Regulation 35(1) and Updation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

The batch of  86/87 pensioners of the period 01/01/86  to 31/10/87 belongs to 4th BPS. Appendix 1 picks up this batch for special treatment by way of a formula. There is no doubt as discovered by Ms Sanjay&Ramani duo,  of an element of upward revision. Whether it is incidental or intentional is not known in the absence of explanatory note.

They deserve the hike as otherwise they would have been left far behind

In pension fixation. We can take it as principle of natural justice. 

Should  not the same logic be applied in comparison between pre 2002 pensioners and post 2022 ? Probably for the said reason the Hon court had called for chart for comparative study 

Whether judiciary takes legality of 35(1) or natural justice has to be seen. 

Let jurisprudence prevail. 

C VNarayanan

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Narayanan Venkateshwaranji,

Please go through both the 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlements applicable to Officers as well as Award Staff. During the period 1986–87, there existed three different DA rates and three separate formulae for computation of Dearness Allowance. Pension Regulations could not have provided three different Dearness Relief formulae based on cadre or category of employees. Therefore, Appendix I came into existence only with a view to harmonise the position and introduce a single uniform Dearness Relief formula for all pensioners.

Dearness Relief could never have formed part of Appendix I, which itself forms part of Appendix II. If, as is now being contended, pension updation was the intention behind Clauses 1 and 2 of Appendix I, then there ought to have been a Clause 3 as well, bringing 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlement retirees to the 1148 points level itself at the time of notification, because the 6th Bipartite Settlement was already in force. In fact, Appendix II of the original notification dated 29.09.1995 itself contains the Dearness Relief formula based on 1148 points under the 6th Bipartite Settlement.

It is also pertinent to note that Appendix II specifically incorporates the Dearness Relief formula of the 6th Bipartite Settlement. On behalf of our organisation, State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune, this issue has been repeatedly explained.

Further, it is impossible to calculate pension solely on the basis of the formulae contained in Appendix I, because addition to Basic Pay is on slab basis, whereas DA to be added for computation of Basic Pension is specifically provided through a TABLE. The law does not permit selective application of provisions in parts, nor can Courts add to or modify statutory provisions. This flows from the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judiciary cannot step into the shoes of the legislature.

Once the Singla case reaches finality, we shall organise a Webinar or YouTube Live discussion on this issue. Whatever has been stated above is already within the knowledge of all stakeholders, including IBA and the Government. The legal position referred to above has already been cited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case argued by Shri Dhruv Mehta, where his contention did not succeed. Shri Dhruv Mehta is presently appearing on behalf of the respondents, including Punjab National Bank, and is fully aware of this settled legal position.

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9owQbYRvx_GTd90Qdv0mMGx-1oHSHSyfJFDdmLzGHabw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

If the statutory provisions are ultravirous to the principles of Natural justice and constructional rights provided under article 14 and16 and 21.
The Supreme court judges can
use other provisions of the constitution to restore the justice and ignore and set aside the legislative laws and direct the defendants to implement and fallow the pension updation formula of RBI as per the pleadings of petitioners in Siglji case.
Any legislative laws or the regulations are not over and above the constitutional rights of Pensioners.Any executive  or state law or orbitarly denying the legally binding benifit by wrong understanding and with sole intention of denying the same is unconstitutional and there fore rectified.
This shall be done by striking down the High court verdict and upholding the petitioner's please for justice and pension updation in Sri Singla ji Case.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1334484358.3119092.1779716144179%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There are instances of SC passing balancing verdict taking into consideration statutory laws and need for equality of justice. BEPR1995 rules were framed 30 years back. No legislation or act can be stagnant. It needs to be revised /amended as per developments.reforms done  in other financial sectors. Hon judges of the High court in M C singla case also observed that petitioners should negotiate with management to improve the pension scheme and should have demanded extension of Reg35.1 for all pensioners. It is sheer injustice to  deny basic pension revision for 30 years to pre 2002 pensioners  existing and family pensioners of deceased quoting outdated Reg35/1. The irony is that those who have authority to amend reg 35/1 to provide for updation are filing affidavits in SC saying" I have authority to amend pension regulations, but I have not done that. So present Reg35/1 prevents revising pension. So my lord do not accept demand of petitioners to revise pension"

Though Dhruv Mehta argues that regulations do not provide for  updation, we are confident that Hon.Judges will acknowledge the discrimination and disparity and pass a balancing verdict.

