Small Commitee Meeting and Pension Regulation draft dt 17/03/1994

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

It is learnt that pension regulation as per small  commitee meeting minutes was adopted for drafting pension regulation dated 17/03/1994 but actual regulation was finalised without updation clause.

Such a material thing as updation well accepted in small committee and minuted  if has been modified ,should it not have a supplementary small commitee meeting to adopt the change.

The representatives of Union seem to have signed the draft in a hurry without ensuring whether all covenants are covered

If that be the case is not the regulation as far as updation is concerned ultravires. 

Is it possible to approach the judiciary on those lines as they go based on regulation without going into the background of amendment  which obviously has not been brought to their knowledge

Narayanan

[mohan p]

It cannot be presumed that subject referred here, has not aware to legal system,at any point. 

May be on different case.It can be seen that,a reference was made  on Minutes of the meeting of the small committee on pension dated 26-3-1994 ,while rejecting some other  petitions related on Regulation 10 of Chaper ll,on 23rd  November,2004 by Karnataka High Court,Bengaluru, in WP 25913/2002 filed by Sanjeeva &Ors V/s Union of India.

Please note that the very foundation of the Small Committee was based on follow up of clause No.12 under Memorandum of settlement dt.29.10.1993 on pension,the point which was dismissed by Punjab and Haryana Court ,Chandigarh,on. 16th April 2012,in case No.WP(C)6233/2008  filed by late M.C.Singla and Ors ,V/s Union of India .

Legal issues has to be fought in courts and many individual retirees have done it in past.  SLP(C) 5561/2016 in Apex Court, is one of such lost,cases,now pending  before Apex Court tentatively listed to 02.01.2023.

( we also see repeated filing of cases by individuals  which was dismissed by High Courts,earlier  on same point-35(1) )

Our Pension is paid as per Bank Employees Pension Regulations,1995, and if any amendment is required, is it not easy if the same 

is carried out, through the  parties who made the settlements,rather than approaching judiciary!

--
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/c16617a0-c5bb-426f-81fc-c81cb0d1d574n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Wilson]

Why should all the retirees do a hair splitting exercise on the PR95? It's all a waste of time. Any sensible person knows that nothing is being despite such exercise in vain. It's the callous role of TU and it's nexus with IBA that blocks the pension updating exercise. Courts loud mouthed declaration that pension and pension updating are inseparable elements in Pension system still on records. Yet they take every occasion to deny and reject our claims. IBA should be taught a lesson by opting out of IBA sponsored HI exercise. Without any relook into Regulations or it's amendment RBI got it. 

AI RBEA did not oppose it. So it's all pretensions and foul play of TU. 

Paul 

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Clause 35(1) of regulation containing the formula is more of fitment or rather refixation for 83/84 retirees 

The question is whether deletion of updation factor from the minutes of small commitee meeting was inadvertent or intentional.If intentional it should have had a supplementary small commitee meeting ,being an im portant   issue

It appears to me that this aspect would not have been brought to the knowledge of judiciary.The focus has all along been on 35(1) not giving free hand to judiciary for favourable disposition for updation

It will be double whammy if architects of pension regulation are conscious of pensioners woes which was wanting all these years

Mr.Mohan you will agree we do not have vicarious pleasure knocking at the door of judiciary spending time and money if our issues get attended seamlessly

Narayanan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT1SqWsjRqQmxNt9AyoNgxZd_0%3DP3%3DpmeF5ERGmPZ_auw%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Sir

In the Karnataka HC in Sanjeev A and others, it is not the Pensioners who based their claim on the Small Committee Minutes as stated. The Central Government relied on the Minutes of the Small Committee to establish that the cutoff date for joining the Pension scheme was decided by the Small Committee constituted form drafting the Pension Regulations. Mr.Sanjeev and others claimed that in view of the removal of "forfeiture of service clause" they should be allowed to join the Pension scheme. Government opposed their claim on the ground that the cutoff date was fixed by the Small Committee with members from employee's side and IBA and therefore the cutoff date is binding on the employees. It should be noted that the Government itself has admitted the establishment of the Small Commitee and that the minutes are binding on the parties.  

It should also be noted that Punjab & Haryana HC dismissed our Petition stating that the Minutes of the Small Committee is only parleys before agreement and the final agreement came in the form of Pension Regulations which do not have provision for updation. In the appeals we have to establish that the final agreement is the Draft Pension Regulations signed by both the parties and the clause on updation as per RBI formula was not included in the Regulations adopted by Banks. 

In the 100% DA appeals in the Supreme Court, IBA claimed that with the adoption of Pension Regulations 1995 the Pension Settlement 1993 has lost its force. This contention of IBA was not countered from our side. 

IBA is not willing to update pension. The recent reply from PMO states that the issue is sub Judice. Only a verdict in our favour will get us updation. 

