Fwd:

[Anantharaman Tg]

Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 21:52
Subject:


https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2022/nov/25/amid-pension-debate-do-not-forget-principles-social-obligations-2522146.html

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

This debate between NPS and OLD pension scheme is not very relevant to us.

But being from JNU this professor's arguments are on similar lines as expected.

"Public sector enterprises, even though they are running on losses, should be protected".

Central Government is already paying pension as per old scheme with good

periodical revision and  DA.  Govt is also contributing 14% to NPS.  Now this professor says

NPS should be reverted. Then loan waivers. Every state is after loan waivers. Then gifts like laptops etc. Then subsidies. This professor says all these expenditures should be borne by the government. But he is not explaining from where revenue will come?

If we chase away industrialists again, the government will have to maintain Railways, Airports, Roads, infrastructure, health care, housing etc. The government today can pass an ordinance taking over all private educational institutions, hospitals, industries etc. Can govt manage it  by giving free services and still run it successfully, without corruption?

A country cannot completely become a socialistic country or a capitalist country. There should be a balance between the two. We need to continue some of the important social obligations and we also need industrialists to create jobs and development.

Unnecessary populist schemes like loan waivers to agriculturists as well as Bog borrowers should stop.

100% socialism failed in Russia and China also has completely changed. The type of socialism recommended by this professor is not practical in the present era.

What this professor says is this. A government should not take up projects beyond its lifetime in other words, should not spend money for future development projects, and should mobilize funds and spend it on present social obligations.

Will it work?

--
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/CAGpzJrCL2B%2BeCkR-b-iVEP5Viiic3vMKmVhfWVPBC%3Ds99H7mdw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Excellent practical approach  Communists/socialists always preach for others.  When they come to power, they adopt exactly opposite policies

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW24%3Dz3rthBYcceExYaaCTK5hwoLFYmjCDA-dUz8LHevFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

Please confine discussions on updation only.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW24%3Dz3rthBYcceExYaaCTK5hwoLFYmjCDA-dUz8LHevFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Why?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALP-JsNYnFWUQx%3D5MrX5Pt535FykV_v_80tjV%2Bn1gjA_dnfp1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Sir,

I am retired in 2001.I have filed a case in MHC. The case is pending.

It is high time that we must expose the bank saying that banks are not implementing the agreed pension settlement  and shameless UNIONS are enjoying when banks are refused to implement the agreed PENSION settlement.

     My idea is we must join in small groups of 5 or 6 like minded people and wear white shirt with the following message printed on it.

Front side of the shirt

RETIRED FROM BANK

PENSION NOT REVISED FOR THE  PAST 30 YEARS 

            AND

Back side of the shirt

BANKS  & UNIONS SAY NO MONEY   ,NO FUNDS TO REVISE PENSION.

By wearing the shirts in small groups 5 or 6 in different areas must go to banks , parks 🚌 bus  stands , railway stations and roam in the streets without any demonstrations.So we have to do this in every state .Join hands irrespective of banners.

Any body interested can further guide and lead us with your ideas.Updation case is due for hearing in supreme in Jan23, it may have some impact

On 17-Nov-2022 6:08 PM, "Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi" <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

TRUTH IS ALWAYS BITER!!!

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:17 AM jagat niwas Shukla
<jagat.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
> Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
>        (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
>                    PRAYAGRAJ
> न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
> कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
>            ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।
>
>
>
> 22ND NOV  STRIKE
> IN CBI CALLED OFF
>
> BUT
>
> 18TH ALL BANKS STRIKE STAYS !
>
> On 15.11.2022, in a handwritten letter addressed to the General Manager, Central Bank of India, Mumbai, the General Secretary of the Union said to withdraw the strike of 22.11.2022. The level of pressure can be measured that the General Secretary of the striking union was not even given a chance to type a formal letter. Write it by hand and give it, so that it is a record.
>
>
> 19 Nov strike was in retaliation for the thrashes and insults meted to striking Union leaders by CBI management and now when everything is cool in the Central Bank of India, then for 19 Nov strike, there is no justification in all banks, but it seems that the bank management and IBA have made up their mind to make the strike of other banks unsuccessful and to show their status to the leaders of the striking unions. The meeting held on 16.11.2022 was attended by the leaders of the striking union and the executives of IBA besides top officials of all the banks, but no any concensus reached.
>
>
> The reasons for the strike which were published in the poster by the striking Union, we have discussed in detail in our earlier messages and it would be a waste of time to repeat the same. The reasons are all baseless and imaginary. For example, Bipartite Settlements / I.D. Act is being flouted, trade union rights and employment are being attacked, victimization is happening etc. The allegations like these are baseless and having noted these very facts, 8 other unions of banks distanced from the strike. It is the ideological bankruptcy of the striking union to bent upon strike on imaginary and baseless issues. They do not have any specific example either at any bank level or at the industry level to prove any of it's allegations.
>
>
> Their most ridiculous demand is the "sanctity of the Bipartite Settlement." Sanctity? Can anyone know who seduced the Bipartite Settlement? Despite the provision of Pension Updation in the Pension Agreement, 1993/Pension Regulations, 1995, it's striking Union which allowed defloration by IBA not to do Pension Updation. It just kept its eyes shut, silent like a wet cat and burying its head in the sand like an ostrich allowing IBA to continue seducing. IBA's saying, there is no fund for pension revision, who has been propagating this fake news? We all know, at the time of pension implementing, under the very updation clause 35/1 which exists in Agreement/ Pension Regulations, 1995 pension was updated for 22 months, from Jan.1986 to Oct.1987, due to fifth BSettlement, then why under same clause the pension updation of the Bank Pensioners has not been happening for last three decades?. Who destroyed the sanctity and seduced Bipartite Settlement? IBA says on affidavit in the Supreme Court that there is no updation clause in the Pension Regulations, 1995, but the striking union is totally silent & conspicuous. It is if not rhetoric to talk about the sanctity of BS, then what? First the leaders should prove their sanctity, then they can play blame game later.
>
> Let STRIKE fail. Strike much more important to shown down these headless chickens.
>
> (J. N. Shukla)
> National Convener
> 17.11.2022
> 9559748834
>
>
>
>

[Ramarao Velagapudi]

11-12-22

you are right sir. The managements of PSU banks and officers' unions are corrupt in morals & ethics and have no hearts.

I am fighting injustice done by SBI for 35 years now, despite Hon'ble High court, Hyderabad & Hon'ble Supreme court's orders. Only these two institutions are in conformity with Constitutional norms. Govt is betraying the workers by not ordering PSU banks to follow the pension agreements and Court orders to the letter.  Fight on Our only hope is the court. If possible, argue your case yourself. I am disappointed and disillusioned with advocates.

regards, 

Ramarao

Hyderabad

--
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/0159343f-5157-498a-bd49-907fb0bcf310%40email.android.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

In our pension regulations there is no clause that pension option will be opted by employees any number of times and there is no clause that PENSION will not be revised at the time of wage revision. The relationship  between SALARY and. PENSION is similar to wife and husband relationship. Thank you

Sivaramakrishnan. 

