Revision of Pension - the Case before Hon'ble Supreme Court
Prasad C N
Dear friends,
I am one of the Petitioners in 1616 – 1684 case before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Respondent before Hon’ble Supreme Court which culminated in Judgment dated 13.02.2018. We had even filed Contempt Petition too.
Issue of payment of pension in terms of Chapter VI of the Pension Regulations, 1995, including Regulation 35 was before the Constitutional Courts. I am extracting from the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, which is also extracted in the Judgment of the Division Bench and also in orders in Contempt Proceedings before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
“Circular No.1/2001 dated 2.1.2001 insofar as it seeks to amend Regulation 28 and Circular No.10/2001 dated 11.1.2001 are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to increase in their qualifying service by a period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the petitioners shall not in any case exceed 33 years and does not take them beyond the date of superannuation. The respondent-banks are directed to pay pension to the petitioners after applying the same and the orders by the banks insofar as the same deprived the addition of five years qualifying service are quashed. The petitioners are entitled to payment of pension calculated on the basis of actual pay fixed, personal pay, special pay and other allowances and emoluments drawn by them during the last ten months of service as provided under Regulations 35 and 38 of the Pension Regulations together with Dearness Allowance thereon and the respondent – bank shall pay the differential amount of pension and commutation value of pension to the petitioners on that basis, within a period of eight weeks, if not earlier and in the event of failure to make the payment as above, the banks shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the said amounts till the date of payment”.
It could be observed from the above extract that the calculation of pension at the time of retirement is provided in Regulation 35. In case our claim is Pension Updation is in terms of Regulation 35(1), we could have even filed Contempt Petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the Judgment dated 13.02.2018, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para No.9 of the Judgment has extracted Regulation 35, including Regulation 35(1). Chapter VI deals with rates of pension. Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which has decided that the Pension was required to be determined under the existing Regulations.
Please enlighten me why no Contempt Petition was not filed, when Pension was not updated in terms of Regulation 35(1), if our claim is correct?
Thanking you,
With warm regards,
C N Prasad
Satyanarayana Rao
We appreciate your views but the court verdict may disappoint you if Singla case judgement May turn the table.
Knowledge and natural justice will not go together.
Let us wait for the final verdict and stop countering the regulation 35/1 and appendix 1
Let the learned judges decide the case.
--
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/1590043894.198629.1770897434814%40mail.yahoo.com.