[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

Sanjay Sir,  I am impressed the way in which have presented the issues.   However, I had few points and the same has been raised through various emails.  But none of them have been clarified by you so far.  I am sure, you will take time out to clarify the points raised by me in various emails.

For ready reference,  I am repeating the recent email.

1.  You have not disclosed your identity - inspite of repeated requests/reminders.  This is not desirable from your side sir.

2.   Since I am from Canara Bank,  and having followed up the case at Karnataka High Court - I have already emailed the portion of the judgement to read.

3. I am repeating the email which was sent 3 - 4 days back in the group

The High Court judgment says as.  

"

The Regulation or the Appendix which restricts updation of pension only to

employees retired between 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987 is not called in question.  Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any right whatsoever in law to even direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations,".

This is a fact and CBROA was not able to furnish even a single pensioner who retired during this period - who has not been updated as per Appendix 1.  The judgement clearly demonstrates the applicability of the Regulation 35(1) in clear terms especially with regard to retirees - who are retired during 1986-87.  The matters ends there.

HOPE THERE IS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION IS NEEDED .  

Further, please read the Settlement - there is statement with regard to transfer of the PF amount to PEnsion Fund and it does not cover the future contributions to PF .  

The payment of PF is governed by PF Regulations and not by Pension Regulations - hope there is no dispute in it.  PF regulations and Pension regulations are independent of each other.

WITH REGARDS

NIRANJAN

Ex Canara

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Basically we respect the right of the petitioner AIBPARC to contest HC verdict in SC as it is a constitutional right. "The High Court has already discussed Reg35/1 in detail" is just  an individual opinion. Every High court verdict is open for contest.

IBA is using this constitutional right whenever it loses a case in the High court.

In the 5 year benefit and 1616-1684 case Karnataka High court passed verdict in favour of pensioners and also imposed Rs.10000 fine on SBM. Still IBA contested this verdict in SC. IBA also contested the 100% DA verdict of Kolkata HC and second pension option verdict of Andhra High court. So why target AIBPARC only for contesting MC singla  verdict of HC?

--
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/CAAX%2BdWECNeHGYrMYJ5w5sNBQSain4J8opjLWs-yUHedhS%2BPAkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Anybody can target any individual or any sister organisatioon.

If anyone is targeting is unfair and totally wrong.

Our target should be IBA and DFS combine who perpetually forced orbitarly denying pension updation on false affidavit suppressing the principles natural justice and by volilating the constitutional rights of Pensioners under article 14 and16 and 21.

Nobody can step into the shoes of the Supreme court judges and draw conclusions targeting the deep understanding of the regulation 35/1 Apendix1 with narrow and parochial interpretation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2bGC5BbR485UcyvTE5V-FTWYDqju-kAfu3-G7zRFLJQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sanjay Sir,

I look forward for the informative and thought provoking email - explaining the various issues in earlier email.

I am sure , Sanjay sir will not disappoint,

Niranjan

ExCanara

On Tue, Jun 9, 2026 at 4:18 PM Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Niranjan Cn]

Somashekar Sir,

Fighting the Singlas case is most welcome as it may help pensioners.  Concern is only with regard to the issues which are highlighted - without full assessment is the problem - eg. Funds, 35(1).

High Court has already discussed 35(1) is not an opinion - but it is a fact.  Any of our friends - can explain which part of 35(1) is not implemented and further - if so - how to implement ?

Singlas case - is deviating from the original issues raised and grounds (which are are not strong) are brought to forefront by AIBPARC.  THIS IS THE ISSUE.

Anyone files case against Banks/IBA/DFS - we start giving warrior tag - without understanding merits of the case.  Some of the friends were suggesting to file one case against IBA/Banks - to become hero till the case is decided.  

Sir, please read Singlas pleadings and can anyone substantiate 35(1) relevance and also Pension Funds (as argued in Supreme Court ?

Pensioners should not lose the case - the grounds will be quoted everyever which will will adversely affect us.  A good understanding/from legal prospective is very much required for filing the case.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2bGC5BbR485UcyvTE5V-FTWYDqju-kAfu3-G7zRFLJQQ%40mail.gmail.com.