Saturday, 24 October 2015

An opinion on a website on LIC's investment policies



Source: Internet
http://www.niticentral.com/2014/07/22/lic-a-time-bomb-left-by-upa-for-nda 

LIC a time bomb left by UPA for NDA

Opinions Author: MR Venkatesh - July 22, 2014
The financial assistance to Unitech was provided by LIC way back in 2008 even as the 2G spectrum scam was unfolding.
“This case is a blatant example of a deliberate bid to benefit a private party to the detriment of LIC. It involves acting completely contrary to law, repeated misleading of Investment Committee, submission of untruths to the DFS to mislead and gross administrative incompetency or undue benefit being extended to a persistent defaulter.”
This is the observation of a senior official within the Finance Ministry (who incidentally demitted office on March 31, 2014) on a note on Assistance provided by LIC to a private Company and submitted by Anna Roy, Director Vigilance to Finance Ministry on March 26, 2014.
The senior official goes on to add, “Strong disciplinary action leading to inflicting of major penalty is clearly attracted in this case at all involved levels” and observes despite “repeated defaults by the private company” senior officers of LIC “went on to provide undue relief.”
As a parting kick he concludes, “The involvement is clearly established at the levels mentioned in the note right from the beginning of the case from its sanction till 2014.”
Well, who is the alleged beneficiary from this largesse by LIC? Unitech – the very same company that is one of the accused in the 2G spectrum case. Importantly, the financial assistance was provided by LIC way back in 2008 even as the spectrum scam was unfolding!
Interestingly, there are several parallels with the 2G scam. For starters, the vigilance note observes several irregularities relating to this transaction at various stages including appraisal, approval, sanction and post sanction/disbursement. In short, from beginning to the very end, the vigilance note observes gross violation at every level as in the 2G scam.
What is galling is that the vigilance note observes that records available clearly indicate that LIC was aware from the very start that the company was regular in its payment to other lenders while defaulting on its dues to LIC. LIC in several of its communications had also raised this issue pointing out that the company was wilfully not meeting the dues of LIC. However, no action was taken to declare the company as a wilful defaulter.
Shockingly, as per the statement of the Executive Director to the vigilance team, it appears that LIC has no monitoring mechanism to review status of such accounts! And remember all this is being lent in such reckless manner and without appropriate systemic checks and balances is the money of innocent policy holders of LIC.
The case in brief
LIC had sanctioned Rs 200 crore term loan to Unitech in 2008. The facility was restructured when the outstanding term loan was Rs 160 crore by allowing extension in repayment schedule from 01.03.2010 to 07.06.2015. In August 2013 Unitech made another request for restructuring even as the proposal was not supported by the Investment Committee.
Incidentally, after the original sanction was provided several terms and conditions of the loan, including identified project was revised with the approval of the then chairman even as IC was “informed” about these changes. Such unilateral decision of the Chairman dynamited the very idea of an IC and had the calculated effect of converting the Rupee Term Loan into a corporate loan even as it compromised on the payment security mechanism of LIC.
Simultaneously LIC purchased Non-Convertible Debentures [NCDs] issued by Unitech to from LIC mutual fund in a secondary market transaction. Since these were non-approved securities such purchases required approval of the IC which was not obtained and thus violated the IRDA guidelines and SOP of LIC. Therefore the Chairman violated the terms and conditions relating to the investment operations of LIC.
Put pithily, the vigilance note brings about the following lapses / violations / malpractices by various officials of LIC including Board level appointees at different points of time:
» Undertaking secondary market transactions without prior approval of the IC.
» Post sanctions by IC, major modifications were made in sanction terms and conditions without approval of IC.
» Did not insist with the company to execute Escrow Agreement.
» Did not initiate legal action against the borrower when the post-dated cheques issued by the borrower were dishonoured.
» Did not resort to foreclose the assets pledged as collateral with LIC to recover its dues.
» Did not attempt to declare the company a wilful defaulter even when there was evidence that the company was meeting the dues of its other lenders, declaring dividends etc.
» Seeking the approval of IC for restructuring without presenting all facts to the IC.
» Did not take necessary action under the SERFASI Act leading to a delay in taking action.
» Delayed in declaring the borrower a wilful defaulter.
» Delayed action to revise the SOP of LIC to address extant lacunae in the extant procedures and practices of LIC.
A rule not an exception
If you thought that the loan to Unitech was an exception, you could be wrong. If you thought LIC was lax in sanctioning loans, again you could be wrong. It would seem that LIC virtually was completely lax in the issue of investments – Loan or equity, primary or secondary market.
Another vigilance note issued by Anna Roy, Director Vigilance on March 31, 2014, observes several inconsistencies in the daily mandate given by various fund managers. It concludes that the financial delegation exercised by Chairman LIC with respect to purchase and sales of equity related instruments was beyond the powers delegated by the Board.
Further, on examining a sample of the purchase and sale of shares of companies during January 31, 2014 to February 7, 2014, it was observed that there were several instances where LIC has purchased and sold shares of the same company either on same days or consecutive days.
It was further observed that in several cases, a substantial number of shares of a single company have been purchased over a period of one week, even though the approved mandate for purchase of such shares was valid for one month. At times, there were purchases at higher prices and sales at lower prices which adversely affected the interest of LIC and policy-holders. Moreover, the note rightly observes that “significant purchase of shares of a single company over a very short period has the potential to impact stock markets.”
Most of the irregularities on investments pertain to period between 2008 and 2014. It is obvious, given the observations of the vigilance team that in the world of investments carried out by LIC, much of the actions are suspects. But much of what is stated here has taken place quite a few years back and even at this stage we are yet to name the suspects.
One is sure given the observations contained in the note of by the vigilance team, several loans and equity purchases made by LIC are suspects. In the alternative, the borrower has immensely benefitted by the reckless or casual approach of LIC. Either way it is the innocent policy holder who has been at the receiving end.
Rs 500 crores may be small number in the context of Rs 17 Lac crores balance sheet size of LIC. But such Halal of its fund cannot continue endlessly. Remember that LIC’s policies are backed by sovereign guarantee. And any crisis within LIC is bound to have an impact on India’s financial sector.
It may be recalled that in a two part series titled ‘Shunned for LIC, Selected for IRDA’ and ‘A splendid example of Congress nepotism’ in NitiCentral, I exposed how the present chairman of IRDA, TS Vijayan was originally found to be unsuited to be even the MD of LIC.
In fact, the Finance Ministry’s internal note pointed out that pending a vigilance clearance, it would be inappropriate to even consider him to the position of MD but would have to be reverted to the position of ED/ZM.
Strangely, a person who was considered unfit in 2011 to be Chairman of LIC, and the Ministry of Finance considered him inappropriate to be appointed even as the Managing Director of LIC was short-listed in late 2012 for the post of Chairman IRDA – the insurance regulator which ultimately controls LIC! Shockingly, the then Finance Minister in January 2013 goes on to select TS Vijayan in view of his “splendid record.”
Needless to emphasise, the appointment of Vijayan continues to haunt the insurance industry. Emboldened by such appointments, I understand that some of the decision-makers with a suspect track record in LIC are now queuing for an appointment as a member of IRDA.
Importantly, all is not well in the world of investments made by LIC. This needs to be fixed at the earliest. The vigilance team has already done the basic investigations. All it requires is a quick follow up though decisive action.
How about beginning with an action on all those who were at the helm of affairs at LIC with dodgy track record? How about suspending such persons pending an enquiry? How about postponing any decision on appointing such persons to any regulatory appointment pending outcome of such enquiry?
The new Finance Minister must realise that LIC is a ticking time bomb left behind by the UPA. The earlier it is acted upon the better for him and the NDA Government.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article. 
************************************************************************************

Source: Internet
 http://www.myinsuranceclub.com/insurance-news

Former LIC Head, Vijayan takes over as IRDA Chairman

On receiving clearance from Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and a final approval from Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, Prime Minister’s office announced the appointment of Mr. T.S. Vijayan as a 4th chairman of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). He succeeded Mr. J. Hari Narayan, who was appointed as a chairman of IRDA in 2008 and retired as on 21st February 2013 after successfully completing his tenure of 5 years.  
 
The Government had received 30 applications including from several bureaucrats like Petroleum secretary G. C. Chaturvedi, Information Technology Secretary R. Chandrashekhar, Current LIC Chairman D. K. Mehrotra and Daiichi Star Union Chief Mr. Kamal Sahay, etc. for the position of chairman of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. However, the final selection was made by a committee headed by Financial Services Secretary, Mr. D.K. Mittal. However Mr. Vijayan was a front runner for the position of IRDA chairman. He graduated from Kerala University and holds a diploma in management.
 
The previous three chairmen — N Rangachary, C S Rao and Hari Narayan — were all former bureaucrats. Rangachary was from Indian Revenue Service and C S Rao and Hari Narayan from Indian Administrative Service.
 
A senior official from a Life Insurance Company stated that Industry is happy with the appointment of Mr. Vijayan as he himself has the knowledge of the industry and if someone from a completely different background had taken charge, then it would have taken several months for him to get acquainted with the industry and its present scenario. However, Mr. Vijayan being a veteran would not have similar concerns. He further added that as a leader of the IRDA, Mr. Vijayan would be better placed to take up the issues with the Government as he has the insurance background.
 
The appointment as the IRDA Chairman is a remarkable return for Mr. Vijayan after battling corruption charges with regard to investment decisions made by LIC during his tenure, after his resignation from the Life Insurance Corporation last year. Mr. Vijayan was appointed as the chairman of LIC in the year 2006, the youngest Chief Executive ever to head the behemoth.
 
However, upon completion of his tenure, he was not granted an extension and was in fact reduced in rank to the position of Managing Director following allegations of irregularities. However, Mr. Vijayan was given clean chit of all charges by the Central Bureau of Investigation when he retired last November.
***********************************************************************************


Monday, 12 October 2015

When will such complaints be attended to by LIC?



Reference Source: Internet

http://www.consumercomplaints.in/complaints/lic-of-india-non-payment-of-epf-money-after-resignation-from-service      

Lic Of India — Non payment of EPF money after resignation from service



Dt. 24072012


Dear Sir/Mam,
I need to bring it to your notice a very unpleasant, grave and very sad situation that I am facing for the last 11 months after my resignation from my previous employer LIC Of India.
I have worked with LIC of India as Senior Marketing Executive( On Contract basis) for the period 30/03/2010 to 31/07/2011
This was a contractual assignment in Administrative Officer Cadre of LIC Of India, Now I have resigned from LIC and have been relieved on 31/07/2011
But my Provident Fund amount of Rs more than 64000/- is being held up by them and they are not ready to refund it. I have personally met concerned Divisional Officials of Meerut, Zonal Office Kanpur and have written many mails to even LIC Head office Mumbai but every body is just giving me a deaf ear and no body is ready to listen. No body is answering what will happen of my hard earned money.
Sir, I am fed up and frustrated a lot by the system of LIC where an organization is of the intention to guff up even the PROVIDENT FUND of an Ex-Employee.
Sir, I am finding this situation as very unpleasant, emabarrasing and disgusting where I am in the condition of begging for my hard earned money and someone is holding it like it is of his own
My Employment details with LIC Of India is……
Period of employment with LIC: 30/03/2010 to 31/07/2011
Post held: Senior Marketing Executive
SR No : 215134
Place of posting: BO II Ghaziabad Division: Meerut
Nature of Service: Contractual
Details of Salary: 70 % Fixed and 30 % Variable
PF Deduction from Salary: 2000/- pm as employee contribution and
2000/- pm as employer contribution
Amount Held up by LIC Of India: 4000*16 months of service= 64000/- + interest on it

Sir I am writing this mail to you with much hope that you will help a person who is fighting for his hard earned money and I am sure that you will help me in getting justice.
Regards,
Amit Kr Singh

********************************************************************************

Tuesday, 6 October 2015

Kerala High Court decides in favour of ADO



                                                  Kerala High Court
          V.A.Shaji vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 23 August, 1985
       
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
 
                              PRESENT:
 
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
 
      MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/19TH KARTHIKA, 1936
 
                    WP(C).No. 29026 of 2005 (E)
                    ----------------------------
 
 PETITIONER(S):
--------------
 
       V.A.SHAJI, FLAT NO.805,
       GARDEN GATE APARTMENTS,
       GANDHI NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-20.
 
       BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
 
 
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
 
     1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
       CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI, REP. BY ITS
       EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
 
     2. THE CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE
       CORPORATION OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, MUMBAI.
 
     3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
       LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI.
 
       R1 TO R3  BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
       R1 TO R3  BY ADV. SRI.P.J.ANTONY
       R1 TO R3  BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
       R1 TO R3  BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE BABU
 
 
       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
       10-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
       FOLLOWING:
 
 
bka/-
 
WP(C).No. 29026 of 2005 (E)
----------------------------
 
 
                             APPENDIX
 
 
PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:
 
EXT.P1     COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.08.1985.
 
EXT.P2     COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.1987 ISSUED TO THE
           PETITIONER BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, BRANCH
           OFFICE, ALWAYE.
 
EXT.P3     COPY OF THE NOTICE OF RESIGNATION DATED 07.04.2005 GIVEN
           BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
 
EXT.P4     COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.05.2005 ISSUED TO THE
           PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
 
EXT.P5     COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.08/PER DATED 31.05.2005 OF THE
           BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, ALWAYE BRANCH.
 
EXT.P6     COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.3872/ASP/2005 DATED 08.09.2005
           ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
 
EXT.P7     COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.10.2005.
 
EXT.P8     COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.11.2006.
 
EXT.P9     COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE LIC DATED 22.01.2010
           ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
 
 
RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL
 
 
 
                                                    //TRUE COPY//
 
 
 
                                                    PA TO JUDGE
 
bka/-
 
 
 
            A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
        --------------------------------------------------
               W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005
        --------------------------------------------------
      Dated this the 10th day of November, 2014
 
                      J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, a former Development Officer of the respondent corporation, has approached this Court for a declaration that the first proviso to Clause 3(1) of the LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Instructions, 2005 (Ext.P6) insofar as it relates to denial of pay revision benefits to Development Officers, who were in the full time salaried service of the corporation during the equitable relief period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005 and who resigned thereafter before the date of Ext.P6 notification, is arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, fanciful, oppressive and unconstitutional. There is a further prayer for a direction to the respondents to sanction and disburse the pay revision benefits to the petitioner forthwith as per Ext.P6 notification and for other consequential benefits.

W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..2..
2. The petitioner entered into the service of the 1st respondent corporation as an Apprentice Development officer on 02.09.1985. His service as Development Officer was confirmed on 01.04.1987. On 07.04.2005, a notice of resignation was sent to the 2nd respondent for resigning from the respondent corporation. On 02.05.2005, Ext.P4 letter was issued by the 2nd respondent intimating the decision of the competent authority accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 31.05.2005; and accordingly, he was relieved from duties on the aforesaid date on acceptance of the resignation by the competent authority. Ext.P6 notification envisages revision of pay for Development Officers, who were in service during the equitable relief period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of Ext.P6, the benefit has been denied to the Development Officers, whose resignation have been accepted on or before Ext.P6 notification irrespective of whether they are relieved or not or whose services had  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..3..
been terminated under LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of terms & conditions of service) Rules, 1989 or Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, during the period between 01.08.2002 and 05.09.2005 (both days inclusive). The petitioner alleges that as he was working under the respondent corporation during the equitable relief period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005 and he resigned from the post only on 31.05.2005, there is no justification for denying the pay revision benefits. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent corporation, who resisted the writ petition, it is contended that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned with sanction from the competent authority and his terminal benefits were disbursed by the respondent corporation at the time of relieving from duties. From all these facts, it can be seen that the petitioner has severed all his connections and relations with the corporation;  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..4..
and therefore, subsequent to 31.05.2005, he is no longer an officer of the 1st respondent. It was contended that the benefits conferred by Ext.P6 were intended for serving officers and also for those officers, who have rendered their services for the corporation and superannuated from the corporation. The intention that could be gathered from the instructions is that it was for the Development Officers, who were in the whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the corporation during the beneficiary period. It was by way of an equitable relief. The words, superannuation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation have clear and different connotations in the realm of service jurisprudence; and the apex court has clearly distinguished between the various modes of exit. The benefits conferred by Ext.P6 deals with equitable relief, which could be applicable only to the existing Development Officers. Therefore, it was contended that the corporation is perfectly justified in excluding officers,  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..5..
whose resignation had been accepted on or before the date of notification irrespective of whether they are relieved or not or whose services had been terminated under the LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1989. Thus, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation quite in extenso.
5. Clause 2(f) of Ext.P6 defines "Period of Equitable Relief" as the period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005 or the period within those dates during which an employee was a Development Officer. Clause 2(b) defines an "Existing Officer" as a whole time salaried officer in the permanent establishment of the corporation, who was in the service on the date of notification. The petitioner was not in service as he was relieved on 31.05.2005 from the post of Development Officer on acceptance of the resignation by the competent authority,  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..6..
which is an admitted fact. The eligibility criteria is detailed in Clause 3. Clause 3 states that Ext.P6 shall apply to the Development Officers, who were in whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the corporation as on 01.08.2002 and those who have joined the whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the corporation after that date. Evidently, and admittedly too, the petitioner joined the whole time salaried service in the respondent corporation after 01.08.2002. Therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for eligibility. However, the benefit is denied to the petitioner on account of the proviso attached to Clause 3(1), which reads as follows;
"Provided, however, that those Development officers whose resignation had been accepted on or before the date of notification irrespective of whether they are relieved or not or whose services had been terminated under LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of terms & conditions of service) Rules, 1989 or Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, during the period between 1.8.2002 and 5.9.2005 (both days inclusive) shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of this revision."

W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..7..
6. The petitioner alleges that the pay revision benefit was granted to the Development Officers, who were in service from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005, in view of the service rendered by them during the said period. As the petitioner was working as Development Officer during the equitable period, though he has resigned from the post on 31.03.2005, there is no justification in denying the pay revision benefits to the petitioner; so submitted the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, per contra, justifies the stand of the corporation. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the intention of the corporation, which is gathered from the instructions, is that the same is intended for serving officers and also for those officers, who were in the whole time salaried service of the corporation during the eligibility period. It was further contended that the the petitioner would never satisfy the requirement of an existing officer. Relying on two  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..8..
decisions of the apex court, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that superannuation is virtually cessation of service on attainment of age of retirement and it is neither an act of employment nor an act of employer, whereas voluntary retirement and resignation are both voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave the service. In support of the said argument, the learned Standing Counsel relied on the decision of the apex court in UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal [2004 KHC 779]. On going through the said decision, it can be seen that the apex court considered an entirely different situation. The respondent in that case opted for the pension scheme introducing the terms of the settlement dated 29.10.1993 between the Indian Banks' Association and All India Banks Employees' Association, which categorically ruled out employees, who have resigned or dismissed or removed from the service. As the respondent in that case had resigned in 1988, the bank declined to accept his option for admitting him as a  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..9..
member/beneficiary of the fund. He filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled to pension. The suit was decreed; and the first appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court as also the second appeal filed by the bank were dismissed. Thus, the bank took the matter in appeal before the apex court. The apex court observed that the reason for disqualifying a dismissed employee or employees, who have resigned from membership of the fund, was not far to seek. It was observed that in a self financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the scheme is not based on budgetary support. Therefore, it is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. Normally, retirement is allowed only on completion of qualifying service, which is not there in the case of resignation. When such a retirement is opted for self financing pension scheme, he brings in accumulated contribution earned by him after completing qualifying number of years of service under Provident Fund Rules, whereas a person, who resigns, may not have  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..10..
adequate credit balance to his provident fund account. For this reason, and also on account of the reason that the scheme in that case was not a continuation of the earlier scheme, the apex court observed that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit and reversed the judgment of the High Court.
8. Here, in this case, the petitioner was in service for about 20 years up to 30.05.2005. The pay revision benefit is granted to the Development Officers, who were in service during the period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005, in relation to the service rendered by them during the said period. Therefore, it is rendering of service during the relevant period that matters and not the date of the notification bringing into force Ext.P6 instructions for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of pay revision. Therefore, the proviso to Clause 3(1) of Ext.P6, which confines the benefit to the Development Officers existing on the date of the notification, i.e., 05.09.2005, and excluding the officers, who demitted their office on  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..11..
account of resignation, is arbitrary and illegal. The respondent corporation has no case that the service of the petitioner was not satisfactory at any point of time during his service. The payment of monetary benefit, in this case, is not based on any contribution from the employees.
9. Yet another decision pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation is the decision of the apex court in Prabhakar M.R. & others v. Canara Bank & Others [2012 KHC 4559]. In that case, the apex court was dealing with a case of certain employees, who had submitted their resignations between 24.07.1986 and 03.06.1993 prior to the signing of the Statutory Settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There, the apex court observed that the appellants failed to show any pre-existing rights in their favour either in the Statutory Settlement/Joint Note or under the Regulations, 1995; and therefore, they were not covered by the pension scheme introduced by the  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..12..
banks. Therefore, this decision also has no application to the situation here.
10. A scrutiny of Clause 3(1) would show that the benefit of pay revision is extended even to Development Officers, who retired from service or died on or after 01.08.2002 without rendering full time service during the whole period between 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005. That being so, it is unjustifiable to deny the pay revision benefits to a sincere and dedicated Development Officer, against whom, the corporation has no complaints. It is crucial to note that in Ext.P5, which is a letter dated 31.05.2005 issued by the corporation to the petitioner, the corporation has commented the service of the petitioner as dedicated and sincere. It is an accepted proposition of the law that an employee, who has voluntarily retired from service is entitled to claim the benefit of pay revision effected for the periods in service even after the retirement. It is an enforceable right and the said right cannot be taken away or denied by  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..13..
executive instructions issued in exercise of the rule making power. Like the case of voluntary retirement, resignation also is on the volition of the employee. The petitioner's resignation was accepted by the respondent corporation without any protest. Therefore, the petitioner can be treated at par with an employee, who sought voluntary retirement as he had the required qualifying service. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner left the service at a time when there was no voluntary retirement schemes.
11. The scales of pay of Development Officers have been revised by the LIC of India Development Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2005. The 2nd respondent has framed Ext.P6 Instructions, 2005 in exercise of the power conferred on him under Rule 51 read with Rule 4 of the LIC of India (Staff) Rules, 1960, providing for the method of fixation in the new scales of pay and other matters connected therewith. In exercise of the said power, the  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..14..
2nd respondent cannot incorporate a provision like the one added by the first proviso to Clause 3(1) of Ext.P6, thereby denying the benefits of pay revision to Development Officers, who were in the whole time salaried service of the corporation during the equitable relief period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005 and who resigned thereafter before the date of Ext.P6 notification. As the relief is granted for the service rendered during the period of 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005, the relief cannot be denied to employees based on the date of the notification effecting revision of pay. Therefore, the first proviso to Clause 3(1) of Ext.P6 is beyond the scope of the rule making power conferred on the 2nd respondent. The power has been exercised by the 2nd respondent improperly for an improper purpose, bringing out unjust and inequitable results. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Clause 3(1) of Ext.P6 insofar as it denies pay revision  W.P.(C) No. 29026 of 2005 ..15..
benefits to Development Officers, who were in the full time salaried service of the 1st respondent corporation during the equitable relief period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005 and who resigned thereafter before the date of Ext.P6 notification, is quashed as it is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory.
It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to pay revision benefits, for which he is duly eligible for the service rendered by him during the equitable period from 01.08.2002 to 31.03.2005.
The respondent corporation is directed to sanction and disburse the pay revision benefits within a period of three months from today.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-
*********************************************************************************
Source: www.indiankanoon.org