MY RESPONSE TO AIIPA CIRCULARS 22 & 23 ON SOME ISSUES

MY RESPONSE TO AIIPA CIRCULARS 22 & 23 ON SOME ISSUES

Referring to the AIIPA circular  Nos 22 & 23 /2018, I wish to respond on some of the points raised in the said circulars.

CIRCULAR No 22

It has been stated that minimum pension cases will be a rarity with just 10 years of service before superannuation and the relief provided for will  almost be in a no man’s land. LIC in its affidavit before DHC had given an illustration of such cases relating to the cadre of sweeper. May be there will be only a small number of cases among regular pensioners, but as the rate of family pension is very low being mostly  only 15% of the last drawn basic pay drawn  by the deceased employees, there may be a good number among family pensioners drawing minimum pension especially in the Class III & IV cadres. I have even come across a case where for a pensioner in Class I cadre who had retired in 2003 and drawing regular pension, his spouse was drawing a minimum basic family pension of 2330.So there may be more number of family pensioners on minimum pension than regular pensioners.

It has been stated by the General Secretary, “If AIIPA’s efforts had been allowed all pre-August 1997 pensioners belonging to Class III would have drawn modified pension with Full Neutralisation”. If I have understood it correctly, AIIPA’s efforts-it is claimed - would have provided upgradation of pension at least on modified parity. If it is a question of 100% neutralisation only, as all Class III & IV employees had their basic pension less than 1250 before 1/8/1992 and 2400 before 1/8/1997, they were already enjoying 100% DR neutralisation. We all know how LIC has been resisting upgradation of pension. I wonder how AIIPA’s efforts would have made upgradation of pension fructify without a litigation.

If 100% DR neutralisation had been provided to per-August 1997, Class I & II retirees, then it would also disturb the DR formula for in-service employees upto 31/7/1997(who would have retired after 1/8/1997) who can also claim the same benefit and demand difference of  DA upto 31/7/1997.The only answer to resolving the DR anomaly for pre-August 1997 retirees is not 100% DR neutralisation, but equitable neutralisation under the truncated DR formula for both retirees and in-service employees as has been done from 1/8/1997 onwards.

Upgradation of pension is an issue that applies to all generations of retirees.

CIRCULAR NO 23

As regards Circular No 23 reproducing the letter written to Chairman, it has been stated that LIC is “morally bound to resurrect LIC Board Resolution”. I wish to emphasize that the LIC Board Resolution was never buried, but very much alive. Even the SC in its judgment dated 31/3/2016 has taken cognizance of the Board Resolution, but only had stated that the recommendations had not become part of the LIC Pension Rules on approval by the GOI. The Board Resolution is still pending with the Central Government for a decision and it has not been withdrawn by the LIC Board. So, there is no question of resurrection, but only implementation.

If the Board Resolution is implemented (on approval by the Central Government) in true letter and spirit,

1.     Pre-August 1997 retirees should get upgradation of pension from 1/8/1997;

2.     Once upgradation is provided 1/8/1997, then further upgradation should be provided for them on 1/8/2002,1/8/2007 and 1/8/2012 as well if they are alive after such revision; If retirees are not alive, surviving family pensioners should be entitled to upgraded family pension.

3.     Once upgradation as above is allowed for pre-August 1997 retirees, the same process must happen for post-July 1997 pensioners also and the family pensioners in the category, resulting in  upgradation of all.

It has been stated in the circular that “40% of the amount due upto August 1996 has been paid and balance due and revision of pension will not be a great financial burden”. We must remember that the 40 % IR paid by LIC was ordered by SC in its judgment dated 31/3/2016 and it was ordered as 40 % of the amount payable as per para 3 A.LIC interpreted it in its own way and paid an amount claiming it to be as per para 3A. Despite dispute, the DHC also upheld the payment. But we must remember that DHC in its judgment has ordered that this IR paid need not be refunded to LIC. So, there is no question of balance 60% payable.

What DHC has ordered as part of the partial relief is the amount of DR arrears payable to Pre-August 1997 retirees as per modified truncated DR formula ordered in its judgment dated 27/4/2017.So the partial relief ordered by DHC is independent of the 40% IR.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan