Discrimination in PSBs
Ramani Konnayar
Prasad C N
Narayanan Venkateshwaran
C V NARAYANAN
Prasad C N
So far, there is no such occasion.
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wqy-6CqCJDyfD%3DBmGbnSapqTX%2B6ycQ0Lp8Nqkf5Ho9YQ%40mail.gmail.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1909577715.2061084.1779371980045%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/821202980.2628720.1779433143591%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
---
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.
Narayanan Venkateshwaran
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1885250153.2843600.1779539317311%40mail.yahoo.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da_xm9tsand_Csbv-2G3CnLS1ZM40E86VizrTf01bHKFmA%40mail.gmail.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xy%2BKA%3DBOa3WkUWdyV9CrcbM52rjcz05KyRB4p5oSwoKA%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N
2.20 Thereafter, representative from Department of Expenditure, Shri B K Manthan asked Shri Mehta whether there has been any demand from Nationalised Banks (NBs) for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in addition to pension, which is already prevelent in SBI. Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand for CPF from any of the NBs. . . . . . . . .
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1929484703.3307670.1779792309603%40mail.yahoo.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1929484703.3307670.1779792309603%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
Banks are also receiving pension & other Superannuation benefit same as that of other Public Sector Banks.
We have been cheated. It is because our our own inaction. Our organisations are fighting for equality. But your organisation/s is/are subservient to SBI Organisation.
Ramani Konnayar
Dear Shri Somashekar Sir,When we opted for pension scheme under BEPR 1995, it was in lieu of CPF contribution made by the bank.In other words, the Bank's contribution was transferred to the Pension Fundwhile our contribution with accrued interest was paid to us at the time of retirement.As per my understanding, if pension scheme had been implemented as a third benefit, the bank would have continued to make an equal contribution and returned it to us on retirement as in the case of PF optees. In that case, the option to choose either Pension Scheme or PF Scheme would not have arisen at all.In respect of those still in service under BEPR scheme, PF deduction continues BUT THERE WILL BE NO MATCHING CONTRIBUTION FROM THE BANK.So, they will get back their contribution along with accrued on retirement besides pension as per BEPR.Please correct me if I am wrong.A screenshot of the relevant page of the 9th Joint Note is attached for your reference.K N RAMANI
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW272s7-R%3DhafdCRT0y6Q-Yh1QZ9HwEksu9JD2BhSvfAWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW272s7-R%3DhafdCRT0y6Q-Yh1QZ9HwEksu9JD2BhSvfAWw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sanjay J
Dear Shri Ramani ji,
Your understanding of the matter is correct; Mr. Prasad’s statement applies only to his group, not as a universal solution for all pensioners.
Mr. Prasad’s statement is not based on a general right for all bankers, but on a specific claim of discrimination within the State Bank group. His argument is that employees of Erstwhile Associate Banks (eABs) were denied the "3rd Benefit" (Pension + PF + Gratuity) that SBI employees enjoy. He is fighting for "parity with the parent bank," a legal ground that does not exist for Nationalised Banks.
You correctly pointed out that for Nationalised Banks (PSBs), the Pension Scheme (BEPR 1995) was structured as a "Second Benefit" in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). As you noted, PSB employees surrendered the Bank’s PF contribution to create the Pension Corpus.
Therefore, your stand is well-founded:
For SBI/Associate Banks: The structure allows for "Pension AND PF."
For Nationalised Banks: The structure was legally defined as "Pension OR PF."
For a PSB pensioner to now receive the "3rd Benefit," the Bank would theoretically have to refund the surrendered PF corpus (plus 30 years of interest) while simultaneously maintaining the pension payments. This creates a massive financial contradiction that does not apply to the SBI group, where the funds were always kept separate.
Mr. Prasad cites the Dr. Tangirala Committee to highlight that Nationalised Banks never formally demanded CPF as a 3rd benefit during the original negotiations. He uses this to distinguish his case from yours, essentially stating that the Associate Banks have a documented history of demanding this right, while the Nationalised Banks do not.
Mr. Prasad is confident because he is fighting a niche battle for Associate Bank retirees based on historical discrimination relative to SBI. As you rightly pointed out, his potential victory would likely not set a precedent for Nationalised Bank pensioners, given the fundamental difference in how your pension funds were capitalized.
With regards,
Sanjay J.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_yH7Erhn3e0UTn8OhSThou%2BRT-eB4QnZ71A4p6mazcB4g%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N
Prasad C N
This is further to my response on an email from Shri Sanjayji. I am repreducing my email to Shri Somashekaraji, which is already available in this group, for your immediate reference:
Banks are also receiving pension & other Superannuation benefit same as that of other Public Sector Banks.
We have been cheated. It is because our our own inaction. Our organisations are fighting for equality. But your organisation/s is/are subservient to SBI Organisation.
