Narayan Singh Rathore 22 December 2013 Friends, ONGC PRBS was going smoothly till 1995. Some disgruntled GM (Fin) took upon himself to destroy PRBS. He misguided 185 young ONGCians to file a Petition 1718/1996 in Bombay HC, contending that PRBS was not Viable Scheme. Said GM (F) managed an Actuarial Valuation Report dt. 2.8.1996 (without examining Financial status of the Trust). As per game plan, ONGC denied Unviability but later on produced the Actaurial Report containing some reference to unviability of PRBS. Honble HC issued Order dated 11.5.1996 calling for ASTO and ONGC to negotiate and raise / generate additional funds to make the scheme viable. Trusties manipulated under able guidance of then Dir. (HR) to revise the Scheme in totality in full violation of Para 31.2 and para 32 of the GOI appd ONGC PRBS Rules-1991 via MOU of 3.2.1998 which was neither to (a) Raise/generate Additional Funds nor (b) in the intrests of members of the Scheme. Director (F) had opined that this MOU required consideration by the Board but Dir. (HR) confirmed that There was no financial implication and hence it was not required to be submitted to the Board. 40 to 60 percent Reduction in Contribution as well as Benefit was not considered as Financial Implication. This Note was never shown to Dir (F). Numerous Representations made to CMD ONGC were just replied by some junior officer in PRBS Trust, with insistent injustice. CMD ONGC was requested to grant personal interview for Hearing our grievances but that never happened. When members started filing litigation in Courts, ONGC took offence and spending billions of rupees to defeat financially defeated members. ONGC deploys Attorney General / Solicitor Generals who prevail in not allowing Hearing of Court cases. ONGC Management is fully aware of colossal sufferings caused by poor financial standing of the Oilmen who brought ONGC to the status of Navratna and Maharatna. CMD ONGC can mitigate these severe grievances with one stroke of his Pen, for withdrawal of illegal, derogatory and un-Constitutional MOU of 3.2.1998 and Cir. 40 of 18.6.1998. Unlike · Seen by 143 You, Nirmal Kumar Srivastava, Premdass Sharma, Ashokkumar Chadha and 6 others like this. 1 share Nirmal Kumar Srivastava The new defined contribution scheme wef 1st Jan 2007 is noww fully implemented with every one retired on or after 1st Jan 2007 has stared getting additional annuity as per scheme....someone retired about two years back as E-5 with total 28years service getting abot 12000 pm after 1/3rd commutation wrote me that he got one more annuity to giv.e him Rs8700pm extra it means a bonanza of some 21 lakhs more.One ED retired recently got more than 70 lakhs in total including 1/3rd commutation.It means that the limit of 50% is not there.... 23 December 2013 at 06:24 · Unlike · 3 Narayan Singh Rathore Nirmal ji, you are in know of disparity, injustice and partisan approach of ONGC Management in depriving Ex ONGCians their due legitimate entitlement of PRBS during 1996 to March 2007 Why REWA Mumbai is not taking up this issue through Dialogue or legal Process ? There was shaving of Rs.500 crores in 2005 itself and thereafter ONGC pumped more than thousands of crores to mitigate deficiencies. ONGC Management knows very well that grave irregularities have been committed by ONGC PRBS Trust and CMD has authority to rectify them but he has opened treasures to fight illegal battles. Can you discuss this issue for amicable solution, including negotiated settlement with Litigants. We are really getting embarrassed while going to Courts. 23 December 2013 at 18:24 · Unlike · 2 Nirmal Kumar Srivastava Narayan singh I am aware about the disparaties,about the money pumped earlier as well as the amount of Rs1624 one time grant paid by ONGC now to cover up the defecit for paying upto 50% or more to the retirees of 2007 onwards.As u know that we are already involved in a case of Agrani Samman in Bombay High Court and the management once agreed to settle the issue amicably has backed out from their own commitments ...we r left with no alternative except to persue our case with Bombay High Court only.It clearly shows that how much concern they have for our issues.In view of above how do u expect that they will listen to us in PRBS case which does,nt cover 100% retirees pre 2007.While Agrani Samman can cover 21000 retirees,PRBS will cover only 10,700 retirees minus retirees of Jan to March 2007 who are now covered by ONGC in the new scheme.It will be better if some other Association come forward to discuss PRBS issue with management.I personally feel that Nandram will be able to do it after change of guard wef 1st March with Shri DK Sarraf....who is tipped to be next CMD and is a man of Finance known to Nandram. 23 December 2013 at 20:39 · Unlike · 3 Videh Kumar I would like to have names and CPF nos. of two officers cited by Nirmalji so that I do some more study on it because I retired on 31st July 2012 but I have not received any thing so far and my querries are answered that it would take another one month and figure are not as high as indicated here by Nirmalji. Kindly oblige me Nirmakji. 29 December 2013 at 22:08 · Like Prem Sagar Gupta Mathre Rangarajan Dear Sri Sri Kureel Saheb, I am very glad to note that you are an LLB from Bangalore University - I dont know in which department you worked in ONGC and when you retired - If it is after 01-01-2007 this discussion becomes only academic to you. I dont understand when you say it is too late by now. I will try to put the case as I understand in a nutshell: We have the Supreme Court judgement of 1982 in Nakras case - As it was given by a full bench under Article 14 of Constitution, I hope it is applicable to ONGC also - ONGC grossly violated this judgement in Agrni Samman case - It is in Bombay High Court. Then there is DPE pay revision order wef 01-01-2007 - It introduces two new factors under Superannuation benefits - ONE: Pension is fourth benefit in addition to CPF, Gratuity and Medical (which was not there earlier) - Two: a fund of 30% of Pay + DA to be created for each individual to cover all these benefits (again which was not there earlier) SC judgement of 1982 stipulates that as retirees are one class, any new benefit given at a later date should also be extended to all previous retirees from that date (to maintain sanctity that all retirees are one class, otherwise it divides retirees into two distinct class). Is this judgement applicable to DPE & ONGC? If so, what is our remedy - Writ petition in SC / Contempt petition in SC / PIL / or any other legal recourse. A sound legal opinion from SC advocate specializing in service matters will be highly useful to all of us. If it is worthwhile then we can persue - If it is otherwise then we can all forget and live peacefully (blaming our fate) and stop all this fruitless discussion. You being a legal person can you get one? - I dont know how much it costs - If it is reasonable I am willing to share the costs - I am sure our other friends may like to pitch in warm regards / rangarajan 18 hours ago · Like.. Srl Kureel many many thanks and regards. I am dec 2003 retiree i was CM(vig). before joining ongc I was administrative officer I I M BANGLORE till 16 feb 83 i personally feel there is good reason to persue the matter i n supreme court by way of special leave petition under ARTICLE 136 of constitution as the is not appeal from high court.pl visit www supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.html 16 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan Dear Sirs, 15 hours ago · Like · 1.. Therani Nadathur Venkata Raghavan canwe follow up it appropriately, consultations may be needed? 15 hours ago · Unlike · 1.. Mathre Rangarajan Thank you Sri SrI Kureel Saheb for some good info - Thanks for reassuring me that there is some substance in my way of thinking and there is some good reason to pursue SLP under article 136 of constitution - I tried to look up what you suggested - but for a non-law person like me it is quite confusing - it says SLP can be against any judgement by High Court etc - But in our case it is a Govt order - it also says it need to be signed by an advocate on roll. I dont know where you are located - I am in Bangalore and SC is too far away for me - please send your personal e-mail ID & mobile No to my ID rangajan@gmail so that I can mail you in detail. Generally speaking, I am very disappointed with our Delhi Unit with proximity to ONGC top & SC and our Dehradun unit with proximity to ONGC Hqrs - They all seem to be busy in their own personal agenda - Only Mumbai unit is fighting one High Court case on behalf of all of us - Ahemedabad unit started some thing but seem to have got cold feet - All other cases in HCs are personal of individuals (they are spending their own money) - It has proved time and again, representations to all and sundry, starting from Smt Sonia Gandhi down to CMD ONGC are futile and completely ignored. I do hope there are some like minded ExONGCians out there who may like to join me in planing and executing some concrete action - Just a wishful thinking warm regards / rangarajan 7 minutes ago · Unlike · 1 3 February at 13:25 · Like · 2 Anand Chawla Why , ONGC has not given due consideration to that GROUP ? 30 May at 18:20 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Retired after 01.01.2007 ? Pension Scheme has already been out vide OO dated 26.11.2013. 16 June at 16:13 · Unlike · 1 Mathre Rangarajan What is happening tomore tha 100 PRBS cases in various HCs and SE, & Consumer courts? Are they likely to see light of the day before I die - I am 75 17 June at 15:45 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore We are mistaken to expect justice against the wishes of an Oil Giant, capable of tilting judgment on the strength of M power. Unethical processes win over legitimate claims. 21 June at 16:11 · Unlike · 1 Mathre Rangarajan I had only suspected that delay may be on account of what you have said - Now you are confirming my suspicion - It is a great tragedy for us who retired before 2007 - After sacrificing our entire working life, what do we get in the end - Nothing 21 June at 17:41 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore One more Feather in Cap of CMD ONGC. His Team has proved that full justice has been done in PRBS matter, prior to Dec. 2006. False Affidavits have prevailed over True facts of grievous Manipulation by PRBS Trust. Courts find it convenient to ignore Data.details of multiple Wrongs by ONGC. 3 July at 18:24 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, MOU of 03.02.1998 was part of a well considered conspiracy, in which highly qualified Director (Pers.) played the Lead Role. No doubt even Director (Finance) did not object to the dubious concept of “Good Faith” for Financial Viability of ONGC PRBS, when the Scheme was “Primarily challenged for being Financially unviable”. Hon’ble High Court had issued Ad-Interim Order for Negotiation “To Raise / Generate Additional funds” to save the Scheme. After 16 months of delay, Negotiators signed MOU which caused drastic Reduction in Existing level of Contributions. Sick looking Fund of ONGC PRBS Trust suffered a big Blow. Director (Fin.) in his Note of 10.2.1998 suggested that “THE DETAILED SCHEME IN THE MODIFIED FORM WOULD ALSO REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF ONGC”. Director (Pers.) made a hurried commitment that “THERE ARE NO MAJOR DEVIATIONS OF THE APPROVED SCHEME HAVING FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND HENCE, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO GO TO THE BOARD”. Data worked out on Financial Implications of Notional Salary prove that (a) Existing level of Fixed Percent Contribution was Reduced by 40 to 60% (Forty to sixty percent) and added loss due to non implementation of Cir. PRBS-38 of 17.1.1996 and (b) while Actuarial Valuation of 2.8.1996 indicated 78% rise in salary on the basis of prevailing Price Index on 01.01.1992, Additional Cash Contribution also required same rise but Negotiators kept 10 & and 11% escalation as Notional upto 31.3.1997. Think how wise it was to mislead innocent employees ? (c) Notional salary being much less than Actual salary, it caused 40 to 60% loss in Pension Benefit. How nice that ONGC’s Director (Pers.) considered these colossal losses of no Consequences (Financial Implications). Where do we go to search for Honesty, Integrity and Dignity of High Offices in ONGC ? The Worst, Hon’ble Courts have relied on False & Fabricated Affidavits of MOU making the Scheme Viable ?? 8 July at 05:47 · Unlike · 1 Mathre Rangarajan How true Sri Narayan Singh Rathore Saheb - You are holding back by not naming Director(Personal) at that time for general information of all aggrieved 25000+ Ex-ONGCians. 8 July at 08:26 · Unlike · 1 Rashmi Gupta I worked with ONGC for 27 yrs and then took bars in 2008 as cc .Without commuting any money I was getting rd. 5800 now I am getting around rs.9800.So why this discrepancy.I was not able to understand their calculations 1 August at 21:19 · Unlike · 1 Narayan Singh Rathore Rashmi ji, this difference is due to implementation of ONGCs new Pension Scheme effective from January 2007. If u want to know calculation, then post yr biodata on my email, I will work out the pension. 3 August at 20:28 · Edited · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Friends, Its indeed very sad that in our Ahmedabad case, judge seems to be ex-legal counsel of ONGC. The decision is based on total bias and based on false and misleading Affidavits of ONGC. 3 August at 20:32 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore 08.08.2014: FB: Friends, I am happy to inform you all that ONGC is celebrating its Raising Day on 12th August, 2014 at New Delhi, with a total indifference to the severe grievances of employees who retired during January 1992 to December 2006. Even some of the High Courts have ignored the falsity of ONGC’s Affidavits and supported the wrong contentions made by the Trustees on behalf of the CMD, ONGC. I have note with cruciating pain that even the M/s KA Pandit, Actuary joined hands with Trustees of ONGC PRBS Trust to support the Conspiracy to sabotage the smooth going ONGC Pension Scheme of 1990. In their Actuarial Report dated 2.8.1996 the Actuary pointed out 78% rise in Salary as on 1.1.1992 but kept the calculation of Additional Cash Contribution at 7.25% annual escalation and not 78% as realized by them. This was with clear objective to reduce the Corpus of the Fund and resultant reduction in the Pension benefit. Actuary ignored their own recommendation made in Actuary Report dated 17.04.1990 which formed Base for formation of the ONGC PRBS 1990. I am quoting here under their Recommendation: - QUOTE (.) “6. It is suggested that if the monetised value of some of the benefits (which also escalate in cost even more than the salary increase) is used to finance the pension scheme, it will be possible to operate this scheme without any initial contribution from Commission or any additional liability on them.” And “7. If it is selected to start pension scheme in the form of transfer of monetised value of benefits we recommend (since the cost of benefits will escalate in future) the value of benefit accumulating at the same rate as that of salary escalation be transferred to the fund.” UNQUOTE (.) Same Actuary again forgot aforesaid recommendation while making another Actuarial Reports dated 13.4.1998 wherein “Additional contribution Rs.468 per member p.m. esc @ 11% p.a.” was retained fully exhibiting their ignorance that 78% rise in Salary was observed on 1.1.1990 and another rise of more than 100% was based for Pay Revision 1997, all on the Basis of “Cost of Living Price Index”. Was it not dishonesty in Professional ethics for Govt. approved Actuary ? ONGC PRBS Trust has been fooling around every where that Actuary was consulted while signing the dubious MOU on 3.2.1998 and another similar MOU on 9.4.2007. ASTO (CWC) is said to have Negotiated for 40 to 60 percent reduction in Pension benefit as well as Fixed Percent Contribution whereas Court Order required to “Raise/Generate Additional funds”. All above action miss ordinary Prudence. 8 August at 02:23 · Unlike · 1 Ashokkumar Chadha Let us hope so. But chances appears to be remote for considering it sea rously. 8 August at 19:22 · Like · 1 Videh Kumar I am based in Delhi and can follow up in court. If there is need for the same. My son colleagues have law firm and they will be happy to deal with this case. If required they can rope in a suitable Senior advocate in supreme court. 8 August at 20:21 · Unlike · 2 Narayan Singh Rathore Videh Kumar sahab, thanks for giving us a new Hope. It has become a dire necessity to knock the door of Supreme Court to short out ugli designs of ONGC Management in sabotaging the PRBS. All benefits are meant for retirees after 1.1.2007 only even at the cost of retirees who made contribution to fund upto March 2005. Saving of Rs.534 crores from Crpus was also kept for retirees after 1.1.2007 only. My Mob. No. is 09001916315. Your son could guide me in this matter. Thanks once again. 19 August at 17:12 · Like · 1 Mathre Rangarajan Dear Narayan Singh Rathore Saheb, Now that you have Sri Videh Kumar ji has offered to help you to fight the case in Supreme Court in Delhi, you should grab this opportunity - I am willing to contribute - I am sure all other Ex-ONGCians who are similarly effected will also join - I will try to mobilise as much as possible. Please prepare a scheme and circulate. Belated birthday greetings!! warmest regards / rangarajan 19 August at 20:44 · Like · 1 Prem Sagar Gupta When a new day begins, dare to smile gratefully. When there is darkness, dare to be the first to shine a light. When there is injustice, dare to be the first to condemn it. When something seems difficult, dare to do it anyway. When life seems to beat you down, dare to fight back. When there seems to be no hope, dare to find some. When you’re feeling tired, dare to keep going. When times are tough, dare to be tougher. When love hurts you, dare to love again. When someone is hurting, dare to help them heal. When another is lost, dare to help them find the way. When a friend falls, dare to be the first to extend a hand. When you cross paths with another, dare to make them smile. When you feel great, dare to help someone else feel great too. When the day has ended, dare to feel as you’ve done your best. Dare to be the best you can – At all times, Dare to be!” 23 August at 15:35 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Presently I am concentrating on our case in High Court. Keeping in view the decision of Gujarat High Court, ONGC CMD has proved that he can stop our breath, if he wills to do so. He is devoid of any concern to our sufferings. CMDs have given full support to criminal conspiracies in matters of PRBS. Hamare teen Doctor Dorector bane aur tinon ne ek se badhkar jyada nuksan un logon ka kiya jinhone khoon aur pashina bahakar incognito ONGC ko Navratna banaya. 27 August at 04:00 · Like Narayan Singh Rathore Mathre Rangarajan saheb, thanks a lot for encouraging me to fight for the good cause. It looks certain that we have to approach SC for relief. I am also working on creating political pressure to tame unruly management of the Maharatna. 27 August at 04:03 · Unlike · 1
Posted on: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 08:45:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015