AUDIO SC ARGUMENTS BY AIBPARC ADVOCATE

[Niranjan Cn]

Hi friends,  

**SHOCKING SUBMISSION BY ADVOCATE IN SUPREME COURT - SURPRISED… **
(Please hear 60 seconds audio after reading these lines)
Sri Singhvi advocate representing AIBPARC /ARISE in SC in Feb, - while placing his arguments referred to availability of funds…. Further , he requested to place on record - ‘**to reduce the pension if funds are not sufficient. ** Everyone is expecting updation/revision/improvement/etc - calll it by name - there should reasonable increase in monthly credit to their account. Sorry, no one is prepared for reduction in pension for want of funds in pension fund. It is totally not acceptable. Hope advocate will be briefed properly regarding pension funds. It is a ‘no go territory’ - it is better to keep away from attempting to prove sufficiency of pension funds. Sustained misinformation campaign has been carried out regarding pension funds and members are not informed of the facts in respect of funds. I am not sure this misinformation is deleberate or due to lack of understanding . I have made several attempts to explain the pension fund position and it’s working. It is upto the AIBPARC leadership to realise and brief advocate as well members regarding pension funds so that no damage is done to singlas case. Hear the audio now👇👇. Niranjan

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

I have noticed this email, just now.  It is surprising that no one has noticed this email.  The Senior Advocate representing ARISE has submitted before that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singla's case and got it recorded that if enough funds are not available in Pension Funds, Banks may take money out of funds available for payment of existing pension.  Which means, are we ready to get our Pension Reduced for Pension Updation.  Are you willing to get your pension reduced for pension updation?  Unfortunately, we have not noticed such a damaging submission.  

Incidentally, I have also come across one YouTube Video also on the very same subject, the link is as under:

News & analysis concerning Senior Citizens, more particularly Bank Pensioners

News & analysis concerning Senior Citizens, more particularly Bank Pensi...

I have already brought to your notice about a report of the Dr.M P Tangirala Committee which was constituted to study 40%/50% issue.  Eventhough, various other issues needs to be discussed, I am restricting myself to what is stated with regard to Financial Implication.

Representatives of All India State Bank Officers' Federation (AISBOF), had a meeting with the Committee on 25.08.2023.  Members of the Committee includes, Sh Rupam Roy and Mr.G. D Nadaf.  Earlier, even representatives of Federation of State Bank of India Pensioners Association also had a meeting with the members of the Committee.  In para 2.17 of the Report it is stated that:

"2.17. It was also submitted by the Federation that SBI has a robust Pension Fund corpus, which is more than sufficient to absorb the incremental cost that would arise as a result of pension calculation at 50% for all grades of employees"

In para 2.23 of the Report, regarding Financial Implication, it is stated that :

"2.23.  Asregards to the financial implication related to Pension Comutation at uniform rate of 50%, it was seen from the letter dated 17.7.2023 of SBI that the additional pension outgo has been estimated at approximately Rs.283/- crores per annum and the one-time cost of provisioning for implementation of uniform pension at the rate of 50% at approximately Rs.5,400 Crores"  Provision requirement of Rs.5,400 Crores is 19.08 times of annual outgo.  Eventually, State Bank of India has made a provision which is more than Rs.12,000/- during that year, if I am right.  

The Senior Advocate representing the ARISE has stated that the annual cost of Pension Updation is Rs.6,000/- Crores and please arrive at the cost of pension updation by multiplying Rs.6,000/- Crores by 19.08.  You would understand what would be the cost of pension updation.   A copy of the Report of the Dr.MP Tangirala Committee is attached.

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/CAAX%2BdWGi2pT0u6Nz42sXzEjdb%2BQmZhBvrfEZ85oKpGvR4V9FcA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Economic Times Report is also attached.  We do not provide any information based on hearsay.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Thursday, 23 April 2026 at 11:36:48 am IST, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear friends,

Copy of the Report is not attached.  Attaching now.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Copy of the Report is not attached.  Attaching now.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

----- Forwarded message -----

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>

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

Sent: Thursday, 23 April 2026 at 11:30:46 am IST

Subject: Re: bankpensioner AUDIO SC ARGUMENTS BY AIBPARC ADVOCATE

[Prasad C N]

Dear Srhi Sanjayji,

We have been saying for a long time.  You have also become a victim of misinformation campaign.  You also believe that there is huge funds.

