Saturday, 28 August 2021
A Laudable job on retirement
Increase of Entry Age up to 70 Years under NPS
Friday, 27 August 2021
A Note on Pension Fund etc.
Five Year Bumper To Bumper Insurance Mandatory For New Vehicles From September 1: Madras High Court
SPARSH 05: Pension claims of August retirees – Important Instructions
SPARSH 05: Pension claims of August retirees – Important Instructions
Posted: 26 Aug 2021 05:02 AM PDT
PIB:e-Shram Portal
Registration of Unorganized Workers begins across the Country as Government of India launches the e-Shram Portal.Portal will help build a comprehensive National https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1749294&RegID=3&LID=1
Thursday, 26 August 2021
Justice BV Nagarathna, Who Might Become First Woman Chief Justice Of India, Has Pioneered Social Welfare
Rather Than Caste System Being Wiped Away, Reservation System Perpetuates It Endlessly: Madras High Court
Wednesday, 25 August 2021
It is still not the time for excitement
Highlight from PIB
Finance Minister unveils 4th edition of Public Sector Bank R..... https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1748922&RegID=3&LID=1
Bank Employees Family Pension to be increased to 30% of last pay drawn
Ministry of Finance
Bank Employees Family Pension to be increased to 30% of last pay drawn
Banks' contribution to NPS Corpus of PSU Bank employees to be enhanced to 14%
Mumbai, 25 August 2021
In a bid to provide relief to families of bank employees, the Government has approved the Indian Banking Association's proposal to increase the family pension to 30% of last salary drawn. This move would make family pension go up to as much as Rs 30,000 to Rs 35,000 per family of bank employees. This was announced by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, at a press meet addressed by Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman in Mumbai today.

Secretary, DFS informed that, in continuation of the 11th bi-partite settlement on wage revision of public sector bank employees, which was signed by the Indian Bank Association (IBA) with the unions on November 11, 2020, there was a proposal for enhancement of family pension and also the employers' contribution under the National Pension Scheme. This has been approved by the Finance Minister, he said. Shri Panda further said that "earlier the scheme had slabs of 15, 20 and 30 percent of the pay that a pensioner drew at that point of time. It was capped subject to a maximum of Rs 9,284/-. That was a very paltry sum and Finance Minister Smt. Sitharaman was concerned and wanted that to be revised so that family members of bank employees get a decent amount to survive and sustain".
The Government has also approved the proposal to increase employers contribution under the New Pension Scheme to 14% from the existing 10%.
Thousands of families of PSU bank employees will be benefited by the enhanced Family Pension, while increase in employers contribution will provide increased financial security to the bank employees under the New Pension Scheme.
Finance Minister, as part of her two day visit to Mumbai reviewed the performance of the public sector banks and launched EASE 4.0 reform agenda for smart banking.
(Also see PIB Mumbai Release on Launch of EASE 4.0 by Finance Minister)
* * *
PIB Mum 001 / Sriyanka/DR
Follow us on social media:




Compassionate Appointment – Replacement of Para 13 Procedure – DOPT Order
Compassionate Appointment – Replacement of Para 13 Procedure – DOPT Order
Posted: 24 Aug 2021 02:21 AM PDT
RBI PENSIONERS DATA
I got the following information from the RBI in response to my query recently:
1)Total number of pensioners in Reserve bank of India as on 31.03.2021 :30251( including family pensioners)
2)Total number of family pensioners as on 31.03.2021 : 7807( including both serving employees receiving family pension)
3)Total number of pensioners retired before 1/11/2012 who got revision of pension from March 2019: 13820
4) Total number of pensioners out of (3) above who died after receiving revised pension as at 31/3/2021 : 1195
From the above ,we can deduce the following:
1.16431 | out of the total pensioners may be employees retired after 1/11/2012 or family pensioners.If we leave out 7807 family pensioners who did not get upgradation,,the balance number of 8624 retirees might have retired after 1/11/2012 and they may be getting upgradation based on wage revision as at 1/11/2017. | ||
2.8.65% of pensioners who got prospective upgradation of pension died within 2 years.This means the prospective upgradation benefit was shortlived for about 9 out of 100 retirees who got upgradation. C H Mahadevan |
Submission of Digital Life Existence Certificate through LIC "JeevanSaakshya App"
Tuesday, 24 August 2021
To Say 'Skin-To-Skin' Contact Is Necessary For POCSO Offence Will Mean An Abuser Wearing Gloves Getting Acquittal : Attorney General
MINIMUM PENSION UPGRADATION- COMPLIANCE OR CIRCUMVENTION?
MINIMUM PENSION UPGRADATION- COMPLIANCE OR CIRCUMVENTION?
The Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 27/4/2017, directed LIC to provide upgradation of pension for those who are placed in minimum pension as at the time of wage revisions, when minimum pension is revised in conjunction with revision of scales of pay. As per the information secured by me under RTI Act, 2169 pensioners got the benefit of upgradation in minimum pension as a result of the judgment. But when I delve into the matter in the light of some grievances received by me from some family pensioners, I have a hunch that much more than 2169 pensioners should have deserved the benefits of DHC judgment but may have been denied their rightful benefit from LIC.
LIVE CASE OF A FAMILY PENSIONER
There was a case of a family pensioner who was the spouse of a deceased employee in the cadre of an Assistant (ex-serviceman) of Raichur Division who retired on 30/6/2003 and later unfortunately died on 25/3/2015.Being an ex-serviceman with just 17 years of qualified service, his Basic Pay at the time of retirement was only Rs 11800. The family pensioner was fixed at the minimum pension of Rs 2330 as per the August 2002 wage revision rate. The next wage revision with effect from 1/8/2012 was notified in January 2016 but as per the Pension Rules, the family pensioner was not entitled to any benefit of upgradation then. But after the DHC judgment, it was clear that the family pensioner was eligible for upgradation in minimum pension as she had started getting family pension much after the effective date of eligibility indicated in the DHC judgment. Because the minimum pension as at 1/8/2007 was Rs 2950 and that as at 1/8/2012 at Rs 4720 in the respective subsequent wage revisions, considering the start of her family pension from 26/3/2015, she should have been fixed at a minimum pension of Rs 4720 right from 26/3/2015 when her gross monthly revised minimum pension was more than her existing gross pension fixed. When the matter was taken up with Raichur DO by the family pensioner in 2018, she was informed by the DO/OS-Pension section that she was not entitled to any upgraded pension. I had even talked to SDM, Raichur to help the family pensioner, but there was no positive outcome as a reference to ZO by the DO had evoked a negative decision from the ZO.A letter was received by the family pensioner on 7/4/2021 from the Raichur DO that as informed by ZO, she was already receiving more than the minimum pension.
Recently I again calculated her entitlement under four scenarios and found that Rs 4720 as applicable on the date of her becoming a family pensioner was the most beneficial one considering the highest gross pension as at 31/7/2021.I had even taken up with ZM who sincerely responded to me, but even that could not help as the Assistant Secretary in the ZO confirmed that the ZO calculations were correct and Central Office had also confirmed the correctness. But no calculations were furnished to the family pensioner.
While making my calculations, I had also validated my calculations with the help of Mr C T Joshi and on further discussions with Mr Joshi, one thing became clear. In order to decide whether the existing minimum pension or revised minimum pension was more beneficial,LIC seems to have compared the existing Basic minimum pension plus DR upto the effective date of wage revision( in this case 1/8/2012) with the revised minimum basic pension on that date.The gross pension on Basic pension of Rs 2330 as at 1/8/2012 becomes 4825 which was higher than 4720 which was the total revised minimum pension. But in the first full month of April 2015, the revised gross minimum pension was Rs 5976 while the pre-revised gross pension was less at Rs 5941. Thus, the family pensioner has been denied the upgraded family pension by taking a reference date more than two years before she started receiving family pension for deciding which was higher. The gross minimum pension which was higher on 1/8/2012 became lower than the upgradeable revised gross minimum pension as at 30/4/2015! And LIC did not provide the calculations to the family pensioner.
I understand from the son of the family pensioner that the family pensioner will seek the calculations by making an application under RTI Act.
THE GENERAL ANOMALY ARISING OUT OF LIC's INTERPRETATION OF DHC JUDGMENT
What emerges from the above is that while 2169 pensioners have received the benefit of the upgradation as per the DHC judgment, one cannot be sure how many regular pensioners and family pensioners receiving minimum pension have been denied the benefit of upgradation by LIC adopting the faulty basis. 'Whichever is more beneficial' stated in the DHC judgment can be on the reference date taken by LIC and also subsequent when pre-revised pension has been paid to the minimum pensioner.As time passes , with increased slabs of DR every half year the revised gross minimum progressively surpasses the gross pre-revised minimum pension at a rapid pace .In such a situation ,not LIC but the pensioner will have to exercise the option to decide which is more beneficial and there cannot be a summary denial of the court directed right of upgradation in minimum pension .
I give below trend of effect of upgradation of minimum pension in the light of the DHC judgment over the period of the last 4 wage revisions:
REGULAR PENSION
Wage revision date | Minimum Basic Pension | Minimum Basic Pension | Minimum Existing Basic Pension +DR till the date of upgradation | Gross upgraded Minimum pension in August 2021 | Existing Gross Pension in August 2021 | CAGR of existing gross pension over the period of upgradation (%) | CAGR of upgraded gross minimum pension (%) |
01-08-1997 | 1100 | 1480 | 1472 | 5218 | 5022 | Not applicable |
|
01-08-2002 | 1480 | 1880 | 1890 | 5402 | 5218 | 7.52 | 7.83 |
01-08-2007 | 1880 | 3010 | 3124 | 5442 | 5402 | 6.28 | 6.80 |
01-08-2012 | 3010 | 4070 | 4247 | 5363 | 5442 | 6.39 | 7.14 |
FAMILY PENSIONERS IN 15% LAST SALARY SLAB
Wage revision date | Minimum Basic Pension | Minimum upgraded Basic Pension from next wage revision effective date | Minimum Existing Basic Pension +DR till the date of upgradation | Gross upgraded Minimum pension in August 2021 | Existing Gross Pension in August 2021 | CAGR of existing gross pension over the period of upgradation | CAGR of upgraded gross minimum pension |
01-08-1997 | 1740 | 2330 | 2328 | 8214 | 7943 | Not applicable |
|
01-08-2002 | 2330 | 2950 | 2976 | 8477 | 8214 | 7.52 | 7.83 |
01-08-2007 | 2950 | 4720 | 4901 | 8534 | 8477 | 6.28 | 6.80 |
01-08-2012 | 4720 | 6370 | 6660 | 8393 | 8534 | 6.39 | 7.14 |
It will be seen from the above that the gross upgraded minimum pension gallops at a faster pace than the pre-revised gross minimum pension. So, when wage revisions take place nearly 3 to 4 years after the effective date, it will be wrong on the part of LIC to take the reference date as the effective date of wage revision , but the date of notification should be taken as reference date instead ,to determine the eligibility for upgradation .More importantly, even if the revised minimum pension-when lower- is preferred for long term benefit by the pensioner, the same should be allowed by LIC which will conform to the true spirit of the DHC judgment.
In the latest circular issued by Central Office, the rates of Minimum Pension have been decided in such a manner that as per the basis adopted by LIC , not a single regular pensioner nor family pensioner will get upgradation in minimum pension w e f 1/8/2017.This means that upgradation in minimum pension as implemented by LIC is nothing but farcical. We, from the Retired LIC Class I Officers' Association, Hyderabad have already written a letter to LIC Chairperson pointing out the anomaly. I believe that majority of pensioners affected in this process may be from Class IV & Class III cadres as well as ex-servicemen. In some way this fact will have to be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court on 10/9/2021 when hearings resume on our SLPs.
I propose to crystallize my thoughts in the light of the above and address a letter to Chairperson after waiting for sometime for enhancement in family pension to 30% of last pay when the anomalies in family pension may get resolved. Interestingly, even though, minimum pension has been revised as at 1/8/2017, not a single pensioner will be eligible for the upgraded minimum pension as the revised minimum pension in all cases will be less than the pre-revised gross minimum pension as at 1/8/2017.
C H Mahadevan
Guhati HC Judgment on Enhanced Pension from age 80
PIB :Finance Ministry meeting with Infosys on glitches in e-filing portal of Income Tax Department
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
23 AUG 2021 6:48PM by PIB Delhi
Union Minister for Finance & Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman took a meeting with Mr. Salil Parekh, MD & CEO, Infosys here today afternoon to convey the deep disappointment and concerns of the Government and the taxpayers about the continuing glitches in the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department even after two and half months since its launch, which was also delayed. Smt. Sitharaman sought an explanation from Infosys for the repeated issues faced by taxpayers.
The Ministry of Finance emphasised that there is a need for putting in more resources and efforts on the part of Infosys so that the much delayed delivery of agreed services is ensured. Mr. Parekh was also sensitised on the difficulties that the taxpayers were facing and the problems that are arising on account of the delays in the functioning of the portal.
The Finance Minister demanded that the issues faced by taxpayers on current functionalities of the portal should be resolved by the team by 15th September, 2021 so that taxpayers and professionals can work seamlessly on the portal.
Mr. Parekh explained that he and his team are doing everything to ensure the smooth functioning of the portal. Further, Mr. Parekh said that over 750 team members are working on this project and Mr. Pravin Rao COO of Infosys, is personally overseeing this project. Mr. Parekh also assured that Infosys is working expeditiously to ensure a glitch-free experience to the taxpayers on the portal.
****
RM/KMN