TPA, ECARD, & CASHLESS SERVICE SZ

Respected Sri Kishore,

Thank u very much .You are giving a lot of Information to all.

I have no words to express my sincere thanks to you.

May heavens choicest blessing showered upon you and your family.

With kind regards

ssiyer 
(Rtd Faculty) 
ZTC Chennai

Supreme Court order on 20% payment

Dear Friends,

It is now certain that LIC is playing cat and mouse. There is no use having any grouse or getting angry over it. 

In my opinion they are trying to tire us out so that we may choose to go for contempt of court etc. That will mean more expense ans further digression from the main attack. 

Patience is called for at this hour. In my considered opinion we have a very strong case and ultimate success will be ours. 

WE NEED TO FILE A PRAYER FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE TELLING THE SC THAT THE LIC & GOI ARE NOT IN A MOOD TO LISTEN AND SO THE SC SHOULD HEAR THE CASE IMMEDIATELY. 

WE MAY SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT THAT THE SC MAY PULL UP LIC SEPARATELY FORE DISOBEDIENCE AS IT MAY THINK FIT. 

LET US NOT FALL AGAIN INTO THE TRAP OF CONTEMPT PETITIONS AND RESULTING DELAYS. 

PLEASE CONCENTRATE ONLY ON THE HEARING OF THE MAIN CASE. 

THE POINTS TO BE ARGUED, AS I HAVE EARLIER WRITTEN, IS ONLY 

1) THAT NAKARAS CASE IS THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SC AND THAT DECIDES THE CASE. 

2) THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED FOR REVISION OF DA COMPONENT IN 1997, WHICH GAVE US THE CAUSE OF ACTION, IS APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENSIONERS, AS HELD BY THE SB OF THE RAJASTHAN HC, BECAUSE THE SAID COURT HAS GIVEN A BENEVOLENT INTERPRETATION OF THE NOTIFICATION. 

ENOUGH MATERIAL AND CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN GATHERED. OUR LAWYERS SHOULD BE INFORMED TO ARGUE ONLY ON THESE TWO POINTS. 

LET US PRAY AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. 

PLEASE DO NOT WASTE TIME AND MONEY BY DEVIATING FROM THE MAIN CASE. OUR AIM SHOULD BE TO GET OUR DUES.

A.S. RAMANATHAN,

RETD. DM    

CELL: 0 9676840504

LIC's plans to pay interim relief as per SC Order dt 7/5/2015

DEAR ALL,

As per the SC order, LIC is required to pay 20% of the amount due to the respondent-pensioners as per the impugned judgments of the three High Courts.

If LIC has given instructions to LIC Chandigarh & Jaipur DOs to release 20% of the amount earlier deposited in Court Registry, it would mean that the DOs have been instructed to pay faulty (inadequate) amounts to the original petitioners.

Also even the faulty amounts deposited by LIC were upto October 2013 in Jaipur and upto April 2014 in Chandigarh. If they do not update their calculations correctly (including upgradation of pension) upto May 2015, they are clearly liable to be charged with contempt of court. Even if LIC pays the interim relief to only the two sets of petitioners leaving out the Delhi petitioners under the pretext of need for clarification, LIC will only be compounding its liability to be charged with further contempt.

All the three sets of petitioners have a very strong case to proceed with contempt application in SC immediately after it opens after summer vacation in July 2015.

In the meantime, the petitioners who receive the inadequate amount of interim relief will be well advised to record their protest in writing  with  LIC against the latter paying the amount far short of what is required to be paid under the SC’s interim order dt 7/5/2015.

C H Mahadevan

Chat-n-Chat--Can LIC discriminate?

