Thursday, May 05, 2016


According to  IBA communication dated 13 April 2016 addressed to Dr. Natchiappan , Honorable MP & Chairman of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Grievances, wherein it states that" the matter regarding holding the discussion with the Retirees Associations on the issue raised by them was put up to the Managing Committee of IBA in its meeting dated 02/03/2016. The Committee deliberated at length on the issues and felt that in absence of a mandate from Member Banks, it would not be appropriate for the IBA to discuss / negotiate the issue with the Retiree Associations. There are number of Retiree Associations and and there is no set prescribed procedure to verify their majority status / membership details."

With this stand of IBA, Hope CBPRO and AIBRF will adopt their action plan to Counter IBA in the matter.


Wednesday, May 04, 2016


4 May 16, 01:56 PM

S.r.Nagarajan: Yes, I agree with Mr. SN. In fact I retired on 30-11-1992 and SC's judgement in M.C.Jain case should be uniformly applied to all who retired between 1-8-92 and 31-3-93. I should get it too. But my point when the Assns. fight for a larger cause they tend to step aside. This has happened to me even while in service when a new wage settlement is reached and there is merger of lower posts with the next higher ones.

A fruitful dialogue

4 May 16, 01:38 PM

v.s.rajamani: Dear Editor ji, Thanks to PC - Kesokka Manasilaayi. ( M
alayalam sayings.) meaning I have understood the case fully. 


3 May 16, 08:57 PM

M.VITHAL RAO: Dear readers. The period of time for compliance of an order of a court shall be computed from the day the order copy was made ready.

3 May 16, 09:02 PM

Ed: With this clarification, shall we close this discussion here?

3 May 16, 10:17 PM

M Sreenivasa Murty: sorry Editorji, I too would have preferred to close this discussion. But let me respond to Mr Vithal Rao's point..What he says is right in Lower Courts where the Order Copies (certified) and supplied on application for a fee. When the Judgement copy is uploaded on the SC portal, it is deemed to be served on ALL parties.

(There is need for further clarity. When the order is deemed to have been served on all parties on 7TH APR, the persisting doubt is: shouldn't the last date expire on 19TH MAY and not 22ND MAY ?)

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

Court Order


3 May 16, 05:09 PM

M Sreenivasa Murty: Dear Editor, The time given to LIC to make 40% payment by the SC Order of 31 March was Six weeks and not four weeks, Vide para 27 of the Judgement. So the payment should come by 15 May or at least by 22 May.

Editor writes: Shri Murty had reported from Supreme Court as follows:-
  • All appeals referred to Delhi HC to be decided afresh before 31-08-2016.
  • * IR increased to 40% to all similarly placed pensioners.
  • * Not limited to petitioners.
  • * Pay in 4 weeks.
"I am not able to confirm the revision component for IR," informs Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty from Supreme Court.

We were referring to the above report when we referred to the period of 4 weeks. The pertinent question is: Six weeks from which date? Is it the date of judgment or the date on which the order was released. In law and legal matters, everything should be absolutely clear and there should not be any confusion. '15th or atleast by 22nd May" is not something we expect from a Supreme Court Order. 


3 May 16, 12:15 PM

SN: What Shri S r Nagarajan says (Chat n Chat) may be fine with other 'similarly placed'. But, they should not be left high and dry. Their case must be pursued with the administration independently and seriously till resolved. 

Shri Karunakaran, a bank retiree, says that the bank employees expect to get 100% DR but may be prospectively. It is kind of Hon. Justice Shri Dipak Misra, who has ordered payment of 40% IR retrospectively from 01-08-1997, from the date of DR anomaly. All the pre August, 1997 pensioners (Shri Kittur may be one among others) to get arrears by 16th to 23rd May, 2016. Our most sincere and heartfelt thanks to Hon. Justice Shri Misra.

  • Editor adds: It was reported on 31st March 2016 during the course of Supreme Court proceedings, LIC had been asked to release payment of 40% IR within a period of 4 weeks. Since however the Court Judgment was delayed and it was only released on 7th April 2016, it should be presumed that the Court had taken the delay into consideration and the Corporation was allowed a period of 6 weeks to release the payment. It is therefore quite clear that the Corporation shall be called upon to release payment within the stipulated time of 6 weeks which can be safely assumed as 15th of May 2016 and the allowance given by SN will not be taken recourse to by the Corporation unless the Corporation was in a position to show compelling circumstances which necessitated a week's further time for disbursement of Interim Relief. Had the Court given only 4 weeks time, the Corporation would have by now released payment to all the eligible pensioners. We know "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion".

Monday, May 02, 2016


Most of us are aware that up-gradation of pension periodically with every pay revision that takes place once in five years, and DA anomaly with regard to cent per cent neutralization for employees retired prior to 01.08.1997 have become a contentious legal issue first in Jaipur and then in Punjab and Chandigarh, and Delhi HIgh Courts with victories in many courts and a series of contempt petitions and directions to LIC deposit amounts in all the courts. All petitions together with an impleader by Hyderabad Class I officers pensioners Organization headed by S/Sri Ch. Mahadevan, former ZM in charge South Central Zone and M. Sreenivasa Murthy, formerly Regional Manager (L & HPF), SDM, Hyderabad Division are permitted by the Supreme Court to be heard by a Division Bench to be formed for the purpose by Delhi High Court with a time frame of settlement of dispute before 31.08.2016. The demand of equitable pension with no anomaly and no discrimination on the basis of dates of retirement is a reasonable right of all pensioners, for which no section of the existing employees should have any objection or reservation much less the leadership of existing or retired.

I see in the present scenario of judiciary in an assertive mood we can reasonably expect people friendly verdicts than State friendly as was the experience of LIC employees way back in 1977 and 1980 both at High Court and Supreme Court. After a decade of series of scams and unfriendly compliance to the directions of Highest Court by law enforcement wings the Judiciary must be rearing to assert and demand compliance in the new dispensation. In this back ground the recent pronouncement of judgment on 31.03.2016 assumes greater significance since it has set aside employee-favorable judgments for lack of proper projection of issue. In spite of setting aside, the SC injected a new flicker of hope on the issue of updating of pensions giving first for some and second opportunity for some to approach Delhi High Court which most of our members and leaders unfortunately are not identifying to grab except perhaps Hyderabad Class I officers Pensioners Association.

Now or never golden chance is at our door step.  I wonder now reminiscing how our senior leaders Com. Saroj, Sunil and Chandrasekhar bose had toiled all their lives enduring terrible, compared to today's travel mechanism, physical suffering to indoctrinate not merely the ideology they believed in but more importantly the cash and other benefits that LIC employees were not getting, which they richly deserved to get and make them understand that they actually deserved as employees. Proposals like Strike and loss of wages can be easily understood to be very difficult task to  convince people and launch them into action but  to convince the employees that your basic should be this much and you should get DA at this rate and you have a legitimate right to get 15% of wages as bonus without ceilings, these illustrious leaders had to be away from their families for months. This was so then and so it is today too is because every human being has an innate quality or virtue to be humble, less selfish, contented, and basically satisfied with what they have in respect of at least those born in our Bharata Khanda according to ancient vedic sciences. Added to this attitude, our current life style of middle class or upper middle class house hold, not worried about money with one sibling at least well settled abroad or a prosperous techie in India, a few chips to be obtained through legal battle as addition to the pension packets in the evening of their lives is not drawing crowds, why crowds even small groups.

There are literally thousands of LIC pensioners across India thanks to the favorable mortality and availability and affordability of life saving/extending drugs. There is immense potential to make financial resources available to the fighting fraternity. This can happen only if everyone active on chronicle contributes his share at once and talks to others so that funds are galvanized in record time as the task is daunting considering the quantum required and the time at our disposal. My take is Retired LIC Class I Officers’ Association, Hyderabad. What about you, friend?

May I, therefore, make another appeal to the pensioner fraternity to follow upanishd vaakya namely Utthishtatha, Jaagritha, Prapya parrannibodhatha which is nothing but what Swamy Vivekananda said long ago AWAKE, ARISE AND REST NOT TILL THE GOAL IS ACHIEVED.


Chat column Comments

2 May 16, 07:19 AM

namdev: nearly after a year sc order dt 7.5.15 in our case, both the parties of bipartite settlement in the banking sector have just shown signal regarding 100% dr perhaps after approval from goi. but lic never did anything during the last 20 years.where is the question that we are unduly depending on judicial process as suggested by eastern is all due to dogmatic attitude of in service unions there is a precedent that we got bonus for 3 years through sc. we can say we are prepared for all genuine process. mere conjectures are not enough for solving the problem.

Touchstone - Article 14 of the Constitution of India

"The ‘disappointment’ is the upholding of powers of the Central Government under Sec 48, which in my opinion is immaterial to the strength of our case where justice has to be done on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
Excerpted from Shri.C H Mahadevan's write up :"Supreme Court Judgement", (PC dated 14-04-2016).

Shri Mahadevan has put solid faith, in his articles, on Article 14 - touch stone of equality before law - a socio legal imperative - enshrined (cherished as sacred) in the Constitution of India.

It is worth recalling that Article 14 has been referred more than 50 times in the lengthy judgement of D.S.Nakara v/s UOI. (Judgement copy available for reference in PC.)

Our petition may be mainly on the constitutional validity of Para.3 A of Appendix IV to our Pension Rules.

Though there may be a scope, it is not (does not appear right) advisable to bring / to interpolate other Appendix (say, App.V - Family Pension). Better not divert from the principal issue of pension. The issue of family pension has not been till this day our court case. Better not add 'incidental issues' at this late stage.

The revision of family pension may be achieved 'without the judicial intervention'. I have copied, partially, from the Editorial - Eastern News.

Shri MSM may (better) not make all and sundry facets of his case public, for obvious. Pensioners do appreciate that some kind of confidentiality has to maintained.

All please pardon, it seems, I have overstepped.

I heartily welcome Shri Joshi , a 1990 pensioner to LIC PC family.

My neck, lumber, back need some rest. I am otherwise quite fine. I shall come back after getting arrears ! Bye.

SN (a 1992 pensioner)

Sunday, May 01, 2016


      ( VS RAJAMANI WRITES: In the CO circular dt 16th april 2016 (first page) - 
      " Re: Renewal of Group Mediclaim .... for the year 2015-16 ": It should be 2016-17)


We are not particularly happy about publishing Shri Murty's words of getting support through Chronicle columns.  The Chronicle in fact is duty bound to support all the Associations for furthering the cause of the pensioners. Unfortunately they could not achieve this end though we always welcomed all views to make the intercourse of ideas a rewarding experience. -Ed.



Saturday, April 30, 2016

B Ganga Raju

Two recent posts one by Shri G.K.
Viswanatham and another by 
Shri V.S. Prakasa Rao reflect the 
general thinking among the 
fraternity of LIC Pensioners.

Shri GK Viswantham decried the silence of AIIPA & others which he attributed to their dogmatic principle that legal recourse is not the solution and he advised the " highly resourceful organisation of AIIPA" to join the fray instead of trying to indoctrinate the aged and senile on world economy, domestic intolerance etc. No comment on the "resourcefulness" of the organisation he is addressing. If they want to conduct a legal battle certainly they have plenty of " resources." Compare with the organisations which are in the thick of legal battle and seek everyone's help and donations.

Shri V.S.Prakasa Rao cautioned the pensioners to " Guard against being cheated of Your Pension grants." He skilfully dissected the Constitutional Provisions, Sec.48 of LIC Act, our own pension rules in particular Rule 56, the pronouncements of NHRC, enlightened us on the case law " Deokinandan Vs. Bihar," which laid down that pension is a right and does not depend on the discretion of Government, opined that LIC should not have sought the approval of Government and how Art.21 is violated.

He bluntly concluded that Management and Government are flouting the rules to CHEAT us. When soft spoken Shri VSP thunders about the Cheating, certainly we must think about the huge loss that is being caused to us.  

Both GKV and VSP are echoing the strong feelings among pensioners. In this scenario there are appeals for liberal donations for legal fund both from AIRIEF and Retd.LIC Cl.I Assn of Hyd to carry on the fight to its logical and successful conclusion.  It is time everyone loosens the strings of their purses and invest to secure a better future . If it means less money for the current month's expenses let it be. 

Have we lived with sufficient money throughout our service? I was getting sceptical about the possibility of unity or atleast mutual consultation among the parties to the legal fight, viz. AIRIEF & Hyd. Assn. But it looks there is scope for optimism.  I say this based on 2 mails that I saw both from Shri KML Asthana, the Chief Architect of the legal battle.

When Shri CH.M informed that work is going on in C.O. to speed up payment of 40 per cent IR Shri KMLA doubted ( on 26th) whether the payment is going to be made ( at all ) and the news is only for befooling the pensioners and to spend time upto 15th May. 

But on 28th there is a positive change. He wrote " May God fulfil the desire and my apprehensions go wrong. I will be happy in the interests of pensioners if any payment is made in compliance of the order dated 31.3.2016. But I would request Mr. CH.M. to give me an inkling of whether there is any method of calculating 100 per cent so that 40 per cent can be given. In case he gives the formula it will be of much help to all the pensioners in the days to come." This certainly is happy augury.

We have a good number of competent knowledgeable leaders. What is lacking is coordination and working with a unity of purpose. In one of my earlier posts I said a leader need not know all subjects. All that is required is an open mind willing to take the help and assistance of experts in the various subjects. Law books will show our case as " KML Asthana vs. LIC " in future. But the present requires that both AIRIEF &  Hyd.Assn., share their expertise, knowledge and hammer out a united approach before Delhi HC. Miracles are known to happen.

Let this also materialise. Clouds of mistrust must vanish. 

B. Ganga Raju Hyderabad


A Sr.Counsellor contended that Para. 3A of the Appendix IV to the Rule is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of the decision rendered by the S.C. in D.S.Nakara & others v/s UOI 

Another Sr. Counsellor tried to convince the Bench that the employees once covered under Para. 3 A, the benefit cannot remain static but has to change with pay revisions regard being had to the price index, for otherwise, the provisions do not spring to life, and paves the path of arbitrariness. He presented the case in detail emphasising the need for DR at the same rate to both employees and pensioners and updation of pension along with pay revision of serving employees.

Hon. Justice held that Delhi and P&H.H.Cs have disposed off writ petitions placing reliance on the decisions of Rajasthan H.C. When the issue of the constitutional validity of Para.3A of the Appendix IV to the Pension Rule was raised, the same deserved to be heard by the Court. He ordered 40% IR to all the 'similarly placed' pre August, 1997 pensioners and family pensioners as per Para. 3A of the Appendix to Pension Rules and directed Delhi H.C. to decide the constitutional validity of the said Para.3A. The applicants are at liberty to file amended affidavits, if they so advised. All actions to be completed by 31-08-2016.

The constitutional validity of Para.3A..? What is / are the broader issue / s involved in its adjudication? What would be the repercussions of the outcome, if it is in the positive or if it is in the negative? All beyond a Layman's grasp!
RBI, Banks and LIC Employees Pension Regulations / Rules are framed mainly on the lines of GOI Pension Rules. All these institutions, had / have different pay scales but had extended the DR rates to its pensioners on tapering basis as was the practice with GOI.

