MC Singla case update

[krishna mohan nidumolu]

In complex pension litigation in the M.C. Singla case, the court isn't just looking for the "legal truth"—it's looking for the mathematical impact.

​Here is why the Bench (Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta) specifically requested those comparative charts:-

​1. Establishing "Financial Hostility"

​The core of many bank pension disputes is discrimination between retirees of the same rank based solely on their date of retirement (often called "vince-period" discrimination). By asking for a chart, the court wants to see the "gap."

• ​If a Manager who retired in 1986 earns significantly less than a Manager who retired in 2004 (or an RBI equivalent), the chart makes that disparity visually undeniable.

​2. The "RBI Parity" Benchmark

​The mention of RBI pension scales is crucial. Bank employees have long argued that their pension regulations are based on the Reserve Bank of India’s structure.

• ​The court wants to see if the commercial banks have "strayed" from the RBI model.

• ​The chart serves as a litmus test: if RBI has updated pensions for those three specific windows and the commercial banks haven't, it strengthens the case for "Equal Pay for Equal Work" (or in this case, Equal Pension for Equal Service).

​3. Calculating the "Quantum of Liability"

​Judges are often wary of passing an order that might "bankrupt the system" without knowing the numbers first.

• ​The chart helps the court understand the fiscal burden on the banks.

• ​Before the court confirms that "Banks are liable to pay as per Regulations," they want to know exactly what that "as per" looks like in Rupees and Paise.

​4. Simplifying Decades of Wage Settlements

​Bank pensions are governed by Bipartite Settlements (BPS) that happen every few years.

• ​Window 1 (1986–1987): Pre-liberalization era scales.

• ​Window 2 (1987–2003): The transition into modern banking and the 1995 Pension Regulations.

• ​Window 3 (2003–Present): Post-merger and New Pension Scheme eras.

​The court needs to see how the Basic Pension + Dearness Relief formulas changed across these three specific milestones to identify where the "link" was broken.

​Summary of the Court's Intent

​By stating in open court that " *Banks are liable to pay pension as per the Regulations* ," the judges have signaled a favorable lean toward the pensioners. The chart is effectively the "Final Exam" for the Banks; they are being asked to prove they are following their own rules, or show cause why they shouldn't match the RBI standard.

The next hearing on 18.02.2026 will hinge on whether those numbers reveal a 'shocking' disparity. 👍.

​......

This line of arguments highlighting the disparity has earned primary attention of the Bench(fortunately even without touching Regulatary provisions). The disparity is visible strongly in case of windows 1 and 2 retirees.

Raising hope for convincing the Hon'ble Judges on the Benches(Also being Pensioners with periodical updation). 

Let us pray for Divine Intervention 

🙏🙏🙏🙏With Best Wishes from

ABREA VIJAYAWADA UNIT

[Sanjay J]

Very good update. 

Well explained. Crystal clear clarity,

--
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/CAJyqt%3DVnifjUWyusR3cMoqmiA71tXU7QELHVM0E%3DAgE9Up0tZQ%40mail.gmail.com.