Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 16 updates in 6 topics

85 views
Skip to first unread message

vaidya nathan

unread,
Feb 26, 2026, 11:20:00 PM (5 days ago) Feb 26
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Updation Debacle
Sri Kalyana Sundaram ..
I accept your comments and suggestions due to new additions and turn of events.  Whether RBI and NABARD got their updation validated through  Supreme Court. It is by the Unity of Both Working and Retirees. And Magnanimity of Management.  In our case, everything is Not in Fine Tune. I am Only expressing the  system of justice in India, depending on individual's mood and mind.  Will be Glad to get an Extra pension which Certainly  be of great help . 


On Thu, Feb 26, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 01:59PM +0530

If one had watched carefully the argument about presence or other wise of
updation clause in pension regulation, it was all somewhat subdued. The
learned judges are sure to have understood it by now as a no
issue given it's absence in similar such pension schemes viz :in RBI whose
pensioners are beneficiaries thrice so far.
 
The learned judges would not also have lost sight of comments of IBA about
clamour for similar benefitt by PSU bank pensioners citing RBI pensioners
Their indirect commitment to updation was discernible when Adhoc Allowance
was permitted.
They are probably waiting for pronouncement of verdfict in Singla case
Which cannot go against the interest of pensioners, given the circumstances.
 
Funds Adequacy is not to be a raging issue. Both sides are supposed to be
armed with chart prepared after Acturial Exercise covering same period. It
will give tell tale evidence. It will show where we stand and also does
not absolve banks of their obligation.
It is stressed that management are in Obligation considering the tight
leash in which banks were/are kept with administration and policy matters
and employees are not to be blamed for the ills
 
Banks are arned with umpteen methods to equip themselves with funds, with
permissible accounting methods. May be like Revenue Expenditure
capitalisation/Direct loan from GOI'etc. For the said purpose those banks
who need assistance have to be identified. But PAYABLE IF ABLE would not
behove well for govt.
Major chunk of beneficiary would be surviving lot of 2001 retirees who are
Septugenarians. and barring a handful many of them would not see another
dose of settlement. Futuristically updation will not be biting proposition
fir banks
Presently, when similarly placed pensioners in other walks of life are
jumping with joy with their pension pay packet let not bank pensioners
continue to sulk with sadness
Best of Luck for self and all others
C V Narayanan
hindurao khade <hindurao...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 11:22PM +0530

You are right sir. 🙏
 
On Wed, 25 Feb, 2026, 9:46 am Vvns Varaprasadrao, <varapra...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 12:32PM -0500

The case is partially heard and further hearing scheduled on 12 th march
It appears that the bench is holding a strong positive opinion that
pension updating is necessary.
 
 
Let us wait and see what happens
No conclusion can be made unless final verdict comes in. Even if the
final hearing is over by 12 thMarch as expected , verdict may come before
summer vacation of the SC .
 
 
On Tue, 24 Feb, 2026, 05:30 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner, <
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 11:28AM +0530

Still both pensioners and IBA/
Bank team have 13 days for rehearsal and place fresh arguments before
court. It is reported in a Whatsapp message that SBM pensioners assn also
assisted pensioners groups in preparing charts.
IBA also may plan new attack in consultation with UFBU leaders.
Whatever be the oral observations of the court there is no guarantee that
final verdict will be on the same lines.
 
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026, 09:25 hindurao khade, <hindurao...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu <sund...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 09:46AM +0530

basically regulation1995 is based on ccs72. incase ofany doubt
orambiguityreferenceto be made to ccs72. IBA letterto late
godboleconfirms that regulation is on the basis of ccs 72. as
sc already made it clear pension is deferred wage,
financial aspect is left to employer. see nakara judgement.
 
On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 9:47 AM 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <1952...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 02:51AM -0800

Roll on refers to some other case.
 
S Kalyanasundaram
 
On Wednesday, February 25, 2026 at 4:10:22 PM UTC+5:30 Sanjay J wrote:
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 08:15PM +0530

AI's update:
 
In the hearing for the Late M C Singla vs. Union of India case (CA
7993/2023) held today, February 25, 2026, the matter remained part-heard
and was adjourned to March 12, 2026.
 
 
Key outcomes from today's session in the Supreme Court of India (Court No.
2) included:
 
Evidence Submission: Pension calculation charts submitted by the
petitioners and the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) were taken on record.
 
Arguments: The petitioners' counsel highlighted that basic pensions have
remained stagnant for years, while the IBA's documents were scrutinized
regarding the financial impact of potential updations.
PNB Adjournment Request: The counsel for Punjab National Bank (PNB)
requested more time to study the newly submitted material and argue their
side, which the court granted.
 
Judicial Observation: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta reportedly
observed that banks are liable to pay pensions as per the Bank Employees
Pension Regulations, 1995.
 
 
On Wed, 25 Feb, 2026, 4:10 pm yogendra singhal, <singha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 04:42PM +0530

The judge seems to have acknowledged the fact that pension need
improvement. Judge repeatedly asking Bank advocates 'what are you paying
other than DA".
So far 2 favourite slogans of IBA Absence of updation in pension
regulations and huge cost is not the subject matter of discussion before
court.
Bank advocate has got opportunity to present his case on 11thMarch. Then he
may bring up these arguments and will try to convince judges.
 
 
 
 
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, 16:10 Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam, <1952...@gmail.com>
wrote:
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 08:28PM +0530

In AIBRAF facebook group, video of today's proceedings is available.
 
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 09:34AM +0530

Thank you Shri Kalyanasundaram ji.
 
On Thu, 26 Feb, 2026, 9:25 am Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam, <
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 21 01:42AM +0530

AI's update:
 
*February 25, 2026 Hearing Highlights *
 
- *Part-Heard Status:* The case has officially reached the stage of
final arguments and is now designated as *"Part-Heard"*. This means the
court has begun a deep dive into the merits and will continue from this
point in the next session.
- *Judicial Observation:* During the proceedings, the Bench (Justices
Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) reportedly observed in open court
that *"Banks
are liable to pay the pension as per the pension Regulations"*. This
signals a potentially favourable lean toward the petitioners' legal rights.
- *Next Hearing:* The matter has been fixed for the next hearing on *March
12, 2026*.
 
*Documents Filed and Under Review*
 
The court is currently scrutinising specific data to cut through the IBA’s
claims of "financial burden":
 
- *Pension Entitlement Charts:* Following previous court directions, the
petitioners have filed detailed charts showing pension entitlements across
three critical eras: *Pre-1987*, *1987–2003*, and *Post-2003*.
- *PNB's Submission:* Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed its own pension
paid charts, though retirees' advocates pointed out that these charts
showed basic pensions remained unchanged, only including "Ex Gratia"
payments added in 2022.
- *IBA's Stand:* The IBA filed a 118-page document, which some observers
describe as a repetition of their previous affidavits, potentially aimed at
further delaying the updation process.
- *Joint Note:* PNB has also sought to bring on record a "Joint Note"
related to the *12th Bipartite Settlement* as additional evidence.
 
*Summary of Progress*
 
*Key Milestone *
 
*Status as of February 26, 2026*
 
*Case Designation*
 
Part-Heard (Final Arguments started)
 
*IBA Position*
 
Citing high financial impact; requesting more time to study records
 
*Court's Focus*
 
Verifying actual pension regulation compliance over "Ex-Gratia" patches
 
*Upcoming Date*
 
*March 12, 2026*
 
The court appears determined to resolve the technicalities of *Regulation
35(1)* while acknowledging the advanced age of the 7.8 lakh affected
retirees.
 
