CA 7993/2023 LATE M C SINGLA CASE

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

The above case has been found  listed for 5th Feb'26.Came in today's Display board of Apex Court  too.

Hope the developments of date may be known later.

[MOHAN P]

Msg as received on above case listed today:

"MC Singla pension updation case in Supreme Court . 

The pension case came up for hearing along with the main Civil Appeal today before Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta today. 

The Court after hearing the Senior Counsel appearing in the main matter, directed the parties to file a chart showing the entitlement of pension to the pensioners who retired in three time periods. 

The Court opined in open court during the hearing that the Banks are liable to pay the pension as per the Regulations. The matters will be listed on 18.02.20206."

--
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/CAMCbyDT%3D8MezMnrYtxK7mhredDAPo%2B%2B9bGAxLO2wU_t2t902aA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

Please inform details of the 3 time periods which the Supreme Court mentioned today in Late Singla case. Thanks 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSMi8MCJUmXidSAz0a815CJ49a0_x2k6KkO6bP1k4FFrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramachandran Bella]

The sentence

"who retired in three time period"

Can it be clarified Mohanji?

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 2:18 PM Ramachandran Bella <ktyc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mohanji, your message is a great solace to the pensioners . God is great  Thanking you brother.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSMi8MCJUmXidSAz0a815CJ49a0_x2k6KkO6bP1k4FFrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramachandran Bella]

Mohanji, your message is a great solace to the pensioners . God is great  Thanking you brother.

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 1:40 PM MOHAN P <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSMi8MCJUmXidSAz0a815CJ49a0_x2k6KkO6bP1k4FFrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prem Shankar Sharma]

Is it something positive or negative?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSMi8MCJUmXidSAz0a815CJ49a0_x2k6KkO6bP1k4FFrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[RANGARAJAN M R]

 The larger question is whether updation is part & parcel of regulation which is the crux of the problem. Perhaps this aspect will be decided on the next hearing date.

M.R.RANGARAJAN

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSMi8MCJUmXidSAz0a815CJ49a0_x2k6KkO6bP1k4FFrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Mr Prem Shanker Sharma,

At least much awaited hearing in above case has happened now.

Let us wait and see next.

Regards

Mohan.P

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAD1-xv8JRs62MYuX%2Bji_UcPWxiuORvf3pKi0_rmJbpMOiyoshA%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

As per information available the three years time period : referes 1986-87,1987to 2003 and after 2003.Let us wait for confirmed orders.

[MOHAN P]

AIBPARC ON HEARING OF CASE BEFORE SC TODAY (5th FEB'26)

"We have received the following message today from our Advocate, Shri Sewaram, addressed to Com. K.V. Acharya, President, AIBPARC and Joint Convenor of CBPRO:"

"MC Singla pension case came up for hearing today in Supreme Court. We appeared with Dr. Manish Singhvi Sr. Adv. and he initiated the arguments. Dr J D. Sharma, Vice President, AIBPARC was also present in the court.

We informed the Court on Pension Scheme, the bank having updated the pension up to 31.12.87 pensioners giving them the updation as per new pay scales as on 1.11.87. and after that bank has not updated the pension despite clear provision for updation in clause 35 (1) of BEPR.

The court asked the Bank/IBA advocates as to why the pension is not updated. The Court didn't agree with IBA argument that revised DA was being paid.

 The Court didn't agree with IBA argument that revised DA was being paid.

IBA/Bank argued that pensioners are demanding parity with RBI in quantum of pension. Our Senior Advocate countered that we are demanding parity in formulae and not the quantum.

We produced the fund position and told the court that pension updation can be made from pension fund itself without any extra burden on Government. Court asked Banks why they are not revising pension as provided in Regulation 35(1) when it can be met from the pension fund itself. When RBI has revised pension why the banks are not doing.

The Court asked us and IBA/Bank to give a tabulation of difference in pension for those who retired up to 31.10.87, 28.02.03 and recently within two weeks. The matter is now part heard and fixed for 18.2.26 and likely to be first item. We are working on it."

***

Dear Friends,

As we learn that :

01.In today's hearing, petitioners Advocates arguments was found  based mainly on Regulations 35(1) with reference to Appendix-1 as well as balance in Pension Fund.

02.Under this back drop court has asked to submit  a chart with 3 time periods of retirees as follows with normal pension drawn now by these groups and impact of  application of formula as per   Appendix-1  under Regulations 35(1).

1. Person retired after 01.01.1986 but before 31-10-1987

2. Person retired after 01-11-1987 but before 28-02-2003

3. Person retired after 01-03-2003

Also noted that, Hon judge has opined in open court during the hearing that the 'Banks are liable to pay the pension as per the Regulations'

Let us wait and see the developments on 18th Feb '26 or there after.

Regards

Mohan.P

On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 12:03 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[MOHAN P]

Yes Mr Rangarajan,

The question here is the applicability of Regulations 35(1) as per Appendix-1 may resolve Updation of Pension as we demand?( COD-Revision of Basic Pension of all pensioners as and when wage revision takes place at industry level once in five years with a formula )

Let us wait for submission of chart as required by IBA /Petitioner on / after 18th Feb'26.We too may know the effect and impact there on.( KHC has once rejected  the above regulation in updation case)

Regards

Mohan .P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFZFKYugwb-b8q6BDmZ4xf_akY8tCxYi_k36_UQGLBYWA0FFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Dear Mohanji  There is still time for euphoria. The learned judges have said pensioners are entitled for updation as per regulations.

The regulation is not explicit. We need to draw anology from RBI settlement in argument

C V Narayanan

 

On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 3:43 pm RANGARAJAN M R, <rangar...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFZFKYugwb-b8q6BDmZ4xf_akY8tCxYi_k36_UQGLBYWA0FFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[satyendra kumar bansal]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Gwullme6j1kQwbQjZBpPhw70vtxjug-/view?usp=drivesdk

Discussion held in supreme court in M C Singla case.  Judge didn't hear the submission of Mr Mehta, defendant advocate and asserted that if provision is there than updation must be given.

Get Outlook for Android

Thanks and regards. 

Satyendra Kumar Bansal,

Flat no 404, The Savoye DND,  

Bombay Walon ka Bagh, 

Civil lines,  Ajmer Road,

Jaipur-302006

Mobile no: +91 94139 71245

---

From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of MOHAN P <moha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 5:43:12 PM
To: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner CA 7993/2023 LATE M C SINGLA CASE

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT4cUaKBcb3M7UJxwyqZ4s9BNur%3DcZBBP4anx8OL65MsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

The mention of 3 period clause is confusing & needs clarity. Further the positive mention of pension as per regulation is relating to its updation? No mention of the word revision or updation! 

Ramakrishnan

On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 3:43 pm RANGARAJAN M R, <rangar...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFZFKYugwb-b8q6BDmZ4xf_akY8tCxYi_k36_UQGLBYWA0FFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[AJIT SINGH]

Pensioners who retired in three time periods.

1. Employees/Officers retired after 01.01.1986 but before  31-10-1987

2. Employees/Officers retired after 01-11-1987 but before 28-02-2003

3. Employees/Officers retired after 01-03-2003

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFZFKYugwb-b8q6BDmZ4xf_akY8tCxYi_k36_UQGLBYWA0FFiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chandrasekaran V]

Earlier also, in many instances, in various courts, in this subject-matter,  many favourable observations made during the course of hearings..  but, it may not be reflected in the final outcome  this has also been the experience in various other cases

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT4cUaKBcb3M7UJxwyqZ4s9BNur%3DcZBBP4anx8OL65MsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

There is an audio clip supposedly of the court room  arguments in the case is in circulation.It seems to be genuine. 

The advocate representing the pensioners' organisations is heard telling the judge that Section 35(1) of BEPR read with its amendment effected in 2003 was very clear that pension shall be updated as and when required as explained in Appendix 1. At this, the judges had remarked that they wanted to go through the Judgements of various High Courts and know the reasons given by them for their not accepting the above contention.

The HCs had upheld the stand of IBA that Section 35(1) was only applicable to a particular category of pensioners whose service as employees during the last 10 months fell under two successive BPSs. The term "as and when required" was inserted to make the section applicable for each BPS season, IBA had said.

Another point out forth by our advocate was that the entire monies in the Pension Funds belonged to the pensioners and it was unjust to not spend this for updation. This is factually incorrect and would be contested by the respondents' advocate.

The only valid and strong point raised by our advocate was that, in as much as, the BEPR have been formulated on the lines of the Pension Schemes of RBI and Central government, the periodical updation of pension sanctioned to those pensioners should be extended to PSB pensioners as well in order to remove the huge disparities between the pensions of those retired in different BPS periods

Depending on the arguments of the advocates of the respondents, who may be citing cost factor as the main impediment, apart from ineligibility in terms of BEPR,  the Court may direct IBA to find out some via media solution instead of adopting a stubborn approach and declining the demand in toto. This is my view.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT4cUaKBcb3M7UJxwyqZ4s9BNur%3DcZBBP4anx8OL65MsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

“MC Singla pension case came up for hearing today in Supreme Court. 

We appeared with Dr. Manish Singhvi Sr. Adv. and he initiated the 

arguments. 

We informed the Court on Pension Scheme, the bank having updated the 

pension up to 31.12.87 pensioners giving them the updation as per new 

pay scales as on 1.11.87. and after that bank has not updated the pension 

despite clear provision for updation in clause 35 (1) of BEPR.

The court asked the Bank/IBA advocates as to why the pension is not 

updated. The Court didn't agree with IBA argument that revised DA was 

being paid.

IBA/Bank argued that pensioners are demanding parity with RBI in 

quantum of pension. Our Senior Advocate countered that we are 

demanding parity in formulae and not the quantum.

We produced the fund position and told the court that pension updation 

can be made from pension fund itself without any extra burden on 

Government. Court asked Banks why they are not revising pension as 

provided in Regulation 35(1) when it can be met from the pension fund 

itself. When RBI has revised pension why the banks are not doing.

The Court asked us and IBA/Bank to give a tabulation of difference in pension for those who 

retired up to 31.10.87, 28.02.03 and recently within two weeks. The matter is now part heard 

and fixed for 18.2.26 and likely to be first item."

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFioWRFbfzvS0enDtQ7-HOtx-6eHpySdbqGeh0cr9-4xM%2B%3DvLw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chinnasamy Rajagopalan]

Dear sir

               Pension regulations in Banks do not provide for updation of pension and neither this updation clause finds a place in central/RBI Pension regulations but periodically Govt revises their pension along with every wage settlement.But why our advocates have not put forward the argument that our regulations are drawn on the lines of RBI.I do not know whether the judges will look for something in black as was done at punjab and Haryana HC.Let us hope for the best

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT4cUaKBcb3M7UJxwyqZ4s9BNur%3DcZBBP4anx8OL65MsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

To be very specific, the 3 categories are retirees for the period 1.1.86 to 31.10.87, 1.12.87 to 28.2.2003 and all others after 2003.

Ramakrishnan. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/a27363e9-c97f-45f6-aca8-ab93ce7036fbn%40googlegroups.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

Sorry, the second category is from 1.11.87 to 28.2.2003.

Ramakrishnan. 

[Raghu Bhargava]

Hope for the Best and pray.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTr58r%2B_-Fw2dJFr3ia%3D7Arg3NwjpWm9kxNwoXdUmn4eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

The circular has conveniently omitted the observation of the judges that they wanted to go through the Judgements of the HCs and know the reasons given for not accepting the contention of pensioners' organisations with regard to Section 35 (1)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTzV3FUtvjxOiPnQkRiBphYP7UafMHRuJugdOJ1Bu_ESg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prem Shankar Sharma]

Thanks sir. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTr58r%2B_-Fw2dJFr3ia%3D7Arg3NwjpWm9kxNwoXdUmn4eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[sudhakar avalur]

Mohan sir

As per the amendment to 35(1)  of pension Regulations in 2003  , updation is not confined to only to the previous periods and it is a continuous process , it will be updated as per the respective Bipartiate settlements. Moreover the counsel for management was not denied the outstanding fund quantum of pension fund and it states , that funds is not the problem at all,  the leader of the UFBU is not willing to say yes to the IBA and it is more pathetic mind set of the so called leader( communist) and hope in the legal battle God will save the retiree's community.

A v Sudhakar 

On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 8:24 PM MOHAN P <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTr58r%2B_-Fw2dJFr3ia%3D7Arg3NwjpWm9kxNwoXdUmn4eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[K Balasubramanian]

Updation wheels started moving at last .

Some influential leaders can make a request our FM to guide IBA DFS correctly with out putting any road block for the journey .

After being instrumental for 100perceny DA settling the decade old issue let her favourably guide the authorities and get the credit for pension updation and get blessings from lakhs of senior and super senior retirees .

Crucial time now .we have to convince the judges .God can show HIS mercy through the minds of judges momentarily at the crucial decision making time in the form of judgement 

K balasubramanian 

VRS retiree indian bank

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTr58r%2B_-Fw2dJFr3ia%3D7Arg3NwjpWm9kxNwoXdUmn4eQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[RANGARAJAN M R]

The questions raised by judge/s can be looked at in two different ways. 

        1. In favour 

of pensioners . In a way a SLAP on the theory of severe Funds Constraint and the statements sought  exposing and removal of injustice done to pensioners through different formulae which is a constitutional violation well enshrined in HISTORIC NAKARA CASE.

2.In favour of defendents

Justice appearing to be done not only done through these questions and still dismissing the petition on various counts/legal technicalities.

Final verdict may be a road map for all such litigations either for or against.

M.R.RANGARAJAN

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: sudhakar avalur <avs...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026, 09:58
Subject: Re: bankpensioner CA 7993/2023 LATE M C SINGLA CASE

To: <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKCYHXi5p1onxXBqADDakJgVX5iXdbsvXA4OKHV4VDfGzasuig%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

The reference to the three time periods is likely to be the following three specific milestones  

"Bank pensions are governed by Bipartite Settlements (BPS) that happen every few years.

• Window 1 (1986–1987): Pre-liberalization era scales.

• Window 2 (1987–2003): The transition into modern banking and the 1995 Pension Regulations.

• Window 3 (2003–Present): Post-merger and New Pension Scheme eras.

The court needs to see how the Basic Pension + Dearness Relief formulas changed across these three specific milestones to identify where the "link" was broken."

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPkEc8tC2znyEnbZ-gC%3DG1BxP4w_N-jTcVqUpdRntUSehrN4Cw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Mr Sudhakar,

No doubt our pension is paid as per BEPR,1995.Updation of pension is our demand.

However where is the specific regulation under BEPR,1995  to revise pension of all segments of pensioners as and when wage revision takes place to serving employees once in 5 years?

The amendment made in 2003 under regulations, give us any advantage towards this aspect?

See below the amended portion:

"Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I"

What Appendix-1 says also to be read along with above.

See:

"The formula of updating basic pension and additional pension in respect of employees who 

retired during the period 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987 shall be as under:"

In nut shell the formula  shown here is only about  merger of DA with basic pay.

In every BPS/Joint Note an additional load is added to Basic Pay not alone DA.

Hence a claim on updation of pension of all pensioners  based on regulation 35(1) may take us in right direction?

On legal front, Karnataka High Court has already dismissed a WP 48905/2018 filed by CBROA on updation of pension based on R.35(1) on 26.3.2021.

Any way now Apex court has asked for certain details.

Let us wait for how the things may move in court  on or after 18th Feb'26 

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKCYHXi5p1onxXBqADDakJgVX5iXdbsvXA4OKHV4VDfGzasuig%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mohan Sir, What you have explained is one hundred percent correct. That is the legal point of view,

But there is another aspect called Negotiation. That is why Unions are born and ,leaders are elected by employees. Their duty is to negotiate where laws are not on the side of employees. 

IBA filed an affidavit claiming

1. There is no provision for pension updation in pension regulations. 

    Is there any clause in Pension regulations that prevent pension updation  till the lifetime of pensioners.

    RBI pension rules also do not have provision for pension revision. 

    Then how does DFS approve updation for RBI multiple times? RBI employees and retirees united and negotiated the issue.      But UFBU failed.

   Banks, LIC and RBI come under the same financial sector. DFS cannot say we bend rules for RBI and        Follow rules strictly for Bank pensioners. Further there is agreement dated 1993 and 1994.

When we joined the Bank there was no agreement that automation will be done, 2nd and fourth saturday will be holidays and there was no agreement that 100% DA will be implemented, percentage of wage increase etc Everything depends on negotiation and requirements of time. DFS has approved 100% DA which has been rejected by SC.

Since UFBU has failed or is not willing to negotiate updation the case is now in SC.

It is upto petitioners to convince SC that there is disparity in pension within the Banking Industry and also compared to RBI. In court cases litigants though law is not on their side will win the case if they prove their point effectively before the court. Now the focus of the court is on disparity and it depends on how litigants prove it with charts. Even if we lose the case the updation issue is wide open for negotiation.

Litigants is M C Singla case have chosen to claim updation not only based on Reg35/1 but seeking parity with RBI formula as per agreement of 1994.  

Is there any other option?

     

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%2BNYtix4tu1uFvy7yfGA6_L%2B6S94RFufy8knJHMFoQqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vvns Varaprasadrao]

Dear Mohan Sir,

Why Retiree organisations/UFBU not insisted the IBA during the last 3 decades for specific Regulation under BEPR, 1995 to revise pension of all segments of pensioners as and when wage revision takes place to serving employees once in 5 years ?

Please enlighten me.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%2BNYtix4tu1uFvy7yfGA6_L%2B6S94RFufy8knJHMFoQqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

The problem with many of our laws, rules and regulations is that their contents are not quite explicit and always leave scope for interpretation. In other words, these are like the old age literature in ancient languages for which different people have given different explanations at different periods of time.

I think, the formula given in Appendix 1 of BEPR is for calculating the pensions of those retirees whose last 10 months of service falls under 2 successive BPS. Because, if the basic pay is taken as it is, the pensioners will stand to lose much by way of a reduced pension. However, this fact is not mentioned as a note in the Appendix.

I solicit your views on this. Thanks 

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%2BNYtix4tu1uFvy7yfGA6_L%2B6S94RFufy8knJHMFoQqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[SUMAN KUMAR Suman]

HOW  ABOUT   RECENTLY  SANCTIONED  RESIGNEES PENSIONERS  WILL WE GET  NOTIONAL SERVICE

OF 5 YEARS   ETC..  OR   WE ARE  BOUND  TO   CONTRACT WHICH FOR SANCTION OF PENSION  WE HAVE GIVEN LETTER STATING  WE WILL   NOT GO TO  COURTS OR  LEGALACTIONS.

PLEASE  CLARIFY

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%2BNYtix4tu1uFvy7yfGA6_L%2B6S94RFufy8knJHMFoQqA%40mail.gmail.com.

--

suman.