DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

[PM]

Dear Friends,

                                As we are aware, DA for  Bank Pensioners  for next half year (w.e.f Feb’14) is calculated based on All India Consumer Price Index Numbers for (Industrial Workers) Base 1960=100.for the  months of October,November and December’13.

                                The All India CPI (IW) Base 2001=100 for the month of October,is released today by Ministry of Labour and Employement,GOI. ,which stood at 241 points with an increase of 3 points compared to September’13, as furnished here under:-

                        Base  2001=100                                 Base 1960=100

                    ________________                            ________________

                        Oct        241                                                  5501.04 

                   The  exact increase in DA w.e.f.  Feb’14, can be arrived only on release of CPI figures for Nov and Dec by the Ministry. However  considering the present inflationary trend an increase of minimum 73 slabs is certain,  if the present level of CPI  is continued   which may be expected to go up further by Dec.

[L S RAMAN]

Thank you for the information.But, Thanks to the 8th bipartite agreement, the pre 2002 retirees will not get full compensation for the in crease in cost of livng as reflected in the index.Can you  PLEASE COMPUTEthe loss incurred by an officer in scale VII drawing a basic pension of
RS 9200 ON AC OF THE 8TH BIPARTITE AGREEMENT COMPARED TO 100% PAID TO THE POST 2002 RETIREES.

REGARDS,

RAMAN.L.S.

--
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.

[PM]

Dear Sri.Raman,

                                  There are certain undisputed facts and realities,which nobody can deny.The Loss incurred by pre Nov 2002 Bank retirees on account of non payment of 100% DA on basic Pension,is a fact.It is not an individual issue, where as  large number of pensioners (irrespective of the Scale)are incurring loss on account of the same.. Since the  matter is before the apex Court  let us wait for the verdict.

                                 Meantime, it also should be in our mind that  it is not the only issue to be resolved as far as bank retirees are concerned.:

1.Good number of retirees are left out while second option on pension was granted as per settlement of 27.4.2010 on wrong interpretations or otherwise.As far as those people are concerned ,extending the benefit on option on pension is their prime concern.

2.Families of deceased pensioners are drawing meager sum as family pension,and their priority  is improvement of the same.

3. For Pre-1986 retirees,especially the very senior citizens,expect hike in nominal Ex gratia paid now.

4.Updation of pension as and when wage revision takes place in industry,is another important issue which will be benefited to one and all pensioners.in banking industry which will also expected to solve most of the problems related to DA.

5.Uniform medical facilities to all.etc.is another demand.All these genuine issues  are to be resolved.

                     Every affected retirees/families  will have their own priorities in related issues /demands,and let us hope that Retirees/Employees organisations  will be able to sort out the same in coming days, if not today.

Look forward positively.

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Sri Raman,

        For a basic pension of Rs.9,200=00 [retired during 01.04.98 to 31.10.2002] present DA is Rs.13,273=15 whereas 100% DA would be Rs.19,452=48. As such present monthly loss is Rs.6,179=33. This is due to a Bipartite agreement between the unions and banks or a Joint Note between officers' associations and banks [represented by IBA in both cases for banks]. All the pre 2002 pensioners are having a hope that this time all will get 100% DA neutralisation, though some of the unions/associations are demanding more than that for the retirees.

K. MOHANDAS RAO

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

For July,august and sept 2013, the increase was 51 slabs and now with just 3 point increase there is addition of 25 slabs. Though we are compensated to some extent the absence of full neutralization results in average loss of Rs.4000/_ as of now.  We have to satisfy ourselves, saying, some thing is better than nothing, as there are scores of our colleagues, who have not got pension, despite serving the bank for several years.  Our thoughts are with them wishing them to join our community soon.

G.Ramachandran
CBSVRS.

[bhaskara sarma]

There was demand for Updation of pension and improvement of pension benefits in The demands of 9th bipartite also.But none of the most important demands was considered even on compassionate grounds except second option for pension.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[mahaboob basha]

Dear Raman Sir,

Mr.Mohan has coolly and calmly given explanation about the facts of 100% DA. The reasons mentioned here are well known to each one of us and especially to you more than anybody.

Frustration will be there. No doubt.

But 100% DA is one of the issue and not the “only issue” to discuss. There are some positive points like periodical increase in DA which compensates the pensioners from the current violent inflationary pressures and higher retail prices. When the good news comes, let us try to enjoy it and don’t keep on remembering the issues which are  unsolved and to be decided at courts.

DA increase by 73 slabs or say 10.95% means, a sizeable amount to be increased every month from Feb 2014. Let us forget a moment all other problems and cheer the good news.

s.m.basha

--
Visit our blog site http:://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.

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

[cpvnair]

No doubt-let us cheer.But please go through the contents of Shri Mohandas Raoji's post on DA loss, ponder over the loss(especially when prices soar) before warming up for cheering.Again, there is no second opinion to the fact that half yearly DA hike is the only console.

 

Let us all cheer up.

 

 

warm reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

Get your own FREE website, FREE domain & FREE mobile app with Company email.

Know More >

--

[cpvnair]

ALL THE PRE2002 RETIREES INCUR FINANCIAL LOSSES ON Ac OF DA.THE ONLY REMAINING HOPE IS ON THE SC VERDICT.NO DOUBTm ORGANISATION WOULD PUT UP A FIGHT FOR UPDATION.

 

 

warm reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

 

From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bankpe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mohandas Rao
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 11:29 AM
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

 

Dear Sri Raman,

[real banker]

Mr Basha, as per your mail, there is likelhood of da increase of 73 slabs or say 10.95% from Feb 2014. Will you please clarify what %age increase this will mean for pre-2002 pensioners?

This will clarify why there is so much of anger in the minds of these seniors - "DISCRIMINATION" - MIND IT, there is nothing to cheer about till parity in DA payment is allowed.

Sudershan Pal

[mahaboob basha]

Dear Sir,

If the pre-2002 pensioners want to continue their anger mood, who stops ? What is the use of giving clarity ?

Other than pre-2002 pensioners also are there in this blog who can enjoy the good news. At least let them enjoy.

Giving information of good news is not a sin. Anyhow I will request in the next messages – “only after-2002 pensioners to cheer”

OK. Be happy, sorry be angry.

s.m.basha

[bhaskara sarma]

Whatever anger reflected is only polite and symbolic .They are losing the difference of DA every month for the past 8 years and more.Apart from financial loss,the discrimination is humiliating.They feel shortchanged by their colleagues and unions which were founded and patronised by the pre 2002 retirees throughout their service.There  was opportunity to rectify the anomaly in 9 th bipartite settlement but the issue was totally forgotten at that time also.The financial commitment for the issue is hardly 0.56percent of total wage bill of bank employees.

With Regards to everybody,

P B Sarma.

[L S RAMAN]

There is no question of anger or otherwise . The unions and Associations who are signitories to the 8th bipartite are accountable and answerable to the damages caused to the pre 2002 pensioners who are losing sizeable portion of the pension for no fault of theirs.
  Let the Unions correct the situation and file an affidavit in the Supreme Court to the effect the  pettitioners were not their members on the date of signing of the agreement and that the relevant agreement is not binding on the pre 2002 pettioners /pensioners.
  The IBA is equally accountable and answerable as how they signed such an agreement knowing well that the pensioners are not members of the Unions and Associations of employees , and as per the bye lawa the retired employees are ineligible to become members of the Unions of Serving Employees.Further the mandate of the Banks and GOI  to IBA does not provide alterations additions or any other negative change in the pension regulations as per which the payment of pension is a matter of bipartite agreement between the employee and employer and no other third party is authorised to alter the terms excepting in respect upward revisions as per the pension regulations of G O I.

Raman.l.S.

--

[Perumal Velayudhan]

Hi,

I feel that the discussions proceed on lines other than for which the forum is meant. There is no point in discussing the issues angrily, sarcastically. 

Myself is also pre 2002 retiree and still hope that courts will be able to give a good favourable judgement, becs the courts are always standing for equality in paystructure, pension updation etc.

Our loss of sizeable DA is really a huge loss, but that does not mean that whatever others get additionally is eyesore to us. I feel that one day or other we too will get whatever is due to us.Many benefits we thought that we may not get is given to us. Ofcourse, there is loss to us, but we have to strive for getting the other benefits also.

In every industry , such things happen, there is discrimination. It is tobe fought and got.

Let us use the forum for more meaningful problem solving issue discussions, rather than for venting our anger, counter allegations etc

vmperumal

[mahaboob basha]

Yes. I can understand the position of pre-2002 retiress. Basically we are all human beings first, employees and pensioners next. Every pensioner sympathises with them.

But we must understand that this is one of the issue of pensioners and not the “only issue”.

s.m.basha

From: bhaskara sarma <pbsa...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:22:58
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

Whatever anger reflected is only polite and symbolic .They are losing the difference of DA every month for the past 8 years and more.Apart from financial loss,the discrimination is humiliating.They feel shortchanged by their colleagues and unions which were founded and patronised by the pre 2002 retirees throughout their service.There  was opportunity to rectify the anomaly in 9 th bipartite settlement but the issue was totally forgotten at that time also.The financial commitment for the issue is hardly 0.56percent of total wage bill of bank employees.

With Regards to everybody,

P B Sarma.

--

[Jayakrishnan T.V.]

A very balanced and realistic view.  Let us hope for the best.

Jayakrishnan T.V.

Chief Manager (Retd)

State Bank of India

[Sridhar Mandyam]

It was in the fifth BPS during the late 80s the concept of tapering DA was introduced. The idea was that employees with higher basic were getting  higher DA, hence it should be tapered. Ironically many of the present pre 2002 retirees were leaders at that time and were signatories to the 5th bipartite agreement. There was no Pension Scheme on horizon at that time. in fact by signing they have inadvertently put those who have retired before 5th BPS into the same disadvantageous position.Those who retired, Took Voluntary retirement, Resigned etc, their DA for pension was structured on the same line.  This anomaly was removed for existing employees in 2005 BPS which was effective from 2002. So there can be no question of loss due to 8th BPS. We can only say that this benefit was not extended to us

[L S RAMAN]

Not extending the benefit to one section of pensioners is a clear case of discrimination causing loss to the pre 2002 retirees.

Raman.L.S.

[bhaskara sarma]

The old pensioners are losing pension updation in each bipartite.To start with that was not set right from the beginning.Added to that Liberalised 100 percent DA neutralisation is also not extended to the pre 2002 retirees .Thus it is a double blow to them.Tapered DA is a very old concept and when it is liberalised it should be liberalised to all.But it is liberalised to those who are getting higher pensions and not allowed to the old pensioners.By this way the gulf between pensioners has increased and the rich are allowed to be richer and the poor are made poorer.

Is it the trade unionism of 21st century?

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

Tapered DA was there for a long time at least from 1979 when PCR was introduced.It was not introduced in 5 th bipartite and the pre 2002 retirees are not responsible for that .

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[Krishnan Chensiah]

Dear friend

Basic pension has been revised to 50% of ten months average Basic salary with effect from

1.5.2005 instead of 41%as had been given since 2001 and arrears were denied for the difference

That was the criminal offence done to us by IBA or GOI.The tapering of DA was also introduced from thenon

And no arrears were paid since 2002.will you do this for MLA s,MP s or Govt Employees or judges who gave 

Favorable judgements in favor of IBA.The people who gave wrong decisions should be punished without mercy.

A denial of Rs.3000/- to Rs.6000/- pm per retiree is definitely a crime and nothing could be done by the

Socalled unions or associations.we have no other way than to live with these hooligans of INDIA.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Sridhar Mandyam wrote:

[mahaboob basha]

Dear Sir,

What you wrote is correct. If we dig the history, so many things will come in to light and looks some injustice was done in some cases. But the then conditions were different and agreements were made accordingly which in fact got approval of almost all the employees.

Over a period of time and recent judgements as per the prevailing conditions made those old guys to feel and frustrate a lot. If somebody tried to console with realities, they will feel bad against them. They simply forget that we, after sharing their concerns only given our views. No value and respect for sharing others problems. They need only sweet words in their favour. What to do ?

s.m.basha

[cpvnair]

WE NEED TO RECONCILE WITH THE REALITY THAT TRUTH HAS A HARSH FACE-not SO SWEET.LET US SHARE OTHERS PROBLEMS and HAPPINESS WITH RESPECT and LOVE.

 

 

warm reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

Error! Filename not specified.

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.

--
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.

Error! Filename not specified.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

So, we should congratulate that this anomaly is removed in 8th bipartite. Pre 2002 retirees could not achieve this when in active service

--

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sri Sridhar sir,

It is shocking to read your view "So there can be no question of loss due to 8th BPS".

Dearness Relief was restored to the Central Pensioners wef 1/1/1996

For LIC Pensioners, it was introduced  from 1/8/1997 but those who retired before that date are still denied the improved/revised benefit.

For RBI  Pensioners , it was restored in 2010-11 wef 1/2/2005.

Our scheme is similar to RBI's and in the MOU signed on 29th Oct 1993 by AIBEA with IBA incorporated this important clause on DA.

Clause 6: Dearness Relief:

"Dearness Relief to Pensioners will be granted  at such rates as determined from time to time in line with the Dearness Allowance Formula in operation in Reserve Bank of India".

Ours is a democratic country and most of the Pensioners have worked in Banks "WHOLLY OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA"! 

To ensure equitable justice and fair play, Banks must have restored the 100%DR to the pre-1/11/2002Pensioners IMMEDIATELY on the footsteps of RBI in 2010-11 effective from 1/2/2005.

Dearness Relief is to compensate the price-rise. Courts have held in various cases that the RELIEF has to be uniform as the price-increase of essential items affects a General Manager and a Sub-Staff Pensioner with un-subdued and equal velocity!  What is not compensated is only a LOSS to the Pensioner! A loss to the Pensioner is a GAIN for the FM!

 

Last year (as at March 2013) all Banks wrote-off a whopping amount of Rs32000Cr! (PSBs burnt Rs27000cr) Granting 100%DR to the pre-1/11/2002 retired BankPensioners requires an outlay of a few hundred crores only! Alas....they are driven from one Court to another spending huge amounts on litigation in their OLD AGE! 

So it is not the PAUCITY of Funds...it is the POVERTY of a PERVERTED MIND that continues to treat the Bankstaff and BankPensioners with contempt and vengeance to deny them/delay them Wage Revision and IMPROVEMENTS in Pension!

M.Perumal 

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.

--
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 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.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Dear Sri Perumal,

      When I wrote there is no loss, what is meant is our DA benefit was not REDUCED because of 8th BPS. The benefit of revised DA we have not got. let us not forget that if this anomaly was not taken care in 8th BPS, even the working employees would have to contend with tapered DA. Suppose I sell a property today and after six months the prices rise, I cannot call that exactly as loss. I can only say I did not get the benefit of the increased price. There is nothing shocking in my assertion.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

It is riduculous at most to  compare Bank Pensioners DA benefit to real estate.

Pension is not business. We are covered under PENSION REGULATION RULES which is statutory in nature.

SC has already given a ruling that for any new scheme management has right to fix cut off date. But for improvement on existing benefit pensioners cannot be divided on the basis of date of retirement.

If we accept your argument that this is not anomaly and pension is not reduced

then we have to withdraw all court cases filed for 5 years benefit, 50% Basic Pension, 100% DA as in all these cases no pension is reduced.

Why do you want to fight with Management for X BPS as your present salary will not be reduced even if  X BPS idoes not materaialize?

Or you want to apply that principle for pensioners only?

If yoy say not getting 100% DA benefit is not loss because pension is not reduced it is most illogical statement.

Division of Pensioners on the basis of retirement and type of retirement is illegal, illogical and discriminatary in nature.

[bhaskara sarma]

The DA formulae change from time to time.If I remember correctly all the officers of Nationalised banks fought and got some parity with RBI officers in 1992.they can never be static.When it is liberalised ,it should be liberalised for all.Why a section is to be singled out and discriminated?

If this is justified,the last batch of retirees in the present pension scheme will double their pensions and make it applicable prospectively only.Injustice is a seed if sown ,it may become Banyan tree.

P B Sarma.

On Thursday, December 5, 2013, bhaskara sarma wrote:

Dear Sridhar,

Why DA is liberalised?It is just because the effect of increase in cost of living is not adequately neutralised with the then existing DA  formula.This is the foundation of the demand and benefit.When that is a fact how a section of the pensioners who are already losing substantially due to lack of updation will be further put to disadvantage  by denying the liberalised DA.It is patently vindictive for which both IBA and UFBU ar equally responsible.The Injustice is further aggravated when it is not restored even in 9th bipartite or when it is extended to RBI pensioners.The loss is caused every month during the past 8 years and more to the very old and sick pensioners who can not think of fighting leave alone fighting.It is needless to say some people have already reached the grave by murmuring and abusing.

With Regards to Everybody,

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Raman LS,

You are always talking about Uniform DA only.What about Pension Updation.Because of absence of Pension Updation some of your old colleagues are not drawing hardly even half of your pension.The pre 1986 retirees are getting hardly 10 percent of your pension.In fact Pension Updation was done once in 1993 and was forgotten completely.Why it was forgotten all these years by the  highly intelligent people on both sides of th negotiating table.We  have to take into account injustice done to everybody and then only our injustice also will be resolved.Why the employees should be discouraged from opting pension and then once again put the same demand unresolved for 3 bipartites.Who committed the blunder and who is punished?.

With Regards to everybody,

P B Sarma.

--

Visit our blog site http:://blogspot.com
---
You

Vi

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Sridhar,

Why DA is liberalised?It is just because the effect of increase in cost of living is not adequately neutralised with the then existing DA  formula.This is the foundation of the demand and benefit.When that is a fact how a section of the pensioners who are already losing substantially due to lack of updation will be further put to disadvantage  by denying the liberalised DA.It is patently vindictive for which both IBA and UFBU ar equally responsible.The Injustice is further aggravated when it is not restored even in 9th bipartite or when it is extended to RBI pensioners.The loss is caused every month during the past 8 years and more to the very old and sick pensioners who can not think of fighting leave alone fighting.It is needless to say some people have already reached the grave by murmuring and abusing.

With Regards to Everybody,

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Somasekhara ,

Well said and upto the point.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Dear sir,

Going through the previous letters one can clearly see that the 8th BPS is blamed for for the present situation. The crux of the point is in the 8th BPS, this major anomaly was set right. One will note that this anomaly was not set right in 6th and 7th BPS. But the unfortunate thing is the 8th BPS did not provide this facility for those retired before 2002. if this is a major issue why it was not taken up in 6th BPS or 7th BPS?

[bhaskara sarma]

It was taken up and materialised during 8 th bipartite not only in Banks but in RBI also.But in RBI this problem is rectified and they are getting the benefit from 01/05/2005.Only UFBU and IBA have to explain the steps taken for rectification and the results thereof in the commercial banks represented by IBA.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

All serving- staff and  Pensioners(excepting Sub-staff) had only a tapered DA till 1/2/2005.

Unions were demanding full neutralization(@100% from 1996-97)....but they could achieve it only in the 8th BPS wef 1/2/2005.

M.Perumal

[Sridhar Mandyam]

".....but they could ahieve it only in 8th BPS wef 1/2/2005." Suppose this was not achieved from point of view of some members there would not have been ANY LOSS for the retirees

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Sridhar Mandyam,

The denial of 100 percent DA neutralisation to pre 2002 retirees is a patent and vindictive discrimination for which  IBA,UFBU and Finance Ministry are equally responsible.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Sridhar

From the day they agreed for tappered DA instead of 100% DA it is loss only for all pensioners irrespective of date of retirement. This was anomaly right from date of inception of pension.  There is no achievement here. In 8th BPS mistake was set right but only for pensioners retired on or after 01.11.2002.
Pensioners retired before 31.10.2002 continued to suffer loss. 

Pending aside  legal points I request you to clarify the folowing puzzle.

Both IBA and UFBU divided pensioners into two groups.

1. Retired before 31.10.2002.

2. Retired after 01.11.2002.

Please explain logic for such division when all pensioners are covered under same pension regulations.

After such division if you want to extend this benefit to one group only how do you select?

Is that done by picking lottery?

They could have left out pensioners retired after 01.11.2002 and extend this benefit to pensioners retired before 31.10.2002.

So what was such extraordunary circumstances that was compelling to leave out pensioners retired before 31.10.2002 only.

Mr.Sridhar can you explain this to us so that we can stop consiodering this as discriminatory?

[L S RAMAN]

No body can answer these questions excepting the Apex Court where the matter is pending.The signitories of the 8th bipartite have no answer, and perhaps they think that the pensioners are not as important as their members.

Raman.L.S.

--

[Sridhar Mandyam]

I ave never said it is not discriminatory. The point is as on of the member has correctly said "Unions were demanding full neutralization(@100% from 1996-97)....but they could achieve it only in the 8th BPS wef 1/2/2005". This is the first step. It is unfortunate it did cover 8th BPS starting from 1.11.2002 onward only which everyone feels discriminatory ( of course it IS discriminatory!) the matter is in the court.While we criticize about this discrimination, we should also appreciate the unions for achieving this  in 8th BPS. This has paved way for us to take next step.. Also this long pending issue was not resolved in any previous BPS

[Nageswara Rao P]

Dear Sirs,

I feel that there is no use on discussing the past matter again and again.  It is very easy to blame unions/others forgetting our silent attitude while in service.

PNRao

[Rajangam Subramanian]

I also feel the same.

Rajangam.

Sent from my iPad

[bhaskara sarma]

If a small loan is not recovered branch manger is accountable.But if a big consortium loan is not recovered there is no accountability.Similarly if it is I a collective blunder committed  by many functionaries together ,there is no accountability whatever be the injustice.Probably this may be the reason for the continued injustice done to old pensioners.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Dear Sri J.Soma Shekara

 You have mentioned Both IBA and UFBU divided pensioners into two groups

1. retired before 31.10.2002

2. retired after 01.11.2002

But actually IBA and UFBU divided employees in to two groups

1. Employees as on 01.11.2002

2. Not employees as on 01.11.2002 (includes pensioners)

As expressed by many members of this blog, IBA and UFBU had no mandate to discuss for the category falling in group 2. I think this clarifies the matter 

[L S RAMAN]

While pensioners of some of the PSBs have taken uu the matter of the problem pf pre 2002 pensioners seriosly many of the pensioners including myself were not aware of the injustice done by the 8th bipartite. Onlu recently when I analises the reasons for the comparatively lower pension being drawn by me I came to know the adverse impact of the 8th bipartite.The discussions in blog have thrown lot of light on the issue and has created lot of awareness among pensioners. this a real contribution of the Blog to the member pensioners.

Raman.L.S.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Sir,

The point is there is NO adverse impact DUE TO 8th BPS. There was "loss" before 8th BPS. the same "loss" continues after 8th BPS

[giris...@yahoo.co.in]

A banker who retired in scale III in early 2001 at a pension of app.5000 is now getting pension of app 18500. One feels badly hurt by the abnormal inflation.it took 12 years and three bps to reach at this stage while some feel impossible to survive.
The present day retiree in scale III is retiring at about 22500 and with this spiraling inflation shall feel the heat after 10 -12yrs if updation is not done now,all present day employees and UFBU must keep this in mind and strive hard to have updation at all costs.
G K Dora
Gurgaon

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

---

From: Sridhar Mandyam <mandy...@gmail.com>

Sender: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 15:38:06 +0530

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

ReplyTo: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

[bhaskara sarma]

Because of 8 th bipartite,pre Nov2002 pensioners were discriminated and denied uniform DA with post oct2002 retirees.This  discrimination caused loss.Suppose all pensioners are eating at the same place and the same menu is served to everybody .but one special sweet is served to only a few young retirees denying the same to all old retirees.Is it not unfair and injustice ?Leave alone our constitution,whether our conscience and culture allows that?

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

suppose 100% DA was not implemented in 8th BPS, you would not have felt discriminated. you would not have felt any loss. Am I correct?

--

[bhaskara sarma]

Present day scale 3 officer is getting a pension of around Rs 30000 after commutation whereas a scale 3 officer with same experience who retired in 2001 gets hardly. Pension of Rs 18500 after commutation.The loss per month is rs 11500 at least.Partly due to DA loss and partly due to absence of updation.

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

Please read ""recent retiree" instead of "present  day " in the first sentence of my previous mail.

The  inaccuracy I regretted.
P B Sarma.

[L S RAMAN]

What is the basis for the partial settlement of the addl benefit denied to the majority of the then existing pensioers knowing fully well that that they are drawing  a lower basic pension and are suffering due to price rise.Providin such a benefit to a minority of the future retirees  gettind the benefit of higher pay and pension on ac of revised salary is a clear instance of discrimination  to be corrected.

Raman.L,.S

--

[Sridhar Mandyam]

The benefit of 100% DA was extended to EXISTING Employees as on 1.11.2002. By virtue of getting higher DA during service, they are enjoying higher DA after retirement. Similarly a pre1986 retiree will be feeling about pre 2002 retirees. As retirees we have no voice except writing on blogs. The alternative is going to courts which our comrades have already done.
 

[bhaskara sarma]

Additional benefit is given to highly paid pensioners and denied to low paid pensioners who are sick and old.Is it not injustice and discrimination?

P B Sarma.

--

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.

[L S RAMAN]

While a scale three officer gets 18,500 due to tapering D.A formula G.M.in scale  seven gets Rs21,500 and this the result of the 8th bipartite agreement.While the inflation and consequent price rise uniformly affects all the retirees why one section should get a lower lower pension just some one signed an agreement behind the back.

Raman.L.S.

--

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Whom do we ask for remedy for the discrimination. UFBU cannot negotiate on behalf of pensioners. The present discrimination that is felt is due to the better package negotiated by UFBU for their existing members. The better pension benefit is got automatically because of better package when they were employees. UFBU has nothing to do with discrimination within the group of pensioners.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

UFBU jointly and all the Constituents severally owe a moral duty to protect the interests of the Retirees/Ex-Employees/Pensioners as there is no STRUCTRED/Recognised  Forum for them to resolve the pending Issues!

No doubt, serving Unions have their own limitations and constraints in the resolution of problems and their priority will be always for the serving-staff.

But certain commissions and omissions committed by them can not be brushed aside!

As all the demands of Pensioners are presented in the Charter of Demands, let us hope UFBU to do FULL justice to the Pensioners in this BPS/Jt.Note!

M.Perumal

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.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

".... and this is the result of 8th bipartite .....................signed agreement behind the back". I am ignorant of which clause in 8th Bipartite lowered the pension of pre 2002 retirees. can members more knowledgeable and held high positions during their tenure in banks, enlighten me about the relevant clause.

[bhaskara sarma]

Yes,for all achievements to pensioners,UFBU is responsible.For failures,who is responsible?

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[L S RAMAN]

There is no accountability for the Unions and Associations.They can sign agreements on behalf of their non Members and claim that the agreements are sacro sanct and can not be questiones in the Court of Law.
  If they want they can change modify or alter or delete the terms of under standing in the earlier agreements.How ever they do not accept the fact that the pensioners are not their members and on thta basis the agreements adversely affecting the pensioners  can not stand legal scruitiny.If they really wanted to help the poor pensioners they could have corrected the discrimination against the pre 2002 pensioners in the sbsequent bipartite agreements.It should be clearly understood that these bipartite agreements are only proposals recomonding salary revision and the same is similare to the pay commision recomondation in respect of the employees of GOI and ultimate decison to accept or reject lies with the GOI..Similarly the ultimate decision to accept the ageement  or reject is with the GOI and the Boards of individual Banks.Even aryter acceptance and implementation if there is any anamoly or injustice done to any individual or group of employees the anamolies could be rectifiedsI request felllow pensioners may understand the realities behind the agreements.

Raman.L.S.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Dear sri Perumal,

I am quoting this from the first letter on this topic by one of the members. ( You can scroll up this topic  and open the first letter)

" Let the Unions correct the situation and file an affidavit in the Supreme Court to the effect the  pettitioners were not their members on the date of signing of the agreement and that the relevant agreement is not binding on the pre 2002 pettioners /pensioners."

If this is our stand how can UFBU "protect the interests of the Retirees/Ex-Employees/Pensioners as there is no STRUCTRED/Recognised  Forum for them to resolve the pending Issues!"

[Sridhar Mandyam]

dear sir,

I am quoting "There is no accountability for the Unions and Associations.They can sign agreements on behalf of their non Members and claim that the agreements are sacro sanct and can not be questiones in the Court of Law. ".

India is a democratic country with with a very good legal system. What is quoted above can happen only in a aristocracy country. I do not think unions are doing and getting away with it.

[bhaskara sarma]

Only Constitution of India is supreme.Any other agreement,order or act which is violative of Constitution or principles of natural Justice will be struck down by the courts when approached by the affected people.Hence everybody or Instirution have to enter into agreements within the framework of Constitution and /or Principles of Natural Justice.There are numerous instances in which not only IBA but also many banks and govt departments have faltered and denied legitimate benefits to the people./employees.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[B Venkat Rao]

Dear All,

          There are very many Judgments delivered by Courts in India from time to time, which are words of  "JUSTICE & WISDOM". Taken in the right spirit it will educate the right minded Employers and Employees Representatives before drafting and signing Agreements/ Joint Notes. A small sample is reproduced here below , certain portions of the judgments of two separate High Courts on the same dispute. Please be happy about the contents. In this case there are five Nationsalised Banks are involved and they have gone against these judgments with their S.L.Ps. before the supreme Court. Please go through the following and then take up the texts of  all the Joint Notes ,  Agreements and other settlements to find out which are the unlawful terms and unlawful clauses they contain. 

“……Memorandum of Understanding cannot meddle with the statutory prescriptions. Nobody can agree by way of a settlement at the behest of an organisation taking away the benefit conferred on individuals by way of statutes or statutory rules. There need not have any authority to substantiate this. Statutory prescriptions crystallize the rights in favour of the subjects of that statute. It cannot be varied to their disadvantage unless otherwise by amendment to the statute……..”

 

 

“………..The office bearers of the employees association has to bear in mind this statutory right and the computation is to be made as statutory provided under the Act. The management is also fully aware of this statutory right and the mode of computation. If both of them have not taken sufficient care in working out the details and arrived at the figures contrary to these statutory requirements and provisions and the agreement arrived at is contrary to law and the statutory provisions it is not open to them to contend that the petitioners have no right to challenge the same merely because the agreement binds them and that they have taken the benefit of the joint note in respect of the remaining parameters. A statutory right, a constitutional right cannot be waived, curtailed or bartered away by the employees’ union and taken away by the management. Ignorance of law is no excuse. …….”

--

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Sir,

As you have clearly pointed out Unions and managements are accountable. One can not say "there is no accountability for the unions and associations". But before saying that unions are signing agreements on behalf of non members, we have to pin point exactly  which clauses are affecting pre 2002 retirees. cna anyone enlighten?

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Sri Venkat Rao,

You have correctly clarified the doubts.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sharmaji,

Every agreement is a contract.  Every contract should pass touch stone of law, i.e Contract Act. 

None of the terms of contract can be opposed to any law including Constitution of India.  None of the Joint Notes/Settlements signed so far, with the exception of Joint Note of 6th BPS, is opposed to any of sections of Contract Act.   There were cases filed questioning every settlement and so far, there is no Judgment (with exception of Joint Note of 6th BPS - Payment of Gratuity), has found any illegality in Settlement/Joint Note.  This includes 8th BPS. 

But, I find that some of the members raise the issue of 'Principles of Natural Justice' and these principles do not play any role.  Perhaps, they are assigning the same meaning of 'discrimination' to 'Principles of Natural Justice'.

There is increase in pension in every settlement on account of increase in Basic Pay.  Can we say that every settlement is discriminatory ?

  

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

--

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Sri C N Prasad,

As you said there is irregularity in 6th BPS joint note.How it has happened when so many highly experienced learned people are there on either side of the negotiating table?Any settlement when challenged by the aggrieved parties only,the regularity or irregularity will come out.So far many learned members of this group also are thinking that resignees can not get pension.How it became possible now?Have you ever thought of a dismissed employee getting gratuity,leave encashment and pension like the case of Mr kool of Bank of Baroda?All agreements need not be valid just because they are agreed upon by reputed Govt depts/Organisations/Unions.If they are violating fundamental rights,they will be set aside.Whether they are violating the fundamental rights or not is to be decided by courts.There are certain instances wherein the Supreme court reversed its own judgement due to changed circumstances.For example we never thought of Pension Updation seriously because the difference is not much between one bipartite and another bipartite.But over the years the difference has widened.Now that is coupled with 100 percent DA neutralisation has created wide disparities.Now it is left to Supreme Court to decide whether the disparities are reasonable or not and find out whether they are due to any discrimination done knowingly or unknowingly or not.It is better for both IBA and UFBU to rectify the disparities much before the Final Judgements are pronounced by Supreme Court.

If resources are a constraint IBA and UFBU should have increased the PF contribution to 10 or 11percent of BP much earlier.They have not done like that.They wasted a lot of precious time.When ultimately some  chosen members were about to retire,they got the second option for pension.Consequently those who never contributed the increased contribution became eligible for pension Alongwith updation and 100 percent DA neutralisation.Even now it is not difficult to sort out the constraint of funds if any.But there should be Will.Where there is a Will ,there is a way.

Collective Will can achieve anything.But Honesty,Sincerity and Justice should be the foundations of the approach but not otherwise.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[M A Prasad]

I think we are talking two different line of stand here.  The pity is that the UFBU or any of its constituent is not setrighting the anamoly - it cannot be and should not be combined with bipartite route for dispute resolution and I do not think they are serious about these issues whether it is 100% neutralisation / or CRS or leftover categories or even 5 years rule.  The matter is at the interpretation and Unions as one of the signatory to the agreement should insist that IBA should resolve rathern than convincing pensioners to be hopefule or patient.

--

M A Prasad
Mob: +91 75985 12516

Res: F12, Sri Karpagavruksham Apartments

        Subramaniapuram Road, Seshadripuram

        Srirangam, Trichy 620006

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.C.N.Prasad

Thank you for your views.

But I disgree with some of your views.

You agree with me that VRS offer was also a contract where in Banks agreed to provide all pensionary benefits as provided in Pension Regulations. Later this contract was breached by denying 5 years benefit  SC has rectified it.

Again In 8th BPS Joint Note was signed denying 50% Basic Pension from date of retirement.

You are well aware that KHC has already pssed severe strictures against Banks for this  which also violation of Pension Regulations.
Your commune itself has filed case in KHC against this Joint Note. If you feel there is no illegality in Joint Note what is the necessity of filing suit against it?

You also agree that Second Pension Option was a contract and how IBA twisted it to suit its needs by misinterpreting it to deny Pension Option to CRS and other normal VRS categories.

Now it is well nown that all these has been overruled by Andhra High court, KHC and SC.

Even in case 100% DA signed during joint Note of 8th BPS a single bench judge has given favourable verdict. Now the case in SC. There is no final verdict yet from SC to  conclude that this aspect of joint note of 8th BPS is legal.

So far Bank Pensioners filed cases on these issues.

5 years benfit denial.

50% Basic Pension Issue

100% DA issue

Second Pension option to CRS, VRS and others.

Pension Updation.

In all above cases courts have given verdict in Pensioners Favour. In 100% DA Banks won appeal but case is now in SC.

Only in Pension Updation case Pensioners have lost,

So All above cases agreements have benn found illegal by courts.

So we need clarrification as to the point 'There is no Judgment (with exception of Joint Note of 6th BPS - Payment of Gratuity), has found any illegality in Settlement/Joint Note.  This includes 8th BPS."

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Sri Somashekhar,

SBM Pensioners' Commune has not filed any suit in KHC. It has only supported its members in fighting the case. The personal opinion of Sri C.N. Prasad may not necessarily be that of the Commune. This he has made clear earlier.

K. MOHANDAS RAO

[L S RAMAN]

Basic requirement for any one  to enter in to a contract on behalf of others is AUTHORISTION
 IF it is not there there is no legal contract.The 1995 pension regulation  itself is based on  a contract bet ween the Bank and  pension optee employee and it can not be altered by any subsequent agreements be third parties.No agreement can be above the constitution.For example Bonded labour is the result of an agreement between the lender and the labour agreeing to work for repayment of loan with interest.Is it permitted in law?  Usurious money lending is also based on written agreements but are against the law of the land in many states

There fore it should be understood that a contract can not be sacrosanct and no agreement can viloate the basic principles of the Constitution.

Raman.LS.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

Courts have not found fault with the any of the Contracts you have referred to.  Contract in respect of Five years issue was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court.  Issue was that the Banks have not paid the benefits in terms of the Contract.  It is also the same case with denial of pension option.  Agreement is perfectly in order.  Only misinterpretation is questioned, but not the contract.

Supreme Court Case you are referring to has not questioned the Agreement.  In fact, Court has based its judgment interpreting 'Settlement' and negating provisions of Regulation 22 of Pension Regulations.  It is also not a case of Dismissal, but 'removal from service'.  SC has upheld provisions of Settlement. 

Please go through Judgment of Single Judge bench of MHC.  Court has not ordered payment of Dearness Allowance with 100% nutralisation.  It only says benefits of 8th BPS should be extended to earlier retirees.  If I am wrong, please provide me extract from the Judgment, which supports your contention. 

I assure you that I do not make any comment, without doing home work and spending time to learn.  Unfortunately, many of the comments and discussions are based on 'emotions', but not 'Law'.  

I request you to kindly go through the Judgment again and again, before you comment.

   

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

SriC.N. Prasad

Thank you for your clarifications, I have great respect for your views.

Sir, Though some of the clauses agreed upon in Memorandum of Understanding  dated 29.10.1993 do not find place in our Pension Regulations for reasons unknown. No member of this forum including myself never questioned PENSION REGULATIONS 1995. We respect it.

What we are witnessing is further agreements/adminstrations orders/joint notes

that negates benefits provided in Pension Regulations.

Courts have found fault with this.
Five years Benefit and 50% Basic Pension are also a part of it. I never said  this was questioned by SC.

Please go through my mail. When SVRS was offerred  we were made to believe that all benefits mentioned in Pension Regulations were available. However Banks/ IBA backtracked later. Is it not a violation of contract?

SC has questioned this violation and rectified it.

First IBA/Banks violated Pension Regulations by fixing lesser Basic Pension on the date of retirement.

Then a Joint Note was signed fixing 50% Basic Pension from 01.05.2005 instead of date of retirement? Is this not a violation of Pension Regulations?

Is it not a fact that KHC and MHC both have overruled this aspect of Joint Note and restored Pension arrears from date of retirement?  Is it not a
fact that this Joint note has been questioned by court?

Here I wish to correct myself. Earlier I have said commune has  filed cases in court. This is not correct. Sri Mohan Das Rao clarified it. Sorry for mistake.

However Members of commune have questioned this Joint Note. If they have not found fault with this joint note they would never have questioned it.

Here we have to acknowledge your great help in members winning the case in KHC.

In my mail I have no where said that SECOND PENSION AGREEMENT was questioned by court. I have said IBA twisted it to suit it  needs to deny PENSION OPTION to CRS, VRS and other category.

Another is 100% DA. Unless final verdict comes from SC we cannot conclude denying the same to pre-2002 retirees is legal or illegal.

Is it not a fact that in all above cases IBA/BANKS are making attempts to deny benefits provided in Pension Regulations to a section of people by bringing Joint NOTES and CIRCULARS.

Is it justified to make retirees/pensioners run to courts spending thousands of Rupees even for getting benefits already agreed upon in PENSION REGULATIONS?

These are all my frank opinion and I do not have disrespect for anybodys views and suggestions.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

UFBU or anybody need not be agitated over number of WP being filed by Retirees/Pensioners in courts against agreements/Settlements.

For every individual there are two options to solve any problem. One is to settle problem through Negotiations. Other through court of Law.

Pensioners are no exception.

NEGOTIATION ROUTE

Unless other Industries there is a practise of fixing Cap

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Sri C N Prasad,

Please let us know whether IBA and UFBU are not responsible for misinterpretation of agreements and settlements and driving the old retirees and pensioners right upto Supreme court in case of 5 year service addition to SVRS pensioners and resignees case leave alone others.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

--

[Kirubanandan S]

QUIOTE :- "Basic requirement for any one  to enter in to a contract on behalf of others is AUTHORISTION"

It is very true and hence in the settlements both IBA and UFBU (both not having any "authorisation"  from  the retirees) have just ignored them. 

No issue covering those retired earlier  is either discussed or recommended or agreed upon, 

Then why find fault with them ?

SKN 

kiruba

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

UFBU or anybody need not be agitated over number of WP being filed by Retirees/Pensioners in courts against agreements/Settlements.

For every individual there are two options to solve any problem. One is to settle problem through Negotiations. Other through court of Law.

Pensioners are no exception.

NEGOTIATION ROUTE

Unless other industries in Banking Industry there is a practise of fxing Cap on percentage of wage structure even before negotiation starts and total cost of wage negotiation arrived at. Out of this meagre funds cost of wage structure and Pension cost has to be worked out. Pensioners get very negligible portion out of this for their demand. This curtail fexibility in Negotiations. Options before UFBU would be limited. For ex. if wage revision percentage is 5% allotment for pension demands may be 1% or at most 2%. They have to sqeeuze all pensioners demands including Pension Updation.within this limit.  Agreements/Settlements done under these situation do not conform to judicial scrutiny  and reasonabile logical explanation. End result is to keep  certain section of  pensioners/retirees

out of the purview of these agreements.

As a result in SVRS retirees were denied 5 years benefit, 50% Basic Pension from date of retirement,  100% DA etc and Others CRS, VRS categories denied second Pension Optionthough it is provided in Second Pension Agreement.

There is no point in blaming UFBU here because bank employees are not vote banks and govt will not budge under present fully automated Banking scenario.

APPROACHING COURTS

Every issue will get time barred in courts if pensioners wait endlessly for UFBU set right things by negotiations. Even though courts take time atleast one day we may find justice as we already witnessing, if courts are approached in right time.

The question is whether approaching courts have yielded any positive results? The answer is YES.

See the benefit of approaching courts

Many banks have extended 5 years benefit with exception of few banks.

High courts of KHC and MHC have delivered judgments directing banks to pay 50% Basic Pension from Date of retirement and 5 years benefit to remaining Banks.

Andhra High Court has given verdict that CRS category also are eligible for Second Pension Option.

Resigness also have got an opprtunity to get Pension and lead decent life.

Full gratuity has been awarded to 6th BPS retirees.

In 100% DA there was initial victory for pensioners. Final verdict is awaited.

Please note almost 8 -14 years lapsed since cause of injustice in these cases.

It is foegone conclusion that injustice is done in these cases because courts already has given verdicts favourable to pensioners.

Even now UFBU talks about negotiations. If pensioners were to wait for this long time for UFBU to take up issues with IBA all these issues would have been time barred in courts.

One must understand that cases are filed praying for justice and it is not gainst UFBU. What cannot be achieved through negotiations has to be settled through courts.

Except one case no WP filed so far in respect of PENSION UPDATION.

Issue  is wide open for UFBU to clinch through negotiations,

[cpvnair]

The observations made by two veterans provide very  informative tips for the ordinary bank retirees like me, in the academic interest.Thank you Prasadji and Somasekharaji.Please go ahead with the discussions for the common benefit.Such inteferences make our gathering very lively ,active and effective.

 

 

warm reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

 

PS: Today in Kochi,members of ABROA/AIBPARC joined a sit-in-demonstration organised by UFBU, in front of Andhra Bank, MG Road.

 

From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bankpe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of JSOMA SHEKARA
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:00 PM
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

 

SriC.N. Prasad

[rajkumarnegi]

Sir, I have gone through the ideas expressed by our learned
comrades.on the issue of contract or agreement. I only know that the
pensioners should be given the pension at Par with others . There
should not be any discussion on the retirement date. Central
govt/state govt pensioners are getting the pension at Par without
respect for date of retirement..The govt has given us the budget and
has imposed taxes ,if we start disobeying the govt and stop paying
taxes, then the struggle will start between the Govt and the
pensioners and the Political parties will come forward and will
intervene to get the support ant vote.So, my humble request to the
Govt to reconsider the pensioners demand and make arrangements to pay
the pension at Par with others Specially the 7th Bipartite retirees of
State Bank OF India. I am also trying to contact the Aam Admi party to
take up this issue on priority basis .and do the justice with the bank
pensioners.

Rajkumarnegi

>> Whom do we ask for remedy for the discrimination*. *UFBU cannot negotiate

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Somashekara,

At the outset I would like to clarify my position with regard to DA 100% nutralisation.  I am not opposed to extension of the same.  But I am of the opinion that no section of retirees should pursue the demand which benefits only a section of retirees.  Retirees should pursue only 'Updation' of pension.  Any demand for extension of 100% DA nutralisation, i fear, may be at the cost of 'Updation'.  Updation covers every retiree and family pensioner.  100% DA nutralisation covers only pensioners who are drawing higher pension only, but not those who are drawing Rs.3,000/- or Rs.4,000/- pension.  Legally speaking, I would like to submit the following :

a. In five year case, it is a contract between individuals and the Management and Union/Associations are not involved.  It is established law that the pension has to be paid in terms of Regulations as exist on the date of retirement.  In Associate Banks, our stand is implementation of terms of contract, i.e payment of pension as available on the date of retirement as stipulated in the contract ;

b. 50% Case is also on the same principles of payment of pension based on regulations as on the date of retirement.  Para 16 of 7th BPS clearly stipulates that amendment of Pension Regulations is a condition precedent to alter the method of calculation of Basic Pension.  Till Banks amend Pension Regulations, Para 16 is non-implementable.  This is the reason for the success, not on account of any infirmity. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[cpvnair]

Dear Prasadji,

 

Let us concur on the point that we shall pursue updation issue organisationally.The DA Neutr issue is under judicial scrutiny.Let us wait for the outcome.All  the retirees-irrespective of the date of retirement-benefit out of updation.DA issue pertains to pre 2002 retirees like you and me.Let us hope,the SC would give  a verdict in our favour in course of time.(Perhaps after 2015-the probable year of Xth BPS)

 

But my doubt is, in the given scenario when UFBU intends to put up a tough fight against IBA(on its pittance offer of 5% increase) would the retirees' issues  get diluted?The leaders of UFBU talk loudly that this time there would not be any settlement without pension updation.But we know that each settlement is reached after some compromises(on both sides).This is the basis of my doubt.

 

Hope you would throw more light on it.This is in no way to under estimate the good intentions of OUR UFBU.Afterall, it is our baby, now grown to the royal status of our saviour.

 

 

warm reg

 

CPVNAIR

 

 

From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bankpe...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Prasad C N
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 4:59 PM
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP – INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT’13.

 

Dear Mr.Somashekara,

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Sri C.N Prasad sir, 
I happy to note that you have  taken my views sportively and giving clarrification.

I feel any injustice even if it affects one or two persons if we suffer silently it will be like putting seal of approval to such partisan acts.IBA will be encouraged to practise more such discriminatory practices.
'But I am of the opinion that no section of retirees should pursue the demand which benefits only a section of retirees.' 

Your above suggestion wiuld apply if IBA had not introduced 100% DA at all and if Pre-2002 retirees were fighting for this benefit for themselves.

Here we are fighting for benefit which has already been extended to others.

Here we are not demanding this benefit for a section of people at the cost of others but for remaining section of retirees i.e left tovers like CRS in Second Pension Agreement.

One CRS retiree fights in ANDHRA HIGH COURT for second Pension Option,

If he succeeds hundreds like him will be automatically benefitted.

Here he is not fighting for himself but for whole CRS category.

Present scenario is this:
While advocating Pension Updation we are assumong that it will 100% happen.

If we see things in more realistic perspective following points emerge.

IBA is offering only 5% for serving employees a pathetic situation in this BPS.

While it so chances of Pension Updation is 5-10%. Both IBA and UFBU are non commital and nobody is talking about Pension Updation any where in talks so far. Even before Pensioners Issues are taken up we have already witnessed one day strike. It is evident that more stikes has to follow before IBA relents to some  respectful if not reasonable wage percentage increase  for serving empoyees.

After having exhausted last resort weapon i.e strike who will be interested in fighting for Pension Updation which definitely IBA will oppose with force and ferrocity.

No where UFBU guranteed that if Pension Updation does not happen atleast we will achieve 100% DA for all.

So if Pension Updation does not happen pre-2002 retirees will loose both 100% DA as well as Updation.

The way things are going I am not optimistic about Updation.

We must remeber that In case of RBI Pension Updation Demand even though there is no funds scarcity and  both RBI Management and Governor recommending it Govt is not relenting.

In our case Both Banks and IBA are not favouring it and even without Pension Updation claiming that Pension Cost is high.

In this situation if UFBU suceeds in getting us Pension Updation it will be a historic event in the annals of UFBU struggle.

[L S RAMAN]

The increase in pension with increase in basic pay at the time of retirement is not an issue, and does notamount to discrimination.But increasing the pension to one class of pensioners in the name of revision with out providing the benefit to large section of pre 2002 retirees is a clear case of discrimination.If IBA offers to increase the salary on for post 10th bipartite employees leaving the existing section of employees will it be acceptable to the UFBU?.

Raman. L.S.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Somashekara,

You have agreed that we also want the benefit which is extended to others.  

I am also saying we should get what is extended to others.  

When pension of a person who retired after 31.8.2008 is far more than some one who retired on 31.10.2007.  Is it not a discrimination and loss ?  

Those who retired after 24.5.2010 got Gratuity of Rs.10.00 lacs, but some one who retired on 23.5.2010 got only Rs.3.50 lacs.  Is it not a discrimination and loss ?

Earlier Banks had only one or two GMs.  Therefore, many of you were deprived of promotion.  Now minimum number of GS is 12.  Promotion oppurtunities are more.  Shall we say this is also discriminatory ?

Like this you can list hundreds of discrimination.  Can we say we should also get all these benefits, because this is extended to serving employees ?

Since Updation covers payment of DA with 100% nutralisation, we should forget about every thing else.  We should only focus on 'Updation', nothing else.  We accuse every body else that they are only bothered about themselves, but not others.  We also say that Unions and Associations are bothered about only their members.  But, when it comes to 100% DA nutralisation, we are not bothered about less fortunate pensioners and we want this benefit to ourself.  Why this dichotomy ?

   

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I agree very much with you Mr.Prasad. Let us hope Pension Updation is achieved in this X BPS.

Let us support agitational programmes of  UFBU in this regard.

Please share with us any developments on this issue.

[bhaskara sarma]

Pension updation was a demand in 9 th bipartite also.But what happened?I am afraid Pension updation also may as elusive as third retirement benefit canvassed longback with all fanfare.A bird in a hand is better than two in the bush.First we want parity with other section of pensioners and then if possible let them consider Updation for all.We are not against updation but the discrimination should be removed once for all and that too with retrospective effect.If IBA and UFBU want to consider updation for all the pensioners we welcome that after restoring 100 percent DA neutralisation to all.

With Regards to Everybody,

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Prasad C N,

Is it not the responsibility of UFBU to ensure proper implementation of agreements signed?What is the use of agreements signed which are not properly implemented?

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

--

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.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Raman,

I am surprised with your logic.  Every Bipartite Settlement revises Basic Pay and consequently Dearness Allowance.  Mr. Raman, please understand there is increase in Basic Pay consequently Basic Pension.  Whether increase is on account of Basic Pay or Dearness Allowance, there is difference.  In fact, increase in Basic Pay is on account of addition of Dearness Allowance to Basic Pay.  

But, you have not answered one question.  Whether we are right in pursuing only 100% DA nutralisation not Updation.  We want only one section wants the revision, but not too bothered about who are receiving pension, which in some case insufficient to sustain.

Please think about others, without sacrificing benefits.  I REPEAT, UPDATION COVERS 100% DA NUTRALISATION.  

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[mohan p]

Dear Mr.Bhaskara Sarma,

                                                  Since the issue is before the Hon.court let us wait for the verdict. 

                                                 Meantime, let us also understand that if uniform DA formula is implemented at par with serving employees all the issues relating to  DA to pensioners will be solved.

                                                   Once uniform DA neutralization  is to be implemented certainly revision of Basic  Pension is inevitable.Thus Updation of pension will solve  all our problems relating to DA / Pension.

                                                Considering the above reality Retirees Organisations as well as serving Employees unions have  placed the above demands though the Charter of Demands submitted to IBA  on 3Oth Oct 2012. 

                                               Pension Updation ,Uniform DA neutralisation & Improvement in family pension are  beneficial to all retirees/families irrespective of date of retirement.(including pre 2002 retirees)

                       The data furnished here under will show the difference on account of not extending the benefit of 100% DA neutralisation to pre 2002 retirees as well as the benefit of pension updation one it is implemented.

	1-11-1997 to  31-10-2002	1-11-2002  to  31-10-2007	1-11-2002  to  31-10-2007
B.Pension	6950	10240	14450
DA	12083.8	13455.36	12853.28
Total	19033.8	23695.36	27303.28
Commute	2316	3413	4816
Net.Pens	16718	20282	22487
If 100%DA	14695.08
extended

                            As seen in the above chart there is a shortfall of Rs.2612 to pre 2002 retirees(under given B.Pension)on not extending the benefit of 100% DA neutralization.

               At the same time it can also be seen that there is difference of Rs.2205 between 8th and 9th BPS period on account of date of retirement.

             Once updation of pension takes place as and when wage revision takes place, as we demanded,  the increase in monthly pension(in given Basic Pension) will be more than Rs.5600.

               Let us look forward positively on resolving our major issues through ongoing talks.

 

 

--

[rajasekar venkatesan]

Hi All

 

I find that some of the "Subject Description"  in the mail is not current and the contents of mail do not match with the subject mentioned.

 

Appreciate, if we could change the subject to current topic and circulate. This will help to understand and select the mails easily.

 

Thanks for the understanding

 

Regards

 

Rajasekar Venkatesan

CB-VRS-2000

[M A Prasad]

Dear Sri C N Prasad, persons who are demanding 100 % Neutralisation are not against another section of pensioners who are demanding updation - in fact they will also welcome updationl  But the issue as I see is first the anamoly needs to be corrected - updation is a policy issue which can be fought.  Linking these two issues apparently is not correct.

[bhaskara sarma]

Earlier IBA and UFBU,has also considered and settled Subjudice matters.Second option for pension is one such example.Just because some chosen people were interested they settled Secondoption Eventhough it is a subjudice matter involving a very high cost.In view of that the matter of "Sub Judice" need not be a hurdle for settling the matter at the earliest.

P B Sarma.

[Perumal Velayudhan]

Dear Mr. C N  Prasad,

I too agree with your view. Therre will be many instances of earlier omissions to achieve benefits. Let us look forward and be practical in analysing what can be done today to get maximum benefits both to serving employees and pensioners. We have to keep in mind that the managements are not ready to give anything inspite of court orders. The famous Supreme court judgement gave all a very good clarification on pension, why pensioners are not tobe discriminated on the basis of their date of retirement etc. Inspite, even the lower courts give adverse verdict, even if favourable verdict is given, management is not im plementing.Hence, instead of wasting our time , on what we did not do earler, let us unite to achieve what we want.

v.m.perumal

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sharmaji,

I repeat.  We accuse others being selfish and did not take care of us.  But, when it comes to 100% DA nutralisation, we do not think beyond that.  

We are old enough to have sympathies with those bank pensioners who are struggling to make both ends meet.  We shall exhibit our maturity and demonstrate that we have knowledge & understanding to demand benefits to all.  Which includes you and me.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Prasad,

Except a few of us, none including court would consider non-extension of DA nutralisation to those who retired subsequently is an anomaly.   I do have some Supreme Court judgments which have covered none extension of such benefits to those who retired prior to cut off dates.

Therefore, treating such non-extension as 'anomaly' is impermissible.  

Single Judge Bench Judgment & Division Bench Judgments of Madras High Court confirm the same view.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[bhaskara sarma]

Earlier nobody challenged the bipartite settlements.The trouble started with denial of 5 year service to SVRS pensioners and then denial of 100 percent DA neutralisation.Then itself 41 percent of Basic Pay was fixed as pension instead of 50 percent of Basic pay.Thus there is unwritten link between distortions and SVRS.SVRS retirees are cheated by simply believing and opting for SVRS.Why earlier bipartite settlements were not challenged?.It is for the members to infer about the origin of distortions and wait for the end of distortions as well.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

On Sunday, December 22, 2013, bhaskara sarma wrote:

Dear Prasad C N,

Let us agree to disagree on this and await Supreme Court Judgement.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[giris...@yahoo.co.in]

There is no denying the fact that both the issues of DA and updation shall benefits all across. Even working employees shall be benefit ted with updation. But in all types of negotiations keeping two different issues seperate always helps. Moreover da naturalizations is a minor issue and chances of it settling prior to updation are very bright provided both are taken seriously and simultaneously.
Girish K Dora

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

---

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>

Sender: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 01:14:47 +0800 (SGT)

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

ReplyTo: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: bankpensioner DA FOR BANK PENSIONERS MAY GO UP - INCREASE IN CPI (IW) FOR OCT'13.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank you Mr. C.N.Prasad for your clarifications.

There are two most important questions regarding 100% DA neutralisation.

1. Whether leaving out persons retired before 31.10.2002  is legal and whether is it anomaly?

You have excellently explained that it is not illegal and it is not anomaly.

Let us close this aspect.

2. There is another real and bigger issue and little bit surrounded by secrecy.which we should have been discussing rather than first one.

   Why Persons retired before 31.10.2002 has to be left out from the benefit?

Since UFBU is sole representative authority to negotiate on behalf of pensioners UFBU has moral obligation to ensure the interests of all pensioners.

So there must be some compelling reasons for IBA and UFBU to leave out persons retired before 31.10.2002,

What is this reaosn?

Most Important reason may be given is cost factor.

Advocate of Banks while arguing appeal in MHC cited cost factor.

Is it true.?

There were three groups that were under consideration for 100% DA.

1. Serving Employees(Including workmen and Officers)

2, Persons retired after 01.11.2002.

3. Persons retired before 31.10.2002. 

We are all aware that cost of this group 1 is very high.

For persons retired after 01.11.2002 basic Pension starts from 10000 onwards.

Naturally cost of 100% DA is more.

3. In third group as we are all aware most of the pensioners  are  having basic Pension below 5000 and they do not benefit from 100% DA.

Pensioners having basic Pension more than Rs.5000 is not much,

So 100% DA cost is least in respect of pensioners retired before 31.10.2002.

So definitely cost is not the reason for leaving out Pensioners retired before 31.10.2002 .

1. What is the other secret reason ?

Mr. Prasad can you please clarify this for the information of members?

                                                                                                                                                                 

[bhaskara sarma]

Dear Prasad C N,

Let us agree to disagree on this and await Supreme Court Judgement.

With Regards,

P B Sarma.

[bhaskara sarma]

The other secret reason must be majority of them are From SVRS group who innocently believed the management and opted for pension against the advice of unions.

P B Sarma.