Re:

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

all second optees may send the letter to RBI /DFS after changing the same into their names

On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 at 15:10, Ramani S <raman...@gmail.com> wrote:

As long as these leaders are there as leaders pension will not be  revised and bank employees salary will be more less than government employees.Powerless leaders

On Sat, 21 Jan, 2023, 5:14 PM Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi, <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: jagat niwas Shukla <jagat.n...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 9:29 AM
Subject:
To: bank officers <aibo...@gmail.com>, Nochur R Ayyappan
<nochur....@gmail.com>, <appoint...@gov.in>, Vedavyasa
Acharya <acharyav...@gmail.com>, <aib...@gmail.com>, satish
arora <skar...@gmail.com>, Manohar lal Arora
<mlaro...@gmail.com>, <aibob...@gmail.com>, KUMAR ARVIND
<presiden...@gmail.com>, Siddalingappa A K
<sid_...@yahoo.co.uk>, <bhagwa...@sansad.nic.in>, Dr.Dhananjaya
Bhupathi <doctordh...@gmail.com>,
<bhardwaj....@gmail.com>, Pradip Biswas
<pradi...@yahoo.co.in>, ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS Confederation
<aiboc...@gmail.com>, Deep Kr. Bajpai - VP, UPBEU
<absa...@gmail.com>, Banwari Lal Maheshwari
<jagdish...@gmail.com>, K R BUNKAR <k.r.bun...@gmail.com>, Lal
Chand - Federal Bank <lalch...@gmail.com>, <c...@iba.org.in>, Office
of Tejasvi Surya <con...@tejasvisurya.in>, Venugopal
Cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@gmail.com>, <chai...@iba.org.in>,
<md....@bankofbaroda.com>, CHAIRMAN SBI <chai...@sbi.co.in>,
LakshmanRao Kantamsetti <contac...@gmail.com>, harish chandra
<harishcha...@gmail.com>, Debasish Mukherjee
<mumb...@rediffmail.com>, <dbc2...@gmail.com>, Danendra Jain
<dkjai...@gmail.com>, Faujdar Dubey <faujda...@gmail.com>, Dau
Dayal Varshney <varsh...@gmail.com>, federal bank employees union
aluva <fbe...@gmail.com>, <sec...@nic.in>, <f...@nic.in>, Thomas
Franco <ngcf...@gmail.com>, Kedar Shah - Farrukhabad
<kedar...@gmail.com>, A.K. Kool - Faizabad
<koolar...@gmail.com>, <gsno...@gmail.com>, madan lal Gupta
<mlge...@gmail.com>, <gsnob...@gmail.com>, Nagabushana Rao Gurram
<gnbr...@gmail.com>, Rana Pratap Singh - GS, ABEU (U.P.)
<ranaps...@gmail.com>, yadvinder gupta <sbpa...@yahoo.com>,
<gove...@rbi.org.in>, harinarayana sarma nandivada
<nhns...@aol.com>, Rakesh Verma - Jt. Secy. UPBEU, Hathras
<abrk...@gmail.com>, Ragavendran Krishnan <nccp...@gmail.com>,
<hasmu...@gmail.com>, Prabhakar Hebbar <prabs...@gmail.com>,
Prashant Sharma - Meerut <ibeum...@gmail.com>, <i...@nic.in>, Jasbir
Singh <jasbirs...@gmail.com>, Madan Ji Upadhyay - UPBEU,
Allahabad <madanup...@yahoo.com>, Nandakumar c.j
<cjn...@gmail.com>, K.N. Kaushik - Lalitpur <k.n.ka...@gmail.com>,
VISHWANATH NAIK Kedoor <kevi...@gmail.com>, lalitajoshi03
<lalita...@gmail.com>, llguptasaurabh <llgupta...@gmail.com>,
<mosfi...@nic.in>, <m...@ucobank.co.in>, Narendra Modi
<narendra...@gmail.com>, <m...@pnb.co.in>, <mrgoc...@yahoo.com>,
Sundaram Nagarajan <snagar...@gmail.com>, <nsita...@gmail.com>,
<ncbe...@gmail.com>, Sunil Ojha <soj...@gmail.com>, Y P Singh -
President, AIABECC <yps...@gmail.com>, RS Sharma
<rssha...@gmail.com>, singh raminder <raminder...@gmail.com>,
YVS Rao <yellamr...@gmail.com>, K.K. Tiwari
<kktiwa...@rediffmail.com>, Vinayak T <vinay...@gmail.com>,
Thani Kachalam <tkac...@gmail.com>, <saran...@gmail.com>,
<ufbu...@gmail.com>, UPENDRA KUMAR <upendr...@gmail.com>


फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
       (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
                   PRAYAGRAJ
न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
           ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।


STRIKE, A BLUNT WEAPON !

Until expressed otherwise, any reference of Bank Union or Bank
movement means the AIBEA & the movement led by it.
Once upon a time Bank Union was the identity & pride of Bankmen. It
was known for it's belligerence and bold decisions. Its strategy was
to decide the issues thoughtfully, make a strategy and then move
forward.

'Not the courts, the Union itself will decide the salary and service
conditions of the Bank Employees by negotiating with the Management
and getting the status of sole bargaining agent' is a reflection of
its indomitable courage and faith.

Nationalization of Banks, appointments of representative Directors of
Officers/Employees on Banks' Boards, New Credit Policy, such as
historical achievements!

Consolidation of Banks, formation of Central Banking Authority and
getting into the movement for reforms like independent audit authority
for banks on the lines of CAG, proves somewhere that this Organization
has always worked in the role of trend setter.

The Union has been recognized for its historic struggle for Pension
and achievement in Public Sector Banks including private banks, making
the impossible possible.

Today the condition of the same union is like that of a cow stuck in a
swamp, the more it tries to get out, the more it sinks. The
organization is the same, the members are the same, but the leadership
is different. Even NRIs have started running this union. The level of
leadership has become like that of tukde- tukde gang lads!

Why does it seem that in the last two decades, the image of the Unions
has dipped & deteriorated all time low? Why the Unions always appear
in management shoes? Why the decisions of the Unions are being termed
as questionable and unreliable? Why the decisions have lost trust?
Alike these, there are many questions, by answering which the Unions
themselves shrugs off from the members, works in clandestine manner.

For Unions 'strike' used to be last weapon in their armoury. Bank
Unions, through inappropriate use of this weapon made it blunt and
useless. Look to it's uses and fiascos. If you look carefully, the
condition of the Unions have become like that of "Mian Ki Daad Masjid
tak". IBA knows very well that Unions will jump & cry and then come
and sit beside it wagging their tail like dogs.

Dog is a loyal animal. His loyalty remains intact even after being
reprimanded and beaten by the master. Just as its crooked tail cannot
be straightened, so its loyalty to the master does not change. If
someone attacks the master, forgetting everything, he starts barking
in favor of the master. Today's atmosphere is similar. If one press
the nerve of IBA, the Unions have started barking!

Unions owe allegiance to the IBA, treating it as master. The Unions
are not ready to tolerate a single word against the master, leave
aside the matter of change of master. Success or failure, Unions are
trusted friend of all weather, always with IBA!! The proverb "sau sau
juta khaye, tamasha ghus kar dekhe" fits perfectly on the Unions
today.

If someone drags IBA to court, the Unions become its enemies. Singla's
case is a live example of this. Unions are standing with IBA against
Singla case.

If you look closely at the history, you will find that the Unions have
never opened any front against the IBA. There is a history of many
fronts against the Bank Executives. There has been a series of slogans
of Murdabad against the Government. But, there is not a single
instance where the Unions have taken any step like agitation, protest,
discard, boycott against the IBA while putting them in the dock.

For Unions IBA is a temple, its executives are deities and disregard
to IBA and its executives is taken as blasphemy. The fact is that the
root cause of all the problems is the IBA, which is supported by the
heads of the Unions.

Sometimes there is a need to bark a little more, then they declare a
strike. Along with themself, they also involves all bank stafers in
barking. The Central Labor Commissioner is bound to take cognizance of
the strike call and calls the Unions and the IBA for talks. Jumping,
crying, growling a little in front of the CLC, then cooing and wagging
the tail and then there is talk of 'Aa hum laut chalein' (come, let us
return). This noorakushti, pseudo fight, has been determining the
condition and direction of bank staffers for the last two decades, or
rather since the inception of the UFBU.

The basic character of Unions and Management is exactly opposite to
each other. The objectives of both are different and in rule they have
the equation of thirty-six. Normal distance is the identity of both.
Alas, there has been a character change in the Unions.

It can also be called distortion, it can also be called downfall,
aberration. Management is standing firm in its place, but Unions have
been dwindling in front of IBA in dilapidated condition. When this
happens, it is only natural that a terrible situation arises, which is
the case today. The unions have joined the management. It's doing
brokerage, not doing anyway bargaining. Unions are more aggressive on
bank employees than the management. Bankmen are aware of this fact.

(J. N. Shukla)
National Convener
21.1.2023
9559748834

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Tapering system of DA was introduced in banks by unions only not by IBA. Now the leaders are not opening their mouth 👄💋.

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BaI9bxBPLEtkkcEqSW0hpKFOJ0GDwsZo/view?usp=sharing

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Bank UNIONS are enemies to bank retirees and employees in service. Morally all  union  leaders must resign when the agreed PENSION  settlement is not implemented by banks as agreed. Shameless leaders. In one BPS IBA has offered Rs1288/ crores as a settlement amount and asked the unions to revise the salaries within the ammount offered. Just to adjust the revision within the amount offered the leaders introduced the tapering DA system. Only Unions are responsible for tapering system of DA . When retirees approached the court for justice, in one court retirees got favourable judgement and in bench retirees got un favourable judgement. In that one judge said DA is paid according the settlement by UNIONS and another judge said if 100%DA is paid it will be  additional burden to banks. and the same judgement was confirmed by Supreme court also.

 100%Unions are responsible for tapering system of DA in Banks. 

On 06-Feb-2023 6:06 PM, "Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi" <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: jagat niwas Shukla <jagat.n...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Re:
To: bank officers <aibo...@gmail.com>, Vedavyasa Acharya
<acharyav...@gmail.com>, <aib...@gmail.com>, Manohar lal Arora
<mlaro...@gmail.com>, satish arora <skar...@gmail.com>, Nochur R
Ayyappan <nochur....@gmail.com>, <aibob...@gmail.com>, KUMAR
ARVIND <presiden...@gmail.com>, Siddalingappa A K

<sid_...@yahoo.co.uk>, <bhardwaj....@gmail.com>, Pradip Biswas
<pradi...@yahoo.co.in>, Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi
<doctordh...@gmail.com>, ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS Confederation

<aiboc...@gmail.com>, Deep Kr. Bajpai - VP, UPBEU
<absa...@gmail.com>, Banwari Lal Maheshwari
<jagdish...@gmail.com>, K R BUNKAR <k.r.bun...@gmail.com>, Lal
Chand - Federal Bank <lalch...@gmail.com>, <c...@iba.org.in>,

<ncbe...@gmail.com>, Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril
<ceey...@gmail.com>, <md....@bankofbaroda.com>,
<chai...@iba.org.in>, CHAIRMAN SBI <chai...@sbi.co.in>, Debasish
Mukherjee <mumb...@rediffmail.com>, Danendra Jain
<dkjai...@gmail.com>, <dbc2...@gmail.com>, Faujdar Dubey

<faujda...@gmail.com>, Dau Dayal Varshney <varsh...@gmail.com>,
federal bank employees union aluva <fbe...@gmail.com>,
<sec...@nic.in>, <f...@nic.in>, Thomas Franco <ngcf...@gmail.com>,
Kedar Shah - Farrukhabad <kedar...@gmail.com>, A.K. Kool - Faizabad
<koolar...@gmail.com>, <gsno...@gmail.com>, madan lal Gupta

<mlge...@gmail.com>, <gsnob...@gmail.com>, Rana Pratap Singh - GS,
ABEU (U.P.) <ranaps...@gmail.com>, Nagabushana Rao Gurram
<gnbr...@gmail.com>, yadvinder gupta <sbpa...@yahoo.com>,
Ragavendran Krishnan <nccp...@gmail.com>, Prabhakar Hebbar
<prabs...@gmail.com>, Rakesh Verma - Jt. Secy. UPBEU, Hathras
<abrk...@gmail.com>, harinarayana sarma nandivada
<nhns...@aol.com>, harish chandra <harishcha...@gmail.com>,
<hasmu...@gmail.com>, Prashant Sharma - Meerut
<ibeum...@gmail.com>, Jasbir Singh <jasbirs...@gmail.com>,

Madan Ji Upadhyay - UPBEU, Allahabad <madanup...@yahoo.com>,

Nandakumar c.j <cjn...@gmail.com>, K.K. Tiwari
<kktiwa...@rediffmail.com>, K.N. Kaushik - Lalitpur

<k.n.ka...@gmail.com>, VISHWANATH NAIK Kedoor <kevi...@gmail.com>,

Thani Kachalam <tkac...@gmail.com>, LakshmanRao Kantamsetti
<contac...@gmail.com>, lalitajoshi03 <lalita...@gmail.com>,
llguptasaurabh <llgupta...@gmail.com>, Sundaram Nagarajan
<snagar...@gmail.com>, Sunil Ojha <soj...@gmail.com>, Y P Singh -

President, AIABECC <yps...@gmail.com>, RS Sharma
<rssha...@gmail.com>, singh raminder <raminder...@gmail.com>,

YVS Rao <yellamr...@gmail.com>, Vinayak T <vinay...@gmail.com>,
<saran...@gmail.com>, UPENDRA KUMAR <upendr...@gmail.com>

फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
       (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
                   PRAYAGRAJ
न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
           ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।

PRECARIOUS DAYS AHEAD !

Can Bank Employees and Officers know why their Unions have become
chariat of IBA? IBA has been doing all the anti-personnel and harmful
work using Unions as shield.

Had the Unions shown spine, the 7th Wage Settlement would not have
included an issue of pension, as pension was a different matter
altogether. If the Unions had shown spine, the 1616/1684 indices based
two Pay scales, one for getting salary and the other for pension,
would not have come into force. It's rationale was never disclosed.

Had the Unions shown spine, the 1616/1684 aberration would have been
resolved from the date it occurred and thousands of pensioners could
have been saved from sufferings & fighting a legal battle till the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Unions failed to take cognizance of the demand for pension revision
raised in RBI and the pension revision done there in 2003. While these
developments were going on, there was a feeling of emptiness in the
unions.

They half-heartedly pretended to be engaged in the second option of
pension, which they decided to buy at the exorbitant price fixed by
the IBA including surrender of OPS in 2010, much before it happened in
RBI in 2012.

When the two pay scale aberration was accepted and the Supreme Court
struck it down, a new conspiracy was invented to create a Special
Allowance by deducting the Basic Pay and exclude it from all
superannuation benefits including pension.


The Special allowance was for what? Was it for any special duty or
function? Nothing like that. It's end effect reflects that it has been
created only with the intention of restricting pensionary benefits
arising out of salary Revision. When this was opposed, the Unions put
forth a demand to merge the Special Allowances with the Basic Pay in
the next Charter of Demands.

The bankmen believed the issue would be resolved, as it was in the
1616/1684 case in 2005. But at the fag end, when the Unions were about
to sign the agreement, instead of merging the Special Allowances in
Basic, the Unions fought among themselves to increase it. The Officers
Unions agreed to 16.4%, while the workmen Unions insisted on a 20%
increase, knowing that this would hurt pensionary gain.

Had the UNION'S been honest, sincere and serious, could have taken Pay
& Pension as inseparable and two sides of the same coins, the
Pensioners would not have suffered such fatal blow as they had till
today due to no Pension Revision right from 6th Settlement.

After the formation of UFBU, these changes are a matter to be
considered. UFBU was formed with the sole objective of removing
inter-unions conflicts & discord, to establish better cohesion,
co-existence and achieving better achievements unitedly.

Those days were better than today, when all the Unions were working
separately. The smaller unions were always acting as a watchful
watchdog, keeping a close watch on the actions of the larger Unions &
IBA.

Today all the unions are united in appearance, but the driving force
is one which is in bed-sharing conditions with the IBA. In other
words, Unions are extinct. Through one union the IBA has taken over
all the Unions. As the saying goes, iron cuts the iron, IBA is using
one Union as a proxy for another Union.

(J. N. Shukla)
National Convener

6.2.2023
9559748834

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023, 8:36 AM jagat niwas Shukla
<jagat.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
> Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
>        (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
>                    PRAYAGRAJ
> न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
> कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
>            ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।
>
>

> TALK SOFT - ACT TOUGH....
>
>
> Contrary to the principle of 'Talk Soft-Act Tough', TSAT, Bank Unions have clearly seen the mode of 'Talk Tough - Act Soft', TTAS, for the last two and a half decades, thereby annihilating the firepower of the Banking Trade Union movement. During this, it was seen that the Unions have changed their side, swapped with IBA and started working as IBA stooges.
>
> January 25, 2023: UCO Bank, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai -
>
> If the speech had to be done in Chennai, then it had to be spoken keeping in mind dodge Chennai. If the Bank Employees and Pensioners of Chennai had to be befooled, then the speaker must indulge in rhetoric and lies. It is a pity that Chennai was once illuminated by leaders like N Sampath, is now being represented by most incompetent and nakara man. Today Chennai has lost its glitter & identity and the bankmen of Chennai are as sad and neglected as the bankmen sitting in any corner of the country.
>
> Mr. Chennai was seen dancing to the beat of the Tukde-tukde gang, as IBA agent/ stooge &  broker. The management of the Central Bank forced Shriman to walk on his knees. Shriman has become a strategist & propagandist of IBA. He was seen breaking the UFBU. The bankmen see him as the mastermind of the conspiracies. The country's bankmen are watching a great organization like AIBEA being buried in Marina Beach. The Bankmen saw the climax of movement at Delhi, stability at Kolkata and now see  its last rites at Chennai. We pay tribute to this funeral on behalf of the Bank Pensioner Activists of the country.
>
> In the condolence meeting held on 25.1.2023 at Thambu Chetty Street, the chief speaker told what the IBA said or what the Labor Commissioner did in the meetings, to which the bank workers are least interested. It is known to all that the subject of pension revision is sub judice in the Supreme Court. IBA says the matter is sub-judice, DLC too vouched it. So, it cannot be discussed, said IBA. It's not just that. What is worrying is the intention of the IBA and the silence of the Unions.
>
> The Supreme Court has not put any restriction, stay or embargo on the negotiation or settlement on pension revision, which is sub-judice. The problem lies with the affidavit filed by the IBA in the Supreme Court which states that 'there is no provision for pension updation in the Pension Regulations.'
>
> The problem lies with the IBA's view that the demand for parity with central pension is impractical. The problem is that despite the agreement that the pension revision will be on RBI lines, the Unions are talking about fixing it in piecemeal. The problem is that the Unions are running away from the committed line of pension revision on the RBI line. The problem is that none of the Unions involved in the pension settlement have countered or refuted these statements of the IBA and termed them as a pack of lies.
>
> Thus the Unions not contesting or refuting the IBA's statement are directly supporting the IBA's contention mentioned in affidavit. The sooner Shriman stops his rhetoric  and accepts his failures, the better it will be for the bankman, especially the Pensioners.
>
> Shriman said that UFBU  opposed the statement of IBA because court cases take years.  What to do when matters are not settled after years of talks? Shouldn't one go to court in such compelled situations?
>
> How did the RRB staffers got the same pay and service conditions as the sponsor Banks? Unions failed, Court delivered. All the basic service conditions if Bankmen, before 1964 were decided by the Courts and Tribunals. Is it not? Nothing new came out of the bilateral agreement except the Pension Scheme.
>
> The injustice of 1616/1684 went away from the court. Despite the concept of Pension Revision in Pension Regulations and its initial implementation, Pension Revision has not happened since the 6th Settlements. It has been 35 years since bank pensioners kept trusting and waiting for the Unions, but the Pension Revision did not happen. Shouldn't they look to court? Ceilings were removed from family pension, that too not because of Unions.
>
> In such a situation pensioners have very rightly gone to the court. Bankmen have also gone to court against Special Allowance. Special Allowance is made by deducting the Basic Salary, which is intended to reduce Pension. This is anti-pensioner decision of the Unions. If they don't correct it, affected Bankmen were left with alternative except court.
>
> The question here is not about years in court, but whether there is a provision for updation in the Pension Regulations or not! Lawsuits take years, are lost as well as won. It was because of years of delay that the foundation of bilateral talks and settlement was laid. But when the Pension Revision could not be decided through talks in 35 years, people were forced to go to the court. If justice is not given then people will go to court.
>
> IBA's intention of not doing anything is clear. It's also understandable, but such intention of Unions that nothing should happen is not understood. The fact that the IBA is ready to negotiate does not mean that a settlement is going to happen right in a couple of months.
>
> Unless the Unions set their garbage free clean agenda and formulate clear strategy & road map to achieve them, resolution of the issues will remain a distant dream. If the Unions had stuck to talks and compromise on only TWO MAJOR  residual issues and announced the strike, today the result would have been different. Strike went fiasco, because it was packed with 'garbage issues.' Now the question of first and after has come to an end. Now the talks on the COD will start. The stand to resolve first two important residual issues of 5 Day Banking & Pension Revision has been totally diluted & emersed. Officers Association had to bite the dust. Banking Unions shouldn't forget,  they have one amongst themselves a CROOK INTERNATIONAL
>
> Bankmen will have now to wait till June 2026 for wage revision. Yes, the pensioners have bright days ahead to get justice in due course from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is something more expected from SC, if things happen on expected lines. We will get the liars caught, booked and punished by Hon'ble Supreme Court for their lies, suppression of facts, misleading the court with ulterior motive to obstruct the administration of justice and derive unfair favours.

>
> (J. N. Shukla)
> National Convener

> 29.1.2023
> 9559748834
>
>
>

[Sridhar Mandyam]

The tapering system would not have affected pensioners if the same cut of points were maintained for pensioners also. 

Unfortunately without proper rationale, logic and reasoning, a lower cut off point was thrust and our Unions blindly accepted the DA formula in PR 1995. The problem was "pay" was defined as basic plus DA. If pay was defined as only basic pay then we would have got 50 percent of Basic and full DA on that. The tapering problem would not have araised. There would have been equity among working staff and pensioners 

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/fc985f5d-e73c-4e71-ae1c-b3380774a14a%40email.android.com.

[Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy]

I want to know how these retired leaders are negotiating on behalf of employees who are in service? 

Pvb swamy 

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Not only the Banking Industry, there may be many other institutions where retired employees are having control over working employees unions for long.

I do not know the exact  present position regarding legal validity of retired employees holding posts in working employees unions.

But in WP 23609/2013 of Madras high court SBI staff union case it was held that retired employees can become honorary members of  Working employees unions but the Bank cannot negotiate with such leaders.

I think in IOB case different verdict was given,

However observation of Judge is interesting

One more important aspect is that the Banking Institution is a Credit Institution and cannot deal with a person, who is an outsider, who is not required to be bound by the declaration of secrecy and fidelity. Interest of the serving employees and cordial relationship between the institution and the serving employees are important factors and an outsider may not have much interest to keep all those points in mind. Therefore, the first respondent-Bank cannot negotiate with the retired employees, viz., the third and fourth respondent.
18. Participation of third parties / outsiders in the negotiation between the employer/Management and Workers/employees is not good given the present day scenario. The engagement of outsiders as representatives of the workers was during the period when the workers were not much educated or aware of their rights, whereas in the modern world, the workers/employees are well educated and well informed. They are very much aware of their rights and privileges and they can take care of themselves and therefore it will be appropriate to restrict the Membership of Trade Union only to those who are working in the said establishment and not to outsiders. There have been many instances in the past , where pressure was put on Trade Unions to participate in politically sponsored strikes/ bandhs as their leaders belong to politically oriented groups or representatives of political parties. Therefore, it is better to amend Sections 3 and 22 of the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Disputes Act so as to prevent outsiders being representatives or office-bearers of the Union.
19. In this case, it is contended that the respondents 3 and 4 continue to be office-bearers of the Association for the past 23 years and 15 years and the third respondent is holding the post of employee director in the Board of Directors. Concentration of power or responsibility, with individuals in any organization is against the Principles of Democracy and Socialism. The power should get more from person to person, otherwise, it will give to monarchy status to the particular individual. Continuous and repeated election of individuals as office bearers for a long time is not conducive for healthy atmosphere in the trade union/association itself. One cannot keep holding the post long denying rights to others and the third and fourth respondents, even after retirement prevent eligible serving employee becoming office bearer of the Association and it has to be deprecated.
20. Even after retirement, if a person is allowed to continue as leader, it will only arrogating the powers of the Trade Union, which is meant for collective bargaining. If the serving workers / employees, of the industry or establishment alone are made as Union Leaders, it will go in a long way to improve the healthy atmosphere in the industry, promote cordial relationship between the employer-employee and build better understanding and promotion measures. It will lay foundations to increase the productivity, secure better administration, welfare measure and safety measure. If the retired persons are allowed to act as Trade Union Leaders, it will create unnecessary power centres which will not ensure smooth functioning of the establishment. Only if the serving members are elected as office bearers of the Union, as insiders, they would act after taking stock of the entire situation in the establishment and negotiate with the Management in a peaceful manner. The serving members alone are in a better position to understand the actual and practical difficulties faced by the employees in the changed scenario and not by the outsiders. That apart, the outsiders may thrust their views according to their policy. Therefore, the Membership of any Union should be restricted only to the serving members of the industry / establishment. This court is aware of the excellent services rendered by the Trade Union leaders in protecting the interest of the workers in the industries. By suggesting that only the serving employees alone should be made as Office Bearers of the association/union, this Court is not underestimating the contribution of the outside union leaders who genuinely continue to safeguard the interest of the workmen.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE2nyrfO%3DqcrJ2%2BvpXKub0ODVAhBAu20vFB-368S9LhG1M5oXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

WP 23609/2013 pertains to IOB retired employees case and not SBI staff union  which was inadvertently mentioned

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

In 2014 the division bench reversed the above judgment and allowed retired employees to participate in negotiations  but observations made by the judge in WP 23609/2013 are very relevant even today.

[Anantharaman Tg]

---------- Forwarded message ---------

Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 at 22:39
Subject:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/psbs-write-off-rs-29-000-cr-in-q3fy23-as-part-of-a-clean-up-exercise-123021401464_1.html

[Mani B]

I hv recd the following information through whatsapp and i wish to share it with you all.

Quote:

_Dear Conrades,_

_The fallacy in this speech has to be understood and we should know about AS 15 standards and comparative standards in India framed ICAI._

_There is a thing called present value of Future obligations of Defined benefit liability like Pension. For instance, if the interest rate is 10% p.a. then, Rs.100 invested in 2023 becomes Rs.110 in 2024. In other words, the future value of Rs.110 in 2024 is equal to the present value of Rs.100 in 2023. That is, if we discount Rs.110 at 9.09% we get 100._  

_Now the actuaries taking assumptions regarding all variables including life expectancy computes the aggregate monthly future obligations (say from 60 years the age on Retirement to 82 years reportedly the presumed life expectancy) and applying suitable discount rate (which bears relation to interest rate) arrive at the PRESENT value of these obligations. To meet these obligations, pension corpus is created and invested in Plan assets. The FAIR Value of the Plan assets should equal the PRESENT value of the obligations (i.e., monthly Pension for entire life span). Any surplus or deficit in Fair value of assets will be dealt as per procedure laid down in AS 15 standards._

_But our Pension Regulations (a subordinate legislation) has stipulated to make good the shortfall in actuarial valuation (of fair value of assets) and has not provided for writing back the surplus in FAIR Value of the assets. How is the FAIR value determined. In simple terms, the comparative yields are reckoned to arrive at FAIR value. For instance, our Plan assets of Rs.100 face value yield 9% p.a., while another bond of Rs.100 face value in the market yields 10%, then fair value of our plan assets will be Rs.90. I have simplified the fair value calculation for easy understanding though many other variables like risk, sovereign guarantee, tenor etc will go into estimating FAIR Value though interest is a major factor._

_So, as per accounting standards, the entire corpus of Plan assets at its FAIR value and not the yield on plan assets should equal the future obligations. If a monthly Pension of Re.1 p.m. for next 20 years may be Rs.240 and their Present value at discounted rate should alone be reckoned and matched not with the yield of the Plan assets but at the FAIR value of the Plan assets.  According to Mr. CHV, the plan assets will remain intact and the yield should match the monthly Pension outgo.  But the Accounting standards do not say so.  Even if we go by Mr. CHV’s argument, the Banks will get the whole corpus back when there is no Pensioner alive because only interest on corpus is used to pay Pension and not the corpus itself. The fallacy is because Mr. CHV and his MD (whoever he may be) failed to notice that our Pension Scheme is no more an Open Ended Scheme after the introduction of NPS to recruits since 2010. In an Open Ended Scheme,  the wastage (due to death or withdrawal of Pension as penalty etc) is replaced by new Retirees and as on going concern the corpus ( i.e., Plan assets) will be used ever to service Pension as there will always be Pensioners eligible in an ongoing concern. But our Pension has become close ended in 2010.  So the Plan assets will revert to Banks, if only yield and not the corpus (plan assets) is used to service monthly Pension._ 

_When Banks are going to get back the Corpus (in CHVs example) how can Banks rue about the updation cost.  It is therefore clear that only because yield alone is reckoned to Service Pension the corpus requirement looks to be huge but if we correctly follow the accounting standards where not merely the yield but the whole FAIR value has to match the obligations the one time Corpus requirement will be much less than projected by Mr. CHV._

_Mr. CHV talks of updating even for Pensioners Retired 36 years before in 1986 as if Pensioners are all immortal Markandeya. How many of past Pensioners are alive today? If life expectancy is 82 then for actuarial purpose the corpus requirement of the Pensioners dead and past 82 years is NIL and so also the corpus requirement of Pensioners well past 70 years is near zero and past 60 years will not be heavy._

_Let us also note that till we succeed in reckoning Special Allowance for Pension, the updation cost will be insignificant for those retired on or after 2007 and before 1/11/2012 because of the meager load of 2% & 2.5% (in 10th and 11th Bipartite) and for those Retired after 31/10/2012 and before 1/11/2017 because of a still meager load of 2.5%._

_And those Retired on Superannuation before 1/11/2007 were 72 plus in 2019 (the year of restoration of updation in RBI) which means for the life expectancy of 82 years, the updating cost is for 10 years and less as on 2019 - this section may get substantial benefit out of updation but for abysmally low number of years while those Retired after 31/10/2007 may get updation for a longer period but abysmally low quantum of benefit._ 

_Hence the Total Pension updating cost is manageable with existing funds or with additions (as one time cost for a long span of years) within the capacity of all Banks._ 

_I have used simplified examples to understand the concept._

_IBA does not require a better spokesperson than Mr. CHV.  Incidentally, did he make any mention about Regulation 35(1) in his speech?  One of his Disciples is going around telling Regulation 35(1) speaks of only updation which is different from Pension REVISION given in Central Govt and RBI. He should listen to his Master talking on updation meaning thereby only Pension Revision._

_Comrades, Truth is on our side.  It is said *“Lies go round the world even before Truth takes one step.”*_ _That shall not deter us._ _Truth always triumphs._

_Let us match on!_

_S.B.C. Karunakaran_

_General Secretary, ARISE (IOB Retirees Association)_

_Working President, AIBPARC_

_President, AIBPARC - TN State Unit_

Unquote :

Bala

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs,

Mr. SBC Karunakaran is requested to study at one Bank Annual REport (pages relevant to Pension(employees).  What he is trying to tell/prove - not able to understand.  Let him answer under what circumstances/why Banks make  provision/pay funds to pension funds - more than requirement for present payout/scales ??  Let him explain. 

