Dear All LIC Pensioners,
The S C order dt 7/5/2015 did not ask LIC to pay to the respondent petitioners 20% of the amounts deposited in the HC registries, but only directed LIC to pay 20% of the amount due to them as per the impugned HC judgments.
The SC only allowed LIC to withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries as per order/s issued by ‘this court’.
The amount paid in Chandigarh HC was not in obedience to any SC order but on an undertaking given by LIC Counsel in one of the hearings in connection with the contempt case COCP No 2975 of 2013.
Notwithstanding the apparent ambiguity due to the wordings in the SC order, the spirit of the SC order was that LIC had to pay the interim relief at 20% of the right amount due and permission to withdraw the amounts from the HC was only facilitate and not a condition precedent for payment of interim relief.
It is not difficult to counter LIC on their deliberately wrong calculations of the total amount of Rs 33.67 lacs paid to the Chandigarh HC. I have personally worked out the calculations to tally the amounts arrived at by LIC in respect of each of the 31 petitioners and I have been able to know the methodology followed by LIC
The following points emerge after my calculations to dispute that the payments have not been made as per the judgment of the Chandigarh HC judgment dt 9/11/2012:
1. In all the cases (which pertain to pre-August 1997 retirees), the DR anomaly that has been existing prior to 1/8/1997 has not been removed before the calculation of revised pension as at 1/8/1997.As a result arrears due from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement on revised pension on removal of anomaly upto 31/7/1997 have not been included.
2. The calculations have been made by merging the existing Basic Pension as at 1/8/1997 and the existing DR (without removing anomaly) and without providing weightage as decided in the Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001.
3. Also the similar process of merger and revision has not been followed w.e.f 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 for consistency.
4. Where family pension has been included, break-up of figures between regular pension and family pension has not been shown in the Annexure for the simple reason that there is reduction in family pension and consequent recovery in family pension as per the method followed by LIC.There was an apparent attempt to hide this fact from the HC lest they should be questioned for the glaring inconsistency and anomaly.
5. In cases falling under the category of M C Jain case judgment of SC, the pension revisions were not effected as per the said judgment.
At least on account of points (1) to (4) above, the contempt of court can clearly be established on 27 th January 2016, when the affidavit of LIC gets into the HC record (provided LIC does not delay its submission to the court under some pretext)
As regards the SC order of 4th December 2015, the Implementation of its directions will not depend on the outcome of the contempt case as the Apex Court has allowed the withdrawal by the Chandigarh petitioners of the amount deposited in the HC Registry as LIC has failed to pay interim relief to the petitioners as ordered on 7/5/2015.The petitioners are free to apply for and obtain withdrawal of the amounts from the Chandigarh HC if and when the Court allows it.
Judged from whatever has been brought out above, what the 1190 pre-August 1997 retired Class I Officers have received by way of interim relief is perhaps a paltry 2% and not 20% of the dues. What is more painful is that more than a total of 20000 pre-August 1997 retirees, deceased retirees, family pensioners and legal heirs of
deceased family pensioners in this category have been denied even this pittance, not to speak of post July 1997 retiree-pensioners and family pensioners in the category. My rough estimate of pre-August 1997 retiree pensioners surviving as on date is about 10000.Of course understandably, those microscopic minority of pensioners who have received the IR seem to be happy with what they have got and apparently grateful to the leaders -who they believe- have made it happen. Truly something is better than nothing.
(The other day I heard from a retired colleague in Chennai that one pre-August 1997 retiree-pensioner Shri N G Nayagam unfortunately died after recently receiving the payment of interim relief from LIC).
The remaining pensioners are anxiously waiting for the services of leaders who can secure them justice from LIC.
Let us all hope that we successfully transit from the era of interim relief towards that of permanent relief on 20/1/2016 or soon after, thanks to the judiciary.
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan
The S C order dt 7/5/2015 did not ask LIC to pay to the respondent petitioners 20% of the amounts deposited in the HC registries, but only directed LIC to pay 20% of the amount due to them as per the impugned HC judgments.
The SC only allowed LIC to withdraw the amount deposited in the HC Registries as per order/s issued by ‘this court’.
The amount paid in Chandigarh HC was not in obedience to any SC order but on an undertaking given by LIC Counsel in one of the hearings in connection with the contempt case COCP No 2975 of 2013.
Notwithstanding the apparent ambiguity due to the wordings in the SC order, the spirit of the SC order was that LIC had to pay the interim relief at 20% of the right amount due and permission to withdraw the amounts from the HC was only facilitate and not a condition precedent for payment of interim relief.
It is not difficult to counter LIC on their deliberately wrong calculations of the total amount of Rs 33.67 lacs paid to the Chandigarh HC. I have personally worked out the calculations to tally the amounts arrived at by LIC in respect of each of the 31 petitioners and I have been able to know the methodology followed by LIC
The following points emerge after my calculations to dispute that the payments have not been made as per the judgment of the Chandigarh HC judgment dt 9/11/2012:
1. In all the cases (which pertain to pre-August 1997 retirees), the DR anomaly that has been existing prior to 1/8/1997 has not been removed before the calculation of revised pension as at 1/8/1997.As a result arrears due from 1/11/1993 or the date of retirement on revised pension on removal of anomaly upto 31/7/1997 have not been included.
2. The calculations have been made by merging the existing Basic Pension as at 1/8/1997 and the existing DR (without removing anomaly) and without providing weightage as decided in the Board Resolution dt 24/11/2001.
3. Also the similar process of merger and revision has not been followed w.e.f 1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 for consistency.
4. Where family pension has been included, break-up of figures between regular pension and family pension has not been shown in the Annexure for the simple reason that there is reduction in family pension and consequent recovery in family pension as per the method followed by LIC.There was an apparent attempt to hide this fact from the HC lest they should be questioned for the glaring inconsistency and anomaly.
5. In cases falling under the category of M C Jain case judgment of SC, the pension revisions were not effected as per the said judgment.
At least on account of points (1) to (4) above, the contempt of court can clearly be established on 27 th January 2016, when the affidavit of LIC gets into the HC record (provided LIC does not delay its submission to the court under some pretext)
As regards the SC order of 4th December 2015, the Implementation of its directions will not depend on the outcome of the contempt case as the Apex Court has allowed the withdrawal by the Chandigarh petitioners of the amount deposited in the HC Registry as LIC has failed to pay interim relief to the petitioners as ordered on 7/5/2015.The petitioners are free to apply for and obtain withdrawal of the amounts from the Chandigarh HC if and when the Court allows it.
Judged from whatever has been brought out above, what the 1190 pre-August 1997 retired Class I Officers have received by way of interim relief is perhaps a paltry 2% and not 20% of the dues. What is more painful is that more than a total of 20000 pre-August 1997 retirees, deceased retirees, family pensioners and legal heirs of
deceased family pensioners in this category have been denied even this pittance, not to speak of post July 1997 retiree-pensioners and family pensioners in the category. My rough estimate of pre-August 1997 retiree pensioners surviving as on date is about 10000.Of course understandably, those microscopic minority of pensioners who have received the IR seem to be happy with what they have got and apparently grateful to the leaders -who they believe- have made it happen. Truly something is better than nothing.
(The other day I heard from a retired colleague in Chennai that one pre-August 1997 retiree-pensioner Shri N G Nayagam unfortunately died after recently receiving the payment of interim relief from LIC).
The remaining pensioners are anxiously waiting for the services of leaders who can secure them justice from LIC.
Let us all hope that we successfully transit from the era of interim relief towards that of permanent relief on 20/1/2016 or soon after, thanks to the judiciary.
Greetings.
C H Mahadevan
