LIC PENSIONERS CALICUT


' LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE ' - THE MOST POPULAR ONLINE DIARY IN INDIA COVERING LIC PENSIONER NEWS NOW CROSSING 5 LAC PAGE VISITS!

Saturday, July 26, 2014



Dear friends,

1)  D-Day is coming. Beware the ides of August. Our Motherland’s Independence day is on August 15th, 67th Anniversary. Freedom from foreign British rule, we really became true Indian citizens,breathing fresh air of liberty,equality & fraternity & feeling elated with the aroma of Patriotism. Did we not say & articulate in ever so many briefs, replies,charts, rejoinders, dissertations, clarifications that we are Indians 1st & Indians last, we are LICians 1st & LICians last,we are Pensioners 1st & Pensioners last? We had pride in our profession & we were & are proud of our organization, which won accolades from every quarter,undiluted ,unadulterated praise & tribute. LIC is still the darling of the masses, milch cow for Government, Rock of Gibralter, undeclared Navratna & an economic Tajmahal. A distinct & unique institution must be able to summon courage to penetrate the veils of bureaucracy & render unto pensioners what pensioners richly deserve. It is not for the asking we want pension upgradation. It is not for the asking we plead for end of discrimination to grant Full DR to pre-8/1997 pensioners who were left in the lurch. Let a hundred flowers bloom, similarly a 1000 & more articles, spicy, juicy, littered with facts & figures, right & left beaming ,virtually of 24/7 news & views, legal jargons & vocabulary made easy, ears & eyes glued to ongoing legal battle, real Kurukshetra battle, getting prolonged without rhyme or reason with ever so many formidable victories in many Courts, verdicts pronounced by eminent Hon Judges, a real Discovery of LIC pensioners fortitude &bravery, patience & endurance, support from so many angles & quarters, & Sensor & Radiator Calicut blog LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE always there to update blowing the bugle & the trumpet, like a running commentary. Whether, Whither are the questions to be answered like in a puzzle or scrabble.

2)  Look at the Editorial in HM, VETERAN July 2014 by GS, IOBRA of Indian Overseas Bank

“Dear Friends! This issue carries news on two important developments. The first is that the IBA, during the course of ongoing bipartite talks, informed representatives of negotiating organisations that they are favourably inclined to consider the demand of extending 100% DA for all pensioners and the same is awaiting the approval of the Government. We do not have information about the effective date of extending 100% DR neutralisation to pre-2002 retirees. Rumours are circulating thickly that that it is likely to be prospective and not retrospective. Efforts are on to make us believe that IBA may condescend to give effectfrom1-11-2012 andwe should be satisfied with this gesture. We want to remind ourselves that denial of 100% DR neutralisation to pre-2002 retirees was and continues to be a great injustice and discrimination. This announcement has come after a prolonged fight by all retirees and especially by IOBRA in various forums. You may recollect that our SLP is pending before supreme Court. Since this is only a rectification of an anomaly created in the Eighth Bipartite agreement and ending discrimination meted out to senior retirees, we reasonably expect IBA to act gracefully and implement this with retrospective effect from 01-05-2005. We appeal to all the negotiating Unions and Associations to secure justice for senior retirees.

The second development is a historic one. The Government of India has given in-principle agreement to implement Pension Updation in Reserve Bank of India. We are happy about this development. But, the Government has put some riders to this sanction. They have given it as a package stating that henceforth the Salary Revision as well as updation in RBI will be once in 10 years. The second rider is that the method of revising Basic Pension will be the one followed for the government Pensioners.This will result in an anomaly in that the method adopted for revision of Basic pension will be different from the method adopted for wage revision. This will in turn result in different Basic pension for persons of same rank/service but with different date of retirement.Thus the exercise of Pension updation will not meet with the desired purpose. Further, the offer to change the periodicity of wage revision from the present 5 years to 10 years may not be feasible and unacceptable to the serving employees' organizations.
As RBI and PSB employees have similar pattern and periodicity of wage revision ,if a similar package is handed over to us, a similar chaotic situation will descend on bank retirees of PSBs also. Therefore it is necessary that the bank employees and officers as well as Bank retirees define and demand Pension updation as follows.

• The method adopted for refixation of Basic Pay in the new scale for arriving at the new Basic Pension for pensioners should be the same as adopted for revising and refixing Basic pay for the serving employees which is the method of point to point/stage to stage fixation from old scale to revised scale.
• Similarly the periodicity of Pension updation should also be once in every five years along with salary Revision for serving employees and the date of effect of Pension updation should also be the same date of effect of salary revision of serving employees.
• In the case of Pensioners who retired during the currency of earlier Bipartite settlement/s the components of "Pay" drawn on the preceding ten months of service prior to retirement, which were considered for the purpose of calculating Basic pension, should be refixed in the revised scales of pay implemented during subsequent bipartite wage settlement/s, adopting the method of point to point/stage to stage fixation notionally and revised Basic Pension to be implemented as a result of Pension updation should be recalculated.

We are informed by representatives of negotiating organizations who are participating in the ongoing bipartite talks, that as regards updation of pension, IBA was apprehensive about the same since it involves substantial financial burden to the Banks.
So we have a lot of work to do, lobbying with various interest groups like GOI, IBA as well as representatives of negotiating organizations UFBU and convince everyone and bring them to accept our view point. We have miles to go before we sleep. Let us March forward. Victory is ours. With Regards and love,Dr. B. Ramji, Editor/General Secretary IOBRA ”

3)  Institutions are compelling the pensioners to move from pillar to post. MOF/UOI is oblivious to the needs of pensioners. Courts are sentinels of justice & equity & even they do not discharge their true obligations, especially in the background of rich & result-yielding developments, the original purpose of the Writ having been inked positively with a salutary Jaipur Judgement affirming the TWIN BENEFITS & echoed & confirmed by Chandigarh & Delhi HCs with a positive version wanting to grant these benefits deservedly to all pensioners with 12% interest too. All pensioners federations are not still wanting to display or announce esspiritde corps, sportsmanship spirit with an UNANIMOUS & ONE VOICE of all pensioners before the Hon SC Bench on 12th or 19th August to impress forcefully & graphically the developments, the point of discrimination & the veracity of pronouncements in favour of pension revision with every wage revision One tree makes 1 Lakh match sticks.
But one matchstick can burn 1 Lakh trees.
Similarly, one negative thought or doubt can burn thousands of dreams… Why are you waiting for an auspicious day, announce true & right intentions now itself.

4)  Chandigarh CCP to 27 Jan 2015, but 4 weeks time to LIC for calculations. Same Jaipur rigmarole should not be allowed to be repeated. Alertness must be there when LIC deposits the amount. In fact, we were interested in looking at implementation & not any reenactment of the drama, as we quoted many cases, where in CCP also, Courts have ordered the institutions to implement with a time frame. Why, Sri T. Sampath Iyengar’s latest insertion in Chronicle confirms that, so end result can come even in CCP.
So too, Jaipur case which came up on 21 July ended with postponement & though LIC wanted 2 weeks time, now 25 August 2014 is the date given for hearing. SC Bench alone looks to be the last straw & the real Saviour

5)  Portents will be ominous, if after all this 14 years of struggle, the grave deaths of pensioners so large in numbers, Family pensioners jumping from 16 % to 36 % of Regular pensioners, LIC SLPs having been dismissed on 8 Aug 2013, historic 30 Sep, 2013 verdict of SC Bench, in spite of LIC efforts to ditch the judgement itself, emphatic & perhaps empathetic ,NO STAY verdict by Hon SC Bench but only starved of full benefits to pensioners by condoning delay, unpardonable 6 months & 23 days & the result proliferation of further SLPs converted as CAs , which 3 of Jaipur, Chandigarh & Delhi will come for a historic Sound & Light show on that august August Day. Postponements have again become the order of the day & that too long postponements defeating the very ends of justice. Hope not in August. We are not living in a fools paradise. Sr Counsels wit & wisdom, sparkling presentations, convincing arguments, pithy & stark data support of pensioners, powerful rebuttals, a tribute to Judiciary always coming to the rescue of befitting alienated, discriminated, disadvantaged elders & pensioners, longest wait for the Final dispassionate Judgement must ensure from the mouth of the venerable & Hon SC Bench. Lot of spadework, Note to Sr Counsel, why Sr Counsel be selected without delay, already valuable time lost, please touch your Conscience & atleast now, submerge Egos, difference between RUN & RUIN is I, let Pensioners feel the coming of good times, to handshake & embrace one another, convert Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained.

6)  High hopes are kindled by the overwhelming majority of BJP by itself & with alliance of NDA partners & above all the image of worthy PM, who has already initiated many reforms from many angles. Plus all Ministers appear to be alert & all are catching the attention of the media by some announcements. OROP was & is an excellent theme & ideal for parity & prepoll shibboleths & grandiose manifestos must not fade into insignificance. How many Fedns have met how many MPs, how many Ministers in the last 2 months with Memorandums & shawls & boquets. All India Confederation of Trade Unions comprising the largest segment also met FM. Fine, needed as a tool & strategy to prepare fresh ground, break the ice, to garner support, to impress FM &others to advise bureaucrats properly & in right spirit in consonance with past developments portrayed in Memorandum. More so, if this Govt seen to be enabling, suffused with enthusiasm & even euphoria cannot see the Core point in Court developments, that too dragging for decade & more, knowing the Institution ins & outs so well & performing such a purposeful, laudable & predominant role in Indian economy & for financial inclusion the all embracing theme of any party & more so in NDA Agenda, should they not condescend to approve in toto our strong case of pensioners with realistic , modest & genuine demands, who else will ? Not only that, if PMs advice is to resolve all grievances of citizens travel, children & ladies, elders & Sr Citizens etc within 2 months, & if Law Minister loudly & clearly asserts that National Litigation Policy will be taken seriously, delays will be considerably curtailed, not to interfere with the independence of the Judiciary, why not ours be a Test case for reality check. Then don’t impose the once in 10 years rule being cooked up for pension upgradation, as we lose the step by step difference once in 5 years, ie 60 months & next wait again once in 10 years. True, 10 year jump will be low to high whereas 5 year jump will be stable. May be MOF knows that many will die during that 10 year period & so save !! Why, Family Pensioners, ipso facto will have to wait for 10 year period & FPs will also lose 6th to 10th year. Why perpetrate suchies again. If you want as MOF to assert, clean your tables 1st, set your house in order, all packages of perquisites endeavour to introduce uniformity, bureaucrats enjoy maximum in service & out of service too.
Did you not cleverly introduce through the backdoor GRADE PAY concept, which is enveloping all CODemands, as Govt & RBI were the 1st to do. When it is known that scales of pay are rising so high, how to grant % increase, sabash, Grade Pay comes to the rescue, what a component. Look how high it is & eligible for all benefits. But poor plight of pensioners will be crushed with your might. How long himsa & adharma can last ?

7)  Friends, one more recent development has added to our proud arsenal yet another Brahmasutra, the dismissal of LIC SLP by SC Bench in M.C Jain Retd RM Accts, also a Jaipur case, also a Hon Bhandaris verdict, dismissal of LIC appeal earlier, LIC deliberately kept it pending as they knew if they accept this, necessarily & by compulsion, they have to accept & implement the double-decker or pension in chain upgradation, as by asking LIC to implement their orders, Officers retired between 1/8/92 to 31/3/ 93 will have to be refixed in revised pay after 1/8/92-31/7/97 wage agreement, get the arrears for the few months till date of retirement PLUS refixation of pension as per New Pay scales for their cadres in Class I, get the difference between old lesser pension which was as per old scales of pay, & the new higher pension warranted by new scales of pay, with correct DR calculated & all such differences for nearly DOR to say 31 August, 2014 , for a long period of 21 years, assuming August as a Victory month after due acceptance by LIC without in any way acquiescing in the situation to abort or subvert. That will fail, as earlier all officers retired 1/8/92—31/7/94 received substantial arrears of Gratuity for 1993 to 2/2008 & 9/2008 as I wrote in an earlier but recent Chronicle contribution.
This salient but sound judgement also must open the ground for Pension upgradation successively & must be driven home to eminent SC Bench with aplomb, pinpoint precision & penetrative arguments to put down LIC Counsel & when many times hitherto, LIC even when driven to a corner, was able to come up as a Sphinx & that must be nipped in the bud in the decisive battle in 3rd week of August

8)  Lastly, prospective will be a gloom. DR difference has to be from the date when discrimination arose, viz 1/8/1997 as post 8/97 get Full DR. OROP also SC was strict & compelled Govt to fix 1/1/2006 as effective date & not 9/2012. Our blood boils when we notice the huge loss in DR Slabs all through, poor Seniors of Seniors are losing regularly. If Politicians burn effigies, all pensioners must burn the cruel, gruelling, miserly, unconstitutional APPENDIX IV Formula of LIC Pension Rules 1995 on that victorious day. So too, when we see & look around 9 cadres below get more pension than such high level cadres, it is a much much bigger loss. After LIC Board Resolution charter date 1/8/2002 or 1/1/2007 CWP 654/2007 on pension upgradation effective date can be claimed as 1/1/2007 atleast. Have you seen the Retirement benefit chart, then & now & going up & up ? We have to hang our heads in shame how we tolerated & how we eked our existence, honestly. Respected Pradhana Mantri Modiji slogan Acche din anewale hai has already come for existing employees with a charter yet to be unfolded & resolved. When are we getting, how are we going to get by traversing the last lap of our journey with complete resonance & vibration of ideas with similarity & unanimity & above all dealing on that memorable Day with a heart & mind full of elixir & glory. Shine & Sparkle, Smile & bring Cheers & Dimples on faces of all pensioners.
Greetings,

R.B.KISHORE
VP,AIRIEF

What is e-Filing ?

What is e-Filing? 

 The process of electronically filing Income tax returns through the internet is known as e- Filing. 

e-Filing of Returns/Forms is mandatory for : 

  • Any assessee having total income of Rs 5 Lakhs and above for from AY 2013- 14 and subsequent Assessment Years. 
  • Individual/ HUF, being resident, having assets located outside India from AY 2012-13 and subsequent Assessment Years. 
  • An assessee required to furnish a report of audit specified under sections  10(23C)(iv), 10(23C)(v),10(23C)(vi) ,10(23C)(via) , 10A, 12A(1)(b), 44AB,  80-IA, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID, 80JJAA, 80LA, 92E or 115JB of the Act, shall furnish the said report of audit and the return of Income electronically from AY 2013-14 and subsequent Assessment Years. 
  • An assessee required to give a notice under Section 11(2)(a) to the  Assessing Officer from AY 2014-15 and subsequent Assessment Years. 
  • All companies. 
  • Firm (to whom provisions of section 44AB is not applicable), AOP, BOI, Artificial Juridical Person , Co-operative Society and Local Authority required to file ITR 5 from AY 2014-15 and subsequent Assessment Years. 
  •  An assessee required to furnish return u/s 139 (4B) in ITR 7. 
  • A resident who has signing authority in any account located outside India. 
  • A person who claims relief under sections 90 or 90A or deduction under section 91. 

Compulsory / Mandatory E filing of Return with digital signature and without digital signature

Compulsory e filing of Income Tax return with or without digital signature

compulsory e filing of Income Tax return without digital signature Ay 14-15
Sr No
Person
ITR FORM
Description
1
All persons (except company and where return is filed on ITR-7)
ITR-1, ITR-2 ,ITR-3, ITR-4, ITR-4S,
If income exceeding 5 Lakh
2
All persons (except where return is filed on ITR-7)
ITR-1, ITR-2 ,ITR-3, ITR-4, ITR-4S,
if deduction under section 90, 90A,91 claimed in return.
3
resident and has

(i) assets (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India; or

(ii) signing authority in any account located outside India
4
Firm
ITR-5
A firm  which is not covered under audit u/s 44AB .If it is covered under 44AB then digital signature is mandatory
5
All persons
As applicable
assessee is required to furnish Electronically a report of audit specified under sub-clause (iv), (v), (vi) or (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, section 10A,Section 10AA clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A, section 44AB,Section 44DA,Section 50B, section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, section 115JB or section 115VW or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act
Compulsory e filing of Income Tax return with digital signature Ay 14-15
1
Individual /HUF
ITR-4
if provisions of section 44AB are applicable
2
Firm
ITR-5
if provisions of section 44AB are applicable
3
Company
ITR-6
in all cases
4
Political Party
ITR-7
In all cases

Click below to continue.

Jaipur Court - C W 3508 of 2014 - listed on 25.8.2014.‏


PENDING
Date of query : 26/7/2014Time : 12:00:49 AM
CW'3508' of 2014 - R6604/2014
Petitioner :ALL INDIA RETIRED INSURANCE ORS
Respondent:L I C OF INIDA
Petitioner Advocate:SANJAY GANGWAR
Respondent Advocate:ARUN SHARMA
Class Code : 0521Registered on : 27/3/2014
Bench : SBStage : FOR ADMISSION- NOTICE SERVED
DATE GIVEN BY: PESHI CLERK DATE
Date of Listing : 25/8/2014
Listed in court No. 5 on 21/07/2014
Department Details

Friday, July 25, 2014

(r.k. viswanathan)

T SAMPATH IYENGAR

BWSSB pension upgradation implementation of court order‏


Further to my yesterday's note on the above subject,I have information that on a contempt petition by the BWSSB pensioners Association, the Govt. of Karnataka and the Board were more gracious than the Govt.of India and LIC ,by agreeing to pay 50% of the arrears by 31-03-2013 and the balance of 50% by end of September 2013. 

The relevant court order is attached

Please click below to read the order.

Attention: Readers

Of late we have been receiving messages like the above from persons in our contact list. Mails appear to be phishing messages or any other category it may belong to.  It is likely persons in our contact list may also receive such messages.  Readers are advised not to open such links.  We do not make any correspondence of this nature. -Editor.

Section 87A of Income Tax Act, 1961

Dear friends,


There is no change in rebate of Income Tax up to Rs 2000/-available under 87A of Chapter VIII of Income Tax Act,1961 for resident individuals where the total taxable income is up to Rs 500000 in the current Budget 2014.

"Rebate under Chapter VIII
Rebate for resident individuals in lower income bracket

Finance Act 2013 had introduced a new provision to provide rebate of INR 2,000 or actual tax payable whichever is less for resident individuals with total income up to INR 500,000. This provision is still applicable. - See more at: http://www.simpletaxindia.net/2014/07/direct-tax-changes-in-budget-2014.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SimpletaxIndia+%28SIMPLE+TAX+INDIA%29#sthash.1cYA25eO.dpuf
As per new section 87A,


“An assessee, being an individual resident in India, whose total income does not exceed five hundred thousand rupees, shall be entitled to a deduction, from the amount of income-tax (as computed before allowing the deductions under this Chapter) on his total income with which he is chargeable for any assessment year, of an amount equal to hundred per cent of such income-tax or an amount of two thousand rupees, whichever is less.”

(RK SAHNI)

Click below to read
Section 87A: Income Tax Rebate Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

Karnataka High Court case on BWSSB pensioners‏

Referring to the post by Mr T Sampath Iyengar, I reproduce a news item from Deccan Herald dt 16/4/2014 :
"Formulate medical aid plan for pensioners, HC tells BWSSB
Subhash Chandra N S, Bangalore, April 16, 2014, DHNS:

In what could be termed a ray of hope for Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) pensioners, the High Court of Karnataka has asked the board to reconsider its decision on paying medical benefits to its former employees.

Hearing a petition by BWSSB Pensioners’ Association (BPA), Justice A N Venugopala Gowda suggested that the board may formulate a contributory scheme and make available medical aid to the pensioners. 

“The board, keeping in view the financial implications, may formulate a contributory scheme and make available medical aid to the extent finances permit, in as much as members of the petitioner are getting pension and can become members of a contributory scheme making contribution and the board, if necessary, may obtain a health policy from an insurance company and extend the same to pensioners,” the court observed in its order dated April 2, 2014.

The BPA had moved the High Court after they were left out of the pay scale revision for 1990, 1994, 1998, 2003 and 2008 by BWSSB stating that there will be no revision for those who retired before 1990. 

Justice Jaganathan, who heard the matter, directed to give them the revised pension and consider extension of medical benefits to the pensioners and their spouse.The order was upheld by a bench headed by the then Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen on January 31, 2012, which dismissed an appeal by the BWSSB. 

When there was no response by the board to the order, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioners. However, during the hearing before Justice Shylendrakumar, the board agreed to pay the revised pension, but stated that it cannot consider the directions on extension of medical facilities. 

It submitted that no public sector has so far provided medical facilities to pensioners.A fresh petition was filed by the petitioners seeking extension of medical benefits. 

Revised benefits

During the hearing, counsel for petitioners Lakshmy Iyengar submitted that in the earlier petition before the Court, the Court had directed to give the revised pensionary benefits and consider medical benefits for the petitioners and their spouses. 

“It was not an option to consider or reject the medical benefit, but was an option on how much of benefit, each pensioner is entitled for,” she said.

Allowing the petition, Justice Venugopala Gowda observed, “Relevant portion of the order of the learned single judge, which has been extracted above, clearly goes to show that this court left the matter to be decided by the board as it deems fit. When a court directs an authority to consider, it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law.”

Since the board has not considered the claim of petitioners for extension of medical aid on par with in-service personnel, at least prospectively, by keeping in view the observation made in the order, it said: “Writ petitions are allowed in part and first respondent- board is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioners by keeping in view the observations made in the order within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order becomes available.”

It is significant to note that the BWSSB agreed to pay the revised pension. But the judgment is on the same footing as the three judgments in LIC Pensioners' favour, the only difference being that LIC has not come forward so far with its willingness to revise pensions.

So the three petitioners before the Supreme Court have to consider whether this judgment can be made use of in their pleadings before the SC.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Euphoria created by Modi on OROP‏

The article appeared in the The Hindu dt 22.07.2014 on the captioned subject very clearly indicates that it is the 'Babus' decision on all vital and important matters that will prevail in all the Govt. functioning rather than that of the Politicians, because the Politicians/Ministers come and go every 5 years and therefore they have to necessarily and heavily depend on the advice and guidance of the Babus who are the "real" Administrators/managers of the Govt with their long innings in the Govt.

The beaurocrats are known for their conservative thinking and retrograde decisions. Therefore any amount of pressure brought upon the Ministers will not have any favourable decisions for the affected lot of persons since the Babus will see to it that such favourable decisions are watered down to grant only a minimal benefit or dragged on endlessly so that no benefit goes to the affected and deserving lot.

J.M. Aboobucker

22nd July 2014. 

Pension upgradation in Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore

I am attaching herewith the Karnataka High Court Decision on pension Upgradation of BWSSB pensioners delivered on 14-2-2011 but the status of its implementation I am not aware. I am trying to find out. They stopped upgrading the pension for those who retired before 1-7-1970 but went about upgrading the pension for those retired later. The High court held that differentiating groups of pensioners based on date of retirement and creating a separate desperate group was unconstitutional.  As the subject matter would of interest to LIC Pensioners who are similarly placed, I thought it is worth publishing in the Chronicle.

T SAMPATH IYENGAR,
BANGALOR

Judgment 

Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board Pensioners Association And Ors. Vs. Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board.

LegalCrystal Citation : legalcrystal.com/923242
Court : Karnataka Judge : V. JAGANNATHAN, J. Decided On : Feb-04-2011
Case Number : WRIT PETITION No. 11589 Of 2010 (3-R) Appellant : Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board Pensioners Association And Ors. Respondent : Bangalore Water Supply And Sewerage Board.
Advocates: Sri L.N.Narayan; Smt. Uikshmi Iyengar, Adv.
Excerpt:
[V. JAGANNATHAN, J.] Writ Petition tiled praying to direct, the respondents to grant/accord pension to the employees of the BWSSB, in the terms of the revisions that have been made irrespective of the date of the retirement, to revise and sanction pension to the retired employees of the BWSSB as and when such revision of pay has been effected to those who are in service, and to consider expeditiously the representations dated 6.10.2008 and 5.10.2009. vide Amtexures-A and B.
Judgment:
1. The grievance of the second and third petitioners and of those pensioners, who are members of the first petitioner-Association, is that, R-l BWSSB ('the Board’ for short) had formulated its own pay scales for its employees and the same was implemented with effect from 1.7.1986. The pay scales were revised at different times and the revisions took place on 1,7.1990, 1.7.1994. 1.7.1998. 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008. Consequent to the revision of pay scales with effect from the aforesaid dates, even the pension of the employees, who had retired from service, was also revised on two occasions i.e., 1.7.1990 and 1.7.1994. But, subsequently, no pension revision took place in respect of revision of pay scales effected from 1.7.1998 and 1.7.2003 and the latest being 1.7.2008.
2. Apart from this, during 1998, R-1 Board classified the pensioners into two categories i.e., those who retired before 1.7.1990 and those who retired after 1.7.1990. Thus, the pensioners, who are the members of (he first petitioner-Association, are deprived of the benefit of revised pay scales from 1.7.1998 onwards and secondly. R-l Board could not have classified (he pensioners into two categories taking into account a specified date.
3. It is the case of the first petitioner-Association that the Association, which represents the pensioners of R-l Board, gave several representations to the Board and two of litem are at Annexures-A and B dated 6.10.2008 and 5.10.2009 respectively and these representations have not been considered by the Board and. therefore, having regard to the low pension that the members of 00the first petitioner-Association get and also taking note of the cost of living and rise in the prices of various things, the petitioners are, therefore, constrained to approach this court seeking a direction to the Board to effect revision of pensionary benefits which were stopped from 1.7.1998 onwards and also to consider the other facilities which have been sought for by the petitioners as per their representations at Annexures-A and B.
4. Learned senior counsel Sliri H.N.Narayan for the petitioners, relying on a Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130, and pointing to the observations made at paragraph 49. therefore, sought for directions to the Board as prayed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel Shri Venkatesh Dodderi appearing for R-l Board, on his part, referring to the objections filed by R-l. contended that the Board has adopted the State Government Pension Rules from 1986 and. therefore, the reliefs now sought by the petitioners cannot be granted. It is also admitted in the objections of R- 1 that the pension has not. been revised from 1.7.2008. the learned counsel for R-l Board also placed for my perusal a letter addressed by the Principal Secretary to Government. Urban Development Department, to the Chairman. BWSSB. in this regard. Learned Government Advocate Smt. Maiijula R.Kamadolli a J so adopted the very same submission made by the learned counsel for the Board.
6. From what has been submitted by the respective counsel far the parties, what is clear is that the Board had gone on to revise pension also every time there was a revision of pay scales. The pay scales were revised with effect from 1.7.1990 and thereafter from 1.7.1994. 1.7.1998, 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008. 'lire pensioners were given the benefit of revised pension in respect of the pay revision I hat took place from 1.7/1990 and again from 1.7.1994. This fact is not: disputed by the learned counsel for R 1 Board.
7. When the Board could revise the pensionary benefits of the pensioners when the pay scales were revised from 1,7.1990 and again from 1.7.1994 ft could not have stopped extending the benefit: of revised pay scales to t he pensioners suddenly from 1.7.1998 onwards. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for R-l Board viz., that the Board has adopted the State Government. Pension Rules from 1996 onwards is concerned, in the communication addressed to the Board's Chairman by the Secretary to the Government dated 16.124999 in UDD 82 MNI 98, it has been clearly stated that the State Government has revised the pension and pensionaiy benefits with effect from 1.4.1998 on general revision of pay scales. Therefore, the Board could not have deprived the pensioners the benefit, of pay revision effected from 1,4.1998 when the Government itself had extended the benefit to the pensioners.
8. Therefore, it is apparent from, the aforesaid factors that there has been revision of the pensionary benefits to the pensioners every time there was a revision of pay scale right from 1.7.1990 onwards. Such being the position, the Board, therefore, could not have stopped extending the pensionary benefits to the pensioners from 1.7.1998 onwards and consequently, the subsequent revision of pay scales effected from 1.7.2003 and 1.7.2008 also ought to have been extended to the pensioners.
9. As far as the bifurcation of the pensioners into two categories is concerned, it is admitted in the objections filed by R 1 Board that the pensioners have been categorised into two categories i.e., one class of pensioners who retired before 1.7.1990 and the other class of pensioners who have retired after 1.7.1990. This is also has affected the pensionary benefits that the pensioners would get. in the sense, the persons who retired before 1.7.1990 will not be on par with those employees who retired after 1.7.1990. In this regard, it would be proper to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the ease of D.S.Nakara. supra, referred to by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
10. In the case of D.S.Nakara. supra, the Apex Court, through a Constitution Bench, after referring to the arbitrary selection of the happening of an event subsequent to a specified date, which has the effect of denying equality of treatment to persons belonging to the same class, has gone on to observe thus at paragraph-49 .
"49. But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required TO be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment o| pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement, is irrelevant.
But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pen sioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case ol pensioners who retired prior to the speciled date, their pension would computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable. And that would take care of the grievance of retros peeUvity. hi our opinion, it would make a marginal difference in the case of past pensioners because the emoluments are not. revised. The last revision of emoluments was as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (Raghubar Dayal Commission). If the emoluments remain the same, the eomput.au'on of average emoluments under amended R.34 may raise the average emoluments the period For averaging being reduced from last 06 months to last 10 months. The slab will provide slightly higher pension and if someone reaches the maximum the old lower ceiling will not deny him what: is otherwise justly give due on. computation. The words "who were in. service on 31st March, 1979 and retiring from service on or after that date" excluding the date for commencement of revision are words of limitation introducing the mischief and are vulnerable as denying equality and introducing an arbitrary fortuitous circumstance can be served without impairing the formula. Therefore, there is absolutely no difficulty in removing the arbitrary and discriminatory portion of the scheme and it can be easily severed."
11. In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench, the date of retirement, therefore, becomes irrelevant and the revised scheme or for that matter, in the instant case, the revised pay scales and the revised pensionary benefits, would be operative in such a way so as to bring within it all the existing pensioners.
12. That apart, even in the objections filed by the Board, it is also stated at paragraplv4(i) that the pension has not. been revised from 1.7.2008. In other words, it will have to be construed from the aforesaid statement made in the objections that the Board has not denied the revised pensionary benefits with effect from 1.7.2008.
13. As far as the oilier benefits claimed by the Association are concerned, no doubt, as rightly submitted by learned senior counsel Shri H.N.Narayan for the petitioners, need for medical assistance would be more during the old age than in the younger days of a person's life. It may not be out of place to refer at. this juncture to the Constitution Bench decision referred to earlier and to quote what was said by the Apex Court in the very opening paragraph of the decision and the court has observed thus:
"I fall on the thorns of lift I bleed. Old age. ebbing mental and physical prowess, atrophy of both muscle and brain powers permeating these petitions, the petitioners in the fall of life yearn for equality of treatment which is being meted out to those who are soon going to join and swell their own ranks."
Therefore, there is enough weight in the benefit of medical facilities sought for by the retired employees of the Board and. therefore, the Board also will have to consider the aforesaid facilities sought for by the Association sympathetically and if medical facilities are also allowed even in respect of the retired employees, that would also be a step in the right direction insofar as giving effect to providing some sort of social security to the retired employees, who are iri the evening of their life.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition allowed on the following terms:
i) R-l Board is directed to accord pensioners, whom the first petitioner represents and to which Association the other two petitioners are also members, to revise the pensionary benefits of the pensioners with effect from 1.7.2003 onwards upto 1.7.2008 and thereafter, whenever there is a revision of pay scales, the pensionary benefits also shall be revised accordingly. If. however, the revised pensionary benefits have not been given effect from 1.7.1998, the same shall be given.
ii) In view of the Pensioners Association having given an undertaking that the pensioners will not insist on payment of arrears for the earlier periods, i.e., prior to 1.7.2008. consequently, as has been observed by the Apex Court in the aforementioned paragraph-49 of D.S.Nakara's case, no arrears would be payable consequent upon the revision of pension retrospectively.
iii) R-1 Board shall also consider the request of the Association for extending the medical facilities on such terms as the Board deems it to the pensioners and to their spouses

