It would therefore be better to rely on other things rather than harping on ,56 GNS says.

 Pensioners of the public sector financial institutions- which have remained so till now-resort to ,court fight out of necessity or compulsion to secure what they feel is their right.

We, 

LIC Pensioners rightly imagine ourselves as pioneers in this behalf albeit the fact remains that the only success in about a decade and a half we have had through court intervention is possibly the truncated benefit in the matter of 100% neutralisation on DR. The bank pensioners individually and through their numerous representative bodies also do not lag behind as quite a few dozens of cases might be pending today in several High courts in the country and also the SC. The pensioners of the general insurance sector are not known to have gone to the court so far as they were also getting automatically the doles periodically accruing for their counterparts in Banks & LIC .However very recently they have forayed into this feild for the details of which I solict the readers' patience to go through this long post of mine.

Many of us are not perhaps aware that the pension Rules are not merely similar but actually identical for 1)public sector Banks (except SBI) 2) LIC and 3)PS companies in the Gen.insurance field though there are slight variations in few rule numbers but wordings are more or less the same.We (LIC) have been harping on Rule 56 (identical to Rule 55 for Banks & gen.insce)and some of our leaders/experts firmly believe that this' Residuary ' provision can come to our rescue on many of our demands including Updation and there have been sumptuous discourses in that behalf through blogs or otherwise.We tend to forget that this provision has never been invoked by the authorities for not only LIC but also the others nor their purport has been probed into by the judiciary any time .It will be interesting to know that while the said rule 56 is worded in general and is obviously intended to be used as an omnibus weapon of  the Govt.to exercise it's authority. While so there are certain Rules specifically  offering some concessions to the advantage of the pensioners and even they are brushed aside with impunity.It therefore follows that such  rules are intended to remain only on paper  very much like the reported expression of sympathy for pensioners by the FM about which many have got excited.I would like to make a reference to Rule 27 ( corresponding to Rule 26 for Banks & gen.insce)

 by which weightage in computing the

,qualifying period for FULL pension is specifically provided for those recruited as specialists ( with special qualifications) by relaxation of the age requirements.It is on this point the GI pensioners have now gone to the court under the following circumstances. 

Sometime in late 2015 the office bearers of Bank of Baroda retired officers' Association at Chennai approached me with a request to help them engaging an advocate in the supreme Court for filing an SLp.I was informed by them that a batch of WPs had been filed in the Madras HC by some of their Pensioners (V vijayan & others) who were all recruited as specialist officers with qualifications in Agricultural science giving them age relaxation. After they retired on completion of 25 to 30 yrs.of service in the bank their pensions were fixed imposing proportional cut and in disregard of Rule 26 of their pension Rules for weightage to the extent of 5 yrs (max)in respect of their service in the field of Agricultural

Science prior to joining the bank.

.I learnt that a single judge of the Madras HC had passed a judgement strongly in their favour but unfortunately it was reversed by a Division Bench.On my suggestion they engaged the same advocate who was dealing with the cases of Retd LIC class1 officers'Associations of which I was then the GS. .Meantime another Writ on the same issue by a similarly affected specialist officer had been filed in the Allahabad HC ( AP Saxena & others,) which was disposed off by a DIVISION bench in favour of the pettitioners. The Bank/UOI had also filled an SLP on the same in SC.

Both the SLPs referred to in the foregoing para were clubbed and by a common judgement dated 20/7/ 2017 

( CA nos 9371 to 9374/2017 & CA no 9370/2017) the supreme Court upheld the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad HC and the single Bench of Madras HC.Thereupon ,evidently after approval by the finance ministry the IBA issued acircular directing ALL banks (ps)to refix the pensions of all such similarly placed officers recruited specially with relaxation on entry age requirementby not only by BOB but all others.

Again based on the suggestion of the concerned banking sector Pensioners at Chennai a team of retired officers of gen insurance who had worked as 'Veterinary officers in the four nationalised gen .insce.companies called on me recently .They requested me in my capacity as an advocate to file a writ on their behalf based on the SC judgement referred to above.I was surprised to note that only one of the companies sent a negative reply on the representation for re-fixation  of these veterinary people and the other three remained silent.In spite of my reluctance I was forced to accept the brief and filed a writ against UOI,GIPSA and the 4 g.i.companies. (WP 3429/2021) in the Madras HC. The writ came up on 18/2/2021 and the HC was pleased to admit the same and ordered notices returnable on 30/4/2021.As permitted by the court I have already sent my private notice to the Finance Ministry & others.

The reason for posting this long material is to enable the LIC Pensioners and particularly their leaders to note the following  emerging significant points from the episodes narrated above.

1) when a judgement is given for one set of Pensioners beloning to a particular category the benefit thereof should be extended to all similarly placed pensions In the same organisation.

 ( The govt. is negative for us in MC Jain matter whereas they have been generous in acting with Bank pensioners.I have raised this point in my writ for GI people)

2) Updation is an issue not dealt with in any of the pension Rules referred to herein.It would therefore be better to rely on other things rather than harping on ,56 especially when we are held not to be equals to govt employees.

Needless to add that I will be interested to hear the views of the readers of tthis  blog 

 With  Greetings to all -

 GN Sridharan