IBA DERAILS THE OFFICERS' WAGE REVISION

[PM]

FOR INFORMATION:


Circular No. 2020/66 Date: 17.10.2020

To All Affiliates (Please circulate)


Dear Comrade,


IBA DERAILS THE OFFICERS’ WAGE REVISION


We reproduce below text of the joint circular dated 17.10.2020 on the captioned subject. All affiliates/ state units
are requested to instruct their members to follow meticulously the instructions mentioned in the circular, to upheld
the dignity and self-esteem of the officers’ fraternity.

With revolutionary greetings,

(Soumya Datta)
General Secretary


ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATION (AIBOC)
ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (AIBOA)
INDIAN NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ CONGRESS (INBOC)
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF BANK OFFICERS (NOBO)


Camp : Mumbai
Date: 17.10.2020


To All Affiliates of AIBOC/AIBOA/INBOC/NOBO


Dear Comrades,


IBA Derails the Officers’ Wage Revision


As you are aware that after a prolonged lapse of time due to the external environment and conditions of life, an MOU
was signed on 22nd July of 2020, wherein an amount of Rs.7898 crore was allocated representing 15% hike in wages in
the banking industry. Out of the total corpus, Rs. 4513 Crore was the share of officers to be distributed in various heads
for the benefit of all officers.


2. We had three rounds of negotiations through video conferencing on 24th of August, 10th of September and 12th of
October 2020. In the last round of discussions, we were able to narrow down the differences in the matter of allocation
of this enhanced quantum in various heads of the pay slip component. Thereafter, on the advice of IBA, the
representatives of the officers’ organisations reached Mumbai to commence the exercise on 15th and aimed to conclude
the same within a week’s time.

The progress made on 15th and 16th was in the right direction. Several key issues were
clinched after protracted negotiations, which would substantially benefit officers across the country irrespective of
grade/scale. Having received the concurrence of IBA to hold the signing ceremony on 18th October, 2020, formal
invitations were sent to representatives of our organisations across the country.

However, today abruptly without any
rhyme or reason, IBA in the forenoon informed their inability to conclude and ink the joint note pertaining to officers’
wage revision w.e.f. 01.11.2017.

The lame reason cited by them was not signing the costing exercise with the Workmen
Unions.

We against this unprofessional approach of IBA and wanted intervention of top brass of IBA who were
evasive.

Having assessed the overall situation created by IBA, a communication was sent to them expressing our strong
displeasure, on the sudden turn of events leading to the unwarranted situation.


3. In this background after the analysis of series of developments it has been decided unanimously to retaliate with
agitational programmes in a phased manner. The action programmes chalked out will commence with the following
forthwith:
a) Withdrawal of extra cooperation.
b) Officers should restrict to the allocated work upto 6.00 p.m. only.
c) Officers should not respond official SMS/ Whatsapp beyond 6 p.m.
d) Officers are directed not to do any official work on Sundays and holidays viz. attend webinars/ office/
participate any programme related to canvassing of third-party products/ marketing drives/ training
programmes/ ‘P’ Review meetings.
4. In view of the ensuing celebrations of festivals having national reflection, we advise all our units and members to
strictly adhere to the above limited directions, preparing ourselves to plunge into intensified action programs as will be
decided within the shortest possible time against the whimsical attitude exhibited by IBA.
Comrades, march on in unison to make the authorities to realise the ramifications of the situation created by their
indifferent approach disrespecting the sentiments of officers’ community.
With revolutionary greetings,
Comradely yours,

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Soumya Datta) (Nagarajan S) (Prem Kumar Makker) (Viraj Tikekar)
General Secretary
AIBOC
General Secretary
AIBOA
General Secretary
INBOC
General Secretary
NOBO

[bhaskara sarma]

I think that a Court Stay is likely to come against  MOU. So the signing  of MOU is tactfully  postponed. 

With  regards, 

P Bhaskara  Sarma. 

--
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/78fceac4-fc63-4963-a054-1202d1d04961o%40googlegroups.com.

[P V Natarajan]

Similar to unions derail / sabotage retirees issues! 

Ineffective , hoodwinking leadership.  Trying to protect it's turf. 

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Four officers associations including AIBOA which only a few days back wrote a letter to convenor demanding that pension updation should be addressed in this BPS, were about to sign BPS on 18th without discussing the updation issue.

Heavens will not fall if they wait for a few more days to discuss the updation issue and resolve this long pending issue along with wage settlement.

Further they are not ready to disclose what are all key issues clinched during the last few meetings. But they want blind support of all officers for agitational programs.

If the issues agreed beneficial to officers why hide it?

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Congratulations to Aiboc for wonderful achievement which led to derailment of signing of joint note cermeny with Iba after prolonged negotiations for nearly 36 months. Very bad development and speaks volumes about the inner deferences and the under current that is persistent in UFBU. Lack of perfect cohesive design and lack of mutual trust and enormous egocentric approach by the constituents of UFBU to over look  the participant  negotiating unions and distrust and above all lack of the spirit of Comradeship has led to this humiliation to officers association. They have become laughing stalk among themselves and more so before IBA.Unless workmen union agreement is signed under I.D act which is normal precedence there will not be subsequent agreements by others. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--

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 bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

If they were to expect 'Stay' they would have signed.  They do not postpone expecting stay.  Let reality dawn on us.

Actions by organisations like 'We Bankers' are not helping us.  But, they are harming us.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2BUBNxjEmEnWszOPGTsrfJZZF-1x_kLx0cH2MZR9c8nwyb6WRA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

A student will have a whole year to study well beginning from academic year and prepare perfectly for examination.But  if he wastes most of the year and starts studying only  a few days before the examination we can immagine what would be the result. Situation is similar  in our BPS system.

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/1540606855.347646.1603005385560%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Is IBA cornered from all sides?

1. IBA has filed an appeal against consumer court order declaring that RTI is applicable to IBA. case is pending in

Delhi High court since 2017.

2. A Canara Bank officer has filed a WP in Madurai high court praying for direction to IBA to consider Wage code bill for revision of wages for officers. Court has ordered BPS is subject to court verdict.

3. We bankers have filed a case in Allahabad Highcourt which is coming up for hearing on 22nd Oct 2020.

4. In the Madurai HC case IBA had filed an affidavit stating that IBA is just a facilitator and has no powers to take decisions on its own.  Mr.Alex Ex manager of canara Bank has filed a WP in Madras High Court against IBA holding and signing Wage negotiations as it has no powers to  do so. However in spite of a court case pending IBA was about to sign an agreement with officers on 18th. Alex's advocate  moved Madras High court and requested special hearing as it is an urgent matter. Court accepted and hearing was held and IBAs advocates submitted that there was no proposal to sign agreement before 22nd and requested further hearing before 22nd.

Though AIBOC maintained that talks derailed because of Workmen not agreeing to allocation of costs IBA also facing heat from courts. IBA may escape from all cases as it has vast resources and backing from UFBU and the government.

If not, it will be the end of IBA domination in wage negotiations and the government has to set up  alternate mechanisms for wage negotiations.

[P V Natarajan]

Dear Mr. Soma Sekhara,

Your mails are irrefutable . Backed with logic and data.

The UFBU needs to be exposed. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2Nzb8-rAyCKqDnJy4WxXRWfD80scgwsj3bQWLyKjbAtQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Our BPS also is still following 30 years old format. It lacks transparency and accountability. Highly unprofessional. Must adopt to 2020. There are 100 loopholes. No agenda is fixed for meetings. Proceedings are not recorded. Nothing is right in present BPS system. But it suits both IBA and UFBU so they will not change it.

In nutshell we can define BPS system as one

What revealed may not be true and what actually discussed may not be revealed.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEsKh5hnSdKjx7XgQt_%2B%2B_rM_BgTEMiWn2dZr8vTnmfX3cFPew%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chandrasekaran V]

UFBU/AIBEA leadership are slowly losing trust of the members (serving employees), and pensioners.  Time that the leadership structure in Unions/Associations witness major overhaul, with specific maximum age / number of years after retirement an employee can hold office of the Unions/Associations.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/362055231.365221.1603013199431%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

The whole drama appears to  divert the attention of the employees/retirees from the hidden agenda of loading maximum in the special allowance which is kept out of superannuation  benefits.  This again appears to be a smart way of avoiding load on account of pension updation, if legally forced to implement.  Future pension updation will be meaningless if this trend continues.  

.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW37XCBGJcqxFYhbCUp4Vad7uu-oag%3DcZ40fy20RAWXNpg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli]

https://www.change.org/p/hon-ble-prime-minister-of-india-sri-narendra-modi-plight-of-the-bank-retirees-urgency-to-constitute-banking-pay-commission/u/27914137?fbclid=IwAR3pT6peJ_9v-4nxjG0qtDZEcOybvUJuw-P3w9uUWHvC7bNpIrEUMmv-SmU

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKAEprxnCHe2ajPaMandJ3r7x-SVq5CV0rb-3W6jcNqxqtMqXw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

d s murti

[sekhar gupta]

Dear mr Prasad

Can you exactly tell me who is/are helping the pensioners?

Regards

S.b.gupta.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/362055231.365221.1603013199431%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

If settlement is not signed on or before 22nd whether MOU will lapse?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKAEprxnCHe2ajPaMandJ3r7x-SVq5CV0rb-3W6jcNqxqtMqXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[PM]

For Information:

Business line on Officers Wage Revision talks and on it's further developments.

Pl.read in detail:

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Who got us Pension ?

Who got Ex-gratia to Pre-1986 retirees ?

Who got us Second Pension option ?

Who signed 'Disciplinary Action Settlement' which enabled success in Kool's case ?

Who improved Part-time employees' Pension ?

Who took up Family Pensioners issue ?

Who got 100% DA to those who retired after 1.11.2002 ? (Pre-2002 retirees are demanding this benefit, because post 2002 retirees got this benefit.  If they were not to get there is no issue ?)

Who got us 'Medical Insurance' (Claim paid is in multiples of premium paid)

Is it organisations like 'We Bankers' ? We have won cases in Courts only when the Bank Managements violated existing provisions.  Only exception, where we won the case is 1616 - 1684 issue, where there was an error in Bipartite Settlement.  When Organisations with over 3 lakh members are unable to get us benefit, can organisations like this get our pension updated ?  All such organisations are taking gullible pensioners for a ride and we are willingly making such organisations as role models.  Please think pragmatically and logically. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALYKuAaZsjRCU-uiH1V-WbAC575mm7zmcTzuUZhzYbU6foHYcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The MOU will not loose it's sanctity as it is reached after prolonged negotiations through it is not  signed under I.D act. As long as the system of bipartisan culture is continued there is scope for improvement and no retrograde development will take place. There appears to be small itch between UFBU and IBA on loading on special pay.

This will be resolved and final settlement/joint will be signed in due course. The intersting issues are retirees pension updation and family pension improvement for which all retirees watching and eagerly waiting for to know the final picture which will clear all the doubts and ifs and buts of few critics and few optmists . The scene is one ball,one wicket and need one run for victory. Be cool.Stay safe and stay healthy. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW04Dh%3Dad8uQK1Rq6weP250Ln3PstcwVwaWc58qKL1GiqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Instead of unnecessarily forcing agitations on officers will Four officers Unions dare to ask banks to set up alternate system in place of IBA negotiations?

--
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/01746e2e-66a6-482f-8f0e-3822303c6a1ao%40googlegroups.com.

[Raj Samantroy]

Forwarded one of my friends views on derailment of Officer Wage Revision.

PENSION UPDATION : WHERE LIES THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM ?

(This’s how I understand. Lengthy enough, but couldn’t help it. Request patience)

It’s undeniably a fact that Pension Settlement Dated 29-10-1993 has not been implemented in toto (neither in letter nor in spirit) in Pension Regulations Act 1995. It’s not the exact replica of the original settlement, it’s only a fragment of it. Because nowhere in the Original Settlement, pension updation is expressively or categorically denied or excluded. On the contrary, Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated the 29th October,1993 between IBA and Officers & Workmen Union clearly says :

“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.”

So there’s a clear-cut provision in the original settlement dated 29.10.1993 to update pension among other things. This being a bilateral settlement, both the parties to the settlement have equal say in the matters covered under the settlement. Unfortunately, while IBA drafted the Pension Regulations 1995 arbitrarily and unilaterally, the then leaders were mute spectators for reasons best known to them (1st Blunder). Subsequently, the draft was sent to the Boards of Member Banks for their approval, followed by Gazette Notification by the Central Government.

Framing Pension Regulations without incorporation of relevant provision for pension updation, as envisaged in the original settlement and subsequently taking the plea that Pension Regulations 1995 do not have any provision to update pension, is not only treacherous and unfair, but also unethical and illegal. Pension and pension updation are inseparable - just like two sides of the same coin.

After signing of the 9th BPS in March 2010, an article in Economic Times appeared under the heading “IBA signs revised pension agreement with bank unions”. The said article included the following statement by the then Chairman of IBA, Mr.M.V.Nair :

"There are the two aspects of our pension offer. There is a renewed pension offer to retired employees (after 1995-96 pension regulations) who earlier had not opted for the scheme earlier. All employees who are on the bank's roll as on March 30, 2010, will be covered under the existed defined benefit scheme. While those who join from April 1, 2010, will be covered under the government's new pension scheme and the government guidelines will be applicable."

Thus, till 2010, IBA was of the firm view that there is a contractual relationship between banks and retirees, as such, the above offer was part of the 9th BPS. Therefore, when demands of the retired bankers formed part of the Charter of Demands submitted to IBA, retired bankers rightly trusted UFBU and IBA. The retired bankers, till the signing of the 10th BPS firmly believed that UFBU would look after their interest, as their leaders have been promising so, since they released the Charter of Demands in October 2012. During those 30 months, IBA too, never raised any objection to the demands of Pension Updation / Family Pension.

However, signing of the 10th BPS was a fatal blow to the retirees, when UFBU totally ignored the demands of the retired bankers, in spite of these being incorporated in the Charter of Demands. The biggest setback and most humiliating was the Record Note signed by IBA and UFBU, which reads as follows :

“Demands of retirees can be examined only as a welfare measure, as contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees. The periodic wage revision exercise based on mandate from member banks cover only wages and service conditions of serving employees. Retirement benefits are based on service conditions prevailing at the time of retirement of an employee and these do not change with settlement”.

The biggest question that obviously hunts the retired bankers is : Which law has undergone change in between 9th and 10th BPS that the contractual relationship between retirees and banks have ceased to exist now ? Can UFBU offer any plausible explanation to this ? When our leaders are often terming Pension as Deferred Wage, how come they forgot this basic tenet while signing the agreement which termed Pension as a Welfare Measure ? Pension was never, nor will it ever be a welfare measure, it’s always a deferred wage for the past service, as is evident in Nakara Case : “Pension is their statutory, inalienable, equally enforceable right and it has been by the sweat of their brow. As such, it should be fixed, revised and modified and changed in ways not to entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees.”

Therefore to term pension and pension related issues as “welfare measure” is not out of ignorance of IBA, but rather a deliberate, calculated move to mislead the retirees which, has been accepted by our leaders wittingly, lest they would have abstained themselves from signing the agreement. How come, UFBU supported this move and signed the agreement ? (2nd Blunder)

But for our own blunders, as per Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated the 29th October 1993, what has been amended in RBI Pension scheme, ought to have been automatically reflected in Public Sector banks’ pension scheme. We have rather given a free hand to IBA by not opposing vehemently (rather accepting willingly) IBA’s move to :
1.Unilaterally frame the Pension Regulations 1995, omitting therein the updation clause;
2. Declare that the demands of retirees can be examined only as a welfare measure, as contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees during signing of the 10th Bipartite Settlement.

In fact, after the grant of retirement benefit, specially pension, the contractual relationship between the Bank and the pensioner is a continuous process and not one-time affair, since pension is paid every month by the employer to its retired employees. Employees’ contribution is paid into the pension corpus fund by the employer, so there is no need to elaborate further on this subject of contractual relationship between the bank and the pensioner (employee). Further, after the death of the pensioner, the spouse (nominee) gets family pension; so that contractual relationship between the bank and the pensioner automatically and immediately passes on to the family pensioner by operation of law.

The 3rd Blunder is : Why didn’t UFBU object against non-inclusion of pensioners’ issues in the MOU, dated 22 July 2020 ? Why didn’t it refrain itself from signing the MOU, as did BEFI ? Further, with a view to giving final shape to the 11th BPS, when two Committees were formed - one for the working Award Staff and the other for the working Officers, why didn’t UFBU leaders raise their voice for inclusion of retirees’ issues ? Over and above, what prevents them in extending their moral support to independent groups like We Bankers, who have raised voice against the very authority of IBA in Allahabad High Court whose next hearing is expected on 22nd instant ?

To sum up, unless and until these self-inflicted blunders are rectified through legal or other remedial measures, by simply incorporating retirees’ issues in the Charter of Demands, or for that matter, writing letters to concerned authorities or approaching some political leaders won’t serve any fruitful purpose. The one and only reply from concerned authorities would obviously be : It’s a matter to be sorted out in between IBA & the Associations.

Now that the talks have been de-railed and agitational programme declared, let UFBU leaders revisit the pensioners’ issues e.g. Updation and Family Pension.

_________ Santosh Patnaik


Sent from my iPhone

> On 20-Oct-2020, at 2:01 PM, PM <moha...@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/01746e2e-66a6-482f-8f0e-3822303c6a1ao%40googlegroups.com.

> <Screenshot_2020-10-20-13-56-16-382_com.android.chrome.png>

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

No one denies that the Unions/Associations have got us Pension and other benefits.  But that does not give them the right to discriminate between pensioners. Can the Unions/Associations justify the denial of 100% DA to a section of the Pensioners? Can they justify the reduced Basic Pension only for a section of the Pensioners ( Merger of CPI points)? Can they justify the Record note of  2015 which declared that there is no contractual relationship between Retirees and Bank,  100% DA can be considered on Humanitarian Grounds etc?  Are they not aware that discrimination in the  payment of DA to similarly placed pensioners is against the provisions of the Constitution?  (Don't say that the Supreme Court has upheld the classification of pensioners for the purpose of payment of DA. The subsequent Judgment of the same Court in Manipur Govt. employees case has ruled that classification  of pensioners for the purpose of payment of DA is violative of the Constitution.)  The pre Nov 2002 pensioners who are eligible to get 100% DA  legally have been made to look to  the  benevolent disposition of IBA.  Why the Unions/Associations refuse to talk about the clauses in the Pension Settlement which provide for DA and updation of Pension in line with RBI formula?  Why they do not talk about the fact that, IBA had agreed that the bed rock of Bank Pension Scheme is its similarity in all respects to RBI pension scheme? 

The Associations / Unions have lost credibility amongst the Pensioners and the Pensioners are looking for alternatives who assures to fight for their cause?. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[P V Natarajan]

Unassailable points. The treachery of the unions will hve to be exposed.  The way in which educated work force is getting hoodwinked by the so called leadership  is unparalleled.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Gopalan’s Cuisines]

I fully agree with you, Mr Sankara Subramaniam. Lot of injustice has been continuously done to the Bank Retirees. UFBA and IBA have erred in the basic understanding that there is a continuing contractual relationship between the bank and the pensioners and that the pension is nothing but a deferred wage as per law. Whenever the wages are revised for serving employees, pensioners wages need to be revised simultaneously. For Central Government pensioners, periodical updations done thro the Central Pay Commission. Hence, instead of the current BPS, CPC is considered beneficial for Serving employees as well as the Pensioners. Let us work jointly on seeking Government approval for CPC for banks. 

R Gopalan

Ex-Canara Bank.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

If I tell correct position of law, I would be branded as anti-retiree.  But, still I request you to enlighten me about nate and scope of Contractual relation we have with the Bank.  

If they were not to extend single slab DA formula in 2005, what about us, sir ?

In 2015, Special Allowance is introduced, mainly to give more money to existing employees at the cost of pensioners. Can we not apply same logic what we are seeking to apply to 100% DA.

We are expecting increase of over Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month by seeking justice.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Have we at any point of time thought about pensioners, who also retired alongwith us, but not even getting pension of Rs.6,000/- or Rs.7,000/-.  Which means, their pension remains same and is far less than the Pension increase, what we are seeking.  

I would give any example.  Assume A has retired on 31.10.2017 and B has retired on 31.08.2018.  Basic Pension of both of them was Rs.30,000/-.  A is getting Rs.30/- per slab.  B, after this Bipartite would get Rs.32/- as Dearness Relief.  Is it not injustice ?

One who retired on 31.12.1985 did not get pension.  But, one who retired on 1.1.1986 got pension.  Is it not injustice ?

Every Settlement this problem is there.  Having said that, I am not agreeing with denial of this benefit.    Many of us in this group have retired after 2005.  Did any of them demand extension of same benefit what they got to those who retired earlier.  Every employee, past and present does not want to share any portion of his pension or does not want to sacrifice anything for those who have already retired.  When we visit the Branches, you might have experienced the attitude and feeling of present day employees towards you.  UFBU represents them.  Many employees were and are objecting to sharing of any part of their portion.  Problem lies with them.  What we did when we were in service, they are doing the same to us.  As a pre-2002 retiree, even now, not bothered about pensioners who are drawing Rs.5,000/- as monthly pension.  I have not come across any one talking about them.  Humanitarian grounds, etc. are not applicable to them.  But, even now, we continue to do what employees are doing to us.  We do not think about others and what we did or what we are doing, now.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

You have talked about provisions in pension settlement with regard to DA.  Did we fight in Supreme Court with this ground ?  No, we fought on the basis of same old discrimination, Manipur Judgment, Kallaikurchi Judgment, etc.  I was an Office bearer of AIBRF.  I pleaded with the leadership to focus only on Clause 6 of Pension Settlement.  Unfortunately, no one was willing to listen to us.  They have even diluted Clause 6 of Pension Settlement in United Bank of India case.  Do you blame, IBA, UFBU, etc., for this ?  Even in your mail, you talk about discrimination.  This is the problem, sir.  Law with regard to Central Government pension is entirely different from Bank pension.  Judgments we refer have no application.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Wednesday, 21 October, 2020, 10:21:25 am IST, NSS <nsanka...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Atul Mangla]

NSS जी आप की बात बिल्कुल सही है। लेकिन इन नेताओं को कौन समझाए। पिछले कुछ दिनों से प्रसाद जी के जो विचार सामने आ रहे हैं वह भी समझ से परे हैं।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear NSS,

Yes,Management s do harm to the retirees.In case of Bank Pensioners, maximum harm is done by employee unions by entering into discriminatory agreements.This is the strangest phenomenon in trade unionism.History will never forgive.

With regards,

P B Sarma

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy]

I fully agree with the views expressed by Shri N Shankara Subramanian and atleast it is their duty to correct their mistake by bringing pension updation in the lines of RBI in this settlement itself

so that pensioners gets solace in the rest of their lives.

PVB Swamy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[LakshmanRao Kantamsetti]

Yes 

Better late than never 

Bank retirees resignees bank pensioners 

Can forget unions

IBA

DFS

And FMO too 

Let Banks start interacting with exbankmen or arrange ombudsman or arbitrator or mediator 

And do justice without further delay 

Let it happen during this year only without dragging in to 2021.

But it is likely to happen by 2021 feb 

( then we are likely to have new finance minister ) 

KLRao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3qu67qTAxoG5VrJ1bawsW2WfkZmHs%3D3JtzHnvE7sgGxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Definitely we are living in fools paradise.

1. AIBEA said "they demanded 20% hike in Special allowance and IBA informed officer union agreed

    for 16.4% and IBA  offered the same percentage of SA to us so we did not agree and no finality could be arrived at".

2. Four officers associations informed us that " IBA  abruptly said talks cannot continue giving lame reasons for  cost exercise with the workmen unions failed. This is truly unprofessional behaviour of IBA.

But both AIBOC and AIBEA have not disclosed why AIBOC agreed for 16.4% and Why AIBEA demanded 20%. What are the benefits of accepting 16.4% or 20%. whether it qualifies for DA  and Pension benefits ( remember thousands of retirees of X and XI BPS are anxiously waiting to know the truth).

But both unions expect its members to participate in agitations without disclosing details.

Well these are versions of Unions. What is the truth? Where is IBA version? Why did the IBA not release its version?

Is there any system by which 15 lakhs officers and workmen can verify whether versions of  these leaders  are true by verifying with IBA.

Is there any rule in the BPS system that both Officers and workmen agree for the same percentage of special allowance.

If unions aware of his why they did not consult  each other, arrive at consensus and agree on percentage of special allowance to be demanded,

If the IBA wanted to offer the same percentage of SA for both the officers and workmen it could have called a joint meeting and discussed the issue. IBA  called a tender of Special Allowance  by arranging separate meetings and discussing SA and whichever union accepted less is agreed. AIBOC accepted less and AIBEA asked for more. Finally IBA opened the tender box and accepted 16.4%.

Both Officers and workers unions are negotiating with IBA which is an independent body. which cannot take any decisions on its own and acts according to the specific mandate of Banks. In other words whatever decision IBA takes during wage negotiations including that of SA  is not its own but these are decisions taken by Banks.

So it is logical that four officers Unions before jumping to agitations should have consulted Bank managements and verify what type of mandate banks have given to IBA and persuade managements to continue negotiations.

"We protested against this unprofessional approach of IBA and wanted intervention of top brass of IBA who were evasive."

Was denying gratuity to 6th BPS retirees, denying 50% basic Pension from DOR, denying 5 years benefit, giving directions to the banks that CRS retirees not eligible for pension, recovering commutation amount from retrospective date professional behaviour? Why did unions not protest then?

We have been demanding for a long time that the present BPS system is unprofessional because of IBA which is a mysterious organization and change in system.

Instead of involving employees in unnecessary agitations which do not result in anything positive except losing salary, Unions should seriously think of demanding an alternate negotiation system in the interests of employees and retirees.

Compromising and moving on means further surrendering legitimate benefits of employees and retirees.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

With the exception of 7th Bipartite Settlement, even where Joint Note was signed first on 14.12.1999, no Court has found fault with so called discriminatory agreements.  If so, why did we loose two cases in Hon'ble Supreme Court.  

In fact, with the exception of two pension settlements and 10th Bipartite regarding part-time employees, there is no agreement which has dealt with anything relating to pension. 

Pension is getting revised not on account of revision of pension, but because of increase in 'Pay' or revision in 'Pay'.   

It is unfortunate that we continue to believe that there is discrimination, despite Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision.  When we refuse to understand despite Supreme Court's decision, can anybody make Bank pensioners understand ?

 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2BUBNxhySU%2BQuSc79H4G6svPYb%2B%3D2nFzPxiab9TiM77uRO05nw%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Dear Sir

Bank at the the time of employing me agreed to pay Provident Fund. Later I was asked to come out of the PF scheme and refund the Management contribution of PF and  was promised  pension . This is a term of  my contract of employment. The contract subsists till my life time and the life time of my spouse. Indian Contract Act defines a Contract as "An agreement enforceable by Law". Only because of the  existence of contractual relationship, pensioners are able able to  seek Court intervention in pension matters.

New benefits introduced cannot be extended to all past retirees because of cost considerations. This is the reason stated by the Supreme Court when it ruled that cut-off date can be introduced for extending a new pension scheme but not for extending any improvement in an existing benefit. If we had demanded pension without any cut off date the scheme would  not have worked and no one would have  got pension.

I agree that the rules governing Govt. pension and Bank Pension are different.   But as Public Sector Banks are State under Article  12 of the Constitution,  Article 14 applies to Banks.  Therefore  highlighting discrimination in 100% DA case was not wrong. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[SHAILEN Bhavnani]

Dear Raj, 
Your friend seems to be a person of great intellect in analysing the issue of Retirees thread-bare.
The derailment of the talks between UFBU & IBA is an opportunity for the UFBU to forget their egos & differences, and come to a wiser outlook on various issues including 5-day Banking, Retirees issues.
They should regains their lost glory by asserting themselves on the IBA & wrest initiative again from IBA, which has been commanding the UFBU, whereas it should be the UFBU who should always have an upper hand,,going by Trade unionism principles  to utilise this opportunity .
At the same time, I would request all the Retiree Organisations  in bringing about better understanding & coordination with UFBU,learning from the way Workmens' Unions & Retiree Organisations of the RBI worked in unison to achieve the Updation in Pension.
Trust and believe, good sense prevails on all concerned
With greetings and Good wishes for the ensuing Festival season ? Navratri / Dussehra / Deepawali.. 
-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/01746e2e-66a6-482f...@googlegroups.com.
> <Screenshot_2020-10-20-13-56-16-382_com.android.chrome.png>

--
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/9CD2E43C-F247-445B...@gmail.com.

[Raghavan s]

Best solution is Pay commission like Govt. Employees 

No need to beg with IBA.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFGan-rh0c36x%2BLW6Uv5CR_Wat_XpXfuNC3Kfuwt4dqDPxeQVA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Pension is being paid in terms of Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, but not out of a Contract.  Any transaction or dealing financially involve either contract or statute, but not both.  Payment of pension is based on statutory Pension Regulations, 1995, but not based on the Contract, even though Pension was introduced in terms of an agreement/settlement. The Contract of employment terminates upon retirement or resignation or dismissal or removal, etc.  Thereafter, in terms of Contract employment, pension is payable in terms of  Statutory Pension Regulations, 1995 and nothing beyond that.

Pension is introduced in terms of an agreement/Joint Note.  Officers' Service Conditions are governed by OSR, which is statutory.  Even an Officer, while in service, like Government employee, is not governed by a Contract.  That is the reason why all Joint Notes mandates amendment to OSRs and payment in terms of Joint Note is made on adhoc basis.  Therefore, for an Officer, while in service or after retirement, it is not a Contract.  I am extracting from the Joint Note 2015, which makes this aspect clear :

4. The representatives of Officers‟ Associations have requested that pending formal amendments to the Officers‟ Service Regulations/ Rules as per procedure laid down under Section 19(1) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 and the applicable provision of State Bank of India Act, 1955. IBA may advise the banks to disburse immediately an ad-hoc amount, equivalent to the net arrears payable for the period from 1st November 2012 to 31st May 2015 and continue to pay revised salary and allowances on ad-hoc basis. IBA has agreed to make suitable recommendations to the Government in this regard for its consideration.

