AIBPARC ON M C SINGLA CASE LISTING

[MOHAN P]

AIBPARC-"We are getting very anxious enquiries about the date appearing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 7th May 2026 that the Case is ordered to be listed on 22nd July 2026 as against the expected date of 13th May 2026. We are equally shocked, worried and disappointed with the development."

Pl see below the Cir.

***

Apex Court order dt 7th May 26 is crystal clear.Next date of listing is on 22nd July 2026 after partial court working days of 2026.

It is Advocate of ARISE MR Sewaram's message mentioned as  13th May'26.(Copy of MSG posted  here elsewhere)

It would be ideal for organisation not to create confusion among retirees and to be transparant in matters circulated!

***

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

Regarding the recent message from Mr. Sewa Ram that you shared with the group, I remember vaguely, he was merely expressing a hope for the dates 13/14, rather than providing a formal confirmation.

Thank you for keeping us updated on these developments.

Best regards,

Sanjay J

--
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/CAMCbyDRj%3DJWbm7h8nNDxpncmN2176iNxjMZxyqhJ3d4StpMDqA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud is the judge who famously quoted the dialogue from the movie . [1, 2]

On November 3, 2023, while presiding over a bench in the Supreme Court, he expressed frustration over the high number of adjournment requests by lawyers. He stated, "I don't want this court to become a 'tarikh-pe-tarikh' court," referencing Sunny Deol's iconic character, Govind, who rails against the court's adjournment culture in the film. [1, 2, 3, 4]

--

[MOHAN P]

Dear Mr Sanjay

Relevant  part of message  dt 7th May'26 of Adv Sewa Ram posted by me here under this forum earlier , is furnished here under for your ready reference:

"Our Dr. Manish Singhvi,Sr.Adv again requested the Hon'ble court for retaining the M C Singla case on board and Hon'ble Court has agreed and directed for listing of M C Singla case on next Wednesday 13.5.26"

Where as Apex Court order published  on the same date. ie:  7th May 2026 clearly stated that;

"UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

 O R D E R

List on 22.07.2026."

It was not ' merely expressing a hope for the dates' by 

Advocate.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BEbCThkDqbF9F6hnyx_eksdC%2B0HkDgubWZ2tGB6BZstQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

Friends,

Most of us would recall hearing one of the advocates mentioning [when the bench rose for the day on 7 May]

*301 --> *bank pensioners case* 

To which, one of the Judges responded 

*pensioners,  next week, 13th*

Has anyone got a record of the proceedings?

The Advocate-on-record, Sri P K Mitter, has filed a petition for urgency along with a letter listing reasons, as per Supreme Court procedure. He seeks a change from 27 July to a date this week, in May.

Hopefully this might be heard and a revised date given for this week. 

Hope is eternal in everyone. 

Anand 

Bangalore 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTXyt5UR3jESiTdwEwQwKAGNiQz9bUNgOABDDvY7M_APw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

A mention memo was filed for early hearing today

 But Hon judges stated that entire month 3 judges bench will sit for hearing.  So M C Singla case will be taken up only on 22.07.26 as listed

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTXyt5UR3jESiTdwEwQwKAGNiQz9bUNgOABDDvY7M_APw%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

"Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Friday urged lawyers not to seek adjournments in fresh matters, saying he does not want the Supreme Court to become a 'tarikh-pe-tarikh' court."

This is all about money, honey!  No use crying in the wilderness. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW120WrKLM03TnDigKLcsF6foj4St_2Kgd63KfMotkunfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri P. Mohanji,

While it is easy to find fault in hindsight, we must look at Adv. Sewa Ram's message of May 7 in its proper context: (There are two paragraphs/points, and you quoted only the first one).

In paragraph (1) of his update, (But immediately….) Adv. Sewa Ram provided a factual narrative of the courtroom atmosphere at that moment—including the Court’s verbal agreement to retain the matter for the following week.

In paragraph (2), he explicitly added a cautious disclaimer: "We hope that the final hearing....... will be known on Saturday evening." He clearly signalled that the dates of May 13/14 were a hope, not a finality, and that the official position would only be clear once the weekend cause list was out.

The word "hope" is not a confirmation. Shri Sewa Ram ji, as a seasoned Advocate on Record, was being appropriately cautious — he was sharing his expectation, not a court order.

Because we are all so desperate for a resolution, we clung to the narrative of paragraph 1 and overlooked the cautious uncertainty expressed in paragraph 2. 

The Circular confirms that the date of May 13 wasn't just a random guess by the Advocate; it was the legitimate expectation of everyone involved. When the Hon'ble Judges verbally agree to "retain" a matter, it is standard practice to expect a listing the following week.

To label this as "creating confusion" is unfair to a counsel who was simply trying to keep us informed of the minute-by-minute developments in a highly volatile hearing. Let us not let our frustration with the Court's calendar turn into an attack on those fighting our case.

Regards,
Sanjay J.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTXyt5UR3jESiTdwEwQwKAGNiQz9bUNgOABDDvY7M_APw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Mr Sanjay,

The Case is now pending  before Apex Court.Court has to decide on hearing and verdict.We do not have any role.Court has  ordered the listing  date as 22nd July 2026.All retirees can only hope.

Advocate has stated specifically as:

"Hon'ble Court has agreed and directed for listing of M C Singla case on next Wednesday 13.5.26"

Fact is that,the above MSG  created confusion among Retirees and AIBPARC circular itself  is on that aspect.I have mentioned  that aspect.

 Any way there is no point  in discussing further.

Hope for the best. 

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJGFV_rTvh8HXmGamBm_KdrCL0rMECtdbk5svRJy%3DZ3mA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Mohanji,

Agreed, there is no point in further discussions. Our shared goal remains the same—relief for all retirees.

My only intent was to point out that courtroom updates are like "running commentary" in a cricket match; they capture the action as it happens ball-by-ball. Advocate Sewa Ram faithfully reported the "live action" of the Bench’s verbal agreement. The written order, however, is the final scorecard issued by the Registry, which can sometimes differ due to administrative reasons.

Let’s indeed stay positive and hope for the best in July.

Regards,
Sanjay J.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQtngeQSZNzGhcja_ZbpOqXfv-HWuRj%3Di8ruqgbhm4HUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Sanjay ji 

I fully agree with what you have stated in the last paragraph of your letter. 

 It is not known why the case that was getting adjourned only by a week or two on the past occasions has now been pushed to a date in the 4th week of July 2026 i.e., after the summer vacation.

Perhaps, the Honourable Judges do not want to do it all in a hurry as it could go against the interest of the petitioners and this is why they have not accepted the "urgency petition" too.

Everything happens according to destiny and our case cannot be an exception.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJGFV_rTvh8HXmGamBm_KdrCL0rMECtdbk5svRJy%3DZ3mA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

From May 2026 SC has introduced various reforms to speed up the process of pending cases.

However  a few months back SC had stipulated that

1. No adjournments will be given in Regular cases unless there is an emergency.

2. SC restricted oral arguments time and mandated that advocates have to submit brief written submissions preferably not more than 5 pages.

In spite of these rules M C Singla case is getting adjourned and not heard though listed.

Despite restrictions on oral arguments,  due to lengthy arguments by advocates in other cases our M C Singla case is not being heard due to paucity of time.

Rules are not followed in letter and spirit.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ3Z5RirhKuRNjnLcuuxteQzatiiS%3D4%2BfGXuO_WMmyHkw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

What can't be cured must be endured.
Patience is the need of the hour.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ3Z5RirhKuRNjnLcuuxteQzatiiS%3D4%2BfGXuO_WMmyHkw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Padam Singh]

Shri Mohan sir , can you clear my confusion whether pqa and FPA allowances must be included for calculating basic pension in 7th bps to retired employees who retired under svrs.2001 from sbbj , now sbi. I opted for pension when pension scheme was implemented but my service was 18 years completed in 2001. I got pension and arrears from 1.4.2001 in 2016 as second pension option but my basic pension was calculated with basic pay 8980 and permanent e cat. Head cashier allowance 906. PQA AND FPA  allowances 421 and 121 respectively were not taken to calculate my basic pension .Please confirm , my basic pension is fixed 2697. Please confirm.

On Sat, 9 May, 2026, 1:36 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[MOHAN P]

Dear Mr Padam Singh,

From the figures provided by you the Basic Pension fixed to you,  is found as follows:

Average Basic Pay.       ₹8980

HC Allowance.                   906

Total                                ₹9886

50% of above.                  4943

Pro rata Basic Pension 

(₹4943*18/33).               ₹2697

To that extend arithmetically the above is correct.

As such  eligible portion of PQA and FPA  are not found included to your BP as you have mentioned.I do not know the same concur with your PPO issued by your bank.

It is to be  noted that there were/are differences in service /pension rules of associate banks /SBI comparing PSBs where eligible portion of above shall rank for superannuation benefits /VRS too.

Check it up with your bank if the exclusion is on the basis of any stipulations in service rules.

Regards

Mohan.P

As per SBI pension Regulations it is noted that FPA and PQP

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAA3NOtR_oukanpUwyKtpuSx2%3D5480s-DeQLRwhPneuC%2BtUaxWw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Reluctantly I am indulging.  As usual, we have seen many misguiding.  Perhaps, some have started creating grounds to blame.

In the open Court, Hon'ble Judge explained why case is posted to 22.07.2026, in a open Court.  Still, we find some raising objection.  Postponement is blessing in disguise.  So far, whenever our case is listed just before vacation, we avoid.  This is because, we may not get enough time to plead fully.  We may not be able to argue comprehensively.  

Bane of Bank Retirees.  They find virtue, in false narratives.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/889144624.510271.1778559480316%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Mohanji,

I have provided my contact details to Mr.Padam Singh.  I have requested him to contact me.  So far, I am not in receipt of any information.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQXQ%3DqBUQyiOt6eX_2s9inKYwHF4Y%2By2%3D7kFFboF5apyQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Prasadji,

I too have sent a message to Shri.Padam.Singh to get in touch with you for guidance on this matter.

Hope he may respond.

Thanks & Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1203762790.842802.1778662788127%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Padam Singh]

Shri Prasad sir , very sorry to inform you that I have not yet received any of your message.I request you to please send your contact number, if possible, I will contact you, or please send message . I received reply message from Shri Mohan sir with details. I am waiting for your kind response.

On Wed, 13 May, 2026, 4:26 pm 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1203762790.842802.1778662788127%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasadji,

I refer to your "reluctant" message and your familiar choice of phrases like "misguiding" and "false narratives."

I am doubly reluctant to engage in this, especially since the discussion between Mr. Mohan and myself was already mutually closed. However, if your email was directed at my response, let me clarify the facts with a simple timeline:

On May 7th, the Hon’ble Judges verbally agreed in open court to list our matter on May 13th, which Advocate Sewa Ram faithfully reported. Later that night, the Registry uploaded the written order pushing the date to July 22^nd.

The definitive proof that the May 13th date was a real verbal directive—and not a "false narrative"—is what happened on May 11th. On that day, Senior Advocate Dr. Manish Singhvi went back to the Bench with a specific request to restore the May 13th date. The Hon’ble Judge then clarified that since no two-judge bench would sit during the vacation, the July date must stand.

The legal team went to court on May 11th precisely because the written order contradicted the verbal assurance of May 7th. To label a real-time report of a Judge's verbal direction as "misguiding" is a complete distortion of how court proceedings work.

The true bane of Bank Retirees, Shri Prasadji, is not the 'false narratives' you so readily label ordinary pensioners' perspectives with. Rather, it is the chronic inter-union rivalry that plagues pensioners' cause. More often than not, this friction results in factions mutually thwarting each other's attempts to secure benefits, turning what should be a collective victory for pensioners into a battle for individual laurels.

Since the matter is now settled until July, there is absolutely no need to manufacture arguments where none exist. Let us stick to the facts and focus our energy on the upcoming hearing.

Best Regards,

Sanjay J.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1232227739.845506.1778663349362%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

It is very bad for any association or any unions to have inter union rivalry.
It will help the management and the government to ignore the reasonable demands of the employees.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 10:26, Sanjay J

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLgC1RT8DRLEsyd%3D0_ToL-o74sEGtEE5OdUgvb-g-LQUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Sanjay ji.

I fully endorse your views. Almost all the trade unions including those in the banking industry are affiliated to one political party or the other and this could be the cause for the inter union rivalries referred to by you 

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLgC1RT8DRLEsyd%3D0_ToL-o74sEGtEE5OdUgvb-g-LQUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

Please read the mail again. I never referred to you or your email. 

There is no ordinary or extraordinary  amongst us.

Whether attributing motives for not listing our case before  commencement of vacation is a true narrative or false narrative, when Hon'ble Judge himself explained why it is not possible?

Is it correct to find fault  with a mail expressing positivity connected with posting the case to 22.07.2026, based on personal experience?

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N 

On Thu, 14 May 2026 at 10:26, Sanjay J

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLgC1RT8DRLEsyd%3D0_ToL-o74sEGtEE5OdUgvb-g-LQUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

In general the procedure is if Hon.judges make a note in the file that the case should be listed on a particular date it will be abided by the registry.

if judge's order that case be listed after 2 weeks, 4 weeks etc it is left to the discretion of the registry to list the case according to the administrative convenience. It is also possible that influential and senior advocates may convince the registry to list the case according to their convenience.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/759966086.1139948.1778768376051%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Rao,

Request you to kindly explain inter union rivalry, which you are referring to

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1698652450.1014117.1778737573397%40mail.yahoo.com.