Pension Revision

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Sincerely thank those who have some good words for me.  Our General Secretary's report has eloborately explained most of the aspects affecting our members.  Please go through.  Those who do not agree or have other opinion, we can explain further, if required.

Unfortunatelfy, Bank Pensioners are taken for a ride, by creating an impression that we would certainly succeed in the case before Supreme Court, thereby unnecessarily raising their expectation.  If they have read the Judgement by Punjab and Haryana High Court, they can find out only one difference then and now.  Then pension in Reserve Bank of India was not revised, but it is revised now.  This Judgment has only said that the pension revision needs to be negotiated.

Unfortunately, the petitioners erred by seeking time based on formation of the Committee by IBA.  By seeking time on this count, the Petitioners themselves have agreed that this benefit has to be negotiated, which is what Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment says. Unfortunately, there are several Judgment which do not favour us.  One such Judgment covers almost all the grounds raised by us and has gone against us.  This is the reason we did not implead.   All our grounds are morally sustainable, but not legally.  Unfortunately, Courts do not have authority to decide based on equity only.  

Another example for misguidance is that the Karnataka State Committee of AIBRF, has even claimed that Pension Updation is pending for last 30 years.  Many of our friends also say so.  Pension Settlement is signed 29 years ago and the first settlement, where there was 'updation' was on 27.03.2000.  Which means, the maximum delay is 22 years.  All of us should think, what would have happened to second pension option, if our pension were to be updated prior to 27.04.2010.   Either another option would not have come or even if it were to come, it would have been too costly.  

Since, we got pension three years after RBI employees got pension, we are entitled to pension revision in 2022, by applying the same logic.  

The Government does not interfere normally in such matters, as such interference may affect the Government at a later stage in some other issues.  The Government, as assured on the floor of the house, will consider positively, if the proposal is sent to the Government.  At best, the Government may informally goad IBA to revise.  No one can claim anything else.  Even Family Pension revision proposal was sent on 08.06.2019 and the Government approved only after the Bipartite Settlement.  This proposal was not submitted on advise from the Government.  But, the Senior Executives were affected most, they followed up and got the approval of the Governement.  Unfortunately, many of us blame every one else for the delay.  

The ball is in the Court of IBA.  It is only IBA that can expidite pension revision.  The role of the Government comes in only after proposal is sent.  Therefore, giving representations is only for photo op.          

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[parthasarathy ramanujam]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Doraiswami R <dorais...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022, 17:40
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Pension Revision
To: <bankpen...@googlegroups.com>, parthasarathy ramanujam <rpart...@gmail.com>

Dear Mr. Prasad,

I wish that you peruse the following orders/directions and then justify your stand.

1. Orders passed by the Supreme Court in CA 5525/2012 on 13/02/2018.

2. Directions issued on 26/11/2019 in Contempt Petition CP 1159/2019.

Please revert asap.

Regards.

R. Doraiswami

94440 29928

dorais...@gmail.com

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022, 17:05 parthasarathy ramanujam <rpart...@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/381536183.1265991.1661239130004%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

I do not agree with your view that Updation of Pension can be achieved only through negotiations and we cannot win the appeals in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the P&H HC, the single Judge Bench only advised the Petitioners to use their bargaining skills and get updation through negotiations. This was probably because the Petitioners did not claim updation on the basis of the minutes of the Small Committee then. The minutes of the Small Committee was brought on record only  in the Appeal before the two Judge Bench. As the Pension Settlement provided only for negotiation and settlement of matters like updation, family pension etc,, the Honb'le Judge had advised the Petitioners to settle the issue through negotiations. 

The Two Judge Bench has turned down our appeal stating that the Small Committee Minutes are nothing but parleys before agreement and the agreement came in the form of Pension Regulations which do not provide for Updation. Therefore in the Appeals before the Supreme Court we have to prove that the Small Committee minutes are not parleys and it is the final agreement and the agreement regarding updation was unilaterally omitted to be included in the Regulations. At this juncture it is useful to note that the Respondents (Govt., IBA and Banks ) have not stated their views on the nature of the Small Committee Minutes (enforceability or finality of  its contents.) The Judgment of the Two Judge Bench  is  silent  on the views of the respondents. Only the Bench has stated its views that it is only parleys before agreement. If indeed the Respondents believed that the Minutes are only parleys before agreement, they would have stated so in their reply. Respondents cannot make such a claim because in the Karnataka High Court the Government had stated that the Small Committees were formed to finalise the Regulations and the last date for joining the Pension scheme was stipulated  in the Regulations as per the agreemnt reached in the Small Committee.

We have a number of valid points and documentary evidence to prove that the Minutes of the Small committee is the final agreement. I hope the Appellant Pensioners will bring all these to the notice of the Court. 

No matter how strong a case may be, the Judgment may at times go against it. This may be the reason the Appellants waited for the report of the Committee. 

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

 

[S L GULATI-ADV:-]

Friends,

Every aspect reasonably explained by our friend Prasad C N and he is 100% correct in his reasoning and  and perusal of the  situation. That has been our stand since the beginning, but many friends are not able to understand. Pension update has to come only when the IBA sends the proposal. Many people suggest filing cases in the Supreme Court now. When you will get the judgement, after our demise !!!.  Then someone comes on erring Supreme Court in deliverance of the judgements, as if the gentleman is more intelligent than the Supreme Court judges,. We only think from our angle and not from the Law angle when two advocates argue on the subject.  Better now to follow Mr. Prasad, who is selfless in his approach  since 2002, as far as I know. 

Thanks C N Prasad. Carry on . God bless you.

Regards.

S L Gulati, EX-PNB (SVRS-2001)

Advocate   9034889525

--

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/381536183.1265991.1661239130004%40mail.yahoo.com.

--

Thanks & regards.
Sincerely yours,

S.L.Gulati
Adv. & Tax Consultant
M- 90348-89525 (PNB EVRS)
M- 9306280765

[Nagaraju Kakani]

Sairam, Well expressed in a simple language, with clear facts. People like Sri Prasad, Pathak and other seniors,  in the interest of the super senior citizens can take up and solve the problem. May Bhagawan Bless All of Us.

With Regards, 

Nagaraju Kakani

Hyderabad.

--

[NSS]

Friends

A settlement was entered into between IBA and Unions and Associations to remove the clause on forfeiture of past service of employees participating in strike. In that settlement IBA has agreed that Bank Pension Scheme and RBI pension scheme are exactly same in all respects and this concept is the bedrock on which bank pension scheme was built. Copy of the settlement is enclosed.  It is evident that IBA/Banks are trying to wriggle out of their commitments . 

RBI employees and Bank employees got pension from 01/01/1986 though the date of implementation is different. Therefore we are entitled to get updation of pension from 2019.

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

On Tuesday, 23 August 2022 at 15:49:45 UTC+5:30 Prasad wrote:

[Lingan Ramalingam]

Dear Prasad sir ,i am following for a very long time and you are always correct.some people are simply writing daily basis,but it won't give any results at all.As you said only ufbu can do .the retirees unions should approach ufbu member unions and pressurize them for doing something for us.nothing will happen without them.

Thanks sir

--

[mohan p]

Dear Friends,

01.As stated often,in my earlier posts,under this column,we retirees have  left with only two options before us to resolve our major issues:

- either through negotiation with IBA through UFBU.

OR

-  through seeking legal remedy in judicial system.

02.Under legal front we have lost in cases involved the major issues :

 -100% DA before Apex Court, and

 -Revision of Pension Case before Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh,which is now pending before Apex Court.We cannot expect much from Apex Court in this case.

02.So once IBA submit a report on Revision of Pension of bank pensioners, to MOF there is possibility of resolving one of our major issues,which may also resolve our DA related issues too.

03.In this regard MOF has  made it clear their stand on the subject.

Pl.see:

RAJYA SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 216  dated 20 JULY, 2021,on Revision of Pension of retired bank employees,by, DR. L.Hanumanthaiah. M.P.

THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE

DR. BHAGWAT KARAD,  answered as follows:

 “Retired nationalised banks employees have sought revision and improvement in pension from time to time. In view of pension being a funded scheme introduced on the basis of consensus arrived at between employee unions/associations and IBA, requests for revision and improvement in pension are considered by the Government after taking into account the views or any proposal or recommendations of IBA in this regard."

04.Thus,UFBU and IBA has to discuss and arrive on consensus on formula and modalities of revision of pension as on lines of RBI pensioners,and submit a proposal/recommendations to MOF for their approval.

05.Further meet with IBA on discussions, of Revision of Pension, included under Residual issues by UFBU  is yet to be taken place.

Meantime, next BPS/Joint Note is due from 1st Nov 2022.

--

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/5f18d6dd-5ad0-43b8-8381-883e98a4dd0an%40googlegroups.com.

[Srirama Murti]

thank you Mohan Sir!  for your opinions thus clarifying pensioners' doubts.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRVUa4%3DoimtQ4gPUd_gN4kYn31VbGbTw1ORYZGDj4DzXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Bank pensioners scheme agreed by banks and signed by IBA  on behalf of banks is similar to RBI pension regulations. Whenever pension is revised automatically pension should be revised to PENSIONER'S in all public sector banks. It is the banks work or it is  the work of bankers association to get approval from  the Government  .Then why should it is mentioned that is similar to RBI pension regulations. All Courts said that pension should be paid according to PENSION settlement. When the petitioners approach the bank with court order, the bank says they have reffered the matter to IBA.  IBA says it acts according to the banks instructions. To the judgement delivered to Bank of Baroda retirees about pension the Government clearly  clarified that pension settlement in banks is settlement between banks and Union and the the bank has to provide funds for updation of pension. But bank has not replied to the petitioner. All bankers know that getting judgement  from lower to Supreme Court takes few decades and before that  all PENSIONERS will leave this WORLD. It is like explaining about an elephant to a blind man . This is the fate of bank retirees and founders of UNION. Banks are not caring the PENSIONER'S because getting judgement from court takes several years.

PENSIONER' must join their hands and demonstrate in front of bank chairman's house 🏠🏡. 

--

[kds nair]

I think Shri Prasad is reasonable in this regard.Quick remedy lies in negotiations,and not in court cases.

On Wed, 24 Aug, 2022, 9:58 am NSS, <nsanka...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri N Sankara Subramanian,

This is the exact reason I decided to share my thoughts.  Unfortunately, in an axiety to get the benefit, we tried to 'invent' gounds, but try not to 'discover' grounds.

We have the habit of reading in bits and pieces, like we quote Regulation 35(1).  Even ignoring the procedure to be followed to make  a 'settlement', a binding agreement and even if we consider the minutes as 'binding settlement', does it help us ?  I am extracting from the minutes :

‘formula for updation of pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank Pension Scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’

Reseve Bank of India formula cannot be introduced ipso facto, as it results in those who retired earlier getting more pension than those who retired later.  If so, what is the formula, one needs to adopt ?   Will IBA and UFBU agree with Reserve Bank of India formula, ipso facto ?  They cannot agree.  If so, what is the option open ?  Is it not 'mutual discussion', if we accept your argument ?  We need to understand full implication, before we make a case before a Court.  Do we know the consequences of an adverse Judgment ?   Needs to read Judgments line by line and word by word.    

The aspect of 'Minutes' is considered by the Division Bench and the following portions of the Judgment, which are relevant to what you have stated is extracted : 

8. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated Clause 12 of the settlement where-under it was agreed between the employees association and IBA that updation in pension would be allowed on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India; and Clause 56 of the pension scheme providing for bringing in corresponding provisions in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 wherever the pension scheme of the banks is lacking or is ambiguous. According to the learned counsel for the appellants failure of the respondents to allow updation in pension of the appellants has resulted into a very anomalous situation because various employees of the banks who had been occupying lower posts as compared to the ones held by the appellants, but retired later than the appellants, are drawing pension much more than what the appellants are getting which is contrary to the dictum of the judgments V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay, 1998 (4) S.C.T. 662: (1998) 8 SCC 30 that invoked the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India-(1983) 1 SCC 305 and Union of India v. SPS Vains (Retd.), 2008 (4) S.C.T. 453: (2008) 9 SCC 125. By referring to the minutes of the meeting of Small Committee on Pension held on March 26, 1994 wherein it was, inter alia agreed that ‘formula for updation of pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank Pension Scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’, it has been argued that inspite of acceptance of the said formula the respondents have failed to honour it even though such a settlement is binding on the parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

25. Ad finem, a word about minutes of meeting dated March 26, 1994 of the Small Committee on Pension whereby it is said to have been accepted that formula for updating pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank's Pension Scheme. Discussions held and agreements reached in this meeting, in our view, are nothing more than parleys preliminary to the final decision which came in the form of pension scheme of 1995. Therefore, the minutes cannot vest the appellants with a right to claim parity with employees of Reserve Bank of India. It may be hastily added here that it is the specific stand of the respondents in the written statement that even Reserve Bank of India has withdrawn the order of updation of pension and the matter is pending adjudication before Bombay High Court. This assertion has not been disputed by the appellants by filing a replication to the written statement.

I am attaching both the Judgments, for your immediate reference.  Please read the Judgments, which have quoted even Nakara.  Even the concept of Pension Fund is also discussed in Nakara, which is also extracted in the Judgment.  We shall stop misleading Pensioners, with half information.

 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/644446b9-eda4-4ba4-9389-8a7487f68a21n%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

I have read both the Judgments and replied to you after understanding all the aspects of the Judgments. You are presenting half information and misleading the pensioners, It is not me.

I am extracting below from your post.

"Judgment has only said that the pension revision needs to be negotiated.

Unfortunately, the petitioners erred by seeking time based on formation of the Committee by IBA.  By seeking time on this count, the Petitioners themselves have agreed that this benefit has to be negotiated, which is what Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment says. "

You have quoted from the Judgment of the Single Judge Bench. As explained in may earlier mail ,an appeal was filed in the P&H HC against the Judgment of the Single Judge Bench. In the appeal the minutes of the small committee was brought on record and the Court dismissed our appeal as it did not treat the minutes as final agreement. By quoting from the Judgment of the Single Judge which has become irrelevant after the judgment by the larger Bench you have misled the pensioners into believing that Negotiations are the only available solution.

Now you are stating that 10% increase in basic for each settlement will lead to the anomaly  of past pensioners getting more pension than pensioners who retired later and therefore negotiation is required. You have thus admitted that we are entitled to updation in line with RBI formula but the anomaly that will arise has to be addressed. Similar anomalies have occurred in Bipartite Settlements and they were corrected by paying compensatory allowances etc .to the affected pensioners.  If IBA informs the Court that updation as per RBI formula will be allowed and anomaly if any will be rectified by paying additional pension to the affected pensioners, the problem will be solved. 

IBA/Banks have agreed to update pension as per RBI formula and they are bound by it. 10% increase  in basic pension after merger of index points for each settlement is the minimum increase each pensioner is eligible for.  In the process of rectifying the anomalies some pensioners may get more than 10% increase which the banks have to bear.

(Pension settlement 1993 was entered into under Industrial Disputes Act. Small Committee was formed  in pursuance of a clause in the Pension Settlement 1993. Therefore the minutes of the Small Committee are also covered by the ID Act. This is in respect of Award Staff. For officers though the Minutes do not have the backing of ID Act, they are as much enforceable as the Minutes covered by ID Act.)

There is no need for negotiated settlement at this stage. Petitions were filed in 2008 and  after 14 long years they are about to attain finality. At this stage going for negotiations will only further delay the solution. Apart from the likely delay, most of the Pensioners do not  trust UFBU to arrive at an equitable settlement .

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Whatever may be the arguments, the fact remains that Updation and 100% DA issues are to be discussed and settled between UFBU and IBA. Whether IBA takes unilateral decision or discusses issues with UFBU, DFS will take a decision only after a proposal is submitted by IBA.

Retiree associations should meet UFBU leaders and pressure them to take consistent and serious steps to resolve the issue.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/947393459.2027862.1661408561492%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Chandrasekaran V]

Sir

'It may be hastily added here that it is the specific stand of the respondents in the written statement that even Reserve Bank of India has withdrawn the order of updation of pension and the matter is pending adjudication before Bombay High Court. This assertion has not been disputed by the appellants by filing a replication to the written statement.'

The said issue of RBI pensioners settled since.  Does it give some room for arguments 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW11WdbuLZzC1HU6SuA7Mt9mP9BG8TSqiTuTVVQr42pzpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

By going to court, even if pensioners win, by the time the court decide, all pensioners would have I left this planet called Earth

--

[bhaskara sarma]

Five year weightage for SVRS retirees and 1616_1684 points anomaly was rectified only through court battles but not by negotiations.

Some Resignees also got second pension option only through Supreme court verdict.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa9nwHQPhw3WwbSbL1zwDFpm3CxyMhhbFGhu0vyDyPWVWA%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

IBA has the authority to take unilateral decision by-passing the UFBU and send proposal to DFS for pension revision. But it is UFBU who will oppose this decision on some flimsy grounds. So, retirees associations can only  pressurise the UFBU not create any trouble if IBA sends proposal to DFS for pension revision. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW11WdbuLZzC1HU6SuA7Mt9mP9BG8TSqiTuTVVQr42pzpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tarsem Sharma]

--

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Prasad

Dear Sir, there is a legal principle called as 'Doctrine of Merger'.  By applying this principle, the Judgment of Single Judge merges with that of the Division Bench.  Which means, unless differentiated or disagrees  with any portion or reverses or alter any portion of the Judgment of the Single Judge,  the Judgment of the Single Judge becomes a part of the Division Bench.

26. Thus, viewed from all possible angles, appeals are found to carry no substance and are, therefore, dismissed. 

Therefore, the Judgment of Single Judge stands as the Division Bench has dismissed appeals.  Thereby, Division Bench has only affirmed the decision of the Single Judge.  Therefore, Judgment of Single Judge becomes a part of the Division Bench.  This aspect has been quoted in 100% DA case judgment of SC.

Unfortunately, you have ignored the other part of my reply, wherein I have referred to the same clause in Minutes of 1994.   I had stated that Even ignoring the procedure to be followed to make  a 'settlement', a binding agreement and even if we consider the minutes as 'binding settlement', does it help us ?  I have indeed extracted hereunder :

‘formula for updation of pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank Pension Scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’

Unfortunately, you are ignoring the portion 'Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement'

Which means, if any of the parties disagree on RBI formula, 'mutual agreement' is required.  Is it not ?  I am sure you will not agree, still and continue to say what you were saying as correct.  

I have stated that IBA will not accept RBI formula, because ipso facto implementation results in those who retired earlier getting more pension than those who retire later.  I am demonstrating with the following example of a Scale IV Officer drawing maximum pay :

Revision as per RBI formula for Scale IV Officer
	9th      BPS	10th        BPS	11th       BPS
Basic Pay	36200	59170	89890
Basic Pension (50% of Basic Pay )	18100	29585	44945
10% loading for each BPS (20% for 9th BPS & 10% for 10th BPS)	3620	2958
Basic Pension after loading	21720	32543
Dearness Relief upto 6352 points	28638	15556
Revised Basic Pension	50358	48099	44945

You will understand the effect of ipso fact application of RBI formula.  Unfortunately, many of the Bank Retirees' Organisations are seeking revision based on RBI formula, without understanding the consequences.  This is because, they are demanding for the sake of demanding and they are not serious.

You have stated that 'If IBA informs the Court that updation as per RBI formula will be allowed and anomaly if any will be rectified by paying additional pension to the affected pensioners, the problem will be solved'. 

Is it not wishful thinking ?  Do you understand the consequences of such statement byf IBA ?  It means reopening of already settled 10th BPS and 11th BPS ?  If they are willing, why did they bring in Special Allowance to restrict load towards 'Superannuation benefits'.  Such a statement has implication, not only on pension, but also on NPS contribution and Gratuity also.  For the sake of misguiding innocent pensioners and show as a 'warrior', we shall not indulge in such an endeavour.

Revision as per RBI formula for a Scale IV Officer

Again, whether minutes are going to help us ?  It does not help us, certainly.  The decision of the Courts are based on the law, but not equity alone.  Equity come into play, only if law is discriminatory or contrary to Constitution/ existing law.  As I have already stated,  pension revision in RBI has brought, in some change in the situation.  But it is useful if and only if, the 'Minutes are applied in parts'.   Whether Hon'ble Supreme Court has authority to apply any law in parts, if no part is illegal ?   If you still have any doubt, please consult a good advocate, who is good in service jurisprudence.  

You have knowledge in law.  But, in an anxiety to help retirees you are trying to invent grounds

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N

 

(Pension settlement 1993 was entered into under Industrial Disputes Act. Small Committee was formed  in pursuance of a clause in the Pension Settleme1993. Therefore the minutes of the Small Committee are also covered by the ID Act. This is in respect of Award Staff. For officers though the Minutes do not have the backing of ID Act, they are as much enforceable as the Minutes covered by ID Act.)

There is no need for negotiated settlement at this stage. Petitions were filed in 2008 and  after 14 long years they are about to attain finality. At this stage going for negotiations will only further delay the solution. Apart from the likely delay, most of the Pensioners do not  trust UFBU to arrive at an equitable settlement .

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

On Friday, 26 August, 2022 at 10:24:34 am IST, NSS <nsanka...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr.Prasad

I have read both the Judgments and replied to you after understanding all the aspects of the Judgments. You are presenting half information and misleading the pensioners, It is not me.

I am extracting below from your post.

"Judgment has only said that the pension revision needs to be negotiated.

Unfortunately, the petitioners erred by seeking time based on formation of the Committee by IBA.  By seeking time on this count, the Petitioners themselves have agreed that this benefit has to be negotiated, which is what Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment says. "

You have quoted from the Judgment of the Single Judge Bench. As explained in may earlier mail ,an appeal was filed in the P&H HC against the Judgment of the Single Judge Bench. In the appeal the minutes of the small committee was brought on record and the Court dismissed our appeal as it did not treat the minutes as final agreement. By quoting from the Judgment of the Single Judge which has become irrelevant after the judgment by the larger Bench you have misled the pensioners into believing that Negotiations are the only available solution.

Now you are stating that 10% increase in basic for each settlement will lead to the anomaly  of past pensioners getting more pension than pensioners who retired later and therefore negotiation is required. You have thus admitted that we are entitled to updation in line with RBI formula but the anomaly that will arise has to be addressed. Similar anomalies have occurred in Bipartite Settlements and they were corrected by paying compensatory allowances etc .to the affected pensioners.  If IBA informs the Court that updation as per RBI formula will be allowed and anomaly if any will be rectified by paying additional pension to the affected pensioners, the problem will be solved. 

IBA/Banks have agreed to update pension as per RBI formula and they are bound by it. 10% increase  in basic pension after merger of index points for each settlement is the minimum increase each pensioner is eligible for.  In the process of rectifying the anomalies some pensioners may get more than 10% increase which the banks have to bear.

(Pension settlement 1993 was entered into under Industrial Disputes Act. Small Committee was formed  in pursuance of a clause in the Pension Settlement 1993. Therefore the minutes of the Small Committee are also covered by the ID Act. This is in respect of Award Staff. For officers though the Minutes do not have the backing of ID Act, they are as much enforceable as the Minutes covered by ID Act.)

There is no need for negotiated settlement at this stage. Petitions were filed in 2008 and  after 14 long years they are about to attain finality. At this stage going for negotiations will only further delay the solution. Apart from the likely delay, most of the Pensioners do not  trust UFBU to arrive at an equitable settlement .

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

On Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 15:49:11 UTC+5:30 Prasad wrote:

Dear Shri N Sankara Subramanian,

This is the exact reason I decided to share my thoughts.  Unfortunately, in an axiety to get the benefit, we tried to 'invent' gounds, but try not to 'discover' grounds.

We have the habit of reading in bits and pieces, like we quote Regulation 35(1).  Even ignoring the procedure to be followed to make  a 'settlement', a binding agreement and even if we consider the minutes as 'binding settlement', does it help us ?  I am extracting from the minutes :

‘formula for updation of pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank Pension Scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’

Reseve Bank of India formula cannot be introduced ipso facto, as it results in those who retired earlier getting more pension than those who retired later.  If so, what is the formula, one needs to adopt ?   Will IBA and UFBU agree with Reserve Bank of India formula, ipso facto ?  They cannot agree.  If so, what is the option open ?  Is it not 'mutual discussion', if we accept your argument ?  We need to understand full implication, before we make a case before a Court.  Do we know the consequences of an adverse Judgment ?   Needs to read Judgments line by line and word by word.    

The aspect of 'Minutes' is considered by the Division Bench and the following portions of the Judgment, which are relevant to what you have stated is extracted : 

8. It has been strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated Clause 12 of the settlement where-under it was agreed between the employees association and IBA that updation in pension would be allowed on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India; and Clause 56 of the pension scheme providing for bringing in corresponding provisions in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 wherever the pension scheme of the banks is lacking or is ambiguous. According to the learned counsel for the appellants failure of the respondents to allow updation in pension of the appellants has resulted into a very anomalous situation because various employees of the banks who had been occupying lower posts as compared to the ones held by the appellants, but retired later than the appellants, are drawing pension much more than what the appellants are getting which is contrary to the dictum of the judgments V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay, 1998 (4) S.C.T. 662: (1998) 8 SCC 30 that invoked the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India-(1983) 1 SCC 305 and Union of India v. SPS Vains (Retd.), 2008 (4) S.C.T. 453: (2008) 9 SCC 125. By referring to the minutes of the meeting of Small Committee on Pension held on March 26, 1994 wherein it was, inter alia agreed that ‘formula for updation of pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank Pension Scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’, it has been argued that inspite of acceptance of the said formula the respondents have failed to honour it even though such a settlement is binding on the parties under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

25. Ad finem, a word about minutes of meeting dated March 26, 1994 of the Small Committee on Pension whereby it is said to have been accepted that formula for updating pension should be on the lines of same given in Reserve Bank's Pension Scheme. Discussions held and agreements reached in this meeting, in our view, are nothing more than parleys preliminary to the final decision which came in the form of pension scheme of 1995. Therefore, the minutes cannot vest the appellants with a right to claim parity with employees of Reserve Bank of India. It may be hastily added here that it is the specific stand of the respondents in the written statement that even Reserve Bank of India has withdrawn the order of updation of pension and the matter is pending adjudication before Bombay High Court. This assertion has not been disputed by the appellants by filing a replication to the written statement.

I am attaching both the Judgments, for your immediate reference.  Please read the Judgments, which have quoted even Nakara.  Even the concept of Pension Fund is also discussed in Nakara, which is also extracted in the Judgment.  We shall stop misleading Pensioners, with half information.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[kushal mukhoti]

As per the 'formula' doing rounds in this group and elsewhere, this will surely open up Pandora's box if this RBI formula is implemented in toto. But there is always a scope for modification of the formula which will remove all the anomalies shown in the enclosed chart. But, this is a different proposition. Whether there will be any revision of pension at all, is a million-dollar question. 

--

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/1546583606.550102.1661616174553%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Dear Mr.Prasad

Doctrine of Merger is , in an appeal or revision , if a superior forum modifies or reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the later which subsists, remains operative and is capable of  enforcement .  The writ petitions were based on the Pension Settlement 1993 and the Appeal was based on the Small Committee minutes.  The subsequent Judgment did not modify or affirm the earlier Judgment . Therefore the findings of the Court in the first Judgment is not capable of enforcement and has no relevance. 

Regarding the agreement that  "any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement’ ,  this clause has been added as a matter of abundant caution only. Even assuming that  this clause is not included , can IBA implement some other inferior formula without the consent of the Unions/Associations? 

Regarding Law and Equity, we have not based our claim on equity. Our claim is that the Small Committee minutes are the final agreement and it is legally enforceable. Thus there is no need for the Court to order updation based on equity.

There is no need for reopening the Bipartite Settlements. All that is required is amendment to the pension Regulations, giving the formula for calculating the additional pension payable to those pensioners who receive lesser amount of pension than the pensioners of the same rank and same length of service retired under earlier BPS. 

Anomalies and gross  injustices like  retired General Manager  getting lesser pension than a retired  Clerk did not prick the conscience of IBA or the trade Unions. But a person retired under a subsequent BPS getting lesser pension than the one retired under an earlier settlement though they have the same length of service and rank is going to shake their conscience?  Honourable Supreme Court had in a number of decisions stated that, pensioners retired under different times, though having the same rank and length of service cannot claim the same amount of pension. Therefore the pensioner retired under a subsequent settlement getting lesser pension is legally permitted only. ( There is no rule that only the subsequently retired pensioners should get more pension than earlier retired pensioners.)

If IBA informs the Court that RBI formula cannot be implemented the Appellants should oppose the move and demand updation as per RBI formula. Any anomaly can be rectified later . Negotiations at this stage will result in undue delay only.

Regarding your statement that I am trying to project myself as a warrior and misleading the pensioners, such observations are not expected from a person of your stature. I was in regular contact with late M.C.Singla and gave him inputs for conducting our Appeal. Because of this Mr.Singla shared with me the Minutes of the Small Committee and I shared it in this group. Till that time we were not aware of the existence of the minutes. I am in touch with the Advocate conducting the appeals and also the people conducting the case and have given inputs to them also. I do not publish these things as I have no desire  to become a warrior. However I can say with confidence that I have done more than most of the self proclaimed warriors.

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

[Harish Midha]

Moreover, whatever the anomaly ,if any , would have also been there or might have been may have be addressed in the RBI formula as has been made applicable to RBI pensioners at the time of updation of their pension. If so what can be the problem in demanding and implementation of the same formula to bank pensioners either with or without modifications?

--

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/1b24260f-d45f-48e7-a27c-eca0974b032en%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir, 

I do not have ability to convince who has decided that the Courts have erred.  Unfortunately, I neither have time in the amidst our Conference nor have inclination to convince someone who has some legal knowledge, but not enough.  I do not find any error in the Judgments.  I do not carry any such an optimism which may make me convinced about reopening of two Bipartite Settlements, not for the benefit of the employees, but only to revise pension in terms of RBI formula.  I still believe no Union or Association would indulge in such an adventure.

The future would decide, who has right understanding.

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKHz0FyrQzhboBSegMcyiLAEO3CKosnZY%2BxUjWGboexi4HE3SA%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

FOR INFORMATION:

As we observe, the Verdicts in court cases may be favourable or otherwise to petitioners.

As a layman's understanding, Apex Court's verdict is final under judiciary  system in our country.

However we also observe that,the  petitioners often file  applications, before Apex Court  as Miscellaneous Applications, for modification/clarification  after a final judgment has been pronounced.

Apex court has already came against this trend in one of the the verdicts in: MA 1572/2021 re.Super Tech Ltd. vs Emerald Court Owner Resident .Welfare Assn & ors.on 4 October, 2021 Before Bench of: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud, & Hon'Ble B.V. Nagaratna.in SC.

It is interesting to go through the relevant part  of it.

QUOTE;

"12 The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is its stability and finality. Judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes which are subject to the vagaries of wind  and weather. A disturbing trend has emerged in this court of repeated applications, styled as Miscellaneous Applications, being filed after a final judgment has been pronounced. Such a practice has no legal foundation and must be firmly discouraged. It reduces litigation to a gambit. Miscellaneous Applications are becoming a preferred course to those with resources to pursue strategies to avoid compliance with judicial decisions. A judicial pronouncement cannot be subject to modification once the judgment has been pronounced, by filing a miscellaneous application. Filing of a miscellaneous application seeking modification/clarification of a judgment is not envisaged in law. Further, it is a settled legal principle that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly [“Quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum)”

***            

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1ccf60f2-6f1d-443e-9a85-cadcb783246c%40email.android.com.

[NSS]

Friends

Small Committee Minutes are not parleys before agreement as observed by P&H HC. They are the final agreement on Pension Regulations. This can be established in Court through the following.

1) In the Karnataka HC, Government of India had filed its objections in WP No.25913/2002 (Sanjeev A V Union of India). In that Govt. had admitted the formation of the Small Committee and also to have formulated the Pension Regulations as agreed to in the Small Committee. The Small Committee has members from Unions, Associations and IBA. Having admitted this fact, the Govt. cannot go back and disown the Small Committee or its minutes. 

2) All the terms agreed in the Small Committee except the one relating to updation has been incorporated in the Pension Regulations. If the Minutes are parleys before agreement, why IBA/Govt. included all the agreed points in the Regulations except the one on Updation.

3) From the Judgment in Sanjeev.A it is found that the parties have signed the Draft Regulations on 07/03/94 and 26/04/1994.  (Draft Regulations does not mean that one party can unilaterally omit any of the terms of the minutes. It only means that modification may be done to bring clarity etc.) 

Therefore, the Updation appeals are not weak as being projected. 

Why are the Unions and Associations not talking about the Small Committee?  What is the need for further Negotiations when there is an agreement that Updation should be as per RBI formula?  If RBI formula will result in anomalies, anomalies should be rectified, and the formula should be implemented. Discarding RBI formula and accepting an inferior formula is not the solution.

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

[Gopalan Ramanuja]

I totally agree with Mr NSS on his contention that all the  items contained in the Small Committee minutes dtv17/03/1994 except the one relating to Pension updation have been actioned by IBA/ Govt.  Legal validity of the Small  Committee Minutes has been upheld by Karnataka High Court and accepted by Govt. This aspect, if properly presented and highlighted to Supreme Court on 16th September thro an eminent Senior Advocate like Mr Harish Salve or Mr Abhishek Sanghvi can break the ice in favour of pensioners. Cost of engaging Senior lawyer for this special appearance along with other legal costs can be shared by the Pensioners community. 

Can more thought be given on the above lines for faster resolution?

R Gopalan

Canara Bank Retiree.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/282bbd38-b122-4bb9-9d1d-8243e7abbb8an%40googlegroups.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Whatever the argument in favour of success in court, once one goes to court, the door for negotiation is shut citing the matter is Sub judice. Any favourable verdict will be contested and drags to Supreme Court. By the time final verdict is pronounced, there will be no pre 2002 pensioners living on this earth.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/282bbd38-b122-4bb9-9d1d-8243e7abbb8an%40googlegroups.com.