I am extracting from the Joint Note in respect of Second Pension option :

(10) The conclusions arrived and recorded in the above Clauses together with a copy of the Scheme of Pension will be forwarded to the Government by the IBA for their approval and further action in terms of Section 19 of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 by complying with the procedure for amendment of the relevant Pension Regulations.

After incorporation of terms of Joint Notes in respective Regulations, Joint Note loses its force and after retirement, other than payment of pension in terms of Pension Regulations, 1995, we do not have any relationship.  

To illustrate, there are several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which have laid down that no enquiry could be launched after retirement, unless there is deemed extension of service, otherwise a person retired is not covered under OSR and disciplinary proceedings cannot be launched under OSR.  Banks cannot also alter Pension Regulations, with retrospective effect by taking away  Therefore, please understand the dangers of asserting existence of contractual relationship after retirement.   

Dear Sir,  I find that you are more equipped to understand law and therefore, I can explain you better.  But, what I find is that you are referring to legal aspects in bits and pieces or cherry picking.  Please read the judgments fully and find out that portion of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is made in what context.  Orders in DA case could be applied only in the similar circumstances.  Otherwise, it would be differentiated.  Ratio in Nakara's case has been diluted and it is not applicable universally.  If I say we have Contractual relationship is there, I may be called a hero.  But, I am misguiding fellow pensioners and cheating my conscious, which I shall never do. 

Regarding discrimination aspect, I would like to inform you that we can make out discrimination, only if they had altered (not introduced) any existing benefit of any section of employees/retirees covered under that particular agreement.  Unfortunately, Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement does not refer to those who retired prior to 1.11.2002, as that particular Joint Note covers only those who were in service on or after 1.11.2002.  That is the reason, why we lost the case.  This aspect is covered in two Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and I hope and understand that we do not have more knowledge than the Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court.  If you still insist, I would spend time and extract from Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgments.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/17bc7466-b942-4ea6-af01-e989a541ce59n%40googlegroups.com

.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

This is in reply to your remarks that we continue in believe there is discriminations despite Supreme Court decisions. 

The following points will explain why there is discrimination and how Supreme Court erred in concluding that there is no discrimination in 100% DA matter.

Following is the observation of the Kolkata HC two Judge Bench. "The object of paying dearness relief is the same, irrespective of  the date on which the employee retires. Inflation hits the employees who retire before the cut off date as hard as it does those who retire later. Therefore the dearness relief cannot be different for two sets of retirees."  Supreme Court had quoted these lines in page No.19 of the Judgment.  But the Court had not stated its views on this observation anywhere  in the Judgment. 

Supreme Court had discussed  number of judgments . The Judgments and the portions of the Judgment  quoted by the Court in the 100% DA appeals are given hereunder.

D.S.Nakra & Others : "Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not  based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed , it would be discriminatory."

State of Punjab vs Justice S.S.Dewan & Others:  "Therefore what we have to consider is the nature of the change made by the amendment. Is it by way of upward revision of the existing pension scheme? Then obviously the ratio of the decision in D.S.Nakra case would apply. If it is held to be a new retiral benefit or a new scheme then the benefit of it cannot be extended to those who retired earlier. "

Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd) V Government of India :  "The employer can validly fix a cut-off date for introducing any new  pension / retirement scheme or for discontinuance of an existing scheme. What is discriminatory is introduction of a benefit retrospectively (or prospectively) fixing a cut-off date arbitrarily thereby dividing a single homogeneous class of pensioners into two groups  and subjecting them to different treatment." 

Having quoted the the above which stated briefly is, Cut-off date cannot be imposed for extending any improvement in an existing benefit, the Court came to the conclusion that  pre Nov 2002 retirees and post Oct 2002 retirees are not a homogeneous group.  " Each class is governed by distinct and different parameters. These are all matters of policy making. The conferral of  advantages of benefits on two different classes of retirees has a completely distinct formula and rates and it would not be possible to have a synthesis on any count or to put both the sets of retirees on any common parameters. Both classes are distinct and do not forma homogenous group."

The words "completely distinct formula and rates" are note worthy. The Court had not understood that the DA rates have changed due to merger of DA with Basic Pay and Basic Pays have changed due to the DA merger and wage revision and 0.24% and 0.18% have the same effect. This misunderstanding of the DA scheme only made the Court to uphold the appeals and the Court did not conclude that there is no discrimination.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[Rajender Sharma]

Sir,

Kudos for your plain-speak on the plight of the pensioners and the treacherous role being played by our associations

and IBA in denying the legitimate demands of the pensioners. They are not ready to even too. refer to our demands, what to speak of initiating a meaningful discussion in their bilateral negotiations.

The fact is that the retirees have been left in the lurch to fend or fight for themselves.

R.K.Sharma 

[NSS]

Dear Sir

Pension Regulations specify the length of service, amount of pension, commutation etc. It is not the source of pension. To be eligible for pension the contract of employment should state that the employee is eligible for pension. (The contract may be oral, written or implied.) After availing VRS 2000, many joined private sector banks. These employees though having the required minimum (future) service of 10 years were offered contributory PF only. Thus the contract of employment is the source of pension and not the Regulations. Regulations will come into the picture only when the employee is eligible for pension.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian   

[Atul Mangla]

NSS ji, you are 100% correct. The case of DA wasn't presented properly in the Honourable Supreme Court and was lost and hence it is wrong to say that the court has upheld the legality of the concerned agreement.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/96ed5cbf-f640-49c9-8c9b-e5686e44efe0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Which means Dearness Allowance and/or Dearness Relief should be the same for everybody.  Some cannot get Rs.25,000/- some cannot get Rs.1000/-.   In any case, Judgment of Kolkata High Court is reversed and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court prevails.

There is also a decision in Supreme Court (if you are particular, I will provide extract tomorrow) that says that pension of those who retired earlier cannot expect same pension being paid to those who retired later.  Nakara's case is differentiated and overruled by 5 Judge benches of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In 100% DA issue, there is no upward revision of existing pension.  Pension of any one who retired earlier period was revised.  Even pension of those who retired during 8th BPS is revised.  There was a change in calculation of DA from 3 slabs to single slab.  I have already demonstrated earlier that there was no tangible difference for the 8th BPS.  The increase in total pension was in tune with the other Bipartite Settlement.  To the increase in DA was reduced from the Basic.  The Judgment what you are referring to is not applicable.   You have assumed that is 0.18% is equivalent to 0.24%.    I repeat, pension is not revised to any one.

I do not intend to revisit the entire Judgments to provide answers.  Two Supreme Court benches and one Division Bench of a High Court have decided that there is no discrimination.  Justice Bali, Retd. Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and former Chairman of CAT, argued this case on behalf of AIBRF.  Please read again and apply principles in Nakara's case.  In Nakara's case, change of period to consider was changed from 30 months to 10 months, retrospectively, through Govt. order.  Court found fault with Cut-off date and extended same formula to earlier retirees also.  By applying the same logic they have compared 0.18% with 0.24%.  If you say that the Cour has not understood that Basic is included while calculating DA, you are also not applying the same logic.  You are forgetting loading aspect in Bipartite.  If more loading takes place in DA component while merging, there is lesser increase in Basic and more increase DA takes place.  Therefore, 0.18% does not mean 100% DA.

I will provide Judgments to provide right prospective in this issue in a day or two, as I am little busy with regard to assisting our members in joining/opting Medical Insurance Schemes.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/6dbe20c5-a769-44db-b0e0-6004342f62ben%40googlegroups.com

.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There may be hundred arguments in favour of unions and abusing retirees for questioning unions.

The fact remains that Bank pensioners are the worst sufferers of a faulty system  in the entire Banking Industry.

Though we may argue that whatever agreements signed by Unions is correct is it impossible to rectify it to give relief pensioners. Even constitutions are amended several times.

The arrogance that whatever agreements they have signed is correct, preventing them to make an attempt to rectify any clauses in agreements that prevent pensioners getting benefits.

After SVRS pensioners were denied 50% Basic Pension in 2000-2001 large number of Pensioners went to court for justice demanding benefit  and commutation from the Date of retirement. Instead of respecting demands of pensioners and taking steps to rectify it  in 2002 itself Unions again created anomaly by agreeing to deny benefit from DOR and commutation arrears. Without the consent of Unions whether such faulty agreement is possible? Because of such absence of application of mind pensioners had to spend lakhs of Rupeees and struggle for justice for 17 long years.

This also can be defended saying that it is because of Unions we got benefit from 2005. But benefit was provided in  Pension regulations from 1995.

Further even though cases were pending in 2002 it did not prevent Unions and IBA from signing joint notes but why now they are claiming sub judice and not discussing issues?

We argue that extending 100% benefit to post 2002 retirees and denying the same to pre 2002 retirees is not discrimiation.

Dearness relief is given to compensate fluctuating price rise and increasing cost of living. Whether unions think such rise in inflation affects all serving employees and pensioners retired after 2002 and does not have any impact on pre 2002 retirees.  Even the Central govt in speaking order argued that RBI pensioners are adequately compensated for price rise via DA relief. When the central government which has introduced updation and has also sanctioned  hefty increase increase in Pension in last pay commission AIBEA  did not appreiate FM and wrote a congratulation letter. But when the government freezed DA for few moths in extraordinary circumstances AIBEA said 'it is an attack on pensioners and discmination as DA is paid for compensation for rise in inflation and how pensioners will survive"

Why AIBEA not applied same logic to pre 2002 retirees who have no updation and deny equal DA since last 17 years?

Even RBI also introduced 100% DA in 2018? Then what preventd unions from restoring benefit for all. When we demanded 100% DA IBA and Unions say cost to be studied and atuaries to be appointed. Whether in 2005 whether they appointed actuaries and found out cost of updation of pre-2002 retirees is more than 100% DA of all serving employees and post 2002 pensioners.

