RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS

RECORD OF DISCUSSIONS

1.   The coming together of all the Associations of Pensioners, is in itself, a significant gain, and a step forward for the future of Pensioners. There was free and frank expression of opinions, which however varied. Attempts were made to minimize the differences.

2.   While SLPs were filed with diversified approaches, the demands are common. There was therefore general agreement that a joint approach would provide greater focus and thrust to the SLPs in the SC.

3.   Discussions on 3A of Appendix IV of Pension Rules, which was the main reference point to DHC, from SC, was analysed at great length, and opinions differed.

4.   Discussion on 3 A cantered around (a) on how it has a bearing or not, on our Demand for Up-gradation of Pension, and (b) as to how we press for it – 100%, full neutralization, common for all pensioners as it exists for in-service employees.

5.   LIC's repeated plea to the Ministry in recent times, for a second option being offered for Pension, making out grounds of LIC's stable / comfortable financial position, belies its plea in Court, of a troubled financial condition and consequent non-affordability to allow up- gradation in Pension as demanded.

6.   On LIC’s repeat plea that there is no provision for upgradation of pension in the Pension Rules, many grounds were expressed, to rely upon, for this demand. Wage-revision for in-service employees takes place, in the absence of a specific provision in statute or Staff Regulations.

7.   Continuing on this, Pension Rules only stipulate the method of arriving at the basic pension, but the rules do not state anywhere that upgradation cannot be granted. While our pension rules were issued in 1995, the practice of upward revision of basic pension for Government employees came into being  later, as a result of the subsequent pay commissions (starting from the 5th  pay Commission). A similar consideration cannot be denied, as our pension rules also were framed following the CCS Rules (which fact was explicitly admitted by LIC themselves in the Note to the Board, before adopting the Resolution in the Board Meeting of 24-11-2001). 

8.   Rules 55(b), Rule 56, Rule 5 (3) and 13 (b) were all pointing to the dynamic elements embedded in Pension Rules, which negated the LIC stand, that Basic Pension is static for life.

9.   Pension being a small part of the Total Management Expenses of LIC, cannot pose as big a financial burden to LIC, as argued in Court by them.

10. The Financial burden and hence non-affordability, as quoted by LIC, if up-gradation were to be offered, was grossly mis-stated, wrongly taking into account, long-term liabilities on future Retirees, while the actual cost on current set of pensioners, would be a low percentage of the number stated.

11. Quoting figures of Pensions of different generations of pensioners, to prove a point on the disparities prevailing, will not help us much in the Court arguments.  The points have to be made out Technically and Legally. It was opined that we may not show the comparison of the pension figures as between the retirees of different periods but  plead and press legally that we are discriminated against, violating Art 14 of Constitution.

12. Instead of getting lost in the defects of implementation of DHC Order on Arrears, the move should be to quickly get to the focus on the two main aspects of uniform DR pattern for all, and up- gradation in pension.

13. An important point regarding Art 21, Right to life --(with dignity), can still be made out in support of the demand for up-gradation of pension.

14. All that is meant by the demand for up-gradation of Pension, is nothing but a means to try and protect the real value of the Pension money, from severe erosion in value. The existence of erosion stands admitted by LIC themselves in their Note to the Board in 2001.

15. In the absence of the concept of 'parity' through a principle of pension up-gradation in sync with wage- revision for in-service employees, multiple class of pensioners are created with each wage Revision.

16. The Board Resolution of 2001, still in hibernation, in the absence of Govt. response, is a clear admission by LIC of (a) up-gradation is necessary and (b) it follows the pattern of the Central Govt. Pensioners who enjoy up-gradation of pension with the Recommendations of successive Pay Commissions.  LIC has not officially rescinded from this position taken in the Board Note, and hence cannot take an opposite stand now, on either up-gradation or comparison with Central Govt. Pensioners.

17. Since a principle of up-grade of pension, for those at Minimum pension levels, is accepted in the DHC judgment, we could, on the same principle, think of demanding a linkage of pension with the wage-revision of employees at the minimum of the revised scale, at each cadre. This makes the pension logically dynamic, and thereby minimizes the discrimination as it exists today.

18. One of the main concepts discussed, and agreed upon, is to suggest to the respective Counsels of each Association, points about Legal, Constitutional and Technical grounds, rather than involved facts about comparisons with others, and discrepancies / differences between our own employees.

19. Two other major points were also agreed upon.   i. The petitioner Associations will never juxtapose each other.     ii. Courts being unpredictable we may not create unnecessary hype among the pensioners.

20. It was also a shared thought that this unified approach should be institutionalized through a confederation of the various Associations being formed, so that the advantage of synergy will be a constant one, for the benefit of the Pensioner community.

21. It was expressed that this meeting is not to end as one-time exercise but it paves the way for more such discussions, as and when exigencies demand.

Angurajan

-- 

B.Angurajan
All India Organizing Secretary
All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation
Cell No: 9443381571
Madurai