Misunderstanding or misrepresentation

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

It is true that there is a Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to payment of Dearness Allowance to Employees and Pensioners at different rates. Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that such payment is discriminatory and the Hon'ble Court ordered payment of Dearness Relief at the same rate.  Unfortunately, we have seen applying this Judgment to our pending claims.  I have seen a message seeking changing the periodicity from six months to three months as being paid to employees and payment of Dearness Relief uniformally at 8088 points.

I really do not know, whether authors do not know that such a comparision and application is not permissible or applicable to our case on hand.  Either we have to challenge the provision in Pension Regulations which allows payment of Dearness Relief being paid at the same rate which was applicable to the employees at that particular period or and challenge the same in this regard calling it as discriminatory or seek payment of uniform Dearness Relief, irrespective of their date of retirement.invoking discrimination.  

But, the facts and circumstances in the case which was before Hon'ble Supreme Court and our case are completely different. Provision relating to payment of Dearness Relief in Central/State/Reserve Bank of India is absent in Pension Regulations, but the same is available in Regulation 37 - Appendix II of our Regulations.  Therefore, payment of Dearness Relief is a vested/accrued statutory right and is covered under Articles 21 and 300-A.  Basis for payment of Dearness Relief to Central/State Government Pensioners is Orders/Administrative instructions of the Government with due approval of the Cabinet each time it is revised with due approval in the Cabinet meeting.  I would like to recall memories to decision of the Central Government not to revise Dearness Allowance/Relief to Government Pensioners during the Covid times. This decidion had approval of even Courts.   

Dearness Relief as per Pension Regulations is paid in terms of Appendix - II and he, at the same rate as applicable to employees at the time of their retirement. There is neither discrimination nor the method of payment of Dearness Relief in Banks does not come under the sweep of Judgment being referred to.

Therefore, what is the objective of those who are propogating regarding applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment is either to place themselves as a fighter fighting for the Pensioners or they themselves not aware of correct legal positition.  It is sad that Bank Pensioners falling into trap.  

Bank Pensioners should stop believing those who are misrepresenting or misguiding. They should not believe anyone or everyone who saysthey are entitled to some benefit misquoting facts.  They are requested to verify correctness.  I do not want to become a 'Sheep'.  While drafting a Writ Petition, I found analysis ofHon'ble Supreme Court,which I am extracting here.  Please identify who is misrepresenting or who is playing fraud. In terms of the Judgment, even those who keep quite, when some one is saying something which is false, fully knowing that it is false is also a fraud.  Reason for keeping quite may be not to displease or wants to show up as warrior or crusader or fighter.  Many a time, I am sharing my views because I do not want to keep quite, when I feel, what is being said is false.   Following para is extracted from the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court:

QUOTE:

"43. A perusal of the definition of the word “fraud”, as defined in Section 17 of the Contract Act, would reveal that the concept of fraud is very wide. It includes any suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by a person who does or does not believe it to be true. It may be contrasted with Section 18(1) of the Contract Act which, inter alia, defines “misrepresentation”. It provides that it is misrepresentation if a positive assertion is made by a person of that which is not true in a manner which is not warranted by the information which he has. This is despite the fact that he may believe it to be true. In other words, in fraud, the person who makes an untruthful suggestion, does not himself believe it to be true. He knows it to be not true, yet he makes a suggestion of the fact as if it were true. In misrepresentation, on the other hand, the person making misrepresentation believes it to be true. But the law declares it to be misrepresentation on the basis of information which he had and what he believed to be true was not true. Therefore, the representation made by him becomes a misrepresentation as it is a statement which is found to be untrue. Fraud is committed if a person actively conceals a fact, who either knows about the fact or believes in the existence of the fact. The concealment must be active. It is here that mere silence has been explained in the Exception which would affect the decision of a person who enters into a contract to be not fraud unless the circumstances are such that it becomes his duty to speak. His silence itself may amount to speech. A person may make a promise without having any intention to perform it. It is fraud. The law further declares that any other act fitted to deceive, is fraud. So also, any act or omission, which the law declares to be fraudulent, amounts to fraud. Running as a golden trend however and as a requirement of law through the various limbs of Section 17 of the Contract Act, is the element of deceit. A person who stands accused of fraud be it in a civil or criminal action, must entertain an intention to commit deception. Deception can embrace various forms and it is a matter to be judged on the facts of each case. It is, apparently, on account of these serious circumstances that fraud has on a legal relationship or a purported legal relationship that the particulars and details of fraud are required if pleaded in a civil suit or a proceeding to which the CPC applies".

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Please recall memories of adverse Judgment in Hon'ble Supreme Court in 100% Dearness Relief Case.  I have found some finding fault with the Judgment, quoting various para or referring to various facts.  Even recently, I have found some eminent leaders were finding fault. Unfortunately, either they have not read the Judgment or not understood with.  This is despite the fact that if there is a Judgment in respect of same issue with same or identical grounds, either Judges have to refer to larger bench, if they feel earlier Judgment is wrong or follow earlier Judgment.  In 100% DA case, same grounds that were advanced in Civil Appeals which challenged the Judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court were advance even in United Bank of India case.  Therefore, Respondents therein could not compel the Hon'ble Judges to refer to larger bench.  I am extracting from the Judgment:

26. It may also be noted that the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court having been confirmed by this Court, the matter stands concluded.  As has been observed in paragraphs 32, 41 and 44 of Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Another11, once leave to appeal had been granted and the appellate jurisdiction of this Court was invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger.  Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the Bipartite Settlement did not create any distinction which was inconsistent with the principles laid down by this Court.

I am aware that I may be accused of not supporting Bank Pensioners.  I do not want to become a fraud.  I cannot lie, when I know the fact. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Ramani Konnayar]

 Dear Shri Prasad ji,

You have quoted the following Regulation.

"Dearness Relief as per Pension Regulations is paid in terms of Appendix - II and at the same rate as applicable to employees at the time of their retirement"

This effectively means that bringing them under 2016=100 series cannot be claimed by those who retired prior to 1/112022 (the date of implementation of that scheme)as a legal right/entitlement in terms of the Pension Regulations.

Perhaps, this was why 100% DA scheme was denied to those who retired prior to 1/11/2002 even though cost aspect was cited as the main reason at that time, pointing out that though this scheme was part 8th BPS that took effect from 1/112002 the 100% DA was implemented only wef 1/2/2005.

In this connection, it is also observed that the above Regulation was relaxed in respect of those who retired during 1/11/2002 to 31/1/2005 and the scheme was made applicable to them even though on the date of retirement they had been paid only tapered DA on the new Basic pay as per 8th BPS. Perhaps, the Regulation was amended later for this particular exemption.

As for raising of a claim for adoption of 2016=100 series to those who retired prior to1/11/2022, based on a recent  judgement of Hon. Supreme court, it is seen that even AIBRF has raised such a claim with IBA.

K N RAMANI 

--
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/146588840.1729633.1775992076273%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Anand Rao]

Quite 

Or 

Quiet 

Used multiple times --> distorts the essence of your arguments!!

Your entire diatribe against those who say a word not with your line of thinking, borders on "hype" and a false sense of "superiority"

Best wishes

Rao

--

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.C N Prasad

We agree that all provisions of pension regulations and further settlements related to retirees  are accepted by Unions. That does not mean all agreements are legally perfect. Every provision/agreement is open to the scrutiny of law. The basic question is whether there can be  different DA rates for employees and retirees? And SC says No and  such discrimination is violative of Article 14 of the constitution. Whether the fact that Union leaders have given consent to  such discrimination,  can make such discrimination legally  sacrosanct and not violative of Article 14 of the constitution is subject to scrutiny of law.

Further we often come across statements that people are misleading.  Expressing opinion about any issue, even if it is wrong, is not misleading. If I say Latest SC order applies to us, it is just an opinion, not misleading. Misleading is forcing others to commit an act and make them suffer financial loss or loss of reputation. I am  not giving investment advice.  We  cannot expect that every opinion expressed by members should be100% legally perfect.

In 2010 regarding the second pension option agreement IBA gave directions to the banks that CRS retirees are not eligible for a second pension option. Is it not misleading? 

 IBA claims updation  cannot be discussed as it is sub judice. Is it not misleading?  

On 2024 both IBA and UFBU promised by signing minutes that pension regulations will be discussed and amended to male provision for updation in every settlement and also DA will be merged at 8088 level within 6 months. Above resolution is nothing but misleading as it was later abandoned.

In every circular after BPS meeting UFBU made many misleading statements that the IBA said cost is being studied, suggested we submit a proposal on merger, two actuaries will be appointed, a committee is appointed etc. No proof is submitted, no committee report is published. There are hundreds of such misleading statements.

iBA also misled the committee appointed by DFS in 2023 that it will discuss the updation issue separately but  refused to discuss in the BPS meeting claiming sub judice.

Hope I am not misleading anybody  by  expressing this opinion.

--

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/712389303.637618.1775992994655%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Anand Rao]

Quite 

Or 

Quiet 

Used multiple times --> distorts the essence of your arguments!!

Your entire diatribe against those who say a word not with your line of thinking, borders on "hype" and a false sense of "superiority"

Best wishes

Rao

On Mon, 13 Apr, 2026, 09:57 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

--