REVELATIONS FROM 40% IR CALCULATIONS

Please see as under
Greetings
C H Mahadevan

REVELATIONS  FROM  CALCULATIONS OF  40% IR FOR  PRE-AUGUST 1997 RETIREES

Since my offer through the pensioners’ blogs  inviting request for calculation of actual dues of 40% IR as per Supreme Court Order,I received more than  40 requests till date.Taking  into account calculations made by me  for pensioner friends prior  to that I  tried  to  understand whit the calculations revealed  in regard to payment of the 40% IR  by LIC for pre August 1997 retirees from the calculations made for a total number of 97 pensioners:

Following is the cadre-wise details of the results of the calculations:

Cadre	No of retirees	Maximum  of 40% IR(Rs)	Minimum of 40% IR(Rs)	Maximum in percentage  of amount paid to amony due as per SC Order dt 31/3/2016	Minimum in percentage  of amount paid to amony due as per SC Order dt 31/3/2016
Executive Director	7	215693	80189	32.5	12.5
Zonal Manager	4	138032	41279	31.4	11.8
SDM	10	127905	39088	31.2	11.8
DM	7	95842	23718	30.8	16.7
ADM	27	94139	15442	31.7	4.2
AO	15	70499	22496	28.6	9.0
AAO	5	48137	14610	24.5	6.9
HGA	9	21605	11099	15.7	10.1
Stenographer	1	15256	15256	12.2	12.2
Assistant	3	13933	531	15.3	0.6
Development  Officer	9	19818	0	6.9	0
Total	97

I have received a request from a retired Section Head and I have sought some details in view of some apparent mismatch between Basic Pension and IR.

·         Generally higher the cadre, higher the IR.The only exception seems to be between ADM & AO who got minimum IR because of proportionate pension on qualifying service of less than 33 years.

·         Higher the amount of IR, higher the percentage to the amount due as per the Supreme Court Order.

·         M C Jain category retired officers mostly ADMs  got the same IR  of Rs 39088 as  ADMs  who retired prior to 1/8/1992,This indicates  the non-implementation of the  MC Jain case Jaipur judgment by LIC  has affected this category of pensionewrs adversely.

·         The minimum percentages were mostly in respect of employees retired before 1/8/1992 and the M C Jain category retired officers. This indicates  that non -application of para 3A  has adversely affected  the pre August 1992 retirees  more than post July 1992 retirees(among pre-August 1997 retirees) who themselves  have been  adversely affected  by financial losses ranging from 68% to 78% on account of under payment of interim relief.

·         Class III retirees and Development Officers have been hit harder in terms of percentages  by non-application of para 3A.In case of Development Officers , the percentages  have worked out to much less than other cadres  probably because of the  difference in wage revision structure.

·         Besides the above family pensioners either got no IR or single digit amounts not worth being called ‘interim relief’.

Greetings

C H Mahadevan