DISCRIMINATION TO THE RETIREES OF E ALLAHABAD BANK BY INDIAN BANK

[PM]

  Text of Letter No. AIBOC/2020/24 dated 20.05.2020 

Shri Debasish Panda

 Secretary 

Department of Financial Services 

Ministry of Finance 

Government of India 

New Delhi

 Dear Sir, 

                                                          DISCRIMINATION TO THE RETIREES OF ERSTWHILE ALLAHABAD BANK 

                         We refer to our earlier letter No. AIBOC/2020/23 Dated 05.05.2020 wherein, we had drawn your kind attention on the need for harmonisation in the HR policies of merged entities consequent upon amalgamation of Allahabad Bank into Indian Bank w.e.f 1st April’20(copy enclosed). 

02. In this context, we wish to draw your kind attention about the following serious aberrations that have come up as a fall out of a recent decision of the Indian Bank Management.

 i) Those Staff members who retired from the services of Indian Bank up to 31.03.2020 and also those who are retiring after 01.04.2020 on superannuation from the merged entity are eligible for Medical aid of Rs.4000 per annum while retirees of Allahabad Bank have been deprived of this facility. 

 ii) Again, those Staff members who retired from the services of Indian Bank up to 31.03.2020 and also those who are retiring from the merged entity after 01.04.2020 on superannuation are eligible for reimbursement of a maximum amount of Rs 4700 per annum for the premium paid on health Insurance cover taken by them. Again, the Retirees of Allahabad Bank have been denied of this.

 03 Those Staff members who retired from the services of Indian Bank up to 31.03.2020 and those who are retiring after 01.04.2020 on superannuation from the merged entity are eligible for reimbursement of Annual Health check up charges incurred by them for self and Spouse up to a maximum of Rs.3500. But the Retirees of Allahabad Bank have been kept out of the ambit of this facility. 

04. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to 01.04.2020, the Retirees of the erstwhile Allahabad Bank were provided financial help to the extent of Mediclaim policy premium up to an Insurance cover of Rs.150000 taken by the retirees. The same could not be extended on the plea of Net Profit during subsequent years which was not backed by any relative HR policy of the Bank. It is also pertinent to mention here that prior to 01.04.2020, the Retirees of the erstwhile Allahabad Bank were not enjoying any welfare measure from the bank due to the fact that the Bank was incurring Net losses. Therefore, the reason for non-payment towards welfare measure was due to financial constraints and subsequent embargo and not backed by any relative HR Policy of the bank. When the Bank posted Net Profit, the Bank again started to bear the cost of Mediclaim policy premium up to an Insurance cover of Rs.150000 taken by the retirees. 

05.Further, Indian Bank has also created different groups within the Retirees, viz., Retired on superannuation and retired otherwise, VRS, CRS, etc., which is against the spirit of the legal pronouncements, by the Supreme Court. 06.These aberrations and discriminating HR Policy of Indian Bank with the Retirees of erstwhile Allahabad Bank go entirely against the spirit of amalgamation of the Government of India and it has eventually caused avoidable angst and a feeling of deprivation among the Retirees of Allahabad Bank causing financial hardship to them who toiled over decades for the growth of the esteemed institution, the first joint stock bank of the country. 

In the above backdrop, we would request you to kindly bestow your personal attention in the matter with a pragmatic view and take a holistic approach to the issue for its logical resolution so that such kind of discriminatory treatment meted out to the Retirees of Allahabad Bank is abolished once for all. 

“Stay Safe, Stay Healthy”

With best regards, 

Yours sincerely 

 Sd/- 

(SOUMYA DATTA) 

General Secretary

En: As stated above

                                                                 A virus does not spread itself, it is we who spread it

Text of Letter No. AIBOC/2020/23 dated 05.05.2020

Shri Debasish Panda 

Secretary Department of Financial Services 

Ministry of Finance 

Government of India New Delhi 

Dear Sir, 

                                                          MEGA AMALGAMATION OF 10 BANKS INTO 4 - HR RELATED ISSUES 

                          After announcement of amalgamation, your office had directed all the ten banks to form a committee of Executive Directors to go into the HR related issues that might arise in the merged entities post amalgamation. Though the banks formed the Committee as directed by you, no meaningful discussions appear to have taken place in such Committees. None of the Committees held any discussion with the recognised trade unions of their respective banks to know their views. As a result, many HR issues have arisen in the merged entities post amalgamation, some of which are as below: 

1. The Hon'ble FM had announced that the best of the facilities among the merged banks will be made available to employees post merger. In terms of notification dated 04.03.2020 issued by Government of India on merger of 10 banks into 4 also, it is mentioned: Quote “the pay and allowance offered to the employees or officers of the Transferor Banks shall not be less favourable, overall, as compared to what they would have drawn in the respective Transferor Banks immediately before the commencement of this Scheme and without any break or interruption in service and the Board of Transferee Bank shall ensure that the interests of all transferring employees and officers of the Transferor Banks are protected” Unquote. But in effect, the anchor banks have not taken care to ensure that they offer the best of the facilities to the employees of the merged entities. As a result, the employees of target banks are denied of the facilities which they were enjoying in their banks before merger.

 2. Other than the allowance and perquisites, it was also expected that the merged entity will follow the best of the HR practices among the anchor and the target banks. You will appreciate that many of those HR practices are the result of the negotiations between the management and the recognised unions of those banks. But we regret to note that the anchor banks are following their own HR practices instead of adopting the best practices among all the merging entities. While synchronising these HR practices, the ‘Anchor’ banks have not displayed even the courtesy to discuss any of the related issues with the recognised unions, where it is on record that those practices and benefits are outcome of many negotiated settlements reached between those unions and the respective individual bank managements. 

3. It is a known fact that in every bank there are unions of the officers and workmen who are granted check-off facility by respective banks to receive the members' subscription. Over the years, their members have filed check-off mandates with the respective management, to deduct monthly subscription from their salary and remit to their union / association. The check-off mandate filed by the employees of all the banks which are merged with their respective banks prior to merger must be binding on the new merged entity. But some anchor banks have either been refusing to honour the check-off mandate filed by employees of the target banks or are imposing restrictions. Though many of them are affiliated to the same apex level union, the fact remains that they are separate entities registered under the Trade Unions Act in different states. Even if they wish to merge into one, the procedure requires time. Each of the individual bank based unions, though affiliated to a single trade union at apex level, have their own Constitution / Bye-laws, which may differ from that of others. Their organisational structure, subscription, welfare scheme, etc. also differ. Because of COVID19 pandemic, the leaders are unable to meet and work out proper amalgamation scheme of the bank level unions / associations into one. Further, such amalgamation of unions requires the consent of the members in terms of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Refusing to honour the check off mandate filed by the officers of target banks or imposing any type of restrictions on them is nothing but denying the right of association to those officers which they were enjoying till the date of merger. 

4. Though it was being propagated and thus expected that new entities will emerge after the amalgamation of banks, as per the reports received by us, in practice the anchor banks are imposing their own conditions, even by-passing the understandings which the trade unions of the anchor as well as the target banks had with their respective managements. In fact, this attitude is not limited to only HR related matters. We understand that even though during the meeting of the Committees constituted to adopt the best of the policies of merged entities, it was decided to adopt some of the best practices of the target banks’. However, we understand that later it was unilaterally turned down. In view of the same, we request you to kindly intervene to ensure the following:

 1. The service conditions which are best among all the banks in the merged entity are extended to the officers. These include the Perquisites, Loan Schemes, Welfare Schemes and other facilities. 

2. The HR practices which are best among all the banks in the merged entity are followed. These include various HR policies also. 

3. Check-off mandate given by the officers and filed by the individual bank level unions before merger of the banks is honoured by the merged entity without any restrictions / preconditions. 

4. All the understandings which the trade unions, one of the major stakeholders, had with their respective earlier managements are honoured by the merged entity and all such agreements should continue in the best interest of all concerned. 

With best regards, 

Yours sincerely, 

 Sd/- (Soumya Datta) 

General Secretary

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

These are all due to mistakes omitted by unions.  Instead of protesting against merger Unions should have initiated negotiations with govt to ensure better terms and conditions for merged bank employees. Then govt would have issued proper directives to Banks to adhere to terms and conditions. They thought they could stop merger and neglected main issue of protecting interests of employees of Banks merged with four banks.Further AIBOC also signed agreements excluding pre 2002 pensioners from benefits.

unless there is directives from DFS Banks do not care to follow any rules. They have even ignored SC verdict.

--
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/0c8b0c62-a2b9-465f-a54f-e5815480382e%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Indian bank discriminates not only new joinees from Allahabad bank. Even within Indian Bank, the Voluntarily Retirees are discriminated and the bank does not even respond for any representation. 

I reporoduce below my correspondence with Indian Bank, which highlights the callous attitude of executives. 

"Mail Date: Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 7:26 PM

Subject: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

 

I had taken voluntary retirement from the Bank, after serving nearly three decades, as per the special VRS package extended by the bank.

 

I thank you for the bank’s introduction of one time welfare scheme as per circular HRMD 129/2019-20 Dated 24 12 2019. This is the first time that the bank has considered Voluntarily retired staff also eligible for extending some monetary facility under welfare scheme.

 

When special VRS was on, somehow the bank’s top-level executives have exhibited their unfriendly attitude towards VRS optees treating them as if the retirees have done something against the bank. The Bank as per directive of Government of India and IBA introduced the scheme and the staff who wanted to opt for it based on their personal and family circumstances have done so.

 

But subsequently the bank started treating the VR staff as not worthy of anything. At one time even the preferential rate of interest on deposits was not extended to them.

 

When the bank has extended the new one time welfare scheme to the VR staff also, it is a healthy trend. I congratulate and thank you and your team for showing sympathy towards voluntarily retired staff also.

 

I request you to extend the following facilities also to the VR Staff, as there is no rational in denying these to them even after they reach superannuation age. 

 

Medical aid of Rs. 4000  on declaration basis.

Reimbursement of Health Insurance Premium paid

Reimbursement of Heath Check Up charges up to a maximum of Rs.3500/-

 

I do hope to get positive response from you.

 

Thanks/Regards

 

S Kalyanasundaram

Reminder Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

Could you please let me know your response for the representation?

 

Thanks/Regards.

 

S Kalyanasundaram 

 

Reminder Date: Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

I am still looking forward to hear from you. 

 

Thanks/Regards.

 

S Kalyanasundaram 

 

Reminder Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 5:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

Could you please favour me with your response?

 

Thanks/Regards.

 

S Kalyanasundaram

 

Reminder Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

 

I am still looking forward to get SOME response from you. 

Thanks/Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram

 

Reminder Date: Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: One time welfare scheme
To: <pares...@indianbank.co.in>

I still look forward to get your response. 

Thanks/Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram

 

Reminder Date: 4 May 2020 at 7:04:16 AM GMT-7
To: pares...@indianbank.co.in
Subject: Fwd:  One time welfare scheme



Is it too much to expect a response from your end?

 

This seems to be the respect and recognition that the bank wants to show on the retirees who have served the bank for decades. 

 

One day you people will also retire. God  bless you. 

 

Regards.

 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Murali]

Whatever irrefutable arguments armed with precedents and comparison of similar provisions elsewhere, our plight does not evoke any sympathy from even highest Court of the Land....

I think we may have to build a case for abolition of various classes of pensioners in each Bank and fight bilaterally to annul the myriad formula based on the date of retirement..

This is a forum of titans who have consistently and brilliantly fought for equity and justice throughout their career while in service and for pensioners from the day they retired...

If each Bank (or the IBA)is compelled to come with just 1 pension formula for for their retired Bankers, once and for all, to be uniformly applicable regardless of the date of retirement,  we will be rendering yeoman service to causes of those on side of their 80s as the minimum age will surely pray for the welfare of their institution....

Under the current circumstances, it looks like we won't see the end of the tunnel until we lose each every one of these Very Senior Citizens....it may take longer...

Regards

--

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

As there was no response from Indian bank, I have lodged complaint through PGPortal. 

The complaint has been forwaded to Shri Sudhakara Rao KS General Manager of the Bank on 28 05 2020 with direction to issue acknowledgement to the petitioner urgently and examine and settle the complaint as per the rules within a time bound manner. 

Nothing has been heard from the bank so far. This is how the bank treats even direction from the government. Even after three weeks, there is no acknowledgement from the bank. May be 'urgent' has got a  different meaning for them. 

I request all VR staff of Indian Bank to take up the matter by writing to the bank as well as to the PGPortal. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

It is like that.  The stupid men at MOF never gives any direction to do justice but merely forward the petition to the bank for evading responsibility.  The hands of the bank are tied up and they will not do anything.  I would like to know your date of retirement, whether you are original optee for pension who opted in 1995 or second optee who pted in 2010

Thanks and Regrads

C N Venugopalan

Former Director (GOI Nominee) e-state Bank of Travancore & Ex-Manager, Union Bank

9447747994  

Please feel free to contact any time

. 

[Venugopal Cheriyachanaseril]

On Friday, 19 June 2020 09:51:06 UTC+5:30, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam wrote:

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

How my date of retirement (VR) and date of option for pension matter to get benefit under Staff Welfare Fund?

The bank has made only superannuation retirees eligible for the welfare fund. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

As there was no progress, I reminded through the portal on 19 06 2020 as follows: 

“The bank was directed to acknowledge urgently and sort out the matter. However even after three weeks, the bank has not even bothered to acknowledge the complaint. Such is the respect the bank shows to government direction. My representation with the bank is pending since February without any acknowledgement even. What a callous attitude to retired senior citizens of the bank? The PG Portal must initiate appropriate remedial measures.”

Again on 07/07/2020 reminded as follows: 

“Is there any way out to wake up the sleeping bank officials?”

On 07/07/20 the bank has closed the case by making the following remarks: 

“Complaint Reference No.: DEABD/E/2020/23858 With reference to the complaint our HRM department informed that the Welfare Schemes for Retired Employees of our Bank are applicable only to those retired under superannuation as per the scheme. In view of the above please treat the complaint as attended to and close the file. Chief Manager (CSC)”

I gave the following feedback to the portal on 11 07 20:

“When I am questioning the justification of the rules, the same rule is again quoted and the complaint closed. Complete absence of application of mind. Even up to this time, the bank has not acknowledged or replied for my mail to me.”

Friends, you can see how the bank is making mockery of the grievance portal system.

S Kalyanasundaram