CAN LIC DISCRIMINATE? (From Chat-n-Chat)

Q.Sdsarma: Can LIC discriminate between petitioners and Pensioners being legal person and violate articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution? (Legal entity)

My opinion:

Constitutionally, LIC cannot discriminate. But when the petitioners do not constitute an entire group of similarly placed pensioners like an Association or Associations, the relief is normally awarded by the Court only in favour of those petitioners who filed the writ except in cases where the benefits are ordered to be paid in rem as happened in the Delhi HC judgment dt 30/1/2013. So when relief is provided only for the original petitioners in our cases, the only recourse available to the similarly placed pensioners is to join together and  file an application in the Supreme Court for directions to LIC to make payment to all eligible pensioners.

For this reason, I had suggested that AIRIEF should get impleaded in the Civil Appeals pending before the Supreme Court. Even now it is not too late.

I am sure that  legal experts involved in the cases apply their minds on the appropriate course of action.

C H Mahadevan

DEAR SHRI SAHNI,

JUST SEEN UR BLOG AND SURPRISED TO FIND THAT U TOOK NO TIME TO PUBLISH THE UNKNOWN BUT FACTUAL OBSERVATION AND PICTURES OF INDIA IN UR BLOG FOR D INFM OF READERS.HATS OFF FOR THE PAINS BEING TAKEN  IN UPDATING THE CONTENTS IN D BLOG NICE JOB  BEING DONE WISH U ALL D BEST

 

With Best Regards

M.S.Sachdeva

+9416174537

MOVING TOWARDS UNITY.

Most learned, richly experienced & law abiding pensioner colleagues,

Namaskar.  This message reaches you second time. 

With regard to implementation of orders of Supreme Court, we are yet to know the real intention of LIC. But, position becomes clear that UOI is not pleased to render justice to the working and retired employees. This becomes evident from the approach of UOI / FM / DFM & the concerned Secretaries towards the same pending issues of Ex-Service Men, Bank Retirees ( including RBI ) & Pensioners / Family Pensioners of Insurance Industries. They seldom give respect to the judgments of Courts . All of them are vying with each other as to how best matters could be traversed with unethical arguments and dragged on the issues and finally thrown to dustbins.

Army people have shown the way as to how the rulers should be made to realize their wrong approach and bring them to senses. They are forced to adopt ' Boycott Programmes ' .There are about 25 lakh army retirees.

Working and Retired Employees in RBI are unitedly fighting against the lackadaisical approach of the bureaucracy. They have staged dharna programmes during Board Meetings.

During the 10th BPS of Bank Employees, GOI have shown their real face through a ' Record Note ' conveniently negating the demands of Bank Retirees. They have made IBA & UFBU as scapegoats. The Bank Retirees have decided to part with the working employees' associations and face the onslaught of Managements joining unitedly with similar organisations in an independent style for common causes. They are prepared to fight through legal processes too in a bigger way. Some 2000 elderly pensioners of Bank Units have assembled from different parts, unmindfu of their ages, ailments & inconvenience and expressed their anguish protesting against IBA through a powerful demonstration.

The recent above scenarios should have by now opened our eyes indeed. One or two articles have started appearing in our e-mail messages. Time is ripe for our mighty organisation to ponder over this aspect and find ways and means  to follow suit and take our fight on in a similar style which gives no scope for any further escape by the powers that be. 

It is unfortunate that there are few notorious individuals and organisations among us with an ulterior motive to sabotage our legal successes. They fail to understand that their moves are against the interest of our own community and that they help the bureaucracy to sit tight on our issues. What next, in case LIC / GOI were to delay in implementing the final judgment of Supreme Court ?  OROP issue is an eye opener.

A beginning should be made to organize CONFEDERATION OF FEDERATIONS representing pensioners of Public Sector Units, Public Sector Undertakings, similar Financial institutions, LIC & GIC to fight for common causes. Such moves only will open the eyes of the bureaucrats to settle not only the present cent percent neutralization DA / DR & periodical upward revision of pension on every wage settlement, but also our other major pending issues. The bureaucrats should be made to realize that all the other pensioners are not different from those of GOI and every pensioner should be treated alike since all are the subjects of UOI.

It is suggested that an urgent meeting of our leaders in the helm should be arranged at the earliest i.e sufficiently earlier to 23rd September and leaders from other like minded organizations should be invited for chalking out effective programmes which yield the desired results. Slowly we try to understand the time consuming and lengthy processes adopted in all Courts.

I hope this small message will lead to an enlarged discussion shortly. ORGANIZATIONAL  STRENGTH  IS  ALWAYS VITAL.  

With a happy note,                            Fraternally Yours,                                                                               

                                                     M.P.Subrahmanian,

                                                Chairman, RIEA, Madurai.        

BIHAR HC ORDER - PENSION OF HIGHER GRADE OFFICER

This case is just like our case.

Is not it?

 

With Best Regards

M.S.Sachdeva

+9416174537

 

RECORD NOTE AN IN ABSENTIA PUNISHMENT?

SENTENCED IN ABSENTIA?

The Record Note signed after discussions between the IBA and the Bank employees’ Associations on 25/5/2015 is nothing but an agreement between two parties one of which is a collective group of Bank employees who have a conflict of interest in the subject matter discussed viz DR neutralisation in Pension and Pension upgradation at least till the dates of the retirement of their members. No  representative body of existing Bank pensioners are signatories to this Note when the decisions recorded adversely affect them. The Record Note has conspicuously been agreed to behind the back of the real stakeholders. Cannot such a bipartite settlement be deemed illegal?

The Record Note is just like a trial and conviction of an innocent  person by a court  without the affected person  committing any offence and without hearing  him(  and not even ex parte after summoning him)!

Greetings.

C H Mahadevan

An E mail from Sri Lakkapragada.S.R.Rao

Truth and just a will ultimately win

25^TH MAY, 2015

 

  On May 7^th, 2015 the Supreme Court directed LIC, as an interim measure, to pay 20% of arrears of Basic pension (Including DR) with in 6 weeks .This order applies to all pensioners.

 

  It is a directive to LIC from Supreme Court. It is to be implemented by LIC. The matter is of concern to all pensioners of LIC. 

  This brooks no interference from any one including AIIPA. In this context the AIIPA wrote to LIC stating, “Not to be content to comply with legal niceties but to grant uniform rate of Dearness relief to all affected pensioners”.

 

  AIIPA sees only dearness relief in the Supreme Court order. It is unfortunate. This does not clearly indicate AIIPA’S commitment to pensioners cause.

 

  In spite of these distortion and distractions pensioners of LIC are bound to emerge victorious in the legal battle of two decades by the end of September this year.

 

                              K K D HANUMANTHARAO

                                      PRESIDENT                                                                                          RETIRED L I C EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION MACHILIPATNAM DIVISION AFFILIATED TO

                                         A I R I E F

                                                                      

Coutesy:

B.Angurajan

All India Organizing Secretary 

All India Retired Insurance Employees Federation

Cell No: 9443381571 

Madurai

Pl.VISIT  airiefvision.wordpress.com

Interpretation of the Supreme Court Order..Operative portion.

IN THIS CONTEXT MAY I SUGGEST THAT ALL LEGAL EXPERTS JOIN TOGETHER AND ISSUE A COMPREHENSIVE  STATEMENT COVERING interpretation & implications  AND ALL POSSIBLE QUERIES FROM THE PENSIONERS RATHER THAN REPLYING IN PIECE MAIL
R K SAHNI 

"Respondent-employees means original petitioners only and not all retired employees.
The SC has also allowed withdrawal of 20% by LIC from the Court Registry which means only out of deposits made in respect of original petitioners only.
C H Mahadevan

Re: ".... the Centre’s plea .... came too late...." - Advocate Fali Nariman.

