Recent Karnataka HC judgement and updation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

If we may say so IBA/DFS duo have done too much of dabbling with DR, right from inception of pension scheme. 

Pensioners were treated as aliens. 

DA for employees and DR for pensioners were never kept at tandem. Tapered DR, no full hearted neutralisation, no DA merger going with BP etc. 

It was all done with a miscalculated move to conserve fund  out flow from pension fund. 

This mis adventure  is having tell tale effect evidenced by recent karnataka HC judgement on DR. 

The govt is in a catche 22 position. 

They are now in a position having to take a post haste decision on updation. Updation would ensure uniform DA rate which gets over imbroglio created by HC judgement.

It is unfortunate that many among us are on mistaken notion that HC judgement would bring a fortune. 

The judgement if at all materialises would benefit only a small segment of pensioners. 

SBM commune is duty bound to explain to all those pensioners who have  such mistaken idea

CV Narayanan

 

[Ramani Konnayar]

Sir,

I concur with your views. However, I feel that to avert the very huge financial implications (including arrears)that will keep increasing at galloping speed at every 6 months when DR revision happens and the bizarre spectacle of employees receiving much more pensions than their salaries immediately on retirement, the bank will definitely file an appeal and so the game is far from over.

It will be a good thing to happen, if IBA/DFS grant updation in the near future to obviate such implications as mentioned above.

K N RAMANI 

--
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%3Da91rkDELAadcfR5OJewhXiXu2_fHshF4dtKqf1fw89mbg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Can anybody trust UFBU which accepts the sub judice theory  for updation discussions and closes the matter in BPS meetings? But even though PIL case is pending in Delhi High Court, it demands resolution by the IBA, and the issue is being discussed daily.

Courts are also mismanaging cases,

So I think only BMS through dialogue with DFS can resolve the updation issue.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Narayanan.
Pl clarify in what way the 37 DA releif case judgement by karnataka high court is relevant to pension updation?
U have also presumed that the Pensioners are under mistaken idea that they get fortune due to the implimentation of the Karnataka High court verdict.
You have also expressed that SBM pensioners commune is dutybound to bound to explain to all those who have such mistaken idea.
You have been advised by the general secretary of SBM pensioners commune to desist from making comments.without Knowing the basics pension regulations of bank pensioners.
The SBM pensioners commune on it's own is engaged to share the best information about the legal constitutional rights of the Pensioners by conducting vertual webinar on various topics.
If you have any specific questions and doubts about the legal fights and the favourable verdicts which we secured to the Pensioners in general and to the members SBM pensioners commune members you can visit SBM pensioners commune office with prior appointment with our general secretary and get detailed information which you may need.
Our organization the SBM pensioners commune is well equipped with abundant knowledge and experience in legal rights gaurenteed under constitution and pension regulations.
With regards.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Fri, 11 Sept 2026 at 16:28, Narayanan Venkateshwaran

<seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Mr. Rao

There is nothing to go amiss about my post. 

No body can stop benefits if any accruing to pensioners sequel to recent karnataka court judgement. 

One gentleman has made a post saying all are going to get benefit including psb retirees  about Which he is going to come out with communication. There are one or two posts by other individuals exuding expectation in similar vein. 

SBM commune, everyone is aware is  doing the  yeoman service of clarifying members on various  intricate issues pertaining to regulation. 

In the same breath in order that their reputation earned over so many years is not sullied  I made the statement that they are duty bound to lead those individuals to correct perspective of things. 

If those words are to their dislike I withdraw them unconditionally. I leave the need for the clarification to the individuals to the wisdom of commune. 

My little understanding of regulation is that DR and updation are intertwined  and regulation 37 is fulcrum especially when updation is to happen first  time. 

Regarding High court ruling it is beyond my comprehension how there can be twin or overlapping benefit under same law. One untweaked da and other da merger during every bipartite. 

In Palani case judgement is unfortunate depravation of benefit

In sadasiva naiks case it is one of being party to UNSATIATED DESIRE.

No wonder law is called an Ass. 

Regards and happy Ganesh chaturthi to all

CV Narayanan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/408043355.133729.1789131243622%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Errata 

The word depravation in my note dt 12th inst should read as deprivation as change of one alphabet gives completely different meaning. Error regretted

C V narayanan