yogendra singhal <singha...@gmail.com>: Jul 25 10:24AM +0530
|
|
|
Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com>: Jul 25 12:09PM +0530
Sir,
What you have raised is a valid point.
However, IBA and UFBU may say that the reason for mentioning updation in
every BPS was that they intended to do it and then modify the regulations
but there can't be any timeframe for that and it would happen when the
conducive climate for the same sets in. In other words, pensioners cannot
claim it as a matter of right or legal entitlement or quote its prevalence
in Government
and RBI, but only seek it as a benevolence from banks.
K N RAMANI
On Sat, 25 Jul, 2026, 10:25 am yogendra singhal, <singha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
|
|
yogendra singhal <singha...@gmail.com>: Jul 25 12:39PM +0530
|
|
|
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Jul 27 11:27AM +0530
IBA never mentioned pension updation in its invitation to UFBU to discuss
residual issues.
Only UFBU mentioned it in their circulars which legally has no value.
There is no evidence that UFBU is raising pension updation in BPS meetings
except UFBU Circular which says "we raised the issue and IBA said sub
judice"
In fact IBA never mentioned "sub judice" before the Tanirala committee,
CLC, etc.
Further IBA signed minutes on 08.03.24 agreeing to discuss pension updation
in every settlement and merger of DA and Uniform DA for all pensioners when
M C Singla case was pending.
Therefore, the UFBU claim that IBA cited sub judice is utterly false.
AIBEA and AIBOA both should answer
1. Is Pension updation clause mandatory in pension regulations to implement
updation.
They can discuss and implement updation and amend regulagions later.
2. Why Reg35/1 not extended to others
3. If you do not negotiate issues and keep it pending for years the issue
gets time barred in courts.
Then, to avoid the issue becoming time-barred, some pensioners file
writ petitions (WP) in court, and UFBU cries 'sub judice.' For ex new DA
base year formula was introduced in 2022; four years have now lapsed, and
some pensioners have filed a case in court.
4. UFBU never submitted specific demand for updation to IBA because UFBU
itself has not reached a consensus on the formula or load factor demand.
IBA and the Government are only filing a counter-rejoinder to the
petitioners' prayer in court.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 9:44 AM yogendra singhal <singha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
|
|
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Jul 27 11:28AM +0530
Please read AIBEA and AIBOC. AIBOA is raising demand occassionally.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 11:27 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
Harish Midha <harish...@gmail.com>: Jul 26 09:31AM +0530
Respected Mohan Sir, Good day !
Seeking your expert guidance on the following against Gazette Notification
No 9 dated 01.03.2003 which I have been given to understand is on "
AMMENDMENT TO BANK EMPLOYEES REGULATION OF 1995."
As per point 2 of clause 3 on AMMENDMENT in Appendix 1 which says
" for employees who retired on or after 1.11.93 but before the date of
coming into force of these regulation "( which is 1.3.2003)
The revised basic pay = Basic pay ×1.1017.
This development has come to my notice only a couple of days back.
I have been drawing pension wef September 1994 and the bank has so far not
given effect to the above provisions as my Basic pay even today is the
same as it was as on Sept 1994.
Kindly advise if the above provisions are applicable in my case and I may
approach the bank requesting for the difference.
Also shall highly appreciate if I can have a copy of the said Gazette
Notification no 9 of 1.3.2003 as above.
I shall be highly thankful to receive a word of advice from you Sir.
You may choose to e mail me on my id if you feel so.
Warm regards.
H K Midha
Harish...@gmail.com
9871587700
|
|
|
MOHAN P <moha...@gmail.com>: Jul 27 01:23PM +0530
Dear Harish Midha Ji,
As per BEPR,1995, the clause is found as follows:
*“**2. The formula for updating basic pension in respect of workmen who
have retired on *
*or after the 1st day of November, 1992 but before the 1st day of
September, 1993 *
*and in respect of officers who have retired on or after the 1st day of
July, 1993 but *
*before the 1st of May, 1994 shall **be** as under:”*
I do not have a copy of Gazette referred right now to refer ,if any changes
made as you have mentioned.
Regards
Mohan.P
|
|
|
Harish Midha <harish...@gmail.com>: Jul 27 01:46PM +0530
Thanks Sir. I think the info that was given to me was erroneous . Let us
see if we are able to lay our hands on the original copy of Gazette .
Thanks and warm regards
|
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <1952...@gmail.com>: Jul 24 04:32AM -0700
This is simply sensationalising the issue.
When loans/advances are extended, which is not fully backed by tangible
securities, there will be default and consequently there will be write off
and loss.
No bank can fully extend loans only with more than hundred percent tangible
security.
You can't deny loans to industries/agriculture/export based on the
viability of the project.
Write off should be analysed on the following metric : Total Advances for
industry - In that, percentage of NPA i.e. Gross NPA - Out of this how much
is written off?
Calculating written off only from the individual borrowal accounts is
similar to ignoring all the profits you have made from other performing
advances and making alarm of NPA write offs.
Politicians can mislead public with such figures, but as bankers we should
analyse objectively.
S Kalyanasundaram
On Friday, July 24, 2026 at 3:35:33 PM UTC+5:30 RAMANI NV wrote:
|
|
|
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Jul 24 08:19PM +0530
As AIBEA can do nothing in this regard atleast it can ask Banks to take
little more Haircut for updation.
|
|
|
Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: Jul 27 10:03AM +0530
Somashekarji,
Good Morning, Really puzzling why one has to ask AIBEA for our updation ?
We (most of us) are retiree officers, AIBOC and NCBE is having more than
2/3 strength in UFBU where AIBEA is only a minority partner. UNLESS WE
SHART ASKING AIBOC/NCBE COMBINE - ISSUE WILL NOT BE RESOLVED. Better not
to discuss about AIBEA as it is irrelevant and waste of time/energy now.
Niranjan
Ex Canara
On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 9:41 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Jul 24 01:41PM
Yes.Nothing is there to celebrate right now.
We have to wait for final verdict which we shall celebrate.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:35, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
Observe the following:
57.36. The judge said “Ultimately the DA gets merged intothe pay….even for the calculation of pension”
“Revision requires merger”
59.15
Even if it is supposing 100 rupees it does not fit into thescheme then he can’t get it
1.13
The appendix typically provides for two windows and it leavesout the windows in between – Consciously
1.22
Mr Mehta If the similar processes has been followed orsimilar routes have to be taken,, there has to be a merger
1.58
(100 percent DA) Neutralization is merger only
My understanding:
The IBA/Banks counsel has come well prepared. He hasexplained well that there is no provision in the Regulation for updation. Hehas also explained how the case was dealt with in the lower court and how suddenlyRegulation 35 has been taken up now, which was not there earlier.
He has also explained how Clause 12 of the MOU contains theprovision “to be negotiated and settled”
The judge seems to be much confused with the 100 percent neutralizationand merger of DA. For pre 2002 pensioners we have got 100 percent DA neutralization.This DA is not merged with Basic. The judge also seems to have the view thatmerger of DA is the updation or revision of pension. What we expect is not atoken increase of future DA due to merger of DA periodically.
It is also surprising that no one from the petitioner orrespondent explained that for pensioners there is no DA merger so far and evenif DA is merged,, it does not amount pension updation similar to RBI pension.
All in all, nothing is there for pensioners to celebratefrom this hearing.
S Kalyanasundaram
On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 4:14:45 PM UTC+5:30 RAMANI NV wrote:
https://youtu.be/1v6SnjXLycM?si=eSd7jnpc2PB-1qlA
--
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/47e6f5be-0a8b-4423-be83-2d7e17ac77e3n%40googlegroups.com.
|
|
|
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Jul 24 01:45PM
The legal experts in the group have not debated on the 22 nd july proceedings in Supreme court.
Let us have the comments.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:35, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
Observe the following:
57.36. The judge said “Ultimately the DA gets merged intothe pay….even for the calculation of pension”
“Revision requires merger”
59.15
Even if it is supposing 100 rupees it does not fit into thescheme then he can’t get it
1.13
The appendix typically provides for two windows and it leavesout the windows in between – Consciously
1.22
Mr Mehta If the similar processes has been followed orsimilar routes have to be taken,, there has to be a merger
1.58
(100 percent DA) Neutralization is merger only
My understanding:
The IBA/Banks counsel has come well prepared. He hasexplained well that there is no provision in the Regulation for updation. Hehas also explained how the case was dealt with in the lower court and how suddenlyRegulation 35 has been taken up now, which was not there earlier.
He has also explained how Clause 12 of the MOU contains theprovision “to be negotiated and settled”
The judge seems to be much confused with the 100 percent neutralizationand merger of DA. For pre 2002 pensioners we have got 100 percent DA neutralization.This DA is not merged with Basic. The judge also seems to have the view thatmerger of DA is the updation or revision of pension. What we expect is not atoken increase of future DA due to merger of DA periodically.
It is also surprising that no one from the petitioner orrespondent explained that for pensioners there is no DA merger so far and evenif DA is merged,, it does not amount pension updation similar to RBI pension.
All in all, nothing is there for pensioners to celebratefrom this hearing.
S Kalyanasundaram
On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 4:14:45 PM UTC+5:30 RAMANI NV wrote:
https://youtu.be/1v6SnjXLycM?si=eSd7jnpc2PB-1qlA
--
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/47e6f5be-0a8b-4423-be83-2d7e17ac77e3n%40googlegroups.com.
|
|
|
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Jul 24 02:36PM
The judges can never be confused.They are more learned they are digging to get the truth.The deffendent advocates sole intention is to deny the pension updation orbitarly.The judges are steo by step building the strong legal grounds as per article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution to restore the justice to petitioners.They are making the Deffendent advocates to vomit the truth and fix them in a manner they deserve .
The judges are convinced that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the nexus of government DFS and IBA ably supported by the where is paisa leader. Ultimately the justice shall prevail and the judgement shall be in our favour.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 19:15, Satyanarayana Rao<karna...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: The legal experts in the group have not debated on the 22 nd july proceedings in Supreme court.
Let us have the comments.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:35, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
Observe the following:
57.36. The judge said “Ultimately the DA gets merged intothe pay….even for the calculation of pension”
“Revision requires merger”
59.15
Even if it is supposing 100 rupees it does not fit into thescheme then he can’t get it
1.13
The appendix typically provides for two windows and it leavesout the windows in between – Consciously
1.22
Mr Mehta If the similar processes has been followed orsimilar routes have to be taken,, there has to be a merger
1.58
(100 percent DA) Neutralization is merger only
My understanding:
The IBA/Banks counsel has come well prepared. He hasexplained well that there is no provision in the Regulation for updation. Hehas also explained how the case was dealt with in the lower court and how suddenlyRegulation 35 has been taken up now, which was not there earlier.
He has also explained how Clause 12 of the MOU contains theprovision “to be negotiated and settled”
The judge seems to be much confused with the 100 percent neutralizationand merger of DA. For pre 2002 pensioners we have got 100 percent DA neutralization.This DA is not merged with Basic. The judge also seems to have the view thatmerger of DA is the updation or revision of pension. What we expect is not atoken increase of future DA due to merger of DA periodically.
It is also surprising that no one from the petitioner orrespondent explained that for pensioners there is no DA merger so far and evenif DA is merged,, it does not amount pension updation similar to RBI pension.
All in all, nothing is there for pensioners to celebratefrom this hearing.
S Kalyanasundaram
On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 4:14:45 PM UTC+5:30 RAMANI NV wrote:
https://youtu.be/1v6SnjXLycM?si=eSd7jnpc2PB-1qlA
--
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/47e6f5be-0a8b-4423-be83-2d7e17ac77e3n%40googlegroups.com.
|
