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!

Sunday, 30 June 2024

The Recommendations as per LIC Board Resolution dated 24/11/2001 not rejected by Ministry of Finance?

The Union of India had filed a counter affidavit against our Writ Petition in September where they had stated that the recommendations made in the Board Resolution were not accepted.When I made an application under RTI for a copy of the letter of rejection from the Central Government,  I received a reply as per the attached letter in which they have stated  that the information is based on my own assumption and does not constitute 'information' under  Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005.
Does this reply  mean that they consider my assumption wrong?If my assumption is wrong then it means that the Central Government has not rejected the recommendations and also not confirmed such rejection by a letter to LIC.If my assumption was in fact correct, LIC would have furnished a copy of the letter of rejection from the Central Government so that it will also strengthen their position in the Civil Appeals before the Supreme Court. 
The counter affidavit only states that the recommendations were not accepted.It does not automatically mean they were rejected.The only inference can be that they are still pending decision  without acceptance. 
So I take it as an evidence to show that there is no official rejection so far of the Board Recommendations  and the Board Resolution recommending upward revision of  pension w e f 1/8/1997 and applying the rate of DR of 0.23% on the pension so revised is very much alive.The logical corollary will be the same approach will  have to be extended for all retirees who retired after 1/8/1997  over the next five wage revisions upto 1/8/2022.
We need to  brief our Senior Counsels on this point.
C H Mahadevan 



No comments: