Prior to the Board meeting dated 24/11/2001, the LIC had addressed a letter to the Central Government dated 29 the August 2001, vide ref: Per/ER/A/G/345/GovtV/MMS wherein it was mentioned that “there is an urgent need to rationalize the Dearness Relief structure available to different groups of pensioners”.
Is a copy of the above letter available?
Otherwise we have to get it by an application under RTI Act.
C H Mahadevan
i)Further, as The Minutes of the 492nd Meeting of LIC of India held on 24/11/2001 at 11.30am, at Hotel Le Meridian ,New Delhi ,states in Heading “Amendment to LIC of India (Employees)Pension Rules 1995---“UPGRADING of Basic Pension to AICIPI 1740 Points and 100% DA neutralization thereon in respect of Retirees prior to 01/08/1997.”
“examining the proposals as per Board Note in line with the demands made by the Federation viz. giving effect to the proposals from 01.11.1993 and upgradation by giving weightage of 11.25% as in the case of inservice employees, ”
ii) RE CONTENTS OF NOTE PUT UP, for LIC BOARD RESOLUTION,dt 24/11/2001 ,COMMENTS ETC,WHICH VOUCHSAFE HEARTILY & EMBRACES THE CONCEPT OF SAME DR TO PENSIONERS AS THAT FOR EMPLOYEES,ALSO REMOVING ADMINISTRATIVE INCONVENIENCE IN THAT PROCESS, & ABOVE ALL , ANALYSING COST & CONFIRMING IN THE NOTE, THAT 'PENSION UPGRADATION' IS NOT COSTLY & SO LIC CAN ACCEPT & APPROVE,
iii)Whereas THEY SAID IN THAT NOTE PENSION NEW OPTION COST WILL BE PROHIBITIVE, WHICH NOW, IN WAGE DIALOGUE & NEGOTIATIONS,LIC CHAIRMAN APPEARS TO HAVE GIVEN A MENTAL NOD & TOLD THE UNIONS WHO HAVE ALREADY TAKEN UP THE MATTER .THIS ALSO GOES TO SUPPORT REGULAR PENSION UPGRADATION MORE COMFORTABLY & EASILY TO BREAK ANY DEADLOCK
iv)The Hon’ble Kerala High Court goes on to observe, …”the status of the Corporation(KSWC) as a jurist person, as a body corporate with a common seal and its existence would be scuttled and subservient to the dictates of the Government, as if the Corporation is a department in the Government. This is plainly impermissible.”
v) Supreme Court in another case relating to allotment of land had quoted several earlier Supreme Court judgments maintaining the same stand. The extract of the judgment dated 3-06-2010 is given below:-
vi)“Therefore, the law on the question can be summarized to the effect that no higher authority in the hierarchy or an appellate or revisional authority can exercise the powers of the statutory authority not the superior authority can mortgage its wisdom and direct the statutory authority to act in a particular manner . If the appellate or revisional authority takes upon itself the task of the statutory authority and passes an order, it remain unenforceable for the reason that it cannot be termed to be in order passed under the Act”
vii)It is , therefore abundantly clear from the above, that when once after all due considerations & circumstances etc, the Pension Rules, 1995,as a Complete Code by itself, after prolonged talks & negotiation with all Unions for 15 months & more,was promulgated by LIC with Govt Notification, all pros & cons are cleared & the course of Pension Rules, 1995 must run without any interference by Higher Authority or UOI. Here LIC is the Statutory Authority & UOI is the Revisional Authority.
viii) When it comes to Administrative Order, Statutory Provision ,Constitutional Rights or Provision, certainly Constitutional Rights overweigh & eclipse the earlier 2 .& so Supreme & have to be respected in letter & spirit
ix) vividly point out implicit desire & decision of MOF/UOI vide Circular dt 5/1/2015 to CEOs of PSBs/Financial Institutions /Insurance Cos granting assurance of freedom of non-interference in PSBs etc on commercial decisions,personnel mattes etc,which implies autonomy & so, it has to be practiced & implemented
10)B) IMPORTANT & FORCEFUL POINTS EMPHASISING CONSTITUTIONS SUPREMACY & VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS : i ) Revision of pension comes under the Fundamental Rights of the retired employees to equity, equality before law, right to life and dignity as guaranteed under the Constitution, which is binding on the State. It is unfair & unethical to deprive the beneficiaries of what is legitimately due under law. Hon SC has been ruling time and again from the Constitution Bench decision in D.S. Nakra case1983 to ever so many compelling judgements on the same subject & also recent & latest judgment rendered in 2015.
ii)Rules which provide for differential treatment amongst the same class of employees are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and are not enforceable. While in the instant case the retired employees are being treated unequally in as much several classes have come up amongst the one class of retired employees (pensioners), this mini-classification itself is violative of Articles 14, 16. No law permits creation of different classes amongst one class. THIS will be a CLINCHING ARGUMENT & must be dinned into the ears of Hon SC Bench positively
a) However as per the case examples given by the 7th CPC itself, a Secretary to the Government of India retiring on 31 August, 1992 was in receipt of a basic pension of ₹4,000 per month. The basic pension after implementation of the V and VI CPC got revised to ₹13,000 and ₹40,000 respectively. With the benefit of dearness relief this pensioner is on date entitled to a total payout in terms of pension and dearness relief of Rs87,600.
b)Further, as a pensioner who is over 80 years of age he is entitled to an additional pension equivalent to 20 percent of basic basic pension. In effect the pensioner is in receipt of a total payout of ₹105,120 per month as on date.
In comparison we are drawing LESS THAN one third of that pension now
iii)Basic Pension remains unchanged & static right from 1/11/ 1993 more than 22yrs ,making insurance pensioners still struggling with IV Pay Commission mode ! The pathetic condition of a class of people arbitrarily alienated from the beneficial stream of pensioners due to delay,dither & not to comply with the judgement is sad and ,when it is arbitrary,it is unconstitutional. Institutions trying to create classes of pensioners ,heterogeneous, instead of one homogeneous group, subdividing & subclassifying ,though all are having same length of service,is unconstitutional .
iv)Nothing should be in derogation of Fundamental Rights or no abridgement of such Rights,if there is any such law, then that law is inconsistent ,as Rule of res judicta comes into play laying concerns on impractical pleas, not in tune with the facts & circumstances of the case,
v)Why different yardstick are adopted, on the other hand , more sympathy & empathy should be displayed by Corporation, as Pensioners are Sr Citizens& Elders, aged & majority above 70 years old & moer than 15,000 pensioners have already died.
vi)When discrimination occurs, when the right to equality is violated, it automatically deprives this group pensioners of their inviolable right earned by them by this provision in an egalitarian of the provisions of the Constitution of India, especially the Fundamental Rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, is liable to be struck down as illegal and the appellant herein being a State as defined under the Constitution cannot claim immunity for its policy decisions, that too when the said policy decision can not stand on its own legs.
vii)A classification founded on such fortuitous circumstance as date of retirement would not stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution .” Hon Supreme Court has given an important ruling in that “all pensioners form a homogenous class irrespective of their dates of retirement and are entitled to same relief as subsequent retirees etc.’ As such. pension should be fixed,revised,modified & changed in ways ,not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees
viii)It will be interesting to know & place the perspective before Hon SC Bench by our Sr Counsel re CG Pension ,RP & FP-
7th PayCommission PENSION & FAMILY PENSION
10.1.17 Minimum and Maximum Pension: The minimum and maximum pension as
admissible based on recommendations of successive CPCs/decision of Government thereon is
as under:
Amount (₹)
CPC Minimum Pension Maximum Pension
IV CPC 375 4,500
V CPC 1,275 15,000
VI CPC 3,500 45,000
10.1.18 Minimum and Maximum Family Pension: The minimum and maximum family
pension as admissible, based on recommendations of successive CPCs/decision of
Government thereon is as under:
Amount (₹)
CPC Minimum Family Pension Maximum Family Pension
IV CPC 375 1,250
V CPC 1,275 9,000
VI CPC 3,500 27,000
For 7th PC,Maximum Pension, one can know from Basic Pay.
Top Scale : Rs 2,50,000 Next Scale :Rs1,12,500
FP is 30 % of Basic Pay for CG Pensioners.
ix)SIGNIFICANCE & MEANING OF THE SECRET LETTER dt 31/12/2001 from LIC to Sri AJIT SHARAN,then JS,MOF ..This letter forcefully stressed the ‘need to rationalize the DR structure available to different groups of pensioners in order to reduce the administrative inconvenience & also to see that different generations of pensioners are protected by merging the pension to a suitable index.’—,also reminded MOF/UOI on 12/8/2003, 20/2/2009 & 6/5/2009,so successive pension revisions at CPIndex 600,1148, 1740, 2328,2994 & 4708 .IT has a VITAL BEARING ON CONTINUED PENSION UPGRADATION.
This letter to MOF is also mentioned in SC narration.
x) As per Sri RKSahni Chart of Anamolies after 1/8/2012 wage notification, For EDs,Group I to Group V,difference/loss will range Rs 49,051--- 11968;for DMs,loss will beRs 32,214 --08509; for AAO loss stands at Rs 22,294 –06993.His chart is also for Supdt, SHs, DOs,HGAs,Asst, Steno,RC,SubStaff, Driver,&Sweeper too.
After latest wage revision 1/8/2012 to 31/7/2017,with the factor 0.10,the Multiplier factors are 0.67/0.10 ie 6.7 & for the rest of Pensioner groups 3.5, 2.3, 1.8 & 1.5.
xi) There is no provision in Pension Rules 1995 that Pensions should not be revised. On the other hand,Rule 5(3),Chapter III of Pension Rules,1995, ‘the Corporation shall be a contributor to the Fund & shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the Trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under these Rules. Rule 13(b) states , ‘ the Trust shall, subject to the availability of additional sums in the Fund, to be provided by the Corporation as required under Rule 5(3) to purchase additional annuities as & when it becomes necessary to revise upwards the benefits payable in accordance with these rules ’.
xii) Army Tribunal Bench verdict ,wherein the Tribunal unequivocally pronounced 'distinction in pension on basis of Retirement date is unreasonable ,violates Article 14 of Constitution.' It ordered 'end disparity in pension & other benefits to Defence Personnel who retired prior to January 2006 & those who retired after 1/2006.
b)It reinforces 'we can't belittle or slight the sacrifices & contribution made by persons prior to 1/2006 & treat them less meritorious to receive the benefit of pension than those who will be entitled to pension on or after 1/2006.This dichotomy neither appeals to reason nor can the State be permitted to take shelter of financial constraint etc '
xiii) SC has been ruling time and again from the Constitution Bench decision in D.S. Nakra case to the latest judgment rendered in 2015. Rules which provide for differential treatment amongst the same class of employees are violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and are not enforceable.
R.B.KISHORE 9/6/2025, (after full search of all Important papers for our SC Final post 15th August 2025 hopefully,with the help of Mrs Seetha Kishore, Now 1 Full Year completed in StepsStone Promoters Retirement Villa 14B . EVEN Charts of CO C alculations retrieved by her,angry that part of IR sanctioned by SC was INGLORIOUSLY & UNCONSTITUTIONALLY deducted by LIC,All entreaties with then Chairman Sri MRKumar failed,even when para 108 of SC Order clearly & unequivocally stated Must not be deducted, by Left Hand,what Right Hand(LIC) has,after full satisfaction of SCOrders wilfully GRANTED,.Blood boils for pre-8/1997 Pensioners,the OLDEST GROUPS)
Allow me to send the Charts late today or positively tomorrow RBK
OTHER PHOTOCOPIES OF CO Notes 3 pages & MOF,GOI INSCE DIVISON Letter dt 10/4/2002 to Chairman LIC & SYGENERAL GIPSA Follows RBK
RBKISHORE, PATRON RIEA CHENNAI, PATRON AIRIEF ,ED Retd
1 comment:
Great article! I regularly follow Aligarh updates and your content helps me stay informed. For more local insights, you can also check Aligarh News – they provide timely and accurate news from the city.
Post a Comment