Fwd: NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)

[RAMAKRISHNAN R P]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: RAMAKRISHNAN R P <ramakri...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar, 2026, 12:22
Subject: NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
To: <bankpe...@googlegroup.com>
Cc: RAMAKRISHNAN R P <ramakri...@gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

We should know how our DFS , is doing INJUSTICE to Pre 2002 Retirees in comparison with 2002 post Retirees.  Pre 2002 Retirees were not given 100  % D.R  from 01.05.2005 to 30.09.2023 and from 01.10.23 onwards only this 100 % D.R Neutralization have been implemented by DFS not with Restropective but  with prospective only. As per NAKARA Case, and as per our Supreme court judgement on NAKARA,Case, Pensioners form one Homogeneous Class and Artificial Division based solely on retirement dates violets equality. Date based discrimination held arbitrary. Even if regulations or silent , constitutional equality prevails. Administrative interpretation cannot defeat beneficial legislation. Whether DFS has RIGHT  TO GIVE THEIR OWN VERDICTION BY DENYING RETROSPECTIVELY  AGAINST  PROSPECTIVELY , IS MY QUESTION. IS IT NOT 10 AMOUNTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AGAINST THE LEGISLATION. I welcome if any of you clear my doubts !!! Due to  this , you all know how much arrears we are lestimately to RECEIVE. With best regards, 

Ramakrishnan RP, VRS Retiree.

[RAMAKRISHNAN R P]

[MOHAN P]

Dear Shri Ramakrishnan Ji

Referring to your message, the copy of the GOI ,Ministry of Finance letter dated 5th October 2023, conveying to IBA  'No Objection' on advising  banks to pay 100% DR neutralisation by IBA  to pre 1.11.2002 pensioners w.e.f 1st Oct 2023, is attached herewith.

You may please note the last paragraph of above communication as follows

"No arrears shall be payable for the periods falling prior to effective date"

Also banks have granted Ex gratia of small amount along with.

If a favourable  verdict was from  Court ,naturally arrears would have been received.As we are aware we have lost the case before Apex Court .So it is a great relief to see that at least same has been resolved later out of court.

--
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/CACpU%3DyTKZv3YQj5K-ApwYO-x1wB925nZULNgRGeUxfmw3g4d0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Dear Ramakriushnan

100% DA was introduced with effect from 01.05.2005 to all employees and pensioners retired after 01.11.2002,

  The benefit was denied to pre 2002 retirees drawing less pension. This was done with full consent of  UFBU leaders. Aggrieved pensioners

filed WP in 2006. As usual both IBA and UFBU cried sub judice. First verdict came in favour of pensioners from

Kolkata High Court. However, the Madras High court  verdict went against pensioners.  UFBU leaders could have pursued IBA to implement the 100% DA as Kolkatta High court gave a decisive verdict. . They did nothing, iBA went for appeal.

In 2018  SC.gave verdict in favour of Banks.  100% DA issue was no more sub judice, UFBU could have taken up the issue with IBA.

But they abandoned the issue.in 2023  Delhi HC order DFS appointed a committee to study all three issues and make recommendations. Like IBA did DFS also could have submitted before court that committee did not find it feasible to accept demands without submitting a report. But DFS did not interfere and the committee accepted and recommended 100% DA and restoration of full pension to SBI retirees. It is not the job of the committee to recommend benefit from back date.

UFBU should have bargained for the benefit from the back date before signing the agreement.

Can we blame DFS?

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Sir,

In my opinion, pre 1/11/2002 retirees are definitely eligible for 100% DR neutralisation retrospectively from 1/2/2005 as otherwise, there was no need for specifically incorporating a clause in the relevant MOU entered into between IBA and UFBU that no arrears would be paid and the implementation would only take prospective effect from 1/10/2023.

In all probability, the arrears were not paid only to cut/save costs. These retirees had abandoned all hopes after losing SLP in the Supreme Court and so even the prospective effect was an unexpected bonanza for them. The organisations representing them too did not bother to raise the issue of arrears, perhaps because this group consists of less than 15% of the total number of pensioners. To preclude the possibilities of any claim for arrears in future, the MOU - agreement route was specifically chosen.

Though the sanctioning of 100%  DA as above preceded the 12th BPS, it was very much incorporated in that BPS along with the sanctioning of Ex-gratia to all those who retired prior to 1/11/2022. However, while Ex-gratia was given retrospectively from 1/11/2022, 100% DA was not given retrospective effect even  from 1/11/2022. As a consequence, the ex-gratia for the pre2002 retirees was calculated on the basis the tapered DA paid to them in October 2022 and the loss is around ₹700 - 800 per month.This anomaly continues till date although UFBU assured as early as in April 2024 to get it rectified.

In short, among all the pensioners, those who retired prior to 1/11/2002 are the worst sufferers and justice is repeatedly denied/delayed to them.

K N RAMANI 

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Two factors that are making pre 2002 retirees suffer are

1. Commercialization of trade Unions  2. Utilizing funds meant for retirees to increase wage revision percentage.

    Leaders take up issues of  employees who are paying subscriptions. They do not want to invest their time 

and\ money  on retirees who  are not paying subscriptions. Moreover  those unions who seriously take up retirees

 issues like updation are barred from BPS. VIZ  Befi and AIBOA.  BEFI which issues lengthy circulars on Social justice,

 equality, protecting rights of workers etc etc  stopped talking about updation from the very moment it was barred from BPS. 

 Unions were afraid of permanent suspension from BPS and thereby  losing membership and subscription. 

Just imagine even a Unions is having  2000 members and collecting  monthly membership of Rs.100, 

the annual income of Unions is 24 lakhs per month + levy once in 5 years, If levy is just Rs.1000 for 2000 members

total collections is Rs. 20 Lakhs. Total 5 years annual income is Rs.1.40 crores. Who will lose such an amount by

 taking up the issue of pre 2002 retirees and get barred from BPS?

This is one of the reasons unions are accepting illogical reasons of Sub judice and avoiding discussions.

2. How the rule  pension basic shall be fixed on last 10 months average emoluments.is being twisted

    Based on this employees retiring during 10th, 11th and 12th BPS should have got more pension 

    as their Basic salary +DA+allowances and yearly increments are increased in every BPS. 

    IBA/UFBU could not have straight away rejected proportionate pension on their average emoluments

 or 50% pension on last drawn salary as it violates pension rules.

    So the best way to reduce salary itself, by converting it as a special allowance and denying pension benefits on it.. 

So amounts saved by denying pension on special     allowance, updation, merger of DA etc is used for

 increasing wage revision to 17%. Where is the guarantee that UFBU will not agree to  increasing the special allowance to

 50% and denying pension on it in 13th BPS.

   It is my strong wish that affected retirees win special allowance case and get arrears from their date of retirement

   So all  Unions prefer to keep the right to negotiate on behalf of retirees and use it to get better perks for employees who pay

   subscriptions.

  So far no union leader has come out with the  circular explaining why 100 % DA was denied to pre 2002 retirees, what is the actual

  cost of updation, why merger of DA not demanded,why ex gratia not reviewed, why Special allowance agreed denying pension benefits,

  the Medical agreement was signed making retirees pay 100% of premium there by keeping 80% of pensioners out of medical care.

    The reason is the above two factors mentioned.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_yTKeaHXe1Mtu78b8UROc6-YOYLCW4tGof4d2ihKAJvcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The negotiating UFBU has become puppets of IBA and playing in the hands of IBA.
They neither have commitments to trade union ethics not have the bargaining skill.
They started singing on
dotted lines.
.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2uqAWV7UPo6TgW0nn9if7VdDM_o-%3Do9OYa9rkRV%3D9kgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harish Midha]

And above that one of our Honourable member in this group will continuously keep on harping on the interpretations showing all negative views and meanings of every comes, semi colon, full stop etc etc without even touching on even a single word as nicely put forth by Somasekhra ji.

Very unfortunate.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2uqAWV7UPo6TgW0nn9if7VdDM_o-%3Do9OYa9rkRV%3D9kgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Sir,

There cannot be a more analytical and exhaustive reply than this, and I always keep wondering at your patience to think over and write such long letters.

I opine that more than the absence of any subscription from pensioners, concern about the future of their majority members under NPS is the reason for the Unions' disinclination and apathy towards pension updation. We can very well afford to pay a subscription of even Rs.100 p.m. to them if they would fight and secure updation.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2uqAWV7UPo6TgW0nn9if7VdDM_o-%3Do9OYa9rkRV%3D9kgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Some super inteligents are ment to undermine the Sri Singla ji Case by their own rules and assumptions and presumption.
The learned judges of the high court have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail in favour of updation.
Let us wait for the final verdict.
Those who support IBA and UFBU combine and play second fiddle are minimum.and interpret pension regulations in their own way.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKHz0FwLUb9f6%2BWXEaGBGSFLwHs%3DD7_rC%2BqGDYJnAQywh%2Bp%3Dqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

M C Singhla case is listed for tomorrow.

Petitioners party has not filed any further documents

Bank/IBA advocate has filed an affidavit on 10,03,26. But the same is said to be defective and ineligible.

On 25th Feb 2026 their documents were defective.  

***************************

n pursuance to above order, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Advocate has on 10.03.2026
filed affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 4. The same is found to be defective for the reason
that Annexure A-1 contains smaller font and is dim-impression hence illegible. Defect has been
notified to the counsel but he has not done the needful so far.
The appeals along-with applications above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court
with this office report.
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2026.
Sd/-

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1435867694.4258222.1773203531305%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir it not supporting the case or supporting IBA.  Just because one told truth - does not mean that one is against.  His words has to be taken seriously and remedies/solutions to be found for the issues raised.  One should live in 'La La land'.

Niranjan

On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:56 PM 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1435867694.4258222.1773203531305%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sanjay J]

The Judges may take a very dim view of the IBA filing "illegible" data at such a late stage. This could be viewed by the Bench as a delaying tactic or a lack of transparency regarding the very data they requested on February 5th.

This actually strengthens pensioners’ argument that the IBA is avoiding a clear comparison of the facts.

The court's primary goal remains the year-wise pension calculations for the three periods to test the "shall be updated" mandate (p. 5).

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0EoeroLCKN2-7%3DF7uCKOaPHO4yBGpvNTHxO2u5YLoZdA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Perianayagam velu]

When wage revised the dearnas allwance is merged with basic pay.then a percentage ranging from 17 + percentage is added to fix revised pay.same way retirees basic pension should be merged with dearness relief and the 17+ percentage should be given logically.when pension requlation was introduced employees do not go through deeply in the regulation.norrmaly every employee they will be protected like regular employees.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHHiELbm_jQWdV0gzOZrNSMhK%3Dt1-%3DCYb4k5v97tvEMjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There is no discovery or wisdom or workshop required  in finding that Reg 35/1 does not does not fetch us updation. CWP2008 of Punjab and Haryana Court verdict CWP 6333 0f 2008. 

1. Reg 35/1 provides updation for pensioners for a certain period but it does not say

    employees retired after this period are not eligible for updation,

2.  So claiming there is no provision for updation in Pension regulations is utterly false.

     Then we can also claim that there is no provision in Pension regulations that

     bar updation for employees retired after 1986.

3. No provision for updation is required for revising updation  and

 there are many decisions taken which support this.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHHiELbm_jQWdV0gzOZrNSMhK%3Dt1-%3DCYb4k5v97tvEMjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

Singla posted to April 8 or 9

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAOhjV8%3DPVK216GedLga32Ozh_JiEuVW%2BUKqaoWjgZ%2BrOQLGVhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Very perfect and straight reply and  speaking assertive statement to all those who argue that there is no provision for pension updation.
35/1 and appendix 1 are part of pension updation pilleres for justice and jurisprudence and favourable verdict.
Sri Somashekara ji your assertion is highly commendable.
This is the main interpretation that the learned judges have understood and that' is why the have revisited the pension regulations which all the 3high courts failed to understand the provisions of pension regulations.
If one says that the door is closed half it also means that the same door is half open.
Let the legal experts anlise and understand the provisions with positive attitude.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW34Zv2NS8622hc3FJiz7P4vome%2BTi7YmtRjxEX53-H5ig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekharaji,

Whether there is any claim from anyone that those who have retired on or after 31.10.1987 are not eligible for Pension Revision?
Even if Pension is updated, whether any clause after such updation can be incorporated in Appendix - I?

Those who are saying that there is no provision in Pension Regulations for pension updation are saying so only after some started invoking existence of provision for pension updation in Regulation 35(1).  In case, we stop claiming existence of clause in Regulation 35(1), then IBA and the Government will stop saying that there is no provision for Pension Updation.

Regulation 35 is for fixation of Basic Pension, but not for altering Basic Pension.  The formula in Clause a of Appendix I is only by adding Dearness Relief to Basic Pay, but not by adding any load.  Formula adopted is akin to what we are asking with regard to payment of pension at 8088 points.

I have been continueously asking simple questions.  I have received various narratives, but not the answer.  My Questions are:

What is the 'Prayer' with regard to Pension Updation in Singla's case?

If our prayer is Pension Updation as per RBI formula, what is the connection between, pension Revision as per RBI formula and Regulation 35 or Regulation 56, wherein not even mention of the words, Reserve Bank of India?  

What is the meaning of 'Pension Updation', the words used in Regulation 35(1)? Where it is defined?

Beyond expecting order for Pension Updation if we succeed in Singla's case, what is the expectation regarding order and the formula and basis for such order? 

Whatever questions I have, must be a part of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners to win the case, while claiming order for Pension Updation.  

FORGET ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS.  PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE & THE BASIS FOR SUCH INCREASE IN YOUR PENSION?  THOSE WHO ARE FINDING FAULT IN OUR VIEWS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CALCULATE & TELL WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN PENSION & BASIS THEREOF.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW34Zv2NS8622hc3FJiz7P4vome%2BTi7YmtRjxEX53-H5ig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

The load for Superannuation Benefit during 10th, 11th and 12th Bipartite Settlement is 2%,2.5% and 3%.  This is for your kind information

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAOhjV8%3DPVK216GedLga32Ozh_JiEuVW%2BUKqaoWjgZ%2BrOQLGVhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Next date of Singla case is 9th April26.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPkEc8v5-hJDF5krw17f8ddRSn%3DGiD7EP%2BRtL4W%2BJo4-QXCLDg%40mail.gmail.com.