PRBS -Brief By Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, PRBS appeared going smooth but it was ailing inside. Funds were not received by PRBS Trust on regular basis. We all know that "Additional Cash Contribution" against Monetised value of surrendered facilities (Uniform related items and Canteen subsidy) was Main Source for funding the Scheme but funds remained with ONGC or they were not accounted for by Managing Trustee. Therefore, financial collapse occurred. Trustees did not review Addl. Cash Contr. in accordance with prevailing Price Index of Commodities. Actuarial recommendations were ignored in totality. Pay Revision-1992 witnessed 78% rise in Salary but Addl. Cash Contr. was being paid at escalation of 7.25% only. This was position in early 1996.
2. Background behind MOU of 3.2.1998:
(a). Govt. Notification of 16.11.1995 for Compulsory implementation of EPS-1995;
(b). Govt. Notification of 10.1.1996 for Pay Revision-1992, which Entailed Pension on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and
(c). Circular No.PRBS-38 dated 17.1.1996 for enhanced deduction of Fixed % Contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992.
3. (a). ONGC requested Exemption from Implementation of compulsory EPS-1995, with consideration that its Own Pension Scheme-PRBS- was more advantaompulsory for all Executives. Similar exercise was carried out through another MOU with Unions to make PRBS compulsory "In-lieu" of EPS-1995.
3. (b). ONGC did not want to grant Pension on Revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992. Finalisation of Pension cases was kept pending from January 1996, awaiting some Legal Wrangle to crop up. An Actuarial Valuation Report dated 2.8.1996 was arranged for use in Writ Petition No.1718/1996 in Bombay H.C. in August 1996. Hon'ble Court issued Ad-interim Order of 5.11.1996 for negotiation between ONGC & ASTO in association with Petitioners & local ASTO (MRBC), to "Raise additional funds" to save the Scheme;
3. (c). ONGC intended to avoid implementation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996, as it could cause large amount of recoveries from Arrears of Pay and also enhanced fixed % contr. in times to come.
4. To achieve above objectives, Writ Petition was used convinient Platform: Finalisation of Recommendations to "raise" Additional funds was inordinately delayed so that Focus cd. be shifted from Main Object of Raising/generating additional funds to freestyle re-structuring of PRBS. To achieve such derogatory, unfair, disadvantageous, discriminatory & prejudicial feats, MOU was signed in "Good Faith" as if negotiations for 17-18 months were not sufficient to examine Data/Statistics pertaning to Assets & Liabilities of PRBS Trust, arising from 1.4.1990. It was unique method of ascertaining "Financial Viability" of the Fund.
5. Recommendations made in MOU of 3.2.1998 were not only contrary to Court Order of 5.11.1996 but ensured "Un-viability" of Fund. Introduction of Notional Salary reduced existing Fixed % Contr. by 40 to 60 Percent and it also nullified Cir. No.PRBS-38 for enhanced recovery on Revised Salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 & all future Pay Revisions.
6. Notional salary being nearly 40 to 60% of Actual salary, Pension benefit was also reduced to that extent.
7. Managing Trustee mis-used this opportunity to introduce some clauses which provided enormous scope for manipulations, mis-interpretations and discriminations. Para 5.1, 31.2 & 32 of Rules-1991 were totally rendered ineffective. PRBS was mutilated & demolished. MOU of 3.2.1998 was implemented under Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998 without approval of Comp. Authy.
8. Most dangerous consequence of MOU of 3.2.1998 was Managing Trustee assuming Absolute Power to Revise the PRBS in any manner, with no restrictions whatsoever. Conversion of existig "Pension Defined Scheme" into "Defined Corpus" is burning example. ONGC PRBS Trust did not purchase Annuity of Entitlement but remitted some Corpus to LIC. Pension of retired ONGCians was Fixed by LIC during January 1996 to March 2007. Another MOU of 9.4.2007 was manipulated to secretly Re.convert "Defined Corpus" into "Pension Defined Scheme" w.e.f. 1.4.2007. PRBS Trust of our beloved Maharatna considered such acts of violations as Legal & Legitimate, Just & Fair.
9. hope this clears the Clouds ?? Any specific question is most welcome.
Monday, March 19, 2012
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES _ BY CAPT NARAYAN SINGH RAYHORE
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES _ BY CAPT NARAYAN SINGH RAYHORE
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS ·
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:00pm
DPE GUIDELINES FOR OWN PENSION SCHEME OF CPSE (ONGC)
1. DPE OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC) dated 26th November 2008: -
“Para 12: Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the customer (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.”
1.1. Para V of Annex.-IV:
“Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30 of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuity and Post-Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in minimum of 15 years of service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.”
2. DPE OM No. No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-VII/09 dated 2nd April, 2009:
“Para 2. The Government, after due consideration of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:
(ii). Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit will be under a “defined contribution scheme” and not under a “defined pension scheme”. CPSE that do not have Superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted out side this 30% ceiling. (para 12, Annex.-IV (v) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers).”
3. DPE OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-IXI/2011 dated 20 July,2011:
“Para 2:
(i). Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of retired employees.
(ii). Each CPSE under their Administrative Ministry/Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
(iii). A Committee, headed by an independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/ Department may be formed by the respective Administrative Ministry/Department for implementation of said corpus.
(iv). Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in OM dated 8.7.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and or individual “CPSE” based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSEs under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.55 of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of OM dated 8.2.2009.
(v). Purpose of the scheme (individual of common corpus under a Ministry/Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionery scheme.
(vi). Benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s) in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the profits, affordability and sustainability of the CPSE s) concerned.
(vii). Such Corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 1.1.2007
Para 3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL & PE).”
3. Extract from Presentation made by Director, DPE in Workshop on 16.11.2011:
“Committee recommended upto 30 % of basic pay towards superannuation benefit after providing for PF and gratuity a buffer available for pension and/ or post retirement benefits. This was available only for those who superannuate after 15 years service in a CPSE.
Corpus from 1.5% PBT be created by CPSE for medical and any other emergency needs for retired executives and also those who were not adequately covered by a pension scheme.
Creation of Corpus was provided for benefit of those who had no support system like pension or medical benefit scheme. However, for those retiring after 1.1.2007, superannuation benefits upto 30% of basic pay + DA was provided which include CPF, Gratuity, Pension and Post Superannuation medical benefits.”
COMMENTS:
a) Since ONGC did not have its own contributory Pension Scheme, it could formulate an independent Pension Scheme. Corpus to be created from 1.5% PBT of Previous year (s). Superannuation benefits at 30% of Basic + DA included CPF, Gratuity and Medical benefit. Amount remaining as buffer from the Corpus could be used for Pension with approval of Ministry of P& NG. Incidentally, ONGC being a Maharatna Company, it is expected to make contribution to the Common Corpus under Ministry of P& NG, out of 1.5% PBT.
(a-i). This Pension Scheme being fully supported by ONGC’s own Contribution, other Schemes like PRBS & EPS-95 are not to be linked.
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS ·
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Monday, November 14, 2011 at 4:00pm
DPE GUIDELINES FOR OWN PENSION SCHEME OF CPSE (ONGC)
1. DPE OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC) dated 26th November 2008: -
“Para 12: Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the customer (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.”
1.1. Para V of Annex.-IV:
“Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30 of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuity and Post-Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in minimum of 15 years of service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.”
2. DPE OM No. No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-VII/09 dated 2nd April, 2009:
“Para 2. The Government, after due consideration of the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:
(ii). Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit will be under a “defined contribution scheme” and not under a “defined pension scheme”. CPSE that do not have Superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted out side this 30% ceiling. (para 12, Annex.-IV (v) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers).”
3. DPE OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)/GL-IXI/2011 dated 20 July,2011:
“Para 2:
(i). Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any other emergency needs of retired employees.
(ii). Each CPSE under their Administrative Ministry/Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
(iii). A Committee, headed by an independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/ Department may be formed by the respective Administrative Ministry/Department for implementation of said corpus.
(iv). Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in OM dated 8.7.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and or individual “CPSE” based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSEs under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.55 of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of OM dated 8.2.2009.
(v). Purpose of the scheme (individual of common corpus under a Ministry/Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionery scheme.
(vi). Benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s) in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the profits, affordability and sustainability of the CPSE s) concerned.
(vii). Such Corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 1.1.2007
Para 3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL & PE).”
3. Extract from Presentation made by Director, DPE in Workshop on 16.11.2011:
“Committee recommended upto 30 % of basic pay towards superannuation benefit after providing for PF and gratuity a buffer available for pension and/ or post retirement benefits. This was available only for those who superannuate after 15 years service in a CPSE.
Corpus from 1.5% PBT be created by CPSE for medical and any other emergency needs for retired executives and also those who were not adequately covered by a pension scheme.
Creation of Corpus was provided for benefit of those who had no support system like pension or medical benefit scheme. However, for those retiring after 1.1.2007, superannuation benefits upto 30% of basic pay + DA was provided which include CPF, Gratuity, Pension and Post Superannuation medical benefits.”
COMMENTS:
a) Since ONGC did not have its own contributory Pension Scheme, it could formulate an independent Pension Scheme. Corpus to be created from 1.5% PBT of Previous year (s). Superannuation benefits at 30% of Basic + DA included CPF, Gratuity and Medical benefit. Amount remaining as buffer from the Corpus could be used for Pension with approval of Ministry of P& NG. Incidentally, ONGC being a Maharatna Company, it is expected to make contribution to the Common Corpus under Ministry of P& NG, out of 1.5% PBT.
(a-i). This Pension Scheme being fully supported by ONGC’s own Contribution, other Schemes like PRBS & EPS-95 are not to be linked.
Harrassment of retirees of ONGC - Mathre Rangarajan's letter to NHRC
Letter of Mr. Mathre Rangarajan to NHRC
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
M. Rangarajan,
(retired Group General Manager ONGC)
B 2 – 301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Chellaghatta village,
Bangalore – 560037.
Phone: 25227955, mobile 9945091581
e-mail: rangajan@yahoo.com / rangajan@gmail.com
No: HRC-1/2011 dated 12th December 2011
To,
Hon Justice Sri K G Balakrishnan,
Chairperson,
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Nelhi - 110001
SUB: Human Rights Violation of 21000+ Retired Employees (Elders – Senior citizens) by M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (a Maharatna company) - Request for Intervention and Justice
About 21000 employees retired anytime between 1985 to Dec 2006 who are the real backbones of ONGC (age group 65 to 85+ years) are struggling for their survival due to general apathy and negative mindset of ONGC Management who repeatedly utters that “once an employee retires, all his connections with the Corporation are severed immediately”. As all our appeals to ONGC failed, retirees were forced to approach Bombay High Court by a writ petition filed by “All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association, Mumbai” on their behalf in 2003. Out of these 21000 retired employees about 1500-2000 have already expired during last 8 years, pending disposal of a discrimination case in Bombay High Court.
These retirees are the Pioneers who built ONGC from scratch and nurtured it with their blood and sweat when it was an infant. We also have all those responsible for bringing India on the Oil Map of the world. Our members also comprises of those responsible for the discovery of Oil & Natural Gas as well as its Production from various Onshore as well as Offshore fields including Mumbai High. We also have retirees from ONGC Videsh Ltd. who converted it from loss making to highest profit making arm of ONGC. Our retirees are highly qualified and experienced in various activities of E&P Industry. We are ex-ONGCians who contributed in creating India’s most valuable Maha --ratna Oil Company.
The majority of these retirees are not in receipt of any old age benefit from their ex-employer ONGC and are fully dependent on their kiths and kins for survival and some of them are virtually starving. Most of these retirees are without any financial support for 5 to 25 years after retirement. Only a handful of them, approximately 3000 persons are covered by Agrani Samman, an Ex-Gratia Scheme, but their condition is also pitiable due to a meager amount received by them which is not even sufficient to live a dignified life without external support in today’s high cost of living.
Brief of Agrani Samman Ex Gratia Case
ONGC realized that its retired employees are in very difficult financial condition and introduced an Ex-Gratia monthly payment scheme called “Agrani Samman”, by Late CMD Shri Subir Raha wef 1st Jan 2003 based on Shri T.N. Seshan’s Report. The objective was to provide some financial support to the Pioneers so that they can lead a dignified retired life. While framing his recommendations Shri T N Seshan got influenced by an ex-director ONGC and submitted a scheme which is not only discriminatory but also violated the provisions of Indian Constitution viz. Art 14 - right to equality and Art 16 - right to justice, by introducing arbitrary cut off dates, unwanted and illegal riders and deductions of retirees own money, from the meager amount of relief provided to about 3000 retirees. These arbitrary cut off dates and illegal deductions from retirees own money has already been rejected by Supreme Court in several famous cases. The total amount spent towards “Agrani Samman” the Ex-Gratia scheme for these 3000 retirees annually is less than Rs 10 Crores (as per RTI reply). As per the “Agrani Samman” Ex-Gratia Scheme implemented by ONGC wef 1st Jan 2003, the retirees were subdivided into four slabs based on their respective ranks just before retirement as follows and were entitled to the modest Ex Gratia amount christened as “Agrani Samman”:
Slab I : Retired Class IV and Class III levels : Rs 1500+DA
Slab II : Retired executives from E0 to E-3 levels : Rs 3000+DA
Slab III : Retired executives from E-4 to E-6 levels : Rs 4500+DA
Slab IV : Retired executives from E-7 to CMD level : Rs 6000+DA
Illegal and Arbitrary Riders:
1. The 100% beneficiaries of above amounts as per the slabs were granted only to those retirees who joined ONGC prior to 15th Oct 1959 irrespective of their date of retirement and have completed 20 years of service. All those between 10 to 20 years of service were considered for pro-rata benefits
2. Out of the above beneficiaries who were in receipt of pension from their earlier employer or PRBS interest on their own money from LIC were entitled for only the balance amount of above mentioned “Agrani Samman” after deduction of his own money (illegal deductions).
3. The spouse of the deceased eligible employee was given 50% “Agrani Samman”.
4. All those employees who joined ONGC after 14th Oct 1959 and retired upto 31st March 1991 were entitled for 50% of the entitlement as in point 1 (case of illegal arbitrary discrimination).
5. All those who joined ONGC on or after 15th Oct 1959 and retired any time after 31st March 1959 are totally deprived of any benefit (case of illegal discrimination) irrespective of their length of service.
The illegal and arbitrary riders (discriminatory as per law) provided by ONGC management deprived a majority of retires numbering about 18000 and also resulted in a meager benefit to about 2000 eligible retirees.
The plea for justice by these retired employees to ONGC Management fell on deaf ears due to negative attitude of the Concerned Director HR which lead the retired employees/officers associations throughout ONGC to join together and file WP 6593/2003 at Bombay High Court. While the case was in court, instead of solving the vexed issue of “Agrani Samman” by involving the petitioner association, ONGC again violated the law and introduced an illegal and discriminatory PRBS based defined pension scheme for its retirees of 2007 onwards probably to cover themselves with much superior benefits than “Agrani Samman”. It clearly shows as to how much regards they have for the law and for their elders who handed them the most profitable Maharatna Company built out of their blood and sweat on a platter with golden spoons in their hands. After receiving the wealth in their hands the management started showing its true colours and instead of treating these elders as members of the family completely disowned them like an unworthy son.
In March 2008 our case on “Agrani Samman” WP 6593/2003 came up for final hearing in Bombay High Court and was disposed off in the form of an agreement as ONGC agreed to consider the same as per law within 3 months in front of the Divisional Bench. After end of 3 months ONGC backed out from its own commitment given in front of Divisional Bench.
This illegal action of ONGC forced us to file a fresh case WP/531/2009 in Bombay High Court. No one knows how much time this fresh case will take to get justice but one thing is sure that it will take some more casualities and deprive them justice for ever. Taking advantage of inordinate delay in Bombay High Court, ONGC continued its illegal practices of depriving the elders of all their legitimate dues by discriminating them with the unlawful arbitrary cut off dates in all subsequent schemes.
It is really sad that the #1 profit making Maharatna Company has all its elders among the BPL (Below Poverty Line) families as per GOI guidelines.
REQUEST FOR PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTINAL RIGHTS OF THESE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES DUE TO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THEIR EX-EMPLOYER M/s OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
• ONGC be directed through the administrative ministry for out of Court settlement in long pending “Agrani Samman” case amicably with the Petitioner Association, who have the absolute mandate from all other retired employees/officers associations for dealing in “Agrani Samman” on behalf of all retirees, at the earliest before some more retirees die waiting for justice. They should also be directed to remove total discrimination among the homogenous group of retirees by deleting all illegal clauses like arbitrary cut of dates and unlawful deductions from the date of implementation of the scheme.
• ONGC may also be directed to abide by the law and put on hold any revision in the 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme pending settlement of “Agrani Samman” Scheme, since their 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme is now part of the documents submitted in Bombay High Court WP/531/2009 and the matter is subjudice. Any change in 2007 scheme will have to wait disposal of WP 531/2009 by the Bombay High Court or a negotiated settlement with Petitioner Association.
• ONGC should also be advised to formulate a single D.A. Linked Transparent Pension Scheme for all retirees past as well as future w.e.f. 1st January 2007 to maintain uniformity instead of having multiple schemes to avoid corruption in future.
Humbly submitted for your kind and urgent consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(m. rangarajan)
On behalf of 21000+ silently suffering retirees of ONGC
Copy to:
1. Smt Sonia Gandhi, MP, Chairperson, United Front Government, 10, Janpath, New Delhi – 110011.
2. Sri Manmohan Singh, Hon Prime Minister, 7, Race Course Road, New Delhi – 110011.
3. Sri Lal Krishna Advani, MP, 30, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi – 110011.
4. Sri Jaipal Reddy, Hon Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 8, Tees January Marg, New Delhi – 110011.
5. Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievences, 5th floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
6. Sri Sudhir Vasudeva, CMD, ONGC, Jeevan Bharti Tower II, 124, Indira Chowk, New Delhi - 110001
Like · Unfollow Post · December 14, 2011 at 4:58pm
Prem Sagar Gupta and Inder Chatta like this.
Srinivas C. Komanduri
Dear Rangarajan,
I appreciate the initiative you have taken and written such nice letter. I feel you should be following up with details of some of the scheme which you mentioned in the letter like PRBS 2003, PRBS2007, Agrani Samman and o...See More
December 14, 2011 at 9:13pm via · Like
Badrinath Vasandi we should be proud being led by people like mr Mathre Rangarajan..thanks for his initiative..
December 15, 2011 at 10:06am · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan
Thank you Sri Srinivas Kamanduri Saheb for your kind words - Even if attach
all relevant documents, it will be difficult for an unconnected person to understand - If NHRC want any clarification or explanation, we can submit
it when they tak...See More
December 15, 2011 at 12:12pm via · Unlike · 1
Jauhari Lal
Dear Sirs,
Once again I daresay that this is the free forum for everyone to write any thing one likes and write to any authority they want without understanding whether they have any role to play. No one is authorized to write anythin...See More
December 16, 2011 at 6:00pm via · Unlike · 7
Erippanal Damodaran Respected Jauhari Lal Sir,Greetings of the Day!
Thank you Sir, for your kind guidance on the postings on this forum. Also thank you for the update of our pending case with the Ministry. We look forward for your kind advice and guidance further too. With kind Regards..
December 16, 2011 at 6:57pm · Like
Inder Chatta A very good encourraging and hope full information ,I onbehalf of my co-suferers hole heartedly am thankful to you Shri Johri Lal ji,hope you and the other associates shall see the scheme through to reach the benifits to all of us.
December 16, 2011 at 7:19pm · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan
Respected Jauhari Lal Saheb,
I have a feeling that you are referring to my appeal to NHRC with copies to others - I have re-read the appeal again and again, I don't find any
derogatory remarks. I have made only factual statement.
...See More
December 17, 2011 at 4:10pm via · Unlike · 6
Prem Sagar Gupta Solute to you Dear Mathre Rangarajan for explaining ,this is the true condition of 99 % of the honest retires of ongc between 1995 to 2007,God bless you,every one has to appear in his court for explanation one destine day not fr away.
December 17, 2011 at 4:35pm · Like · 2
Erippanal Damodaran Respected Mahtre Mathre Rangarajan Sir, I think you have made a realistic account of the pathetic condition of Ex-ONGCians in an emotional way. The element of emotion is a reality.
Even a retired bank employ gets a dignified pension...
May God bless you with good health for some more years to see at least what the out put of this present efforts and promises.
With that prayer and kind regards...
December 17, 2011 at 5:52pm · Unlike · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta
Respected sh Jauhari Lal ji,sir first of all your delegation visit to the sh P.K.Sinha is highly encouraging,and your team needs all the best wishes of serving the exongcians but sir why some one in ongc india not been doing any thing,if ...See More
December 17, 2011 at 8:35pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, we are very anxious about hopes of some proposal under consideration. What happens if proposal is agreed but ONGC does not comply with the approved conditions ? You may be cursing me for raising such hypothetical question ! I am re...See More
December 18, 2011 at 3:26pm · Unlike · 3
Prem Sagar Gupta I entirely agree Capt Narayan Singh Rathore,to err is human,every one commits mistakes but one who recorrects is even appreciated by every one,it is still time for ongc india to take stock and act quickly,god bless.
December 18, 2011 at 3:31pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
If we go thru MOU of 9.4.2007, it says "Following amendments have been made to the ONGC Self Contributory Post Retirement & Death in Service Benefit Rules, 1991." Para 32 of PRBS Rules provides that Rules could be amended provided the alter...See More
December 18, 2011 at 3:58pm · Like · 1
Narayan Singh Rathore
Dr. Jauhari Lal Sir, I fully appreciate your stand that no one can sign a document on behalf of all retirees of ONGC unless one is elected & duly authorised to do so. Sir, one thing has to be appreciated that some times anguish turns into a...See More
December 18, 2011 at 4:23pm · Like · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta
LET US LOOK WHY ANNA HAZARE JI AGITATION FINALLY SUCCEEDED SINCE THERE WAS ANGUISH AND HELPNESSNESS AMONG THE MAJORITY OF COMMUNITY,THIS WAS INSPIRED BY FEW NGO,s HOW IT BECAME SO VIBRANT ,SINCE IT BASED ON HARSH TRUTH,REALITY AND SOUND PRI...See More
December 18, 2011 at 4:58pm · Like
Nirmal Kumar Srivastava
Excellent response by Mathre Rangarajan to the posting of Dr.Jauhari Lal who instead of appreciating his selfless action of a Crusader like Anna Hazare...started fuming by challanging his authority and language of his appeal.From the wordin...See More
December 18, 2011 at 6:39pm · Unlike · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta i happened to see your article on yahoo facebook for Agrani samman addressed to human right commission 2/3 days back was well explained with reasons of the greatest discriminations ever could happen by any PSU,
December 18, 2011 at 10:03pm · Like
Mathre Rangarajan
I fully agree and endorse the view expressed by Dr Jauhari Lal Saheb:
*"On one hand we are requesting the management to look into our grievances
but such letters are just provocative."*
*
...See More
December 19, 2011 at 1:42pm via · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan One major correction - I have made a blunder in using the the expression
"After all are beggars" - I have no authority to use word "WE" - I am not
an elected representative - So please correct that sentence to "After all I
am a beggar" - Dr Jauhari Lal Shaeb will have serious objection to it. - I
am sorry.
You may add 'several NGOs' after 'Mahila Samithi'
December 19, 2011 at 2:23pm via · Unlike · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta Dr Jauhari Lal JI,PL USE YOUR GOOD OFFICES TO SUPPORT,NOT OPPOSE YOUR OWN COMMUNITY OF SR CITIZENS.YOU ARE LUCKY TO BE STILL WORKING AS A SPECIALIST OF H.R. IN ONGC,I FEEL YOU UNDERSTAND WHY SH RANGARAJAN GOT ANNOYED,WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION FIRST HAPPENED AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?
December 19, 2011 at 2:56pm · Unlike · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta Dr Jauhari Lal JI,ARE YOU ACTING WITH SOME AUTHORITY OF GOD ALMIGHTY AND ONGC MANAGEMENT ALWAYS DISCOURAGING THE EXONGCIANS CALLING THEM UNAUTHORISED,PL YOU ARE ELDERLY DO NOT PROVOKE THE SR CITIZENS,BADRINAT6H VASANDI,I KNOW WILL NEVER SPEAK A WORLD NOW.
December 19, 2011 at 3:09pm · Like
Subhash Jetly Angered perhaps, by this suffocating drag along expression----the crux of bullying the cause of unification.
December 20, 2011 at 12:37pm · Unlike · 2
Jauhari Lal
Dear Sh Rangarajan,
I am restraining myself to prolonging comments and counter comments. A number of Ongcians had been writing to various authorities in the past and I never reacted. You held a very senior positions and I feel that a ...See More
December 20, 2011 at 7:44pm via · Unlike · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Dear Shri Jauhari Lal,regards. I am sorry to intervene,but compelled to opine with all humbleness that 'so called' frustrated letters by many to ONGC Authorities are really out of mere FRUSTRATION caused due to indifferent attitude of the management of the past,and present,too.Or,else,how can a serving Director/HR say in open that 'once an employee retires ,he is practically a NOBODY to the Organisation....
December 20, 2011 at 9:09pm · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee
contd...Kindly try to understand,irrespective of ur opinion regarding all Board Members having sympathy to our cause....we are not,at this age,are looking for Sympathies....we are demanding justice and some pay-back by ONGC as recognition f...See More
December 20, 2011 at 9:31pm · Like
Prem Sagar Gupta Dear Amitabha Banerjee these are not only your opinion but all of us"we are not,at this age,are looking for Sympathies....we are demanding justice and some pay-back by ONGC as recognition for our selfless contribution towards growth of this Organisation to this level"very very selective few words to convey sr citizens point of view,i solute you once again.
December 20, 2011 at 9:47pm · Like
Mathre Rangarajan
Thank you very much Dr Jauhari Lal Saheb for you kind mail and very kind
words - I am touched - I was very hurt that you did not e-mil me directly
in the first instance. Now that we understand each other and there are no
hard feelings - I k...See More
December 20, 2011 at 9:52pm via · Like · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta Thanks Dear .Mathre Rangarajan ,we all appreciate your appeal
December 20, 2011 at 9:58pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, good morning. We in Indians read philosophy, consume philosophy, practise philosophy and tolerate nuisance to the extent it starts cracking us. Swami Vivekananda openly denounced British policy of preaching religion thru Missionari...See More
December 21, 2011 at 4:55am · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Thanks PS Gupta jee,nice to feel that I am not Frustrated alone.....
December 21, 2011 at 10:53am · Like · 2
Badrinath Vasandi whatsoever the problem if one remains active there is nothing like frustration.....Mr. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava and Capt. Narayan Singh
Rathore would testify my statement...frustration is some thing for lazy, week and inactive person...I fully agree with Mr. Rathore that CMD is not to be made known for the wrong done...but also to compel him to redress the things..
December 21, 2011 at 11:01am · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Good thing about this ex-ongcians'net is that one get unsolicited ad vices having any validity to original reference.....
December 21, 2011 at 11:34am · Unlike · 2
Badrinath Vasandi Mr. Amitabha Banerjee...this forum is for this very purpose...all these advices and submissions are for common cause....some may like some things and some may not.....but i fail to understand what prompted u to o make such comments...what is purpose....each and every members here is very respectable...let him to express....
December 21, 2011 at 11:40am · Like · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta Dear sh Amitabha Banerjee & sh Badrinath Vasandi ji,there is no difference in undersatanding between you both except refs to validity to original refs,i will invite both of you in Ahmedabad on new year day for a get togather,which is missing,we must organise such meets say once in three months.best of luck sir.
December 21, 2011 at 8:47pm · Like · 1
Write a comment...
By Badrinath Vasandi in EX-ONGCIANS · Edit Doc · Delete
M. Rangarajan,
(retired Group General Manager ONGC)
B 2 – 301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Chellaghatta village,
Bangalore – 560037.
Phone: 25227955, mobile 9945091581
e-mail: rangajan@yahoo.com / rangajan@gmail.com
No: HRC-1/2011 dated 12th December 2011
To,
Hon Justice Sri K G Balakrishnan,
Chairperson,
National Human Rights Commission,
Faridkot House,
Copernicus Marg,
New Nelhi - 110001
SUB: Human Rights Violation of 21000+ Retired Employees (Elders – Senior citizens) by M/s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (a Maharatna company) - Request for Intervention and Justice
About 21000 employees retired anytime between 1985 to Dec 2006 who are the real backbones of ONGC (age group 65 to 85+ years) are struggling for their survival due to general apathy and negative mindset of ONGC Management who repeatedly utters that “once an employee retires, all his connections with the Corporation are severed immediately”. As all our appeals to ONGC failed, retirees were forced to approach Bombay High Court by a writ petition filed by “All India ONGC Ex Employees Welfare Association, Mumbai” on their behalf in 2003. Out of these 21000 retired employees about 1500-2000 have already expired during last 8 years, pending disposal of a discrimination case in Bombay High Court.
These retirees are the Pioneers who built ONGC from scratch and nurtured it with their blood and sweat when it was an infant. We also have all those responsible for bringing India on the Oil Map of the world. Our members also comprises of those responsible for the discovery of Oil & Natural Gas as well as its Production from various Onshore as well as Offshore fields including Mumbai High. We also have retirees from ONGC Videsh Ltd. who converted it from loss making to highest profit making arm of ONGC. Our retirees are highly qualified and experienced in various activities of E&P Industry. We are ex-ONGCians who contributed in creating India’s most valuable Maha --ratna Oil Company.
The majority of these retirees are not in receipt of any old age benefit from their ex-employer ONGC and are fully dependent on their kiths and kins for survival and some of them are virtually starving. Most of these retirees are without any financial support for 5 to 25 years after retirement. Only a handful of them, approximately 3000 persons are covered by Agrani Samman, an Ex-Gratia Scheme, but their condition is also pitiable due to a meager amount received by them which is not even sufficient to live a dignified life without external support in today’s high cost of living.
Brief of Agrani Samman Ex Gratia Case
ONGC realized that its retired employees are in very difficult financial condition and introduced an Ex-Gratia monthly payment scheme called “Agrani Samman”, by Late CMD Shri Subir Raha wef 1st Jan 2003 based on Shri T.N. Seshan’s Report. The objective was to provide some financial support to the Pioneers so that they can lead a dignified retired life. While framing his recommendations Shri T N Seshan got influenced by an ex-director ONGC and submitted a scheme which is not only discriminatory but also violated the provisions of Indian Constitution viz. Art 14 - right to equality and Art 16 - right to justice, by introducing arbitrary cut off dates, unwanted and illegal riders and deductions of retirees own money, from the meager amount of relief provided to about 3000 retirees. These arbitrary cut off dates and illegal deductions from retirees own money has already been rejected by Supreme Court in several famous cases. The total amount spent towards “Agrani Samman” the Ex-Gratia scheme for these 3000 retirees annually is less than Rs 10 Crores (as per RTI reply). As per the “Agrani Samman” Ex-Gratia Scheme implemented by ONGC wef 1st Jan 2003, the retirees were subdivided into four slabs based on their respective ranks just before retirement as follows and were entitled to the modest Ex Gratia amount christened as “Agrani Samman”:
Slab I : Retired Class IV and Class III levels : Rs 1500+DA
Slab II : Retired executives from E0 to E-3 levels : Rs 3000+DA
Slab III : Retired executives from E-4 to E-6 levels : Rs 4500+DA
Slab IV : Retired executives from E-7 to CMD level : Rs 6000+DA
Illegal and Arbitrary Riders:
1. The 100% beneficiaries of above amounts as per the slabs were granted only to those retirees who joined ONGC prior to 15th Oct 1959 irrespective of their date of retirement and have completed 20 years of service. All those between 10 to 20 years of service were considered for pro-rata benefits
2. Out of the above beneficiaries who were in receipt of pension from their earlier employer or PRBS interest on their own money from LIC were entitled for only the balance amount of above mentioned “Agrani Samman” after deduction of his own money (illegal deductions).
3. The spouse of the deceased eligible employee was given 50% “Agrani Samman”.
4. All those employees who joined ONGC after 14th Oct 1959 and retired upto 31st March 1991 were entitled for 50% of the entitlement as in point 1 (case of illegal arbitrary discrimination).
5. All those who joined ONGC on or after 15th Oct 1959 and retired any time after 31st March 1959 are totally deprived of any benefit (case of illegal discrimination) irrespective of their length of service.
The illegal and arbitrary riders (discriminatory as per law) provided by ONGC management deprived a majority of retires numbering about 18000 and also resulted in a meager benefit to about 2000 eligible retirees.
The plea for justice by these retired employees to ONGC Management fell on deaf ears due to negative attitude of the Concerned Director HR which lead the retired employees/officers associations throughout ONGC to join together and file WP 6593/2003 at Bombay High Court. While the case was in court, instead of solving the vexed issue of “Agrani Samman” by involving the petitioner association, ONGC again violated the law and introduced an illegal and discriminatory PRBS based defined pension scheme for its retirees of 2007 onwards probably to cover themselves with much superior benefits than “Agrani Samman”. It clearly shows as to how much regards they have for the law and for their elders who handed them the most profitable Maharatna Company built out of their blood and sweat on a platter with golden spoons in their hands. After receiving the wealth in their hands the management started showing its true colours and instead of treating these elders as members of the family completely disowned them like an unworthy son.
In March 2008 our case on “Agrani Samman” WP 6593/2003 came up for final hearing in Bombay High Court and was disposed off in the form of an agreement as ONGC agreed to consider the same as per law within 3 months in front of the Divisional Bench. After end of 3 months ONGC backed out from its own commitment given in front of Divisional Bench.
This illegal action of ONGC forced us to file a fresh case WP/531/2009 in Bombay High Court. No one knows how much time this fresh case will take to get justice but one thing is sure that it will take some more casualities and deprive them justice for ever. Taking advantage of inordinate delay in Bombay High Court, ONGC continued its illegal practices of depriving the elders of all their legitimate dues by discriminating them with the unlawful arbitrary cut off dates in all subsequent schemes.
It is really sad that the #1 profit making Maharatna Company has all its elders among the BPL (Below Poverty Line) families as per GOI guidelines.
REQUEST FOR PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTINAL RIGHTS OF THESE SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES DUE TO VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THEIR EX-EMPLOYER M/s OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD.
• ONGC be directed through the administrative ministry for out of Court settlement in long pending “Agrani Samman” case amicably with the Petitioner Association, who have the absolute mandate from all other retired employees/officers associations for dealing in “Agrani Samman” on behalf of all retirees, at the earliest before some more retirees die waiting for justice. They should also be directed to remove total discrimination among the homogenous group of retirees by deleting all illegal clauses like arbitrary cut of dates and unlawful deductions from the date of implementation of the scheme.
• ONGC may also be directed to abide by the law and put on hold any revision in the 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme pending settlement of “Agrani Samman” Scheme, since their 2007 PRBS Defined Pension Scheme is now part of the documents submitted in Bombay High Court WP/531/2009 and the matter is subjudice. Any change in 2007 scheme will have to wait disposal of WP 531/2009 by the Bombay High Court or a negotiated settlement with Petitioner Association.
• ONGC should also be advised to formulate a single D.A. Linked Transparent Pension Scheme for all retirees past as well as future w.e.f. 1st January 2007 to maintain uniformity instead of having multiple schemes to avoid corruption in future.
Humbly submitted for your kind and urgent consideration.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(m. rangarajan)
On behalf of 21000+ silently suffering retirees of ONGC
Copy to:
1. Smt Sonia Gandhi, MP, Chairperson, United Front Government, 10, Janpath, New Delhi – 110011.
2. Sri Manmohan Singh, Hon Prime Minister, 7, Race Course Road, New Delhi – 110011.
3. Sri Lal Krishna Advani, MP, 30, Prithviraj Road, New Delhi – 110011.
4. Sri Jaipal Reddy, Hon Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 8, Tees January Marg, New Delhi – 110011.
5. Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievences, 5th floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001.
6. Sri Sudhir Vasudeva, CMD, ONGC, Jeevan Bharti Tower II, 124, Indira Chowk, New Delhi - 110001
Like · Unfollow Post · December 14, 2011 at 4:58pm
Prem Sagar Gupta and Inder Chatta like this.
Srinivas C. Komanduri
Dear Rangarajan,
I appreciate the initiative you have taken and written such nice letter. I feel you should be following up with details of some of the scheme which you mentioned in the letter like PRBS 2003, PRBS2007, Agrani Samman and o...See More
December 14, 2011 at 9:13pm via · Like
Badrinath Vasandi we should be proud being led by people like mr Mathre Rangarajan..thanks for his initiative..
December 15, 2011 at 10:06am · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan
Thank you Sri Srinivas Kamanduri Saheb for your kind words - Even if attach
all relevant documents, it will be difficult for an unconnected person to understand - If NHRC want any clarification or explanation, we can submit
it when they tak...See More
December 15, 2011 at 12:12pm via · Unlike · 1
Jauhari Lal
Dear Sirs,
Once again I daresay that this is the free forum for everyone to write any thing one likes and write to any authority they want without understanding whether they have any role to play. No one is authorized to write anythin...See More
December 16, 2011 at 6:00pm via · Unlike · 7
Erippanal Damodaran Respected Jauhari Lal Sir,Greetings of the Day!
Thank you Sir, for your kind guidance on the postings on this forum. Also thank you for the update of our pending case with the Ministry. We look forward for your kind advice and guidance further too. With kind Regards..
December 16, 2011 at 6:57pm · Like
Inder Chatta A very good encourraging and hope full information ,I onbehalf of my co-suferers hole heartedly am thankful to you Shri Johri Lal ji,hope you and the other associates shall see the scheme through to reach the benifits to all of us.
December 16, 2011 at 7:19pm · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan
Respected Jauhari Lal Saheb,
I have a feeling that you are referring to my appeal to NHRC with copies to others - I have re-read the appeal again and again, I don't find any
derogatory remarks. I have made only factual statement.
...See More
December 17, 2011 at 4:10pm via · Unlike · 6
Prem Sagar Gupta Solute to you Dear Mathre Rangarajan for explaining ,this is the true condition of 99 % of the honest retires of ongc between 1995 to 2007,God bless you,every one has to appear in his court for explanation one destine day not fr away.
December 17, 2011 at 4:35pm · Like · 2
Erippanal Damodaran Respected Mahtre Mathre Rangarajan Sir, I think you have made a realistic account of the pathetic condition of Ex-ONGCians in an emotional way. The element of emotion is a reality.
Even a retired bank employ gets a dignified pension...
May God bless you with good health for some more years to see at least what the out put of this present efforts and promises.
With that prayer and kind regards...
December 17, 2011 at 5:52pm · Unlike · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta
Respected sh Jauhari Lal ji,sir first of all your delegation visit to the sh P.K.Sinha is highly encouraging,and your team needs all the best wishes of serving the exongcians but sir why some one in ongc india not been doing any thing,if ...See More
December 17, 2011 at 8:35pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, we are very anxious about hopes of some proposal under consideration. What happens if proposal is agreed but ONGC does not comply with the approved conditions ? You may be cursing me for raising such hypothetical question ! I am re...See More
December 18, 2011 at 3:26pm · Unlike · 3
Prem Sagar Gupta I entirely agree Capt Narayan Singh Rathore,to err is human,every one commits mistakes but one who recorrects is even appreciated by every one,it is still time for ongc india to take stock and act quickly,god bless.
December 18, 2011 at 3:31pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
If we go thru MOU of 9.4.2007, it says "Following amendments have been made to the ONGC Self Contributory Post Retirement & Death in Service Benefit Rules, 1991." Para 32 of PRBS Rules provides that Rules could be amended provided the alter...See More
December 18, 2011 at 3:58pm · Like · 1
Narayan Singh Rathore
Dr. Jauhari Lal Sir, I fully appreciate your stand that no one can sign a document on behalf of all retirees of ONGC unless one is elected & duly authorised to do so. Sir, one thing has to be appreciated that some times anguish turns into a...See More
December 18, 2011 at 4:23pm · Like · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta
LET US LOOK WHY ANNA HAZARE JI AGITATION FINALLY SUCCEEDED SINCE THERE WAS ANGUISH AND HELPNESSNESS AMONG THE MAJORITY OF COMMUNITY,THIS WAS INSPIRED BY FEW NGO,s HOW IT BECAME SO VIBRANT ,SINCE IT BASED ON HARSH TRUTH,REALITY AND SOUND PRI...See More
December 18, 2011 at 4:58pm · Like
Nirmal Kumar Srivastava
Excellent response by Mathre Rangarajan to the posting of Dr.Jauhari Lal who instead of appreciating his selfless action of a Crusader like Anna Hazare...started fuming by challanging his authority and language of his appeal.From the wordin...See More
December 18, 2011 at 6:39pm · Unlike · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta i happened to see your article on yahoo facebook for Agrani samman addressed to human right commission 2/3 days back was well explained with reasons of the greatest discriminations ever could happen by any PSU,
December 18, 2011 at 10:03pm · Like
Mathre Rangarajan
I fully agree and endorse the view expressed by Dr Jauhari Lal Saheb:
*"On one hand we are requesting the management to look into our grievances
but such letters are just provocative."*
*
...See More
December 19, 2011 at 1:42pm via · Like · 1
Mathre Rangarajan One major correction - I have made a blunder in using the the expression
"After all are beggars" - I have no authority to use word "WE" - I am not
an elected representative - So please correct that sentence to "After all I
am a beggar" - Dr Jauhari Lal Shaeb will have serious objection to it. - I
am sorry.
You may add 'several NGOs' after 'Mahila Samithi'
December 19, 2011 at 2:23pm via · Unlike · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta Dr Jauhari Lal JI,PL USE YOUR GOOD OFFICES TO SUPPORT,NOT OPPOSE YOUR OWN COMMUNITY OF SR CITIZENS.YOU ARE LUCKY TO BE STILL WORKING AS A SPECIALIST OF H.R. IN ONGC,I FEEL YOU UNDERSTAND WHY SH RANGARAJAN GOT ANNOYED,WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION FIRST HAPPENED AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT?
December 19, 2011 at 2:56pm · Unlike · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta Dr Jauhari Lal JI,ARE YOU ACTING WITH SOME AUTHORITY OF GOD ALMIGHTY AND ONGC MANAGEMENT ALWAYS DISCOURAGING THE EXONGCIANS CALLING THEM UNAUTHORISED,PL YOU ARE ELDERLY DO NOT PROVOKE THE SR CITIZENS,BADRINAT6H VASANDI,I KNOW WILL NEVER SPEAK A WORLD NOW.
December 19, 2011 at 3:09pm · Like
Subhash Jetly Angered perhaps, by this suffocating drag along expression----the crux of bullying the cause of unification.
December 20, 2011 at 12:37pm · Unlike · 2
Jauhari Lal
Dear Sh Rangarajan,
I am restraining myself to prolonging comments and counter comments. A number of Ongcians had been writing to various authorities in the past and I never reacted. You held a very senior positions and I feel that a ...See More
December 20, 2011 at 7:44pm via · Unlike · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Dear Shri Jauhari Lal,regards. I am sorry to intervene,but compelled to opine with all humbleness that 'so called' frustrated letters by many to ONGC Authorities are really out of mere FRUSTRATION caused due to indifferent attitude of the management of the past,and present,too.Or,else,how can a serving Director/HR say in open that 'once an employee retires ,he is practically a NOBODY to the Organisation....
December 20, 2011 at 9:09pm · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee
contd...Kindly try to understand,irrespective of ur opinion regarding all Board Members having sympathy to our cause....we are not,at this age,are looking for Sympathies....we are demanding justice and some pay-back by ONGC as recognition f...See More
December 20, 2011 at 9:31pm · Like
Prem Sagar Gupta Dear Amitabha Banerjee these are not only your opinion but all of us"we are not,at this age,are looking for Sympathies....we are demanding justice and some pay-back by ONGC as recognition for our selfless contribution towards growth of this Organisation to this level"very very selective few words to convey sr citizens point of view,i solute you once again.
December 20, 2011 at 9:47pm · Like
Mathre Rangarajan
Thank you very much Dr Jauhari Lal Saheb for you kind mail and very kind
words - I am touched - I was very hurt that you did not e-mil me directly
in the first instance. Now that we understand each other and there are no
hard feelings - I k...See More
December 20, 2011 at 9:52pm via · Like · 2
Prem Sagar Gupta Thanks Dear .Mathre Rangarajan ,we all appreciate your appeal
December 20, 2011 at 9:58pm · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, good morning. We in Indians read philosophy, consume philosophy, practise philosophy and tolerate nuisance to the extent it starts cracking us. Swami Vivekananda openly denounced British policy of preaching religion thru Missionari...See More
December 21, 2011 at 4:55am · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Thanks PS Gupta jee,nice to feel that I am not Frustrated alone.....
December 21, 2011 at 10:53am · Like · 2
Badrinath Vasandi whatsoever the problem if one remains active there is nothing like frustration.....Mr. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava and Capt. Narayan Singh
Rathore would testify my statement...frustration is some thing for lazy, week and inactive person...I fully agree with Mr. Rathore that CMD is not to be made known for the wrong done...but also to compel him to redress the things..
December 21, 2011 at 11:01am · Like · 2
Amitabha Banerjee Good thing about this ex-ongcians'net is that one get unsolicited ad vices having any validity to original reference.....
December 21, 2011 at 11:34am · Unlike · 2
Badrinath Vasandi Mr. Amitabha Banerjee...this forum is for this very purpose...all these advices and submissions are for common cause....some may like some things and some may not.....but i fail to understand what prompted u to o make such comments...what is purpose....each and every members here is very respectable...let him to express....
December 21, 2011 at 11:40am · Like · 1
Prem Sagar Gupta Dear sh Amitabha Banerjee & sh Badrinath Vasandi ji,there is no difference in undersatanding between you both except refs to validity to original refs,i will invite both of you in Ahmedabad on new year day for a get togather,which is missing,we must organise such meets say once in three months.best of luck sir.
December 21, 2011 at 8:47pm · Like · 1
Write a comment...
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Presidential Write Up Of Dr. K.L. Goyal Appeared In ONGC Connect
It is widely believed that there are two India : one that lives in villages, with the inhabitants continuously struggling to make thier4 tw2o ends meet. They are deprived of all basic essentials for a proper living, driving some of the even to suicide as reported in the media.
There is yet another India of a "five - star" culture. They have all the facilities for posh life, money to throw away. These people debate about the elevation of the poor in five star hotels without consideration of ground realities. The matter ends there, and nothing significant gets translated into practice. While these elite enjoy the benefits of prosperity, the gap between the haves and have-nots continuing to increase.
ONGC is no different, there are two ONGC: One comprising those who started the organization from scratch witho0ut any knowledge of oil exploration and producton business. These dedicated people worked day and night to develop compegence and experise. It is their untiring efforts, dedication and passion for India's energy independence that created huge oil and gas rerseres and made ONGC into what it is today: a world class integrated oil company operating not only in India but also in any other counterspies around the worold.
These ONGCians worked in hard and hostile environment t with no facilities; not even safety kits. Those working on drilling rigs had to wrap old newspapers on their feet and hands while handling pipes and tools to avoid cold bites in the night and hot burns during hot day. They had no proper place to sleep nor proper food to eat.
Conditions in field parties were no different. Working in hot and cold sands and forests they had not only to brave the hostile weather, but snakes
, wild animals and some times even docoits who would capture them, presuming them to be police personnel. They lived in tents where even water had ti be brought from long distances. The camps were not allowed to close till the temperature crossed 44 C. These hard ONGCians worked for long hours with low pay and no allowances. The CPF contribution was also low (8.33%, now it is 15%), with interest rates ranging from a mere 2.5% to. 3.5% in later years. Coup0led with low grqatuity of Rs. 10,000 which went up to 50,000 in later years, these people received a paltry retirement amount, ranging from a few thousand to a few lacs (for higher paid officers). All this has put the ONGCians of yesteryear to lead nearly starving life. MANY OF THEM DIED OF HUNGER, MANY MORE ARE TAKING THE ONLY AVAILABLE MEAL DURING THE DAY IN TEMPLES AND GURUDWARAS. MAY BE HARD FOR MANY TO BELIEVE, BUT THIS IS ENTIRELY FACTUAL.
What was their fault ? Joining ONGC and working hard to realize the dreams of Malaviyaji who like promised them a good life and pension.However, like any politician , the orders for same were never issued. We believed our Minister and our mentor.
Look at today's ONGCian. They are flush with money, and nwill find it harfd to believe the sacrifices made by their seniors that made this possible. Many of the new ONGCians are so far remoived fromn conditonss faced by the "founding fasthers" of ONGC tht they do not think twice about spending mine, and shedding out most of the hard work to contractors without revealing the consequences.
With great struggle we could persuade the present ONGC management to provide small relief to these older and poorer ONGCians. The proposal is now stuck with the Govt. that unfortunately does not realize that each passing day results in a few ONGCians left alive to benefit from the propsed relief.
The "ONGC Connect" journal is an attempt to bridge the gapl between the poor old ONGCians and oil the new ONGCians. The journal's inaugural issue has tried to bring articles from industry stalwarts with the hope that this will bring positive thinking about the old ONGCians.
**************
"You cannot solve a problem with same mindset, which inhiti8ally has created it"
Elbert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. K.L. Goyal is Ph.D, D.Sc,FIE, FNASc, F.M.B.A. (U.K.), F.Inst. Pet. (U.K.)
for years Gratuity was Rs.10,000 and then Rs.36,000. With effect from 1.1.86, it was Rs. 1 .lac...from 1997, it was Rs.3.5 lakhs....and 1.1.7 Rs, 10,00,000....Pay of senior officers was too less. Mostly people got germinal dues in touswands. An E-8 officer retired in the later part of 1991, did not get total terminal benefits more than 4 lacs.
There is yet another India of a "five - star" culture. They have all the facilities for posh life, money to throw away. These people debate about the elevation of the poor in five star hotels without consideration of ground realities. The matter ends there, and nothing significant gets translated into practice. While these elite enjoy the benefits of prosperity, the gap between the haves and have-nots continuing to increase.
ONGC is no different, there are two ONGC: One comprising those who started the organization from scratch witho0ut any knowledge of oil exploration and producton business. These dedicated people worked day and night to develop compegence and experise. It is their untiring efforts, dedication and passion for India's energy independence that created huge oil and gas rerseres and made ONGC into what it is today: a world class integrated oil company operating not only in India but also in any other counterspies around the worold.
These ONGCians worked in hard and hostile environment t with no facilities; not even safety kits. Those working on drilling rigs had to wrap old newspapers on their feet and hands while handling pipes and tools to avoid cold bites in the night and hot burns during hot day. They had no proper place to sleep nor proper food to eat.
Conditions in field parties were no different. Working in hot and cold sands and forests they had not only to brave the hostile weather, but snakes
, wild animals and some times even docoits who would capture them, presuming them to be police personnel. They lived in tents where even water had ti be brought from long distances. The camps were not allowed to close till the temperature crossed 44 C. These hard ONGCians worked for long hours with low pay and no allowances. The CPF contribution was also low (8.33%, now it is 15%), with interest rates ranging from a mere 2.5% to. 3.5% in later years. Coup0led with low grqatuity of Rs. 10,000 which went up to 50,000 in later years, these people received a paltry retirement amount, ranging from a few thousand to a few lacs (for higher paid officers). All this has put the ONGCians of yesteryear to lead nearly starving life. MANY OF THEM DIED OF HUNGER, MANY MORE ARE TAKING THE ONLY AVAILABLE MEAL DURING THE DAY IN TEMPLES AND GURUDWARAS. MAY BE HARD FOR MANY TO BELIEVE, BUT THIS IS ENTIRELY FACTUAL.
What was their fault ? Joining ONGC and working hard to realize the dreams of Malaviyaji who like promised them a good life and pension.However, like any politician , the orders for same were never issued. We believed our Minister and our mentor.
Look at today's ONGCian. They are flush with money, and nwill find it harfd to believe the sacrifices made by their seniors that made this possible. Many of the new ONGCians are so far remoived fromn conditonss faced by the "founding fasthers" of ONGC tht they do not think twice about spending mine, and shedding out most of the hard work to contractors without revealing the consequences.
With great struggle we could persuade the present ONGC management to provide small relief to these older and poorer ONGCians. The proposal is now stuck with the Govt. that unfortunately does not realize that each passing day results in a few ONGCians left alive to benefit from the propsed relief.
The "ONGC Connect" journal is an attempt to bridge the gapl between the poor old ONGCians and oil the new ONGCians. The journal's inaugural issue has tried to bring articles from industry stalwarts with the hope that this will bring positive thinking about the old ONGCians.
**************
"You cannot solve a problem with same mindset, which inhiti8ally has created it"
Elbert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. K.L. Goyal is Ph.D, D.Sc,FIE, FNASc, F.M.B.A. (U.K.), F.Inst. Pet. (U.K.)
for years Gratuity was Rs.10,000 and then Rs.36,000. With effect from 1.1.86, it was Rs. 1 .lac...from 1997, it was Rs.3.5 lakhs....and 1.1.7 Rs, 10,00,000....Pay of senior officers was too less. Mostly people got germinal dues in touswands. An E-8 officer retired in the later part of 1991, did not get total terminal benefits more than 4 lacs.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL VALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ONGC PRBS-1990
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL VALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ONGC PRBS-1990
by Narayan Singh Rathore
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: -
It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: -
(a) The “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Additional Contribution was retained at 7% till 31.3.1997.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: -
It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: -
(a) The “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Additional Contribution was retained at 7% till 31.3.1997.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
ONGC PRBS by Narayan Singh Rathore
ONGC PRBS
by Narayan Singh Rathore
2nd, Retirees after 10.1.96 & upto 31.3.2007 were left in lurch by PRBS Trust & their Pension was decided by LIC. PRBS Trust acted arbitrarily in an illegal, unfair, disadvantageous, prejudicial N discriminatory manner. Trust converted Scheme into "Defined Corpus" in which entitlement of Pension became void. LIC became master n granted pension on adhoc basis. some EDs are getting pension of 1200 to 2000/month. Utter disparity. Conversion of Pension Defined Scheme into "Defined Corpus" was not approved by CMD n GOI who gave Final Approval to PRBS/Rules. Those retirees have claim for resettlement of Pension as per Scheme appd by Central Govt. Modified Scheme was never referred to Board of ONGC N Govt. for approval, before its implementation. Chairman ONGC also closed his eyes when Trustees strayed in wilderness to demolish / mutilate this welfare Scheme under a fake MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 in total violation of Para 31.2 n 32 of appd PRBS Rules-1991.
Like · · Follow Post · Share
Narayan Singh Rathore Mostly two cases (a) in Raj. H.C. Jodhpur N (b) Ahm. H.C. are referred in facebook posts.
September 6 at 1:38pm · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi good sharing..thans sir
by Narayan Singh Rathore
2nd, Retirees after 10.1.96 & upto 31.3.2007 were left in lurch by PRBS Trust & their Pension was decided by LIC. PRBS Trust acted arbitrarily in an illegal, unfair, disadvantageous, prejudicial N discriminatory manner. Trust converted Scheme into "Defined Corpus" in which entitlement of Pension became void. LIC became master n granted pension on adhoc basis. some EDs are getting pension of 1200 to 2000/month. Utter disparity. Conversion of Pension Defined Scheme into "Defined Corpus" was not approved by CMD n GOI who gave Final Approval to PRBS/Rules. Those retirees have claim for resettlement of Pension as per Scheme appd by Central Govt. Modified Scheme was never referred to Board of ONGC N Govt. for approval, before its implementation. Chairman ONGC also closed his eyes when Trustees strayed in wilderness to demolish / mutilate this welfare Scheme under a fake MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 in total violation of Para 31.2 n 32 of appd PRBS Rules-1991.
Like · · Follow Post · Share
Narayan Singh Rathore Mostly two cases (a) in Raj. H.C. Jodhpur N (b) Ahm. H.C. are referred in facebook posts.
September 6 at 1:38pm · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi good sharing..thans sir
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR SEMINAR ON 1.10.2011 (ONGC PRBS) - by Narayan Singh Rathore
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR SEMINAR ON 1.10.2011
(ONGC PRBS)
1. Sir, when PRBS was introduced on 29.4.1990, it was stipulated that: -
“The rate of contribution as may be applicable as per age bracket above at the time of admission to the scheme shall remain unaltered through out the service period of the member.”
Q.1. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
1.1. Factual Position: ONGC reduced contribution for age below 30 years and increased by 0.5% for newly carved age group ‘above 48 & upto 50 years, in 1990 itself.
2. Benefit: Formula professed: -
“44/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
Q.2. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
2.1. Factual Position: ONGC changed this Formula several times: -
(a). 275th meeting of Commission on 5.11.1990: -
“40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
(b). MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998: -
(i). Past service pension on salary drawn on 31.12.1991.
(ii). Future service pension Pre-revised Pay notionally escalated w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (iii) Future service pension on Revised Pay of 16.11.1995 notionally escalated.
(iv). Defined Corpus (Balyan Device): Pension was not worked out by PRBS Trust but decided by LIC during January 1996 to 31.3.2007. This secret device was not made public. It became known through inadvertent exposure by E.O. PRBS in 2008.
(v). Dubious regularization of “Defined Corpus” under MOU of 9.4.2007 in indirect method:
“1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”.
“ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionery benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU”.
“12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.”
(vi). Secret re-conversion of Defined Corpus into Defined Pension Scheme was also achieved under Para 2.1. (b) (v) above.
Friends, is it not a Criminal Conspiracy of cheating employees who placed their faith in the Managing Trustee(s) ?
3. Managing Trustee of PRBS Trust has furnished Affidavits, on oath, that PRBS Trust is a Private Trust and that this Trust was neither a State nor an Instrumentality of State. Such affidavits are filed on behalf of CMD, ONGC.
Q.3. Did the CMD of ONGC ever approve of such contention ?
3.1. Factual Position: Hon’ble Courts have held that ONGC is controlled by the Govt. and all Trustees are employees of ONGC. Hence ONGC PRBS Trust is a State. Court did not take cognigence of Misleading Information to punish the concerned executive.
4. Para 32 of Rules-1991 provides “Power to Amend the Rules” but there is no Provision to amend the Scheme. Para 31.2. of Rules provides that if there is contradiction between Rules and the Scheme, Provisions of the Scheme will prevail. Trust ignored this.
(ONGC PRBS)
1. Sir, when PRBS was introduced on 29.4.1990, it was stipulated that: -
“The rate of contribution as may be applicable as per age bracket above at the time of admission to the scheme shall remain unaltered through out the service period of the member.”
Q.1. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
1.1. Factual Position: ONGC reduced contribution for age below 30 years and increased by 0.5% for newly carved age group ‘above 48 & upto 50 years, in 1990 itself.
2. Benefit: Formula professed: -
“44/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
Q.2. Was it not a binding pledge for ONGC ?
2.1. Factual Position: ONGC changed this Formula several times: -
(a). 275th meeting of Commission on 5.11.1990: -
“40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary Drawn as Pension”
(b). MOU of 3.2.1998/Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998: -
(i). Past service pension on salary drawn on 31.12.1991.
(ii). Future service pension Pre-revised Pay notionally escalated w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (iii) Future service pension on Revised Pay of 16.11.1995 notionally escalated.
(iv). Defined Corpus (Balyan Device): Pension was not worked out by PRBS Trust but decided by LIC during January 1996 to 31.3.2007. This secret device was not made public. It became known through inadvertent exposure by E.O. PRBS in 2008.
(v). Dubious regularization of “Defined Corpus” under MOU of 9.4.2007 in indirect method:
“1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”.
“ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionery benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU”.
“12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.”
(vi). Secret re-conversion of Defined Corpus into Defined Pension Scheme was also achieved under Para 2.1. (b) (v) above.
Friends, is it not a Criminal Conspiracy of cheating employees who placed their faith in the Managing Trustee(s) ?
3. Managing Trustee of PRBS Trust has furnished Affidavits, on oath, that PRBS Trust is a Private Trust and that this Trust was neither a State nor an Instrumentality of State. Such affidavits are filed on behalf of CMD, ONGC.
Q.3. Did the CMD of ONGC ever approve of such contention ?
3.1. Factual Position: Hon’ble Courts have held that ONGC is controlled by the Govt. and all Trustees are employees of ONGC. Hence ONGC PRBS Trust is a State. Court did not take cognigence of Misleading Information to punish the concerned executive.
4. Para 32 of Rules-1991 provides “Power to Amend the Rules” but there is no Provision to amend the Scheme. Para 31.2. of Rules provides that if there is contradiction between Rules and the Scheme, Provisions of the Scheme will prevail. Trust ignored this.
ONGC PRBS-1995 WAS NEW SCHEME: FOR UNIONISED CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEES
ONGC PRBS-1995 WAS NEW SCHEME: FOR UNIONISED CATEGORY OF EMPLOYEES
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 6:55am
ONGC PRBS – 1995 WAS A NEW SCHEME ALTOGETHER
Consequent upon Govt. Notification for compulsory implementation of Statutory EPS-1995 w.e.f. 16.11.1995 (an extended version of erstwhile EFPS – 1971), the ONGC Management commenced negotiations with Recognised Unions. Rather, the Unions were persuaded to accept existing ONGC PRBS (Executives) with certain Modifications. This process started from JCM held on 26-27 March, 1996 at Hyderabad. It is an established fact that ONGC PRBS-1995 was altogether a new Scheme, exclusively for Unionised categories of ONGC Employees. The Recital to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.1998, inter alias clearly stated that:
“Short recital of the case: - The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme has already been in operation in ONGC since 1.4.1990. The Scheme is being managed by a duly constituted Board of Trustees and the benefits there under are being extended to the Members as per the Scheme. The issue regarding joining PRBS by Unionised category of employees of ONGC in lieu of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 has been under discussion for some time in the past. In the JCM held on 26-27 March, 1996 at Hyderabad the Unions expressed their views in favour of PRBS proposed by ONGC, as applicable for the Executives of ONGC, with certain modifications. The decision to implement PRBS for unionised category of employees of ONGC was taken in a meeting of the General Secretaries of the recognised Unions with the Management held on 21-23 April, 1996 at New Delhi. The modalities and the follow up actions were discussed in various meetings held with the recognised Unions on 15-16 May, 1996 at new Delhi, 13th July, 1996 at Chennai, 10th September, 1996 at Calcutta, 29-30 April, 1997 at New Delhi, JCM held on 14-15 November,1997 at New Delhi, on 2-3 March,1998 and 29th April, 1998 at Dehradun.”
NOTE: - Scheme was mismanaged by an Unruly Board of Trustees & Pension was also not extended as per Scheme which was accepted by Executives. False Statement.
2. Para 3 & 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.1998: -
“3. This Memorandum of Understanding is being signed by the unions and the Management to implement the Scheme (annexed herewith) w.e.f. 16.11.1995 in lieu of EPS-1995.”
“4. It is also agreed that this Memorandum of Understanding may be used for seeking exemption from the operation of EPS 1995.”
3. Some important aspects of “ONGC PRBS-1995 for Unionised Category of Employees” are stated here under: -
“In order to take care of post retirement needs of unionised categories of employees of ONGC, a Scheme effective from 16.11.1995 has been approved which would be self financing and will provide post retirement benefits.”
“Effective Date of Scheme: - The Scheme shall come in force from 16.11.1995.”
4. Scheme was circulated under O. O. No.11 (23)/97-EP (O.O. 27/98) dt. 6.8.1998.
5. It is abundantly clear that this Draft new PRB Scheme-1995 was unduly super imposed on ONGC PRBS-1990 for Executives, with lot of derogatory, unfair, unreasonable and prejudicial modifications. Innocent Employees of unionised category were equally duped under the guise of ‘existing Scheme’ i.e. PRBS-1990 (which was modified to the extent of lost identity under Cir. No. 40 of 18.6.1998). ONGC suppressed the fact that Revised PRBS-1998 drastically reduced Pension. Cheating & Cheating.
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 6:55am
ONGC PRBS – 1995 WAS A NEW SCHEME ALTOGETHER
Consequent upon Govt. Notification for compulsory implementation of Statutory EPS-1995 w.e.f. 16.11.1995 (an extended version of erstwhile EFPS – 1971), the ONGC Management commenced negotiations with Recognised Unions. Rather, the Unions were persuaded to accept existing ONGC PRBS (Executives) with certain Modifications. This process started from JCM held on 26-27 March, 1996 at Hyderabad. It is an established fact that ONGC PRBS-1995 was altogether a new Scheme, exclusively for Unionised categories of ONGC Employees. The Recital to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.1998, inter alias clearly stated that:
“Short recital of the case: - The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme has already been in operation in ONGC since 1.4.1990. The Scheme is being managed by a duly constituted Board of Trustees and the benefits there under are being extended to the Members as per the Scheme. The issue regarding joining PRBS by Unionised category of employees of ONGC in lieu of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 has been under discussion for some time in the past. In the JCM held on 26-27 March, 1996 at Hyderabad the Unions expressed their views in favour of PRBS proposed by ONGC, as applicable for the Executives of ONGC, with certain modifications. The decision to implement PRBS for unionised category of employees of ONGC was taken in a meeting of the General Secretaries of the recognised Unions with the Management held on 21-23 April, 1996 at New Delhi. The modalities and the follow up actions were discussed in various meetings held with the recognised Unions on 15-16 May, 1996 at new Delhi, 13th July, 1996 at Chennai, 10th September, 1996 at Calcutta, 29-30 April, 1997 at New Delhi, JCM held on 14-15 November,1997 at New Delhi, on 2-3 March,1998 and 29th April, 1998 at Dehradun.”
NOTE: - Scheme was mismanaged by an Unruly Board of Trustees & Pension was also not extended as per Scheme which was accepted by Executives. False Statement.
2. Para 3 & 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.07.1998: -
“3. This Memorandum of Understanding is being signed by the unions and the Management to implement the Scheme (annexed herewith) w.e.f. 16.11.1995 in lieu of EPS-1995.”
“4. It is also agreed that this Memorandum of Understanding may be used for seeking exemption from the operation of EPS 1995.”
3. Some important aspects of “ONGC PRBS-1995 for Unionised Category of Employees” are stated here under: -
“In order to take care of post retirement needs of unionised categories of employees of ONGC, a Scheme effective from 16.11.1995 has been approved which would be self financing and will provide post retirement benefits.”
“Effective Date of Scheme: - The Scheme shall come in force from 16.11.1995.”
4. Scheme was circulated under O. O. No.11 (23)/97-EP (O.O. 27/98) dt. 6.8.1998.
5. It is abundantly clear that this Draft new PRB Scheme-1995 was unduly super imposed on ONGC PRBS-1990 for Executives, with lot of derogatory, unfair, unreasonable and prejudicial modifications. Innocent Employees of unionised category were equally duped under the guise of ‘existing Scheme’ i.e. PRBS-1990 (which was modified to the extent of lost identity under Cir. No. 40 of 18.6.1998). ONGC suppressed the fact that Revised PRBS-1998 drastically reduced Pension. Cheating & Cheating.
ASSUMPTION, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION & PROPOSED PENSION IN ACTUARIAL REPORT OF 2.8.1996 by Narayan Singh Rathore on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 5:34
ASSUMPTION, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION & PROPOSED PENSION IN ACTUARIAL REPORT OF 2.8.1996
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, I present herewith important milestones of much relied upon Actuarial Report dt. 2.8.1996 of K.A. Pandit,which was used for declaring PRBS as "Un-viable" in matter of WP 1718/1996 in Bombay H.C.
Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.199 from M/s. K.A. Pandit (a Govt. approved Actuary) with following Assumption, Conclusion, Recommendation & Proposition: -
3.1. Assumption:
““8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in costs of living index.”
3.2. Conclusion:
“12. CONCLUSION:
The scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salaries have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA Formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
3.3. Recommendation:
“13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund.”
3.4. Proposed Pension:
“Govt. scheme offers pension of (1/70) for each year of service if in the ONGC scheme we also introduce same accrual rate from 1.11.1995 then pension will be in two parts for the service rendered upto 31.10 1995 pension is (44/33) and from 1.11.1995 it will be (50/33).”
4. By placing reliance on starting line of Conclusion “The scheme is not viable” at Para 3.2. above, Hon’ble Bombay H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dated 05.11.1996, observing that:
“The report shows that the scheme is not viable on account of unexpected rise in the salary and change in the formula of D.A. M/s K. A. Pandit have recommended that to make the scheme viable it is necessary to raise funds from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed especially when there is a change on account of wage negotiation or long term recruitment policy. It is recommended that in order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. It is also recommended that any difference of annuity cost because of above salary rise and interest payable to LIC for 1992 to date of payment of annuity should be raised in such a way that it does not pose undue problems to the existing members.
On a careful scrutiny of the report, it is clear, that the Scheme is not viable unless additional funds are raised from different sources. Otherwise the Scheme is liable to be scrapped altogether. The question relating to generation of Additional funds will have to be considered by negotiations between the Officers Association and the Corporation.” .
4.1. Ordinary prudence required negotiation only to ‘raise / generate Additional funds’ to save the Scheme, if warranted after examination of Data / Statistics pertaining to assets/liabilities of Fund arising from 1.4.1990. Factually, there was no need at all to go for any kind of Negotiations, Hon’ble High Court gave lead point by citing Actuarial Report in Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996 itself. Trustees had provision in the Scheme to Review fund position and raise the Additional Contribution in accordance with Consumer Price Index, as done several times under O.Os/Cir. Nos. PRBS-9 dated 24.3.1992, 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.8.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 9.12.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 23.1.1993 and 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.6.1998.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, I present herewith important milestones of much relied upon Actuarial Report dt. 2.8.1996 of K.A. Pandit,which was used for declaring PRBS as "Un-viable" in matter of WP 1718/1996 in Bombay H.C.
Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.199 from M/s. K.A. Pandit (a Govt. approved Actuary) with following Assumption, Conclusion, Recommendation & Proposition: -
3.1. Assumption:
““8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in costs of living index.”
3.2. Conclusion:
“12. CONCLUSION:
The scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salaries have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA Formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
3.3. Recommendation:
“13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund.”
3.4. Proposed Pension:
“Govt. scheme offers pension of (1/70) for each year of service if in the ONGC scheme we also introduce same accrual rate from 1.11.1995 then pension will be in two parts for the service rendered upto 31.10 1995 pension is (44/33) and from 1.11.1995 it will be (50/33).”
4. By placing reliance on starting line of Conclusion “The scheme is not viable” at Para 3.2. above, Hon’ble Bombay H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dated 05.11.1996, observing that:
“The report shows that the scheme is not viable on account of unexpected rise in the salary and change in the formula of D.A. M/s K. A. Pandit have recommended that to make the scheme viable it is necessary to raise funds from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed especially when there is a change on account of wage negotiation or long term recruitment policy. It is recommended that in order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. It is also recommended that any difference of annuity cost because of above salary rise and interest payable to LIC for 1992 to date of payment of annuity should be raised in such a way that it does not pose undue problems to the existing members.
On a careful scrutiny of the report, it is clear, that the Scheme is not viable unless additional funds are raised from different sources. Otherwise the Scheme is liable to be scrapped altogether. The question relating to generation of Additional funds will have to be considered by negotiations between the Officers Association and the Corporation.” .
4.1. Ordinary prudence required negotiation only to ‘raise / generate Additional funds’ to save the Scheme, if warranted after examination of Data / Statistics pertaining to assets/liabilities of Fund arising from 1.4.1990. Factually, there was no need at all to go for any kind of Negotiations, Hon’ble High Court gave lead point by citing Actuarial Report in Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996 itself. Trustees had provision in the Scheme to Review fund position and raise the Additional Contribution in accordance with Consumer Price Index, as done several times under O.Os/Cir. Nos. PRBS-9 dated 24.3.1992, 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.8.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 9.12.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 23.1.1993 and 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.6.1998.
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION by Narayan Singh Rathore
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION
by Narayan Singh Rathore
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: - It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: - (a) “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Addl. Contr. was retained at 7.25% till 31.3.1997, ignoring 2.1. above.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation. That gave rise to Writ Petition No. 1718/1996 in Bombay High Court, wherein Viability of Scheme was challenged. Of-course, this Writ was manipulated by Managing Trustee.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 (KA Pandit) had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
ONGC IGNORED ACTUARIAL RECOMMENDATION
1. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 17.4.1990: (Basis for Original PRBS-1990): -
1.1. “Pension payable to employees------at 58 or 60----@ 1/75th of final salary per every completed year of reckonable service with maximum of 44% of salary last drawn (44% of salary for 33 years of reckonable service).”
1.2. “In case of death or permanent disablement while in service pension payable shall be based on 33 years of reckonable service . (44% Pension).------.”
1.3. “Rate of contribution from employees:
01
Age upto 35 yrs
1% of salary
Note: These rates of contribution as decided at the time of admission to the fund will not change with change of age.
02
Age 36 to 40 yrs
2% of salary
03
Age 41 to 45 yrs
3% of salary
04
Age 46 to 50 yrs
4% of salary
05
Age above 51 yrs
5% of salary
1.4. “If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetized value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefit will escalate in future) the value of benefits accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.”
NOTE: - It is an apology of Actuarial recommendations that ONGC violated all these recommendations, which were duly incorporated in original Scheme of 29.4.1990. Officers had accepted the Scheme with due consideration to such terms & conditions.
2. Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996: (Basis for WP 1718/1996): -
2.1. “12. Conclusion: The Scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salary have gone up by 78% i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
2.2. “13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the ling term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. -----.”
NOTES: - (a) “Review” Clause in the Scheme & Rules was based on Actuarial Recommendation at Para 1.4. above. ONGC / PRBS Trust failed to comply. Rate of escalation in Addl. Contr. was retained at 7.25% till 31.3.1997, ignoring 2.1. above.
(b) ONGC Finance was required to transfer the monetized value of surrendered benefits right from May 1990 but Cir. No. PRBS – 14 of Oct. 1992 reflected gloomiest picture as ONGC did not remit additional contribution to the Fund. Since Additional Contribution was main source of funding the Scheme, its withholding by ONGC was bound to expose the Scheme to starvation & ultimate Liquidation. That gave rise to Writ Petition No. 1718/1996 in Bombay High Court, wherein Viability of Scheme was challenged. Of-course, this Writ was manipulated by Managing Trustee.
(c) Actuarial recommendation dated 2.8.1996 (KA Pandit) had made it explicitly obvious that ONGC should pay Additional Contribution at 78% on 1.1.1992 with 12% interest w.e.f. 1.1.1992. If this Actuarial Recommendation was implemented with honest intentions, the Scheme did not require any external “direct contribution” from ONGC.
ONGC PRBS - PROPOSED PENSION IN ACTUARIAL REPORT OF 2.8.1996
ASSUMPTION, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION & PROPOSED PENSION IN ACTUARY'S REPORT OF 2.8.1996
by Narayan Singh Rathore
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 4:34pm
Friends, I present herewith important milestones of much relied upon Actuarial Report dt. 2.8.1996 of K.A. Pandit,which was used for declaring PRBS as "Un-viable" in matter of WP 1718/1996 in Bombay H.C.
Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.199 from M/s. K.A. Pandit (a Govt. approved Actuary) with following Assumption, Conclusion, Recommendation & Proposition: -
3.1. Assumption:
““8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in costs of living index.”
3.2. Conclusion:
“12. CONCLUSION:
The scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salaries have gone up by 78%i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA Formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
3.3. Recommendation:
“13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in whichexorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund.”
3.4. Proposed Pension:
“Govt. scheme offers pension of (1/70) for each year of service if in the ONGC scheme we also introduce same accrual rate from 1.11.1995 then pension will be in two parts for the service rendered upto 31.10 1995 pension is (44/33) and from 1.11.1995 it will be (50/33).”
4. By placing reliance on starting line of Conclusion “The scheme is not viable” at Para 3.2. above, Hon’ble Bombay H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dated 05.11.1996, observing that:
“The report shows that the scheme is not viable on account of unexpected rise in the salary and change in the formula of D.A. M/s K. A. Pandit have recommended that to make the scheme viable it is necessary to raise funds from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed especially when there is a change on account of wage negotiation or long term recruitment policy. It is recommended that in order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. It is also recommended that any difference of annuity cost because of above salary rise and interest payable to LIC for 1992 to date of payment of annuity should be raised in such a way that it does not pose undue problems to the existing members.
On a careful scrutiny of the report, it is clear, that the Scheme is not viable unlessadditional funds are raised from different sources. Otherwise the Scheme is liable to be scrapped altogether. The question relating to generation of Additional funds will have to be considered by negotiations between the Officers Association and the Corporation.” .
4.1. Ordinary prudence required negotiation only to ‘raise / generate Additional funds’ to save the Scheme, if warranted after examination of Data / Statistics pertaining to assets/liabilities of Fund arising from 1.4.1990. Factually, there was no need at all to go for any kind of Negotiations, Hon’ble High Court gave lead point by citing Actuarial Report in Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996 itself. Trustees had provision in the Scheme to Review fund position and raise the Additional Contribution in accordance with Consumer Price Index, as done several times under O.Os/Cir. Nos. PRBS-9 dated 24.3.1992, 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.8.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 9.12.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 23.1.1993 and 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.6.1998.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
by Narayan Singh Rathore on Friday, October 14, 2011 at 4:34pm
Friends, I present herewith important milestones of much relied upon Actuarial Report dt. 2.8.1996 of K.A. Pandit,which was used for declaring PRBS as "Un-viable" in matter of WP 1718/1996 in Bombay H.C.
Actuarial Valuation Report dated 02.08.199 from M/s. K.A. Pandit (a Govt. approved Actuary) with following Assumption, Conclusion, Recommendation & Proposition: -
3.1. Assumption:
““8. Growth in salary these days is mainly on account of hike in costs of living index.”
3.2. Conclusion:
“12. CONCLUSION:
The scheme is not viable as the salary rise unexpected the salaries have gone up by 78%i.e. 10000 in 1996 from 5600 in 1994 i.e. an yearly increase of 34%. There is a change in DA Formula. DA which was 1.5% of basic pay in 1992 is now 30% of basic pay.”
3.3. Recommendation:
“13. RECOMMENDATION:
To make the scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in whichexorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund.”
3.4. Proposed Pension:
“Govt. scheme offers pension of (1/70) for each year of service if in the ONGC scheme we also introduce same accrual rate from 1.11.1995 then pension will be in two parts for the service rendered upto 31.10 1995 pension is (44/33) and from 1.11.1995 it will be (50/33).”
4. By placing reliance on starting line of Conclusion “The scheme is not viable” at Para 3.2. above, Hon’ble Bombay H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dated 05.11.1996, observing that:
“The report shows that the scheme is not viable on account of unexpected rise in the salary and change in the formula of D.A. M/s K. A. Pandit have recommended that to make the scheme viable it is necessary to raise funds from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed especially when there is a change on account of wage negotiation or long term recruitment policy. It is recommended that in order to take care of the fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the fund. It is also recommended that any difference of annuity cost because of above salary rise and interest payable to LIC for 1992 to date of payment of annuity should be raised in such a way that it does not pose undue problems to the existing members.
On a careful scrutiny of the report, it is clear, that the Scheme is not viable unlessadditional funds are raised from different sources. Otherwise the Scheme is liable to be scrapped altogether. The question relating to generation of Additional funds will have to be considered by negotiations between the Officers Association and the Corporation.” .
4.1. Ordinary prudence required negotiation only to ‘raise / generate Additional funds’ to save the Scheme, if warranted after examination of Data / Statistics pertaining to assets/liabilities of Fund arising from 1.4.1990. Factually, there was no need at all to go for any kind of Negotiations, Hon’ble High Court gave lead point by citing Actuarial Report in Ad-interim Order dated 5.11.1996 itself. Trustees had provision in the Scheme to Review fund position and raise the Additional Contribution in accordance with Consumer Price Index, as done several times under O.Os/Cir. Nos. PRBS-9 dated 24.3.1992, 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.8.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 9.12.1992, ONGC/HQ/ PRBS/31/92 dated 23.1.1993 and 1(23)/91-GA dated 26.6.1998.
ONGC/PRBS - MEMORANDAM OF UNDERSTANDING OF 9.4.2007 by Narayan Singh Rathore on Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 4:47pm MEMORANDAM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ONG
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OF 9.4.2007
by Narayan Singh Rathore
MEMORANDAM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ONGC SELF CONTRIBUTORY POST RETIREMENT AND DEATH IN SERVICE SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT SCHEME BETWEEN ONGC AND ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OFFICERS OF ONGC AT JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING AT NEW DELHI ON 9TH APRIL 2007.
Short recital of case:
The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme ( hereinafter called the PRBS) has been in operation in ONGC since 01.04.1990. The representatives of employees, Association of Scientific and Technical Officers of ONGC (ASTO) and the Recognised Unions has been demanding review of the scheme in terms of provisions of earlier MOUs dated 03.02.1998 & 19.07.1998 and had shown their concern towards the sustainability and financial viability of the Scheme.
M/s. Mercer Human Resource Consulting ( MERCER) was appointed to study the financial strength of the PRBS and to recommend necessary changes for long term viability of the Scheme. Mercer in its report observed that the Fund is unable to sustain itself mainly due to increase in the purchase price of annuity and falling interest rates. There is large deficit in the fund which needs to be met.
Mercer recommended that PRBS can sustain as a defined pension scheme at the present LIC rates and discounting rate of 8% per annum with an increase in contribution, from members and / or direct contribution by ONGC.
The issue was deliberated and discussed in various meetings with ASTO and Recognised Unions of ONGC wherein it was opined that : -
(i). PRBS may be implemented in terms of earlier MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and
19.07.1998 as defined pension scheme without any modification.
(ii). All employees will agree for increased contribution & ONGC will also make its best endeavor to contribute to PRBS Scheme.
Terms of Agreement
3. Additional contribution received from ONGC shall be increased by 82% w.e.f. first day of the month of implementation with annual escalation of 10% and the same shall be wholly contributed by the employees to the PRBS Trust.
4. In addition, ONGC shall deposit some amount from the remaining part of the distributable profit of the past and not more than 40% of the distributable profit every year after payment of Additional annual incentive prospectively to the “Fund” as per the requirement of the Fund’s liability from time to time directly to PRBS Trust.
5. ONGC will contribute to PRBS taking into account various tax laws so as to get maximum tax advantage.
6. PRBS would be compulsorily applicable for all the employees w.e.f. 16.11.1995 for employees separating on or after date In view of above this memorandum of understanding is entered into between Management of ONGC and Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO) today on 09th April 2007 with the following terms of agreement:
1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”. To this effect, the current Annuity Factor of 92.379 would be made dynamic to assure monthly pension restricted to 50% of “Last Drawn Notional Salary” to all the members.
2. Direct cash contribution of the members will be doubled from the present rates w.e.f. first day of the month of implementation.
7. The aforesaid changes would be implemented w.e.f. prospective date for employees separating on or after the date of implementation.
8. Necessary amendments to incorporate the agreed issues to the Rules of PRBS would be undertaken by the Board of Trustees of PRBS.
9. Necessary approval from Commissioner of Income Tax , Dehradun and any other authority would be taken ONGC.
10. All the terms, conditions, provisions of the Scheme and the Rules thereto as well as instructions/decision issued from time to time shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.
11. The Trustees shall arrange Actuarial Valuation of the assets and liabilities of “the Fund” and review of the scheme by an independent Actuary once in three years. Based on the periodic Actuarial Evaluation, ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionary benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU.
12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.
This understanding has been reached in good faith and in case of any doubt / ambiguity the interpretation of the Board of Trustees, PRBS Trust which consists of representatives of Management, Officers’ Association and recognized union shall be final and binding.
This agreement shall be used to seek approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and any other approval required in this regard.
Management Representatives Representatives of ASTO
1. 3. 1. 3.
2. 4. 2.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
MEMORANDAM OF UNDERSTANDING ON ONGC SELF CONTRIBUTORY POST RETIREMENT AND DEATH IN SERVICE SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT SCHEME BETWEEN ONGC AND ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL OFFICERS OF ONGC AT JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING AT NEW DELHI ON 9TH APRIL 2007.
Short recital of case:
The Post Retirement Benefit Scheme ( hereinafter called the PRBS) has been in operation in ONGC since 01.04.1990. The representatives of employees, Association of Scientific and Technical Officers of ONGC (ASTO) and the Recognised Unions has been demanding review of the scheme in terms of provisions of earlier MOUs dated 03.02.1998 & 19.07.1998 and had shown their concern towards the sustainability and financial viability of the Scheme.
M/s. Mercer Human Resource Consulting ( MERCER) was appointed to study the financial strength of the PRBS and to recommend necessary changes for long term viability of the Scheme. Mercer in its report observed that the Fund is unable to sustain itself mainly due to increase in the purchase price of annuity and falling interest rates. There is large deficit in the fund which needs to be met.
Mercer recommended that PRBS can sustain as a defined pension scheme at the present LIC rates and discounting rate of 8% per annum with an increase in contribution, from members and / or direct contribution by ONGC.
The issue was deliberated and discussed in various meetings with ASTO and Recognised Unions of ONGC wherein it was opined that : -
(i). PRBS may be implemented in terms of earlier MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and
19.07.1998 as defined pension scheme without any modification.
(ii). All employees will agree for increased contribution & ONGC will also make its best endeavor to contribute to PRBS Scheme.
Terms of Agreement
3. Additional contribution received from ONGC shall be increased by 82% w.e.f. first day of the month of implementation with annual escalation of 10% and the same shall be wholly contributed by the employees to the PRBS Trust.
4. In addition, ONGC shall deposit some amount from the remaining part of the distributable profit of the past and not more than 40% of the distributable profit every year after payment of Additional annual incentive prospectively to the “Fund” as per the requirement of the Fund’s liability from time to time directly to PRBS Trust.
5. ONGC will contribute to PRBS taking into account various tax laws so as to get maximum tax advantage.
6. PRBS would be compulsorily applicable for all the employees w.e.f. 16.11.1995 for employees separating on or after date In view of above this memorandum of understanding is entered into between Management of ONGC and Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO) today on 09th April 2007 with the following terms of agreement:
1. PRBS benefit will be extended in term of MOUs dated 03.02.1998 and 19.07.1998 as “Defined Pension Scheme”. To this effect, the current Annuity Factor of 92.379 would be made dynamic to assure monthly pension restricted to 50% of “Last Drawn Notional Salary” to all the members.
2. Direct cash contribution of the members will be doubled from the present rates w.e.f. first day of the month of implementation.
7. The aforesaid changes would be implemented w.e.f. prospective date for employees separating on or after the date of implementation.
8. Necessary amendments to incorporate the agreed issues to the Rules of PRBS would be undertaken by the Board of Trustees of PRBS.
9. Necessary approval from Commissioner of Income Tax , Dehradun and any other authority would be taken ONGC.
10. All the terms, conditions, provisions of the Scheme and the Rules thereto as well as instructions/decision issued from time to time shall stand modified to the extent indicated above.
11. The Trustees shall arrange Actuarial Valuation of the assets and liabilities of “the Fund” and review of the scheme by an independent Actuary once in three years. Based on the periodic Actuarial Evaluation, ONGC and the employees are committed to provide necessary support to the “Trust” to ensure pensionary benefits to all the beneficiaries as per “Defined Pension Scheme” as modified vide this MOU.
12. The revised scheme shall be applicable to all employees based on this MOU. This MOU shall be rendered null & void if any of the clauses are modified at a later date without taking ASTO into confidence.
This understanding has been reached in good faith and in case of any doubt / ambiguity the interpretation of the Board of Trustees, PRBS Trust which consists of representatives of Management, Officers’ Association and recognized union shall be final and binding.
This agreement shall be used to seek approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun and any other approval required in this regard.
Management Representatives Representatives of ASTO
1. 3. 1. 3.
2. 4. 2.
Adverse affects of MOU/cir. PRBS-40 of 18.06.98 by Narayan Singh Rathore
Adverse affects of MOU/cir. PRBS-40 of 18.06.98
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Bby H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dt 5.11.1996 with direction that ONGC n ASTO negotiate to raise "additional funds" to save the Scheme (WP 1718/1996). MOU signed on 3.2.1998. It is stated in MOU that it was in copliance of Order dt. 5.11.1996 of Bby H.C. Pl note that negotiation was restricted to "Raise Additional Funds" only to make the Scheme Viable. ONGC MIS-UTILISED this opportunity to push the Scheme towards assured n ascertained "Un-viability" under MOU which was signed in "Good Faith" n under unspecified "Mutual Understanding". A unique design to ascertain financial viability on the basis of Good faith. I am sure nobody in would cite a single case where decision are taken in good faith when financial matters are involved. Obvious enough, there were no negotiations. Reasons: -
(a). Introduction of Notional Salary for purpose of (i) deduction of fixed % contr from monthly salary of members n (ii) grant of Pension benefit. Lets analyse these two factors. we take case of Mr. KD Pillai. His actual salary was Rs.21913 whereas Notional salary was Rs.8806. You can imagine difference in 5% fixed contr. (1095.65 - 440.30 = 655.45). This reduced existing source of income of Trust. Then we take my case. Actual salary Rs.32649 n Notional salary Rs.14445/-. Difference in 5% fxd contr.Rs.909.70/month (1632.45 - 722.75). Another case of an executive in service on 1.4.2007. His actual/ notional salary Rs.47380/14414. 10% fxd contr. Rs.4738 on actual n Rs.1441.40 on notional. lets see what wd have been 5% on actual salary. Rs.2369/-. See the difference. 5% contr. on Actual is greater than 10% on notional. Do we not hang in shame that ASTO (CWC) is said to have negotiated for17-18 months to achieve this ? Can such feat make the Scheme viable ? Certainly Not. Notional Salary exposed the Scheme to never ending Unviability.PRBS Trust submits Affidavits on behalf of CMD that unviable scheme was made viable under such dubious MOU of 3.2.1998.Then take Pension benefit. In case of KD Pillai, his entitlement as per Scheme-1991 on 30.4.98 was Rs.738x/ (as he retired prior to Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998) but he got Rs.2467.50 only under Defined Corpus. Kerala H.C. granted him relief but ONGC challenged Court verdict under SLP/2009 in Supreme Court. Hon'ble Apex Court upheld verdict n ONGC duly lost the case. It was unworthy of a Global Giant n Maharatna Co. to adopt such unhealthy course. In case of capt. Narayan Singh Rathore, Pension benefit worked out Rs.9080.66 on actual salary under Scheme-1991 n Rs.5093.64 under revised scheme of 18.6.1998 but LIC fixed Pension at Rs.39xx/month under un-notified Defined Corpus (can call it Balyan Device). Now we take third case of an executive who retires in 2011. Ratio of actual salary to notional is 100 : 33. This is going to ensure his pension at 33% of his entitlement on actual salary.
Another vital damage done by Notional salary was non-implemetation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 which required deduction of fxd contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 n all future Pay revisions. Was it an healthy approach to deprive enhanced fxd % contr, to Fund of Trust ? NO. It was colossal recurring loss. This was again to ensure Un-viability of PRBS.
When viability of PRBS was challenged in August 1996, ONGC kept the raise in Additional Contr. as "Notional" upto 1.4.1997. This was done inspite of clear expression by Actuary in Report dt. 2.8.1996 that there was 78% rise in prices of commodities (surrendered facilities). This information shd have been used to "Review" the funds in accordance with Para 7 of Scheme-1991. Can we pray the Managing Trustee/ CMD ONGC to very kindly justify ignoring such vital recommendation of Actuary ? During whole process of so called purported Negotiations of 17-18 months ? Most difficult.
Friends, solution lies in revocation of Cir. PRBS-40 which amended the Scheme in utter violation of Para 32 n Para 31.2 of Rules-1991, without appropriate approval of Comp. Authy who had approved the Scheme/Rules-1991. Thanks.
May the God bless all with Ordinary Prudence.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share
1 share
Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, Good morning n wish you all smooth sailing.
September 16 at 4:17am · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi Just now gone through...thanks Capt. saheb for the so nicely preparing the brief...
September 16 at 12:13pm · Like
Gurcharan Singh Thanks to Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore for his help to the community of retirees...
September 17 at 9:58am · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore Gurcharan g, i feel we have to live for each other at this juncture to avoid landing in Oldage Homes. Service to each other is Self Service.
September 17 at 2:02pm · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi sirs, our some colleague were/are in Oldage Homes in Ahm...some , who were lords at one time, died in tragic conditions...
September 17 at 2:42pm · Like
Gurcharan Singh No Happiness matches with the one done for the community as service to the people and poor of the poorest.....
September 18 at 9:57am · Unlike · 1
Write a comment...
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Bby H.C. issued Ad-interim Order dt 5.11.1996 with direction that ONGC n ASTO negotiate to raise "additional funds" to save the Scheme (WP 1718/1996). MOU signed on 3.2.1998. It is stated in MOU that it was in copliance of Order dt. 5.11.1996 of Bby H.C. Pl note that negotiation was restricted to "Raise Additional Funds" only to make the Scheme Viable. ONGC MIS-UTILISED this opportunity to push the Scheme towards assured n ascertained "Un-viability" under MOU which was signed in "Good Faith" n under unspecified "Mutual Understanding". A unique design to ascertain financial viability on the basis of Good faith. I am sure nobody in would cite a single case where decision are taken in good faith when financial matters are involved. Obvious enough, there were no negotiations. Reasons: -
(a). Introduction of Notional Salary for purpose of (i) deduction of fixed % contr from monthly salary of members n (ii) grant of Pension benefit. Lets analyse these two factors. we take case of Mr. KD Pillai. His actual salary was Rs.21913 whereas Notional salary was Rs.8806. You can imagine difference in 5% fixed contr. (1095.65 - 440.30 = 655.45). This reduced existing source of income of Trust. Then we take my case. Actual salary Rs.32649 n Notional salary Rs.14445/-. Difference in 5% fxd contr.Rs.909.70/month (1632.45 - 722.75). Another case of an executive in service on 1.4.2007. His actual/ notional salary Rs.47380/14414. 10% fxd contr. Rs.4738 on actual n Rs.1441.40 on notional. lets see what wd have been 5% on actual salary. Rs.2369/-. See the difference. 5% contr. on Actual is greater than 10% on notional. Do we not hang in shame that ASTO (CWC) is said to have negotiated for17-18 months to achieve this ? Can such feat make the Scheme viable ? Certainly Not. Notional Salary exposed the Scheme to never ending Unviability.PRBS Trust submits Affidavits on behalf of CMD that unviable scheme was made viable under such dubious MOU of 3.2.1998.Then take Pension benefit. In case of KD Pillai, his entitlement as per Scheme-1991 on 30.4.98 was Rs.738x/ (as he retired prior to Cir. PRBS-40 of 18.6.1998) but he got Rs.2467.50 only under Defined Corpus. Kerala H.C. granted him relief but ONGC challenged Court verdict under SLP/2009 in Supreme Court. Hon'ble Apex Court upheld verdict n ONGC duly lost the case. It was unworthy of a Global Giant n Maharatna Co. to adopt such unhealthy course. In case of capt. Narayan Singh Rathore, Pension benefit worked out Rs.9080.66 on actual salary under Scheme-1991 n Rs.5093.64 under revised scheme of 18.6.1998 but LIC fixed Pension at Rs.39xx/month under un-notified Defined Corpus (can call it Balyan Device). Now we take third case of an executive who retires in 2011. Ratio of actual salary to notional is 100 : 33. This is going to ensure his pension at 33% of his entitlement on actual salary.
Another vital damage done by Notional salary was non-implemetation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 which required deduction of fxd contr. on revised salary w.e.f. 1.1.1992 n all future Pay revisions. Was it an healthy approach to deprive enhanced fxd % contr, to Fund of Trust ? NO. It was colossal recurring loss. This was again to ensure Un-viability of PRBS.
When viability of PRBS was challenged in August 1996, ONGC kept the raise in Additional Contr. as "Notional" upto 1.4.1997. This was done inspite of clear expression by Actuary in Report dt. 2.8.1996 that there was 78% rise in prices of commodities (surrendered facilities). This information shd have been used to "Review" the funds in accordance with Para 7 of Scheme-1991. Can we pray the Managing Trustee/ CMD ONGC to very kindly justify ignoring such vital recommendation of Actuary ? During whole process of so called purported Negotiations of 17-18 months ? Most difficult.
Friends, solution lies in revocation of Cir. PRBS-40 which amended the Scheme in utter violation of Para 32 n Para 31.2 of Rules-1991, without appropriate approval of Comp. Authy who had approved the Scheme/Rules-1991. Thanks.
May the God bless all with Ordinary Prudence.
Like · · Unfollow Post · Share
1 share
Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, Good morning n wish you all smooth sailing.
September 16 at 4:17am · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi Just now gone through...thanks Capt. saheb for the so nicely preparing the brief...
September 16 at 12:13pm · Like
Gurcharan Singh Thanks to Capt. Narayan Singh Rathore for his help to the community of retirees...
September 17 at 9:58am · Like
Narayan Singh Rathore Gurcharan g, i feel we have to live for each other at this juncture to avoid landing in Oldage Homes. Service to each other is Self Service.
September 17 at 2:02pm · Unlike · 1
Badrinath Vasandi sirs, our some colleague were/are in Oldage Homes in Ahm...some , who were lords at one time, died in tragic conditions...
September 17 at 2:42pm · Like
Gurcharan Singh No Happiness matches with the one done for the community as service to the people and poor of the poorest.....
September 18 at 9:57am · Unlike · 1
Write a comment...
ONGC 'AGRANI SAMMAN' SCHEME (2003) -REVIEW
ONGC 'AGRANI SAMMAN' SCHEME (2003)
Finally, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) had understood the financial hardships being experienced by the legendery elders who have built this giant organisation bit by bit in hardous, hazardous and hostile environ during its initial infancy and initial stages till their retirement of superannuation. Thus, it is learnt, that ONGC has proposed to enhance the amount of Agrani Samman at its own under the captioned Scheme, that ,too, at an stage when related issues of the scheme are being tried in various Hon'ble Courts inluding one at Mumbai High Court. To meet the expenditure for the proposed enhancement etc. , ONGC has reportedly decided to divert the funds from the Corporate Social Corpus (CSC) under the Corporate Social Responsbility (CSR) to which ONGC has already ermarked 2% of its net profit i.e. 1.25% over and above the prescribed mandatory rate of 0.75%. It has also learnt that the proposal, in question, has since been approved by the Executive Committee of ONGC and presently waiting the approval by Board. Kudos to the HR Deptt of ONGC for the speed and zeal.
In effect, the CSR activities are conducted as per the legal and statutory requirements under the Socio-Economic Programme (SEDP) on specific and well defined recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU). The said activities include:-
1. Promotion of literacy and higher education.
2. Providing Clean Drinking Water.
3. Community Development.
4. Helth and Family Welfare.
5. Environment Protection.
6.Sanitation.
7. Development of infrastructure facilities - roads, bridges, street lighting, drainage etc
8. Promotion of Sports, Arts and Culture.
9. Assistance in husing & townships.
10.Improving the lot of socially and economically weaker sections of the society.
11.Providing emp0loyment to local people
12.Rehabilitation of project affected persons (PAPs)
13.Meeting local needs as and when required.
It is feared whether the above may allow to divert the Corporate Social Corpus under CSR to any other activity including Agrani Samman or PRBS that too at an stage when the proposal is afoot to centrally conduct and co -ordinate CSR activities with the joint CSC contlrbuted by various organisations of particular area. As a matter of fact, the best course would have been tp divert the funds for the purpose from the huge Kitty to which ONGC annually contribute 5% of its net profit. This fund can best be used for such puroses - by which nt only the legendery elders but also the other aggrived can suitably been sompensated without any legal hurdle.It needs no emphasis that for making any fund in an organisation, olders are always the major contributors. As such, whenever any additional benefit under Agrani Samman or PRBS is given. the same should be extended to olders also who deserve the most. ONGC is a gian profit making company. Itmcan easily manage the due benefits to the retired employees out of its vast resources in consideration of their loyal service till their retirement on superannuation.How far it is logical and justified where a senior corporate level officer gets PRBS @ Rs.1200 - 1300 or even less whereas his much junior at the level of E-I gets Rs 6000 or more ?
To manage a viable scheme on Agrani Samman and PRBS , competence of ONGC is at test.
Ex-gratia shemes in Banks, Railwayts and in some Public Sectors are worth taking note by ONGC.
Finally, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) had understood the financial hardships being experienced by the legendery elders who have built this giant organisation bit by bit in hardous, hazardous and hostile environ during its initial infancy and initial stages till their retirement of superannuation. Thus, it is learnt, that ONGC has proposed to enhance the amount of Agrani Samman at its own under the captioned Scheme, that ,too, at an stage when related issues of the scheme are being tried in various Hon'ble Courts inluding one at Mumbai High Court. To meet the expenditure for the proposed enhancement etc. , ONGC has reportedly decided to divert the funds from the Corporate Social Corpus (CSC) under the Corporate Social Responsbility (CSR) to which ONGC has already ermarked 2% of its net profit i.e. 1.25% over and above the prescribed mandatory rate of 0.75%. It has also learnt that the proposal, in question, has since been approved by the Executive Committee of ONGC and presently waiting the approval by Board. Kudos to the HR Deptt of ONGC for the speed and zeal.
In effect, the CSR activities are conducted as per the legal and statutory requirements under the Socio-Economic Programme (SEDP) on specific and well defined recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU). The said activities include:-
1. Promotion of literacy and higher education.
2. Providing Clean Drinking Water.
3. Community Development.
4. Helth and Family Welfare.
5. Environment Protection.
6.Sanitation.
7. Development of infrastructure facilities - roads, bridges, street lighting, drainage etc
8. Promotion of Sports, Arts and Culture.
9. Assistance in husing & townships.
10.Improving the lot of socially and economically weaker sections of the society.
11.Providing emp0loyment to local people
12.Rehabilitation of project affected persons (PAPs)
13.Meeting local needs as and when required.
It is feared whether the above may allow to divert the Corporate Social Corpus under CSR to any other activity including Agrani Samman or PRBS that too at an stage when the proposal is afoot to centrally conduct and co -ordinate CSR activities with the joint CSC contlrbuted by various organisations of particular area. As a matter of fact, the best course would have been tp divert the funds for the purpose from the huge Kitty to which ONGC annually contribute 5% of its net profit. This fund can best be used for such puroses - by which nt only the legendery elders but also the other aggrived can suitably been sompensated without any legal hurdle.It needs no emphasis that for making any fund in an organisation, olders are always the major contributors. As such, whenever any additional benefit under Agrani Samman or PRBS is given. the same should be extended to olders also who deserve the most. ONGC is a gian profit making company. Itmcan easily manage the due benefits to the retired employees out of its vast resources in consideration of their loyal service till their retirement on superannuation.How far it is logical and justified where a senior corporate level officer gets PRBS @ Rs.1200 - 1300 or even less whereas his much junior at the level of E-I gets Rs 6000 or more ?
To manage a viable scheme on Agrani Samman and PRBS , competence of ONGC is at test.
Ex-gratia shemes in Banks, Railwayts and in some Public Sectors are worth taking note by ONGC.
NOTE ON ONGC PRBS by Narayan Singh Rathore
NOTE ON ONGC PRBS
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Erstwhile Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) now renamed as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), had introduced a benevolent welfare Pension Scheme for its Executives effective from 1st April, 1990. The noble objective of ONGC PRBS was to take care of Post Retirement needs of the Oilmen of ONGC to enable them a reasonable dignified standard living. This Scheme envisaged an income of 44% of the revised Last Salary drawn at Superannuation and or Death/Permanent Disablement while in service of ONGC, under Calculation Formula “44/33 * Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary. Subsequently altered as “40/33 * Reckonable. Service = % of Last Salary drawn, with (+) / (-) for more or less reckonable service in ONGC. The Scheme was approved by the Board of ONGC and the Central Govt. A Trust was created within ONGC to manage the operations of the Fund of Trust. Trustees were nominated by the Chairman of ONGC with one nominees of Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO). The Pension Benefit was to be paid through LIC of India against advance payment by ONGC PRBS Trust of Corpus to match the Value of Annuity.
2. ONGC’s PRBS Trust granted pension in full compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme/Rules duly approved by Central Govt. upto 31.12.1991. Pension was granted in part compliance of the Scheme, upto December 1995, on Pre-revised Salary, awaiting Pay Revision-1992, subject to Re-settlement on Revised Salary when Govt. Notification for Pay Revision-1992 was received (10th January 1996). To evade Re-settlement on revised salary w.e.f. January 1992 and also to avoid grant of pension benefit on revised salary to Executives due for Superannuation after January 1996 as well as employees suffering from Death/Permanent Disablement, ONGC stopped finalization of Pension, perhaps in expectation of some legal wrangle to arise and disrupt the smooth operations of this welfare Scheme. And rightly so happened.
3. Some GM (Fin.) of ONGC Dehradun obtained an Actuarial Valuation Report dated 2nd August 1996 and some 185 members of the Scheme from MRBC, Mumbai filed a Writ Petition in Bombay High Court, on 18th August 1996, primarily challenging the Viability of the Scheme. Other terms & conditions of the Scheme/Rules were not challenged. Hon’ble Bombay H. C. issued Ad-interim Order on 5th November 1996 with direction for ONGC and ASTO to enter into negotiations to raise/generate additional funds to save the Scheme otherwise the Scheme was liable to be scrapped altogether.
4. It is contended by ONGC that healthy negotiations were carried out during Nov. 1996 to February 1998 and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 3rd Feb. 1998, in “Good Faith” for financial viability of the Scheme, without examination of Assets / Liabilities of the Fund arising from April 1990.
5. The Memorandum of Understanding, signed in good faith on 3rd Feb. 1998 created a History of un-matched betrayal of faith. The Annuls of History would not witness any other Unique MOU of this kind, where Executives entered into negotiations to jeopardize & disrupt the Welfare Scheme. ONGC management contends that Employer can reduce existing benefits in larger interest of the Organisation, ignoring the fact that PRBS Trust was its own part. Some of detrimental, derogatory, prejudicial, unfair, unreasonably harsh, unconstitutional and discriminatory clauses of the MOU of Feb. 1998 exhibits the following facts: -
(a). ONGC re-defined salary for the purposes of (i) deduction of members’ Fixed Percent Contribution on Notional Salary and (ii) grant of pension on Notional salary. It is an established fact that Notional Salary was 40-60% of Actual Salary and therefore the Fund of the ONGC PRBS Trust suffered recurring loss and the Scheme was pushed in the direction of ascertained un-viability and ultimate liquidation. This was in utter violation of the Court Order. Similarly, existing Pension benefit was also reduced by 40-60%. There would not be other example of such Negotiations where the Association of Officers negotiated for 40 to 60% reduction in existing Pension benefit and that too when the Govt. approved Actuary had clearly shown 78% rise in Salary w.e.f January 1992. The ONGC PRBS does not have any Provision for review of normal entitlement under professed Formula “40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary as Pension”.
(b). ONGC’s PRBS Trust had issued an Office Order (Circular No.PRBS-38) dated 17th January 1996 with direction for ONGC Finance to deduct Fixed Percent Contribution on revised Salary w.e.f. January 1992 on a/c. of Pay revision. This was nullified by the MOU of Feb. 1998. This deprived Trust’s Fund of enhanced Contribution of revised salary on a/c. of Pay revisions of 1992, 1997, 2007 and all times to come. This was also opposed to the direction of Hon’ble H. C. to raise/generate additional funds.
(c). The “Additional Cash Contribution” against monetised value of surrendered facilities (Uniform items, Stitching charges, Washing allowance and Canteen subsidy) was required to be raised / adjusted in accordance with prevailing consumer Price Index of Commodities. The recommendation made by the Actuary in Report dated 2nd Aug. 1996 was not heeded by ONGC PRBS Trust, which inter alias read as under:
“To make the Scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the Fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the Fund.”
Any reference to “Additional Contribution” meant the monetised value of existing perks surrendered by members. Since members’ Fixed Percent Contribution was to remain “Unaltered / Constant” it was Additional Contribution alone which could be reviewed by Trustees from time to time, to match Consumer Price Index.
6. Since the MOU was signed without examination of Data / Statistics, the recommendation made in the MOU was simply an hoax:
“8.xv.(a). To appoint a reputed professional to collect and process the complete data pertaining to PRBS and complete by January 1999.
8.xv. (b). Management will ensure the viability of the Scheme on the basis of periodical review of the Scheme….”
7. If viewed in totality, the MOU did not comply with Court Order to raise/ generate additional funds. On the contrary, it caused reduction in existing sources of the Fund/ Pension. It opened Pandora of discriminations & misinterpretations. Provisions of the MOU violated fundamental rights of members, including Right to live with dignity. Trustees treated members on different scales, with unmatched discretion & discriminations. ONGC the Maharatna “Company that Cares” was expected to give its retired Executives what was offered and became due to them at retirement, death, permanent disablement. MAY GOD HELP THE WEAK.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Erstwhile Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) now renamed as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), had introduced a benevolent welfare Pension Scheme for its Executives effective from 1st April, 1990. The noble objective of ONGC PRBS was to take care of Post Retirement needs of the Oilmen of ONGC to enable them a reasonable dignified standard living. This Scheme envisaged an income of 44% of the revised Last Salary drawn at Superannuation and or Death/Permanent Disablement while in service of ONGC, under Calculation Formula “44/33 * Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary. Subsequently altered as “40/33 * Reckonable. Service = % of Last Salary drawn, with (+) / (-) for more or less reckonable service in ONGC. The Scheme was approved by the Board of ONGC and the Central Govt. A Trust was created within ONGC to manage the operations of the Fund of Trust. Trustees were nominated by the Chairman of ONGC with one nominees of Association of Scientific and Technical Officers (ASTO). The Pension Benefit was to be paid through LIC of India against advance payment by ONGC PRBS Trust of Corpus to match the Value of Annuity.
2. ONGC’s PRBS Trust granted pension in full compliance of the Provisions of the Scheme/Rules duly approved by Central Govt. upto 31.12.1991. Pension was granted in part compliance of the Scheme, upto December 1995, on Pre-revised Salary, awaiting Pay Revision-1992, subject to Re-settlement on Revised Salary when Govt. Notification for Pay Revision-1992 was received (10th January 1996). To evade Re-settlement on revised salary w.e.f. January 1992 and also to avoid grant of pension benefit on revised salary to Executives due for Superannuation after January 1996 as well as employees suffering from Death/Permanent Disablement, ONGC stopped finalization of Pension, perhaps in expectation of some legal wrangle to arise and disrupt the smooth operations of this welfare Scheme. And rightly so happened.
3. Some GM (Fin.) of ONGC Dehradun obtained an Actuarial Valuation Report dated 2nd August 1996 and some 185 members of the Scheme from MRBC, Mumbai filed a Writ Petition in Bombay High Court, on 18th August 1996, primarily challenging the Viability of the Scheme. Other terms & conditions of the Scheme/Rules were not challenged. Hon’ble Bombay H. C. issued Ad-interim Order on 5th November 1996 with direction for ONGC and ASTO to enter into negotiations to raise/generate additional funds to save the Scheme otherwise the Scheme was liable to be scrapped altogether.
4. It is contended by ONGC that healthy negotiations were carried out during Nov. 1996 to February 1998 and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on 3rd Feb. 1998, in “Good Faith” for financial viability of the Scheme, without examination of Assets / Liabilities of the Fund arising from April 1990.
5. The Memorandum of Understanding, signed in good faith on 3rd Feb. 1998 created a History of un-matched betrayal of faith. The Annuls of History would not witness any other Unique MOU of this kind, where Executives entered into negotiations to jeopardize & disrupt the Welfare Scheme. ONGC management contends that Employer can reduce existing benefits in larger interest of the Organisation, ignoring the fact that PRBS Trust was its own part. Some of detrimental, derogatory, prejudicial, unfair, unreasonably harsh, unconstitutional and discriminatory clauses of the MOU of Feb. 1998 exhibits the following facts: -
(a). ONGC re-defined salary for the purposes of (i) deduction of members’ Fixed Percent Contribution on Notional Salary and (ii) grant of pension on Notional salary. It is an established fact that Notional Salary was 40-60% of Actual Salary and therefore the Fund of the ONGC PRBS Trust suffered recurring loss and the Scheme was pushed in the direction of ascertained un-viability and ultimate liquidation. This was in utter violation of the Court Order. Similarly, existing Pension benefit was also reduced by 40-60%. There would not be other example of such Negotiations where the Association of Officers negotiated for 40 to 60% reduction in existing Pension benefit and that too when the Govt. approved Actuary had clearly shown 78% rise in Salary w.e.f January 1992. The ONGC PRBS does not have any Provision for review of normal entitlement under professed Formula “40/33 x Reckonable Service = % of Last Salary as Pension”.
(b). ONGC’s PRBS Trust had issued an Office Order (Circular No.PRBS-38) dated 17th January 1996 with direction for ONGC Finance to deduct Fixed Percent Contribution on revised Salary w.e.f. January 1992 on a/c. of Pay revision. This was nullified by the MOU of Feb. 1998. This deprived Trust’s Fund of enhanced Contribution of revised salary on a/c. of Pay revisions of 1992, 1997, 2007 and all times to come. This was also opposed to the direction of Hon’ble H. C. to raise/generate additional funds.
(c). The “Additional Cash Contribution” against monetised value of surrendered facilities (Uniform items, Stitching charges, Washing allowance and Canteen subsidy) was required to be raised / adjusted in accordance with prevailing consumer Price Index of Commodities. The recommendation made by the Actuary in Report dated 2nd Aug. 1996 was not heeded by ONGC PRBS Trust, which inter alias read as under:
“To make the Scheme viable the fund is to be raised from the sources available. The fund position should be reviewed from time to time and especially when there is change on account of wage negotiation or the long term recruitment policy. In order to take care of the Fund additional contribution should be raised from the year in which exorbitant salary rise has been given i.e. 1992 and difference with 12% interest to be paid to the Fund.”
Any reference to “Additional Contribution” meant the monetised value of existing perks surrendered by members. Since members’ Fixed Percent Contribution was to remain “Unaltered / Constant” it was Additional Contribution alone which could be reviewed by Trustees from time to time, to match Consumer Price Index.
6. Since the MOU was signed without examination of Data / Statistics, the recommendation made in the MOU was simply an hoax:
“8.xv.(a). To appoint a reputed professional to collect and process the complete data pertaining to PRBS and complete by January 1999.
8.xv. (b). Management will ensure the viability of the Scheme on the basis of periodical review of the Scheme….”
7. If viewed in totality, the MOU did not comply with Court Order to raise/ generate additional funds. On the contrary, it caused reduction in existing sources of the Fund/ Pension. It opened Pandora of discriminations & misinterpretations. Provisions of the MOU violated fundamental rights of members, including Right to live with dignity. Trustees treated members on different scales, with unmatched discretion & discriminations. ONGC the Maharatna “Company that Cares” was expected to give its retired Executives what was offered and became due to them at retirement, death, permanent disablement. MAY GOD HELP THE WEAK.
IMPLEMENTATON OF DPE GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL NEEDSAND PENSION BY IOC
ON my RTI application, reply received from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is quite interesting - IOC says they have taken action on DPE guidelines but no action by ONGC!!
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Corporate Office : Plot No. 3079/3
Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110 049 Gram : OILREFIN
Website: www.iocl.com
Corporate Office
By Speed Post
18.10.2011
No. DP/6/21
Shri.M.Rangaajan,
(Retired Group General Manager, ONGC) B-2-301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Cheltaghatta village,
Bangalore-560037.
Sub: Information under The Right to Information Act, 2005. Dear Sir,
This refers to your application dated 17.09.2011, together with application fee Rs. 10/-
vide IPO No. OOF 321525, seeking information under the Right to Information Act. This application was received by us on 21.09.2011.
We have examined your request for information with regard to the "Retirement Benefits & Pension Scheme granted to Retired employees", and our point-wise response to the information sought by you is given below:
Qry.No.1- List all Retirement Benefits granted to Retiring Employees of your esteemed Company along with copies of all relevant Office Orders.
Reply. - As provided under DPE guidelines conveyed vide their OMs dated 26.11.2008 & 02.04.2009. effective from 01.01.2007 the following retirement benefits are available to IOC employees at the time of Superannuation. In order to fund these retirement benefits, the Corporation is allowed to contribute upto a maximum of 30% of BP and DA of the employees.
a) Provident Fund: As per the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
provisions Act, 1952.
b) Gratuity: As per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
c) Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme: The Scheme is being operated on defined contribution basis w.e.f.01.01.2007 as per provisions of the
DPE guidelines. The monthly contribution made by the Corporation out of the prescribed limit of 30% of BP and DA and individual's contribution @ 2% of BP and DA is deposited in individual's account. The funds are
invested and the returns received are distributed to individual's account at the end of the year. At the time of superannuation, annuity is purchased from the fund available in the individual's account from LIC and the employee starts receiving a monthly benefit from LIC from the date of his superannuation. The benefit varies depending upon the Option exercised by him under the LIC Scheme. There is a provision to allow commutation of one-third of the annuity amount.
d) Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits: Based on the actuarial assessment, the Corporation is contributing a portion out of the
maximum permissible 30% of BP and DA of the employees towards post retirement medical liability. A retiring employee also makes a one time lumpsum contribution at the time of superannuation while joining the scheme. The medical benefits comprising of domiciliary, investigative and hospitalization expenses are met by the Corporation upto ceilings wherever prescribed, out of the fund. The employee, spouse, dependent parents and mentally retarded child/children, if any are covered for medical benefits under the scheme.
The Scheme of Superannuation Benefit Fund consists of 9 pages and that of Post Superannuation Medical Attendant Scheme consists of 14 pages. In case you desire a copy of these schemes, the same can be provided to you on payment @ Rs.2/- per page as per the Right to Information Act (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.
Qry.No.2 Pension Scheme (or Ex-gratia) formulated for the retired employees of your esteemed company along with copies of all relevant Office Orders and instructions.
Reply - A voluntary and self contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme was introduced in the Corporation effective from 01.11.1987 as a welfare measure. The scheme was being operated as a "Defined Benefit Fund Scheme". In order to meet the requirements under the DPE guidelines, this scheme- had to be converted into a "Defined Contribution Scheme" w.e.f. 1.1.2007 as mentioned in our reply to Item number 1, For the benefit of the employees of IOCL who superannuated before introduction of the above mentioned Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme effective from 01.11.1987 an Ex-Gratia Scheme is in existence since 2003. Ex-employees eligible under this scheme are receiving a monthly ex-gratia amount which is reviewed from time to time.
The Ex-gratia Scheme consists of 4 pages. Should you desire a copy of the Scheme the same can be provided on payment @ Rs.2/- per page as per the Right to Information Act (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.
Qry.No.3 Have your esteemed company created a Fund for welfare of retired employees as per Department of Public Enterprises Government of India OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-XVI/2009 dated 8th. July 2009 (copy enclosed). Copy of relevant Instructions/Office Orders issued for utilization of the fund.
Reply - No separate Corpus Fund has been created in Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Qry.No.4 Statistics on utilization of the Fund for past 2 years in the following format:
Year Amount credited to Amount spent to the Balance at end of year Remarks
the fund during the fund during the year as on 31st. of March
year
2009-10 2010-11
Reply- Not applicable in view of reply to Qs.3 above
In the event you prefer to appeal against the above decision, you may do so within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter to the Appellate Authority whose details are given
below:
Shri Satish Kumar,
Executive Director (HR) & Appellate Authority, IOCL, Plot No. 3079/3,
Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110 049.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(C. Vishalakshi)
Dy. General Manager (HR) & Central Public Information Officer
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Corporate Office : Plot No. 3079/3
Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110 049 Gram : OILREFIN
Website: www.iocl.com
Corporate Office
By Speed Post
18.10.2011
No. DP/6/21
Shri.M.Rangaajan,
(Retired Group General Manager, ONGC) B-2-301, SRIRAM SPANDHANA,
Cheltaghatta village,
Bangalore-560037.
Sub: Information under The Right to Information Act, 2005. Dear Sir,
This refers to your application dated 17.09.2011, together with application fee Rs. 10/-
vide IPO No. OOF 321525, seeking information under the Right to Information Act. This application was received by us on 21.09.2011.
We have examined your request for information with regard to the "Retirement Benefits & Pension Scheme granted to Retired employees", and our point-wise response to the information sought by you is given below:
Qry.No.1- List all Retirement Benefits granted to Retiring Employees of your esteemed Company along with copies of all relevant Office Orders.
Reply. - As provided under DPE guidelines conveyed vide their OMs dated 26.11.2008 & 02.04.2009. effective from 01.01.2007 the following retirement benefits are available to IOC employees at the time of Superannuation. In order to fund these retirement benefits, the Corporation is allowed to contribute upto a maximum of 30% of BP and DA of the employees.
a) Provident Fund: As per the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
provisions Act, 1952.
b) Gratuity: As per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
c) Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme: The Scheme is being operated on defined contribution basis w.e.f.01.01.2007 as per provisions of the
DPE guidelines. The monthly contribution made by the Corporation out of the prescribed limit of 30% of BP and DA and individual's contribution @ 2% of BP and DA is deposited in individual's account. The funds are
invested and the returns received are distributed to individual's account at the end of the year. At the time of superannuation, annuity is purchased from the fund available in the individual's account from LIC and the employee starts receiving a monthly benefit from LIC from the date of his superannuation. The benefit varies depending upon the Option exercised by him under the LIC Scheme. There is a provision to allow commutation of one-third of the annuity amount.
d) Post-Superannuation Medical Benefits: Based on the actuarial assessment, the Corporation is contributing a portion out of the
maximum permissible 30% of BP and DA of the employees towards post retirement medical liability. A retiring employee also makes a one time lumpsum contribution at the time of superannuation while joining the scheme. The medical benefits comprising of domiciliary, investigative and hospitalization expenses are met by the Corporation upto ceilings wherever prescribed, out of the fund. The employee, spouse, dependent parents and mentally retarded child/children, if any are covered for medical benefits under the scheme.
The Scheme of Superannuation Benefit Fund consists of 9 pages and that of Post Superannuation Medical Attendant Scheme consists of 14 pages. In case you desire a copy of these schemes, the same can be provided to you on payment @ Rs.2/- per page as per the Right to Information Act (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.
Qry.No.2 Pension Scheme (or Ex-gratia) formulated for the retired employees of your esteemed company along with copies of all relevant Office Orders and instructions.
Reply - A voluntary and self contributory Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme was introduced in the Corporation effective from 01.11.1987 as a welfare measure. The scheme was being operated as a "Defined Benefit Fund Scheme". In order to meet the requirements under the DPE guidelines, this scheme- had to be converted into a "Defined Contribution Scheme" w.e.f. 1.1.2007 as mentioned in our reply to Item number 1, For the benefit of the employees of IOCL who superannuated before introduction of the above mentioned Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme effective from 01.11.1987 an Ex-Gratia Scheme is in existence since 2003. Ex-employees eligible under this scheme are receiving a monthly ex-gratia amount which is reviewed from time to time.
The Ex-gratia Scheme consists of 4 pages. Should you desire a copy of the Scheme the same can be provided on payment @ Rs.2/- per page as per the Right to Information Act (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.
Qry.No.3 Have your esteemed company created a Fund for welfare of retired employees as per Department of Public Enterprises Government of India OM No.2 (81)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-XVI/2009 dated 8th. July 2009 (copy enclosed). Copy of relevant Instructions/Office Orders issued for utilization of the fund.
Reply - No separate Corpus Fund has been created in Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Qry.No.4 Statistics on utilization of the Fund for past 2 years in the following format:
Year Amount credited to Amount spent to the Balance at end of year Remarks
the fund during the fund during the year as on 31st. of March
year
2009-10 2010-11
Reply- Not applicable in view of reply to Qs.3 above
In the event you prefer to appeal against the above decision, you may do so within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter to the Appellate Authority whose details are given
below:
Shri Satish Kumar,
Executive Director (HR) & Appellate Authority, IOCL, Plot No. 3079/3,
Sadiq Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110 049.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(C. Vishalakshi)
Dy. General Manager (HR) & Central Public Information Officer
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES OF 2008 7 2009 by Narayan Singh Rathore
PENSION UNDER DPE GUIDELINES OF 2008 7 2009
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, lot of effort has been devoted to Pension under DPE Guidelines. First, Lets see what is OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-XVI/08 of 26th Nov.2008: - Board Level and below Board level executives and Non Unionised Supervisors in CPSES-revision of Scales of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Para 12 of this OM states that "12. Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the Company (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.
Para (V) of Annexure - IV (Para 12): - Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30% of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post - Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuty and Post Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical Benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in a minimum of 15 years service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.
Second, lets see what important extracts from OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-VII/09 of 2nd April 2009, say:
Para 1: "Subsequent to issue of OM dated 26.11.2008, the Government constituted a Committee of Ministers to look into the demands raised by CPSE executives of Oil and Power Sectors."
Para 2. "The Government, after due consideration to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:"
Para 2 (ii). "Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit would be under a "deifined contribution scheme" and not under a "defined benefit scheme". CPSEs that do not have superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted outside this 30% ceiling. (Para 12 Annex. IV (V) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers)
Para 4 "The ceilings mentioned under various items given in OMs dated 26.11.2008, 09.02.2009 and this OM are the maximum permissible limits. However, lower limits against these maximum permissible limits can be provided in the Presidential Directives, depending upon affordability, capacity to pay and sustainability of the concerned CPSE".
Friends, it is reasonably clear that Herculian effort is required to cover retirees earlier than 01.01.2007 or may be later Date when the Scheme (s) is/are introduced and implemented.
Mr. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava had also examined the Concept Papaer prepared by Managing Trustee of ONGC PRBS Trust. Concept Paper was alround confusion confounded.It was aimed to Re-structure existing PRBS ? It makes it amply established fact that Trustees are misguided by their own whims.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Friends, lot of effort has been devoted to Pension under DPE Guidelines. First, Lets see what is OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-XVI/08 of 26th Nov.2008: - Board Level and below Board level executives and Non Unionised Supervisors in CPSES-revision of Scales of Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Para 12 of this OM states that "12. Long Term Incentives, introduction of cost to the Company (CTC) concept in CPSEs, Pay of Executives on deputation / transfer to CPSEs, Pay of Government officers on deputation to CPSEs and Superannuation Benefits will be as per Annex.-IV.
Para (V) of Annexure - IV (Para 12): - Superannuation Benefits: CPSEs would be allowed 30% of Basic Pay as Superannuation benefits, which may include Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), Gratuity, Pension and Post - Superannuation Medical Benefits. The CPSEs should make their own schemes to manage these funds or operate through Insurance companies on fixed contribution basis. The amount of Pension, Gratuty and Post Retirement Benefit will be decided based on the returns from the schemes to be operated. The Pension and Medical Benefits can be extended to those executives, who superannuate from the CPSE and have put in a minimum of 15 years service in the CPSE, prior to superannuation.
Second, lets see what important extracts from OM No.2 (70)/08-DPE (WC)-GL-VII/09 of 2nd April 2009, say:
Para 1: "Subsequent to issue of OM dated 26.11.2008, the Government constituted a Committee of Ministers to look into the demands raised by CPSE executives of Oil and Power Sectors."
Para 2. "The Government, after due consideration to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers have decided further as follows:"
Para 2 (ii). "Superannuation Benefit: The ceiling of 30% towards superannuation benefits would be calculated on Basic Pay plus DA instead of Basic Pay alone. Any superannuation benefit would be under a "deifined contribution scheme" and not under a "defined benefit scheme". CPSEs that do not have superannuation scheme, may develop such scheme and obtain the approval of their Administrative Ministry. However, no other superannuation benefit can be granted outside this 30% ceiling. (Para 12 Annex. IV (V) of OM dated 26.11.2008 refers)
Para 4 "The ceilings mentioned under various items given in OMs dated 26.11.2008, 09.02.2009 and this OM are the maximum permissible limits. However, lower limits against these maximum permissible limits can be provided in the Presidential Directives, depending upon affordability, capacity to pay and sustainability of the concerned CPSE".
Friends, it is reasonably clear that Herculian effort is required to cover retirees earlier than 01.01.2007 or may be later Date when the Scheme (s) is/are introduced and implemented.
Mr. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava had also examined the Concept Papaer prepared by Managing Trustee of ONGC PRBS Trust. Concept Paper was alround confusion confounded.It was aimed to Re-structure existing PRBS ? It makes it amply established fact that Trustees are misguided by their own whims.
Creation of Corpus for retired employees of CPSEs
No. 2(81)/08-DPE(WC)GL-IXl/2011
Government of India '
Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Department of Public Enterprises
Public Enterprises Bhawan
Block No. 14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Dated:20 July, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Creation of Corpus for retired employees of CPSEs
The undersigned is directed to refer to O.M. of even number dated
8.07.2009 on the subject mentioned above providing Board of Directors of each CPSE to frame a suitable scheme keeping in view the guidelines contained in the aforesaid OM., based on their need and affordability and submit proposal to the Administrative Ministry/Department for approval. Subsequent to issue of O.M. dated 08.07.2009, a number of representations have been received in this Department, requesting for modifications in the Scheme. Government has accordingly reviewed the efficacy of the scheme as conveyed in O.M. of even number dated 08.07.2009.
2. In view of the above, the following has been decided:-
i) Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any 'other emergency needs of retired employees.
ii) Each CPSE under the Administrative Ministry/ Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
iii) A Committee, headed by an Independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/Department may be formed by the respective administrative Ministry/ Department for implementation of said corpus.
iv) Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in Oi.M. dated 08.07.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than! 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and/or individual "CPSE"based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its retired employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSE(s) under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.5% of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of O.M. dated 08.02.2009.
v) Purpose of the scheme (Individual or Common corpus under a Ministry/ Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance Companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionary scheme.
vi) The benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s") in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the Profits, affordability and sustainabililty of the CPSE(s) concerned.
vii) The issue of 'emergency needs' may be decided based on the principles of fairness, transparency, functional requirement, affordability sectoral similarities and sustainability of the common corpus, etc., with the prior approval of the aforesaid Committee.
viii) Such corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 01.01.2007.
3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to the CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL&PE).
sd/-
(P. J. Michael)
Under Secretary
"**"******
To: All Administrative Ministries/Departments
Copy to:
1. Chief Executive of CPSEs.
Tel: 24360823
>«**<*
2. Financial Advisors in the Administrative Ministries/Departments.
3. Comptroller &, Auditor General of India (Commercial Aijjdit Wing), 9 Deen
Dayal Uadhayay Marg, New Delhi.
4. NIC - with the request to upload this O.M. on to the DPE website.
5. All officers of DPE.
TWO THINGS TO BE NOTED 1. THIS CORPUS IS APPLICALBLE FOR RETIREES PRIOR TO 1-1-2007 and 2. scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionary scheme. So where will this fund be used?
13 hours ago · · 1 person
Badrinath Vasandi Mr. Mathre Rangarajan...from the above should we not take:
1) this 30% for pension is applicable w.e.f. 1.1.7 and not for those who retired prior to that>
2) from letter dt. 20.7.11, should we not take that it is not for retirees of ONGC.....even for those who have retired prior to 1.1.7
3) some where i have read that they will keep this fund under the Administrative Ministry and use for emergency medical needs like Insurance company...through this fund retired employees of sick and loss making PSUs would also be covered..
Government of India '
Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises
Department of Public Enterprises
Public Enterprises Bhawan
Block No. 14, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
Dated:20 July, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Creation of Corpus for retired employees of CPSEs
The undersigned is directed to refer to O.M. of even number dated
8.07.2009 on the subject mentioned above providing Board of Directors of each CPSE to frame a suitable scheme keeping in view the guidelines contained in the aforesaid OM., based on their need and affordability and submit proposal to the Administrative Ministry/Department for approval. Subsequent to issue of O.M. dated 08.07.2009, a number of representations have been received in this Department, requesting for modifications in the Scheme. Government has accordingly reviewed the efficacy of the scheme as conveyed in O.M. of even number dated 08.07.2009.
2. In view of the above, the following has been decided:-
i) Administrative Ministry/Department may consider creating a common corpus for the retired employees of the CPSEs, under their Administrative control. The purpose of the corpus would be to take care of medical and any 'other emergency needs of retired employees.
ii) Each CPSE under the Administrative Ministry/ Department, to contribute not more than 1.5% of its PBT for the above said corpus.
iii) A Committee, headed by an Independent Director, to be decided by Ministry/Department may be formed by the respective administrative Ministry/ Department for implementation of said corpus.
iv) Scheme based on individual CPSE as conveyed in Oi.M. dated 08.07.2009 to continue but basic conditions like not more than! 1.5% PBT (whether Ministry/Department based and/or individual "CPSE"based) and no budgetary support by Government would apply to the Ministry/Department based scheme proposed now. Therefore, there may be a situation, where a CPSE under a Ministry/Department may have a separate scheme for its retired employees, but at the same time contribute to common corpus for retired employees of other CPSE(s) under Administrative Ministry/Department. In such cases also the total contribution will not exceed 1.5% of PBT of a particular financial year. For individual CPSE based scheme, constitution of Committee will be that as already indicated in para 5(iii) of O.M. dated 08.02.2009.
v) Purpose of the scheme (Individual or Common corpus under a Ministry/ Department for its CPSEs) to be as per from 2(i) above. The scheme may be implemented preferably through approved Insurance Companies. It is clarified that scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionary scheme.
vi) The benefits under the Scheme may vary from year to year depending upon the contribution by CPSE(s") in a particular year as the contribution is in turn dependent on the Profits, affordability and sustainabililty of the CPSE(s) concerned.
vii) The issue of 'emergency needs' may be decided based on the principles of fairness, transparency, functional requirement, affordability sectoral similarities and sustainability of the common corpus, etc., with the prior approval of the aforesaid Committee.
viii) Such corpus will cover only those employees of CPSEs, who retired prior to 01.01.2007.
3. Administrative Ministries/Departments may suitably issue instructions to the CPSEs under their administrative control for their information and necessary action.
This issues with the approval of Minister (HL&PE).
sd/-
(P. J. Michael)
Under Secretary
"**"******
To: All Administrative Ministries/Departments
Copy to:
1. Chief Executive of CPSEs.
Tel: 24360823
>«**<*
2. Financial Advisors in the Administrative Ministries/Departments.
3. Comptroller &, Auditor General of India (Commercial Aijjdit Wing), 9 Deen
Dayal Uadhayay Marg, New Delhi.
4. NIC - with the request to upload this O.M. on to the DPE website.
5. All officers of DPE.
TWO THINGS TO BE NOTED 1. THIS CORPUS IS APPLICALBLE FOR RETIREES PRIOR TO 1-1-2007 and 2. scheme should not become a defined benefit pensionary scheme. So where will this fund be used?
13 hours ago · · 1 person
Badrinath Vasandi Mr. Mathre Rangarajan...from the above should we not take:
1) this 30% for pension is applicable w.e.f. 1.1.7 and not for those who retired prior to that>
2) from letter dt. 20.7.11, should we not take that it is not for retirees of ONGC.....even for those who have retired prior to 1.1.7
3) some where i have read that they will keep this fund under the Administrative Ministry and use for emergency medical needs like Insurance company...through this fund retired employees of sick and loss making PSUs would also be covered..
ONGC/CALCULATION OF PENSION UNDER EPS-1995 by Narayan Singh Rathore on Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 2:15pm Contribution to EPS-1995: 2.1. Since mem
CALCULATION OF PENSION UNDER EPS-1995
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Contribution to EPS-1995:
2.1. Since members of EFPS-1971 were automatically entitled to become members of the EPS-1995, they had to pay following rates of Contribution: -
(a). “8.33% of employees’ pay, restricted to pay ceiling of Rs.5000/- P.M. upto 31.5.2001 and Rs.500/- P.M. on or after 1.6.2001”. However, an employee had “Option to contribute 8.33% of actual pay as EPS contribution in accordance with Para 11(3) of EPS”.
(b). Head ICE was required to “ensure necessary modification in the ‘Pay-Roll Module’ to divert the EPS contribution, w.e.f. August 2005, in respect of all eligible employees, out of employer’s CPF contribution (ERC), @ 8.33% restricted to salary ceiling of Rs.6500/- P.M. or on actual pay in case of option executed by individual under Para 11(3) of EPS”.
3. Entitlement of Pension:
3.1. Para 12 of the Act-1995 provided following Provisions for Pension:
“12. Monthly Member’s Pension – (1) A member shall be entitled to,-
(a). Superannuation pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years;
(b). retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years;
(c). short service pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more but less than 20 years.
(2). In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely: -
Pensionable salary x Pensionable service
Monthly Member’s Pension = 70
(5). In the case of an employee who was a member of the existing Family Pension Scheme-1971 and who has attained the age of 53 years or more on the 16th November 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of : -
(a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November 1995 per month or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more;
(b). past service benefit provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years:
Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefit shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month.”
IMPORTANT NOTES:
Note 1. Monthly Member’s Pension is = Pensionable salary x Pensionable service divided by 70.
Note 2. Pensionable Salary is Rs.5000/- for contributory service of 24 years. If period is less than 24 years. Pensionable salary has to be prorated i.e. 5000 divided by 24 and multiplied by past service (before 16.11.1995) and contr. service (after 16.11.1995). Both have to be worked out separately and then put together.
by Narayan Singh Rathore
Contribution to EPS-1995:
2.1. Since members of EFPS-1971 were automatically entitled to become members of the EPS-1995, they had to pay following rates of Contribution: -
(a). “8.33% of employees’ pay, restricted to pay ceiling of Rs.5000/- P.M. upto 31.5.2001 and Rs.500/- P.M. on or after 1.6.2001”. However, an employee had “Option to contribute 8.33% of actual pay as EPS contribution in accordance with Para 11(3) of EPS”.
(b). Head ICE was required to “ensure necessary modification in the ‘Pay-Roll Module’ to divert the EPS contribution, w.e.f. August 2005, in respect of all eligible employees, out of employer’s CPF contribution (ERC), @ 8.33% restricted to salary ceiling of Rs.6500/- P.M. or on actual pay in case of option executed by individual under Para 11(3) of EPS”.
3. Entitlement of Pension:
3.1. Para 12 of the Act-1995 provided following Provisions for Pension:
“12. Monthly Member’s Pension – (1) A member shall be entitled to,-
(a). Superannuation pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years;
(b). retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years;
(c). short service pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more but less than 20 years.
(2). In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely: -
Pensionable salary x Pensionable service
Monthly Member’s Pension = 70
(5). In the case of an employee who was a member of the existing Family Pension Scheme-1971 and who has attained the age of 53 years or more on the 16th November 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of : -
(a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November 1995 per month or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more;
(b). past service benefit provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years:
Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefit shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month.”
IMPORTANT NOTES:
Note 1. Monthly Member’s Pension is = Pensionable salary x Pensionable service divided by 70.
Note 2. Pensionable Salary is Rs.5000/- for contributory service of 24 years. If period is less than 24 years. Pensionable salary has to be prorated i.e. 5000 divided by 24 and multiplied by past service (before 16.11.1995) and contr. service (after 16.11.1995). Both have to be worked out separately and then put together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
