PENSIONERS’ EMAILS & FEEDBACK FROM 1st MAY 2017:SERIES No:147 &148

After arriving from Las Vegas,USA at Chennai,umpteen problems had to be resolved,apart from jet lag,still AIRTEL has to allot same old Mobile no as it is vital for ever so many transactions & activities,Cellulitis still adversely affects mobility combined with acute varicose veins,clear signals of declining energy,yet indomitable will & grinding our teeth ,for the last-ditch battle to extricate ourselves from the painful situation DHC has driven us all, a sense of shock & stupor, remorse,anger & frustration at the pathetic ,inconclusive, even incomprehensible definitions & derivations presented in the DHC Bench 90 page Judgement, making us climb up the hill for the uphill task from 4th July 2017,after SC reopening from long vacation.

Fortunately,pensioners , though driven to a corner, indeed want to & display the urge to see Reality, the pathetic condition of legal jurisprudence.many legal knots not linked or tied properly by eminent Hon Judges ,who automatically get PU, not able to visualize in unambiguous ,clearcut perspective the OTHER SIDE of the PICTURE, depriving them of limited vision & ending in a stultified, half-baked, imperfect judgement, not worthy of the great Citadels of Justice.

Bravo, our hearts are beating in unison, sound is loud & clear,WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED HITHERTO, WIN WE MUST ATLAST HEREAFTER, WITH A SUPERLATIVE, RESOUNDING SUBMISSIONS IN CLEAR & COGENT TERMS ,DRIVING HOME TO SC BENCH ,THE FINAL ARBITER TO ASSESS, MOOD & MIND, FACTORS BINDING GLEANED PROPERLY WITH ACCURACY & FORESIGHT , TO EARN LAURELS & PLAUDITS FROM SC BENCH WITH A UNIQUE ,BEFITTING FINAL VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS.LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL AFTER DIGESTING DHC VERDICT, CONFIDENCE & COURAGE MEET AS A POWERFUL ANTIDOTE TO ANY OBSTACLES FROM LIC, UOI & JUDGES THEMSELVES

High level of thinking & participation,even at this stage, with a whole month to go & to notice reactions & results of RP of Hyderabad Assn at DHC, & VIRTUALLY THIS Pensioners Emails & Feedback from 1st May 2017 has become a 28 page PRESENTATION OF VIEWPOINTS, DISSECTION OF DHC IN DETAIL, COMPILATION, CONSOLIDATION, DRAWBACKS & INFIRMITIES OUTLINED WITH SOLUTIONS, THAT THROB MUST FLOURISH AS A SYNERGY OF SORTS TO WREST INITIATIVE, DEAL FROM FOREFRONT & WIN THE CASE ,WITHOUT ANY ILLWILL OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AT THE CRITICAL TURNING POINT ALL ARE AIMING AT

Greetings & Regards ------- R.B.KISHORE, VP,AIRIEF ,,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)DEAR  SIR, HOW IS YOUR HEALTH AND LIFE IN USA? I AM THANKFUL TO YOU FOR THE IMMEDIATE ACTION ON YOUR LETTER AND TODAY I RECEIVED MY MY REVISED PENSION LETTER AFTER RESTORATION OF COMMUTATION AMOUNT AND I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED ALSO.

REGARDS--------A V SUBBARAMAN AAO LIC (retd)

2)a)DHC wants pensioners to live with anamolies, definition of PU honoured in umpteen HCs & Apex SC looks to have been thrown overboard

b)Hon Dipak Misras 1/7/2015 judgement on Rajasthan University teachers & others , characterising as HOSTILE DISCRIMINATION & allowed PU, is ignored so soon.

c)If Nakara was 1983, then CJI Hon Lodha in a similar 5-Judge Bench  upheld anamolies & remedied by dismissing UOI writs, appeals, SLP, Curative petitions  & said NO to 15/9/2012 effective date for OROP but same PCommn date 1/1/2006

d)Latest Govt Orders bonanza of Rs 5000 cr to govt pensioners  allows fitment for PU to New scales as per 7th PC & even betters 2.57 multiplication factor

e) Hon SC Judges themselves categorically mentioned & pronounced that well laid down principles by SC in many cases cannot be simply negated & if so same cases will crop up again & again, ruining litigants life & pinpricks for all including institutions

f)when so many cases SC has indicated unambiguously that they will not agree to organisations plea of lack of resources as long as Rights are in jeopardy & equity, equality will be the guiding principles. If so, why DHC falls a prey to UOI & LIC arguments  presumably rather than powerful submissions made eloquently  by Petitioners that outlay is measly & above all it will be a closed cadre & so no perpetual problem for eternityIn fact during AIIPA Sr Counsel presentation, when he said app Rs140cr pa Hon Khanna interjected, even if it is more it is ok, as we AIRIEF gave detailed Charts indicating Rs 181 cr pa only.At another point , same Counsel Hon Judge had pity perhaps & said LIC shd have taken as Corporate Social Responsibility  for pensioners.

2)Anyway, even 18 years of longest tedious & tortuous cases in recorded legal history,DHC wants to drain out Elders & pensioners energy, & full BALANCE if not there, verdict suffers from infirmities & toes original MOF line of thinking.whereas clearly giving example of DIRECTOR, the Govt granting Rs 5000cr said very positively, just retired Director gets much less than new Director  & so 6th PC Director will be fitted in 7th PC director scales which is what we precisely wanted Even for SBI, Special Committee under DFS agreed in principle shifting of Basic pay to New scales of Same cadre, SBI pension has different attributes however,as 3 benefits they enjoy.

3)What a day it has been. Never perhaps in legal cases , one should lay too much emphasis on outcome, as with evergreen memories of continued long hearing, pales away as a whiff of thin air .Nobody takes for granted but yet if judgement is strewn with halfhearted attempts to resolve, it ended only in no solution  but keeping away many pensioners still in doldrums, which cannot be the ideal getup for a Judicial High  Court out to set quality precedents rather than whittling them down , making many aged pensioners still cry in anguish for fullest form of justice with equity & equality .as guiding principles. So, Constitution & Fundamental Rights also as beacon light fades away .Endless litigation has become a norm, activists have to die only because of  inebriated verdicts not upto the mark viewing totality

4)Battle shifts to SC & more creative right brain thinking needed. Pensioners allergic to legal fund donation ,though now more funds will become necessary will have to support to establish a cardinal principle . If Khandelwal committee recommendations that a jumbo solution for all is not feasible, but profit yielding orgns can have a definite say looks to be a realistic solution. LIC comes in that category whereas Govt will give valueadded pension at ages 80 onwards, 20%, 30, 40, 50 & 100 % at age 100 Bapre ,whither we pensioners , nothing to cry but everything to criticise the functioning of Judiciary  

5)We have to quote MLA. MPs even if they serve one term of 5 yrs get Full pension , whereas 33 yrs continues for us & already  Govts, Railways, Defence, RBI have transited to 20 yrs of service for eligibility of full pension

Hon Courts cannot be MUTE spectators of such GROSS deviation & variation in practices & benefits  & a Service & financial Instn helping GOI for all 5 year plans & other contingencies , euphemistically called as ATMs for govt. True in practice but when employees & pensioners question comes, no GRACE is exhibited 

 6)  i) The Hon’ble Kerala High Court made a striking  observation, …”the status of the Corporation(KSWC) as a jurist person, as a body corporate with a common seal and its existence would be scuttled and subservient to the dictates of the Government, as if the  Corporation is a department in the Government. This is plainly impermissible.”

 ii)Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the  SC Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'bleMr.Justice C.Nagappan,        ” When this Court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under Art. 141, binding on all courts within the territory of India, and so, it must be the constant endeavour and concern of this Court to introduce and maintain an element of certainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by this Court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the Court to be more reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided.    -SIGNIFICANT & at appropriate moments during Hearing,our Sr Counsel must reiterate this golden truth & pragmatism of SC observations & drive home the end result of Victory in Pensioners favour. 

These are all very relevant & powerful submissions for hearing in SC

3) Subject: A LAYMANS APPROACH. S .PARDHA SARADHY. PRESIDENT. MACHILIPATNAM unit.

1. "WHEN WE FAIL

IN OUR EFFORTS

BETTER TO PEEP

INTO THE PAST"

2. No doubt,every pensioner of LIC,expecting

and made to believe a favourable judicial support

for his demands,the observations/recommanda-

tions of D.HC,than to call it a judgement at this

stage, is put to a big jolt.

3. I admit that I do not have the legal base

and do not know much about the legal proceed-

ures and the judicial jugglery.Even then I dare to

put my head into the most complicated legal

issues, in order to respond to the call given by

AIRIEF, to have a feed back from its members

at this critical juncture.

4. It appears to me that we lost the grip on our

case not on 27-04-2017,when the D.HC.delivered

its observations, but on 31-03-2016 itself, when

the S.C.pronounced its partial judgement.The

roots of unrecoverable damage meted to us by

the D.HC, rest in the S.C.judgement of 31-03-2016

5. The achievements of our legal toil over a

period of years were put aside by the S.C. stating

that " the learned single judge as well as the D.B.

has committed illegality in deciding an issue of

law."Who is responsible for this.It is neither the

pensioners who approached the courts for justice

nor the courts that favoured them.By not caring

to set right the anamoly of DR formula in respect

of pensioners retiring on different dates; not evin-

cing interest to look into the resolution of the LIC

BOARD for years together, which worked out a

rationalised DR structure for the smooth function-

ing of the corporation under its domain, it is the

GOI that resorted to illegality of shirking its respo-

nsibility.It is that adamant attitude of the GOI

made the pensioners go round the courts in

search of justice, contributing heavy amounts

beyond their capacities and face the fiddel of

prolonged litigation

6. A septuagenarian pensioner could not

digest the legal play with the nod of the judiciary

and feels he is made a prey of the judicial

jugglery.Good number of pensioners being septu-

agenarians and some are crossing that mark

even, it is a pity that they are not given the super

senior citizen privilege or treatment in dealing

and disposing of their cases with some priority.

7. The present batch of pensioners are those

who rendered humane service, immediately after

the formation of LIC,realising and consolidating

their efforts in achieving the objectives of LIC.

In those initial days, those in particular who

worked during the period 1960-2000 laid the

foundation so strong and they are responsible

for the present day growth of the corporation

to this level of status.

8. If the GOI is getting crores by way of its

share out of the surplus it is due to the hard,

honest and sincere efforts and whole hearted

contribution of the pensioners of today and it is

not fair on the partof LIC,GOI,as well the judiciary

to find out some illegalities in the implementation

of law to avoid what is due to such contributors.

THEY should feel proud to make such contribu-

tors (pensioners) lead a comfortable life of

present day standards.

9. A govt school teacher in A.P.who worked

during the above period,drew half the salary of an

LIC employee,is today getting 25% more pension

than his LIC counterpart.It is high time that THEY

have to reconcile and improve their standards of

understanding to consider and give prominence to

such aspects of EQUALITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and

become more sensitive to the ENVIRONMENTAL

ETHOS, but not limiting themselves to mere

aspects of Legal JURISPRUDENCE only and they

should exhibit dignity in deeds and assure that

JUSTICE OR JUDGEMENTS SHOULD NOT

B E C O M E O U T D A T E D.

10. At a time when everything was ready and

everybody was awaiting for the final outcome,

having dealt the case in all its facets in a row of

adjournmenrs over a period of prolonged years,

it was indeed a surprising move that the S.C.

came out with an innovative proposition on

31-03-2016, delivering a partial judgement and

transefering some vital aspects of the case to be

dealt by a bench of D.HC,in turn which has to

study the case from alphabets, definitely a time

consuming device, contributing to prolong the

litigancy further.

11. For a lay man like me, this type of legal

procedure viz delivering a partial judgement

without having clarity on all the aspects on hand

concerning the case is first of its kind and many

were baffled. If some more information or some

clarity inrespect of some aspects was required, it

could be completed in S.C. itself in another 5 or 6

adjournments over a period of 6 to 8 months or a

maximum of 1 year and by this time the full and

final judgement could have been delivered.

12. Perhaps, we felt happy that we were

given an opportunity to put forth our arguments

vigorously in support of our demands, gathering

all the loose and missing threads, instead we did

not feel and think much to put a review petition or

some other legal resort against the odds that

weakened our case.

13. Rule 56 of the LIC of India(employees)

pension Rules 1995 has got the potentiality and

it is more than a LIFE SAVING PILL FOR US and

we have to work out our strategies to utilise it for

our advantage.

14. Our submissions on Rule 56 in the D.HC.

in support of our case are turned down vehemently

creating a state of confusion, by going on repeat-

edly citing number of case laws running into

number of pages and finally trying to make us

understand that the constitution and composition

of PENSION FUND OF LIC IS DIFFERENT FROM

THAT OF GOI EMPLOYEES AND WE CANNOT

ASSERT ANY ADVANTAGE UNDER THIS RULE.

15. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE FATE OF THAT

RULE 56, WE HAVE TO FIND OUT THE SCOPE AND

NEED OF ITS INCLUSION IN THE RULES BOOK

AND WHETHER THERE CAN BE A SINGLE

OCCASION TO TOUCH THAT RULE. ABOVE ALL

CONTRARY TO THE INFERENCES OF THE D.HC,

IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE EXTENT OF

LEGALITY OF RULE 56 IS TO BE ESTABLISHED

IN THE SUPREME COURT.

16. NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED

ABOVE, THE BALL BEING TOSSED AMONG THE

PENSIONERS ASSOCIATIONS, LIC, GOI, S.C, AND

THE DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND FINALLY

AGAIN REACHED THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL

AUTHORITY OF THE LAND WHERE OUR FUTURE

AND FATE ARE IN STORE.

WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THE COMMENTS OF

THE S.C. MORE THAN ONCE , WHILE TRANSFER-

ING THE CASE TO D.HC.THAT " WE MAY CLARIFY

THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPRESSD ANY OPINION

ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE ." AT THE SAME

IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY TO RECOLLECT THE

COMMENTS OF THE S.C. WITH THE SAME SPIRIT

AGAIN MORE THAN ONCE, AN EXPRESSION OF

LIP SYMPATHY FOR THE PENSIONERS. I BELIEVE

THERE IS SOMETHING IN OUR FAVOUR.

IN THIS BACKGROUND, IT IS INTERESTING TO

WATCH, WHETHER THE S.C.IS GOING TO

RATIONALISE OR MODIFY CERTAIN ASPECTS

OF D.HC. FOR THE BETTERMENT OF PENSIO-

NERS OR GOING TO ENDORSE IN TOTO AND

GIVE US A BIG HAND.

17. I FEEL IT IS A BETTER PROPOSITION

TO APPROACH THE S.C. THAN TO PUT A REVIEW

PETITION INTHE D.HC. HOWEVER IT IS UPTO THE

LEGAL COMMITTE TO DECIDE A STILL BETTER

LEGAL RESORT IN CONSULTATION WITH OUR

SENIOR COUNSEL

YOURS TRULY,----------------  S .PARDHA SARADHY.,  PRESIDENT. MACHILIPATNAM unit.

4) Paras 8,9,10,11 13,14,15,16 are very relevant & pertinent.

As rightly said, Powers that be ,by their Orders nullify the original provision which is made ,with a definite purpose & if they now rule out that provision that it cannot be invoked, it is a deathblow to pensioners.Supreme Court must clear that stand & the positive & affirmative meaning of such a provision has to be made use of to assist & promote benefit for the larger cause of pensioners & not to deny

-------------------------------R.B.KISHORE, VP,AIRIEF

5) Respected sir, I may kindly be excused for putting some points, that may look irrelevant to our cause. I saw the communication by our Macillipatnam unit President, kindly forwarded by you. In my opinion, the Honourable Supreme Court could have closed our case on 31/3/2016 itself without a favour. But they sincerely sensed that the Para 3A of Appendix IV should be tested whether it is constitutionally valid under Sec 14. So they passed IR of 40 percent and remitted the case to the Honourable DHC.

 Instead of a straight forward answer & Judgement,  the Hon. DHC touched so many things in case laws and partially conceded that section 14 is violated and rejected the important pleas of ours.

However they expressed that,we may go in  for Appeal. I feel that they are also not for a unfavorable judgement, but due to some extraneous pressure, they had to deliver such judgement.

 In the Hon Supreme Court such things may not be possible, I strongly believe. If we prove our case to their satisfaction, we are sure to get a very powerful judgement in our favour. Thank you very much for patiently going through all  my emails. With regards , ------G Ramamoorthy. 

6)Respected sir, Shri Agnihothri dealt with the points on which our appeal to the Hon Supreme Court

should be addressed. In my opinion, the last minute submission of the expenses Table by LIC to the Hon DHC ( just before the judgement delivered) should be scrutinized thoroughly, as I feel it is distorted and misleading the Hon DHC. Since  the Pension payments on monthly  basis  are actual expenses of  the Fund  created for the purpose, why LIC show them as their management expenses. Actual monthly contribution to the Fund ie. 10 percent of the salary of each in service employees are the actual salary expenses (instead of PF contribution, the Corporation put it as Pensions fund contribution as per wage settlement approved by the Government). Only additional contribution as and when required is the current expenses for the concerned FY for the Corporation.

If you see the Pension Fund statement provided by LIC to the Hon DHC , the opening balance added

with investment income of the Fund and the Employer contribution for each of the Financial year

31/3/2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 will take care of the Benefits paid (Pension payments) and there's no

necessity for the additional contribution under Rule 7(f) as stated in the said statement. If the Fund could

not meet the Pension payments , additional contribution by the Corporation will be needed. Further the

Pension Fund is a growing fund every year as the normal Employer contribution and investment income

will be steady and continuous and the fund need no additional contribution under Rule 7 f to meet the

liability. So the additional contribution shown as management expenses is distorting the expenses ratio. Even it will take care of the inservice employees' Pension as and when it becomes due

  Further the expenses towards pension is a known factor to the accounting personnel  and no Actuarial prediction is needed.  Further the service conditions of the employees are determined by the Central Government like Central Civil Services employees  and hence the Pensioners of both groups constitute as a single Group in order to eligible for upgradation as considered by the Central Pay Commissions. Only pay variation exist  as per their own pay commission and negotiated wage settlement , both should be approved by the Central Government. Therefore Article 14 of the Constitution applies to us . Thank you very much for your valuable guidance in all

matters relating to the Pensioners family----------. G Ramamoorthy

7)Sri R.V.Ramesh parawise comments on DHC Verdict:

6,29,35 &62 to be read together

Initially the first 3 paras are to be read together. In fact, reading of the paras do not facilitate understanding , but on the other hand causes more confusion only. The pronouncements of DHC stand on a slipperyground. In para 26, the sanctity of laws , statutes  and in this case the Pension Rules 1995 are asserted by DHC, and it is stated that the basic pension is fixed on the date of retirement and that this amount does not vary and remain static, notwithstanding subsequent revision of pay applicable to in-service employees and not to retired employees. But then, why is it that the specific chapter heading or the specific Rule or Rules and their Nos. are not specifically given in the Judgement enable others check the veracity of their assertion?

  In para 29, there is a u-turn from Rules or Acts or Statutes and the assertion by the DHC is on the sanctity of Convention, when it is stated and approved by DHC that every 5yrs the pay scales of in- service employees are revised by merging the DA with the pay to arrive at the Replacement Pay Scalesand that the pay revisions have been at the rate of 15% and above the last basic pay and DA. There are no clarifications or reasons by DHC as to why similar justification cannot be made by DHC for upgrading the pensions of LIC Pensioners also as per the same Convention, when in the case of C.G. and Banks and other PSUs the practice or convention is already in vogue.

  Regarding para 35, I just do not know what exactly the Hon’ble DHC is trying to convey in those 3 ½ lines. Are they referring to the same Appendix iv only, and also what is that principle of DR referred therein ? If it is their presumption or inference only, then it is wrong and we must rebut it. This is their Achillles heel. , the weakest point from our view. The Hon’ble DHC or SC should be impressed upon to find a way out for achieving this upgradation of pension thro’ Convention as is done for in-service employees. Alternatively, Pension Amendment Rules 2000 Notification dt. 22-6-2000 should be declared null and void ab initio as it violates the Pre Aug 1997 pensioners ‘ fundamental rights of equity and equality under Articles 14 &16, and a new Pension Amendment Rules 2017 to be passed by GOI under Section 48 of LIC Act 1956 to confer the pension revisionary benefits with 100% neutralization to th Pre Aug 1997 pensioners also w.e.f 1-8-1997, so that the pensioners as a whole get the pension revision every 5 yrs along with pay revision for in-service employees. Needless to say that for conferment of  the benefits , the prescribed Pension Rules have to be tabled before the Parliament and approval obtained.

Para 62(pages54& 55):-- The contention of the DHC that if the prayer of LIC Pensioners’ Associations for revalorization of basic pension by merging DR paid up to Index of 1740 points with basic pension or by notional increase in emoluments is conceded, it would require re-writing the Pension Rules and also involve considerable administrative work and hence for those reasons their prayer is rejected, is very strange and inexplicable coming from an institution which is the torch bearer of Justice and hence it is be contested by us.  This is because it is the very fundamental rights of equity and equality of the Pre Aug 1997 LIC Pensioners enshrined under Articles 14 &16 that are violated.

   In this connection a case history of Pre 2006 C.Govt  Retirees is given below:-  While the provision of having 33yrs service for earning full pension was done away with in 2006 on the implementation of the 6thPay Commission, this benefit was  not extended to Pre 2006

pensioners and these pensioners with less than 33yrs of service are still getting proportionately reduced pension even today. The pro-rata reduction in pension has been done away with by the G.O.I Dept of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare by their O.M. No,38/37/08—P&PW(A) dt. 6-4-2016 and such pensioners would now have to get enhanced pension wef  1-1-2006, along with arrears(11yrs) equal to those who retired in 2006 and thereafter. The above orders were issued after the orders of the C.A.T were upheld by various HCs and finally the SC.  These orders will financially benefit a large No. of Govt Pensioners across all hierarchical levels all over the Country, especially those who opted for voluntary or premature retirement and those released from  service on medical grounds before completing 33yrs of service. This process of settling the arrears are still going on.

    Just because re-writing of Pension Rules and the consequent additional administrative  work will be heavy , the issue involving the fundamental rights of some cannot be just brushed away nonchalantly by the DHC. What is more important is the issue of the protection of the fundamental rights of Pre Aug 1997 pensioners who No. about 16,000 only and who are in their late 70s or early 80s.

  ---------R.V.Ramesh

8)Fw: Ur Email , DHC Judgement lot of lacuna,inconsistencies & even basics of law,Fundamental Rights not fully appreciated ,partial & piecemeal solution. Plan & Strategy & Consultation with SrCounsel

Venkatachalam Gramani Muthier <geevee34@gmail.com>

Thank you very much for responding to me and for the detailed line of thinking of how to go about in the days to come in achieving our twin objects which we rightfully deserve. -----With love-------- -------------G.V

9)Respected Shri Kishore Sahab, Thanks for your important and meaningful communications. 

As I informed earlier, AIRIEF team is meeting Shri Nidhesh Gupta on 25-26th May 2017 at New Delhi and I shall also join them.

I would like to have Sr. Advocate's views on DHC's findings/observations/ decisions on following few points:

i. How discrimination among similarly placed pensioners due to non-updation of pension with wage revision does not come under the ambit of Article 14; when the gap is so high. Whether the Rulings cited by DHC in this regard are interpreted correctly. 

ii. DHC has held that Para 3 A is violative of Article 14, but the solution provided is conceptually erroneous. How to use this flaw in pleading for PU

.iii. Our case is unique in the sense, that so far there is no express judgment on pension revision with wage revision in Public Sector Undertakings. Our case has its own merits. How to use the same for resolution of huge discrepancy in pensions based on date of retirement.

Various rulings discussed in DHC Judgment and a few more also need deep study.

After having Sr Advocates opinion on these points and also understanding Sr Advocates commitment and confidence, we would be in a better position to decide further steps. 

-- The petition can still be prepared with desired professionalism and expertise and submitted in prescribed time limit.  

In my opinion, we should prepare the draft of petitions and that should be refined by a few activists like you and then given to the advocate, whom we engage. Thereafter the draft may be further modified as per legal requirements

As per my  knowledge I have jotted downs a number of points, which I could not convert in text form as I am not allowed to work on laptop. (now I have started working on lap top for smaller periods).

However. after meeting the Sr Advocate and knowing views of AIRIEF leadership, I would complete the task and then I would definitely like to get it vetted/modified/edited by you, for perfection.

Some of the points suggested by various activists, particularly those of Shri R.V Ramesh Sir are very useful.

Your analysis and calculation work of Shri Sahni Sir are always helpful in preparing our case.

The procedure of filing appeal/SLP in SC is given below:

"(i)   Appeals permitted under the Constitution

Article 132 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court    from   any   judgment, decree or final   order of a High Court, whether in civil, criminal or other proceedings, if the High   Court    certifies that   the case   involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.

Article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court    from   any   judgment, decree or final   order in a civil   proceeding of a High   Court    if  the  High   Court    certifies that   the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and in its opinion the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme  Court.

article  134  of  the  Constitution  of India,  1950 provides  for an  appeal to  the  Supreme Court    from   any   judgment, final   order    or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court if (a) it has on appeal

reversed  an  order  of  acquittal  of  an  accused  person  and  sentenced him to death or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself, any case from any Court subordinate to it and has in such trial convicted the accused and   sentenced him  to  death    or  (c)  it  certifies that   the  case   is  a fit  one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

(ii)    Appeal by Special leave

Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 provides that the Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any case or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal in the territory of India except the Court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to armed forces."

With respected regards,----- ----MPAgnihotri

10)Dear sri Agnihotri,

1)I was so glad to engage in phone conversation for about 30 mts.It was wonderful.We covered many areas needing close ,clever attention to be ever ready with Arguments, submissions, weak & vulnerable paras of DHC verdict,as u said Rules of SC, Rules & procedures of DHC, what to embark  upon,after again closely studying the canvas

then only Final decision if at all RP or waiting for call from SC, as DHC has afforded opportunity to approach SC & so too SC Hon Misras comprehensive Order dt 31/3/2016 beckons Petitioners to come back AFTER SINGULAR DHC judgement.That was 27 April 2017

2)If RP is to be filed, time limit is 1 month ie 26 May 2017

May be why Hyd Assn is having a meeting tomorrow Sunday 21 May to decide finally ,as it looks they have made up their mind to approach DHC with RP

SC it is 90 days, & as u said yesterday night ,no need for SLP as automatically by virtue of DHC mention & SC 31/3/2016 Order, we Petitioners have to go back to SC, SC will issue Notices to us etc

3)I extended an invitation to u to come to Chennai, my residence , straight u can reach my humble flat, no inconvenience,we 2 only are here, u will be comfortable ,I suggested 21 May or even 2 days 22 May 2017

We can have a LONG FULL DAY discussions & exchange of views, jot down methodically, fit in with Respective Paras of DHC .

That will go a long way in Futhering our Submissions to SC,after final due consultation with Sri Nidesh Gupta ,

I was so glad u spoke to Nideshji & also to Sri Saxena

AT this point I suggested that tho earlier 15/20 days before we all wanted Sri Nidesh Gupta to continue, in one of my emails I said DHC has thrown us from frying pan to fire. SO ALTERNATIVE shd be very powerful,even aggressive, qualitative arguments, data & statistics, latest Chairmans speech  in SDM Conference, much better ,high flier LIC it has emerged, so DHC need not have pruned benefits to ONLY 4299 in Gr 1 & Gr 2 pre-8/97 pensioners.

100% Neutralisation word looks to be anaethema to Hon Khanna

4)I said in all seriousness that it is remarkable great winner Sri Harish Salve took up Indias case probono WITHOUT Charge, Hon Sushma Swaraj said Re 1 only he charged,in ICJ Kulbhashan case

We can convince Sri Salve of 18 year long legal battle, earlier when he appeared for LIC,he was disappointed & frustrated ,wriggled out.He is thorough ,even RBIPensioners Assn also  elicited his views then 

Majesty of appearance , dominance of thoughts, impressive method & manner of arguments with Constitution, Rights, Case laws, why of PU, it cannot be ignored thinking Existing pension itself is reasonably ok,etc can be simply thrown overboard with many citations, Elders & Sr Citizens ,Welfare State cannot be wished away et all

THIS CAN LEAD to a TURNING POINT,Mr Agnihotri. AIRIEF  must make earnest efforts .

Many were confident ,even over confident of  PURE FULL VICTORY.

DHC verdict was just the opposite.All sat back scratching their heads.

As somebody said, it is the worst ever verdict in 18 yr history

Now all are in repair mode, consoling tears, but still no smiles, we have to go miles before enthralling hearing in SC 

5)Hon Misra becomes CJI in August 2017, connecting thread he is, in fact he made up his mind for PU, but Rule 3A, Law points, constitutional provisions,  anamolies to b e better presented.with foolproof support from Constitution,if it is a violation of Fundamental Rights. Enshrined in Constitution,in fact, he never touched Outlay issue but DHC went much beyond the Prescribed Stipulations, Boundaries of relevant issues on which to ensure Hearing spelt out.

6) I personally felt a piquant, anamolous position will emerge , if ONLY 1 or including MLGandhis CGH & Hyderabad Assn 2 out of 6 Petitioners file RP. That itself may be regarded as not enough ammunition Petitioners carry & same feeling of disparate presentations ,different emphasis on different issues ,few erroneous assertions tilting ultimately in LIC /UOI favour to the utter detriment of all groups of pensioners 

.So too ,here weak points of lack of convergence  amongst Petitioners might also weaken

the otherwise strong fabric of unalloyed  & unadulterated ,unbeatable & unimpeachable strong arguments to defend PU concept in its true form,its avatar & swaroopa cannot be maimed or mutilated by any agency,least of all by Hon HCs or SC

,who should rise to the occasion to defend Elders & Sr Citizens Rights in a Welfare State ,

24 years Basic Pension Same & Statusquo from 1/11/ 1993 ,IVPC Mode we are still in,

Our RP is less than FP of Govt employees,

Hon Khanna dismisses Art 21 of no consequence ,just as the bogey of High Wage island was raised for Employees salary,& above everything else,

how can the Dispensers of Justice , try to remove with minute,micro analysis not really called for, of only TRACES of DISCRIMINATION  but not ROOT OUT ,ENTIRE Discrimination from the Date when such discrimination arose

,this was termed so rightly by Hon Dipak Misra as HOSTILE Discrimination & way out SC Bench clearly asserted Pension has to be stepped up to remove anamolies & grotesque differences of many cadres below getting more pension than their Seniors 

7)Sri GRamamoorthy has been always giving good feedback & defence. Sri RVRamesh has striven to extract from past Archives in his series of submissions,which will be found to be of great utility .Sri Pramod Srivastava, Punehas analysed in-depth PR1995 vis-à-vis DHC verdict,Sri PardaSaradhy,Machilipatnam has expressed his viewpoints candidly.So too Sri KKDHanumanthaRao,SmtJagjit Kaur,SRNagarjan, MPSubrahmanian, BPBuch .Sri MPAgnihotri,as Convenor,Legal Committee undertakes onerous responsibility to make professional .thorough-going submissions ,acting as a conduit & live wire between President,AIRIEF, Advocates & Sr Counsel

in this crucial hours of preparation of ROADMAP of DHC to be demolished bit by bits,

to open the GATEWAY to reach the Sacred precincts of SC with a sense of new urge  to pursue,with vigour, confidence &

the arsenal at our command to be placed before Hon SC Bench in polite, assertive, emotional ,holistic presentation ,

to establish PRIMACY of concepts of EQUITY ,EQUALITY, ETHICS, EMPATHY ,JUSTICE in Egalitarian society  &

above all, the sweat & labour,energy & effort last 18 years in a protracted, tortuous legal battle 

8)Needless to say this FINAL ROUND in SC has to be under Single, Understanding, Unified  dispensation with equal rights & participation for

COMMON MAXIMUM PROGRAMME, not Minimum, after wide ,friendly, equal footing with SOLE AIM of recovering LOST ground & Regain Lost PARADISE with PU victory, not valorisation  but Upgradation in full,not truncated & so too for ALL pre -8/1997 pensioners FULL Neutralisation also,

Glad that you have collected more case laws to still brighten our chances of acceptance by eminent SC Bench

Greetings & warm regards, to share & care , all for camaraderie & be on the mainland, 

--------RBKISHORE-----VP,AIRIEF

11)Is this letter to the Chairmanfrom AIIPA necessary at this juncture. ? It appears that the AIIPA is not very enthusiastic about the upgradation of Pension . They want the  least, it appears. Because they may feel , that  if the upgradation is pressed , it may erode the benefits for inservice employees. The AIIEA , I am sure won't encourage it's subsidiary, AIIPA, to press for the enhanced Pension benefits. Please see the other working  class Unions,in our country, whenever they present their demands to the management  or Government  they will include the demands for  Pensioners' benefits also in their main Charter of demands.

But the AIIEA is not very serious about Pensioners of the same institution, who were the pillars for the growth of the present day AIIEA  .They had completely forgotten that LIC pensioners are a growing group every month.( One day  the Pensioners  will outweigh the in service employees.)  They are waiting for the legal fight  by other groups to continue in SC and conveniently intervene at appropriate time and boast that because of their fight the benefits could be fetched, ( if the judgement is favourable. ) . I am very sorry that though I was a staunch supporter and member of the AIIEA since 1958, I had to put my words like this now.-------

G Ramamoorthy. 

12)Dear Sir,Thanks for your mail.Your observation and wish that AIRIEF engage Shri. Harish Salve to represent us is welcome. In to-day's P.C. Shri. A.S. Ramanathan in his write up "Valuation And The Revenue Account" has, in his concluding paragraph outlined the advantages of engaging different advocates by the contestants so that presentation will throw points on various facets of the issue and also impress the judiciary in a way advantageous to petitioners.

Incidentally, Shri. GNS in a communique has mentioned that they contemplate SLP in S.C. straight without RP in DHC. It looks Hyd'bad is for exhausting RP option first. About AIIPA thinking no indication as such; perhaps waiting other players to open. These are just my observations. Surely, case managers are better equipped to deal with it.

With Kind Regards ----------SRNagarajan

13)Subject: Re: LIC of India Pension Rules, 1995—Some issues /Doubts arising out of Hon’ble DHC Judgement RVRamesh

Respected sir, Thank you very much for your forwarding Shri R V Ramesh 's observations on the DHC judgement. He has very clearly stated that the L IC of India (employees) Pension Fund 1995 was established with the Capital of the PF amounts along with interest thereon contributed by the very first pre August 1997 Pensioners. While denying them the Pension upgradation once in 5 years and at the same time utilising a substantially large part of PF + interest thereon surrendered to the very Pension Fund by the early preAugust 1997 Pensioners , LIC action for the sake of the would be in service Pension optee employees is discriminatory & inequitable & clear VIOLATIVE of the pre August 1997 Pensioners Fundamental Rights to equity under Article 14 of the Constitution. This important point was not raised in the Honourable DHC. I feel strongly that no review petition should be filed in the Honourable DHC. We should straight away go to the Honourable Supreme Court. As you suggested we may seek the help of the very senior counsel Shri Solve who will definitely take up the issue in the Honourable Supreme Court. We should also try to combine all the petitioners . We should also see no one files a review petition in the Hon. DHC against the judgement of 27th April, as it will drag on the case. No useful purpose will be served on such review pleas except delay the verdict indefinitely. Pl do the needful. We are very fortunate to have such a VP in you working for the welfare of all the Pensioners irrespective of the cadres.  I know personally as a class Iii staff in LIC since 1958 till my promotion to the class I cadre a few years before my retirement in September 1995 , you are a fighter for the welfare of all classes of LIC employees ignoring union affiliation  even though you are a senior class I DR Officer. I strongly feel , because of this , you missed the promotion as a Chairman which office you deserve in all respects and I know you have no regrets. Thank you very much again,  with great respects ----, G Ramamoorthy.

14) Dear sri SRN, 1)Ours was American Airlines from LasVegas to Chicago, 5.5 hrs journey, halt for near 3 hrs, then British Airways from Chicago to London, 9.5 hrs journey, halt for near 3 hrs, Final leg of journey from London to Chennai by British Airways ,  10 hrs ,all along Wheelchair arrangements ok.Perceptibly, the moment it lands in Chennai, we notice the difference in services, approach,quality,just can't realise how tardy,unclean ,loud noise et all, so characteristic of Indian ethos. Changing but changing so slow.

 2)All told about 27 hrs,in fact final only I felt tired For us, it is smooth passage for endorsement in Passport, Prepaid Taxi a boon, Rs 700 standard for big Innova,good driver, we always engage in talk, assess his mind,mood, educate him so that in our own way, we endeavour to inculcate positive values.As it was early morn ,tho reaching time residence was 5am, he kept all luggage in lift, 1st floor, kept all in Hall, we tipped him, a good job done, Kannan his name a Dalit Rs12000 plus allowances, plus Bonus, all told Rs18,000 pm family at Thanjavur, children studying, doing well

3)Yes,RAMESH has helped a lot,incisive, pointed issues, defects of DHC delineated.

Honestly I wish AIRIEF approaches Sri Harish Salve, famous lawyer,seasoned in all disciplines of law. Later when we win the case, we can make a decent hand some fee. 

Never we felt we reach this sorry mess created by DHC perverted verdict, as yet another New Appendix IV Modified Hon Khanna DR Formula WITHOUT  100 per cent DR neutralisation Horns o f a dilemma between pre & post 8/1997 pensioners  with due Rule3A  amended to include automatic Full DR merger to enhance Basic Pay 

Greetings ,regards------,RBKISHORE VP,AIRIEF

15)Dear Sir,I am glad to receive your mail after a quite long time; I was anxious.Was your flight to Chennai straight from Las Vegas; or had stop over in a few air ports; how much time from your home there to Chennai home, and the time taken by flight from A.P. to A.P. 

Your brother Shri. Ramesh has really raised a very pertinent point. If my memory is correct, we were only given a synopsis ( I am not sure whether this is the correct  word ) of the Pension Rules in South Zone. As he rightly points out elsewhere, when pension was introduced, quite a no. of employees and retirees were hesitant to accept this as the then interest rates of F.D. in Banks  and other financial institutions, some well known and some startups, were attractive and almost equaled  the pension receivable at that time. They were not for surrendering their hard earned savings which can be withdrawn  in cash at any time.. . Again as he points out elsewhere, this is a fit case for seeking  more information under RTI. But apart from this we can pursue the other options too on the legal front or in any manner fitting the situation, expeditiously.

With Kind Regards,Yours,-------SRNagarajan

16)DEAR ALL,Please find attached the  post sent by Shri M Sreenivasa Murty  to the pensioners' blogs,for your information.Once the Review Petition is filed today even  if at least  one of our prayers ,viz, the correction suggested by us in the DR formula under paragraph 1, is granted by the DHC,it must result in higher DR and consequently higher amount of arrears and higher monthly revise gross pension  for retired Class I Officers in the Basic  Pension Range of 2001 to 2400 in addition to  partial relief already granted in the judgment dated 27/4/2017.

Whatever may be the decision of DHC on other prayers,the points raised will have a  crucial bearing on the points that will be made by our SLP in the Supreme Court.Greetings. --------C H Mahadevan.

17)Subject: Review petiton at D.H.C.27/5/2017.From: B P Buch <buchbp@gmail.com>To: chmahadevan@gmail.comCC: anandprs@yahoo.co.in

Dear Sir,D.H.C.JUDGEMENT  has created discrimination even within group of pensioners 1992/1997 by minor corrections of % in tapering D.RWE ARE glad to know that decision taken  for filing R.P. IN D.H.C.,BUT   we are very sorry to note that rectification suggested in R.P.is to benefit class one only.You. must have calculated as done by SRI SAHNI for Group one and two which clearly shows that  Class two and three are nowhere within the receiving arrears circle. Care should have been taken for class two and three while suggesting the rectification in R.P. WHEN we were requested to prepare charts by Sri R.B.K. even before legal action ,we have  been suggesting 0.67%(1992),0.35% pre1997. scrapping tapering D.R. and follow 0.23%,0.18% o.15% 0.10% etc from 1997 pay revision onwards.

WHEN WE ARE FIGHTING FOR ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF L.I.C.PENSIONERS,IGNORING CLASS TWO AND THREE EVEN AT R.P.STAGE IS NOT APPRECIATED.You and your team is a learned team.If anything stated  above is out of the way, then please pardon me.Yours sincerely,----B.P.BUCH, .( PRESIDENT)R.I.E.A.RAJKOT.

18)Subject: i) Preliminary Comments on the Delhi High Court judgment dated 27-4-2017

            ii) Request to take up the issue of Revision of Pension of Pre-2012 Pensioners at par with Post 2012 Pensioners

Reference: W.P.(C) 184/2007 Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers – Vs – UOI & Others

1. We are hurt to go through the above cited adverse judgment of the Delhi High Court on the issue of Revision of DA and updation of Pension.

However, we do appreciate the valiant struggle put up by Shri Asthana as well as by the A I R I E F for fighting this case so well over the years and presenting every aspect of it before the Delhi High Court – notwithstanding the final verdict of DHC against which the struggle must go on - apparently through an SLP in the Supreme Court or as advised by the legal experts.

2. Since the Legal Committee of the AIRIEF is meeting on 25th May, 2017 as advised by Shri Inder Thakral, and since he and Sh RK Sharma wanted us to send our comments on the judgment, we are sending our preliminary comments thereon due to paucity of time. Detailed comments if required, shall be submitted later on, as advised by you.

3. Preliminary Comments on the Delhi High Court judgment:

Delhi High Court has seriously erred in its judgements as apparent from the following facts:

i)     It has ignored to consider the legal & Constitutional validity of the relevant Rules and Orders of the Government and those of the LIC cited by it in the judgment as well as ignored to decide the Constitutional validity of the Articles of the LIC Act cited by it; and has thus ignored the following aspects of the settled law:

a)    No Rule, Orders or Instructions can be relied upon and the same should rather be set aside, if these are violative of or result in consequential violation of any of the Constitutional provisions - especially the Fundamental rights or Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.

b)    Law settled by the Apex Court should be applied in its entirety and in its true spirit and not in piece meal.

c)    Having accepted the basic spirit of the judgment of Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. – Vs - Union of India (!983) 1 SCC 305, that the Pensioners form a homogenous class, the Delhi High Court was wrong in allowing 4 Classes of Pensioners in LIC to continue, as it is totally discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

d)    Basic spirit of Major S. P. S. Vains & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 125 Case has been dealt with very superficially by the High Court without even referring to the related aspects thereof in their judgment.

ii)    a) Since Union of India was a respondent in this case (supra), the Delhi High Court in its orders (as well as all courts in their orders over the years in this case)  should have directed the Government to accept the Resolution of LIC dated 24-11-2001 - even by amending the LIC Act, if required.

b)    High Court has failed to ask UOI / the Government or the LIC whether the Resolution was ever considered by the Government or what action or decision was taken thereon and whether it had gone by default or has it been rejected by the Government and if so at what level. Was it ever put up to the Cabinet for approval or otherwise?

4. Other related aspects :Nakara’s case (supra) did not impact the 3rd and 4th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs). However, 5th and 6th Pay Commission did take note of it while stressing the need for providing Parity of Pension between past & future Pensioners but citing financial constraints of the Government, both of the CPCs recommended Parity at Minimum levels of Revised Pension in each revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale from which Pensioners had retired. This was initially mutilated by an Executive by a so called clarificatory order but was finally implemented after litigation wherein Supreme Court set aside the illegal clarificatory orders made by the Executive.

i)ii) 7th Central Pay Commission, while relying heavily on Nakara's and Vains' Cases (supra), had recommended for full Parity between Pre- and Post 2016 Pensioners. Government has finally implemented the Parity to Past Pension, ers (Vide OM Dated 12-2017) by Notionally fixing their Pay from Pay Commission to Pay Commission since their retirement as if they had been serving employees fixing their Revised Pension from 1-1-2016 at 50% of their Notional Pay in 7th CPC.

5. We also urge upon the Federation once again take up the case of Revision of Pension of Pre-2012 Pensioners more effectively – either as part of the proposed SLP or separately through a new Writ Petition. Since the orders regarding Post-2012 Pensioners have been issued only in 2015/16, the minor delay in filing the WP can be got condoned especially it is an issue of major recurring loss to the old Pensioners.

With kind regards,

Yours Faithfully,

 

Jagjit Kaur

ADM (Retd.)

LIC DO CHD

Email: jagjit_lic@yahoo.com

(Harchndan Singh)

Secretary General, RSCWS

ASG, Bharat Pensioners Samaj,

H/o (Mrs. Jagjit Kaur.

Email: harchandan_chd32@yahoo.co.in

19)LEGAL BATTLE-A NOTE by KKD HANUMANTA RAO  RLIA MACHALIPATNAM The Resolution of LIC Board dated 24th November,2001 is the corner stone of the entire issue.The purpose of the resolution was to1.) Remove the anamoly in respect of payment  of D.A to pre-August 1997 retirees       and2.)Removal of discrimination in payment of pension according to the date of retirement ;the Jaipur judgement dated 12-1- 2010 relates to the above 2 issues

THE JAIPUR HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT-       A) the Jaipur judgement quoted judgements of Supreme Court according to which it was held that a body created under the act or even the government agency need not to seek approval of every decision taken by the board for day to day functioning of the company. LIC is an autonomous corporation created by an act of parliament.       B) The court held that it was necessary for the Corporation to send the resolution for approval of the central government.       C) the code for the removal of anomaly and removal of discrimination are not matters of policy involving Public Interest has no guidelines from government where not shown in this respect according to Section 21 of the LIC act.      D) as per the judgement of the Supreme court it was held that when the existing scheme of pension is made applicable in a more liberalised form from a later date, it must be made applicable to all the pensioners without discrimination.     E) justice Bhandari, after taking into account all facts and circumstances into consideration directed the Corporation to implement its resolution to avoid discrimination among pensioners.     F) the division bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissed The Appeal of the Corporation and Justice Bhandari in his judgement observed it is frivolous stating that LIC had itself taken a decision to remove the discrimination among pensioners which is violative of articles 14,16 and 21 of the constitution.    The review petition of LIC was dismissed by the division bench on 19 days august 2011 the supreme court dismissed the two SLPs of Corporation on 8 October 2013 the supreme court using its discretion took up for consideration a bunch of civil petitions filed by LIC against the judgements of Jaipur, Chandigarh and Delhi High Courts.  THE SC BENCH ORDER DATED 31st March 2016-

      1) justice Deepak Mishra and Justice Bhanumathy were expected give final verdict however they ruled that the resolution dated 24th November 2001 could not have been given effect to without approval of the central government without taking into consideration the verdict of

Justice Bhandari on Section 21 of the LIC Act. The central government chose to stay away from various codes including Supreme Court contradict the statement made on oath by its own Council.     2) the judgements delivered by 3 High Courts in India were referred to another High court is devoid of  reason. further Supreme Court Bench said, “ it is desirable that a singular judgement is delivered so that the validity of the same can be adjudicated”. So,all the appeals filed by the LIC remain to be listed for further hearing by Supreme Court    3) constitutional validity of para 3(A) of appendix to the rules is to be determined by the Delhi High Court which was not at all  adverted  to .    4) the interim relief of 20% of 7th May 2015 was not implemented fully and deliberately defied by Corporation 40% interim relief as per para 3(A) meet the same fate the corporation did not file any affidavit  before Delhi High Court to say that it had complied with the order of the Supreme court; the corporation stated that the order  of  SC bench related to DA only and not enhanced pension. The Delhi High Court was satisfied with this contention and proceeded to deal with the core issue i.e; upgradation of pension and setting aside  the issue of constitutional validity of para 3(A) of appendix on the Plea that it is not a primary issue. THE JUDGEMENT DATED 27th April 2017 BY JUSTICE SANJEEV KHANNA   AND JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKHAR-  Is not objective and importance as per the judgement of Supreme Court in DS Nakara’s case any change or liberalisation in the scheme for Pension Payment must be made applicable to all the pensioners irrespective of date of retirement the judgement held that liberalisation of mode of computation of pension adopted in the case of post April 1979 retirees, be made applicable to pre - April 1997 of central government .  the method of calculation of pension is 10 months average  emoluments proceeding date of retirement in LIC it is also a fact that pension is not fixed in accordance with wage revision of inservice employees which is retrospective this glaring discrimination was overlooked by justice Khanna.

Instead he tried to distort the SC judgement in Nakara’s case by quoting another judgement of the constitution bench of Supreme Court.He says that another constitution bench of SC has read “Nakara’s decision of limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision. All claims made by pension retirees on a demand for identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank  irrespective  of date of retirement even though reckoned emoluments for the purpose of computation  of their pension be different.”

     This is indicator of his ire on the issue of removal of discrimination among pensioners by upgradation of pension according to wage revision. This is reflected in all the citations of case laws by him.   The decision with regard to hundred percent neutralisation of DA for the August 1997 retirees is also elusive by giving time of 9 months for the corporation to make payment of areas to pensioners.Waiver of recovery of 40% is not at all a relief.       the financial position of LIC and Pension Fund has projected in our submissions was not at all regarded by justice Khanna

In such a situation it is necessary for us to contest this judgement in Supreme Court where its validity will be at adjudicated. The review petition on this vengeful judgement in Delhi High Court  will only be confirmed with all vehemence by the already prejudicial trend displayed at Delhi High Court.--- -KKDHanumanthaRao

20)2 Important Emails from Sri Kasiviswanathan NABARD, Veteran re CG recent pension

parity approval with more improvements

Dear friends,A) We are continuously witnessing radical differences in quantum of pension,tremendous sympathy for Govt pensioners by Cabinet Committee, knowing full well, the astronomical outlay for pension alone ,which eats into the vitals of the economy,under the garb & guise of Consolidated Fund of India, or another favourite theme at the time of defence ,to silence the critics of Govt PC recommendations, Pay as You go concept, so nothing affected,as though even if Sky is the limit, that highest amount shall still be payable,for Bureaucrats to say this without shame & in that process, taking cudgels against any OFFSHOOTS or GLIMMER of Pension Upgradation emanating from any quarters.& to say emphatic NO ,is indeed a TRAVESTY of Justice & Equity.

Citizens are citizens, all are equal, food,clothing & shelter all need, Standards of consideration of any scheme must have many similarities,yardstick cannot be totally different,to offer Bonanza to Govt, State,Railways, Defence, Public Sector Undertakings, Judiciary, University teachers & staff & to deny even a MODICUM of PU,defined,delineated & described in clear, unequivocal terms,clarifying the benefits & rise in pension for cadres thereby, also presenting a fairly thorough & accurate Charts & Tables for Regular Pension & Family Pension ,announcing the moderate outlay per annum, number of pensioners also not large, Basic Pension in IVPC mode, untouched for 24 years, living in a so-called Egalitarian, Welfare State ,proclaiming the heart & soul of sacred Constitution , ,Fundamental Rights, which, under no circumstances can be ignored, mutilated or adversely affected or violated,is a living demonstration of gagging the Financial & Service Sector, the real Engines of growth & facilitates smooth sailing of Economy, through immense,gigantic contributions to the Exchequer, all indices pointing out the resilience & ebullience of the Institutions,

To see that these NOBLEST of institutions are denied rightful claims,with clear ,coherent reason & logic,always extensive tests & parameters well within

stipulated Expense ratios,all factors impinging on growth & development of organisation brimming with confidence for years & decades, & so instead of blindly allowing & granting PU & Full DR to pre-8/1997 pensioners, questioning, delaying, doubting, tedious, tortuous legal battle, for 18 long years,with 15,500 pensioners having died or dying, stark contrast of sufferring ignored or not noticed, artificial one-sided defence for refusing PU put up as a facade of loss for policyholders bonus etc, is to say the least, undemocratic,dictatorial & those near the Seats of POWER can exercise influence & get what they want & even more, smacks of GROSS DISCRIMINATION, & GROTESQUE ANAMOLIES only being perpetrated in a callous manner to the detriment of a SPARKLING Institution, reverberating with awards & accolades from all quarters for its rocklike solvency,stability,& enabling a new throbbing India with Peoples Money for peoples Welfare & oiling the wheels of govt machinery with crores of investment in core ,infrastructure developments & promoting social sectors growth

B)Whatever it is,such a DICHOTOMY amidst Govt & other Sectors should not be allowed to continue & Autonomy & Independence of Institutions running within parameters should not be questioned.In fact, this is the ESSENCE of Independent Directors Governance preached but not practised,as it will catapult the orgn to dizzy heights, with reduction of timelag, adjournments, no decision,procrastination ,all concomitant evils .Courts must address to this anamalous situation & one-sided Himalayan pension automatically ensured but OTHER SIDE no light,all darkness & legal struggle ,in spite of heaps of powerful arguments & submissions, with facts & figures, & right interpretation of Surplus ,after every conceivable expense is accounted,& a moderate pension outlay per annum,which is peanuts for LIC, only a tail of Wage Agreement, or a percentage of Midday Meals coupon of Rs 453 cr per annum .

C)Yet another fact to be noticed is, far & above the 2.57 multiplication factor of earlier PC Pension approved now,when earlier the fitment used to be at the Starting Pay Scale of the new matrix of that cadre, now it is Stage to Stage, a Perfect & Ideal PU definition for them, NOT FOR OTHERS ! achieved for Eternity.Further, theirs is also statutory but CG goes on WITHOUT any amendment but insisting for OTHERS !!This is how COMPLETE PARITY in PENSION is assured & Committee cleverly coined the ULTIMATE SOLUTION to end DISPARITY

Look at the Staggering & Astronomical Annual Pension Bill of CG to rise to Rs1,76,071 crores !!

Should not this aspect be also fought with in SC to drive home the dire need to approve PU to end HOSTILE Discrimination by stepping up pension to obviate 6/7 lower cadres below getting more pension than their Seniors.

Greetings-------R.B.KISHORE, VP,AIRIEF

21)Excerpts from NABARD Veteran Sri Kasi Viswanathan email to RBKishore:

1) The ideal solution is complete parity as has been finally recommended by the 7th CPC and we have to await the decision of GOI in this regard.

2)However as per the case examples given by the 7th CPC itself, a Secretary to the Government of India retiring on 31 August, 1992 was in receipt of a basic pension of ₹4,000 per month. The basic pension after implementation of the V and VI CPC got revised to ₹13,000 and ₹40,000 respectively. With the benefit of dearness relief this pensioner is on date entitled to a total payout in terms of pension and dearness relief of Rs87,600.

Further, as a pensioner who is over 80 years of age he is entitled to an additional pension equivalent to 20 percent of basic basic pension. In effect the pensioner is in receipt of a total payout of ₹105,120 per month as on date.

In comparison we are drawing only one third of that pension now

We are not getting the relief for those above 80 years.

3)The formula of 7th CPC would raise the basic pension by 2.57 times or as per complete parity formula. Let us await the decision of the GOI. In the absence of GOI decision on this important recommendation the Court can not advocate complete parity but only recommend the same formula so far applied by the GOI ie merger of DA with basic pension and giving the same fitment weightage and the revised basic pension will have to be worked out for each retiree for each of the five year pay revision as otherwise earlier retirees will lose in the process.

4)The pay scales of officers and staff due from 1-11-2012 for RBI and NB have not yet been finalised. Only for the subordinate staff in RBI it has been signed but I do not have the details and I am handicapped because of my eye problem. The pay scales for officers of RBI are expected to be announced by third week of this month whereafter decision on pension updation will be known.

5) WE have not been able to get any indication of the lines on which pension updation will be granted . Whether it will be full or only major relief while GOI pensioners will be laughing all the way to their banks with another revision which will be announced after the state elections are over.

6)You should also ensure that the additional relief for those above the age of 80 years is also made available in the updation on the same scales as in GOI as 7th CPC has also recommended continuation of the same relief for this category of pensioners.

7) I have only the pay scales revised last time ie effective from 1-11-2007. The circular is enclosed for your ready reference. I do not have the same for subordinate staff. You may like to obtain the same from our friend Shri Talekar

You are a prodigious writer and I enjoy reading your write-ups. Thanks for including me in your mailing list.

With warm personal regards---------Kasiviswanathan

* 

22)The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister ShriNarendraModi approved important proposals relating to modifications in the 7th CPC (Central Pay Commission) recommendations on pay and pensionary benefits in the course of their implementation. Earlier, in June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved implementation of the recommendations with an additional financial outgo of Rs 84,933 crore for 2016-17 (including arrears for 2 months of 2015-16).ALSO READ : Revise allowances including HRA with effect from 01.01.2016 – Mass Dharna 23rd MAY 2017

The benefit of the proposed modifications will be available with effect from 1st January, 2016, i.e., the date of implementation of 7th CPC recommendations. With the increase approved by the Cabinet, the annual pension bill alone of the Central Government is likely to be Rs.1,76,071crore.  Some of the important decisions of the Cabinet are mentioned below:

1.Revision of pension of pre – 2016 pensioners and family pensioners

The Cabinet approved modifications in the recommendations of the 7th CPC relating to the method of revision of pension of pre-2016 pensioners and family pensioners based on suggestions made by the Committee chaired by Secretary (Pensions) constituted with the approval of the Cabinet.  The modified formulation of pension revision approved by the Cabinet will entail an additional benefit to the pensioners and an additional expenditure of approximately Rs.5031 crore for 2016-17 over and above the expenditure already incurred in revision of pension as per the second formulation based on fitment factor.  It will benefit over 55 lakh pre-2016 civil and defence pensioners and family pensioners.AlsoRead : 5th CPC parity is also beneficial but option-I parity of 7th CPC is more beneficial

While approving the implementation of the 7th CPC recommendations on 29th June, 2016, the Cabinet had approved the changed method of pension revision recommended by the 7th CPC for pre-2016 pensioners, comprising of two alternative formulations, subject to the feasibility of the first formulation which was to be examined by the Committee.

In terms of the Cabinet decision, pensions of pre-2016 pensioners were revised as per the second formulation multiplying existing pension by a fitment factor of 2.57, though the pensioners were to

be given the option of choosing the more beneficial of the two formulations as per the 7th CPC recommendations.Also Read :Option -1 recommended by 7th CPC is rejected

In order to provide the more beneficial option to the pensioners, Cabinet has accepted the recommendations of the Committee, which has suggested revision of pension based on information contained in the Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued to every pensioner.   The revised procedure of fixation of notional pay is more scientific, rational and implementable in all the cases.  The Committee reached its findings based on an analysis of hundreds of live pension cases.  The modified formulation will be beneficial to more pensioners than the first formulation recommended by the 7th CPC, which was not found to be feasible to implement on account of non-availability of records in a large number of cases and was also found to be prone to several anomalies.

2.Disability Pension for Defence Pensioners

The Cabinet also approved the retention of percentage-based regime of disability pension implemented post 6th CPC, which the 7th CPC had recommended to be replaced by a slab-based system.Also Read :Changes in Pay Structure and Revision of the three Pay Matrices – (2.57 to 2.67.)

The issue of disability pension was referred to the National Anomaly Committee by the Ministry of Defence on account of the representation received from the Defence Forces to retain the slab-based system, as it would have resulted in reduction in the amount of disability pension for existing pensioners and a reduction in the amount of disability pension for future retirees when compared to percentage-based disability pension.

The decision which will benefit existing and future Defence pensioners would entail an additional expenditure of approximately Rs. 130 crore per annum.

Source : PIB

23)  AIRIEF members led by S/Shri SS Saxena, President, KML Ashthanaji, Vice President, G. Krishnaswamy, Gen. Secretary, MP Agnihotri, Convenor Legal Committee, Shiv Singh, Ex GS of Pen. Assn. from Agra, myself and Atithi Mukherjee, Bhopal met at Delhi to discuss further course of action after the DHC judgement of 28.4.2017.The meeting was attended by our Advocate Shri RK Singh who among others expressed surprise over the judgement and pointed out several lacunaes in the judgement pronounced. After thread bare discussion over the DHC judgement, unanimity was arrived that appeal should be preferred by us. After this meeting concluded, S/Shri Saxena, G. Krishnaswamy and MP Agnihotri along with Shri RK Singh went to Sr Counsel Shri Nidhesh Gupta. Shri Gupta too expressed the DHC judgement faulty and lacking application in more ways than one and  was of the opinion that an appeal should be preferred without further delay.  Today morning, a joint meeting of AIRIEF OBs consisting S/Shri SS Saxena, G. Krishnaswamy, KML Ashthanaji and MP Agnihotri and team  met the OBs of Mr Sridharan led Class I Officers' Fed.  at Jeevan Deep bldg and discussed the judgement and they were also of the opinion of filing an appeal in SC for which they are. holding a meeting of their OBs. The modalities and future course of action will be decided soon.

24) My esteemed and worthy leader Sri. Kishoreji,

   Thanks for your kind and valuable greetings. My contribution towards the activities of our AIRIEF is negligible. Madurai RIEA shines just because of  your able guidance.  We all feel guilty of not becoming up to the level of your expectations: we will during the coming days.Respectfully yours,-----------------------MPS

25)Dear & Rev MPS,

1)What a live news it is, I smelt when u sent way back during ur sojourn at Chennai, ur family photos,I sent a detailed email.Photos were so touching, When many experienced Joint Family system earlier days & it slowly started disintegrating, in ur case, it looks, one full circle  has come.I lived in Chintadripet, a crowded locality for many many years in our 26 member Jt Fly,very pleasant remembrances, few ups & downs, but overall the exchange of ideas, joint dining together,which is missing today, affectionate hugs, transmission of morality, values, hardwork of elders,educating youngsters,joint playing, joint visits to cinema theatres, circus & exhibition ,book shows,religious functions galore, exercises, walk to Marina, ransacking wonderful Libraries et all

2)It must have been again a joint considered decision & I am sure all will be for good.Madurai may miss u very much.U were the Guiding Star   .U were the Chief Patron. U were the Lighthouse for the pensioners & Madurai RIEA ,presiding over the destiny & lending charm & dignity to all proceedings & meetings with SDM & Mgr OS in particular.U injected enthusiasm, U took lot of initiative, acted as the Bridge between Pensioners & RIEa & also a bridge between RIEA & AIRIEF Functionaries.That was a vital ingredient.I pray the link continues & Madurai with its eversmiling AIOS ,AIRIEF Sri Angurajan displays strategy & his ebullience yo conduct meetings but also to ensure closure of grievances & followup of SZ energetic steps, which one & all have to capitalise.

3)Our RIEA Chennai friends, many know u, u are no stranger to them U will be a part of any exercise , U will be with us as a Delegation to meet ZM, RMOS & other Functionaries invariably.

4)UR live Commentaries & inspiring words of encouragement for any important act or development or Court proceedings etc will have to continue to be a Special Feature to add shine & lustre to an otherwise prosaic march which many pensioners love to live in obscurity.That is the fate of many orgns & especially Pensioners Fedns,no 2nd line of defence ,none 60--70 want to join. NO PU by DHC must have made many smell disaster & a fullstop to their dream run of continued PU. Mr Agnihotri must pour Agni on DHC weak points ,lacuna & inadequacies to   blast AIRIEF way thro SC in succesful reversal of nebulous partial discrimination alone removed with yet another Modified Appendix IV  .Sad & sickening days & years for pensioners. So continue ur brave words of solace & comfort & the right path to traverse as a Senior    U will be inducted as a valued member of RIEA Chennai  EC too.

5)RIEA Madurai members will feel a sense of separation , a vital missing link/Please get  Internet conncetions right now for Chennai, to be able to continue the Mission of spreading Smiles & promoting welfare of all pensioners

Greetings, warm regards, hearty welcome to Chennai------RBKISHORE VP,AIRIEF 

Sri MPS of Madurai is shifting his residence to Chennai

26)Dear Colleagues, After a long stay at Madurai, we have now decided to leave for Chennai to pass the rest of the days under the care of my three daughters and grandsons. I am surrendering my broadband connection at the end of this month. There won't be any e-mail communication from me from 1st June. I shall communicate resumption of the same after obtaining the facility at Chennai.With regards,---------M.P.Subrahmanian, RIEA, Madurai.

27)All Office Bearers, E.C.Members & UnitsSub. : BOTTLENECKS IN THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALARY REVISION NEGOTIATIONS IN BANKING INDUSTRYWe reproduce hereunder the full text of AIBOC Letter No. AIBOC/2017/19 dated 20th May 2017 addressed to the Hon’ble Minister of Finance, Government of India on the above subject forinformation of all concerned.

S Roy ChoudhuryGeneral Secretary

QuoteShri. Arun Jaitley,Hon’ble Minister for Finance,Government of India,NEW DELHI.Dear Sir,BOTTLENECKS IN THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALARY REVISION NEGOTIATIONS IN BANKING INDUSTRYWe are sorry to bring to your kind notice that even though the Government of India has been insisting for an early salary revision settlement at the industry level between the Indian Banks Association and the United forum of Bank Unions, there has been an unnecessary delay due to certain avoidable difficulties created by the Management of few banks in the Banking industry. It is historical that the salary revision in the Banking industry takes place once in 5 years through bilateral negotiations between the associations/unions and the Indian Banks Association covering over 10 lac workforce in the entire banking industry. During the last five decades we have concluded 10 bipartite settlements and the 11th one is now expected to take off. The first round of meeting was held between the IBA and the constituents of the United Forum of Bank unions on 2nd May, 2017 but without any concrete progress. One of the major hurdles that we are now encountering is in respect of the ‘mandate’ to be given by the member banks to the Indian Banks’ Association. A few of the banks have given a conditional mandate creating a chaotic and confusing situation in the negotiations, by insisting that they are allowing mandate

for discussions only upto officers of scale III and that the remaining scales will have to be left to the discretion of the Bank.2. The Banking Industry is overwhelmingly under the control of the Government of India due to the historical decisions taken by the Government of India during 1969 and 1980. The Nationalization of Banks was in the best interests of the economy and to take Banking facilities to the nook and corner of the country. We have seen the great contribution made by the banks during the last several decades due to this consolidation and ownership by the Central Government. But there was one area which was causing serious industrial relations crisis in the Banks at frequent intervals. Different banks had different service conditions and compensation system creating serious problems in the area of HR management. It was at this stage that the Government of India appointed Pillai Committee for the purpose of standardization of the scales and grades and also to bring parity amongst the Public Sector banks. After a thorough study of the service conditions that existed in those days, the Pillai Committee submitted a comprehensive report aiming at standardization and uniformity in the service conditions of the Officers in the Banking Industry. Thereafter, the Government of India introduced the recommendations of the Pillai Committee in the Banks for ensuring standardization and parity amongst the Public Sector Banks. Thus, a well-developed pattern was established over the next rounds of bipartite system in carrying forward the attempts made by Pillai Committee for the purpose of standardization of the salary scales and compensation system in the Banking industry. The Pillai Committee had recommended 4 grades and 7 scales which has now become a regular feature in all the Public Sector banks including the State Bank of India.

3. The Officers’ organizations have been negotiating with the Indian Banks Association in respect of all these 7 scales over the last several bipartites. Thus, the industrial relations have been cordial and harmonious as far as the salary structure and compensation systems were concerned as they were being discussed and settled through bilateral negotiations at the industry level. The present decision of some of the Banks, in particular the bigger Banks, seem to create a similar disparity which was prevailing earlier to distort the broad parity that is prevailing in the banking industry by attempting to retain the right of decision in regard to the scale IV and above in the banking industry. This will defeat the very purpose of the Pillai Committee’s attempt in ensuring parity and the subsequent objectives of the bilateral settlement.

4. We have conveyed our sentiments to IBA in our informal discussions and have requested them to ask all the Banks to give an unconditional mandate for negotiations on all scales rather than restricting it up to scale III alone. We therefore request your kind intervention in the matter so that the issue could be resolved without any further escalation on this issue which may affect the smooth conduct of negotiations.

Please treat the matter as urgent.Thanking you in anticipation.Yours sincerely,

(D. T. Franco)GENERAL SECRETARYUnquoteSource : aiucbofOriginal letter

28)From: Lsr <lakkapragada_rao@yahoo.com>Subject: Bank News

 chandra kant goswami: Good news 4 Retirees

IBA agrees to look into pension revision for retirees

Mumbai/Hyderabad, April 15:  

There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel finally for scores of retired bank employees.

The long pending demand for revision of pension has finally come up for positive examination by the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA).

From 1986, pension for retired bank employees has not been revised as there is no practice of periodical revision of pension along with the Pay Commission’s review of pay scales being followed in the case of government employees.

There has also been no increase in the quantum of pension payable to family members after the death of a serving or retired employee.

However, the United Federation of Bank Unions (UFBU) has been able to break the ice in these matters in its talks with the IBA team held a couple of days ago.

“The IBA has agreed to examine these issues and is sympathetic. It has called for details of the number of present pensioners, and family pensioners, from banks,” CH Venkatachalam, General Secretary, AIBEA, who represented UFBU along with its convener MV Murali and others, told Business Line .

A request for calculating uniform DA rate for those who retired prior to 2002 is also being taken up. After 2002, employees/pensioners get 100 per cent compensation when prices go up.  “Prior to that, we have been tapering the DA formula. So, we want the same uniform formula on DA for those retired employees also,” he said.

The employee body has also asked the IBA to expedite the cost calculation as the demands have been pending for quite a long time and the retired employees being aged, need to be considered with sympathy and without undue delay.

The IBA has assured the union to expedite work in this regard.

According to M Harshavardhan, Advisor, All India Bank Officers’ Federation, revision of pension and its regular updation will not cause ‘undue’ financial burden on banks as has been projected. “Banks are very much capable of bearing additional expenses to be incurred on account of revision in pension rate,” he said.

The IBA has also agreed to take up with bank managements the problems faced in reimbursement of health care costs/health insurance issues.

There is no consolidated data on the number of pensioners and the IBA is in the process of arriving at a figure shortly. There are about 11.50 lakh bank employees today with almost 50 per cent of them in clerical jobs. The

number of retirements has gone up by 2-4 per cent in the last five years and the trend is expected to continue for the next three to four years.

(This article was published in the Business Line print edition dated April 16, 2017)

Sent as received from other Group......chandra kant goswami

29)PMVVY Pradhan Mantri VAYA VANDANA YOJANA Plan 842 Immediate Annuity 10 years,Maximum PURCHASE Price Rs,7,50,000 for family,Maximum PENSION Rs5000PM /Rs60,000 pa.5/5/2017—4/5/2018 open for 1 year only.Effective rate of interest 8.30%

Avail the best offer as Sr Citizens, in the days of declining interest rates to be witnessed

30)Already ZO/DO OS has issued FORM 16 ,& so after collecting TDS statements from Banks or any Institution where one has invested,ITReturns filing can be done,though last date is 31 July 2017 only

31)SZO has already initiated issuance of letters with Enclosures from 20 April 2017 on DIGITAL LIFE CERTIFICATE Jeevan Pramaan for Existence Certificate to enable Pension payment & coming into effect from 1 August 2017.all over India..The form sent by OSDept duly signed & completed has to be sent alongwith a SELF-ATTESTED copy of Aadhaar CARD with number, of course, to seed the AAdhaar number in LIC Records permanently  This will be another good step taken by LIC CO on similar lines like what Hon PM initiated . Other ZO/Dos also would have already acted to ensure compliance for Pensioners own benefit ,as it is a boon ,at this old age.

Manual Existence Certificate  also will continue for THOSE who are ,now, not able to conform to this changeover,which is a most welcome step to pensioners to avoid PHYSICAl movement to produce EC & submit to LIC OS dept 

COLLECTIONS : R.B.KISHORE, VP, AIRIEF 1/6/2017

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------