Claim for Contributory Provident Fund by former employees of erstwhile Associate Banks

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Some of our friends were finding hollowness on our claim for CPF based on incomplete or partial information. 

We have listed some of the grounds that have been raised for payment of Provident Fund to erstwhile Associate Banks' Pensioners by State Bank of India.  We feel that those who had contributed 2.8 times of 'Pay' and 156% should also be eligible for refund, if we succeed.  Eventhough we are on a strong wicket, ultimately it is the Court that decides.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Mr Prasad.

 

Please clarify the following:

 

Please refer to the following in the Regulation:

 

3. Application:- These regulations shall apply to employees who, -

 

(1) (a) were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993; and

 

(b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and

 

(c) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (b) the entire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank or till the 1st day of April, 1995 whichever is earlier  or

 

Similar provisions are there for staff joined at different periods.

 

Please note the word ‘refund’. Then how do you claim that “Nowhere in the Pension Regulations is it stated that pension is payable in lieu of the Bank’s contribution to Provident Fund. The only requirement is an authorisation for transfer of Provident Fund accumulations to the Pension Fund”.

 

‘Refund’ is different from mere transfer.

 

Any case has been filed on behalf of other public sector bank employees on this?

 

Regards.

 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Satyanarayana Rao]

We have not lost any single case filed by our commune under your able leadership with unquistionable legal knowledge and experience, i am confident that the P F demand case shall be achieved.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--
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/2093375151.946868.1781347338968%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I am confident SBM Commune will achieve success in getting CPF as a third benefit.  It may be possible for employees who are still in service. It is most beneficial for  employees who are covered under NPS. They will be able to retain a present bank contribution of 14% and pension also.

But it is  just a mirage for Bank pensioners

I an sure 99% of pensioners do not have trust in CHV and Roopam Roythat they will be able to negotiate  CPF as a third benefit.

Can we trust these leaders who are accepting absurd replies from  IBA like SUB Judice and issuing copy paste circulars. When SC itself has identified M C Singla case for mediation claiming sub judice is utter betrayal.

Pensioners' issues are of zero priority for these leaders. 

Updation issue has been pending for 25 years. Many senior pensioners were looking to these leaders to take up these issues. But during the AIBEA conference, they have passed 40 and odd resolutions to achiev

Out of these Pension Upfation is in Serial No.36 and Updation formula Serial No,39.

They were not able to secure an Ex gratia Increase of Rs,100-1000. Merger of DA also not negotiated. There is widespread disappointment expressed by pensioners all over social media  that such leaders are reelected.

It is highly impossible for PSU Bank pensioners to achieve CPF as a third benefit. They had no remorse in making 10-12 BPS pensioners lose pension increase of rs 2000-3000 per month by accepting denial of pension on special allowance.  They will immediately sign without blinking an eye if IBA wants to reduce pension. For securing improvement in pension they take 25 years.

With the type of leaders we have in PSU Banks it is virtually impossible to achieve CPF as a third benefit for Bank pensioners. However  SBM Commune will secure this benefit for their members, RBI  and LIC pensioners also may get it,

for PSU bnak pensioners any improvement is possible only if pensioners issues are taken out of clutches of iBA and UFBU and  DFS should appoint a committee and entrust the task of resolving long pending demands of pensioners.

--

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

The claim on CPF raised by Shri Prasad ji has valid ground/ reasons while referring to BEPR1995.

The regulations require authorisation/transfer of the Bank's Provident Fund contribution (plus interest) to the Pension Fund for those opting in. They do not explicitly state that "pension is payable in lieu of the Bank’s contribution to PF" as a direct substitution phrasing.

Pension remains a distinct retiral benefit governed by qualifying service, average emoluments, etc.

While going through Regulation 3 on Application and Eligibility it can be noted that:

-For employees in service on or after the notified date (who opt for the pension scheme):

They must exercise an option in writing to become a member of the Pension Fund.

They must authorise the trustees of the Provident Fund to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank (along with interest accrued thereon) to the credit of the Pension Fund.

-For those who had already retired before the notified date (and opt in), the requirement is generally to refund the Bank's PF contribution (with interest) to the bank/pension fund.

Regards

Mohan.P

--

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/882e5875-4473-421d-8196-5ec6047624c9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I fully agree with you with regard to your observations regarding 'refund'.  In terms of Nakara and Kasturi case, if a benefit is given to those who retired later, that has to be extended to those who have retired earlier.  There can be no discrimination.  We are happy, if the Bank raises this objection.  That means, they have agreed with our views on payment of CPF to those who were in service.  In any case, Pension Regulations cannot control PF regulations. I am happy that you have gone through the document. Thanks

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--

[Srinivasan Badri]

Yes . Sri CNPrasad takes legal actions after thoroughly and thoughtfully analayzing every aspect of the issue. Not jumping hurriedly. His cool and calm exposure is an advantage SBM commune is lucky to get such leadership 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1504194702.1122695.1781503424812%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Will this cpf refund sought be available for all pubs?

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Kalyanasundaram Sir,

I would like to supplement what you have stated with the following.

If the argument, that as the pension regulations stipulate only transfer of the bank's contribution of PF with interest 

outstanding in the pension optee's account on the specific date to the Pension Fund and is silent about transfer of subsequent contributions,it paves the way for claiming CPF as 3rd benefit,

then, based on the same argument, the bank's contribution of CPF in respect of all those who joined services after the notified date and opted for pension should not have been transferred to the Pension Fund.  But, it is not so and they get only their contribution with interest on retirement.

Another question that arises is, if the Pensioners are legally eligible to claim CPF as 3rd benefit, are those who exited the banks without joining pension scheme also legally eligible for pension as 3rd benefit, on the basis of equality and parity.

K N RAMANI 

On Mon, 15 Jun, 2026, 4:12 pm Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam, <1952...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

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/882e5875-4473-421d-8196-5ec6047624c9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

The submissions made in our write-up are supported by judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We are confident that our position satisfies the applicable legal standards and represents a valid, enforceable right.

We are referring to confidence in pending litigation. There appears to be reliance on a case founded on grounds that, in our view, are neither supported by the applicable regulations nor constitutionally sustainable. The relief sought would effectively require the Hon'ble Court to add to or modify the Pension Regulations, which is beyond the permissible scope of judicial authority.

It is important to remember that neither the Court nor any stakeholder can rewrite statutory provisions. The role of the Court is limited to interpreting the law and, where necessary, striking down provisions that are found to be unlawful or unconstitutional.

In this context, I had requested you to provide the amount of increase in your pension strictly in accordance with Regulation 35(1) read with Appendix I, without making any assumptions, additions, modifications, or alterations to the provisions as they presently exist.

However, your response does not contain the specific information requested.

I therefore request you once again to kindly provide the details of the increase in your pension calculated strictly in terms of Regulation 35(1) and Appendix I, without any assumptions or modifications.

Thank you for your cooperation.

With regards,

Prasad C. N.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW327NMTdPDqabEuW4xWph_6UBeHmb1VU9Ku2gqsu8EzsA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Is there any case filed on behalf of other public sector banks sir?

S Kalyanasundaram

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

A strange situation. Some shed tears  about Banks'"genuine" difficulty in garnering funds for pension updation. In the same breath there goes a move to annihilate available funds  in pension fund carved out of  PF 

CV Narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wcmOoFsdGUcFOO0bNRh8Pase%2BdKuAsYnmA6jFnJ9ht1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

Right. SBI Commune is lucky to get such pleadership. AIBRF is not that lucky. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG-kmoNyrmR9%2B-DTuLKo1XFYep-r_VQwXc5-Gc0GhXiOzLJ%2BbQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

After so much discussion about CPF as a third benefit still following doubts not clarified.

Before going through the above points, let us assume the SBM commune will be able to overcome legal hurdles

 and secure CPF as a third benefit as they already have fought a few cases successfully. I think the case for DA as per REg.37 is  the only pending case now as reported by Mr.Prasad.

1. First operative part.  Most of the PSU Bank pensioners have retired during 2000-2001 and may be aged above 70  years.  PF cannot be deducted from the Pension amount. How will this work out for pensioners?

2, Is demand for CPF as a third benefit from retrospective date?

3.  Pension, PF and Gratuity. If we demand three benefits, where does updation of the pension fit in this scenario,

4.  Are we going to drop updation  demand?

5.  If we demand CPF as a third benefit from the retrospective date we should refund our own contribution drawn at the time of pension option and Bank also should recredit Bank Contribution transferred to Pension Fund back to PF account.