Whatever be the legal position, and irrespective of negative verdict if any IBA and UFBU  can discuss, negotiate and reach an agreement on Updation, and pension regulations can be amended accordingly. DFS has done this in case of RBI pensioners, DFS approved family pension and regulations were amended later.

Merger of DA@8088 points, Uniform DA for all pensioners and base year 2016 for all pensioners, will be taken care of if a settlement on Updation is reached,

Problem lies not with regulations which can be amended at any time, but with Union leaders firmly sticking to their positions for 15-20 years  which is undemocratic. A retired leader with vast trade union experience becoming leader of a major union could have been a boon for retirees but it has turned into a nightmare for retirees. Since the pension scheme launched in 1995 only a second pension option was negotiated with penalty and anomalies. There are plenty of demands pending  unresolved. Benefits are not negotiated and after court verdicts implemented without interest. New young dynamic persons with legal knowledge and negotiating skills and with no self goal  should occupy the post inplace of stagnant old guards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1334484358.3119092.1779716144179%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

What has been sought in the prayer is important for the Supreme Court.  Already High Court Judgements are there – hope the petitioners will be able convince the court that updtion is needed.  Then question comes – how and which formula to be applied.  Issue – can court can decide the formula ?  If so what should be the basis ?  LEt the judgement come fast - clearing the way for improvement in pension.   

 

8088 points – are not all in the prayer – hence it is irrelevant here.

 

There were suggestions for implementing updation in stages by UFBU.  But athe retirees opposed – saying don’t break us. Now what happened ? none got.  Had it happened then,  in batches by 2027 all would have got.  Whom to blame ?

 

We being retiree officers, there is no meaning going behind miniority union leader.  AIBOC commands beyond 50% strength in UFBU.  Whom we have ask – it is very clear AIBOC.  Once the pensioners (acting smart) put pressure on AIBOC – things will happen. Really puzzling – we pensioners shy away from asking AIBOC.

 

Please can identify two reasons why updation has not taken place for us ?  Had all opted for pension at the first instance,  updation would have taken place – quite some time back.  The AS15 norms were not implemented then.  We lost 15 years in fighting for second option.  Again whom to blame ?

 

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1dYn%2BcAGzr3ko9ankBnNKUezBZu9he4vfus9tYnV-XHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

First, we need to recognize that there is also the question of law, even before the issue of equality and justice. Law precedes equality.

Although the Pension Regulations were originally framed in 1995/1996, they have been amended on numerous occasions. Even provisions arising out of the 11th Bipartite Settlement have been incorporated through amendments. The leaders of CBPRO themselves have stated on record that pension revision was not a demand until 2012 because the priority was to secure pension for the large number of employees who had opted for Provident Fund. They have thus acknowledged that the first demand for pension updation was raised only in 2012.

Whenever necessary, Regulation 35(1) has been amended. However, Regulation 35(1) deals with the fixation of pension and not with revision of pension. Appendix I to Regulation 35(1), for example, provides for non-reckoning of Special Allowance for pension calculation during specific periods. Amendments to Appendix I have been made only after settlement provisions were introduced and not prior thereto. In fact, not only in the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, but nowhere in the country is there any pension regulation that specifically provides for future revision of pension.

If anyone claims pension updation as a legal right and succeeds in enforcing that right, the benefit normally accrues from the date on which the right itself accrued. We are pursuing pension updation as a legal right in the Singla case. No prudent person negotiates an issue where a legal right already exists. On the other hand, when UFBU and IBA negotiate and arrive at a settlement, the benefits generally take effect prospectively and not retrospectively.

If our claim is indeed a legal right, UFBU has no role to play because a legal right is not a matter for negotiation. Even in the 1616–1684 matter, the Banks obtained letters of undertaking. The benefit was not extended from the date of settlement but only from 01.05.2005 through the Record Note dated 02.06.2005. Through legal intervention, however, we ultimately received arrears from 01.04.1998.

Therefore, if we are confident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court will grant pension updation in the Singla case, why should we complain about the non-updation of pension by the IBA-UFBU combine? If we believe that pension updation will eventually be granted in the Singla case with effect from 01.03.2019, as was done in the Reserve Bank of India, why should we expect IBA and UFBU to negotiate the issue? If we have complete faith in the validity of the grounds raised by AIBPARC, why should we expect UFBU to intervene at all?

In the circumstances, we can only wait, and indeed, we have no other option but to wait.

Sorry for the long reply.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

C. N. Prasad

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1dYn%2BcAGzr3ko9ankBnNKUezBZu9he4vfus9tYnV-XHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

35/1 regulation is the main bone of contention and many if are raised about the validity of the same in pension updation case of Sri Singla ji Case along with other petitioners? Why the supreme court judges have saught for 3 time slot pension paid to same category of Retirees with, same service and same position but retired in different periods and different Bipartite settlements.
Here comes the deep understanding of 35/1and the learned Supreme court judges are reviewing Singla ji Case for pension updation though the high court judges have dismissed the petitioner prayer for justice and pension updation.
As the pension regulations of public sector banks including that of E Associate bank retirees are basically derived from RBI pension regulations and central government pension regulations and the DFS has allowed pension updation ,  the same is demanded in Singla ji Case.
Here comes the principles of Natural justice and fair play and equity and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution.
The pension updation formula of RBI shall apply to all Pensioners of public sector banks including E Associate bank retirees on the principleof Mutatis mutandis even think for while the Regulation 35/1 and Appendix 1 does not provide for pension updation still the prayer for justice and pension updation claim stands for Valid claim undy article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution.

The Supreme court judges can only interpret the petitioner prayer and render justice by delivering positive verdict infaour of pension updation.

We have no right for misinterpretation of the demand of the petitioners for justice and pension updation which becomes Sub judice.

The role of UFBU and IBA and DFS combine is totally not acceptable.They IBA and DFS combine orbitarly suppressed pension updation and played dirty politics.

Let us wait for final verdict of Supreme court which is hearing.

All ifs and buts regarding 35/1 and Appendix 1 and the validity of claim for justice and pension updation as per RBI formula all shall be answered.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Sat, 30 May 2026 at 15:44, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/304717785.4016383.1780129073672%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I am not an expert on law.  An appeal is filed by petitioners against the High court Judgment in M C Singla case. Appeal means petitioners  are not satisfied with the verdict of the high court and praying for review of the HC verdict.

There are three main points to be reviewed by SC.

1. Whether Reg35/1 provides for updation

2.  Is the IBA claim that there is no provision for updation in pension regulations,  legal.

3. The claim of petitioners that our pension scheme is structured on RBI pension scheme so updation should be implemented for PSB pensioners also. 

Petitioners are trying to prove that Reg35/1 read with amendment of 2003 indicates provision for updation. Our members Mr.Sanjay and Mr Raman also have provided inputs supporting the claim that Reg35/1 provides for updation. This is under scrutiny of Hon SC Judges.

Post HC verdict there are some developments which favours petitioner.

DFS which is also a party in M C Singla case has taken a stand that no provision is necessary for updation in RBI pensioners updation demand and approved the same in the absence of provision for updation in their pension rules. This proves the IBA stand that provision necessary for updation in regulations is false.

