PENSION UPDATION. - AIBPARC TO UFBU
2,483 views
Skip to first unread message
PM
Jul 31, 2020, 2:02:26 AM7/31/20
to bankpensioner
Dear Friends,
A copy of letter addressed to Convenor, UFBU, by AIBPARC is furnished here under for information:
ALL INDIA BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES CONFEDERATION.
Dated: 29.07.2020
Shri. Sanjeev Bandlish
Convener
UFBU
Chandigarh
Dear Com. Bandlish
Pension Updation
We wish to invite a reference to the letter no. 2020/428 dated 25.07.2020 written by AIBRF to you suggesting merger of DA into Basic Pay at 6352 points to arrive at New Basic Pension for all the seven groups of Retirees and leave the demand of updation proper to the next settlement. This proposition is fraught with inconsistencies and the following risks:
A. Mere merger of DA as it is without following uniform DA neutralization entailing no cost as suggested by AIBRF gives no comfort or relief to the pensioners and hence not acceptable to us.
Pension Updation, though a Statutory Right enshrined in the Pension Regulations, is unfortunately denied.
In fact, Updation was given once on the lines obtaining for Central Government pensioners when the Pension Scheme was first introduced in Banks. We have compromised to have it prospective giving up retrospective effect implementation from 1992 or atleast from 2003 when Pension Regulation was amended to Ensure Updation on Continuous Basis.
We have also compromised to accept the RBI Updation Formula which is inferior to Government Updation Formula to which we are entitled as per Reg. 35(1). The interest on the amount of Arrears foregone, not to speak of the Arrears foregone is itself more than sufficient to service the Updation cost, that too when most of the pensioners have not many years left to enjoy the benefit. Quite a number of Retirees left for their Heavenly Abode waiting anxiously for getting Justice in respect of their Legal Entitlement of Updation. Our compromising for the prospective implementation is a huge savings for the banks and all we ask the Banks is to apportion a portion of such savings to Update the Pension on the lines of RBI updation.
The very denial of Updation anymore is highly unconscionable and unethical not to speak of its illegality.
B. In any case, even the no cost formula of AIBRF will still entail a cost albeit the least one as compared to the cost of Proper Updation. The claim by AIBRF that according to their calculation, this exercise will not cost any extra money to Pension Funds is incorrect as there is bound to be some increase in gross pension subsequent to DA merger. C. Regulation 35(1) of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations provides that Basic Pension and Additional Pension wherever applicable shall be Updated as per the Formula given in Appendix-1 (Government Gazette Notification No. 9 dt 01.03.2003) as amended.
The formula in Appendix-1 was borrowed from Updation Formula applicable to Government Pensioners at that time which was further improved upon in subsequent Pay Commissions. The Government Formula is even better than the Updation factor applied for Updation of Pension of RBI pensioners.
However, for obvious reasons as explained above, we will be happy with the RBI Formula. We are demanding only the Implementation of the existing provision for Updation and not raising any fresh Financial demand.
D. After Government approval of Updation of Pension in RBI, we have been demanding the same Updation factors to be applied in our case too. The suggestion of AIBRF to achieve Updation merely by demanding merger of DA at 6352 points would practically amounts to nothing and amounts to distortion of the Basic Principle of Updation of Pension. The Pensioners have only few years left and hence cannot wait longer for Updation. All Pensioners are wise and are not naive to believe that there is another day and another Settlement to resolve the Issue of Pension Updation.
E. Any dilution in the formula of Updation followed in RBI would weaken our case for Regular Updation forever and will also have an adverse impact on many court cases pending in various High Courts and also a case in Honorable Supreme Court filed by many individuals. In view of the foregoing facts, we are of the considered view that our demand for Updation of Pension in terms of Pension Regulation 35(1) should not be diluted further to breach the benchmark set in case of Updation of Pension for RBI Pensioners. RBI had Updation that was stopped in between on a technicality and again resumed after Government approval. The factors were therefore arrived for the reminder of the settlements and the factors were arrived for DA merger at 4440 points. Now we are requesting to have the factors for all settlement periods and for merger at 6352 points. As per RBI formula, the factor for merging 11th Bipartite settlement Basic Pension at 6352 points is 1.62. So, the factors arrived by RBI for 4440 points have to be multiplied by 1.62 to arrive at the Updation factor for merger at 6352 points. Accordingly, it will be (See worksheet enclosed)
1. 1987 batch 19.76 2. 1992 batch 9.36 3. 1998 batch 5.82 4. 2002 batch 4.39 5. 2007 batch 2.85 6. 2012 batch 1.62
We therefore request you to maintain our demand for updation of Pension on the basis of above factors and not to agree for so called Updations merely by merging the DA at 6352 points. If the Updation of Pension is achieved by using the above RBI factors, the total cost of Pension Updation would be Rs 5321.80 Crores including Updation for SBI pensioners. Since payments in all the banks including SBI for the year 2018-19 were Rs.17,415.16 crores as against the Interest income and annual contribution by the banks amounting to Rs.32,023.00 crores, a sum of Rs. 14607.84 crores remained surplus which constituted 45.62% of annual interest plus additional contributions made to the Pension Funds by all the Public sector banks including SBI. It would not be out of place to mention that some of the Banks had in the past transferred huge amount from Pension fund to provide for their NPAs in an illegal manner. We had brought this to the notice of IBA and Ministry also. This reveals the Huge an Adequacy of Pension Funds which tempted the Bank m Managements to indulge in such acts.
We reiterate that there is healthy corpus to absorb the additional cost of Pension Updation of Rs.5321.80 Crores which is arrived at for 4,41,000 Pensioners (including SBI) using the same Updation factors as allowed in case of RBI. In as much as our Pension Scheme is as per Government Pension Scheme & RBI pension scheme and Banks Pension Regulation 56 provides that in case of doubt, a reference may be made to Central Civil Services Rules and Commutation of Pension Rules, this should help us in clinching the issue of Updation of Pension which is overdue since 1992 . We earnestly make a fervent Appeal to You and to the Leadership of UFBU to resolve this most important Issue of Updation of Pension in the interest of All Pensioners and Retirees, including Future Retirees.
With Regards
Yours comradely
K.V.Acharya S.Sarkar President
General Secretary
A copy of letter addressed to Convenor, UFBU, by AIBPARC is furnished here under for information:
ALL INDIA BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES CONFEDERATION.
Dated: 29.07.2020
Shri. Sanjeev Bandlish
Convener
UFBU
Chandigarh
Dear Com. Bandlish
Pension Updation
We wish to invite a reference to the letter no. 2020/428 dated 25.07.2020 written by AIBRF to you suggesting merger of DA into Basic Pay at 6352 points to arrive at New Basic Pension for all the seven groups of Retirees and leave the demand of updation proper to the next settlement. This proposition is fraught with inconsistencies and the following risks:
A. Mere merger of DA as it is without following uniform DA neutralization entailing no cost as suggested by AIBRF gives no comfort or relief to the pensioners and hence not acceptable to us.
Pension Updation, though a Statutory Right enshrined in the Pension Regulations, is unfortunately denied.
In fact, Updation was given once on the lines obtaining for Central Government pensioners when the Pension Scheme was first introduced in Banks. We have compromised to have it prospective giving up retrospective effect implementation from 1992 or atleast from 2003 when Pension Regulation was amended to Ensure Updation on Continuous Basis.
We have also compromised to accept the RBI Updation Formula which is inferior to Government Updation Formula to which we are entitled as per Reg. 35(1). The interest on the amount of Arrears foregone, not to speak of the Arrears foregone is itself more than sufficient to service the Updation cost, that too when most of the pensioners have not many years left to enjoy the benefit. Quite a number of Retirees left for their Heavenly Abode waiting anxiously for getting Justice in respect of their Legal Entitlement of Updation. Our compromising for the prospective implementation is a huge savings for the banks and all we ask the Banks is to apportion a portion of such savings to Update the Pension on the lines of RBI updation.
The very denial of Updation anymore is highly unconscionable and unethical not to speak of its illegality.
B. In any case, even the no cost formula of AIBRF will still entail a cost albeit the least one as compared to the cost of Proper Updation. The claim by AIBRF that according to their calculation, this exercise will not cost any extra money to Pension Funds is incorrect as there is bound to be some increase in gross pension subsequent to DA merger. C. Regulation 35(1) of Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations provides that Basic Pension and Additional Pension wherever applicable shall be Updated as per the Formula given in Appendix-1 (Government Gazette Notification No. 9 dt 01.03.2003) as amended.
The formula in Appendix-1 was borrowed from Updation Formula applicable to Government Pensioners at that time which was further improved upon in subsequent Pay Commissions. The Government Formula is even better than the Updation factor applied for Updation of Pension of RBI pensioners.
However, for obvious reasons as explained above, we will be happy with the RBI Formula. We are demanding only the Implementation of the existing provision for Updation and not raising any fresh Financial demand.
D. After Government approval of Updation of Pension in RBI, we have been demanding the same Updation factors to be applied in our case too. The suggestion of AIBRF to achieve Updation merely by demanding merger of DA at 6352 points would practically amounts to nothing and amounts to distortion of the Basic Principle of Updation of Pension. The Pensioners have only few years left and hence cannot wait longer for Updation. All Pensioners are wise and are not naive to believe that there is another day and another Settlement to resolve the Issue of Pension Updation.
E. Any dilution in the formula of Updation followed in RBI would weaken our case for Regular Updation forever and will also have an adverse impact on many court cases pending in various High Courts and also a case in Honorable Supreme Court filed by many individuals. In view of the foregoing facts, we are of the considered view that our demand for Updation of Pension in terms of Pension Regulation 35(1) should not be diluted further to breach the benchmark set in case of Updation of Pension for RBI Pensioners. RBI had Updation that was stopped in between on a technicality and again resumed after Government approval. The factors were therefore arrived for the reminder of the settlements and the factors were arrived for DA merger at 4440 points. Now we are requesting to have the factors for all settlement periods and for merger at 6352 points. As per RBI formula, the factor for merging 11th Bipartite settlement Basic Pension at 6352 points is 1.62. So, the factors arrived by RBI for 4440 points have to be multiplied by 1.62 to arrive at the Updation factor for merger at 6352 points. Accordingly, it will be (See worksheet enclosed)
1. 1987 batch 19.76 2. 1992 batch 9.36 3. 1998 batch 5.82 4. 2002 batch 4.39 5. 2007 batch 2.85 6. 2012 batch 1.62
We therefore request you to maintain our demand for updation of Pension on the basis of above factors and not to agree for so called Updations merely by merging the DA at 6352 points. If the Updation of Pension is achieved by using the above RBI factors, the total cost of Pension Updation would be Rs 5321.80 Crores including Updation for SBI pensioners. Since payments in all the banks including SBI for the year 2018-19 were Rs.17,415.16 crores as against the Interest income and annual contribution by the banks amounting to Rs.32,023.00 crores, a sum of Rs. 14607.84 crores remained surplus which constituted 45.62% of annual interest plus additional contributions made to the Pension Funds by all the Public sector banks including SBI. It would not be out of place to mention that some of the Banks had in the past transferred huge amount from Pension fund to provide for their NPAs in an illegal manner. We had brought this to the notice of IBA and Ministry also. This reveals the Huge an Adequacy of Pension Funds which tempted the Bank m Managements to indulge in such acts.
We reiterate that there is healthy corpus to absorb the additional cost of Pension Updation of Rs.5321.80 Crores which is arrived at for 4,41,000 Pensioners (including SBI) using the same Updation factors as allowed in case of RBI. In as much as our Pension Scheme is as per Government Pension Scheme & RBI pension scheme and Banks Pension Regulation 56 provides that in case of doubt, a reference may be made to Central Civil Services Rules and Commutation of Pension Rules, this should help us in clinching the issue of Updation of Pension which is overdue since 1992 . We earnestly make a fervent Appeal to You and to the Leadership of UFBU to resolve this most important Issue of Updation of Pension in the interest of All Pensioners and Retirees, including Future Retirees.
With Regards
Yours comradely
K.V.Acharya S.Sarkar President
General Secretary
Satyanarayana Rao
Aug 1, 2020, 12:38:26 AM8/1/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Really it is big joke.What type of unity and thinking that pervades the apex level retirees associations .Even after of 2 decades of sufferings by retirees these associations have not arrived at common approach to bring pressure on UFBU. Are they serious about resolving retirees long pending issues? If this is the case what the retirees can expect from these organizations and how they can expect respect and response from UFBU?.Who will be the beneficiary of such inconsistent approach?The second drama of dissident views of the minority constituents of UFBU regarding our issues of pension updation. All the dissident minority unions have affixed their signature on the jont note of25 th may 2015.Now they are alleging that they are not taken in to confidence while signing mou on 22nd july2020.It is cycle of history. Now the big question for retirees is whether any good news will come in the 11th bps inspite of contradictions among retirees associations on one side and lac of cohesive and consistent approach among the constituents of UFBU which are involved in making loud voices and trying to project them selves as savior of retirees?There fore we have to be very careful in judging the commitment of minority unions. Ultimately the big brother of UFBU holds the key to improve the benefits of retirees. It is a big suspence for us.As i have been consistently voicing that all these ifs and buts will be known perfectly once the copy of 11th bps is made public to all. Let us wait and watch as we have been waiting and waiting for more than 2 decades to see some improvement and justice in our favor which is imminent to happen. Long live unity in UFBU. Long live unity in retirees associations.
--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 bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/c9803d72-ae74-4ee3-a8c0-1ba2fb9d9d6ao%40googlegroups.com.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
Aug 1, 2020, 12:43:22 AM8/1/20
to bankpensioner
We should not make any statement like the one in the last para : "We reiterate that there is healthy corpus to absorb the additional cost of Pension Updation of Rs.5321.80 Crores which is arrived at for 4,41,000 Pensioners (including SBI) using the same Updation factors as allowed in case of RBI"
If this statement is made, then it means that we are accepting that if the corpus fund is not enough, we will forego pension.
We cannot say the present balance of corpus fund is excess or short, because we do not know the calculation.
Pension fund is maintained to pay pension (1) as per existing formula of basic and DA (2) to present as well as future pensioners.
This involves detailed working every year by actuaries. Various assumptions are made with regard to the longivity of the present pensioners as well future pensioners (and also the spouse of the pensioners), future cost of living which will vary DA, earning of corpus fund etc. Future salary of the existing employees who are eligible for pension is another factor. Their future contribution also matters. These are all not simple calculations. Every bank has created corpus fund based on various assumptions. So the present balance is enough to cover the liability to pensioners in future as per existing formula. It goes without saying that if any change is made in the pension forumula, naturallly the outflow will be more and hence corpus fund has to be increased accordingly.
Making a statement that corpus fund is enough is something irresponsible that is not expected from a reputed organisation of ex-bankers.
As bankers we know Present Value, Future Value, Internal Rate of Return, Mortality rate, risk coverage etc. and let us not become a laughing stock before IBA.
Our demand should be based on settlement and eligibility. How the banks are going to do it is their business.
S Kalyanasundaram
mohan p
Aug 1, 2020, 1:32:24 AM8/1/20
to bankpensioner
Yes.I too agree,sir.
views of AIBPARC under this column, while they found used to submit such letters to MOF and IBA etc on updation issue.
Their two versions are incorrect.
1. Pension updation is not provided in Employees Pension Regulations,1995.
Regulatio No.35(1) only pertains to specific category existed at that time and not for future updation
If they had mentioned relevant clause on updation in Pension Settlement,1993 it would have been apt and correct.
2. Surplus amount said to have available as per AIBPARC in Pension fund as of now to meet future updation on pension.
Every year Actuarial valuation is made to build up pension fund of trust and no surplus will be provided by banks more than what is required.
Let Apex organisation do serious home work before submitting such letters to IBA and MOF.
It seems that just submission of letters is enough for them, witho
--
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/c691092f-9d33-41fd-80fd-e882d9a6f634n%40googlegroups.com.
harinarayana sarma nandivada
Aug 1, 2020, 7:39:39 AM8/1/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sir,
With due respect to the observation of several of our friends that Regulation No.35(1) does not provide for updation of pension, I opine that it is always a point of debate. The regulation 35(1) is so amended as to enlarge its scope with 2 words "shall be" in the place of "will be" and also with the addition of "wherever applicable" indicating that pension can be updated even by any administrative decision say from the competent authority wherever felt necessary and thereby applicable. No where it is specifically restricted to a specific ocassion. I also opine let us take the amended provision to our advantage instead of we ourselves getting into controversies.
N.Harinarayana Sarma
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQRseudcW772y653YJbhq_BSNU%2Bq2hh6P6D6ZvBmVBv6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
mamillapalli venkateswarlu
Aug 1, 2020, 7:39:40 AM8/1/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
An amendment to Mr.Kalyanasundaram's mail.
We can mention that pension updation is as per Pension Regulations, which are statutory in nature. "Even assuming, without admitting, that if it is fully relevant to availablity of sufficient Pension Funds , updation cost can be easily met by available pension corpus fund".
This type of wording/ terminology is usually used in court judgements.
M.Venkateswarlu
--
PM
Aug 1, 2020, 10:23:39 AM8/1/20
to bankpensioner
Dear Sir,
It need not be mentioned here that Regulation 35(1) pertains to rates of pension and formula is given as per Appendix-I, for updating basic pension "wherever" applicable.
It need not be mentioned here that Regulation 35(1) pertains to rates of pension and formula is given as per Appendix-I, for updating basic pension "wherever" applicable.
If change of wordings bring Updation of Pension to all pensioners as and when wage revision takes place in banking industry let us welcome and look forward to.
We have example before us,that even without any such clause in Pension Regulation RBI pensioners could secure updation of pension last year.
It all depends,on all organisations' approach on the issue.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
Aug 2, 2020, 12:06:47 AM8/2/20
to bankpensioner
Sorry. I beg to differ with you. We can never say 'updation cost can be easily met by available pension corpus fund'. This is not factual. Hence will be disputed. Then the arguement will switch over to availability of funds and paying capacity. I reiterate that the present balance is made to pay future pension upto the extent required as per present pension formula. If you change the formula, then the corpus has to be provided further. By making this submission of enough funds, unnecessarily we will be trapped by IBA without any escape route.
Regards.
S Kalyanasundaram
JSOMA SHEKARA
Aug 2, 2020, 12:06:48 AM8/2/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Even the constitution is amended several times.
Blaming IBA, DFS etc is nothing but escaping responsibility. DFS has given recognition to UFBU to negotiate retirees issues.If UFBU takes up the Updation issue seriously with IBA and talks fail then we may represent it to DFS.
When UFBU itself is not interested how will the government take interest.
We have to learn a lot from RBI employees and Pensioners. It is amazing how they have achieved so many benefits one by one including updation. When we are struggling to get the existing benefit of recovery of commutation from date of credit, RBI pensioners are miles ahead now demanding reduction of commutation recovery period from 15 years to 10 years.
Sincerity is totally lacking in UFBU towards updation issue.
DFS will definitely approve Updation if forceful demand comes from Unions for updation. IBA is very much convinced that updation is affordable.
Otherwise it would have made cost details public. Since there is no strong demand from Unions IBA managing by telling lies.
To achieve updation
All constituents of UFBU must have a specific goal that of demanding Updation on the lines of RBI updation formula.
UFBU leaders must also simultaneously approach DFS while negotiations are going on as this will change the negative attitude of IBA.
After 22nd July two or three constituents of UFBU have specifically demanded UFBU to resolve the updation issue. In spite of this AIBEA has not even mentioned the Updation issue in their letter to FM demanding an increase in 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/1a7a2291-1f18-494e-8aad-ceec4a6268c8o%40googlegroups.com.
Prasad C N
Aug 2, 2020, 12:08:16 AM8/2/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sir,
We fully agree with your views. It is unfortunate that even those who were negotiating on behalf of employees or officers are also claiming that there is surplus. If so, why there is Special Allowance without Superannuation benefit.
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 on the web visit
---
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
Prasad C N
Aug 2, 2020, 12:08:18 AM8/2/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sir,
Purpose of Pension Regulations is only for payment of pension or implementing provisions of pension regulations. Regulation 35(1) is as under :
Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable,
shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix
I.
If Pension is updated, the formula would be incorporated, thereunder. There is nothing beyond that. Whether, OSR provide for revision of Pay ? Whether Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 provide for updation ? Whether RBI Pension Regulations provide for that ? Please go through these documents and conclude. CCS Rules are attached. RBI Pension Regulations are also attached. Please find out whether there is any provision for updating future pension.
It is reiterated that purpose of Pension Regulations, a subordinate regulation, is for the purpose of implementation of decision of the Banks, etc.
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 bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1a7a2291-1f18-494e-8aad-ceec4a6268c8o%40googlegroups.com.
harinarayana sarma nandivada
Aug 2, 2020, 12:10:58 AM8/2/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sir, It is not about change of words that is discussed here but the change in the sense and the underlying implication which I wanted to convey. If change of words does not bring in any benefit or loss to the intended category, why the change is to be resorted to at all? The existing provisions can be retained as well. Why some of the additions/amendments proposed by Banks were struck down by the Apex Court and on what basis they were struck down? The fact that many of our members on the blog are educated and know the significance, I feel the grammatical part need not be dealt at length. In the present context, replacement of "shall be" with "will be" is of a lot of significance. The addition of the word "wherever applicable" also is meant to be beneficial to the subjects i.e. pensioners. Otherwise, I repeat, there is no necessity at all to bring in either additions or changes in the existing structure. I only wanted to highlight the beneficial part of the interpretation and not otherwise.
Presence or absence of specific provision in the regulations also is not a point of argument here. If the powers that be want to extend any benefit, no provision is needed. What I meant was the existing provision u/R 35(1) with its amendment will facilitate the purpose of legal scrutiny in the court of law when the case is presented based on the amended regulation. duly highlighting the purpose of the amendment. Going a bit further, no where it is mentioned in the regulations that updation of pension is basing on the paying capacity when it is declared a deferred wage, not a bounty being a constitutional obligation of the employer and more so when it is declared by the Apex Court of the Country that wage revision and pension revision are inseparable. This is my understanding of the subject basing on the factual position obtaining now.
N.Harinarayana Sarma
--
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 bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1a7a2291-1f18-494e-8aad-ceec4a6268c8o%40googlegroups.com.
Soumitra Mukherjee
Aug 2, 2020, 12:13:01 AM8/2/20
to bankpensioner
Respected friends,
An organization named like Confederation of Bank Pensioners & Retirees' Organizations (CBPRO) was born to unitedly work in the style of UFBU few years back. Had it achieved early death ? Showing total disharmony even after retirement alike in working days in writing to society through the media will only strengthen the hands of unwilling DFS-IBA-UFBU combine against the Bank Retirees' 25 years old most legitimate Pension Updation Demand. Nowhere in the earth one can find such inhuman brutal attitude like the said combine towards a section of Super Senior and Senior Citizens who had spent their golden years to push National Economy as well as Banking Industry since Nationalization upto current Jan dhan A/c.s onwards... fulfilling each and every financial programmes and plans of different Governments. But to blame whom? When so many of us are ready to sacrifice everything for the same dirty egoistic attitude towards just ornamental chairs and nothing more than that with the unfortunate silence of lakhs of general bank retirees !!! LET ONLY ALMIGHTY GOD SAVE THE SUPER SENIOR AND SENIOR CITIZENS OF INDIAN BANKING INDUSTRY. Hearty Regards to all.
SOUMITRA MUKHERJEE,
CANBANK RETIREE, KOLKATA.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:53 PM PM <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
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/1a7a2291-1f18-494e-8aad-ceec4a6268c8o%40googlegroups.com.
NSS
Aug 2, 2020, 7:39:51 AM8/2/20
to bankpensioner
Friends
The words "wherever applicable" indicates certain specific circumstances/conditions under which the formula is applied. It is not applied always. IBA / Unions and Associations only can clarify the conditions under which updation is done.
Two different formulae are available in the Regulations. First one was applied to update the pension of all pensioners retired during 01/01/1986 to 31/10/1987. Second one was applied to Workmen retired during 01/11/92 to 01/09/1993 and Officers retired during 01/07/1993 to 01/05/1994.
Neither the RBI regulations or the CCS rules provide for updation. Even without a clause in the regulation they got updation. On the contrary IBA had agreed to update pension in consonance with formula adopted by RBI. Despite this agreement we are not able to get updation.
Regards
N.Sankarasubramanian
Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy
Aug 2, 2020, 7:39:52 AM8/2/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
The only option left for retirees issues is to bring pressure on major constituents of UFBU leadership to come out with data of cost of updation.
As 90 days time is left to sign the bipartite settlement, the matter can be settled if there is a will by the majority unions.
PVB Swamy
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEdGNrfR4FGqt_aPAY2UDjnaHqEneLffW3YCRUjLvoQk_E8nkA%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N
Aug 2, 2020, 7:39:52 AM8/2/20
to 'harinarayana sarma nandivada' via bankpensioner
Dear Shri Sharmaji,
Amendment to Pension Regulations, 1995 with regard to Regulation 35(1) is as under :
Before amendment :
(1) In respect of employee who retired between the Ist day of January,1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix - 1.
After amendment :
Basic pension and additional pension. wherever applicable shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I.
Before amendment :
APPENDIX – I
(See Regulation 35)
1. The formula for updating basic pension and additional pension in respect of employees who retired during the period 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987 shall be as under:
After amendment :
Appendix - I
(See regulation 35)
The formula of updating basic pension and additional pension in respect of employees who retired between the Ist day of January 1986 and the 31st day of October 1987 shall be as under :The word 'Shall' was there before and after amendment. There is no material change in the system. Therefore, this has no significance. Then what is the reason for the change. To allow provision for future insertion/amendment and to facilitate future changes, they have moved who retired between the Ist day of January,1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987, from Regulation 35(1) to Appendix I.
The word 'shall' is used only relation to provisions in Appendix I. However, Appendix I as on date is only for those who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987. When it is specifically provided that the 'updation' only for those who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987, without any further amendment of Regulations or provisions in Settlement, there is no material difference between what is stated before and after 31.10.1987. We do not derive any benefit out of such an amendment.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,
Prasad C N
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/1060703011.10678807.1596339044913%40mail.yahoo.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1060703011.10678807.1596339044913%40mail.yahoo.com.
Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy
Aug 5, 2020, 12:15:38 AM8/5/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Very nicely presented the retirees issues and let us pray and hope that all retirees get some financial support if the proposed proposals are accepted.
PVB Swamy
--
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/94571715-e72f-438c-b056-075775ac4404n%40googlegroups.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
Aug 5, 2020, 6:26:48 AM8/5/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
I think both organizations are fooling Pensioners, While AIBRF is a puppet of AIBEA, other organization AIBPARC is puppet of AIBOC. These two organizations had 5 years since signing the Record Note. Both organizations unitedly would have consistently put pressure on UFBU to take up updation issue seriously with IBA. In addition to this these organizations could have met MDs of individual Banks and requested them to submit mandate to IBA to negotiate retirees issues including updation. Govt is not even taking notice of protests and dharnas conducted by some bigger players supported by international organizations. While it is so, it is foolish on the part of AIBRF to believe that it can draw the attention of the government by conducting dharnas.
AIBPARC on the other hand was just copying AIBRF by conducting the same programs as AIBRF was doing. AIBPARC is sponsored byAIBOC. AIBPARC should have insisted AIBOC take up the updation issue seriously with IBA and also take delegation of UFBU leaders to FM on the updation issue.
AIBRF conveniently forgot that during X BPS CHV also said he will not sign BPS unless the updation issue is resolved. Did AIBRF at any time remind CHV about his promise by asking him to implement his promise instead of writing useless letters to IBA?
We have 9 militant unions and two retiree organizations and status is they could not even obtain cost data from IBA.
As the deadline for signing final agreement is fast approaching these organization realizing that securig updation is beyond their capacity now fighting each other to pin failure on others.
But he fact is all 9 unions +two retiree organizations are equally responsible for crushing legitimate demands of retirees.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE2nyrehYgD%3DHXcMDpwVuyXatW57G0MztG2uPJhZALy79MG9Wg%40mail.gmail.com.
natarajan pv
Aug 6, 2020, 12:23:46 AM8/6/20
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Yes
THANKS AND REGARDS,
P.V.NATARAJAN.
9445021712.
It's beyond doubt that they are fooling us.
Atleast trying to fool.
But we have woken up.
THANKS AND REGARDS,
P.V.NATARAJAN.
9445021712.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0OBDGYAsQuLf%2B1ikiTbuhhyYG7um0JEouB8YVRfX3X%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages