Missing clauses in Pension Regulation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

In the proceedings dated 22nd in SC the learned judges are reported to have said that anything not  found in pension regulation, even if it is a matter  of ₹100/ will not find favour.

In the matter of updation,as found in 35(1) , apparently permitting only for certain sections, will respondent's explanation now to the judiciary's query, that provisions are not omnibus hold water? Such an important aspect cannot go unexplained in regulation. 

2.The regulation does not carry a specific clause saying "No Updation"

Will the judiciary now accept insertion of an imaginary clause by respondent? 

C V Narayanan

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Sanjay or C.N.Prasad can enlighten the highlighting the core issues and the supreme court proceedings concluded on 22 nd july in Shri Singla ji Case for pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da99PZG0eSoWG%2BFdwfGs%2BfL5ZELVmG2TPSy%3D9C83M8Yb6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Visvam Ambattur]

Is justice restricted to some documents or events(settlements) or some similar scopes.?

There is famous saying "unification in diversification". Is it fair for  GOI to have diversified pension plans( plans with differences and variations) for different sections of employee or ex-employee population .

So, if Honorable Judge said fund shouldn't be constraint,  is GOI going correct their attitude and treat all pensioners equally, like that of defence dep7.

each employee and ex-employee has only one vote and current leaders came to power on that basis.

God bless bank pensioners. 

--

[Ramani Konnayar]

1) Some prominent members of this group have always held the view that although Regulation 35(1) describes the exercise carried out for those who retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/10/1987 (under 4th BPS) through the formula contained in the Appendix-1 relating to the Regulation as UPDATION, it was only a mere merger of a portion DA with basic pay to align their DA with that of 5th BPS retirees and NOT FOR INCREASING THEIR TOTAL PENSION.

2) In this context, it is interesting to observe that the arguments of the Respondents' advocate appear to suggest that it was indeed an updation of total pension but the Regulation restricted it to the particular group of pensioners alone and the subsequent groups cannot claim such a benefit.

3) With regard to the amendment made to the Regulation in 2003, it is interpreted by some that it was to enable devising a formula for fixing the basic pension of those whose last 10  months of service fall under 2 successive BPS periods. This process is also termed as updation of pension in the Regulations, although it is only a procedure to fix the basic pension.

So, THIS PROCEDURE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS DONE THROUGH APPENDIX-1.

4) It is not clear if an amendment was necessary to devise the above formula. If this alone was the purpose of the amendment it could have been mentioned specifically instead of using the term "wherever applicable".

These points raise the doubt that originally there was an intention to revise the pensions upwards after every BPS but it was dropped after the second option for pension was given and more than that after BEPR Scheme became close ended with its substitution by NPS in April 2010.

Let us wait and see how the honourable judges interpret and decide, in the absence of anything in the Regulations to the effect that the updation given for 4th BPS group will not entitle the subsequent groups for a similar benefit

and pensioners in RBI getting it periodically.

K N Ramani 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANfG1azVic7MoKxHqWMbKfzFPvC0QJqU9JxkO-a6fFt%3DP9VWsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Raogaru,

Only issue before SC - is Regulation 35 (1) - which Associations Advocate has to prove/establish that (a) it provides periodical updation for all,  (b) updation as per RBI formula.  Unfortunately both the above dont find mention in Regulation 35(1) or Appendix 1.  Challenge is to establish in absence of such clauses.  There are many worriers - who are already guiding the advocates to establish.  Have faith in warriors including Sanjay - to get benefits.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1234020213.2098737.1785338451806%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr. Niranjan, if Reg35/1 is only under consideration for Hon judges in SC. there was no necessity for them to demand documents like charts examining disparity 

and  details of DA merger and appeal would have been dismissed just upholding High court verdict. 

In fact, Dhruv Mehta suggested exactly the same to the court on 12.08.2026: "My Lord, the High Court has already dismissed the case; you also do the same."

Here, the strategy is that, apart from proving Reg35/1 is indeed an Updation procedure, Pensioners' advocates are trying to impress upon the judges why Updation is necessary and why a provision for updation is not mandatory in Pension Regulations by submitting the DFS updation sanction letter addressed to the RBI.

Mr. Singhvi explained that updation is the merger of DA and adding a load factor. Though we cannot claim the pensioners' advocate presented his arguments perfectly, his presentation has made some impact.

From hundreds of past Supreme Court verdicts, we can observe that SC does not restrict itself to the printed text of contractual terms but also considers equality of justice. 

Some claim that SC cannot rewrite or alter regulations. By allowing appeals and directing banks to implement updation, the SC is not rewriting or changing regulations, rather, it is accepting that Reg35/1 is an updation and directing Banks to extend it to all pensioners.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHkdJ5-CdZ1UXbjs0r3L_ZhXnY2erArXAeaieXvUKjw4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

It is queer that nobody speaks about opportunity thrown open to present our case by availing the position of non mention in regulation prohibiting updation. Perhaps shri somasekara is the only exception. 

There is undue pitch on 35(1) by litigants and decrial by certain quarters by equal force  little realising 

that we are into infliction of self injury

C V Naarayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zTTdkvpwpCFVb88zc9jrbcfktYT0dUxyE6xwRm1vh1cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Visvam Ambattur]

Thank you Sir.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zTTdkvpwpCFVb88zc9jrbcfktYT0dUxyE6xwRm1vh1cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Dear Mr. Somashekar,

It is accepted that the banks and the IBA are not claiming to have implemented pension updation.

During the court proceedings, Mr. Singhvi stated that they are seeking updation in accordance with Regulation 35(1) as well as the RBI formula . It is unclear how these two elements are interconnected.  Further, Judges have already remarked that if Banks are not paying as per Regulations - Banks have to pay.  The Pensioners advocate has not claimed that the Banks are not paying pension as per Regulations in any of the afficavits or arguments.  THESE ARE FACTS.   

Further, If anyone asks benefits outside Regulations - what decision Court can take ??  Can they decide the formula for updation ?  It is left to ones wisdom - to ponder.

Regards,
Niranjan Cn

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2xnupMDX81dKf9hwbDyhTiiAi7RmKRJhgXX1BMfr4kRw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There are three main arguments of  iBA before SC in M C Singla appeal case.

1.Pension updated as per  Reg 35/1 is restricted to specified pensioners  during certain period. It does  apply to all pensioners.

Pensioners argument is that the 2003 amendment, which added the words "Pension shall be updated wherever applicable," removes that restriction, and all pensioners are entitled to updation.

SC will provide the correct legal interpretation of Reg35/1.

2. IBA argues that there is no provision for pension updation in Bank employees pension regulations.

    Pensioners have argued that provision for updation  in pension regulations is not mandatory as DFS which is also a party in the M C Singla case has updated pension of RBI pensioners multiple times. DFS has also observed the necessity of updating pensions for pensioners in the financial sector.

Petitioners have provided documents supporting this argument.

This point need not be mixed with Reg35/1. The argument is that  no clause in pension regulations that prevents updation to all pensioners irrespective of what Reg35/1says.

3. The third argument is what IBA and UBU have consistently claimed: there are no funds for updation, citing huge provision requirements.

Mr. C N Prasad in his excellent analysis of the SC proceedings of 22nd July 2026, clarified that the funding position is not an issue for SC.

I expect the SC will not restrict itself strictly to printed text of contractual terms and also examine validity of iBA argument that there is no proviison for updation in regulations considering the documentary evidence of DFS approving updation despite the absence of a provision for updation in the Pension regulations.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEbPN9FUUbt1AADdAV_s_otkEC9a8MmhZ%3DBUWLnTtxAXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

We are making tragi comedy of  whole issue. Robert Einstein is reported to have made a hole in the wall to facilitate his fat pet dog to traverse from one room to another. 

When he got another pet this time a tiny cat he is reported to have made another hole, this time a smaller one for fond cat. 

Drawing an analogy, absence of  restrictive clause in regulation for updation is like Einstein created big hole in the wall. 

This facility(hole )was remaining plugged for long time till such time RBI pensioners could put to use. 

For singla case in Punjab High court 35(1) had to be reckoned (smaller hole) for reasons cited in previous para. Strictly speaking it is no more of significance  now. 

In the last few lines of his latest note shri somashekara remarks  "despite the absence of a provision for updation in regulation.... 

It could have been avoided. 

CV narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0uaUSDOt6KyPJdSg0s_zcMuSt0UP7E23RFap3XH-38pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sri Somashekarji, 

1.     Whenever we quote Regulations – we have to quote full – otherwise meaning will be distorted.  Eg. ‘Pension shall be updated wherever applicable’ is mentioned but actually it is ‘ Pension shall be updated wherever applicable as per Appendix 1’ .

2.     Anyone reads the Reg 35(1) full – any scope for two interpretations ?

3.     Banks can improve/enhance/new provisions benefits to the pensioners – without support of any corresponding Regulations.  Eg. (a) Family Pension improvement, (b) 100% Dr, etc.  No law prevents Banks from giving more benefits to pensioners.

4.     Further, sir please read RBI pension of 2019 – letter.  Pensioners advocate repeatedly told the court that RBI has updated the pension repeatedly but Bank pensioners are denied.  In the said RBI letter – RBI has only revised the pension and not updated the pension.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0uaUSDOt6KyPJdSg0s_zcMuSt0UP7E23RFap3XH-38pg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The Supreme court judges don't go by what is argued based on 35/1 regulations etc they go beyond what is debated.The are looking at the orbitarly denying pension updation by IBA and DFS combine which is against the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution and allow updation by giving favourable verdict.

All misinterpretations shall be answered once the favourable verdict is pronounced.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEdQ88HSdeS38%3DcwH7PXdg-u90L6pWfx2YXr-B%2BH9xMeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

The observation that RBI has revised/ not updated  , whatever way it may be called the out come of benefits are same. People used say  Call me “ but pay me Forty” call me in any way but give what I am entitled to!??

On Tue, Aug 4, 2026 at 9:02 PM Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes. A general common sense approach equity of justice is the main basis for our fight and let us hope for the best. The exact wording of pension regulations clause 35(1) with annnexure1 and the amendment become irrelevant if it is so. How the Pnb  is going to defend ? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/948706314.3059926.1785834235198%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Yes. A general common sense approach equity of justice is the main basis for our fight and let us hope for the best. The exact wording of pension regulations clause 35(1) with annnexure1 and the amendment become irrelevant if it is so. How the Pnb  is going to defend ? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/948706314.3059926.1785834235198%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Considering the many elite learned veterans of this August body of lions without teeth ( including myself) it is like an very old lion unable to hunt making roaring sound by pressing its mouth on the earth  and the sound vibration being all over the forest, some goats lambs shamble across running here and there in all directions , it happens that one or two may fall on the  open mouth  of the hungry Lion. Here lions are roaring!! Waiting for a prey!! Fantastic destiny.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/948706314.3059926.1785834235198%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Hon.Hon. Judges of the SC in Civil Appeal 7993/23 posed a question to both petitioners' and respondents' advocates: What is your interpretation of Reg 35/1?

Both Dhruv Mehta and the Pensioners' advocates have given their interpretations,

Therefore, the Hon'ble Judges will issue their final legal interpretation.

We can support the IBA or pensioners as per our pre disposition of the issue.

I will better wait for the judges' verdict instead of giving my legal opinion.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/948706314.3059926.1785834235198%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Somashekarji,

That is the best - leave it to the court to decide.  Already some courts have decided in the matter.  Let the SC also decide in the matter - it may be a month or so.

Better to wait for judgement - which will answer all doubts, facts, gossips, etc.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW37fYfJf0bjn%2BOJHF8ZjAiZPKk6jX_-u9cuuLfPxOuXng%40mail.gmail.com.