On 09-Dec-2022 1:46 PM, dayananda kamath <daya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Further if Govt employees pension provisions and RBI employees pension provisions are not applicable what was the need to include those in Bank employees provision. Further in case of RBIs pension updation. Govt delayed its approval for years even though agreed by RBI quoting it may open up a similar demand by bank employees. So dont you think approval for RBI pension updation is deemed approval for Bank employees pension updation also. But the hitch is Unions and IBA are not sincere in their approach for updation.

Further the circulated RTI reply does not have the RTI quiry. Further normally RTI replies are given in a format where the quiry and reply to it is given in a tabular form point wise and not in the present form.

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022, 13:10 Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi, <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: jagat niwas Shukla <jagat.n...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:29 AM
Subject:
To: <appoint...@gov.in>, bank officers <aibo...@gmail.com>,
Vedavyasa Acharya <acharyav...@gmail.com>, <aib...@gmail.com>,
Manohar lal Arora <mlaro...@gmail.com>, satish arora
<skar...@gmail.com>, ALL INDIA BANK OFFICERS Confederation
<aiboc...@gmail.com>, <aibob...@gmail.com>, KUMAR ARVIND
<presiden...@gmail.com>, Nochur R Ayyappan
<nochur....@gmail.com>, Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi
<doctordh...@gmail.com>, <bhagwa...@sansad.nic.in>,
<bhardwaj....@gmail.com>, Pradip Biswas
<pradi...@yahoo.co.in>, Deep Kr. Bajpai - VP, UPBEU
<absa...@gmail.com>, Banwari Lal Maheshwari
<jagdish...@gmail.com>, K R BUNKAR <k.r.bun...@gmail.com>, Lal
Chand - Federal Bank <lalch...@gmail.com>, Office of Tejasvi Surya
<con...@tejasvisurya.in>, <md....@bankofbaroda.com>, <c...@iba.org.in>,
<ncbe...@gmail.com>, <ufbu...@gmail.com>, LakshmanRao Kantamsetti
<contac...@gmail.com>, harish chandra
<harishcha...@gmail.com>, CHAIRMAN SBI <chai...@sbi.co.in>,
Debasish Mukherjee <mumb...@rediffmail.com>, <drjit...@gmail.com>,
<dbc2...@gmail.com>, Danendra Jain <dkjai...@gmail.com>, Faujdar
Dubey <faujda...@gmail.com>, Dau Dayal Varshney
<varsh...@gmail.com>, federal bank employees union aluva
<fbe...@gmail.com>, <sec...@nic.in>, <f...@nic.in>, Kedar Shah -
Farrukhabad <kedar...@gmail.com>, A.K. Kool - Faizabad
<koolar...@gmail.com>, Thomas Franco <ngcf...@gmail.com>, madan
lal Gupta <mlge...@gmail.com>, <gsno...@gmail.com>,
<gsnob...@gmail.com>, Rana Pratap Singh - GS, ABEU (U.P.)
<ranaps...@gmail.com>, yadvinder gupta <sbpa...@yahoo.com>,
Nagabushana Rao Gurram <gnbr...@gmail.com>, <hasmu...@gmail.com>,
harinarayana sarma nandivada <nhns...@aol.com>, Prabhakar Hebbar
<prabs...@gmail.com>, Rakesh Verma - Jt. Secy. UPBEU, Hathras
<abrk...@gmail.com>, Prashant Sharma - Meerut
<ibeum...@gmail.com>, <i...@nic.in>, Madan Ji Upadhyay - UPBEU,
Allahabad <madanup...@yahoo.com>, Nandakumar c.j
<cjn...@gmail.com>, K.K. Tiwari <kktiwa...@rediffmail.com>,
<kdkhe...@gmail.com>, Siddalingappa A K <sid_...@yahoo.co.uk>, K.N.
Kaushik - Lalitpur <k.n.ka...@gmail.com>, lalitajoshi03
<lalita...@gmail.com>, llguptasaurabh <llgupta...@gmail.com>,
<mosfi...@nic.in>, <mrgoc...@yahoo.com>, <m...@ucobank.co.in>,
Sundaram Nagarajan <snagar...@gmail.com>, <nobwc...@gmail.com>,
Sunil Ojha <soj...@gmail.com>, <pkmish...@gov.in>, Y P Singh -
President, AIABECC <yps...@gmail.com>, RS Sharma
<rssha...@gmail.com>, singh raminder <raminder...@gmail.com>,
YVS Rao <yellamr...@gmail.com>, Thani Kachalam
<tkac...@gmail.com>, Vinayak T <vinay...@gmail.com>,
<saran...@gmail.com>, UPENDRA KUMAR <upendr...@gmail.com>,
VISHWANATH NAIK Kedoor <kevi...@gmail.com>, Venugopal
Cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@gmail.com>

फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
       (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
                   PRAYAGRAJ
न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
           ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।

UNDOUBTEDLY,
PENSION UPDATION
CLAUSE EXISTS IN
PENSION REGULATIONS !

COUNTER IT'S DENIAL !!

"Pension was introduced as a funded.... on half years basic."
As regards revision...matter is sub-judice in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

Above message has circulated on social media purported to be a reply
from the PMO in some pension revision representation. It's veracity
could not be established. The gist of purported PMO reply on social
media  states as under:

"Pension was introduced as a funded scheme in Nationalized Banks in
place of the Contributory Provident Fund, on the basis of consensus
arrived at between union's/associations of Bank employees and the
Indian Banks' Association (IBA)....

"Banks' boards framed Bank Employees Regulations in exercise of the
powers under section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and
Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970/80.......

"These Regulations do not have provision for revision of pension.....

"As regards revision of pension...... , the matter is sub-judice in
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."

Some of above informations are fact based, thus undeniable. But, the
narrative, "These Regulations do not have provision for revision of
pension..." is totally fake, hence needs to be rebutted & countered.

The last lines, "the pension revision of Bank employees the matter is
sub-judice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court"  is true, but there is no
stay or restriction to do not settle it out of court. Intention of IBA
is clear from its affidavit in SCI.

The only apprehension is that how the PMO can say: "there is no
provision for revision of pension in these regulations", which is
contrary to the existing position in the Regulations? It can be said
only when the PMO officials haven't read the BEPR, 1995, dated
29.9.1995 or have blindly believed in whatever report came from the
IBA. Undoubtedly, it's IBA statement in Hon'ble Supreme Court that
'there is no provision for updation in the pension scheme.'

This IBA statement is a blatant lie, absolutely baseless, given a look to
Clause 35(1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. This clause very much
exists in the Regulations from day one. Its purposes and intent, both,
 are available. We all understand why it was modified and what does
the modified verson means. For ready reference we give below the
original and modified versons of clause 35 (1) as under:

ORIGINAL
Section 35 sub-regulation (1):

"In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January,
1986, but before 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and
additional pension
will be updated as per the formulae given in appendix -l"

MODIFIED
Regulation 35(1) above was amended in 2003. Amended section 35
sub-regulation (1) now reads as under:

"Basic pension and additional pension wherever applicable shall be
updated as per the formulas given in Appendix-I".

From above, it's clear that had this clause not been in Regulations,
1995 the Pension for periods 1.1.1986 to 31.10..1987 would not have
been revised.

The purpose of this clause was/is based on idea that pay revision
would follow pension revision. In compliance of this idea, on account
of 5th wage Settlement signed on 10.4.1989 and applicable from
1.11.1987, due provision was made in Regulations through the clause in
question to update pension for pre-1987, i.e. from 1.1.1986 to
31.10.1987.

In certain quarters misconception crept in in regard to clause 35(1)
that this clause was only for the specified periods, i.e. from
1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987. Once it was complied for specified period, it
became redundant. To remove this misconception, in 2003, the specified
period "1st day of January, 1986, but before 31st day of October,
1987" was expunged from the clause to make the clause all time
relevant & speaking in regard to it's initial purpose to update
pension following wage settlement.

Firstly, which has been done in the implementation of Clause 35(1) and
secondly, whenever the opportunity arises ahead, the similar should be
done (i.e. the pension was revised from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987 due to
the 5th Pay revision and further whenever there is Pay revision
Agreement, then there should be pension revision), if the purpose of
this clause is not like this, can anyone tell the rationale and
purpose of this clause still being there in the pension Regulations?

The removal of "employees who retired between the 1st day of January,
1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987" from Clause 35 (1)
gives a clear mandate that the clause 35(1) of Pension Regulation,
1995 shall be applicable to all pensioners, irrespective when they
retired. And, the substitution of the words "shall be" for "will be"
further sounds the position that pension is to be compulsorily updated
as and when applicable and due.

Had there been no provision for pension updation with every pay
revision in the existing pension scheme, the said clause 35(1) would
have found no place either in the Regulation, 1995 or  because of the
5th Pay Revision Settlement with effect from 1.11.1987, the pension
for pensioners would have been updated for 1.1 .1986 to 31.10.1987.

IBA has been running the false narrative of non-existence of pension
updation clause for a long time! The unfortunate thing is that the
negotiating unions have been in yes-manship of IBA. We are not able to
understand that in the eyes of IBA there is no clause for pension
revision, so what is the above clause 35(1)? How was the updating of
pensioners of 1.1.1986-31.10.1987 done? If there was no underlying
intention of pension revision with wage revision then why pension
revision happened in the light of 5 pay settlement?

Revision is not possible, because it would require a huge amount of
money, is another narrative that the unions have been propagating
among the bankmen without any basis. IBA has not said a single word in
Hon'ble Supreme Court that money is  the reason for not revising the
pension, which unions have been saying this for years! IBA called the
pension scheme a funded scheme, said further that the government
pension is paid from the budgetary allocation. It also said that bank
pensioners are demanding parity with central pension, which is not
possible as they are not government employees. But, IBA has not once
said that the pension cannot be revised due to the paucity of fund.
This is IBA's calculated & planned position in court, as the excuse of
not having money for legitimate dues does not stand in court.

We appeal to the pensioners/bankmen not to pay heed to such misleading
propaganda and to counter and rebut it. Do not forward unconfirmed
messages either. The matter is in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will
be our endeavor to expose the lies of IBA before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court with facts and make a request to take serious view of lying and
misleading the court treating it as contempt of court, punish the
concerned executive of IBA.

(J. N. Shukla)
National Convener

9.12.2023
9559748834

[bhaskara sarma]

It is our misfortune that we are represented by Communist dominated Unions.So nothing moves in our favour.We see many actors on the stage. Ultimate ly the result is nil.After 2005,the communists have no say in the Government at all.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAK_UXChWpqQDfL5UN9LLjTMDBABFxa1kgs67ZV4wWVEs7hhypA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

Gone are days of real communists who worked for the labour/employees all over the india and the world. They are backed by Russian communism initially and part of them switched to Chinese communism (maoism). In india CPI - communist party of India whose policies are adopted by AIBEA and after it divided vertically to become CPI and CPM, BEFI was formed with "policies" of CPM. Having seen the strength of employees movement in banking industry, then congress PM, Indira Gandhi,  floated INBEF (INBEC) as congress based union in PSBs and NCBE in SBI,  BoB and in some other banks. Similarly NOBW also was formed.

Similarly AICOBOO for officers in banks in SBI and in PSBs, initially, which was reorganised as AIBOC.

Congress floated INBOC and AIBEA floated AIBOA as its officers wing. BEFI, being an opponent of AIBEA, did not firm any officer wing for it but had supported AIBOC and advised its members to join in AIBOC after promotion as officers. Similarly NOBO was also formed.

Thus two major unions AIBEA for employees and AIBOC for officers were subdivided as AIBEA, NCBE, NOBW, INBEF, BEFI for employees and AIBOC, AIBOA, INBOC, NOBO for officers. All these unions are properly registered and are legally entitled bodies for negotiating all service conditions of employees and officers.

Just like IBA an unregistered association of bankers (not a legally existing body as per any indian law), with all banks ( both india based and foreign based) which are registered under companies act initially and become PSBs after acquired by govt in 1970 and 1980, leaving foreign banks and some local banks. Similarly UFBU was formed as an unregistered association covering all above said 9 unions of both employees and officers (which are all registered under indian societies act) after 5th BPS. 

Now, both the unregistered associations, IBA and UFBU are said to decide on the fate of the serving and retired employees / officers.

It is a great wonder how these unions which were all having fight with each others having different ideologies have come under one single umbrella UFBU.

After formation of UFBU, the principle of communism with mutual welfare interests started diminishing and all union leaders have become capitalists having money minded with subs and hefty levy after each BPS.

So, no union is now a communist union because their own masters CPI, congress, CPM etc have alredy started with following capitalistic activities as per their own national leaders.

Please don't call the present union leaders as communists, atleast hereafter, since they are not worthy enough to be called as caretakers of both employees and officers.

Bala

During 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2BUBNxhappOiDYTyuT0MbYhMPgUOwrFV89k7KMZQWF%2BO2zG2KA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

We are now leading a subsidised in the world of increasing tech savy word compromising quality life on many factors and levels at various stages.

We have just learned to compromise on many things during the four decades of our official life and that is being passed on to our personal life also.

Balu

[bhaskara sarma]

Now IBA and UFBU have reached an understanding to deny any improvement in Pension to the past Retirees.

They are only pretending as if doing something but practically doing nothing.

Even the smallest improvements are denied with an inhuman attitude.

May God only bless them with Better Thought Process.

 With regards,

Yours faithfully,

P Bhaskara Sarma.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tp%2Bna_bEULJNNExUHivQQFm2ngxaFUAxWq_2O6MZXWqEoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Our PENSION regulation is similar to RBI pension means our pension should be revised if RBI pension is revised. Our leaders say there is no funds to revise but they didnt say there is no updation clause. IBA says that there is no UPDATION clause in the settlement. It means funds are available to pay PENSION Banks joined their HANDS with IBA and UFBU and cheating their own RETIRED employees. We are ashamed to say that we are retired from bank. 

फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
       (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
                   PRAYAGRAJ
न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
           ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।

DANGEROUS SCENARIO

"चलती चाकी देखकर दिया कबीरा रोय,
दो पाटों के बीच में साबुत बचा न कोय।"

NO ONE IS SAFE BETWEEN
WORKING & RETIREE UNIONS

The skeletons of the pensioners buried in the cemetery and the
patriarch pensioners roaming the earth want answers to unanswered
questions!

The coalition of Unions and IBA has been swallowing the right of
pension revision of veteran bank pensioners for the last 3 decades!!

How long will pensioner unions, on the basis of pensioners' donations,
continue touring the country in the name of meeting,  spending
lavishly on eating, drinking, go-shipping etc.?

WHO MADE THE PENSION POLICY,
Unions-IBA or the Government?

SIMPLE ANSWER IS UNIONS-IBA.
Then counter question is who will revise it?

WHAT WAS THE BASIS of Pension Policy, we mean from where it's
foundation stones were procured? Were they from RBI Pension Scheme OR
from Central Civil Services Rules OR  from both?

Record says, it's drawn from both. If it's corner stones are from RBI
Pension Scheme & CCSR, then why not the pension has been revised?
Pension revision is in vogue in RBI & Central Government?

If in CCSR/ RBI Pension Rules have been changes, why not similar
corresponding changes have been made in Bank Pension from time to
time?

Is pension exgratia, subsidy, lump-sum payment or an integral part of
salary? Should the pension revision be not accompanied with salary
Revision?

WHAT'S CLAUSE 35(1)
in Pension Regulations,1995?

WHAT WAS/IS THE PURPOSE
of Clause 35 (1)?

WHAT WAS/IS UNDERLYING
spirit of Clause 35 (1)?

IS THIS CLAUSE IN FORCE TODAY?
If yes, what's it's implications & intent? Explain it's utility & uses.

WHETHER PENSION REVISION FOR
1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987 was done due to 5th Wage Revision Settlement
dated 10.4.1989 which was applicable w.e.f. 1.11.1987? Didn't it prove
that following 5th Wage Revision, pension was also revised? Was this
just a coincidence or was there an underlying idea of pension revision
with every pay revision, which has been in vogue in the Central
Pension Rules?

Whether Clause 35(1) was applicable only for one time, only for the
specified period from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987? And, if so, what was the
basis of this decision? Why such special treatment for retirees of
between 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987?

Why didn't the same thing happen with subsequent settlements after the
5th Wage settlement, as had happened with the 5th wage settlement,
i.e. why the pension revision was not done following wage revision
settlements of 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 & 2017?

In 2003, clause 35(1) was amended to delete the words "in relation to
employees retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the
31st day of October, 1987." What was the purpose of this deletion?
What was it done for?

If clause 35(1) was not any way related or relevant to pension
revision, why was it not repealed, instead of being amended and
retained in 2003?

Is this clause 35(1) superfluous & redundant? If it has no inherent
any purpose, why does it continue in Regulations, 1995?


'THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PENSION UPDATION IN THE PENSION
REGULATIONS,1995', WE HAVE A QUESTION TO THE PROPAGANDISTS OF THIS
CONCEPT! HOW WAS THE PENSION OF FAMILY PENSIONERS GETTING 15%/20%
REVISED TO 30%, WHEN THERE WAS/IS NO PROVISION FOR UPDATION?
(To be Concluded)

( J. N. Shukla)
National Convener
13.12.2022
9559748834

On Fri, Dec 9, 2022, 9:29 AM jagat niwas Shukla

<jagat.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्टस्
> Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists
>        (AN ASSOCIATE OF AIBRWA)
>                    PRAYAGRAJ
> न त्वहं कामये राज्यं  न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
> कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्रणिनामार्तिनाशनम्॥
>            ।। धन्य: अस्मि भारत्वेन ।।
>
>

> UNDOUBTEDLY,
> PENSION UPDATION
> CLAUSE EXISTS IN
> PENSION REGULATIONS !
>
> COUNTER IT'S DENIAL !!
>
> "Pension was introduced as a funded.... on half years basic."
> As regards revision...matter is sub-judice in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
>
> Above message has circulated on social media purported to be a reply from the PMO in some pension revision representation. It's veracity could not be established. The gist of purported PMO reply on social media  states as under:
>
> "Pension was introduced as a funded scheme in Nationalized Banks in place of the Contributory Provident Fund, on the basis of consensus arrived at between union's/associations of Bank employees and the Indian Banks' Association (IBA)....
>
> "Banks' boards framed Bank Employees Regulations in exercise of the powers under section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,1970/80.......
>
> "These Regulations do not have provision for revision of pension.....
>
> "As regards revision of pension...... , the matter is sub-judice in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India."
>
> Some of above informations are fact based, thus undeniable. But, the narrative, "These Regulations do not have provision for revision of pension..." is totally fake, hence needs to be rebutted & countered.
>
> The last lines, "the pension revision of Bank employees the matter is sub-judice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court"  is true, but there is no stay or restriction to do not settle it out of court. Intention of IBA is clear from its affidavit in SCI.
>

> The only apprehension is that how the PMO can say: "there is no provision for revision of pension in these regulations", which is contrary to the existing position in the Regulations? It can be said only when the PMO officials haven't read the BEPR, 1995, dated 29.9.1995 or have blindly believed in whatever report came from the IBA. Undoubtedly, it's IBA statement in Hon'ble Supreme Court that 'there is no provision for updation in the pension scheme.'

>
> This IBA statement is a blatant lie, absolutely baseless, given a look to
> Clause 35(1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. This clause very much exists in the Regulations from day one. Its purposes and intent, both,  are available. We all understand why it was modified and what does the modified verson means. For ready reference we give below the original and modified versons of clause 35 (1) as under:
>
> ORIGINAL
> Section 35 sub-regulation (1):
>
> "In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986, but before 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension
> will be updated as per the formulae given in appendix -l"
>
> MODIFIED
> Regulation 35(1) above was amended in 2003. Amended section 35 sub-regulation (1) now reads as under:
>
> "Basic pension and additional pension wherever applicable shall be updated as per the formulas given in Appendix-I".
>
> From above, it's clear that had this clause not been in Regulations, 1995 the Pension for periods 1.1.1986 to 31.10..1987 would not have been revised.
>
> The purpose of this clause was/is based on idea that pay revision would follow pension revision. In compliance of this idea, on account of 5th wage Settlement signed on 10.4.1989 and applicable from 1.11.1987, due provision was made in Regulations through the clause in question to update pension for pre-1987, i.e. from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987.
>
> In certain quarters misconception crept in in regard to clause 35(1) that this clause was only for the specified periods, i.e. from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987. Once it was complied for specified period, it became redundant. To remove this misconception, in 2003, the specified period "1st day of January, 1986, but before 31st day of October, 1987" was expunged from the clause to make the clause all time relevant & speaking in regard to it's initial purpose to update pension following wage settlement.
>
> Firstly, which has been done in the implementation of Clause 35(1) and secondly, whenever the opportunity arises ahead, the similar should be done (i.e. the pension was revised from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987 due to the 5th Pay revision and further whenever there is Pay revision Agreement, then there should be pension revision), if the purpose of this clause is not like this, can anyone tell the rationale and purpose of this clause still being there in the pension Regulations?
>
> The removal of "employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987" from Clause 35 (1) gives a clear mandate that the clause 35(1) of Pension Regulation, 1995 shall be applicable to all pensioners, irrespective when they retired. And, the substitution of the words "shall be" for "will be" further sounds the position that pension is to be compulsorily updated as and when applicable and due.
>
> Had there been no provision for pension updation with every pay revision in the existing pension scheme, the said clause 35(1) would have found no place either in the Regulation, 1995 or  because of the 5th Pay Revision Settlement with effect from 1.11.1987, the pension for pensioners would have been updated for 1.1 .1986 to 31.10.1987.
>
> IBA has been running the false narrative of non-existence of pension updation clause for a long time! The unfortunate thing is that the negotiating unions have been in yes-manship of IBA. We are not able to understand that in the eyes of IBA there is no clause for pension revision, so what is the above clause 35(1)? How was the updating of pensioners of 1.1.1986-31.10.1987 done? If there was no underlying intention of pension revision with wage revision then why pension revision happened in the light of 5 pay settlement?
>
> Revision is not possible, because it would require a huge amount of money, is another narrative that the unions have been propagating among the bankmen without any basis. IBA has not said a single word in Hon'ble Supreme Court that money is  the reason for not revising the pension, which unions have been saying this for years! IBA called the pension scheme a funded scheme, said further that the government pension is paid from the budgetary allocation. It also said that bank pensioners are demanding parity with central pension, which is not possible as they are not government employees. But, IBA has not once said that the pension cannot be revised due to the paucity of fund. This is IBA's calculated & planned position in court, as the excuse of not having money for legitimate dues does not stand in court.
>
> We appeal to the pensioners/bankmen not to pay heed to such misleading propaganda and to counter and rebut it. Do not forward unconfirmed messages either. The matter is in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It will be our endeavor to expose the lies of IBA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with facts and make a request to take serious view of lying and misleading the court treating it as contempt of court, punish the concerned executive of IBA.
>

> (J. N. Shukla)
> National Convener

> 9.12.2023
> 9559748834
>
>

[Ramarao Velagapudi]

sir, your views are right on dot.

The lesser we talk of present union leadership, the better.  They are irresponsible. My circle Association GS refused give me a copy of SBI Employees' Pension Rules! can anything be more idiotic? I filed a suit against SBI and got my pension arrears 25 years after my leaving SBI.

My SBI Officers' Association has been bad since 1979, on account of Pillai committee acceptance. I told off SBI Officers' Federation President, Mr. Kotaiah, what was the logic in  our batch of Gr 1 officers being demoted to JMG? He had no answer, but he threatened to get us transferred to far off places!. That's  how much they care for our welfare.

Ramarao,

SBI Pensioner,

Hyderabad,

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpJS%2BVwijP9Wv8zW5X5ek7RWfwXH%3DXN%2Bo54kkvS2_oD8zQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs. RBI pension was introduced in 1990 and revised in 2019 almost 30 years.   Ours also be updated before thirty years.   Further had no updates takes place in RBI we cannot ask for revision please clarify?  

NiranJan

--
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/f7caf1e1-c17b-4405-9af4-88bbc9e21d24%40email.android.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Please remember 'similar' does not mean same.  There are several benefits which are available in RBI Pension Regulations are not available in our Pension Regulations.  Unfortunately, we are not bothered.

'No funds' does not mean there is no funds in Pension Fund.  Funds in Pension Fund should be enough to pay Pension in terms of existing regulations.  Any additional payment requires additional provisioning.  Banks make additional provisions with every Bipartite Settlement and also after any increase in Pension.  Even if Dearness Relief increase beyond expectations, Provisions need to be made for additional increase.  In any case, it is prudent not to link balance in Pension Fund to Pension Revision.  If it is done, there cannot be any Pension Revision, because we cannot prove surplus.

Pension Revision is not a legal obligation.  It is only a moral obligation.  Even the Central Government/RBI Pension Rules/Regulations also do not provide for periodical Pension Revision.  Therefore, we need to depend and impress upon everyone who matters.  Unless, all of them agree to revise our Pension, Pension Revision will not take place.  When, all of them are indicating their willingness to revise our Pension, we need to have some patience.  The speed is not dependent on our need.  By abusing and castigating all of them out of frustration cannot expedite Pension Revision.  We need to add to support.  We cannot afford to subtract.

RBI Pension Revision has happened in 2019.  It is three years since Pension is revised in RBI.  Whatever may be the basis for our claim, eventhough it is moral obligation, it is strengthened only in 2019.  All of us are Senior Citizens and responsible.  We need to tell and make our fellow Pensioners to understand the situation.  One cannot consider the time of their retirement,  but we can count only from when we have moral right to get our Pension Revised.  In any case, there was no forceful claim till 2010 on account of large number of Employees opting for PF.   All of us should also understand that the abilities of Unions/Associations are not the same which was.  Various factors including technology and attitude of their members have changed.  If they have that kind of ability, there would not have been Special Allowance. 

Humbly request all Seniors.  Please stop blaming everyone else.  All of them are morally bound to revise our pension. Therefore, we are dependent on them.  All of them are indicating their willingness to revise.  Do not believe those who claim based on conjunctures or ignorance of law.  Prepare for a long wait.  If revision happens early, we are happy.  If it does not happen early, we are not unhappy.  It is better to live happily, then unhappily.  Living happily is more important than 'Pension Revision'. It does not mean that Pension is not going to be revised.  Pension would be revised.   But, the time and speed depend on various factors, most of which are not in our hands or in the hands of IBA/UFBU.   Whether all of us keep quite, after one revision ?  The same situation repeats, eternally.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank you Prasad Sir for your advice.

It is a bitter truth that Bank pensioners have no options but to wait for UFBU to take up issue with IBA whether it is next month or next 10 years.

But in RBI, management was always in favour of Updation and introduced it once. But it was the UPA government which put brakes . Since then Governors were taking up the issue with the govt

regularly. But Consistent struggle by employees Unions and retirees jointly and simultaneously approaching courts put pressure on the Government and accepted their demand. We should not forget the fact that since 1990 RBI pensioners got 100% DA and other important benefits like full pension after 20 years of service etc and pension option three times. So during those 30 years they continuously achieved benefits one by one. Next nabard pensioners also got updation. Defense pensioners also got OROP. Have we completely failed to take advantage of this positive situation and living in negativism about our updation as ever. In PSU Banks  IBA snatched 5 years benefit, 50% DA from DOR, Pension option to CRS, denying 100% DA to pre 2002 retirees and  denying pension benefits on special allowance. Picture is completely different in PSU Banks. In RBI management and Unions adopted a positive approach but in PSU  Banks  it is a negative approach.

What I am saying is in the next meeting IBA and UFBU can obtain updation cost details from all Banks, analyze it and find out if it is viable and what are pros and cons.If it is not possible declare that it is not possible and close the case. There is no need to wait for 30 years to complete this exercise.

This will give big relief to pre 2002 pensioners  for whom since 2001 it is nothing but continuous torture as 5 years benefit and 50% Basic pension from DOR was denied, later commutation was deducted in one go, interest was not paid on 5 years benefit though paid  with 10 years delay, and 100% DA was rejected.

I apologize if I have hurt others feelings by saying this.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1129227535.505491.1671173070648%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Srirama Murti]

NOW we are to know that Shri C N Prasad vide his letter of 16 th December 2022 made the reality

position as to the Pension Revision. We bank pensioners have NOW understood 

it is distant dream as no speed in the words of Prasad . However we finally agree to

this reality as to so many hurdles are in securing Pension Revision.

 

We bank pensioners better leave the subject in the hands of THE ALMIGHTY and thus be in 

Self-restraing mode..

With Best Regards to All.

S.S.R.Murthy ex-canbank,Hyderabad

(Singampalli Sri Rama Murthy)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1129227535.505491.1671173070648%40mail.yahoo.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

It seems that banks are run by UNIONS. The banks are awaiting for permission from UNIONS to revise pension. How powerful our unions are. The banks are dancing according to the tunes of UNIONS. 

CHENNAI MEET ENDS

The question of time adjustment of 30 minutes in case of 5 Day Banking
was settled among UFBU at 50:50 ratio. Banks will open 15 minutes
earlier in the morning and close after 15 minutes in the evening.
Obviously, customer service times will increase further adding to the
back office work, which is already back breaking. This thing could
have been decided 41 days ago, in the meeting on 4.11.2022, but it is
the policy of the unions to pass the time & delay.

In the case of pension revision, the things were around same old
rhetoric. Banks will study the cost of 6th, 7th, 8th settlement and
then the matter will looked into. Lungiwala has already said that
pension revision is not a mango hanging on a tree, which can be
brought down by stoning.

The point is clear, except one, all the unions are in a helpless
position.Talks are still circling around the new road map for pension
revision, completely bypassing RBI's pension revision policy on the
advice of a union, which is advising IBA through the back door. The
basis of bank pension is RBI pension, shying away from which has
inherent vested implication. Experts believe that this inherent vested
implication is completely in favor of IBA and if the bankmen keep
silence then the pension revision is sure to meet devastation.

IBA is fully aware that on issues constituents of UFBU are never
united. They have their arrogance greater than the issues of Bank
employees. 41 days ago on 4th November, 2022 they met with their
divergent views on issues. Officers' Union's set their agenda that
first to settle two residual issues, 5 Day Banking & Pension Revision,
agreed to be discussed and settled before CLC and then start talks on
new COD. Also they asked to adjust 30 minutes in evening hours in case
of 5 Day Banking. Workmen Unions have no such agenda as to first
settle two residual issues. Also, they suggested to adjust 30 minutes
by advancing morning hours.

In our view, the employees unions have become mentally bankrupt. They
have lost their vision and existence. They do not want the two long
pending issues to be resolved first. They want to drag these issues
into the talks of the next charter of demands and in the end leave
them as they have been doing so far. They are clearly following the
strategy of IBA.

Bank workers know that, despite the evening closing time, the
employees and officers are bound to sit till late in the evening. This
is happening because the customer service hours have been extended
impractically. Time is very short for back office. Moreover, due to
dwindling staff strength, the increased work load is being passed on
to the existing staff.

In such a situation, the suggestion of the Officers Unions to adjust
the extended working hours of 30 minutes in the evening, keeping the
customer service time the same, was reasonable, but the employee
unions joined the hand of the IBA to adjust the extended working hours
of 30 minutes by increasing the customer hours in the morning. This
will increase the customer service time by 30 minutes.

The situation is that due to the increase in the customer service
time, the bank workers are forced to sit till late in the evening. In
the present scenario, keeping the customer service hours the same, it
is rational to have an adjustment of 30 minutes in the evening. It is
the effort of IBA and Workmen's Union to put more work load on the
employees/ officers by increasing the customer service time.

(J. N. Shukla)
National Convener

16.12.2022

[Ramarao Velagapudi]

Unions are NOT so powerful that banks should seek their consent for pension updation. It's all contrived and all, including DFS & IBA are in cahoots, each getting their share of spoils at our cost. 

Ramarao

--
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/c292287e-c26d-4785-add1-ebc41751a61c%40email.android.com.

[Ramarao Velagapudi]

[parthasarathy ramanujam]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Doraiswami R <dorais...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2022, 23:45
Subject:
To: <ravinam...@gmail.com>, <balu...@gmail.com>, tr shastri <trsh...@gmail.com>, srimoolanathan iyer <srimool...@gmail.com>, <jugalkisho...@gmail.com>, Prem Kumar Malhothra <premkuma...@gmail.com>, Raj Kumar Verma <rkv...@gmail.com>, parthasarathy ramanujam <rpart...@gmail.com>, Srinivasan Gopalan <gsriniv...@gmail.com>

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

From: singh raminder <raminder...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Dec 19, 2022, 22:32

Subject: Ongoing Special Leave Petition number SLP(C) No.5561/2016, filed by Late Sh M C Singla

To: <suprem...@nic.in>
Cc: <con...@mygov.nic.in>, <nsith...@gmail.com>, All India Bank Pensioners' &' Retirees' Confederation <aib...@gmail.com>, <ufbu...@gmail.com>, <sec...@nic.in>, Indian Banks Association <c...@iba.org.in>, <h...@iba.org.in>, <appoint...@nic.in>, <appoint...@gov.in>, AIBRF <sharb...@rediffmail.com>, AIBRWA 2018 <AIBRW...@gmail.com>, RS Sharma <rssha...@gmail.com>, G.V.MANIMARAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, AINBOF <ain...@gmail.com>, <soumyada...@gmail.com>, <patkip...@gmail.com>, V K CHOHDDA <vkcho...@gmail.com>, boi para <boipar...@gmail.com>, Ravi Goel <ravigo...@yahoo.co.in>, daya ram gautam <gautamd...@gmail.com>, <devulapa...@gmail.com>

To

The Chief Justice Of India

Your Honour

Kindly refer trailing mail

In continuation to the trailing mail it's further submitted that in n the matter of CA 5525/2012 & a host of tagged cases, BOB & Ors. Vs G Palani & a host of tagged cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already dealt with Pension Regulation 35 (1) in its analysis and finally upheld the Orders passed by the Bangalore High Court & Chennai High Court.

Your Honour it's further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court  has already set aside the Orders passed by the Delhi High Court and upheld the legality and legitimacy of the case for Pension Updation. 

Your Honour kindly refer to para 34 of the Orders passed on 13/2/2018.

The issue of Pension Updation for Retired employees of Public Sector Banks who are Pensioners has come to a finality by the orders of the Supreme Court passed on 13/2/2018, the pending SLP (C) 5561/2016 filed by Late M C Singla vs PNB is hit by "Per Incuriam".

SLP (C) 5561/2016 is bound by the Orders passed on 13/2/2018 in BOB & ors Vs G Palani & a host of tagged cases.

The ongoing delay and extending the date on the request of IBA is causative to umpteen sufferings faced by the fraternity of the retired employees of Public Sector Banks.

You are once again requested to dispose off the SLP(C) no. 5561/2016 at the earliest.

Thanks

Yours sincerely

RAMINDER SINGH 

Chief Manager Retired

BANK OF INDIA

JANPATH BRANCH

New Delhi

EMP ID 114591

NOTE :

Mr. Raminder Singh has fully utilised the inputs provided in my earlier email.

Let us believe that the SLP 5561/2016 will be disposed off based on the dictum of 'Per Incuriam' in the hearing scheduled to be held on 2/1/2023.

[er iyer]

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
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/CAJPLbQ0n9q374yhEoivSNOWL_LNiNAYL%2BPtvMT1GYSK%2BAsviCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

First of all, writing letters to the CJI on pending cases is not permitted and not advisable. Further, is there any evidence that IBA is delaying hearing? Concerned advocates of petitioners have to request for early hearing in the open court hall. Such accusations without evidence may lead to legal consequences.

We bank pensioners have no moral right to accuse the judiciary as  in every settlement we are taking 36-40 months to complete negotiations just for deciding  DA level for merging with Basic and percentage increase in Basic which can be completed in 3 months in this digital era.

[Manickam Ravindran]

I think we have reached a stage where we have to obtain an injunction against them in meddling in retirees issues without a mandate from retiree 

 SBC KarunakaranWorking President AIBPARC writes on the ufbu proposal for phased updation of Pension for Bank retirees;

Quote

Let us understand correctly the suggestion of UFBU to introduce pension updation in a phased manner. To me it is a fraud, plain and simple. I oppose dividing pensioners based on retirement dates or otherwise. Also this is legally untenable and benefit wise inconsequential. 

I am not harsh or hyperbolic. I am just telling the plain truth when I say phased updation is a fraud. 

Now if one has to update pension of those who retired before 1/11/2002 upto which wage revision their basic pension will be updated? It will be updated only upto 8th Bipartite wage revision that was effective from 1/11/2012. It cannot be updated beyond without updating the pension of respective subsequent retirees. Can there be updation of pension upto 11th Bipartite wage settlement of the retirees belonging to 7th Bipartite settlement and earlier while the basic pension of 8th, 9th and 10th Bipartite retirees is not updated to 11th Bipartite wage level? No, it is not possible. So after all these years of waiting, only a section would get updation, that too only upto 8th Bipartite settlement. Hence the increase after all these years will be pittance - UFBU suggests crumbs be thrown at a section of retirees while the other section can wait salivating for their crumbs. Can there be anything more insulting? The retirees on superannuation belonging to 7th Bipartite and earlier are presently aged between 80 years and 97 years and life expectancy as per actuaries is 82 - This means actuarially speaking there are practically no beneficiaries ( barring a small number of Voluntary retirees) to enjoy even this pittance for more than a year or so? This humiliating proposal is Tom tommed as demonstration of serious concern of UFBU? We have to suffer witnessing such sell-out solutions by a trade Union collective called UFBU. 

For heaven’s sake let UFBU behave honestly and act like a trade Union than a sales agent selling the package of IBA. Do not suggest to us to cut our feet to the size of the shoes presented by IBA. 

Let us reject phased updation. 

SBCKarunakaran

Unquote

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Those who are satisfied can accept. Others can reject 

--

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/CANsELfBOBZKN98i7%3D4ppqgrVxLDqCTSS5yUAK1JVuQc-KQH4%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

Do you think that injunction is available on asking?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa9Ery%3DoFzv8A1u5D6-jFk%3DZPyY-d0sg3zbx7Pt38FY5%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subramani D]

🙏

Sir I agree with you: let the message be spread. 

Subramani Dhandayudhapani

On Thu, 29 Dec, 2022, 9:52 am Sridhar Mandyam, <mandy...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEVYxa9Ery%3DoFzv8A1u5D6-jFk%3DZPyY-d0sg3zbx7Pt38FY5%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Sir so far CHV was calculating actuaries but no one was able to get the actuaries. So CHV decided to implement pension updation in phased manner I. e in three phases. First phase upto 2002 retirees. If all pensioners in first phase die then he will introduce 2nd phase I. e upto 2012 retirees and if all retirees in 2nd phase die then pension will be revised to all in 3rd phase. Very 👍😁😁 good idea. Long live our leaders. Government must honour our leaders  because they're saving the banks by shaving the retirees. 

On 28-Dec-2022 12:48 PM, "Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi" <doctordh...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril <ceey...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 8:40 PM
Subject:
To: Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi <doctordh...@gmail.com>, <do...@gmail.com>


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QzOd_hZYv01_AuZ5M4WyEVusd3E4UxJd/view?usp=sharing

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

I agree with you. 

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Our Pension regulations do not provide any grounds for claiming updation. While courts freely apply nakara case verdict to Government pensioners it is not made applicable to Bank pensioners as Banks argue  they are commercial organizations and pension is being paid out of profits unlike government pensioners for whom pension is paid out of budgetary allocations.

Mr.C.N.venugopalan is trying all available methods like approaching the judiciary, writing to DFS, PMO, etc. But so far he is getting negative verdict from courts and stereo typed negative replies from all other authorities. Now he is frustrated andresorting to directly abusing IBA by writing the most abusive letter, to the Chairman of IBA himself.

--
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/888721ac-ecad-49be-82a8-31a58602d0ef%40email.android.com.

[mohan p]

Dear friends,

Still I can't understand what sort of pleasure we are deriving out of abusing personally the heads of IBA /officials of banks /leaders of serving employees/retirees  unions !

Will it resolve retirees long pending issues?

Will it any way help retirees, to speed up the process?

No doubt the answer is 'No.'

We may have reasons to agree or dusagree.Right.Can't we address letters in a polite way if we have valid points?

We are all considered as experienced /retired bank employees and if any one think that in the name of resolution of our genuine issues, we can use  abusive language to address people at helm of affairs!Really it is a sorry state of our mind!

Certainly such steps may only create damages to sincere and serious efforts taken by retirees and their organisisations in right spirit!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1MA6weeQruvJYoOhLiw4WVzt4c5CzY0rO4xE%3DqoypUcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lingan Ramalingam]

Mohan sir,you are correct,but people aggregating the situation.In my opinion ony ufbu alone can do .

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQb2Yzcg%3Dq-%3DQ0Q%3DznMG6oB5AuWd339xwAJOfkSLkYnQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs.  Why we retiree officers not questioning AIBOC ?? CHV is not concerned about officers

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQb2Yzcg%3Dq-%3DQ0Q%3DznMG6oB5AuWd339xwAJOfkSLkYnQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Whether the pension regulations contain updation clause now or not? 

The updation clause35 C ?was Originally  related 1986_ 87 retirees ? It is said it was amended  to delete the period 1986-87. 

So the clause 35 c is live now?if so

What is the purpose of retaining this updation clause? Is it just ornamental? 

Please clarify and enlighten

Once the clause is alive, it is to be applied periodically. The question of availability of funds has no relevance. Let banks provide funds  for any shortfall,and show red figure.Are they not accustomed to show red after providing provisions for NPA. You may say statutory as per RBI guidelines. Let there be such guidelines  for pension updation when there is specific clause . 

If it is established  by SC the updation clause is relevant and to be implemented periodically ,through negotiations, then we win.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQb2Yzcg%3Dq-%3DQ0Q%3DznMG6oB5AuWd339xwAJOfkSLkYnQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs,

Unnecessarily why we depending on CHV??  We should depend on AIBOC for solutions.  

Niranjan

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Shri.P.Mohan.

All retirees and pensioners are a group of homogeneous very senior and matured and also they have not only built the strong unions and contributed to the mighty growth of banking sector both in private and public sector. 

As you are well aware that the introduction of pension schemes to retirees is to take care of the needs and to lead dignified life after retirement. 

What is happening since 1993 is part of well planned and designed strategy of all stakeholders to ensure that the senior and super senior retirees are made tolive with pittance of pension which it cannot take care of their minimum basis needs ofdaily life. 

Apart from that the health care of retirees is neglected and the cost of huge premium to be paid by retirees is totally unacceptable and not affordable. 

Do you think that the stakeholders are not aware of the needs of retirees who once were king makers of present leadership?

Yes the leadership is not transparent and have no clear goals of achieving the only two issues ie pension updation and affordable health insurance. 

The veteran retirees are aggrieved and real sufferers. 

You are also very well aware that several retirees have left this world,expecting pension updation and affordable health insurance. 

Is it not the responsibility of the stakeholders to set right the things and  achieve 2 demands? 

Ultimate results are the confidence of senior veterans in the stakeholders who are expected to achieve two demands have faded,years after years and settlements after settlements. 

Nothing is impossible in this world to achieve if there is WILL there is WAY.

The stakeholders are best judges to introspect and avoid controversy and,dedicate themselves to serve both retirees and serving members. 

With regards and thanks. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQb2Yzcg%3Dq-%3DQ0Q%3DznMG6oB5AuWd339xwAJOfkSLkYnQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

What else a desperate person who is exploited, will do in his last days of life?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEqzYmCQTmqd4yXEFqqhpHBqVb8%2BDVyAsYGHcBertVm4YD9U%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

While I was cleaning my house I found the following books articles relating to our pension scheme and I wish to share the same. 

[Suryakumaran Nair]

During the last 75 years; it was the  vision of  AIBEA which always stood with the work force of the Banks and lead them properly and wisely to the maximum possible extent under the respective  prevailing situations then and there.

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 9:34 AM Mani B <mani...@gmail.com> wrote:

While I was cleaning my house I found the following books articles relating to our pension scheme and I wish to share the same. 

--

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/CAJR4tpJHPvvoteFM_HAmwoUU0ntjx%3Dj1fOMi2iitu3Nu23La1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hans Raj Manuja]

Dear Mr Niranjan , be it CHV or AIBOC , they are birds of the same feather . 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEE8VDOVgjMijOcpU0ui0MeATVV02UeRy9%2BVVx_bJC-JQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mohan V.R]

Dear Sir, 

Hope you are following circulars from all UFBU and retirees organizations. 

AIBPRAC in their circular 42 has stated that IBA wrote to AIBOC general secretary that PSU banks pension scheme is based on RBI pension and more than that suggested by AIBOC cannot be granted. 

Unfortunately till now AIBOC has not brought that letter to public domain and also never opened their view point. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEE8VDOVgjMijOcpU0ui0MeATVV02UeRy9%2BVVx_bJC-JQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[thomas vaittadan]

Living and dreaming in fools paradise to say the least

Thomas Vaittadan 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAORfHTH%3DzhJZ8Pd84tF%3DP2FLN%3D47QaAy%2Bf%3Dx13xcC-jqPVjQ_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs,

Anyone is having AIBOC circulars/communcations - please share.

Niranjan

On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 9:34 AM Mani B <mani...@gmail.com> wrote:

While I was cleaning my house I found the following books articles relating to our pension scheme and I wish to share the same. 

--

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Then Shri Venkatachalam was not there , so there was no problem, now the unions are the owners of the bank. They say there is no funds to revise pension but banks never said anything about pension funds. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAORfHTH%3DzhJZ8Pd84tF%3DP2FLN%3D47QaAy%2Bf%3Dx13xcC-jqPVjQ_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAK9Hp6fkH%3DXxoC90tUBB5LLOq%3DnaCFM1kKRy36m6%2BLFWwsHhAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mohan V.R]

Sir,

I am attaching their cir 42

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHy-79EsNWCL_yr5VfjQNMs%2B7RuK1PTi8%2BanJgtEOy-rw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

It is your ATTITUDE not your APTITUDE  which determines your ALTITUDE in life.

Mohan.V.R.
Flat -B, Plot 13, Vaigai Street, Palaniappa Nagar,
Valasaravakkam,  CHENNAI 600087
MOB No. 09444625963

[kds nair]

AIBOC is defunct.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/01d7b00e-7d5b-4ef7-979f-8d806a4ed6bc%40email.android.com.

[krishna mohan nidumolu]

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJ66RR7Xoz_v6DNy%3DxyWzC1iKn%3DJ-DG%3D%2BD8%3Dukg%3Da%3D%2B%3DwNW31g%40mail.gmail.com.