https://m.economictimes.com/wealth/save/these-seniors-citizens-can-submit-annual-life-certificate-for-pension-from-october-1/articleshow/94576689.cms?utm_source=email_pwa&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialsharebuttons
Saturday, 1 October 2022
Our case in SC
Respected Sir,
I have gone through the contention of respected Shri C H Mahadevan ji. My submission in respect of 35(1) is that we should not relegate this Rule as a one-off provision. Even if the respondents argue on these lines, we would have to strongly contend against this line of argument. Further recent SC judgment ruling that whenever a rule can be interpreted in two different ways the one which is favorable to the pensioners would have to be accepted.
With Regards,
Dattatraya B Deshpande
How Inflation in economy results in hidden income tax hikes
How Inflation in economy results in hidden income tax hikes: Tax brackets represent the currency amount that stratifies taxable income of a person. Personal income taxes usually have various tax rates starting at different income levels. If these fixed income levels aren’t adjusted periodically, taxes can go up substantially simply because of inflation. This is kind of a hidden tax hike. This problem of hidden […]
Exposure Draft - IRDAI (Issuance of e-Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2022
Exposure Draft - IRDAI (Issuance of e-Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2022: Exposure Draft - Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Issuance of e-Insurance Policies) Regulations, 2022- To promote efficiency in conduct of insurance business and provide for appropriate framework for electronic mode of solicitation and servicing of insurance policies
Interest rates of small saving schemes for October 22 to December 22
Interest rates of small saving schemes for October 22 to December 22: Revision of interest rates for Small Savings Schemes for Q3 of 2022-23 (i.e. from 1st October, 2022 to 31st December, 2022) Interest rates of small saving schemes for the Third quarter of financial year 2022-23 starting from 1st October, 2022 and ending on 31st December, 2022. Small saving schemes includes PPF, NSC, Senior Citizen Savings Schemes, Sukanya Samriddhi […]
Supreme Court Bench Of Justices DY Chandrachud & Hima Kohli Hears Cases Till 9:10 PM, 5 Hours Extra Regular Timings
Supreme Court Bench Of Justices DY Chandrachud & Hima Kohli Hears Cases Till 9:10 PM, 5 Hours Extra Regular Timings https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-bench-of-justices-dy-chandrachud-hima-kohli-hears-cases-till-910-pm-5-hours-extra-regular-timings-210720
Submission of Investment Proof - An annual essential task
Submission of Investment Proof - An annual essential task: The tax season is just over, and income tax filing is an essential task annually. We Hope everyone filed ITR and even got their refund. Now that the ITR filing is done, if you are an employee, the other important task is the Submission of Proof of investment that has to be done every year. […]
Pension Credit on first of the month
Most difficult terrain because of 30 Sep Bank closing & our polite Reminders for care with Internal PCell & Accts Dept PLUS good sound PR with LIC Bankers for pension credit all worked wonders
Thank you dear colleagues & worthy pensioners for the flash intimation on World Elders Day
Click our website airiefvision.wordpress.com & ENJOY ELDERS DAY BANNER POSTED PAINSTAKINGLY
RBKISHORE
Pension for September 2022
Pension credited
at 6.30 am today
Axis Bank
DO Karnal ,Northern Zone
R K Sahni
Kurukshetra
Haryana
Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (2016=100) – August, 2022
XClose
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment
30 SEP 2022 7:04PM by PIB Delhi
Government of India
Ministry of Labour & Employment
30 SEP 2022 7:04PM by PIB Delhi
Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (2016=100) – August, 2022
The Labour Bureau, an attached office of the M/o Labour & Employment, has been compiling Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers every month on the basis of retail prices collected from 317 markets spread over 88 industrially important centres in the country. The index is compiled for 88 centres and All-India and is released on the last working day of succeeding month. The index for the month of August, 2022 is being released in this press release.
Friday, 30 September 2022
Pension Disbursement for September 2022
There is some problem at CO for processing pension.Pension Slip has not been recd by this time. They say it would be sent by evening and pension will be credited tomorrow.
S R Agarwal
Gurugram
BREAKING| Lion Statue Atop New Parliament Building Does Not Violate State Emblem Act : Supreme Court
BREAKING| Lion Statue Atop New Parliament Building Does Not Violate State Emblem Act : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lion-statute-atop-new-parliament-building-does-not-violate-state-emblem-act-supreme-court-210659
All about Debit Cards, Credit Cards, electronic Cards & Prepaid Cards
All about Debit Cards, Credit Cards, electronic Cards & Prepaid Cards: Cards can be classified on the basis of their issuance, usage and payment by the card holder. There are four types of cards (a) debit, (b) credit, (c) prepaid, and (d) electronic.
Device based Tokenisation – Card Transactions
Device based Tokenisation – Card Transactions: A tokenised card transaction is considered safer as the actual card details are not shared with the merchant during transaction processing.
Our Pension case in SC
The tweaking of the DR formula by the Delhi HC in its judgment dated 27/4/2017 was arbitrary and went against a standard formula adopted both in case of LIC and Banks after each wage revision taking into account the changes in the AICPI at which the DA was merged with Basic Pay while effecting five yearly wage revisions.What is surprising is that the faulty judgment was not contested by LIC which conveniently left it to the six petitioners to file SLPs.LIC also implemented the DHC judgment faultily in that the DR rate for para 1 retirees drawing over 2130 upto 3850 was fixed at 0.23% only instead of 0.29% ,perhaps taking advantage of some typographical error in the judgment at one place, even though it was made clear at another para.( Of course even the maximum for EDs was 3500 and only MDs & Chairmen retired prior to 1/1/1996 would have been drawing basic pension above 3500 upto 4000). LIC also did not take steps till date to amend the Pension Rules to incorporate the changes ordered by DHC which it did not challenge. Perhaps the faulty judgment of DHC suited LIC to avoid getting itself weakened in the matter of upgradation by challenging the DHC judgment.
All the grounds of Pension being a right, a deferred compensation for past services, property under Article 300A etc are quite valid.But what is required to be stressed before the SC by our counsel is that right to pension is inseparable from right to upgradation of pension.That is where applicability of Rule 56 needs to be argued for together with the discrimination caused by Rule 55 B providing benefit of upgradation to Chairmen & MDs retired after 1/1/1996 through the route of application of Rule 56 selectively to the exclusion of lower cadres thereby attracting the ratio of the D S Nakara case judgment.
According to me , the most serious aspect of unconstitutionality in LIC Pension Rules 1995 is the existence of two classes of pensioners under the same Pension Rules, viz, that covered by Rule 55 B and the other covered by other Rules with disparate benefits.
Rule 35(1) is of course proof of one time upgradation in basic pension restricted to employees retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/7/1987.Its being one time for one segment of retirees might have been justified upto 31/12/1995, but with the 5th Central Pay Commission Recommendations being implemented with provisions for upgradation of pension, it is untenable to deny upgradationof pension to all eligible, especially in the context of Rule 56 & Rule 55 B.
These are the grounds on which our case has to be argued in the Supreme Court.
C H Mahadevan
On Thu, 29 Sept 2022, 20:58 Seetha And Kishore, <rbkseetha@yahoo.com> wrote:
----- Forwarded Message -----From: Ramamoorthy G <grama1937@hotmail.com>To: RB Kishore LIC <rbkseetha@yahoo.com>; rbkseetha <rbkseetha@gmail.com>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 07:45:33 PM GMT+5:30Subject: Our Pension case in SCRespected Sir,I wish to reiterate the following points :The 100% Neutralisation of DR rate of 0.23% per slab was for the Pay Scales linked to CPI 1740 points with effect from 1-8-1997 wherein the Government liberalised the DR formula from abolishing the Tapering method to Uniform rate method adding Para 3A to Appendix IV of Pension Rules 1995.While delivering the judgement on 27-4-2017, the DHC wanted to apply this liberalised DR formula to those pensioners who were retired prior to 1-8-1997 also , by retaining the Tapering formula to certain extent of Basic pension, stating that they were also given 100% DR Neutrilisstion. Here I wish to state, for the pension prevailing at the time of formulating Pension Rules 1995, linked to CPI 1148 points, the 100% Neutrilisstion was at the Rate of 0.67% upto Basic pension of 1250 only and above that, Tapering formula was applied. Here we should note that 0,67% was 100% DR for the pension linked to 600 points whereas 0.23% , also 100% DR Neutrilisstion, applied to the Basic pensions linked to 1740 points of CPI. Therefore it is not justified to apply this 0.23% to those pensioners whose pension was linked to 1148 points.If the Court wants to apply the 100% DR formula without upgrading the Basic pensions to those who retired prior to 1-8-1997, then they should allow 0.67% , which was 100% Neutrilisstion at 600 points uniformly without Tapering formula.The SC, in many cases observed, that any liberalisation under the same Pension Rules should be extended to all.In a recent judgement the Court observed thus:" Pension Rules Must Be Interpreted In Favour Of Employee when More Than One Interpretation Is Possible : Supreme Court"I humbly note that our LS G Chairman elaborately discussed all these points in his speech at OB,/EC Meeting held on 17 and 18th August 2022 at Ahmedabad.The Government is controlling our Service Rules under which our Pension Rules 1995 were notified.Similar Pension Rules were also notified for RBI and Bank pensioners. Inrespect of RBI pensioners, they have allowed upgradation to some extent. But for others they are silent. In this connection it will be worthwhile to note the observations of the Courts in Pension cases :1. In matters of pension, there has to be a holistic approach and not constricted interpretation of certain provisions. ( Kerala High court)2. The petitioners rely on Regulation 35(1), as amended on 18.05.2002, to contend that their basic pension is bound to be updated in consonance with the increase in the pay band. Reliance is also placed on Regulation 56 which provides that, in case of doubt as regards application of the Regulations, corresponding provisions of the Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, applicable3. Reference is made to the decisions of the Apex Court to contend that pension is no longer a bounty to be disbursed according to the whims of the employer and has acquired the status of property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.4. In D.S.Nakara (supra), after detailed consideration of this aspect, the Apex Court held as under;
"31. From the discussion three things emerge: (i) that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character because they are enacted in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution; (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past service rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare5. the modern notions of social justice and social security, concept of pension underwent a radical change and it is now well- settled that pension is a right and payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the employer, nor can it be denied at the sweet will or fancy of the employer.6. Pension, is a life long benefit. Denial of pension is a continuing wrong. This Court cannot also be oblivious to the difficulties of a retired employeeWe hope that our Sr Advocate would place all relevant points before the SC when our Case is taken up.Submitted with respects,G Ramamoorthy.Get Outlook for Android
Thursday, 29 September 2022
MOONLIGHTING
MOONLIGHTING
When I first read about this term I was confused, what is this? 300 people got fired because of this?
I enquired and came to know that IT professionals in their Work From Home avtaar joined other companies who were also in Work From Home mode.
Same competency, double delivery. Two different laptops, same WiFi , catering to two different clients - all from the comfort of own home, in own hometown.
In both networks/ jobs performing exceedingly well - just to avoid suspicion.
It was impossible to catch them .
Then who caught them?
The most innocent looking, unassuming, always in the background - Provident Fund Contribution.
Govt mandated that PF contribution has to be deposited regularly and it's violation was a serious offence.
Lo behold, as all aadhar, PAN numbers are taken by banks to open salary account, same are used to deposit PF, same are required by companies to do back ground check.
Systems are so beautifully integrated at the back end that it was next to impossible for these moonlighters to create two identities both financially and demographically.
So the PF runs a daily De-Duplication algorithm to check if someone has paid double accidentally.
In this case they found out that - there are accounts of individuals, where contributors are multiple.
This was reported to companies, and the entire Bhanumati ka kunaba came down crashing.
This is the power of Digital India working at grass roots level to weed out corruption. Modiji saw this potential years ago and has been incessantly prodding Govt organisations to go digital. Today our UPI and Aadhar technology stack is the most sought after in the world.
In the background, India is integrating all of its islands of excellence. All data bases of Govt are moving towards unified integration at a very fast pace. An open architecture where every database talks to other seamlessly without human intervention.
We are the only country in the world where delivery of citizen centric services through technology has matured to a level where it's become way of life.
- Rohit Bhardwaj
Digital Troubles 😒
Courtesy:R B Kishore
CSR-Funded Private Jails : Supreme Court Gives Suggestions To Centre On Prison Reforms
CSR-Funded Private Jails : Supreme Court Gives Suggestions To Centre On Prison Reforms https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/csr-funded-private-jails-supreme-court-give-suggestions-to-centre-on-prison-reforms-210611
Clarification in operation of Senior Citizens’ Savings Scheme
Ministry of Finance
Clarification in operation of Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme
Posted Date:- Sep 29, 2022In the operation of Senior Citizens' Savings Scheme (SCSS), it has been noticed in few cases on the death of the account holder, operating agencies are closing the SCSS account by treating it as premature closure.
In this context, attention is drawn to Rule 7(2) of SCSS, and the following is clarified:
- in cases where the SCSS account holder/s passes away and the account is being closed on request of the nominee/legal heir, the rate of interest as applicable on SCSS scheme shall be paid till the date of demise the account holder. Thereafter, the interest rate applicable on Post Office Savings Account shall be paid from the date of demise of the account holder till the date of final closure of the account.
- Premature closure clause does not trigger on account of demise of the SCSS account holder. The premature closure of the account is applicable only when the SCSS account holder requests for closure of own SCSS account before the maturity period. In such cases of premature closure of the account, a penalty shall be levied as mentioned in the rule 6 of the SCSS.
****
RM/PPG/KMN
Consent Of Woman's Family Not Needed For Abortion, Doctors Cannot Impose Extra Legal Conditions : Supreme Court
Consent Of Woman's Family Not Needed For Abortion, Doctors Cannot Impose Extra Legal Conditions : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/consent-of-womans-family-not-needed-for-abortion-doctors-cannot-impose-extra-legal-conditions-supreme-court-210606
Cir78 AIRIEF PST 2709-2022.pdf Cir
Dear Friends,
-- TO ALL THE OBS AND EC MEMBERS OF AIRIEF AND OBS OF ALL RIEAS --
-- FOR WIDEST CIRCULATION AMONG THEM AND AMONG THE NEIGHBOURING RIEAS --
In the last circular, we committed to give the details of Ahmedabad meeting -Part 2 - which is attached herewith, along with the text of Sri Agnihotri's address.
With greetings,
Sincerely yours,
G Krishna swamy
GS AIRIEF
29-09-2022
Gist of my speech in OB/EC meeting held on 17 & 18 Aug. 2022 at Ahmedabad
Gist of my speech in OB/EC meeting held on 17 & 18 Aug. 2022 at Ahmedabad
From a number of messages floating on WhatsApp platform as also telephonic queries in respect of our court cases on DR disparity and Pension Updation, it appeared that the issues of the case and preparation done by AIRIEF was not fully known to a majority of members. So, in the OBs/EC meeting held at Ahmedabad on 17th and 18th Aug. 2022, I preferred to talk on these issues.
SC Judgment dated 31/03/2016
SC directed DHC to decide constitutional validity of Para 3A keeping in view the Dearness Relief (DR) paid to pre-aug.1997 pensioners and also to deal with the case of the persons who have retired after 1/8/1997 and who are not being given the requisite dearness relief based on subsequent pay revisions. (Para 17,19, 23 of SC judgment). Thus, the following issues were to be considered by the DHC:
i. DR anomaly to Pre-Aug 1997 pensioners, and
ii. Pension disparity as the requisite DR based on subsequent pay revision is not paid.
DR disparity:
As per para 1 of Appendix IV, applicable to pensioners retired before 1st Aug '92, full neutralisation of DR (@ 0.67%) is given only to those who receive Basic Pension of Rs. 1250/- or less. For others there is tapering rate of DR viz. 0.55%, 0.33%, 0.17% (which is not full neutralisation), depending upon their Basic Pension in excess of Rs 1250.
As per para 2 of Appendix IV, applicable to pensioners retired between the period from 1/8/1992 to 31/7/1997, full neutralisation of DR (@ 0.35%) is given up to Basic Pension of Rs. 2400/- only. Thereafter, tapering rate of DR viz. 0.29%, 0.17%, 0.9%, (which is not full neutralisation) depending on the Basic Pension in excess of Rs 2400/- is paid.
As per Para 3A of Appendix IV, full neutralisation of DR (@ 0.23%) is paid to all irrespective of their Basic Pension.
Formula of calculating Rate of DR per slab for Full neutralisation at a given CPI (slab of 4 points)
Rate of DR = 100 / No. of Slabs
Thus, rate of DR for full neutralisation for various CPI are as under:
| Wage RevisionPeriod | CPI | No. of Slabs | Rate of DR(100/No. of Slabs) |
| 1983 – 1987 (for those who retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987) | 332 | 83 | 100/83 = 1.20% |
| 1987 - 1992 | 600 | 150 | 100/150 = 0.67% |
| 1992 - 1997 | 1148 | 287 | 100/287 = 0.35% |
| 1997 – 2002 | 1740 | 435 | 100/435 = 0.23% |
(1.20% is the full neutralisation rate of DR for the wage revision period ending on 31/7/1987 and CPI for the said wage revision was 332 as per wage revision notification dated 12/04/1985 para 9)
Para 3A of the same Appendix provides for full neutralisation to all the pensioners irrespective of Basic Pension whereas Para 1 and 2 provide tapered neutralisation as explained hereinabove, hence only a small section of pensioners drawing low basic pension benefits from full Rate of DA neutralization. Thus, the Para 3A is discriminatory as it leaves out Pensioners retired before 1st August 1997. This discrimination would be removed only when earlier pensioners covered in Para 1 and 2 of the Appendix IV are also given the benefit of full neutralisation of DR irrespective of their Basic Pension.
Discrimination caused due to Rule 35 (1)
Rule 35 (1) states that in respect of employees who retired during the period from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987, Basic Pension will be updated by merging DR as per the formula provided in Appendix III. At the time of retirement of such employees rate of DA was 1.20% (maximum) at CPI 332. With updation of their Basic Pension as per the formula in Appendix III, Rate of DR allowed to them was 0.67% (Maximum) at CPI 600 (not 1.20% at CPI 332 at which their Pay Scales were determined). Thus, they were brought at par with the employees who retired during subsequent wage revision period (i.e. from 1/8/1987 to 31/7/1992).
The provision of updating the Basic Pension with subsequent wage revisions should have continued as was proposed by LIC vide the Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001. (Merger of DR payable first at CPI 1148 and then at CPI 1740 for those covered in Para 1 and at 1740 for those covered in Para 2 and giving the then latest rate of DR @ 0.23% uniformly to all ensuring full neutralisation of DR to all.)
The provision should have been continued with every subsequent wage revision, providing uniform and the latest rate of DR to all the pensioners.
DHC Judgment dated 27/04/2017
A. DHC erred, while observing vide Para 8 of the judgment that Para 3A is not the issue but the demand of the petitioners' pensioners is enforcement of the precept of OROP. DHC has travelled beyond the direction of SC. As stated in our WP (C) vide para 15 and 16 our issues were:
i. DR anomaly – caused to the pre-Aug. 1997 retired pensioners who are not getting full neutralisation of DR whereas those retired after 1/8/1997 are getting full neutralisation,
ii. Pension anomaly – caused to those also, who are retired after 1/8/1997 and whom full neutralisation of DR is given but not as per the formula in operation in the Corporation. With every wage revision the formula of DA/DR is revised, but earlier retiree pensioners are not given DR at the current rate in operation.
B. DHC erred (vide Para 10) stating that the Pension Rules were based upon consensus and understanding between the Corporation, the Central Government and the Employees' Unions. The Pension Rules are made by the Central Government exercising its power given in Sec 48 (2) (cc) of LIC of India Act, 1956. The employees' unions had not signed any MOU or settlement as the powers of bargaining by the employees were withdrawn from the employees by amending Sec 48 of LIC of India Act, 1956. Sub-section (2B) and (2C) of Sec 48 of LIC of India Act, 1956 specifically provided that the Service Rules and Pension Rules made by the Central Government will be beyond the scope of any labour laws including ID Act.
C. DHC has erred vide Para 21 of the judgment dated 27/4/2017 by not considering the anomaly created by 35 (1) on the plea that formula given in Appendix-III was not challenged and therefore need not be examined. We demanded for pension updation by merger of DR as is done vide Rule 35 (1). We did not want to challenge the matrix of merger of DR as it was already proposed by LIC vide the Board Resolution and was never disputed by us.
D. DHC erred vide para 35 to conclude that the principle of dearness relief acknowledges that basic pension would remain static and not account for the future increase in salary of in service employees. It is not so as the Rule 35 (1) itself provides for updation of pension with wage revision. Para 1 of the Appendix IV, provides for the same rate of DR at CPI 600 to the employees who retired during the period from 1/1/1986 to 31/10/1992, which covers the employees who retired in following three wage revision periods:
| Wage Revision Period | CPI at which rate of DA calculated | Rate of DA (Maximum) |
| 1983* - 31/07/1987 | 332 | 1.20 |
| 1/8/1987 - 31/07/1992 | 600 | 0.67 |
| 1/8/1992 - 31/10/1992# | 1148 | 0.35 |
• For Class 1 Officers effective date is 1/10/1983, for Class 2 Officers 2 effective date is 1/4/1988 and for Class 3 and Class 4 effective date is 22/2/1983.
#. This group was allowed rate of DR at CPI 1148 on revised basic because of wage revision vide notification dated 22/04/1997 (Para 3).
Thus, the observation of DHC is not correct.
E. DHC, (para 76) held the provisions of Para 3A violative of Art. 14. Prescribing a solution, DHC states in the same para, "Retired employees covered under paragraphs 1 and 2 are entitled to neutralization at ratio/scale as applicable and given to employees retiring post 31st July, 1997." In para 79 DHC directed that the rate of DR on amounts above Rs. 2130 /- till Rs. 3850/- fixed in paragraph 1 at 0.17% of basic pension shall be enhanced to the rate of 0.29% as specified in clause (ii) of paragraph 2. Further, for pension in excess of Rs. 2130 (it should be 3850) rate of 0.23% of basic pension as stated in paragraph 3 (A) would apply with effect from applicable date. Both the above stated conclusions of DHC on rate of dearness relief are erroneous as explained herein below:
Rate of DR is calculated on the CPI at which revised pay scales are determined. Dearness Relief is added/reduced on every four point above the given CPI. So, consideration of number of slabs of each four points each above the said CPI are is also relevant and hence essential.
DR = Basic Pension x rate of DR x No. of slabs
So, rate of DR, number of slabs and Basic Pension have to be on linked to the same CPI at which pay scales were determined.
DR @ 0.23% cannot be applied to the pensioners covered in Para 1 and Para 2 of Annexure IV, unless their Basic Pension is updated by merging the DR up to CPI 1740.
DHC held Para 3 A discriminatory to the pensioners covered under Para 1 and 2 and intends intended to give the benefit of DR equalization (similar treatment to all) to them at par with the pensioners covered under Para 3A. But it has to be done in a logical manner. As stated in earlier para, a given rate of DR is relevant to a particular CPI and corresponding pay scales. By comparing and applying the rate of DR @ 0.23% (which is for the pay scales existing as on 1/8/1997 at CPI 1740) with/to the pay scales existing as on 1//1/1993 at CPI 1148 is neither logical nor mathematically correct. Similarly applying the rate of DR @ 0.29 to some categories of the pensioners covered in para 1 is also illogical and inaccurate.
In addition to the issues of our SLPs., as described above, the following points were also discussed:
A. We have approached the courts to challenge the faulty rules which are creating grave discrimination and violating Art. 14 of the Constitution. By challenging a rule does not mean that it is to be quashed but to eliminate the discrimination by allowing same benefit to others (like hundred percent neutralisation of DR to all Pre-Aug. 1997 retiree pensioners, as is given to post 1997 retiree pensioners, and updation of pension with every wage revision to those retired after 1/8/1987, as given to those who retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/1987)).
B. DHC has erred to treat the contribution to Pension Fund as the Pension Pay out. Pension is paid monthly till the regular pensioner and after him/her, the family pensioner survives. So, the actual amount paid to the retiree pensioners is the amount of Pension Pay out. LIC does not talk about the actual payment of pension/family pension paid to the retired employees but talk about the projected liability provided for payment of pension to the employees who are to retire in future. Following figures on payment of pension for the year 2020-21 may be analysed to know the correct position:
Pension paid to the retired employees who have opted for pension: Rs. 2214.00 Crs.,
Contribution: Rs.10070.74 Crs.,
Benefits paid: Rs. 4298.57 Crs.
LIC treats the contribution of Rs. 10070.74 Crs. as the cost of 'pension pay-out' whereas the amount of pension paid is Rs. 2214.00 Crs. only. LIC Pension Scheme is the main retirement benefit given to the employees by LIC. The Pension Scheme is not a contributory or restricted fund scheme. It is a Funded Scheme with the provision for adding contribution for upward revision of the Pension. As per the various assumptions, to calculate the fair Asset Value of the Scheme, one assumption is about the Expected average remaining working lives of Employees (years), which restricts the term of refurbishment of the Fund (as on 31.3.2021 it is taken as 7.9 yrs) whereas the pension is to be paid for a much longer duration. So, it is not fair to treat the 'contribution' as 'pension pay-out' for the existing pensioners.
C. The back ground of AIRIEF's becoming the party was also discussed.
D. In addition to the court proceedings, efforts for negotiations with LIC management, Finance Minister and Officials of DFS were also discussed where the LSG help the Negotiating Committee to prepare the representations, follow up letters keeping in view the Rules, etc. Contribution of Shri A V Tyagi, as a very effective instrumentality in arranging these meetings was shared with the participants who applauded the efforts of Shri Tyagi Ji and expressed sincere gratitude to him.
E. Efforts made by AIRIEF to have a joint front of all the Pensioners Associations and petitioners in the legal case, were discussed in brief, which includes Chennai Meeting of the joint front held on 2/2/ 2019, meeting with the then MoS (Finance), Additional Secretary (Financial Services – Insurance), Chairman LIC, etc.
In the end of my address, suggestions and queries from the house were invited and explanations, wherever necessary were given.
M P Agnihotri. 07/09/2022
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)