Watch "M C Singla Case 22 July Hearings Complete Video Footage Supreme Court #bankpensionupdationcase" on YouTube

290 views
Skip to first unread message

RAMANI NV

unread,
Jul 23, 2026, 6:44:45 AM (10 days ago) Jul 23
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com, bomrewo bomrewo, Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril, Ramaswamy V, SBMPC Blore, Thyagarajan B.N, Shanmugasundaram Eswaramoorthy, Ashok Shrikhande, Suresh Thakur, neelkantan Neelakantan, ranganathans...@yahoo.in, Viswanathan C.H., Swaminathan Venkataraman, Helen Auxi

Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam

unread,
Jul 24, 2026, 6:05:33 AM (9 days ago) Jul 24
to bankpensioner

Observe the following:

 

57.36. The judge said “Ultimately the DA gets merged into the pay….even for the calculation of pension”

 

“Revision requires merger”

 

59.15

 

Even if it is supposing 100 rupees it does not fit into the scheme then he can’t get it

 

 

1.13

 

The appendix typically provides for two windows and it leaves out the windows in between – Consciously

 

1.22

 

Mr Mehta If the similar processes has been followed or similar routes have to be taken,, there has to be a merger

 

 

1.58

 

(100 percent DA) Neutralization is merger only

 

My understanding:

 

The IBA/Banks counsel has come well prepared. He has explained well that there is no provision in the Regulation for updation. He has also explained how the case was dealt with in the lower court and how suddenly Regulation 35 has been taken up now, which was not there earlier.

He has also explained how Clause 12 of the MOU contains the provision “to be negotiated and settled”

 

The judge seems to be much confused with the 100 percent neutralization and merger of DA. For pre 2002 pensioners we have got 100 percent DA neutralization. This DA is not merged with Basic. The judge also seems to have the view that merger of DA is the updation or revision of pension. What we expect is not a token increase of future DA due to merger of DA periodically.

 

It is also surprising that no one from the petitioner or respondent explained that for pensioners there is no DA merger so far and even if DA is merged,, it does not amount pension updation similar to RBI pension.

 

All in all, nothing is there for pensioners to celebrate from this hearing.

S Kalyanasundaram 


On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 4:14:45 PM UTC+5:30 RAMANI NV wrote:

Satyanarayana Rao

unread,
Jul 27, 2026, 12:11:20 AM (6 days ago) Jul 27
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Yes.Nothing is there to celebrate right now.
We have to wait for final verdict which we shall celebrate.


--
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/47e6f5be-0a8b-4423-be83-2d7e17ac77e3n%40googlegroups.com.

Satyanarayana Rao

unread,
Jul 27, 2026, 12:11:21 AM (6 days ago) Jul 27
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
The legal experts in the group have not debated on the 22 nd july proceedings in Supreme court.
Let us have the comments.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:35, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
--

Satyanarayana Rao

unread,
Jul 27, 2026, 12:11:22 AM (6 days ago) Jul 27
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
The judges can never be confused.
They are more learned they are digging to get the truth.
The deffendent advocates sole intention is to deny the pension updation orbitarly.
The judges are steo by step building the strong legal grounds as per article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution to restore the justice to petitioners.
They are making the Deffendent advocates to vomit the truth and fix them in a manner they deserve .

The judges are convinced that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the nexus of government DFS and IBA ably supported by the where is paisa leader.
 Ultimately the justice shall prevail and the judgement shall be in our favour.

Srinivasan Badri

unread,
Jul 27, 2026, 11:48:52 PM (5 days ago) Jul 27
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
The clarification by way of affidavit sought for clause 35 1 whether current .
The clause was amended in 2002 with subscription of the words  shall and formulae  but " wherever applicable" .
This wherever applicable wording is not well defined 
Who is to decide " wherever applicable " is the main question to determine whether Updation is available for all retired under various Bi parties?
If the petitioners can convince , it is won

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages