5years notional weightage

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

I understand that in some of the Banks 5years notional weightage has not been given to VRS2000 Retirees even after the favourable verdict of the Supreme Court in this regard.

After the verdict of the highest court of the land what was the instruction given by IBA to the member Banks. Recently some of the retired employees of State Bank of Mysore won a case for the addition of 5years notional weightage. Why is this anamoly? Can anyone throw some light?

 

S.Lakshmanan 

 

 

[MOHANDAS RAO]

Dear Friend,

 

I repeat my earlier posting in this subject for your kind information:

 

I quote the last para of the IBA Circular
No.CIR/HR&IR/76/L-43H/G2/2009-10/1134 dated 17.08.2009:

Since the judgement of the Hon'ble Court is on interpretation of the
provision of the Pension Regulations, we are of the view that the judgement
will be applicable to all the similarly placed VRS 2000 optees who are
pensioners and the benefit of Regulation 29[5] will have to be extended to
them also. We understand that various High Courts have passed judgements on
the same lines after the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue.
Therefore, *it is suggested that the banks may extend the benefit* of
Regulation 29[5] of the Pension Regulations to the VRS optees of Voluntary
Retirement Scheme 2000 who are pensioners, *if considered appropriate *after
obtaining sanction at the appropriate level and pay them pension hereafter
accordingly. They also *may be paid* arrears of pension based on the revised
calculations from the date of retirement till date; thereby implementing the
judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Some banks like Canara Bank, Syndicate Bank etc. followed IBA suggestion (it
was not an instruction as evident from the emphasis I have put) while SBI
and Associates, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc ignored the suggestion.
After all IBA is an association of all banks and has no
authority/jurisdiction to dictate terms to its member banks (please recall
certain replies to question under RTI).

That is why we are still fighting legally to get our legitimate right.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

Dear Mr.Mohandas Rao,

 

Thank u very much for the kind response. It is very sad that the directors representing the employees and officers have become mute spectators to set right this anamoly as Regulation 29(5) was never amended.

 

S.Lakshmanan

[ravi jain]

sir,

meri marzi. you do whatever you like  iwill not pay. - IBA 
be happy

ravi jain (PSB)

--

[ashok goel]

sree mohandass ji,

meantime I GOT THE FULL CIRCULAR WHICH WAS QUOTED BY YOU, FRIEND. PLEASE FIND AND DISCUSS FURTHER ON THE MATTER.

ASHOK KUMAR GOEL

No. CIR/HR&IR/76/L-43H/G2/2009-10/1134 August 17,2009

Chief Executives of Pubic Sector member Banks

Dear Sirs,

Civil Appeal No. 1942 of 2009-Bank of India and Anr.

Vs. K. Mohandas & Ors. Along with connected appeals

You are aware that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the batch of cases concerning interpretation of Regulation 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations vis-a-vis VRS Scheme 2000 has decided the case vide judgment dated 27.3.2009.

The banks concerned and the IBA as intervener had filed review petitions in the above matter. We are now advised by our advocates that the Review Petitions have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

As a consequence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 1942 of 2009 along with connected appeals will have to be implemented. The Banks concerned have to recalculate the pension payable to the petitioner employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, and pay the difference between the revised pension payable and pension paid to them till date, and pay them the pension calculated by giving the benefit of Regulation 29(5) hereafter.

Since the judgment of the Hon’ble Court is on interpretation of the provision of the Pension Regulations, we are of the view that the judgment will be applicable to all the similarly placed VRS 2000 optees who are pensioners and the benefit of Regulation 29(5) will have to be extended to them also. We understand that various High Courts have passed judgements on the same lines after the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue. Therefore, it is suggested that the banks may extend the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations to the VRS optees of Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 who are pensioners, if considered appropriate after obtaining sanction at appropriate level and pay them pension hereafter accordingly. They also may be paid the arrears of pension based on the revised calculations from the date of retirement till date; thereby implementing the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(M. Venugopalan)

Officer on Special Duty

judgement of the Hon'ble Sup reme Court.

Some banks like Canara Bank, Syndicate Bank etc. followed IBA suggestion (it
was not an instruction as evident from the emphasis I have put) while SBI
and Associates, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc ignored the suggestion.
After all IBA is an association of all banks and has no
authority/jurisdiction to dictate terms to its member banks (please recall
certain replies to question under RTI).

That is why we are still fighting legally to get our legitimate right.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:53 PM, lakshmanan shankarnaraynan <laksh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I understand that in some of the Banks 5years notional weightage has not been given to VRS2000 Retirees even after the favourable verdict of the Supreme Court in this regard.

After the verdict of the highest court of the land what was the instruction given by IBA to the member Banks. Recently some of the retired employees of State Bank of Mysore won a case for the addition of 5years notional weightage. Why is this anamoly? Can anyone throw some light?

S.Lakshmanan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

[savithry nambissan]

Sir, SBI and Associates, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc are actually  ignoring the IBA , even-though IBA is an association of all banks. Then what is the role&authority&need of IBA .If each bank can take independent decisions, on matters settled by IBA &if IBA has no responsibility--associations may teach the responsibility of IBA ,in Bipartite talks-this is the only way-- they may take this as another duty in further settlements--Without sending senior citizen to court for every decision to be taken by banks. Savithry --- On Mon, 1/8/11, MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[perumal maruthu]

IBA is not a legal entity by any statute. As for as wage-revision is concerned, it plays only mediatory role between the employer(Banking Division of FM) and the employees(both Awardstaff and Officers) after obtaining Mandate from the Board of Directors of  member banks. Such of those banks who do not give a mandate, need not abide by any settlement.

As for Banks Vs its Customers, even non-members are to follow its Code of ethics,Ground Rules and plays the role of a helper to RBI. The major benefit of the existence of IBA to Bankmen is  a common wage settlement. However, inthe last wage-revision it  was reported that a few Chairmen delayed submission of mandate to IBA in order to test the patience of the Leaders and  the courage of Bankmen to face Strikes.

In all other matters, it gives only Advisory which has no legal force. Autonomy to deal with Staff matters, in its fullest sense, is given to the MD/ED of each bank and Director Reps of Officers/Workmen have to cringe before them.

A vibrant and not sub-serviant Union/Association  can only get the desired things done.

M.Perumal

From: savithry nambissan <savit...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2011 11:30 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Sir, SBI and Associates, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc are actually  ignoring the IBA ,even-though IBA is an association of all banks. Then what is the role&authority&need of IBA .If each bank can take independent decisions, on matters settled by IBA &if IBA has no responsibility--associations may teach the responsibility of IBA ,in Bipartite talks-this is the only way-- they may take this as another duty in further settlements--Without sending senior citizen to court for every decision to be taken by banks. Savithry

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[MOHANDAS RAO]

 Dear Sri Ashok Kumar Goel,

 

I had quoted the particular para, which was relevant to non-petitioners and for other banks. I still hold that it was not a direction of IBA, and just a suggestion. I re quote the previous para of the full circular sent by you:

 

"As a consequence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Civil Appeal No. 1942 of 2009 along with connected appeals will have to be implemented. The Banks concerned have to recalculate the pension payable to the petitioner employees by giving them the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, and pay the difference between the revised pension payable and pension paid to them till date, and pay them the pension calculated by giving the benefit of Regulation 29(5) hereafter."

 

Here IBA says that the concerned banks have to pay to the petitioner employees. What about for the other banks and similarly placed pensioners?. Here the IBA uses the words "may be paid" (instead of shall be paid). It continues with the words "if considered appropriate". These words implies suggestions and not instructions. The member banks followed the suggestions as per their convenience.

 

I hope I have clarified what I have stated earlier.

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[MOHANDAS RAO]

Dear Friends,

 

I agree with Sri Perumal. Only RBI can regulate banks and not IBA. About IBA more interesting things came to light when people sought information under RTI.

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Mohan badi]

Dear Perumal Sir,

I agree with your logical facts about IBA, It is no more than a  platform, dias for all CMDs and EDs, come and discuss their own banks problems and and take their own individual decision and  seek ideas and opinions from other mates therein , on that dais .IBA  is certainly not legal entity, just banker's association, like our pensioners' association. More you  look, and think deep, more you all will find something new. this is a good research for management student for their Ph.D or M.Phil aspirants.

Thank you all Sirs.

Yours sincerely,
M.R.Badi.
Ex-United Bank of India officer

09902910900

---

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2011 6:22 PM

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Dear sirs,

 

Prior to the coming  into being of IBA as the representative body on behalf of Bank Managements, it was tribunal like awards that were in vogue known as "Desai Award"/ " Sastri Award" on the lines of State/Central Pay commissions for Govt employees.Questioning the status of IBA sounds irrelevent, as so far many bi-partite settlements were clinched by the Unions by negotiating with IBA.It may not make much difference whether it is RBI or IBA or some other Management Body representing Bank Managements. Whoever may be the management body, their approach will not vary vis-a-vis the employees unions. The Bank Unions are the only competent body to take on the managements,to secure the legitimate benefits to the employees as well pensioners.

 

V Raghavan (IB-VRS 2000)

 

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[tarsem ladhar]

Respected Rao ji,

In one of your e;mails , you have mentioned Pension Regulation No 26 provides for additional service up to five years , which is not being extended by the banks to the eligible pensioners.Being a eligible pensioner I had taken up the matter with my head office as well as with the union leaders but nobody is ready to help in the matter.Please advise me  and the other pensioners of this blog as how to get it.

With Regards,

TARSEM  LADHAR

SR. MANAGER (RETD)

---

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tue, August 2, 2011 8:52:11 AM

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

Dear Sirs,

 

Though the unions and officer associations have the power, they miseraly failed to protect the interest of the pensioners by signing for a different pay for pensioners much against the pension regulations in the 7th BPS. Also they remained silent when 5years notional weightage was denied despite they represent in the Boards of Banks. Even after a favourable verdict by the Highest Court it is being still being in some Banks with the respective unions and associations remaining silent. Their inaction is alone responsible for many retired employees to seek legal remedy for their legitimate rights.

 

S.Lakshmanan(IB-VRS2000)

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[MOHANDAS RAO]

My Dear Sri Tarsem Ladhar,

 

You have not revealed your bank or how you retired (whether SVRS, superannuation etc). However, I will narrate the incidents briefly:

• Most of the SVRS pensioners retired during 2000-2001 did not complete 33 years of service. If one has completed 33 years of service, he is eligible for full pension; otherwise they will get prorata. However, for them a maximum notional service of 5 years is to be added for the limited purpose of calculation of pension, subject to certain conditions.
• As per central government instructions, as conveyed by IBA as clarification, this benefit was denied to SVRS pensioners, though everyone thought they will automatically get it as per Pension Regulations.
• Many of the pensioners filed Writs and finally the Supreme Court pronounced a judgement to to allow the benefit to the petitioners. IBA went on an appeal, but failed. It suggested the member banks to release the benefit.
• Most of the banks like Canara, Syndicate bank released the benefit. But Associate Banks, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc did not and the pensioners of those banks are still legally fighting to get it.
• I belong to SBM and myself along with many others were petitioners in Writs filed at Karnataka High Court, wherein we were also awarded with a favourable judgement. But, our bank decided to go for an appeal and thus we are yet to receive the benefit.
• My retired employees Union is supporting us to get the justice not only to the petitioners, but also to all the similarly placed pensioners  of the bank.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, Shimoga. SBM-SVRS 2001

[GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN]

Friends,

I reproduce Hon'ble High Court of Madras judgment:

"The respective Bank  shall re-calculate within one month the pension payable to the concerned employees, including those who are members of the petitioner Association, members of the intervener association and other equivalent  employees who obtained voluntary retirement under VRS 2000, and pay the benefits as per the aforesaid finding,  within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order"

         The judgment (W.A.No.3895 of 2003 dt. 11 06 2009) delivered duly referring the  Hon'ble Supreme Court  judgment (Civil Appeal No.1942 of 2009) dt. 27 03 2009
                                                             JANAKIRAMAN

[MOHANDAS RAO]

Dear Sri Gopalan Janakiraman,

 

Is it possible to attach the full judgement (or the link) for the information of similarly placed pensioners. Here, I once again repeat that inspite of Supreme Court Judgement, IBA suggestion, SBM and certain other banks did not consider the notional service. Thereafter we got a favourable judgment in Karnataka High Court for writs filed long back. Now the management has filed an appeal.

[GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN]

Dear Sri Mohandas Rao, 

The judgment can be viewed/downloaded from 1) www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in  2) Enter  judgment   3) Enter case no.3895 4)Enter year 2003.

                                                      JANAKIRAMAN

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends, The relevant judgement copy is attached hereto.   Associate Banks have not paid this benefit, with the contention that the Banks have informed those who opted to retire under VRS that the benefit under Regulation 29(5) is not applicable and in Banks which are party to Supreme Court Jugement in Mr.Mohan Das's case had not informed this condition. A copy of the letter received from the Bank is attached hereto. This is not a contention that would pass touchstone of law.  Thanks, a Million. With regards, Prasad C N --- On Wed, 3/8/11, GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN <gj1...@gmail.com> wrote:

[tarsem ladhar]

Respected Rao ji,

Thank you very much for your prompt and valuable reply. Regarding me, I am from Syndicate Bank, retired under VRS-2000 as pensioner. My date of birth is 20.11.1945 and date of retirement is 12.04.2001. I was given four years benefit instead of five years under the Hon. Supreme court verdict, stating  by the bank that if five years benefit is given it will go beyond the date of superannuation, which was correct.Then I requested the bank to  give me five years benefit under Pension regulation no 26 for which I am eligible because at the time of my recruitment , age relaxation was given to me.

As Pension regulation no 26 confers eligibility for addition to qualifying service up to five years for supperanuation pension for specialists officers and cadidates belonging to SC/ST communities,I approhed my bank to extend this benefit to me by attaching  the copies of AIBOC circular No 29 dated 16.05.2009 and copy of IOB  Retirees Assosiation, with my request letter , but the request was declined by the bank stating that the correct benefit has given as per pension regulations and no reference was given of this regulation no.26, in the letter sent to me.

 I request you sir, to put light on the above and advise whether such officers are eligible under this pension regulation no 26 for addition to qualifying service for supperannuation pension or not eligible.

With regards,

TARSEM   LADHAR

SYNDICATE BANK PENSIONER

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 3:09:23 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

My Dear Sri Tarsem Ladhar,

 

You have not revealed your bank or how you retired (whether SVRS, superannuation etc). However, I will narrate the incidents briefly:

• Most of the SVRS pensioners retired during 2000-2001 did not complete 33 years of service. If one has completed 33 years of service, he is eligible for full pension; otherwise they will get prorata. However, for them a maximum notional service of 5 years is to be added for the limited purpose of calculation of pension, subject to certain conditions.
• As per central government instructions, as conveyed by IBA as clarification, this benefit was denied to SVRS pensioners, though everyone thought they will automatically get it as per Pension Regulations.
• Many of the pensioners filed Writs and finally the Supreme Court pronounced a judgement to to allow the benefit to the petitioners. IBA went on an appeal, but failed. It suggested the member banks to release the benefit.
• Most of the banks like Canara, Syndicate bank released the benefit. But Associate Banks, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc did not and the pensioners of those banks are still legally fighting to get it.
• I belong to SBM and myself along with many others were petitioners in Writs filed at Karnataka High Court, wherein we were also awarded with a favourable judgement. But, our bank decided to go for an appeal and thus we are yet to receive the benefit.
• My retired employees Union is supporting us to get the justice not only to the petitioners, but also to all the similarly placed pensioners  of the bank.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, Shimoga. SBM-SVRS 2001

 

 

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:28 AM, tarsem ladhar <tarsem...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

Respected Rao ji,

In one of your e;mails , you have mentioned Pension Regulation No 26 provides for additional service up to five years , which is not being extended by the banks to the eligible pensioners.Being a eligible pensioner I had taken up the matter with my head office as well as with the union leaders but nobody is ready to help in the matter.Please advise me  and the other pensioners of this blog as how to get it.

With Regards,

TARSEM  LADHAR

SR. MANAGER (RETD)

[MOHANDAS RAO]

 My Dear Tarsem Ladhar,

 

I have studied your case. As far as my knowledge goes, your Syndicate Bank's stand is correct. You are eligible for 4 years' addition of notional service as a SVRS retiree. If they add 5 years, it will take you beyond the date of superannuation (30.11.2005).

 

Pension Regulation 26 does not apply to you as it applies only to Superannuation Pension and not to other category such as SVRS. I quote the relevant para for ready reference:

 

"....... 26. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances:-

An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for

superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the

actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or

the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment

exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct

recruitment or a period of five years whichever, is less, if the service

or post to which the employee is appointed is one -...."

Other learned members are suggested to post their comment.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

You have forgotten to inform the date of joining and the leave on loss of pay,if any.

M.Perumal

From: tarsem ladhar <tarsem...@yahoo.ca>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2011 11:08 PM

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Mohan badi]

Dear Lakshmanan Sir

A person having put active service of 28 years will get notional addition of 5 years so he, too, will get full pension for 33 years total benefit, suppose if you have put active service 32 year and notional 5 years you will not get, in this case you will get one year addition, totaling to 33 years maximum  for pension purpose. this is my understanding. I have given example. Let people  here on net send some light on it.

Like in my case court is likely to give me as CRS ,setting aside dismissal order as I have put 23 years of active service, some say I am not eligible for notional 5 years benefit, some say I shall get full benefit. now bank whether will give me full pension and gratuity or not? you too plz comment. Full case kindly red on net, which I have sent to Mr. N.T.Hegde just now.

With Regards and Thank yiou,

Yours Sincerely
Prof.M.R.Badi

9902910900

---

From: tarsem ladhar <tarsem...@yahoo.ca>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 10 August 2011 11:08 PM

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear TARSEM   LADHARji, Benefit under Regulation 26 is available only for those retire on Superannuation.  It is not available if one retires under any other way.

Thanks, a Million. With regards, Prasad C N

--- On Thu, 11/8/11, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[tarsem ladhar]

Dear Sir,

I am very sorry that I could not mention my date of joining the bank in my e:mail.

My date of joining was 20.05.1974 and no leave on loss of pay.

TARSEM LADHAR

SYNDICATE BANK PENSIONER

[ravi jain]

dear sir,

in case of CRS the orders are to be speaking orders clearly stating that what benefits are to be paid to you and 5 yrs notional benefit in my opinon is not added.

be happy

ravi jain (PSB)

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

Dear Shri Ladha,

Good morning. Happy to note that U r from Syndicate Bank.noted Ur anomaly.For quick justice, U better join our bank's retirees association by visiting www.aisbra.co.in. However, I am marking a copy of this mail to Mr.NT Hegde, our V.P.

regards,

Dr.DhananjayaBhupathi,

SB Pensioner.

---

From: tarsem ladhar tarsemTo: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, 10 August, 2011 10:38:45 AM

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

As per the Pension scheme it is clear and explicit that 5 year-notional service benefit is available only to those who are already members of pension scheme and want to relinquish their service under VRSof each bank. Unless the VRS application is acceptable to the bank, an employee can not demand it as his right. There are several instances o f rejection of  VRS/SVRS applications.  Other type of exits, such as CRS/TERMINATION/Dismissal there is no cmpulsion on the part of the Banks to confer the 5year-notional benefit even if such persons are also members of pension scheme. Their fate and retiral benefits are decided by a speaking order of the concerned Disciplinary Authority as already explained by Sri Ravi Jain. They may appeal to their respective Board for restoration of pension and other benefits making use of the Officers/Workmen Directors.

M.Perumal

From: ravi jain <ravij...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 12 August 2011 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

dear sir,

in case of CRS the orders are to be speaking orders clearly stating that what benefits are to be paid to you and 5 yrs notional benefit in my opinon is not added.

be happy

ravi jain (PSB)

On 11 August 2011 15:35, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Lakshmanan Sir

A person having put active service of 28 years will get notional addition of 5 years so he, too, will get full pension for 33 years total benefit, suppose if you have put active service 32 year and notional 5 years you will not get, in this case you will get one year addition, totaling to 33 years maximum  for pension purpose. this is my understanding. I have given example. Let people  here on net send some light on it.

Like in my case court is likely to give me as CRS ,setting aside dismissal order as I have put 23 years of active service, some say I am not eligible for notional 5 years benefit, some say I shall get full benefit. now bank whether will give me full pension and gratuity or not? you too plz comment. Full case kindly red on net, which I have sent to Mr. N.T.Hegde just now.

With Regards and Thank yiou,

Yours Sincerely
Prof.M.R.Badi

9902910900

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

Since your normal superannuation date is 30/11/2005, you should have submitted(if it were possible) much before 30/11/2000 and got approved your application. If  I am not wrong most of the Banks introduced SVRS in DEC-2000/JAN-2001.

Therefore, sanctioning of 5 full years benefit will take your total service beyond your ostensible due date of superannuation.

Hence, I presume your Bank has not erred.

[Mohan badi]

Dear Peruma
, I am Ex United Bank officer, you must have gone through case , also I am enclosing one more case for your study, plz give me your opinion, the same is forwarded to Mr Ashok Goel  also.

Terminal Benefits in case of CRS  -  Court Case Decision

by

Virender Gupta [vkg...@gmail.com]



IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 133 of 2001

Date of Decision: 21st   October, 2010



Arun Kumar Sood
    

….Petitioner.

Versus
    



The Chairman & M.D. UCO Bank & others
    

….Respondents.

Coram
    



The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J.
    



Whether approved for reporting?1
    



For the Petitioner:
    

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents:
    

Mr. R.L. Sood, Sr. Advocate with



2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed as an officer JMS-I with the respondent. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for imposing major penalty of removal from service. These orders were challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 438 of 1994 on 17.12.1998. This Court held:

    * “13. In view of these guidelines it is true that in all disciplinary matters the punishment has to be moderated having regard to the nature of the charge proved, the total length of service and past record of  the delinquent in the department. Once the charge is proved and if it is a charge which can validly attract a punishment provided by law, the quantum of punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is not justifiable and it is not open to this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction to substitute its own notion of what the punishment should be, except perhaps in a case where it is so patently harsh as to shock its sense of justice and reasonableness. In view of these guidelines, though the punishment of termination from bank service is not shockingly harsh in view of the nature of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, who is holding a responsible post of Manager in a nationalized bank, yet in the totality of facts and circumstances on record, more specifically, that the petitioner has faced, firstly, criminal charge and thereafter the departmental proceedings for the last about 10 years and has put in service of 28 years, the ends of justice will be duly served if the order of termination is converted into compulsory retirement with immediate effect in view of the fact that he continues to be in service as a result of stay of the order of termination by this Court. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. There is no order as to costs.”

3. After decision in that writ petition, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 19.3.1999. The case of the petitioner is that he was not granted his retirement benefits due. By Annexure P-1, dated 9th December, 1999, the petitioner was informed that the Head Office had informed that he was not  entitled to get any gratuity. Accordingly, notice dated 21.10.2000 was issued for and on behalf of the petitioner calling upon the respondent to pay the entire benefits to the petitioner on retirement. In reply, the Bank by its letter dated 25th November 2000 Annexure P-3 responded that the entire benefits due have been paid to the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner relies upon the regulations of the Employees Gratuity Fund Rules of the Bank to urge that his compulsory retirement does not enable the Bank to deny gratuity to him.


4. The writ petition was resisted by the Bank. It is submitted that the petitioner has caused considerable financial loss to the Bank and therefore, he is not entitled to any pension as according to the rules relied upon by the petitioner, there is a clear stipulation that gratuity of an employee shall be wholly forfeited if the services have been terminated on account of any misconduct resulting in financial loss or damage to the Bank or shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. The respondent relies upon the decision as conveyed to the petitioner with Annexure R-1. It is pleaded that he was charge sheeted on 14.2.1992 for having committed certain irregularities while posted as Manager at Darlaghat Branch and after compulsory retirement, he received his own contribution to the Provident Fund that was settled on 5.7.1999, So far as the settlement of his gratuity is concerned, the competent authority has declined to pay as it was a case of moral turpitude where removal from the bank’s service was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. Reference was made to Regulation 33 of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 to hold that 2/3rd pension was granted to him.


5. A number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in UCO Bank & others vs. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, LPA No. 191 of 2006 (O&M) decided on 1st February, 2010 involving the case of  compulsory retirement. A Division Bench of the Court relying upon the Regulation 46 of the Services Regulations of the Bank, held that there was no provision for withholding gratuity and leave encashment. The Court holds:

    * “……….This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge setting aside withholding of gratuity and leave encashment. Learned counsel for the appellants states that though 1/3rd cut in pension was also set aside by the learned Single Judge but liberty having been given to pass fresh order in that regard, such speaking order having been passed separately, the appellants have no grievance in this appeal in that regard. Thus, only surviving issue is validity of withholding of gratuity and leave encashment. At the time of admission of the appeal, 50% of the amount of gratuity and leave encashment was ordered to be paid. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the amount has already been paid.
      2. The respondent served the appellant respondent-Bank for about 28 years till the order of compulsory retirement was passed against him on 31.7.1997. Order of compulsory retirement was punitive order preceded by charge sheet and enquiry in which misconduct alleged against him was proved. This led to cut in pension and forfeiture of gratuity and leave encashment amount. The respondent filed writ petition challenging withholding of gratuity and leave encashment.
      3. The bank contested the claim for gratuity and leave encashment by submitting that gratuity and leave encashment were not payable to the respondent in view of provisions of Services Regulations 1979 and Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, 1976.
    * 4. Learned Single Judge held that Regulation 46 under which gratuity was withheld, was not applicable. The said provision was applicable to
      punitive termination and not to punitive retirement. Similarly, Regulation 38 did not entitle the appellants to withhold leave encashment.
      5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
      6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Regulations 46 and 38 had not been correctly appreciated by learned Single Judge and the said
      regulations justified withholding of gratuity and leave encashment.
      7. We do not find any merit in this submission. The regulations in question are as under:-
          
    *       “46. (1) Every Officer, shall be eligible for gratuity on:-
      a) retirement.
      b) Death
      c) Disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank;
      d) resignation after completing ten years of continuous service; or
      e) Termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service.”
      
    * “38. Lapse of Leave. Save as provided below, all the leave to the credit of an officer shall lapse on resignation, retirement, death, discharge, dismissal or termination;
      Provided that where an officer retires from the bank’s service he shall be eligible to be paid a sum equivalent to the emoluments of any period, not
      exceeding 240 days, of privilege leave that he had accumulated.

         Provided further where an officer dies while in service, there shall be payable to his legal representatives, a sum equivalent to the emoluments for the period, not exceeding 240 days, of privilege leave to his credit as on the date of his death.”

    *


      8. A perusal of above shows that Clause (e) of Regulation 46 above which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants cannot apply to the case of compulsory retirement. Similarly, First Proviso to Regulation 38 clearly shows that on retirement, an officer is entitled to leave encashment.  There is no provision for withholding gratuity and leave encashment in the case of compulsory retirement.
      9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
    * 10. The appeal is dismissed…………………”


6. No other law has been brought to my notice contrary to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In these circumstances, this writ petition is accepted. It is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the full amount of gratuity in accordance with the Services Regulations of the Bank. Writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.


(Dev Darshan Sud)
Judge
October 21st , 2010(ms)

Who's Online

From Prof. M.R.Badi,  contact 09902910900 My case is in Karnataka High Court ,Bangalore,
Hope you will advise me .

---

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2011 10:52 PM

[Sumati M]

Dear Mr Prasad,

As per copy of the letter from PGP to Shri Jagannathan, our bank has filed an objection in the Karnataka High court.  The letter is nearly two years old.  Has there been any further progress on the case filed by our Bank saying that the VRS scheme in SBM is not similar and thus avoiding gving the benefit of 29 (1) .

Regards

Sumati

SUMATI M

[Prasad C N]

Dear Madam Sumathi,

Judgements by two benches of Karnataka High Court delivered judgements in our favour.  Unfortunately, our Bank and SBI have together decided to file appeal before Division Bench of Karnataka High Court on the 23rd May, the day High Court reopened after vacation.

We have also filed Caveat.  We are pressing for payment of interest by demonstrating before court how we lose on account of winning.

 

We are also planning several means and methods to ensure early payment of benefits.  We met State Bank of India Chairman and represented.  We also met 

all Directors of the Bank and enlisting their support.  Again there is EC/Board meeting on the 29th of this month and we are meeting SBI representative-Director to impress upon him the need to pay the benefits early.

Further, we have tremendous response to our meeting held on the 7th July and we have collected sufficient funds to fight in any forum, including Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In case, the bank decides to prefer appeal in Supreme Court, we may agitate  by enlisting support of Union/Associations

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Sumati M <c.su...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 3:05 PM

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

The contention of SBM will not stand in the court of Law as the VRS schemes of all the Banks are identical as these are based on the Govt. guidelines. Further even if where the Bank has issued a circular subsequently denying the benefit under 29(5), it has no legal sanctity. This is so because the regulation 29(5) was never amended. Even today it is there. This has been clearly brought out in the SC judgement. As already stated in my earlier email, it is only a delaying dactics adopted by the management to deny this rightful and just benefit. I do not know whether SBM has challenged the judgement of the Karnataka HC in total or they have challanged only the payment of DA arrears from the date of retirement to 30.04.2005.

 

S.Lakshmanan (IB-VRS-2001)

From: Sumati M <c.su...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Mr Prasad,

As per copy of the letter from PGP to Shri Jagannathan, our bank has filed an objection in the Karnataka High court.  The letter is nearly two years old.  Has there been any further progress on the case filed by our Bank saying that the VRS scheme in SBM is not similar and thus avoiding gving the benefit of 29 (1) .

Regards

Sumati

On 4 August 2011 10:53, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends, The relevant judgement copy is attached hereto.   Associate Banks have not paid this benefit, with the contention that the Banks have informed those who opted to retire under VRS that the benefit under Regulation 29(5) is not applicable and in Banks which are party to Supreme Court Jugement in Mr.Mohan Das's case had not informed this condition. A copy of the letter received from the Bank is attached hereto.

JANAKIRAMAN

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- SUMATI M

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,   I agree with your views.   FIVE years benefit is available to all those who seek VRS but they must be  already members of  pension scheme. Unilateral and illegal action of denial of the benefit by Gov't/IBA/Banks  is  gross injustice.

Granting benefits under SVRS  (was made solely to market the scheme and induce more and more people to seek exit so that Banks could multiply their profits) does not entitle the Banks to trample upon the already existing and assured benefits bilaterally secured.  But I still wonder why the signatories to the Pension settlement remain silent for the last 10 years?

M.Perumal                    PL  PREVENT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

                                      PL  ALSO PREVENT CRUELTY TO PRE-2002 RETIRED PENSIONERS!

CB-SVRS

From: lakshmanan shankarnaraynan <laksh...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "c.su...@gmail.com" <c.su...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

The contention of SBM will not stand in the court of Law as the VRS schemes of all the Banks are identical as these are based on the Govt. guidelines. Further even if where the Bank has issued a circular subsequently denying the benefit under 29(5), it has no legal sanctity. This is so because the regulation 29(5) was never amended. Even today it is there. This has been clearly brought out in the SC judgement. As already stated in my earlier email, it is only a delaying dactics adopted by the management to deny this rightful and just benefit. I do not know whether SBM has challenged the judgement of the Karnataka HC in total or they have challanged only the payment of DA arrears from the date of retirement to 30.04.2005.

 

S.Lakshmanan (IB-VRS-2001)

From: Sumati M <c.su...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Mr Prasad,

As per copy of the letter from PGP to Shri Jagannathan, our bank has filed an objection in the Karnataka High court.  The letter is nearly two years old.  Has there been any further progress on the case filed by our Bank saying that the VRS scheme in SBM is not similar and thus avoiding gving the benefit of 29 (1) .

Regards

Sumati

On 4 August 2011 10:53, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends, The relevant judgement copy is attached hereto.   Associate Banks have not paid this benefit, with the contention that the Banks have informed those who opted to retire under VRS that the benefit under Regulation 29(5) is not applicable and in Banks which are party to Supreme Court Jugement in Mr.Mohan Das's case had not informed this condition. A copy of the letter received from the Bank is attached hereto.

JANAKIRAMAN

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- SUMATI M

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

Dear Shri Prasad,

Very glad to note that U've taken steps to leave 'no stone unturned'  in Ur efforts to render benefits of the Judgement of the High Court. If feasible, as and when U proceed further, U may cover Ur efforts with Press Publicity and TV channel coverage too.

God bless by showering His choicest blessings up on Ur leadership  and all the members of Ur family for this yeoman's and dedicated service for the cause of the bank personnel.

Urs sincerely,

Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi,

Syndicate Bank Pensioner.

---

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 9:30 AM
Subject: bankpensioner Bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

[karuna karan]

Dear Friends,
The 5 year addition, updation of pension,  the DA etc.  are well known to the  Finance Ministry, RBI, IBA, Indiavidual Bank Management, Unions/Associations etc. 

Still the Management prefers to fight out a losing battle.  In fact, they may lose the battle in the Supreme Court but in reality they are gaining in crores financially.  For example,  the Bank Managaments  failed in the court case relating to addition of 5 years and eventually had to pay arrears  since 2000  to 2008.  For the period of  8 years or so, they need not pay any interest etc. for the delayed payment etc. I too got my arrears without any interest etc., for no fault of mine. I believed the management circular and applied for SVRS.  The criminal intention  in refusing the 5 year addition was not taken care of by the supreme court and hence ultimately  they are  gaining financially and are escaping from punishment.  This is happening in the case of updation of pension  right from 1995 and also in refusing to pay  DA in uniformity. We may win the case and get arrears. But after long years and without any interest.

The management is very cruel and want to benefit their Banks from the sufferings of their ex employees.  Perhaps the courts may not give them punishment,  but  in the  forum of God they will stand for trial and get proper punishment for their criminal intent.

D.Karunakaran (SVRS, Indian Bank)  dk...@rediffmail.com

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:19:45
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>, siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>, "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>, "mdossb...@gmail.com" <mdossb...@gmail.com>, "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>, "dracup...@yahoo.co.in" <dracup...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear sir,   I agree with your views.   FIVE years benefit is available to all those who seek VRS but they must be  already members of  pension scheme. Unilateral and illegal action of denial of the benefit by Gov't/IBA/Banks  is  gross injustice.

Granting benefits under SVRS  (was made solely to market the scheme and induce more and more people to seek exit so that Banks could multiply their profits) does not entitle the Banks to trample upon the already existing and assured benefits bilaterally secured.  But I still wonder why the signatories to the Pension settlement remain silent for the last 10 years?

M.Perumal                    PL  PREVENT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!

                                      PL  ALSO PREVENT CRUELTY TO PRE-2002 RETIRED PENSIONERS!

CB-SVRS

From: lakshmanan shankarnaraynan <laksh...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "c.su...@gmail.com" <c.su...@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, 18 August 2011 9:49 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

The contention of SBM will not stand in the court of Law as the VRS schemes of all the Banks are identical as these are based on the Govt. guidelines. Further even if where the Bank has issued a circular subsequently denying the benefit under 29(5), it has no legal sanctity. This is so because the regulation 29(5) was never amended. Even today it is there. This has been clearly brought out in the SC judgement. As already stated in my earlier email, it is only a delaying dactics adopted by the management to deny this rightful and just benefit. I do not know whether SBM has challenged the judgement of the Karnataka HC in total or they have challanged only the payment of DA arrears from the date of retirement to 30.04.2005.

 

S.Lakshmanan (IB-VRS-2001)

From: Sumati M <c.su...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Mr Prasad,

As per copy of the letter from PGP to Shri Jagannathan, our bank has filed an objection in the Karnataka High court.  The letter is nearly two years old.  Has there been any further progress on the case filed by our Bank saying that the VRS scheme in SBM is not similar and thus avoiding gving the benefit of 29 (1) .

Regards

Sumati

On 4 August 2011 10:53, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com" >cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends, The relevant judgement copy is attached hereto.   Associate Banks have not paid this benefit, with the contention that the Banks have informed those who opted to retire under VRS that the benefit under Regulation 29(5) is not applicable and in Banks which are party to Supreme Court Jugement in Mr.Mohan Das's case had not informed this condition. A copy of the letter received from the Bank is attached hereto.

This is not a contention that would pass touchstone of law.  Thanks, a Million. With regards, Prasad C N --- On Wed, 3/8/11, GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN <gj1...@gmail.com" >gj1...@gmail.com> wrote:

JANAKIRAMAN

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com" >bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com" >bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com" >bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com" >bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- SUMATI M

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB

Treat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal ho jaye!

