Source: http://licpensionerscalicut.blogspot.com/2014/10/
Timestamp: 2017-05-30 03:26:27
Document Index: 179639681

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 32', 'Art 226', 'art 32', 'art 226', 'Art 226', 'Art 226', 'in fine']

LIC PENSIONERS CHRONICLE: October 2014
* CHRONICLE - PENSIONERS CONVERGE HERE, DISCUSS ISSUES OF THEIR CHOICE * CHRONICLE - WHERE EVEN CHAT COLUMN PRODUCES GREAT DISCUSSIONS * CHRONICLE - WHERE MUSIC IS RISING IN CRESCENDO ! Friday, October 31, 2014
As the final hearing of the bunch of civil appeals by SC is
fast approaching, tired as we are over several interpretations regarding
pension upgradation our mind gets clouded with confusion and at this crucial
hour Shri Mahadevan has rightly and
promptly interfered and gave his own interpretation. He has the reputation of
picking up holes in our pension scheme which could baffle the management and
whatever he writes make some interesting reading. May his tribe increase.
After hearing some of the opinions expressed with regard to
the pension upgradation whether possible or only a dream I was driven to refer
to my notes to know for myself what Justice Bhandari’s judgment said about the
relevant writ petition filed by Shri Asthana and what does his prayer says
which I produce here, not the verbatim of it : -
1. For issue of order/direction to the Corporation to fix
the pay of petitioners in the substituted pay scales equivalent to their stage
of pay in their scrapped pay scales on the date of their retirement and pay
pension at the rate of 50% of such basic pay as arrived at on
1-8-1992/1-11-1993 and on from 1-8-1997 and thereafter from 1-8-1992 with all
2.For enhancing pension payable to retirees as and when pay scales are revised irrespective of their dates of retirement.
3. For payment of interest @ 12 % p.a. on arrears of pension
In admitting both the writ petitions, one relating to DR anomaly
and the other one relating to pension upgradation Justice Bhandari’s judgment
said : ‘In the light of the discussion made above both the writ petitions are
allowed. The respondent Corporation is directed to take a decision for the
implementation of resolution dated 24-11-2001 passed by the Board.
Why should anyone entertain the doubt that Justice
Bhandari’s judgment is silent about pension upgradation?
10/31/2014 06:06:00 PM
CPI for Sept.2014 - 253
Shri M. Sreenivasa Murty has sent a letter to the Editor reproduced in the following two images.
"AIIPA AND ITS RELEVANCE WHEN PENSION UPGRADATION ALONGWITH 'WAGE REVISION' IS A WRITING ON THE WALL !"
AIIPA FOR OR AGAINST pension upgradation ?
Pensioners on the verge of getting upgradation ?
Shri Sreenivasa Murty says: "I haven't come across any earlier occasion when AIIPA had something (and so much) to say officially on the burning topic troubling LIC Pensioners. I am somewhat intrigued by the timing.....". AIIPA has come out with 2 notes in the past on the court cases going on. The present one is the third one in the series. It is clear, Shri Murty has not read the same. He can just turn to the right side bar of the blog and read the AIIPA note dated 16 Oct 2011. This is a permanent and a very popular post read by the readers during last three years. The second note was also published in our columns. If he goes to the 'archives', it should be possible for him to find out and read the same.
so clear, Murty can read it right now...
2. Only Shri Murty can explain his statement "There appears to be a big worry for AIIPA about its relevance today when Pension up-gradation along with wage revision, is a writing on the wall." We are happy, Shri Murty is able to read the writing on the wall ! We do not wish to add any comments.
3. His question whether AIIPA is for pension upgradation or not need not be answered now since Shri Murty has not read and understood AIIPA stand on the subject. Shri Murty can come out with a serious piece of comments like the one Shri Mahadevan has offered on the subject so that there could be a meaningful discussion.
10/31/2014 11:11:00 AM
Black colour becomes suddenly sensational !
When one thinks of " Black " what is it? Well for one we speak of black colour that is darkest of all colours. We speak of black clouds i.e, rain bearing clouds. Some prefer their coffee black. For some the future looks black. We are called blacks by Whites. Then during war days there used to be black-outs. Now-a-days with load shedding it is routine. The list can go on.
For the political parties Black Money is a popular issue in elections. The more one speaks about it the more it becomes a noose around that party's neck once they are elected. What sort of promises are made? Divide the assumed figure of black money by the figure of population and tell the voter that his share would be secured once the election is over. So are arrived the figures of 10 to 15 lakhs per capita. Countries that swear by free enterprise also swear by confidentiality for unaccounted money kept in their banks. The money stashed illegally abroad is afterall the wealth of the pillars of governments in each country. Then there is quibbling about legally opened and operated accounts and others which are not. As if a banker would allow accounts to be opened illegally without any evidence about the customer. Is it laid down that a legally opened account should not be used to keep ill gotten money? When 627 names were submitted in sealed cover to the Supreme Court, the judge exclaimed they are old names! Government says the information was upto 2006. One employee who was angry with his Bank leaked the list, they say. Some call him a whistle blower . Which means the Bank's management would not do such a dastardly act unless compelled to. All this reminds me of a book titled " Crisis of India" by one Ronald Segal who interviewed many leaders, influential people in 1950s and brought them in the form of a book. He cites his interview with the then Chairman of C.P.I. Com. S.A. Dange. Dange is reported to have told his interviewer " In India every honest merchant maintains 3 sets of accounts. One for the tax man, the second for the lawyer he trusts and the third one for himself." In the same book a reply in Loksabha by Shri Lal Bahadur Sastry also was quoted. There was a question about donations to Congress party by industrialists. Lal Bahadurji replied " Many people donate money to Congress. Those who donate also include Tatas, Birlas etc. " In recent decades the intelligent monopoly houses, industrialists learnt not to support one party alone. After all the era belonged to coalition politics. They began donating to all parties, the amounts varying in quantity depending on the perception of that party's usefulness or chances of forming a government. Now-a-days they supply their private jets to leaders of political parties, run campaigns for them in the media controlled by their business units, supply funds to the party and T-shirts and food to volunteers etc etc. So the hesitations of Arun Jaitley are understandable. So also those foreign powers that keep India reminding that our country must follow " international standards on information and international standards of confidentiality." All these high sounding words being mere euphemisms for refusing to divulge information. We hear of international standards of accounting. Even IRDA and other regulatory bodies in financial sector speak of international standards of accounting. What can be the international standard of confidentiality for black money? Never disclose the identity of persons with numbered accounts in Swiss Banks, is it ? We heard and read of dictators with Swiss Bank Accounts. We read of military generals who store the wealth looted by them in foreign banks. Indian politicians with Swiss accounts were not heard 5 decades before. That is the price we paid for the development and type of development we have. In 1950s giving the voter a note of Rs.2 for vote was considered a sin. Now the going price for vote in any panchayat election is Rs.2000/- Do politicians elected at such a cost do penance and pray for country's progress? More and More drama would unfold in the days to come. We must thank the judiciary for compelling the government to make the " sensitive information" available to the investigating team . In all this Tsunami where are we? Where will be our pension? Let us pray silently and say "Sathyameva Jayathe." and " Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha."
Off and on, a section of LIC pensioners raises a question whether Justice MN Bhandari’s judgement contains updation of pension from time to time wage revision or it deals with revision of DA only. Let us examine the issue from legal angle.
The Indian Constitution empowers the SC to issue writs for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Indian Constitution under Art 32. The power to issue writs is primarily a provision made to make available the right to Constitutional remedies to every citizen. The right to Constitutional remedies, as we know, is a guarantor of all other fundamental rights available to the people of India. In addition to the above, the Constitution also provides for Parliament to confer on SC power to issue writs for purposes other than those mentioned above
Similarly HC in India are also empowered under Art 226 of the Constitution to issue writs for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by part III and for any other purpose.
What art 32 & art 226 states in the Indian Constitution:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.—(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. (2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part. (3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2). (4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. (3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without— (a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated. (4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32”.
The constitutional provision empowers SC to issue “directions, orders or writs” and not necessarily orders are to be issued in every case. In the light of the above provision, let us see what happened in Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan HC. A writ petition under Art 226 was filed as per details given below:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654 of 2007
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana, aged about 67 years and others. Petitioners
Vs. 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2.Union of India Respondents In the matter of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
AND In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995;
And In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class-I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service Rules, 1985;
And In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class II (Development Officers) (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And In the matter of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III & IV (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985;
And In the matter of Payment of Pension to the Petitioners as per the substituted Pay scales from time to time;
And In the matter of Revision of ex-gratia pension paid to pre-1986 retirees.
Krishna Murari Lal Asthana & Ors. Vs. L.I.C. of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
BY THE COURT:REPORTABLE
These two writ petitions involve common issues, thus are being heard and decided by this order…….……… In light of the discussion made above, both the writ petitions are allowed…….. The benefit arising out of the directions above would, however, be considered by the respondent Corporation so that every retired employee may get the same benefit. (M.N. BHANDARI) J.
The writ originally prayed for under Art 226 was not rejected or declared not maintainable, but are allowed which means content of the writ became directives, binding and enforceable in law. It is not like civil appeals where specific orders need to be necessarily issued. As per constitutional provision, writs as prayed for, if allowed, it construes to be Constitutional Order and maintainable in law and binding on parties involved. ( Interpretation by Basudeb Das )
Courtesy: Eastern News.
Referring to the instalments 2 & 3 of the posts by AIIPA in PC, I furnish my response as follows:
It is conceded that the Central Government has the powers under Sec 48 to amend the Pension Rules,1995 for LIC Pensioners. But when the LIC Board which had a senior official of the Central Government as nominee as a Director in the Board had approved in its meeting on 24/11/2001, the proposal for removal of DR anomaly, 100% DR neutralization and upgradation of pension for recommending to the Central Government for their approval, the silence of the Central Government on the LIC's recommendation till the time of the Jaipur Single Judge Bench Order dt 12/1/2010 for a period of over 9 years is inexplicable.
When the Sec 48 of LIC Act confers powers on the Central Government to make rules, the powers could very well have been used to reject the Board’s recommendation, which was also not done. On account of this, distress has been caused to aged pensioners many of whom have already exited this world without justice being done to them through removal of anomalies and settlement of dues to them. Disparity in pension of the kind that is prevailing in the Corporation today is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution of India. Whatever rules are framed either by LIC of India or the Government of India will have to be consistent with and not in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Any anomalies in pension which create discrimination among pensioners based on different dates of retirement have to be resolved by the LIC and the Central Government by suitable amendments to the rules using the statutory powers vested in them in terms of Sec 48 of the Act. Even when the appeal of LIC came up before the Division Bench at Jaipur, the Bench took serious note of the delay by the Central Government in taking a decision on the Board recommendation and dismissed the appeal. Considering that at the various stages in the Jaipur Bench and also at the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Courts, the judgments have been delivered in favour of pensioners, in my view, one cannot rule out the possibility of the Supreme Court recognizing the powers under Sec.48 of LIC Act of the Central Government to amend Pension Rules, at the same time directing the Government to use those powers to render justice to the aggrieved pensioners by amending those rules suitably to remove anomalies and disparities currently existing in the pension rules.
I may sound euphoric, but I personally feel that LIC pensioners have reasonable scope for having optimistic expectations on 12th November 2014.
Write up on BLACK MONEY
10/30/2014 01:33:00 PM
My Response to the AIIPA 's Note on Court Cases‏
As regards the reference to the Circular of July 2012 on Agenda Note opining that the LIC Board Resolution provides only for full DR neutralization and not updation, I wish to differ with the view. I do feel that the Resolution could have been more clear in its wordings so that diverse interpretations would have been avoided. But reading between the lines of the Resolution, it is not difficult to conclude that it provides for removal of DR anomaly right from 1/11/1993(or the date of retirement, whichever is later), 100% DR neutralsation from 1/8/1997 and upgradation of pension with weightage. If it was only for the purpose of 100% DR neutralization for pre-August 1997 retirees, what is the relevance of the mention in the Resolution of upgradation with weightage of 11.25% as was done in the case of in-service employees?
Secondly nowhere in the Board Resolution there is an indication that such type of upgradation was meant to be a one time exercise. If it indeed was the intent of the LIC Board on 24/11/2001, would it not amount to a situation where one type anomaly sought to be removed would give rise to and perpetuate another type of anomaly, not only for the same generation of pensioners, but also for future generations as well?
Thirdly, my analysis on the family pension arising out of such method of ‘upgradation’ adopted by the LIC for depositing dues to the family pensioners of the petitioners in the Chandigarh, has revealed that LIC’s adopting the principle of mere 100% neutralization instead of progressively weighted upgradations will result in reduction in revised family pension and consequent cumulative recovery. There are more than 12000 family pensioners in the Corporation as at 31/3/2013.When there will be an adverse impact on such a large number of family pensioners, would the LIC want to upgrade pension in order to effect recoveries?
No Corporate Board, especially a Board of an organization of the stature of a giant public sector Financial Institution like LIC would, in all its collective wisdom, wish to take far-reaching decisions which would smack of inconsistencies giving rise to perpetual anomalies.
As regards the reference to the LIC deposits made in Chandigarh HC Registry, there can be no two opinions that LIC has paid inadequate amounts without including upgradation as directed in the Punjab & Haryana High Court Order allowing the petition.
As regards the IA filed in the Supreme Court in the CA against the Delhi HC judgment, in my view, as the Supreme Court is likely hear all the three CAs on 12/11/2014, the IA is as good as having become infructuous.
AIIPA 6th Conference - Note on Court Cases
The grounds adduced by LIC in the SLPs
The grounds adduced by LIC in the SLPs are given in brief herein below:-
LIC stated in its affidavit that consideration of the scope and applicability of Section 48 of LIC Act has arisen in deciding whether the Board Resolution proposing amendments to the pension rules framed by the Central Government, be capable of being implemented without amendment of the rules.
LIC’s grounds of appeal are:
The Jaipur High Court erred in rejecting Review Petition on the ground there is no error apparent on the face of record as ground (submitted) before the High Court in support of Review Petition would indicate errors apparent on the face of records;
The High Court erred in ignoring the principle that when a particular thing has to be done in a particular way it can only be done in that way and in no other way;
The High Court further did not take into account the legal principle that the Court ought not to have compelled a party to do something which would not be permissible under law;
The High Court, in law, could not issue a mandamus directing the Petitioners to implement the Board Resolution without waiting for amendment of Pension Regulations;
The High Court, in law, could not treat Resolution by which government was approached into a self-operating decision and the Resolution cannot have the force of law in the absence of statutory amendments;
The High Court ought to have appreciated Petitioners, LIC cannot be placed in a position acting contrary to the law, which created the Life Insurance Corporation of India;
The High Court was in error in preferring oral submissions of the learned counsel for the Central Government, in preference to the express words of the statute;
The High Court erred in holding that there cannot be a cut off date for existing pensioners for providing benefits as such a finding is untenable and goes counter to the law framed by the Supreme Court;
It was contended on behalf of LIC, the High Court ought to have seen that by virtue of Statutory Rules framed by the Central Government, quantum of Dearness Relief depends upon the quantum of Pension computable on the basis of pay at the time of retirement;
The Agenda note and Resolution refer to rationalization of Dearness Relief that depends on quantum of pension and judgement dated 12-01-2010 is completely silent so far as the quantum of pension is concerned.
In simple terms, the contention of LIC is
(i) that service conditions can be changed only through Government notification and in no other way;
(ii) Court cannot direct LIC to implement its Board Resolution of November 2001, without Government notification, as it is not permissible under law;
(iii) LIC cannot be placed in a position, acting contrary to law, which created the Life Insurance Corporation of India, as Section (48) of LIC Act, vests the power to frame regulations on service conditions with the government.
LIC has contended further that:
(i) LIC Board Resolution and agenda note talked about quantum of pension on which modified rate of Dearness Relief was payable and Hon’ble Jaipur High Court Order had not dealt with this aspect but has only ordered on Dearness Relief.
(ii) LIC Board Resolution cannot have force of law without statutory amendments to Pension Rules.
(iii) Oral submissions by Government Counsel cannot over-ride the provisions of statute.
LIC wanted the Supreme Court to decide:
1. Whether Jaipur High Court was correct in holding Review Petition do not call for interference in Review Jurisdiction;
2. Whether Jaipur High Court was correct in holding there is no apparent error on the face of record;
3. Whether Jaipur High Court could have issued a writ of mandamus for implementation of a Resolution seeking Government’s exercise of its statutory powers before amendment of rules;
4. Whether High Court could have issued a writ of mandamus directing parties to do something which is not permitted by law; and
AIIPA has endeavoured to give a bird’s eye view of the issues involved but it must be thoroughly understood that the Organisation does not attempt to hold brief for the LIC management vis-à-vis the legal proceedings.
In order that pensioners are not misled by the not-so whispering campaigns, AIIPA feels our rank and file and especially our leadership at various levels should sift the details enumerated and repose faith in the Organisation.
10/30/2014 12:38:00 PM
AIIPA 6th conference - Note on Court Cases Salient Features of the Affidavit filed by LIC in Supreme Court in SLP 29956-29957
The powers to frame Rules and Regulations inter alia on terms and conditions of service of employees got vested with the Central Government under Section [48] of the LIC Act after amendments were incorporated by LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981 and the Supreme Court had held these amendments could not have retrospective effect and hence LIC Employees Bonus and Dearness Allowance, without restriction, could be protected up to February 2, 1981, the date of first Notification under the amended LIC Act. Most of the LIC Pensioners would well remember those days when this singular achievement got them Bonus up to February 2, 1981 and unlimited DA up to a particular level till March 31, 1983.
It would be remembered that later changes in service conditions like reduction in retirement age for recruits after March 1983 and increase in retirement age to 60 for all in 1998, service conditions relating to wages in 1985, 1989, 1996, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and introduction of Pension in lieu of Corporation contribution towards PF etc. in June 1995, came to be implemented after Notifications were issued by the Central Government under Section [48] of LIC Act, 1981 as amended. Even changes in Pension Rules for granting consequential benefits after wage revision came through Notifications till June 2000.
It may also be noted that in 2000, LIC was given limited power to change the Basic Pension and Rates of Dearness Relief, Minimum pension and Family Pension after every wage revision in respect of those who had ceased to be in service after the effective date of wage revision, which provision enabled the Chairman, LIC to modify the Basic Pension Rates of Dearness Relief, notified under the Annexure IV of LIC (Employees) Pension Rules 1995, Minimum Pension and Family Pension in relation to those with cessation of service after effective date of wage revision. The notification specifically states “the power of the Chairman is in respect of employees and when wage revision is effected retrospectively, retirees after the date are deemed as employees for the purpose.” This Annexure provided for revision of Dearness Relief every six months beginning February and August.
The bone of contention by the litigant was three fold viz. grant of Dearness Relief, not as per Annexure but as per Revision Rules, both in respect of levels of Basic Pay and periodicity implying thereby payment of increased Dearness Relief every three months as for in-service employees and percentage of neutralization as per salary scale slabs and grant of stagnation increment and in the writ filed in 2007 in Jaipur High Court, the plea was for grant of Pension to correspond to current scales of pay.
The Writ filed in 2007 in the Jaipur High Court had referred to the Resolution passed by the LIC Board in November 2001 for grant of uniform rate of Dearness Relief for pre-August 1997 retirees.
The Resolution and the Agenda Note were placed before the LIC Board in November 2001, for consideration and the Resolution, referred to the proposition made by a Board Member, for giving weightage of 11.25% after merger and it also said the cost would be huge and pointed out that the Agenda Note had made proposals that would cost about Rs.51 crores initially and about Rs.5 to 6 crores annually. The Agenda Note had made proposals to upgrade Basic Pension at 600 and 1148 points to 1740 points, by merger of Dearness Relief payable up to 1740 points and pay Dearness Relief @ 0.23% thereon and if approved by the Central Government to implement prospectively from the date of publication in Official Gazette. Presumably, the calculations that added up to Rs.51 crores were for payment of Dearness Relief at 100% for the pre-August 1997 pensioners with Basic Pension modified to 1740 points by merger of Dearness Relief upto 1740 points payable but without any weightage for the revision granted in wage structure from August 1997. The Resolution said the Board, after some discussion, approved the proposal.
The acceptance by the LIC Board only signified full neutralization by merger of actual Dearness Relief paid with tapering off of percentage higher basic pension and prospective implementation from the date of publication in Official Gazette.
The Jaipur High Court Single Judge Bench which heard the two writ petitions, allowed the two writs and ordered that LIC could consider implementation of the Board Resolution and there could not be any discrimination in the matter of grant of Dearness Relief with a cut-off date 31-7-1997.
When the LIC went on appeal to the Division Bench, the Hon’ble Court observed that counsel for the Government had averred before the Single Judge Bench that the Board Resolution was pending before the Government and LIC was free to take its decision and said that since the Government had not come on appeal, the appeal filed by LIC were dismissed.
In the Review Petition, LIC has contended that LIC Act as amended in 1981 has not come under challenge and till such time the amendments are in vogue, the power vests with the Government only.
Disposing of the Civil Review Petition filed by the LIC, the High Court ordered dismissal, as there was no error apparent on the face of record to warrant a review under Review Jurisdiction.
The SLPs filed by LIC have been dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that Judgement of Division Bench of the Jaipur High Court had not come under challenge and that the petitioner could not show error apparent on the face of record in the order dismissing Review Petition.
The order of 8th August 2013 of the Supreme Court had stated that, that order did not preclude LIC from filing fresh SLP and condonation of delay in filing of SLP cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Subsequently LIC had filed SLPs and they have been admitted with condonation of delay.
The grounds adduced by LIC in the SLPs.
Most respected Shri Asthanaji,
Hope this message would find you in normal fine health and enhanced energetic spirits. This has become the foremost prayers of thousands of our colleagues daily.
Even innumerable members of our sister units are interested upon your enduring normality as they are anxiously awaiting favorable judgment on all counts out of next month final hearings. In case LIC / GOI adopt the same delaying tactics in respect of other pending monetary benefits
that are available to in-service employees in LIC and pensioners of GOI & States, the pensioner brethren hope to secure them from out of further legal battles only, if such a situation warrants.At least for this purpose, they pray for your continued service. MP Subrahmanian
10/30/2014 08:13:00 AM
AIIPA 6th All India Conference - Kanpur - NOTE ON COURT CASES
ALL INDIA INSURANCE PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION 6th All India Conference – Kanpur
NOTE ON COURT CASES All India Insurance Pensioners Association (AIIPA) has been at pains ever since the earlier favourable inclination of the Central Government for positive decision on full neutralization on Dearness Relief for pre-August 1997 Pensioners and increased ex-gratia for pre-1986 retirees along with wage revision due August 2007 got stuck in the web of officialdom and the hardened attitude of the Government, to impress upon the Management of LIC to initiate measures to get its Board Resolution of November 2001, implemented without any further delay and not to get bogged down in court cases. However LIC has been repeatedly engrossing itself in judicial proceedings.
LIC had filed separate SLPs in relation to the judgements of Hon’ble High Courts of Jaipur, New Delhi and Chandigarh and these SLPs have been converted as Civil Appeals and are pending adjudication in Supreme Court.
The Management of LIC has not been proactive in pursuing the issues with the Government and though AIIPA has repeatedly sent letters to LIC on this score and had during meetings with LIC officials stressed on this, LIC was going its own way. Though AIIPA had continued with its endeavours, LIC presumably at the instance of the erstwhile Central Government, had been reluctant. With the formation of the new Government, the Organisation has again urged upon LIC to take up afresh with the Government and had also written to the Finance Minister in this regard. With the stalemate continuing, AIIPA felt a proper perspective of the prevalent situation and the legal nuances of the litigation process should be focussed before the Conference as vested interests were trying to blow hot and cold on this issue.
The Note circulated during the Fifth Conference of AIIPA held in October 2011, our Circular on Agenda Note and LIC Board Resolution of November 2001 after the Nagpur Central Committee Meeting in July 2012, our Circular issued in April 2013, tracing the developments and putting things in proper perspective were meant to keep the pensioners abreast. The Circular of July 2012 on Agenda Note clearly explained that LIC Board Resolution only meant full neutralization and not updation. The April 2013 circular clearly pointed out how the Hon’ble Supreme Court initially restricted the scope of deposit to the petitioners as against the demand for all pensioners and how the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that no further directions to LIC were necessary in the matter of deposit of amount when deposit for updation of pension was sought.
As had been said earlier, numerous IAs were filed that had ostensibly delayed the hearing of the main petition. However with the Apex Court deciding against any fresh order on the amount of deposit to be made by LIC, stage was set and later the LIC’s SLPs were dismissed. Pensioners would recall, there were jubilant messages all across, when LIC’s SLPs were dismissed. Again, when the order dismissing LIC’s petition but allowing LIC to file fresh SLPs was out, there were messages stating fresh SLPs were bound to be not entertained as time barred!
When SLP against the Judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court getting converted into Civil Appeal and with the fresh SLPs against the Order of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Jaipur High Court and the one against judgement of Delhi High Court becoming Civil Appeals and tagged together, the Organisation feels a thorough retrospect is necessary at this juncture.
The Civil Contempt Petition that got stayed when the earlier SLPs were pending got revived after dismissal of earlier SLPs and the present incumbents in LIC were added as fresh condemners and it had reached a crucial stage. When the revived Contempt Petition was taken up on October 22, 2013, there were reports agog that the Hon’ble Jaipur High Court had ordered LIC to report compliance of the judgment dated January 12, 2010, and one could witness euphoria across the country and there were encomiums showered for the “success achieved”. However the Hon’ble Judge had only granted time for filing of reply by LIC!
After postponements, LIC had filed its counter and the contentions ARE THAT the Order of Hon’ble High Court remained unenforceable due to the pendency of Civil Appeal in Supreme Court and as orders of Jaipur High Court and Supreme Court have been complied with by LIC, there can be no contempt.
During the hearing in last week of January 2014, after hearing the counsels, the Hon’ble Court advised LIC to furnish details of amounts deposited and to state whether the deposits were in consonance of the LIC Board Resolution or not, the details of action, if any, taken for implementation etc. Contesting the stand of LIC, the petitioner wanted and was granted to file another affidavit which he did. The matter came up for hearing on February 2014 and at the end, the Hon’ble Court opined no contempt was involved and the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the Contempt Petition. With this, the issue again rests with the Apex Court for its verdict.
LIC had submitted details of amounts deposited with details of amounts in respect of petitioners, specifically stating that this had been done in consonance of the Board Resolution.
However, fresh writs have been filed in Jaipur High Court instead of seeking clarifications to implement the Order of the Single Judge Bench of 12th January 2010.
Even after Contempt Petition was withdrawn in Jaipur High Court, a similar petition came up in Punjab & Haryana High Court, and LIC was asked to deposit money and it has done so. There are even now messages circulated that LIC’s deposits are not proper and deposits should include for updation.
An application for implementation of Hon’ble Delhi Court Order to grant of full neutralization to pre-August 1997 pensioners came up before the Supreme Court and LIC has been advised to file its objections and is to be heard in the Supreme Court.
Pointing out the facts of the case and the ethical standards, AIIPA had told LIC its objections could only be technical and had urged upon the management to find solutions even before the matter again comes up.
Salient Features of the Affidavit filed by LIC
in Supreme Court in SLP 29956-57
10/29/2014 07:56:00 PM
In July 2011 SC pronounced judgment setting up a special investigation team to probe sources of black money and take steps to bring it back. In April 2014 SC pulls up the Government for not complying with its July 2011 order. It says "In the name of review petition you ( Government ) do not carry out our orders. This is nothing but contempt of court "Can something like this happen when the bench sits to hear on 12 NOV to hear the tied Civil cases where earlier court orders were blatantly ignored ?
Rapping the govern-
ment for seeking modifi-
cation of its order on black money on disclosing the names of Indians who hold accounts in foreign banks, the apex court refused to change its earlier order to exempt the government from not disclosing the names where criminality is not found.
10/28/2014 08:16:00 PM
P&H judgment: MURTY SAYS "Achhe Din Aarahehai"!
Dear Shri Gangadharan,Mr Sampath Iyengar's concern and anxiety are understandable. There are thousands who share the same. However there is no room for despair. Let there be positive energy generated by ALL LIC Pensioners from now on. As everybody may be aware by now, I am assisting the Petitioners in CA No 6995/2013 by LIC against the P & H High Court, (Chandigarh) Judgement. Sri C H Mahadevan's valuable inputs are handy. A conference is already fixed with Shri Jay Savla, the Advocate in Delhi on 8th Nov 2014 to review the preparations. Shri Brij Jit Singh (former Chief Legal, LIC CO) & Sri S N Chhabra, on behalf of the Petitioners side and I are attending. Shri SS Saxena, President AIRIEF, may join too. This is just to say that preparations are in full swing, as far as Chandigarh Petitioners are concerned. As for Unity, we have it because we ALL want our pension cases decided soon and favorably. That is also a kind of unity of approach. Thanks and regards, M. Sreenivasa Murty
10/28/2014 01:36:00 PM
Editor Sir,It is just a fortnight left for our case to come up before the SC but no news of efforts are seen towards united stand in very recent days. Advocates' meeting would be helpful in fine tuning the brief from the stake holders at least in certain matters like affordability. The advocates can also anticipate possible queries from the bench and there could be discussion about the same also. Of course each stake holder will have liberty to pursue implementation of their respective judgments.
I hope that LICPC is alive to this matter and efforts are being made to arrange a meeting or communication to each stakeholder to get in touch with their advocates and brief them suitably.
Mobile sim may be linked with Aadhaar
"Prime Minister Narendra Modi has directed us to link the SIM of the mobiles with the Unique Id. We are working on that issue and I am sure we will be able to resolve issues," said R.S. Sharma, secretary of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology.
simply sincere...
The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it has no intention to withhold names of persons who have stashed black money abroad.
The Centre on Monday filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the black money case, naming three prominent businessmen, including Pradip Burman, formerly of Dabur Group.
The Centre told the court that it had no intention to withhold names of persons, who have stashed black money abroad and stated that information received from foreign countries will be disclosed in all cases where tax evasion is established.
'Account legally opened' “We wish to state that this account was opened when he (Pradip) was an NRI, and was legally allowed to open this account,” a Dabur spokesperson said in a statement.
Mr. Burman currently holds no position in the FMCG major although he was once a whole time director of Dabur India.
10/27/2014 04:02:00 PM
Women employees transfers
Circular continues: "...it has been
decided to accommodate as far as possible transfer or posting of a married
female employee, on her request, at a place where husband is stationed or as
near as possible to that place or vice versa," it said. Similarly,
unmarried women should be considered for posting or transfer at a place where
her parents are stationed or as nearer to their home. While giving directions
to insurance companies, the Department said it has come to its notice that
female employees, both married and unmarried, "when place/ transfered away
from their husband or parents...to distant locations face a genuine hardship or
develop a feeling of insecurity". (sckapur)
10/27/2014 03:50:00 PM
What Pension? You're Fit to Work, 95-year-old Told
MADURAI: In an apparent display of apathy, the tahsildar of social security schemes here rejected the old age pension application of a nonagenarian, asking him to work for his bread. Murugan’s (95), a resident of Sellur in the city, ordeal for old age pension began on May 19, this year, when he first applied for the scheme during a grievance day meeting at the collectorate. After several representations and running from pillar to post, his plea was finally registered on June 28.Subsequently, the revenue inspector and the village administration officer visited his place and after proper verification declared him destitute. The old man also A Sad Question..
furnished a copy of his ration card to substantiate his claims. However, the nonagenarian’s world came crashing down on September 4, when the social security schemes tahsildar, Madurai East, sent a letter rejecting his plea. The official said that Murugan was fit enough to work even at the age of 95 and hence was not eligible for pension.
Aadhaar will provide its possessor with universal identification. (It) will facilitate ‘anytime, anywhere, anyhow’ authentication to its beneficiaries (and) be a single source of identity verification.
New Delhi: An Aadhaar number will now be sufficient for the universal identification of the citizen’s identity and can be used to access services like banking facilities.
Clearing the air over the authenticity of the Aadhar number allotted to citizens, the home ministry has said that it can facilitate “anytime, anywhere, anyhow” authentication to its beneficiaries.
Coming out in full support of the Aadhaar scheme, the home ministry has said that since one Aadhaar number is allotted to only one person, it allows universal verification of one’s identity even as it will enable the deprived and needy people to access services like banking facilities.
“Aadhaar will provide its possessor with universal identification. (It) will facilitate ‘anytime, anywhere, anyhow’ authentication to its beneficiaries (and) be a single source of identity verification,” the MHA has said in its latest letter to all state governments.
The home ministry’s move has come after the UPA government’s dilly-dallying on the issue. It may be recalled that the home ministry under the UPA regime during the tenures of Sushilkumar Shinde and P. Chidambaram had raised concerns over the sanctity of the Unique Identification Authority of India’s database.
The Union home ministry had raised concerns over supporting documents submitted by people as proof of identity and proof of address for getting an Aadhaar number.
Now, in a complete change of stand, in its latest letter to states, the home ministry has made it clear that the Aadhar number can be used at multiple places to prove one’s identity very easily even as it feels that there are multifold benefits of having an Aadhaar number.
A person’s Aadhaar number can be used while opening a bank account as it meets the “Know Your Customer” norms of the RBI.
The card can also be used for booking tickets online, applying for passport and at many other places where there is a need to provide some proof of identity.
Notably, the Aadhaar and the National Population Register are national identity programmes of the Central government. The Aadhar scheme is being implemented by the UIDAI.
The NPR is prepared by the Registrar General of India under the home ministry.
“Aadhaar provides a unique identity number to every resident in the country. The NPR database is sent to the UIDAI for Aadhaar de-duplication and generating Unique Identity numbers,” the home ministry said.
Life after death is real, British scientists confirm !
LONDON: Life after death, at least for a little while, is for real. British scientists have confirmed such evidence in the first and largest ever medical study carried out on the subject. Experts currently believe that the brain shuts down within 20 to 30 seconds of the heart stopping beating — and that it is not possible to be aware of anything at all once that has happened. But scientists in the new study said they heard compelling evidence that patients experienced real events for up to three minutes after this had happened - and could recall them accurately once they had been resuscitated.Recollections in relation to death, so-called out-of-body experiences (OBEs) or near-death experiences (NDEs), are an often spoken about phenomenon which have frequently been considered hallucinatory or illusory in nature - however, objective studies on these experiences have been limited. In 2008, a large-scale study involving 2060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria was launched. Posted by