On a serious note, I would like to place on record that any such claim by the Advocate is hight of irresponsibility.  Those who have briefed him do not even have commonsense.  I have given you an example of State Bank of India making additional provision.  According to those who have briefed him, do not evem know that no sensible Excutive would make additional provision, when there is surplus to pay updated pension.  If my TDS itself is more than my Tax liability, I will certainly do not make payment of self assesment tax.

In case we reckon one time liability of Rs.5,400 Crores for making annual payment of Rs.283/- in SBI, what should be the one time liability of Rs.6,000/- Crores per annum?

If there is surplus, Banks would not have made additional provision of over Rs.18,500 Crores for improvement of Family Pension;

If there is Surplus, why Pension is not being paid on Special Allowance;

If what is stated by the Advocate regarding Balance in Pension Fund is true,  the Government would not have made statements before the Parliament 

If what is stated by the Advocate is true, those leaders who are making such claims now were on the Boards of various Banks have allowed further provision, if there were to be surplus.

Booking excess expenditure, thereby reducing profits or increase in loss or

Booking reduced profit by booking excess expenditure attracts criminal prosecution.

Those who have responsibility towards Bank Pensioners, would demand more and more provision.  That is the way, one can protect payment of pension as per existing Regulations.  

Today, I feel sad.  With a view to claim pension updation, we are lying our hands on present balance in Pension Fund.  Already, we find that interest/returns earned on Pension Fund is less than the outgo.  Present Balance includes money belonging to nearly one lakh employees who are pension optees, but still in service.  

I would like to conclude saying that we are being cheated in the name of securing pension updation.  Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has also decided on this issue, quoting Regualtion 11.  Please stop defending indefenceable.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Thursday, 23 April 2026 at 01:43:32 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Prasad Ji,

 

I understand why the mention of “reducing pension” has caused such immediate alarm.  The Senior Advocate’s statement was not a compromise, but a calculated technical challenge aimed at dismantling the IBA’s "cost constraint" argument. 

 

For years, the IBA’s primary defense has been a "paucity of funds." By saying, "If the money is not there, you may reduce our pension," the advocate is not making an offer; he is making a wager of absolute confidence.

 

He is telling the Judges: "The IBA is lying about the money. I am so certain the fund is overflowing (Rs 4.27 lakh crore) that I will stake our very pensions on the fact that the math will prove us right."

 

The Government (DFS) often blocks updation because it fears updation will drain the taxpayer's exchequer. The advocate’s statement, "We will not take any money outside this fund," is a masterstroke. He is isolating the Pension Fund as a self-sufficient "island." By assuring the Court that no "outside" money is needed, he removes the Government’s biggest excuse to oppose us.

 

The advocate cited that the current payout is Rs 33,000 crores against a corpus of Rs 4.27 lakh crore. Even with a Rs 5,000 crore increase for updation, the fund remains robust. His "challenge" to the court is based on the mathematical impossibility of the fund failing.

 

In senior appellate practice, advocates often use extreme "if/then" scenarios to demonstrate the strength of their evidence. It is a way of saying: "Our evidence is so bulletproof that we have nothing to fear.”

 

While the words "reduce our pension" are terrifying to hear in isolation, in the context of a heated courtroom battle, they were used as a shield, not a white flag.

 

Let us not let the IBA use our own internal fear to weaken our resolve. Our counsel is pushing the “Fund Theory” with the aggression it deserves.

 

With regards.

***  

The Audio Transcript:

 

Because My Lord, financial implication is something, and we are not going to take anything from the government. It is our own money which we want it back, My Lord. They can't sit over and, My Lord, 4,27,000 crore fund for My Lord.

 

That is a pension fund. Pension fund. And what they are giving us is 33,000 crores.

 

And My Lord, the increase would be about 5,000-6,000 crores. Pension fund would be available to all employees. It is for all employees.

 

I am very clear. Yes, My Lord. What they are giving per annum is, last year, 4,27,000 crores.

 

For all the employees of all banks. All banks. Yes, My Lord.

 

33,000 crores. And My Lord, the increase would be 5,000 crores per year. So it will come to about 40,000 crores.

 

So, it will not be more than 10-15%. It is our own amount. And My Lord, we will record this.

 

Adv: If there is any money which is not borne out from the record, they may reduce our pension accordingly.

Judge: Any money means what?

Adv: We will not take any money outside this fund. It is our own fund.

 

Created under the statute. Why should we be deprived? Because they want to create and rigidly apply, and erroneously apply the regulations. And My Lord, this hyper-technical thing of My Lord, because these are many other... Sir, what did the High Court say?

 

***

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sbmpensioners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbmpensioner...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbmpensioners/1538169158.1271382.1776924408439%40mail.yahoo.com.

[MOHAN P]

AIBPARC was often advocating the theory of (1)Updation of pension  through regulation 35(1) though it is meant only  for fixing  pension on retirement  and not for updation of pension of all(2) surplus funds in pension fund to meet cost of updation of pension of all. Unfortunately the arguments of senior Advocate too go in tune with above on  money in pension fund may be surprising.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

ATTENTION : SANJAY SIR.

Surprised to read your email.  Just for a minute, assume that Banks produce documents/acturial reports to the court and show there is no additional funds for updtion cost. - WHERE WE STAND.  Banks can easily prove this .                                                      I had dealt with Acturial Reports, providing funds to PEnsion Fund, etc while in service.  Banks provide as per Acturial Report year after year.  Actuarial Report provides the amount for shortfall and the same is provided by the Bank.  Pension Fund is outside the Banks Balance .   Providing funds to Pension Fund is one way traffic and Banks can provide only.    

One common sense question sir,  under what circumstances, banks provide more than required to Pension Funds - by debiting P & L Account thereby reducing the profit? .  The banks provide mandatory 10% as per Regulations irrespective of position of Pension Fund.  But only in case of shortfall as per Acturial Report only, Banks provide additional funds beyond mandated 10%.  For your information in last four years, Banks have provided over 1.36 lakh crores towards shortfall in Pension Fund.  That beinging the case, by any standards, any logic - there cannot be additional/surplus funds beyond the payment of pension as per exisiting Regulations.   

Further, during Family Pension improvement - Banks provided around 18000 crores to Pension Fund.  If your statement is correct - why Banks provided additional funds ??   Fortunately, Family Pension revision was not through court.  Had the advocate made the same statement then in court (assuming Family pension revision case was also in Court),  family revision itself would not have taken place.  Further, yours and my pension would have reduced.(OFCOURSE - IT IS AGAINST REGULATIONS).  

Advocate should be properly briefed and AIBPARC should not provide its old cierculars and speeches of their leaders to advocate to draw conclusions.  Singlas case is not on a very strong grounds.  Any small mistake will totally geopardise the case.  One should be very careful while presenting the case before Supreme court.  

I AM SURE AIBPARC will realise the facts/position and brief their advocate suitably - and ask advocate not to touch the Funds portion - as it will be a slippery slope.

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/631379518.1336226.1776936244494%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasad Ji,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

I would like to clarify that my previous note was not intended as a personal endorsement of the advocate’s figures, nor a commentary on the Pension Fund's actual health. I am fully aware that my personal take on the fund's status is immaterial to the legal proceedings.

My response focused solely on clarifying the misinterpretation of what the advocate meant. The concern was that the advocate was willingly offering a pension cut. My explanation aimed to show that his statement was a legal tactic rather than a literal policy proposal.

Whether his math is "irresponsible," as you noted, or his briefing was flawed, is a separate debate that I don’t want to enter.

My intention was simply to point out that he was employing a courtroom tactic to challenge the IBA, rather than making a genuine offer to give up our benefits.

With warm regards,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1581630119.1269702.1776924046384%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

theory of cost factor.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 at 17:57, Satyanarayana Rao

<karna...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

In the course of submissions by deffendent advocates the learned judges have said that the banks have to pay the pension as per pension regulations.The deffendent  advocates have no answer.
The judges never asked the deffendent advocate about pension funds.
It is irrelevant because the banks have agreed to pay pension as per statutory rights of Pensioners.
That is why the supreme court judges have revisited the pension regulations and called for the details of pension paid to 3 different periods of Retirees.
Therefore the debate regarding pension fund is irrelevant in pending pension updation case.
The supreme court judges go beyond what we discussed and article 14 and16 and 21 will be the guiding force our success in Sri Singla ji Case irrespective of what Sri C.N.prasad is reinventing the theory out  of

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/631379518.1336226.1776936244494%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

In the course of submissions by deffendent advocates the learned judges have said that the banks have to pay the pension as per pension regulations.The deffendent  advocates have no answer.
The judges never asked the deffendent advocate about pension funds.
It is irrelevant because the banks have agreed to pay pension as per statutory rights of Pensioners.
That is why the supreme court judges have revisited the pension regulations and called for the details of pension paid to 3 different periods of Retirees.
Therefore the debate regarding pension fund is irrelevant in pending pension updation case.
The supreme court judges go beyond what we discussed and article 14 and16 and 21 will be the guiding force our success in Sri Singla ji Case irrespective of what Sri C.N.prasad is reinventing the theory out  of

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 at 16:05, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/631379518.1336226.1776936244494%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Prasad you have neatly explained the cost of updation with examples.

But as an  interim measure UFBU can negotiate for merger of DA@8088 points and covering all pensioners retired upto 01.11.2022 under New DA base year 2016 effective from 01.11.2022.

Most of the pensioners are aged 75-80. There are some above 80. During every BPS meeting pensioners will be waiting anxiously for their issues to be discussed and then disappointment, This has been going on for the last two decades. 

After prasad sir's explanation, it is clear updation will not be solved by iBA and UFBU in our lifetime. He has also made it clear that it is beyond the capabilities of UFBU to resolve the updation issue. So both IBA and UFBU should stop fooling retirees claiming some time sub judice, will be discussed in the next meeting, owners approval required.

and copy paste old dialogues of 10 years back and issue false assurance circulars.

They can declare Updation will not be done and at least implement the merger of DA and New DA base year for 2016, for all retirees retired before 01.11.2022.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/5560ab4c-97ce-4218-94fc-067609029812n%40googlegroups.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

I do not think shri Singhvi, a senior advocate could  be so naive to suggest updation on one hand and reduction on the other. 

My understanding is that by "Available Funds" he does not mean same pension funds. It could be other sources like internal generation. 

This means shedding AS15. 

I do not know the practicality,and learned pundits among us need not be up against me as it is my line of inference of Dr. Singhvi 's suggestion

C V Narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/5560ab4c-97ce-4218-94fc-067609029812n%40googlegroups.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Niranjan Ji,

Thank you for sharing your professional experience regarding Actuarial Reports. I appreciate the technical caution you are advising.

Regarding the "common sense" of the matter: my perspective was focused on the common sense of the average pensioner. When that audio clip went viral, you didn't hear an actuarial provision—you heard a threat of a pension cut. My only aim was to explain the advocate’s intent so that we wouldn't spend our week in a state of panic.

Whether the "Fund Theory" is a "slippery slope" is a technical debate for the experts and the legal team. I have no intention of entering that accounting battle. I simply wanted to ensure that a courtroom tactic wasn't mistaken for a surrender.

Thank you for adding the technical context which is, of course, equally important for a complete understanding of the case.

Regards.

P.S. I’ve noticed the frequent questioning of "common sense" in these discussions. It is worth remembering that using the term this way can often become a veiled insult. It assumes there is only one "correct" way to think and labels any different perspective as a lack of basic intelligence.

In reality, true common sense includes the empathy to understand that others have different experiences and goals. Positioning oneself as the only "rational observer" while casting others as incompetent is, ironically, a failure of social common sense. If one's head is full of facts but lacks the kindness to treat peers with respect, they are missing the most important part of "sense" itself.

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEe%2BptpBoSKLYFJSJCVsCVWia-A3HKWJrwb%2BusD%2BzdjwQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

After going through the messages of the veterans in this forum I understand that

1. We are not eligible for updation, merger of DA and DA based on new DA formula/

    There is no discrimination in DA and Bank cannot bear the cost of updation.

2.  UFBU leaders are not at fault and they have limitations

3.  petitioners of M C Singla are wrong in approaching court based on present regulations and their arguments are wrong.

4. IBA affidavit is correct.

Pensioners are victims of misinformation that they could not understand the above facts and wrong in demanding Updation instead of being happy with their present pension.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLC_33uyX%3D_dBqDj3iCvRWZQHsuTRrpq9oo9ZdeNMud_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

It is not against you.  But, what I am saying is out of my experience.  Advocates, whether Senior or very Senior, they only know law, but not the facts.  They argue based on the briefing.  They may not have any information about facts existing in our case.

When our own leaders, who have signed many settlements, including Pension Settlements, themselves guide or misguide the Advocates, this is what happens.

It is not the Seniority or Knowledge of the Advocate, but law before them decides.  Please go through K Mohandas Case in Supreme Court.  See the list of Senior Advocates who represented Banks.  You may see not many such Senior Advocates representing Pensioners.  Still we won.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da_B3f2H_uBZpZ129sM2cguQC5LpDrcQL6VDDgZQBy9naA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

WE have mistaken understanding.  It is our own Apex Organisations, which are fooling us.  We have a lot of faith in them and we are unwilling to accept that these Apexlevel Bank Retirees Associations have or are or will misguide/misguiding us.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3T1KgD7bK-MfFJzVe12MfMd_METOBMr_KXfO1%2B%2BGN8hA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Satyanarayana Rao,

Whether it is Bipartite Settlement or Pension Option finally it is cost factor.  

Before, I part, would like to share some more thought.

It is not wrong to expect favourable decision in any Court Case.  We must be positive. There is nothing wrong on the part of Bank Pensioners like you to think so.  I fully share your concern.

But, we are pained.  We feel that my collegues or my good old friends or those for whom we have great respect are being made to believe that we are going to succeed in Singla's case.  Most of them have not even having information that what is before Supreme Court is an appeal against the order of Dismissal of Peition and Appeal by the High Court.  We are made to believe theat Very Senior Executives of the Bank are over booking expenditure or under retporting profits by making additional provisions, despite existence of surplus in Pension Fund.  They are claiming so, not only in Conferences and meetings even before Hon'ble Supreme Court.  All of us have utmost belief in such people, fogetting that as Branch Managers, Senior and Very Senior Executives used to fight with Balance Sheet Auditors for reducing the provisions. 

I am aware that many of you are not happy, when you read such emails from me.  But, I do believe in a saying 'Pregnancy cannot be hidden for long'.   I also believe that keeping quiet while witnessing cheating by misrepresentation means abetment of such a crime.   I cannot propogate, what I believe is untrue. I am doing my job answering to my conscious.  I sincely believe that I have done my duty of sharing truthful information, even if it is inconvenient.    In any case, whatever I write or expections of Bank Pensioners or abuses do not decide the case.  It is only 'Law' what is present decides.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2133930997.1370848.1776947334476%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Appears to have been written at the height of dejection, despondency and desperation. Gradually, everyone of us, particularly those who retired prior to Nov 2002 are being driven to this stage.

If the Singla case is lost, that will be the end of the road.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2VkwFm_z8veYuMyH_LrT8QkDvbvx2G%3DfF4oQFnj_-8-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

State Bank is a single entity and Rs.5400 cr provision made for Rs.283cr annual out go.

Here One point we must note.

Inspite of requirement of  Such huge  provision Management of SBI accepted it. AIBOC interfered and  met concerned officials submitted strong representation for 40:50 pension. 

Like CHV if AIBOC also had cried there is no funds  to provide for such provision 40:50 pension would not have been possible.

Unlike SBI management IBA starts discussions with negativity.

There was another major agenda before the committee, periodical updation of pension in every settlement.

It was submitted before the committee that it will be discussed separately. There was compromise by AIBOC that it would not press for updation of pension. 

As neither SBI unions or IBA interested in updation it was not discussed by the committee.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/195974142.1590112.1777032480371%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

Yes, retirees got their past and eligible dues like 5 year weightage, 1616/1684 based fixation, pension on 50% basic, 100% DA, commutation difference, etc are by the fight of veterans,  like chv and ufbu leaders only a d not by the court judgements. Soon they will get pension revision too. My salute for their heroic deeds.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1605372304.1602773.1777035562618%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Fantastic performance and fight by CNP in various courts brought the benefits not by CHV.
Pl check and confirm the facts .

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGcEjHELPGOEsKpdJrGyXMWzWk_T9VzG7LNQJxGu5Ok8TkifiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

SBI management and SBI unions and SBI retirees association minus e associate bank retirees fight for improvement of Pensioners benifit from the inception of SBI.
Not only that they sign sapata industry level settlement bering the membyof UFBU for their advantage and extra benifits.
CHV has become the mouth peace of  IBA than the trade union representative and ignore d the trade union rights of the union and  received claps   by giving false assurances in various meetings of Retirees Associations and sami retirees associations also supportef hoping that CHV will deliver what he assured in such conferences.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW28PbiV%2BhfNqM1p2igQQFqjKvZO39FDp_5cOM7F5zvi3g%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Whether Reg35/1 and subsequent addition of words 'Shall". there is no provision for pension updation in regulations, pension funds have sufficient balance or not all these legal aspects will  be examined and a verdict will be passed by the Supreme court. 

Only courts can decide constitutional validity and legal interpretation of these aspects. We have to wait for a few more days for the verdict.

Experts in our group are sharing their wide knowledge on these aspects with others. Others are gaining knowledge .

from these debates. But unfortunately those who have authority to negotiate and discuss our issues are completely detached from retirees and do not care for our opinion and are not using this knowledge.

AIBRF, AIBPARC have written not less than 50 letters to UFBU leaders before every BPS to take up the updation and other issues but ufbu did not respond. So what is our take on reg35/1 does not matter .

For the last 20 years or so there has been a monotonous style of functioning in the BPS System. Positive developments in pensioners demands taking place in RBI and other sectors,  In BPS same old dialogues like sub judice, will be studied, issuing copy paste circulars, arrogant statements etc are being repeated, 

Whatever benefits came are from external players not from UFBU.

But finally there is a ray of hope. FM has taken control of BPS and reduced BPS negotiation duration to 12 months from 36 months. There is some hope of fast tracking retirees' issues.

Another major development is like retirees, working employees also fed up with monotonous style of leaders and demanding change in leadership and asking old guards who made the union their personal kingdom and compromising retirees and workmen interests to retire and go home so that they can leisurely eat their favourite Mangoes.

Further as per recent media reports 12 banks and SBI are being merged and new 4 big banks will emerge. This merger is expected to be intiated within this financial year end. Changes may take place in BPS and these big banks may have their own wage negotiations eliminating IBA.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/754924057.2048208.1777299946171%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

SBI Management was in favour of providing 50% to all and to make things easier, presented through Court - to obtain DFS permission.  

When you feel AIBOC did in SBI, why not in Nationalised Banks ??  Whey they are not asking to bring parity between SBI and other Nationalised Banks ??  Have you come across single statement/letter/circular asking for parity among banks including SBI ??  Answer is absolute 'NO'.  Further, AIBOC strength in each and every bank is much more than that of AIBEA, that being the case - why we are not asking AIBOC ?  It is puzzling .

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW28PbiV%2BhfNqM1p2igQQFqjKvZO39FDp_5cOM7F5zvi3g%40mail.gmail.com.