Watch "₹4.8 Lakh Crore Locked Down — Why Are Retirees Denied Pension Updates?" on YouTube

[Sarangapani Rao]

https://youtu.be/G48bhxmECRw?si=QcrK0j1tlXLagg45 

      Pension updation 

Regards

Sarangapani

[Harish Midha]

--
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/CAGJJNEUDp86A5Kc0XK6_FiSP2P5nkU-cosh2veVy7fYyez2Jbw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sarangapani Rao]

Regards

Sarangapani

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Sarangapani Rao <sak...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec, 2025, 4:10 pm
Subject: bankpensioner Watch "₹4.8 Lakh Crore Locked Down — Why Are Retirees Denied Pension Updates?" on YouTube
To: <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

--

[Harish Midha]

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir, pension amount is not based on the funds balance in Pension Fund.  Further, in what circumstances, the pension funds will have excess funds - to take care of pension updation cost ???

ANY ANSWERS ❓❓

Niranjan 

--

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Why we are connecting pension fund balance to our demands? When our contribution to the pension fund is ZERO we cannot demand updation based on the balance in pension fund. As expected bankers we should consider that whoever contributed to the pension fund expect maximum return. How is that we expect money in pension fund to be paid to us when our contribution is ZERO?. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWFsnAGTxMnQWExj3Due-gowWV77tKAE_mOeviJNku5fUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Balakrishnan P.P.]

We have the bankers contributions to bank. We are not getting free pention

Balakrishnan 

Canara Bank retiree 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa_ey3bFJBbmSEFvBZgZ7wGSvbDgj6AxzFHMouMd44zzfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

What you have mentioned is very true.

Pension Scheme was brought in as an alternative to Provident Fund Scheme wherein banks made a contribution equal to the compulsory contribution deducted from salaries and both these were paid to employees with accumulated interest on retirement.

 

In as much, as pension scheme was only introduced in lieu of PF scheme for those who opted for it (and not as an additional benefit) the accumulated amount under employer's contribution was transferred to the fund and the employees' contribution was returned to them on retirement.

THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NOT A SINGLE PAISA IN THE PENSION FUND IS CONTRIBUTED BY THE PENSIONERS.

However, it is indeed an irony that due to the very stringent AS-15 norms which stipulate the banks' regular contribution to the Pension Funds to ensure uninterrupted payment of pensions, irrespective of the financial position of the banks at any given point of time are now acting against the interests of the pensioners. Because, banks are citing their inability to pump in huge monies into the Pension Funds under the above norms in the event of updation, even by amortization over a few years. It is also undeniable that the banks' lending strength is curtailed very much due to locking of their surpluses in Pension Funds and this affects their profits and paying capacities.

This is why banks, IBA and also GOI are reluctant to update pension. Another reason is, the Old Pension Scheme had been closed long ago and is continuing only for those who joined prior to 1/4/2010 (who are a minority now) and so UFBU is also not interested. So, there is not much possibility for updation, especially on the pattern followed for RBI pensioners as demanded by us.

Even if there is a judgement in favour of us in the M.C.Singla case, IBA will go in appeal against it.

This is the hard reality we are facing,

although our demand for updation is not unjustified or unreasonable as RBI and Government pensioners have got it.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa_ey3bFJBbmSEFvBZgZ7wGSvbDgj6AxzFHMouMd44zzfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[P. S. SATYANARAYANA]

1. Amount in Pension Fund is not the property of pensioners. Once we opted for pension as a second benefit, giving up our second benefit of Provident Fund, we automatically lost our property in the 'Management Contribution to PF' account. Therefore, the bank rightfully took it back. The fact that the amount so taken from this account was transferred to Pension Fund is not at all concerned to us. Bank took back its own money and used it in whatever manner it deemed necessary. 

2. Adequacy or over adequacy or under adequacy of Pension Fund balance is not our concern. It is for the bank to take care of its future contingent liability of pension payment.

3. Our statutory right against the bank is payment of pension by the bank (which is our deferred wage) as per Pension Regulations throughout our life; and thereafter payment of family pension as per rules.

4. Our demand for updation should not base on adequacy/over adequacy of Pension Fund balance. 

5. RBI Pension Scheme is the bedrock of our Pension Scheme. In RBI, updation is already done twice. Therefore, for us also updation must be done on the same lines.

6. If provision in 35(1) is for updating pension of post 1986 retirees only, where is the need to replace the word 'will' with 'shall'?

7. Only AIBEA knows why updation, which was agreed upon by IBA during negotiations in 1992 was not included in PR. 

-- P. S. Satyanarayana, Canara Bank Pensioner.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa_ey3bFJBbmSEFvBZgZ7wGSvbDgj6AxzFHMouMd44zzfg%40mail.gmail.com.

[P. S. SATYANARAYANA]

Balance in Pension Fund is maintained as required by Actuarial Valuation at the end of each year. The statement that Pension Fund is holding huge balance even to cover updation grant easily amounts to questioning the validity of Actuarial Valuation. 

If we feel that the parameters considered in Actuarial Valuation are unrealistic and far from reasonableness, those points can be brought for discussion. Actuarial Valuation being a specialised subject, ordinary people cannot just say that valuation is not correct and valid. 

If we agree that Actuarial Valuation is correct, we cannot say that balance in the Fund is much in excess. No prudent banker would keep huge excess balance in Pension Fund, much more than what is statutorily required, adversely affecting his financial strength.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xhbqU-KkO%3Dw%3DRXR2OyNrx-Mw%3Da-2yDLk3jOTpkDJqz7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[harinarayana sarma nandivada]

A well reasoned analysis

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAB38uK4JMxQi4NrUpQR4%2Byx9Z4JymR%2BW2e7PWYVUH5tX7-KSFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Bankers contribution is not our contribution. Banks offered either pension or banks contribution. Some accepted pension, some accepted bank contribution. Where is our contribution? One cannot have pension and say I have contributed to pension fund

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKyrmopzbMMrtY0aYk_y7F7V3EdhKdbxZi-Q-NSdWCFKS2k2KQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

All points are well taken.

Regarding point number 6 - please read the amendments in the Annexure.  Further, in 2005 itself - DFS/IBA has clarified that the amendments were nothing to do with Updation.  Further, there is no need for appropriate clause for updation in Regulations.  Even in RBI, first updation was donem then Regulationwers were amended.  Similarly, our Familily Pension and DA for prior to 2002 retirees were also done.  

Further please read Karnatka High Court judgement in CBROA case - wherein 35(1) has been dealt with.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAB38uK4JMxQi4NrUpQR4%2Byx9Z4JymR%2BW2e7PWYVUH5tX7-KSFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[P. S. SATYANARAYANA]

Referring to Sri P. P. Balakrishnan's message of 3rd Dec., nobody is saying that we are getting free pension. We are only saying that we have not contributed anything to Pension Fund in terms of 'money'. 

However, pension is not free because it is our 'deferred wage'. This means that we contributed in terms of work during our service period. For the work done during our service period, we were not paid wages in full. Paying wage as per BPS does not amount to payment of full wages, when there is Pension Scheme. The concept of 'Deferred Wage' implies that the wages for some part of our work was not paid during service period; but was deferred to the period of our retired life.

Receiving that deferred wage now is our statutory right. Therefore, it is not free. It is our hard earned property.

-- P. S. Satyanarayana.

Canara Bank Retiree.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/250029741.375418.1764820014158%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAB38uK7oughHa3NYQXV7Kag7mo87cVVVP6VcSbgkLtfw2GSN_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

I have not even remotely opined in my letter that actuarial calculations are not correct or more monies are maintained in Pension Funds than what is actually necessary. Because, as rightly pointed out by you, we are not competent enough to verify these calculations.

I had only pointed out the irony that the  actuarial system which is intended to protect the interests of pensioners has come in handy for banks to deny updation, citing inability to make huge provisions as per that system if updation is granted.

I totally agree with you as well as Sri.Niranjan that ability of banks/pension funds or availability of provision in regulations need/should not be our concern and our femand for updation should only be based on precedence created in RBI and nothing else.

K N RAMANI 

(A Canara Bank pensioners)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAB38uK4rJZzv8zW%3D45Ch57oR1M%2B8LRy-bbt0LpYS_MeWv0kP3A%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

After the next merger, if the Banking Industry reduces to big 4 banks, they can manage their own wage negotiations. Then pending issues will be resolved.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAB38uK7oughHa3NYQXV7Kag7mo87cVVVP6VcSbgkLtfw2GSN_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

There is a bright possibility for your words to come true in the long run.

By the way, one aspect that has not been touched upon so far by any of the members who have participated in the long discussion is, the steadily increasing life expectancy of people in India due to the advancements in life saving medicines resulting in many pensioners easily crossing 75 or 80 years of age.

In fact, it was this phenomenon which forced the Government to wind up the DA linked Defined Benefit Pension Scheme (with periodic revisions during Pay Commissions) in 2003 at the insistence of international lenders like IMF, World Bank etc.,

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0Ec8_-8BWKz8VvTwbsb2BE7wJDaEpNRYBKBfDgJqwV%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

he Registrar
Supreme Court of India
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
Delhi – 110001

 

Subject: Request for Prioritization of Writ Petitions Filed by Senior Citizens

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am writing to respectfully request that the Supreme Court consider implementing a system to give priority to the hearing of writ petitions filed by senior citizens.

The need for this prioritization stems from the unique circumstances faced by elderly litigants. Due to advanced age, senior citizens often face significant health challenges and have a naturally limited lifespan. The protracted nature of legal proceedings in India can mean that justice, if delayed, often amounts to justice denied for this vulnerable demographic. Many simply may not live long enough to see their cases reach a conclusion through the standard queue system.

The prompt resolution of their cases—which often concern fundamental rights, pension matters, healthcare access, or protection from exploitation—is crucial for their dignity and survival during their twilight years. Prioritizing their petitions would be an act of compassion and a step towards ensuring accessible justice for the elderly, aligning with the constitutional mandate of dignity and equality.

As far as in 2009 in reply to Hon.member of Parliaments query regarding priority to senior citizens  cases the then government gave the following reply.

“Government of India has adopted the National Policy for older persons to protect their interests. In this context, Mr. Justice A.S. Anand, the ther Chief Justice of India had during the year 1999 requested the Chief Justices of High Courts to evolve a system which may ensure timely disposal of the matters of older persons pending in the courts and requested all the High Courts to identify and dispose of matters in

which persons above 65 years of age are involved on priority basis.

Government is also committed to continue implementation of the National Policy for Older Persons”

But unfortunately senior citizens have to wait for years to get justice in lower courts, High Courts and also Supreme court. In service and retiral matters beneficiaries will be more than 1 lakh. But all of them cannot file Writ petitions as it will be a burden on courts one or two persons may file WPs. But apart from delay in dispense of justice authorities are not extending benefit if any to all beneficiaries contending that the verdict applies to petitioners only. This also has to be rectified by making the verdict applicable to all eligible persons.

Senior citizens are aged 65-90 years and there is no guarantee that they will wake up the next day. While it is so pending cases for 10 years is sheer injustice to senior citizens. An example is SLP5561/2016 pending in SC since 2016 and is not listed even after  2 times mentioning. Early decisions irrespective of judgment will give closure to senior citizens.

Railways, Airports, Banks, Hospitals, Post offices etc have special counters for senior citizens. But unfortunately senior citizens have to wait for 10 years in courts including SC.

:I urge your good selves to place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and the Collegium for their kind consideration and necessary action. A procedural adjustment to fast-track these specific cases would reinforce public faith in the judiciary's commitment to protecting its most vulnerable citizens.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter.

Yours faithfully,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_y095QGA%3DG4Q5Qd5LyXgCNXRaXwpV5oYMx0csQyFPmczw%40mail.gmail.com.