ALL REMAINING C.P.WILL BE TAKEN UP BY SC ON 15th May..

[Debasish Mukherjee]

ALL REMAINING CURATIVE PETITIONS WILL BE TAKEN UP BY SUPREME COURT FOR DISPOSAL TOMORROW, THE 15th
MAY,2020.

Debasish Mukherjee,
mumb...@rediffmail.com

[Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy]

Let us pray almighty for justice to the helpless retirees.

Awaiting for good news from the supreme court.

PVB Swamy

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/20200514193832.21281.qmail%40f4mail-235-237.rediffmail.com.

[narinder singh]

Hope for the best


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Friday, May 15, 2020, 13:46, 'Debasish Mukherjee' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (bankpe...@googlegroups.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

[mamillapalli venkateswarlu]

Our 100% DA case also included in the list ?

--

[PM]

For Information;

UNITED BANK OF INDIA RETIREES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
vs.
UNITED BANK OF INDIA

Case Details :

PENDING

Diary No.
34505/2019 Filed On 21-09-2019 11:20 AM [SECTION: XVI]

Case No.
CURATIVE PET(C) No. 000060 - 000063 / 2020 Registered On 11-02-2020

Present/Last Listed On
15-05-2020

[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT] [CL.NO. : 1010]

Status/Stage

PENDING
(Motion Hearing [FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES])

Category

0601-Service Matters : Retiral Benefits

Petitioner(s)

1 UNITED BANK OF INDIA RETIREES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
OFFICE AT 20, HEMANTU BASU SARANI (PREVIOUSLY), OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, 4TH FLOOR, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

Respondent(s)
1 UNITED BANK OF INDIA
THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI , DISTRICT: KOLKATA ,KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

Pet. Advocate(s)
ANUPAM RAINA

[Sudhakar Nambiar]

Please inform the developments that has been taken place

.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE2nyrcaWPD0PsG0cVfcBnuh8TjTYV4%3DjoOXPAPEeWwGhQVM0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[ganpat dhond]

One pending Curative Petition  pertains to filed by United Western Bank Of India Welfare Organisation . which are others ?  PRAY GOD THAT CONCERNED RETIREES GET JUSTICE.

G J Dhond

[Narendra Khutate]

What transpired on 15th or is it a mockery of Retired pensioners.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKfTLU%3Dzbxiqsn1W-4h_kMRHZT4T3GtFM5_E3eE1Gy_0oMPr7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dilip Deshpande]

Whether the Curative Application of UWRWA is in conformity with requirements laid down in the case of Rupa Hurra vs Ashok Hurra? If not, can we pray for adjournment to file Rejoinder?

--
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/5c0df219-d552-47d5-b0ce-20313d171aee%40googlegroups.com.

[PM]

Dear Friends,

The very concept of Curative petition was evolved by the Supreme Court of India on the basis of case of  Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and otr.2002
where the question was whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against the final judgement/order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of a review petition.

As such,CP can be filed only in conformity with above guidelines

Further,a curative petition under Order shall be first
circulated to, and heard by, a Bench of the three senior-most Judges
and the Judges, who passed the judgment or order complained of, if
available.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, a curative petition shall
be disposed of by circulation, without any oral arguments.

[Chandrasekaran V]

Procedure has been traced.  THe CPs were listed for 15th, yesterday.   Any development ?

--
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/f2ca04e3-b911-4d9d-ba7d-70dc4298dca0%40googlegroups.com.

[Ramaswamy S]

Dear Mr NSS

Further developments in the three curative petitions may be apprised to us for the information of pensioners.

S.RAMASWAMY

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:28 AM PM <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/f2ca04e3-b911-4d9d-ba7d-70dc4298dca0%40googlegroups.com.

[natarajan pv]

United western or United bk ?

THANKS AND REGARDS,

P.V.NATARAJAN.‌
9445021712.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/412335429.734405.1589544698318%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Friends

The Judgment in Rupa Ashok Hurra states that a Curative Petition should fulfill any of the following to be considered for admission. 

1) Failure of Natural justice. e.g. Notice not served on the respondent.

2) Bias on the part of the Judges.

 The judgment states that the above are not  exhaustive  and there may be other similar reasons. 

Coming to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment, it suffers from the following defects/errors and therefore fulfills the requirements.

The Court had concluded that ,

1)

 "In any case this is not a matter where a section of employees merely on account of date of retirement are being differentiated. If we adopt a flat rate of 0.24% as is being prayed for, the class of retirees who retired before 01/11/2002 will stand conferred better rate than those employees who retired after 01/111/2002. Nor  can we apply a flat rate of 0.18% for them."  In an earlier paragraph of the Judgment the Court had stated as follows. " If we were to simply borrow the same rate of 0.18% in the case of retirees prior to 01/11/2002, the concerned retirees may  well be at a disadvantage."   Court had further stated that " Each class is governed by distinct and different parameters. These are all matters of policy making. The conferral of advantages of benefits on two different classes of retirees has a completely distinct formula and rates and it would not be possible to have a synthesis on any count or to put both the sets of retirees on any common parameters. Both classes are distinct and do not form a homogenous group. " " In our view any attempt to tinker with either the formula or the rate would make the whole scheme unworkable as was cautioned by this Court in the case of P.N.Menon and others." 

The Court had failed to understand the DA scheme. It has come to the conclusion that 0.24% to pre Nov 2002 retirees gives them higher amount of DA than the 0.18% being paid to post Nov 2002 retirees. It had ignored to take into account the merger of index points and the consequent reduction of the rate of DA for post Nov 2002 retirees.. All the above observations of the Court are wrong and were the product of the erroneous understanding of the DA scheme. 

As per Civil Procedure Code, the Court can base its decision on any points raised by the parties. It can also base its decision on any other point not raised by either of the parties. But in such a situation, the Court has to seek the views of the party who is going to be adversely affected by the decision, on the point on which the Court is going to base its decision. In our case the Court should have obtained our views on its decision that "Both classes are distinct and do not form a homogenous group" etc. This is failure of Natural Justice only.  

2

"As held in the case of Indian Ex-Services League and Others, the decision of the Court in D.S.Nakra is one of limited application and there is no scope  for enlarging the ambit to cover all schemes made by the retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension irrespective of the date of Retirement." 

In our case what we have demanded is not identical amount of pension. Our demand is for uniform rate of DA for all. In its Judgment the Court had quoted a number of its past judgments . These judgments (1) Col.B.J.Akkara(Retd) v Govt. of India and Others. 2) State of Punjab V Justice S.S.Dewan  (Retd. CJ) and others.) states that , if it is an upward revision of the existing pension scheme, ratio of the decision in D.S.Nakra would apply. If it is new retiral benefit or a new scheme then the benefit of it cannot be extended to those who retired earlier.  Discarding tapering DA formula and introducing 100% neutralisation  for the entire basic pay is only  a revision of the existing pension scheme and therefore applicable to all irrespective of date of retirement. The Court's decision that D.S.Nakra is not applicable to our case ignores these decisions. The cause of this error can be due to pre -decision of the case only. Pre-deciding the case is also a type of bias only.

3

Regarding Clause No.6 of the Pension settlement that DA formula prevailing in RBI will be extended to Pensioners, Court had held that , RBI doing away with tapering rate and introducing 100% DA will not entitle the pensioners for the same rate. Court had not stated the reasons for not recognising Clause No.6. This error is also due to pre-deciding of the case only.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian  

[ashok goel]

fate of curative petitions on 16.5.20 sir

ashok goel 

--

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/167395aa-d4a4-4c82-84ba-4a95db3f47ed%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Friends
Orders on the petitions are yet to be posted. It may take a few days.

Regards

NSS

[GUNA]

ON CURATIVE PETITION

Pension to Bank Employees was extended as per Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 by and between IBA (representing Bankers) and AIBEA (representing workmen) under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and is valid until such time a new Settlement is arrived by and between the parties on the issue. Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 is a legally enforceable settlement and the beneficiaries covered in the Settlement have a right to move the Court for enforcement of the Settlement. Subsequent Pension Regulations 1995 passed in the respective Boards of Banks was necessitated to extend the benefit of Pension to Officers and also to ensure legal sanctity as per provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition  and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1970.

At the time of passing of Pension Regulations 1995, large majority  of Officers were not inclined to accept Pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund and hence there was no need to sign a Joint Note with Officers Organisation. Since substantial part of the Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 was incorporated in the Pension Regulations 1995 passed by respective Bank Managements and a  Residual Provision under Regulation 56 of Pension Regulation was added to ensure, in case of any doubts, to refer  Pension Scheme of  Central Government, Employees  were rest assured their rights under Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 and Pension Regulations 1995 were duly protected.

Pension Regulations 1995 is not the substitute of Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 but only a Supplementary to the Settlement and provisions of both Pension Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 and Pension Regulations 1995 shall apply to all the Employees covered in the Settlement and Regulations.

And hence the provision as contained in term 6 of the Settlement to ensure payment of Dearness Relief  as applicable at the rate at which Pensioners of RBI is paid from time to time and  as per the formula available to them can't be denied to Pensioners of other Banks.

So also the term of Settlement  as contained in Term 12  to provide as regard to applicability, quantum of Pension, eligibility of Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension, Updating and other conditions of service etc., on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India is equally enforceable by law.

And hence Retirees can claim for enforcement of  the provisions of  both Pension Regulations 1995 and also provisions as contained in Term 6 and Term 12 of Pension Settlement 1993 as regard to payment of Dearness Relief and Updating of Pension respectively as applicable to Pensioners of RBI in so far as  Pension Settlement dt. 29-10-1993 has not been negated by either IBA or AIBEA.

GUNASEKHARAN R

Ex- CANARA (Mob: 9445251039)

 

 

 

                

--

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/167395aa-d4a4-4c82-84ba-4a95db3f47ed%40googlegroups.com.

[harinarayana sarma nandivada]

A well explained and thought provoking effort Guna Sekharanji.  But, will the courts see the pension regulations and pension settlement to operate concurrently.  History tells that so far, the courts viewed the pension settlement as the basis for framing pension regulations and because the updation clause is not got incorporated in pension regulations 1995, all our arguments are proving difficult.  If the courts view pension updation issue as opined by you, it is most welcome and it may be construed that our issue finds a logical end/solution. The contestants of pension updation cases have to approach from this angle also along with other usual points favourable to us.

N.Harinarayana Sarma

Pensioner from Andhra Bank

(Now Union Bank of India)

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAHyknKx-%3DCt%2BtkLUVozYfeBu_S5m6vW00YhaNptStWJd2m-WUw%40mail.gmail.com.

[harinarayana sarma nandivada]

Is there any information as regards completion of hearing  on 15.05.2020 as listed ? If so, order can be expected any time thereafter as per the convenience of the Hon'ble SC and we have to wait till such time.

N.Harinarayana Sarma

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/e656aa6d-b035-451b-92ee-7a6433a83ca9%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

We are aware that Updation case has been lost in lower bench and divisional bench of High courts. In my personal opinion due to lack of coordination and support by retiree organization and serving Unions Updation case was filed without proper home work and with put addressing key issues.

The following arguments have been rejected by both  High court benches.

1. Agreement dated 29.10.1993 provides for Updation and DA as per RBI formula.

Banks have refuted this claim and court also agreed with Banks because provisions of this settlement have not been incorporated in final pension scheme.

2. Bank Managements have argued that Agreement dated 29.10.1993 itself does not provide for right to updation but only paves for negotiations and if negotiations failed to yield any result pensioners have no claim. Court has advised petitioners to approach management to negotiate issue.

3. Present clause in EPR 1995 only provides that if any doubt exists Central Govt Pension Scheme may be referred and does not give any right to pensioner to claim parity with central govt pensioners.

4. Central Govt pensioners are sanctioned pension out of budgetary allocation and there is no any type of pension Fund. But Bank employees pension is paid out of Pension Fund created for the purpose and  updation depends on financial outlay.

5. An employee retired to day cannot claim parity of pension with an employee retiring after several years with higher pension.

This may be misconception of Updation issue by court.

All these issues including cost of updation and availability  funds have not been sorted out by Unions by negotiating with IBA.

Further having failed to convince high court about validity of 29.10.1993 agreement and small committee meetings how petitioners are going to present case effectively in SC with drawbacks mentioned above?

Petitioners need to consult experts in Banking Industry and among pensioners and also brief advocates properly. With many groups with in a single pension scheme our pension scheme is complicated and advocates will make mess of it by not understanding it.

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/448521216.360994.1589710291915%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Good news for retiree associations, UFBU and IBA. All curative petitions dismissed.

As pointed out by NSS it is totally unfortunate that such experienced judges could not understand DA structure properly.

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:37 PM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

ALL CURATIVE PETITIONS DISMISSED

AIBRF spoiled 100% DA case. Whenever retiree associations of PSU Banks enter court room it is only disaster  for retirees

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

ALL CURATIVE PETITIONS DISMISSED

AIBRF spoiled 100% DA case. Whenever retiree associations of PSU Banks enter court room it is only disaster  for retirees

On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:00 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lakshmanan Sankaranarayanan]

Curative petitions also dismissed .

S.Lakshmanan

--

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/20200514193832.21281.qmail%40f4mail-235-237.rediffmail.com.

[PARASURAMAN K R]

I dont know what AIBRF has to do with the dismissal of C P in 100% D A neutralisation  Curative Petition filed by  the aggrieved petitioners. In fact AIBRF had advised the petitioners not to hurry with filing of C P and to wait for the conclusion of 11th BPS to see the remote chance of settling the issue through negotiation. Those who are prejudiced and suffering from jaundice will see everything yellow only.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW03rUVi5TRHj%2B%2B-p%2B5ayk0_hnaiiWk%3D-FECrg52qZ%2BFFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[natarajan pv]

Not a single circular from AIBEA on the follow up done by them with IBA on the record note of 2015, in which 100% DA was mentioned & the outcome there of .

Please correct if I am wrong.

THANKS AND REGARDS,

P.V.NATARAJAN.‌
9445021712.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Dilip Deshpande]

In the Record Note, IBA stated that it was not possible for IBA to take decision in100% DA issue, since the same was  subjudice, at that time.  But now the mater is finally dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. So now there is no bar for IBA to consider 100% DA at least with prospective date. If Retirees Association is having so much faith in the strength of their organisational approach, let us see the result of organisational efforts of Retirees Association.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Now the issue is finally over in court let us hope AIBRF will now convince UFBU to  settle the issue in next 3-4 months.

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 10:12 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

AIBRF handlled 100% DA case. In SC. All  along hearings AIBRF claimed. It has appointed   a ex chief justice of Kerala. High court and he is competent and assured positive results.

Now after. Verdict it is doubtful whether Advocate himself understood our DA scheme properly. Further AIBRF said IBA representatives argued in court that present cost of 100% DA is Rs.4000 crores.  There after SC asked both parties to submit written arguments. Whether is there any sabotage at this stage. Will AIBRF. make aavailable to Pensioners copy of its written argument?

When Banks are ignoring Final SC verdict is curative petition a hindrance to negotiate issue. DA issue was rejected in 2018.

Why AIBRF did not convince UFBU to settle issue through negotiations. If UFBU settled issue petitioners would haave withdrawn curative petitions.

Mishandling of case by AIBRF not briefing advocates properly and also rivalry between AiBRF and AIBPARC spoiled case.

But others who handled case efficiently in 5 year case.1616-1684 issue. CRS issue won cases.

This game of crying sub judice when pensioners approach court and keeping silent when no case iss pending is going on sincee last many years.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vvns Varaprasadrao]

AIBRF advised not to file CP is only to please the AIBEA, nothing else.

At least UBIRWA had the satisfaction of making an attempt believing in success comes through failure only.

Vara prasad

e-Andhra Bank pensioner.

On Wed, 20 May 2020, 9:27 am PARASURAMAN K R, <paras...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

AIBRF handlled 100% DA case. In SC. All  along hearings AIBRF claimed. It has appointed   a ex chief justice of Kerala. High court and he is competent and assured positive results.

Now after. Verdict it is doubtful whether Advocate himself understood our DA scheme properly. Further AIBRF said IBA representatives argued in court that present cost of 100% DA is Rs.4000 crores.  There after SC asked both parties to submit written arguments. Whether is there any sabotage at this stage. Will AIBRF. make aavailable to Pensioners copy of its written argument?

When Banks are ignoring Final SC verdict is curative petition a hindrance to negotiate issue. DA issue was rejected in 2018.

Why AIBRF did not convince UFBU to settle issue through negotiations. If UFBU settled issue petitioners would haave withdrawn curative petitions.

Mishandling of case by AIBRF not briefing advocates properly and also rivalry between AiBRF and AIBPARC spoiled case.

But others who handled case efficiently in 5 year case.1616-1684 issue. CRS issue won cases.

This game of crying sub judice when pensioners approach court and keeping silent when no case iss pending is going on sincee last many years.

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 9:27 AM PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[NSS]

Friends

Please go through the enclosed Record of Proceedings of the Supreme Court. Our Advocate had given an assurance to the Court that Contempt Petition will not be fled in the Kolkata HC for enforcing the HC judgment. Why such assurance was given and the admission of the SLP was not opposed. UBIRWA/AIBRF are responsible for this. It should be remembered that many pensioners were demanding the filing of the Contempt Petition in Kolkata HC. AIBRF/UBIRWA ignored all these demands and went a step further and assured the Court that Contempt Petition will not be filed. 

Had we filed the Contempt petition, the Court would have ordered the payment of 100% DA as per the Judgment. In these circumstances IBA/Bank might have decided not to appeal. Even if they  filed the appeal, the Supreme Court might not have given a favourable judgment to them in view of the fact that 100% DA is already being paid. 

(Immediately after the Kolkata HC judgment, AIBRF/UBIRWA filed a Review Petition in HC to correct some clerical errors and thereby allowed time to IBA/Bank for filing the SLP in Supreme Court. )

Therefore AIBRF/UBIRWA only are responsible for the failure of the 100% DA case. No one is blaming AIBRF for the dismissal of the Curative Petitions. They were filed with the belief that chances of winning is only less than 0.1%.

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/448521216.360994.1589710291915%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 bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

[PARASURAMAN K R]

further the plea is for interim relief and hence UBIRWA might have taken a stand not to initiate contempt petition for enforcement of KHC order in the best interest of retirees. It is easy to mislead now as the parties have lost the case.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 6:11 PM PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is only one respondent UBIRWA which had taken a stand not to file contempt petition and AIBRF does not come into the picture at all. Now it has become a fashion to blame AIBRF for everything wrong. AIBRF took a bold decision to implead at S C later so that if on getting a favorable judgement the benefits may be made available to all. We have seen how courts had only awarded benefits to petitioners recently.

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/41af382a-06e0-4e4e-a070-40fd533fa634%40googlegroups.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Parasuraman,

I request you to KINDLY do not defend indefensible.  Curative Petition follows Review Petition which follows Judgment.  Who damaged our case in Supreme Court ?  Please go through letters/circulars issued immediately after Judgment of Kolkata High Court in United Bank of India case and immediately after completion after completion of arguments.  You can understand and decide, what is the contribution.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v%3DPaDdb3avv3Yvi1f4Xw%40mail.gmail.com.

[PARASURAMAN K R]

There is only one respondent UBIRWA which had taken a stand not to file contempt petition and AIBRF does not come into the picture at all. Now it has become a fashion to blame AIBRF for everything wrong. AIBRF took a bold decision to implead at S C later so that if on getting a favorable judgement the benefits may be made available to all. We have seen how courts had only awarded benefits to petitioners recently.

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:55 PM NSS <nsanka...@gmail.com> wrote:

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/41af382a-06e0-4e4e-a070-40fd533fa634%40googlegroups.com.

[ravi mehra]

When all the curative petitions have been dismissed by SC court, now dose our retirees / workman/ officers union has the potential or hope to take up our all pending/ most important issues with the banks directly. Or should we, especially pre 2002 retirees forget about any benefit or increase in our pension.

Regards
Ravi Mehra
Retired from pnb (pre-2002)

From: Dilip Deshpande <dilip...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:51:51 GMT+0530
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner ALL REMAINING C.P.WILL BE TAKEN UP BY SC ON 15th May..

In the Record Note, IBA stated that it was not possible for IBA to take decision in100% DA issue, since the same was  subjudice, at that time.  But now the mater is finally dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. So now there is no bar for IBA to consider 100% DA at least with prospective date. If Retirees Association is having so much faith in the strength of their organisational approach, let us see the result of organisational efforts of Retirees Association.

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:roups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/e656aa6d-b035-451b...@googlegroups.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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/448521216.36099...@mail.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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM=eiW03rUVi5TRHj++-p+5ayk0_hnaiiWk=-FECrg5...@mail.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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAYSuOWGztQ4SWgShH9mpcgYNFVra7v=PaDdb3avv...@mail.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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGdsP1CZojRjLPypqF0uo6K2...@mail.gmail.com.