ANSWERS TO 12 QUESTIONS OF MR D S MURTHY

[Niranjan Cn]

Dear Friends,

 

Mr. D S Murthy, fellow pensioner from Hyderabad – has raised various questions and sought answers.  An attempt has been made to answer each and every question raised by him.  We cannot base arguments in court based on conjectures and half truths.  The case has to be fought on facts and referring to Judgements with relevant paragraphs/context.  It is not a joke to present a case in SC without substance and win the case. Singlas case has been dismissed by Single Judge and then appeal also dismissed by Division Bench of Chandigarh High Court. At present SLP has been filed at SC against the dismissal - for information.

 

The Bank reitrees are eagerly waiting for Pension Revision is overdue and it has to come through.  I am sure and pray for early revision of pension to all.

 

We got

a)     Family Pension Revision

b)    100 % DA

c)     Pension Option to resignees

 

All the above, we got without going to court, without any corresponding Pension Regulation  and without proving the availability of sufficient funds in Pension Funds.  This should be the eye opener and similarly – the Pension Revision also has to take place.

 

Earnest request to MR. Murthy Sir, to go through the clarity/answers provided to each of questions.  Any further clarity is required – feel free to raise the issue/query.  I am sure, Murthygaaru – will read the Pension Regulations, various judgements in full before quoting them. 

 

Here are the answers/clarity to various questions of MR. D S Murthygaaru.

 

Questions posed by Mr D S Murthy	Clarity/Answers – provided
(1)Why Updation of Pension  is not offered to PSB Pensioners  for the last three decades while in every other sections/sectors, Updation of Pension is ensured along with every wage revision to the respective employees?.	Pensions are paid as per pension regulations of respective banks.  Kindly refer Regulations and point out which part of Regulations deals with Updation and how updation to be done.  Please explain
(2)Why the Legally binding obligation in the MOS dt 29 10 1993 under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the ID Act 1947 and Rule 58 of  of the ID(Central) Rules 1957 including DA at par with RBI Pensioners and Updation of Pension on RBI lines have not been complied with, especially when the Apex Courthave been repeatedly affirming through various judgements the following like," The right under contract cannot be taken away and they become enforceable by a court of law" ; "It's binding effect cannot be changed  on the basis of what parties choose to say afterwards, nor them can be permitted to wriggle out .The contract is required to to be read as a whole" .(CA No 2463/2015 ,dated 02 03 2020 "Asst General Manager SBI &Ors vs Radhey Shyam Pandey" three judges Bench).   " The true construction of a contract must depend upon the import of words used and not upon what the parties choose to say afterwards.Nor does subsequent conduct of the parties in the performance of the contract affects the true effect of the clear and unambiguous words used in contract  The nature and purpose of the contract  is an important guide in ascertaining the intention of the parties.( Bank of India &Anr vs K .Mohandas &Ors (2009) 5 SCC 313.).	Please read MOS dated 29-10-1993 and reproduce the relevant clause – which you are referring to. In Singlas case, this has been dealt with / discussed in detail in Chandigarh High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition.  Please read the judgement , and argue if any fresh points if you have.
(3) 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐎𝐒 𝐝𝐭 29 10 1993  𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟓 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲,𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐧𝐨 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐫? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐎𝐒 𝐝a𝐭ed  29 10 1993 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐅𝐒 𝐨𝐟 𝐆𝐎𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐑𝐑𝐁𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 '𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐞𝐱 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭.	Please refer to Chandigargh Judgements which explains the details regarding the issues with updation. RRB case was totally different in context  and cannot be compared here.  Further in RRB also updtion has not taken place.
(4).When the Apex Court through various judgements including,Deokinandan Prasad vs  State of Bihar: DS Nakara &Ors vs UOI; State of Rajasthan vs Mahendra Nath Sharma: etc have affirmed that Pension is a deferred wages and must be updated  along with every Wage revision for serving employees ,why no steps have been taken by IBA/DFS in this regard so far?	¥ou are misquoting Nakras case.  Nakras case was nothing to do with Pension Updation. If you find any para – please refer the same and discuss for getting clarity. Please quote the relavant para of the judgement where it is said “Pension must be updated along with every wage revision”.  Be specific in your comments with reference.
(5) When the Parliamentary Committee on Sub ordinate Legislation (Lok Sabha) in the year 2017, recommended Pension Updation for RBI employees ,but  it was denied by the Ministry of Finance citing the reason that, in case it was done for RBI employees then similar demand  would be raised by PSB retirees,then why  Updation is denied now to PSB retirees while the same is already extended to RBI retirees?	A)    Parlimentary committee recommendations are not binding. B)    It was denied that stating that the demand will come from PSBs, and further read the reply to Parlimentary committee recommendations for better understanding. C)    Quote full – with para number/material for clarity always
(6).What was the intention in amending Rule 35(1) of Pension Regulations ,as obtaining now,by clearly substituting the words "will be" with"shall be " and adding "Wherever applicable" for Updation of Pension,if not for making it applicable for all Pensioners uniformly. Otherwise,what is the extra improvement made through this amendment?	Unfortunately, Regulation 35(1) amendments has to be read alongwith annexure. In the amendment, the period beyond 1993 was referred.  In view of the above, the from and to period was removed as it was inconsistent with the amended Anx 1. Selective quoting and misguiding is not desirable – as it does not serve any pupose.
When there is the word Updation  in the Rule 35(1)of Pension Regulations,how can IBA declare in its affidavit filed in SC that there is no provision for Updation in the Pension Regulations?.Is it not Perjury inviting Contempt of  Court? And how do IBA explain the reference to Rule 35(1) of Pension Regulations  by the Apex Court in CA No.5525/2012 dtd. 13 02 2018 ," Bank of Baroda vs G.Palani' vide para 9 of the judgement, especially when the Court  says the same is "extracted" from the Pension Regulations?	Please read the Regulation (not Rule) 35(1) in full.  Updation to be done as per annexure 1.  Please quote which part of annexure 1 is not implemented by the Bank/ Again misquoting of Palanis Judgmentment.  Please reproduce – the said para 9 of the Palanis Judgement of supreme court and explain its relevance.
8).When various Petitioners quote the the Pension Fund position of various Banks as more than sufficient to meet the increasing cost of Updation based on the respective Accounts Statements,how do IBA respond to their arguments  in this regard?	This statement exposes and shows the poor and totally misunderstanding of the Pension Fund and its working. Earnest request – atleast read your Bank Annual Report – with regard to Pension Fund and provisions and comment.  No Bank will make/expected to provide/transfer more funds than required
(9).When the Apex Court in a few judgements have already affirmed that lack of funds cannot be a reason for not extending the Pensionary benefits to the retirees,since once the Employer implements the Pension scheme in an Organisation ,it is for that Employer to find adequate resources to meet the consequential future requirements in this regard,how  IBA/DFS can argue lack of funds for denying Updation of Pension ?In their recent judgement in" Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd vasthe Registrar Co-operative Societies &Ors"---CA N o 297-298/2022  dt of judgement  11 12 2022 affirmed that,  " 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬,𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐨- 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲.𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐞,𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝.𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐚𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐮𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝟓𝟒 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐛 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭,𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐞,𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬.". 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐧.𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬,(𝟏) 𝐊𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐚 𝐇𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐯𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐢𝐡𝐚𝐫,(𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟑) 𝟔 𝐒𝐂𝐂 𝟏; (𝟐). 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐯𝐬 𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝(𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟎) 𝟒 𝐒𝐂𝐂 𝟏𝟔𝟐(𝟑)𝐁 𝐋.𝐖𝐚𝐝𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐯𝐬 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 - 𝐀𝐥𝐥(𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟔) 𝐒𝐂  𝟐𝟗𝟔𝟗.	Totally out of context.  It is responsibility of the Bank to pay the pension irrespective of its financial position. Anyone – pension was denied when banks were making loses (2015-18) ?   Pension Revision is a different issue.
(10).When the Apex Court has clearly affirmed in various judgements that in case of any dispute over a particular clause/section of a particular statute,the interpretation should be in favour of the employees. eg.the judgement in," The State of Rajasthan &Ors vs O.P Gupta --    𝐂𝐀 𝐍𝐨.𝟏𝟔𝟕𝟑𝟒/𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟐 𝐝𝐭 19 09 2022 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚  𝟐𝟖 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭: 𝐈𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐒𝐄𝐓𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐃 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐖𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋 𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐅𝐑𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐆𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐒𝐔𝐂𝐇 𝐀𝐒𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐔𝐋𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐏𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄,  𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘾𝙊𝙐𝙍𝙏 𝙎𝙃𝙊𝙒 𝙇𝙀𝘼𝙉 𝙏𝙊𝙒𝘼𝙍𝘿𝙎 𝙏𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙄𝙉𝙏𝙀𝙍𝙋𝙍𝙀𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙒𝙃𝙄𝘾𝙃 𝙂𝙊𝙀𝙎 𝙄𝙉 𝙁𝘼𝙑𝙊𝙐𝙍 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙀𝙈𝙋𝙇𝙊𝙔𝙀𝙀𝙎."     𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐁𝐀 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭/ 𝐭𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝐍𝐨 𝟑𝟓(𝟏) 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬/𝐏𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬?	Please quote what are the two interpretations which are there with regard to 35(1) ?   And explain – which one has to be taken and why ? (Please the Regulation 35 – in total with anx for better understanding)
(11).When the Hon.Supreme Court had time and again affirmed and reaffirmed that there cannot be a class within the homogeneous class of Pensioners and there cannot be any sort of discrimination between different segments of the same homogeneous class  by arbitrarily fixing a date ,how can IBA fix different formula for Basic Pension as well as DA pattern?  eg Apex Court judgement in," Col.B.J.Akkara(Retd) vs  Govt of India--(2006) 11 SCC 709 date of judgement 10 10 2006 vide Para 20 says that computation of Pension cannot be by different formula thereby applyingan  unequal treatment on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later.	Please read Regulation 37 for understanding.  The retirees under different settlements are paid DA differently.  Please quote with example – where the IBA has fixed different formula for basic pension as well as DA Pattern ? Further,  anywhere in prayer of Singlas case – this has come up ? Is it relevant to Singlas case ?  Please pond over !!
(12)When the Apex Court had affirmed that irrespective of the date of retirement,a pensioner should receive a Basic Pension based on at least equivalent  to 50 percent of the corresponding Basic Pay in the running Pay scale for serving employees in relation to the Basic Pay of the Pensioner at the time of retirement, how can IBA ignore the binding verdict of the Apex Court.eg. SC judgement in ,"State of Rajasthan vs Mahendra Nath  Sharma-CA No.1123/2015 dt of judgement  01 07 2015	Our Pensions are paid as per the Pension Regulations.  Please quote which of the Regulations not implemented by the IBA – with an example – if any. Case is quoted out of context…. Please quote the full para of the judgement – for clarity with the issues raised therein.
(13). IBA had earlier written to Shri. R.N.Godbole , on Pension Scheme, vide their letter  No.PO/DB/566 D/G(2)/1327 dt 17/12/1993 that,inter alia, that,  " 𝘼𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 , 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙂𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙀𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙤𝙮𝙚𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝘽𝙖𝙣𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙄𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙖",and again vide their letter No.PD/DB/ 566D/G(2) dated 16 03 1994  addressed to Shri RN.Godbole inter alia, informed that -" 𝙄𝙉 𝙑𝙄𝙀𝙒 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙁𝘼𝘾𝙏 𝙏𝙃𝘼𝙏 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙀𝙉𝙏𝙄𝙍𝙀 𝙎𝘾𝙃𝙀𝙈𝙀 𝙄𝙎 𝙋𝘼𝙏𝙏𝙀𝙍𝙉𝙀𝘿 𝙊𝙉 𝙇𝙄𝙉𝙀𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝙍𝙑𝙀 𝘽𝘼𝙉𝙆 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝘼 𝘿𝙀𝘼𝙍𝙉𝙀𝙎𝙎 𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙈𝙐𝙇𝘼, 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙋𝙀𝙉𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙍𝙀𝙂𝙐𝙇𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝙒𝙄𝙇𝙇 𝘽𝙀 𝘼𝙎 𝙋𝙀𝙍 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙋𝙍𝙊𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝙄𝙉 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙍𝙀𝙎𝙀𝙍𝙑𝙀 𝘽𝘼𝙉𝙆 𝙊𝙁 𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝘼 𝙋𝙀𝙉𝙎𝙄𝙊𝙉 𝙍𝙀𝙂𝙐𝙇𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎"	It was a fact in 1994 – the Pension Scheme was drawn on the lines existed at that time in RBI.  Any dispute ? please clarify.   It is on the lines of RBI at the time of implementation.  There was no commitment – for future changes in RBI/Central Government – for information.   Further, for your kind information – 8088 points not yet implemented for anyone in RBI.  Please check facts.

 

Hope, this will clarify Mr. Murthy DS  gaaru and our retiree friends.  Any pointwise view points/discussion with relavent material is appreciated. (corrections/improvements are welcome)

 

Mr. Murthygaaru – having made an attempt to answer all your questions – clarify the position.

 

Niranjan 

[Vijay Singh]

Sir your achievements point no 2  half hearted achievment.because pension option not given to pension optee resignees it's given only those who not opted pension option .in fact 30% resignees covered,70% yet fiting in various courts.

--
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/CAAX%2BdWEFkUt7VpLvOmwEQcmDJqzJH%3D0FdmzW%3D5g%2BMDiwGpDeqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Surendra Hissaria]

Dear Sir,

Pl guide whether a Bank Pensioner not satisfied with his/her Bank may draw pension through other PSU or any private Bank as per Pension regulations.

Regards

S K Hissaria

8852057350

[MOHAN P]

Yes, pensioners can draw their pensions from other banks, including private banks, in India, provided the bank is authorized for pension disbursement. You can transfer your pension account to another authorized bank branch or even to another authorized bank. 

--

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/10c29beb-f672-4f36-be9a-a995171ebb2dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Hans Raj Manuja]

You will lose benefit of 1% extra interest !

On Sat, 15 Mar, 2025, 12:27 pm Surendra Hissaria, <skhis...@gmail.com> wrote:

--