. In case the Court presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India is not taking-up mentioning matters on a particular day, oral mentioning is allowed only
before the seniormost court sitting on that day."

RK SAHNI

A clarification

Dear Mr Poulose,
The benefit available for Class I Officers retired after 1/4/1993 
will be only the difference in salary from August 1992 to March 1993, 
i.e., for 8 months.The consequential benefits will be only PF 
deduction and interest thereon.
I do not think that there will be any re-fixation of pension as it 
depends on the average of the last 10 months emoluments as on the 
date of retirement.Any officer who retired after 1/4/1993 would 
have been fitted in the appropriate scale of pay from 1/4/1993.The 
problem may arise only for those who retired in April 1993 where 
one month(July 1992) in the average computation falls before 
1/8/1992.There,LIC will have to follow the principle of fixation of 
pension as per the amendment to the Pension Rules made in 1999.
Same adjustment will also have to be made while re-fixing pension 
for Class I retirees between 1/8/1992 and 31/3/1993.
Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

Saturday, September 13, 2014


There is a procedure in the court called " The mentioning time ". A few minutes before the court starts for the day and a few minutes before the court adjourns for lunch or for the day, at this time the Lawyers whose case may not come up go across and speak to the presiding judge for advancement or postponement of their hearing. The aggrieved person can also approach the HON Judge at these moments.

It happened to me when my Civil suit against a NBFC came for hearing after many adjournments and sensing that the respondent would again ask for adjournment my counsel
asked me to be present in the court and asked me to utilize ' the mentioning time' to approach the HON Judge and tell about my age, health conditions et all( of course assisted by my counsel and he was with me too) which I did and the HON Judge hearing me gave only a short adjournment of a week and that served my purpose.

How far such an action will bear any fruit when hearing of our tied up case comes to the SC bench is a matter to be pondered over if it is sensed that the respondent Corporation may ask for adjournment under some pretext or other.I do not profess to have legal knowledge and I would welcome if some competent person could throw light on this.

R.K.Viswanathan

Excess TDS Deposited in One Section/ AY can be adjusted in another Section/ AY

As Informed you earlier that Income tax departmenthas relaxed norms of e filing of TDS returns .Major relief has been given to tax payers by allowing adjustment of excess tds deposited in one section with other section .Further Income tax department has also allowed excess tds deposited in one assessment year with another assessment year.These amendments has been Incorporated in Financial year 2012-13 and we have reported it time to time.
Now TDSCPC has issued a clarification on the subject with example to remove doubts from deductors mind.By allowing these relief one should not go to lengthy TDS refund process.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Gmail passwords reportedly hacked






There are reports that 5 million GMAIL passwords have been hacked. You may use the following link to check if your Gmail password is safe/is one of those passwords hacked.  In any case it is advisable to change your gmail passwords at the earliest.
COIMBATORE DIVISIONAL CONFERENCE

YOUNG GENERATION OF BANKERS HAVE AWOKEN ARISEN TO THE NEED OF HOUR ! !

( No ill will to old and elder generation or with 
apologies to them; to unburden, to ease them of 
old age problems, difficulties. The need of the 
hour is to bring confidence among all generations 
in the ongoing struggle of wage revision and 
updating of pension etc. in the Banks, LIC etc. 

It is an acknowledged fact that our senior leaders 
have been fighting court cases in all sincerity and 
all pensioners, pre or post 1997, continue to be 
obliged to them : SN )

Young generation of bankers irrespective of Bank, Cadre and Union affiliation have decided to lead from the front and have decided to demonstrate and show their strength on 13thSeptember 2014 at Jantar Mantar New Delhi to protest against the number of Percentage [ the United Forum of Banks Unions ( UFBU ) has not been able to clinch a respectable deal of increase of 25% in wages with IBA ( its latest offer was a meagre 11% from its earlier stand of 10% hike) despite negotiations, face to face across the table and through exchange of correspondence for twenty months ] game played by UFBU during the course of Negotiations for wage revision. These youngsters are agitating for equality which has been upheld by Sastry Tribunal long back and have demanded:

(1) Equality in wages at Par with Central Government Employees
(2) Equality in the matter of Pension and at Par with Central Government Employees
(3) Equality in number of working days in a week i.e. 5 Day working

A mass level propaganda has been launched across internet on facebook, whatsapp and other social media sites. There is overwhelming response from all over the country.

These youngsters have shown their resentment and dissatisfaction against retired leaders participating in negotiation process. Thus, 13th September 2014 march to Jantar Mantar can be seen as beginning of new era in the trade union movement of Banking Industry. Till now top leaders have been complaining that new entrants are career minded and they seldom participate in trade union activities. Now if these youngsters assemble in thousands at Jantar Mantar on 13th, it would mean that constituent unions of UFBU are facing a situation of revolt by youngsters who have been deprived to raise their voice and participate in trade union activities. Majority of these youngsters are even demanding end of  present era of Bipartite Settlement and demanding inclusion of Bank Employees in Pay Commission.
Source - Courtesy : All Banking Solutions 

SN ( a 1992 pensioners )

Thursday, September 11, 2014



Dear Shri Gangadharan,

Apropos to Mr. T Sampath Iyengar’s post on applicability of Mr. M C Jain’s case, we have to keep in mind that the judgment is based on clause 2 of the notification dated 18-07-1996. The court held that those retired before the date of notification were not allowed the option provided in said clause 2 of the notification, which was allowed to those who were in service as on the date of notification and hence denial of revision of salary to the class 1 officers who had retired before 18-07-1996 was illegal and they should be allowed revision from 01-08-1992. Relevant part of the judgment is given below:
In so far as first prayer in writ petition is concerned, learned Single Judge in impugned judgment has referred to and reproduced clause 2 of said notification dated 18.07.1996, which extended benefit of revised pay scale to employees with effect from 01.08.1992. We reproduce that part of Clause 2 of the Notification, which reads as under :-
 Save as otherwise provided hereinafter the provisions of these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the 01st day of August, 1992:
Provided that where any Class I officer gives a notice in writing to the corporation, within thirty days of the publication of these rules in the official Gazette, expressing his option to be governed by the provisions of any of these rules from a date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force, then the Corporation may by order/permit such officer to be governed by the said rule with effect from the said date:
Provided further that no such option may be exercised by a Class I officer in respect of rule 9A of these rules:
Provided also that no arrears for the period prior to the date so chosen shall be payable to such officer.’
          Aforesaid clause of notification dated 18-07-1996 clearly indicates that the provisions of said Rules came into effect from 01.08.1992, the date on which respondent Mahesh Chand Jain was very much in service. However, an option given to Class I officers to give a notice in writing within thirty days of the publication of the said Rules expressing there willingness to be governed by the provisions of any clause of these rules from the date not earlier than the date on which the said rule comes into force. This means that a given officer could opt to be governed by the benefit of pay scales from the date later than 01st August, 1992. If what the appellant is contending is accepted, this would mean that even a Class I officer, who could not otherwise exercise the option because he stood retired when the said notification was issued, then he would not get benefit of revision of pay with effect from 01.08.1992 on which date the revised pay scale rules came into force, even though he was physically in service on that day. There is no exception made in the Rules that such benefit would not be admissible to those Class I officers who were actually in service in service between the date the aforesaid Rules came into force i.e. 01.08.1992 and the date of issuance of notification dated 18.07.1996. Their retirement in between was a fortuitous circumstance. Non-grant of such similar benefit to him, would be wholly discriminatory because his co-employees who have yet not retired and continued in service, shall be granted benefit of revision of pay even for the period such retired employees like the respondent, were actually working with them.”
I hope aforesaid paragraphs would clarify the position.

Sampath Iyengar's query


Dear Mr Gangadharan,

Referring to the post of Mr T Sampath Iyengar, I attach the Annexures C & D of draft letters to be addressed by Class I Officers retired on or after 1/4/1993 and their family pensioners (where 
applicable) respectively
.
Kind regards.

C H Mahadevan

Please click on 'read more' for the draft letters.

Minutes of the 5th Grievances Redressal Cell Meeting on 09.08.2014
We furnish overleaf for your information the text of the Minutes of the 5th
Grievances Redressal Cell Meeting held at Bengaluru on 9th August 2014. Minutes
are self explanatory.
One of the important challenges retirees face in general is age-related ailments. It
has been our considered view that retired employees of our bank are to be
adequately covered by medical insurance, even if contributory in nature. While we
find that there is forward movement in our bank with regard to Group Mediclaim
Insurance (Floater) Policy for the benefit of retirees, we need to pursue the same
with appropriate authorities in the days to come.
We are happy that as a sequel to our discussion in the Grievances Redressal Cell
Meeting, quite a good number of individual grievances, more particularly, those
falling under the jurisdiction of recently formed Circle Offices were resolved
satisfactorily. Our retired colleagues will please note that some of our pending
demands have been referred to the respective functional wings for their views so
as to enable the administration to take decisions. Many of our pending demands
and appeals are justified from our point of view. Nevertheless, the approach of
the management to the longstanding grievances of retirees such as, Death Relief,
Festival Advance etc. needs more positive and benevolent orientation for
effectively addressing these concerns.
Friends! at the industry level, in course of time, core demands of pensioners such
as Pension Updation, 100% Neutralisation of DR, Improvement in Family Pension,
another pension option to compulsorily retired and resigned employees who were
denied the same earlier, Uniform Hospitalisation Scheme to retirees etc., are likely
to be achieved and in our Bank, we shall continue to strive for making the best of
the rest of our lives a reality.
With Greetings,
Yours Sincerely,
(S.V.Srinivasan)
General Secretary
Please click on 'read more' to read minutes.

"I am a teetotaller but even I see no logic ...how do you distinguish here?"‏

 "Pay the amount due to the employees"

This one sentence in the order of the Supreme Court of India to L I C of India in the case relating to pre-01/08/1997 LIC pensioners has stuck in my throat.
Ever since then the highest court in the land, the repository of distilled wisdom, has helped enliven many a tedious hour of mine with its pronouncements/orbiter dicta/whatever and one such gem appears in column No.1 on the front page of today (Thurs., SEP 11, 2014)'s "The Hindu" :
    
 "No logic in Kerala bar closure : SC
      Krishnadas Rajagopal
     NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the logic behind the Kerala Government's new liquor policy under which 730 bars are being shut down while letting those in five-star hotels function.
     "There is no logic. What do you mean by substandard [ a reference to 418 bars closed earlier as the government found them substandard]? I am a teetotaller but even I see no logic ...how do you distinguish here?" Justice Anil R.Dave said. ............."
(Emphasis supplied --- P.Ramanathan)
     I understand Justice Anil to mean that if he were not a teetotaller and were a tippler instead, it would have been possible for him to see the logic.
     Howzzat?! 

(P Ramanathan)

Difference in salary from 8/92 to 3/93‏

When the S C judgement turned out to be favourable there were comments that the principle enunciated therein covers all those who were in service during that period. I retired in June 1994 and the fixation of that particular wage settlement saw different dates for salary fixation and gratuity payment to Class I officers etc. 

While the differential date of effect of gratuity was rectified by SC and paid to all affected Cl 1 officers the different date for salary fixation to Cl. 1 was not taken up. Since there was glaring difference in pension of Class 1 officers retired during this period Mr. Jain filed a case and won. The principle appears to be that there cannot be a different dates of implementation of salary fixation between classes of employees, it would be applicable to all class I officers, whether they retired during this period are died on other dates.

My point is Mr Mahadevan's draft excludes those who were in service at that interval and surviving now. Does it mean that that those who are living are not entitled for this benefit.


T SAMPATH IYENGAR
BANGALORE
New Delhi, September 2
Public authorities cannot take excuse of “missing files” for denying information under the RTI Act as such claims have no legality under the transparency law for withholding records, the Central Information Commission has held.
“Unless proved the record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by the public authority,” Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said in his order.
The case came before the CIC after one Om Prakash sought to know information from the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Government regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of his land acquired by the government.
The department admitted before the commission that the relevant file was missing and it could not be traced even though the officers personally inspected room of the department after receiving the RTI application.
The official representing the department said there was no possibility of retrieving the missing record.
In a terse order, the commissioner said loss of records that were required to be kept and maintained permanently, if considered as evidence in a case, should invite criminal complaint against officials under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (punishable with imprisonment which is directly proportional to seriousness of offence charged from seven to 10 years and for life.)
“Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it is not recognised as exception by the RTI Act. By practice “missing file” cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. PTI"
(RK Sahni)

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

MC Jain case judgment implementation‏

Although the Supreme Court has delivered the judgment in the above case more than two months ago,there is no report of the implementation of the judgment by LIC so far.
I have drafted letters to be addressed to Chairman, LIC, as follows :

ANNEXURE A:
Letter to be addressed by pensioners similarly placed as Mr M C
Jain( having retired as Class I Officers between 1st August 1992 and
31st March 1993) to LIC Chairman
.

ANNEXURE B1
Letter to be addressed by family pensioners of the above category
where death of the regular pensioner occurred on or after 1/11/1993
to LIC Chairman.



ANNEXURE B2
Letter to be addressed by family pensioners of the above category
where death of the regular pensioner occurred before 1/11/1993 to LIC
Chairman.

When such letters are sent in good number,LIC management can be expected to consider the matter seriously. If no response is forthcoming to these letters,the above three categories of pensioners can undertake concerted legal action.

Pensioners/family pensioners who address letters as per draft attached may kindly be advised to furnish their particulars with SR no,Pension file,Name of pensioner,date of retirement, Designation at the time of retirement, office disbursing pension etc so that further guidance can be given in case any legal action is required to be resorted to.Mr Sreenivasa Murty and myself are discussing modalities of helping this category of pensioners if the need for legal action arises.
My contact email ID is:
chmahadevan@rediffmail.com 

I hope you will find it convenient to upload the draft letters and this message for the benefit of such pensioners in LIC Pensioners' Chronicle blog.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

Please click on 'Read more' below for the annexures. Download facility could not be arranged due to blog limitations.

Monday, September 8, 2014

GN Sridharan's Kozhikode visit











It was home coming for GN Sridharan who visited Kozhikode and met selected friends on 7th and 8th September 2014.  Shri Sridharan has worked in Kozhikode for a period of over 3 years in the Eighties.
He met the Editor, LIC Pensioners Chronicle
at LIC Guest House here.

Pre 1997 pensioners lot‏

                          JM ABOOBUCKER

Pension option to Compulsorily Retired Employees



You are aware that during the year 2010, when another option for pension was 
extended to past retirees who missed the same earlier, such an option was 
denied to those employees who were compulsorily retired from the bank’s service. 
Aggrieved by the denial of pension option, such compulsorily retired employees 
belonging to Canara Bank joined together and filed Writ Petitions in Karnataka 
High Court and also in Madras High Court as a last resort. Similarly, compulsorily 
retired employees from Andhra Bank had sought judicial remedy by filing Writ 
Petitions before Andhra Pradesh High Court. 

While Writ Petitions of Canara Bank retirees are still pending before the respective 
High Courts in different stages, retirees from Andhra Bank succeeded in their 
efforts for getting pension option at the level of Honorable Andhra Pradesh High 
Court. However, against these judgments, the management of Andhra Bank filed 
Special Leave Petitions before Supreme Court Viz: {SLP(C) No. 35389/2013 
Andhra Bank & Ors. Vs Y.Shivaji & another SLP (C) No.35449/2013 Andhra Bank 
& Others Vs Sreeram Murthy} against the order of Division Bench of Andhra 
Pradesh High Court allowing Pension to Compulsorily Retired Employees. 

We are happy to inform that upon hearing the matter in the Supreme Court on 
05.09.2014, Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya & Hon’ble Mr.Justice Prafulla 
Chandra Pant passed an Order dismissing above SLPs filed by the Andhra Bank 
management. As a sequel to this order of the Apex Court, all compulsorily retired 
bank employees will be eligible for another pension option which was denied 
earlier. 

While we heartily congratulate such compulsorily retired Andhra Bank retirees for 
their perseverance in seeking justice, we have requested our National 
Organisation, All India Bank Retirees’ Federation (AIBRF) to take up the matter 
with appropriate authorities organisationally for extending pension option to all 
the compulsorily retired employees of all the banks. We will keep you informed of 
further developments in this regard in due course. With Greetings, 

 Yours Sincerely
ALL INDIA CANARA BANK RETIREES’ FEDERATION 

WE HAVE TO WAIT - CIVIL APPEALS OF LIC IN SUPREME COURT.‏

FRIENDS,


ANXIETY, GRAVE CONCERN, FEAR, HOPE ETC. ARE SOME OF THE FACTS THAT ARE LIT LARGE ON THE FACE OF MAJORITY OF LIC PENSIONERS. THE REASON IS ONLY ONE - ABNORMAL DELAY IN SETTLEMENT/ ACCEPTANCE OF THE LEGALLY HELD VALID DEMANDS OF UPDATION OF PENSION AND REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALY.

WHOM TO BLAME OR HOLD RESPONSIBLE?

IN MY OPINION IT IS ONLY LIC AND FINANCE MINISTRY, GOVT OF INDIA WHO




INSTEAD OF TAKING A PRAGMATIC VIEW TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES BY HONOURING COURT VERDICTS, HAVE PREFERRED TO DRAG THE OLD PENSIONERS IN APPEALS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF CENTRAL GOVT.'S LITIGATION POLICY. MANY OF OUR FRIENDS HAVE DIED WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE DELIVERED AND THERE SEEMS NO EARLY SOLUTION EXCEPT TO WAIT FOR THE FINAL VERDICT FROM THE APEX COURT.


WE MUST SALUTE ALL THOSE WHO DESPITE THEIR ADVANCED AGES AND ILL HEALTH HAVE BEEN UNTIRINGLY & SUCCESSFULLY FIGHTING THE LEGAL BATTLE FOR THE LAST OVER 15 OR ADD YEARS WITH FULL DEVOTION AND DETERMINATION. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE PATIENCE, MORE COURAGE AND UNITY TO CONTINUE TO EXTEND WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT TO THEM FOR THE COMMON CAUSE.

SH. SNM/SH.RBK ARE RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THE CASES ARE NOT COMING UP FOR HEARING IN SC ON 9.9.2014.

THERE MAY BE MANY REASONS BESIDES THE FACT THAT NO OFFICIAL REPORT HAS YET BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF SC TO THE CONCERNED BENCH IN THESE CPs. FURTHER IN CIVIL APPEALS ALL THE RESPONDENTS HAVE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY SERVED NOTICES AND DUE TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE PETITIONERS HAVE DIED THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY/DELAY IN SERVICE OF NOTICES OR SUBSTITUTION OF THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED.

FRIENDS WHEN WE HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WAIT FOR 15 YEARS, LETS WAIT FOR SOMETIME MORE. IT IS ONLY THE IN-BUILT FAULTY LEGAL SYSTEM, STUBBORN, CALLOUS & UNHELPFUL ATTITUDE OF LIC/ FM,GOVT.OF INDIA THAT HAVE STOOD IN THE DELIVERY OF FULL JUSTICE. HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN OUR FIGHTERS. TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH AND FULL JUSTICE WILL BE DELIVERED.

WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS TO ALL.

H K AGGARWAL

Problems of LIC Pre 1997 Pensioners

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Kerala Govt. has declared only FIVE STAR
Hotels shall have BARS.

Pay arrears within 3 days - Punjab & Haryana HC order to Punj. govt.

(RK Sahni)

Government bureaucrats don't mend their ways

The GOI bureaucrats do not want to mend themselves. They seem no longer fear contempt of court orders, including the orders of the highest court !

Reproduced below is a letter dated 07-07-2014 addressed to Dr. Jitendra Singh, Hon.Minister of State, GOI, Min. of Personnel, PG & Pensions, New Delhi by Bharat Pensioners Samaj. 

The GOI bureaucrats are trying to pay arrears of  pension from 01-01-2006 ( i.e. with retrospective effect from the date of revision of pay scales - 6 th CPC ) ONLY TO THE PETITIONERS who filed the cases in the Courts. The 'unprecedented' treatment now being given to Pre- 2006 GOI Pensioners  (Family pensioners) is unfortunately similar to the treatment being meted out to LIC pensioners - ' some amount payable ' to a few dozen petitioners deposited by the LIC in the Jaipur and Chandigarh High Courts. 

The petitions are in fact for common demand of updation of pension and 100% DR  to pre August 1997 retirees and in the 'representative capacity' on behalf of one and all aggrieved / affected pensioners - the petitioners had / have moral and monetary support by many pensioners/ associations.

How the Hon. Ministers 'meekly' accept the 'ill advice' of the Babus who ' in their wisdom ' misguide against the Courts' dictum/s or order/s is  a 'difficult' question which the Hon. Ministers may not be in a position to answer or willing to answer.

 " Subject : Payment of arrears  of pension for the period form 01-01-2006 to 23-09-2012
Kindly stop driving every affected individual pensioner to the Courts of law. instead extended automatically to similarly placed pensioners Court Judgment confirmed or delivered by the Apex Court as was recommended by 5th CPC also vide their Para 126.5.
Sir. with reference to then MOS (P) answer dated 12.02.2014 in Lok Sabha to UNSTARRED QUESTION NO 3406 regarding PAYMENT OF ARREARS TO PENSIONERS your kind attention is drawn to the facts that Principal CAT order dated 1. l l .2011 in OA No.655/2010 quashed clarificatory OM dated 03.10.2008 and directed to re-fix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 1.1.2006. based on the Resolution dated 29.08.2008. While dismissing WP (C) No. 1535/2012 of UOI on 29-4-2013. Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the verdict of the CAT-PB. Dismissing SLP (C) No.23055/2013 filed by UOI against the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High on 29-7-2013 and then Review Petition (C) No.2492/2013 on 12-11-2013 and finally Curative Petition (C) No. 126/2014 on 30-4-2014, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. With this CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011. referred to, has attained legal finality,

But unfortunately instead of implementing the said judgement in letter & spirit of all pre 2006 Pensioners DOP & PW going against the judgement. has taken a decision to implement it qua petitioners.

Sir. as is admitted in the answer to Lok Sabha unstarred Q.No 3406 Honerable CAT -PB order under reference has already been implemented from an arbitrary date 24.09.2012. Thus in all legality the arrears w.e.f. 01 .01 .2006 too should he paid to all & not only to a small section of pensioners who could afford to go to the Court of law.

Sir, Bharat Pensioners Samaj in its capacity as the largest & oldest organization of C.G. Pensioners over 550 Pensioners Associations affiliated/associated to it, appeal to you to ensure correct delivery of justice by implementing the judgement under reference to all pre 2006 pensioner so that other affected Pensioners in the evening of their live are not pushed to seek justice from court of law. "

(SN - A 1992 PENSIONER)

SC appeal not coming up 9th Sept.or nearby date

Dear Sri Gangadharan,

There have been frantic inquiries from across the country, 
for confirmation whether the Appeals (or the Jaipur Case alone) 
are really coming up for hearing before the Supreme Court 
on 9th Sept.

Pensioners will promptly know through the Chronicle, any developments of interest to them, from time to time.

On the agonizing delay due to the cases not reaching for early hearing and disposal, something needs to be done and something can be done. We will reach out shortly, to all the Respondents in the Appeals, to know their views on specific proposals. If they all agree, we can hope to move forward.

Thanks and regards,
M. Sreenivasa Murty

Saturday, September 6, 2014

CH Mahadevan writes

CALCULATION OF DR SLABs

Dear Mr Gopalan Subramanian,
I give the following example for calculation of DR slabs

Average CPI for Oct 2013 to Dec 2013=(241+243+239)/3=241-->241x4.63x4.93=5501.042( for 1/2/2014)
Average CPI for April 2014 to June 2014  =(242+244+246)/3=244--->244x4.63x4.93 =5569.52( for  1/8/2014)

We have to take the first figure as a multiple of four viz 5500 and the second figure as 5568.
The half yearly  difference is  5568-5500=68 
Dividing 68 by 4 we get 17 which were the no  of slabs released from 1/8/2014.

LIC's action on MC Jain's case is not known,but they will have to comply with the Jaipur judgment sooner or later.Once they do it similarly placed pensioners can also claim the benefits as per the judgment.

Mr Krishnan and all those who retired after 1/4/1993 are entitled to the difference in salary  from August 1992 to March 1993 including PF benefits as these retirees  were  similarly placed as Mr M C Jain while in service on 1/8/1992.But all such pensioners will have to demand the benefits from LIC  and obtain them if necessary through legal action.In fact both in-service   Class I Federation and retirees' Class I Federations will have to take it up with the management.

All 31 petitioners in Chandigarh case are pre-Aug 1997 retirees.
LIC has not given 11.25% weightage;nor have they removed the DR anomaly prior to Aug 1997 arising out of differential DR formula for in-service and retired employees prior to 1/8/1997.

I agree with you  on  what you have stated  in the last para. of your mail. All the Retired Employees' Federation/Associations have got  a  legitimate  and  legal right to demand  being called for negotiations  before wage revisions are finalised considering that three HC judgments are binding on them to  pay upgraded pensions  as Supreme Court has refused to stay the HC Orders. In my view all the  retirees Federations/Associations can even apply to the courts to stay the finalisation of the wage revisions until the Civil Appeals in the Supreme Court are disposed of unless they adopt the same process for pension revision  for retirees  as well.

Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan