.on the 7th Floor and exactly at 11 am

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS

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

Ecircular No.DK/76                                                     26-07-2019

Friends,                      

Reg:  The flesh and blood of the discussions on 24-07-2019

I must apologize for the very bare, bony-structure communication through DK 75. I thought I must share with you the kind of experience we had in discussing with the CO team, headed by the Chairman, LIC, Sri M R Kumar.

We met in the CO Committee Room 2 on the 7th Floor and exactly at 11 am Sri Kumar walked in, with all the others  including, the ED (P) Sri Mukesh Gupta, Smt Kher Additional ED (P), Sri Wanwar, Chief Personnel, Smt Aruna Seth Secretary Personnel   & Sri Shriram Vaidya, Asst Secretary (P), already in attendance there. On our side we were six of us, including           Sri G Krishnaswamy (Genl Secretary, AIRIEF), Sri Vijay Singh Sikarwar, AIRIEF, Sri SS Murthy and Sri M Ramana of Hyderabad Association, and the two of us Sri N P Bali President and the undersigned, Genl. Secy. of the Federation.

I started the conversation, on behalf of the group of 6, greeting the Chairman who had taken over reigns of the Corporation recently. I mentioned that we had high expectations from the new Leadership dispensation of the LIC. Mention was made that the experience thus far had been very disappointing, in that the Retiree Groups were virtually given no regard and were treated like push-overs. Example of how all protests on the violations in implementation of the DHC order, for payment of Arrears to Pre-97 retirees, went totally unheeded. The 92-93 Retirees' matter too had been treated very casually, in spite of the SC judgment, on the M C Jain Case, upholding a general principle that should have been applied, to all similarly placed retirees as Sri M C Jain. While Senior Citizens all over were being treated with special regard, the LIC Management had chosen to give them a second grade treatment. It was in this background that we were reviving hopes for better days with the new leadership Team of the LIC.

            We then went straight into the list of 15 points that had been listed in our advance notice to the Meeting. I shall not repeat the points in the order as these have been conveyed in that bare, bony circular DK 75 already. I shall try to bring in some interesting aspects shared, during the discussions.

On the Pre-97 Retirees' matter, the CO contention  was that the Legal Dept of CO had taken a view on the DHC  orders, and given their interpretations. The explanation for taking 2007 as base year for calculation of Arrears, instead of Dec. 1998, the date of the first writ petition filed, as per Court order, was somewhat convoluted and didn't sound logical. The attempt was to link the DHC judgment relating to up-gradation which was not accepted by the Court, and therefore the first petition which had sought up-gradation had been set aside. It was not a convincing view-point and promptly we shot it down to say, page 89 of the DHC judgment was on all the 4 operational things being granted, and were in simple English, where no scope existed to interpret or link other aspects to it. Chairman also very briefly asked his Personnel Dept. about interest for late payment being calculated after deducting the Interim Relief Amount , instead of first calculating interest and then deducting the Interim Relief Amount, if at all it had to be still done , against the Court Order. Since this point had also been mentioned in the initial remarks, it came into fair focus when the matter came up in the Agenda.

The 92-93 Retirees' matter had been brought to the notice of the Chairman, in my informal meeting with him at Ernakulam on the 27th of May this year. Now when it figured again, Chairman said that while he was committed to attempt to solve this matter, he mentioned about the Finance Ministry's position on such matters, where an individual had won a Court Case, it was not to be automatically applied to the others similarly placed. Since this was some kind of a guideline from the ministry, this matter is being referred to the Finance Ministry for their concurrence. I have now written to the Chairman, on my return, saying that this case had clear implications, not just for the one individual, who went to Court, and won, but for the entire category of people similarly placed.

Talking about raising the Family Pension from 15% of last drawn pay, as it now obtained, to 30% of last drawn pay, we thanked the Management for taking up the matter through a Resolution to the Board of LIC, on their own. We, however, stated that the query raised in the Board regarding Cost of such change, and the very high figure of projected cost, put up to the Board, whereupon the proposal had to be dropped, was rather unfortunate. We said, we didn't know  the calculations of the Actuarial Dept. in this context, but were certain that the very high number worked out can't be correct. There is a problem with the CO Actuarial Dept., when asked to work out cost of a change. They seem to factor -in all connected eventualities, for all time in future, without balancing it with projections of growth in Income and Net Worth of the LIC.  So when only the numerator item is projected without the Denominator items, the view gets skewed to our disadvantage. I have since returning, written to the Chairman on this.

When it was mentioned that LIC's problem in recent days has, perhaps, to do with the 95-05 sharing of Surplus as mandated by the LIC Act. If they could get it altered to 90-10 as it obtains for Private Insurers, they would get some leeway to meet their commitments. To this the Chairman confirmed, that the change in the LIC Act had been effected, and it is now on the 90-10 formula as for Private Insurers. He also confirmed that the Govt. share stands at 5% as before, and LIC has recourse, to a 'Reserve' of some sort!

On the matter regarding re-jigging the 33 year principle for full Pension Eligibility, to 20 years, as in Central Govt. the CO response was that they were already in the process of taking up this with the Govt. for the change. As an adjunct, I mentioned about Capt. Vasudevan's representation to LIC, asking for his 4 years’ Service in the Army, prior to joining LIC, to be taken into account to give him the benefit of full pension. Though our Rule 25 of Pension Rules is silent on this, it was made out that this Rule 25 itself had been adopted from the CCS Rules where it states clearly that those who did not receive Pension or Gratuity from that service, were entitled to have the service period in the Army counted in their further employment. I will need to follow up , since Chairman asked for parallels in Public Sector Banks or comparable institutions, so that while putting up to Govt. for approval, this may be an additional point in favour.

In discussions on Mediclaim, the CO welcomed ideas for changes in the yearly contracts. They mentioned that at CO and ZO levels there were Nodal Officers appointed by the LIC who could be contacted on areas of problems.  Dental cover could be given but the premium will be like 4000 additionally, for Dental cover for the whole family, amounting to only 6000! Since this is a start now , it may  reduce as experience keeps coming in. Similarly, when asked about additional facility, for Domiciliary Medical Reimbursement scheme, the ED(P) said, the premium may be 85% of the Benefit assured, as we are all in the elderly age-group and claims are likely to be high. Madam Aruna Seth (Secretary Per.), while on the Room rent limits, and Nursing Charges making it difficult for us, stated that Nursing charges are not part of Room Rent limits and it is the TPAs who muddle up because they also do for other insurers and could be confusing one with the other. But on return, and checking up, the Rule itself seems to put it that way, linking the Room Rent with nursing charges. I have written to CO already pointing out the Rule. I will await their communication.

 One good thing out of these discussions is that they are open to suggestions for change before Renewal next year.

The Discussions took over one hour and the Chairman was present for almost the full time. The atmosphere was very cordial and we were treated to a very good Lunch after the Meeting. This meeting has sown the seeds for good mutual contacts in the future. The Relationship with the other Associations on the Joint Front has also become closer and stronger. We realize that by getting together, we can possibly get better benefits to all members of the Retired Community. Though the technical idea of a Confederation is still some time away, it has virtually started working to good effect.

My Greetings to all 

D.Krishnan.