Singla case - summarised by chatgpt

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

1. What the M.C. Singla case is about

• M.C. Singla & Others vs. Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 5561/2016, Diary No. 4295/2016) is a long-pending appeal in the Supreme Court on behalf of retired bank employees challenging the denial of “updation” of pension under the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995. It seeks parity with wage revisions granted to serving employees, on the ground that pension is a deferred wage and must be revised over time.

---

📌 2. IBA’s affidavit — what was filed and its core stand

• The Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in this case. Retiree organizations and commentary on social forums indicate that IBA’s position is essentially:

  • Asserting that there is no specific provision for “updation” of pension in the current Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, particularly in the way retirees are seeking; and

  • Suggesting that the relevant clauses in settlement/regulations do not mandatorily require automatic revision of pension with successive wage revisions for serving staff.

• A specific affidavit referenced was sworn by a senior IBA representative on 24 August 2022 before the Supreme Court, and it has been widely circulated in retiree groups; it states no express updation provision exists in the pension regulations and denies IBA has wrongly interpreted the rules.

---

📌 3. Developments around 25 February 2026 listing

• According to group posts (not an official Court order but consistent with practitioner-level updates), IBA submitted its affidavit related to the pension regulation clause (35(1)) on 19 February 2026 in the Supreme Court, which was flagged for the hearing scheduled on 25 February 2026.

• This filing reportedly:

  • Cites Regulation 35(1) of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, which on its face appears to provide for updating of basic and additional pension (as amended and gazetted since 2003),

  • But the IBA argues that the pension scheme’s governing settlement/regulatory framework does not mandate periodic pension updation in the same way as service pay revisions.

---

📌 4. Core issue in dispute between retirees & IBA

• Retiree side: Pension updation is an inherent right under Regulation 35(1) and implied by the scheme and pension regulations; refusal to update pensions with wage revisions amounts to discrimination and denial of constitutional equality.

• IBA’s affidavit stance: There is no automatic or express pension-updation obligation under the current regulatory framework; the clause relied upon does not impose a clear duty that translates into updation tied to wage revisions.

---

📌 5. What’s expected at the 25 February 2026 hearing

• The hearing likely focused on arguments on both sides following IBA’s affidavit:

  • Whether Regulation 35(1) can be interpreted to require pension updation in line with inflation or wage settlements,

  • The legal consequences of IBA’s statement that no direct statutory obligation exists,

  • And whether the Supreme Court should issue directions to the Government/IBA to implement pension updation for bank retirees.

(Official Supreme Court orders/affidavits are not yet publicly accessible online, so the above summary is based on lawyer reports and retiree association documentation shared in public forums and pensioner group discussions.)

S Kalyanasundaram 

[SHAILEN Bhavnani]

Dear Mr. Kalyanasundaram ji,
Your analysis is absolutely perfect, and we shall await Supreme Court bench of Hon'ble Justice Shri Vikram Nath & Hon'ble  Justice Shri Sanjeev Mehta' s legal interpretation of these points. But as per their oral comments in the course of the hearing held on 05-02-2026, it appeared to be in favour of Bank Pensioners. However, let's wait for the final outcome.

-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341

--
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/a17bf8e9-875d-4c63-8a9c-39e65e518a15n%40googlegroups.com.

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

It is not known how the SC will interpret the regulation 35(1) and deliver its decision. The IBA will argue vehemently on this clause to prevent pension updation.

Finally the court may direct the IBA to hold discussion with the unions to arrive at a settlement. We do not know what will be in store on the 25th. There is much hype and hope on the case and if we are left disappointed I will not be surprised. Any ways the suspense will be over soon.

G Ramachandran

 CB-SVRS 

--

[Sureshbhat M]

Substitution of WILL to SHALL in 2003 may explain the doubt.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1771842823.S.16994.10369.f4-234-195.1771856407.32238%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Please wait for the final verdict and maintain equilibrium without presuming any negative thoughts.
Let everyone be assured that there is going to be favorable verdict in favour of all pensioners.
Judges have understood that there is something that calls for justice and jurisdiction and jurisprudence in the form of equity, natural justice and fair play.
The judgement will be very big slap on the face of UFBU and IBA who played big mischief and deliberately cheated pre 2002 pensioners.
Justice shall prevail and Singla ji gets happiness in the other world.
We shall dedicate this great judicial victory in the name of Sri Late Singla ji for his fighting power and spirit.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE0--GwLAXAeMoGKVYjN76XUkxNrzmFzzu2C53LPYuAmHZpH8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[GARIMELLA SESHAGIRIRAO]

Be+ other wise you have to sacrifice your life at this age.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1771842823.S.16994.10369.f4-234-195.1771856407.32238%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

In the affidavit, the main reasons cited for not updating pension as done to Central government pensioners

are

1) absence of any express provision in BEPR for periodical updation in consonance with wage revisions for serving employees 

2)While CG employees pension is treated as revenue expenditure and allocated from budget, our Pension is paid by Pension Funds which receive no grant from the government.

In this context, it is to be noted that the above two situations very well applies to RBI pensioners too and yet they have been given 3 updations so far and brought on par with the latest batch of retirees.

Further, as already stated by me a few days ago, the reason given by DFS while originally rejecting updation for RBI pensioners viz., "it would give rise to similar demand from PSB pensioners' indicates their acceptance of our eligibility for updation.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE0--GwLAXAeMoGKVYjN76XUkxNrzmFzzu2C53LPYuAmHZpH8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghu Bhargava]

Let us all pray.We will win.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wjH%2Btqu0ZV%3D_7A-%3DMYn_867xAVhQMz9s1_7FPwZ0YSqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vvns Varaprasadrao]

Just like Nakara case in the past,  this will be Singla case in future.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wjH%2Btqu0ZV%3D_7A-%3DMYn_867xAVhQMz9s1_7FPwZ0YSqw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

The case is partially  heard and further  hearing scheduled on 12 th march

 It appears that the bench is holding  a strong  positive  opinion  that pension  updating is necessary. 

Let us wait and see what happens

No conclusion  can be made unless final verdict  comes in. Even if the final hearing  is over by 12 thMarch as expected , verdict  may come before summer  vacation of the SC .

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1518398639.50325.1771911014125%40mail.yahoo.com.

[hindurao khade]

You are right sir. 🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFwtfmdcdG0WoDqb2TnsL9-0zTZ3m4HffxFP2xiPbLXK%3DV9fNA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Still both pensioners and IBA/ 

Bank team have 13 days for rehearsal and place fresh arguments before court.  It is reported in a Whatsapp message that  SBM pensioners assn also assisted pensioners groups in preparing charts.

IBA also may plan new attack in consultation with UFBU leaders.

Whatever be the oral observations of the court there is no guarantee that final verdict  will be on the same lines. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANL0U%2B3rG1%2B9DQ4qsRO0sT1%2BqWwdPSp0YMnMPLbVcHXd%3DJC6EQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu]

basically regulation1995 is  based on ccs72.  incase  ofany  doubt   orambiguityreferenceto   be    made  to   ccs72. IBA   letterto late godboleconfirms  that   regulation  is  on  the  basis  of  ccs   72.  as  sc  already   made   it  clear   pension    is   deferred   wage,   financial    aspect is   left  to  employer.    see   nakara  judgement.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1771842823.S.16994.10369.f4-234-195.1771856407.32238%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Mathrubootham Sreenivasan]

to my knowledge  hear say Central govt pensioners  pension is being revised  with updation of pension too  whenever the pay commission is being implemented and they will fix  the pay of pensioners  at the appropriate scale and refix pension     and in addition  100 percent of pension is being sanctioned if the pensioner crosses 100 years

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANL0U%2B3rG1%2B9DQ4qsRO0sT1%2BqWwdPSp0YMnMPLbVcHXd%3DJC6EQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Sir,

Yes.The 6th Central Pay Commission (6th CPC) recommended an additional quantum of pension (also called additional pension) for older Central Government pensioners and family pensioners, recognizing that their needs—particularly health-related—increase with age.

This includes a provision for pensioners reaching 100 years of age, where the additional pension amounts to 100% of the basic pension.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/963410898.1669681.1772171990382%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sureshbhat M]

Discussions with unions means what? Which unions?. Whether retirees unions or back stabbing ufbu? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQviqTtozu8SZOBFy1YZtbz%3DVRBs-XcpRCsQzdvW9LUkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Being positive does not mean being fooled.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CADDPRX6yoxA0q%3DEfEhx4Df2GTQ5YWQYod%2BPkS9f5RiQcUg3U1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Prasad Sir,

Your reasoning, analysis and explanations are perfect.  You analyze issues from the legal point of view which cannot be questioned. 

But ordinary pensioners now believe  in chances and miracles. Because whatever possible avenues available  for ordinary pensioners to achieve the updation, have been exhausted.

1.  First UFBU has betrayed us. Though courts are recommending litigants to approach lok adalat for resolution even when case is pending, UFBU accepting sub judice and stalling discussion for months together is disgusting.

2. We thought DFS approving the updation in RBI in 2019, will make way for smooth discussion of updation and resolution in Banking Industry. But even after 7 years and multiple updation for RBI pensioners UFBU has not taken the issue seriously.

3.  UFBU need to discuss  updation among its constituents, arrive at a formula and other details and should have submitted a specific demand for updation. That never happened .

4. Two decades back  iBA claimed Rs.1000 crores for updation cost and now IBA claims one lakh crore. But never disclosed how cost is arrived and which updation formula is applied, what load factor is applied and whether it covers all pensioners etc. But present vague claims before courts.

5. UFBU being negotiator should have questioned IBA vague claims and sought discussions. But AIBEA gen sec also without seeking discussions repeating the same tunes.

6. M C Singla case has been pending since 2008. That is 18 years. No UFBU leader came forward to provide guidance, legal assistance and financial assistance. When any case is pending UFBU leaders claim sub judice and when no case is pending keep silent.

7. Ever since the Singhla case is pending everybody including me have been criticizing  M C Singhla and team  for their stand in courts.  Now case is 10 years old in SC.

8. Due to rivalry AIBRF or any other association did not come  to the help of MC Singhla. Nobody came forward to suggest any formula, better line of argument, supporting documents.etc.

9. If ARISE has not stepped in this case would have been abandoned by litigants.

10. Retirees tried everything, Representing DFS, IBA, Parliamentary panels, MPs, MLAs. CLC. In turn MPs and MLas also appealed to FM. While all these were happening, UFBU was unmoved and ditched retirees after taking subscription for 30-40 years.

11. During the last 25 years Unions, retirees, associations nobody assisted  M C singla litigants with financial, legal, moral and documentary support when they actually needed it. Now when the final hearing date is fixed there is no use intervening in case and suggest formulas.  Let us wait for a miracle.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1549374289.1980714.1772257569125%40mail.yahoo.com.

[mathunni panicker]

UFBEU give importance for the issues relating to serving employees.Their member ship is the serving employes and that is their reason for existence. AIBEA has majority membership and hence their voice has more force  in the UFBEU.Retiree organisations should have seperate negotiating platform .Then only their voice will be heard by IBA AND DFS. .Singala case has travelled so far and let us wait for the final day at HON SUPREME COURT OF INDIA..

C M PANICKER(senior retiree  from eSBT).  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW38LUU_70W0bsqF%2BgkfyY2nW3fBXUu6syaYu69X0aBjGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

There are quite a few learned members in this group who are well versed in legal matters and possess a thorough knowledge about bipartite settlements, BEPR, trade union matters etc., and much has been written by them about Regulation 35 (1)and the Appendix-1 related to it.

Can anyone of the above members throw some light on the exact reason/purpose for introduction of this regulation as it is not mentioned in the booklet on BEPR supplied to pensioners?

If it was only for the limited purpose of fixing the basic pension at the time of retirement, i for which type/cases of pensioners this Regulation and formula were applied?

Again, what was the purpose for which the Regulation was modified in 2003?

Clear answers to these will enable lay persons like me, to judge for ourselves whether this Regulation could be taken to mean regular and periodical upward revisions of pension, at least remotely, though not stated explicitly to that effect.

Also, what is the intention/purpose of introducing the concept of Special Allowance that is not eligible for pension under BEPR and increasing its percentage in every BPS?

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW38LUU_70W0bsqF%2BgkfyY2nW3fBXUu6syaYu69X0aBjGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Thankful to you for having raised this issue.  In 4th/5th Bipartite Settlement there were three rates of Dearness Allowance.  It was 1.20% without ceiling for Sub-ordinate Staff, 1% without ceiling for Clerical Staff and 1% with ceiling for Officers.  Pension Regulations cannot have three different rates.  There can be only one rate for any given period.  There are three categories of Employees in this period, on account of Bipartite Settlement and effective date.  To harmonise, they have grouped and bought in notional pay for calculation of pension.

Before 2003, Appendix I had only one Clause relating to those who have retired between 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987.  On account of subsequent Bipartite Settlement and change in date of effect, especially regarding Special Allowance (Special Pay now), four more clauses have been  added.  Regulation 35(1) cannot have a restricted period, but clauses affecting other periods in Appendix - 1.  Therefore, restriction with regard to period is removed in Regulation 35(1) and made it open ended, so that they can add such clauses in future.  I am enclosing copies of Regulation 35(1) and Appendix I, before amendment and after amendment.   Anyone can easily make out that clauses 3 to 5 in Appendix I could not have been added, but for the amendment in Regulation 35(1), making it open ended.  One need not be a legal eagle to understand and anyone with little common sense can understand.

Basically Regulation 35 is for fixation of Basic Pension only.  In fact, Regulation 35(1) is extracted in Palani's Judgment.

There are catena of Judgments which have laid down that the Courts cannot legislate by supplanting Statutory Regulations, because it is the right and duty of the legislature.  It is a seperation of power.   We have quoted these Judgments in cases filed by us stating that the Banks cannot insert or supplant clause/s to take away existing benefit which even Courts in guise of interpretation can do.  

We are only bringing to notice, which we have been doing for a long time, with regard to relying on this amendment to Regulation 35(1).  The basic error is ignoring the words 'as per formulae in Appendix - I'

Main problem with us is we trust and believe when someone say they get some benefit.  But, we do not verify.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xuraO5sNWhtNf1B_QY2O9kOUuSthtxiEfhdbqWhsJyTA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Sir,

While thanking you for your exhaustive reply, I request you to inform/clarify the following too.

1. What is the formula used to fix the basic pension of those whose last 10 months of service falls under 2 successive BPSs? Is it the same contained in Appendix-1?

2. I hope you would have seen my mail to Shri.Mohan, to which I had attached the 2 worked out examples furnished to the Supreme Court by IBA. What is the formula adopted by them to arrive at the updated pension amount mentioned therein? Can the petitioners suggest/request for adoption of that formula itself?

3. Will it not be a valid argument by the petitioners that IBA and UFBU have failed to negotiate and arrive at a mutually acceptable solution in the matter of updation of pension as agreed upon, but have been citing subjudice as an impediment to hold negotiations in as much as the court case was very much outstanding even at the time of the agreement dated 8/3/2024.

Thanks 

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/377569932.3157615.1772731694589%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Sir,

Applying the logic contained in the first para of your letter, is it not against the Regulations to continue those who retired prior to 1/11/2022 under the

1960=100 series of CPI and deny them the cumulative benefit accruing to those who retired on or after 1/11/2022 by shifting them to 2016=100 series, and stipulating that proposal to shift the former group should be cost neutral?

K N RAMANI 

On Fri, 6 Mar, 2026, 9:42 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/377569932.3157615.1772731694589%40mail.yahoo.com.