 
 
 
vaidya nathan <vvn.m...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 06:13PM +0530

Updation Issue
 
High courts had previously dismissed the case sighting No Updation clause.
They were also learned and experienced lawyers . And now we expect Supreme
Court to favour our requests. What I understand Justice is announced
according to the Person and Not by Law. Each man thinks differently and so
there is No clarity about Right Or Wrong of Interpretation of Rule.
Doubtful whether International Court Lawyers do have Such a System of
Justice.
So many courts, so many rules, so many interpretation, so many beliefs.
This is Dharma. If present Era.
VAIDYANATHAN
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 10:02AM +0530

To Shri Vaidyanathan:
 
In the legal world, this tension is often framed as a debate between Legal
Formalism (the "head") and Legal Realism (the "heart").
 
Psychological research suggests it is nearly impossible for Judges to
entirely detach from their emotions or life experiences. Many legal experts
now argue that judges should not suppress their "heart" but rather regulate
it, using empathy to understand the case while letting the "head" (law)
provide the final rational framework.
 
In the M.C. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank (CA 7993/2023) case,
observation about the "head vs. heart" dynamic is quite relevant. While the
Indian Banks' Association (IBA) maintains a strict "head-led" stance
focused on financial viability, the Supreme Court has shown signs of a
"heart-led" humanitarian approach due to the advanced age of the
petitioners.
 
The "Heart" (Judicial Mindset): During recent sessions, the Bench (Justices
Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) reportedly observed that "Banks are liable
to pay the pension as per the Regulations". The court's insistence on a
detailed chart showing pension entitlements for different retiree groups
(pre-1987, 1987–2003, and post-2003) suggests it is actively seeking a way
to grant relief based on existing legal frameworks.
 
The "Head" (IBA Strategy): The IBA and bank counsels have shifted from
legal technicalities to arguing "massive financial burden," a common "head"
tactic used to deter large-scale fiscal changes.
 
Key Tensions in the Case:
 
Humanitarian Urgency: With many petitioners in their 70s and 80s, the
"heart" of the court is under pressure to provide justice while they can
still benefit from it.
 
Regulation 35(1): The "head" aspect revolves around whether Regulation
35(1) of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, mandates automatic
updation similar to the RBI pattern.
 
Financial Feasibility: The IBA continues to present "imaginary figures" for
the cost of updation, which the court is currently scrutinizing against
actual pension fund balances.
 
The court appears to be trying to bridge the gap by forcing the banks to
justify their refusal with hard data, while clearly signaling that
retirees' rights cannot be ignored simply because of corporate financial
preference.
 
 
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <1952...@gmail.com>: Feb 25 08:19PM -0800

Mr Vaidya Nathan - Please remember when the case was decided by the High
Court, even in RBI there was no updation. Now the situation is different.
Though the Regulation does not have the provision that our pension is as in
RBI, this is a very valid point. Banks cannot deny that our Pension
Regulation is on the lines of RBI pension and Government pension. Even the
arrangement of clauses in our pension regulation is on the lines of RBI
pension regulation. So when RBI and even NABARD have updated pension, there
is a strong case for us.
 
S Kalyanasundaram
 
 
 
On Thursday, February 26, 2026 at 9:25:21 AM UTC+5:30 vaidya nathan wrote:
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 01:45PM +0530

AI's update:
 
*February 25, 2026 Hearing Highlights *
 
- *Part-Heard Status:* The case has officially reached the stage of
final arguments and is now designated as *"Part-Heard"*. This means the
court has begun a deep dive into the merits and will continue from this
point in the next session.
- *Judicial Observation:* During the proceedings, the Bench (Justices
Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) reportedly observed in open court
that *"Banks
are liable to pay the pension as per the pension Regulations"*. This
signals a potentially favourable lean toward the petitioners' legal rights.
- *Next Hearing:* The matter has been fixed for the next hearing on *March
12, 2026*.
 
 
*Documents Filed and Under Review*
 
The court is currently scrutinising specific data to cut through the IBA’s
claims of "financial burden":
 
- *Pension Entitlement Charts:* Following previous court directions, the
petitioners have filed detailed charts showing pension entitlements across
three critical eras: *Pre-1987*, *1987–2003*, and *Post-2003*.
- *PNB's Submission:* Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed its own pension
paid charts, though retirees' advocates pointed out that these charts
showed basic pensions remained unchanged, only including "Ex Gratia"
payments added in 2022.
- *IBA's Stand:* The IBA filed a 118-page document, which some observers
describe as a repetition of their previous affidavits, potentially aimed at
further delaying the updation process.
- *Joint Note:* PNB has also sought to bring on record a "Joint Note"
related to the *12th Bipartite Settlement* as additional evidence.
 
*Summary of Progress*
 
*Key Milestone *
 
*Status as of February 26, 2026*
 
*Case Designation*
 
Part-Heard (Final Arguments started)
 
*IBA Position*
 
Citing high financial impact; requesting more time to study records
 
*Court's Focus*
 
Verifying actual pension regulation compliance over "Ex-Gratia" patches
 
*Upcoming Date*
 
*March 12, 2026*
 
 
*The court appears determined to resolve the technicalities of Regulation
35(1) while acknowledging the advanced age of the 7.8 lakh affected
retirees. *
MOHAN P <moha...@gmail.com>: Feb 26 01:54PM +0530

*ALL INDIA BANK PENSIONERS & RETIREES CONFEDERATION (A.I.B.P.A.R.C.)*
 
Office of GS at:
 
4, Netaji Subhas Road, 1 Floor, Cubicle no: 170 KOLKATA-700 001
 
Regd. Office:
 
MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE-1 57 A, POCKET 3, DELHI 110091
 
Mobile: 9674188524, E-mail: aibp...@gmail.com
 
_________________________________________
 
Circular no 25-26
 
 
 
Date: February 25, 2026.
 
For circulation among members of the Governing Council, State Secretaries,
Special Invitees, Advisors, Affiliates, Constituents of CBPRO and Members.
 
Dear Comrade,
 
*Sub: Updates on the M.C. Singla case on Pension Updation pending before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.*
 
_________________
 
We are reproducing here under the gist of the message received by Com K. V.
Acharya, President, AIBPARC and Joint Convenor of CBPRO from Shri Sewaram,
our advocate on the above subject:
 
Gist of message from Shri Sewaram, Advocate.
 
"*MC Singla case for updation of pension was listed for arguments today ie
25.02.2026. The Senior Advocate for PNB/IBA mentioned in the court at 10.30
AM that he has to argue another case in the other Court which was part
heard and hence requested for adjournment of our case after the Holi
Festival holidays. Our Senior Advocates Dr Manish Singhvi and Mr Kavin
Gulati objected to the adjournment. Dr Singhvi desired to continue his
arguments.*
 
* The Court agreed to the request of our lawyer and told PNB/IBA Senior
Advocate that he can complete his arguments in the other court and come
back. *
 
*However, in the meantime, they will hear the arguments of Dr Singhvi and
Mr Gulati while PNB/IBA Senior Advocate can reply later or on next date.*
 
*However, our case came up at 12.35 pm. Our Senior Advocates alongwith
Kerala Bank Pensioners Forum's Advocate were briefly heard. Since PNB/IBA
Senior advocate could not come, on the request of their Advocate on Record,
the case is adjourned to 12.03.2026 for further proceedings. Our Senior
Advocates were assisted by Sarvashri Sewa Ram, PK Manohar, Arpit Prakash
and Sunny Chaudhary, Advocates.*
 
* Dr. JD Sharma Vice President, AIBPARC/ARISE, Shri Nand Kishore Jamadagni,
General Secretary of AIPNBROA, Shri DK Hans, Organising Secretary, ARISE,
Shri T R Subramanian, ARISE were also present to help and provide on the
spot darifications/Inputs, if so required.*
 
*Arguments are expected to reach the crucial stage on 12th March 2026."*
 
Future developments will be made known to you by our circular.
 
With best wishes and regards, Comradely yours,
 
*KV. Acharya. *
 
President, AIBPARC & Jt. Convenor, CBPRO
 
*Suprita Sarkar *
 
General Secretary
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages