SC PENSION AS PER REGULATIONS 35 (1) APPENDIX 1

[Niranjan Cn]

There is lot of limelight on Reg 35(1) after Supreme Court hearing in Singlas case as the court has asked to prepare the charts as per Regulations.  

An attempt has been made to prepare the chart considering each and every clause in Appendix 1 of Regulations for three examples.  

Very much saddened to note that there is no benefit is accruing to us as per Appendix 1/Regulations.  Please explore any other option to calculate Updation as per Regulations.

Niranjan

Excanara

[MOHAN P]

Yes Sir,

It is a fact that by applying 35(1) we may not secure pension updation or any benefit.Few retiree orgn harp on this point for reasons not known.Especially one HC already dismissed the case on this point 

Good effort on showing  actual facts by illustration.

Let us watch what chart may be given before court by parties on 18th Feb or later.

Regards

Mohan.

--
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/CAAX%2BdWHaO9agqU4%2BFuvmmUR%3D15gXyPzXvy1RPpUik665rRME_w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sureshbhat M]

Your chart shows clear  difference.
We argue that on updation basic pension of murthy and Esha should be same while applying same % of DA to both.
The disparity arised due to non updation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSSaShkDLDiCtt1mdOT%2BOH%3D%3Dz-CJjLjGnrcK%2BzyxVGpnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

Sir, 

Surprised to realize the care taken to prepare the charts for 3 different categories on the application of section 35(1) appendix but regret, the resultant benefit or increase nil. 

This means certain groups of retirees will get a disappointment on the results. 

Let us pray for at least a worthy benefit and increase in the quantum to ALL and simultaneously an unexpected quantum and its actual realisation cause a sudden spurt of happiness should not lead to accidents for the elderly like us! 

Ramakrishnan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSSaShkDLDiCtt1mdOT%2BOH%3D%3Dz-CJjLjGnrcK%2BzyxVGpnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

A plain reading of Regulation 35 and the Annexure is very clear that the updation of basic pension and additional pension is applicable only for those retired during the period 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987.

 

That is why we are repeatedly expressing that it will be a futile attempt to claim pension updation based on this clause.

 

However please consider the following also (I have lot of reservation on this)

 

1.     Pension settlement signed to be effective from 01 11 1993. This was during the 6^th Bipartite settlement period (01 11 1992 to 31 10 1997).

 

2.     The pension settlement covers persons who were in the service on or after 01 01 1986 but retired before 01 11 1993. This means this covers persons who retired during 5^th Bipartite settlement period (01 11 1987 to 31 10 1992) and also 4^th Bipartite settlement (01 07 1984 onwards).

 

3.     While covering persons who retired during earlier settlements, their basic had been modified by Regulation 35 Annexure. In a way this is updation of pension for those retirees (who were under 4^th or 5^th settlement).

 

4.     No such updation has been allowed for persons who retired with emoluments of 6^th or subsequent bipartite settlements.

 

5.     First the Regulation 35 Annexure should be modified to give effect for such refitment of pension as it has been done for 4^th and 5^th Bipartite retirees.

 

6.     After doing this, if you work out then there will be some meaningful benefit. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Niranjan Sir,  Reg35/1, is under scrutiny of Hon.SC Judges.  M C Singla case appeal in SC was registered in 2016 and was admitted in 2023.

We have all been criticizing petitioners for basing their arguments on Reg35/1 and adequacy of pension funds.

Is there any better option? If so, I request members of this group to post suggestions here.

How do you counter IBAs claim that  1. There is no provision for updation in pension regulations 2. Updation cost is huge and not affordable.

 As regards first claim of IBA, Hon. High Court judge has advised petitioners to approach management for negotiations.  To counter IBAs claim, petitioners are arguing that pension regulations has provision for updation as per Reg35/1 followed by amendment of 2003. Now the ball is in Court of Supreme court and let us wait how Hon.Judges will interpret Reg35/1.

As for us cost is concerned, we are well aware that IBA has so far not disclosed actual cost of updation.

Under these circumstances petitioners are in great disadvantage to plan a strategy to counter this. They have choose to rely on this. Now it is upto IBA  to counter this with facts and convince the judge how 4 lakh crores funds  are being utilized.  

There is another valid point. IBA has signed two agreements in 1993 and 1994 agreeing that our pension  shall be a mirror of RBI pension structure including pension revisions. Basing on this retirees opted for pension in 1994. But Banks while adopting pension regulations omitted these clauses unilaterally. This matter is also under scrutiny of Hon.Judges of M C Singla case.

Main focus is to prove disparity in pension compared to RBI pension scheme and also within Banking Industry. As per court order the matter has been heard in length and parties has to submit documents to prove their point and there amy not be scope for further arguments.

I find only other option is UFBU should take up the issue with IBA honestly and come out with a scheme for updation. After 3 updations for RBI pensioners no amount of explanation/excuses by UFBU is just self exposing their dishonesty and inefficiency.

--

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs,

‘SHALL’ HELPS US OR HARMS US IN REGULATION 35(1)

For ready reference, the Regulation 35(1) is repeated here :
Basic pension and additional pension, whereaver applicable shall be updated as per formulae given in Appendix 1.

AIBARC highlighted ‘shall’ everytime and even in Synopsis submitted in SC so also in Arguments.  Petitioners, themselves, acknowledging in the process – that Bank shall update as per Appendix 1 only and nothing else.  That is to say, petitioners welcomed the updation as per Appendix 1 and nothing else.

There is no clause in Appendix 1 – which is beneficial any of us (ofcourse with some exceptions).  AIBPARC - is restricting updation to Appendix 1 and not beyond in the process. Where we stand now ?  Is it like giving stick to opponent welcoming him to hit us.  Please think over.

Whether ‘Shall’ helping us or harming our cause.  Was it wise to go behind ‘Shall’.  

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/842cc464-1711-4da5-8a30-1240a4ad34b7n%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Apart from divisions created by BPS, pensioners are divided into 3 groups/

1. Group 1 consists of 10% of pensioners who firmly believe that REg 35/1 will not permit updation and Pension funds are insufficient for updation, They are sure M C Singla case will fail in SC and they will win the argument.

2. Group 2 consists of another 10% of pensioners including retirere assns, AIBOA(which issued the latest cir supporting Reg35/1) and others. Retiree assns firmly believe that Reg 35/1 provides for updation. and they are sure that they will win the case in SC and prove their argument is correct.

There are remaining 80% of pensioners whose opinion does not matter and immaterial and want updation either from Reg35/1, Negotiation by UFBU or direct orders from DFS.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJjVXgw7dz5UVLrV30Dj9%2B%2Bg4yVjv8AfgsNm_zUTz2Za8h_3uQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

I think, Section 35(1) can/has to be read with its Appendix-1 only and not in isolation.

However, the methodology adopted in the Appendix seems to be different from the one adopted to update the pensions of RBI pensioners which is demanded by  the defendants in the Singla case.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2pm8XME%3Dy54m_-M6CoN1_Re3%3DDzQpH%3DW0L3a_RtK7eVw%40mail.gmail.com.