If all clauses in pension regulations does not permit  100% DA, Updation to pre 200retirees who is responsible for including such anti pensioner clauses. Retirees have no say in it  and consulted though pensioners are beneficiaries. It is the responsibility of unions who agreed for such clauses and signed to rectify it. When RBI rectified it later on and introduced 100%DA to pre 2002 retirees is it difficult for unions to rectify the ame? RBI also as unions itself agreed had no provision forupdation. When RBI management rectified it and introduced updation shall we go on till our death praising unions who are not making any attempt to rectify mistakes?

Please refer RECORD NOTE where in IBA itself accepted and admitted that government has permitted utilization of  a portion of welfare fund for retirees and advised unions to approach individual banks to get hat benefit.

 In spite of this unions not approached banks to form a medical scheme for retirees utilizing funds allotted to retirees out of wefare fund but agreed for dubious scheme where retirees have to shell out 3 times of their monthly pension as premium.

At least such funds allotted to retirees could have used to subsidize 50% of premium.

But Unions are correct retirees are fools.

If Central govt employees have Pay Commission Bank employees have IBA.Actually Bank employees wages is not complicated at all. Pay commission completes its wage revision exercises for 50 lakhs employees within stipulated time.

Whereas IBA takes 3 years without retirees issues and without consulting retirees. If IBA is unprofessional it is because Unions are 200% unprofessional.

Unions do not demand mandate copy given by banks to IBA and accept IBA version that no mandate to discuss retirees issues and spend three years telling actuaries to be appointed and cost to be studied.

There is no provision for updation and Pension regulation does not permit updation is not a valid defense. If IBA and Unions can alter pension regulations to deny 50% Basic pension from DOR and 5 years benefit and misinterpret second pension reement  they can also change it to provide for updation.

 They are not interested in securing updation and false and lame excuses followes.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/876459672.1815317.1603385312799%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sankarasubramanianji,

There is no dispute that the Pension in Banks were introduced through Bipartite Settlement dated 29.10.1993.  Based on the terms of this Settlement, Statutory Pension Regulations have been framed and notified.  It is a sub-ordinate legislation and it is law.  Subsequently, payment of pension is in terms of Pension Regulations, but not in terms of Settlement.  In Mohandas's case, issue of payment of five years' service benefit is decided based on pension regulations, but not in terms of Pension Settlement, wherein this five years' benefit clause also appears.

Pension Settlement is also between Unions and the Managements represented by IBA.  Only Clauses which cannot be included in Pension Regulations, such as future changes including updation are only covered by Pension Settlement.  Therefore, in the matter of provisions which are not implemented or  incorrectly implemented.

Basics of contractual relationship in service jurisprudence demands existence of 'Master and Servant' relationship.  Banks cease to be masters upon retirement and relationship ceases to exist. Upon retirement, we are also not servants.  Banks cannot exercise any control over us and we are not bound by any orders of the Banks, with exception of what is provided in Pension Regulations.

For Officers, Master and Servant relationship is governed by Officers' Service Regulations, but not by Joint Notes.  Officers' Service Regulations covers Officers and ceases to operate on or after the day of retirement.  If there is contractual relationship exists, what are the terms of such contract ?  There is no such provision.

With due respects, I find that your are trying to invent reasons to prove existence of contractual relationship. Some of those who are commenting here may agree and appreciate your proposition.  Please do not go by those comments, as they have decided that there is contractual relationship, without any reason or basis. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/17bc7466-b942-4ea6-af01-e989a541ce59n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I am sorry, I have not answered one of the points you have raised with regard to decision of Courts, quoting Pension Settlement.  There is no judgment in respect of those who are already receiving pension, basis of which is Pension Regulations.  There is no Judgment in respect of those who are already receiving pension, based on Pension Settlement.

Therefore, there is no contractual relationship, after one is covered under Pension Regulations. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

Please refer to paragraphs No.5 and No.16 of the Judgment of the two Judge Bench of Kolkata HC. Both the Single Judge and the Two Judge bench have held that DA should be paid in consonance of the RBI formula as per Clause No.6 of the Pension Settlement 1993 .  You are supporting the stand taken by IBA. In the Supreme Court, IBA took the stand that  "Pension Regulations having come into force in 1995 the settlement dt.29/10/1993 had no force and as  such no benefit could be drawn on the Basis of Regulations or Circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India."   (Refer page No.18 , Paragraph No.11 of the Judgment  dt.16/05/2018.) If this contention of the IBA is accepted as correct, there is no need for any negotiations and signing of settlements. 

I don't take a stand and then search for reasons in support of my stand. I am not dogmatic and always willing to change my opinion when valid arguments are made. Master & Servant relationship may not exist after retirement. But the contractual relationship between the parties i.e. contract to pay pension as per agreed terms continues. If there is no contractual relationship, the employer can simply walk out of the contract and say I have no obligation to pay pension. The fact that the terms of Pension are included in the Employment Contract itself proves the fact that the contract survives the retirement / termination of service of the employee.

Let us set aside for a few seconds the controversy over the Contractual Relationship. IBA and Banks claim that there is no contractual relationship between the Pensioner and Bank because it suits them. Why Unions and Associations should join IBA in declaring there is "no contractual relationship" ? 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

   

[Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy]

Hats off to Shri Somsekhara ji for your clear picture of the our own so called leaders who back stabbed us in connivance with IBA.

Even now they are still trying to back stab us in this settlement also and continue to do the same in future also.

Thanks once again.

PVB Swamy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0yRNZOxc6A_Tw__DJk4AhBBE_z0NnDZ25aJyg5DBpCHw%40mail.gmail.com.

[OM PRAKASH SHARMA]

Dear NSS Sir,  

 

Thanks NSS for the befitting & mind-blowing reply to Mr. CN Prasad. All your arguments are logical, rational and coherent and can’t be demolished, flattened and bulldozed with so called achievements of the past. If there are 10 questions to answer in an examination & each carries the same marks and in the event you are able to solve only 3 of them perfectly, your status will be reckoned as BIG FAIL; and the intrinsic & native value of these solved questions would be become zero and you can’t ever boast this as your achievement, since your parents and teachers provided you enough time, money and coaching to secure at least passing marks.  

 

Your aforesaid reply represents true facts & realities.

 

If you happen to love neighbor’s son many times but scold him with harsh words only once, the mother of child will never give your credit for all the love, rather she will scold & reprimand you for those harsh words. It happens in the society and every one of us is an eyewitness to that.

 

It is the duty and responsibility of the UFBU to fight with IBA as they have been chosen by the banking fraternity only for this reason & cause. There were no visible & perceptible attempts on the part of UFBU during the course of proceedings of 11 th bi-partite, rather they were seen collapsing before IBA in regard to most of the issues incorporated in the COD, whether the same relates to serving employees or retirees.

 

They consider themselves as the masters, but the real fact is they are the paid servants of banking fraternity, who has flushed them with huge funds & gave them an opportunity to fight on behalf of them but ironically, they misinterpret & misconstrue themselves as the masters and never share anything about the bipartite proceedings with their masters and keep utmost secrecy from them. With huge funds at their disposal and zero accountability & answerability, they have become thick necked persons.

 

Banking  fraternity is now under the clutches of disgrace, shame and ignominy, as they have become the poorest amongst all employees of the State and Central Government!!!!. Who is responsible for this sordid state of affairs of employees in the banking fraternity? In the matrimonial alliances, probationary officers of the banks were the first choice and now they rank at the lowest. Who is responsible for the same?

 

All the serving unions have become dead, departed and lifeless. Their only objective is to collect levy and nothing more. They never do homework while participating in bi-partite settlement proceedings. When the serving unions are dead, departed and lifeless; what will be the status of leaders representing these associations? This is a moot, debatable and arguable question?

These leaders have become cruel, unkind, brutal and pitiless and they just enjoy with the funds at their disposal with no accountability, answerability and liability and therefore the serving employees should condemn, denounce and slam these leaders of dead, departed and lifeless associations. The two major retirees associations are also dead, departed and lifeless and follow the dictates of serving associations and their motive and intention is to deprive and divest benefits of bank’s retirees.

UFBU never took into account how RBI serving associations supported the cause of retirees and it is really a matter of shame, disgrace & ignominy for UFBU that RBI in-spite of limited workforce and with limited funds at their disposal was able to allow updation of retiree’s pension gracefully & elegantly. They should learn from leaders of RBI serving associations.

Every serving employee should strive hard to throw out and sling out CHV and Bandlish, who are just useless, ineffective and hopeless, as they are instrumental in hammering, sledging and molesting the status of bank employees in the banking industry, with reasons best known to them. Due to their incompetence, stupidity and ineffectiveness, the bank's employee's salaries are lower by 35-40 % of the Central Government employee’s salaries, while most of the bank’s retirees, particularly those retired before 2002 are getting just 25% of their counterparts in the Central Government.  Even the officer’s associations could not do any favour either to serving employees or the retirees and their main motive & drive is to just collect levy and enjoy these funds.

GOD waits and sees the truth and one day, all of them will be punished on dereliction of their duties and responsibilities assigned to them by their masters.

 

O.P.SHARMA

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5e82879-43ce-4358-9230-5b4c6c2de1e9n%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

After going through affidavits filed by IBA and UFBU it is clear that pensioners will get nothing from BPS. Their arguments reduce pensioners as completely non existent species in the eyes of both IBA andUFBU  and have no rights whatsoever to claim any benefit from BPS except whatever breadcrumbs thrown by them.

Under these circumstances what is the use of  AIBRFand AIBPARC. These organizations should dissolve and GC of these unions can apply for jobs of assistants in AIBEA and AIBOC offices. Since these GCs have lots of experience in letter writing and projecting fiction as facts they are best suitable for managing circulars of AIBEA and AIBOC.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/515754641.1988050.1603438492418%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I have been asking you one clarification.  Please clarify.  You continue to claim that there is contractual relationship.  I have also seen someone in the group stating that you have given a fitting reply.  Unfortunately, still I have not got specific answer.  I have following questions. 

a. If there is contractual relationship, what the terms of such a contract ?

b. Whether terms are enforceable ?

c. Who are the parties to the said contract ?

d. What are the benefits that are extended to us so far on account of subsisting contractual relationship ?  

e. If there is contractual relationship, is it not an admission that the Banks can take action against the former Officers, for their acts of omission and commission while in service ?  So far, any action taken, without invoking Regulation 20, are being set aside by Courts, including Hon'ble Supreme Courts, stating that Officers Service Regulations are only applicable only to Officers, but not to retired officers.

f. Is it not true that the Joint Note on Pension option in 1993, does not have corresponding clause in respect of clause 6 of Bipartite Settlement ?

g. If the contractual relationship of master and servant ceases on retirement, what else is the type and scope of relationship  ?

h. When did right to receive pension in terms of Pension Regulations, 1995 accrue ?  Is it after retirement or before retirement ?

i  Whether the principle "An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract"      Whether your statement that there is contractual relationship exits after retirement for enforcement of terms of Bipartite Settlement is true ?

I request you to enlighten me, point by point by, instead of general  or vague replies.  I am sure and confident that you have the ability to give fitting reply.  But, would like to remind you following points :

a.  Provisions in OSR ceases to apply, immediately upon retirement 

b. Unless legal fiction is created, upon retirement OSR is inapplicable ;

c. Terms in Joint Notes are not enforceable.

Expecting befitting reply and enlightenment from you ?

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/e3305d06-9a8e-4d26-9627-f6af2ed3e6a6n%40googlegroups.com

.

[K Balasubramanian]

Dear sir,

Because of the employee-employer relationship exists between the banks and pensioners we are eligible for standard deduction. The moment pensioner dies that relationship disappears and family pensioner s pension is classified under. Other income.  

You are having sea of knowledge but it is now utilised only to justify mistake that your union is committed .

You touch your conscience .it will tell who is right. 

K Balasubramanian. Vrs 2001

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2130646543.2358080.1603619144973%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

I am giving below the reply for the queries posed by you.

a) The terms are _ The Bank agrees to pay pension as per Pension regulations. The obligation on the part of the employee is to join the pension scheme, refund the Management Contribution of PF, complete the minimum required years of service etc. 

b) These terms are definitely enforceable. The Bank cannot refuse pension when the employee fulfills the requirements. The employee without fulfilling the requirements cannot claim pension.

c) Employee and the Bank are the parties to the contract.

d) Pension, DA as per rule are the benefits.

e) The Contract relating to Pension only subsists.  I never said the contract of service also subsists.

f) I have not seen the Joint Note. It is not available in the web.

g) Contract relating to pension only subsists.

h) Right to receive pension on retirement accrues as soon as the employee joins the scheme. 

i) You have stated the definition  of voidable contract. How it relates to the present discussion ? please explain.

Joint Notes are contracts and are enforceable. BPS are entered into under Industrial Disputes Act. Joint notes do not have such backing of a statue. But that does not take away the enforceability of the agreement. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[mamillapalli venkateswarlu]

Dear Prasad garu,

You put so many legal quarries affirming  that there is absence of contractual relationship between retirees and banks. And if that was so, How IBA & Unions signed on some clauses like continuation and modification  of tapering DA formula to retirees in 2005? Who are they to 

to fix rules and regulations to retirees if there was No Contractual relationship to retirees? Who are they to fix Basic Pension at 1616 points instead of 1684 points(10 months last drawn average pay which is a Statutory one). These two are direct questions to decide the issue of contractual relationship between retirees and banks. Who are they to sign contracts detrimental to the interests of retirees, if there is No Contractual relationship with retirees?

If there is No Contractual relationship with retirees, those clauses in Joint Notes are illegal and not enforceable. Is it not?

I request you to clarify.

Yours faithfully,

M.Venkateswarlu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2130646543.2358080.1603619144973%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Atul Mangla]

बहुत ही सुन्दर शब्दों का जाल।

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2130646543.2358080.1603619144973%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Dear Mr NSS

Excellent. 

Additionally, if no enforceable contract is there, tomorrow the bank may change the pension regulation unilaterally and say that no pension is payable. 

In stead of seeing whether there is contract, we can explore if it is not a contract, what is the effect. If there is no contract, there is no obligation to pay anything to us. How can it be? We are not simply beneficiaries. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

It is true that 'Pension is a deferred wage, payable in terms of pension regulations, as on the date of retirement

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKHMK698Q6Y7Qs4VsFt_4BAj7MZJa-32b1gDMZFBryqXF56Sgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Even Pension option was also given in 2010.  It is on account of Settlement signed between UFBU and IBA.  It is not between IBA and retirees.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKfTLU%3DE2b71q_k0UPwAGTUQwVksSB7K9DZQnU7f97mHoU%3DiBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

a) The terms are _ The Bank agrees to pay pension as per Pension regulations. The obligation on the part of the employee is to join the pension scheme, refund the Management Contribution of PF, complete the minimum required years of service etc. 

Pension is not paid in terms of Pension Settlement.  It is paid in terms of Statutory Pension Regulations.  I have extracted from Joint Note with regard to amendment to relevant provisions in OSR and  Pension Regulations, 1995.  Please go through the highlighted portion of the Judgment, which provides legal position regarding Joint Note.  What is provided in Bipartite Settlement, but not incorporated in Pension Regulations, 1995, can alone be enforced.  But, there is no contractual relationship beyond that, even in respect of a Bipartite Settlement, between a retiree and the Bank.  Pension has to be paid in terms of Pension Regulations, as subsisting as on the date of retirement, but not in terms of Joint Note and/or Bipartite Settlement.  If your argument is true, we would have lost 'Palani's case', as Biparite Settlement sought to alter the benefit available under Pension Regulations, through , Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement.  Please go through the Judgment.  

This extract is taken from Vijaya Bank v. Suvasini S. Shetty, 2012 SCC OnLine Kar 5231 : ILR 2012 Kar 2745 : (2012) 2 AIR Kant R 655 : (2012) 3 Kant LJ 497 : (2012) 4 KCCR (SN 202) 291 at page 2769

12. The caption of the ‘Joint Note’ is “Salary Revision for Officers”. The prefatory comments record that the process of amending the Officers' Service Regulations and Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 shall be initiated in order to implement the terms contained in Annexure-I. Significantly it states that IBA shall take steps to recommend to the Private Sector Banks (PSB) to give effect to the salary revision covered by Annexure-I. On the part of the Officers' Association, their request for release of adhoc amount, equivalent to the net arrears payable for the period April, 1998 to November, 1999 as well as, future salaries and allowances was also recorded. We must emphasis forthwith that the so-called Joint Note was at best an inchoate agreement, a mere proposal, which would attain legal sanctity only on the amendments to the Officers' Service Regulations and Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 being carried out. Annexure-I to the said Joint Note deals with (1) Scales of Pay, (2) Dearness Allowance, (3) House Rent Allowance, (4) City Compensatory Allowance, (5) Provident Fund, (6) Pension, (7) Medical Allowance, (8) Recovery of House/Furniture Rent, (9) Fixed Personal Allowance, (10) Professional Qualification Allowance, (11) Other Allowances, (12) Other Allowances and loans linked to Basic Pay and (13) Date of effect. The last subject reads - “For the payment of arrears, the benefits under the various provisions as above, shall be effective from the dates specified hereunder:— (i) Scales of Pay, Dearness Allowance and Pension w.e.f. 1.4.1998; (ii) House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, Provident Fund, Gratuity, Medical Aid, Recovery of House/Furniture Rent and other Allowances with effect from 01.11.1999. So far as ‘pension’ is concerned, the proposal contained in Annexure-I reads - “Pay” for the purpose of Pension shall be the aggregate of pre-revised pay and Dearness Allowances thereon at CPI 1616 Points”. The computation and payment of Pension was pegged at the pre-revised pay and Dearness Allowance at consumer price Index of 1616 points. Since the Pension Regulations, 1995 were then in operation, it was perforce agreed that requisite amendments would be carried out therein, substituting the last ten months pay and emoluments to the lesser amount of 1616 points of the price index. It is the unassailed position that the postulated amendments were incorporated after inordinate delay on 23.11.2002 (Syndicate Bank) and 14.12.2002 (Vijaya Bank). By that date the VRS had been availed of; all the petitioners retired between December, 2000 and July, 2001.

In Para 45 of Mohandas's case also deals with contract and pension regulations.  It says that :

45. It is misplaced assumption that by reading Regulation 29(5) in the Scheme, the Pension Regulations would get altered or amended. Can it be said that statutory relationship of employee and employer brought to an end prematurely by contractual VRS 2000 amounted to alteration or amendment in the statutory Regulations. Surely, the answer has to be in the negative and that must answer this contention.

Therefore, only relationship after retirement is through 'Pension Regulations, 1995'.  Nothing beyond that is applicable.  Still you have not extracted from the Pension Settlement, which establishes contractual relationship.

b) These terms are definitely enforceable. The Bank cannot refuse pension when the employee fulfills the requirements. The employee without fulfilling the requirements cannot claim pension.

11.   The High Court of Delhi had opined that once the benefit had been taken under the Joint Note of revision of .   .   .   .   .   .   .   .

the salary, estoppel is created against the officers to claim the pension as per the existing formulae, which prevailed before its amendment and amendment could have been made with retrospective effect. Thus, the Delhi High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the Officers’ Association, against which an appeal had been preferred. The High Court of Madras and High Court of Karnataka have taken the contrary view. They have observed that Joint Note of 1999 could not have supplanted the existing rules/regulations. Pension was required to be determined under the existing Regulations.   Even here, it is decided that 'Pension was required to be determined under the existing Regulations'.  It is not  in terms of Bipartite Settlement. 

c) Employee and the Bank are the parties to the contract.

You have neither considered the following portions of law nor answered the question we have raised ? 

Whether the principle "An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract"      Whether your statement that there is contractual relationship exits after retirement for enforcement of terms of Bipartite Settlement is true ?

d) Pension, DA as per rule are the benefits.

it is decided that 'Pension was required to be determined under the existing Regulations', in Palani's case

e) The Contract relating to Pension only subsists.  I never said the contract of service also subsists.

This is extracted from Swarnakar's case.  It says that :

However, so far as the employees of the nationalized banks are concerned, except for the matter of grant of pension which is covered by the Regulations framed in terms of Section 19 of the 1970 Act, other terms and conditions of their service are not statutory in nature.

Karnataka High Court in Vijaya Bank Vs Suvasini S Shetty, it is observed that :

24.   ...................................................................

These officers/petitioners are not estopped from availing the benefits contained in the Pension Regulations 1995, inspite of availing the benefit of ex gratia payment and better pay-scales contained in the Joint Note dated 14.12.1999.  

Even here, Karnataka High Court Division Bench has not considered Joint Note, it is despite provisions of Joint Note.  Therefore, law does not aid your views.

f) I have not seen the Joint Note. It is not available in the web.

I will get you one, please give me some time.

g) Contract relating to pension only subsists.

h) Right to receive pension on retirement accrues as soon as the employee joins the scheme. 

Both g) and h) are dealt with in the above answers already provided.

Yes Sir, it is in terms of Pension Regulations, 1995, not based on law.

i) You have stated the definition  of voidable contract. How it relates to the present discussion ? please explain.

Please go through the following portion, you will understand :

"An agreement which is enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties thereto, but not at the option of the other or others, is a voidable contract"

It is because you are seeking to enforce the agreements entered by third parties.  Pensioners' are not a party to Pension Settlement.  Therefore, it is voidable.  Please go through the provision again :

Joint Notes are contracts and are enforceable. BPS are entered into under Industrial Disputes Act. Joint notes do not have such backing of a statue. But that does not take away the enforceability of the agreement. 

Please extract relevant portions of the agreement, which are violated by Banks.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2898ea14-7541-4c35-9bbb-76175d5df018n%40googlegroups.com.

[K Balasubramanian]

Pensioners are eligible for standard deduction and more superior employee- employer relationship exist till the death of pensioner. 

After that the family pension is coming under the banner of Other Income. 

Staff pension is enjoying salary status.

What are all UFBU is doing since 2002 are deliberately wrong which every one knows.

Sorry state of affairs. 

Modiji alone can do justice if he is willing.  

K Balasubramanian. Indian bank VRS 2001

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/a84e76ef-f454-4c20-a015-7ab762d3e5c8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Existence of Contractual relationship does more harm than good.  We have not understood the adverse impact of existence of Contractual relationship.  I repeat, if there is contractual relationship, we would have lost 1616 - 1684 benefit.  Existence of Contractual relationship does not assist in pension updation, as there is no provision in settlement/agreement which provides for updation of pension.  Pension Regulations cannot be amended retrospectively.  They cannot do so, it is not on account of contract, but, it is despite contract.

I am extracting from the five Judges' bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court :

This extract is taken from Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1527 at page 640

33. Apart from being violative of the rights then available under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f), the impugned amendments, insofar as they have been given retrospective operation, are also violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they are unreasonable and arbitrary since the said amendments in Rule 2544 have the effect of reducing the amount of pension that had become payable to employees who had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications, as per the provisions contained in Rule 2544 that were in force at the time of their retirement.

 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/a84e76ef-f454-4c20-a015-7ab762d3e5c8n%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Dear Sir

Under (a), I have stated that the pensioner has a right to receive pension as per  Pension Regulations. You also are stating the same. You have stated that  the clauses in the settlement which are not included in the Pension Regulations can be enforced. I have also stated the same. Joint note alone cannot authorize Banks to pay any benefit or withhold any benefit .  Regulations have to be amended. Judgment in Mr.Palani's case and Ms.Suvasini's case confirms this.

(b)  This also deals with Regulations. My reply to point (a) applies to this also.

(c)  This definition of voidable contract is not applicable to us. Voidable contracts are contracts vitiated by fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. The affected party has the option to either enforce the contract or rescind it. As far as the guilty party is considered, it is void. This is not applicable to the Joint Notes or BPS. We are not third party  to the settlement. Unions and Associations have entered into the settlement in representative capacity only. They have represented the serving and retired staff only. We have got every right to enforce the settlement.

d)  Reply to (a) applies to this also.

e) Pension Regulations are made under the provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act . They have the approval of the Parliament. Therefore they are reported as having "Statutory Force". It is similar to law enacted by Parliament or State Legislature and are known as subordinate legislation.. Though power to make service conditions is given to the Board of Banks in the Act, the Service Regulations are not approved by the Parliament . They are not law. However they can be enforced as contracts.

This is for information of the pensioners. In Mr.Palani's case the Advocate for the Banks had stated that Banks have the power to amend the Regulations retrospectively. Supreme Court in a number of Judgments have ruled that, unless the enabling Act specifically permits retrospective amendment of Regulations, there is no power to amend retrospectively. The Banking Companies Act do not have any provision which permits retrospective amendments.  Thus the Bank has supplied the Court with false information.

The Judgment in Ms.Suvasini's case simply states that the VRS optees are entitled to get the benefits of Joint Note (Salary Revision) Pension Regulations ( 5year notional service)  and the ex-gratia (VRS scheme). 

Clause nos.6 & 12 are violated by the Banks.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

 

.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

A third party cannot file a suit in Court. Only because of the contractual relationship pensioners were able to file the writ petition in the 1616-1684 CPI points issue. I have extracted the relevant portion of the Judgment. 

29.Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as contained in regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and 35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had the effect of amending the pay and perks ‘average emoluments’, as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued rights. Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers’ Association, as admittedly, to Officers’ Association even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and joint note had no statutory support, and it was not open to forgo the benefits available under the Regulations to those officers who have retired from 1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations. Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to have been created. There is no estoppel as against the enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had no force of law and could not have been against the spirit of the statutory Regulations and the basic service conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1970. They could not have been tinkered with in an arbitrary manner, as has been laid down by this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 156 & Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, (1991) Supp.1 SCC 600.

Following are the reasons behind the Judgment.

1) The right to get Basic Pension fixed on the Basis of last ten months average pay has already accrued and it cannot be taken away by a retrospective amendment.

2) The amendment is arbitrary and irrational.

3) Regulation Nos.38,2D and 35 were not amended. 

There is nothing to indicate that the non existence of contractual relationship has anything to do with the Judgment.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Still, you have not specified the scope of Contractual relationship, duly extracting the relevant provision.  Before, we discuss, please provide.

c)  This definition of voidable contract is not applicable to us. Voidable contracts are contracts vitiated by fraud, coercion, undue influence etc. The affected party has the option to either enforce the contract or rescind it. As far as the guilty party is considered, it is void. This is not applicable to the Joint Notes or BPS. We are not third party  to the settlement. Unions and Associations have entered into the settlement in representative capacity only. They have represented the serving and retired staff only. We have got every right to enforce the settlement.

I had extracted from the Judgment only.  It is not my proposition.

e) Pension Regulations are     .   .    .    .    .

Though power to make service conditions is given to the Board of Banks in the Act, the Service Regulations are not approved by the Parliament . They are not law. However they can be enforced as contracts. 

First, you have contradicted yourself, with regard to status of 'Sub-ordinate legislation'.  Both Officers Service Regulations and Pension Regulations are Sub-ordinate legislation.  In this regard, I am extracting from the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AGM, SBI Vs. Radhey Shayam Pande & Ors.  regarding the placing sub-ordinate legislation before parliament.  

This is for information of the pensioners. In Mr.Palani's case the Advocate for the Banks had stated that Banks have the power to amend the Regulations retrospectively. Supreme Court in a number of Judgments have ruled that, unless the enabling Act specifically permits retrospective amendment of Regulations, there is no power to amend retrospectively. The Banking Companies Act do not have any provision which permits retrospective amendments.  Thus the Bank has supplied the Court with false information.

The Judgment in Ms.Suvasini's case simply states that the VRS optees are entitled to get the benefits of Joint Note (Salary Revision) Pension Regulations ( 5year notional service)  and the ex-gratia (VRS scheme). 

Clause nos.6 & 12 are violated by the Banks.

“In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), the Board of Directors of CANARA BANK after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government hereby makes the following regulations, namely:- “CANARA BANK (EMPLOYEES') PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995”

A copy of the Gazette Notification of Vijaya Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, is attached. 

125.   Secondly, even if the same was a regulation, the laying-down rule is merely a directory one and not mandatory

126.    In Jan Mohd. case, AIR 1966 SC 385, the law is stated in the following terms: (AIR pp. 394-95, para 18)

 18. Finally, the validity of the rules framed under Bombay Act 22 of 1939 was canvassed .  .  . 

.  .  .  It is true that the Legislature has prescribed that the rules shall be placed before the Houses of Legislature, but failure to place the rules before the Houses of Legislature does not affect the validity of the rules, merely because they have not been placed before the Houses of the Legislature. Granting that the provisions of sub-section (5)   of Section 26 by reason of the failure to place the rules before the Houses of Legislature were violated, we are of the view that sub-section (5) of Section 26 having regard to the purposes for which it is made, and in the context in which it occurs, cannot be regarded as mandatory. The rules have been in operation since the year 1941, and by virtue of Section 64 of Gujarat Act 20 of 1964, they continue to remain in operation.”

In view of the foregoing it is well established law that it is not mandatory to place amendments to Sub-ordinate legislations before the parliament. I have also quoted Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court to support my views.  Therefore, what you have stated is incorrect and provisions of Joint Note is not enforceable ;

In Mr.Palani's case the Advocate for the Banks had stated that Banks have the power to amend the Regulations retrospectively. Supreme Court in a number of Judgments have ruled that, unless the enabling Act specifically permits retrospective amendment of Regulations, there is no power to amend retrospectively. The Banking Companies Act do not have any provision which permits retrospective amendments.  Thus the Bank has supplied the Court with false information.

