BOM RETIREES ASSN TO HON FM ON UPDATION OF PENSION
mohan p
Dear Friends,
Any efforts by retirees or retirees organisations to resolve our major pending issues to be welcomed.
But, when we raise any points through letters or communications to higher authorities, it should be valid or justifiable.
Now, Bank of Maharashtra Retirees Association has submitted a letter on UPDATION OF PENSION to Hon.Finance Minister emphasising on following points:
“Updating of Pension in banks in terms of Clause 12 of Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 entered with IBA pursuant Section 2(p) of Industrial Dispute Act. The Pension scheme in banks was to be identical to that obtaining in RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. Regulation 35(1) provides for pension updation but it is being misrepresented. HENCE PENSION HAS TO BE UPDATED.”
As often discussed here, the referred clause No 12 under Memorandum of settlement dated 29.10.1993 and Regulation 56 under BEPR,1995 came for legal scrutiny under Civil Writ Petition No.6233 of 2008 before single bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court filed by late M.C.Singla and Ors V/s Union of India which was dismissed on 16.04.2012 .
Further in appeal No.LPA 789/2013 before Division Bench of above HC, too the above points were rejected on 09.09.2015, as follows:
“24. A perusal of Clause 12 of the settlement makes it abundantly
clear that it only provides for further negotiations as regards “applicability,
qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of
pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc.” and
cannot be read to provide for updation of pension.
Similarly, Regulation 56
deals with a situation where a doubt arises in the matter of application of the
pension scheme and mandates to clear that doubt by referring to the
“corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central
Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for
Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as
the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from
time to time determine.”. No such doubt is shown to exist as could
necessitate a reference to corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services
Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981
applicable for Central Government employees. Thus Regulation 56 cannot
be treated to confer certain benefits upon the appellants, which the Reserve
Bank of India's Regulations or the Central Civil Services”
Regarding on other point on small committee also court has stated that:
“25. Ad finem, a word about minutes of meeting dated March 26,
1994 of the Small Committee on Pension whereby it is said to have been
accepted that formula for updating pension should be on the lines of same
given in Reserve Bank’s Pension Scheme. Discussions held and agreements reached in this meeting, in our view, are nothing more than parleys
preliminary to the final decision which came in the form of pension scheme
of 1995.”
Appeal, on same case is pending before Apex Court now.(SLP 5561/2016).We cannot anticipate much on verdict to come within a couple of months.
Coming to Regulation 35(1) a series of discussions were held here earlier which was rejected by Karnataka High Court( W.P.No.48905 OF 2018 (SR)dated 13.04.2022 / Kerala High court.(referring to bank!)
Again quoting Pension Fund balance is not at all related to our demand.
Pl.see.
Padam singh
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTzwJ4PQjgQmDMMjO-hYTuNqgwYXrvrBJBzLFXD0RDxcg%40mail.gmail.com.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
Ramani Konnayar
--
