LIC's ill-conceived Concept of Loyalty

             LIC has thousands of employees in its offices. How many of them are sincerely giving output for the requisite number of working hours is questionable. Consider the below-mentioned facts.
             There are employees who have medical problems, some even suffer from life-threatening ailments, yet refuse to resign, just so that they can continue getting medi-claim and complete the mandatory years of qualifying service for voluntary or regular retirement. They are not able to discharge their duties to their fullest capacity when they do attend office, thereby putting the work-overload on their grudging colleagues.
             The relatives of employees who have been appointed on compassionate grounds enjoy the benefits of a stable job, without having to go through the regular process of recruitment.Several of them are complacent and not very keen about their jobs. Most of them retire in the same posts in which they were appointed.
               Then there are the perennial shirkers who have made hedging a fine art. Such people refuse to assume any responsibility for their jobs and while away precious working hours, gossiping or shopping and running errands during office hours. If their superiors attempt to make them realize their responsibility, they in turn will be 'warned' by the Branch Manager to 'go soft on them.' Probably, they fear a backlash from the employees' unions.Such shirkers will never be tolerated in any private enterprise.
               Most of the staff refuse promotions fearing far-away postings and are contented in their current positions. They never aspire to achieve anything. They don't attempt technical exams and thus are not updated in their knowledge about their work. They refuse to give up their seats and don't want even a departmental change, at times.
               Several such non-motivated employees stick on to their well-paying jobs for the entire duration till retirement.  
This is LIC's concept of employee-loyalty. Just warming one's seat! Productivity may be damned!
              During my exit interview with the Manager (P & IR), I mentioned this malaise. He nonchalantly replied, "If 40% of the staff is not working, just ignore them and get their job done by the remaining 60%." I said that this was injustice towards the remaining hard-working employees. "Why should they be over-loaded with work when every employee gets the same salary?" He just shrugged as if implying that that was the way how things worked in LIC. He smiled and remained silent. His attitude was a revelation that the Management was fully aware of such shirkers and that until it didn't take such people to task, things would never improve.
               The grape-vine has it that the Management has decided to repudiate the arrears payments to the resigning employees on the grounds of not being loyal to the Corporation.
               In the light of the facts that I mentioned above, one can't help being amused (and disgusted) by LIC's ill-conceived Concept of Loyalty.
               Even the Provident Fund rules stipulate for transfer of the PF dues from a resigning employee's account to that of his new employer. These rules recognize and appreciate the fact that dynamic and motivated employees will always seek betterment of career prospects. Such employees will contribute positively and productively to the economy, in the long run.
               Besides, why should an employee be unjustly deprived of the arrears' payment, PF and Gratuity difference for the period during which he was on the salary rolls of the Corporation? Even LIC has admitted in reply to my RTI appeal, that this is an arbitrary decision as it doesn't have any reason on record for repudiation of arrears!
               Hence it can safely be said that LIC's top brass needs rigorous lessons in HR practices. Its HR policies are out-dated and need an over-haul urgently. No amount of computerization can achieve it. Attitudes and perceptions have to be examined, analyzed and changed. A behavioral therapy resulting in empathy and sensitization is the need of the hour!

Woman's Empowerment, the LIC way!

         The topmost echelons of the management of L.I.C of India consist of many women. Unfortunately, while they are apparently interested in women's empowerment, (rather, just talking about it!) their actions belie their attitude. There are some who deliver powerful lectures on women's empowerment but when it comes to actually walking the talk, they develop cold feet and coolly look the other way!
          My tryst with the R.T.I appeal to the organization for getting my arrears and answers to queries; proved the above-mentioned sad truth. If I'd have got all my answers, I'd have also felt empowered, but alas, these ladies have forgotten the very meaning of empowerment, by choosing to be the Devil's advocate (literally)!
          True empowerment can be attained only by supporting others. If ladies deprive other ladies (and men!) of their legally rightful dues and also justify it, it's a matter of concern and shame. Surely, they can use their own sense of judgment, reasoning and logic to make the men in their team aware of their flawed and unjust decisions instead of towing their line and trying to save their jobs and maintaining the status quo!
          These ladies have not shown the slightest bit of support to the cause of the resigning employees, arbitrarily and unjustly not being given their arrears and difference in retirement benefits, by the management.

          So one can just conclude that women can be women's best friends and worst foes too!

Madras High Court decision dated 22/04/2014

Source: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/118495839

Madras High Court

R.Ramesh vs The Government Of India on 22 April, 2014

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

CAV  ON  07/01/2013 

DATED:   22/04/2014

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN

W.P.No.2861 of 2002

1.R.Ramesh

2.S.Sridaran

3.S.Lal Bhagadur                                          ...       Petitioners

vs.

1.The Government of India,

   rep.by Joint Secretary,

   Ministry of Finance,

   Department of Economic Affairs

   Insurance Division,

   New Delhi.

2.The Regional Manager (E & OS),

   Life Insurance Corporation of India,

   Southern Zonal Office,

   102, Anna Salai, Madras-2.

3.The Chairman,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India

    Central Office,

   Yogakshema, Jeeban Bhima Marg,

   Mumbai-400 021.                                   ...      Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his notification No.Nil, dated 22.06.2000, and quash the same as illegal, incompetent, ultra vires and unconstitutional in sofar as it denies the benefits of revised pay scales to employees, who have resigned or relieved from service between 01.07.1997 to 22.06.2000 and further direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pay under the above notification for the work extracted by respondents with interest at 24% till payment to the petitioners.

        For Petitioners :       Mr.V.Raghavachari

        For Respondents :       Mrs.R.Maheswari, S.C.G.S.C. for R1

                       Mr.M.Vaidyanathan for R2 & R3

* * * * *

O R D E R

The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification, dated 22.06.2000, issued by the first respondent, in sofar as it denies the benefits of revised pay scales to the employees, who have resigned or relieved from service between 01.07.1997 to 22.06.2000 and to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of pay to the petitioners, under the said notification for the work extracted by respondents, with interest at 24% till the payment.
2. The short facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners submit that they were working in the office of the respondent Corporation in the post of Engineering Assistant Grade-II (Class-III). The first petitioner joined service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.02.1999. The second petitioner joined service on 06.11.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.01.1999. The third petitioner joined service on 01.07.1999 and resigned from the post on 21.11.1999. They resigned from the posts on account of the fact that they were selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers. The respondents issued a notification, dated 22.06.2000, which is impugned herein, introducing revised pay scale with retrospective effect to the employees of Class-III and Class-IV of the respondent Corporation. Revised pay scale benefits are to be given to the employees, who were in whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the Corporations on 01.08.1997 and also those, who joined service after the date of notification. But, the benefits of wage revision is denied to those employees, who had resigned on or before the date of notification irrespective of whether they are relieved or not during the period between 01.08.1997 and 22.06.2000, including both days.
3. They further submit that on coming to know of the said notification, they sent a representation to the respondent Corporation for further details and to consider the case of the petitioner and extend the revised pay scale benefits under the said notification, but there was no reply. Therefore, sent a notice, dated 23.04.2001, calling upon the respondents to consider their case and to pay the revised arrears with all benefits. However, the respondents had not responded. Hence, they have filed this writ petition seeking the relief as stated above.
4. The second and third respondents have filed a counter statement and denied all the allegations made in the affidavit except those that are specifically admitted herein and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The respondents submit that these respondents may be permitted to file additional counter affidavit, if any, at a later stage. The petition is not maintainable in law. The averments mentioned in paras 4 to 9 of the affidavit are objected to. The particulars of service of the petitioners are mentioned below:-
Sl.No.
Petitioner Name Post held Joining Date Resigned date R.Ramesh Eng. Gr-II 02.07.1993 25.02.1999 S.Sridharan Engr. Gr-II 06.11.1993 25.01.1999 S.Lalbaghadur Eng. Gr-II 02.07.1993 21.01.1999 All the petitioners resigned from the service of the Life Insurance Corporation of India on account of the fact that they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. It is true the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 has issued notification No.GSR 552 (E) on 22.06.2000 to make revision in terms and conditions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III & IV Employees Service Rules 1993. In Sub-clause 3 of Clause I of the said Rules, it has been provided as under. These rules shall be applicable to those Class III and Class IV employees who are in the whole time salaried service in the permanent establishment of the Corporation as on 01.08.1997 provided that the Class II and Class IV employees whose resignation had been accepted or whose services had been terminated under Rule 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 during the period from 01.08.1997 and the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision. As all the three petitioners have resigned from their services on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 21.01.1999 respectively they are not entitled to claim the benefits of the revised scales of pay as arrears.
5. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the Life Insurance Corporation was created under LIC of India Act, 1956, Section 48 of which empowers the Central Government to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act.
The Life Insurance Corporation (herein after referred to as "the Corporation") was established under Section 3 of the Act as a Body Corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with powers subject to the provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and dispose of property and which may be its name sue and be sued.
Section 6 deals with the functions of the Corporation.
The Central Government had in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 11(2) of the Act issued on 01.06.1957 an order known as (The LIC Alteration of the remuneration and other terms and conditions of service of employees) Order 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Standardization Order) providing for remuneration and other terms and conditions of service applicable to employees.
Section 48 of the LIC Act empowers the Central Government to make rules by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act and vide sub Section (2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in the sub-section.
