INTERIM RELIEF AND PERMANENT RELIEF

Dear Mr Sahni
Referring to the post in your blog, by Mr H K Aggarwal, I hasten t clarify that when  I expressed my  hope of transiting from an era of interim relief to the era of permanent relief, I did not  intend to advocate completely glossing  over the  fact of LIC playing the 'hide and seek ' game of  doling out a pittance against the rightfully entitled amount of interim relief and also the act of denying the payment of the relief  in rem  to all the eligible pensioners  besides to post July 1997 retirees.

Estimated outlay on account payment of IR to all pre-August 1997 retirees

Shri C H Mahadevan,

Dear Sir,

Thank you for continuing with your research and the valuable results you discovered. As usual, you have also put the entire information in the public domain for everybody to see, appreciate and utilize the same appropriately for the benefit of the pensioner community. 

Having said so, I am deeply concerned about the state of things and the way in which our cases are 

getting handled now. What I mean is, this and the other voluminous information you have generated, should not end up as an academic exercise. We all know that the Supreme Court cannot be expected to go in to the nitty gritty of the minute calculations. Then how do we ensure that LIC acts just and fair even after a favorable judgement is handed down by the Apex Court?

That exactly is the critical area where a common strategy needs to evolve from all the stakeholders before the SC. At the moment it looks like a mirage. So let all the respected Seniors representing each shade & section of the Pensioners, take urgent lead and set necessary direction to whoever has to ACT. Only collective elderly leadership can ensure that individuals do not go astray and play with the fortunes of forty thousand families.                     

Thanks and regards,

Sreenivasa Murty Mulukutla

106, Hill County
Nizampet Road, Bachupally

HYDERABAD 500090

+919177737356

Estimated outlay on account payment of IR to all pre-August 1997 retirees

Based on the illustrative chart prepared by LIC in August 2003,I happened to work out  the Interim Relief amount as at 31/7/2015 for each cadre at the maximum of scale  and also the  corresponding outlay required for LIC if it decides  to pay all pre August 1997 retirees.

I attach  the two tables   containing the calculated figures.

The  outlay has been  estimated  for 21762 pre-August 1997 retirees  who were in existence as at 1/8/2003.

But as at 20/2/2009,only 16498 retirees in the category.There is a reduction of pensioners by 5264 which indicates the mortality  in the five years  upto 2009.We don't know  how many are  continuing their life journey as on date. 

As per the methodology followed by LIC, the total outlay even for the  higher number of 21762 pensioners, the outlay works out to only Rs 22.2 crores.LIC could have gracefully paid this tentative amount to all eligible pensioners even without the exercise of withdrawal of the amounts from the HCs.Perhaps it is destined that pensioners dhould get justice only from the hands of the Supreme court.

But the sad part of this dispensation   that has come to light is  that Class IV retirees-especially those retired after 1/8/1992 but before 1/8/1997  will get a raw deal, viz  recovery of pension> I am sure that the Apex Court will  render justice to them and in that process to all retirees.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

<ESTIMATED OUTLAY ON IR AS PER LIC.docx>

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UGJRuxXLSPmL0mmm_1hd3oloJvokVVE9I9diCs4lXvI/edit?usp=sharing

FLAW IN LIC METHOD

‘PROTECTION’ FOR NEGATIVE ARREARS FOR A FEW CADRES CANNOT RENDER JUSTICE TO ALL PRE-AUGUST 1997 RETIREES

I attach a write-up referring to the Office Note prepared by LIC Central Office Personnel Dept on 18/9/2001 with remarks/recommendations/decisions by the Chairman as a precursor to the LIC Board Meeting held on 24/11/2001.

LIC was very much aware that the formula proposed for upgradation  on 1/8/1997 was anomalous as negative values resulted in a few cadres from Record Clerks  down  to the Sweepers .Surprisingly this fact does not  find a mention in the LIC Board Resolution and LIC has merrily  adopted their proposed  formula  right from the time the illustrative chart was submitted to the Board, subsequently  sent to the Joint Secretary (Insurance) on 31/12/2001 and also  in an updated illustrative chart  sent  on 11/8/2003 with calculations  as at 1/8/2003 to Mr G C Chaturvedi,Joint Secretary(Banking & Insurance).

The focus of LIC Management has  all the time been merely  on the 100% DR neutralization without removal of the pre-August 1997 DR anomaly and on  a half-hearted upgradation on 1/8/1997 WITHOUT REMOVAL OF DR ANOMALY FROM 1/11/1993 AND WITHOUT THE WEIGHTAGE DECIDED  UPON BY THE LIC BOARD ON 24/11/2001.

It took Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court to take serious cognizance of the DR anomaly and come out with its judgment on 12/1/2010 to not only remedy this situation, but also allowing upgradation of pension. But LIC has  continued to play its dubious game of selective misinterpretation of the Board Resolution  without explicit reference to the three High Court judgments in favour of pensioners, for which stay was refused by the Apex Court. This has been corroborated by  a few pensioners who have received  unidentified credits to their bank accounts from LIC ostensibly in compliance of the Supreme Courts  orders  dt 7/5/2015 & 7/9/2015 for payment of interim relief to respondent-pensioners.

We have also  known convincingly how there will be negative arrears for every family pensioner of a deceased pre-August 1997 retiree if LIC continues to follow their usual  method of upgradation of pension for pre-August 1997 retirees.

Hopefully the game being played by LIC will get exposed before the watchful eye of the Supreme Court Bench today, and if not today, sooner than later.

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

FLAW IN LIC METHOD-CLICK HERE TO READ

INTERIM RELIEF OR INTERIM DISTRESS?

ARE YOU A PRE- AUGUST 1997 RETIREE (CLASS I RETIRED ATER 1/4/1993 OR CLASS II, III&IV RETIRED AFTER 1/8/1992) WITH BASIC PENSION OF RS 2400/- OR LESS? THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK TO LIC!

There was a serendipitous discovery today by me when I received some calculations of interim relief in Excel format from a senior retired officer of LIC who belongs to the pre-Aug 1997 retiree category.

When I went through his calculations in one of the four charts sent by him, I was shocked to notice, that according to the method followed by LIC ( as done for depositing amounts at Jaipur HC Registry) a pre-August 1997 retiree Class I Officer at Basic Pension 2400/-(may be in the cadre of AAO) draws a negative interim relief of Rs -339/- upto 31/7/2015.It means he has to pay back Rs 339/- to LIC!

Is it the reason that many pre-August 1997 retiree Class I Officers are yet to receive interim relief? Or perhaps there are not many retired AAOs with such low Basic Pension.It is a puzzle that only LIC can explain.

Is it an interim relief or interim distress?

But one thing is certain.the method followed by LIC is anomalous and LIC cannot satisfy the Supreme Court that it has complied with their order dt 7/5/2015 & 

The relevant  calculations are given in the following table.

A. Existing Pension DRAWN UPTO 31/7/2015
Existing Basic Pension	2400
DR per slab	8.4
No of months	216
Total amount of Basic Pension	518400
Total no of existing DR slabs	110292
Total DR	926453
Total Existing Gross Pension Received upto July 15	1444853
B.WHAT IS DUE AS AT 31/7/2015 ON 100% DR NEUTRALISATION
Revised Basic Pension on 1/8/1997	3643
DR per slab	8.3789
No. of months	216
Total no of slabs upto 31/7/2015	78324
Total DR upto 31/7/2015	656269
Total  Revised Basic Pension from 1/8/1997 to 31/7/2015	786888
Total Gross Pension from 1/8/1997 to 31/7/2015	1443157
Arrears due on 31/7/2015	-1696
Interim  relief	-339

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

IDENTICAL PENSIONERS-DIFFERENT AMOUNTS

INTERIM RELIEF-SORRY, UNIDENTIFIED RELIEF- PAID TO TWO IDENTICALLY PLACED RETIRED OFFICERS NOT THE SAME

What  the Supreme Court ordered  on 7/5/2015 was interim relief payable by LIC to  the respondent pensioners  and what LIC actually paid turned out to be an unidentified  relief to the eagerly  and desperately waiting  pre-August 1997  retirees.

I had an occasion today to talk to a retired ADM from Mysore who retired as an ADM on 31/8/1992 on the maximum of scale of Rs 5050/- and consequently placed at the Basic Pension of Rs 2525/- w.e.f 1st November 1993.He has been fortunate enough to receive an unidentified  relief amount of Rs13431/- from LIC albeit   a pittance.

Only a few days ago, another close friend of mine  from Chennai,who is also a retired ADM (w.e.f 31/1/1993) similarly placed on the maximum of scale of Rs 5050/- and consequently placed at the Basic Pension of Rs 2525/- w.e.f  1^st November 1993 informed me that he received an unidentified relief of Rs 17581/-

Both the retired officers with identical Basic Pensions  have  received different amounts from LIC. Both the officers  belong to the M C Jain  category still waiting for the  benefits that have been  ordered by the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court  to be paid by LIC.

As a result of  this disparity in payment to identically placed retiree officers, one who got less  may be hoping that he will get something more  towards this unidentified  relief and the other may be worried  whether  there may be a recovery from his pension next month towards excess  payment of the unidentified  relief.

I never knew that pittances will ,after all ,make a difference which they have literally done!

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan