Clause 35(1) of Pension Regulation and Updation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

There appears to be undue pitch on said clause.

Many among us resign to the fate of no possibility of updation as per the said clause and express anguish and frustration in their  recordings.

This may only provide ammunition for negation/postponement of benefit by the authorities.

Clause 35(1) is specifically meant for FITMENT of 83/84 retirees .It is not UPDATION.

However one should admit that the clause is not impeccably worded

What was the need for amendment/Insertion in the said clause is not clear .What is implied by WHEREVER APPLICABLE"?

One of the reasons for our past failure with judiciary is our undue pitch on 35(1).

There is no need for specific clause in regulation for updation

It has been proved in RBI case

It is not logical to use different yardstick.

As per clause 5 Banks have to provide funds for meeting pension liability .It does not say to the exclusion of updation.

No doubt the scheme is DEFINED FUND..But has not the definition gone awry by truncation of flow related to new recruits since 2010?

 :NO FUNDS " is not a good alibi.

Will 2/3 BIPARTITE be shelved on that score?

Would the Govt stand be same  as of now, if Banks were continuing to be WHOLLY OWNED by them.

Bipartite it  is said is sacrosanct for pensioners also

Negotiating committee have to explain the import of amendment to 35(1) done in 2002/2003 by insertion of clause" wherever applicable" causing lot of debate.

Govt should find ways and means to break the impasse.

They cannot afford to forget the fact of their making a FORTUNE by divesting bank holding  in the past, and now is the time to pay back a little for the sake of impoverished pensioners.

Last,it needs no mention that judiciary goes by technicalities and entire thing rests on how the case is presented 

Pray let there not be undue THRUST on 35(1)

C V Narayanan

. 

[Sarangapani Rao]

Yes sir , your last part of the message is verily true that the case should be presented on proper footing  & the judiciary go by legal nuances & technicalities. 

In an English case law, a bank paid against several forged cheques. Forgery conveys no title & any document containing forged signature is a nullity & it is fit to be consigned to the honourable dustbin. The obiter dicta contained many strictures on the bank. But, surprisingly the bank got a favourable judgement 

The Mercantile community was startled . The case was brought on the wrong footing for " Money had & received ".Had it been based on " Paid without mandate"

The customer would have won the case. But when the customer was about to go on appeal , the bank settled it out of court. In the same way, it can be  logically & reasonably presumed  our pensioners' case has not been properly presented either because of lack of input for the lawyers or they are not efficient enough to get a favorable judgement . It was stated our lawyers sought adjournments whereas they are supposed to oppose the adjournments.! 

Sarangapani

Indian Bank 

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d064f478-42e4-4f92-b756-fb266dd77629n%40googlegroups.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Well analysed.   Can anyone explain calculations as per 35(1) with an example please to have clarity what we are asking for better understanding of already aged pensioners

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGJJNEVfBzXuachV3NRD_F%3D-WHCkN4wf%3D7KvunceU%3DH4MHLHRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chellappa Renganathan]

It may please be noted that recently Family Pension was increased from15%to30%without ceiling for which no amendment was made in the Pension Agreement.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGJJNEVfBzXuachV3NRD_F%3D-WHCkN4wf%3D7KvunceU%3DH4MHLHRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Do not expect any logic, legal standing, justice from IBA and UFBU, then you will be happy.

1. Agreement dated 29.10.1993 contains provision for Pension on RBI formula and agreement of 1994 confirms the same.

But this clause is absent in Final Pension regulations.

2. IBA files affidavit in SC that Reg 35/1 of Pension regulations does not provide for Updation.

But will not answer why 5 years benefit, DA as per 1684 index level, Recovery of commutation from the date of credit was rejected though provided in Pension Regulations.

3. Natural justice requires that pre 2002 retirees pension was not revised even once and they deserved 100% DA first rather than post 2002 retirees whose Basic pension has been revised.

4.  Those who are going on strike often,  claiming that Bank managements are violating bilateral/agreements did not bother when IBA violated the second pension agreement rejecting Pension option to CRS retirees,

5. Pension was reduced for X and XI BPS retirees by converting Basic pay to Special all.

6. Those who are earning Salary and also getting Medical reimbursement got free health Insurance and Pensioners who are getting Rs 10000-20000 PM pension were asked to pay a premium of Rs.30000-40000.

Do not ask why? IBA, UFBU, DFS have not answered our question for past 20 years and will never answer in future also.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAK-tYikx23yOgUi%3DM5DpFc%3Dg8qqCaNOT1LFg232mxuPe-5E6Hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Wilson]

Sir,

Even RBI received pension updation up to 2012, without any amendment to Pension Regulation. Citing inadequacy, however, Banks pension regulation were also amended to make it applicable to all in 2003. So there is nothing further to be done, when Reg 35(1) was considered as a hindrance with peculiar interpretations. Inadequacy of pension funds were first heard in Kerala HC in the last hearing of a writ filed by Shri Ravindran of Union bank of India. That too remains to be proved. Pension and it's updation is inseparable. The update concept of Retirees is perhaps not going to happen. However an increase sufficient for persons retired to cope up with living along with their serving drawing higher Salary is to considered. 

Paul

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAK-tYikx23yOgUi%3DM5DpFc%3Dg8qqCaNOT1LFg232mxuPe-5E6Hw%40mail.gmail.com.

[bhaskara sarma]

If there are no funds for Pension updation, what is justification in payment of huge dividends to shareholders including central government?

P Bhaskara Sarma.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJhYRk1NmPTXuBAtN4y%3DKoBrzibRJqiPoGNTy5Ee%2B_6qw9G2Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

[KrishnaSwamy K R]

If there are no funds for Pension Updation, what is justification in payment of lakhs and crores of IBA subscription by Banks every year ?

OR ELSE the pension arrears from date of pension to 2019 ( assuming RBI formula applied) itself form the pension corpus for further 

updated pension payment to all pensioners !!!

KrishnaSwamy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2BUBNxj5BA5VruTS%2BwK6myorVQDA_0DNtfx1%3DfjPpZ8KKy7Fvg%40mail.gmail.com.