LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT RESIGNING FROM SERVICE - OFFICERS’ OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AFTER COMPLETING PENSIONABLE SERVICE, ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION

[Mohan V.R]

Dear All,

The Latest Circular from AIBOC on the above subject is reproduced for your benefit.

ALL INDIA  BANK OFFICERS’ CONFEDERATION

(Registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926, Registration No: 3427/Delhi)

State Bank of Buildings, St. Mark’s Road, Bangalore – 560 001

CIRCULAR NO.80                                                     20.08.2011

TO ALL AFFILIATES/MEMBERS:

 

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT

RESIGNING FROM SERVICE - OFFICERS’ OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AFTER COMPLETING PENSIONABLE SERVICE, ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION

 

        We have been pursuing with IBA, the cause of Officers who had resigned from service of Banks after completing more than 20 years of service and by giving three months advance notice, to be made eligible for pensionary benefits in the wake of settlement on 2^nd Option on Pension. IBA has not responded positively to our correspondence on the issue. Now the Supreme Court of India in the Civil Apex Case No. 6013 of 2011 in respect of Sri.Sheelkumar Jain Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, have in unambiguous terms, delivered a landmark judgement in favour of the petitioners and have averred that the Officer who has resigned from the service of the Company after completing 20 years of service and by giving three months notice, is eligible for Pension benefits.

 

2.     The same analogy applies to officers who have resigned from the service of the Banks after completing pensionable service of 20 years and giving 3 months notice expressing their desire to quit the Bank.

 

3.     We have addressed a letter to the IBA to consider the cases of Officers who have resigned from the service of different Banks for pensionary benefits.  The text of the letter is annexed.

 

4.     Further developments will be informed to you.

 

With greetings,

 

                                                                            

                                                                            (G.D.NADAF)

GENERAL SECRETARY

 

No./1452/297/11                                           20^th August, 2011

 

To,

The Chairman,

The Indian Banks’ Association,

World Trade Centre Complex,

Centre 1, 6^th Floor, Cuffe Parade,

MUMBAI – 400 005.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

IMPLEMENTATION OF SECOND OPTION ON PENSION

IN THE WAKE OF 9^TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT

DENIAL OF OPTION TO JOIN THE PENSION SCHEME TO OFFICERS

WHO HAVE RETIRED UNDER VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME OR RESIGNED FROM THE SERVICES OF THE BANKS

 

        We draw your kind attention to our correspondence on the captioned issue, resting with you. We regret to note that, you have not responded to our correspondence positively. In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal No.6013 of 2011, pertaining to the case of Sri.Sheelkumar Jain Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., and others has delivered a landmark judgement wherein, the learned judges have averred that:

 

2.     The officer-employee of the Insurance Company who has put in the qualifying service for Pension and given up his service voluntarily after serving 90 days notice; in accordance with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is eligible for pensionary benefits.

 

3.     Clause 22 of the General Insurance Pension Scheme 1995, stated that, resignation of an employee from the service of the Corporation or a Company should entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently should not qualify for pensionary benefits, but did not define the term “Resignation”.

 

4.     Under Clause 30(1) of the Pension Scheme 1995, an employee who have completed 20 years of qualifying service by giving notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority, to retire from service under clause 30(2) of the Pension Scheme 1995. The notice of Voluntary Retirement should require acceptance by the appointing authority. Since “Voluntary Retirement” unlike “Resignation” did not entail forfeiture of past service and instead qualified for pension, an employee to whom clause 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 applied should not be considered to have “resigned” from service.

 

5.     In the instant case, appellant had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given notice of not less than 90 days in writing to the appointing authority of his intention to leave service, and the appointing authority had accepted notice of the appellant and relieved him from service.

 

6.     Hence, clause 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 applied to the Appellant even though in his relieving letter to the General Manager of the respondent he had used the word “resign”. Further clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme 1995 should not be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an Insurance Company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for Pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with Clause 5(1) of the Scheme”.

 

7.      It is crystal clear that, the Officers who have completed 20 years or more of service, retired from the service of the Bank by giving 3 months notice to the competent authorities concerned and Management accepting such applications submitted by the Officers’ offering to resign from the service of the Banks, should have been treated on par with the officers retiring under the Regular Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulation 1995, Clause No.29. Such Officers should be made eligible for pensionary benefits.

 

8.      Keeping in view the judgement of the Supreme Court as mentioned Supra, we request you to reconsider giving an option to all the Officers who resigned from the service of the Bank after completing 20 years of service, and qualify for pensionary benefits, should be given an option to join the Pension scheme of the Banks.  As the number of such officers in the entire banking industry is very small, it should not be a problem for Banks to grant an option to these officers to join the pension scheme as per the Joint Note signed by us on 27.04.2010.

9.     Forwarded herein a copy of the Supreme Court Judgement for your kind perusal and suitable action in the matter. We are sure, you will be able to take a positive view on the issue and provide a relief to the affected officers.

Please expedite.

 

Thanking you,

                                                                  Yours faithfully,

                                                                             SD/-                                                                                                     (G.D.NADAF)

                                                                   GENERAL SECRETARY

--
Mohan.V.R.
PLOT 95, FIRST FLOOR,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STREET,
ALWAR THIRU NAGAR, CHENNAI 600087
Landline 044-24869356 MOB No. 09444625963.

[savithry nambissan]

Sear sir, Thank you for the information. savithry Trivandrum --- On Tue, 23/8/11, Mohan V.R <vrmoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Respected Dear All,

Aiboc circular is issued in euphoria to impart false confidence to all those pension denied people.

This Forum a fortnight back discussed Sheelkumar Vs New India Assurance co ltd.

What SC has observed is that the employer is to consider his application for pension as he has rendered the minimum pensionable years of service (20years) and at the time of his exit or before there existed no pension scheme. Had there been a scheme he would have opted for it. Hence his case is to be considered for Pension'.

Sheelkumar made his exit before introduction of pension scheme in NIA and he  has fulfilled all the reqirements such as

a) more than 20 years of service.

b) complied with 3 months Notice

c) prepared to pay back PF etc

Therefore Sheelkumar verdict is applicable to all similarly placed ex-staff ( ie those who exited banks before introduction of Pension scheme) having  completed 20 years or more. (Banks have already extended pension benefit for all those superannuated from 1/1/86 till adoption of pension scheme.

Banks extended the option to switch over to pension scheme TWICE, once on introduction of the scheme in 1993-95 and again after 6 months(The cruel irony is that a lot of people switced back to PF ie they withdrew their option for pension  at the II time due to the gigantic GOEBELLIAN war-like  false propaganda by AIBOC and BEFI so much that AIBEAand AIBOA got unnerved as to the operation of the scheme in view of the fact that in many banks less than 50% of eligible staff opted for pension).

As all those who exited after introduction of the scheme were already given the option twice, I am very much doubtful of  the applicability of Sheelkumar verdict.(Sometimes it may backfire as in the case of  RBI officers   who demanded pension to those who retired  before 1/1/86 and SC severely reprimanded the Officers Association).

Unless the signatories of the III option settlement bilaterally resolve this issue satisfactorily, seeking legal remedy may prove to be savour grapes.

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

[savithry nambissan]

Dear sir,      From this it is clear that when fresh option is given,it is applicable to V R S people, resignees with 3 months notice etc in-spite of the fact that option given is for 2nd time or 3rd time.It is immaterial whether the option is given for 1st time or otherwise,I think so.Do you think so. Savithry

--- On Tue, 23/8/11, Mohan V.R <vrmoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Mohan V.R <vrmoh...@gmail.com> Subject: bankpensioner LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT RESIGNING FROM SERVICE - OFFICERS’ OF NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AFTER COMPLETING PENSIONABLE SERVICE, ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION To: Date: Tuesday, 23 August, 2011, 6:56 PM

[n. saikrishnan]

I agree with you Mr Perumal.  The case of the bank officials who have not opted for pension despite the option being available and Sheelkumar Jain case are quite different.  If the courts are magnanimous in considering them on par, it is good luck to the bank officers.

Regarding the suggestion/advice/threat/arm twisting ( use any one of the expressions ) of the Unions and Associations, forcing a large number of bankers to opt for PF, there appears to be a divided house.  In South, while most of the people opted for Pension, the leaders did not opt for it.  However in West ( at least from my enqueries in Mumbai ), it is the reverse.  Many of the union leaders had opted for pension while advocating for continuance in PF scheme!  The flock blindly followed the leaders' advices and ignored the Pension scheme. 

When the second option came, some of us ignored the "advice" of our leaders and opted for pension and are definitely benefited.  I only pray that rest of our fraternity also get this benefit by a beneficial interpretation by the courts in all the pending cases.

regards

saikrishnan
Syndicate Bank Pensioner

Saikrishnan
+9122 21637903/+919821891974

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Sir

   What you said is perfectly correct. 

    Fate is not in our hand. Still we have to fight for non opties and resigned in between.

With regards,

Suresh Bhat M

..................................................................................

[Narayana Melkote]

Dear Friends,

     I understand from a retired cental government employee, that if one has completed 20 years of service and opts for voluntary retirement, he gets full pension ! (ie. notionally 13 years service is added !) Is it a fact?

Narayana Melkote

---

From: n. saikrishnan <n.saik...@gmail.com>
To: perumal...@yahoo.co.in
Cc: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

[Gopalakrishnan Nair A.K]

I disagree with these views since an option was again formulated now.The MOU specifically mentioned Special VRS cases since the required minimum service of 20 yrs, as specified in pension regulation , was not satisfied by them .The said case of the Insurance co.is applicable whenever a new pension option is called for.AIBOC might have obtained legal experts' opinion before writing to IBA.If any body have different views please obtain expert opinion before expressing it, especially by  those who are enjoying pension benefit.

Gopalakrishnan Nair -SBT Exit optee 

[M Subbaraya Hebbar]

I think affected officers/employees have to appeal   in a court of law seeking benefit as per the above judgement.

 

Hebbar M S

[anantharaman tg]

Dear All,

The very fact that a second option is sought and granted implies it is menat for all those who did not

or rather, could not make it earlier. The joint note had the words that all those people who "retired between 29/9/95 and 26/4/2010" are eligible to opt for a second time. It was the mischievous inter-

pretation later on that came in the way of the VRS people to get their otherwise legitimate right.

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:52 PM, savithry nambissan <savit...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

Your interpretation of FULL PENSION is not correct.

Pl note pension is relatable to service rendered.

At present in Banks pension is granted for pension-optees under VRS, only a proportionate pension.That is to say, if you render 20 years service, your eligible basic pension will be calculated for 25 years( 25/33x100=75.76%); if you have rendered 28 years of actual service then Full pension(50%) will be considerd; if you have rendered 31 years still you will get only for 33 years as notional 5 years benefit can not take you beyond 33years or superannuation.

Now if full pension concept is introduced:  Incase of 20 years of service you will get 50% of last drawn PAY (instead of 75.76%)

I don't think any Notional weightage is necessary to get 50%. ( Full pension for 20 years in Central Gov't has been introduced to enable for those who stagnate without any hope for further promotion and to enable them to seek newer pastures).

Pl go through Pension Scheme details of your Bank.

M.Peruma

From: Narayana Melkote <naray...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 6:42 PM
Subject: bankpensioner 6th Pay Commission to Central Govt.employees.

Dear Friends,

     I understand from a retired cental government employee, that if one has completed 20 years of service and opts for voluntary retirement, he gets full pension ! (ie. notionally 13 years service is added !) Is it a fact?

Narayana Melkote

-- Saikrishnan+9122 21637903/+919821891974-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sri GK Nair,

You have misundertood my interpretation on the applicability to others.

What I have tried to drive home is that  the subject matter has to be bilaterally settled as it is a matter of INTERPRETATION of an agreed item in the Miniutes of the Pension option. My concern is both AIBOC and AiBEA and all other Unions can jointly take efforts to remove the differences over interpretation of a very crucial clause.

Instead, if you desire a court battle for QUICKER(!) solution, there is no need to consult  Ramjethmalanies or Venugopals.

All you need is only MONEY.

Wish you grand success in your legal attempt.                  When Banks give, we reject.(not once but twice)

                                                                                             When Banks refuse, we fight.(thro' courts only!)

M.Perumal                                                                             

CB-SVRS

From: Gopalakrishnan Nair A.K <gnair...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[ravi jain]

sir,

not at all. but the 50% OF BP+PENSIONABLE ALLOWANCES drawn at that time is TREATED AS PENSION.

[Gopalakrishnan Nair A.K]

Dear Mr.perumal

This forum is not to find fault with any body ,whether it be AIBOC or BEFI for what happened in 1995-1996.The circumstances that prevailed in 1995 was  not as of now .Some calculations of those days supported PF option.In 1995 nobody envisaged VRS/EXIT/Resignation etc. Employees ,especially officers, resorted for this due to many reasons like sickness,victimization, denial of promotions,family & other personal problems.Strike Clause in pension regulation, which was subsequently amended, was the major reason for PF option.All the unions should have claimed another pension option on such a material amendment. The crux of the present case can be extended to the new option.AIBOC seems to be taking the issue seriously.Let them take.Those who are denied the new pension option also have  lost salary due to strike for this common cause. There are few such retirees, waiting eagerly , for an immediate solution. 


Gopalakrishnan Nair  

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:45 PM, perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

[Mohan badi]

Dear Narayana Melkote.

Sir there is only  five years maximum provision to be added after only 20 + years of service, so his pensionable service is 25 years, suppose someone has put 30 yrs of service so he gets  notional benefit of three years more,  and suppose one has done 16 years of service , he is not eligible for notional  five years addition, but instead FULL, HE SHALL GET 16 Yrs PROPORTIONAL PENSION. Many eligible retirees in SBM  did not get this additional 5years of notional benefits,but few had got, hen ce the fight is going on. No one will get 13 years what you said about.


From M.R.Badi
United Bank of India,Bangalore

---

From: Narayana Melkote <naray...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 6:42 PM
Subject: bankpensioner 6th Pay Commission to Central Govt.employees.

[Venkata S.Akella CFE]

I totally concur with Mr.Goplalakrishnan Nair's response..

I wish to add the following:

On hindsight we are so may attribute many things to our braver colleagues who lead  a series of battles against the 

Bank Managements for enabling all of us much more privileges than our counterparts in other sectors/dept.s etc..

For all of us, pension benefit was not offered when we entered the bank service. 

But it had become a reality due to the untiring efforts of all us coupled with the leadership that we all had.

In my humble opinion, while leading retired life, let us prevent negative thoughts from entertaining us; let us continue our 

fight only to improve the lot that we all could get so far.  

Wishing and praying for a Happier and Healthier life ahead to the Bank Retirees' Fraternity.

Murthy AVSN

( Andhra Bank )

[lajpat rai]

TO ALL MY RETIREE FRIENDS AND LEADERS OF THE COMMITTEE THINKING FOR FORMATION OF BANK OFFICER RETIREES ORGANISATION  UNION IS STRENGTH. WE SHOULD NOT FORM A SEPERATE ORGANISATION FOR BANK OFFICER RETIREES AS OFFICER COMMUNITY IS A MOUNTAIN OF SAND WHICH WE OFFICERS HAVE OBSERVED THROUGH OUT OUR CAREER IN BANKING INDUSTRY. EVER AFTER 40 YEARS BEING WITH OFFICERS IN NATIONALISED SECTOR OFFICERS ARE STILL LEADING A PITIABLE LIFE NO RESPECT AT ANY LEVEL EITHER AT STAFF,MANAGEMENT OR CUSTOMER LEVEL.  LET THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS BE GOT IMPROVED WITH UNITED EFFORTS OF ALL BANK EMPLOYEES. IT IS ONLY OUR OFFICERS LEADERS WHO MISLEAD THE OFFICER COMMUNITY FOR NOT OPTING PENSION IN THE YEAR 1995/1996 AS A RESULT OF OFFICERS EXPERCISING 2ND OPTION  OF PENSION AS PER LATEST OPTION HAVE LOST 15 TO 20 LACS MONETARY LOSS BY GETTING PENSION W.E.F. 27/11/2009. --- On Fri, 26/8/11, Venkata S.Akella CFE <akella....@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Venkata S.Akella CFE <akella....@gmail.com> Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Badi sir       26/08/2011

    I read some where in this column that central Govt , in its 6th Pay comm has implemented full pension to those worked for 20 years. to its employees. It means that in central Govt those who take VRS after 20 yrs will get full pension - After 2006/07.

   May be application of this clause to Bank employees is at a long distance. 

However, as I remember , this clause is also a point in the WP 25/2005 filed by Mr. Pradeep Kumar in Supreme Court. WE NEED TO STUDY  THE WP 25/2005 IN DETAIL FOR THIS.

 Let us hope a day may come to highlight this point eaRLY

Pls check and confirm

WITH REGARDS

SURESH BHAT M

CANARA BANK SVRS

............................................................

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Nair and Akela,

Pl refer to the last sentence of my mail.  I have opined that the matter requires urgent bilateral talks between Unions and IBA.

I have said that Sheelkumar verdict will help all similarly placed ex-staff. But drawing a parallel for those who exited after introduction of Pension scheme (ie after 1995) raises a doubt as to its applicability and hence the contentious interpretation of the crucial clause better be resolved through bilaterl talks between Unions and IBA. Does it amount to a NEGATIVE view?

2) I have not found fault with Aiboc or Befi for their efforts to secure one more option. I have pointed out the irony of fate; i.e the twice-rejected persons trying to draw comfort from the disadvantageously placed Sheelkumar  who had no chioce while in service.

3)I have only brought back to the readers' memory the distorted campaign by Aiboc and Befi which misled lacs of  Bankmen.

I am not digging the past but only  bringing  back the momentous days of HISTORICAL BLUNDER by way of a flash back as to how the gullible super-intelligentia called Bankmen were forced to commit 'Harakiri' financially.

4) Mr. Nair has stated that AIBOC is very seriously pursuing the ISSUE with IBA. Thanks for the information.

    With all humility I ask you whether you are aware of the TRUTH that G.D.NADAFF refused to sign the Minutes of  One More Option understanding on the Night of 27th November 2009?. It was K.S.Shetty,the President and P.K.Sarkar  who defied the dictates of the General Secretary and signed the historical miniutes along with other constituents of UFBU.
GOOD LUCK.

M.Perumal

Chennai

From: Venkata S.Akella CFE <akella....@gmail.com>

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 10:36 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Thanks sri Lajpat Raiji for revealing your heart.

M.Perumal

Chennai

From: lajpat rai <thukrall...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[purnachandra rao poluru]

dear sureshbhat

i think both of us  worked in sriganganagar branch of canarabank (formerly lcb)  during1988-91 as officers. am i correct?

i am  p.p.rao from hyderabad ,now retired as manager on 31/03/2010 .i think you are from puttur

dailany was another officer .bhtty,johal were clerks along with singhal.    

please reply
regards

.p.p.rao

[MOHANDAS RAO]

Dear Sri Suresh,

 

I reproduce hereunder what Pradeep Kumar prayed in WP 25/2005, as per his own summary provided. I quote:

"

............2.    Direction to Bank of India to pay full pension to me, in view of the latest decision of the Government of India to grant /pay full pension to its employees, with just 20 Years / 10 years of service, from 01.01.2006, in terms of the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India / Union of India, dated 10.12.2009, since I put in 22 Years service in Bank of India, which is much more than the number of years service prescribed by the Government of India, for its Employees to Get Full Pension, as Regulation 56 of Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995 establishes a clear nexus / connection between / with the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972  and Bank Of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, and also to pay arrears of pension, upon grant of such full pension from 01.01.2006....."

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS 2001

[lajpat rai]

ALL THE RETIREE OFFICERS FRIENDS THE MOVE OF FORMING AN ORGANISATION FOR RETIREE OFFICERS  IS WITH A PURPOSE BY OUR EX SENIOR  OFFICER FRIENDS THAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO LEAVE THE RESPECT,PERQUISITES AND MONETARY BENEFIT THEY ENJOY BY OCCUPYING THE POSTS. EVEN AFTER RETIREMENT THEY ARE ENJOYING THEIR POSITION AS EITHER CONSULTANTS/PARTON/CHAIRMAN OF THEIR IN SERVICE ORGANISATIONS  AND ENJOYING COSTLY CAR/UNLIMITED PETROL/STAY IN FIVE STAR HOTELS AT THE COST OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY IN SERVICE OFFICER MEMBERS OF THE ORGANISATIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANKS. WHILE I FEEL SERVICE SHOULD BE THE MOTIVE AFTER RETIREMENT AS THROUGHOUT WORKING LIFE SUCH LEADERS HAVE BEEN ENJOYING THEIR LIFE WITHOUT DOING ANY CONSTRUCTIVE WORK IN THE JOB WITH THEIR BANKS AND WORKING LIKE KINGS AND COMMANDING UN DUE RESPECT FROM OFFICER  FELLOWS AND AND ENJOYED DIRECTOR SHIP OF THE BANK AND MADE USE OF THEIR POSITION AS DIRECTOR AND ENCASHING VARIOUS REMUNERATIVE PERQUISITE. SEPERATE ORGANISATION OF RETIREE OFFICERS WILL FURTHER WEAKEN OUR STRENGTH AS THERE IS NO STRENGTH OF RETIREE ORGANISATIONS AND IBA/GOVT  HAS SO FAR NOT RECOGNISED THE RETIREE ORGANISATIONS AND EVEN OUR MIGHTY ORGANISATIONS HAVE  LIKE AIBEA AND AIBOC HAVE BEEN TREATING RETIREE ORGANISATIONS AS UNTOUCHTABLE UPTILL NOW. NOW SINCE RETIREE ORGANISATIONS/FRIENDS ARE WINNING COURT CASES IN SUPREME COURT SUCH  MIGHTLY ORGANISATION ARE TAKING UP CRUCIAL CASES LIKE UPGRADATION OF PENSION AND DA NEUTRALISATION ETC., WITH IBA/GOVT AND EVEN AIBOC HAS WRITTEN TO IBA REGARDING PENSIONARY BENEFITS TO RESIGNEES ETC., NOW IS THE TIME THAT OUR RETIREE OFFICERS ARE UNITED AND AVOID THE FORMATION OF SEPERATE ORGANISATION OF RETIREES. LAJPAT RAI THAKRAL --- On Fri, 26/8/11, perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

[sureshbhat M]

Mohan Das Sir

   

   Thank you for immediate reference. So, what I remembered is correct and this aspect is also referred to supreme Court.

