Pension updation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Let us neither count the chicken before they are hatched nor break the imaginary eggs as rotten before they are laid

C V Narayanan

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Regulation 35(1) does not speak of updation! 

SO WHAT? 

Pension Fund does not carry any surplus to meet updation committnent

SO WHAT? 

Does our pension regulation under DEFINED PENSION SCHEME stipulate the above criteria? 

Why are we racking our brain about the above two? 

What is the sanctity of clause 11 of pension regulation mandating ACTUARIAL exercise and obligations of Govt under that for all commitments, updation included? 

Both the sides viz AIBPARC &IBA would be in posession of Acturial report Obtained separately

Why they cannot be brought to public gaze to establish  veracity of each ones stand though it is of only academic interest for pensioners ? 

Govt can definitely think of means other than internal  generation  to garner funds.

Whether any other agenda like privatisation/ amalgamation of banks on the anvil baulking decision? 

Some among us are skin and bone thanks to paucity of funds. 

If DFS have the will the malnourushed can be brought back to health

C V Narayanan

27th april

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri CVN ji,

You have, yourselves answered all the questions raised, through the concluding two sentences.

Additional liabilities for banks on account of any updation of pension would mostly be on account of the group belonging to the 5th to 8th BPSs., who may constitute just around 30% of the total number of pensioners. 

The other group of 70% comprising 9th to 11th BPSs is already getting a decent pension and the additional outgo in their cases will not be much.

The average age of the first group is 75-80 and so the pension expenses on their account may be only for a few more years from now. Considering this, Government/IBA will do well to approach the issue of pension updation sympathetically and fulfill the aspirations of the veterans at the earliest and to the best possible extent rather than totally rejecting the demand/request.

K N RAMANI 

--
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%3Da-aX4yEev%3DTCdNbvWHgLsq5wBh9HjY5nuPJkdWForSL9g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,  Your questions are perfectly right for negotiations - but not for winning the case in Supreme Court.  One has to prove and bring the material to substantiate their point,  Ib court we cannot say ' so what ?'.

Banks are bound to provide the funds as per Regulations but we cannot expect the banks to provide funds for updation which is not defined/explained anywhere.  That is the reason, we should not try to prove sufficiency of funds for updation in court.  If banks have to give legally, they have no choice irrespective of funds.

Niranjan

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

CV Narayanan

On Tue, 28 Apr, 2026, 1:33 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The so called poser "So what" Is not aimed at the judiciary. 

It is directed within ourselves. It is suggestive of looking for alternate routes rather than obsession with 35(1) besides attempt to prove sufficiency of funds. 

My understanding as confirmed by pension experts is that there will be no specific clause in Defined Pension scheme for updation as it is a varying factor finalised by negotiation. There will be specific clause denying the benefit in the regulation if it was meant.

There is no case of pensioners being misguided. 

One thing is certain. Poor pensioners are victims of cross fire

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWGM2rS1x3W%3DdnYR1V_9E16OQRr%2BP63dBpr%3D7b8cnNd55g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

The so called poser "So what" Is not aimed at the judiciary. 

It is directed within ourselves. It is suggestive of looking for alternate routes rather than obsession with 35(1) besides attempt to prove sufficiency of funds. 

My understanding as confirmed by pension experts is that there will be no specific clause in Defined Pension scheme for updation as it is a varying factor finalised by negotiation. There will be specific clause denying the benefit in the regulation if it was meant.

There is no case of pensioners being misguided. 

One thing is certain. Poor pensioners are victims of cross fire

On Tue, 28 Apr, 2026, 9:39 am Niranjan Cn, <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWGM2rS1x3W%3DdnYR1V_9E16OQRr%2BP63dBpr%3D7b8cnNd55g%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

After Mr.Singla's unfortunate death there were two options. Theoretical and Practical.

THEORETICAL

We have the privilege to post messages that Reg35/1 does not provide for updation, there is no provision for updation, pension funds not sufficient,  we have no evidence to prove in court, case will fail,  there is no discrimination, IBA is correct in claiming shortage of funds.Etc. (Some of these are absolutely correct).  We have enough knowledge to  support this with case laws, documents. We will win arguments and let Singla case die its natural death along with the original petitioner. Does it help 750000 pensioners who have been waiting for updation since the  last 25 years? It is easy for us to argue our case on social media.

PRACTICAL

Instead of letting the case die, AIBPARC joined the appeal in SC to revive the case by providing funds and counter IBAs arguments within its limitations.

Mr.Singla died in 2018 fighting the case for pensioners. In 2019 in spite of there was no provision for pension updation in their Rules DFS sanctioned updation for RBI pensioners. It was amended recently. In M C Singla case High court verdict Hon.Judges directed petitioners to  negotiate with Management.

UFBU leaders could have persuaded DFS to amend pension regulations to provide for updation as directed by the High court to negotiate the issue and help M C Singla case petitioners to withdraw the case and settle the issue through negotiation. Instead UFBU chose to help IBA win the case by taking an absurd stand of sub judice. If DFS can sanction Updation without provision why not for Bank pensioners. Because gence start eating crops.

Neither of the experts who have wide knowledge on the subject came to assist petitioners and guide them when the case was in the preliminary stage.

However we cannot assume that the case will be decided only on rules , regulations . DFS has to explain why different yardsticks are being applied for RBI pensioners and Bank pensioners. Adicates of petitioners have  made it cldear that they want the same formula  as applied to RBI pensioners and not quantum . When DFS stipulated their own formula for updation for RBI pensioners in the absence of any formula in their pension rules, why should Bank pensioners prove existence of any formula in pension regulations. Further Hon.Judges are examining disparity if any. I am also grateful to Sri Sanjay sir and Raman Sir for contributing their valuable findings  in respect of Reg 35/1 and sharing the same with  petioners and their advocates.

Further I have some hopes on both Hon.Judges hearing our case. In some cases they have taken out of box decisions to help litigants.

Recently there was a divorce case where the husband also a lawyer  hiding his income, refusing to give alimony citing her education  and to harass wife , filed 80 civil, criminal complaints  against her., family and also against her advocates and also used bar council to harass her lawyers. Though there was not enough grounds to  end divorce Hon Judges Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta  asked the lawyer husband to pay Rs,5 crore to the wife and  ended divorce and went further an extra mile and quashed all 84 complaints using their powers under Article 142. 

So I am confident even if they find rules are not in favour of litigants they may direct both Banks and petitioners to discuss and settle matter amicably;

Even if verdict is not in favour of petitioners it does not in any way prevent IBA and UFBU to discuss the issue and settle the matter.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9gBiWKogSUqeO7iY349CFPYHAc7pUCs-_xWp0AX31Trw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

The bench of Hon'ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon'ble Justice Sandeep Mehta has indeed gained attention for several landmark rulings that lean heavily on the principles of equity and social justice. These decisions often use Article 142 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree necessary for doing "complete justice." 

While legal purists may debate whether judges should stick strictly to written statutes, proponents of judicial activism argue that such "extraordinary" decisions are essential when the letter of the law fails to protect the vulnerable. 

⚖️ Notable "Justice-First" Decisions

• Matrimonial Equity: In cases of long-term separation, the bench has invoked Article 142 to grant divorces on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, even though this is not a statutory ground under the Hindu Marriage Act.
• Rights of the Disabled: The bench recently launched "Project Ability Empowerment," directing a nationwide monitoring of state-run care homes for people with cognitive disabilities to ensure they are treated with dignity as equal participants in society.
• Public Employment: They quashed a state government’s refusal to regularise long-serving daily wagers, holding that "financial constraints" cannot be used as an excuse to exploit workers performing perennial duties.
• Safety & Accountability: In the "stray dog" cases, the bench prioritised public safety over literal interpretations of animal welfare rules, signalling that states must pay "heavy compensation" for bite incidents. 

---

Is this approach "right"?

The "rightness" of this approach depends on one's legal philosophy:

Perspective	Key Argument
Legal Positivism	Judges should only apply laws written by the legislature. Deviating from the law creates unpredictability.
Legal Realism	The law is a tool for social good. If a literal reading causes a "gross abuse of office" or injustice, the judge must step in.

Ultimately, the Indian Constitution specifically designed the Supreme Court to be a court of equity. By using their discretion to correct systemic unfairness, these justices are often seen as fulfilling the spirit of the Constitution rather than just its text. 

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Somashekara Ji .
Hats off to you for your illustrious presentation of the highly knowledgeable information and how the Learned judges hearing our case are known for their out of box thinkers etc.
Let us not bother about those distracters who possess negative interpretation of the pension regulations.
I have been repeatedly writing that the Learned judges have understood that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the government DFS and IBA and UFBU combine and made the pensioners the victims of orbitary decision of denying the pension updation for the last two decades.
We r sure to win the case and it is dedicated to the great fighter Sri late Singla ji.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3U6i%2BoJX%2B8FeMrwvp8sreVCvD2u0T_G9noEDAUeLca3Q%40mail.gmail.com.