Missing clauses in Pension Regulation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

In the proceedings dated 22nd in SC the learned judges are reported to have said that anything not  found in pension regulation, even if it is a matter  of ₹100/ will not find favour.

In the matter of updation,as found in 35(1) , apparently permitting only for certain sections, will respondent's explanation now to the judiciary's query, that provisions are not omnibus hold water? Such an important aspect cannot go unexplained in regulation. 

2.The regulation does not carry a specific clause saying "No Updation"

Will the judiciary now accept insertion of an imaginary clause by respondent? 

C V Narayanan

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Sanjay or C.N.Prasad can enlighten the highlighting the core issues and the supreme court proceedings concluded on 22 nd july in Shri Singla ji Case for pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--
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%3Da99PZG0eSoWG%2BFdwfGs%2BfL5ZELVmG2TPSy%3D9C83M8Yb6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Visvam Ambattur]

Is justice restricted to some documents or events(settlements) or some similar scopes.?

There is famous saying "unification in diversification". Is it fair for  GOI to have diversified pension plans( plans with differences and variations) for different sections of employee or ex-employee population .

So, if Honorable Judge said fund shouldn't be constraint,  is GOI going correct their attitude and treat all pensioners equally, like that of defence dep7.

each employee and ex-employee has only one vote and current leaders came to power on that basis.

God bless bank pensioners. 

--

[Ramani Konnayar]

1) Some prominent members of this group have always held the view that although Regulation 35(1) describes the exercise carried out for those who retired between 1/1/1986 and 31/10/1987 (under 4th BPS) through the formula contained in the Appendix-1 relating to the Regulation as UPDATION, it was only a mere merger of a portion DA with basic pay to align their DA with that of 5th BPS retirees and NOT FOR INCREASING THEIR TOTAL PENSION.

2) In this context, it is interesting to observe that the arguments of the Respondents' advocate appear to suggest that it was indeed an updation of total pension but the Regulation restricted it to the particular group of pensioners alone and the subsequent groups cannot claim such a benefit.

3) With regard to the amendment made to the Regulation in 2003, it is interpreted by some that it was to enable devising a formula for fixing the basic pension of those whose last 10  months of service fall under 2 successive BPS periods. This process is also termed as updation of pension in the Regulations, although it is only a procedure to fix the basic pension.

So, THIS PROCEDURE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS DONE THROUGH APPENDIX-1.

4) It is not clear if an amendment was necessary to devise the above formula. If this alone was the purpose of the amendment it could have been mentioned specifically instead of using the term "wherever applicable".

These points raise the doubt that originally there was an intention to revise the pensions upwards after every BPS but it was dropped after the second option for pension was given and more than that after BEPR Scheme became close ended with its substitution by NPS in April 2010.

Let us wait and see how the honourable judges interpret and decide, in the absence of anything in the Regulations to the effect that the updation given for 4th BPS group will not entitle the subsequent groups for a similar benefit

and pensioners in RBI getting it periodically.

K N Ramani 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANfG1azVic7MoKxHqWMbKfzFPvC0QJqU9JxkO-a6fFt%3DP9VWsg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Raogaru,

Only issue before SC - is Regulation 35 (1) - which Associations Advocate has to prove/establish that (a) it provides periodical updation for all,  (b) updation as per RBI formula.  Unfortunately both the above dont find mention in Regulation 35(1) or Appendix 1.  Challenge is to establish in absence of such clauses.  There are many worriers - who are already guiding the advocates to establish.  Have faith in warriors including Sanjay - to get benefits.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1234020213.2098737.1785338451806%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr. Niranjan, if Reg35/1 is only under consideration for Hon judges in SC. there was no necessity for them to demand documents like charts examining disparity 

and  details of DA merger and appeal would have been dismissed just upholding High court verdict. 

In fact, Dhruv Mehta suggested exactly the same to the court on 12.08.2026: "My Lord, the High Court has already dismissed the case; you also do the same."

Here, the strategy is that, apart from proving Reg35/1 is indeed an Updation procedure, Pensioners' advocates are trying to impress upon the judges why Updation is necessary and why a provision for updation is not mandatory in Pension Regulations by submitting the DFS updation sanction letter addressed to the RBI.

Mr. Singhvi explained that updation is the merger of DA and adding a load factor. Though we cannot claim the pensioners' advocate presented his arguments perfectly, his presentation has made some impact.

From hundreds of past Supreme Court verdicts, we can observe that SC does not restrict itself to the printed text of contractual terms but also considers equality of justice. 

Some claim that SC cannot rewrite or alter regulations. By allowing appeals and directing banks to implement updation, the SC is not rewriting or changing regulations, rather, it is accepting that Reg35/1 is an updation and directing Banks to extend it to all pensioners.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHkdJ5-CdZ1UXbjs0r3L_ZhXnY2erArXAeaieXvUKjw4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

It is queer that nobody speaks about opportunity thrown open to present our case by availing the position of non mention in regulation prohibiting updation. Perhaps shri somasekara is the only exception. 

There is undue pitch on 35(1) by litigants and decrial by certain quarters by equal force  little realising 

that we are into infliction of self injury

C V Naarayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zTTdkvpwpCFVb88zc9jrbcfktYT0dUxyE6xwRm1vh1cg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Visvam Ambattur]

Thank you Sir.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zTTdkvpwpCFVb88zc9jrbcfktYT0dUxyE6xwRm1vh1cg%40mail.gmail.com.