RESPONSE TO MR SUBBU’S CHAT COLUMN COMMENTS

• RESPONSE TO MR SUBBU’S CHAT COLUMN COMMENTS

   

  Mr Subbu’s concern is genuine.Perhaps I have not made myself sufficiently clear the point I wanted to convey for proper understanding.

  Let me try to explain a bit.Before the Delhi High Court judgment ,the difference between the DR slabs of a pre-April 1993 retiree ED( Group 1) and post-March 1993-Pre August 1997 retiree ED( Group2) was narrow at 3% for two comparable retirees  at the maximum of the scale.

  As a result of an arbitrary DR formula ordered by DHC in its judgment, this gap in DR slab  widened to 17% in providing  advantage to the Group 2 retiree ED in the slab differential compared to Group 1.Rather it can be called as disadvantage caused to Group 1 retiree ED.

  Adding insult to injury to Group 1 retired ED, the faulty implementation of the DHC judgment in LIC increased the gap in the DR slab still wider to 23% to a big further  disadvantage to the  retiree.

  Further in the matter of neutralisation  of DR,the differential was same at 4%  as per the formulae as existed and also  as per notional 100% neutralisation ignoring the DHC judgment for both the Groups.But after the DHC judgment , the neutralisation rate was more for Group 2  retired ED by 18% than for the Group 1 ED( based on the faulty implementation of the judgment by LIC).

  To be more clear,the conclusion is that basically the DHC in its partial relief  ordered by way of improved DR formulae fell far short of what the two Group retirees should  have got by way of equitable neutralisation had the DR formulae had been equated with that for serving employees upto 31/7/1997. But the added disadvantage was a detrimental bias in the judgment against the Group 1 retirees whereby the DR formula for them was not adequately improved due to an arbitrary principle followed.Further disadvantage to the Group 1 retirees drawing basic pension between 2131 and 3500( maximum for ED) arose due to faulty implementation of the DHC judgment by LIC.

  DHC judgment ,although it provided some improved benefits to both the groups did not provide a fair deal for both.In addition, the judgment dispensed a raw deal to Group 1 retirees and  faulty implementation added further loss not only in the matter of DR arrears but also on recurring basis in monthly pension  to this group of retirees.

  I hope I have clarified the position to the maximum extent.We shall definitely try our best to put forth the inconsistencies before the Supreme Court.If they find it difficult to understand our logic, they can well ask LIC to contradict   in  regard to faulty implementation with reference to both the action & the  calculations.

  C H Mahadevan 

  ---