6. Provident fund account is not a SB a.c  so that we can  authorize  transfer of Balance as we like. Even though it is  a transfer not refund, we were fully aware that the PF account will be closed and the balance will be transferred to the pension fund  which itself is clear that the Pension is in lieu of PF.

7. Even during the second pension option retirees have refunded Bank contributions with interest as demanded by the Bank for opting pension.

8. Will the courts agree if we demand this benefit from retrospective benefit  after 30 years of PF balance transfer to the Pension fund.

9. Banks  may agree PF as a third benefit in lieu of Updation from prospective date say April 2027. UFBU has not secured any benefit from the retrospective date, except EX gratia.

10.Many retirees want  Updation and not PF as a third benefit. However PF as a third benefit will be beneficial for Existing employees including NPS covered employees.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wcmOoFsdGUcFOO0bNRh8Pase%2BdKuAsYnmA6jFnJ9ht1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

The blanket idea that "any benefit given to late retirees must always be extended to early retirees" is a common misunderstanding. The Supreme Court harmonized the rulings of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) and V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India (1998) to create two distinct categories for when a benefit must or must not be extended.

---

The Legal Distinction (The Two Categories)

In the V. Kasturi judgment, the Supreme Court divided these scenarios into two clear categories to explain when the Nakara principle applies:

Category I: Upward Revision / Enhancement of Existing Benefits ( Nakara Applies )

If an employee was already eligible for a pension at the time of retirement, and a subsequent amendment introduces a liberalized formula or enhanced benefit for computation, that benefit must be extended to those who retired earlier. Denying it purely based on a cut-off date violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).

Category II: Creation of New Eligibility / New Scheme ( Nakara Does NOT Apply )

If an employee was not eligible for a pension at all when they retired (e.g., they didn't meet the minimum service years required at that time), and a subsequent amendment reduces the eligibility criteria to bring in a new class of beneficiaries, that benefit does not automatically extend to earlier retirees unless made explicitly retroactive.

---

Relevant Portions of the Judgments1. From D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India (1983)

The 5-judge Constitution Bench held that pensioners form a single homogenous class, and a cut-off date cannot arbitrarily deny a calculation benefit to past retirees:

"When the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme in order to augment social security in old age to government servants it could not grant the benefits of liberalisation only to those who retired subsequent to the specified date and deny the same to those who had retired prior to that date. >

The division which classified the pensioners into two classes on the basis of the specified date was devoid of any rational principle and was both arbitrary and unprincipled being unrelated to the object sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension..."

2. From V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank of India (1998)

In this case, Mr. Kasturi retired after 20 years of service when the rule required 25 years for a pension (so he got no pension). Later, the rule was amended to allow pension after 20 years. The Court refused to give him a pension, clarifying the boundary of the Nakara judgment:

Category I: > "If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if the survival of the retired employee is a condition precedent for the tool of revision of pension then any amendment to the Pension Rules subsequent to his retirement which of course has to be prospective of a liberalised formula of pension would also become available to a tracking retiree who was already surviving and was already a pensioner."

Category II: > "However, if an employee at the time of his retirement was not eligible for pension at all under the then existing rules... and the amendment is also prospective, it cannot be said that such an amendment would cover past employees who had already opted out of employment and were not eligible to earn pension under the then existing rules."

(with inpiut using AI)

S Kalyanasundaram

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Retirees Organisations are one point organisations.  They do not consider any othe benefit, other than Pension Updation as benefit to be pursued.  But, we want improvement in our benefits.  Let it be through Pension Updation and/or payment of pension as per existing Pension Regulations and/or differential Commutation and/or Medical Insurance for all with payment of premium by the Bank, etc.

In fact one organisation has written to me stating that it is not advisable to claim CPF.  FSBIPA has stated that demanding CPF is an attack on SBI Pensioners and their Federation.  Despite IBA CEO stating that there is no demand from NBs no one is demanding CPF.  

When Grameena Bank employees/officers/pensioners are treated like PSB employees/officers/pensioners, we do not even want us to be treated as employees/officers/pensioners of other PSB, State Bank of India.

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/77359ed6-49fa-4632-9de7-a45fcef5c59fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Why same question is not asked in State Bank of India.  We have supported their demand for improvement in their pension.  But, these questions are forgotten, then.  This is the reason, we are second class among PSBs.

Thanks & regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da-gG5HkTh5zs%2BupbKR97Tmimp7h8yMZs2ZjS%2BSicnh8nQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Sir,

I agree with you that it is fully legitimate on the part of PSB pensioners to claim CPF as 3rd benefit on grounds of parity with pensioners of SBI whose pensions have since been brought on par with those of the former. The eAB employees and pensioners are definitely on a better footing in this regard in as much as they have become part and parcel of SBI after the merger of eABs with it.

Many legal points have been mentioned 

in support of this demand too. However, my following doubt does not seem to have clarified so far by any of the learned members.

If PSB pensioners and eAB pensioners are eligible to claim CPF as 3rd benefit on grounds of parity with SBI, are those retirees who opted to continue under CPF and those who could not avail of the second option for pension (as they had passed away between 1995 and 2010)

not eligible for pension as 3rd benefit on the same grounds of parity, that too among retirees of the same bank?

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/835258415.1487660.1781604175365%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sanagavarapu Sarma]

Dear Prasad Sir and Kalyana Sundaram Sir

Mine is 19 years 7 months pension optee Resignee case.  They have neither given Penaion nor Management Contribution of pension.  

If the Banks give pension it is fine. Otherwise whether any rule so that we get our Mangement contribution of PF.  

Kindly guide Sir

Thanks and regards

Sarma

Ex Canara Bank

--

[S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu]

Your comment that pension updation with prospective is illogical and against the law of land. Don't presume some thing and publishing.pl.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3d5ns7L_0nAdWLiV_0wpKK_037aQHpF8m1aERveya8_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Please see the attached document wherein Canara Bank has informed as follows: 

"There is no separate guideline/communication prescribing quatitying service for resignees to join pension scheme."

Nowhere in the Settlement/Joint Note it is mentioned that the minimum service required is 20 years. It simply says that the person should be otherwise eligible to join pension scheme. As per Regulation 14, one qualifies to join pension scheme with 10 years of service. 

There is a strong case to proceed legally. It is for the affected persons to decide on this. 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Vijay Singh]

SC case CA 2132/2011 Rampal Vs PNB order to pay Bank contribution to PF. Pls apply accordingly. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF-TfGtfVWRnveyKcj64DZWHWvgyOAeb3rY24ivSUk%3DtWEjfog%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

Maybe this matter (demanding pension as the third benefit for CPF optees) is also on their agenda and will be taken up later after the CPF demand is resolved. One after another. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xz0j3_qjsRBt39R-ZVq_pR4LRXJhtei5wSwL%2BsXtdchQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

In the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore, even employees who had completed more than 19 years and six months of qualifying service have received the benefit of pension as well as the addition of five years of notional service pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Perhaps, we are the only group of retirees who have secured this benefit.

Quoting Kagga on several occasions, I have consistently pointed out that we are pursuing a benefit by inventing grounds and seeking a relief before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which, even if granted, may ultimately prove difficult to enforce. But, ignoring the benefits we are legally entitled to and should have been pursued.

One of the fundamental principles of any retirees' movement should be to protect and preserve the benefits that already exist. Instead, we often overlook the benefits we presently enjoy or legally entitled to and but, pursue benefits that we do not have merely because others have secured them.

We frequently rely upon the 2003 amendment. However, along with the 2003 amendment to Regulation 35(1), the Banks introduced a proviso to Regulation 18 denying the benefits available under Regulation 29, without any understanding, agreement, or settlement with the United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU). Similarly, sub-regulation (6) was inserted into Regulation 41. Unfortunately, no retirees' organisation has taken effective action against these amendments, despite both issues being legally unsustainable.

It is equally unfortunate that no retirees' organisation has actively pursued these issues, which have adversely affected even those employees who resigned from service. This is despite the existence of two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supporting the cause.

Fortunately, a few cases are now being pursued. Shri R. K. Pathak has shown keen interest in these matters. We are also pursuing these issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court while simultaneously contesting the five-year notional service benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

We remain confident that, ultimately, you will receive the benefit to which you are legally entitled.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF-TfGtfVWRnveyKcj64DZWHWvgyOAeb3rY24ivSUk%3DtWEjfog%40mail.gmail.com.