Petitioners have submitted a copy of DFS notification in this regard. Also there is no provision in regulations that prevents updation.

Another point is whether our pension regulations are based on the RBI pension structure.

Petitioners have submitted copies of agreements of 1993 and 1994 and IBA letter to Mr,Godbole and other documents to prove that our pension regulation is based on RBI pension structure. Banks earlier claim in this regard that RBI also has not approved updation now becomes redundant as RBI has implemented updation multiple times with retrospective effect.

By passing minutes of 08.03.24 IBA itself has agreed that  there is no proviison in pension regulations that prevents updation.

Further judges have observed that petitioners could have approached management to negotiate and get updation. Since IBA is not allowing petioners to negotiate this appeal has been filed.

So petitioners have challenged HC verdict and IBA had no further defense except refiling old affidavits. Appeal has been admitted and though with delay now the case has come to the climax stage.  

Earlier due to lack of resources and existing situation M C Singla could not counter the IBA arguments effectively. But there are positive developments post HC verdict and petitioners also have collected and submitted additional documents to support their claim. 

All these issues will be reviewed by court and necessary orders will be passed.

Law and equality of justice                     

Here lawmakers and executors are one and the same. While making laws it is their responsibility to ensure that it conforms to the need of equality and justice.

Since the IBA representing banks is authorised to amend regulations including Reg35/1 as evidenced by minutes of 08.03.24, it has to amend the same to provide for updation.

 On 08.03.24 Banks have authorised IBA to discuss regulations and amend the same to provide for updation and IBA agreed to do so within 6 months. Having failed to do so it cannot later on claim that Reg35/1 or any other clause do not provide for updation. Amendments through authorised not done to deny equality and justice.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/304717785.4016383.1780129073672%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

 

Sri. Somashekarji,

 Good Morning.

a)     Already Chandigargh High Court and also Karnataka High Court have already discussed the 35(1) in detail while dismissing the case.  Whether any of the issues have been countered by petitioners ? That matters,

b)    IBA is using the high court judgement and quoting the same for their advantage. 

c)     This claim of petitioners – on RBI lines is also discussed in High Court Judgement.  Kindly clarify whether the petitioners – have countered the issues raised in judgement ?

 

Please find the attachment (single page) explaining 35(1) amendment – explaining the reasons for the amendment in clear terms.(I have shared this three back also).  Really puzzling .  Whatever the inputs submitted by said friends – whether any of the Regulations quoted ?  Any justification for loading of 10% given vis-vis Regulations ? sir.  One has to read Regulations 35(1) in totality. 

 

Post HC verdit – the major development is updation in RBI during 2019.  Unfortunately, this is in sidelines but 35(1) and funds are dominating in arguments .  Further, certaining there is no need for Regulations for updating the Pension and we have example of Family Pension Revision.  But one has to understand, to claim through the court – supportive clause in regulation is required sir. One has to differentiate outside the court agitation/pleadings with that in the court – which considers what is written in law only.

 

There is Regulation which prevents doubling of pension every five years. Does it mean that we can can claim doubling every five years sir ? Nothing prevents doesnot mean – it enables updation.

 

You are very much right, our pension was structured on the lines of RBI Pension regulations at the time of implementation.  Kindly read the wordings – it says at the time of implementation stage only and applicability for future is written sir.  Please also define what do you mean by RBI lines ? – are you refering to the time lines or quantum considering wages/pension hike ?

 

Please read agreements of 1993, 1994 and Godbole s letters – please refer any commitment or understanding that future updation will be done on RBI lines ??  IF you find any clause kindly share please.

 

Again, Pension Regulations explains its applicability.  Just because it is not said – does not provide additional rights to us sir.

 

Petitioners have challenged earlier judgements – there is no doubt .  But question is whether the issues raised in those judgements are adequately answered or not matters most.

 

Certainly, SC will review the documents / arguments placed before them and give the judgement. 

 

Sir – be clear – there is no need for amendment for pension updation.  Take any of the benefits which we have got with regard to pension since 1995 – wherein the benefits were decided first and amendments were carried out much much later (in some instances it took years).

 

Review of Exgratia – is not a binding clause – which we can enforce through courts.

 

Very often equlity and justice are brought up – kindly clarify how RBI and PSB are equal ?  IF both are not equal – how come emloyees/pensioners be equal sir. 

 

Please check whether your bank is in a position to update the paid as per said RBI Pattern .  ? If all banks are ready – DFS certainly will not stop and the same has been made clear by FM/DFS on earlier occasions.  DFS/Govt not ready to fund the banks for this purpose – that is their stand.

 

All pensioners wants and wish more money as the real value of pension is coming down as the years goes by. There is no second thought on this. 

 

Somashekarji,  please two major reasons for non-updation (otherthan funds requirement) by IBA/Banks.  If possible list out the reasons for such decision by Banks/IBA.  That will pave way for working out the right approach for pensioners.

 

Niranjan

Ex canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1Bw1mVU5W7n%2BQNjobpiNhWK8DXmhuMG%3DecxGHCuLELvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

As petitioners are not satisfied with the High court verdict they have appealed in SC for review of the High Court verdict. It is the constitutional right. Though Karnataka High court in 2011 passed the verdict in 1616-1684 and 5 years issues after discussing it in detail, IBA also approached SC for review of the judgment. Whether petitioners have countered the high court  verdict effectively or not SC will decide and pass orders accordingly. Hon. High court has misunderstood the updation demand as OROP. Next HC observed petitioner should approach management for better benefits. Hon Judge should have issued necessary directions to management also to discuss the issue with petitioners and resolve the issue. Further let 1993. 1994 agreements along with IBA letter to godbole and DFS approving updation for RBI come under review of SC again. 

HC order said no rights wrests with petitioners to claim updation as per article 21 of the constitution.

But SC has demanded charts to examine if there is any disparity. So irrespective of the verdict a finality will be reached on the issue.

It is left to the petitioner as to  how the case should be presented in the court. if I have any idea of a better line of argument I will suggest or let them do their work.

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

There is absolutely no  valid reason to assume that the verdict will affect negotiations. UFBU has not filed an appeal in SC. Further CJI has many times advised litigants to resolve issues through adalats and other mediators and continue the case if not resolved by adalats.

How updation should be negotiated by UFBU

1. UFBU should discuss the updation formula, load factor etc in their internal meetings and submit specific  s demand to IBA. 2. IBA should arrive at actual cost data and provision data for the demand submitted. 3. IBA and UFBU can discuss issues and arrive at a scheme and submit a proposal to DFS 4. If talks fail UFBU can represent to DFS . 5. At this stage retiree associations also can represent DFS for a solution. 7. Maintain transparency in negotiations.

Updation is a major demand and UFBU should take up this with priority and not mix this issue with washing allowance demand.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHEbPG4U6oNzGrU9ONR0nH0u%2BMRN4iwvJXcmHng-gsj5A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Somashekara ji.
The negotiating authority is not serious about retirees legal rights.
There is no use to expect any solution from unwilling Unions.
Only alternative is to fight for our rights is through Courts only.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2qtE6bTetW64bXUaKhCWe4oigmL4_tbt8RmKiayQDHHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekaraji,

Not only you, even Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji has raised this issue of asking calculation sheets to find out whether pension is being paid in terms of Pension Regulations.  Pension Slip of every pensioner of Punjab National Bank is a calculation sheet, that could be provided to the Court. 

Please guide us, by extracting the provisions in Pension Regulations under which pension is not being paid to you.  We will file case for getting that benefit, at our cost.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2qtE6bTetW64bXUaKhCWe4oigmL4_tbt8RmKiayQDHHQ%40mail.gmail.com.