Ecircular DK-42 7th Oct. 2018
Friends,
I have
been off the 'air' for a while. As you know we are moving
into the next phase
in our major litigation in the SC. We would really have
liked to go ahead with
the most important agenda of Revision/up-gradation,
as a 'do or die'
battle for the Pensioner community. When we look
around us, we find that the
central Govt Pensioners, get a periodic
adjustment to keep the principle of 'Parity' with the later date retirees.
The
Central Govt. pension rules 1972 does not include a clause for such
Revision.
The In-service employees of LIC too get a 5 yearly Revision
though there is no
backing in the Staff Regulations to enable this.
So 'no Rule', is
really no rule, to rule out, on our demand for Revision.
Further, it is a bit, disheartening to note
that LIC which took an
official stand to propose for Pension Revision , as far
back as 2001,
after getting the Board Approval through an appropriate
Resolution,
turning around now to deny our claim for revision of Pension.
There is a letter obtained through the route of RTI Act, which is
There is a letter obtained through the route of RTI Act, which is
from ED
Per/HRD of LIC to the Jt. Secretary Finance,
sent on 31st Dec 2001,
clearly giving reasons why revision
in Pension should be approved by the
Central Govt. The Caption
to that letter reads -- "Amendments to
LIC of India (Employees)
Pension Rules 1995 -- Post Retirement Commercial
employment
and Upgrading of Basic Pension".
Under point 4 of the
letter it states -- "The matter was also put up
to the Board
for its Approval in its aforesaid Meeting.
The Board has approved the proposal
as contained in the
Board Note and has suggested that the matter shall be given
a prospective effect after seeking the approval of the Govt."
There has since been no official
stand taken to reverse that position.
It is therefore unethical for the LIC to
now take a different stand
on this issue in Court. It almost appears that
anything that suits
the moment can be taken in Court, to win a point!
Court-
craft has evolved over time, to justify any position,
being taken, that carries
currency in court, to get a decision of one's
seeking.
Another sad part of such institutional ‘loss of values’,
is clearly evidenced, in the manner the Directions of the Court
were
interpreted, in assuming the wrong base date, for Arrears
to be paid to the
Pre-97 retirees.
Their contention on this, is that the 1998 Petition, the
earliest one,
as per the Court Directive, did not pertain to DR issue!
I
quote verbatim from the concluding part of that 1998
Asthana Petition, which is
the Prayer to the Court: …
"It is therefore , most
respectfully prayed that this
honourable court, may graciously be pleased to
allow this
application and direct the Nonpetitioners to pay the
Dearness
Relief as per rule 5 of the Revision Rules .....".
This
unfortunately was not clear enough for the Brain-Trust
in the LIC to interpret
it as a petition regarding DR relief!!
Or was it a contrived idea to deny the
legitimate dues to the
aged Retirees of pre-1997?
If one looked at the Judgment of the Jaipur HC on this
petition,
it is unmistakably clear that the whole discussion there,
is on the
aspect of DR discrimination, against the Pre-97 retirees.
But then, who
wants to be fair and square in treating the Seniors,
who built this
organization in the early days?
The mind-set of the LIC management, handling
this matter,
was into game-playing - a game in which they wanted to use
their
pre-emptive authority to' win', and gloat over their
artfulness, in being able
to out-wit the retirees, and the Court,
all in one shot! They hold the gun, and
you are nowhere,
in the contest of right from wrong!
This unfortunate attitude of manipulating to 'win'
in a
game-playing mode, is amply manifest even in the Counter
the LIC has filed,
against our Petition in the Kerala HC,
on the 92-93 issue, of applying the MC
Jain judgment
to others in similar position. The SC , while deciding
on the
Appeal filed by LIC, in the MC Jain case (where,
in the Jaipur HC, Sri Jain had
won the case, against LIC,
for their denying re-fixation from the date of the
revision
only to Class I), had stated in just two lines, that
having regard to
the "peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case",
the SC does not see merit in admitting the
Appeal of LIC, and therefore
it stands Dismissed.
In the LIC Counter in the Kerala HC, the LIC has tried to
take
undue, and mischievous advantage, of the SC wordings,
to state that the
'peculiar facts and circumstances' of the case
stated by the SC in its
Dismissal Order of LIC's Appeal,
in MC Jain's case, refers to 'special'
circumstances
involved in MC Jain's case which cannot be applied to
other
retirees, in the same period - band, of denial !
If Court gives them a certain leverage to manipulate to
win,
that is perfectly on! There is no moral ground, as an institution
, to
eschew certain unethical methods, where it is an all out
attempt to win at any
cost! This is how, a great institution
is brought down in stature, to the
levels of individuals manning it,
who can only think of winning, irrespective
of how they go on record,
and what despicable positions they assume, to
gain their end of
winning! What they don't perhaps remember is that, one day,
they
will be here, where we are now, and their next generation of
leadership
would have been inducted into this Hall of Shame
against them! Are we not
crudely reminded of the Rule of
Aurangzeb, of hundreds of years ago, where
anything was right,
if it was to win a war!?
It is reliably learnt from the SC circles, that our
case is the only one
listed for 11th Oct (listed as No 1), apart from a few (
Miscellaneous)
Admission cases. So, if things proceed as they are now, without
any sudden butting in of influential / high profile cases, we should be
getting
a fair bit of time on our case. It is also learnt that the case
is coming up
before the same Bench headed by Sri Madan Lokur
in Court No 2. Let's hope
for the best.
So friends, the 11th Oct Hearing in the SC, is a crucial one for us
to take things forward , particularly on the matter of Revision in
Pension, just as in Central Govt Retirees' case, to keep us in
some form of 'Parity' with later retirees. Our attempt will be
to submit before the SC in writing that the compliance on the
Arrears to Pre-97 retirees has been a fiasco of sorts, and without
waiting to discuss it further, would want to proceed with the Points
in the SLP, and mainly on Revision/Up-gradation of Pension.
We shall revert to you as soon as there is something to Report.
With Best Wishes
D.Krishnan. General Secretary
6-10-2018
Comments
Post a Comment
Your opinions are of interest to us.
We shall be only too receptive when you respond. BTW, comments are subject to moderation.