DA-DR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS:SUPREME COURT VERDICT-11TH APRIL 2026
RAMAKRISHNAN R P
“ DA-DR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS, THE SUPREME
COURT’S BIG RULING ON 11TH APRIL 2026 HAS GIVEN A VERDICT AND HERE’S
WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR RETIREES, I WANT TO BRING TO YOUR KIND
INFORMATION. IN A SIGNIFICANT RULING, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
PENSIONERS CANNOT BE GIVEN LOWER DEARNESS RELIEF THAN EMPLOYEES
DEARNESS ALLOWANCE, STATING THAT INFLATION IMPACTS BOTH EQUALLY AND
UNEQUAL HIKES VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY.” Now Friends, for the
12th Bi-Partiate Retirees are being given as per the Price Index 2016
=100 whereas for our pre retirees, that is till 11TH BI-PATIATE
Retires are being given under Price Index 1960=100 Basis.So as per the
S.P. Court verdict ,Our Bankers should implement it. As I already
written in my previous letter in this group about disparity among pre
2002 Retirees and post 2002 Retirees, and our legitimate Right to
receive the 100 % D.A Neutralisation at par with 8th Bi-Partiate
Employees and PRE 2002 Retirees from 01.05.2002 to 31.10.2023 ( At
retrospectively ) since both clause of Retirees are coming under
Homogeneous clause and as per the Supreme Court verdict (Nagara and
article 21) clearly say about in pension payment, both are in the same
Homogenous clause and there cannot be any disparity among the
Retirement dates of the Retires. The above Supreme Court” verdict is
to be enforceable at once. Let us all get first the D.A for pre2022
Retirees at par with post 2022 retirees (that is as per 12th
Bi-Partiate D.A price index 2016 = 100 basis.
Then we will see this 8088 D.A Merger OF POST2022
Retirees and 7th and post 8th Bi-partiate Pension Payment of 100 %
D.A.Merger disparity among the Retires, which are nothing to do with
our ‘Singla Case “ since it says about Retirees Pension updating and
all Retirees should get not less than 50 % of the Pension at par with
the drawing salary of working bank Employees. But here the 'Million
Dollar question' is who is there to tell these facts and convince our
IBA ,UFBU and our DFS to effect as per the Supreme Court Verdict,11th
April2026. Will our beloved P.M ji take up with our Retiree Assns.and
our C.N.Prasad ji (S.B.I Retiree Assn.secret.) with best regards,
RAMAKRISHNAN RP
INDIAN BANK RETIREE OFFICER ,
UNDER VRS/PENSIONER OF 2001
9845422666
MOHAN P
--
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/CACpU%3DyT46%2BO3nFRRfhPKE7qadvGcFmKrJzD%3DG8YmANLj7fsALA%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramachandran Bella
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRj3WD-Ydwai8a2foXH0c1BsbexTviZba6s%3Do0nRLRZ8A%40mail.gmail.com.
Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRj3WD-Ydwai8a2foXH0c1BsbexTviZba6s%3Do0nRLRZ8A%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramachandran Bella
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_y1anDp4tr4Lo%2BU0iiGFicZzDf5mZYD1WX07bScdS5LWA%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N
This isone of many such examples, where we ourselves demand later what we objected earlier. Unfortunately, memory is short. We forget our contribution to such problems.
Sanjay J
Dear Members,
I thank Sri Ramakrishnan ji and Sri Mohan ji for their thoughtful letters mentioning the April 2026 Supreme Court ruling in the KSRTC matter.
Sri Mohan ji is right that bank pensioners are governed by BEPR 1995 and that the KSRTC judgment does not automatically apply to us by way of direct precedent. That is a fair legal caution.
However, I believe that the matter does not end there.
The Principle Is Constitutional, Not Merely Sectoral
The Supreme Court's ruling of 11th April 2026 did not simply hand a benefit to KSRTC retirees. A constitutional principle so declared by the Supreme Court is not the exclusive property of KSRTC employees. It is a statement of law that binds all because no regulation, settlement, or bilateral agreement can override a Fundamental Right. Article 13 of the Constitution is unambiguous on this: any law or rule inconsistent with Part III is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Therefore, if BEPR 1995 or any Bipartite Settlement results in pensioners receiving lower DR than serving employees receive as DA — under the same inflation index — that differential is now constitutionally suspect in the light of this ruling.
“Retirees demand is extending the same merger points to pre-Nov 2022 retirees too as in the case of 12th BPS /JN employees/ retirees which was agreed to resolve under Minutes signed between Unions and IBA on 8.3.24”, which is conveniently put in cold storage, and no action has been taken for the past two years.
Just as Newton's observation of a falling apple revealed a universal law of gravitation, the KSRTC ruling has illuminated a universal constitutional principle about inflation and equality. The gravitational force does not distinguish between an apple in Cambridge and one in Chennai. Equally, inflation does not distinguish between a KSRTC retiree in Kerala and a bank retiree in Karnataka.
Negotiation through UFBU and IBA remains the formal channel, and we should not abandon it. But given the demonstrated reluctance of all parties to move on these issues, it is for us to carry this principle forward creatively and constructively, the way Newton carried the observation forward into a masterwork, the Principia Mathematica.
I strongly believe we need a radical shift in our strategy.
1. A formal legal opinion from a constitutional lawyer on the applicability of the April 2026 ruling to bank pensioners under Article 14 is suggested.
2. We must transition from Contractual arguments (which keep us trapped under the limitations of BEPR 1995) to Constitutional Mandates under Articles 14 and 21.
3. “Each retiree group is governed by a different settlement, and BEPR 1995 can only be changed by an amendment.” The Supreme Court’s April 2026 ruling systematically dismantles this Défense. Therefore, using the CPI 2016=100 series for post-2022 employees while keeping pre-2022 retirees on the outdated CPI 1960=100 series is unconstitutional.
Already a representation to the IBA citing the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncement has been submitted by one of the Retiree Unions in this regard.
The 1995 regulations are just a map, but the Constitution is the terrain—and the Supreme Court just shifted the terrain completely in our favour. Let us use this legal gravity to pull down the walls of discrimination.
We owe it to ourselves and to the thousands of pensioners in their seventies and eighties. I request the leadership of Retiree Associations to pursue these avenues with energy, precision, and unity.
What Would Actually Move the Needle.
|
Path |
Realistic Assessment |
|
Negotiation via UFBU/IBA |
Low probability given past inaction, but formally the only channel |
|
PIL |
Most promising — Article 142 powers, SC can mould relief |
|
Fresh writ citing April 2026 KSRTC ruling + Article 14 |
Valid avenue, but slow and costly |
|
DFS/Finance Ministry representation |
Possible, especially if Retirees Assn takes it up formally. |
With warm regards
Sanjay J.
MOHAN P
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFioWRFF0V_P69szYGk-MXNFAGXiG5bcoDT2bnB5qWurqtX3Ew%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLn-ybBJTN1%2B2J1_sFi26N%2BdymnmM6Qg4Sawb9dTGeNQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLn-ybBJTN1%2B2J1_sFi26N%2BdymnmM6Qg4Sawb9dTGeNQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Hans Raj Manuja
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLn-ybBJTN1%2B2J1_sFi26N%2BdymnmM6Qg4Sawb9dTGeNQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
SBMPC Blore
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLn-ybBJTN1%2B2J1_sFi26N%2BdymnmM6Qg4Sawb9dTGeNQQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Harish Midha
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQwjrqG0aQCj9upi_1gwgfQLvkPxhSmi9gqF%2BVHv1zdRw%40mail.gmail.com.
Sanjay J
To: GS, SBMPC
Subject: The Source of Differentiation & Why This Directly Concerns SBMPC Members
Respected Shri Prasadji,
I thank you for your latest message and your ongoing candor. I fully respect your duty to protect the SBMPC members and your decision to keep "external" issues at arm’s length.
However, you have asked a specific, fact-based question: “Refer to your source and tell us, how can there be different rates of DR for different periods of retirees?” In your subsequent follow-up, you also noted with surprise that no one has queried the math behind the pension amounts, calling it the "real tragedy."
I am honor-bound to address both points directly, as they explicitly affect the very members (including 10th and 11th Bipartite retirees) you are protecting.
1. The Source of the "Different Rates"
The source is indeed the 12th Bipartite Settlement / Joint Note dated March 8, 2024, which has since been incorporated into Statutory Regulations as you rightly pointed out. This creates a clear legal target:
- For Post-Nov 2022 Retirees (12th BPS): The new statutory framework shifts their Dearness Relief calculation directly to the modern, clean CPI 2016=100 Series.
- For Your Core Members (Pre-Nov 2022 Retirees): They remain structurally anchored to the obsolete CPI 1960=100 Series via Appendix II of the Pension Regulations.
2. How This Creates a "Different Rate" (The Deflator Trap)
You validly observed that the 2016 index is mathematically converted back into the 1960 series by applying the multiplication factor of 65.738592 (4.93 × 4.63 × 2.88).
This is the exact source of the differentiation. This conversion factor is not a neutral mathematical bridge; it is a structural deflator. Squeezing a modern inflation index backward through a multi-tiered historical multiplier systematically compresses the absolute rupee value that reaches a pensioner's bank account. A 12th BPS retiree gets inflation compensation pure and direct on a fully merged base; a 10th/11th BPS retiree receives an amount diluted by this conversion path.
The real-world outcome is that two officers who retired at the same rank, facing identical market inflation today, receive entirely different effective rates of purchasing power neutralization.
3. Why This is an SBMPC Issue (Not an "External" One)
You mentioned keeping issues at arm's length that have minimum connection with your members.
- With utmost respect, your own members are the primary disadvantaged class here.
- The 12th BPS retirees have escaped to the uncompressed 2016 Index. It is the pre-2022 retirees—the backbone of your Commune—who are left behind, trapped under the Appendix II multiplier.
- By not challenging these statutory amendments, the leadership accepts a system where its own members are permanently paid using an inferior, value-diluting calculator.
On the Fear of Risk and the "Real Tragedy":
You repeated your concern that pursuing this claim might cause members to "forgo" the monthly DR increases of ₹30,000 to ₹1 Lakh+ won across recent Bipartite scales.
With utmost respect, this frames our demand as a zero-sum trade-off, which is legally incorrect. Under Constitutional Law (Article 14), Upward Equalization is the absolute rule. Courts cure index and statutory discrimination by granting the superior baseline to the disadvantaged group; they never strip away or scale back the vested rights of newer retirees to remedy an inequality. The risk of losing existing benefits is legally non-existent.
To address what you termed the "real tragedy"—the lack of queries regarding these figures—I am attaching a two-sheet Excel computational template that mathematically exposes this dual-trap in black and white.
Far from being a mere advocacy document, this calculator invites every pensioner to enter their own figures and see exactly what they are losing every single month.
|
Sheet No. |
The Critical Problem Facing Our Members |
What We Expect the Leadership to Demand/Resolve |
|
Sheet 1 — Index Parity Loss (10th & 11th BPS) |
Proves that 10th and 11th BPS retirees face an active, recurring monthly loss because their inflation updates are squeezed through the outdated CPI 1960 index conversion path — even though they and serving employees face identical inflation. |
Demand that the IBA challenge the index barrier. Override the limitations of Appendix II (BEPR 1995) to seamlessly migrate all pre-November 2022 bank pensioners from the obsolete CPI 1960=100 series to the modern, industry-standard CPI 2016=100 series baseline, ensuring a uniform calculation mechanism across all generations as mandated by the Supreme Court on April 10, 2026 (2026 INSC 352). |
|
Sheet 2 — Conservative Estimate of Updated Pension (5th to 11th BPS) |
Demonstrates that for 5th to 9th BPS retirees, the seemingly large DR percentage (482.64%, 750.75%, etc.) is a structural illusion. Applied to a frozen, un-updated basic pension, it masks severe erosion of real purchasing power. The conservative floor of an updated pension shows a monthly gain of ₹40,000 to ₹80,000+ for the oldest retirees. |
Demand absolute upward equalization of the pension base. Secure an updated basic pension scale for older retirees by applying a fair Multiplier. Ensure that their historically frozen basic pensions are revised to bring them on par with modern basic wage structures before the new CPI 2016 index is applied, shattering the illusion of high DR rates running on eroded base amounts. |
Conclusion:
There should not be different rates or values of Dearness Relief for different periods of retirees. Yet, that is exactly what the outdated 1960 CPI linking factor ( 65.738592 ) forces upon pre-2022 retirees. It is this arithmetic disparity in actual rupee output—not the theoretical percentage—that the April 10, 2026 judgment exposes as unconstitutional.
