AIBPARC TO CLC

[mohan p]

Response of AIBPARC on Pension updation sent to Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and to The Chairman, IBA

[Niranjan Cn]

Good Morning All,

Some of the issues are not clear hence requesting the clarifications regarding Regulation 35 (1) and Regulation 56 underwhich the demands are made.

An attempt has been made for understanding the demands which are been made and basis thereof.

I am sure the leaders will clarify the position (issues mentioned attachment ) for benefit of all the pensioners.

Niranjan 

Ex Canarabank

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:22 AM mohan p <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Response of AIBPARC on Pension updation sent to Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and to The Chairman, IBA

--
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/CAMCbyDSqTEUMUbMOqhz4Nt7H-f4Ed8yaZzKjM%3DK5v5kBjq9pfw%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

Sir,

So far AIBPARC has not found  provided any illustrations on benefit under R.35(1),for information of pensioners!

Hence we may not expect that they may do so at this time.Since the formula is not meant for revision of pension as and when wage revision takes place at industry level.

More over,we  are aware that,one of their affiliate retirees organisation had filed a case before Karnataka High Court on this specific point earlier which was dismissed by court.

Fate of cases filed on similar nature in other High Courts are also seen by us.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWGu8JrFOexTLxU6AvH_LaBLPOqApeFYh%3Dpob-Qahq6O1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

AIBPARC is not one of signatories in the strike notice issued by UFBU to CLC so CLC is not legally bound to take AIBPARC letter into consideration. IBA as usual will not respond to any communication from retirees.

However what does Past retirees mean? There may be present employees and Past employees.

UFBU in their circulars clearly mentioned retirees upto 7th BPS. But in notice to CLC it is mentioned Past retirees which is confusing. Let us hope UFBU does not mean Passed away retirees.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRAsB43dEi6e2dT44Czt-bXwwoNvMAKT1GwCa3Y3jpVQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

One of the Bank Retirees’ Apex Organisation in its letter dated 20.01.2023 has written a letter to both IBA and CLC.  No one knows, including the authors whether the intention is to help Bank Retirees or create hurdles.  Unfortunately, the leaders of this organisations also represented an Officers’ Association and negotiated its behalf.   It is stated in the letter that :

It is beyond common comprehension as to what is the aim and purpose of the negotiation on Updation of Pension when there is a clear pre-existing provision to update the pension as per amended Regulation 35(1)? Is it to re- write and distort a settled issue as per the BEPR (1995)? OR it is to fragment the Bank Retirees into old, somewhat old and very old groups and so on

Now, we have following questions.  We are aware that these inconvenient questions will not be answered by the leaders of the organisation, but also by Shri C N Venugopalan, Shri D Srinivasa Murthy, Shri Katari Sathyanarayana, etc.  We have been asking a question, what is the formula provided in Regulation 35(1).  But, without answering the question, this organisation has stated that

For information of both the sides, we would like to put on record that Regulation 35(1) - Appendix - I has clearly spelt out the modalities of Updation of Pension. In the said Appendix, there is a mention that the process of calculation would be made applicable for the Retirees between 01.01.86 and 31.12.87 since that particular group of Retirees alone was relevant and eligible at the time of implementation of Bank Employees Pension Regulations (1995). It was implemented and eligible pensioners were given the benefit of updation. But it is being denied during subsequent wage revisions. It may be appreciated that updation is not a onetime dispensation; it is rather a continual process on every wage revision.

It is stated that ‘Appendix – I has clearly spelt out modalities of Updation of pension’.   Now it is pertinent to see what is there in Appendix – I, which helps us.  It was not only Regulation 35(1), but also  Appendix – I was amended in 2003.  This is the much celebrated Gazette Notification.  Appendix – I covers following categories of pensioners :

a.       Those who retired retired during the period 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987 in Para 1 (DA merger upto 600 points)

b.        Workmen who have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1992 but before the 1st day of September, 1993 and in respect of officers who have retired on or after the 1st of July, 1993 but before the 1st day of May, 1994  in para 2 (DA merger upto 1148 points)

c.       In respect of workmen who have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1992 but before the 1st day of November, 1994 and in respect of officers who have retired on or after the 1^st  day of July, 1993 but before the 1st day of November, 1994 in para 3 (Clarification regarding reckoning of Special Allowance) in para 4

d.       Again, it is In respect of subordinate staff who have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1992 and have drawn pre-revised special allowance as also those who have retired on or after the 1st day of November, 1994 in para 5.

By reading the Appendix – I, one can infer that the computation of Basic Pension is either by adding DA upto a point or restricting the quantum of Special Allowance.  But, this organisation has claimed that the formula is clearly spelt out modalities of updation in Appendix – I.  What are the formulas this organisation is referring to ?  Is it adding Dearness Allowance/Relief upto 6352 points is the formula applicable as per Appendix – I ?  Otherwise, what is the other formula, which this organisation is basing on ?

More dangerous is that this organisation is questioning everything UFBU, including its own organisation AIBOC, doing ?  It has started preaching even UFBU.  Can this organisation get our pension updated as per Regulation 35(1) ?  What is the fate of Bank Pensioners, if IBA accepts their suggestion ?  We will leave it to your wisdom

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRAsB43dEi6e2dT44Czt-bXwwoNvMAKT1GwCa3Y3jpVQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Friends

Karnataka HC dismissed the WP filed by Pensioners from Canara Bank stating that none of the petitioners have retired during the period 1986 to 1987. Thus Reg.No.35.1 as it originally stood is applicable only to pensioners retired in 1986 -1987. This Regulation was amended in 2002. The amended Regulation states that wherever applicable pension will be updated as per formula given in appendix. The words "wherever applicable " is very vague and only through Circulars it was explained that  Pension of those who drew their last ten months' salary under two settlements will be updated. The Regulation would have been drafted vaguely giving scope for misinterpretation, deliberately. with a view to create an impression that Updation clause is available in the Regulations. No wonder many pensioners believed that the Regulation provides for updation. In the Kerala HC, Bank's Advocate had explained that Banks have updated pension wherever applicable. Hon'ble Court had accepted the claims of Banks. AIBPRC should have obtained Legal Opinion on Reg.No35 at least after the Kerala Judgment.

N.Sankara Subramanian

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Is AIBPARC planning to approach court against UFBU/IBA negotiations if any on updation?

The Following statement of AIBPARC indicates so.

****************************

Dear Comrades,

Anxious queries are raised about the idea of phased updation of pension floated by IBA and UFBU.

1) We will make it clear to them that any such move is illegal and unacceptable.

2) When Reg 35(1) is already providing for updation, UFBU cannot project it as a new demand instead of insisting on implementation of Reg 35(1).

3) Reg 35(1) is a mandatory provision and IBA/Banks cannot shirk their duty/responsibility of incorporating the updation formula forthwith in Appendix 1 of BEPR, 1995. IBA cannot take advantage of its own failure to incorporate periodically the updation formulae.

4) As soon as a pension optee retires, all rights under BEPR are vested in him/her. As pension updation is a right under Reg 35(1), it is also vested in a retiree the day he/she retires.

5) Courts have always held that vested rights of employees cannot be taken away retrospectively. In a very recent case of a State Govt Bank in Punjab, SC held, “ Right to pension already vested on retirement cannot be denied even on grounds of financial constraints.” So right to updation in terms of Reg 35(1) already vested in retirees this far cannot be taken away by any settlement between IBA and UFBU.

We will make this legal position and as well what is acceptable to retirees to both IBA and UFBU so that they act within the bounds of law.

Let us March on to Bangalore Conference - holding aloft our banner with firm belief that Truth and Justice are on our side and we WILL Triumph.

S B C Karunakaran

Working President

AIBPARC

All reactions:

29

On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 1:50 PM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

AIBPARC letters need not be taken seriously as IBA has alrady rejected theory of Reg35/1.  UFBU has also kept these associations miles away. Instead of writing letters to CLC and IBA this org could have approached  its sponsor  AIBOC to fight for updation to all pensioners.

There is also possibility that AIBOC may be pretending that it is serious about updation but using these front organization's to create hurdles for negotiations if any.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/8fe79782-1084-44d9-95b5-b46851a44dcen%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

AIBPARC letters need not be taken seriously as IBA has alrady rejected theory of Reg35/1.  UFBU has also kept these associations miles away. Instead of writing letters to CLC and IBA this org could have approached  its sponsor  AIBOC to fight for updation to all pensioners.

There is also possibility that AIBOC may be pretending that it is serious about updation but using these front organization's to create hurdles for negotiations if any.

On Sat, 21 Jan, 2023, 1:26 pm NSS, <nsanka...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/8fe79782-1084-44d9-95b5-b46851a44dcen%40googlegroups.com.

[mohan p]

Dear Friends,

Yes.Unfortunately retiree apex organisation is misleading bank retirees/pensioners on this issue,for reasons best known to them.

As a result at least some of us believe that the referred clause may bring revision of pension soon!

This is subject legally scrutinised by different  High Courts and rejected point. 

If any one  believe that a pertinent point in BEPR,1995 is favourable to resolve our issue, we have judiciary in our country  to examine the point.Here the clause often quoted/ referred in circulars and letters by Apex Organisation and its leaders has been dismissed by the High Courts.

Why can't retirees organisation concentrate on vital issue of Revision of Pension as a demand than harping on 'updation clause' existing in BEPR,1995?

MOF in written reply in Parliament,often  and IBA through their affidavit before Apex Court in SLP(C)5561/2016 of late M.C.Singla Vs Union of India has in clear terms replied that Regulan 35(1) is not meant for revision of pension in tune with wage revision takes place at industry level.

Can't we secure Revision of Pension if no such clause is present in BEPR,1995?

Certainly we can.Examples are before us,as  in the case of RBI pensioners as well as  Central Govt employees.

As we know,RBI pension regulations or CCS pension rules does not privide for revision of pension before it is implemented years back.

Reality is Retirees Organisations have no role in negotiations with IBA on this issue.As FM/MOF reiterate often, it is serving employees unions and IBA can resolve pensioners issues.

Let Apex organisations persuade their own people in AIBOC/AIBEA to speed uo the process of bilateral talks with IBA,  on residual issues which includes Revision of Pension.

Instead they prefer to threaten  UFBU !

Legal issues have to be fought in courts and not through letters and circulars!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2KpvCiqHbjPtnnW1H7nD%2BeQ3wMvaDTEuSZF1KTYQgP5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

This is a sensible approach.

On Sun, 22 Jan, 2023, 4:06 pm JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2KpvCiqHbjPtnnW1H7nD%2BeQ3wMvaDTEuSZF1KTYQgP5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Suranjan Kanjilal]

AIBPARC and AIBRF leaders are playing to the gallery.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2KpvCiqHbjPtnnW1H7nD%2BeQ3wMvaDTEuSZF1KTYQgP5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

We need not have any expectations from the CLC meeting on 24th. IBA never commit anything before authorities officially. However as per procedure CLC will advise all the parties to hold one more meeting and arrive at a solution. In that meeting there is a possibility that IBA and UFBU agree on some scheme.  IBA later  can claim that terms and conditions of the scheme were agreed by unions, in case any party chose to oppose such a scheme in court.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE8Zo%3DVD8_ohnKpF8qY1a6F7mZegRRoOYc0QocOWf5wjMrD70A%40mail.gmail.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

This is quite common.AIBPARC and AIBOC oppose every move of AIBEA but after sometime they become one.This is just to fool the member's and to retain their one upmanship.

With regards,

Yours faithfully, 

P Bhaskara Sarma.

23 జన, 2023, సోమ 9:44 AMకి, Suranjan Kanjilal <suranjan...@gmail.com> ఇలా రాశారు:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE8Zo%3DVD8_ohnKpF8qY1a6F7mZegRRoOYc0QocOWf5wjMrD70A%40mail.gmail.com.