N.Sankara Subramanian

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Along with K. Sanjeeva case almost 25 WP were filed. As mentioned by NSS govt filed affidavit regarding small committee meetings. After locating the docket file  of the case in which govt filed affidavit for I

 applied for certified copy. But same was rejected on the ground that copies of the case documents can be applied by petitioners only or through their advocates.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9ZXprieC5cMpZutbzEs9_3bRkAnjqQt0nwwdr71_mdFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

We shall presume updation clause is available as per the minutes ...  then how the pension revision would have taken place ?  can anyone explain ...

Niranjan

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Now that we are armed  with more vital documents does the judicial process in SC (singla case) provide for filing supplementary affidavit as the one filed is bereft of these details

Narayanan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3inp7Vj1Uj2QSq%2B-QG_mem%3DTi1jin2Z3sZFsD0sQyLfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We have seen many warriors, crussaders and Associations are basing their claim for pension revision on Regualtion 35(1).  But, so far, any of these warriors, crussaders and Associations, have not specified the formula that is available in Regulation 35(1) - Appendix I, based on which they are claiming Pension Revision.  Whether any of you have heard any of these leaders who are shouting from roof tops informed what is the formula, based on which they are figting.

As usual, these warriors, crussaders and Associations are also ignoring another portion of Regulation 35(1) which says, 'formula in terms of Appendix I'.  If so, what is formula that covers our pension revision ?

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9ZXprieC5cMpZutbzEs9_3bRkAnjqQt0nwwdr71_mdFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

As usual, Bank Retirees do not read the clauses completely and reams of discussions take place based on incomplete information.  Even if we assume that the Small Committee meeting minutes have force of law, the clause clearly provides that In case either of the parties do not agree, then it has to be negotiated.   RBI Pension revision formula, for any reason, either IBA or UFBU do not agree with implementation of RBI formula in Banks, new formula has to be negotiated.  

What does it mean ?  Whole discussions have no application.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3inp7Vj1Uj2QSq%2B-QG_mem%3DTi1jin2Z3sZFsD0sQyLfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There are three parties to the Agreements dated 29.10.1993 as well as small committee meetings of 1994. IBA/AIBEA/AIBOC.

Banks represented by IBA have been continuously arguing  in courts that

Pension revision and Pension as per RBI mentioned in above  draft agreements are only preliminary discussions and as no fruitful consensus were reached these were not included in Final pension Regulations.

It was the responsibility of union leaders to appear in court and reject these arguments. However when final pension regulations were notified these union leaders were silent and did not protest. Courts are basing their verdicts on Final Pension regulations adopted by Banks.

When these Union leaders are 100% non cooperative and IBA and Banks not accessible to retirees how are we going to prove this?

Further Banks are arguing that  Banks are commercial organizations and they are providing funds to pension funds out of profits and Banks cannot bear the huge cost of Pension revision.

In this also Unions are not  cooperating and not obtaining actual pension updation cost from IBA and Unions themselves are defending IBA claim of huge cost of pension updation without providing details.

The only solution is that UFBU must take up the issue seriously with IBA and arrive at an agreement on updation.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/715302051.533048.1670081776937%40mail.yahoo.com.

[R Balaji]

Yes Sir

Our priority is to presssurise UFBU to  negotiate and get pension updation for all existing pensiioners. Simply discussing about all past things will not help us

regards

R BALAJI

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:59 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/715302051.533048.1670081776937%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Mr.Prasad

I have reproduced the relevant portion of the Small Committee Minutes.

"Formula for updating pension should be on the lines of the same given in the Reserve Bank pension scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement."

It was agreed that RBI formula will be adopted, and any change only requires mutual agreement. As no change in formula is proposed by either party, RBI formula should have been implemented. IBA / Banks claim that there is no provision for upation in the Regulations. Unions and Associations behave as if the Small Committee never existed. Neither of the parties will propose any change in formula as it will amount to admitting that RBI formula was agreed, and some other formula is to be introduced in its place. 

The discussions are very much relevant. Change of any term in any agreement can be affected only after mutual agreement regardless of whether such clause is available in the contract or not. The sentence " Any change therein......." is redundant. It does not give any right to IBA/Banks to deny updation on RBI lines.

N.Sankara Subramanian

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

The fundamental issue of updation itself is in limbo.This aspect has to be firmed up before the next step of creation of formula.

Updation clause as adopted in small committee seems to have had no negotiation before deletion from PR.

Does it not tantamount to illegality? If this aspect gets presented in SINGLA CASE in SC and if GOD willing a favorable judgement comes, updation  formula can follow later.

Regards

Narayanan

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 9:59 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/715302051.533048.1670081776937%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Kind Attn Prasadji

Agreeing in principle for updation is fundamental thing which itself  is in limbo now.

The updation clause as found in minutes of Small commitee  if has gone missing in PR without formal discussion and consensus it  is legal aberration.

If this aspect is presented in pending SC case and judgement is in favour formula modalities can follow.

Regards

Narayanan

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

It is my humble submission that in banking Industry, settlements on service Conditions involve three steps

(1) Understandings reached between IBA and Unions.

(2) The Understandings reached are forwarded to Govt of India (finance ministry) for approval 

(3) Only the clauses approved by Govt of India (GOI) are finalised as Settlement and this only has legal protection.

When updation clause was removed by the GOI,  the unions had an option to fight it out  before signing the settlement.  And certainly it would carried conviction because the officials who decided to remove the updation clause (finance ministry officials) were enjoying updation at the cost of tax payers money.  There is no separate fund for their pension

and pension is straight away paid from yearly revenue.  We all know that Govt of India always present ever  increasing deficit budget which means irrespective of the fact that the Govt was incurring huge loss, these people were getting the benefit of updation.  As tax payers and public sector employees,  we had every right and justification to react to the removal of updation clause.

Unfortunately, our leaders were anxious to somehow clinch the pension issue and did not assess the pros and cons of the updation clause deletion.

They meekly signed the settlement.  It is not now easy to restore thus clause since the unions themselves have established their consent to delete the updation clause.

And hence you hear all sorts of stories.

K Narayanan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/536f0a35-8b2e-4547-8358-076a19e5ef24n%40googlegroups.com.

[Anil Verma]

I am sorry, the statement given by sh. C N PRASAD is misleading and creating confusion in the minds of pensioners. It is ample clear that to meet the obligations of clause 12 of 93 agreement further discussions were held and as a result of which minutes of the meeting of the small committee on pension were held in Dec.93, jan.1994 & feb.94. and the conclusion reached in meeting on 26th. March 1994 were circulated to be incorporated in settlement of pension regulation 95. Formula for updating pension on the lines of the same as given in the RBI scheme was discussed and accepted. This decision was conveyed as agreement reached, to be  incorporated in pension regulations 95 by IBA to respective banks for inclusion in their board meetings to be a part of settlement 95. Had the pension updating or its formula not acceptable to banks then this change therein should have been introduced only after mutual agreement and not by non inclusion of pension updating clause and this should have been circulated for information of all retirees who have given their consent on the bases of 93 agreement. This is breach of trust by Banks & IBA in connivance with unions and tantamounts to fraud conducted on retirees.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1BeaEPonZdfwUypENULDNQUt84JknRS%2BxjuxQBjC2tkg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

In Hon'ble Supreme Court, conjuctures do not work.  It only work with Bank Pensioners.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/fbf7bb86-10cf-4e26-b6d2-624d5b7e77e6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Yes sir, I agree with you. For gossip any thing can be said. When legal approach is required, these things will not work out

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1446934692.1041960.1670259484527%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Anil Vermaji,

All these facts have been dealt extensively in Singla's case by Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment.  Please go through the documents and interpret.  Cases are not fought and decided in this group.  Whether there is confusion or not, one has to convince Judges. Even assuming what you say is correct, can any one apply clauses selectively.  Whether it is convenient to us or otherwise, interpretation of law is clear.  We need to apply any clauses completely, but not in parts.  Cherry picking is anatehma to law. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAOHEo%2Bcq_OJ-NUro_7HApuFBhj6gY_%3DDLq3WGwd0BUvjaAq20w%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Friends

I am extracting below Punjab & Haryana' HC's observations on the Minutes of the Small Committee relating to Updation.

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.

These are all the observations of the Court and there is nothing else. Court dismissed the appeals as it felt that the Minutes are only parleys, and the Pension Regulations is the final decision. We have to establish that employees relied on the Minutes and opted for pension and Omission of updation clause was done unilaterally by IBA/Government, It should also be noted that the Court has based its decision on the fact that RBI had withdrawn the order of updation. Implementation of updation in RBI also will support our case.

N.Sankara Subramanian

[Anil Verma]

H C SINGLA case has not been finalized yet and is pending in SC, the matter is being delayed by parties who don't want that updating of pension issue is settled against their wishes, the reason seems to a favourable noting recorded by a judge during the course of earlier hearing. Had Mr. Singla lived till decision of the case certainly matter would have been different, now it is the responsibility of the pensions who are carrying forward the case and may also be party to the case to take care of positive aspects in the case, since they have access to related papers, it should be taken care by them that no one is able to derail the issue against the retirees cause for which we are indebted to Mr Singla & party, who has kept alive the cause upto SC level. Every precaution needs to be taken to win the case in SC.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2ce3d12e-3850-4766-b093-aaeb9c98493dn%40googlegroups.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

Now RBI has restored the Updation of Pension.So why not we approach the court on this ground in changed circumstances.Change in the stance of RBI ,amounts to giving life to the Minutes of Small committee meeting.

With regards,

Yours faithfully,

P Bhaskara sarma.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2ce3d12e-3850-4766-b093-aaeb9c98493dn%40googlegroups.com.

[pradip kumar Roy]

If the minutes between IBA and UFBU (BEFI was not party to in the matter of Pension) was signed in connection with the Pension regulations which included the clause for periodical updation of pension but was inadvertently missed in the circulars sent to the Banks, can it not be rectified by both the parties and accordingly the revised circular be sent to Banks? I do not find any difficulty in the matter. What is the verdict of UFBU in the matter. Why UFBU is not trying to make the amendment on the basis of minutes of its past negotiations?  

Pradip Kumar Roy:

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:40 PM Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Anantharaman Tg]

Any inadvertent omission could have been corrected
without any problem.

The same remaining as such give rise to our natural
doubt that it was purposive.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAALaW2dRAVGiPu5kbu4%2B0AiviKU_zK%2BrgAnv5k8p%3DtYEFCcY4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Was there UFBU then in 1993?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAALaW2dRAVGiPu5kbu4%2B0AiviKU_zK%2BrgAnv5k8p%3DtYEFCcY4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Dear Mr Pradip Kumar,

The updation clause was not inadvertently omitted but was done with full knowledge of all concerned since Govt Of India blocked it   That is why it is nit easy to restore it. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGpzJrB2MGz7-CNZCAOPEgh8RggL%2BHBWtYR2x0skHC5UYnm3sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

No UFBU in 1993 when pension settlement was arrived between IBA and AIBEA. UFBU was formed after signing of EPR 1995. Formation of UFBU was to put a speed breaker by AIBOC (SBI) and NCBE (SBI) and BEFI to AIBEA from improving on pension scheme.

They have achieved their goals by including CHV into their fold and made him to speak HMV of IBA, thereby they have seen that the PSB pension scheme is not improved better than SBI pension scheme.

It is shame on any union leader to surrender the long cherished rights and benefits through many struggles of then veteren leaders, one by one, and bowing before IBA or by colluding with IBA against the welfare of the bank employees society.

The sheen of AIBEA as a momath employees union in banking industry is being lost only after CHV has become its GS. Members are treated like herd of sheeps only nowadays, keeping then in dark on the internal union matters. Until the present employees wake up and come to know about the exploitation by the union leaders who use them as scape goats for their personal accomplishments, nothing will get a radical change in the industry. Industry is now in the stage of pre nationalisation period.

We need more Tharakjis than CHVs now, for leading the present caders.

Since majority of the present employees are under NPS only with OPS stream is getting depleted through retirements and deaths,  current employees are least bothered about OPS updation as it is not going to bring any monetary  benefits to them.

With AIBEA sidelining with UFBU and IBA, talk on pension updation has become bleek. Moreover there is no convergent views between all major and splinter retiree associations in updation and other vital issues on pensionary benefits and hence it is moving like a goods train with engine being the court orders.

Unless a miracle happens through judiciary, our rights will get light, may be during our last days, when we would be caring ourselves much lesser than now. Anyhow, our family could get any arrears, if any, otherwise payable to us with increased FP payable to them.

Balu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa_CbZF%2BXpOuO%3DTfU-MRXAu5_Ehreu2ZYT1bFSUezzTvDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

If UFBU was not there in 1993 or 1994, how is that members are writing minutes signed by UFBU and IBA?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpJWmaz15R-U3b7GbKN4iueJ4nA_XX1-tbt6sgUSLZyeBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Dear Mr Sridhar,

At the time of Pension settlement the present day constituents of UFBU were being named individually. 

Hence you call it by any name,

they are same.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa9aWrpr72ki73%2B%2B%2BZH4ACP9n0fFg_qw1eiwuc3Fvxst7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

Absolutely wrong.

EPS 1993 agreement, small committe minutes, EPR 1995 are all signed by AIBEA solely with IBA.

Bala

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa9aWrpr72ki73%2B%2B%2BZH4ACP9n0fFg_qw1eiwuc3Fvxst7A%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Whether it is UFBU or AIBEA. Let us face hard reality. UFBU is not registered under any act nor has any legal standing. It is only a group of unions just formed as a cartel to negotiate with IBA.  Before UFBU some unions who were not included in BPS used to reveal loopholes in the system (insider information) and used to bring stay on BPS negotiations. To plug such leakages of information  a cartel called UFBU was formed and all unions were included in UFBU for name sake but actual control of BPS is in the hands of AIBEA particularly and AIBOC in general.

AIBOA twice and earlier INBEC have demanded that  agreements  of 1993 and 1994 provide for Pension updation and our pension regulation is based on RBI pension scheme and also demanded  pension revision as per RBI formula. As they are constituents of UFBU, both AIBEA and AIBOC  should  take their views seriously and inform their stand on these demands of unions. But both these unions are ignoring their views without addressing it, we have to come to  the conclusion that except AIBEA and AIBOC  all other unions are runner stamp unions.  BEFI was part of UFBU all these years and also participated in the  struggles of UFBU. But as soon as it placed a protest note against MOU IBA refused to negotiate with it and AIBEA and AIBOC not even protested.

So much so for UFBU.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpJub-dY4vvfSf0TTruSmdDforKvfTOBTemOOANK2GOZSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I was a member of AIBEA since joining the Bank for several years and participated in many strikes which were necessary  and also some of which were unnecessary. I have nothing personal against AIBEA.

We agree that giving false assurances does not solve the update problem. But while addressing a gathering  at the SBM commune conference CHV was full of negativity about pensioners' issues.

He always sarcastically says 35, 85 etc ridiculing pensioners  talking about Reg35/1.

But is it difficult to extend the same for all pensioners?

He always says pension revision costs are huge?

But as a trade union leader he has the right to demand accrual updation cot from IBA and present actual cot before pensioners instead of vague arguments.

He also speaks against pensioners going to courts forgetting that 5 years benefit, 1616-1684 benefit,Pension to CRS and commutation recovery from date of payment could not be solved by unions and was achieved through courts only.

As AIBEA, AIBOC have signed 1993 and 1994 agreements they have to clarify their stand on it.

UFBU is approaching pension updation issue with pure negativity.

UFBU should explore the possibility of amending pension regulation to provide for updation.

UFBU also demand IBA to come up with actual updation cost and provisional cost and explore ways of providing funds by spreading cost for several years and also possibility of DFS infusing funds.

Without exploring these options simply claiming cost is huge and pension regulations do not contain provision for updation is a negative approach.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Dear Mr somasekhara 

In your letter you have mentioned that commutation recovery from date of payment was achieved through court.

Can you please guide me about the case and judgement which will help thousands of pensioners to get back their illegally recovered money

Regards

K NARAYANAN 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0JE-zhHrLYwSyWpbgWJA0GpKLHy0YWgqtPp%3Drv1yhMJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

UFBU is simply a cartel.Better not to spell out the underlying reasons.

UFBU is Chief Advisor to IBA also.

Fighting for the Rights of the employees was forgotten long long back.

Whenever IBA wants to extend any benefit,UFBU first issues a circular demanding the benefit.Then two or three joint meetings are conducted with IBA and finally the benefit is given in installments.

The rest is a drama.

Even now if MoF wants to give updation,then only it will be given.The rest is only a drama.

If the FM, wants to grant Updation of Pension,it will be carried out within a few days.Actuarial Reports will be prepared overnight and every thing moves very fast.

With regards,

P Bhaskara Sarma.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALz2HegDOEG9cmB_cyN_kka%3Dhd%3DLWYxLhfjawG9hBZ68ZM5dyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[VASUDEVAN CHENNAI]

Mr NSS,

I find there is a lot of discussions on small committee minutes on updation of pension on the lines of RBI be it pros and cons.  Discussing in the forum is enlightening participants two sides of the coin. But the real question is how to achieve and get updation?  

The forum's discussion is only a discussion on the subject. 

Advocates of view points may kindly initiate steps to bind IBA/UFBU by any methodology including legal to get updation without which I humbly submit that it is futile.

It is an irony that some one else go to court succeed or fail, but non performers make lot of comments.  

Is there any one individual like G Palani or some association to go deep into the subject and fight legally?

I find all participants barring a few are interested only on their views and discussions.

I suggest NSS to raise to the occasion and evolve a legal method to force IBA/UFBU/DFS.

I am willing to contribute

Regards

Vasudevan V

9380709922

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/fbf7bb86-10cf-4e26-b6d2-624d5b7e77e6n%40googlegroups.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Kind Attn Shri Narayanan K

Mr.Somasekhara who gives a fund of valuable informations for the benefit of members  has inadvertently  erred for once while saying there is court direction for recovery of fractional commutation amount from date of actual disbursement rather than ostensible date

The recovery in full in one stroke was justified as normal 15 years period was already over when disbursement was made.

Also as per court directive 9% int was paid for delayed period

You will kindly appreciate twin benefit of interest and deferred recovery from date of disbursement cannot be aspired for.

Age factor/life expectancy factors come into play.

For argument sake one may say if only that amount was in my hands I could have made a fortune

Beggars like us cannot be choosers.These are part of the game

Regds

Narayanan

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

This benefit was restored to members of erstwhile SBM bank pensioners  by SC,   due to consistent struggle by  SBM commune union leaders led by Sri.C.N.Prasad. However other Banks have not extended this benefit.

As per my knowledge Sri.C.N.Prasad is pursuing this issue to get this benefit for pensioners of all banks.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALz2HegDOEG9cmB_cyN_kka%3Dhd%3DLWYxLhfjawG9hBZ68ZM5dyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gajanan Chaudhari]

best work by sri C.N.PRASAD

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Banks are expected to recover commutation from the date of credit to the account.

Court ordered payment of interest as Banks paid commutation amount due in 2001 in 2018 with 17 years delay. But Banks recovered commutation in on go out of arrears instead of recovering the same in 15 years ssssstarting from 2018.

However for SBM /SBI pensioners commuttaion is recovered from the date of credit only after Sc verdict.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/b4716f8f-4a67-4991-a65c-76cfcee180b4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Gopal Rao Gandhari]

Very true. 

Neither any honesty nor any process transparency. 

Just Drama.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2BUBNxg5RkSQvV%3DHWLWtYMeBN5qBtojscUjfLMU2kwZsgYk-tg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Is there any other option for Bank pensioners except going to Court? We are in a system where the IBA has full authority to negotiate retirees' issues but claim they will not correspond with retirees and  it does not come under RTI. We cannot get any document or information from IBA under RTI.

Next there are Union leaders who have not provided any page on their website for pensioners that give status of negotiations. They are also not interacting with pensioners. Banks direct us to IBA.

In such circumstances there is no other option left for any pensioner to do anything except approaching court.

Updation case is entirely different from cases which pensioners have won earlier,

Banks are arguing on three main points.

1. Agreements of 1993 and small committee meetings are only discussions. But updation and DA on RBI formula were not included in final regulations.

2. There is no provision for  Updation in Pension regulations.

3. Updation cost is huge and banks cannot afford this.

IBA, AIBEA and AIBOC  and other small unions are the signatories of these agreements of 1993 and 1994. When Unions and IBA are silent, how are we  going to prove these agreements are valid. Extending Reg 35/1 for all or making amendments in Pension regulations cannot be a subject matter for court and that should be negotiated between IBA and Unions. Courts have already rejected the theory of reg.35/1 many times. As regards cost neither IBA nor UFBU is providing actual updation cost details to pensioners which will help us to argue in court. We are weak in all the above points.

Earlier 3 to 4 cases have been filed by pensioners including retirees organizations  regarding updation case and courts have rejected it, Simply going to court on any issue cannot be considered as a performing step.

Only one person, Sri. C.N.Prasad has knowledge and foresight to analyze which issue could succeed in court and pursuing such cases with great success. I think he is not pursuing updation case.

We must understand that only a settlement between IBA and UFBU will resolve updation issue. But unfortunately there is none amongst us who can convince UFBU leaders to take up this issue on priority basis. If any pensioner can convince these leaders to take up our issues on war footing basis he is the real performer

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Narayanan, 

We have been fighting for this benefit for a long time and we are successful in securing this benefit for the petitioners.  Recently, State Bank of India has paid differential commutation also, without effecting recovery while extending five year benefit to those who have retired during 2006/07 under Exit Policy, with interest.  Many of them are not Petitioners, in their name.  We have already filed Contempt Petition, which is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and we have filed Writ Petition also.  Ours is the only organisation in the Country which has secured this benefit to over 700 of its members, where recovery commences only from the date of payment.

We are attaching the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court order and we are also extracting the relevant portion of the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, hereunder.:

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that dispute as to the basis of dearness allowance cannot be gone into within the contempt jurisdiction. In case, petitioners are aggrieved by the basis of computation of dearness allowance, they are free to agitate the issue in an independent proceeding before an appropriate forum. 

5. With respect to the non-payment of the differential amount of the commuted value of the pension on revision of the dearness allowance, stand has been taken on the strength of Regulation 41 of the Regulations that by now several petitioners have attained the age of 70 years or more the employer would not be able to recover the amount, in case it is paid. 

6. We are of the considered opinion that the shelter of Regulation 41 cannot be adopted by the respondent so as to deprive the revised commuted value of the pension taking into consideration the dearness allowance. There is clear and categorical direction that after the retirement of the petitioners they ought to have been paid the correct value of the pension. Precisely, direction has been made to make the revised correct value of commuted pension that would relate back to the date of the retirement. Consequently, the protection taken of Regulation 41, in our opinion, is not available in view of the clear and categorical order passed by the High Court which has been affirmed by this Court. Thus, we have found that the respondents have to make the payment in due compliance of the order. It is assured to us that the payment would be made within four weeks. Let the payment be made, as assured, within four weeks and compliance be reported within six weeks. In case the compliance is not reported by the respondents, they shall be liable for further proceedings under the contempt of Court by this Court.

7. For the delay in making payment, unconditional apology has been tendered. The same is accepted.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/b4716f8f-4a67-4991-a65c-76cfcee180b4n%40googlegroups.com

.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Dear Mr Narayanan Venkatesan,

Thanks for the information that there is no court order regarding commutation recovery.   Court ordering banks to pay 9% int is a punitive action for the illegality committed and it has nothing to do with pension regulations. Our pension regulations regarding commutation are almost identical to central government civil pension.   There is also clause in our pension regulations that in case of dispute/doubt regarding commutation,  reference may be drawn from central civil pension regulations.  For central civil pensioners, recovery is only from the date of payment and not from date of retirement. 

Recovery of commutation over a period of 15 years includes interest and the rate differs according to the age factor of the concerned pensioner.

My interest is not about the aftereffect of SBI/SBM JUDGEMENT alone.  The problem is recurring one.  As and when pay revision and thereby pension revision takes place retrospectively,  this injustice creeps in.  To put it in proper perspective, 

A person who gets superannuation pension gets

Rs.****  X 9.8 X 12 as commutation amount

but he repays 

Rs.**** X 15 X 12

Please note that entirel recovery for more than 60 months goes towards interest.

Everytime settlement is signed after 2 or 3 years, those who retire in between get pay revision upto date of retirement  and pension thereafter.   For such people, commutation amount is paid two or three years later but recovery effected from date of retirement.   For an EMI loan you avail today, interest is charged retrospectively from two or three years back. Can it be justified is our question.  Incidentally in all types of govt pension recovery is only from the date of payment.  I was involved in payment of pension to govt pensioners for about 20 years and  Pay Commission REVISION for more than 1800 pensioners, when everything was done manually.

That is why I was the only union office bearer of SYNDICATE BANK EMPLOYEES  union who toured the entire state of Tamilnadu to convince members to join pension scheme and had the privilege of addressing members of CHENNAI CITY

Which was attended  by  a galaxy of leaders including 

COM CHV, the present General Secretary of AIBEA.

K NARAYANAN 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3fnuDjozJDiXSQhfCAzgmfkv%2B%3D8TzgC-7YK%3Da6fyRShw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

M/s Prasad  K. NarayananAnd Somasekara

Thanks a lot for Correcting my understanding

Narayanan

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

We have been discussing the following points for the last 20 years but we are not able to prove anything in courts.

1. Our Pension regulations are similar to Central govt pension rules.

2.  Reg 35/1 and subsequent amendment of 2003 provide for pension revision for all

3. Updation clause as mentioned in 1993 and 1994 agreements legally valid.

4. Our Pension regulations and DA structure is based on RBI pension scheme.

But IBA, Banks, DFS have rejected these arguments in courts and in all other available platforms and are maintaining that these are only preliminary discussions and not resulted in fruitful consensus so not included in Pension regulations. No union leader has contested these arguments of IBA.Banks. and this  is a clear indication that they are in agreement with Banks and IBA on this issue.

We have lost cases pertaining to updation 5 times, including lower court and high court of Punjab  and three other cases filed by  Retiree associations and individuals.

Convenor  of UFBU claims IBA is looking into the updation case but IBA files an affidavit in court rejecting updation. Pensioners have little option as IBA does not come under RTI and both IBA and UFBU are not willing to share any documents or cost details pertaining to updation.

Union leaders are so stubborn and arrogant that they are not in amood to consult and coordinate with retirees,

Under these circumstances however we may dislike it the reality is that the updation issue can be resolved only if UFBU leaders are willing to negotiate updation with IBA.

Still there are some who are firm  and confident on winning updation case in court. We wish them the best of luck.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/8eb7045c-7130-4d84-bcfb-6d852b082565n%40googlegroups.com.

[Sankara Subramanian]

Sir

Points no.3 & no.4 are TRUE. This is evident from the pension settlement and settlement signed for removing the strike clause. Unions and Associations never talk about these settlements. Court was of the opinion that the minutes are parleys only. We do not know the views of IBA or DFS. Only the persons looking after M.C.Singla's case can tell as they only have access to the case papers. (DFS has not engaged any Lawer to represent it in M.C.Singla's case.) In the 100% DA appeal, IBA took the stand that Pension settlement lost its force with the adoption of Pension Regulations.  In the settlement itself it is stated that the settlement subsists till any of the parties terminates it by giving notice.  This was not brought to the notice of the Court. Let us hope that the settlement is treated as subsisting this time. 

N.Sankara Subramanian 

 

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bankpensioner/CkJ1zJjS0F8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3kXkKRHUUoqnNAhhF7VGs7aOc6oHahQS4mFAmDnyTPRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Friends

Regulations are there to Regulate the conduct of something. Pension Regulations regulate the conduct of Pension payments. It states the rules regarding amount of pension, types of pensions, eligibility for pension and creation and conduct of the pension funds etc. Regulations cannot state something which may or may not happen in future. Provision for updation of pension did not find a place in the Regulations because at the time of adopting the Regulations there was no updation clause in RBI regulations. RBI was not even contemplating updation at that time. A Regulation reading like "Pension will be updated if and when RBI updates the Pension of its employees, by adopting the formula of updation adopted by RBI" cannot have found a place in the Regulations as it is more a promise / statement than a Regulation. Thus, the updation clause could have been omitted not with any intention to deny updation but because of the inappropriateness of the clause in the Regulations. As cost of the Pension scheme has become very high afterwards due to the fall in interest rates and consequent decline in the returns from investments, IBA is denying the settlement reached in the small committee.

N.Sankara Subramanian

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri NSSji,

100% agree with you.  There cannot be any such clause in any Rules/Regulations.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/21c90a21-f9ae-4b35-871f-b43c3a4a3782n%40googlegroups.com

.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

NSS your point is correct.

Every year on 17th December we celebrate Pensioners day/nakara verdict day. But Nakara case verdict is not being made applicable to Bank pensioners cases while it is made applicable to government pensioners cases. If the Nakara verdict had been applied to 100% DA Case, we would have won the case.