iv) R-1 Board sha11 give effect, to the aforesaid directions now given, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

RK SAHNI'S LETTER TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The Executive Director (Personnel),
LIC OF INDIA,
Mumbai

Dear Sir,
Re: DA payable from May,2014 to July,2014 in service employees


I request you to kindly personally looked into the above matter. I place the following facts for your kind perusal.

I hereby attach the circular issued by The Indian Bank Association. I also attach an extract from LIC CLASS I OFFICERS RULES,1985 regarding calculation of DA SLABS on rise or fall in the quarterly average CPI-IW Base 1960=100.

The quarterly average CPI works out as 5432.56.There is fall in CPI. The quarterly average=(237+238+239=714/3)=238*4.63*493 = 5432.56(at base 1960=100)

I quote from the DA provisions:- "On the downward revision, the dearness allowance payable shall correspond to the current average figure if such current average figure is a figure in the above sequence; and the dearness allowance payable shall correspond to the figure in the above sequence next preceding the current average figure if such current average is not a figure in the above sequence----"

Since the current average figure ie 5432.56 is not a figure in the series 2944-2948-----5428-5432-5436,hence the DA shall correspond to the figure next to the figure preceding the current figure ie 5436.

The fall of 5500-5436=64/4 =16 slabs.
There is no provision of rounding up or down.
I am now a pensioner. Although it does not affect the pensioners, I am following up because the LIC has not correctly calculated the same.
The Indian Bank Association has done it correctly.

I request you, Sir, to kindly personally look into the above matter.


RK SAHNI WRITES

Dear Shri Jain,

For calculating DA Slabs quarterly average of CPI for Industrial Workers is taken into account. The monthly CPIIW is announced by Labour Bureau,Shimla on the last working of the following month eg the monthly CPI for Sept.,2013 was released on 31.10.2013. The same is available after 4.00PM on the said date.

You can get the CPI by calling 0177-2653157/58.

Calculation of Qly Avg.:
Jul 2013 235
Aug 237
Sept 238
Total 710
Avg. =710/3

This CPI is on base of 2000. We are paid on the basis of
Cpi at Base= 1960. So this avg is converted by multiplying this avg. by 4.63 and 4.93.
Thus The average is arrived as under:-

710/3*4.63*4.93=5402.12967
From the above average we have to deduct the qly avg.
at which the DA slabs were released wef 01.08.2013.
Thus
5402-5208=194
This is to be divided by 4 as one slab of DA is for 4 points increase in CPI.

Thus No. of DA Slabs= 194/4=48.5 ie 48 slabs wef 01.11.2013 for in service employees.
Thus you can calculate DA Slabs for yourself.