"Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated" the amended BEPR clause no. 35(1) was put before ChatGPT for grammatical interpretation and was replied as per attachment.

[Asok Bhaumik]

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

All of us appear to be relying only on a part of the clause while overlooking the crucial words, "as per the formulae given in Appendix I." I request you to kindly revisit the provision by reading and applying the clause in its entirety, including these words.

Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot apply a statutory provision selectively by ignoring a part of its language, unless the provision itself is held to be invalid or otherwise legally unenforceable. The same principle applies equally to Banks and Pensioners. This is yet another example of how Bank Pensioners are being misled by interpretations that rely on only a portion of the statutory provision while disregarding the rest.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Monday, 3 August 2026 at 09:37:41 am IST, Asok Bhaumik <asok...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
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/CANEF%2BN-Ghi9-RKi_FGmK6Ftucty-Ssiruhbf7zeuKqFCs4o90A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lingan Ramalingam]

Mr.Prasad,pl don't give your advice.Whether its going to happen or not,we live on hope and die

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1516301606.2823345.1785743203200%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The Supreme court judges have understood that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the government DFS and IBA nexus orbitarly denying pension updation against the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21.
The judges will exercise the constitutional authority to restore the justice and deliver verdict infaour of pension updation.
Let us not bother about those who are misinterpreting the pension regulations whether it is 35/1 and appendix 1 in their own wisdom.
The Supreme court judges are more learned and go deep into the constitutional fundamental rights gaurenteed under article 14 and16 and 21 to ensure the justice of equity and equality of law and fair play.
Let us wait for the final verdict which is going to be in our favour.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAEqzYmDXqGzaV6UyCx%2BXWX4d%3DkYyP9PQjEU_VoBmJdBgSqvcsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Many believe that annexure 1 should have been updated in every bipartite settlement as the emphatic wordsshall and  formulae ( as amended in 2003, a decade after 1993 pensioners regulations.and more over the period 1986 and 1993 retired are already done before amendment came in 2003. It therefore implies for future Retirees as well from time to time.

The absence of formulae being added for various Bipartite covered Retirees is an administrative error!!??

So wherever applicable in the clause is presumed as every Bipartite !!!

The  present question hangs on whether there is perpetuity  indication of the amendment?? The judges have called for affidavits on the stand of Pnb  with all supporting evidence of various Bipartite settlements  office notes etc 

So we are trying to stand on a flimsy support needing structural restrengthening!!??

Let the judges take the view of the petitioners on equity law of justice and decree in our favor  at least prospectively.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/707168504.922333.1785834908130%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Dear All

The amendment done in 2003 does not apply to 86/87 batch whose interest had already been taken care of vide annexure. 

Amendment   is to be inferred as meant for others. The use of words as per annexure is  in 2003 amendment is bloomer. 

The formula is not needed. 

Is there a single case of usage of amendment for others after the exercise in 2003.? 

There lies the lapse on the part of IBA/DFS.

C V narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG-kmoPVB%3DNubWQ%2Bn1EqO4NtzNJbpB8Skq%2BjJK73U0a58mtjoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Narayanan ji,

n 22/7/26, the respondents'

Advocate had reportedly argued as under.

"Limited Scope of Regulation 35(1): He explained that Regulation 35(1) and Appendix I have always been limited to specific categories of employees who retired during narrow "window periods" where their last 10 months of service spanned two bipartite settlements, creating a computational anomaly.

Original: 1 January 1986 to 31 October 1987.

2003 Amendment: Added workmen retiring between 1 November 1992 and 31 August 1993, and officers retiring between 1 July 1993 and 1 May 1994."

I think, this is factually wrong and incorrect.

The formula in Appendix 1 deals with those who retired between 1/1/1986

and 31/10/1987. This entire period of 

22 months falls under 4th BPS and there will be no employee in this group whose last 10 months of service fell under 2 successive bipartite settlements. And this is why the formula introduced ( reportedly through the amendment in 2003) is entirely different from the one in Appendix 1. It is also to be noted that this 2003 formula continues to be used even now to fix the pension in such cases.

In my view, this second formula is only used to arrive at the basic pension corresponding to the latter BPS (in which the date of retirement falls) and not to increase/improve the total pension.

If this is not done, in such cases, 2 categories of pension will have to be paid.

One with old basic + DA at old rates and another with new basic + DA at new rates which will be anomalous.

Interestingly, the advocate had also elsewhere admitted that what was done to the particular group (1986-87) through Appendix-1 was indeed an updation of pension but it was not applicable to the subsequent BPS groups.

The above two arguments contradict each other.

Another thing which I am unable to understand is that how this problem of fixing the basic pension of those with last 10 months service under 2 successive BPSs would have been solved prior to the 2003 amendment, as it would have surfaced in the cases of those who retired between the 4th and 5th, 5th and 6th, and 6th and 7th BPSs also. In all probability, the formula was already in vogue right from the beginning but was included in the Regulations in 2003. This fortifies the stand that the purpose of Appendix 1 was only to improve the pension.

Further, when we analyse the structure of the 2003 formula as contained in the Regulations, the following are observed.

1. For the months under the earlier BPS 

DA is merged with the old basic pay at

the index level applied to the latter BPS. This means there is no loading involved.

2. For the remaining months falling under the latter BPS, the revised basic pay which includes the merged DA as well as loading element is taken.

The sum total of the above two amounts is divided by 10 to arrive at the average basic pay for the last 10 months and 50% of this is fixed as basic pension.

Thus, it is clear that no improvement is done to the Pension here unlike in the case of Appendix 1. So, how can this be termed as updation or that the 2003 amendment was done to enable application of this formula?

In the BEPR booklet, under the title 

"Appendix-1" the words "See Regulation 35" is found whereas it is absent in the case of the 2003 formula which simply appears immediately after Appendix 1 captioned as serial no.2.This also raises the doubt if the 2003 amendment was done for the purpose of devising this spanning formula. 

Some ask, if we can apply the Appendix 1 for our updation. The answer is "yes"

but with suitable modification of the parameters for each BPS. This is similar to the increase in the parameters for calculating tapered DA for each BPS group corresponding to the revised basic pay structures. Perhaps, this is why the plural "formulae" was used in the amendment denoting thereby that the formula would not be static at all times.

So, whether the amendment was  actually for inclusion of the 2003 formula in the Regulations or it was for the extension of the Appendix 1 formula to other groups in future is the big question that requires an answer through the interpretation of the Court. 

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da_hp4DVaB%2BgV959Yt8k0h%2BSM%2Bu8k5%2B6UoiEvm0BQf88xQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

  Dear  Shri Ramaniji 

You have painstakingly analysed the issue of 35(1) with appendix, only to arrive  at a knot(nought). 

The pension Regulation covenants

should have been  carefully worded with no scope for ambiguity and conflicting interpretation. 

The author of amendment done to 35(1) during 2003,alone can clarify what has been attempted  to be conveyed. 

The advocate of respondent could not help admitting  of updation benefit as found in 35(1) . But seeks untenable defence saying it was meant only for 86/87 retirees. 

But why? He will have no answer. 

Will any amount of clarification not found in regulation serve the purpose is the question. 

Also one should not miss the fact that regulation has not shut the door ;y any clause to deny updation. 

In the said background verdict in favour of plaintiffs is a possibility. 

CV Narayanan

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Bank/IBA advocates are making contradictory statements before High Court and Supreme Court.

I am reproducing  here respondents (Banks) argument before High Court in M C Singla case.

" It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that Clause 12 of the settlement only defines the scope of future negotiations and does provide for updation in pension" i

In SC, Banks' advocate accepts that Reg 35/1 is updation but only for retirees of a specific period.

But also claims there is no provision for updation in pension regulations. 

Since the Banks accepted that Clause 12 provides for updation and defines the scope for future negotiations how can the Banks deny updation by stating there is no provision for it?

If IBA had claimed discussions were held and were not fruitful it would be a different matter.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da83EbkyqETE44yxDDwVaK5pigOP8rB0A-QOy17d7Xv9yQ%40mail.gmail.com.