Section 49 of the LIC Act empowers the Corporation to make with previous approval of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette for carrying out the purposes of the Act and vide sub section (2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, to provide for all or any of the matters mentioned in the sub section.
Before the amendment of Section 49 in 1981 by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Amendment) Act 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act"), the power of the Corporation to make regulations under sub section (2) of Section 49 included the power to provide for the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation. The Corporation has accordingly framed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1956 providing for the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation.
Subsequently in super cession of these regulations, the Corporation has in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 49(2) (b) and (bb) of the Act framed regulations known as the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1960 providing for the terms and conditions of service of its employees.
The Provisions of clause cc of Subsection 2 of the Section 48 and any rules thereunder shall have effect not withstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or other authority and not withstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, Settlement, Award or other instrument for the time being in force.
6. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not applicable to this case. The Employees who resign and desert the Corporation cannot compare and claim the same benefits granted to retired and deceased employees who are committed and loyal workers. In other words there is nothing wrong in extending the benefits of Revised Scale of Pay with retrospective effect only to those loyal and committed workers and not extending it to those who left the service in search of greener pastures. The respondents further submit that the averments mentioned in grounds a, b and c of the petitioners affidavit are not correct. The averments that the impugned notification is discriminatory against the principles of Service Jurisprudence and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India are objected to. In Service Jurisprudence the words superannuation, voluntary retirement, compulsory retirement and resignation have clear and different connotations. The distinction between superannuation / voluntary retirement on the one hand and resignation on the other hand is well recognized. Retirement implies putting in the required minimum service and brings in the element of "Loyalty". Resignation implies the act of the employee / petitioners herein moving to pastures new and green.
7. The respondents 2 and 3 further submit that the petitioners cannot challenge the notification either on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination in view of the fact that when the petitioners left the service their salary upto the date of their leaving the service was paid to them. There is no arrears. Nothing was due under the contract of employment. As stated above there is nothing wrong in extending the benefit of revised scale of pay only to those who fall under the category of loyal and committed workers and not extending to those like petitioners who resigned in search of better employment prospects. The distinction made is reasonable. It has a rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved that is to reward and benefit those who are loyal to the Corporation. On the other hand, the petitioners have virtually deserted the Corporation by resigning to take up more lucrative and advantageous employment. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any benefits due to wage revision. Hence, the respondents entreat the Court to dismiss the above writ petition.
8. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners were working in the office of the respondent-Corporation in the post of Engineering Assistant Grade II. The first petitioner joined the service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the respondents office on 25.02.1999. The second petitioner had joined the service in the office of the respondent on 06.11.1993 and resigned from the post on 25.01.1999. The third petitioner had joined service on 02.07.1993 and resigned from the post on 21.01.1999. All the petitioners resigned from their respective posts on account of that they were selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers and posted in the Public Works Department of Tamil Nadu Government.
9. The highly competent counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents had issued notification and the pay scale was revised with retrospective effect to the employees of Class III and IV of the respondent-Corporation. As per the notification, the petitioners are entitled to receive benefits from the respondents' office as per the revised pay scale. This was not considered by the respondents, who rejected the same.
10. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioners resigned from the Life Insurance Corporation since they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission as Assistant Engineers in Public Works Department of the State. It is an admitted fact that the Insurance Corporation had issued notification on 22.06.2000 to make revision in terms of conditions of Life Insurance Corporation of India Class III and IV employees Service Rules. These rules shall be applicable to those who are class III and IV employees, who are in the whole time salaried service in the Corporation, as on 01.08.1997.
11. The highly competent counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 further submits that the Class III and IV employees, whose resignation had been accepted or whose services are terminated during the period from 01.08.1997 and the date of application of this notice in the official gazette shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revised pay. All the three employees / petitioners have resigned from their services on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 25.01.1999 respectively. As such, they are not entitled to claim the benefits of the revised scale of pay as arrears.
12. The highly competent senior counsel Mrs.R.Maheswari, appearing for the first respondent submits that the Life Insurance Corporation was established under the LIC of India Act, 1956. As per Section 58 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to make rules by notification in the official gazette. Further, the notification issued by the second and third respondents is appropriate for Class III and IV employees. The said notification is not applicable to the petitioners herein.
13. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the highly competent counsels on all sides and on perusing the instructions issued by the third respondent stating that the employees who have resigned or whose services have been terminated under Rule 39 of the Staff Rules, 1960, during the period from 01.08.1997 to the date of notification to 22.06.2000 and therefore, they are not entitled for any arrears. This court is of the view that in the instant case, the petitioners have resigned on 25.02.1999, 25.01.1999 and 21.01.1999 respectively. As such, it is evident that during the relevant period mentioned in the notification, they have resigned and hence, the prayer of the writ petitioners cannot be granted. Therefore, the above writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

22/ 04/ 2014

Index        : Yes.

Internet : Yes.

k r k / r n s

C.S.KARNAN, J.

k r k /r n s

To

1.The Joint Secretary,

   Ministry of Finance,

   Government of India,

   Department of Economic Affairs

   Insurance Division,

   New Delhi.

2.The Regional Manager (E & OS),

   Life Insurance Corporation of India,

   Southern Zonal Office,

   102, Anna Salai, Madras-2.

3.The Chairman,

    Life Insurance Corporation of India

    Central Office,

   Yogakshema, Jeeban Bhima Marg,

   Mumbai-400 021.     

Pre-Delivery Order in

W.P.No.2861 of 2002

22/04/2014

New AAO recruits, think twice before joining LIC of India

          Recently, LIC of India has advertised for recruitment of AAOs, in the newspapers. Most of you, who think that LIC's is a lucrative job with bright career prospects; and are eligible candidates; will fill in the forms. 
         
          Here's a warning. BEWARE! The reasons for exercising caution are as follows:
If selected, LIC of India will give you appointment letters, stating your expected salary, with a statement in brackets, saying, 'Wage Revision Due'.
But if you leave LIC within 3 years, you won't get the arrears due to wage revision and will be left high and dry. You'll run from pillar to post for your legally rightful dues, but won't get any response from LIC or you'll get the hackneyed response that 'as per rules, you are not eligible for arrears' payment.'
In every Charter of wage revision, LIC includes a Clause 3 1 ii)/b) which states that resigning employees will not get the arrears. This is in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has declared this Clause to be ultra vires, in 2008.
In effect, if you stick around with LIC for a minimum of 20 years, you'll get the arrears, but if you leave before 20 years, even by one day, you won't get the arrears.
So friends, think carefully whether you'll continue to serve in LIC for so long and only then apply for the job. This is especially for the Direct Recruits as Assistant Administrative Officers in LIC of India.
If you are applying for other jobs in the Government Sector, simultaneously, and get some call letter from them after joining LIC, and decide to take up that offer and resign from LIC, you will not get the arrears payment because of LIC's Clause, as above-mentioned.

Let me give you an instance:
Mr. X joined LIC in 2013 and left in 2015, to join the Income Tax Department as an Income Tax Officer. As per the wage revision Gazette of 2016, he will not get arrears for those two years, in spite of having been on the salary roll of the Corporation!

This injustice has been going on since 1st August, 1997.

My sincere advice is that think not only twice but 2000 times before joining LIC of India. And if you do join, serve for full 20 years at least!
**********************************************************************************

 Kindly refer to my blog post dated 14.04.2015, as follows:

                 No mention of repudiation in the appointment letters!

         In the appointment letters to the employees, nowhere is it mentioned that the employees can't leave service, or that their arrears' payments will be repudiated if they leave service of the Corporation. So how can this clause be introduced, that too with retrospective effect? If at all it has to be introduced, it could be with prospective effect and the same should be mentioned in the appointment letters.
          In fact, some employees who joined LIC in the recent years, have been given appointment letters stating that the wage revisions are due, meaning that they will be eligible for the same when they are notified. But when they resigned from LIC, they were denied the arrears' payments! Shouldn't they have been informed about the repudiation's clause, beforehand, so that they could've made an informed decision?
          Likewise, even after their resignation letters were received by LIC, they should've been intimated accordingly, with respect to this clause. The fact that LIC regularly accepts resignations without doing so, indicates that LIC is not playing fair. It can easily keep the resignations pending and accept them after the notification is made public, so that they aren't deprived of their hard-earned dues.
         The Supreme Court has declared this clause itself to be ultra vires, meaning 'beyond reach' of the Chairman's powers. But obviously, LIC's management thinks that it is beyond any law of the Nation! It is a law unto itself!
          Besides, the Finance Ministry too ratifies this unjust clause in the Wage Arrears' Notification, every 5 years, since 2000; without considering the Supreme Court's judgement.
          LIC, (and the Finance Ministry), it's time for some serious introspection!

LIC's Wage Revision Charter, 2016

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

(INSURANCE DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2016

G.S.R. 28(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Life

Insurance Corporation of India, Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985,

1. (1) These rules may be called the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Class I Officers (Revision of

Terms and Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2016.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall be deemed to have come into force on

(3) These rules shall be applicable to those Class I Officers who were in the whole-time salaried

the 1st day of August, 2012.

service in the permanent establishment of the Corporation on or after the 1st August, 2012:

Provided that where any Class I Officer gives a notice in writing to the Corporation, within a

period as specified by the Corporation, expressing his option to be governed by the provisions

of these rules from a date not earlier than the date on which the said rules come into force and

not later than the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, then the

Corporation may, by order, permit such Officer to be governed by the said rules with effect

from the said date and no arrears for the period prior to the date so opted shall be payable to

6 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(i)]

Provided further that the officers whose resignations had been accepted or whose services had

been terminated under rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960

during the period from the 1st August, 2012 to the date of publication of this notification in the

Official Gazette, shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision.

2. In the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and Conditions of

Service) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), for rule 4, the following rule shall

be substituted, namely :-

 "4. Scales of Pay of Class I Officers.─ The scale of pay of the Class I Officers shall be as under :─

(1) (i) Zonal Managers (a) Ordinary Scale :

 (ii) Chief Engineers/ Rs 89095-2685(8)-110575

 Rs 99835-2685(2)-105205-2880(1)-108085-

 3150(1)-111235-3265(4)-124295

 (2) (i) Deputy Zonal Managers/

 Senior Divisional Managers Rs 79605-2300(3)-86505-2590(6)-102045

 (ii) Deputy Chief Engineers/

Chief Architects (b) Selection Scale :

 Deputy Chief Architects

(3) (i) Divisional Managers

 (ii) Superintending Engineers/ Rs 65805-2300(9)-86505

 Senior Surveyors of Works/

 Senior Architects

 (4) (i) Assistant Divisional Managers/

 Senior Branch Managers

 (ii) Executive Engineers/ Rs 53725-1610(1)-55335-1745(6)-65805-

 Surveyors of Works/ 2300(4)-75005

Deputy Senior Architects

 (5) (i) Administrative Officers/

 Branch Managers

 (ii) Assistant Executive Engineers/ Rs 44065-1610(7)-55335-1745(6)-65805

 Assistant Surveyors of Works/

Architects

 (6) (i) Assistant Administrative Officers/

 Assistant Branch Managers Rs 32795-1610(14)-55335-1745(4)-62315

 (ii) Assistant Engineers/

 Assistant Architects

1Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3 (i)o Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vlk/kj.k 7

Note : A separate seniority list shall be maintained in respect of Officers appointed to posts specified

3. In rule 5 of the principal rules,─

in entry (ii) under various serial numbers.”.

(a) for sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:-

‘(1) The scale of dearness allowance applicable to Class I Officers shall be determined as

 (a) Index : All India Average Consumer Price Index Number for Industrial Workers.

 (b) Base : Index No.4708 in the series 1960=100.

 (c) Rate : For every four points in the quarterly average of the All India Consumer Price Index above

4708 points, a Class I Officer shall be paid dearness allowance at the rate of 0.10 % of Pay.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, “Pay" means the basic pay including

additions to the basic pay after reaching maximum of the scale as provided under rule

4A of these rules.’;

(b) in sub-rule(2), for the figures and words "2944 points in the sequence of 2944-2948-

2952-2956", the figures and words "4708 points in the sequence of 4708-4712-4716-

4720" shall be substituted .

4. In rule 6 of the principal rules, for sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely :-

 ‘(1) The House Rent Allowance applicable to Class I Officers, except those who have been

allotted residential accommodation by the Corporation, shall be as under:-

(1) (2) (3)

Cities of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, New Delhi,

Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Gurgaon, Navi

Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and other cities

with population of 45 lakhs and above.

(2) Cities with population exceeding 12 lakhs, but

less than 45 lakhs and, except those mentioned at

Sl. No. (1) and any city in the State of Goa.

(3) Other places. 7% of Pay.subject to the

Notes.─ for the purpose of this sub-rule,─

(i) the population figures shall be as per the latest Census Report;

(ii) cities shall include their urban agglomerations; and

(iii) “pay” means basic pay, additions to basic pay under Rule 4A and Fixed Personal

Allowance under Rule 9A.’.

5. For rule 7 of the principal rules, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-

‘7. City Compensatory Allowance.─ The City Compensatory Allowance payable to Class I

Officers shall be as under:-

(1) (2) (3)

(i) Cities of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, New Delhi,

Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad, Gurgaon, Navi

Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bengaluru and other cities

with population of 45 lakhs and above.

8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(i)]

6. For rule 7A of the principal rules , the following rule shall be substituted, namely :-

(ii) Cities with population exceeding 12 lakhs, but

less than 45 lakhs and, except those mentioned at

Sl. No. (i) and any city in the State of Goa.

(iii) Cities with population of five lakhs and above but

not exceeding twelve lakhs, State Capitals with

population not exceeding twelve lakhs,

Chandigarh, Mohali, Pondicherry, Port Blair, and

Panchkula.

Note.─for the purposes of this rule,─

(i) the population figures shall be as per the latest Census Report;

(ii) cities shall include their urban agglomerations; and

(iii) "pay" means basic pay plus additions to basic pay under rule 4A.’.

“7A Hill Allowance.─ The scales of Hill Allowance payable to Class I Officers shall be as

(1) (2) (3)

Posted at placed situated at a height of 1,500

meters and over above mean sea level

Posted at places situated at a height of 1,000

meters and over but less than 1,500 meters above

mean sea level, at Mercara and at places which

are specifically declared as ‘Hill Stations’ by

Central or State Governments for their

employees.

Posted at places situated at a height of not less

than 750 meters above mean sea level which are

surrounded by and accessible only through hills

with height of 1000 meters and over above mean

sea level.

7. In rule 7B of the principal rules, for the letters and figures “Rs. 300/-” the letters and figure

 “Rs500/-” shall be substituted.

8. In rule 7C of the principal rules, for the letters and figures “Rs 680/-,” the letters and figure

 “Rs. 1130/-,” shall be substituted.

9. In rule 9B of the principal rules, for the letters and figures “Rs.800/-,” the letters and figure

 “Rs.1330/-,” shall be substituted.

10. In rule 9D of the principal rules, for the letters and figures “Rs 110/-,” the letters and figure

 “Rs. 185/-,” shall be substituted.

 [F. No. S-11012/01/2013-Ins. I]

1Hkkx IIμ[k.M 3 (i)o Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vlk/kj.k 9

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. The Central Government has accorded approval to revise the terms and conditions of service of Class

I Officers of Life Insurance Corporation of India with effect from the dates specified in the

notification. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Class I Officers (Revision of Terms and

Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 are being amended accordingly with effect from these dates as

specified in the notification.

2. It is certified that no employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India is likely to be affected

adversely by the notification being given retrospective effect.

Note .─ The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide notification number

G.S.R.794(E), dated the 11th October, 1985 and subsequently amended vide G.S.R.960(E), dated the

th December, 1987; G.S.R.493(E), dated the 22nd April, 1988; G.S.R.872(E), dated the 22nd August,

1988, G.S.R.711(E), dated the 25th July, 1989; G.S.R.816(E),dated the 11th October, 1990;

G.S.R.324(E),dated the 10th March, 1992; G.S.R.53(E),dated the 2nd February, 1994; G.S.R.597(E),

dated the 30th June, 1995; G.S.R.94(E),dated the 16th February, 1996; G.S.R.286(E),dated the 18th

July, 1996; G.S.R.530(E),dated the 27th August, 1998; G.S.R.612(E),dated the 30th August, 1999;

G.S.R.550 (E),dated the 22nd June, 2000; G.S.R.287 (E), dated the 27th April,2004; G.S.R.559(E),

dated the 5th September, 2005; G.S.R.305 (E),dated the 25th April,2007; G.S.R. 631 (E),dated the 2nd

September, 2009; G.S.R.824(E), dated the 8th October,2010.

Source: Internet (http://sapost.blogspot.in)

************************************************************************************
 Dear friends,

Kindly note that the same Clause 3 1, Part ii) has been included in this Charter, just like the previous Charters, in spite of the Supreme Court declaring it to be ultra vires! 
Similarly, the foot-note states that no employee will be adversely affected by the retrospective wage revision.

So the broad day-light robbery of the resigning employees' legally rightful dues, (their arrears and difference in Retirement Benefits); by LIC of India, continues, regardless of the Supreme Court's verdict. Isn't this blatant Contempt of Court?

The Finance Ministry too, toes LIC's line, blissfully unaware!

Is this omission or commission? You decide!
                                                                                                                      Priya

LIC's proposed Wage Revision Charter, 2015

 Source:http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-lic-employees

LIC employees agree for 15% salary hike, 5-days week

Wednesday, 25 November 2015 - 9:40pm IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: PTI

The management of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) and the unions representing around 1 lakh employees of the insurance behemoth have agreed on a 15% wage hike.
The new wage package does not cap an increase in the basic salary unlike in the case of bank employees, who also sealed a wage hike package in May with a similar hike. Bank employees can have their basic pay revised upwards only to the tune of 2% per annum.
In the pact, the management also agreed to a five-day week for alternative Saturdays for LIC employees on the lines of their peers in the banking industry.
The new pact offers a 15% hike in salary, which includes a 13.5% increase in the basic pay and a 1.5% raise in allowances like HRA, CCA (city compensation allowance) and daily commuting allowance.
Confirming the development, a senior LIC official said, "The draft of the revised wage pact has been sent by LIC to finance ministry for approval from where the file will go to the law ministry."
The unions and the management have ironed out the differences and agreed on a 15% hike in wages, All-India LIC Employees Federation general secretary A V Nachane told PTI today.
"What is remarkable about the new wage pact is that there is no cap on annual increase in the basic pay at any stage unlike the bank employees who have a 2% cap on the increase in basic pay at all pay scales," he said.
"As a result, there is a steep rise in the basic pay that makes all the difference," he said.
Nachane also said that the deal is likely to get the finance ministry's nod shortly.
The LIC management has been in discussions with the unions from September and has held 15 rounds of meetings before arriving at the final agreement.
**********************************************************************************
     
    With reference to the above-mentioned report:
    I hope the Finance Ministry deletes the Clause 3 i) b) in the proposal; which provides for repudiation of arrears to the resigning employees.  
   The above-mentioned Clause has been declared ultra-vires by the Supreme Court, in 2008. So if this proposal contains it, like the 2010 Charter, it will be Contempt of Court, once again.
   This Charter must also grant arrears to all those who have been illegally denied the same, since 1997. 
    Will justice be done, this time? Well, it's certainly high time!
                                                                                       Priya

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

Feb 22, 2013 1,699 views MIC Newsdesk

inShare

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.

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