Niranjan Cn
Sanjay sir,
Your post – looks very logical and made me to think twice. After analysing the issue, the following are my observations :
1. We are claiming that DFS submitted report that if they allow update in RBI – there may be claim from PSB pensioners also. But in case of SBI 40/50% case, it is duly mentioned in the Tangirala Report, it is clearly stated as follows :
“In respect to the possibility of NBs (Nationalised Banks) raising a demand for CPF, IBA apprised the Committee that no such demand has been received till date”
Kindly read the above sentence again, will it not be prudent for Nationalised Bank Pensioners to ask CPF ?? Are we not fools – if we don’t claim even after reading the above ?
2. If at all CPF is the issue is only for eABs, in the report IBA would not have mentioned NBs. Let us not get confused in this regard.
3. eABs issues, their unions / associations shall fight it out – as we are not fully abrest of the details/situation. Without details – drawing conclusions is not desirable.
4. Most of us are being Nationalised Bank pensioners – we shall fight for our benefits – and at the same time we shall support each other benefits (beyond NBs) – wherever support is mutual.
Really puzzling the resistance to claim CPF for Nationalised Bank Pensioners/optees. Whatever we claim – will certainly will benefit us in many ways. Had we put it on record again and again CPF demand - certainly we would have also got some additional bargaining power , thereby benefits.
I am of firm belief that ‘claiming CPF’ now on record again and again – and keeping the demand alive – we will be benefitted in days to come. We shall act wise and keep demanding CPF for NBs also. We are not claiming in lieu of any other benfits – and there is no need for any reservation or hesitation or guilty in claim CPF for Nationalised Bank Pensioners. We shall be sure of that.
ALL OF US SUPPORT CPF CLAIM, CERTAININGLY WE WILL GET BENEFIT IN ONE FORM OR OTHER.
Niranjan
Ex Canara
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BK3_pq_fvcJSW0H1mxXLJCLfKLa3%2Bxw-9yBB07gLRo0g%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1051521864.3003209.1779968893583%40mail.yahoo.com.
Sanjay J
Dear Shri Ramani ji,
I am writing to further clarify my interpretation shared in my previous mail, in light of Shri Prasad ji’s observations.
While Shri Prasad ji is technically correct that both erstwhile Associate Banks (e-ABs) and Nationalised Banks (NBs) operate under the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, his subsequent remarks inadvertently confirm the exact divergence I highlighted to you.
In his previous mail, Shri Prasad ji explicitly emphasizes a critical distinction from the Dr. Tangirala Committee report:
“Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand for CPF from any of the NBs... What is stated is NBs, but not ABs.”
By drawing this precise line, Shri Prasad ji confirms my previous note: the legal and historical grounds being pursued for e-AB retirees are distinct from those of Nationalised Banks.
For Nationalised Banks, the 1995 Pension scheme was fundamentally established as a second benefit in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). To retroactively grant a "Third Benefit" (Pension + matching CPF) to an NB pensioner today would require a complete rewriting of how the Nationalised Banks' pension corpuses were legally and financially capitalized over the last three decades.
Conversely, the litigation for e-AB pensioners relies heavily on a specialized argument of intra-organizational parity and historical demands unique to the State Bank group structure, particularly following the post-merger successor liability of SBI.
Therefore, your original assessment remains entirely sound. The mechanism, the historical record of demands, and the legal pathways for an e-AB retirement structure to claim a third benefit cannot be universally duplicated or applied as a boilerplate precedent for Nationalised Bank pensioners.
I will now recuse myself from this thread and leave the floor open to you and Shri Prasad ji to continue your valuable debate on the historical progression of these settlements.
With warm regards,
Sanjay J.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1051521864.3003209.1779968893583%40mail.yahoo.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1051521864.3003209.1779968893583%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
Prasad C N
Pension as a second benefit was, in fact, far superior to pension as a third benefit, as it existed in SBI at that point of time. I have already explained this earlier. A Scale-I Officer of an erstwhile Associate Bank was receiving a higher pension than the Chairman of State Bank of India and was also entitled to a higher amount of gratuity. The Chairman of SBI was subject to a ceiling, and the same ceiling applied to the Deputy Managing Directors of SBI. The Managing Directors of the Associate Banks were, in effect, Deputy Managing Directors of SBI. However, our pensions had no ceiling whatsoever. We were fully aware of this position because of the regular deputation of officers from SBI.
The improvements in the pension scheme of SBI came about because of the sustained efforts of its senior executives, who themselves were beneficiaries of those improvements. In 1999, the 40% pension scheme was introduced on the recommendation and initiative of SBI. More recently, the 50% pension scheme has also been achieved through the efforts of the top management. I am attaching the Dr. Tangirala Committee Report, which provides valuable insight into the entire history of these developments.
For the first time, I have seen the Deputy Managing Director (HR) of a bank actively seeking the extension of a benefit. Unfortunately, while those who ought to be demanding such benefits are doing so, many among us are instead raising doubts and questioning the very demand. Whether we ultimately succeed or not is a different matter. But what is the problem in making a legitimate demand? This mindset is one of the primary reasons why employees, officers, retirees, and pensioners of banks other than SBI have often received step-motherly treatment.
The next question is why we remained silent for so long and are raising the issue now.
Earlier, those associated with the management of other banks consistently cited the difference in the quantum of pension payable in SBI and in other banks. Even the Murmu Committee rejected the request on the very same ground. However, the position has now changed. SBI has introduced a uniform pension rate of 50%, and our demand has always been for pension on par with other nationalised banks. I repeat: for pension purposes, the Associate Banks are also part of the nationalised banking system.
The next question is how such a demand can be made when pension was accepted as a second benefit.
When the pension ceiling in SBI was revised, that too was governed by an agreement, yet it was subsequently improved. Pension itself did not originally exist in SBI and was introduced only through an agreement. Similarly, 50% pension was not available earlier in SBI and was later introduced, with SBI itself citing principles similar to those applicable under our pension scheme. Even employees who had originally opted for Provident Fund were subsequently granted pension through a settlement.
Today, SBI pays pension at 50% on the reasoning that a single set of regulations cannot provide for two different rates of pension (40% and 50%). If that principle is valid, then how can all other banks continue to have two different rates of Provident Fund contribution—0% for one group and 10% for another? If two pension rates cannot coexist under one set of regulations, how can two Provident Fund rates coexist?
Further, where in the Pension Regulations, 1995 is it stated that a pension optee is not eligible for Provident Fund? We merely agreed to transfer the CPF balance to the Pension Fund. Is there any provision that links the payment of Provident Fund or pension to the balance available in the Provident Fund or Pension Fund? These are important questions that deserve serious consideration.
There are several grounds on which a claim can be made. On behalf of the erstwhile Associate Banks, we have already initiated legal proceedings. It is only some members from other banks who continue to harbour doubts and attempt to discover—or even invent—reasons for not pursuing the claim.
Another question raised by Mr. Somashekara and others concerns our age and who should take up this cause.
One Rank One Pension (OROP) was fought for nearly 45 years. The claimants even lost their case before the Supreme Court at one stage—a point worth noting for those who frequently cite Articles 14, 16, and 21. Forty-five years means that at least two generations continued the struggle. Had they abandoned the effort on the ground that they were too old, OROP would never have become a reality.
Similarly, our own demand for pension dates back to the Sastry Award. Had that demand been abandoned because of age or the passage of time, pension itself would never have been introduced. Rights are not secured merely because time passes; they are secured because people continue to pursue them.
I regret the length of this response, but I had no alternative. I hope I have answered your questions.
Thanks, a Million.
Hardev Singh
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 7:51:08 AM
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Discrimination in PSBs
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0fkrvXjQrzVSk7DBE8dpq95gZ1Kdaont-qViM_ELL%3DBw%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/242474967.2969001.1780056387916%40mail.yahoo.com.
SUMAN KUMAR Suman
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/827490485.1238238.1780061848177%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
Dear Shri Ramaniji,
I had the occasion to go through an email from Shri
Sanjayji, more particularly, the following portion.
For a PSB pensioner to now receive the "3rd Benefit," the Bank would theoretically have to refund the surrendered PF corpus (plus 30 years of interest) while simultaneously maintaining the pension payments. This creates a massive financial contradiction that does not apply to the SBI group, where the funds were always kept separate.
Mr. Prasad cites the Dr. Tangirala Committee to highlight that Nationalised Banks never formally demanded CPF as a 3rd benefit during the original negotiations. He uses this to distinguish his case from yours, essentially stating that the Associate Banks have a documented history of demanding this right, while the Nationalised Banks do not.
I am referring to Shri Sanjayji's apparent failure to appreciate the fact that employees and officers of all Public Sector Banks, except the State Bank of India, had been demanding pension as a third retirement benefit for several decades.
Both the Indian Banks' Association and the Government were fully aware that, once pension at uniform rate of 50% was introduced in State Bank of India, demands relating to Provident Fund and other associated issues could arise in due course. Nevertheless, they chose to extend the benefit of pension at a uniform rate of 50% in the State Bank of India.
Moreover, the question of cost should not be our primary concern. Assessing and managing the financial implications is the responsibility of the Indian Banks' Association and the Government. As beneficiaries and stakeholders, our concern should be whether the benefit is justifiable, equitable, and in conformity with the principles governing pensionary benefits.
In fact, such a demand existed and demanded even before the Sastry Award. During the early 1990s, several workmen's unions and officers' associations, including AIBOC and NCBE, consistently demanded the introduction of pension as a third benefit in banks other than the State Bank of India.
As far as superannuation benefits are concerned, the same demands, Joint Notes, and Bipartite Settlements covered all Public Sector Banks, including the erstwhile Associate Banks, though not the State Bank of India. Since Shri Sanjayji is not from any of the erstwhile Associate Banks, he may not be fully aware of this background.
Therefore, all of us are essentially travelling in the same boat. I would also request Shri Sanjayji to cross-check and verify the facts before arriving at any conclusions. Had he examined the finer aspects and implications of Regulation 35(1) earlier, he might have understood the position more clearly.