LIC introduced pension scheme in 1995 and effective from Jan.1986.
Appendix IV of LIC Rules contained sub paras. as under : (in short) 

(1) To pensioners retired on or after 01-01-1986 but before 01-11-1993 : DR on basic pension shall be payable for -- 4 points over 600 points : up to Rs.1250...0.67% (i.e.100% neutralisation in DR) ,and thereafter on graded basis [ For working employees , it was ...up to Rs.2500/- ...0.67% ]

(2) To pensioners retired on or after 01-11-1993 but before 01-08-1997 : DR on basic pension shall be payable for ..4 points over 1148 points : up to Rs.2400/-...0.35% (I.e.100%) and thereafter on graded basis. [ For working employees : up to Rs.4800/- ..0.35% ]

GOI implemented the 5th CPC recommendations in Oct.1998 and GOI employees and pensioners started getting 100% DA/DR from 01-01-1996. No graded DA or DR to any of its employees or pensioners, the same of rate of DR to all, thence forward. [ HAD the pension was introduced in LIC in 2000 instead of 1995, the Scheme would have, probably, included, 100% DA/DR that GOI introduced from 01-01-1996. ] 

The wage revision of Aug. 1997 in LIC was delayed too much. However, it is to the CREDIT of LIC that it was the first institution to introduce 100% DA from 01-08-1997 to its employees. LIC with the approval of GOI vide its gazette notification dated 22-06-2000 introduced / incorporated Para.3A and 3B to the Appendix IV to its Pension Rules. But, it is DEBIT (it was wrong on the part of LIC) to the LIC that it did not make it (100% DR) applicable to pre Aug.1997 pensioners. They failed to adopt the GOI pension rules in its letter and spirit. After about fifteen long years, in May, 2015, the Hon. Justice Shri Dipak Misra advised LIC to pay 20% IR - now, on 31-03-2016 : 40% IR to 'similarly placed'


Dear Editor,

Three weeks have elapsed after the 31st March SC Order was uploaded. Various shades of opinions and interpretations of the Order have appeared in the Blog. Quite a few of them, well versed in matters of law, have dug deep and come out with suggestions as to how to overcome or tackle certain intimidating provisions appearing in our Pension Rules, LIC Act 1956 and provisions closely inter-related to them. All of them need to be congratulated, as it is a proof of the abiding interest they are taking in our legal battle with LIC/GOI. No doubt, the Order has quite a number of grey areas and it gives ample scope for the legal pundits to pick holes and view it from the angle in which they are adepts at. It reminds me of Bernad Shaws “The Doctors Dilemma”, in which doctors belonging to different specialities, try to trace the origin of the patients complaint to each ones area of specialisation. Having said that, we are lead to think that it is time to say, enough is enough, and get on with the show; the scene of action having been shifted from the Apex Court to HC,Delhi.

Among the analysts, Shri.S.N seemed to have hit the nail on the head. In his write-up, he has brought out very clearly that our friends, both the Banks and the RBI are also sailing in the same boat. You will find a common thread running through the pensionary problems confronting the three of them. If it is Sec.48 for us, it is Sec 58 for the RBI pensioners, and Sec 19 for the Banks. The Govt. wants to hold the reins tightly and never let go off the ultimate authority to have a final say in the matter. I heard, in regard to State Bank of India pensioners too, there was a case pending in SC which was later transferred to Delhi High Court a couple of years ago. The case is facing adjournment after adjournment and was not decided within the date stipulated by the SC. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is possible that there are more things than what meets the eyes and we need to be aware of it. Otherwise, despite a slew of past judgments, constitutional provisions and three favourable judgments from Jaipur High Court, one does’nt see any reason to postpone the decision by referring it to the Delhi HC. Though not on any other ground, purely on humanitarian grounds, the case could have been decided in our favour. There is no benchmark to determine whether certain “pleading” is adequate or not . It is like asking somebody a question like “how much is too much?” Under the circumstances, apart from pursuing the legal battle in the Delhi HC , our leaders should also keep track of the aftermath of the recent meeting between the IBA representatives and the bankers Forum and how their follow-up progresses with the GOI.

I must congratulate Mr.Rajamani for the beautiful blue-print prepared by him with flow charts and the process by which it can be implemented. Any right-thinking person would hundred percent agree with him. But the ground reality is what Mr.Ganga Raju has narrated. Everyone knows, that many of us tried to bring all the three of them on a single platform but failed miserably. This is a great opportunity given by Justice Misra for the three of them to see reason and put their heads together and carry on the legal struggle. It is a tragedy that it is not going to happen Hence, let us accept things as they are and explore as to how we can make the three of them carry on without inflicting positive harm on each others effort and consequently jeopardise the interests of the pensioners. Let us now examine how to get on and get ahead.

We have three leaders eager and wanting to help us. There is no doubting the fact that we may be on a long haul in the Delhi H.C. We cant also rule out the possibility of the case coming back to the Supreme Court. Therefore, we need to choose one of the three right now and lend them all necessary help, chiefly financial. My choice naturally falls on Mr.M.S.Moorthy and Mr.Mahadevan. From our experience so far, we cant doubt their sincerity, honesty, single-minded devotion to the cause, knowledge base, transparency of operations, and overall handling of the case. I am extremely happy to learn that he is already in Delhi with his team to finalise matters with regard to filing of the petition. I wish him all success. As a token contribution , today, I have transferred a sum of Rs.1000 to their Account being the first instalment. Being a relatively small Association, Hyderabad Association may not be able to meet the huge expenditure required as legal fee and other related expenses. Therefore, on their behalf, I appeal to all those who are visitors to this Blog and those who have known me, especially my friends in Kerala to contribute any amount you think, you can comfortably afford. Let us remember that their fight is not confined to the DR issue alone or to any particular Class of pensioners, but for all of them.

There is not much time left for us to act; it should be NOW. Let us get going under the leadership of Mr.M.Sreenivasamoorthy and Mr.Mahadevan.Let us have full confidence in them. A piece of advise to Mr.Murthy, as a well meaning friend. Please avoid getting into the habit of reacting overly to unfounded accusations from the opposite camps. It will not only sap ones energy but pull down ones level of performance. Let us just remember what the divine Gita has to say in this regard and leave everything to Him. Wishing the team All the Best!



Friday, April 29, 2016

Shri Chhabra's letter dated 15th April 2016 is released now absolutely at the discretion of the Editor since some of the points he has raised are relevant and our pensioners are entitled to know the same. -Ed.

Thursday, April 28, 2016


 The  Govt. of India  created web site Senior Citizens Corner  states” Senior Citizens are the treasure to our Society. They have worked hard all these years  for the development of the nation as well as the Community .They possess a vast experience in different walks of life . The youth of to day can gain from the experience of the Sr. citizens in taking the nation to greater heights.  At this age of their life they need to be taken care of and made to feel SPECIAL. Indian Govt. provides several benefits through its Schemes in various sectors of Development With  various Tax Benefits , Travel and  health care facilities provisioned for them the Govt. has created reasons for Sr.Citizens is aimed at  providing  details on various aspects concerning them.”
PENSION RELATED ACTS/RULES :                                              
To safe guard the interests and rights of Sr.citizens the  GOVT. has framed various Acts and Rules. It helps to have a thorough knowledge of these Acts and Rules to keep track on pension matters and the process of getting HASLE FREE PAYMENTS. Another Benefit of knowing about these Acts IS TO GUARD AGAINST BEING CHEATED OF YOUR PENSION GRANTS.
The following RULES and ACTS are administered by the Dept. of Pension  and Pensioners’ Welfare .
Pensioners  procedures.
Central Civil Services (pension) Rules 1972
The pension Act 1871
Central Civil Services ( commutation of pension) Rules 1981 etc.
Life Insurance Corporation of India  is a STATE. The  employees of the Corporation are public servants. A thorough knowledge of our Pension Rules is very necessary for us. These Rules made U/S 48 of L.I.C  Act 1956 are mandatory and provides  rights to the pensioners to avail pension benefits. The Central Civil Services (pension) Rules 1972 and Central Civil Services (commutation of pension)Rules 1981  are relevant to us  because they are specifically mentioned in our  pension Rule 56. We are entitiled to enjoy the benefits  of these Central Govt. Rules. But our management  is  ignoring to implement this rule .Thus  we the pensioners are being cheated by the L.I.C because of our lack of knowledge of the Rule 56 which provides for updation of pension with each wage revision in terms of the Central Govt. Rules provided for in our Rule 56.



LIC acts super fast. The C
orporation filed an application today in the P & H HC for refund of the money it deposited vi!z Rs. 34, 97,116/- and to dispose of the contempt petition.
One should hope LIC would act equally promptly to release 40% as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

M. Sreenivasa Murty 


We are in the crucial phase of our legal struggle to protect our pensions from erosion of rupee value. The authors or the case managers of the legal battle are literally fighting for posterity than for themselves considering their ages. But what is unfortunately missing is the direction of the struggle for lack of unanimity; understanding and appreciation of vital legal points.  Instead they are being carried away by a temperament of ‘I KNOW ALL‘ stand taken. The attitude on the part of the LIC CL.I OFFICERS FEDERATION (G N SRIDHARAN), AIREF (Jaipur) not to talk of champions of class 3 employees AIIPA who are blissfully silent in the entire struggle may be perhaps because of their dogmatic principle that legal recourse is not the solution to the problem and has to be taken up across the table with LIC Management is appalling. Because in the process Govt. gets upper hand to deny what is legitimately due to the pensioners. Now in the horizon, SC willy-nilly threw open an opportunity for most of the pensioners in their twilight of most of their lives, without summarily dismissing all petitions and judgments. It is now up to the prudence of grey haired and nil haired to rise to the occasion and strengthen the hands of those who ever one feels fairly competent to take us to shore even though the group or leadership entered the fray in the very last moment.

Prolonging the battle by filing review petitions in the SC may endanger the sympathy already gained in the corridors of SC and not in the larger interests of vast majority of pensioners. It may be suicidal in the circumstances and limiting the relief to 40% DR arrears to pre 1997 retirees only. I therefore appeal to the conscience and wisdom of the leaders of all organizations to sit together, share fundamentally strong legal points, pool together all resources financial and otherwise and come to a consensus to engage the best in the business of law practice, meet all expenses from a common fund to be created at once by pooling together whatever is collected/to be collected. Ego should have long left all septuagenarians' minds to come together than any other sections of people. Recently formed Hyderabad class1 officers Association has also done commendable job to keep the legal issue live when Supreme Court is inclined to set aside but actually set aside all previous judgments should be the front runner of the platform to be launched. Highly resourceful organization, AIIPA (AIIEA) should join the fray instead of indoctrinating the aged and senile on world economic and domestic intolerance (so called).              

[Shri G K Viswanatham, Retd. from Vijayawada as Manager (Admn)]

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Tuesday, April 26, 2016


(Here we may clarify, our role will be limited to publishing suggestions received at our end. This will continue to be done at all times. -Ed.)


M Sreenivasa Murty


Our Association’s Executive Committee met on Sunday the 24 April 2016 and approved the proposals placed before it, on the action plan and the timetable.

We wish to scrupulously fall in line with the timelines mandated by the Judgement dated 31 March 2016, irrespective of what others do or don’t. We feel that if we the Petitioners themselves lag behind in complying with the schedule prescribed by the Bench (in the interests of the beleaguered LIC Pensioners, we will have no legal or moral right to complain about the delays by others, especially LIC.

Accordingly, Hyderabad Association has zeroed in on the choice of the Senior Advocate as the Lead Counsel (a former Additional Solicitor General – and an eminent Supreme Court Senior Advocate - name will be announced by Sri C H Mahadevan, after 1st May 2016) and the team of Advocates to assist him.
We have confirmed continuous sessions from 29 April to 1 May 2016, in Delhi to finalize the Petition to be filed, seeking comprehensive relief to ALL CLASSES & CADRES of LIC Pensioners governed by LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995.
We are getting ready to file our Petition before the Delhi High Court on   5 or 6 May 2016.

May I renew our Appeal for contributions from ALL THOSE who wish to support us, by way of direct remittance in to our Bank Account or by Account Payee Cheques in favour of:

SB Account No     :  053310100000317
Bank                      :  Andhra Bank, Saifabad Branch, HYDERABAD
IFSC No                 :  ANDB0000533

We see the light at the end of the tunnel                                   


26 Apr 16, 08:48 AM

C H Mahadevan: "We are inclined to set aside" is not an opinion but a decision by Justice Dipak Misra. The Appeals of LIC have been disposed of with directions to LIC, Delhi HC and options and relief to Pensioners. 

On 18/4/2016, the LIC's counsel had replied to Justice Misra that the Intervention Application has been allowed when it has been stated as 'disposed of '. So Hyderabad Retired Class I Officers' Association has been recognised as a party in the case before Delhi HC.

Monday, April 25, 2016



25 Apr 16, 07:17 AM

C H Mahadevan: It is reliably learnt that work is going on in Central Office for payment of 40% IR to all eligible pensioners with the help of IT dept program for the purpose. But we have to wait and see whether LIC will make calculations on the earlier faulty basis or in compliance with para 27 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 31/3/2016. It will be known only when the pensioners receive the payment with the calculations.

Sunday, April 24, 2016


23 Apr 16, 08:54 PM

G. Narayanaswamy: The complexity of the DR formulae & upgradation due to pay revisions of existing employees is mind boggling for pensioners and family-pensioners. 

It lies within the executive competence of the LIC to set right these anomalies which create categories of pensioners and family pensioners. 

All that is required is sympathetic reading of the rules, regulations and laws. This has been abandoned & the Pensioners are forced to knock at the doors of Courts. 

Finally let us hope that the sympathy denied by bureaucracy is given by Courts. Sometimes under rule-making powers of bureaucracy defeats even the very purpose of legislation. 

This has been found to be true in UK. As an old pensioner, I can only pray that enough goodwill and sympathy. at all levels secure us justice.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Updating of Pension in Banks, RBI and LIC - Some Retrospections & Some Introspections


The pay of bank employees who had retired between 01-11-1986 and 31-10-1987 and opted for pension was updated effective from 01-11-1987 and their basic pension and additional pension updated as provided in Regulation 35 of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. There has not been any subsequent pension updation in banks.

The bank pensioners retired in November, 2002 pay scales have been getting 100 % neutralisation in DR from Feb. 2005. Those retired in subsequent wage revisions in November, 2007 and 2012 get 100% DR. But, the pensioners retired in 1987, 1992 and 1997 pay scales continue to get DR on tapering basis.

Family pensioners are getting a meagre sum of pension. They are not getting 30% of the last basic pay, and other allowances reckoned for pension like GOI or RBI family pensioners. There are positive developments, but extremely slow, since last nine months. The bank pensioners and family pensioners are entertaining strong hopes of getting 100% DR to pre 2002 pensioners, updating of pension and family pension in a few months from now.

The pay of RBI employees who had retired between 01-01-1986 and 31-10-1987 and opted for pension was updated effective from 01-11-1987. The pension of pensioners who retired in the pay scales 1987 and 1992 were updated as per 1st November, 1997 pay scales but from a prospective date during the tenure of Governor, Dr.Bimal Jalan. All the pensioners retired in pre and 1997 pay scales who were getting DR on tapering basis started getting 100% neutralisation in DR from February, 2005.

RBI's decision of updating pension of pre 1997 pay scales pensioners was not found favour with MOF, GOI. They asserted that RBI has no powers to revise pension without seeking government's prior approval. The Centre held that the pension cannot be granted by the Bank without amending pension regulations.

RBI had no alternative but to go with the directions of GOI and withdrew the updation granted with the sanction of the Bank's Board meeting held in August 2008. No recoveries of pension already paid as per 1997 pay scales was effected. Three officers (RBI Retired Employees' Association) moved the Bombay High Court against the RBI order. The court stayed implementation of the order withdrawing updation already granted to pre-1997 retirees. But, subsequently, no updation in pension has been given to the RBI pensioners though there have been three more wage revisions effective from 1st November, 2002, 2007 and 2012. The family pensioners of RBI have started getting 30% of the pay fixed for pension on certain norms from January, 2013. It is not 30% of the 'updated pension with weightage' but updated with reference to notionally updated pension of the pensioners at the 2007 - DR merger point vis a vis earlier merger points of previous wage revisions. This administratively helped RBI to compute DR at uniform percentage applicable to working employees. RBI employees have started getting full pension from Jan.2013 after putting in 20 years of qualifying service as against 33 years of service required earlier, subject to other conditions. This change of granting full pension after 20 years of qualifying service has been there in GOI since 01-01-2006, as per 6th CPC. GOI employees' pension is fixed on the last ten months average or the last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial. The GOI defence pensioners have been given OROP from 01-06-2014. As per 7th CPC recommendations all the pensioners are going to get OROP from 01-01-2016.

RBI pensioners have not been successful to get updation of pension despite united struggle by the leaders and members of both the RBI Retired Employees' Association and all the four serving employees associations.

Hon.Justice Shri Dipak Misra has ordered 40% IR to the similarly placed pensioners - pre Aug. 1997 pensioners and family pensioners as contemplated in 3A of Appendix IV. He has directed much more (Sec. 48 of Act etc) to be adjudged by Delhi High Court by 31-08-2016. Pensioners keep their hands folded before the Almighty.



Constitutional validity of para 3A of Appendix IV

In my view the constitutional validity of para 3A of Appendix IV has to be considered in relation to the DR formula followed in respect of retirees of the period 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 from 1/11/1993.

Para 3A does not become invalid per se, but what has become invalid is the Appendix IV which was applicable for retirees from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1997 as the pensioners were placed at a financial disadvantage on account of the dual formula for DA/DR for in service employees and retirees during that period. This discrimination was remedied in respect of retirees after 1/8/1997 beginning with the amendment of LIC Pension Rules introducing para 3A w.e.f 1/8/1997 and adopting the same pattern of DR from subsequent wage revision dates.

If para 3A is invalidated, what will it mean for retirees from
1/8/1997 to 31/7/2002? Does it mean that their DR formula will have to be brought on par with those of pre-August 1997 retirees making them suffer similar loss in DR? Then the constitutional validity of all amendments in DR formula in subsequent wage revision dates will also have to be questioned.

Unfortunately the DR anomaly prevailing right from 1/11/1993 for pre-August 1997 retirees has not been adequately highlighted by the Respondents’ counsel and Supreme Court should have been convinced to direct the GOI to equalize the DA/DR formula for both in-service employees and retirees for that period so that there will be no discrimination in the matter of DR for employees retired at different points of time.

So what needs to be stressed before the Delhi HC is not the
constitutional validity of para 3A but the constitutional invalidity of Appendix IV as notified in the LIC Pension Rules in respect of pre-August 1997 retirees in the context of amendment by para 3A of Appendix IV.

It has also to be particularly noted is that with all the gracious
direction of the Apex Court to LIC to pay 40% IR to all similarly place pensioners as per para 3A, the financial loss suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees and family pensioners of that category still begs to be made good.In fact if the case had been properly argued,the 40% IR could also have included that loss component. Let us hope that at least in Delhi HC ,this aspect is adequately taken care of.

Another area where injustice prevails is the non-implementation of the M C Jain case judgment which should benefit at least about 90-100 pensioners(including family pensioners). When the question of upgradation of pension is considered,the implementation of this judgment becomes very relevant as it will make a lot of difference in the benefits secured by this category of the people on upgradation right from 1/11/1993.

Alongside, the injustice to the family pensioners on account of the archaic AppendiX V (relating to Rule 39) should also be adequately emphasized before the Delhi HC especially when the LIC Pension Scheme has been patterned on the Central Government Pension Rules, 1972.

Let us hope all the case managers (sorry to use the term although it creates some palpable discomfort among some leaders), address the above aspects in the ensuing legal battle at the Delhi HC.

C H Mahadevan


PENSIONERS PORTAL: With constant follow up
by AIRIEF, what is agreed to (?)
 in 2012 has become a "Good Idea" in 2016!






Friday, April 22, 2016



In the last two presentations, we have seen the cause for our grievance, giving us the right to move the Courts. Now let me argue from the LIC/Govt. point of view against our claim for the benefits. Since the whole case rests on discrimination only, I hope the LIC/Govt. (now both are the same as the counsel for the LIC can easily argue both ways without any contradiction) will heavily depend on the power of Sec.48, which many times, I have referred to as the harping on the same strings. In the law relating to defamation, the best defence for a person called upon to answer, is affirming the statement. If proved the defamation case will be dismissed, if not he fails to face the consequences. It is in this situation the LIC is placed today.

They have only on point to try their luck before the Bench, and Sec.48 is what it is. It has the force of law, the power having been given by a Special Law, the LIC Act. While passing the Bill, there was clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill by the members of the Parliament, criticism by the members and reply from the Govt. for the need of the clauses in the Bill and the Bill would have been passed. The passed bill has received the assent of the President and sanctified with his signature to make it an Act. That has given the Act the respectability to be governed in all matters relating to life insurance. During the course of years of administration, the Govt. has found the need to amend the LIC Act, for better administration and control and consequently incorporated into the Act, new regulation through amendments of the LIC Act. Certain provisions were to be effective from 1979 & 1981. Parliament passed the amendments the Govt. wanted and they were incorporated as Sec.48 2 (A, B & C) and 2 (cc), thereby authorizing the Govt. to make Rules under the Section. All the process for enactment have been complied with and therefore, the Rules by virtue of the powers delegated is valid and enforceable. It is to be emphasized that such rules cannot be called into question by the provision incorporated in the section. The action of the Govt. in issuing the Pension Rules cannot be assailed either. It is under such rules issued by the Govt., the retired, are getting their pension, to be also called pensioners! You cannot eat the cake and have it too, either eat i.e accept it or don’t eat i.e don’t complain.

Thus the government is exercising its mandate and the Govt. is doing its duty of carrying out the provisions, in this case the pensioners are the beneficiaries. If the LIC extends the benefit to those to whom it is not prescribed to be paid, it will be illegal, as it is against the Rules made under Sec.48. The Govt. is not under any obligation, especially now that the SC has stated “In the absence of a rule, in our considered opinion, no benefit can be granted on the basis of the resolution passed by the Corporation”. To issue or not to issue a Rule is an Executive prerogative. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have no legal claim to be decided by the HC.

How to meet the challenge is our concern and in the process to find out if something was wanting in our arguments or the methodology of presentation. With due respect to our friends, they seem to have presented the case lightly . However, I had a feeling that there was some hesitation 
to stoutly argue first hand on the point of discrimination and violation of the Constitution, in spite of the fact that the Nakaras case was a discussion on the constitutional principles and the case was therefore dealt with a Constitutional Bench. If not, there was no need to refer that case to the Constitution Bench, but a two Member Bench could have decided that case. Neither was it seen to have been mentioned to the SC, that our case is in pari passu the same as the Nakaras case, which would have made the judges to think otherwise. Briefing is an art by itself and briefing a Senior counsel is a difficult task to be experienced. Be, that as it is, I am in no way competent to comment on anyone and foremost Senior Counsels we have engaged.

I am making a reference to the point that this time we should hit the nail on the head, let us start from discrimination to show how it has hidden the established principles of law to the extent of extinction. That will raise the serious discussion on the cause, nature and unconstitutionality of the whole matter. To argue breach of Fundamental Rights is a task by itself, but will not be so in our case. We have the decision of the Constitutional Bench followed by a catena, which in Latin means a chain of cases decided, applying that decision, making our task easy. We have nothing other than the Sec.48 and the Rules made thereunder, to beat them back, which LIC is trying to do with us. We will use the rules, how justified our claims are, but how such rules are abused to the detriment of the majority of the pensioners and misused for a few. Seeking parity is a good claim in a case of discrimination and proving abuse and misuse will add further strength to our claim and is as easy as a pie.

Then we have to be specific for the relief sought. We may ask the court to declare that the Sec.48 2 (A,B,C) & 2 (cc) are sections loaded with unguided, wide powers resulting in the violation of Art.14, 16 & 21 and which invites the Courts intervention in the matter. The LIC and the Govt. are well aware of the law of precedence established by the Nakaras case, yet refuse to abide by that rule of law and the poor elderly are fighting an eighteen years battle, living on a measly pension, should have the sympathy of the Goddess of Justice to award a decree favouring them with interest considering the long period of the struggle. Needless to pray for award of cost also, as this is a simple case but for the refusal to hear the reasonable appeals from the pensioners, sleeping over a reasonable Resolution of a Board of this financial giant of the Country, declaring its motto as YOGAKSHEMAM VAHAMYAHAM, but not practicing it for the tired shoulder and limbs of its foster parents, the retired employees.






22 Apr 16, 09:29 AM

how a call given by 
ch mahadevan and srinivasa murty for donation can be misunderstood as a call for don. to airief.