Late MC Singla case in SC

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

If one had watched carefully the argument about presence or other wise of updation clause in pension regulation, it was all somewhat subdued. The learned judges are sure to have understood it by now as  a no 

 issue given it's absence in similar such pension schemes viz :in RBI whose pensioners are beneficiaries thrice so far.

 

The learned judges would not also have lost sight of comments of IBA about clamour for similar benefitt by PSU bank pensioners citing RBI pensioners

Their indirect commitment to updation was discernible when Adhoc Allowance was permitted. 

They are probably waiting for pronouncement of verdfict in Singla case Which cannot go against the interest of pensioners, given the circumstances.

Funds Adequacy is not to be a raging issue. Both  sides are supposed to be armed with chart prepared after Acturial Exercise covering same period. It will give tell tale evidence. It will  show where we stand and also does not absolve banks of their obligation. 

It is stressed that management are in Obligation considering the tight leash in which banks were/are kept with administration and policy matters and employees are not to be blamed for the ills

Banks are arned with umpteen methods to equip themselves with funds, with permissible accounting methods. May be like Revenue Expenditure capitalisation/Direct loan from GOI'etc. For the said purpose those banks who need assistance have to be identified. But PAYABLE IF ABLE would not behove well for govt. 

Major chunk of beneficiary would be surviving lot of 2001 retirees who are Septugenarians. and barring a handful  many of them would not see another dose of settlement. Futuristically updation will not be biting proposition fir banks

Presently, when similarly placed pensioners in other walks of life are jumping with joy with their pension pay packet let not bank pensioners  continue to sulk with sadness

Best of Luck for self and  all others

C V Narayanan

  

 

[Sureshbhat M]

If  all these arguments withstand are 2001  retirees eligible for arrears from 2003 settlement and all next settlements?

--
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/CAJev%3Da-ppsCVea3EvhCRhEL3Mu2sj_QsO3S0qByKZyo12V189w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Narayanan,

A good analysis. I would like to supplement it with my following 

observations.

In its Compilation report submitted to the Court, IBA has attached as the last item, the minutes of the joint meeting held with UFBU on 8/3/2024. The purpose/intention for doing so is not clear.

On the one hand, the Court might point out that if there is no provision in the Pension Regulations for updation as contended by IBA, why at all they should have  agreed to discuss with UFBU and arrive at a mutually acceptable and amicable solution to the pension updation issue within the next 6 months but subsequently decline to discuss, for the matter was subjudice.

On the other hand,  it could be the expectation of IBA that the Court might 

direct IBA and UFBU to negotiate the issue and resolve it early rather than ordering to adopt the RBI formula as prayed for by the petitioners.

K N RAMANI 

--

[ramesh.n. Iyya]

Bank pensioners are paid out of huge pension fund of ₹ one Lakh Forty Five thousand as on March31, 2025,always increases, Hence Bank Is not contributing to Pensioners payment. Pensioners Fund is only for Pensioners, which bankers with holding from Tirty Years and earning interest👍

On Thu, 26 Feb, 2026, 3:20 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[MOHAN P]

Dear Shri Ramesh,

Though we have discussed on this point several times here still few believe that pension fund is having surplus amount and no need for banks to add any amount towards shortfall  of the fund  as per annual.actuarial valuation.

Moreover the amount as referred  lying at pension fund now is banks money and not contributed by pensioners.Also note that fund is not exclusively kept for past retirees /families pension payment  only but entitled to serving employees too  those who have opted OPS.

While enhancing Family Pension recently,  substantial amount  were added to pension fund by banks to meet additional cost.That is the reality.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMOs_Tb6kF7HpkcZEQWLGUPwkqLAHjZNO%2B%2BKitkV-NkUCwN_og%40mail.gmail.com.

[GARIMELLA SESHAGIRIRAO]

Why you are talking of pension fund availability. Banks will takecare of as per pension regulations.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS17X2vOdXz-DVw0%2BYskZ1v98wpens6bOvzoN1MkJ099w%40mail.gmail.com.

[sudhakar avalur]

Sir

Do you mean the Pension fund includes the money of employees who are working / joined after 2010? If that is the case Banks have withdrawn money to the tune of 70000 crores from the fund for making adjustment to various heads in the books, is it correct and legal.

Regards

Sudhakar 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS17X2vOdXz-DVw0%2BYskZ1v98wpens6bOvzoN1MkJ099w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

With a positive mind and with a view to assist those who are fighting Late Shri M C Singla's case, we need to put all our heads together by providing and sharing following information.  We could help the Petitioners by providing these information to enable them to submit to Hon'ble Court, if Hon'ble Court raises any of these questions.  Hon'ble Judges have already told the Senior Advocate of PNB/IBA that pension has to be paid in terms of Regulations.  

I have been requesting everyone to enlighten us with applicable formula for updation, which is being prayed before Hon'ble Supreme Court with due reference to applicable clause either in Settlement or in Regulations. 

We also request all enlightend and postive minded warriors to inform us whether Pension is being paid in terms of Pension Regulations?  If it is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations, please list the details of such Regulations, including those in Regulation 35(1) - Appendix I, in terms of which pension is not being paid.

Please also share supporting documents, if you have any.

 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS17X2vOdXz-DVw0%2BYskZ1v98wpens6bOvzoN1MkJ099w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

Dear Sri Ramani,

What you have stated in the last paragraph has already been envisaged in my letter in the blog 4 days back.

Court may play safe by mooting such an idea. But the court should fix a time frame, lest the issue will never be resolved.

G Ramachandran 

CB-SVRS 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMOs_Tb6kF7HpkcZEQWLGUPwkqLAHjZNO%2B%2BKitkV-NkUCwN_og%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Mr Sudhakar,

Read my message in full.

It refer on employees those who have opted Old Pension Scheme( ie:defined benefit pension plan) only.

NPS  is different( ie.defined contribution plan) and existing pension fund  is not connected with them

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKCYHXiBX3O3VLUbk1HdAC0f_xUUf9xzogKsTCTcojUB6fkamg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mathrubootham Sreenivasan]

let GOD prevail upon judges mind and make them to deliver favourable  judgement to the bank pensioners who are putting their one  foot in the grave yard atleast 75 percent are over 75 yrs old/age  the judgement will also help present employees

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJjVXgzutffrctXmQid1-cDtfSOHuNmmJQ6XhPJ7ePbmeD_wLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The judges have clearly mentioned that if the Banks are not paying pension as per person regulations they have to pay.
Here the question of availablity of funds will not arrise.
Banks and unions have cheated the Pensioners by not updating pension during wage revision periodically.
This is the crux of the issue and the Justice shall prevail and Singla ji, the judicial victory shall be ensured.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKCYHXiBX3O3VLUbk1HdAC0f_xUUf9xzogKsTCTcojUB6fkamg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Prasad Sir, 

First of all is it mandatory that provision for pension updation should exist in Pension regulations for implementing updation?

Was there procision for enhancement of family pension?

Finance Minister has approved Updation in RBI multiple times that too with arrears even though there is no provision for pension regulations. In the past DFS mentioned that if  Updation in RBI approved, similar demand from PSU Bank pensioners will come. DFS never said there is no provision for pension in BEPR 1995. Infact DFS in reply to a member of Parliament replied that  if a  proposal submitted by IBA it will be considered. Neither Central Govt pension rules, RBI pension rules, LIC and nabard pension rules did not have provision for updation. It was introduced later due to consistent demand from unions. It is unfair  and illegal on the part of iBA to file affadavit

Petitioners have filed copies of  resolution dated 08.03.24 and DFS notification extending updation for third time which also made it clear that DFS is in favour of extending benefit to all.

BEPR 1995 is a subordinate legislation. There is a clause that if there is any doubt reference should be made to Central Government pension regulations. IBA says it is neither a government entity nor a regulatory authority. 

IBA has no authority to interpret legal meaning of terms of BEPR 1995, IBA should have referred the matter to the Central Government and obtained its opinion in writing. In case Central Government interpretation is not satisfactory the same can be challenged in the court. Since IBA has filed  affidavit giving its own interpretation of Reg35/1 and  amendment of 2003, the same is challenged in the Supreme court and the supreme court is the final authority to give legal interpretation of terms of BEPR1995.

Yes there is  some lack of clarity  on calculation of Updation. Hope pensioners side will demand definite formula for updation submitting charts.agga

For every agreement be it the agreement of 1993 and 1994 and Pension regulations there are two parties, IBA and UFBU. High court judges in M C Singla case only relied upon affidavit of IBA without any documentary support and only iBA interpretation of clauses of the above agreements in the absence of Unions statements.High court judge was not aware that petitioners are not allowed to negotiate and even iBA not ready to communicate with them.

Majority of the litigants in court vases win not because they presented true facts but argued the case in convincing manner with whatever documentary support they hacve. IBA did the same for the last 20 years  convincing courts about the huge cost of updation without producing cost data and convincing court about the committee without submitting committee report.

If anybody has any solution they are free to advise pensioners' advocates.. I am confident that Pensioners advocate will have clarity on formula for updation and convince the court.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/712550678.333319.1772180032990%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

This is with reference to Sri

Prasadj's request to make available any valid point with reference to the ongoing late Singla vs Union of India &ors case in  SC,to feed the data to the advocates. 

On enquiry with one of my retired rly employee friends under OPS, I learn their pension scheme does not differ from ours and that the system of filling up pension fund under IAS(AS19) has long been given up and funds are credited directly based on need. 

He said acturial system fails to work considering enormous funds requirement. The needs are met  from revenue and Budgetary grants go for capital projects. 

Unless banks follow the same procedure there is no salvation. 

The pensioners have been wronged too long because of govt policy in administration after nationalisation. 

Their attempt to wriggle out has to be thwarted and judgement secured in our favour. 

To meet out the need can zero coupon bonds be issued to be sold at a discount, encashable at face value on completion of the term? 

This is only a loud thinking and do not  know whether workable at this late hour

Regards

C V Narayanan

28th feb 2026

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSmOzjvRhBaT-tAV88wko74qCTsf%3DuabOhYT8LpSPk4TA%40mail.gmail.com.

[SBMPC Blore]

Mr.Prasad Sir, 

Dear Shri Somashekaraji, my answers are palatable for many.  Having fought and continue to fight cases before High Courts and Supreme Courts, I have seen how Hon'ble Judges view or consider pleadings.  In case, if I do not share information or understanding I have, I am misrepresenting.  I do not want to mislead.   Whatever knowledge or information I have, I am sharing in Bold : 

First of all is it mandatory that provision for pension updation should exist in Pension regulations for implementing updation?

There is no Pension Regulations or Rules in the country, including that of Central Government and Reserve Bank of India has any clause or word pension updation.  There cannot be any such clause because there cannot be a constant formula for wage revision.  Even Reference to Pay Commission does not include issues of pension improvement. Rerserve Bank of India formula has loading of 10%.  In case, improvement in superannuation benefit reduced to any percentage, which is even less than 10%, Pensioners load cannot continue to be at 10%.  Perhaps, this example explains why there cannot be any clause in any Pension Regulations.

Was there procision for enhancement of family pension?

There is no bar in any law to extend the benefit.  This is because right of any person is adversly affected by improvment in Family Pension.  Law protects existing benefits.  

Finance Minister has approved Updation in RBI multiple times that too with arrears even though there is no provision for pension regulations. In the past DFS mentioned that if  Updation in RBI approved, similar demand from PSU Bank pensioners will come. DFS never said there is no provision for pension in BEPR 1995. Infact DFS in reply to a member of Parliament replied that  if a  proposal submitted by IBA it will be considered. Neither Central Govt pension rules, RBI pension rules, LIC and nabard pension rules did not have provision for updation. It was introduced later due to consistent demand from unions. It is unfair  and illegal on the part of iBA to file affadavit

Government of India approved the proposal of Reserve Bank of India to revise pension after due approval of its Board.  Eventhough LIC Board has approved pension revision, pension has not been revised in LIC.   Unfortunately, we are blaming Indian Banks Association and the Government.  Pension could have been revised in case if we were to impress upon the CMDs/MDs/EDs need for pension revision. We have failed in our duty.

Petitioners have filed copies of  resolution dated 08.03.24 and DFS notification extending updation for third time which also made it clear that DFS is in favour of extending benefit to all.

BEPR 1995 is a subordinate legislation. There is a clause that if there is any doubt reference should be made to Central Government pension regulations. IBA says it is neither a government entity nor a regulatory authority. 

Indian Banks Association's status has no relevance.  It is not negotiating on its own.  But, it is acting as a Mandate holder, like a Power of Attorney holder or an agent, based on mandate by the Banks.  Managing Committee consists of MDs/EDs only.  They act only in their interest only.  That is why both 100% DA & FP are improved and maximum benefits flows to them only.   

Both Division Bench and Single Judge benches of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Singla's case have dealt with Regulation 56.  There are other Judgments also regarding Regulation 56, which are not in favour.  That is the reason, I am not quoting them.  There is a need for existence of three ingredients.  First, there should be doubt.  Second, such doubts relate to existing Regulations. Third, there should be corresponding Regulations in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972.   There is no Regulation in our Pension Regulations, 1995.  There is no word updation in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972.  In the absence of any Rule in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 regarding Pension Updation, Regulation 56 cannot assist us.  What I am saying is nothing new.  Hon'ble Courts have already decided.  Therefore, please go through the Judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court & Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.  Courts have decided these issues.  We are neither submitting any counter with force to get the reversal of the Judgment nor providing any other cogent grounds which has force, better than that of the defence of the Judgment by IBA/PNB.

IBA has no authority to interpret legal meaning of terms of BEPR 1995, IBA should have referred the matter to the Central Government and obtained its opinion in writing. In case Central Government interpretation is not satisfactory the same can be challenged in the court. Since IBA has filed  affidavit giving its own interpretation of Reg35/1 and  amendment of 2003, the same is challenged in the Supreme court and the supreme court is the final authority to give legal interpretation of terms of BEPR1995.

It is Pensioners who want the benefit, IBA is an organisation of Management, who has to pay.  There Regulations are formulated and amended with indulgence of IBA.  Any scope of interpretation or existence of any provision in Pension Regulations, 1995 is invented, but not discovered.  No one so far provided any case for interpretation in Pension Regulations, duly providing reasons thereof.  IBA has stated in its Affidavit that 'It is not the case of the Petitioners that Pension is not being paid in terms of Regulations.  So far, I have not seen any document submitted by the Petitioners/those representing Pensioners which supports the cause of the Pensioners providing cogent proof dislodging the claim of IBA/PNB.  

Yes there is  some lack of clarity  on calculation of Updation. Hope pensioners side will demand definite formula for updation submitting charts.agga

For every agreement be it the agreement of 1993 and 1994 and Pension regulations there are two parties, IBA and UFBU. High court judges in M C Singla case only relied upon affidavit of IBA without any documentary support and only iBA interpretation of clauses of the above agreements in the absence of Unions statements.High court judge was not aware that petitioners are not allowed to negotiate and even iBA not ready to communicate with them.

Majority of the litigants in court vases win not because they presented true facts but argued the case in convincing manner with whatever documentary support they hacve. IBA did the same for the last 20 years  convincing courts about the huge cost of updation without producing cost data and convincing court about the committee without submitting committee report.

If anybody has any solution they are free to advise pensioners' advocates.. I am confident that Pensioners advocate will have clarity on formula for updation and convince the court.

In any Court case, it is the duty of the Petitioners to prove, but not that of the Respondents.  We are all making one mistake.  The cost of Pension Revision is dependent on the formula.  Neither IBA, nor the UFBU nor the Committee nor the Pensioners can say without applicable formula.  Can anyone say what is the cost of cloth, without measurement?  Reserve Bank of India Pension Revision Formula is out of question because by seeking RBI formula, we are seeking far more than One Rank One Pension.  To illustrate, go through the following example:

Gross Pension of a General Manager retired on 31.10.2022 (11th Bipartite Settlement) is Rs.1,02,607/- and Gross Pension of a General Manager retired on 31.08.2023 is Rs. 1,08,663/- (12th Bipartite Settlement) and the difference in pension is Rs.6,056/-.   In case, Pension is revised as per RBI formula, pension of a General Manager retired earlier during 11th Bipartite period would be Rs.1,15,294/-, which would be more than Pension (Rs.1,08,663/-) of a General Manager retired during 12th Bipartite Settlement. 

I have repeatedly requesting everyone, including warriors, crussadors and fighters, what is the applicable formula for Pension Updation sought before Hon'ble Supreme Court and basis for such a claim.  There are no words Reserve Bank of India in Regulation 56 and Regulation 35(1).  Then what is the formula, we want?  It is unfortunate that we are raising hopes without even providing a formula, which could be enforced alongwith basis for such a claim.  All other stories hold good during a negotiation.  Courts do not write stories but enforce laws.

I am aware that what I have said is not palatable to many.  I cannot be misrepresenting or playing fraud, by providing false narratives. If I do not share the information, what I believe is true, then I am playing fraud.  Thank you for raising doubts and questions.  I have no problem in sharing my thoughts.  

I do have experience in litigation.  We are fighting State Bank of India, which was represented by Shri Tushar Mehta and other very Senior Advocates.  Despite that we have secured apology from the Chairman, State Bank of India in Supreme Court.  Shortly, we are launching one more contempt proceedings against the Chairman.  There is no need to raise hopes.  My conscious do not permit telling lies.  I do not want to be a hero.  Atleast, I shall not propogate false narratives.

Note:  Regulation 35 is for fixation of pension at the time of retirement, but not for revision.  In Reserve Bank of India there is no updation, but it is Pension Revision.      

Thanking you,

With regards,

C N Prasad 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3eCiXO%2BCSw_VpXTKJA3BynaCAaFyZ%2BV7Y0LmhHw_9vFA%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends 

Sri Prasad Ji has clearly spelt out the factual position on our case on updation of pension pending before Apex Court.

There may have different views.Most of them are emotional.But facts are facts.Court cannot provide any formula on this.

Our social media is also contributing a lot on creating hopes on verdict with misleading information.

Updation of pension may happen or should happen.

Meanwhile let us wait and see the developments in court.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALXgLCGz3c75d1gmRsiQq5%2BZoiK0uazWe8nunbF38ynpRaZJOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rajendrasinh Jadeja]

कम से कम late શ્રી सिंगला साहब का लिहाज करे।!!!🙏

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSXftaQ0J_a45syO41thya9AXxDCaSWMUygRtAKDTdQRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

This is with reference

to elaborate note from Mr. Prasad. Looking for a formula from members at this late hour is going to take us nowhere. Only those like  Mr. Prasad who have delved deep in to the issue can do anything substantive. Most  of the contributors in this forum are only stray writers. 

The formula matter should have engaged our attention long ago. 

Can we go  via media with RBI formula doing cosmetic touches wherever anomalies creep in say  by extending exgratia. 

Regards

C V Narayanan

3rd march 2026 5.32pm

On Tue, 3 Mar, 2026, 5:11 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSXftaQ0J_a45syO41thya9AXxDCaSWMUygRtAKDTdQRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

All these veiws will have answer through Supreme court verdict in Singla case which is on fast track.
No two layers agree while fighting the case .
The debate which is going on is used as exchange of ideas.
Nobody has right to step in to the shoes of the judges and presume and assume.
Let us wait for the final verdict from Supreme court which will put an end to decades old issue which delebrately created by the UFBU and IBA nexus in denying the pension updation/Pension revision and delebrately supported by legal luminaries with in with out.
Where is will there is a.way.
That way shall be ensured by update of pension through Supreme court favourable verdict.
Wait and watch.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALXgLCGz3c75d1gmRsiQq5%2BZoiK0uazWe8nunbF38ynpRaZJOA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

In the hearing on the very first day, the judges have called for statistics comparing the Pensions being paid to those who retired in the same cadre with same length of service but at different points of time. 

Definitely, this approach is sharply and vastly different from the one adopted by the different High Courts which had ruled that there is no provision for periodic updation of pension in BEPR.

It is this approach that has raised hopes that even if the Supreme Court upholds the verdicts of the High Courts in respect of Regulation 35 (1), it may still appreciate that the demand of PSB pensioners to be treated on par with their counterparts in RBI and Government is genuine/reasonable and advise IBA to resolve the issue amicably  within a time limit, by holding negotiations with UFBU as already agreed upon in the joint meeting held between the two on 8/3/24.

After all, it costs nothing to be optimistic and hopeful and anyway we are well accustomed to withstand disappointment if our hopes are belied.

K N RAMANI 

On Tue, 3 Mar, 2026, 5:11 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSXftaQ0J_a45syO41thya9AXxDCaSWMUygRtAKDTdQRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank You Prasad Sir,

If our long wait for Updation ends positively in SC it is a great relief.

Unfortunately if SC upholds the High Court verdict  that is not the end as the field will be wide open for UFBU to negotiate the  issue with greater force.

Advantages of UFBU

1. As we have already agreed DFS has shown the way to Unions to negotiate updation with IBA without accepting the reason there is no provision for pension updation in BEPR1995.

2. IBA cannot avoid discussion quoting reason Sub Judice.

3. UFBU only need to discuss the issue among their constituents and arrive at a formula and submit a specific   demand to IBA.

4. If demand is specific IBA will come out with the cost data for that demand.

5. I  think DFS will approve  if  IBA and UFBU arrive at consensus/reach an agreement and IBA sends a proposal.

So let us wait for the M C Singla case verdict.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSXftaQ0J_a45syO41thya9AXxDCaSWMUygRtAKDTdQRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

1. The IBA argues that Regulation 35(1) is fundamentally a pension fixation formula meant for a specific historical window, not an express, self-executing updation mandate. Under this view, any right to updation must be derived indirectly through interpretation, as the text doesn't explicitly mention "future" or "automatic" revisions.

2. The Petitioners’ Counter (The 2003 Turning Point):
The 2003 amendment fundamentally changed the nature of the clause. By replacing "will be updated" with "shall be updated" and pluralizing "formula" to "formulae," the regulation moved from a one-time event to an ongoing obligation. This pluralization strongly implies an intent to incorporate new formulas for every subsequent pay revision, making the mandate dynamic.

3. The Court’s recent demand for comparative charts across three distinct periods is a significant signal. While we must remain grounded, the likely judicial outcome may be a "middle path":

• Recognizing the pensioners’ grievances as genuine and legally grounded in the 2003 amendment.

• Directing the IBA to frame a structured formula and take a policy decision within a strict, time-bound frame to resolve the disparity.

This isn't just fond hope; it’s a pragmatic expectation based on the Bench's current direction.

---

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSXftaQ0J_a45syO41thya9AXxDCaSWMUygRtAKDTdQRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

I think, if adopting the RBI formula for updation in PSBs is bound to create anomalous situations, wherein, retirees under an earlier BPS would get more pension than those under a latter BPS,

the same ought to have happened in respect of RBI pensioners too and some remedy would have been found for removing such anomalies.

Moreover, anomalies do occur regularly even in Bipartite Settlements and these are rectified by devising suitable methods.

If the judgement is delivered in favour of the pensioners despite the shortfalls and deficiencies pointed out in the affidavits and arguments, let us welcome it. After all, getting benefits is more important than through which organisation's these are secured.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da-ws78A0Z6YEd9L7HejBMVSCSamZPXC_6zFui80b0%3D8Cw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Given that as it may, the author(s) of pension regulation draft deserve the title "Mr.Confucious" besides the reward of Gold hand bracelet

C V Narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLE%2BDr%2BRpsqVs%2BhTPpDA71A%2BMWbGq1TgZC%3DQRcW887%2BoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

For the last few years, chv and co and mr. PRASAD are telling the same thing, that if Rbi formula is implemented, 10th bps retirees will draw more pension than 11th bps retirees. They have no constructive and positive approach and solution. Chv and co signed an agreement with iba in 2024 to revise pension within 6 months. But no committment to implement it . Any shortcoming in Rbi formula can be corrected. So ,if we pensioners are lucky, a favourable judgement in Singla case will help for pension revision in some form. 

As aibrf torpedoed pre 2002 retirees 100% da case, let these negative forces dont try to damage our case in sc.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLE%2BDr%2BRpsqVs%2BhTPpDA71A%2BMWbGq1TgZC%3DQRcW887%2BoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[hindurao khade]

Absolutely right sir.

Thanks.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/611488627.181857.1772541176160%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Anusha Baskaran]

An appeal to esteemed Bank pensioners:

Sir, 

Will you please send judgement copy of pension updation case delivered by Honourable High Court of Delhi in favour of pensioners recently giving ultimatum to GoI. 

V Baskaran

On Wed, 4 Mar, 2026, 9:41 am Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da-ws78A0Z6YEd9L7HejBMVSCSamZPXC_6zFui80b0%3D8Cw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

From which source you got this information?

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMthe4uh%2B2vACO8ZTcL1j8MAfGrj%3DfiXhMngtc5EaoPB_BfQ3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Dear sriPrasad 

Except that what you have already given a very  beautiful analysis on the various aspects that may be dealt with in the case. there is nothing more to add.

Clause 35 change of word will to shall without specifying any period and the Hon’ble judges observation that updation is a must is the favorable point 

But the updation would be as per appendix I  which contains formula for 1986-87 retirees  do not have evolved any formula for retirees post 1986-87 as you have rightly observed in your previous email 

in what way we can impress the court to implement RBI formula  on the basis of our regulations being based on RBi/ central pension regulations? 

The most likely hood of the bench telling the banks and IBA to arrive formula for post 1986-87 Retirees  because the absence of the formulae is an administrative lapse .

As you have rightly pointed out that the court cannot implant any amendments in the regulation. However it can direct. Till such time an acceptable formula is arrived some advoc relief may be sought 

The negotiated settlement between Ufbu and IBA only as per the present mandate given by banks.

Can the court direct Retiree pensioner’s Associations to be added for negotiations as they are the aggrieved pensioners 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/712550678.333319.1772180032990%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kumar n]

Sir,  concur Satynanayanan sir's view. Removing a beehive yourself is dangerous.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/611488627.181857.1772541176160%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We have been referring to applicability of Nakara Case to Singla's case.  While going through old issues of Mysore Bank Shathayu, May, 2024 issue, I found an article on Nakara's case.  A copy of the Magazine is attached for information.  Request all to go through all these materials, before assuming anything.

I have also extracted from the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the very same Singla's case regarding funding.  Applicability of Nakara's case has been extensively referred.  Please find these two sets of information in the attachments.  

Please do not swayed by the speeches or postings of some who theselves have not gone through the Judgments in these cases.  Anyone with minimum knowledge of understands the application or otherwise of Nakara's case.

The observations regarding rights in respect of 'Pension' is restricted to vested and accrued right, but not any 'Pension'.  If that interpretation is extended, every former employee is covered by Nakara's Judgment.  I am also attaching Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nakara's case.  Please have patience & go through.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJ1B%3D7imJs9qSGi32voxjMCuy%3DaaVCCYSeCC%3D8LdzVWYf7zQzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Part I.

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

The "Vested Rights" doctrine essentially says that if the law (like the 2003 amendment) granted you a benefit, the IBA’s failure to "notify a formula" is their administrative mistake, and the pensioner shouldn't be the one to pay for it.

1. The "Quantum" vs. "Right" Fallacy

You suggest that once the bank starts paying you any amount, the "vested right" is satisfied.

• The Reality: The Supreme Court (in D.S. Nakara and V. Kasturi) ruled that the "Formula" for calculating pension is as much a vested right as the pension itself.
• The Point: If the 2003 Amendment changed the formula from "static" to "dynamic" (by using "shall be updated"), then the updated quantum becomes the vested right. You aren't asking for a "new" pension; you are asking for the correct calculation of your existing vested right.

2. When does a "Future Updation" become a "Vested Right"?

• The Law: The moment the Government notified the 2003 Gazette, the "Right to Updation" was accrued for all bank employees.
• The Logic: It isn't a "future" gift; it is a current statutory obligation that the banks have simply failed to calculate. In legal terms, an "accrued right" includes the right to have your benefit calculated according to the current valid law.
• 
  

3. The "Arbitrary Date" Trap

Extending Nakara would cover "every former employee."

• The Truth: That is exactly what Nakara intended! The judgment was designed to prevent the State from creating "haves" and "have-nots" among retirees based on a date.
• The Defense: If the Banks update pensions for one batch (Pre-1987) but stop for another, they are creating the exact "arbitrary classification" that Nakara strictly forbids.
• 
  

4. "Vested vs. Accrued" distinction fails:

In the Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah case, the Court held that any amendment that reduces the amount of pension a person is entitled to (by failing to update it as per rules) is a violation of vested rights.

***

Part II.

Dear Friends,

I have read the recent responses with interest. It is clear that within our group, there are two distinct schools of thought regarding CA 7993/2023:

1. Those who believe that the 2003 Amendment and the Nakara Precedent provide a pathway for the Supreme Court to grant updation or substantial relief.
2. Those who believe that the literal text of Appendix-I and the historical High Court rulings preclude any such outcome.

Both sides are clearly settled in their convictions, perceptions, and understanding of the law. At this stage, continuing the debate often leads to the same questions being met with the same answers, without bringing us any closer to a shared conclusion. I feel, further debate will only lead to a circular and divisive atmosphere.

There is a profound saying: 'Silence is the highest teaching.'

I believe it is time for me to embrace that teaching. We have all placed our best arguments on the table. The matter is now exactly where it belongs—before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Let us allow the Bench to perform its duty while we, as a group, preserve our unity.

I suggest we all rest and relax until April 9th. Let us wait for the Court’s observations in the next hearing to show us the path forward.

With regards to all.

 

 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2129420696.955667.1773664332870%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Lingan Ramalingam]

Very nice and authentic presentation.Thanks Gentleman 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ2tnTA9h0P3C-%3DXMJ-bH%2BKzQrb1eOgEXtRTssocSM51Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Sir,

I have been in this group for the past 2 years or so and do not remember to have seen your letters prior to the commencement of hearing in S.C. in the Singla case.

In spite of containing so many legal jargons, your letters always make interesting reading to me and I enjoy going through them for the sheer clarity with which you argue on  your points of contention.

Apart from the 2 categories mentioned by you, I am afraid there is also another minor category which feels that when compared to the plight of those under NPS, the BEPR pensioners should consider themselves to be blessed ones and try to remain content with periodical DR increases and ex-gratia. No doubt, this category will become majority should the updation remains a dream for ever.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ2tnTA9h0P3C-%3DXMJ-bH%2BKzQrb1eOgEXtRTssocSM51Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjay,

Bank Pensioners are being misguided and mislead by quoting a part of what is stated in Regulation 35(1).  We are conveniently ignoring the words 'as per formulae in Appendix I'.  When we take shelter under the word 'shall', the force of word 'shall' is applicable to words 'as per formulae in Appendix I' also.  Law does not allow cherry picking.  

Vested or Accrued right refers to what is payable 'as per formulae in Appoendix I'.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ2tnTA9h0P3C-%3DXMJ-bH%2BKzQrb1eOgEXtRTssocSM51Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Interpretation of law is not one's own property and it is never static.
Pl wait till the verdict is delivered.
The supreme court bench will take all arguments in totality and settle the issue in favour of pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 16:26, Satyanarayana Rao

<karna...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Sri Sanjay.
Your presentation of the issues involved in Singla ji Case are highly commendable.
Let us keep quite till the verdict is delivered and maintain equilibrium without presuming or assuming the legal status of the arguments.
Let the legal experts maintain restraint without pocking and by their negative thinking.
The supreme court bench is the only compitent to give justice to Pensioners by their favorable verdict to all by giving speaking,unambiguous orders to defendants upholding the appeal of petitioners.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 16:05, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1587716522.154374.1773825003783%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Sanjay.
Your presentation of the issues involved in Singla ji Case are highly commendable.
Let us keep quite till the verdict is delivered and maintain equilibrium without presuming or assuming the legal status of the arguments.
Let the legal experts maintain restraint without pocking and by their negative thinking.
The supreme court bench is the only compitent to give justice to Pensioners by their favorable verdict to all by giving speaking,unambiguous orders to defendants upholding the appeal of petitioners.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 16:05, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1587716522.154374.1773825003783%40mail.yahoo.com.

[SHAILEN Bhavnani]

Very Logical and apt answer to all  those who feel they are more knowledgeable than the Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court. PLEASE LET THEM DO WHAT THEY ARE BEST AT FOR THE TIME BEING AND STAY COOL...🙏🙏🙏

-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ2tnTA9h0P3C-%3DXMJ-bH%2BKzQrb1eOgEXtRTssocSM51Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Me Bhavnani,

Do wait for the judgement that is best thing.  Whenever one posts unsubstantiated write up without basis, naturally invokes sharp reaction.

Already judges have remarked - banks are paying as per regulations or not ? If not they have to pay.

Do find anywhere in the affidavits filed by ARISE/Aibpark asking for implementation of Regulations?  Please read the affidavits submitted, synopsis, charts submitted to Supreme Court apart from previous HC judgements.

Without spending time in reading Regulations, judgements etc, but making comments based on WhatsApp messages brings down the quality of discussion.

Counter on facts and statements made duly quoting the relevant material and not sarcastic remarks.

Niranjan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1773808003.S.95518.18932.f4-234-164.1773901471.23611%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri S G Bhavnaniji,

Can you plese enlighten what formula the Banks have to notify?

What is the basis for such notification?

Appendix I is for calculation of Basic Pension at the time of retirement.  Can you please suggest how a formula for revision of formula could be incorporated?

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1773808003.S.95518.18932.f4-234-164.1773901471.23611%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri S G Bhavnaniji,

I continue to be a part of this group, with an expectation that there would be debates and counters in respect of various issues concerning Bank Pensioners.  This group cannot be for agreeing with views of even those who have prejudiced mind & not bothered about to debate and understand.  Questions should be asked and right answers should be found.  By that way, we should be assisting those who are fighting for us, while enhancing our knowledge.

Fighting for us does not mean, fighting for publicity with wrong narratives.  There should be courage and conviction to say contrary to some other believe.  But, no one should expect everyone else to believe what we believe as correct.

No one here is claiming that they are more knowledgeable than the Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court.  But,  Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court have not yet decided in the matter of Pension Updation.   Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court decide based on what is presented before him.   But, Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court do not have any authority to step into the shoes of the Legislature.  Those who cannot answer or try to get clarification or understand are trying to hide behind Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court, with an expectation that they would decide in our favour, based on what is stated by Social Media Professors.   

It is unfortunate that intellectuals like you have decided what  Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court are going to decide.  I have raised several questions.  I have raised several doubts and raised several questions.   Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court may also ask same questions.  Those who are before the Hon'ble Court should be answering these questions.  Like you, they cannot say  Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court should find answers and decide.

We have also filed several Cases, we have filed Contempt Petition and made the Chairman of State Bank of India to apologise.  We discuss the case with anyone who can contribute.  We are happy if anyone raises doubts about.  We do not call them negative.  We call them and hold discussion.  We had requested our members to come to the Office and get all their doubts cleared, if they have any doubt or concern.  This is because we are fighting to win.  

In case, if we were to be the Petitioners, we would have had discussion at length to prepare for all such grounds which may be raised by the Judges or the Advocates of the opposite party.

Before I conclude, I request and plead again.  Please let me know, what formula which is expected to be inserted in Appendix - I?  What is the basis for such insertion?  Whether the Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court can order such insertion?  

If you cannot, Respected Hon'ble Justices of the Supreme Court may answer.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Thursday, 19 March 2026 at 03:45:02 pm IST, 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1773808003.S.95518.18932.f4-234-164.1773901471.23611%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

[Udayachander Joshi]

Sir, Let us be open to all questions and debates. Then only meaningful and practical outcome can be expected of any problem.

Prasad Sir is only pleading to be heard and replied to. Nothing is wrong with that.

It's my personal opinion.

Thanks and Regards 🙏 🙏 

Uday chander Joshi k

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1645388537.559337.1773991135892%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Asok Bhaumik]

Respected Prasad Sir,

I fully agree with your views and thoughts regarding LT. M C Singla Case and your anticipation that the judgement may be adverse. 

But sir can you ask Mr. CHV why the pre-2002 retirees are still not being paid ex-gratia on the basis of 100% da neutralisation. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1645388537.559337.1773991135892%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

There is no need to insert any new formula to fix the updated pension as there is inbuilt formula falled to up date the pension for those who retired between 1st January 1986 to 31oct 1987.
2. The pension scheme is based on RBI pension regulations and the pension updation has taken place 3 times the judges shall direct the defendants to implement the same by RBI formula which is accepted and implemented by DFS as it is the main defendants including IBA.
3.As regulations 56 gives direction to fallow Central government pension scheme as guiding force incase of any doubt are ambiguity regarding pension updation or other issues to derive guidelines from CPS.
No more ifs and buts and extra inteligents negative interpretation and imaginary questions and doubts shall be raised.even if raised the Supreme court judges shall give favourable verdict based on natural justice and jurisprudence to maintain equity,natural justice
and fair play taking into account the constitutional fundamental rights under article 14 and16 of the constitution.Pl wait for final verdict which will be historic and favourable to all Pensioners, all doubts and questions raised by the inteligencia shall be answered by Supreme court favourable verdict.Till such time let us hold our breath.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 at 8:59, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1645388537.559337.1773991135892%40mail.yahoo.com.

[SHAILEN Bhavnani]

Dear Mr. Prasad,
I only wanted to request you to refrain from.visualising the negative counters presented by you for the time-being till the Honble Justices of the Supreme Court give their Judgment in the case. Because, they are more learned than all of us to decide our fate. The positivity in their approach seemed to stem from their comment voiced in the open Court on 5th Feb instant.
You know very well what lead to the 100 % DA case to go against Bank Pensioners. So why create such a situation again ?
As regards the formula in Appendix I , which should have been fixed on similar basis as done in RBI, you must be aware of the back-stabbing that has eluded us of our rightful equitable updation. Many a times the UFBU Leaders had voiced their concern for Pensioners, but never cared for them.
I am no such person to suggest the formulae that Banks should adopt, but once it has been granted to RBI NABARD (whose employees were mostly RBI employees), when they can get it, is it not just & equitable for us, PSB Bank Retirees also get similar justice on SIMILAR LONES as granted to them?
It may not be necessary to follow the same pattern as given in the earlier formula as given to the 4th Bipartite Settlement Pensioners. With changing times, the same could also be modified as per present day requirements, IF AT ALL THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DEEMS IT FIT . MOREOVER, IT IS QN OPEN SECRET THAT, WHENEVER RULES QRE AMBIGUOUS, OR AMENDED TO THE DETRIMENT OF EXISTING PENSIONERS,, THE HON'BLE  COURTS HAVE RULED IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS.
SO, LET THEM FIRST DO THEIR PART OF ASSESSMENT AS PER THE BEP REGULATIONS, 1995 AS AMENDED IN 2003.
OTHERWISE, YOU ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH, COULD YOU TELL ME REASON / PURPOSE FOR /OF THE AMENDMENT IN 2003 ?
Your all reasonings to warn all of us of a negative fall-out of the said case may come true, but why such utterances at this stage ?
Moreover, Bank Pensioners have been sufferers due to UFBU's tacit support to IBA, OTHERWISE PRE-2002 PENSIONERS WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERRED DUE TO SLAB-WISE FORMULA FOR OVER 20 LONG YEARS. DID YOU EVER ASK THE TORCH-BEATERS OF UFBU WHETHER THERE WAS ANY COMMUNICATION WHILE GRANTING 100 % DA WHICH HAD PROHIBITED ITS APPLICATION TO BANK PENSIONERS ONLY , AND ONLY FOR GRANTING 100 % NEUTRALISATION TO WORKING BANKERS  ?
WELL WHAT IS GONE IS GONE, BUT NOW, LETS HAVE PATIENCE TO BEAR A LITTLE MORE TILL THE D-DAY FINALLY ARRIVES.

-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1645388537.559337.1773991135892%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

I am not holding any brief for anyone, including CHV.  Official AIBEA circular even suggested that.  Unfortunately, it is not materialised.  Thisproves that no one induvidual can influence any decision.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANEF%2BN8YzQ4YqLMVC8XLapGe9Js4b50n%2Box5xNu5%2Bdng0i8Ntg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

If M C Singla case is dismissed that is the end of the story of updation for Bank pensioners.

Negotiation of Updation requires serious commitment, focus and homework by UFBU leaders.They need to have some sensitiveness towards senior pensioners who are above 70 to 90 years, Casual approach like iBA said sub judice will never resolve updation in our lifetime;

Since 1995 they did nothing but dividing pensioners on BPS Basis and also dividing them on date of retirement, different DA calculations, reducing pension etc.

Now they are accusing DFS of dividing the workforce.So you reap what you sow.

UFBU has their own mess to clear like PLI, 5 day Banking, recruitment etc

They need to go on strike often for the cause of IDBI Bank, Dhanalakshmi Bank etc.

They have to go on strike often in communist party demands like price rise, Farmers problem, labour code, protesting against the budget etc

In this messy situation, who will care and fight for updation.

However SBI and LIC pensioners have fair chances of updation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2048585256.697042.1774072108752%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Somashekara ji.
Let us wait for the final verdict which is going to be in our favour.
Let us wait.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3LpMLhOmp1HAWRmV-E7Ab0cVofNQehAiEjc7d6V3Y_9Q%40mail.gmail.com.