Dear All,
The following points in the note of Mr Y Krishnamurthy are legally significant:
"a) Upon replacement of the defined benefit pension scheme by contributory pension scheme for Central Govt. employees, LIC was also instructed by Govt. to implement contributory pension scheme. Does it not mean that LIC followed all the earlier period, Central Govt. Pension rules in implementation of LIC Pension Scheme.
b) If Central Govt. pension rules on some matters, not expressly provided, in LIC rules do not govern LIC, why Central Govt. instructed LIC to implement contributory pension scheme. Mind it, the contributory pension scheme was brought into implementation prospectively only in Central Govt. and in LIC."
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
The following points in the note of Mr Y Krishnamurthy are legally significant:
"a) Upon replacement of the defined benefit pension scheme by contributory pension scheme for Central Govt. employees, LIC was also instructed by Govt. to implement contributory pension scheme. Does it not mean that LIC followed all the earlier period, Central Govt. Pension rules in implementation of LIC Pension Scheme.
b) If Central Govt. pension rules on some matters, not expressly provided, in LIC rules do not govern LIC, why Central Govt. instructed LIC to implement contributory pension scheme. Mind it, the contributory pension scheme was brought into implementation prospectively only in Central Govt. and in LIC."
With greetings,
C H Mahadevan
Loud Thinking
1) a) Jaipur High Court
judgement covered and allowed both DR rectification and up gradation by
allowing the Writ Petitions No. 66.76/1998 and 654/2007 filed by KMLA.
b) The
Division bench did not accept the appeal of LIC.
c) LIC never produced copy of the resolution of
Board Dt.: 24.11.2001.
d) The resolution covered both DR rectification
and up gradation.
e) Pension should be brought to the level of
1740 points.
f) Pension should be refixed giving weight age
of 11.25% as done for the in service employees on the wage revision.
g) At that time only one wage revision took place
after pension notification of 1995.
2. a) The Supreme Court did not give any relief to
LIC & Govt. though requested for it and LIC & Govt. approached Supreme
Court several times.
b) Supreme Court did not stay the operation of
the Judgement of Jaipur High Court. Infact Supreme Court directed LIC to
deposit the arrears DR and Pension and then only approach them. Of course
Management mischievously interpreted the resolution of Board and Bhandari’s
Judgement.
c) From time to time pensioner’s were bringing
the wrong and willful misinterpretation of Board Resolution by LIC to the
notice of High Court and Supreme Court.
3. a) In the proceedings on dt: 25.03.2015 the
Supreme Court enquired about whether there is a express provision regarding up
gradation in our pension rules.
b) Yes, there may not have been numbered
provision as a special provision, but the rule no. 56 in our pension rules is
very clear in its spirit, content and meaning “Matter’s relating to pension
and other benefits” in respect of which no express provision has been made
in these rules, shall be governed by the corresponding provisions
contained in the Central, Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972) or CCS
(Commutation of Pension Rules, 1981). There is no ambiguity in the provision. That
means all the residuary matters will be dealt according to CCS (Pension Rules).
c) The Central CCS Pension Rules have been
further liberalized in 1992. Up gradation is provided in it very clearly.
4. a) Upon replacement of the defined benefit
pension scheme by contributory pension scheme for Central Govt. employees, LIC
was also instructed by Govt. to implement contributory pension scheme. Does it
not mean that LIC followed all the earlier period, Central Govt. Pension rules
in implementation of LIC Pension Scheme.
b) If Central Govt. pension rules on some
matters, not expressly provided, in LIC rules do not govern LIC, why Central
Govt. instructed LIC to implement contributory pension scheme. Mind it, the
contributory pension scheme was brought into implementation prospectively only
in Central Govt. and in LIC.
c) In the Supreme Court Judgement relating to
bonus to insurance employees in 1981, it was made clear by Supreme Court any
adverse change in the service conditions and monetary benefits enjoyed by employees can only be
amended prospectively (AV Nachane Vs. LIC of India and others).
5. a) The Govt. harps on autonomy of Public Sector
Units and LIC is a successful story. Why Govt. should intervene in LIC
management policies regarding service conditions of its employees and benefits
to pensioners ?
b) There is a resolution in Govt. that Govt.
should not go in appeal against the judgements of High Court concerning the
employee’s benefits. What is being done is contrary to the Govt. policy.
c) Though Amended Section 48 is there in LIC
Act right from 1981, so far no adverse change has been made in the terms of
benefits negotiated by employee’s representatives and LIC across the table. A
defacto agreement between employee’s and management. Similarly the Index linked
pension scheme was also a negotiated document of 1995 though for formality sake
Govt. notified it. Govt. therefore should not intervene but allow
implementation of Board Resolution.
6. Regarding quantum of expenditure for
implementation of the demand of the pensioner’s, if faithfully implemented; it
was submitted to LIC Board by Chairman that it would be around Rs. 6 to 8
crores per annum – peanuts for LIC. But a succour for very senior citizens now
around 80’s dying every day and their family.
7. Except demanding implementation of Justice
Bhandari’s Judgement, no extraneous matter be raised before Supreme Court. Implement
the Judgement should be the and the only point to be placed before Supreme
Court.
Y Krishnamurthy