There is no bar in terms of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), regarding retrospective amendment.  In fact, most of the amendments effected incorporating provisions of Bipartite Settlement are retrospective.  In fact, 1995 regulations itself is retrospective, as it is effective from 1.1.1986, even though notified on the 29.09.1995.  It is only decided that retrospective amendments to Pension Regulations, 1995, cannot take away vested right.  Not as you have concluded.  In the matter tagged to Palani’s case, decision of Delhi High Court was reversed, by allowing appeal filed by All India Retired Bank Employees’ Association. The Writ Petition filed by All India Retired Bank Employees’ Association was dismissed and the Hon’ble Court decided that estoppels apply as Officers have taken benefit of Joint Note, but claiming the benefit of payment of pension in terms of Pension Regulations, as existing before retrospective amendment. I have already extracted this portion from para 11 of Palani’s Judgment, earlier.  In this regard, we are quoting decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court for favour immediate reference.

In K. Kuppusamy  –Vs– State of Tamil Nadu, (1998) (8) Supreme Court Cases 469, it is decided that – “Statutory rules cannot be overridden by executive orders or executive practice.  Merely because the Government had taken a decision to amend the rules does not mean that the rule stood obliterated.  Till the rule is amended, the rule applies.  Even today the amendment has not been effected.  As and when it is effected ordinarily it would be prospective in nature unless expressly or by necessary implication. found to be retrospective” 

I have already provided extract from the Judgment of a Constitution Bench, about retrospective amendment.  Again, I am reproducing the same :  

This extract is taken from Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, (1997) 6 SCC 623 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1527 at page 640 

33. Apart from being violative of the rights then available under Articles 31(1) and 19(1)(f), the impugned amendments, insofar as they have been given retrospective operation, are also violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they are unreasonable and arbitrary since the said amendments in Rule 2544 have the effect of reducing the amount of pension that had become payable to employees who had already retired from service on the date of issuance of the impugned notifications, as per the provisions contained in Rule 2544 that were in force at the time of their retirement.  

Portions from this Judgment is also extracted in para 24 in Palani’s Judgment.  In para 23, it is stated that :

 

23. Pension is a right and is not a bounty, and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. In the instant cases the existing provisions could not have been amended      with retrospective effect, taking away accrued     rights on the basis of joint note which had no statutory backing.

 

Above quoted decisions are contrary to your understanding or what is stated by you or your stand in respect of retrospective amendment.  Whether there is amendment or no amendment, Pension Regulations as existing on the date of retirement prevails.  Joint Note, not even a Bipartite Settlement which seek to take away vested right are not applicable ab initio. 

Before I make further efforts to provide the information, which is in my knowledge domain.  My understanding is that there is no Contractual Relationship exists after retirement.  If you still feel that my understanding is wrong, please EXTRACT from the relevant portions of the Contract you are referring to.  Unless, you extract portions from the Joint Note or any contract, which provides for subsisting contractual relationship, even after retirement, I do not want to spend time and energy in convincing you.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

Dear Sir

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/6b5a3ae8-f9f0-4225-a61b-fedbf4e825bbn%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

1) Regarding extracting relevant portion from contract or joint note, Indian Contract Act states  that "All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties, competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void."  Apart from this agreements of social  nature and which are not intended by the parties to be attended to by legal consequences are not contracts. In the Joint Notes entered into between Banks and Officers, the caption is "Joint Note on agreed conclusions between......"  In the body of the note the background which necessitated  the discussion and the points agreed by the parties are elaborated. The word "agreed"  in the caption and the contents of the note shows that it is an agreement. All other requirements of a valid contract are present in the Note. Therefore the joint note is a Contract only. 

2) Definition of Voidable contract doesn't seem to be extracted from any judgment?

3) Regarding Service Regulations, Banking Companies Act Sec.No.19 (f) gives powers to the Board for making regulations relating to Pension Fund and Provident Fund only. Service Regulations are not found under Sec.No.19.  Therefore Service Regulations are not subordinate legislation. 

4) Regarding laying before parliament, there are differing judgments.  It all depends on the provisions of the  enabling Act. In Atlas Cycle Industries v  State of Haryana (AIR 1979 SC 1149) the Supreme Court observed that,  as in the instant case, the orders were not subject to any approval or modification, no penalty for non-observance was contemplated and hence the laying requirement was directory and not mandatory. Subsection No4 of Section No.19 of Bannking Companies Act  1970 states that both the houses may agree for modification (after laying) or both the houses may agree that the Regulation should not be made...."  Therefore laying appears to be mandatory in our case . Even if it is taken that laying is only directory , the rule cannot be the criterion to decide whether something is subordinate legislation or not.

5) Regarding Retrospective Amendment of Pension Regulations, the Supreme Court had decided in a number of cases that  unless the enabling Act says so very clearly, the Subordinate Legislation is supposed to be only prospective. (Process Technicians and Analysts V Union of India  AIR 1997 SC 1288; K.Naravani Hegde V State of Karnataka (2000) 9 SCC 5; Tamilnadu Electricity Board  V R.Appadurai (1995) Supp 3 SCC 721; Bakul Cashew Co. V STO (1986) 2 SCC 365 etc.) In the Banking Companies Act, there is no express provision giving power to legislate retrospectively. This question of whether Boards of Banks have power to legislate retrospectively has not come up in any suit. The retrospective amendments have been struck down as these amendments were either violative off Article 14 and 16 or they  have taken away an accrued right. The power to legislate Retrospectively was not considered in these cases. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I am one of the petitioner and later respondent in the Case.  We had filed case enforcing our statutory rights, but not enforcing contractual rights.  Whatever, you have quoted is only from Pension Regulations, which is law or statute, but not a contract.  Neither in the Writ Petition nor in the Writ Appeal, not even in the Civil Appeal, Contractual Relationship is the subject matter of dispute.  Palni's case is not discussing Contractual Relationship.  Please go through my mails, whatever you have inferred, is the same what I have been saying.  Whatever you have stated has nothing to do with Contract or contractual relationship.  It is only regarding statute or statutory regulations.

To agree with you, please provide terms of contractual relationship.  You cannot quote from Pension Regulations.  Perhaps, your responses may be indicating absence of contractual relationship. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/452e30b9-de95-411d-ab54-b1d2e79a2dean%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Please extract portions of Contract which establishes contractual relationship.  We do not want to discuss law.  We are only asking for extract of provisions relating to contractual relationship between Banks and Retirees.  Please provide extract only.  We shall revisit law after hearing from you.

3) Regarding Service Regulations, Banking Companies Act Sec.No.19 (f) gives powers to the Board for making regulations relating to Pension Fund and Provident Fund only. Service Regulations are not found under Sec.No.19.  Therefore Service Regulations are not subordinate legislation. 

We are attaching a copy of the Gazette Notification of amendment to Oriental Bank Officers Service Regulations.  OSR is alos a Subordinate legislation.  Atleast, please understand that whatever we are saying passes touchstone of law

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/7f5e7f11-6b01-4173-a049-5feab128ef07n%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Dear Sir

I agree that Service Regulations are Subordinate Legislation. The error in my understanding was due to the fact that I have not seen any Gazette Notification on Service Regulations. Now I learn that the Service Regulations were notified in 1979  and amendments are carried out after 10th BPS.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

As per madras high Court website case filed by Mr.Alex against Labour commissioner, IBA etc is adjourned to 9th November. It is reported all objections completed. Further details not known.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/cce3fccd-ccd1-4c89-b8fa-fb40fbc82102n%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Sir

Generally contracts do not contain words to the effect that it is an enforceable contract etc. Please refer to the 1616-1684 Judgment of the Supreme Court. In paragraph no.9, page no.12 the Counsel for the Bank had admitted that Joint Notes are enforceable. Court also had by implication found the Joint Note Enforceable. Court had ruled that Joint Note cannot override the Regulation. Had the Court found the joint note unenforceable, it would have ruled that as the joint note is unenforceable , Regulations only prevail or something similar. I have enclosed a copy of the Judgment for easy reference.

When we discuss legal matters, we have to discuss law only. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Perhaps, with exchange of a large quantum of information, you have forgotten about the dispute.  It was only about contractual relationship with the pensioners.  It was not about Joint Note.  Even Joint Notes are only between the Officers and the Banks, not with Pensioners.  Pensioners, may or may not be entitled to the benefit, but they do not have enforceable rights.  Even with regard enforceability of Joint Note, please refer to para 29, page 21.  It is stated in the Judgment, which you have provided that :

 "Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers’ Association"  Therefore, service conditions of Officers are determined by OSR.

  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/5da285fb-4180-4b6e-b32d-eabccb9f6536n%40googlegroups.com.

[Sankara Subramanian]

Sir

Bank has undertaken to pay pension in accordance with Regulations. If there is no contractual relationship, Bank can at any time stop paying pension or change the terms unilaterally. Pensioners have the right to receive pension and banks have the corresponding obligation to pay pension. If pension is not paid in accordance with Regulations, pensioners can enforce the right. This has already been discussed . P&H HC in the updation case ruled that, Regulations are the final agreement. 

Associations and Unions represent pensioners also. The joint note on removal of the clause relating to forfeiture of service was entered after introduction of pension. In this case pensioners were also the beneficiaries. Pensioners alone enforced the right to get equality of treatment in 1616-1684 issue. 

Binding statutory force means joint notes are not covered by ID Act or any similar Act. All the contracts entered into by private individuals/ corporations also do not have statutory backing. Does it mean the parties do not derive any right from the contract? 

Finally, no one can approbate and reprobate in Court. As the Banks/IBA have admitted the enforceability of the Joint Note they cannot hereafter say joint notes have no force. Wherever pensioners rights are involved in the Joint note, the Joint note is enforceable by them. 

At the cost of repetition, I may state that agreements enforceable at law is contract. Pensioners can enforce all the agreements in which their rights are involved as has been enforced in the 1616-1684 case.

Regards 

N.Sankarasubramanian.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I have spent enough time explaining all these facts.  We derive the right to receive pension in terms of Pension Regulations, but not Settlement.  Unilaterally, pension regulations can and could be amended.  Only rider is that such amendments cannot take away vested benefits and rights.  Only Bipartite Settlement has statutory force, but not joint note. 

Instead of thinking round way, please think and provide me terms of contractual relationship. That settles the matter.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJzTdt__mE704-V2QPvrrt8SsaUCp29bKv185KYn_PpszhVH7Q%40mail.gmail.com.