Niranjan 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpK_%3Dg9_z_nWDAPSAfBkmnTjSm8PjqCgq-_THQLPcW1npA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We have seen circulation of this message in WhatsApp groups.  After reading this message, I have posted the following message to the gentleman who posted this message 

"Mr.Murthy, please use your good offices and get information from your guru, what is the formula as per Regulation 35(1) duly quoting relevant provision in Appendix I. By the way, why he has dumped Rs.3.00 lakh Crores surplus & when the enlightenment happened."

I have been asking this question, not only in this group, but also elsewhere.  So far, no leader from AIBPARC has answered this question.  They need to answer this question, if the Court asks or officials from DFS ask or official from IBA ask.  

While we do not know what CHV has said and which speech he is referring to.  Thre truth, law and provisions do not alter based on opinion of anyone, including these champions for the cause of Bank Pensioners or even CHV.  It is surprising to note that this gentleman wants investigation by CAG.  Irrespective of acts of omission and commission, even if any, in Management of Pension Funds, in what way it assists us in Pension Revision.  AIBPARC is an offshoot of AIBOC and many of these organisations are working from its Affiliates.  There are Officer Director/Trustees in Pension Fund.  Whether these gentlemen are doubting these Directors/Trustees also ?

Any demand based on these theories is dangerous.  This demand of pension revision based on surplus in Pension Fund is dangerous.  If IBA/Banks need to prove that there is no surplus, therefore, if they say no Pension Revision, what happens to our Pension Revision.  The leaders including Mr.Bandlish and Mr.CHV are saying that there is no money in Pension Fund.  This does not mean there is no money, but there is no surplus.  This is because leaders of pensioners' organisations are saying that there is enough money in Pension Fund.  Even the Government is also saying that.  But, still leaders of pensioners' organisations are saying that there is enough money in Pension Fund.

The Government and these leaders are saying that there is no provision for pension revision in Pension Regulations.  They were not saying this in respect of RBI and Govt Pension.  This is because the leaders of these Bank Retirees' organisations are quoting Reg. 35(1).  But RBI or Govt. Pensioners never claim so.   

In any case, these leaders are confident about provision in 35(1).  They have also filed impleading application in Hon'ble Supreme Court.  They need not depend upon IBA, Government, CHV, Bandlish or anyone, when they believe they have powerful 'Bramhasthra' in their hands.  Let them not bother and let them focus on the Court case and thankful to them if they can get the Pension revised.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

It may be CHV, Bandish, AIBRF, AIBPARC, IBA or pensioners, nobody should claim  that updation cost is huge, surplus, shortage etc without deciding a  fixed formula for updation and  documents proving relative cost data.

First let them decide the formula, calculate cost and then decide whether there is surplus or shortage.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEWw%2Bju4rsgM%2BMJ3Yi07gW8RyYKGjg9qtMmD%2BTh0pqRcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,  you are requested to understand the Pension Funds working in the first place.  The Pension Funds cannot have more or less funds but will have adequate funds for payment of pension at the existing rates. It is commonsense.  There should not be any doubt in this matter.  If anyone is differing with the above statement - let them explain why it will happen ?

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1zgvRqiq1g1i63%2Bkjtm8rAof_G97kj6c0OczhXdopm5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramanathan Venkateswaran]

Apt and good write up Prasadji! Keep it up. Only people like you can bring pension revision sooner or later. We are here to support you. R.Venkateswaran Canara bank SVRS 2001

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1zgvRqiq1g1i63%2Bkjtm8rAof_G97kj6c0OczhXdopm5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

Ufbu convenor is Bandlish,not Bandish.Other contents of the letter are very hard to chew.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1zgvRqiq1g1i63%2Bkjtm8rAof_G97kj6c0OczhXdopm5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

C N VENUGOPALAN

Ex-Manager Union Bank of India &

Former (Independent) Director, (GoI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore (2011-14)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nandanam, Kesari Junction, N Paravur, Kerala -683513 e-mail: eeye...@gmail.com

 

No. 230213                                                                        13 February, 2023.

 

The Secretary,

Ministry of Law & Justice,

4th Floor, Janpath Bhavan-Wing B,

New Delhi -110 001

 

Respected Secretary,

 

SUB: REFUSAL TO UPDATE PENSION IN PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

I bring to your kind attention that the Department of Financial Services [DFS] is groping in the dark and refusing to update the pension in the banks under its control in breach of various settlements and the Pension Regulations of the banks, which are statutory.   The breaches of different kind are as follows:-

 

1.     The Settlement dated 29.10.1993 entered into under the Industrial   Disputes Act, 1947 between IBA and AIBEA.

Clause 6 of the settlement reads as under:

[Dearness relief to pensioners will be granted at such rates as may be determined from time to time in line with the dearness allowance formula in operation in Reserve Bank of India] 

Clause 12 of the settlement reads as under:

[Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this Settlement by 31st December, 1993 for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions, etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India] 

In terms of Clause 6 and Clause 12 of the Settlement, the Pension Scheme in banks ought to be on the same lines of the Pension Scheme in Reserve Bank of India.  

Clause 14 of the settlement reads as under:

[The terms and conditions hereof shall continue to govern and bind the parties until the Settlement is terminated by either party giving to the other a statutory notice as prescribed in law at the material time] Clause 14 of the settlement further states that the terms of the settlement shall continue to govern and bind the parties until the settlement is terminated by either party.  Notwithstanding that the settlement is still operative, pension revision in the banks covered by the Settlement is put on hold by the DFS despite the revision of pension in the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 01.03.2019 by a factor of 3.63 for pensioners who retired prior to 1.11.2002, by a factor of 2.44 for pensioners who retired during the period from 1.11.2002 to 31.10.2007 and by a factor of 1.76 for pensioners who retired during the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.10.2012.

 

 2.    Breach of regulation 35 [1] of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations [Pension Regulations].

Regulation 35 [1] of the Pension Regulations as notified on 29.09.1995 stood as “In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix-I” and was later amended in 2002/2003 as “Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix -1”. 

 The Appendix – I contained the formula for updating basic pension in respect of workmen who have retired on or after the 1^st day of November, 1992 but before the 1st day of September, 1993 and in respect of officers who have retired on or after the 1^st day of July, 1993 but before the 1st of May, 1994 in addition to the formula for updating pension of employees retired during the time zone of 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987 and other formulae for reckoning Special allowance etc of employees.    Apparently, the reference to the employees who retired during 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987 in regulation 35 [1] was out of place   and the Appendix -I was meant for granting the benefit of updating of pension even to employees who retired prior to 29.09.1995 and does not mean that updating of pension was not available to employees who retired after 31.10.1987.

 

It is preposterous to expect the inclusion of a formula for updating pension to those who retire after the commissioning of the Pension Scheme as updating in their case is to take place on the basis of future pay levels about which no one can know in advance. Any doubt in this regard is set at rest with the amendment to the regulation carried out during 2002/2003 by laying down that “Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix -1”.   Stress to the updating was supplied by substituting the words “will be updated” with “shall be updated” and also by adding the words ‘’wherever applicable’. Though the reference to Appendix -1, was not removed from the regulation, it became superfluous.    Had the updating not been intended,  there was no need for mentioning the word “updated” and also for subsequently amending the Regulation.

 

3. Regulation 56 of Bank [Employees’] Pension Regulations:

 

The regulation reads as : “In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these Regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine”.

The regulation, though termed as residuary provisions and  is placed as the last regulation, is the most important of all the regulations with pervasive applicability on all other regulations, in case of any doubt in the matter of their applicability.   The regulation further makes it clear that except to the extent of exceptions and modifications determined by the Board of the Bank with the previous sanction of the Central Government, the Pension Regulations are identical to the Central Civil Service Rules, 1972.  The Banks have not so far identified any exceptions and modifications from the Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 making them inapplicable to bank pensioner and as such just in the same way Central Civil Pension gets updated with the implementation of each Pay Commission, the pension in banks is to be updated with the revision in pay scales arising out of the Bipartite Settlements from time to time. 