In the above context Shri C H Mahadevan  asserts :-

In my view, the Centre's entry is inconsequential and will not make any difference in the case.Rather there is a fair chance of the SC giving directions to the Government to render justice to LIC pensioners without LIC having to approach the CG for the purpose.
Kind regards.
C H Mahadevan

Supreme Court - CA 8959/8962 0f 2013 - 07 .05.2015 -Judgement.

Shri T R Madhava Rao Once again comments:

I am in one way happy that payment is to be made now to the respondents.

LIC need not wait for any order from UOI.- Justice Bhandari had already ordered LIC ( upheld by Jaipur Double Bench.)

Does this settle the Sec.48 controvercy ?

Regards,

T.R.Madhava Rao.

The case has been fought on the blogs for a very considerable number of times.

We have heard a lot from the case managers and other legal experts on this issue.

Will it be possible to elicit the views of the concerned  Sr. Advocates of all the three CAs on the true interpretation of  the SC judgment and its implications?

rk sahni

Supreme Court - CA 8959/8962 0f 2013 - 07 .05.2015 -Judgement.

DEAR ALL,

The Supreme Court order  is no doubt disappointing to the large fraternity of pensioners, but the silver lining in the cloud is that the Apex Court has recognised the importance of the issue of enhancement of pension as is evidenced by its order to list the CAs for hearing between items 1 to 5 in the hearing list on 23/9/2015.

 

Considering the trend of the Supreme Court ordering interim relief only to the respondent employees (original petitioners),I feel it is high time that the AIRIEF consider the desirability and necessity of getting itself impleaded in the CAs in the Supreme Court so that benefits-if and when ordered by the Apex Court-will be guaranteed for all the eligible pensioners. 

 

This  step of course will have to weigh the possibility of the legal processes involved and the time element in carrying on the litigation that may entail further delay.

But if  all the three Civil Appeals are decided in favour of the  pensioner-petitioners, the 'in rem'  principle adopted in the Delhi HC  judgment should come to the rescue of pensioners at large. However, legal experts may be able to enlighten us in the matter.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Supreme Court - CA 8959/8962 0f 2013 - 07 .05.2015 -Judgement.

Mr t.r.madhava rao writes:

All pensioners are disappointed by the Judgement.(some are shocked and frustrated again).

                                                                                                                                            Writings of 'Case Managers' -  not dependable.All expectations of a breakthrough are belied.

"20% of the amount as per the impugned judgments pertaining to the High Court, in favour of the respondent-employees" 

Order refers to respondent-employees leaving other pensioners .

 "so that CA 8959-62/13 3 it can pay to the concerned employees." 

Case no is of Jaipur. Does it mean Delhi and Chandigarh Cases have been sidetracked.

 "S.L.P.(C) No.....CC Nos.5437-5440/2015 Issue notice on the applications for condonation of delay, as also on the special leave petitions." 

SLP of UOI NOT yet admitted.
"As the matter relates to grant of enhancement of pension, it shall be listed between item Nos.1 to 5 in the hearing list." 

Enhancement of pension is mentioned here. So the Judgement is only for DA Neutralisation.

Since Jaipur Case alone is referred,Sri.Asthana should take immediate and necessary and immediate steps (even before vacation) to include pension upgradation to respondent petitioners -if possible  to all pensioners.

F.A..Q

Dear Editor,

                  Being personally present in Supreme Court to watch our  case proceedings live on 07.05.2015 , I  released an update immediately through Whatsapp  to all concerned after coming out of court no. 5 based on my interpretation and assessment with a precaution that  Exact Order to be available on supreme court website will throw some more light thereby finally indicating my message  either fully or partially correct. Still waiting for Supreme Court Orders. Increasing no of hits on your blog indicate anxiety of all L.I.C.Pensioners.

                  Two most frequently asked  questions by all friends on phone during our entire journey by train from New Delhi to Chandigarh on 7th evening are as below.:-

1. Whether said order is applicable to Non-Petitioners or not ?

2. Whether said order is for D.A.only or it includes Pension Up gradation also ?

    I  wish to add a third Question also.

3. Whether L.I.C. will interpret Supreme Court Order dated 07.05.2015 correctly ?

Past experience tells us so far L.I.C. has made a mockery of Two High Court Verdicts namely Jaipur and Chandigarh  while depositing amount due to Petitioners which actually is  pure D.A for. pre 01.08.1997 retirees without any weightage of 11.25 % for 1997 wage revision as well as two further wage agreements  for 2002 and 2007. We can not blame any one for this situation as our whole judicial system ensures quick relief to rich and resourceful citizens and poor L.I.C. Pensioners do not belong to this class.

Regards,

B.R.Mehta

Panchkula

POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS POSITIVE RESPONSE FROM LIC.

Referring to the post of Mr M V Venugopalan,I do not agree with his statement  “------ while the arrears of difference in DR is easily quantifiable, the arrears arising out of difference in pension is not”.

 Once the Jaipur Single Judge Bench order dated 12/1/2010 is correctly interpreted, there cannot be any difficulty for LIC for quantifying the arrears on removal of DR anomaly, 100% DR neutralisation and up- gradation of pension.

What may perhaps  pose a minor difficulty will be the determination of the revised Basic Pension on up- gradation of pension on 1/8/1997,1/8/2002 and 1/8/2007 corresponding to the existing pension by preparing a fitment chart based on the statistical method of interpolation/extrapolation. With the computer software resources and expertise available with the L I C, it is not difficult for the Corporation to complete the exercise and make the payment of the court-ordered amount of 20% of arrears within 6 weeks to all the eligible pensioners. Of course the CO personnel experts and the IT software experts will need to sit together before deciding upon the algorithms required for the purpose keeping in mind the directions of the Jaipur Bench and Supreme Court.

It is worth recalling at this juncture that even while paying the deposits in the Jaipur Bench & Chandigarh HC Registries, LIC did not strictly adhere to the Jaipur Order dt 12/1/2010 allowing the first writ petition No 6676/1998 according to which the DR formula itself (from 1/8/1987 onwards) was required to be revised from the date of retirement or 1/11/1993 whichever was later on par with that adopted for in-service employees. On the contrary LIC chose to adopt  the more convenient option of simple merger of existing DR on the existing basic pension (without weightage) on 1/8/1997 and freezing such merged pension as basic pension without revising it upwards on1/8/2002 & 1/8/2007 ignoring the fact that the Jaipur Bench had also  allowed the W.P. No 654/2007 ordering upgradation of pension. This approach adopted by LIC was clearly against the Jaipur Single Bench Order.

All that is required of the LIC/UOI is the willingness to implement the Supreme Court order in   letter and spirit.

Having said this, let us await the written order of 7^th May 2015 of the Supreme Court.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

PLEASE WAIT FOR SC ORDERS.

FRIENDS

THERE HAVE BEEN CONTRADICTIONS IN REPORTS THAT HAVE APPEARED IN SOME 

PENSIONERS BLOGS, CREATING FURTHER ANXIETY AND CONFUSION AMONG ST THE COMMON PENSIONERS.

FRIENDS, TILL WE GET EXACT COURT ORDERS ON THE SUPREME COURT

WEB SITE ( MAY BE BY TODAY EVENING OR TOMORROW ) OR OUR  ADVOCATES GET 

THE COPY, LETS KEEP CALM & OUR FINGERS CROSSED AND HOPE & PRAY FOR A POSITIVE OUT COME FOR ALL PENSIONERS. 

WITH BEST WISHES AND REGARDS,

HK AGGARWAL

S D Sharma's post in Pensioners' Chronicle chat room

Referring to Mr S D Sarma’s post, my view is that the although the SC order on 7/5/2015 was basically in respect of the CA against the Jaipur judgment, considering the fact that the other two CAs are also tagged with the former CA, any interim payment ordered should satisfy the original  petitioners under all the CAs.Although there are only 60 petitioners under Jaipur & Chandigarh judgments, as Delhi HC provides for ‘in rem’benefits,the interim payment will be required to be paid to all Class I pensioners retired prior to 1/8/1997.But the question is whether  they can restrict the interim payment to only Class I pensioners and also whether even pre-August 1997 pensioners will be paid only restricted benefits on  DR anomaly removal & 100% DR neutralisation while for pre_August 1997 retiree- petitioners under the Jaipur & Chandigarh writs upgraded pension will have to be paid. Again there is the question whether they can restrict  the interim payment only to pre-August 1997 retirees leaving the post -July 1997 retirees who too are suffering from pension discrimination.

In consequence,any interim payment short of upgraded pension for some pensioners and interim payment  with upgraded pension  for some others  and also based on cut-off date of 1st  August 1997 will  be discriminatory, which situation is sought to be done away with through the Civil Appeals.

I am sure that the written order of the SC will address such concerns.Let us wait and see.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Thanks Sir for your clarifications. 

You are doing a great job, by updating the members on various developments in time; as after retirements, people lost contact with the office, and are not aware of the day to day developments and other happenings around. By the by, if TPA M/s MDIndia is for 3 Zones viz Northern, Western, Central Zone and  Central office, how come, hospitals of Orissa are finding place in that list, which comes under East Central Zone?

Thanks and Regards

A.S. Parida

Bhubaneswar 

Mr M V Venugopalan's post in PC

DEAR ALL,

Mr M V Venugopalan's post, he has cited the views of the protagonists of removal of DR anomaly only with 100% DR neutralisation to the exclusion of upgradation of pension in chain reading "We are on a shaky ground as far as our demand for upgradation of pension is concerned but 100% sure of wresting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court in the matter of parity in DA. If differential DA between pre 1997 and post 1997 pensioners is an anomaly and discrimination between two sets of pensioners, doesn't the same logic apply in the case of differential pension drawn by pensioners with the same designation and length of service but retired at different intervals?"

May be the anxiety of this group of pensioners is understandable as such pensioners relatively older   in the age group of 74-85 years( including retired employees of erstwhile insurers)  are desperate to  obtain whatever benefits  they can secure even if they fall short of  what they are legally and legitimately entitled to.

But there is a subtle and fine difference in the type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees and that being suffered by post July 1997 retirees. The type of discrimination being suffered by the pre-August 1997 retirees is additional to the discrimination arising out of non –up gradation of pension suffered by all pensioners retired from 1/1/1986 to 31/7/2007.The additional discrimination suffered by pre-August 1997 retirees springs from the anomaly of differential DR formula adopted in respect of pensioners vis-à-vis the in-service employees   unlike in the case of post-July 1997 retirees for whom no anomaly exists on the DR front.

It is quite another matter that the Supreme Court may not necessarily provide partial justice to pensioners considering the fact that Jaipur Bench has allowed two distinct writ petitions –one allowing  removal DR anomaly and the other allowing upgradation of pension-with  reasoned observations. Even if –by a remote chance in my view-the Apex Court only allows DR anomaly removal & 100% DR neutralisation for pre-August 1997 pensioners, the matter will not end there as the removal of DR anomaly will have to be done according to the decision taken in the LIC Board Resolution  of 24/11/2001 which while providing for removal of DR anomaly also provides for merger of DR with Basic Pension on 1/8/1997 with suitable weightage. If such a process is not adopted for post-July 1997 retirees, then there is bound to be a spate of vexatious litigations from post-July 1997 retirees. May be it will be a painful process for the affected ageing pensioners, but it may be inevitable. I am sanguine that judicial wisdom will ultimately prevail in the disposal by Supreme Court of the three CAs and justice will be done to all affected pensioners without exception. With strong grounds in favour of pensioners, it is up to the  three sets of case managers and counsel to make things happen in favour of pensioners.

With greetings,

C H Mahadevan