PENSIONERS' VOICE AND SOUND TRACK APPEALS YOU "USE MASK""KEEP SOCIAL DISTANCE" "GHAR BATHO ZINDA RAHO" "STAY HOME SAVE LIVES"
DEAR FRIENDS, CONGRATS, YOUR BLOG CROSSED 3910000 HITS ON 28.06.2025 THE BLOG WAS LAUNCHED ON 23.11.2014,HAVE A GREAT DAY
VISIT 'PENSIONERS VOICE & SOUND TRACK' WAY TO CATCH UP ON PENSIONER RELATED NEWS!

Friday, 15 April 2022

UPGRADATION IN MEDICLAIM CATEGORIZATION, BUT NOT IN PENSION

UPGRADATION IN MEDICLAIM CATEGORIZATION, BUT NOT IN PENSION

Today my friend and batch mate in LIC , Mr R Chandrasekaran ,Executive Director( Retired), LIC called me on mobile to point out that the Basic Salary as per the latest wage revision was at the threshold of 96140 for Category I under Mediclaim as per the CO circular issued for the current financial year. We have been continuing under Category I thanks to the generosity of LIC in allowing us to continue in the category despite non-upgradation of pension, although  our basic salary on the date of retirement was less than one -fourth  of the present threshold of Rs 96140.

My conversation with my friend impelled me to analyse the situation in terms of disparity created in the premiums paid by the retirees of the various periods of retirement when comparatively considered in terms of percentage of Mediclaim paid as a percentage of gross annual pension. A comparative chart prepared for retired Class I Officers indicated a larger burden placed on older generations of retirees compared to the succeeding generations. The pattern will be similar for other cadres of retirees as well.

The main purpose of my preparing this analysis is to explore ways of bringing this disparity to the notice of the Supreme Court to drive home that the principle of upgradation is selectively adopted by LIC where no financial commitments are involved for the Corporation even while placing a burden on the retirees by way of higher proportion of pension being set apart for the much-needed Mediclaim cover that would have to be paid out of  gross pension based on a stagnant basic pension.

I feel that the various petitioners under the SLPs in Supreme Court need to discuss the issue with their respective counsel to make a case that LIC has indirectly conceded the case for upgradation by keeping the categorisation constant after each wage revision at the same time increasing the burden of the proportion of pension by not providing upgradation of pension. So, this should provide another ground for granting upgradation of pension with every wage revision.

C H Mahadevan

No comments: