Vijaya bank resigned case
Nagarajan S
As usual Vijaya Bank filed SLP at supreme court.God only knows final result.They want to drag the case till the end of retirees life. Certainly supreme court will admit this case also by converting slip into writ case. Already SBM filed exit employees case till this date no result. This is the fate of Exit employees and resigned employees who had put more than 30 years service and attained 55 years at the time of relieving Different bank formulate different rules.
NARENDER KUMAR Sethi
For every 10 minutes you are angry you lose 600 seconds of happiness.
Nobody can disgrace us other than ourselves. So why get angry.
Nobody can make you angry without your consent.
You cannot change others as easily as you can change yourself.
NARENDER KUMAR SETHI
919988257740 9464895148
As usual Vijaya Bank filed SLP at supreme court.God only knows final result.They want to drag the case till the end of retirees life. Certainly supreme court will admit this case also by converting slip into writ case. Already SBM filed exit employees case till this date no result. This is the fate of Exit employees and resigned employees who had put more than 30 years service and attained 55 years at the time of relieving Different bank formulate different rules.
--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Raj Krishna Vajpeyi
Fact of the matter that most resignees resigned after bank managements made their life worse than living death. So, you should understand the attitude of bank managements to torture resignees till death as punishment for having escaped from their clutches and survived. IBA is again headed by top executive of a bank and would continue to play the same tune. Even the attitude of Union leaders is not surprising because every penny of resignees' pension saved is a penny earned for their members and pensioner retirees who continue to contribute to the union fund. That is why the loosely formed group of VB resignees and the RBEWFA of Mr Pathak are the only silver linings.
NARENDER KUMAR Sethi
For every 10 minutes you are angry you lose 600 seconds of happiness.
Nobody can disgrace us other than ourselves. So why get angry.
Nobody can make you angry without your consent.
You cannot change others as easily as you can change yourself.
NARENDER KUMAR SETHI
919988257740 9464895148
Delay is there...But how much..?
Savithry
bhaskara sarma
--
bhaskara sarma
perumal maruthu
P.Vijayaraghavan
Sent from my iPad
PM
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensioner+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
bhaskara sarma
bhaskara sarma
--
Venkataraman P.N
Venkataraman P.N
RESIGNED BANK EMPLOYEEE’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION Mumbai Office: D/402, Amazon Park, Devki Nagar, Link Road, Eksar, Borvli (West), Mumbai 400 103 Pune Office: #2, Golden Pearl, 15th August Chowk, Mangalwar Peth Pune - 411011 Hyderabad Office: #304, Subhodaya L.I.C.Colony, Mehdipatanam , Hyderabad - 500028 Chennai Office:New No.27/B, Bajanai Koil Street . Choolaimedu, Chennai- 600094 Bangalore Office: # 331, Shriniket Appartments, M.S.R ENGG. College Rd, Banglore 560054
July 27, 2012 BY REGD AD To,
Shri D K Mittal, Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Banking Division, Ministry of Finance Jeevandeep Building, 3 rd Floor, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110010
Mr. Alok Kumar Mishra Chairman of IBA and Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of India Star House, C 5 “G” Block, Bandra Kurla Complex , Bandra East MUMBAI - 4000051
Dear Sir,
Sub: Reconsideration of pension option to left-over bank employees
Several employee’s associations and retired / resigned bank employees / their associations have repeatedly taken up the matter of reconsideration of pension to left over employees and the issue is still pending with the Government / IBA. It is now reliably learnt that the Government and the IBA have been thinking of deciding to extend one more option of pension to left over group but we are not sure whether or not along with voluntarily and compulsorily retired employees, the resigned employees are covered. We trust that Government will not discriminate the resigned employees section and nor will allow IBA to interpret it to keep the resigned employees out of the ambit. In this connection we being a reregistered body of the resigned bank employee’s wish to bring to the notice of the government the fallacies involved in the decisions and the flagrant violations already made by the IBA and the member banks, while extending the pension options to the resigned General Managers who had resigned before taking up the posts of Executive Directors.
1) Discrimination in interpretation of “Deemed to have Retired”:
The IBA and the member banks have interpreted the word “retired” in Clause 2 of the MOS dated 27.04.2010 to include those who have resigned after putting in the qualifying service and have extended one more option of pension in terms of the said MOS, but have limited such extension only to the General Managers (GMs) who have resigned during the period 29.09.1995 and 27.04.2010. To illustrate the issue further, following GMs who at the time of signing the MOS dated 27.04.2010 were occupying the top most positions in the IBA and in different public sector banks (as CMDs) have been given one more option of pension by the IBA and the concerned banks even though they have resigned at the relevant time and not covered under the concept of “Deemed to have Retired”.
Sr No
Name of the GM who is extended one more option of pension based on MoS dated 27.04.2010 (S/Shri)
He had held the position of IBA / CMD of the Bank at the relevant time of signing of MoS dated 27.04.2010
Prior to this he was GM of the bank which has sanctioned him pension in 2010
1 M V Nair
Chairman of IBA & CMD of Union Bank of India
Corporation Bank
2 M D Mallya
Dy Chairman of IBA & CMD of Bank of Baroda
Corporation Bank
3 Allen C A Pereira
Syndicate Bank
4 Dr. Anil Khandelwal
Chairman of Negotiating Committee of IBA & CMD of Bank of Maharashtra
Headed HR Committee of IBA and previously CMD of Dena Bank and latter Bank of Baroda
Bank of Baroda
5 Alok Kumar Mishra
Present Chairman of IBA and CMD of Bank of India
Bank of India
6 N Ramakrishnan
Present CEO of IBA and previously CMD of Andhra bank
Bank of India
6 Mr.R N Pradeep Ex. ED Of Central Bank of India Dena Bank 7 Mr. M G Sanghavi Present CMD of Syndicate Bank Dena Bank 8 M Narendra Present CMD of Indian Overseas Bank Corporation Bank 9 S C Kalia Ex. ED of Vijaya Bank Bank of Baroda
1
❖ All the above named CMDs had not opted for Pension in the year 1995 under the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995, when they were General Managers in their respective banks.
❖ All the above named CMDs therefore, were, not covered by Clause 2 (l) (deemed to have retired) of the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995, since they had resigned from the services of their respective banks, as the pension regulation was not applicable to them at the time of their resignation.
❖ All the above named CMDs therefore, had no option to retire under any service regulation /
pension regulation and they had not availed such an option either.
All the above named CMDs had not opted for pension when they were GMs at the time when the first pension option came in the year 1995 and hence were not covered by the pension regulations during 29.09.1995 and 27.04.2010 and thus did not have any option to retire and in fact they did not retire under any service rules / pension rules to take up the position of ED. The government appointments as ED/CMD were contractual in nature for fixed terms. When they were appointed as EDs there was no option available with them to retire or to consider themselves as “Deemed to have retired” to be covered under clause 2 (l) of the pension regulations or any other service rules applicable to them. The only option then available to them was to resign from the services, which they did. All these CMDs were resignees and not retirees and still they have been given pension by the IBA and respective banks under advice of the IBA.
Thus, the IBA and the member banks have extended one more option of pension to these CMDs, with each other’s consent knowing fully well that they had resigned and still been covered under clause 2 of the MoS dated 27.04.2010.
However, other resigned employee’s (both officer employees and award staff) have been denied one more option for pension stating that resignees are not covered for one more option of pension, even though they have put in more years of service than the above named and many such CMDs.
It may be noted that before, during and after the MOS dated 27.04.2010 on allowing one more option of pension to the bank employees was discussed, architecture and signed by the IBA and the trade unions, Mr. M V Nair (who was Chairman & Managing Director of Union Bank of India) was holding the position of Chairman of the Indian Bank’s Association; Mr. M D Mallya (who was Chairman & Managing Director of Bank of Baroda) was holding the position of Deputy Chairman of the Indian Bank’s Association and Mr. Allen C A Pereira (who was Chairman & Managing Director of Bank of Maharashtra) was holding the position of the Chairman of the Salary and Pension Negotiation Committee for and on behalf of the IBA, Dr Anil Khandelwal was heading the HR Committee of the IBA and before that he was CMD of Bank of Baroda and Dena Bank respectively, Mr. N Ramakrishnan was CEO of the IBA and one of the key architect of the MOS.
It may be critically observed that even all the above named top bosses of the banking industry could not evaluate the benefits of pension, in comparison with PF, when the pension, as second benefit was offered in the year 1995 and preferred to opt for PF, exactly in the same manner as did many poor, uneducated, less literate, less informed and less financially prudent persons such as peons and clerical cadre staff who were in class IV and class III.
The action of the IBA in making exception only to its own top brasses and overlooking other similarly artificially sub-categorized resigned employees amounts to discrimination and attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This act of the IBA is comparable to none else than to the rule of the monarchs of the stone age where the ruler would set one rule for him and some other inferior rule for his subjects. The acts of the IBA therefore is in complete disregard to good conscience, fair play and are whimsical, discriminatory, illegal and opposed to public policy.
2) Absence of OSR based VRS schemes in few Public Sector Banks:
Though the Government had directed all PSBs to form voluntary retirement schemes / rules for officers under the service regulations, as far back in 1980, many banks have not formed such schemes / rules. Following 3 banks do not have any VRS rules till now:
a) Viajay Bank
b) Andhra Bank
c) Indian Bank
2
No officer employee of these banks can take VRS if he had not opted for pension. This only means that he has to necessarily resign from his services, if he is compelled to leave the service due to inability to continue for physical inability, terminal ailment, prolonged sickness, etc. Thus, the proposed decision of the Government / IBA to cover only VRS optees under OSR will not help officers of these banks, as these banks have remained out of the benefits of OSR based VRS and hence the injustice will continue for these employees. Moreover once the decision was arrived at to extend option to the employees who were on the bank’s role as on or 29.09.1995 and did not opt for pension then, subsequent mode of exit such as Resignations, VRS etc, in the post 29.09.1995 period has no bearing on this option nor would it attract any provisions of Pension regulations to keep these group out of the purview. It must be remembered that the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995 was enacted to cover the pension optees of 1995 only and not for the future optees by virtue of fresh options. Thus, the Bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995 has become archive, obsolete and outdated its application to the employees
3) Absence of uniformity in OSR based VRS schemes in different banks:
The Government’s directions of 1980 are not uniformly adhered by all the PSBs and there have been distortions even among the banks which have followed them. While some banks have a scheme of VRS under OSR for officers after a service of 30 years, some have schemes of VRS after 30 years of service but after attaining 55 years of age and still in some banks the VRS under OSR can be taken after 20 years of service. For example, in following two banks the VRS under OSR is available after 20 years of service:
a) Syndicate Bank
b) Canara Bank
In these two banks, the VRS under OSR is exactly in tune with the VRS as provided in Rule 48 A of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1972 and Regulation 29 of the bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995. If the rules as available in these two banks were available in all the PSBs for all the categories of staff, then all the OSR / Settlement based VRS optees could have been covered to extend one more option of pension, as the same would have been in line with the above two rules. However, there have not been uniform rules even for the officer categories and hence the formula being discussed by the Government / IBA would still continue injustice to many who left the service due to medical reasons and physical incapacities, after rendering services up to 39 years.
The bank Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1995 was enacted to cover the pension optees of 1995 only and not for future optees by virtue of fresh options. Thus the 1995 Regulation has become obsolete, outdated and archive in its application to the employees who have exited from their services but are supposed to be covered as per MoS dated 27.04.2010.
4) Total absence of VRS scheme for Workmen employees (Award Staff):
There is no VRS scheme framed for workmen employees (Award Staff) in the banks who have opted for PF. Therefore if a member of the award staff who did not opt for pension in 1995 and if he was compelled to discontinue the services even after 38-39 years of service, he had to necessarily leave the services by tendering resignation as there is no scheme of VRS available to the member of the award staff as is available to some of the officer employees in some of the banks. There are number of cases in different banks where the member of the award staff who were forced to resign from the services of the banks due to medical reasons and physical incapacities, after serving for life time, at the advanced age of 58-59 years etc and after serving for even beyond 38-39 years. Thus, the member of the award staff will still remain affected by the above proposed decision to cover only the OSR based VRS cases. It would only lead to more sufferings by the poor and the downtrodden communities as poor will become poorer and the rich will become richer, thus continuing the legacy of more sufferings by the lower level employees during as well as after the service period leading to complete failure of social justice system in the country.
5) Deductions from salaries of resigned employees towards pension fund for 13 years:
The IBA and the UFBU, in the name of and under a veil of collective bargaining settlements, effected deductions from the wages of the non-pension optees, at the rate of 50% of wage revision, for the period from 01.11.1997 to 27.04.2010 and the wages of non-pension optee employee’s were taken away, in the name of pension fund. The amount so deducted and taken away, on a cumulative basis exceeds Rs.20 lacks per non-pension optee, besides interest and consequential losses. Though deduction towards pension was started from 01.11.1997 from the non-pension optees, no formal option for pension was extended to them till 27.04.2010.
In between 01.11.1997 and 27.04.2010 thousands of employees, due to medical reasons and physical incapacities had requested for voluntary retirements after completing the qualifying
3
services for pension in line with the pension rules. However, their requests for voluntary retirements were turned down and they were forced to resign or retire without pension benefits. They were also compelled to withdraw their requests for voluntary retirement with pension benefits and were compelled to tender requests for resignations, since these employees were helplessly seeking to retire due to medical problems. ‘The two parties’ thus deliberately did not allow the non-pension optees to retire voluntarily under the pension rules and compelled them to resign so that ‘the two parties’ can later on reject their right to pension in the name and under the guise of “resignation leads to forfeiture of service” in spite of the fact that their wages were deducted on account of pension, for past 13 years and that they had rendered the qualifying services for pension.
Thus, under the guise of collective bargaining settlements on wage revision of 27.03.2000, 26.02.2005, 27.11.2009 and 27.04.2010, ‘the two parties’ forced the contributions on the poor employees in the name of creating pension fund and forced these employees who had served up to 38 years to resign from the services so that they could be denied the benefits of pension. Thus, when the offer of one more option of pension to non-pension optees was formally made on 27.04.2010, ‘the two parties’ omitted these very employees feigning to be acting under a collective bargaining settlement and signed the settlement on 27.04.2010 thereby depriving pension to these employees. ‘The two parties’ have recovered huge money running in to crores of rupees from resigned employees in the form of compulsory deductions through 3 successive collective bargaining settlements, in a span of 13 years, earned interest thereon and misappropriated, defrauded the money so deducted and cheated the employees from whom the monies were deducted. ‘The two parties’ thus deliberately omitted and ignored the resigned employees from the coverage of the settlement dated 27.04.2010 from whom monies were recovered in the name of deductions towards pension.
RBEWA has addressed a detailed letter on 03.04.2012 seeking permission of the central government to prosecute 9 officers of different banks for breach of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code; the government is still holding the permission.
6) Disharmony between bank level retirement rules and scheme framed at IBA level:
The VRS scheme under the Pension Regulation of 1995, decided at the IBA level is available for 20 years service only for the employees who have opted for pension in the year 1995. No retirement scheme is framed either at the industry level (IBA level) or at the bank level for voluntary retirement for non-pension optees. Some of the individual banks by own whims and fancies and without regard to the Government guidelines of 1980, have framed VRS rules that too for only for officer employees (absolutely no retirement scheme for award staff). It was therefore necessary for the IBA / banks to frame rules of retirement for both officer employees and award staff in harmony with the pension rules so that there could have been homogeneity and the present anomaly could have been avoided. It is for these reasons that all those who have served for the qualifying services and have exited from the banks under different channels including resignations should be made eligible so that no discrimination is meted out based on artificial classification.
7) Objectives of pension scheme:
The right of pension has been gained by the working class after long years of struggle. The object of the pension scheme is to accord pension to employees who served for long years. The resigned employees have served for long years and definitely much more than the CMDs and the special VRS optees who have served as less as 15 years of service and still been granted pension after long years of their exit. The benefit of pension can not and should not be denied to an employee who has served for his life time, that too with complete dedication, devotion and without any blemish and has demitted the office only due to ill health and unavoidable circumstances. Here, it seems the parties who are expected to protect the interest of the working class are finding technical reasons to deny a workman’s service and bestowing the same to less deserving. As rightly expressed by the Honourable Karnataka High Court, in a recent case, the unions showed no interest in the pension benefits to the resigned and retired as compared to their member who pay regular levy and subscription, being serving employees.
The resigned employees have contributed more in terms of contribution to pension funds for 13 years from 01.11.1997 to 27.04.2010 while the special VRS optees and the above referred CMDs have not even contributed for 3 years. As against this, the resigned employees have put in more years of service compared to the services the CMDs and the special VRS optees have put in. Hence the policy framed and interpreted by IBA has worked in administrative and judicial systems flowing reverse way; from no justice to the deserving to uncalled undeserving justice to the non- deserving!!!
4
8) Recent Judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts:
While re-establishing the right of a resigned employee for pension, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the matter of Sheelkumar Jain Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Ors (AIR 2011 SC 2990) lately on 28.07.2011, after overruling its previous orders, has finally settled the eligibility law for pension, as under:
“Once an officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand that right to get pension can be taken only if an order is passed under Regulations 3 or 16.
13. The aforesaid authorities would show that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of an employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the Court will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions. The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Insurance Companies. Clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot 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 Sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1976 and after his notice was accepted by the appointing authority.”
The Honourable Karnataka High Court has in its order dated 18.04.2012 has held that the clause 2 of the MoS dated 27.04.2010 is unconstitutional and discriminatory to the resignees and therefore has struck down the same. There are hundreds of cases of Writ Petitions filed in various High Courts by the resigned employees post the MoS of 27.04.2010 which would also follow the same route.
As regards central trade unions as represented by United Forum of Bank Employees the demand of second option has been consistently pursued right from 1997 but IBA never accepted the demand in toto but pruned it by providing unintended interpretations brushing aside the genuine, just and legitimate demand of certain section under the name of collective bargaining and in the process voluntarily retired and resigned employees were the victims and hence it is a fit case for the Government at this juncture to not only interfere but pass on necessary unequivocal instructions to IBA for covering all left over employees. Please refer to the letters written to the Secretary, Department of Financial services, GOI & IBA by the AIBOC /UFOBE on 18/06/2012 and on 29/06/2012. Please also have look at the communication of Mr. S Ramchandran, Ex. GM BOB dated 21/05/2012 addressed to honourable finance minister on the pension issue.
Considering all these points and the acts of flagrant discriminations made by the IBA and attempts of pick and choose policy, by hand in gloves with the trade unions at different stages has resulted in clear violation of the principles of equality, fairness and good conscience and need immediate steps to curb the same for which the government must direct IBA to offer one more option of pension to all left over employees those who were on the rolls of the banks as on 29.09.1995 and have served for the qualifying service as required under the pension regulations, without making any discrimination on grounds of VRS, resignations etc and pension should be granted to all the qualifying employees.
It would therefore be of immense necessity to consider the legitimate demand of the resigned employees to cover them under the ambit of left over employees for extending the second option of pension without further discrimination, by keeping in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions, namely pension regulation. The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered the qualifying service and had left after putting in the qualifying service from the banks.
Yours faithfully,
For RBEWA
Ratnakar K Pathak
President
5
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
bhaskara sarma
mahaboob basha
When the management offered CRS to any employee, it may be with benefits or without benefits depending up on the case. Management may consider the past service of the employee and reduce the punishment and may allow the employee to retire compulsorily with benefits. If the involvement of the employee in any case which causes sizeable loss to the bank, the management may not consider the past services whatever they may be and terminate the employee under CRS without benefits. This is all from the management side.
Whereas from the employees side, if the employee resigned on his own for the best reasons known to him, he has to sacrifice everything as per the laid down rules of the bank. No further benefits, whatever they are can’t be claimed as a matter of right.
Still some of the resignees have been tapping the doors of the courts for justice which surrendered by them voluntarily.
Let us wait and see what may happen at SC in vijaya bank resignees case.
s.m.basha
Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email. | Know More > |
bhaskara sarma
SUMAN KUMAR SUMAN
madhukar
Dear MR.Basha ,
Be aware of the facts that when employee resigns with some cogent reasons
he was prepared to accept whatever applicable as per rules.
The demand of resignee's is for justice. IN first place during settlement
in 2009 IBA in connivance with UBFU put the clause "on superannuation" and
deprived the resignees and other employees. Subsequently, despite clear cut
instructions from Ministry of Finance to remove the word superannuation and
allow pension option to all IBA has not implemented the instructions from
Competent Authority and created the mess.
IN all Govt.organisations the eligibility for pension option is 20 years of
unblemished service. On what ground the pension is denied to Bank employee who
has completed 20 years of service, keeping aside the mode of exit.
With Regards,
M.B.Avhad.
EX-BOI-resignee 26 yrs.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:30:43 +0530 wrote
>
When the management offered CRS to any employee,
it may be with benefits or without benefits depending up on the case.
Management may consider the past service of the employee and reduce the
punishment and may allow the employee to retire compulsorily with benefits. If
the involvement of the employee in any case which causes sizeable loss to the
bank, the management may not consider the past services whatever they may be
and terminate the employee under CRS without benefits. This is all from the
management side.
Whereas from the employees side, if the employee
resigned on his own for the best reasons known to him, he has to sacrifice
everything as per the laid down rules of the bank. No further benefits,
whatever they are can’t be claimed as a matter of right.
Still some of the resignees have been tapping the
doors of the courts for justice which surrendered by them voluntarily.
Let us wait and see what may happen at SC in
vijaya bank resignees case.
s.m.basha
From: bhaskara sarma
Sent: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:52:43
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com"
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Vijaya bank resigned case
Dear Perumal,I beg to differ with you in this matter.A resignation is a resignation.In pension regulations resignation is not defined in so many ways.Cessation of service either at the instance of employer or employee are to be treated as same for the purpose.When employer reserves right of CRS to terminate the services of the employee at his convenience,it is the right of employee to resign at his convenience after certain years of service.If the service is sufficient as per Pension regulations he will get it..In the eyes of law this is an outright discrimination.Moreover the second option is agreed for all the remaining employees as per 9th bipartite settlement.There are no sub categories like resignees,CRS employees,clerical resignees,resignees deceased etc.Then why a few among them are to be discriminated.Even UFBU has agreed and made representations to IBA for implementation of the settlement in toto.Then what is the basis for discrimination.That is the reason resignees of Vijaya bank won the case fast and outright.Even AP High court also gave a favourable judgement.For IBA ,where there is a will there is a way.IBA was also unyieldingin case of 5 year service also like that.But what happened in various High Courts and Supreme courtultimately.They have to pay all the arrears retrospectively,but saved interest on the amount paid which also is a very huge amount.But wasted a lot of precious money and time in fighting the case in various courts and caused a lot of heartburn to the retirees in the meantime.They lost goodwill of the old retirees.The same will happen in case of resignees also.
With Regards,P B Sarma.
On Thursday, November 28, 2013, perumal maruthu wrote:
M.Perumal
On Thursday, 28 November 2013 11:19 AM, bhaskara sarma wrote:
As Mr Pathaksaid that some General Managers who resigned and became ED or Chairman of other banks are given pension
facility why not poor clerks or officers who resigned due to their unavoidable difficulties,made way for recruitment of new staff at half the cost or less?
bhaskara sarma
For more options, visit Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email. Know More >
--
>
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.
>
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
>
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
Know More >
--
mahaboob basha
Dear Sir,
In my 30 + years of service, I have seen so many who were resigned from the bank and I know most of their reasons. They were not children to resign the permanent post and forego the long service benefits, just like that. Exceptions may also possible with reasons beyond their control, here and there.
OK, leave it.
Now the question is eligibility of resignees for pension who have put up 20 or more years of service prior to their resignation on par with other retirees.
It is a pitiable condition, no doubt. While going through the individual stories, really it is heart burning.
IBA is an autonomous body and function at the behest of MOF. Even then, as you said if it has not followed the instructions of MOF and removed the clause “superannuation” means, you can understand the legal status of the laid down rules. Here one point is worth to note. Why MOF kept quite when its instructions were not implemented by IBA. Everybody has been pointing out IBA & UFBU and why not MOF ?
As 20 years of service is a yardstick for eligibility for getting pension in all government departments, MOF has to act more seriously and see that its earlier instructions should be implemented by IBA with retrospective effect. But as the conditions in the banking industry are different, MOF also helpless and awaiting for the verdict of SC.
One must realize that IBA will not appeal to SC without getting permission from MOF to do so.
s.m.basha
From: "madhukar " <mbav...@rediffmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 16:17:05
To: <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Vijaya bank resigned case
Sent: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:52:43
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Vijaya bank resigned case
Dear Perumal,I beg to differ with you in this matter.A resignation is a resignation.In pension regulations resignation is not defined in so many ways.Cessation of service either at the instance of employer or employee are to be treated as same for the purpose.When employer reserves right of CRS to terminate the services of the employee at his convenience,it is the right of employee to resign at his convenience after certain years of service.If the service is sufficient as per Pension regulations he will get it..In the eyes of law this is an outright discrimination.Moreover the second option is agreed for all the remaining employees as per 9th bipartite settlement.There are no sub categories like resignees,CRS employees,clerical resignees,resignees deceased etc.Then why a few among them are to be discriminated.Even UFBU has agreed and made representations to IBA for implementation of the settlement in toto.Then what is the basis for discrimination.That is the reason resignees of Vijaya bank won the case fast and outright.Even AP High court also gave a favourable judgement.For IBA ,where there is a will there is a way.IBA was also unyieldingin case of 5 year service also like that.But what happened in various High Courts and Supreme courtultimately.They have to pay all the arrears retrospectively,but saved interest on the amount paid which also is a very huge amount.But wasted a lot of precious money and time in fighting the case in various courts and caused a lot of heartburn to the retirees in the meantime.They lost goodwill of the old retirees.The same will happen in case of resignees also.
With Regards,P B Sarma.
On Thursday, November 28, 2013, perumal maruthu wrote:
This argument is untenable! GMs, selected to EDs/CMDsare to resign as per the Employer's mandate....whereas Resignation of individuals does not take place at the instance of the Employer!
M.Perumal
mahaboob basha
Dear Sir,
Anybody who was 20+ years of service, resigned without opting to pension means ….. he must aware of the consequences and at that time he might have preferred a better one, as per his conscious and calculations. He only has to face the future consequences, if any, for his own acts.
Resignation is an individual and voluntary decision and not forced by somebody to do so.
All other workmen related acts like labour act, workmen compensation act etc., are also given directions to compensate the employee fully to the extent of his work done, as per the laid down rules. But not mentioned about the implied eligibility of superannuation benefits like pension.
Still the High court decision in favour of resignees is welcome, the verdict of which was given on some legal base, whatever it may be.
Let us wait and see the final verdict at SC.
s.m.basha
mahaboob basha
No LAW and RULER on this earth can satisfy everybody. For that sake if an option is given by the GOD to any human being to select either of two things may be gold or diamond, the man has to choose one among them and sacrifice or forego the other. After all BPS is also based on negotiations and bargaining.
When more benefit is possible at the cost of small loss, it is prudent to opt for the former in the interest of more than 95% of the employees.
We are living in a society where people are aware of almost all happenings around them. No body keep quite years together.
Injustice done for getting more justice, it is termed as justice only. What UFBU and IBA has done is the same thing.
Even now the victims can fight for the injustice done but not at the cost of JUSTICE DONE.
s.m.basha
From: bhaskara sarma <pbsa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:57:10
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Vijaya bank resigned case
harinarayana sarma nandivada
mahaboob basha
Dear Sir,
Fundamental rights are common for every citizen in the country. Even a hard core terrorist who is in jail is also eligible to get fair wage for the hard work done there.
Resignation right is there from day one of joining the bank. During probation period also one can resign but by giving advance information or suitable amount of compensation in terms of salary.
When there are more than 99.9% of the employees who were not felt the harassment etc.,and performing their duties with discipline and commitment, you must know the reasons of 0.01% who opted for resignation. As you said all the resignees are not in that harassment category. May be one or two among them. Even the union people will tell why this one or two were harassed by the management, if at all it is true.
If the transfer to hardship area, may be 10% is harassment, transfer to other areas (90%) is a favour ? So, management has done more favour than harassment to the employees. Very good.
When the bank has given advance information about SVRS, pension option etc., not opting and not caring and not taking proper and right decision is whose fault ? More than that resigning conveniently at a later date is for whose favour and at whose wisdom ? Who is behind them for opting for such emotional decision with short temperment ?
OK. Knowingly or unknowingly they have done. By virtue of more than 20 years of past service rendered, they can request the bank to consider their cases also on par with others for pension payment. Blaming the unions and bank is nothing but self assassination ?
Every employee who worked in the bank are familiar with the words like VRS, SVRS, CRS, clerical resignee, Officer resignee and deemed retirement etc., and did not find any reason to do favour a section of employees by the management.
As this blog is meant for discussions among us, I am expressing my views from my point of view. Nothing to hurt anybody. If the SC give a favourable verdict, I also be very happy.
Better to stop further discussion on this matter and let us wait for the final judgement from the honourable Supremen Court.
Venkataraman P.N
bhaskara sarma
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Venkataraman P.N wrote:
Dear Sir,You have expressed your views without understanding the real issue. I wish to state that the Second Option for Pension was thought of by the unions, only after viewing the fact that majority of the employees have not opted for the Pension scheme in the first instance, due to various reasons and fear. The Second option was finalised and it was given with effect from 1995. Initially in 1995, Officers Unions were informing that PF is more beneficial to Pension, if Pension is given as second Benefit and later on the views were different.Some have resigned from the Banks for many reasons, but no one will resign just like that without any valid reason. There are Banks who never gave the VRS scheme when it was given to all others.When there is no provision in the OSR for Persons to leave the service, if they have opted for PF, the only terminology used was Resignation. The terminology should not be a hindrance to get social security, that too, when the settlement was given retrospective effect.If a Person has worked for more than 20 or 25 years and have left the services giving proper notice, he should be eligible for Pension.P.N.VenkataramanOn Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:50 AM, mahaboob basha <basha...@rediffmail.com> wrote:Dear Sir,
Fundamental rights are common for every citizen in the country. Even a hard core terrorist who is in jail is also eligible to get fair wage for the hard work done there.
Resignation right is there from day one of joining the bank. During probation period also one can resign but by giving advance information or suitable amount of compensation in terms of salary.
When there are more than 99.9% of the employees who were not felt the harassment etc.,and performing their duties with discipline and commitment, you must know the reasons of 0.01% who opted for resignation. As you said all the resignees are not in that harassment category. May be one or two among them. Even the union people will tell why this one or two were harassed by the management, if at all it is true.
If the transfer to hardship area, may be 10% is harassment, transfer to other areas (90%) is a favour ? So, management has done more favour than harassment to the employees. Very good.
When the bank has given advance information about SVRS, pension option etc., not opting and not caring and not taking proper and right decision is whose fault ? More than that resigning conveniently at a later date is for whose favour and at whose wisdom ? Who is behind them for opting for such emotional decision with short temperment ?
OK. Knowingly or unknowingly they have done. By virtue of more than 20 years of past service rendered, they can request the bank to consider their cases also on par with others for pension payment. Blaming the unions and bank is nothing but self assassination ?
Every employee who worked in the bank are familiar with the words like VRS, SVRS, CRS, clerical resignee, Officer resignee and deemed retirement etc., and did not find any reason to do favour a section of employees by the management.
As this blog is meant for discussions among us, I am expressing my views from my point of view. Nothing to hurt anybody. If the SC give a favourable verdict, I also be very happy.
Better to stop further discussion on this matter and let us wait for the final judgement from the honourable Supremen Court.
s.m.basha
From: bhaskara sarma <pbsa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:27:31
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <
--
mahaboob basha
Let us wait for the verdict from the honourable SC.
s.m.basha
From: "Venkataraman P.N" <pnvr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:20:54
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Vijaya bank resigned case
Dear Sir,
Fundamental rights are common for every citizen in the country. Even a hard core terrorist who is in jail is also eligible to get fair wage for the hard work done there.
Resignation right is there from day one of joining the bank. During probation period also one can resign but by giving advance information or suitable amount of compensation in terms of salary.
When there are more than 99.9% of the employees who were not felt the harassment etc.,and performing their duties with discipline and commitment, you must know the reasons of 0.01% who opted for resignation. As you said all the resignees are not in that harassment category. May be one or two among them. Even the union people will tell why this one or two were harassed by the management, if at all it is true.
If the transfer to hardship area, may be 10% is harassment, transfer to other areas (90%) is a favour ? So, management has done more favour than harassment to the employees. Very good.
When the bank has given advance information about SVRS, pension option etc., not opting and not caring and not taking proper and right decision is whose fault ? More than that resigning conveniently at a later date is for whose favour and at whose wisdom ? Who is behind them for opting for such emotional decision with short temperment ?
OK. Knowingly or unknowingly they have done. By virtue of more than 20 years of past service rendered, they can request the bank to consider their cases also on par with others for pension payment. Blaming the unions and bank is nothing but self assassination ?
Every employee who worked in the bank are familiar with the words like VRS, SVRS, CRS, clerical resignee, Officer resignee and deemed retirement etc., and did not find any reason to do favour a section of employees by the management.
As this blog is meant for discussions among us, I am expressing my views from my point of view. Nothing to hurt anybody. If the SC give a favourable verdict, I also be very happy.
Better to stop further discussion on this matter and let us wait for the final judgement from the honourable Supremen Court.
s.m.basha
From: bhaskara sarma <pbsa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 10:27:31
--
>
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.
>
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
>
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
Know More >
--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Know More >
--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
lakshmi Narayanan
On Thursday, 28 November 2013 22:28:17 UTC+5:30, perumal maruthu wrote:
This argument is untenable! GMs, selected to EDs/CMDs are to resign as per the Employer's mandate....whereas Resignation of individuals does not take place at the instance of the Employer!M.Perumal
On Thursday, 28 November 2013 11:19 AM, bhaskara sarma <pbsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
As Mr Pathak said that some General Managers who resigned and became ED or Chairman of other banks are given pension facility why not poor clerks or officers who resigned due to their unavoidable difficulties,made way for recruitment of new staff at half the cost or less?With Regards,
P B Sarma.
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, Raj Krishna Vajpeyi wrote:
Dear SN, that is how a lot of resignees feel indeed. In case of officer resignees problem is limited to five banks while in cases of other staff it is far widely spread. It is interesting that those who exited due to death are considered eligible for pension while resignees continue to be denied .pension due to a faulty and non uniform implementation of IBA circular across banks. Let me explain why this is natural.--
Fact of the matter that most resignees resigned after bank managements made their life worse than living death. So, you should understand the attitude of bank managements to torture resignees till death as punishment for having escaped from their clutches and survived. IBA is again headed by top executive of a bank and would continue to play the same tune. Even the attitude of Union leaders is not surprising because every penny of resignees' pension saved is a penny earned for their members and pensioner retirees who continue to contribute to the union fund. That is why the loosely formed group of VB resignees and the RBEWFA of Mr Pathak are the only silver linings.
On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:34:28 PM UTC+5:30, Sasikala Nagarajan wrote:As usual Vijaya Bank filed SLP at supreme court.God only knows final result.They want to drag the case till the end of retirees life. Certainly supreme court will admit this case also by converting slip into writ case. Already SBM filed exit employees case till this date no result. This is the fate of Exit employees and resigned employees who had put more than 30 years service and attained 55 years at the time of relieving Different bank formulate different rules.
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 bankpensioner+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
mohan p
bhaskara sarma
perumal maruthu
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Gopalakrishnan Nair A.K
NARENDER KUMAR Sethi
For every 10 minutes you are angry you lose 600 seconds of happiness.
Nobody can disgrace us other than ourselves. So why get angry.
Nobody can make you angry without your consent.
You cannot change others as easily as you can change yourself.
NARENDER KUMAR SETHI
919988257740 9464895148