As a grassroots pensioner, I have placed my thoughts, logical perspective, and arithmetic evidence before you in good faith, and since the leadership has firmly chosen to keep this vital issue at arm's length, I now close this discussion from my end. Accepting or rejecting these propositions is entirely left to your collective wisdom as our leadership.
I thank you sincerely for your time, patience, and the civility with which you engaged in this correspondence.
With best regards,
Sanjay J.
Niranjan Cn
--
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/CAP9-UeJnp%3DfOzXxHifKbkr6KJLpQxe-V0D6zBTvBmCQjZnUNkg%40mail.gmail.com.
SBMPC Blore
Dear friends,
Since, Mr.Sanjay has stated that:
As a grassroots pensioner, I have placed my thoughts, logical perspective, and arithmetic evidence before you in good faith, and since the leadership has firmly chosen to keep this vital issue at arm's length, I now close this discussion from my end. Accepting or rejecting these propositions is entirely left to your collective wisdom as our leadership.
Most astonishing fact is that, including Shri Sanjayji, no one in this group is even bothered to find out or ask how we are claiming a substantial increase in pension. But, we continue to discuss various other issues. Unfortunately, we could not shorten the length of this email
We are inclined to continue to indulge in conversation, to offer our views. Perhaps, Mr. Sanjay has not read what is written about applicability of claim relating to application of Dearness Relief by applying 2016 Index. We are extracting from our earlier email.
“There is one more substantial reason why the State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.”
SBMPC works in the interest of its members and certainly it has not left out even one case, where we have enforceable legal rights. We would have taken up this issue, in case the benefit out of this issue is better than what we are claiming. It is unfortunate that Shri Sanjay wants us to take up an issue which is still untested. But we prefer an issue where we have already got an order from the Court and are agitating for getting the order implemented. For us, a bird in a hand is better than in a bush. Shri Sanjayji has huge expectations about legality about this ground. We do not want to undermine or demean.
We request you to please refer to para 28, wherein it is stated that ‘But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances as also to increase them, based on inflation, fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution’. This portion of the Judgement clearly provides ratio decidendi with regard to applicability of Article 14. Please go through Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024, wherein same rates are prescribed for both serving and retired. We do not know in what way constitutional provisions are violated by non-application of 12th BPS formula to those who have retired earlier, when both serving as well as retired during the 12th BPS period have got or getting DA/DR rates.
We request everyone in this group to go through the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Assn., (2018) 16 SCC 539, para 28 of which is extracted in the Annexure.
To conclude, please understand the validity of any claim regarding any benefit. Please ask questions. Do not accept blindly. Do not accept whatever is said, But verify. Social media influencers are most dangerous. Take everything said by them with a pinch of salt.
Thanking you,
With warm regards,
C N Prasad
General Secretary--
Niranjan Cn
Good Morning,
Congratulations Sanjay Sir, for providing table and excel sheet for calculating revised pension as per Regulation 35(1). The presentation is very good.
Kindly clarify the following :
a) Please find attached the chart submitted to SC by AIBPARC/ARISE with regard to Pension of General Manager retired in 2002-2007 period. In the chart submitted the updated pension shown as Rs.89234/- showing an increase of 16171/-.
I tried different methods, but could not arrive that figure. Kindly clarify how the updated pension figure arrived (as shown in chart submitted).
b) We need minimum loading of 10% for each settlement and your charts also reflects that sentiment. I could not get reference to this 10% loading in Regulation 35(1).
Please through some light on the above two points and oblige.
Niranjan
Ex Canara
21/05/2026
--