CA-7993 /2023 BEFORE SC

[MOHAN P]

ORDER DT 05.02.26 OF APEX COURT 

ITEM NO.118               COURT NO.2               SECTION IV             

  S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

 Civil Appeal  No(s).  7993/2023 

M.C. SINGLA (DEAD) THR. LR. & ORS.                 Appellant(s)                                VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Responde

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

From the information available on the proceedings before Apex Court ,on 5th Feb'26 we could gather that:

Our Advocates mainly stressed on following points in nut shell:

1.Banks have updated pension up to 31.10.87, as per new pay scales as on 1st Nov'87 and never updated pension there after.

2.Also pointed out that there is clear provision for updation of pension of all pensioners in tune with Regulation 35(1)

3.Another point raised by our Advocates is on current pension fund position,and further argued that , pension updation 

can be made from pension fund itself without any extra burden on 

Government!

4.Parity with RBI pensioners, not in 'Quantum' but in formula.

5.Under this back drop court has asked to produce a chart as follows to compare the benefit:

1) Pension calculation of an employee who retired after 01.01.1986 before 31.10.1987, with but year-wise calculations up to date;

ii) Pension calculation of an employee

the who retired after 

01.11.1987 till 28.02.2003, with the same details as mentioned above 

and

 iii) Pension calculation of An employee who retired after 01.03.2003, with the same details as provided above 

6.Indeed a good indication from the side of Hon.Court.Also seems from proceedings  that Hon. court has a sympathy towards senior citizen bank pensioners.But on a legal process evidence and factual arguments to substantiate our claim is important than emotional feelings. 

 7.Especially when our Advocates focus wrongly on sufficiency in Pension Fund and Updation of Pension based on Regulation 35(1) may not bring desired result ,as we wish.

Let us wait and see further developments.

Regards,

Mohan.P

--
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/CAMCbyDRe1xGzg_1fn%2B9rUw6t1u%2BoXkcmP3ohZ2Bhk5TBgtu0oQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

I think, to comply with the order, the cases have to be taken from all BPS groups starting from 5 to 12, in order to present a correct and true picture of the disparities in the quantum of pension between the groups.

K N RAMANI 

On Fri, 6 Feb, 2026, 7:31 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

[RAJU SHANMUGAM]

[Vvns Varaprasadrao]

Point No.7 is absolutely correct.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTgOwibAj4jitWvEM4__Ux-cJJAbk9QFxc0nuKLtE8Q3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

What you have stated in Para 7 is very true. The statement by our advocate on the "sufficiency" of the monies available in Pension Fund will be blown away when the advocates of IBA explain the working of the Fund with reference to compliance of AS-15 norms. So also, the argument that the balance in the Fund is Pensioners' money/contribution.

As regards  Regulation 35(1)'s applicability to update pensions for all Pensioners in tune with the salary hiked in every BPS, the Judges have already remarked that they would go through the Judgements of different HCs to know the reasons given by them for rejection of such claim. It remains to be seen if the judges will quash the judgements of HCs

Only ray of hope is the precedence created in respect of RBI pensioners.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTgOwibAj4jitWvEM4__Ux-cJJAbk9QFxc0nuKLtE8Q3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Davis Pulicken]

Dear Sir,  

The point No. 7 is very important.        Our Advocates should not have stress on adequate fund is there for addressing Updation.

Let take this opportunity to acclaim Mr. Mohan for coming with apt clarification to pensioner's through email.

With Regards, 

Davis, SIB Retiree. 9447224158.

On Sat, 7 Feb, 2026, 8:38 am MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTgOwibAj4jitWvEM4__Ux-cJJAbk9QFxc0nuKLtE8Q3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

All the problems faced by the past retirees especially the VRS optees could have been avoided, had the ufbu leadership and chv and co been little more sensible and sympathetic to old retirees. Many a times, chv and co behaved as a B team of iba, stating no funds for udation. It is none of their business to arrange it. The banks and govt will find ways to that. 

In the matter of

 1616/1684 while fixing basic pension, 5 year weightage, 100% da matter, etc, neither ufbu nor chv and co helped the retirees. 

Because of aibrf, the 100% da case was lost. So for all legitimate  issues of  the retirees, it  was only by the intervention of court, the retirees could get justice.

Had ufbu and chv & co were sincere, in 2024 march itself, they could habe signed the new pension settlement and new DA index formula. 

Now atlest the retirees have got a ray of hope and let us pray for a favourable judgement, rather than doing postmortem of arguments took place in SC.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTgOwibAj4jitWvEM4__Ux-cJJAbk9QFxc0nuKLtE8Q3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

When pensioners' contribution to pension fund is big ZERO, how can they claim benefit from pension fund?. What about benefits to those who contributed to pension fund. Should banks update pension to pensioners at the cost of contributes to pension fund. Quoting pension fund adequacy is most illogical. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFwtfmfvcVH-FWxct5HvckM9LofdtOfrfXfyrJm18_s%2BUv2MOg%40mail.gmail.com.

[CHIRAMEL MATHEW SIMON]

It need not be emphasised about the adequacy of pension funds. It is because ours is a defined benefit plan as per AS-15 ad accordingly the employer has to meet shortfall in the funds as per the actuarial valuation from tome to time.

Thus, emphasising about the adequacy of pension funds would give a wrong notion about our retirement benefit plan.

Regards

Chiramel Mathew Simon

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTgOwibAj4jitWvEM4__Ux-cJJAbk9QFxc0nuKLtE8Q3Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There are criticisms regarding the line of arguments (such as emphasis on Reg 35/1 and availability of pension funds), by petitioners advocates in CA7993.2023. Legally this may be correct.

But is there any other option for petitioners when UFBU succeeded in not insisting on amending pension regulations to provide for updation for the last  25 years,and leaders themselves are shouting there are no funds for updation?

In an earlier High court proceedings Banks argued there is no provision for updation and agreements dated 1993 and 1994 are only preliminary discussions and  did not yield any fruitful results regarding periodical revision of pension. RBI also has not updated pension for its retirees. 

Due to this Hon. Judge said petitioners should have negotiated the issue with management instead of coming to us for relief. 

But the reality is petitioners are not authorised to negotiate the issue and UFBU is not willing to discuss and resolve the issue. Uber these circumstances  petitioners of  M C Singla case in SC could not have repeated the same arguments and had to adopt suitable strategy to achieve the goal.

Karnataka High Court in earlier judgment said petitioners could have demanded application of Reg 35/1 to all pensioners. So petitioners are trying hard to prove that Reg35/1 is indeed applicable to all pensioners quoting the 2003 amendment. In the absence of authentic cost data of updation petitioners have no other option but to insist that existing pension funds are sufficient to provide for updation.

Their main focus is to prove the disparity in pension within the Banking Industry and also compared to RBI formula.  It depends on how petitioners advocates succeeds in proving disparity.

Petitioners deliberately avoiding mentioning minutes dated 08.03.2024 which indicates there is no provision for updation in  pension regulations.

There is a valid point  in the argument that  retirees opted for pension in June 1994 believing that there is provision for updation and our pension is based on RBI pension structure as per agreements dated 1993 and 1994. Mangemnts could not have unilaterally omitted these clauses after getting option for pension,

In courts you gave to adopt a strategy. We have been observing many senior advocates of SC though law is not on their side, are  fighting acts/legislations passed by parliament are adopting their own strategy and getting some concessions.

If Hon. judges are convinced that there is disparity in pension we may get some relief.

Otherwise the issue is wide open for IBA/UFBU for negotiation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPUiqug4%3DKKm5hzyde%3D9P3ZvZkdFgntY1WBk71_UGQ4LdCkh9A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Life is full of twists and turns. 

Now we see a turn in this case.

If it works out in favour of the pensioners, it's well and good.

Why bother about what is right and wrong. Let the lawyers deal with it.

If the Divine grace is with us, we may get some financial benefits. If not pension fund argument will win.

As usual, we are just the spectators.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2JGU%2BJf4oAmoUDYAZzRK2ks-pbGJh8APx3vEV6-dOCJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Somashekara ji
There is ample scope for the judges to consider pension updation as there exists several anomalies and defferent catagories of Pensioners retirees retired in defferent bipartite settlements.
The retirees with same rank and same service are drawing defferent pension.
Equal pension for equal service with exual designation is applied on the footing of equity and fair play and on the principles of Natural justice
Is likely to be considered by judges there is sufficient scope for favouable judgement for us.
Regulation35/1 read with Apendix 1  and IBA floating the statutory regulations and agreed rules is the serious point and the distortion of their own rules are observed by judges and they called for the details of pension paid and payable to 3 time period frame of retirees ie 1 . 1186 to 87.
87 to 2003,
2003 to till date.
As there exists glaring example of anomalies which are deliberately created by the unholy nexus of UFBU and IBA.
To Day a cleark drawing more. Pension than an executive retired prior to 2003.etc is sufficient glaring example of anomalies.
When RBI and Nambard retirees can get 3 time period updation,Why we are denied the  same justice, equity and fair play when our pension regulations are based on pension regulations which are in vouge.
There fore the learned judges of Supreme court have understood the mischief and deliberate distortions perpetually committed by the IBA and UFBU combine.
Let us hope and wait for final verdict which will be big slap on IBA and UFBU combine and all those who deliberately support such anti retirees and veteran pensioners.
Justice shall prevail in our favour.
With regards.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2JGU%2BJf4oAmoUDYAZzRK2ks-pbGJh8APx3vEV6-dOCJA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Pensioners organisations are not recognised by IBA and all the benefits granted to them are only routed through MOUs and agreements between IBA and UFBU.  I think, this means the contents of the agreement are binding on the pensioners though they are not directly a party to the agreement. So, I feel, what is stated in the 8/3/2024 agreement with regard to updation of pension in terms of BEPR will be deemed to have the tacit acceptance of pensioners.

I concur with your view that the glaring huge disparities in Pension between the various BPS groups will evoke the sympathy of the judges paving way for some revision even in the absence of any relevant/binding Regulation 

K N RAMANI 

On Mon, 9 Feb, 2026, 10:00 am JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2JGU%2BJf4oAmoUDYAZzRK2ks-pbGJh8APx3vEV6-dOCJA%40mail.gmail.com.