With regards

Suresh Bhat M

Canara Bank SVRS

..........................................

[Narayana Melkote]

Dear Mr.Badi,

     I only wanted to highlight the glaring disparity and the biased attitude the bank pensioners are subjected to.  

this may be due to the fact  that pension regulations of central government employees  has not been taken cognicence of while formulating pension to bank employees from the beginning.   It is high time the concerned Union/IBA/Finance ministry realise the facts and comprehensively come out with desired amendments to the pension rules so as not to affect any pensioner in any way in future.

Narayana Melkote

---

From: Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2011 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 6th Pay Commission to Central Govt.employees.

[Jagjit Singh Mehta]

ABSOLUTEY RIGHT

 

FROM

 

J.S.MEHTA

9814213236

[Mohan badi]

Dear Narayan Melkote Sir,

Sir, it is  not  a fact. Maximum notional services to be added is only five years. and that too only for those who complete 20 + years of active service and
never more than five years.

I had told you earlier too.

Yours  Sincerely,
Prof.M.R.Badi
09902910900

---

From: Jagjit Singh Mehta <laum...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 27 August 2011 6:31 PM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner 6th Pay Commission to Central Govt.employees.

[Mohan badi]

Dear Narayan sir,

Employee completing 20* years of service is eligible for full pension. ts always 50% of basic pay of cumulative average basis. You can ask the pensioners house over here.

This is my understanding.Expect people to comment on this issue please.

M.R.Badi

---

From: Narayana Melkote <naray...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 3:41 PM

[Mohan badi]

dear Narayan Melkote sir,
Please read the case of shri, K. Mohan Das sir from Bank of India. It is clear. 20 years +of service is eligible to get full pension.

M.R.Badi

---

From: sureshbhat M <sures...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner 6th Pay Commission to Central Govt.employees.

[Mohan badi]

Dear  Sirs,

Please never blame any union or any officer, pension was an option for everyone, it was asked by bank to avail benefit, and whether at that point of time you were a clerk or officer, no one had stopped you to avail the option of pension, you should have applied the mind, what OFFICER FELT AT THAT POINT OF TIME they told,  , ITs YOU ,SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OVER AGAIN  AND AGAIN BEFORE YOUR DECISION. WHY UNNECESSARILY BLAME ANY UNION OR ANY OFFICER UNION,  IT HAS HAPPENED IN EVERY BANK, WE SHOULD BE WISE TO take our own  decision. no one had stopped you  this has happened in 1993-1996.
and exactly on 25.08.1994 I had opted pension, I had resigned bank in 1998, and I was forced to remain absent due to my sickness since 1995, I have not seen any penny from bank till today,  Just imagine ! Sirs, and I am detached from  all  union activity since 1995. My concern to request you all here is both unions are very good  strong and active , dont play blame-game.

so now  by forming new association or new group nothing is going to achieve, plz note.  its all overconfidence of few ! no never start any new association or group, or union, I am too dead against. In my case both AIBOA and AIBOC both unions have equally helped me.and very deserving and helpful to all, and not partial too. Human error is with all, why blame them.

This is my fact and opinion and request you all not to start new union and weak available union for no solid reason.

Thank you sir , for reading my few lines.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof.M.R.Badi
Bangalore

---

From: lajpat rai <thukrall...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 11:05 AM

[UCO BANK PENSIONERS]

Well said Mr M R Badi.

[nishikant bandivadekar]

Those days Officers' Associations were fighting for Pension as a third benefit as it is in SBI. It is in this background they advised members not to accept Pension. The leadership thought that if most members do not accept the scheme will fail. Their strategy failed as AIBEA accepted Pension and then Banks unilaterally issued circular for Officers too. Whatever has happened has happened. Let us not dig the past. Let us concentrate on Pension updation, removing anomalies etc which may happen only through Court. Pradep Kumar's case is a ray of hope. Past is past, future is not known but Present is PRESENT,  let us not spoil it.

 

boi.bandivadekar 

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

Is it for the same reason (pension as III benefit) that COM.G.D.Nadaf   refused to sign the one more pension option Minutes on the night of 27/11/2009?  Asking for the moon is not a sin or a wrong thing. But misleading lacs of people-----History and the affected will never forgive and forget.  

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

From: nishikant bandivadekar <boi.band...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2011 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

Those days Officers' Associations were fighting for Pension as a third benefit as it is in SBI. It is in this background they advised members not to accept Pension. The leadership thought that if most members do not accept the scheme will fail. Their strategy failed as AIBEA accepted Pension and then Banks unilaterally issued circular for Officers too. Whatever has happened has happened. Let us not dig the past. Let us concentrate on Pension updation, removing anomalies etc which may happen only through Court. Pradep Kumar's case is a ray of hope. Past is past, future is not known but Present is PRESENT,  let us not spoil it.

 

boi.bandivadekar 

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear  Sirs,

Please never blame any union or any officer, pension was an option for everyone, it was asked by bank to avail benefit, and whether at that point of time you were a clerk or officer, no one had stopped you to avail the option of pension, you should have applied the mind, what OFFICER FELT AT THAT POINT OF TIME they told,  , ITs YOU ,SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OVER AGAIN  AND AGAIN BEFORE YOUR DECISION. WHY UNNECESSARILY BLAME ANY UNION OR ANY OFFICER UNION,  IT HAS HAPPENED IN EVERY BANK, WE SHOULD BE WISE TO take our own  decision. no one had stopped you  this has happened in 1993-1996.
and exactly on 25.08.1994 I had opted pension, I had resigned bank in 1998, and I was forced to remain absent due to my sickness since 1995, I have not seen any penny from bank till today,  Just imagine ! Sirs, and I am detached from  all  union activity since 1995. My concern to request you all here is both unions are very good  strong and active , dont play blame-game.

so now  by forming new association or new group nothing is going to achieve, plz note.  its all overconfidence of few ! no never start any new association or group, or union, I am too dead against. In my case both AIBOA and AIBOC both unions have equally helped me.and very deserving and helpful to all, and not partial too. Human error is with all, why blame them.

This is my fact and opinion and request you all not to start new union and weak available union for no solid reason.

Thank you sir , for reading my few lines.

Yours Sincerely,

Prof.M.R.Badi
Bangalore

From: lajpat rai <thukrall...@yahoo.co.in>To: bankpe...@googlegroups.comSent: Friday, 26 August 2011 11:05 AMSubject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

I have the book published by AIBOC during introduction of Pension Scheme.  They have in writing advised its members who have more than 10 years left, to opt for PF.  But, most of the leaders who advised others to opt for PF, opted pension.  

AIBEA was seeking Pension in lieu of PF, from the beginning.  Other organisations commenced demanding Pension as third benefit, as they wanted to show that they are infact demanding something better than what AIBEA was demanding.

If others were so serious about Pension as 'Third benefit', why it was not demanded during subsequent settlement ?  AIBOC should have announced strike action, subsequently.

Unfortunately, successive leadership of AIBOC come from SBI, who have Pension as 'Third' benefit. I think I need not elaborate further.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "boi.band...@gmail.com" <boi.band...@gmail.com>; "thukrall...@yahoo.co.in" <thukrall...@yahoo.co.in>; kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>; "mohand...@gmail.com" <mohand...@gmail.com>; "sures...@gmail.com" <sures...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2011 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Pension as III benfit

[Parameswaran Balasubramanian]

Dear All

AIBOC is again and again writing letters which goes to dustbin of IBA straightaway without any action. These unions and associations are doing this tactics in order to show at a later date that action has been initiated by us and got by them. Beware of these unions/associations.

B. Parameswaran

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Prasadji!

You have hit the nail right on the head.  Surely, it needs no futher elaboration. The more one tries to defend the sinners and white wash their dark acts  the larger become the picture of the ugly heads of sins. As AIBOC was/is ever enjoying the coveted status of  Recognised Majority Union for Officers, the Leaders should have secured it as III benefit for the OFFICERS ( if not, at least for the EXECUTIVES community) irrespective of what AIBEA demanded for Awardstaff. If they could not do anything better than what is signed by AIBEA, what is the use of floating a separate Forum for pensioner-OFFICERS?  Let our brotheren better not to try to defend the indefensible.

Men may come and say so many things and go but let us all dispassionately try to understand the TRUTH in their words and deeds.

M.Perumal

CB-SVRS

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 29 August 2011 11:22 PM
Subject: bankpensioner Pension as III benfit

Dear friends,

I have the book published by AIBOC during introduction of Pension Scheme.  They have in writing advised its members who have more than 10 years left, to opt for PF.  But, most of the leaders who advised others to opt for PF, opted pension.  

AIBEA was seeking Pension in lieu of PF, from the beginning.  Other organisations commenced demanding Pension as third benefit, as they wanted to show that they are infact demanding something better than what AIBEA was demanding.

If others were so serious about Pension as 'Third benefit', why it was not demanded during subsequent settlement ?  AIBOC should have announced strike action, subsequently.

Unfortunately, successive leadership of AIBOC come from SBI, who have Pension as 'Third' benefit. I think I need not elaborate further.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,Prasad C N

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Mohan badi]

Dear all Union leaders from all unions ,associations etc.

Sub- Retirees and pensioners unfulfilled dreams

Kindly try to contact , consult  negotiate and demand our right to seek pension and other benefits in full. Lokpal bill is all for resolving citizen's problem and griveances.

In case of  need meet Hon'ble  ANNAJI, before whom even  our Prime Minister wrote a letter of acceptance of his three demand. YOU all leaders too , why not try and succeed and people will save money in the court of law. My lawyer has demanded Rs.50,000  to fight my case, One lawyer in 1999 asked in cash Rs.50,000 to fight my case that time. so today what my present lawyer has demanded is too less, we have to think in that perspective only. Hence I could not go to court for long time.

I request all leaders fro different unions and associations to act fast, let it not be as that, some here in saying letters after letters to IBA etc is a big eyewash before we people. I dont think so. I HAVE STRONG BELIEF IN YOU ALL LEADERS PLEASE TRY THIS MODE ALSO.

THANK YOU SIRS, AND LEADERS, I CAN NOT FORGET YOUR FIGHT WITH GOVT.
FOR PEOPLE ONLY. MAY GOD GIVE YOU MORE STRENGTH, AND ENERGY TO KEEP ALL WE RETIREES AND PENSIONERS HAPPY.

All stated here in by me is  Under right of freedom of expression, and nothing of  personal nature.

With regards,  

Yours  sincerely,
Prof.M.R.Badi.
09902910900

---

From: Parameswaran Balasubramanian <bpara...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Pension as III benfit

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Badi Sir                   30/08/2011

      I do not understand what is under discussion. On the one side we are firing and blaming Unions and its leaders left and right  for what we face now and say do not believe them AND on the other side expect very same Unions to talk and fight for our sake by negotiating with IBA,Govt,  Courts etc.

    When you throw stones at them why expect flowers from their side?.

   What I wish is some how our representative should enter UFBU as a member. At least we can ask the Unions including AIBOC to consider our existing AIBRF as a member of UFBU and sit with them for all meeetings and negotiations and settlements. 

    As already discussed in this site, just a win to Mr. Pradeep Kumar will not serve our purpose. Provisioning for additional burden of revised pension need to be accepted between Unions- IBA - Govt  and only after this we can expect updation of pension.This burden need to be shared between UFBU constituents and Banks as court may not direct Govt to pay us from Govt treasury.

    I am happy if any of you have any idea to get updation of pension sans UFBU( AIBOC is the strong constituent of UFBU)

I only wish do not did deep in to the past 

     thanks

Suresh Bhat M

 ............................................................................................

[Mohan badi]

Dear Sirs,

We all know once upon a time AIBEA  was very very strong, who initiated the concept of pension , then AIBOA taken birth, Unionism is an very old in the human race. Similarly AIBOC came into existence. BEFI also has been active and prominent. There are many many bank unions and associations, and forums and so many federations etc.etc. Do we need all these? Do we need to  create one more and add one more to it? Never ! This is what I said.

My contention is that let us not have more unions or associations or forum, for same cause or objective. It is a shear wastage of time and energy, this is what I have highlighted, nothing else. As we know AIBEA, AIBOA and AIBOC  etc are very strong, and hilarious to Govt. Make Bankers to listen to your voices. Who raise voice that is not my concern, I am small particle in that  voice process.You all may try to send your one solid Representative in UFBU, who stopped you ? But this can be done by sending your written representation too. Is this option is over? I told since 1995 I am far aloof  from union and any association.  Thanks to Suresh Bhat sir for clarification. But neither I have thrown stone at any one and expecting any flowers from them. Under freedom of expression I am expressing my thoughts. Our ways are different but destination is same, this is what I am highlighting. X negotiates, Y negotiates what difference it make so long they are impartial and fair.

You may try to pursue to make AIBRF as one of their member, what stops them? and what stops you too ?

When One Anna  could do miracle; why not any other from our pensioners group? please find and search one.

Why he need support of any union  or any association ?

Please throw all your opinions and ideas over here, on line, we will read and think and try to give our suggestion. Unless you demand for, you will never get it, on  and around negotiating table. If I am mistaking in understanding something anywhere please advise me. I will listen to it carefully. if correct and rational.

I have expressed my thoughts nothing  to take personally in persona.

Thanks to all,

With due respects.

Yours sincerely,
Prof.M.R.Badi

---

From: sureshbhat M <sures...@gmail.com>

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 12:23 PM

[lajpat rai]

TO ALL MY FRIENDS OF THE GROUP. A COPY OF E MAIL SENT TO AIBOC IS GIVEN FOR INFORMATION OF MY PENSIONER FRIENDS AND I REQUEST YOU ALL TO WRITE TO AIBOC TO AVOID FORMATION OF SEPERATE ORGANISATION OF PENSIONERS IN BANKING INDUSTRY SIR., WE TOTALLY REJECT THE MOVE TO FORM A SEPARATE ORGANISATION OF RETIREE OFFICERS. THIS WILL DIVIDE THE PENSIONERS. OFFICERS  PARTICULARLY UPTO SCALE III  HAVE ALREADY SUFFERED A LOT , ARE SUFFERING A LOT AND WILL REMAIN SUFFERING. EXCEPT WAGE REVISIONS THE POSITION OF OFFICERS  IN THE BANKING INDUSTRY IS DEPLORABLE.,PITIABLE AND FULL OF DISRESPECT AND INHUMAN BEHAVIOR BY TOP MANAGEMENT. VIEWS OF LARGE NUMBER OF PENSIONERS AFTER INTERACTION WITH THEM ReplyReply All Move...Inbox --- On Tue, 30/8/11, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Mohan badi]

dear
sirs,
all union leaders,

read problems of our officers and kindly help them, its my pray to you all here

    Kesar Tandon<kesar...@yahoo.com> says :
I have completed 38 years , 5 months , 12 days of service as per my joining date 11-10-1971 , and retired on voluntary service on 22-03-10 , and as per IBA circular issued to my employer "Syndicate bank" as per circular 342 / 2010 dated 16-09-10 , and according to circular i am not given permission for applying pension option . Further in terms of para numer 3 of circular number CIR / HR & IR / G2 / 665 / 90 / 2010 dated 10-08-10 among others it clearly states that government has consented IBA to advice bank for seeking option from employees both serving and retiriees who did not opt for pension earlier , explaining the terms and conditions for such option accordingly payment of pension to such retiries w.e.f. 27-11-09 who opt for pension .


Now I draw my kind attention towards all concerned and well wishers to guide me in awailing my option of pension.


Thanking you
Madhusudan Tandon
538 A / 205 triveni nagar-1
sitapur road lucknow - 226020
+91-9336603122 / 0522 - 3297491



Nimbaji ingale<nmi...@gmail.com> says:

THE BANKS HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED THE CARVED OUT FUND IN EVERY SETTLEMENT i.e 8.5%,9.5% and 13 % during the last three wage settlements however pension option has been extended now after 1995 with such inordinate delay after the removal of extraneous clause of forfeiture of service which is betrayal part on the part of SUPERBRAINED **IBA**



THEY HAVE EARNED INTEREST ON THAT CARVED FUNDS BELONGING TO EACH AND EVERY EMPLOYEE OF THE BANK THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE CALCULATING THE FUNDING i.e 2.88 or 56%



AS SUCH THERE IS NO PROVISION OF BEGGING FROM EMPLOYEES IN THE PENSION ACT AND IT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYER i.e. BANKS WHICH HAVE NOT SHOWN PRUDENCE OF CONTRIBUTING TO PENSION FUND GAP EVERY YEAR BY REVIEWING THE SAME BECAUSE BANKING IS A PROFIT EARNING INDUSTRY AND THEY HAVE EARNED HUGE PROFIT WHICH THEY HAVE EARNED AT THE SWEAT OF COMMON EMPLOYEES .



IF AT ALL THEY WANT TO DEPRIVE CERTAIN PEOPLE TO OPT FOR PENSION THEY MUST RETURN THE PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF CARVED FUND WITH INTEREST @ 18% FROM THE SEVENTH WAGE SETTLEMENT IMMEDIATELY TO WHOM THEY KEPT AWAY FROM PENSION OPTION.



BANKERS ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE EYES OF LAW AS PER THE DECISION OF PARLIAMENT OF THIS COUNTRY BY GIVING EFFECT FOR GRATUITY FROM 01.01.2006 i.e. retrospectively to CENTRAL GOVT /RBI EMPLOYEES AND TO US FROM 24/05/2010. THERE IS NO EQUALITY AND WE ARE NOT EQUALLY PROTECTED BY LAWS OF THE LAND AS PER OUR CONSTITUTION.



N M INGALE MANAGER      CANARA BANK  RETIRED UNDER VRS/OSR-PF OPTEE after service of 32 years on 30/01/2010



Nagaraja Sarma mana...@gmail.com

I am M Nagaraja Sarma, a retired PF optee under specific VRS scheme of ING VYSYA Bank in 2004, after 31 years of service. Now the Bank is denying my pension option. Hence I am on the lookout for the retirees of ING VYSYA bank,under SMS-2004.EES-2004 and other retirees before their superannuation, who are denied their PENSION OPTION saying not eligible to opt, to come together and represent,negotiate and if need be, fight for our legitimate right of Pension. Please inform your name, contact number, address and mail id to my mail ID mana...@gmail.com.



Rajan Bhateja <rajanb...@vgmail.in> says :

It is really very painful to leave behind a handful of retirees from opting for the pension.  The IBA has contended that these employees opted for retirement under the individual bank schemes.  But how we can ignore the fact that such offer was given by the various bank  after getting approval of the scheme from the bank boards of directors. Next, these boards have acted  within the powers vested by the government. Which means that such schemes have implied approval of the government. It should be protested and all out efforts should  be made to  get pension for such retiree also.

2. The gratuity act has been amended and implemented w.e.f. 24.5.2010 for the PSUs. WHEREAS the act has been  amended  w.e.f. 1.1.2006 for the center and state govt employees. Such discrimination should also be protested and pursued at the appropriate forum for  removal of such discrimination.
3. The  retiree under SBBJ EXIT scheme have also been denied from  any medical benefit  whereas other retirees are getting the same . please see and help us



"V.K.Narayanan Calicut" <vkn...@yahoo.in> says :

I have taken vrs from Canara bank after 31 years of service. option under vrs was  given only because vrs was in force in our bank. i had 8 years service left. in any state govt/ central govt service employees have the right to resign after serving  for a period of minimum pension service requirement.   Had I continued in service and and opted for pension there could hve been no problems. but the pension eligibility would have been relooked if I had resigned subsequently. all our unions leaders while signing the mou did not bother to look at the definitions of retirement which can have many types.

If any employee because of health reasons resigns/takes vrs if in vogue in that bank. he will be denied pension as per new norms. what a strange logic.   svrs optees of 2001 after getting extra financial benefits are given one more chance............   presently serving employees are ot even aware of denial of pension option to vrs/ resignee employees. so much for the awareness and communication  amingnst the employees.  Now only court can rectify the anomaly. let us hope that justice wins in the end even if the struggle is time consuming and a financial drain to us

V K Narayanan

vkn...@yahoo.in



VNBOHRA BOHRA <vnbohr...@yahoo.com> says :

I have no hesitation to submit that after a long gap of around 10 years we the employees of assocate bank (SBBJ) are running from pillar to post. ours bank contribution was retained sayiung that we were /are pension optee, and the last hope wide circular of IBA 10 Aug is again over when bank declined to pay pension, whereas all other banks have already allloewed a way bank. the cut of date is overlooked as defined in IBA circular.

who will think on this issue ? every body will get arrears, pension and we are treated by different yard sticks > please guide me

v n bohra D/9/39 Chitrakoot Jaipur    919414042470



Mani iyer <jalaj...@rediffmail.com> says:

I took VR under special scheme offered in February 2001 after completing 17 years of service in State Bank of Travancore(SBT). I am a pension optee having opted for it in 1996. The VR circular did not specify that people with less than 20 years service are not eligible for pension. After 7 months of silence, the bank's head office advised me that i am not eligible for pension as per State Bank of Travancore Pension Rules. Along with 30 other people I have filed a Writ petition in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam but there is hardly any progress. When the Joint note itself recognises that persons with 15 years of service(and who opted for special VRS) are eligible for pension, how can we be left out. SBT is yet to come out with its circular for the 2nd option of pension. Kindly guide me .



Murty D <dsnmu...@yahoo.com> says :

THIS IS DSNMURTY WHO RETIRED FROM STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD UNDER VRS SCHEME OF 2001 REPORTING THAT NOTIONAL PENSION TO CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHER BANKS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. WHEREAS IN STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND STATE BANK SUBSIDIARIES THE NOTIONAL PENSION OF FIVE YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDED SO FAR. THERE IS A LOT OF DISCREPANCY IN BETWEEN STATE BANK RETIREES AND OTHER BANKS. THIS DISCREPANCY BE ELIMINATED THE JUSTICE BE DONE TO STATE BANK SECTOR.

EVEN AFTER RETIREMENT ALSO THERE IS A LOT OF CONFUSION AMONG THE EMPLOYEES . BENEFITS DIFFER FROM BANK TO BANK. IN SPITE OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ALSO. IS IT NOT WISE ON THE PART OF IBA TO GIVE PROPER DIRECTION TO STATE BANK AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES TO FOLLOW THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AND ADD NOTIONAL PENSION ELSE THE UNIONS HAVE TO TAKE UP THE ISSUE AT A PROPER LEVEL. THE RETIREES HAVE TO BE DONE JUSTICE BY IBA AND UNIONS.

IT SEEMS THAT THERE IS NO EQUAL BENEFIT TO ALL EMPLOYEES RETIRED UNDER VRS SCHEME. BANK TO BANK DIFFER IN PENSION ALSO. THIS SHOULD BE WORKED OUT AND JUSTICE BE DONE TO ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF BANK.

RECENT AGREEMENT WITH IBA, THE UNIONS HAVE NOT RAISED THEIR VOICE FOR VRS OPTEES IN BANKS FOR NOTIONAL PENSION. OR ARE THEY RAISED THE ISSUE IF SO PLEASE CLARIFY THE RESULT. OF COURSE THE BATTLE OF NOTIONAL PENSION HAVE BEEN LOST BY IBA, WHY SHOULD THEY BRING JUSTICE OF STATE BANK SECTOR. EVEN IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO RELISE TO DO JUSTICE TO ALL. IBA MUST TAKE PROPER DECISION IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AND ADD STATE BANK SECTOR UNDER THE SAME PURVIEW.

HOPE THE STRONG UNIONS WILL ALSO BE LOOK INTO THE MATTER.

STATE BANK SECTOR EMPLOYEES SO FAR DELAYED JUSTICE AND HOPE IT CANNOT BE DENIED.

GOD WILL AWAKE ALL OTHER PARTIES TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE VRS OPTEES OF STATE BANK SECTOR.

DSNMURTY



Nagaraja sarma <mana...@gmail.com> says :

I am M. NAGARAJA SARMA retired on 30/11/2004 from ING VYSYA Bank after serving in the Bank for 31years and 5 months

under SMS 2004 (VRS)  scheme envisaged by the bank. Now my option for pension is denied. Those who are sailing on the same boat like me under any scheme of the bank other than SVRS2002, and denied pension, are requested to send their details, latest mailing address, Phone numbers and  email IDs immediately so as to enable

to fight for our legitimate cause i.e  Getting Pension.   My mail.id is mana...@gmail.com and now I am in Bangalore.

I request allbankingsolutions.com to add this message under  PF Optees  Retired under specific schemes of various banks and

oblige.

M. Nagaraja Sarma.



Ranganathan Yerragudi <ranga.y...@gmail.com> says:

Hi!
I am thankful for the extension of pension plan for bank-employees (PF Optees). However, it is painful and unjust to employees / officers who were in service as on 1-11-2007. This is because they are separated within the settlement group. Also, in this group, some are treated as retirees while others are treated as serving.

There has never been such a settlement in past, discriminating the beneficiaries and biased towards only a part of the entire group. Some may receive pension from December due to cost constrains on the bank. This should not be reason enough to separate the beneficiaries by treating part of them as retirees.

There is no logic in linking cost of pension to PF received. Cost is always related to Pension drawn and estimated years of survival left (The standard as per life insurance norms is 75 years).

However, in the settlement, the gap of cost to be borne is stated as 56% of p.f drawn as shown below:

Refund of PF + 56% of PF (contributed by Retired Officer as 30% of Gap) + 130% of PF (70% additional gap to be contributed by Bank)

This can never be exhausted during life time of retiree. Either IBA is avoiding 70% additional cost cotribution by Banks or if contributed, at a later stage, the unexhausted amount will be adjusted to pay pension for future retirees. This is not at all justified.

The additional cost  in case of serving people is correctly linked with basic as on 1-11-2007.The gap is met by sharing 2.8 the basic as on 1-11-2007( as 30% contributed by employee/officer)& 6.54 times the basic as on 1-11-2007 to be contributedBank by ( as 70% of the gap, which will be provided by the bank as contribution towards pension fund on monthly basis).

The serving people have more pension than the retirees. They are more costlier in all terms with respect to pension drawn by them when compared to retirees. They are also receiving higher gratuity which is a cost factor to the bank, payable to the retirees.

The additional cost of pension is shown far higher in case of retirees when compared to those serving, which is not true.

At least now IBA should:
rationalise the structure of payment by treating all in settlement evenly by linking the contribution made by the retirees to last drawn pay or pay drawn as on 1-11-2007 whichever is later.
All beneficiers under this settlement should pay 2.8 times the basic pay of 1-11-2007 avoiding any discrimination.
Regards,
Y.Ranganathan



Jagdish Lal Pahwa <jlp6...@yahoo.in> wrote to AIBOA Chennai.

        RE:    DENIAL OF PENSION OPTION   TO   NORMAL VRS OPTEES

With due respect , in connection with the above  I invite your kind attention to your letter dt.  Aug,2010, requesting Chairman, IBA to include officers retired under OSRS of various banks  having 55 years (+) age and above 30 years of length of service. Thousands and thousands of VRS optees like me are grateful to you for showing your deep concern in the matter.

Now, when  above one month is over when the request was made to IBA  by yourself, We, VRS OPTEES are eagerly waiting for the response of the IBA to the captioned letter.   I request you to kindly put the latest developments in the matter on website.

Please also guide us for the future course of  action .   Assuring you our best possible co-operation.

J. L. Pahwa Ex. Manager (BOB} 1392/26    Panchkula (Haryana) M - 09356991167

****

Sh. G D.Nadaf  General Secretary AIBOC Bangalore.

RE:  RETIREES OF NORMAL VOULANTARY SCHEMES OF INDIVIDUAL BANKS

I request a reference to your circular no. 125 dt.25/08/2010 in connectin with  the above  addressed to the Chairman,IBA and express my sincere  thanks from the core of my heart and on behalf of thousands and thousand of your senior colleagues affected like me. It is appreciated urging the Chairman,IBA for CORRIGENDUM in circular dt. 10/08/2010.I reproduce the wordsfrom the captionedd circular , " WE REQUEST THE MEMBERS TO HAVE A PATIENCE"

These words gave us solace and confidence that justice would be delivered to us. I have full faith in  " SATAYAMEV JAYATE". When lacs of retired officers have been given option for opting pension , the retirees forced to opt for VRS on HEALTH GROUND/ FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES  AFTER 30 YEARS + SERVICE AND 55 YEARS + AGE CAN NOT OPT FOR VRS FOR BETTER OPPERTUNITIES.

We are keen to know the latest developments in this regard over website of AIBOC.

We request you to take up the matter collectively as per joint MOU DT. 27/04/2010  with IBA to sort out the matter avoiding unnecessarily litigation. We assure you our cooperation and seek your guidance. With all the good wishes and hoping for the deliverance of justice.

J. L. Pahwa Ex. Manager (BOB} 1392/26    Panchkula (Haryana) M - 09356991167

Bhanwarlal Gulecha <gule...@yahoo.com> says :

I am BHANWARLAL GULECHA. I was granted voluntary retirement on 31st March, 2001, from SBBJ, under special scheme devised by the Indian banks association. Since, I had not opted for pension, I got provident fund balance. Now under new settlement, signed on 27th April 2010, unions and IBA signed a bipartite settlement to the effect that the ex-employees who took VRS under special scheme will be given a second option for pension to the employees, if they were retired after service of 15 years. Most of the banks issued circular to give effect the same. SBBJ issued an advertisement, to give the effect the same, when I enquired about the same, I was shocked to know that our bank is not giving second option for pension to the employees, whose service was of 15 years, instead circular is issued to avail second option, whose service was 20 years.

While our bank was party to sign the agreement, and issued the circular to give the effect on the base of same bipartite settlement, why there is difference between our bank and other banks. All other banks have sent circular for option on the basis of 15 years service. Why our bank is denying the same, even if the settlement was the same. The settlement clearly says that second option will be available to ex-employees of service more than 15 years. Why we are not allowed to give pension options.

Please look into the matter and advise me law and process I must go to enable to get second option and pension.

My detail is as under: -

Name: – Bhanwar Lal Gulecha, Bank: – SBBJ, Designation: - Special Assistant, VRS: - on 31st march, 2001 (under SPL VRS scheme). PF account number: – 11150, Joining: - on 19/11/1982, Present Address: -  Bhanwar Lal Gulecha, 17/729, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. Mobile no.: - 09314724014,



S Balasubramanian <balu_...@yahoo.co.in> says :

I have worked for 26 years in a Nationalized Bank and retired as an officer in 2005. I am a regular visitor of your site which is doing a great job. But for this site where will we go to let our problems, agony and disappointments. It pains me very much to read the grievances of so many people at their old age. Please do not lose your hopes. We all are definitely going to get pension. Justice will always win. The IBA has agreed pension for SVRS. It is a very big supporting point for us. Even people from outside Banking sector ... as soon as they hear about this .. say it is a great INJUSTICE.

Today we have a very important question before us. Whether we get pension ? If so when ?
In life certain things do not come easily and we may have to face certain situations before success. For those who are interested in knowing there future may kindly send me the DOB, Time of Birth and Place of Birth. Astrology is my hobby for the past 30 years. Many of my predictions have come true. I am not a professional astrologer. Since we all are sailing in the same boat I thought this study may help me to come to a conclusion of when we will get it. Whether it will have to be decided by Court ? etc.,.

I am sure that not only VRS but also other categories like resignees, CRS etc., also will get pension.



Kamalakannan Arjunan <kannaakann...@gmail.com> says :

It is really surprising that how Bank of Baroda has come to the conclusion that " the Joint Note dated 27-04-2010  does not 'envisage' for extension of another option for pension to those who ceased to be in service by way Voluntary  Retirement from service as per Bank of Baroda Officers' Service Regulations", while both their BOBOSR as well as
BOB Pension Regulations specifically provide for the entitlement of pension to the VRS Retirees, retiring after serving
30 years/55years of age. How cunningly the bank is trying to (mis)interpret  the Joint Note, which is very clear that all retirees,  whether on superannuation or on VRS as per individual Banks' schemes, (approved by Govt of India) are eligible for second option for pension.



Anand Talgeri <anand_...@yahoo.co.in>

AIBOC in their circular No. 78 have used the word 'Superannuation' to determine the eligibility for second option for pension. This was clearly a mistake on their part. I think they did not realise this mistake, else they would have come out with clarification.
But IBA had no business to borrow these words from AIBOCs circular and interpret that only persons who have retired on superannuation are eligible for pension leaving out persons who have opted for VRS.

AIBOC in their circular 125 dated 28 august 2010 have come out with clarification and clearly stated in no ambiguous terms that persons who have opted for VRS are also eligible for pension. I appreciate the effort taken by them to arrest the damage done by their statement in circular No. 78. I also appreciate the efforts put by AIBOA in this regard.
Now all of us should come together and have a dialogue with AIBOC and AIBOA and persuade them to take up the issue with IBA on a war footing so that IBA comes out with a corrigendum to their circular date 10.08.2010 and include all VRS optees for second option for pension.
Lets fight unitedly for our rights

Anand B Talgeri
9448019590

vrboppudi vrbopp...@rediffmail.com

I am posted to Kolkata from AP, within one month of the expiry of my only ailing child. I had requested for retention or modification, which was not accepted by the management.

I joined at Kolkata in June 2009 and submitted VRS, as I could not settle down and in deep depression. I had completed 26 years of service. Everyone assured that I will get pension. As me and my wife could not bear the demise of our only child, I am forced to give VRS as I could not relocate. Management has accepted the same and I am relieved in Sept 2009.  

Now this shocking news has a come surprise to me and my wife. I am in service as on the date of effect of settlement i.e, 1.11.07. I am in service as on 29.9.1995. When the initial understanding was reached on 9.6.09 with CLO I am in service. The entire settlement says as retirees. Even association leaders assured that I will get pension.

Now I do not know what to do. At this age no one gives any job. Had I been there and succumbed to the pressures, my wife might have got pension. Is it a sin to opt VRS with a clean chit rather than die with so many allegations?

The association should have taken up the matte immediately on 10.8.2010, when IBA had issued the circular. The delay has caused IBA to take advantage. Why AIBOC had clubbed VRS with the resignees in the circular No 91 dated 9.6.2009, when it was totally silent in the joint note/settlement? At this age we cannot go to court or wait for some more years. Justice delayed is nothing but justice denied. I sincerely request the associations to take up the matter and do justice to this community immediately, else history will not forgive them and you will see miserable bank officers dying of starvation.



Bhupendrakumar Patel bhupendrak...@yahoo.com

I was joined the Dena Bank  in  October1972  and retired under  Dena bank Officers service Regulations   1979    on December 2008.Bank has accepted  my voluntarily retirement under   DBSR  1979.Now bank has issued in circular that employees who have gone on VRS    under DBOSR  1979     are  not  eligible  for option.. please guide me that after more then 36years service if  I  am  not getting the pension  option then what is  the meaning of settlement and on one side  settlement  reads that  those who ceased to bein service  on  account   of retirement on superannuation death or  on account  of  VRS  under sp. Scheme prior to  27/04/2010  but after 29/09/1995 are eligible   to   opt  for  joining   the pension scheme(Retired  between29/09/95 to26/04/2010

please guide  me  whether  I  am  eligible  pension option  or not and upto what  time  I  have to wait for   it.

Hope for a favourable cooperation  from your  end.



avinash joshiavc...@yahoo.co.in

I am really shocked to note that VRS optees under Bank's VRS Scheme have been denied second option where as the SVRS optees who were given Golden Hand Shake / Additional compensation of 5 year's salary in the year 2000/2001 have been offered one more Golden Hand Shake by way of second pension option.
Did the IBA and UFBU Leaders have brains / common sense to negotiate?
From :Avinash G. Joshi



srinivasan seenusa...@gmail.com  ATTITUTE OF UNIONS - CLEAR CASE  

It is with deep anguish and agony, i am addressing this mail. It is well known to every body that the joint note dated 27-04-10 between the IBA and UFBU did not discriminate between the reitrees and had paved way for all the retirees, irrespective of the mode of retirement, as it had used the term only the "Retired".

But, suddenly, AIBOC wrote to IBA that the joint note covered only those retired under super-annuation, vide the circular of AIBOC, no. 78, point no.2 of the copy of the letter addressed to IBA.

This was the first indication to the hidden understanding of AIBOC wwith IBA, contradicting the joint note. When taken up for clarification, AIBOC has clarified that the VRS optees were indeed eligible, as per the attachement, Parameswaran.doc.( as per the trailing mail, forwarded to me by Mr Parameswaran).  

Then IBA came out with the guidelines drawn in similar lines with the AIBOC's letter to IBA.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1. When the SVRS people had been given special coverage in the joint-note, why the VRS people were ignored?

2. When the joint note did not specifically exclude the VRS people, how come AIBOC wrote a letter to IBA to the contrary?

3. Having written to the IBA that only the supeannuated retirees are eligible, why did the General Secretary wrote to Mr Parameswaran that

the VRS optees were eligible for one more pension option?  

4. What efforts have been taken by AIBOC to undo the damages already done to VRS optees.

5. While the workmen unions have successfully taken up the cause of the workmen, by including the SVRS people, what has been done by the AIBOC to protect the Officer community?

6. Is it not a great injustice meted out a section of the workforce and almost the first time lapse by the mighty AIBOC.



anjan chatterjee <cha...@gmail.com> says :

I am seeking advice by some wise ex banker or lawer that how cheaed persons like us who took v.r due to some personal reasons. when first circular of maximum Banks released there was crystal clear view that vr or vrs who ever retired from the Bank within the stipulated period can opt for pention. all on a sudden it has changed and only actual retired persons only became eligible for opting the same. I cannot understand that wha sin we have made to our Banks during our service period. you please advice and organise a forum by which we can at least get the minimum justice in a democratic country like us. please give us the mailing addresss of all the places and persons to whom we can approach or arrange how we can go to court for justice.Thanking you for your website.

NILKANTH KORANNE <kora...@gmail.com> says :

I have taken voluntary in April 2008 due to ill health.  Had I completed service i.e. superannuation upto March 2010, I would have benefitted by this 2nd Pension Option but IBA has refused me to opt for Pension.  I have only one question to IBA.  Had I opted for first pension option offered in 1995 whether my bank could have refused me the pension in April 2008?  Then why I am not entitle for this 2nd Pension option when the Pension Regulation / Rules of 1995 are the same.  IBA must answer my question.  



ASIM KUMAR SEN <raja...@gmail.com> says :

In banks we find that VRS and SVRS,2000 problems are very frequently discussed but the problems of CRS, Invalid  Pension, Compassionate Allowance cases, being lesser in  number are not highlighted and discussed, although they are also eligible to get pension under The Bank Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995 and not excluded in the Memorandum of Settlement and Joint Note with the workmen and officers respectively signed by IBA with UFBU on 27th. April,2010.


The circular of IBA to all banks on 10th. August,2010 contain  the cases of SVRS,2000 to be eligible but remain silent about other eligible categories as stated above. This has created a lot of confusion and protest by a section of bankers who are thus unjustifiably excluded from the 2nd. pension option. The eligibility guiding factors are the joint notes and settlement between IBA and UFBU , on the one hand, and The Bank Employees' Pension Regulation, 1995, on the other hand.  There is nothing in the Joint Note/Memo. of Settlement dt. 27.04.2010 which could upset the eligibility criteria as laid down in the aforesaid pension regulation,1995.

Some Banks, have excluded some eligible categories of employees and officers unilaterally and without justification. Even the concerned top management officials of banks are confused. The whole process is  likely to be halted and delayed. There is an in built clause in the last para of the joint note dt. 27.04.2010 to resolve all disputes and confusions in the interpretation of the settlement. Accordingly IBA and UFBU leaders should again sit together to resolve all disputes and confusions. IBA would be wise to implement and guide the Banks properly for smooth implementation of the pension scheme to avoid unwanted litigations.

Mobile 09831790706


IBA AND UFBU JOINTLY SIGNED THE SETTLEMENTS FOR 2ND. PENSION OPTION  FOR BANK WORKMEN AND OFFICERS ON 27TH. APRIL, 2010. ACCORDINGLY ALL ELIGIBLE RETIRED EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS SHOULD GET 2ND. CHANCE OF OPTION FOR PENSION. THUS, ALL RETIRED UNDER NORMAL SUPERANNUATION, VOLUNTARY  RETIREMENT, SVRS 2000,COMPULSORILY RETIRED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, INVALID PENSION SCHEME, VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT, COMPASSIONATE PENSION SCHEME AS PER EMPLOYEES' PENSION REGULATIONS 1995 ARE COVERED. BUT IBA'S CIRCULAR NO.CIR/HR&IR/G2/665/90/2010-11/999 DATED 10.08.2010 MENTIONS ONLY VR AND SVR AND EXCLUDE ALL THE OTHER ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
AS LISTED ABOVE. IT HAS CREATED UNREST AND CONFUSION. IBA CANNOT UNILATERALLY INTERPRET THE CONTENTS OF THE MEMO. OF SETTLEMENT/JOINT NOTE SIGNED BY IT WITH UFBU ON 27.04.2010 AND IGNORE THE PROVISIONS MADE IN THE EMPLOYEES' PENSION REGULATION 1995 REGARDING THE ELIGIBLE
CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS AS STATED ABOVE. BOTH IBA AND UFBU MUST SIT IMMEDIATELY TO REMOVE ALL MISINTERPRETATION.


kamalakannan arjunan <kannaakann...@gmail.com> says

Todays News item is "Govt.employees near retirement age should not be disturbed"

But, poor Bank Officers after serving morethan three decades of service and taken VRS as per Officers service  Regulations are not given second option for pension. Is it not harrasment of aged people who sincerely worked for the banks for several decades ?  Such old officers were the loyal union/Association members for decades. Why these Union Leaders are closing their eyes when IBA is openly robbing them their entitlement ? Why cann't they discuss the matter with IBA and  get the lawful rights of the  VRS retirees ?  Do they want the aged  poor officers to go to Court and wait for several years(if they are alive) to get their entitlement ?

K.Kannan



RANGANATHAN ATHMANATHAN <syar...@msn.com> says :

The legal opinion expressed by Mr V Srinivasan precisely points out the deliberate game played by the signatories to the Joint Note. I wish to supplement the following to points made by Mr.Srinivasan:

- Two of the sinatories, AIBOC & AIBOA, nearly representing 99% of the officers have written to IBA that both of them did not mean to to exclude the normal VRS optees for extending another option for option. When Canara Bank Workers union filed a writ befor the Madras High Court, IBA countered it saying that it is vexatious act by a miniscule minority members of the staff of the Bank. But majority members' representatives have sent letters to IBA saying that the exclusion of the normal VRS optees for pension option, the response of the IBA is mute silence.

- It is noteworthy that a SLP filed by IBA and Several other Banks on the Judgments of Karnataka High Court & Mumbai High Court regarding the eligibility of VRS optees for pension, the Supreme Court decided the matter in favour of the VRS optees by its order dated 05.04.2000 and IBA & other Banks extended the pension option to all the VRS optees.

- If IBA is expecting a specific clarification from the Ministry of Finance regarding the eligibility of officers who availed Voluntary Retirement under Regulation 19 of OSR (from those banks which had a provision in the Service Regulation approved by its respective Boards), it is also readily available with IBA in the form of letter dated 17.05.2001. The said letter appears to have been issued to Union Bank of India when they sought clarification on different matter. We can see the reference in the Judgment dated 12.01.2007 in the Civil Appeal # 5503 of 2003 (Bench : G.P.Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta) between Union Bank of India Vs Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi. In this case UBI asked for a clarification of Min Fin whether an officer voluntarily retired with simultaneous appointment of the dependent on compassionate grounds, is eligible for pension option or not. The Judgment quote the reply as under:  

Quote
"Director (IR), Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division, IR Section, vide letter dated 17.05.2001 informed the appellant-bank that the officers, who had retired with simultaneous appointment of the dependents on compassionate grounds, will constitute a separate class and hence cannot be extended the benefit of exercising option for pension as has been granted to the incumbents who had voluntarily retired under the scheme formulated by the Bank under Regulation 19(1) of the Officers' Service Regulations" (emphasis added).


The appellant-bank again sought clarification from the Indian Banks' Association on the subject in issue. The Indian Banks' Association vide its letter No. PD/GSN/UNION/G2/814 dated 01.10.2001 advised the appellant-bank as under:-

"1. Voluntary retirement as a concept and as a form of retirement was not available to award staff under the Bipartite Settlement prior to the introduction of the Pension Scheme. Even after introduction of the Pension Scheme, it is only those who have opted for pension who can retire voluntarily, under Regulation 29 of Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995.
2. The decision of the Government of India, as conveyed to the Bank in case of officer, will equally hold good in the case of workmen also."
Unquote

Reading of the above would leave no one in doubt about the eligibility of those who had opted for VRS under Regulation 19(1) of OSR (in the banks which had such provision) for pension, as


    * Ministry of Finance has said that such VRS optees are eligible
    * IBA has said that decision of Govt of India will hold good
    * Associations (AIBOC & AIBOA) , also signatories to the Joint Note dated 27.4.2010,  representing majority (virtually all) officers have sent letters to IBA stating that normal VRS optees are eligible for pension option (one of them has also indicated legal action if IBA do not include the normal VRS optees for pension)
    * Not only the High Courts but also the Supreme Court, have pronounced unequivocally that normal VRS optees are eligible for pension
    * Some of the Banks also issued pension circular including the normal VRS optees & some have simply reproduced the Joint Note clauses to be on the safe side - thereby indicating their doubts regarding exclusion of normal VRS optees from pension option

It is really a big puzzle as to why normal VRS optees are excluded. Hope decision in this regard will not be delayed.





Sivaraj Ek <sivar...@orient-bank.com> says :

I am one of the unfortunate who has been denied the benefit of 2nd option since I opted for voluntary retirement in 2003 after having served for 31 years in Canara Bank and after having completed 55 years of age. As somebody has rightly put the SVRS optees got a good package and this offer will be an icing on the cake. The attitude of the IBA in treating the VRS employees is against the principles of natural justice. I quote the meaning of retirement- giving up work or with drawl or leaving. Voluntary retirement is doing the same thing on one’ own free will. I shall be obliged if some thing is done so that people like us also get an opportunity to opt for pension.



If any body has intentions to goto  the court to get this grievance redressed, I would like to join them and in the event share the expenses also.



regards

eksivaraj,

business branch manager,

jinja branch,

077 2755559



Madhu Nair <mmna...@yahoo.com> says :

I am an officer who voluntarily retired from a public sector bank in 1999 after completing 35 years of service. I retired as a CPF optee as I had missed opting for pension when the Bank Employees Pension Regulations were introduced in 1995/96. The agreement for a second option for pension for CPF optees - both SERVING and RETIRED - was expected to be of much help to persons of my ilk . But IBA's letter dated 10/08/2010 to all banks for actual implementation of the agreement interpreting the word " retiree " as only those who retired on superannuation or under SVRS is a shock to all of us.


2.In this context what the affected persons like me would like to BELIEVE is that:


i. While signing the Joint Note on the second option for pension , the AIBOC , AIBOA and other organizations were very CLEAR on the expression " RETIRED FROM SERVICE " was strictly in terms of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995/96 and the Officers' Service Regulations.


ii. The specific inclusion of personnel who retired under SVRS was because their retirement was outside the ambit of the above mentioned regulations.


iii. There was NO TACIT UNDERSTANDING between the associations and unions on one side and the IBA on the other side to ALLOW IBA to interpret the terms of agreement in any manner they liked and that the interpretation of the expression " Retired " or " Retiree " as those who retired on attaining superannuation as indicated in the IBA's directive dated 10/08/2010 was made by some erring official (s) of IBA.


iv. IBA has made a MOCKERY of the JOINT NOTE signed by its own officials and the representatives of various employees' organizations thereby committing a Breach of Trust of the MOU.

3.I would urge the AIBOC , AIBOA and other organizations to set a deadline to IBA to correct the error .If the IBA is adamant and sticks to its blatant mistake , the employees' organizations should resort to other action including LEGAL STEPS immediately to solve the issue.

4.A major portion of the VRS  optees would have chosen the VRS route on health grounds and many of them may be already dead or having one foot in the grave. I wonder whether the leaders of the associations/ unions will have "TIME " to bother about such people whose life span is fast running out.

Arun Kumar <dak...@yahoo.com> says :

Mr.Sanjay Katre has asked about the joint legal action if any proposed by any group of persons falling under Retirees under Normal VRS schemes of Banks.. AIBOA has already published a detailed circular about this in their website.

But it is my wish that mistake and misrepresentation has taken place even without the knowledge of the UFBU and as per certain materials published in your website they all have been given a picture that the word retirees will include those retiring on superannuation and those under bank's VRS schemes also, as the SVRS people have been covered with special mention in both the MOU and the Joint Note. I hope that they all have understood the serious hardships created to this section of VRS retirees and they may take all possible steps with IBA to make amends for this situation.

Kamath <synd...@hotmail.com> says :

The text of UFBU circular no.19, which was Quoted and annexed to your circular no 26/48/2009/43 dtd.10th Dec, 2009, clearly stated that the IBA team led by Sri Allen Pereira and UFBU mutually clarified the word “Retirees” spelt in the minutes signed on 27/11/2009, mean and includes the employees/officers who have retired on VRS. However, the IBA when intimating the member banks for offering the ii option for pension restricted them from giving another option for pension to the employees/officers VRS .

In this context, I am not in a position to understand as to whether the Esteemed IBA team are not worth their words? On relying upon their clarification dt. 9/10 Dec 2009, I had opted for VRS from my Bank on 18/12/2009 and got relieved from the service under VRS on 17th March 2010. Shame on their part, when I have relying on their words submitted my VRS application, they have not kept their words. It is now your duty to pressurize the UFBU to remind IBA team which was lead by Sri Pereira, who mutually clarified the word “Retirees” and make them rectify their mistake and issue fresh instructions to member Banks to include all those retirees, whether on VRS or superannuation , for offering second pension option.

Hope and anticipate that you would rise to the occasion and take every step to give natural justice to the employees/officers who left their Banks on VRS.


Prakash Reddy <prakashr...@yahoo.com> says :

When the employees were in a mood to celebrate the achievement of our leaders and sympathy of the Government towards employees in accepting and granting 2nd option, suddenly the IBA had sent a death message to all the employees incorporating their own interpretations and misdirecting all the banks to make it appear that the VRS employees are not eligible for pension.


Is there any logic in the said interpretation when the Pension Regulations 1995 have not been superseded and the present understanding on pension are governed by Pension Regulations 1995. Pension Regulations 1995 clearly defines that VRS is one of the retirements and they are eligible for exercising pension option provided employee has completed 20 years of services. Our IBA in the guise of covering SVRS(who is also legally entitled to without any kind of interpretation) had misinterpreted the entire understanding. This is huge injustice to the bank employees who have taken voluntary retirement. Our IBA has totally forgotten that there are several family members who are depending upon the earning of the employees who took voluntary retirement. IBA has shattered the confidence of the family members on the system and shocked them by depriving the pension for which they are legally entitled to. It is once beyond comprehension that as to how there can be any understanding for covering SVRS under pension regulations who has taken monetary benefit by way of package in addition to retiral benefits and whereas the employee who took voluntary retirement after rendering 20 years of service is not eligible for pension. Is there any justice for such interpretation.


Please do justice and help lakhs of family members to live peacefully.



Raghavan Ramia Krishnamachary   ragha...@gmail.com  says :

If any one go thro' the entire 9th Bi-partite negotiations, it can be observed that VRS optees who have completed 20 years or more service are to be given second pension option and only to accommodate those retired under Special VRS with 15 years of service, they agreed to include these categories also as a special case. But, due to some typographical error, the core normal VRS retirees have been left to be included in the agreement, but included the SVRS optees, who have already got bounty by way of Golden Handshake, in the agreement. It is nothing but a mistake committed by oversight and IBA, a reputed organization, managed by senior most respectable bankers, should immediately come forward to rectify the genuine error and issue correct instructions to all the banks to include the normal VRS retirees in the second option and should not leave the aged retired VRS optees, who have been eagerly awaiting for the second pension option for several years in lurch.



satish bhatnagar scbhat...@gmail.com says :

It is nothing else but the cruelty of IBA people who have taken such a cruel decision on their part denying Normal VRS bank employees for pension option. If a said VRS opted were knowing that he will be debarred from second pension. He would think twice before going for vrs and would have continued in the service due to ill health too ( may be died on the counter serving customers). Why these cruel man thought that vrs employee 55 years of age and 32-33 years of service will go for better job, who is in the world will give better job to an ill person. I am one of the victims. I still prey the god not to give such position to these cruels in their life Because they are human without heart



madiraju vsaibabu <madiraju...@yahoo.co.in> says :
NOW ALL THE VRS OPTEES SHOULD JOIN CUTTING ACROSS BANK LINES AND FORM A GROUP AND MEET THE ASSOCIAATIONS AND IBA . BASING ON THE INPUT SHOULD PROCEED TO COURTS.

THE HEAD COUNT IS IMPORTANT SO CAN ANY BODY GUESS HOW MANY ARE LIKE THE ABOVE CATEGORY SO THAT WE WILL HAVE AN IDEA.

R.K.Raghavan <ragha...@gmail.com> says :

After the mass exodus of Bank staff  in 2001, most of the distressed officers took VRS after completing 20/30 years of service as per the   Banks' Service Regulations, simply because they were assured that they will be treated at par with those who retire on superannuation and they will be getting all the benefits available to normal retirees.

"Retired" means and includes  as per the Banks' Service Regulations,  those  who have been granted  VRS by respective Banks, after satisfying the conditions  laid down therein.. Even in the Joint note signed by UFBU leaders, no where the word 'superannuation' has been included.   Now IBA has by oversight or  deliberately  included this word to deny pension option to those VRS Optees who have put in more than 30 years of service and who have taken VRS only because Bank Regulations assured them that they will be treated  at par with those who retire on superannuation.
It is highly  unfair  and against law to deny pension to such VRS optees.

While thanking AICOB and its Leaders for the initiative taken, all other constituents of UFBU are requested to  take up the matter with IBA to ensure  that VRS retirees are offered Pension option, as originally agreed.



M.Baskar Bhat <bhatmb...@gmail.com> says :
I retired under  Bank VRS scheme on 15.7.2008 and was a PF Optee.  Soon after signing the wage settlement,  I was informed and given to understand without any ambiguity that all retirees would be eligible to give pension option.  But when actually Bank circular was issued, I felt, like many other VRS optees, cheated and stabbed behind the back.  I
do not know what sin we committed to make Union Leaders and the IBA to exclude us from 2nd pension option.   We got raw deal in service and out of service.  I hope  at least now IBA will realise the injustice, take corrective steps and issue guidelines to Banks to call for 2nd pension option from VRS retirees also.  


I heartily appreciate the efforts of Allbankingsolutions in updating the readers and providing a platform to vent our feelings and disgust.   I also request help on reciprocal basis  from all the concerned in this matter to get common justice.



K.K.Ramalingam <rajk...@gmail.com>

All of us were to understand even from the IBA's afterthought latest clarification circular  No CIR/HIR&IR/62/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10 August 2010 that second option of pension is applicable for all those who have opted for VRS on special schemes of Banks. Now here is a further twist in the name of interpretation. The associate banks of State bank of India had formulated an exit policy for staff during 2006-7 and more than 1500 staff went on VRS  on similar lines of the VRS 2001. However now IBA has clarified that they are also not eligible for the second option. They have further gone ahead to clarify that what they meant by Special scheme of VRS was the general scheme of VRS which was applicable to all banks in 2001.



Sanjay Katre Ex Bank Of India Officer (sanja...@yahoo.com)



Many have already written elaborately about the injustice on above category of  Retired officers. I also request to use this forum/platform  to guide and support all those affected.



Any joint action like approaching court may please be put on the site with Special caption like (Join For Court Action etc) so that we can come together to  Fight against our legitimate right.



Regards,

Sanjay B Katre

mahesh agrawal <mca...@rediffmail.com>

Every one is requested to send the letters and complaint against IBA,Govt,and Individual Banks to national human rights commission for denial of pension option to Voluntary Retired / resignees who have put in 20 years of service @following e mail address -


covd...@nic.in
Addess:National Human Rights Commission,Faridkot House,Copernicus Marg,New Delhi-110001

Kindly send and attach copies of all the letters written by our colleagues, AIBOA, AIBOC and relevant supreme court /high court judgements.
M.C.Agrawal



Kamarudeen <kamar...@everonn.com> says :

As per natural justice, second option should be extended to all retired staff, whether on superannuation retirement or voluntary retirement



Venkataraman N  <venka...@hotmail.com> says :

It is a great injustice done to the Bank Employees who have retired from the services of the Bank after putting in long tenure of Meritorious Service. As per the Original Understanding reached, the term used was Retired. Now the IBA has specified, Retired on Superannuation, which is totally shocking to the Bank Retirees under Bank Specific VRS!

The IBA permits 2nd option for Pension to SVRS Retirees who have put in a minimum of 15 years of service whereas a Retiree after putting in more than 30 years of Meritorious Service is not eligible for 2nd option for Pension. The Union Leaders who are boasting of Victory of Bank Wage Settlement are now keeping Silence! Why this Attitude? Are they taking up the matter with IBA or interested in collecting Levy??? This attitude of Union Leaders is highly deplorable! They have clarified earlier that all the VRS Retirees are covered, but now keeping their mouths shut!!!

It is requested to fight with the IBA for inclusion of all Retirees for the 2nd Option for Pension!!!!!

BY N Venkataraman;  Senior Manager (Retd. Under Bank VRS); Total Service Put in – 31 years!!!



mahesh agrawal <mca...@rediffmail.com> says :

AN APPEAL TO EVERY ONE CONCERNED WITH THE PENSION ISSUE TO NORMAL VRS  AND RESIGNEES:

1.Can We write a letter to National Human Rights Commission,N.Delhi also in this regard?
2.Whether the press and media people and opposite Political parties can be involved in raising the issue in parliament? All the concerned are requested to use their contacts since we do not expect any thing more  from our IBA/unions because of their indifferent and casual attitude on the issue of pension to normal retirees and resignees


Subramanian M R <mrsubra...@gmail.com> says :

In the recently arrived wage agreement, Original memorandum of understanding was never having the word SUPERANNUATION in the entire text.

Referring to IBA circular No CIR/HIR&IR/62/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10 August 2010 Page 3 Para Numbered 13 IBA has used the words "those who ceased to be in service on account of retirement on superannuation" instead of words "those who ceased to be in service on account of retirement" ......

As against this the memorandum of understanding states:  "(II)(a) Were in Service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in Case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and Retired after that date, and prior to the date of this Settlement and; ....."

Hence IBA’s use of word superannuation excludes employees who have put in more than 20 years of service and retired under any VRS scheme.

The word retirement has to be read in two contexts as per rules of interpretation (Jurisprudence);

a. The interpretation should be in favour of the employee and not employer (employer is legally in a superior position compared to employee). Hence, word retirement should be construed as any kind of officially policied retirement.  Any VRS policy of the bank including VRS for employees who have put in 20 or more years of service should fall within the interpretation of the word retirement.

b."When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest"..Word retirement should be read in context of explicit inclusion of SVRS in memo. SVRS  is a less superlative scheme (meaning, minimum 15 years service clause in SVRS does not fall within pension regulation for those who have completed less than 20 years of service) compared to other official VRS which required 20 or more years of service; and as such, 20  or more years of service fall within pension regulation. The purpose of including an “ineligible” scheme (SVRS) should not be concluded as excluding an “eligible” VRS Scheme.  .

More over, other official VRS scheme is formulated in such a manner that it entitles all the benefits of normal retirement (like, say, in case of officers, they can get the reimbursement of expenses for shifting their family to their post-retired place of residence at par with other retired superannuated officers...).

Regarding inclusion of SVRS specifically in the memorandum of understanding is to bring into the settlement gambit even ex-employees who have put in 15 or more years of service but less than 20 years – who, otherwise, are not eligible for pension (because existing pension scheme requires a minimum of 20 years of service).

The spirit of the agreement was to bring in maximum eligible employees under Pension scheme. Hence all kinds of Retirees, who otherwise enjoy equal status of Superannuated employees, should be included in the gambit of interpretation

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE the word retirement in  the para:

"(II)(a) Were in Service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in Case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and Retired after that date, and prior to the date of this Settlement and; ....."

should be interpreted to cover all VRS schemes officially permitted by the bank with stipulated service of minimum 20 years.

IN VIEW OF THIS clarification provided in the cited communication dated 10th August 2010 to the bank in para 13 and inclusion of the word superannuation is defective in law because of the following reasons:

1. The word superannuation (in context under reference) was never contained in memorandum of understanding.   Thus the word is superimposed in subsequent communication by IBA to deny  pension-option benefit to the employees (who have opted for official VRS); and
2. Ambiguity of the word retirement has to be clarified with the help of rules of legal interpretation jurisprudentially.

Incidentally, I am an aggrieved officer of  Canara Bank - Joined the bank in SEPT 1975 as PO/Officer Trainee and Voluntarily Retired under Official VRS scheme of the bank in JUL 2000 with all normal retirement benefits - but not opted for pension then.






Mahesh Agrawal <mca...@rediffmail.com> says : "AN APPEAL TO EVERY ONE FOR SECOND OPTION TO VRS OPTEES"  AND RESIGNEES

Legal recourse should always be the last resort. Why don't the leaders of AIBOA, AIBOC, BEFI and all other signatories of other associations / unions and exert pressure on IBA to convene an emergency meeting; place before IBA the minutes of the discussions held on 9th Dec 2009, wherein it had been clarified that retirees mean and include all members who had retired on superannuation, VRS, special VRS. Let them  try persistently to change the illogical and obstinate attitude of IBA by impressing upon them the treasured views of the Supreme Court that a pension is not a bounty, nor a matter of grace, but it is a right which  the pensioners have earned by their toil. Pension is not a bounty  payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the government and on the  other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a  government servant, right to receive pension is a property under  Art.31(1) of the Constitution and by mere executive order, the State has no power to withhold the same.

TU organizations are to support our brothers and sisters in the organised/ unorganized sector and I on behalf of all retirees and resignees would request them to rise to the occasions and play their role .With due respect, I would just like to remind them that CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME, and request them to take care of their retired fellow men. Wake up dear Leaders; Take up the issue; Keep up your  concern for the retirees; Nothing is impossible; What's required is will power and perseverance.



Ravindranath K ravindr...@tcs.com says :

In some of the banks, there exist a scheme of VRS for officers under the Officer's Service Regulation who have completed 20 years of service.  In the 9th BPS, such type of  retirees have not been given an opportunity to exercise the second option which is a gross injustice.  I am given to understand that such officers who are many in number are contemplating some sort of action may be legal or approach UFBU etc. for negotiations with IBA.  However, as the efforts are isolated, such officers are not able to get a consolidated and correct view so as to have a common forum and to initiate a collective approach for getting resolved this issue.

May I request that you may publish such efforts in your website for the benefit of all such affected officers, as your's is the unique site which provides all relevant information which I was following right from the beginning of the negotiations of 9th BPS.  

Ravindranath Kannan
Ph:- +918067253788


Sathyamurty Rudrapatna <sathyamu...@gmail.com> says :

I am one of officers who have taken VRS.   I took VRS on 30/09/2009.   It is now learnt that those who have taken VRS are not entitled for Pension Option and only under Special option 2001 are entitled.  This has come as a great shock for people like me. An impression was given that all retired employees including Those under Superannuation, Special VRS 2001,and normal VRS will be given option to changeover from PF to Pension.

Our Union Leaders have misled retired employees. Now there are only two possibilities. Either union leaders were aware of this when they signed joint agreement but kept us in dark or they have signed without reading properly. This is nothing but discrimination. It is learnt that there are about 7000to8000employees of our category which forms about10percent of total retire employees. So 90percent of employees are entitled for Pension Option leaving 10percent ineligible. It may be observed that those under Special VRS2001 have earned by way of Interest more than 56percent out of PF amount besides they getting 60months additional Salary when they took VRS in2001 and they are entitled for Pension Option. But in the case of our category majority have

not used PF amount for 1to3years but still not entitled. This is highly Discriminatory which may have to be fought in Court in case the anomaly

is not set right. We seek your guidance.







    
Quote : "An economist is an expert who will know tomorow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". Laurence J. Peter

Who's Online


Comments :  Do you feel the above comments are biased ?  If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group.

You can submit your comments on : allbankin...@gmail.com

Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views.  The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankin...@gmail.com so that we can review the same


Sorry to trouble you all,

From M.R.Badi

---

From: Venkata S.Akella CFE <akella....@gmail.com>

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 10:36 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Aiboc circular on Sheelkumar verdict by SC

dear
sirs,
all union leaders,

read problems of our officers and kindly help them, its my pray to you all here

Dear Shri Tandon,

Please, clarify If U worked @ our Aminabad, Lucknow from 1998-2002. If so, please clarify. Ur letter is  forwarded to our All India Syndicate Bank Retirees Association @ Bangalore. In the meanwhile, U may visit www.sbra.co.in and download a membership form and join.

regards,

Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi,

Syndicate Bank Pensioner,

retired on superannuation from our Hyderabd CAO,   

Kesar Tandon<> says :

[Gopalakrishnan Nair A.K]

Dear sir,
Pension to VRS/EXIT op tees of SBI Associates/CRS is not seen  in the agenda of UFBU.The MOU for Pension option is signed by all the constituents of UFBU.IBA 's stand contradicts the definition  of the term 'Retirees"in MOU and in Pension regulation. This abnormality affects to very few .This seems to be the reason for not having a united stand .Since the MOU is a joint product of all the constituents of UFBU, a joint effort  will force IBA to rectify their mistake which will benefit few retirees.The legal remedy,as often pointed out ,will take years.


Gopalakrishnan Nair (SBT Exit optee) 

[ABROA Unit: SBT]

There is no rationale for EXIT PF optees having been excluded from the being made eligible for exercising second option for pension. If PF optees under VRS could be considered for Pension why should PF optees under Exit Scheme be treated an outclass? UFBU should pursue the issue to a logical end before the next settlement is inked.

Viswanathan P A 

Associate Banks' Retired Officers' Association Unit: State Bank of Travancore

[sudhir thanki]

IDear Vishvanathan,                                                                                                    I retired under SBS-exit option scheme on31.10,2006,I applied for the 2nd option for pension
to SBI. But they denied for that and advised me that I am not elligible as I retired under Exit scheme. My total service is 28 years and 10 months. Mr. Nadaf  Gen Secretary of AIBOC  is tyring by their letters  to IBA with various clause of Banking regulation..for implementation for 2nd option for pension. Whether he will success or not! 

Regards .

 

S.P.Thanki(Exit Optee)

Date:23/09/2011 Place :Jamnagar