Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 5 topics
30 views
Skip to first unread message
vaidya nathan
12:02 AM (15 hours ago) 12:02 AM
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Third Benefit of CPF like SBI.
I don't understand why suddenly a New dimension is taken into discussion. Whether it is a Necessity to divert the Attention on Updation, which may come to possible effect. Dragging the Updation verdict by Some other Route.
If at all Bank employees seek parity with SBI, let them First Force and Demand Union and Officers Assn to make parity of Wage Revision to all employees in PSU, In SBI and RBI the same. After all all are DOING ONLY Banking in different ways. Why disparity in Wages, all being Govt. Institutions. How can we expect any extra from the UFBU and Unions who don't even try to implement their own agreement of Revision of Exgratia, DA Neutralisation, Exgratia to Private Bank Retirees, Insurance Subsidy for Retirees.
VAIDYANATHAN
Banglore
On Tue, Jun 2, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- EFFECT OF RBI FORMULA WITH OR WITHOUT ANY LOAD. - 1 Update
- Report of the Dr.Tangirala Committee on SBI 40%-50% Pension - 2 Updates
- Demand for family pension @60% for Bank retirees - 1 Update
- Demand for 3rd Retiral Benefit for e-AB Pensioners. - 2 Updates
- CPF as 3rd benefit - 1 Update
kushal mukhoti <kush...@gmail.com>: Jun 02 12:41PM +0530
It's really a gain of a few hundred rupees with no load and no ex gratia.
But this will definitely pave the path for the future upgradation of our
pension.
Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: Jun 01 12:02PM
Dear Shri Somashekaraji,
Being the General Secretary of SBMPC, my hands are full. Sitll, I am stealing some time to answer your question, eventhough this has already been answered.
Earlier, in State Bank of India had reason to give Provident Fund saying that they are not getting pension at 50%. Perhaps, they had a valid reason to differentiate. Now, having taken 50% Pay as pension quoting our scheme (where we have surrendered PF), we have every right to demand parity.
If Banks find difficulty in giving PF, atleast give us some extra pension, over and above what those in SBI are getting. Atleast, while updating let us get extra loading or we should get Pension of Special Allowance, which would helps us in getting Pension Updation as per RBI lines.
We are attaching the Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein all the issues raised by you are considered and decided.
Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji is quoting order of the Court to submit calculations. Court wants to see whether Pension is being paid in terms of existing Regulations, including Regulation 35(1) - Appendix I. Even IBA has also said in its affidavit that 'It is not the case of the Petitioners that the Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations". Onus is on the Petitioners to prove that Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,Prasad C N
On Monday, 1 June 2026 at 03:46:32 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why this sudden demand for CPF as third benefit now?AIBEA and some other organizations are fighting for bringing back NPS employees to OPS. But NPS employees had to surrender Bank contributions and also lose the 14% monthly contribution they are currently receiving now. They joined the Bank after 01.04.2010. That means they are retiring sometime during 2040-45. They have to wait for Pension which they may get after 15 years and lose equal bank contributions now. 50% of their existing savings are surrendered to Banks. So the demand is for a third benefit so that NPS employees will retain the benefit even after reverting to OPS.Bank pensioners have nothing to gain by this and by chasing mirage of CPF we may lose momentum on updation also. Are Bank pensioners being made scapegoats to retain CPF for NPS employees?
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 11:06 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Tangirala committee report clearly proves that SBI, IBA, UFBU all are cheating PSU Bank Pensioners and taking them for granted. Whenever any benefit is to be granted to DFS asks whether such demand will come from PSU Bank pensioners and IBA says no.IBA submits before the committee that no demand has come from Nationalized Banks for CPF. This is an utter false statement, Except AIBEA all other unions demanded CPF as a third benefit and was rejected and AIBEA only signed the 1993 agreement. This fact has been hidden before the committee.Updating every settlement was also one of the agenda of the committee.For this IBA replied this is not limited to SBI alone and will be discussed separately. IBA did not say matter is subjudice.No constituents of the UFBU followed up the matter and demanded IBA to convene a meeting to discuss updation as assured by the IBA to the committee.But shamelessly UFBU agreed in the BPS meeting that the issue is sub judice.SBI pensioners at any cost are not willing to forego CPF as a third benefit for full fledged updation. They were fighting for the 40:50 pension only and achieved it. AIBOC clearly stated that it will not demand updation for SBI pensioners.So why are we demanding parity with SBI? CPF as a third benefit? We have to demand parity with RBI only. Because the 1993 agreement which is the bedrock foundation for our pension scheme clearly states thatProvisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this Settlement... for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India." As DFS has approved updation multiple times it is a natural justice to extend the same to PSU bank pensioners also.CPF as a third benefit is neither legally tenable nor practically viable for PSU Bank pensioners. It is like attempting to put toothpaste back into the tube. Only way it is possible is to rewrite 1993 agreement including CPF as a third benefit with retrospective effect and reopen PF accounts.We have been demanding Updation since 2008 when MC Singla case was filed and there have been hundreds of representations form individual retirees and retirees organizations and letters from MPs and MLAs to FM. Clearly DFS is aware of demand and has given positive signals. But UFBU was not interested and IBA responded accordingly.However momentum is built and with a little more persuasion we can achieve updation.M C Singla case verdict also may come shortly. At this stage it is not advisable to divert issue by demanding CPF which is impossible at this stage
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:43 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,
We have attached the report of the Committee headed byDr. Tangirala regarding the removal of the 40%/50% pension disparity in theState Bank of India.
A careful reading of the report reveals the following:
a. The DMD (HR) of State Bank of India stated that thereshould not be any disparity among different groups of pensioners in thecalculation of pensionary benefits and, therefore, requested that the 40%/50%pension formula be abolished. He further pointed out that in Nationalised Banks(NBs), all retirees receive pension at a uniform rate of 50% of pay andrecommended that the same principle be adopted in SBI as well. (Paras 2.3 &2.8)
b. Representatives of FSBIPA stated that the PensionScheme in Nationalised Banks was introduced in lieu of the Bank's contributionto the Provident Fund. (Para 2.13)
c. AISBOF reiterated the stand taken by FSBIPA andadditionally stated that SBI has a robust Pension Fund. (Para 2.17)
d. Shri Sunil Mehta observed that the anomaly of havingpension calculated at 40% and 50% within the same organisation needs to becorrected, as different rates for employees of the same organisation are notjustified. He further stated that pension should be fixed uniformly at 50% ofpay, in line with other organisations.
When Shri Manthan asked Shri Mehta whether there hadever been any demand from employees of Nationalised Banks for CPF in additionto pension, Shri Mehta categorically stated that no such demand had ever beenraised by employees of any Nationalised Bank. (Paras 2.19 & 2.20)
e. In its letter dated 25.08.2023, the IBA informed thatthe matter had been discussed by both the HR Committee and the ManagementCommittee, and it was decided to recommend that SBI be permitted to fix basicpension at 50% of pay. (Para 2.22)
f. The financial implication of implementing theproposal was estimated at ₹283 crore per annum, with a one-time provisioningrequirement of approximately ₹5,400 crore.
g. The Committee ultimately recommended rectification ofthe anomaly arising from the existence of dual pension rates within the sameorganisation. (Para 4)
Against this backdrop, friends may reflect on howpensioners continue to face unequal treatment despite the clear recognition ofthe anomaly by all concerned stakeholders. Unless we awaken from our deepslumber and collectively raise our voice against such discrimination, we maycontinue to remain victims of unequal and step-motherly treatment.
Thanks a million.
Withwarm regards,
PrasadC. N.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1949813304.4061003.1780148535907%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1oNaUFAjgTKNMKsuuO-fEBkrUbMZ0UdAUaVFNXqS4epg%40mail.gmail.com.
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Jun 02 09:42AM
Pension regulations 35/1 Apendix1 verses RBI formula verses article 14 and16 and 21.verses Supreme court judges revisiting the high court verdicts in Pension updation case Ie Sri late Singla ji relentless fight even after the dismissal of pension updation case , demanding justice and parity with RBI pension formula are very clear to the knowledge of the Supreme court judges.Now the onus to uphold the rights of Pensioners under article 14 and16 and 21 is left to the wisdom and jurisprudence of learned Supreme court judges.Lots of discussion has taken place.Let us wait for the final verdict which is going to be in our favour and let us dedicate this judicial victory to the great legal warrier and legend Sri Singla ji.We thank Sri Sanjay, Sri C.N.Prasad., and Sri Somashekara ji and other for their activ deliberations and debate.With regards to all.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 at 9:09, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Somashekaraji,
Being the General Secretary of SBMPC, my hands are full. Sitll, I am stealing some time to answer your question, eventhough this has already been answered.
Earlier, in State Bank of India had reason to give Provident Fund saying that they are not getting pension at 50%. Perhaps, they had a valid reason to differentiate. Now, having taken 50% Pay as pension quoting our scheme (where we have surrendered PF), we have every right to demand parity.
If Banks find difficulty in giving PF, atleast give us some extra pension, over and above what those in SBI are getting. Atleast, while updating let us get extra loading or we should get Pension of Special Allowance, which would helps us in getting Pension Updation as per RBI lines.
We are attaching the Judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein all the issues raised by you are considered and decided.
Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji is quoting order of the Court to submit calculations. Court wants to see whether Pension is being paid in terms of existing Regulations, including Regulation 35(1) - Appendix I. Even IBA has also said in its affidavit that 'It is not the case of the Petitioners that the Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations". Onus is on the Petitioners to prove that Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,Prasad C N
On Monday, 1 June 2026 at 03:46:32 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why this sudden demand for CPF as third benefit now?AIBEA and some other organizations are fighting for bringing back NPS employees to OPS. But NPS employees had to surrender Bank contributions and also lose the 14% monthly contribution they are currently receiving now. They joined the Bank after 01.04.2010. That means they are retiring sometime during 2040-45. They have to wait for Pension which they may get after 15 years and lose equal bank contributions now. 50% of their existing savings are surrendered to Banks. So the demand is for a third benefit so that NPS employees will retain the benefit even after reverting to OPS.Bank pensioners have nothing to gain by this and by chasing mirage of CPF we may lose momentum on updation also. Are Bank pensioners being made scapegoats to retain CPF for NPS employees?
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 11:06 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Tangirala committee report clearly proves that SBI, IBA, UFBU all are cheating PSU Bank Pensioners and taking them for granted. Whenever any benefit is to be granted to DFS asks whether such demand will come from PSU Bank pensioners and IBA says no.IBA submits before the committee that no demand has come from Nationalized Banks for CPF. This is an utter false statement, Except AIBEA all other unions demanded CPF as a third benefit and was rejected and AIBEA only signed the 1993 agreement. This fact has been hidden before the committee.Updating every settlement was also one of the agenda of the committee.For this IBA replied this is not limited to SBI alone and will be discussed separately. IBA did not say matter is subjudice.No constituents of the UFBU followed up the matter and demanded IBA to convene a meeting to discuss updation as assured by the IBA to the committee.But shamelessly UFBU agreed in the BPS meeting that the issue is sub judice.SBI pensioners at any cost are not willing to forego CPF as a third benefit for full fledged updation. They were fighting for the 40:50 pension only and achieved it. AIBOC clearly stated that it will not demand updation for SBI pensioners.So why are we demanding parity with SBI? CPF as a third benefit? We have to demand parity with RBI only. Because the 1993 agreement which is the bedrock foundation for our pension scheme clearly states thatProvisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this Settlement... for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India." As DFS has approved updation multiple times it is a natural justice to extend the same to PSU bank pensioners also.CPF as a third benefit is neither legally tenable nor practically viable for PSU Bank pensioners. It is like attempting to put toothpaste back into the tube. Only way it is possible is to rewrite 1993 agreement including CPF as a third benefit with retrospective effect and reopen PF accounts.We have been demanding Updation since 2008 when MC Singla case was filed and there have been hundreds of representations form individual retirees and retirees organizations and letters from MPs and MLAs to FM. Clearly DFS is aware of demand and has given positive signals. But UFBU was not interested and IBA responded accordingly.However momentum is built and with a little more persuasion we can achieve updation.M C Singla case verdict also may come shortly. At this stage it is not advisable to divert issue by demanding CPF which is impossible at this stage
On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 9:43 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Friends,
We have attached the report of the Committee headed byDr. Tangirala regarding the removal of the 40%/50% pension disparity in theState Bank of India.
A careful reading of the report reveals the following:
a. The DMD (HR) of State Bank of India stated that thereshould not be any disparity among different groups of pensioners in thecalculation of pensionary benefits and, therefore, requested that the 40%/50%pension formula be abolished. He further pointed out that in Nationalised Banks(NBs), all retirees receive pension at a uniform rate of 50% of pay andrecommended that the same principle be adopted in SBI as well. (Paras 2.3 &2.8)
b. Representatives of FSBIPA stated that the PensionScheme in Nationalised Banks was introduced in lieu of the Bank's contributionto the Provident Fund. (Para 2.13)
c. AISBOF reiterated the stand taken by FSBIPA andadditionally stated that SBI has a robust Pension Fund. (Para 2.17)
d. Shri Sunil Mehta observed that the anomaly of havingpension calculated at 40% and 50% within the same organisation needs to becorrected, as different rates for employees of the same organisation are notjustified. He further stated that pension should be fixed uniformly at 50% ofpay, in line with other organisations.
When Shri Manthan asked Shri Mehta whether there hadever been any demand from employees of Nationalised Banks for CPF in additionto pension, Shri Mehta categorically stated that no such demand had ever beenraised by employees of any Nationalised Bank. (Paras 2.19 & 2.20)
e. In its letter dated 25.08.2023, the IBA informed thatthe matter had been discussed by both the HR Committee and the ManagementCommittee, and it was decided to recommend that SBI be permitted to fix basicpension at 50% of pay. (Para 2.22)
f. The financial implication of implementing theproposal was estimated at ₹283 crore per annum, with a one-time provisioningrequirement of approximately ₹5,400 crore.
g. The Committee ultimately recommended rectification ofthe anomaly arising from the existence of dual pension rates within the sameorganisation. (Para 4)
Against this backdrop, friends may reflect on howpensioners continue to face unequal treatment despite the clear recognition ofthe anomaly by all concerned stakeholders. Unless we awaken from our deepslumber and collectively raise our voice against such discrimination, we maycontinue to remain victims of unequal and step-motherly treatment.
Thanks a million.
Withwarm regards,
PrasadC. N.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1949813304.4061003.1780148535907%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1oNaUFAjgTKNMKsuuO-fEBkrUbMZ0UdAUaVFNXqS4epg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1430670342.3386654.1780315362794%40mail.yahoo.com.
Pradeep Seetharaman <pradeep.s...@gmail.com>: Jun 02 12:53AM -0700
Why none of our retiree knowledgeable leaders like Somasekhar rao Sir and
Prasadrsosir do not write asking to IBA and SBi egardingthe above which if
agreed will be cost neutral and highly beneficial for pensioners.Without
even demanding central Govt has sanctioned to their retirees.
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Jun 01 12:25PM
The debate is drifting from pension updation case to new issue like 3 rd benifit of CPF etc.All ready retired pensioners are denied the benefits of pension updation,DA parity at 8088 points, Revision of. Ex-gratia free medical insurance so on and so forth.Let us continue to fight for achieving the long pending issues by bringing pressure on all stakeholders and continue to achieve justice through pending court cases.Raising new litigations and debating the same has no meaning and relevance to the pensioners as they are all at the fag end of their life.While fighting legal battels in pension updation case we lost thousands of Pensioners like Singla ji.There fore any amount of debate for and against the old and new litigations is only time pass.Ultimately the courts are the final masters to do justice.Ordinary surviving pensioners are waiting for pension updation verdict/judgement in Singla ji Case.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 at 15:46, Sanjay J<sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Prasadji,
I write this letter with respect for your commitment to thewelfare of e-SBM retirees, but with equal candour about what I believe are twoserious errors of legal reasoning in your recent communications — errors that,if left unchallenged, may mislead our fellow pensioners and weaken thecredibility of our legitimate demands.
I address two specific propositions attributed to you:
(i) That SBMPC will demand the 3rdretiral benefit (CPF alongside pension) for e-AB pensioners; and
(ii) That nationalised bankpensioners can also follow suit and demand the same.
With respect, both positions are legally untenable. I set outmy reasons below.
PART I: THE DEMAND FOR 3rd BENEFIT FOR e-AB PENSIONERS
1. THE FOUNDATIONAL LEGAL POSITION
The pension scheme applicable to e-AB employees — includinge-SBM employees — was introduced pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement dated29.10.1993 and subsequently notified as the Bank Employees' PensionRegulations, 1995. From the very inception, this scheme was framed as pensionIN LIEU OF Contributory Provident Fund — not in addition to it. This is nota matter of interpretation. It is the explicit basis on which the scheme wassettled.
FSBIPA, the apex body representing e-AB interests, has itselfadmitted before courts that the pension scheme of e-AB employees is "inlieu of CPF". This admission on record before a court of law is a seriousobstacle to any demand for CPF as an additional benefit. An organisation cannotapprobate and reprobate simultaneously — a principle well settled in Indianlaw.
2. THE EMPLOYEE-LEVEL CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDICIALLYREVERSED
The matter of CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB officers wassub-judice in a writ petition. In January 2025, the judgment in that writpetition was reversed. This means that the court has, at the present level ofadjudication, declined to grant CPF as a 3rd benefit to e-AB employees — thatis, to those who were actively in service at the time of the merger and whoseservice conditions were directly before the court.
If the serving employee's claim for the 3rd benefit has beenjudicially rejected, on what legal foundation does SBMPC propose to demand thesame for pensioners — who left service earlier, under terms that were even lessproximate to SBI's pension framework?
Pension is a deferred wage. Its entitlement flows from theservice conditions applicable during employment. If the service conditionitself does not confer the 3rd benefit, the pensioner cannot claim a superiorright that the employee never had.
3. THE STRUCTURAL BAR
The SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules — under which nativeSBI employees enjoy the 3rd benefit — have never been extended to e-ABemployees post-merger. The merger of 2017 was a corporate and statutoryamalgamation of entities under the SBI Act, 1955. It did not, by operation oflaw, migrate e-AB employees into the SBI pension framework. This has beenconsistently maintained by SBI management before courts and in administrativeproceedings.
The Dr. Tangirala Committee (constituted by the Delhi HighCourt order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1875/2013) did establish a valuableprinciple — that two rates of pension cannot exist within the same bank'srules. This principle led to the abolition of the 40/50 formula in SBI.However, the Tangirala Committee's remit was the SBI Pensioners' Federation'swrit petition, not e-AB grievances. Its findings do not create a new legalright to CPF for e-AB pensioners.
PART II: THE SUGGESTIVE NATURE OF YOUR EMAIL THAT NATIONALISED BANK PENSIONERSCAN ALSO DEMAND THE 3rd BENEFIT
4. THE 1993 SETTLEMENT — A DELIBERATE AND BINDING CHOICE
The history of pension in nationalised banks is unambiguouson this point. On 21st October 1993, in negotiations between the Government,IBA, RBI on one side and AIBOC on the other, an understanding was arrived atfor pension IN LIEU OF CPF. This was a conscious decision — arrived at becausethere was no unity among employee organisations to fight for pension as a thirdretiral benefit.
The Desai Tribunal itself had placed on record that theworkmen demanded pension in addition to Provident Fund and Gratuity. TheTribunal heard that demand. It was not granted. What the employees'organisations ultimately accepted, through bilateral negotiation under theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pension as a substitute for CPF — not anaddition to it.
The IBA has consistently, including in affidavits beforecourts, stated that the pension scheme in banks is a funded scheme in lieu ofCPF. This is not merely IBA's characterisation — it is the structural basis ofthe Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 themselves.
5. THE CONTRACTUAL FINALITY OF A BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
A Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 is a binding instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court hasconsistently held that such settlements, once arrived at by parties with theauthority to negotiate, bind all parties and cannot be reopenedunilaterally. The 1993 MoS under which pension was introduced isprecisely such an instrument.
Demanding that nationalised bank employees now receive CPF inaddition to pension, 30 years after their own representatives voluntarilysurrendered that position at the bargaining table, has no legal basis. It isnot a demand — it is a wish.
6. EVEN THE SECOND OPTION OF 2010 MAINTAINED THE "INLIEU OF" STRUCTURE
In 2010, after sustained agitation, a second option wasoffered to nationalised bank employees who had remained with the CPF scheme toswitch to pension. Even this concession — hard-won as it was — wasstructured as pension in lieu of CPF, with the employees themselves bearinga portion of the additional cost. This demonstrates that even the most recentexpansion of the pension framework for nationalised banks has proceeded on theconsistent regulatory understanding that pension and CPF are mutually exclusivefor these employees.
7. THE CONFUSION BETWEEN TWO DISTINCT DEMANDS
I respectfully submit that your suggestion may have arisenfrom a conflation of two legally distinct matters:
(a) Pension Updation — which is a legitimate, legallygrounded demand based on Regulation 35(1) of the Bank Employees' PensionRegulations, 1995 and Clause 12 of the 1993 MoS, which mandates that thepension scheme in banks shall be on the lines of the Reserve Bank of India. TheSupreme Court's order in CA No. 6254/2012 (AIRBE vs. Union of India) and thesubsequent pension revision in RBI and NABARD give strong legal support to thisdemand.
(b) CPF as a 3rd benefit — which is a demand that was raised,negotiated, and consciously abandoned in 1993 by the very organisations thatrepresent bank employees. It has no current legal basis.
These two demands are entirely separate. Conflating them — orpresenting the second as a corollary of the first — causes confusion andundermines the credibility of the legitimate updation demand.
CONCLUSION
I close by respectfully but firmly submitting that:
(i) SBMPC's demand for CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-ABpensioners has no legal foundation, particularly after the judicialreversal in January 2025 of the e-AB employee-level claim. A pensioner cannothave a superior right to that which the serving employee has been denied.
(ii) The suggestion that nationalised bank pensioners candemand the 3rd benefit misreads the settled contractual and regulatory historyof bank pension, which has treated pension as being in lieu of CPF since 1993.
I make these submissions not in a spirit of adversarialism,but in the belief that our pensioner community is best served by demands thatare legally well-founded and strategically sound. Raising demands that have nolegal grounding only exposes organisations to the charge of making uninformedclaims — and courts do take note of this.
I trust you will consider these submissions in the spirit inwhich they are made.
With regards,
Sanjay J.
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BO2jDCApJyBj6UgEgHbZY%2BiORpFtDBi_kVf3A8jSDGTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: Jun 02 02:38PM +0530
Sanjay Sir, I had requested a small details from you regarding the bank
from which you retired and also retirement year. Yet to hear from you
regarding this.
The following are my observations (MARKED IN COLOUR) regarding various
points raised by you - pointwise :
1. THE FOUNDATIONAL LEGAL POSITION
The pension scheme applicable to e-AB employees — including e-SBM employees
— was introduced pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993
and subsequently notified as the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995.
From the very inception, this scheme was framed as pension IN LIEU OF
Contributory Provident Fund — not in addition to it. *This is not a matter
of interpretation. It is the explicit basis on which the scheme was
settled.*
FSBIPA, the apex body representing e-AB interests, has itself admitted
before courts that the pension scheme of e-AB employees is "in lieu of
CPF". This admission on record before a court of law is a serious obstacle
to any demand for CPF as an additional benefit. An organisation cannot
approbate and reprobate simultaneously — a principle well settled in Indian
law.
REMARKS : Can there be two types of the pension in the same bank ?
Whether a set of employees can be discriminated ? What about article 14,
etc ? - Will it not applicable here ? Why sir ?
2. THE EMPLOYEE-LEVEL CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDICIALLY REVERSED
The matter of CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB officers was sub-judice in a
writ petition. In January 2025, the judgment in that writ petition was
reversed. This means that the court has, at the present level of
adjudication, declined to grant CPF as a 3rd benefit to e-AB employees —
that is, to those who were actively in service at the time of the merger
and whose service conditions were directly before the court.
If the serving employee's claim for the 3rd benefit has been judicially
rejected, on what legal foundation does SBMPC propose to demand the same
for pensioners — who left service earlier, under terms that were even less
proximate to SBI's pension framework?
Pension is a deferred wage. Its entitlement flows from the service
conditions applicable during employment. If the service condition itself
does not confer the 3rd benefit, the pensioner cannot claim a superior
right that the employee never had.
REMARKS : Why different yard sticks to different pensioners ?? Whether
updation for PSB pensioners flows from where sir ? When PEnsion
Regulations itself does not have any clause or mention about RBI lines -
then can PSB pensioners can claim Updation on RBI lines sir ?
3. THE STRUCTURAL BAR
The SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules — under which native SBI employees
enjoy the 3rd benefit — have never been extended to e-AB employees
post-merger. The merger of 2017 was a corporate and statutory amalgamation
of entities under the SBI Act, 1955. It did not, by operation of law,
migrate e-AB employees into the SBI pension framework. This has been
consistently maintained by SBI management before courts and in
administrative proceedings.
The Dr. Tangirala Committee (constituted by the Delhi High Court order
dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1875/2013) did establish a valuable
principle — that two rates of pension cannot exist within the same bank's
rules. This principle led to the abolition of the 40/50 formula in SBI.
However, the Tangirala Committee's remit was the SBI Pensioners'
Federation's writ petition, not e-AB grievances. Its findings do not create
a new legal right to CPF for e-AB pensioners.
