Position Paper on Discrimination.

[Sanjay J]

(Please refer to Mr.Prasadji’s original letter at the bottom of this reply)

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

Thank you for your frank and forthright message to the group. Your question, "Why do we not even discuss the discrimination?", deserves not merely an answer but a demonstration that we are, at last, discussing it.

You are right that we have spent considerable time on "beautiful narrations and charts". I believe that a well-reasoned, documented articulation of our grievance is the necessary first step toward action—whether in the courts, before the Department of Financial Services, or in negotiations with SBI's Central Board. Without a clear statement of our legal position, we cannot effectively invoke Articles 14, 16, and 21, however loudly we invoke them.

I am, therefore, enclosing herewith a Position Paper prepared on precisely the discrimination you have highlighted—the structural pension inequality between e-AB pensioners (including ourselves as e-SBM pensioners) and mainstream SBI pensioners, post the 2017 merger.

You have rightly pointed out that SBI pensioners and their organisations have consistently received support from us, while rarely extending reciprocal support for our exclusive concerns. That asymmetry is documented and real. This Position Paper is our attempt to stop fighting only other people's battles and to begin fighting our own—with the same rigour, the same legal precision—but this time, directed squarely at the discrimination within our own backyard, as you have so aptly put it.

I would be grateful for your views on the Paper, and would welcome your support in taking it forward to wherever else it needs to go.

With warm regards and deep respect for your candour,

Sanjay J.

Enclosure: Position Paper

*** 

Shri Prasadji’s original letter to which the above reply was given:

Dear friends,

Repeatedly, I have posted messages regarding discrimination within Banking Industry.  We are losing huge amount on account of such discrimination. Including Shri Sanjayji and Shri Sathyanarayana Rao, many have spent enough time in such beautiful narrations, with charts, etc. even in cases where the increase is minimal.  This has received appreciation.  Rightly so.  Still, I am unable to decipher the reason for turning a blind eye on discrimination within our own backyard.  

We are demanding parity with RBI, but not parity with SBI

We are demanding parity with Government, but not with SBI

We have Regulation 35(1), but they are not having 35(1). Still, we demand parity for them in Pension Updation issue.

We are demanding paltry subsidy and GST waiver, but we do not demand parity with SBI Retirees as far as Medical Insurance & Medical benefits.

Are we demanding parity with SBI?

We got 100% DA, SBI Pensioners also got.

We got improvement in Family Pension, they also got

We got Ex-gratia, they also got.

But, what we have got, when their maximum pension was less than that of a Scale I Officer in State Bank of India at the time of introduction of pension during 1993 - 1996, which is at same 50% as we are getting now, Have we demanded parity?

We are happy to live and die as second-class pensioners.

Why we do not at least discuss the discrimination.  Is it because we do not know or we are ignoring?  Are we happy to make SBI pensioners happier.  But, we keep talking about discrimination, Article 14.

Another observation.  We fight for every benefit which only SBI pensioners and their organisation and its top Executives want, even if that benefit is not for us, but only to SBI Pensioners.  We whole heartely support.  We also fight for the benefits which not only those pensioners from other Banks, even those from State Bank of India are the beneficiaries.  In both these cases, SBI Pensioners are the beneficiaries.  But, I have not seen any instance where SBI Pensioners or their organisations support and/or demand any benefit to non-SBI Pensioners.  

Unfortunately, they have even objected too.

Why we do not invoke Artice 14, 16 and 21 in that case?

Why we do not even say that we are cheated?

Why we do not even make any calculation?

Now, I am sure after having read mail,

Shri Sanjayji, Shri Sathyanaryana Rao and 

Shri Somashekarji would fight for parity for you and me.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N.

 

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

Thank you for your efforts.  Unfortunately, what is required is making Bank Retirees understand that there are many more issues which can give us more benefits and we are ignoring various legitimate and legally enforceable benefits.  Unfortunately, we are sacrificing various important and more beneficial benefits in the name of pension updation.  It does not mean that fighting for these benefits is in lieu of fight for pension updation.  If wisdom prevails, we will join together and fight for every legitimate benefit.  No one should forget about latches.

Your write up looks good, but has not considered many facts and grounds.  

I repeat.  Pension Updation cannot be in lieu of other benefits.  It should be in addition to the legitimate and legally enforceable benefits.

It is just a reminder.  Regulation 35(1) is not amended in erstwhile Associate Banks.  But no such regulation exists in State Bank of India.  If Pension of SBI Pensioners is updated, updation of pension of erstwhile Associate Banks cannot be denied.

It is well established law that no benefit could be denied for the reason that pension regulations are not amended.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJdyo%2BTckTurtZi3Fs4tOO0%3DJQmKa7K7cC%3D6km7PtSL4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

I have very carefully gone through the position paper very elegantly furnished by our commune
Sri Sanjay has given very lucid forward to the position paper.
Who are the competent authority to solve the issues?
Who have got the negotiating rights.?
Who will listen and resolve our issues?
Even Supreme court verdicts are not respected by the Government DFS, individual banks, and IBA.
We have filled contempt petitions against SBI and SBI chairman has to tender oppalogy.
SBM was fined and paid penalty.
No aggrieved individual can fight against the mighty government, DFS, Banks and IBA.
Even retirees associations are unable to get written reply for their representations.
Collectively we can fight against the mighty government, DFS and IBA provided if the retirees organisations are financially sound to pay the legal expenses.
Here comes the role of Trade unions to protect and safe guard the best interest and legal rights of the veterans and Retirees which is evidently lacking
Only alternative is collective action through their retirees association with able leadership can fight leagal fight for justice.SBM pensioners commune under able leadership of Sri C.N.Prasad is fighting several cases listed in position paper and achieved benifits like 5 years case , commutation arrears and Regulation 35 the judgement of which is awaited.
The final conclusion is for retirees to get legal benefits through courts is the solution.we have to wait for long, long time to real the benefits.
Sri Singla ji Case is such historic fight which is going to be in our favour based on the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and fair play under article 14 and16 and 21, with the constitutional rights vested with the Supreme court judges to reverse the high court verdicts and rewrite the favourable verdict.
Let us wait for final favourable verdict.
With regards to all enlightened and Learned participants in the group.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--