IBA AFFIDAVIT

The IBA affidavit is on the expected lines.We have experienced it in the Counter Affidavit filed by LIC against our SLPs.The petitioners have also filed rejoinder refuting LIC's contentions.There is a misconception that our fortunes are linked with the Bank pensioners getting upgradation of pension.To me it appears that the situation of LIC pensioners is fundamentally different from that of Bank pensioners.The  mechanism in the case of Banks is one of Bipartite settlements for employee benefits including pension  and their Pension Regulations are approved by the respective Bank Boards and thereafter notified by the Central Government. There   negotiations exclude participation of retirees' representatives, but the  matters agreed upon are made binding on pensioners also.They are contractual in character and that provides an escape route to the IBA to deny any  benefit to pensioners not covered by the Bipartite Settlements.On the other hand,in the   case of LIC pensioners, all  benefits flow through the LIC Pension Rules 1995 notifified in the Gazette and other such notifications in the form of amendments.No agreements are signed between LIC and  either with employees' unions or the representative bodies of pensioners.Even the MOU on 14/1/1994 before introduction of the Pension Scheme was unlike the Settlement signed with Bank Employees' Associations on 29/10/1993 by the IBA.The Central Government exercises its powers under Sec 48(2)(cc) of LIC Act 1956 to  notify benefits to employees and pensioners.There is an informal ritual  called 'information sharing' with serving employees' unions' representatives, but no signatures are affixed from the employees' side.Pensioners are not shared with any information relating to their benefits. The LIC Pension Rules 1995 are only statutory rules with no contractual character.In such a situation,The protection of fundamental rights of employees including pensioners becomes sacrosanct and it is now very well and widely known that our Pension Rules as they exist have provisions that violate Articles 14 & 21 of the  Constitution  also attracting the ratio of the DS Nakara judgment case. 

So we need to fight our case from our contextual perspective rather than relating to developments taking place in regard to Bank pensioners.

So  we LIC Pensioners will be well advised to focus on our legal fight in the Supreme Court till the case reaches a logical conclusion.We have to strive our best to marshall the strong grounds in our favour to win  our case for pensioners. 

C H Mahadevan