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

Dear Shri Karunakaran,

good afternoon. U may join Ur bank's retirees association and the the 'IBRA' give  a written representation to the Management, under copy to IBA., and Ministry of Finance and NHRC.,Delhi to applythe judgement to all the similarly placed employees of Ur Bank. Simply, blaming the Management with harsh words won't serve any purpose @ this juncture. 

That's Mr.CN Prasad, a dynamic leader of State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore has done. It can as well be given as a News item in daily papers and local and national TV channels. It costs a few hundreds or a couple of thousands at the most; instead of  approaching Courts by spending several thousands of hard earned moneys.

Then no management can behave by treating the Indian Bank or for that matter any other Bank like his/its grand father's property..

At this ascetic state of affairs, on retirement, let us work with fullof wisdom and tact. No emotions. No hard and hurtful language----which serves no purpose.

best regards,

Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi,

Syndicate Bank Pensioner.

rom: karuna karan <dk...@rediffmail.com>

To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>; siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>; "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>; "mdossb...@gmail.com" <mdossb...@gmail.com>; "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>; "dracup...@yahoo.co.in" <dracup...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2011 11:18 PM

[Mohan badi]

Dear all pensioners.

Kishore Biswas June 18, 2011

I was retired compulsorily as punishment from Bank after 24 years of services on 27th April 2007.I was excluded from the 2nd option. I got PROVIDENT FUND AND GRATUITY. So there was no entire forfeiture of past servisces as found in REGULATION 22(1) : FORFEITURE OF SERVICE

“Resignation or Dismissal or Removal or Termination of an Employee from the Service of the Bank “shall entail forfeiture of his entire Past Service” and “Consequently shall Not Quality for Pensionary Benefits”

Shall I get any legal recourse?

From Prof M .R.Badi given above.This is some one's case (Biswas) I have copied and forwarding you all Please comment.


Dear Biswas,
Please hire lawyer, you are eligible for pension , because yours is CRS case and since you have rendered 20+ years of service, court may condone your delay for returning PF to bank to get pension . Dont dalay to hire lawyer quick and fight it out in some high court I am sure you will win pension.My contact no is 09902910900, please send details I will consult and come back to inform you send your contact no. and email soon . Good luck,With regards.

From Prof.M.R.Badi
bangalore

---

From: Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi <dracup...@yahoo.in>
To: karuna karan <dk...@rediffmail.com>
Cc: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>; "nth...@rediffmail.com" <nth...@rediffmail.com>; "bajranglal...@yahoo.in" <bajranglal...@yahoo.in>; venugopal cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@gmail.com>; "cn_pr...@yahoo.com" <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>; "chvna...@yahoo.com" <chvna...@yahoo.com>; satyanarayan prasad <surya...@gmail.com>; PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com>; "syndicate-bank...@googlegroups.com" <syndicate-bank...@googlegroups.com>; "con...@sbra.co.in" <con...@sbra.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, 20 August 2011 2:33 PM

[rama prasanna]

Dear friends

ReG: various w.p in high court of Karnataka 29(5) Pension Regulation

_____________________________________________________________

I am exit option  scheme optee and got relieved on 30.09.2006 from State Bank of Mysore.

Immediately on getting relieved from the service of the Bank my self along with few

others had issued a Reg notice to the Managing Director of the Bank demanding 

Notional service of 5 years  for those who had not completed 33 years of service

as no mention was made in the original circular issued by  the bank dated 24/06/2006. 

Subsequent to receipt of the Regd Notice the Management issued two line 

circular 0n 25/10/2006 stating that  benefit of the above section 29(5) will not be 

eligible for the exit optees. However,  pending disposal of my W.P 1133/2007

along with me few ofthers relieved  before the issuance of second circular 

were paid along  with arrears  during May 2010 itself and subsquently 

two more officials  were also paid the above said benefit.( additION of 5 years)

With regard to implementation of the  above  benefit to rest of Exit option scheme

officers  on 18/8/2011 filed an objection stating that the same not payable  to others

citing the reason that they had the option to withdraw their concent.

 However, It is very much clear that neither the trustees of the Bank (Pension) nor

the officials concerned HAVE  NO DISCRETION TO DENY THE SAME  DUE TO

FOLLOWING 

1. None of them have got powers to amend the Pension Regulations.

    In respect SBI and Associates  the same has to be passed in the

    Parliment.

2. Several earlier amendments are to passed at the parliment.

3. In another Associate the same has been implemented and paid

    to all the exit optees 

Hence the question of denying the above benefit is only a temporary one 

and Bank needs to pay to all  with interest

M.K.Rama Prasanna

9008978978/

______________________________________________________________________________

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

It is unfortunate that Exit Policy Retirees of only State Bank of Mysore are the only unfortunate section of Exit Policy retirees in Associate Banks.  In none of the other Associate Banks, this clarification circular is issued.  Therefore, all other Associate Banks have paid the benefit.  If those who requested the Management to pay this benefit were to wait for a few more months, every Exit Policy retiree would have been paid the benefit.  Unfortunately, these Officers did not become members of our Organisation.  Certainly, they would have got better guidance. Judgement in WP1133/2007 did not cover the issues involved in right prospect.  Since, I was only fortunate witness to arguments and was also present when operative part of the Judgement was dictated.  The Bank's Advocate did not raise any objection and in fact he is in full agreement with judgement, which is in tune with stand of the Bank, from April'2009 onwards.

Some of my friends, who are part of this group have gone through correspondence exchanged between State Bank of India and our Bank.

Regarding, grounds raised by Mr.Ramprasanna, I disagree with my friend Mr.Ramprasanna as to right to amend Pension Regulations by the Bank.  Our Pension Regulations can be amended by our Bank in consultation with State Bank of India, with previous consent of Reserve Bank of India.  Only notification regarding amendments need to be Gazetted.  Issue is whether the Bank has right to take away the benefits as available in Pension Regulations, though an Administrative Order.

   

As I have already informed Mr.Ramprasanna, I appeal to him all others involved in fighting of case in respect of this issue not to press for early decision in the case pending.  The decision would be in favour of Pensioners and thereafter, the Bank will file Appeal before Division Bench.  Thereafter, petitioners need to spend money again making only Advocates richer.  Instead, if these petitioners wait till our Case before the Division bench reaches finality.  Thereafter, they can produce a copy of the said Judgement and get the favourable orders.

I do hope what I have suggested make sense.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: rama prasanna <mkrpr...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 August 2011 1:18 PM

[Ramesh Megaravalli]

Dear Mr.Prasad,

You are taking much concern of the retirees of our Bank and guiding
them properly. I t is unfortunate that many of the retired officers
have not yet become the members of the Pensioners commune. I too
appeal all my retired friends to become the members of the Commune and
be guided properly to derive the maximum benefits.

Sincerely yours,
Ramesh Megaravalli.

>>>>>>> * Most of the SVRS pensioners retired during 2000-2001 did not

>>>>>>> complete 33 years of service. If one has completed 33 years of
>>>>>>> service, he is eligible for full pension; otherwise they will get
>>>>>>> prorata. However, for them a maximum notional service of 5 years is
>>>>>>> to be added for the limited purpose of calculation of pension,
>>>>>>> subject to certain conditions.

>>>>>>> * As per central government instructions, as conveyed by IBA as

>>>>>>> clarification, this benefit was denied to SVRS pensioners, though
>>>>>>> everyone thought they will automatically get it as per Pension
>>>>>>> Regulations.

>>>>>>> * Many of the pensioners filed Writs and finally the Supreme Court

>>>>>>> pronounced a judgement to to allow the benefit to the petitioners.
>>>>>>> IBA went on an appeal, but failed. It suggested the member banks to
>>>>>>> release the benefit.

>>>>>>> * Most of the banks like Canara, Syndicate bank released the benefit.

>>>>>>> But Associate Banks, Vijaya Bank, Allahabad Bank etc did not and the
>>>>>>> pensioners of those banks are still legally fighting to get it.

>>>>>>> * I belong to SBM and myself along with many others were petitioners

>>>>>>> in Writs filed at Karnataka High Court, wherein we were also awarded
>>>>>>> with a favourable judgement. But, our bank decided to go for an
>>>>>>> appeal and thus we are yet to receive the benefit.

>>>>>>> * My retired employees Union is supporting us to get the justice not

>>>>>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.-- You

>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.-- You received

>>>>> this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>>>> "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to
>>>>> bankpe...@googlegroups.com" >bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To
>>>>> unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>>> bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com"
>>>>> >bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit
>>>>> this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>>-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to
>>> bankpe...@googlegroups.com" >bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To
>>> unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com"
>>> >bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this
>>> group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

> -- SUMATI M-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

> Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to
> bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
> to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this

> group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB-- You

> received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to
> bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
> to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this
> group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB
> --
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "bankpensioner" group.
>>To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>>For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB
>>
>>

>>Treat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal
>> ho jaye!
>>
>>
>>
> --
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "bankpensioner" group.
>>To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>>For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bankpensioner" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bankpensioner" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>
>

--
M.S.Ramesh

[Krishna M Ramadugu]

Funny. The people we call Bank Management will also be retiring in a few years. But they are covered by MAYA of Power, fear etc., . Once they retire they call all this ADHARMA. May be they anticipate we will win the cases by the time they retire. They forget that Pension is a deferred wage as agreed by supreme court and the retired employees have a charge on the P&L a/c as salaries of working employees.     I have seen some General Managers, who fight for the Bank to reduce the Burden on the Bank, and ask their PA to check what would be increase in their salary once the salaries are revised. They are the first to check up.     Don't they see that the Banks today are least paid (thanks to Unions, Beurocracy in Finance Ministry, Managements etc., ). I understand that the RBI Governor's package is around 15 lacs only per annum not per month.           While working in the Bank Union subscription was deducted from our a/c and we thought that our leaders will do every thing. We are to be blamed for our mistake.     Even now how many are willing to volunteer to assist the fighting Retiree union leaders? Busy even after retirement. Regards R.Krishna Murthy Andhra Bank    -------Original Message-------

From: karuna karan Date: 8/20/2011 4:19:11 PM To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com Cc: kaliappan;  siva;  mohand...@gmail.com;  mdossb...@gmail.com;  sures...@gmail.com;  dracup...@yahoo.co.in Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Friends, The 5 year addition, updation of pension,  the DA etc.  Are well known to the  Finance Ministry, RBI, IBA, Indiavidual Bank Management, Unions/Associations etc.

[venkat rao]

Dear Shri Ramprasanna,
I am glad that you are fighting for exit retirees of SBM and you have partially succeeded in getting the benefit of 5 years notional service to 10 members and hope rest will also get soon.Please take up the issue spl medcal aid  and extending the benefit of gratuity of Rs,10/-lakhs
from 01/01/2006.I hope UBFU will also join in this just cause.
wishing you success,
Venkatrao.H
SBM Mysore

---

From: rama prasanna <mkrpr...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, 21 August, 2011 1:18:13 PM

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Rama Prasannaji,

Congrats for your efforts.  Five years benefit is enshrined in the Pension Scheme.  Unilateral action to deny this benefit has been condemned by SC.  Exit package or SVRS package is an entirely different  matter and offer of  attractive benefits if any under EXIT/SVRS can neither pre-empt an important retiral benefit in Pension scheme nor it will entail the Management  arm afresh with wherewithal to bring about a unilateral  amendment post facto detrimental to the interest of  the pensioner.

This kind of  harassment is resorted to by Banks because the serving unions AIBOC and AIBEA remained as nonchalant spectators when IBA went berserk in denying 5 years benefit for those who opted for SVRS in 2001. Had the unions made atleast a formal protest against the UNILATERAL action,  no bank would have thought of this denial  that too in 2006.

I request you to add a rejoinder to your case claiming Rs25 lacs as compensation for the mental agony you have undergone all these years as the malafide action of SBM is ultra vires.

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

From: venkat rao <venka...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:16 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Shri Ramprasanna,I am glad that you are fighting for exit retirees of SBM and you have partially succeeded in getting the benefit of 5 years notional service to 10 members and hope rest will also get soon.Please take up the issue spl medcal aid  and extending the benefit of gratuity of Rs,10/-lakhsfrom 01/01/2006.I hope UBFU will also join in this just cause.wishing you success,Venkatrao.HSBM Mysore

Dear Friends,The 5 year addition, updation of pension,  the DA etc.  are well known to the  Finance Ministry, RBI, IBA, Indiavidual Bank Management, Unions/Associations etc.  Still the Management prefers to fight out a losing battle.  In fact, they may lose the battle in the Supreme Court but in reality they are gaining in crores financially.  For example,  the Bank Managaments  failed in the court case relating to addition of 5 years and eventually had to pay arrears  since 2000  to 2008.  For the period of  8 years or so, they need not pay any interest etc. for the delayed payment etc. I too got my arrears without any interest etc., for no fault of mine. I believed the management circular and applied for SVRS.  The criminal intention  in refusing the 5 year addition was not taken care of by the supreme court and hence ultimately  they are  gaining financially and are escaping from punishment.  This is happening in the case of updation of pension  right from 1995 and also in refusing to pay  DA in uniformity. We may win the case and get arrears. But after long years and without any interest. The management is very cruel and want to benefit their Banks from the sufferings of their ex employees.  Perhaps the courts may not give them punishment,  but  in the  forum of God they will stand for trial and get proper punishment for their criminal intent.D.Karunakaran (SVRS, Indian Bank)  dk...@rediffmail.comFrom: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:19:45 To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>Cc: kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>, siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>, "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>, "mdossb...@gmail.com" <mdossb...@gmail.com>, "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>, "dracup...@yahoo.co.in" <dracup...@yahoo.co.in>Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GBTreat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal ho jaye!

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Perumalji,

Only in State Bank of Mysore, benefit under 29(5) is denied.  It is over-zealous Officers, without consulting any Office Bearers of Association/Union, without fore-sight or fore thought, without waiting for conclusion of Scheme, submitted a representation for payment of benefit, which triggered issue of Circular by the Bank and the Circular is the basis and reason for denying the Benefit.  In other Associate Banks, no such circular is issued.  If these Officers were to become members of our Organisation (SBMPC), definitely they would have been provided with better guidance.  Though our Organisation had taken initiative to fight cases in respect of SBMVRS (29(5) & 50% issues), since 2002 and filed more than 100 cases, these Retired Officers did not enlist our Support.  In fact, even without WP 1133/2007, the benefit would have been extended, like in other Associate Banks. In other Associate Banks, eligible Officers have got the benefit, without even filing any case.  If any of members have any doubt in this regard, copies of correspondence exchanged can be shared with them.

In the original Writ Petition, interest has not claimed and now they cannot claim any interest.  We had prayed for interest at 18% interest for delayed payment and consequently, we are confident that we will get benefit with interest. 

Time and again, I have repeated, please discuss, understand, analyse before you initiate any action.  Please involve people with ample experience, while deciding the issue.  Please do not jump into any conclusion, without understanding implication.

Now, 

  

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>; "mdossb...@gmail.com" <mdossb...@gmail.com>; kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>; "mkrpr...@gmail.com" <mkrpr...@gmail.com>; "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage in SBM

Dear Rama Prasannaji,

Congrats for your efforts.  Five years benefit is enshrined in the Pension Scheme.  Unilateral action to deny this benefit has been condemned by SC.  Exit package or SVRS package is an entirely different  matter and offer of  attractive benefits if any under EXIT/SVRS can neither pre-empt an important retiral benefit in Pension scheme nor it will entail the Management  arm afresh with wherewithal to bring about a unilateral  amendment post facto detrimental to the interest of  the pensioner.

This kind of  harassment is resorted to by Banks because the serving unions AIBOC and AIBEA remained as nonchalant spectators when IBA went berserk in denying 5 years benefit for those who opted for SVRS in 2001. Had the unions made atleast a formal protest against the UNILATERAL action,  no bank would have thought of this denial  that too in 2006.

I request you to add a rejoinder to your case claiming Rs25 lacs as compensation for the mental agony you have undergone all these years as the malafide action of SBM is ultra vires.

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

From: venkat rao <venka...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 8:16 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Shri Ramprasanna, I am glad that you are fighting for exit retirees of SBM and you have partially succeeded in getting the benefit of 5 years notional service to 10 members and hope rest will also get soon.Please take up the issue spl medcal aid  and extending the benefit of gratuity of Rs,10/-lakhs from 01/01/2006.I hope UBFU will also join in this just cause. wishing you success, Venkatrao.H SBM Mysore

Dear Friends, The 5 year addition, updation of pension,  the DA etc.  are well known to the  Finance Ministry, RBI, IBA, Indiavidual Bank Management, Unions/Associations etc.  Still the Management prefers to fight out a losing battle.  In fact, they may lose the battle in the Supreme Court but in reality they are gaining in crores financially.  For example,  the Bank Managaments  failed in the court case relating to addition of 5 years and eventually had to pay arrears  since 2000  to 2008.  For the period of  8 years or so, they need not pay any interest etc. for the delayed payment etc. I too got my arrears without any interest etc., for no fault of mine. I believed the management circular and applied for SVRS.  The criminal intention  in refusing the 5 year addition was not taken care of by the supreme court and hence ultimately  they are  gaining financially and are escaping from punishment.  This is happening in the case of updation of pension  right from 1995 and also in refusing to pay  DA in uniformity. We may win the case and get arrears. But after long years and without any interest. The management is very cruel and want to benefit their Banks from the sufferings of their ex employees.  Perhaps the courts may not give them punishment,  but  in the  forum of God they will stand for trial and get proper punishment for their criminal intent. D.Karunakaran (SVRS, Indian Bank)  dk...@rediffmail.com From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in> Sent: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:19:45 To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> Cc: kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>, siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>, "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>, "mdossb...@gmail.com" <mdossb...@gmail.com>, "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>, "dracup...@yahoo.co.in" <dracup...@yahoo.co.in> Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB Treat yourself at a restaurant, spa, resort and much more with Rediff Deal ho jaye!

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Thank you sir for explaining the correct position.

M.Perumal

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>

To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:41 PM
Subject: bankpensioner Bankpensioner 5years notional weightage in SBM

Dear Mr.Perumalji,

Only in State Bank of Mysore, benefit under 29(5) is denied.  It is over-zealous Officers, without consulting any Office Bearers of Association/Union, without fore-sight or fore thought, without waiting for conclusion of Scheme, submitted a representation for payment of benefit, which triggered issue of Circular by the Bank and the Circular is the basis and reason for denying the Benefit.  In other Associate Banks, no such circular is issued.  If these Officers were to become members of our Organisation (SBMPC), definitely they would have been provided with better guidance.  Though our Organisation had taken initiative to fight cases in respect of SBMVRS (29(5) & 50% issues), since 2002 and filed more than 100 cases, these Retired Officers did not enlist our Support.  In fact, even without WP 1133/2007, the benefit would have been extended, like in other Associate Banks. In other Associate Banks, eligible Officers have got the benefit, without even filing any case.  If any of members have any doubt in this regard, copies of correspondence exchanged can be shared with them.

In the original Writ Petition, interest has not claimed and now they cannot claim any interest.  We had prayed for interest at 18% interest for delayed payment and consequently, we are confident that we will get benefit with interest. 

Time and again, I have repeated, please discuss, understand, analyse before you initiate any action.  Please involve people with ample experience, while deciding the issue.  Please do not jump into any conclusion, without understanding implication.

Now, 

  

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,Prasad C N

[tarsem ladhar]

Respected Choudhary Ji,

I am very sorry for delay in responding your e;mail .As advised by the learned members like Mr K.Mohan Das Rao and Mr.C N Parasad on this blog,

the benefit under the pension regulation no. 26 is applicable on supperannuation only and not to any other class of retirement.You may write to your

head office for clarification.Thanks for quoting pension regulation no.26 on this blog. As advised by Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi I have sent my application to my Bank retirees' Association to enroll me as a life member.

TARSEM  LADHAR

SYNDICATE BANK PENSIONER

 

From: Bajrang Lal Choudhary <bajranglal...@yahoo.in>
To: tarsem...@yahoo.ca
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 7:59:46 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

Dear Shri Ladher Sir,   I also think like you and my case is also similar to you.   I am giving below Sec-26.   Please examin the clause (b) carefully and advise me also.   26. Addition to qualifying service in special circumstances:- An employee shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment or a period of five years whichever, is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one -   (a) for which post graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technological, or professional fields is essential and   (b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited;   (c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience: Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the Bank is not less than ten years: Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation: Provided also that the recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government.   With Regards,   B L Choudhary --- On Wed, 10/8/11, tarsem ladhar <tarsem...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

From: tarsem ladhar <tarsem...@yahoo.ca> Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Wednesday, 10 August, 2011, 10:38 AM

Respected Rao ji, Thank you very much for your prompt and valuable reply. Regarding me, I am from Syndicate Bank, retired under VRS-2000 as pensioner. My date of birth is 20.11.1945 and date of retirement is 12.04.2001. I was given four years benefit instead of five years under the Hon. Supreme court verdict, stating  by the bank that if five years benefit is given it will go beyond the date of superannuation, which was correct.Then I requested the bank to  give me five years benefit under Pension regulation no 26 for which I am eligible because at the time of my recruitment , age relaxation was given to me. As Pension regulation no 26 confers eligibility for addition to qualifying service up to five years for supperanuation pension for specialists officers and cadidates belonging to SC/ST communities,I approhed my bank to extend this benefit to me by attaching  the copies of AIBOC circular No 29 dated 16.05.2009 and copy of IOB  Retirees Assosiation, with my request letter , but the request was declined by the bank stating that the correct benefit has given as per pension regulations and no reference was given of this regulation no.26, in the letter sent to me.  I request you sir, to put light on the above and advise whether such officers are eligible under this pension regulation no 26 for addition to qualifying service for supperannuation pension or not eligible. With regards, TARSEM   LADHAR SYNDICATE BANK PENSIONER

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com> To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 3, 2011 3:09:23 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner 5years notional weightage

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.