STATUS OF RTI ON OMOP BY SHRI C H MAHADEVAN
Enter Registration Number | LICOI/R/2019/51049 |
Name | C H Mahadevan |
Received Date | 15/11/2019 |
Public Authority | LIC Central Office: Mumbai |
Status | REQUEST DISPOSED OF |
Date of action | 04/12/2019 |
Additional Payment |  12
|
Reply :- Reply 1
The applicant is informed that the number of serving employees in the cadre of Chairman and Managing Director who were PF optees and in response to CO circular dated 24.4.2019 who applied for one more option for pension(OMOP) is as follows
Chairman-1 and Managing Director-1
Reply 2
The applicant is informed that number of retired Chairmen,MDs who were PF optees and who have applied for OMOP is 1.
Reply 3
The applicant is informed that number of employees in service and retirees who have submitted the option forms for OMOP is as follows
Particulars No. of employees who
opted for pension
under LIC of India,
(Employees) Pension
(Amendment) Rules,2019
Serving employees 12260
Retired employees 2420
Reply 4
Certified copies (6 pages) of Income and Expenditure Statement and Balance Sheet of LIC Employees Pension Fund for the years ending 31.03.2017, 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2019 can be provided to the applicant after payment of necessary additional fees Rs 12 (6 pages at Rs. 2 each) as provided under section 7(3)(a) of RTI Act, 2005.
The applicant is further hereby intimated as provided under section 7(3)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 that, the CPIO reserves the right with respect to review the decision as to the amount of fees charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the appellate authority, time limit, process and any other forms.
Reply 5
The applicant is informed that number of employees (cadre-wise) who retired during the Financial Year 2018-19 is not readily available with this Office of the Public Authority. However, in keeping with the spirit of RTI, the applicant is informed that number of employees (class-wise) who retired during the Financial Year 2018-19 is as follows
number of employees (class-wise) who retired during the Financial Year 2018-19
Class I 1111
Class II 660
Class III 1378
Class IV 57
Reply 6
The applicant is informed that number of employees who died during the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 is as follows-
Financial Year Number of employees who died
2017-18 370
2018-19 386
Reply 7
The applicant is informed that number of regular pensioners and family pensioners who died during the last three financial years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 is not readily available with this Office of the Public Authority.
Reply 8
The applicant is informed that as per the available records, the number of pensioners who got the benefit of upgradation in minimum pension as per directions of the Delhi High Court judgment dated 27.4.2017 is 2169.
Reply 9
The applicant is informed that number of family pensioners out of 8 above who got the benefit of upgradation of minimum pension is not readily available with this Office of the Public Authority. |
5 comments:
Daily Quotes- JK - Day 20
Frustration · Fulfilment · Progress · Achievement
The engineer has been taught how to achieve certain physical results by the application of the knowledge man has gathered through the centuries, and you have been taught how to achieve certain inner results by controlling your thoughts, cultivating virtue, doing good works, and so on, all of which is equally a matter of knowledge gathered through the centuries. The engineer has his books and teachers, as you have yours. Both of you have been taught a technique, and both of you desire to achieve an end, you in your way, and he in his. You are both after results. And is God, or truth, a result? If it is, then it’s put together by the mind, and what is put together can be rent asunder - From Commentaries on Living Series 3.
Slobodian, Quinn; Tarnoff, Ben (2026-03-23) Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed: Penguin Books Ltd: Introduction:
An Operating System for the Twenty-First Century Everyone has an opinion about Elon Musk. He is a genius entrepreneur, launching humanity toward a science-fiction future. Or a ketamine-addled meme-lord, inflating bubbles and babbling about birth rates. Or, more recently, a cat’s paw of the far right, his brain rotted by Twitter and dark prophecies of migrant invasion. The verdicts differ but they share one thing: they treat Musk as an individual. Savior, clown, villain, addict. But good history looks past the singular psyche. When we—a historian and a tech writer—started discussing this book, we thought the more useful question is not who is Musk? but what is Musk a symptom of? What follows is our attempt at an answer, drawn from what Musk has publicly said and done, as documented in the citations that appear at the end of this book. A century ago, Henry Ford wrote his best-selling memoir My Life and Work. Soon after, people coined a term: “Fordism.” Out of one man came a new common sense. Fordism was more than cars rolling off assembly lines; it became shorthand for twentieth-century capitalism, built on the pairing of mass production with mass consumption.1 We treat Musk the same way. As others have suggested, he is not just a man but the avatar of a worldview: Muskism.2 This is not his term—just as Ford never spoke of Fordism. If Fordism was the operating system of the twentieth century, we contend that Muskism offers a possible operating system for the twenty-first. Like Fordism, Muskism is a modernizing project. But Fordism rewrote the social contract with a promise of rising living standards for all: cars in every garage, fridges in every kitchen, wages climbing with productivity. Muskism does not distribute rewards broadly. Its promise is sovereignty through technology. Musk does not just sell cars, rockets, or satellites. He sells the fantasy that, in an increasingly unstable world, both states and individuals can fortify their self-reliance by plugging into his infrastructures. The paradox is that, in doing so, you become reliant on him. What is sold as techno-sovereignty is entry into Musk’s walled garden, to which he holds the master key. Both the Pentagon and NASA depend on SpaceX; Starlink has become indispensable on the battlefield and in the wilderness; X and Grok are being woven into the state. Trying to unplug from Musk, you realize he owns the socket. This techno-sovereignty is also selective. It offers autonomy for some and exclusion for others. Migrant hordes and their liberal enablers are vectors of a “woke mind virus” that needs to be traced, contained, and neutralized. Muskism sees the world as corrupted code. Empathy for one’s fellow humans is an “exploit”—a vulnerability in our mental software—manipulated by bad actors to push the West toward “civilizational suicide.”3 “Suicidal empathy is like an autoimmune disease,” Musk says, “the body attacks itself.”
If one face of Muskism is techno-sovereignty, the other is expulsion. Countermeasures include purged social networks, ideologically cleansed AI models and mass deportation of ethnic outsiders. The end goal is a purified community defined by cultural and genetic membership in a white, European West garrisoned by superior technology—a fortress to protect the best of humanity from the worst. The technologies of Muskism’s walled garden will fortify the walls of the nation and the home. Harden your heart, harden your borders and debug the codebase. “If tolerance means the end of Western Civilization,” he posted to his 225 million followers in 2025, “then we cannot be tolerant.” What’s the point of thinking about Muskism rather than Musk? For one thing, Muskism helps clarify Musk. Many still think of him as a libertarian who despises government. We think the reality is inverted: Musk has built his empire by fusing with the state. He repeatedly discusses his desire to colonize Mars, which he describes as his life’s work. The logic of Muskism shows that Mars was never a serious exit plan—it is a bargaining chip, leverage for further techno-sovereigntist pursuits. Musk’s online persona is similarly misunderstood. Critics see immaturity or malice; fans see relatability or authenticity. Both fail to see that, in Muskism, trolling is infrastructure. Every joke, every poll is a stress test of responsiveness: can he still move markets with a post? Can he tutor the algorithm and the underlying training data to push it further rightward? Can he simulate democracy through a reply-guy plebiscite? This is not play, but experiment. Wittingly or not, Musk is measuring and manipulating the elasticity of attention, the bandwidth of belief. Muskism also envisions a less human future. Through automation, humans are purged from the productive process. Through social media, brain–computer interfaces, and artificial intelligence, humans are merged with the machine, forming what he calls a “cybernetic collective.” The promise of sovereignty through technology acquires a cyborg form. Musk is often seen as invincible. Yet the foundations of his kingdom are fragile. One of the less noticed resemblances between him and Ford is the extreme illiquidity of their personal wealth. Nearly all of Ford’s fortune was in his Ford stock, which was privately held until almost a decade after his death. Musk’s wealth is also almost entirely held in the stock of his own companies. As he put it in an interview, “if Tesla and SpaceX went bankrupt, I would go bankrupt too immediately.” This is why Muskism depends on the perpetual expectation of pending technological breakthroughs, planetary salvation, or financial windfalls. To sustain his wealth, Musk must sustain belief in the exponential future growth of his companies. He learned the financial value of such fabulism in Silicon Valley. The bubble needs to stay inflated. Looking at his biography, we can see that Musk’s outlook is often downstream of the business cycle. When credit is cheap, his rhetoric expands. When money is tight, he sees enemies everywhere. We are living in an era when Muskism could thrive. Across the democratic world, people’s trust in institutions is at historic lows. The growth of anti-migrant sentiment has empowered the far right, which is enjoying its greatest resurgence since the 1930s—with Musk as its loudest mouthpiece. Donald Trump is scuttling the liberal international order abroad while assailing the American constitutional order at home. The intensifying rivalry between the United States and China, along with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has made for a more fragmented, paranoid, and militarized world. Israel’s genocide in Gaza, conducted with full bipartisan support from the United States, has shredded the last pretense of international law.
But the average Indian did not feel mocked; they saw hope. It was a shrine to a commodity that they thought they, too, can amass. (It was the old-money millionaires of Mumbai who resented Ambani—for diminishing their sea views.) As we will see, there is a sort of vulgarity that is dangerous in a poor country, but there is an aspirational quality to some kinds of vulgarity. The false hope of higher education The poor, who wish to make something of the lives of their children, are sucked into the powerful idea of education. Those who aspire for high-level jobs only realize much later that material success, except for geniuses in sports, is largely about social class. Still, their co-option in the form of education is valuable to them. Their lives do become somewhat better because the modern economic system is rigged to favour the educated. As a result, the poor play a game where the elite hold all the cards. They feel that if they do a set of things, if they toe the line, they will be offered a chance at a better life. This is not entirely untrue. Of course, the poor cannot unseat the rich in some lucrative fields like heart surgery, corporate law, investment banking, or the whole start-up culture where social class is crucial. But the rich do keep vacating many other spheres as they move on to newer professions or intellectual pursuits, or romanticized forms of unemployment. The educated among the poor then fill up the spaces the rich have vacated. A theory about how change happens Many people think that in a revolution, the enraged poor would run out of their homes holding an improvised weapon, and overthrow the rich and the ruling class. But I cannot think of a revolution where this actually happened, at least this way. Even the French Revolution, where we get the idea of pitchforks coming for the rich, was not that at all. Every revolution is created and sponsored by the second rung of the elite to trounce their oppressor, nominally in the interest of things like equality and fairness. The wars against capitalism, inequality, dictatorship, and men are primarily the wars of the top 2 per cent against the top 1 per cent, with everyone else enlisted in the cause of the second rung. This is true even of the Indian freedom movement. Most of the icons of the Indian freedom movement were from the highest caste, relegated to a social rung below the British. We can frame the freedom movement as the aristocrat’s use of morality to mobilize the masses and defeat his oppressor. We see this phenomenon at play today in all of activism. It is always moral, always for a better world, always a war of one rung of the elite against their oppressor but fought through recruits. The aristocratic handlers of revolutions are often not charlatans. They believe that they are not acting in self-interest, but out of intelligent compassion. That is why they are so effective. Thus, so many millionaires are waging wars against billionaires for a better world. And, in some ways, the world does become better. The miserable are not as miserable as we think Our darkest fears come true in some people, and we expect them to be miserable. But are the unlucky as miserable as other people think? Is it possible that the bereaved and the disabled, the jailed and the whores, and most people who are said to be tragic, are somewhat better than what the others think? Can it be that the poor, too, are fine and that they may even be happy? After all, an unsung cause of human happiness is low standards. For friends, for the spouse, for the nation. Maybe, just like some people find misery in everything, most people are programmed to find joy in their lives no matter what. Maybe, the poor are not as miserable as we fear. The persistence of happiness, the inevitability of happiness, maybe that, too, protects us.
Chapter 3 HOW WE PROVOKE: INDIA’S public character comes from its poor. India is the way it is, chiefly because of its poor. On its part, India treats its poor like they are poor. This is India’s central flaw. The poor have very low standards for themselves. They can squeeze into a steaming, humid, unreserved train compartment, so many of them per square foot that if they were cows it would be illegal to transport so many in that space, and they can travel like this for days. They even travel inside cement-mixers. They can wait for a bus for hours. They walk extraordinary distances in the sun, carrying heavy objects and humans, if they don’t have a choice. As a reporter, I used to frequently encounter an attitude that concerned air conditioning. That the poor do not ‘deserve’ air conditioning. Not only because they will not pay for it, but also because they do not expect to be so well treated. Almost all of India is hot most of the year, and the summers are scorching and long, yet most offices and modes of public transport are not air-conditioned. India is not protecting the environment; just that it perceives air conditioning as a luxury, and its unspoken policy is that Indians need not be treated with luxuries. That is how India has trained the poor to think, and this is how the poor have shaped India to treat them. In the heart of all the good that India tries to do—not only through policy but also through pious activism—there is this unspoken sense that low standards ‘will do’ for the poor. India’s very definition of comfort is a state that is inaccessible to the poor. The low standards for the poor are embedded in all the cures that India prescribes for poverty. It begins in the faulty middle-class academic conjecture of what the poor want. There is this consecration of food, a certain cultural oversensitivity to the act of eating. Not a surprise, then, that the moment there is a crisis, the government announces that every poor person will get bags of starch. The poor have shaped India in their own image. Every Indian who is not poor is, inescapably, a poverty-eradication thinker. His insurmountable problem is finding a competent authority to whom to delegate this task. Almost every concrete and abstract thing in India is influenced by the poor. India’s elite in every field are deeply influenced and shaped by the poor. India’s poverty gives Indians a clear moral direction. Every affluent Indian may or may not have a moral compass, but certainly has one for India, and it directs the country to end poverty. How to go about it is at the heart of all our economic, social, and political debates. People who do not consider this the priority cannot hope for a career in public life, or economics, or even find acclaim in the arts. Despite this attitude towards the poor and poverty by the better off, or perhaps because of it, we are, in many ways, a vulgar nation. Earlier in the book, I talked of why I am not against all vulgarity. It is complex and, in certain situations, useful. Some of it is even inevitable. Even so, we are a vulgar nation in a shameful way. Consider the Indian five-star buffet. If you want to make Indians laugh, show them what Europeans call a ‘buffet’. Even at a high-end hotel there, the spread is so small it would fit into a single Indian glance, which by nature is sweeping. On the other hand, in most of Asia, especially India, the five-star buffet is designed to convey that the hotel has made a loss on it. The buffet is so sprawling that one has to first circumnavigate the spread, even get the lay of the land. Still there would be surprises, nooks from where food emerges and some things that are not displayed but can be requested or extorted. There is something very wrong with the Indian buffet. To understand why this is so, meander with me a bit, as though we are at a vast buffet of Indian maladies. The Indian buffet is, primarily, a spectacle.
Post a Comment