REMARKS : When that is not applicable within the Bank, how RBI updation
is applicable to PSB PEnsioners sir ? Further, we have authorised for
transfer of the balance in PF as on that date to Pension Fund. Nowever, we
have relinquished the right of getting management contribution of 10% to
PF. For information, PF rules cannot be dictated by Pension Regulations.
Both are independent of each other.
*PART II*: THE SUGGESTIVE NATURE OF YOUR EMAIL THAT NATIONALISED BANK
PENSIONERS CAN ALSO DEMAND THE 3rd BENEFIT
REMARKS : BY APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE - WHETHER IT IS SUGGESTIVE NATURE
FOR PSB PENSIONERS TO CLAIM PLENION UPDATION AS PER RBI LINES ?
4. THE 1993 SETTLEMENT — A DELIBERATE AND BINDING CHOICE
The history of pension in nationalised banks is unambiguous on this point.
On 21st October 1993, in negotiations between the Government, IBA, RBI on
one side and AIBOC on the other, an understanding was arrived at for
pension IN LIEU OF CPF. This was a conscious decision — arrived at because
there was no unity among employee organisations to fight for pension as a
third retiral benefit.
The Desai Tribunal itself had placed on record that the workmen demanded
pension in addition to Provident Fund and Gratuity. The Tribunal heard that
demand. It was not granted. What the employees' organisations ultimately
accepted, through bilateral negotiation under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, was pension as a substitute for CPF — not an addition to it.
The IBA has consistently, including in affidavits before courts, stated
that the pension scheme in banks is a funded scheme in lieu of CPF. This is
not merely IBA's characterisation — it is the structural basis of the Bank
Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 themselves.
REMARKS : AIBOC SIGNED THE PENSION SETTLEMENT WITHOUT UPDATION CLAUSE
DURING 1995. SIR DOES IT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE ACCEPTED PENSION WITH OUT
UPDATION FOR FUTURE ALSO ? WHETHER THAT IS THE INFERENE /CONCLUDE ?
5. THE CONTRACTUAL FINALITY OF A BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
A Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 is a binding instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently
held that such settlements, once arrived at by parties with the authority
to negotiate, bind all parties and* cannot be reopened unilaterally.* The
1993 MoS under which pension was introduced is precisely such an instrument.
Demanding that nationalised bank employees now receive CPF in addition to
pension, 30 years after their own representatives voluntarily surrendered
that position at the bargaining table, has no legal basis. *It is not a
demand — it is a wish.*
*REMARKS : BY THE ABOVE LOGIC - BPS - IS BINDING AND CANNOT BE REOPENED
?. WITH THIS STATEMENT - IS IT CONCLUDED THAT PSB PENSION UPDATION CANNOT
BE SOUGHT AS NOT COVERED IN BPS ?*
6. EVEN THE SECOND OPTION OF 2010 MAINTAINED THE "IN LIEU OF" STRUCTURE
In 2010, after sustained agitation, a second option was offered to
nationalised bank employees who had remained with the CPF scheme to switch
to pension. *Even this concession *— hard-won as it was —* was structured
as pension in lieu of CPF*, with the employees themselves bearing a portion
of the additional cost. This demonstrates that even the most recent
expansion of the pension framework for nationalised banks has proceeded on
the consistent regulatory understanding that pension and CPF are mutually
exclusive for these employees.
REMARKS : EVEN WHEN SECOND OPTION CAME IN 2010, EVEN THOUGH REGULATIONS
AMENDED 35(1) IN 2003 - WHY UPDATION OF PENSION WAS NOT SOUGHT DURING
SECOND OPTION. ?? WHETHER - BECAUSE OF THAT CAN IT BE CONCLUDED THAT PSB
PENSIONERS FOREFIETED UPDATION FOR EVER ?
7. THE CONFUSION BETWEEN TWO DISTINCT DEMANDS
I respectfully submit that your suggestion may have arisen from a
conflation of two legally distinct matters:
(a) Pension Updation — which is a legitimate, legally grounded demand based
on Regulation 35(1) of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and
Clause 12 of the 1993 MoS, which mandates that the pension scheme in banks
shall be on the lines of the Reserve Bank of India. The Supreme Court's
order in CA No. 6254/2012 (AIRBE vs. Union of India) and the subsequent
pension revision in RBI and NABARD give strong legal support to this demand.
(b) CPF as a 3rd benefit — which is a demand that was raised, negotiated,
and consciously abandoned in 1993 by the very organisations that represent
bank employees. It has no current legal basis.
These two demands are entirely separate. Conflating them — or presenting
the second as a corollary of the first — causes confusion and undermines
the credibility of the legitimate updation demand.
REMARKS : PLEASE READ CLAUSE 12 OF MOS AGAIN SIR AND ALSO THE HIGH COURT
JUDGEMENT IN THIS REGARD. PSB PENSIONERS WILL BE ON THE LINES OF RBI - AT
THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION. THERE IS NO INFERENCE OR EXPRESSESION TO SAY
FOR FUTURE (AFTER THIRTY YEARS ALSO ) IT IS APPLICABLE. IF ANY SENTENCE
INDICATES - PLEASE REPRODUCE THE SAME.
CONCLUSION
I close by respectfully but firmly submitting that:
(i) SBMPC's demand for CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB pensioners has no
legal foundation, particularly after the judicial reversal in January 2025
of the e-AB employee-level claim. A pensioner cannot have a superior right
to that which the serving employee has been denied.
(ii) The suggestion that nationalised bank pensioners can demand the 3rd
benefit misreads the settled contractual and regulatory history of bank
pension, which has treated pension as being in lieu of CPF since 1993.
I make these submissions not in a spirit of adversarialism, but in the
belief that our pensioner community is best served by demands that are
legally well-founded and strategically sound. Raising demands that have no
legal grounding only exposes organisations to the charge of making
uninformed claims — and courts do take note of this.
I trust you will consider these submissions in the spirit in which they are
made.
REMARKS : IF THE PENSION UPDATION IS HAVING ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION, THEN
CPF AS ADDITIONAL BENEFIT - ALSO HAS EQUAL LEGAL GROUNDS. THE CLAIM IS
FOR WORKING EMPLOYEES ALSO - CPF BENEFIT SIR.
IN TANGILALA COMMITTEE REPORT – ONE CAN OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR
CPF FROM NATIONALISED BANKS (NOT eABS) UNTILL NOW. IS STATED CLEARLY.
INDICATING THAT THERE CAN BE DEMAND IN FUTURE. WE SHOULD TAKE CLUE FROM
THIS ALSO.
WHEN THE PSB RETIREES CAN CLAIM PENSION UPDATION AS PER 35(1), WHY NOT
CLAIM CPF ALSO ? ANY HURDLE ? ANY PROBLEM ? ANY CONSTRAINTS ?
SIR, ONE CANNOT HAVE TWO YARDSTICKS IN THE SAME ANY BANK OR THERE CANNOT
BE TWO STANDARDS BE ADOPTED. IT IS AGAINST THE EQUALITY WITHIN THE SAME
INSTITUTION.
IT IS WISER FOR US TO CLAIM THE CPF BENEFIT ALSO - IN THE PROCESS WE CAN
BARGAIN AND GET OTHER BENEFITS ALSO. WE WILL BE FOOLS IF WE DONT CLAIM.
ONE SHOULD LEARN FROM SBI RETIREES - HOW GRADUALLY GOT IMPROVEMENTS. WE
SHOULD FOLLOW THEM AND REDUCE THE GAP GRADUALLY. THERE IS UNAMITY FOR THIS
CLAIM.
SIR AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE GAP IN TERMINAL BENEFITS BETWEEN SBI
RETIREES AND NATIONALISED BANKS HAS TO BE REDUCED STEP BY STEP. WHATEVER,
SBI WAS NOT HAVING THEY ARE CLAIMING BUT WE SIMPLY DON’T ASK AT ALL – THAT
IS NOT DESIRABLE.
EVEN MEDICAL INSURANCE IN SBI – IS ALSO NOT ASKED BY NATIONALISED BANK
PENSIONERS ON SBI LINES…. ALWAYS ON A BACK FOOT TO ASK SIMILAR TO SBI
RETIREES. I AM VIEW THAT WE SHOULD COME OUT THIS FOBIA (NOT DEMANDING) AT
THE EARLIEST FOR OUR BENEFIT.
Niranjan
Ex Canara
krishna mohan nidumolu <kmnid...@gmail.com>: Jun 02 03:28PM +0530
Why raise unsustainable issues.
It is as per signed agreement.
Let us get updation first Sir
Please Regards
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages