OROP

[mohan p]

Dear Friends

It seems the word ‘OROP' is dearer to bank retirees (at least for few) while they speak out on Updation of Pension or even on proposed Ex-gratia!

Earlier we found that,the above word’OROP’was attributed in the name of Hon.Finance Minister,Nirmala Sitaraman.

We know that,she never spoke that word in her speech or interview while expressing her concern on resolving  bank retirees long pending issues.Still many have found  repeated the word in messages and letters sent to MOF etc!

Once again the word has emerged through the reported  dialogues of Convenor of UFBU!

“The formula and quantum will be finalized in coming days, It may be decided as per the OROP basis.”*

(*Reply given by Convenor,UFBU,while meeting AIBRF delegation on 1.1.24)

What is OROP?

Under Armed Forces, One Rank One Pension implies that uniform pension be paid to the Personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service regardless of their date of retirement. Thus, OROP implies bridging the gap between the rate of pension of the current pensioners and the past pensioners at periodic intervals.

In bank pensioners case, Updation of Pension has not happened so far.MOU signed by IBA-UFBU on 7^th Dec'23 is on allowing Ex-gratia to all retirees.

The reply of Convenor may be taken only as general in nature.

In the absence of Updation of Pension   with any formula,it may not be possible to bring parity with pensioners under 12th BPS/JN period .Forget about OROP!

Let us exam live examples:

If pension of  a person retired under 5^th /7^th BPS  period has to be brought under 11^th BPS level if he/she continued in same scale it may be as follows:

Current Pension

        5^th BPS.     7^th BPS.    11^th BPS.  

BP.       2600.      7880.       41335.  

DR.    36059.    34023.       18287

       ______    ______     _______

Total.₹38659.₹41903.      ₹59622.

 For Parity.Diff/Gap.5/7th ₹  20963/₹17719

From the above it can be seen that only under Updation of Pension with a formula all pensioners can be brought on same level.As discussed earlier, even for payment of Ex gratia a single uniform platform is required and so merger of CPI at 8088 points too may have to happen.

Though there cannot/may not be a parity,in pension, at least if the proposed Ex-gratia is  based on a principle where  more compensation( at least 50% of above shown gap) is allowed to 5^th ,6^th,7^th &8^th and lesser to 9^th & 10thBPS pensioners same may be to certain extend reduce the gap in parity.( Here if we take corresponding BP,under 9^th /10^th BPS)the actual  difference in pension may come around ₹5000 and ₹2000  and naturally Ex gratia may too become less for that category )

Let us wait for final version on Ex gratia which may be in black and white shortly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ramani Konnayar]

I think, by OROP basis, the convenor might have meant that the ex-gratia would be at the maximum rate (on basic pension) for the 5th BPS retirees and gradually taper down to the minimum rate for the 11th BPS group. As pointed out by you, if the ex-gratia narrows down the gap between each group and the 12th BPS group to an extent of, at least, 40 to 50%, it would give reasonable satisfaction to the pensioners for the present. 

The original line of thinking of UFBU was to take up the case of 5th, 6th and 7th BPS groups for updation first as they had suffered for many years due to non-updation as well as tapered DA and their remaining life span is much less than the latter groups. They felt, those under 8 to 11 BPS groups could wait for some more years. However, UFBU was forced to change its stance and demanded updation for all and this led to the concept of ex-gratia. 

--
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/CAMCbyDTWO%3DW%2BhZt8vyWCQz-MCwJYibxLe3wTrLu20cESPcY2nw%40mail.gmail.com.

[CHIRAMEL MATHEW SIMON]

Nobody seems to pay any heed to the loss suffered by the pensioners from the 10th wage revision onwards due to introduction of special pay. At 11th revision, 24% of basic pay was fixed as special pay on which no pension was considered. This is a great loss for recent pensioners. However, nobody is expressing any concern for these group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_yvFBJD%2Bm11dzXoM-EpqoGHCE64SOrsewHGZbOpjfn1nw%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

Mr Mathew Simon,

Yes.The subject matter is aware to pensioners and since the matter is before court and since no latest developments have been taken place, the point was not coming for discussion here, nowadays.

Revision of pension by taking into account of Special Allowance introduced under 10^th BPS /JN was already questioned  in case filed vide WP(C).No.32386 OF 2015(W) before High Court of Kerala by K T Muralimohan & Ors V/s Corporation Bank/Union of India.

The above writ petition was allowed in favour of retirees on 28^th Nov 2019.Bank's appeal is pending before Apex Court now.

Let us hope that a favorable verdict may come from Apex Court too. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALApWHF71mAXtb9qXSGzeKvJD3ABwD49b8uPbLL%3DgPJHtDPZNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[R Balaji]

but they received hectic pay (24% ) during their service but old pensioners not received any updation since 1993

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALApWHF71mAXtb9qXSGzeKvJD3ABwD49b8uPbLL%3DgPJHtDPZNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

In the second para, the phrase "the concept of special allowance was introduced" may be added to the penultimate sentence. 

The error is regretted. 

On Fri, 5 Jan, 2024, 1:50 pm Ramani Konnayar, <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:

l am a VRS retiree under 6th BPS.

In my view, the concept of Special Allowance (not eligible for Pension calculation) was introduced with the consent of UFBU, very much akin to the denial of 100% DA to pre 1/11/2002 retirees in the 8th BPS, for the following reasons.

NPS was introduced in Banks wef April 2010  bringing an end to the First ever Pension Scheme of 1995 in just 15 years. Needless to say, NPS with no  CPI linked DA is much less beneficial to retirees than the Old Pension Scheme. With NPS having been introduced for Government employees as early as in April 2003, UFBU had no choice than to accept it, as evidenced by the absence of any protest. However, perhaps with a view to compensate the low pensions under NPS, salary hikes were made quite liberal from 10th BPS (1/11/2012)onwards. But, this threw up a new problem for the unions/associations.

Now, they had to take care of the interests of their members under OPS as well as NPS. The percentage of their members under OPS was steadily coming down and vice versa. Those under NPS are understandably much aggrieved that the OPS group, besides getting a good salary (due to the advent of NPS as stated above) would be getting a very decent amount as pension too with half yearly DA increases. So, perhaps with a view to placate this group and also in order to reduce the future burden on banks resulting from huge transfer of monies to the Pension Funds (old scheme). It is to be noted that UFBU does not appear to be inclined to merge Special Allowance with Basic Pay and on the other hand the percentage of Special Allowance of Basic Pay has only been increasing with each BPS.

No doubt, this is an injustice meted out to those under OPS. However, this being part of bipartite agreement, it remains to be seen if the Apex Court would interfere with it. The denial of 100% DA to the pre2002 retirees was upheld by it and after 18+ years, justice was done to them at the instance of the GOI.

K N Ramani 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALApWHF71mAXtb9qXSGzeKvJD3ABwD49b8uPbLL%3DgPJHtDPZNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

l am a VRS retiree under 6th BPS.

In my view, the concept of Special Allowance (not eligible for Pension calculation) was introduced with the consent of UFBU, very much akin to the denial of 100% DA to pre 1/11/2002 retirees in the 8th BPS, for the following reasons.

NPS was introduced in Banks wef April 2010  bringing an end to the First ever Pension Scheme of 1995 in just 15 years. Needless to say, NPS with no  CPI linked DA is much less beneficial to retirees than the Old Pension Scheme. With NPS having been introduced for Government employees as early as in April 2003, UFBU had no choice than to accept it, as evidenced by the absence of any protest. However, perhaps with a view to compensate the low pensions under NPS, salary hikes were made quite liberal from 10th BPS (1/11/2012)onwards. But, this threw up a new problem for the unions/associations.

Now, they had to take care of the interests of their members under OPS as well as NPS. The percentage of their members under OPS was steadily coming down and vice versa. Those under NPS are understandably much aggrieved that the OPS group, besides getting a good salary (due to the advent of NPS as stated above) would be getting a very decent amount as pension too with half yearly DA increases. So, perhaps with a view to placate this group and also in order to reduce the future burden on banks resulting from huge transfer of monies to the Pension Funds (old scheme). It is to be noted that UFBU does not appear to be inclined to merge Special Allowance with Basic Pay and on the other hand the percentage of Special Allowance of Basic Pay has only been increasing with each BPS.

No doubt, this is an injustice meted out to those under OPS. However, this being part of bipartite agreement, it remains to be seen if the Apex Court would interfere with it. The denial of 100% DA to the pre2002 retirees was upheld by it and after 18+ years, justice was done to them at the instance of the GOI.

K N Ramani 

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024, 9:45 am CHIRAMEL MATHEW SIMON, <simon...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALApWHF71mAXtb9qXSGzeKvJD3ABwD49b8uPbLL%3DgPJHtDPZNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

It is gratifying to note that some of the mails posted in the group are full of facts, justifying ex-gratia in the present circumstances. The concept of ex-gratia has been introduced after much thought with two main considerations, one, to avoid delaying the benefit and two, to circumvent the financial burden for now by delinking DA factor.

Updation either in RBI formula or otherwise requires deeper studies. As of now RBI line of updation is difficult as the financial outgo will be huge. Surplus in pension fund or availability of updation clause in the 1995 settlements are misnomers and do.not deserve any reaction.

We have to consider two situations. First if there was no talk or initiative from GOI towards revision of pension, what would have been the course of action before us?

Our protests will not have any impact as seen in the past with regard to 100%DA. Secondly there is no guarantee the pending court cases will be decided in our favour. We do not know how many years will be consumed before we get a verdict which need not be to our benefit.

In the above circumstances as of now, ex-gratia is the best proposition which we have to accept with both our hands. Updation may or may not be there, but RBI formula is a far-fetched dream. With or without DA the ex-gratia will be hopefully a reasonable and will meet both the demands of the pensioners and the banks, For the former, increase in pension and for the latter an increase without future burden by way of DA on the ex-gratia.

Wiser counsel should prevail in appreciating the formula without doing anything to jeopardize the benefit.

Ultimately the GOI is to be thanked profusely for its affirmative action, without which the updation/revision would have remained only in papers.

G Ramachandran

CB-SVRS 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xQnbYsHjH4iFW8SkPFfyG7R4sbfLcAy6_23_z_U-UPaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[sailendra kr de]

In order to make uniform DA  for all the bank employees, merger of hundred percent DA on 8088 points of price index  is essential for all the  bank retirees including the existing employees in order to facilitate  the calculation process  of DA in future course of time . It is justifiable. Exgratia  amount of the retirees  after merging of hundred percent  DA on 8088 points  price index  with BASIC  is acceptable  provided its amount  must be a hand full . 

[manoj kumar Majumdar]

I FULLY ENDORSE YOUR CONSIDERED AND WELL-ANALYSED VIEW.

Manoj kumar Majumdar

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1c78b52b-a03a-4302-aa15-9c14a9f53235n%40googlegroups.com.

[ramesh kumar]

All these fancy words, like bank's financial burden increases, or there is no begining agreement for updation etc., is all utterly false.  Look into the 1995 original agreement, which states for updation on the basis of central government's formula, if unions were unable to come to settlement with management.     The I.B.A. is an unconstitutional body, & negotiations are  invalid.    Bank retirees pension corpus maintaining  institution is responsible to pay pensions, as per the central government's employees  formula, & this clause is available in the original agreement signed, but so far not sent to parliaments approval since 1995. Why?  Who is playing with Bank retirees?  Expose them first.  Initiate  Honorable courts punitiative action first against them.      Why bank retirees forgotten the Honorable Supreme Court's  judgement that "Pension is an Extended Salary" to be paid till the death of retiree.  As pension is debited to Salary account, that is why retirees are  paying Tax on pension.     Arguments must be made on fundamentals,  not on any logics, but on court's judgements.  Take a tough fight against unwilling management's in courts.  Thank you.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1c78b52b-a03a-4302-aa15-9c14a9f53235n%40googlegroups.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,  please read High Court Judgement in Siglas case - for better understanding and appreciating the legal position.  Better to understand and comment with reference/material to carry value for the comments.  Is anyone denied pension ??  All are paid pension as per regulations - is it.  Updation of pension is not an Extended salary - if stated anywhere - kindly share the details

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKuRzeE3VgRtwxXxPF2tPju9owOUcT4B_O-w5NKXa%3DySXNXR%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Perianayagam velu]

Pension is deferred wages as per various court judgment.As wages we are supposed to get pension revision.this is as per natural law.buy who bothers..now pensioner are at the mercy of 

?????????????????

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWG2V6aUMctNOFaRkf4pgv%3DB%2BGdqSzhPUyGMY_pfVBoJ1g%40mail.gmail.com.