E circular DK 47 dated 15.11.2018

President :    N.P. Bali 705, Sur, Veena Saaz, Thakur Complex, Kandivali (East), Mumbai - 400 101 Mob : 9820324213 Email Id - npbali@hotmail.com

General Secretary :    D Krishnan No.6/1, Sreshta Riverside Apartments, Wood Creek Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai - 600089 Tel : 9176635967 / 044 42850049. Email Id - dkrishnan1@gmail.com

E circular DK-47                                                                                                       15-11-2018

Friends,

We had a meeting with the EDs Personnel, Sri Sharad Srivastva and Sri Mukesh Gupta, on the 13th of Nov. 2018, at the Central Office. They had responded to our request for an Appointment, and given time as 11-30 am on the 13th of Nov. The delegation from our side consisted of Sri N P Bali ,President, Sri D Krishnan, Gen Secretary,          Sri D M Pathak, Vice President and Sri S K Kapahi, past President of the Federation.  We had, earlier, arrived at 13 points to be taken up for discussion. We had printed out the brief points on the Federation Letter-Head and submitted it to them at the start. (The copy of the letter to the EDs carrying the 13 points for discussion  is being reproduced here,  for the information of all our members).

                      Points for Discussion with EDs (P) on 13th Nov.2018

Dear Sri Srivastvaji and Sri Guptaji, Thanks for the opportunity to meet you. We  have been writing to you on these matters. We thought we should put it all in one, as brief points, to help you take them up for finding a solution. Regards,  Gen Secretary

1. Pension Payment Date should be firm, on 1st of the month, irrespective of intervening Holidays.

2. Those Retiring on 1st of the Month should be given equal treatment with others Retiring on other days in the month.

3. The DR Review which is done Hly now to be equated with the in-service employees and done Qly.

4. Give one more option for Joining the Medical Benefit (hospitalization scheme) for those who are not in it now.

5. Consider introducing Full Medical Check- up for Retired Officers once a year.

 6. Extend the Logic of M C Jain Case to other few, octogenarians left, in the 92-93 batch of Retiree Officers.

7. Offer one more chance for joining the Pension Scheme for those who did not opt earlier.

8. Review the minimum qualifying period  principle, of 33 years currently, for full pension. Central Govt has already changed it to 20 years.

9. Inequity in the Family- Pension- percentage principle, to be reviewed and made more equitable.

10. Can the Corporation consider a cash allowance scheme towards domiciliary Medical expenses as an additional benefit to the Retirees?

11. One letter from the Office where a person retires, in the form of a Pension Payment Order, to serve as a Record to the retiree and his family, would be of great help.

12.  It is understood that IRDAI has issued a Circular on 27th Aug 2018 removing 10 Ailments and medical procedures from the excluded category for medical insurance. Can this be taken up with New India , our insurer, for being included in our list of admissible claims?

13. Maximum Gratuity amount has been raised to 20 lakhs for Central Govt. employees with effect from 01-01-2016, whereas for others like LIC and Banks it applies from 31-03-2018 only. This matter has to be taken up with the Central Govt. for equitable treatment, ie., Retirees from 01-01-2016 should also be included for the raise in Gratuity to 20 lakhs. 

D.Krishnan,   Gen Secretary,   (Retired LIC Class I Officers' Federation).

 

The Meeting turned out to be most cordial and friendly. However, their constant refrain was, that even small changes can be done only with the approval of the Central Govt., since Section 48(2) came in the way, of their being able to think of carrying out any change. All the same, they heard us with sympathy and expressed appreciation of the thought behind the demands. Though result-wise, we can't count on much being achieved; this meeting has certainly made them think more seriously about the needs of Pensioners. We were forthright in pointing out that people, while they sit in seats of Authority in the LIC, invariably try to defend the existing order, rather than try and understand the motivations behind the demands.

On point No 1 regarding there being firmness in the date of Pension (1st of the month), they have agreed to discuss with the Banks to see how best the current situation of date of Pension being pushed due to intervening Holidays, can be steadied to make sure we are enabled to draw our pension on the 1st. Their innate difficulty arises out of a technicality created by the Pension rules, where by crediting the amounts into Bank in advance,  should not incidentally lead to violation of the principle as per Pension rules. But they fully appreciated the concern and we feel confident some correction may happen here.

This point about people retiring on the 1st of the month, might need amendment to Staff Regulations, according to them. However, they have noted this with a positive mind and let us see what they are able to do.

On DR review happening Hly , they quoted Govt. where it is done only on Hly basis. But we pointed out that in Govt. it happens uniformly for those Retired and those in Service. They have agreed to re-look into this matter.

On giving one more option for joining the Medical Benefit Scheme, they said, if done, it might alter the average Age profile resulting in Premiums going up. They agreed to discuss this with the OS Dept. and the Insurers.

The Demand for Full Medical Check-up for Retirees was seen by them as additional cost, though they did say that it was a scheme now being offered to the in-service employees. This also struck a positive chord when we pointed out that it is a welfare measure which might lower the Hospitalization claims as well. This also was noted down by them for being examined.

We next jumped to point 10, which is in the same category  as the earlier one here. Again their point was giving a monthly cash Allowance towards Domiciliary Treatment, in effect is nothing but increase in Pension adding to costs, which will need to be examined. We said, while this would be effectively increasing the Pension, it would to a small extent compensate for the huge expenses we incurred every month on repeat medications for chronic conditions like Diabetes and BP. We also mentioned to them, that while increasing Pension would pose questions of Rules,  this one could be seen as a normal welfare measure. They asked in return from where the additional cost would be met.

We came back to discuss the point no 6 in the List, which concerned the 1992-93 Retirees, and how the Corporation had taken a wooden stand to deny the logic granted by Supreme Court in the M C Jain case. We pointed out the fanciful way in which the Counters were being filed by the Corporation where we are fighting fresh cases  on the already decided matter in SC. They have promised to discuss with the Legal Dept. We mentioned about the High Age profile of a small number of 92-93 Retirees who are fast fading away and how the Corporation by taking a decision to go with the principle of the MC Jain case, could end the unnecessary litigations and lead to satisfaction amongst those waiting on this for a positive solution.

Offering one more chance to join the Pension Scheme, is already with the Govt.  and they are following up on a regular basis with the Central Govt. They had no defences on this as they have taken it up with the Central Govt. already.

Reviewing of the Minimum qualifying period of Service from the existing 33 years to 20 years, according to them, is a matter on which the Staff Regulations/Pension Rules may need to be amended. We told them that once a principle has been accepted by the Central Govt., we need to follow-up with the Govt. for getting this to be applied here too. This will be examined by them in the spirit in which we have raised the arguments in favour of the change.

The Discussions on the Family Pension Percentage being reviewed were somewhat prolonged due to the strong reasons that were behind it. We were told that the three slabs of percentages of Family Pension had not kept pace with increases in Pensions, and effectively, only one slab, that of 15% was effectively operational. They say they are working on it already, but were not sure when they could give us the result.

On an Office Letter being given to the Retiree Officer, quoting the various components of the Pension including the Basic Pension fixed, the two EDs were somewhat surprised that such a procedure was not followed. They would evolve a method of operationalizing this in the near future.

About the IRDAI's Circular removing certain Medical procedures/treatments from the Excluded list, the EDs mentioned that newer products incorporating these features of inclusions had not yet been done by the General Insurance Companies. They said they would take it up with the Insurer for our benefit.

On the point regarding Max. Gratuity amount, the ED said there was no difficulty about LIC observing this limit rise right from the time it was announced. The only point would then be the retrospective effect from 2016, for purposes of Tax Exemption which needed to be taken up with the CBDT. Somehow when this point was discussed, and when the  ED readily said there was no problem about paying the increased Gratuity amount as Notified by the Govt., it was left unclear, whether the increase is paid in LIC from 1-1-2016, as in central Govt., which indeed was our demand.  That doubt still remains until we get the correct information.

We also raised an additional point regarding continuance of Group Insurance beyond Retirement. The ED said the Premium might increase if the older category was made part of the group. The Premium payment in such a demand would be borne by the Retired individuals opting for such a scheme if brought about. This has a bright chance of coming through, as the Corporation is already thinking on these lines.

We did touch on the implementation of Arrears and the defects. We showed them the straightforward, simple line in the DHC judgment that refers to effective date from the date of the first Petition. We also pointed out how the rate of DR had been wrongly worked out as 0.23% instead of 0.29% for the paragraph 1 category, as admitted by them in their own Affidavit. They said these were the interpretations of the Legal Dept/ legal Counsel combine, and it would be better for the Court to come on this.

The Discussions took 2 hours and later they were gracious enough to invite us to join them for Lunch, which we did.  It certainly was a worth-while exercise in relationship building with the Central Office, where they could understand our reasons and motivations, as a senior group.  Sorry about the length of this Circular.

With Greetings and Best Wishes,

D.KRISHNAN

 General Secretary

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

D.Krishnan

General Secretary

ReplyReply allForward