 

In spite of [1] [2] and [3] above, the DFS is nonchalantly closing the request for updating pension with weird observations like:

 

“Pension was introduced as a funded scheme in nationalised banks in the place of the Contributory Provident Fund, on the basis of consensus arrived at between unions/associations of bank employees and the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA), which negotiated on behalf of the participating banks. Accordingly, banks board framed Employees’ Pension Regulations in exercise of their powers under section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970/1980. Pension in banks is thus payable as per the agreement arrived at between bank union/associations and the banks and bank Board have accordingly made regulations governing the same. These regulations do not have provision for revision of pension. Pensioners/retirees of banks are being granted Dearness Relief on pension and the same is being increased from time to time i.e. on half yearly basis.  As regards revision of pension of retirees of bank employees, the matter is sub-judice in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”

 

In the above, the observation that “Pension in banks is thus payable as per the agreement arrived at between bank union/associations” turn out to be ludicrous as the Pension in banks is payable as per the Pension Regulations, which is statutory.   The DFS is taking asylum under the sub judice nature of the issue of updating with the Supreme Court, which is also ridiculous as any petition lying with Supreme Court does not prevent the settlement of the issue outside the Court.    The Court will rather be happy if the issue is settled outside amicably.    But DFS is making bad use of the judiciary for obstructing the flow of justice to the subjects.

 

It is also relevant in this context that the pension in banks is payable out of the Pension Funds which are mostly created out of the CPF of employees and the CPF refunded by retired employees and families of deceased employees who were admitted to the Pension Scheme.  As such, the payment of pension is out of the deferred wages and property of the employees and not out of the revenue accounts of banks or from the budgetary allocations of the government.    It is also pertinent that the DFS has directed the public sector banks to pay pension out of the Pension Fund to the whole-time directors of banks who are not employees as defined by regulation 2 [n] of the Pension Regulations especially when regulation 5 [2] determines the sole purpose of the Pension Fund is payment of pension or family pension to the employee or his family in accordance with the [se] regulations.   This amounts to conversion of the Pension Fund held in trust for payment of pension or family pension to the employee for purposes other than that envisaged by the Trust.

 

Since the DFS is seemingly at its wits’ end in the implementation of the statutory Pension Regulations, I request your good self to kindly apprise it of the aforesaid aspects for their proper implementation.

 

I am enclosing a write up compiled by me covering the various aspects and I earnestly look forward to receiving details of action initiated by you for proper compliance of the Pension Regulations by the DFS.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully

 

 C N VENUGOPALAN  

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023, 18:21 Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Re:
To: <vrsivaram...@yahoo.in>
Cc: Ramani S <raman...@gmail.com>, Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi
<doctordh...@gmail.com>, Krishna Siva Chaitanya
<krishnashi...@gmail.com>, Jayaprakash Nagaraja Rao
<njayapr...@gmail.com>, Aibeahq <aib...@gmail.com>, Neelakantam
<neelak...@yahoo.com>, AIBRF <martisf...@gmail.com>, BANK
PENSIONERS`SOUL DREAMS- PENSION REVISION INDIA
<1993sou...@gmail.com>, Allamaraju RameshBabu Allamaraju
<babu...@gmail.com>, <auravku...@gmail.com>, Indian Banks
Assoociation <d...@iba.org.in>, J.Srinivas Baba <jsba...@gmail.com>,
RS Sharma <rssha...@gmail.com>, Victor Man Mohan Syndicate Bank.
<victorm...@gmail.com>, Bhagwan Pooskuri
<bhagwan...@gmail.com>, shyamal roy <roy.shy...@gmail.com>,
Gunasekharan <ind...@gmail.com>, RAMACHANDRAN S RAMACHANDRAN S
<raman...@gmail.com>, Manish Pranami <manish...@gmail.com>,
<ma...@iba.org.in>, Deshpande <dilip...@gmail.com>,
<ved...@gmail.com>, V.Nagaprasad, Syndicate Bank
<nagasy...@gmail.com>, RADHAKRISHNAN.V Viswanathan
<dhanu...@gmail.com>, Bankpensioner Google
<bankpe...@googlegroups.com>, ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS
Confederation <aiboc...@gmail.com>, Deval Mishra, WEBANKERS.
<Sharewe...@gmail.com>, VANITA NAIDU <vanita...@gmail.com>,
jAIKISHAN <jamb...@yahoo.co.in>, Bhagwa Poosukuri
<ddre...@gmail.com>, Sushil Kumar <Kumars8...@gmail.com>,
Venkat Cool <Venkat...@gmail.com>, Hema <hemap...@gmail.com>,
Acharya CBPRO convenor <acharyave...@gmail.com>, Sabyasachi
Sanyal <sabyasac...@gmail.com>, vasigala ramesh
<vbvr...@rediffmail.com>, Vijay Babu Agrawal
<vijaybab...@gmail.com>, Mohan Bhat <pmbha...@gmail.com>, Shyam
sunder Baral <ssba...@gmail.com>, KASIGARI SAMUEL
<kasigar...@gmail.com>, KL Rao <contac...@gmail.com>,
<ush...@gmail.com>, CHAKRAPANI K IYER <kcpi...@gmail.com>, MS
Tandon <madhusud...@gmail.com>, COMMUNIST PARTY <c...@cpim.org>,
hitu sharma <hail...@yahoo.co.in>, mohandas bhandary
<kmbhand...@gmail.com>, Abhiram Samal <asam...@gmail.com>,
<Karwasr...@gmail.com>, mondal <balaji...@yahoo.com>, RAM
KUMAR Gupta <rkgup...@hotmail.com>, Ramachandran Menon
<ramachan...@gmail.com>, A.RAMASAMY <zdkay...@gmail.com>, AIBRF
Niranjan <niranjan....@gmail.com>, Narayanamurthy
<nmk...@gmail.com>, rama krishna Adepu <ade...@gmail.com>, Rajesh
Goyal <allbankin...@gmail.com>, satish arora
<skar...@gmail.com>, Vasant <vasan...@gmail.com>, Anoop Baranwal
<anoop...@gmail.com>, Sunagar <dksun...@gmail.com>, Chhapia, Dena
Bank <hsch...@gmail.com>, AIBRF <sharb...@rediffmail.com>, venky
iyer <venkyra...@gmail.com>, <Somya...@yahoo.com>, Suresh Babu
Karru <sureshba...@yahoo.co.in>, RAJENDRA BABU
<shyam...@yahoo.co.in>, bainkatesh mishra
<bainkates...@gmail.com>, Arnab Pal <arnab...@gmail.com>,
Pawan Kumar <pkmak...@gmail.com>, Dr. C.Rama Mohan Rao
<drcr...@gmail.com>, Kamal Patni <kamal...@gmail.com>, GIRISH
CHANDRA Khare <girishc...@gmail.com>, MOHAN BADI. BANGALORE.
UNITED BANK OF INDIA PENSIONER. <moha...@gmail.com>, Vinay Kumar
Khanna <vkkhan...@gmail.com>, bankhelpline
<ca...@bankershelpline.com>, PRATEEK GOYAL <Prateek...@gmail.com>,
monagupta <loyal...@gmail.com>, <mrs...@ymail.com>, pravin biswas
<pravin...@gmail.com>, R.K.Sharma sbpra <raj.kr...@yahoo.in>,
Mani SKS <sks...@gmail.com>, n.srinivasan N SRINIVASAN
<nsri...@gmail.com>, Indian Banks Association <c...@iba.org.in>,
Chittor Venkata Appaswamy <appu...@gmail.com>, Thomas Franco
<ngcf...@gmail.com>, Rajesh Mittu Ludhiana sb
<rajesh...@gmail.com>, rajamallaiah uppuleti
<rajamallai...@gmail.com>, Naresh Saharan
<Nareshk...@gmail.com>, INDRAJIT SANYAL
<indrajit...@gmail.com>, Debasish Mukherjee
<mumb...@rediffmail.com>, Cgangadharyadav .Sbpra
<cgangad...@yahoo.co.in>, MK Rama Prasanna
<mkrpr...@gmail.com>, manish verma <mani...@gmail.com>, Samuel
Kasigari <roopak...@gmail.com>, <Gk65...@gmail.com>, shubham
pathak <b2sh...@gmail.com>, dayananda kamath <daya...@gmail.com>,
S.S. Garg <shyamga...@gmail.com>, mastan vali
<mastan...@gmail.com>, Deubey <faujda...@gmail.com>, All India
Bank Pensioners' &' Retirees' Confederation <aib...@gmail.com>,
Nataraj Pulluru <nataraj...@gmail.com>, Jhinkwan
<ajayjhi...@gmail.com>, Mrs.Vinutha
<vinuthara...@gmail.com>, Manmohan Siingh Siddhu
<obcretire...@gmail.com>, Rampal Trivedi
<trivedi...@gmail.com>, CNPrasad,SBM <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>,
Rajiv Sharma <rajivsha...@gmail.com>

[mohan p]

Dear Friends,

Mr.C.N.Venugopal is writing now to the Secretary ,Ministry of Law and Justice, to examine  few points, mentioned by him for proper implementation by DFS!

While all the ministries are part of Govt of India, what is the fun in writing to each one on same points which are dismissed/rejected by courts and MOF.

More over the  all advices on legal matters in courts /MOF on such matters related to GOI,might be given by the same law  ministry and there is no point in anticipating  a different view from them!

At the cost of repetition let me add here on verdicts given by different high courts on points referred in the letter cited above.

Legal issues has to be fought in courts. Let it be clause No.6 or 12 in Memorandum of Settlement signed by IBA  and AIBEA on 29.10.1993 or Regulation 35(1) /or  56, in BEPR,1995 approved by Boards of   member banks.

What has been observed by single bench of High Court of Punjab &;Haryana ,at Chandigarh,in WP(c)6233/2008 dated 16^th April 2012 filed by late M.C.Singla and Ors V/s Union of India while dismissing the case was as here under:-

 Quote:

 “4. The point that has to be examined is whether the ex-

employees, who were governed by the Pension Regulations of 1995,

could seek for the application of Reserve Bank of India's regulations

or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations by reference to the

residuary clause in the Regulations of the year 1995 and the

outcome of the talks indicating certain proposals between the

employees and the Management. The petitioners' claim is sourced to

Clause 12 of the terms of the settlement between the Bank and the

Management on 29.09.1993 and Regulation 56 of the Pension

Scheme that had been drawn up subsequent to the talks. Clause 12

reads as under:-“

“12. Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be

negotiated and settled between the parties of this

settlement by 31st December, 1993 for applicability,

qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of

pension, commutation of pension, family pension,

updating and other general conditions etc. on the lines as

are in force in Reserve Bank of India.”

“This clause was one of the terms that the Bank had agreed before the

scheme was actually brought into force. It shows what the parties

had contemplated that they would do including updation and other

conditions on the lines that were in force in Reserve Bank of India

When the Regulations actually were introduced after further rounds

of talks, it only provided through a residuary clause 56 that read as

follows:-“

“56. Residuary provisions: In case of doubt, in the

matter of application of these regulations, regard may be

had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil

Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services

(Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for

Central Government employees with such exceptions

and modifications as the Bank, with the previous

sanction of the Central Government, may from time to

time determine.”

“It can be noticed that the Bank Regulation was not making any

incorporation of either the Central Civil Services Rules or the

Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations but merely provided that

in the matter of application of these regulations, regard could be had

to the provisions with such exceptions and modifications when there

existed any doubt in the manner of the application of the regulations.”

“This Regulation 56 could not, therefore, be treated as making

possible certain benefits which the Reserve Bank of India's

Regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations

provided for.”

Coming to Regulation 35(1) same point was  also dismissed by Karnataka High Court and not considered by Kerala High Court too as we have seen,in following cases.

1.       WP.48905/2018 before Karnataka High Court,Bengaluru,dated 26^th March 2021,  filed by Canara Bank Retired Officers Assn,  V/s MOF,GOI & Ors.-

2.      WP(c) 29890/2018 before Kerala High Court,Ernakulam filed by M K.Ravindran & ors V/s Union of India dated 16^th August 2022.as follows

“In view of the above findings, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to file a detailed representation highlighting their grievances.”to bank.

So it can be seen that there is no point in writing to various Ministries ,GOI, on  dismissed/rejected legal points by various courts and Finance  Ministry, related clauses in MOS of 1993 or BEPR1995 .

Instead of continuing this type of  futile exercices,by individuals,  let us wait for upcoming discussions between IBA and UFBU for any further positive developments in retirees issues!

 

 

 

 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPyv3rUf%3DDswq8pSCJGazpihvReUqx7LuQ2dcfooLn%3DRd7Pm4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir, what is being tried to prove ?  You mean updation is a legal issue - then fight it in the court and get it.  If it is not a legal issue - allow UFBU to plead on pensioners behalf and get the best.  You are trying to confuse the already confused pensioners with mis-information.  Being ex director of the Bank,  better keep off your hands.  For heaven sake don't make any attempt directly or indirectly to collect funds from poor pensioners with one reason or other.  Better stop please.

Niranjan

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPyv3rUf%3DDswq8pSCJGazpihvReUqx7LuQ2dcfooLn%3DRd7Pm4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Mohan,

These letters are written to various authorities.  The purpose is publicity.  We do not know the reason for writing such letters, when he is already fighting based on these grounds in Courts.

Unfortunately, for him and us, all these issues have been dealt by various high courts and decided against pensioners.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSi5D-eVjxC_EKWA7X0AQn%2BQ8chAM1jT2Cuw%2BT3bq2ftQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Venugopalan,

All the grounds you have raised have already been adjudicated by the Courts.  Here are the extracts :

This extract is taken from United Bank of India v. United Bank of India Retirees' Welfare Assn., (2018) 16 SCC 539 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 269 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 541 at page 565

29. In our view, any attempt to tinker with either the formula or the rate would make the whole scheme unworkable as was cautioned by this Court in P.N. Menon [Union of India v. P.N. Menon, (1994) 4 SCC 68 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 860] . As held in Indian Ex-Services League [Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536] the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] is one of limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all schemes made by the retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the date of retirement. The reliance on the resolutions/circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India was also misplaced. It is true that the tapering formula was done away with by Reserve Bank of India but that by itself cannot entitle the retirees prior to 1-11-2002 either to be conferred the advantage at the same rate made applicable by Reserve Bank of India or at the flat rate of 0.24% as was sought to be projected.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 789 of 2013 of P C Jain & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors (Singla's case) pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court :

24. A perusal of Clause 12 of the settlement makes it abundantly clear that it only provides for further negotiations as regards “applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc.” and cannot be read to provide for updation of pension. Similarly, Regulation 56 deals with a situation where a doubt arises in the matter of application of the pension scheme and mandates to clear that doubt by referring to the “corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time determine.”. No such doubt is shown to exist as could necessitate a reference to corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees. Thus Regulation 56 cannot be treated to confer certain benefits upon the appellants, which the Reserve Bank of India's Regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations provided for. Further, Clause 17 of the settlement provides that if there is difference of opinion with regard to interpretation of any of the provisions of the settlement, the matter can be taken up at the level of IBA and All India Bank Employees Association for discussion and settlement. Presumably this clause impelled the learned Single Judge to observe that it would be open for the appellants to make demand for parity if they are so advised and use their bargaining skills through their associations.

In the WP, which you have fought in Kerala High Court did not consider it worth considering your claim under Regulation 35(1).  While Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has decided that there is no pension revision clause in Pension Regulations, the clause 35(1) provides for 'shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix -1".  

Formula in Appendix I only provide for two set of formulae.  First, adding Dearness Allowance to pre-revised Basic Pay and computing Basic Pension by reckoning only 'pre-revised special allowance'.  The first one can only result in adding DR to Basic Pension upto 6352 points and calculating DR at 0.07% per slab thereafter or reducing pension by reckoning pre-revised Special Allowance, thereby reducing 'pension'.  Which one you are seeking to apply, Mr.Venugopalan, in terms of Regulation 35(1).

Letters Patent Appeal No. 789 of 2013 of P C Jain & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors (Singla's case) pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court, is one among the cases which have dealt with Regulation 56.  In P C Jain, it is decided that :

3. Clause 12 of the settlement and Regulation 56 of the pension schemes, in our well-thought view, do not advance case of the appellants. Learned Single Judge, while dealing with Clause-12 and Regulation 56 observed as under:

“4. The point that has to be examined is whether the ex-employees, who were governed by the Pension Regulations of 1995, could seek for the application of Reserve Bank of India's regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations by reference to the residuary clause in the Regulations of the year 1995 and the outcome of the talks indicating certain proposals between the employees and the Management. The petitioners' claim is sourced to Clause 12 of the terms of the settlement between the Bank and the Management on 29.09.1993 and Regulation 56 of the Pension Scheme that had been drawn up subsequent to the talks. Clause 12 reads as under:-

“12. Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties of this settlement by 31st December, 1993 for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India.”

This clause was one of the terms that the Bank had agreed before the scheme was actually brought into force. It shows what the parties had contemplated that they would do including updation and other conditions on the lines that were in force in Reserve Bank of India.

When the Regulations actually were introduced after further rounds of talks, it only provided through a residuary clause 56 that read as follows:-

“56. Residuary provisions: In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time determine.”

It can be noticed that the Bank Regulation was not making any incorporation of either the Central Civil Services Rules or the Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations but merely provided that in the matter of application of these regulations, regard could be had to the provisions with such exceptions and modifications when there existed any doubt in the manner of the application of the regulations. This Regulation 56 could not, therefore, be treated as making possible certain benefits which the Reserve Bank of India's Regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations provided for.”

24. A perusal of Clause 12 of the settlement makes it abundantly clear that it only provides for further negotiations as regards “applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc.” and cannot be read to provide for updation of pension. Similarly, Regulation 56 deals with a situation where a doubt arises in the matter of application of the pension scheme and mandates to clear that doubt by referring to the “corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time determine.”. No such doubt is shown to exist as could necessitate a reference to corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees. Thus Regulation 56 cannot be treated to confer certain benefits upon the appellants, which the Reserve Bank of India's Regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations provided for. Further, Clause 17 of the settlement provides that if there is difference of opinion with regard to interpretation of any of the provisions of the settlement, the matter can be taken up at the level of IBA and All India Bank Employees Association for discussion and settlement. Presumably this clause impelled the learned Single Judge to observe that it would be open for the appellants to make demand for parity if they are so advised and use their bargaining skills through their associations.

Time and again, it was clarifed that the Provident Fund which was exchanged with Pension was only Bank's contribution, but not that of the retiree.  Most of the retirees have drawn pension and commutation which are several times that of Provident Fund taken back or surrendered by the Retiree.  Even a not so knowledgeable pensioner knows that pension is opted in lieu of Bank's contribution of pension.  

I am extremely sorry to say that you continue to provide wrong information to many authorities.  They are not innocent Bank Pensioners to agree with you.  Most of the Judgments I have quoted are from cases where Banks are parties.  They are aware of all these grounds.  Providing wrong and misleading information also constitutes misrepresentataion.  Even forwarding or advocating or publishing in youtube also amounts to misrepresentation.  You are harming the interest of Bank retirees, by misleading them.

By the way, please let us know what is the revised Basic Pension and revised Dearness Relief to Pre-2002 retiree with Rs.7,500/- Basic Pension, duly quoting applicable formula in Appendix I and also in Central Civil Services Rules, 1972.  Please stop misrepresenting based on conjunctures.  You are not helping Bank Retirees, but wants to project yourself as a warrior.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPyv3rUf%3DDswq8pSCJGazpihvReUqx7LuQ2dcfooLn%3DRd7Pm4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

Dear Prasadji,

You are Right.Publicity may be the only reason rather than any benefit to retirees.

Seeking financial contributions from retirees through social media(who ever may be) without any base, is also not a good indication.

More over such actions with misleading information to DFS/GOI  may only harm the interest of retirees.

Regards,

Mohan.P

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/6791854.606394.1677403212137%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I think there is no need to debate on the representations of Sri.C.N.venugopalan. As far as Bank pensioners are concerned', authorities like Banks/IIBA/DFS/UFBU/PMO office will not respond to us and even in Parliament DFS is giving replies based on feedback given by IBA.

Any how it is clear Reg 35/1, Agreements of 1993 and 1994, status of Pension funds etc  is not relevant to achieving Pension updation and only negotiation between IBA and UFBU can solve the problem/ Now Venugoplan's letters are not a problem.

Updation issue has to be resolved before commencement of XII Bps negotiations.

Tomorrow is the D Day and more than 5-6 lakhs are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the meeting and are placing trust on UFBU to resolve the issue.

Let us hope both IBA and UFBU  will respect the feelings of the pensioners and take some responsible and positive decisions to take the issue forward and not repeat the same dialogue IBA positive, sympathetic, we suggested etc.

What CNV is doing, AIBPARC and AIBRF have also been doing for the last 20 years. Such letters cannot be an excuse to delay resolving issues by IBA/UFBU.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/6791854.606394.1677403212137%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Suryakumaran Nair]

Shri. C N Venugopal has made the picture  very clear.  Really a good job which only a person of good knowledge with commitment and concern could do.  I appreciate it.  Now all our so called "champions of retirees" in this forum before airing any comment on pension updation  should take note of the various aspects which our dear Venugopal has dealt with and in case they are not capable  of assimilating the  idea it would be better for them to keep their mouth shut.

On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 6:41 PM Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPyv3rUf%3DDswq8pSCJGazpihvReUqx7LuQ2dcfooLn%3DRd7Pm4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Asok Bhaumik]

Yes, you are right. As per speech of Mr. CHV on 25.02.23 Hon'ble FM, DFS, IBA and UFBU all are sympathetic and willing to help pre-Nov 2002 pensioners.

Let us see what is GOD's will.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1f-oFkN48x5ZnOoAQF%2BUBHDt%3DXZZh7uRcndLpmqeHpmQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

All the issues mentioned by Mr CNV have been already dealt by courts.   He had issue with diversion of pension funds,  EDs pension, etc. without any evidence and based onhear-say.  He is taking advantage of desperate pensioners with misinformation giving false hopes based on conjuncture.  

Earnest appeal to fellow pensioners not to support financially to any anyone without any substance.

Niranjan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAORfHTFzW-G_XFkgcLBuPtOSwi1OQeOPaqrsCbHWPeobgNmQQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

Thanks a million. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAORfHTFzW-G_XFkgcLBuPtOSwi1OQeOPaqrsCbHWPeobgNmQQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Let us hope that sympathy and willingness will result in some positive agreement today

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANEF%2BN9LDc-5XOwaNKCs6x%3D2SjmQhP6py08q5tTMn_xhRj-B0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

We recognize and appreciate the intellectuals like Mr. Venugopal and yourself.  Please enlighten us on the following as requested by Mr. Prasad:

What is the revised Basic Pension and revised Dearness Relief to Pre-2002 retiree with Rs.7,500/- Basic Pension, duly quoting applicable formula in Appendix I and also in Central Civil Services Rules, 1972? 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Bhag Chand Jain]

Next date of Talks or only 5day banking is the purpose of talks

[bhaskara sarma]

No  meeting until July or August. 

Everyone is busy during year end ,summer strips, transfers,relocation etc.

On Thu, 2 Mar, 2023, 4:04 pm Bhag Chand Jain, <b.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:

Next date of Talks or only 5day banking is the purpose of talks

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAHgZ%3DbJyUHbnhQ5f64ooz_r2%2Bxc8H93SWCxByn0rdxFmvpTC9w%40mail.gmail.com.