Civil Appeal by Shri (Late) Singla & Ors pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All of us are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries are won and accidents also do happen.  Still, there is every reason to expect positive outcome.  We shall seek divine intervention and get favourable orders.

Having said that, we should also understand that there are two sides in every dispute before the Courts, except where it is ex-parte.  Both the sides feel that they are on the right side of law. 

With whatever exposure and experience I have personally, I never assume victory or defeat, till the Judgment is delivered.  Judges are at liberty to decide, what they think that is correct.  Therefore, before assuming, please remember, it is too early to decide.

Now, we have sufficiently impressed upon the Hon’ble Court with regard to our claim on Pension Updation based on Regulation 35(1) – Appendix I.  Regulation 35(1) says that “(1) Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I”.  Our claim is based on insertion of the word ‘SHALL’, while amending in 2003.  We have treated this insertion as ‘mandatory provision’, because of existence of the word ‘SHALL’.   Assuming our claim is correct,  we should also infer that entire clause, viz. “Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I”, is a mandatory provision.  If it is a mandatory provision for the Banks, it is also a mandatory provision for Bank Pensioners also.  If Bank is bound to update in terms of Regulation 35(1), we cannot also compel the Banks to go beyond Appendix – I or what is mentioned therein. Therefore, I do not know, if entire clause is a mandatory provision, whether it helps or harms.  Hon’ble Judges might have also considered the force of this provision and have restricted application only to Pension Regulations, more particularly Appendix I.  It is the claim of the Petitioners/Appellants or impleaded Respondents is that Pension shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I.  Therefore, we cannot go beyond Appendix I.  Words, 'Reserve Bank of India' or 'Government of India' are absent in entirety.  Really, I do not know how Mr.Singhvi convinces the Court about applicability of formula in Reserve Bank of India, in the absence of any clause in this regard, if the Judges stick to what is there in Appendix – I only.

All of us aware that the words ‘Reserve Bank of India’ are absent in Regulation 56 and there is no word ‘updation’ in Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulation.  Hon’ble Judges are speaking only about Pension Regulations.  We shall wait and watch, keeping our fingers crossed.

I never thought of writing anything with regard to Singla’s case.  But undue expectations have been raised.  I thought, it is better to place some information on record.   

Thanking you,

With regards,

C N Prasad

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All of us are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries are won.  I had posted email on the 16th, with good intention of informing Bank Retirees, some sense.  Want to make them understand that there is a possibility of adverse decision also.  But, I have come across some messages finding fault.  Very fact that these Pensioners are finding fault confirms my fears.  It is unfortunate that Bank Pensioners are made believe that there is a very strong case.  They do not have full knowledge of law.

It is also unfortunate that we believe that those who are representing IBA are ignorant of law and they are guided by what is written in social media.  Please remember they have unlimited resources. 

I repeat, whatever I have written are known to all those who have even minimum knowledge of law.  Whatever, I have written are based on the claims or Judgment in Bank of Baroda Vs. G Palani & Ors.  Perhaps, most of you are not aware that there are Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pension Updation case where the ground of amendment to Regulation 35(1).  Both Writ Petition & Writ Appeals are dismissed.  Judgments are attached. 

   

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/169456831.379456.1771139526600%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramachandran Bella]

You predicted correctly Prasad ji. Almighty God sure would do something favourably taking into the position of the judges. All you people's hard and sincere work would never go in vain.We pensioners are ever indebted to you and comrades like you who dedicated your precious times to this cause all the way.

Thanks a lot ji.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

I had posted an email with a view to make Bank Pensioners understand that there is a possibility of any decision in Supreme Court, may be positive or adverse.  Unfortunately, there is huge expectation in respect of outcome. 
Only intention of writing a mail is to make everyone understands that there are more than one possibility in outcome in a Court Case.  Unfortunately, a large number of Bank Pensioners have decided about positive outcome. Having fought and fighting Court cases, I have hands on experience.  We are aware how Judges deal.  

Unfortunately, some of our friends feel that my mail might guide IBA.  This clearly shows their ignorance.  IBA is not bereft of resources.  We have taken the decision for granted.  They do not need any guidance or material from us. Now, Hon'ble Supreme Court has focussed only on provisions in Pension Regulations. 

I have made sincere effort to make Bank Pensioners to understand that our case is not as strong as we think.  Please keep your fingers crossed.  Please be realistic and question to understand better.

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N 

   

     

[Srinivasan Badri]

The Karnataka highcourt is telling merely because " shall " is used it has not changed appendix 1 which is for retirees of a particular period.

This valid point ☝️ will be used by IBA about the absence of updation from time to time. Merely because RBI updated pension though there was no such clause in their regulations, it doesn't ipso facto apply to bank pensioners.

Court can consider sympathetically and advise to consider updation  as per existing Bipartite route 

On Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 11:57 AM Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes sir 

Your opinion is laudable. It shows your legal acumen and analysis of pension regulations.

As you said sir, unless the verdict comes we cannot assume things and making various charts for arrears etc making pensioners anxious .

Law is an ass. It can kick either side.

Pension regulations is not very clear on updation.

Generally benefit of doubt is given to the affected as per general justice 

Let us keep our fingers 🤞 crossed.

Srinivasan B 

Retired officer e United Bank

[Saibabu Madiraju]

Why you are saying this now, with false motive, otherwise you should have told 10years back, just before judgement you are telling, why

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1774001121.343856.1771236190371%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

Mr. PRASAD,

What is the position of the contempt petition filed by you in Sci, against iba and banks on the issues of commutation, DA at 1616 points ie at.35% etc. Once I spoke to you and you happened to mention that forget 100% da issue and .35 % Da is more advantageous  to old pensioners. Please inform the latest.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026, 4:05 pm Ramakrishnan S, <ramakri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Prasad,

Hope is the cause of survival. So why you disappoint senior pensioners by giving interpretations as above. 

When we could wait and face defeat of 100% da case, let us all pray together that the outcome of Singla case became our success.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Yes sir 

Your opinion is laudable. It shows your legal acumen and analysis of pension regulations.

As you said sir, unless the verdict comes we cannot assume things and making various charts for arrears etc making pensioners anxious .

Law is an ass. It can kick either side.

Pension regulations is not very clear on updation.

Generally benefit of doubt is given to the affected as per general justice 

Let us keep our fingers 🤞 crossed.

Srinivasan B 

Retired officer e United Bank

[harinarayana sarma nandivada]

Friends, Keeping  restraint at this crucial moment is more than helping the cause.  Any real well wisher does the same.  No hopes. No desperation.  All are equally knowledgeable and matured.  Simply our over expectations or over anxiety or desperation will not change the mind of the court too.  Hence more patience is the only need of the hour. 

HARINARAYANA SARMA

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/42226739.434609.1771234285267%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

Mr. Prasad,

Hope is the cause of survival. So why you disappoint senior pensioners by giving interpretations as above. 

When we could wait and face defeat of 100% da case, let us all pray together that the outcome of Singla case became our success.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2026, 10:14 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Satyanarayana Rao]

It is very funny to read various views regarding Singla case.
Nobody is worried about the outcome.
As things stand we will get favourable verdict.
Some stalwarts who advocated and  argued that there no provision in regulations and no updation now started to impress that some hope is possible for favourable verdict.
Good that they too started feeling for favourable verdict.
Singlaji shall be ensured that the judges have understood the truth.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1595019373.1148432.1771291886698%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

  In my opinion, updation of pension in PSBs would have happened long ago but for the replacement of BEPR Scheme with NPS wef 1/4/2010.

BEPR was based on the pension scheme of Central government employees and so when that scheme was abolished wef 1/4/2003, PSBs had to follow suit.

Because, it was only 10 years old at that time, BEPR was allowed to continue for 7 more, perhaps.

However, NPS being much less beneficial than BEPR, pay scales of employees were hiked liberally in each BPS as a barter deal/compensatory measure. The biggest beneficiaries in this arrangement are those who joined service in the few years ahead of 1/4/2010. They get good salaries and equally good pensions too. Actually, the concept of special allowance that is not eligible for pension was introduced only to curtail the above to some extent and the share of it has been purposely going up sharply in each BPS. This is also why UFBU is not supporting the demand to make it eligible for pension.

The courts may not entertain the petitions of pensioners to make Special Allowance eligible for pension in as much as the petitioners have accepted its ineligibility through BPS and signed the agreement thru UFBU when they were in service. 

As for updation, there can be no doubt about our eligibility for it. Because, while initially rejecting to approve the RBI pensioners' updation, DFS had gone on record saying that it could lead to similar demands in future from PSB pensioners. This point will also put forth by our advocates. However, ultimately, it all depends on how the judges view and appreciate our pleas. That they have called for the comparative charts has raised our expectations. Whatever be the result, let it come early without keeping us in suspense for long as we have already waited for too long.

K N RAMANI 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGcEjHGqPRqAJo1bgcVBSNTUQxkL%3Diqo5-Np1wWT5Q%2B9b5duVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Special Allowance :

There are cases pending now  in appeal stage before various HCs where pensioners have secured favourable verdict from single bench.

First one is WP(C)32386/2015 before HC of Kerala .28.11.2019

(01.Direction of court to take into account the Special Allowances introduced  as part of pay for the purpose of Basic Pension.

 02.To recalculate

the commutation pension of the petitioners on the basis of the

revised basic pension by including the special allowance

introduced  and to refund the pension arrears

recovered.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xN6sG5cM91KRVxm32qM4Cv%2B%3D4_yjbERxMOFkDz6Tk42Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chinnasamy Rajagopalan]

Dear Prasad

                        U r absolutely right in visualising the current scenario.U have not said that the case will be lost in SC.Ur views are perfectly in order and IBA with a battery of legal luminaries  and unlimited resources at their command will not bank on your views to fight the battle.Since most of the retirees are favourably disposed in favour of a victory your cautionary signal is taken with a pinch of salt.Let us wait for the D Day

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT8BwazAd%2B6t02DocVq%2BUz5v1kZ3e5KXXKu4vco8NrxHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[GARIMELLA SESHAGIRIRAO]

Saddest mentality at this age.no.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CACHBP1jyQ4sT69hdBJiVfa6vTm1AvZ2ykWi3G07xyk9o0%3DfsVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jose Tk]

Dear Prasad sir,

In SC judgement dated 05 Feb 26 it is clearly stated that bank is liable to pay as per Pension Regulation. In Pension Regulation section 29(5) it is clearly mentioned about 5 year notional service for VRS retirees who has completed 20 year service. Then why it is not allowed to SBT 2001VRS retirees?

Please take up this with suits pending in your cases or submit separate representation in SC MC Singla bench now quoting the sentence "banks are liable to pay as per Pension Regulation".

Yours friendly,

JOSE T K  SBT VRS 2001 Retiree.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensioner+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/169456831.379456.1771139526600%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGcEjHGqPRqAJo1bgcVBSNTUQxkL%3Diqo5-Np1wWT5Q%2B9b5duVw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
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.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xN6sG5cM91KRVxm32qM4Cv%2B%3D4_yjbERxMOFkDz6Tk42Q%40mail.gmail.com.

--

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.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDT8BwazAd%2B6t02DocVq%2BUz5v1kZ3e5KXXKu4vco8NrxHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu]

Basically pension  regulation 1995 based on ccs 72. It is clear from the regulation and letter IBA sent to late godbole. I don't know whether that letter was placed before the SC

 All central govt and state govt and PSUs pensions are based on CCS72. So there is no doubt about updation. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1774001121.343856.1771236190371%40mail.yahoo.com.

[S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu]

Better talk of legal aspects 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFioWRGY_pwRODU%2B%3D9bLE3LNgfsH2jrKXH6WdsgpUYLvYfwBeg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raghu Bhargava]

Learned Friends,

Any positive news?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANid4%3DoDCmtxdVh4oWpKOe-Cdjeu-e700T257wZW_Ae-cVK5_g%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Mr Raghu Bhargava,

Positive side is CA 7993/2023 filed by late M C SINGLA and ORS v/s Union of India in 2016,  on updation of pension, has at least  came up for hearing finally on 5th Feb'26 with a direction of court to submit detailed chart on pension drawn by pensioners during  three time periods for comparison and further process. 

No one can predict on final  verdict  of court let it be positive or negative.Bear it mind that it is a lost case before P&H High court and this is an appeal and limitations are inherent.

Learnt that Charts have been already  submitted by parties as directed by court.Case may move on based on the charts,on application  relevant clause quoted, on next dates of hearing which has yet  to be listed.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJWRD%3Dgvnk3EeyC%2B4n9W_KFrZjyCEoE4PWNyhaGd1TJ2i5i75w%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mohan Sir.

Little correction. Only pensioners' side parties have submitted charts. IBA.DFS have not submitted charts. Unless all parties submit charts the case will not move forward. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSOYF%2B3jKZ3C_UpjFSBQUysxOVo2VpaSX2BoFVXGzzgGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Mr Somasekhara,

Thanks for correction.Note that IBA has yet to submit the chart. 

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0%2BDT1zAM6fD0DHBpaZVfv0xwwNSaUDz1xTfALhk%3DaGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir. Bank advocate was aware that the case will not be taken up in FEB, preparing charts leisurely and they may counter other parties affidavit also.

Niranjan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0%2BDT1zAM6fD0DHBpaZVfv0xwwNSaUDz1xTfALhk%3DaGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

If the charts are not submitted by I B A as directed by judges the judges will take the cognizance of the charts submitted by our lawyer and the court may conclude the proceedings and pronounce the verdict.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0%2BDT1zAM6fD0DHBpaZVfv0xwwNSaUDz1xTfALhk%3DaGMQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[RANGARAJAN M R]

Perhaps the object of Supreme Court is to get an insight into the way successive BPS has galloped leaving the old pensioners  far behind. Holding back charts by IBA team may not scuttle the progress of the case. Most of the required data is already available in the public domain and the affidavit of ARISE. If it comes to that Apex Court can issue and order again to concerned parties to submit the data within a time frame which cannot be excused or postponed under any circumstances like the Electoral Bond information submitted by SBI.

Most likely the next proceedings and conclusion of the case may  happen before 19.3.26

M.R.RANGARAJAN

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/826077881.173626.1771500468702%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Niranjan

M C Singla case was listed in Weekly List at serial No, 87. SC will publish daily list one working day before the listed date of hearing. So the daily list was expected on the 17th. The pensioners side submitted data on 16th Feb at 11.54am.  Only on 17th evening at 8AM it was found that M C Singla case is not in daily list,

It is surprising even before 17th IBA was aware that the case will not be listed because?

IBA has all data at its fingertips. 13 days is not enough to prepare charts? Pensioners side prepared and submitted charts in time because they were afraid that if they did not adhere to court directions it may affect their case. Further AIBPARC has to pay heavy fees to advocates on every hearing out of its members subscription. IBA has a chalta hain attitude. Banks have enough money to pay its advocates. Seeking adjournments is easy. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWExA-yhZwHU1f0QcT_G1wzkYQU8Q3m1qFTisGiz%2Bv7S1Q%40mail.gmail.com.