Dear Mr Gangaraju,
I am sorry I could not reply to you earlier as I was travelling and returned to HQs only on 10 th inst.
I agree with you that the ED(P)’s instructions to ED(IT) are not in conformity with the Supreme Court directions. Para 3A of Appendix IV reads as follows:
“In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in the quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of
1960 = 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall beat the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension”
Supreme Court Order dt 31/3/2016 in para 27 has directed LIC as follows:
“Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect……….”.
Reading both the above together, what LIC is required to do is to create the situation by which the para 3A of Appendix IV can be applied for calculation of the 40% Interim Relief for all eligible pre-August 1997 retirees and the family pensioners of this category. As application of 0.23% of the Basic Pension
for every rise or fall of 4 points has to be done for employees who retired or died after 1/8/1997,it automatically means that such application should be made on the Basic Pension arising from the revised scales of pay w.e.f 1/8/1997 for pre-August 1997 retirees also.
It should be significantly noted that para 3A does not state that 0.23% should be applied in the manner LIC has done while advising CO/IT dept.The methodology adopted by LIC is not only arbitrary but also blatantly against the letter and spirit of para 27 of the Supreme Court judgment of 31/3/2016.The only way in which
it can be done is by fitting the Basic Pension of pre-August 1997 retirees in the
revised scales w.e.f 1/8/1997.
Reports are already flowing that payments have been received by some pre-August 1997 retirees, of amounts which are not as mandated by the Supreme Court.
Our Hyderabad Retired LIC Class I Officers’ Association has already sent a protest letter today to Chairman & ED(P) pointing out this violation of Supreme Court directions by email followed by a hard copy by Speed Post.
Perhaps, we may have to fight out this issue also in the Delhi High Court/Supreme
Court.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
On Sat, 07 May 2016 23:06:25 +0530 banda gangaraju
wrote
LIC P.C. published the instructions given to I.T. Dept.,to develop software for payment of 40 per cent I.R. asper supreme court order.
The instructions require the basic pension of pre 8/97 pensioners to be notionally recalculated by merging the dearness relief as at 1.8.97 with basic pension ( I.e., at 1740point of A.I.C.P.I...when new scales came into force from 8/97).
We may note that LIC's instructions for wage revision w.e.f 1.8.1997 were different. In wage revision after merging existing basic with D.A., additional loading is given.
There is no mention of such additional loading for recalculating notionally of pension for pre 8/97 people.I think LIC touched only difference of DA payable for pre 8/97 and avoided the idea of updation as on 1.8.1997.
It remains to be seen whether this fits into the spirit of Jaipurjudgment or recent Supreme Court Order.
The movement of A.I.C.P.I. from 1.8.1997, the number of slabsincreased for every half-year from 8/97 to 4/2016 is given in the AIRIEF blog. Those figures of no. of slabs for every half-year can beused to arrive at total payable.
This would mean some arithmetical exercise for us also .We can compare our results with calculation sheets to be supplied by LIC.
I am endorsing a copy of this to Shri CH. Mahadevan with a request to him to correct me if I am wrong in my perception.
Greetings,
B.Ganga Raju
Hyderabad 7.5.2016 23-08 hours
I am sorry I could not reply to you earlier as I was travelling and returned to HQs only on 10 th inst.
I agree with you that the ED(P)’s instructions to ED(IT) are not in conformity with the Supreme Court directions. Para 3A of Appendix IV reads as follows:
“In case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or to be recoverable for every fall, as the case may be, of every 4 points over 1740 points in the quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series of
1960 = 100 Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said 4 points shall beat the rate of 0.23 per cent of the Basic Pension”
Supreme Court Order dt 31/3/2016 in para 27 has directed LIC as follows:
“Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the Corporation shall pay 40% as per Para 3A of the Appendix to each of the employees within six weeks and shall file an affidavit before the High Court of Delhi to the said effect……….”.
Reading both the above together, what LIC is required to do is to create the situation by which the para 3A of Appendix IV can be applied for calculation of the 40% Interim Relief for all eligible pre-August 1997 retirees and the family pensioners of this category. As application of 0.23% of the Basic Pension
for every rise or fall of 4 points has to be done for employees who retired or died after 1/8/1997,it automatically means that such application should be made on the Basic Pension arising from the revised scales of pay w.e.f 1/8/1997 for pre-August 1997 retirees also.
It should be significantly noted that para 3A does not state that 0.23% should be applied in the manner LIC has done while advising CO/IT dept.The methodology adopted by LIC is not only arbitrary but also blatantly against the letter and spirit of para 27 of the Supreme Court judgment of 31/3/2016.The only way in which
it can be done is by fitting the Basic Pension of pre-August 1997 retirees in the
revised scales w.e.f 1/8/1997.
Reports are already flowing that payments have been received by some pre-August 1997 retirees, of amounts which are not as mandated by the Supreme Court.
Our Hyderabad Retired LIC Class I Officers’ Association has already sent a protest letter today to Chairman & ED(P) pointing out this violation of Supreme Court directions by email followed by a hard copy by Speed Post.
Perhaps, we may have to fight out this issue also in the Delhi High Court/Supreme
Court.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan
On Sat, 07 May 2016 23:06:25 +0530 banda gangaraju
wrote
LIC P.C. published the instructions given to I.T. Dept.,to develop software for payment of 40 per cent I.R. asper supreme court order.
The instructions require the basic pension of pre 8/97 pensioners to be notionally recalculated by merging the dearness relief as at 1.8.97 with basic pension ( I.e., at 1740point of A.I.C.P.I...when new scales came into force from 8/97).
We may note that LIC's instructions for wage revision w.e.f 1.8.1997 were different. In wage revision after merging existing basic with D.A., additional loading is given.
There is no mention of such additional loading for recalculating notionally of pension for pre 8/97 people.I think LIC touched only difference of DA payable for pre 8/97 and avoided the idea of updation as on 1.8.1997.
It remains to be seen whether this fits into the spirit of Jaipurjudgment or recent Supreme Court Order.
The movement of A.I.C.P.I. from 1.8.1997, the number of slabsincreased for every half-year from 8/97 to 4/2016 is given in the AIRIEF blog. Those figures of no. of slabs for every half-year can beused to arrive at total payable.
This would mean some arithmetical exercise for us also .We can compare our results with calculation sheets to be supplied by LIC.
I am endorsing a copy of this to Shri CH. Mahadevan with a request to him to correct me if I am wrong in my perception.
Greetings,
B.Ganga Raju
Hyderabad 7.5.2016 23-08 hours
No comments:
Post a Comment