Whenever their case on legal points is weak, IBA effectively brings forward the cost factor.

IBA argues that Banks are commercial organizations and funds have to be provided out of profits and Banks cannot afford huge costs. IBA effectively making, this argument in courts without producing any documents. Pensioners' advocates seem not demanding the cost details.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/21c90a21-f9ae-4b35-871f-b43c3a4a3782n%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Yes, pensioners regulations cannot have such  vague clauses. Now UFBU leaders are saying updation  for pre-2002 pensioners will be taken up first. How are they doing it without amending pension regulations? Can they include a clause in the regulations providing updation for a section of pensioners  retired before a certain date only? Will there be one more regulation like 35/1?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/426214556.1109816.1671430162395%40mail.yahoo.com.

[RANGARAJAN M R]

UFBU/AIBEA appears to be focussing at present on DA neutralisation  for pre 2002 retirees as evident from their letters/speeches. Pension updation  for all retirees may be made to wait in a common queue for an indefinite period. 100% DA neutralisation is only a rectification and not updation in the real sense. Pre 2002 retirees have suffered for decades due to this grave anamoly.

M.R.RANGARAJAN

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1FdLQ0Nz2de3g4X3eOg2BVwh-rGcsQ2kCuBQdWpe5n_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[parthasarathy ramanujam]

The Singla  case SLP(C)5561/2016 next hearing date is not shown  in Supreme court website now.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2022, 15:43 JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1FdLQ0Nz2de3g4X3eOg2BVwh-rGcsQ2kCuBQdWpe5n_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[antony rudolf]

Sir,

This has been a protracted case lingering for years together and god alone knows when these enuchs are going to dispose it.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJPLbQ3yxfOg4jvcnPuZqpp5Yvy6k2c3bGxACKiQW83mm2bX6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anil Verma]

Pension regulation draft dt.17/03/94 was approved and accepted by participents of committee and sent to banks for adoption in their board meetings to be incorporated as regulation in BEPR 95, but failed to do so for the reason best known to them but this decision or recommendations still hold good and can be passed and incorporated as annexure to BEPR 95 AS ammendment. If it was not there in RBI SCHEME or regulations the how and on what grounds RBI got updation of pension.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/21c90a21-f9ae-4b35-871f-b43c3a4a3782n%40googlegroups.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,  Is there any Pension REgulation (including RBI) wherein pension updation is prescribed with a a formula ??  Please explain what clause was expected and explain the benefits that accrue (with an example) with such a clause in pension regulations .  Easiest thing is to blame....someone.  

Niranjan

.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

RBI and Nabard pension rules also did not have provision for  pension revision. But RBI unions and retirees jointly launched  consistent struggle and management was forced to manage funds and govt approved.

CHV frequently claims pension updation need money and for every one rupee more pension out go, 10 times provision has to be made and he names of y fun of pensioners that they are saying there is lot of money.  

CHV  we agree with you. But we are only asking what is  a

that actual out go and provision amount?

UFBU should immediately publish actual outgo and provision amount and find out shortfall in each Bank and how it can be sourced. By this pensioners will also have trust in UFBU.

Without any datta claiming we need money is disgusting 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWF41qF2ZXaermLDYr0yafkBuEHCpdWSg0yWrFnq9_tx%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

In the case of RBI pension updation,entire RBI family right from Dy Governor to sweepers were together in the fight.In our case,our associations and members find time only to abuse and find fault with the unions and management's represented by iba never supported updation.At least keep better laisson with unions and assist them in their endeavour to achieve updation.This type of posts will not help anything other than improving language.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW11DeuYFOJ-xyQv__x7go%2B497L5qhe5LMbv%2BeJwJ5Lc4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

RBI employees union took Retirees into confidence and both retiree association and Unions launched joint struggle not only for updation and for protecting existing benefits as well as getting new benefits. To gain the confidence of retirees UFBU must be transparent in its dealings with IBA. Let them come  out with  actual outgo of updation and provision estimate and take forward discussion to the next level.  The way UFBU leaders are behaving always demanding appointment of actuaries and never disclosing cost of updation, and not consulting retirees before agreeing for "special allowance without pension benefits", health Insurance premium to be borne by retirees, coming on facebook claiming cost updation is huge without calculating actual cost does not inspire retirees confidence or respect.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALP-JsPT14RxjvevHRhHv4S8e6Yc9Yas%2BGfE8FLy-YfsnUD5JA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rajender Sharma]

Sir,

You are 100% correct. Any move to remove the anomaly in DA for pre-2002 retirees should be welcomed by all.

After all ,these hapless pensioners have been suffering loss of DA for the last over two decades.

Updating of pension is a long winding process and may not be resolved for long- long years, sensing from the mood of 

the IBA and the government.. We may lose a small benefit in the vain hope getting a bonanza.

R.K. Sharma