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
|
E
circular DK/3 – 2019-21
21-12-2019
Friends,
Reg:
i. Letter
to Chairman, ii. Change in Bye-laws,
iii.
NABARD -- HC judgment on their Pension Revision
This
is just to keep you updated on some recent activities of the
Federation. Just after return from the General Council Meeting at
Kolkata, we thought, as a pre-cursor to the Court Case in the SC,
coming up on the 5th of February 2020, we should once again make an
official representation to the Chairman LIC on some of the unresolved
aspects of the earlier DHC Order, where they had submitted to the SC
a compliance Report on the DHC order, claiming to have done a
complete job as ordered by the SC. We too had submitted our Counter
to this in the SC , making out that the implementation was
extremely faulty. Now, if the new Bench were to begin on that note,
we wanted that our point about LIC not having done a job of it, and
our having repeatedly taken it up with the LIC, to no effect, should
be on record. The Letter to the Chairman is attached as
enclosure.
Following up
on the discussions in the General Council Meeting on the 8th of Dec.
2019, we have sought an appointment with the ED E&OS in the
middle of Jan 2020, to discuss issues relating to Mediclaim
experience of our members. We have even suggested that the
Representatives of the Insurer too could be asked to be present
during the discussions. We may even have some other Association
members joining us to strengthen our side in the Discussions.
Again,
following the Resolutions passed in the General Council Meeting at
Kolkata, which also approved consequent changes to the Bye-Laws, the
changes effected to the Bye-Laws are indicated in the chart below:
AMENDMENT
TO BYELAWS OF THE FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS
I OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONS
AT
THE GENERAL CONFERENCE ON 8-12-2019 AT KOLKATA
BYELAW
NO
|
EXISTING
|
AMENDED
|
8.
ORGANISATION
b.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
|
PRESIDENT:
1
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
3
GENERAL
SECY. ;
1
JOINT
SECRETARIES: 5
TREASURER
:
1
MEMBERS
OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
one member from each affiliated unit, subject to a maximum of 15
provided the concerned units are represented at the general
council
|
PATRON:
1
PRESIDENT:
1
VICE-PRESIDENTS:
3
COORDINATORS
(VPs): 3
(LEGAL,
EXPANSION & LIAISON) only till such
time these areas of activity needed
such thrust:
GENERAL
SECY. : 1
JOINT
SECRETARIES: 8
TREASURER
:
1
MEMBERS
OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
maximum of 17
|
Allahabad
High Court Judgment of 13/11/2019 in NABARD Retd Officers Welfare
Association’s Case
Meanwhile
there has been an Allahabad HC judgement on the Case raised by the
NABARD employees. NABARD as you may know is a subsidiary of the RBI
and they went to Court asking for Pension Revision on the lines given
to the RBI employees. I quote below what Sri M P Agnihotri of
AIRIEF has to Report on this:
NABARD
Retd. Officers Association had filed case no. 301 of 2002 in
Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court on the issues of Family Pension
and Updation of Pension. The case was pending for a long period and
in the meantime, the issue of Family Pension was resolved on the
lines of RBI pensioners in Dec 2014.
However,
the second issue remained unresolved and when pension updation was
allowed to RBI pensioners in March 2019, NABARD Retd. Officers
Association pleaded for allowing pension updation to them on the
lines of RBI. UOI opposed the demand pleading that the employees of
NABARD are in fact to be treated as per the pattern of pension scheme
recommended by the Indian Banks Association and not otherwise.
Considering the arguments of the petitioners advocate and keeping in
view the powers given to the Board in the ‘National
Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Pension
Regulations,1993’ and
its proposal regarding pension updation, the Court has referred the
matter to the Central Government for considering prior permission to
the NABARD Board for notifying their proposal on pension updation. It
is also stated in the judgment that with the consent of parties, the
writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the Central
Government for taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of
the matter in relation to updation of pension and pass necessary
order expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months
from the date a certified copy of this order.
This
judgment may be considered as a positive one, as it has not outright
denied the claim of pension updation and gives hope for pension
updation to NABARD Retd employees on the lines of RBI pension
updation pattern.
Good
bye then until next time
D.Krishnan.
General
Secretary
Encl:
Letter to chairman
FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS
THE CHAIRMAN 14-12-2019
LIC OF INDIA,YOGAKSHEMA,
JEEVAN BIMA MARG, BY SPEED POST
MUMBAI – 400021
Dear Sir,
RE: RENEWED REQUEST TO SET RIGHT THE FAULTY
IMPLEMENTATION OF DHC ORDER
While we are not on the demerits of the Hon’ble Delhi HC order here, which is the subject matter of the petition pending in the Supreme Court, we have repeatedly brought to your kind attention, both orally and in writing, the deviations, and deficiencies in LIC’s implementation of the said order, on payment of Arrears, for the pre-1997 Retirees. We very much regret that no action has been taken in setting right such wrongs, although one and quarter years have elapsed. You will be convinced that the following outcome, by itself, reveals the apparent deficiencies in the said implementation.
- HUGE DROP IN NUMBERS: While 16000 pensioners were paid 40% DR as Interim Relief in 2016, only 3600 pensioners were paid any relief on DHC order, that too after intervention of the Hon’ble SC. Taking into account the exits due to death of pensioners in the intervening period, at least 10000 pensioners who received the IR were deprived of any relief whatsoever.
- HUGE DROP IN AMOUNT: While 40% itself as Interim Relief worked out to Rs.29.35 Cr, the relief that is assumed to be complete, and paid as above, stood at as low an amount as Rs.23.08 Cr (after recovering the bulk of Rs.29.35 CR), despite (i) the increased DR cost in the intervening period of 2 ½ years and (ii) inclusion of certain interest component as well. All that the small number of 3600 pensioners had received was as small as Rs.460 per month, on an average (inclusive of interest).
- MISSED THE MINIMUM: While there are as many as (estimated) 6000 pensioners (Pre-97) with a basic pension of less than the minimum prescribed Rs.3010, only 56 pensioners received any relief, on minimum pension upgrade. LIC affirmed in their Affidavit to SC, their commitment to minimum pension and sought more time to resolve the complexity in calculations, but nothing tangible in the implementation thereof has occurred so far.
The gravest errors in the implementation are enumerated in the following four paragraphs (categories), in the order of severity of violations.
- HARD-HIT: For those who had retired prior to 1993, the rate of DR (for basic 2130-3850) has been fixed at 0.29% with the rationale stated (Para 79 of the DHC order) and recapped in the operating part. (Para 107 (iii) (c)). While this rate itself as ordered by DHC is disputed, the LIC calculated DR at a still lower rate 0.23% (probably taking undue advantage of a typo), which is a clear violation.
- TRUNCATION OF PERIOD OF ARREARS: Para 109 of the DHC order sated "Arrears, if any, would be paid from the date when the first Writ Petition was filed, to all retired employees/pensioners who would be entitled to benefit of this judgment". While the first WP (No.6676/1998) was filed, as early as on 18/12/1998, in Jaipur HC with the key prayer to set right the discrimination in DR, which later evolved to be denial of Rule 3 A benefits, and which is one of the two petitions disposed of in the judgment of Jaipur HC, on 12/1/2010. But, LIC had deliberately mis- reckoned the date as 29/1/2007 as the base year from which to calculate the Arrears payable!
- UNFAIR DEDUCTION OF THE INTERIM RELIEF: While LIC deducted the Interim Relief amount, contrary to the DHC order, they also contravened yet another Order of the SC, which had stated in the context of the Interim Relief, as "subject to final results", which meant that LIC could have waited for the final outcome, as the petitioned issues have not reached finality yet. LIC's own covering letter while disbursing the Interim Relief says, “is subject to final verdict of Hon’ble DHC/ Hon’ble SC, as the case may be, for recovery/refund”. The hurried deduction of the Interim Relief amount is unfair and harsh.
- COMPOUNDING FAULTS: LIC’s action to pay even a small interest for a very short period, say, a year, has been slashed unfairly as they calculated the interest after deducting the unrecoverable Interim Relief, which tantamounts to charging interest as well, on the IR deducted.
Aggrieved by the underpayment in the implementation of the DHC order on DR and interest dues, several Pre-97 retirees sent protest letters individually in Oct 2018, to your predecessor; and it may be worth pointing out here that the senders included eminent persons like Sri R Narayanan (ex- Chairman who initiated the pension scheme), Shri G. Chidambar, the oldest and senior most MD (Retd.) and DS Narain ( Retd. ED, who passed away a few days back).
While we were given to understand you are taking benevolent initiatives towards pensioners, the affected category under this representation, relates to pensioners aged 80 and much above. If you extend your sympathetic consideration, to this lot, which they certainly deserve, and mend the defectively implemented DHC Order, all of them will be grateful to you.
Yours Faithfully
D.Krishnan.
=====================================================================
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.