LIC GROUP MEDICLAIM SCHEME GUIDE

LIC GROUP MEDICLAIM SCHEME GUIDE 


CLICK HERE 

DEAR FRIENDS, CONGRATS, YOUR BLOG CROSSED 4708444 HITS ON 26.04.2026THE BLOG WAS LAUNCHED ON 23.11.2014,HAVE A GREAT DAY
VISIT 'PENSIONERS VOICE & SOUND TRACK' WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Sunday, 19 December 2021

DHC Judgement 27.04.2017

   This is wrt to my mail to you regarding the above and your reply mail thereto. I write this after some delay which I hope you will not mind.
   You have casually dismissed my arguments by quoting rule 2 of the pension rules. You should not be unaware that rule 2 as also rule 35 deal with calculation of BP at the time of retirement. They have nothing to do with pension updation.
   Pension rules are not sacrosanct.
They can be overrided. Rule 35(1) has overruled it. While making payment of interim relief at 40 pc as per SC order dt. 31-3-16 LIC has overrided it when it named the amount arrived at after merging the BP with DR at CPI 1740 as on 1-8-97 as revised pension. It may be said that the SC order is an interim order only. Yes but what about the DHC order? As of now it is final as neither LIC nor GOI has appealed against it. To enable LIC to make payment as per this court order we may note that the relavent pension rule has not been amended. So what is needed is a favourable order from a court.
   Reverting to the DHC judgement I feel that the points raised by me  deserve more serious examination. It has therefore becomenecessary
to quote again the points from the judgement. They are: 
   (1) pre 8/97 retirees are entitled to DR at 100 pc valorization as is allowed to post 8/97 retirees.
   (2) The rate of DR per slab  to pre 8/97 retirees cannot be less than .23 pc which is allowed to post 8/97 retirees as per rule 3A.
   (3) Rule 3A violates the principle enunciated in the DS Nakara case in as much as the revised/enhanced rate of DR  an existing benefit is not extended to pre 8/97 retirees.
   (4) Rule 3A is discriminatory and violates article 14 of the constitution.
   Out of the above 4 points 3&4 are in my opinion of great value to us  in our case. In fact I would say that the key to our sucess in our SLP lies in points 3&4.
   The court has not said anything about rule 3B because it was not raised before it. Had we raised it 
It would have met with the same fate.
   The court has held that rule 3A violates article 14. The same is true about rule 3B also since 3b is only an extension of 3A. I am sure there cannot be any second opinion about this.
   Now let me explain once again  what does this mean to us  in our case.
   The court has held that the new rate .23 pc introduced through rule 3A is applicable to all retirees who retired before the cut off date 1-8-97. This is applicable to all office orders issued by LIC under rule 3B
as 3B is only an offspring of 3A.
   So proceeding further the new rate .18 pc introduced after conclusion of the wage settlement due on 1-8-02 is applicable to all retirees retired prior to 1-8-02 and so on. And finally we arrive at the following.
   The current rate .08 pc from 1-8-17 introduced after wage revision due on 1-8-17 is applicable to all pre 8/17 retirees. Thus the rate that should apply to all retirees wef 1-8-17 is .08 pc per slab.
   Eventhough the successive rates of DR introduced after each wage revision are less than the previous rate we should note that the amount per slab is more because of merger of BP and DR. Hence after every wage revision an existing benefit is enhanced and hence should apply to all earlier pensioners without a cut off date as per the DS Nakara judgement. This leads to the final part.
   From the foregoing it should have now become clear that all pensioners whether retired before or after 1-8-17 are entitled to DR at the rate of .08 pc per slab over CPI
6352 thanks to rule 3A and it's offspring 3B  in the light of the rulings of the DHC. I do not think there can be any doubt or misgiving over this.
   Now let us see how .08 pc per slab leads to automatic updation of pension.
   DR at .08 pc per slab is linked to CPI 6352. So .08 pc  should be applied to BP arrived at from pay scales upgraded to CPI 6352. It is incorrect to apply .08 pc on BP  linked to CPI  4708 etc.
   Does this not mean automatic updation of pension after every wage revision? If not what else it is?
   You may as yet not inclined to accept my arguments. Does not matter.
   But please do me a favour. Please post this piece in your blog so that all pensioners may go through it and analyse it and post their comments.
   Finally please revisit the issue with an open mind. I place this request to Sri CNM Sir also.
   Thank you 
SR Srinivasan
RIEA  Thanjavur
9791754282
Camp: Colombo

No comments: