Re: Gratuity discrimination.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Sastry,

I have already made known my views in this matter earlier.  In fact, I had discussion with some of the Senior Trade Union leaders regarding this issue of payment of Gratuity from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.5.2010. 

It is their opinion (not that of mine) that they look at less privileged salaried employees than those who are better off.  The increased amount is applicable to only those who are getting higher amount of salary.  

Then to my question, how payment from an anterior date would effect such class of employees, they informed me that there are lakhs of employers in the country and if an anterior date becomes the effective date, many of such employers do not have capacity to pay and if they are forced to pay, then employment of crores of people may get effected.  They say that there is no bar for the affordable employers to Pay Gratuity with revised higher limit and they may even bear the IT cost on additional amount of Gratuity.

They say that the Government as an employer has revised payment of Gratuity.   Then why not banks also pay from 1.1.2006 ? 

Unions/Associations are not much interested as these employees are already retired and the present employees are covered under revised ceiling.  Therefore, interest of their membership is protected.

For retirees' Organisations, other demands, like 100% nutralisation, Updation, improvement in Medical benefit schemes, etc are more important ans these issues encompasses even those who are retired between 1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010.  

 

Just do the survey among fellow members of this group with a question which one is important ?

Is it Gratuity from 1.1.2006 or 100% nutralisation ?  

You have the answer.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: pattabhi sastry <iprs...@gmail.com>
To: cn_pr...@yahoo.com
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2011 12:32 PM
Subject: Gratuity discrimination.

Dear Sir,
After reading your views on the above subject, i take liberty to
request  for your opinion and help on the following point.
How the Unions failed to touch the " Service
gratuity" issue  on 27.04.2010 and after observing the attitude of the
MPs(mostly senior citizens)/Govt. why they have not raised the issue
as supplementary demand
with IBA/GOVT  to do justice to the retired employees  between
01.11.2007 to 23.05.2010, as part of 9bps exercise, till now . How
wage wage revision will compensate the gratuity loss.
Alas, we are also their(Union) members in the past. You are aware that
the Salaried class after
Subprime crisis are put to terrible financial loss due to inflation,
low interest rates on savings, erosion in the value of long term
savings, increase in cost of children  education, health care ...  and
a sudden 10 fold
increase in the  housing rates, which is the ultimate dream of
retired . While increase in wages can take care to some extent about
cost of living,  only gratuity increase can help in meeting  the
capital expenditures like ill health, market oriented education to
children and housing.
We are hoping against hope for  help of likeminded  people. What
prevents our Union
leaders in demanding implementation of enhanced gratuity from
1.11.2007 as part of 9BPS.
A transparent reply on this will mitigate l the agony of the retirees
between 1.11.2007 to 23.05.2010.

With regards,
Rama Sastry

[venkat rao]

Dear  Friends, The reason for not demanding enhanced gratuity from 01/01/2006 is very strange.If that is the case, why you people are demanding 100% nutralisation,5years addition for pension and updation of pension,medical aid for all pensioners of banks etc.If banks are not in a position to pay Why demand  and write on this blog.?I did not understand this dichotamy.I request some learned members explain and enlighten me. Thanks a billion billion Venkatrao.H SBM Mysore --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Venkat Rao,

Please go through my mail again.  I have not said that the Banks does not have capacity to pay. Certainly, the Banks have the capacity to pay.  That is what my friend has also suggested.

I repeat - the comments are that of mine.  But, please understand that we should have tolerance towards opinions which we may be liked by us or opposed to our belief.  Only when we hear the other version, we can crystalise our action programme. 

Please suggest means to achieve and I have not seen any dichotomy in the views expressed.

While disagreeing, please advise what all of can do to secure this benefit.  We need legally sound action programme.  Please suggest.

Gratuity issues affect about 20 to 25K pensioners, 5 Yrs issue has affected a lakh of pensioners, 50% issue has affected about 1.4 lakhs and other issues are affecting all Pensioners.

 

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: venkat rao <venka...@yahoo.co.in>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 24 September 2011 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: Gratuity discrimination.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Venkat Rao,

Please go through my mail again.  I have not said that the Banks does not have capacity to pay. Certainly, the Banks have the capacity to pay.  That is what my friend has also suggested.

I repeat - the comments are not that of mine.  But, please understand that we should have tolerance towards opinions which we may be liked by us or opposed to our belief.  Only when we hear the other version, we can crystalise our action programme. 

[bass]

Dear Sir,

A lot of discussion was made on the demand for extension of enhanced
gratuity from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.5.2010 in this blog that too very
recently. Whatever said to be the view of some of the senior trade
union leaders, is not correct.

I once again repeat that the demand is not a fresh demand. It is only
a request to consider the interest of a section of people who were not
covered under the amendment to gratuity act, which sympathetically
considered by the GOI to central govt employees from 1.1.2006 and
others from 24.5.2010. The leftover unfortunates are also retirees who
have served the nation for the entire life, like others. When every
body got the benefit except one small group means a great hell for
them irrespective of the amount of benefit.

Another section of leaders have been expressing at various platforms
that the issue is not attracting much burden financially and hence
will be considered shortly.

The retirees in this group (1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010) are requested to
wait patiently for some more days and continue discussion with like
minded persons only for further strengthening the cause.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 24, 7:32 pm, venkat rao <venkatra...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear  Friends,
> The reason for not demanding enhanced gratuity from 01/01/2006 is very strange.If that is the case, why you people are demanding 100% nutralisation,5years addition for pension and updation of pension,medical aid for all pensioners of banks etc.If banks are not in a position to pay Why demand  and write on this blog.?I did not understand this dichotamy.I request some learned members explain and enlighten me.
> Thanks a billion billion
> Venkatrao.H
> SBM Mysore

> --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: bankpensioner Re: Gratuity discrimination.
> To: "pattabhi sastry" <iprsas...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 5:13 PM
>
> Dear Mr.Sastry,
> I have already made known my views in this matter earlier.  In fact, I had discussion with some of the Senior Trade Union leaders regarding this issue of payment of Gratuity from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.5.2010. 
> It is their opinion (not that of mine) that they look at less privileged salaried employees than those who are better off.
>   The increased amount is applicable to only those who are getting higher amount of salary.  
> Then to my question, how payment from an anterior date would effect such class of employees, they informed me that there are lakhs of employers in the country and if an anterior date becomes the effective date, many of such employers do not have capacity to pay and if they are forced to pay, then employment of crores of people may get effected.  They say that there is no bar for the affordable employers to Pay Gratuity with revised higher limit and they may even bear the IT cost on additional amount of Gratuity.
> They say that the Government as an employer has
>  revised payment of Gratuity.   Then why not banks also pay from 1.1.2006 ? 
> Unions/Associations are not much interested as these employees are already retired and the present employees are covered under revised ceiling.  Therefore, interest of their membership is protected.
> For retirees' Organisations, other demands, like 100% nutralisation, Updation, improvement in Medical benefit schemes, etc are more important ans these issues encompasses even those who are retired between 1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010.   Just do the survey among fellow members of this group with a question which one is important ?
> Is it Gratuity from 1.1.2006 or 100% nutralisation ?  
> You have the answer. Thanks, a Million.
>
> With regards,
> Prasad C N

> From: pattabhi sastry <iprsas...@gmail.com>
> To: cn_prasa...@yahoo.com

[bass]

Dear Sir,

The question itself is wrong.

Only managements will ask like this.

When both hands are necessary, how a person can say one hand is
important than the other.

Correct answer from right member shall be both are important, for the
above question.

May be prioritywise, the current issue can be kept in last. No
regrets.

Importance-wise, both are equal.

with regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 24, 4:43 pm, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr.Sastry,
>
> I have already made known my views in this matter earlier.  In fact, I had discussion with some of the Senior Trade Union leaders regarding this issue of payment of Gratuity from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.5.2010. 
>
> It is their opinion (not that of mine) that they look at less privileged salaried employees than those who are better off.  The increased amount is applicable to only those who are getting higher amount of salary.  
>
> Then to my question, how payment from an anterior date would effect such class of employees, they informed me that there are lakhs of employers in the country and if an anterior date becomes the effective date, many of such employers do not have capacity to pay and if they are forced to pay, then employment of crores of people may get effected.  They say that there is no bar for the affordable employers to Pay Gratuity with revised higher limit and they may even bear the IT cost on additional amount of Gratuity.
>
> They say that the Government as an employer has revised payment of Gratuity.   Then why not banks also pay from 1.1.2006 ? 
>
> Unions/Associations are not much interested as these employees are already retired and the present employees are covered under revised ceiling.  Therefore, interest of their membership is protected.
>
> For retirees' Organisations, other demands, like 100% nutralisation, Updation, improvement in Medical benefit schemes, etc are more important ans these issues encompasses even those who are retired between 1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010.  
>  
> Just do the survey among fellow members of this group with a question which one is important ?
>
> Is it Gratuity from 1.1.2006 or 100% nutralisation ?  
>
> You have the answer.
>  
> Thanks, a Million.
>
> With regards,
> Prasad C N
>
> ________________________________

> From: pattabhi sastry <iprsas...@gmail.com>
> To: cn_prasa...@yahoo.com

[bass]

Dear Sir,

I furnish hereunder some views about this gratuity issue, for your
information.

SBI Pensioners Association(Bengal Circle) Kolkata Zonal Committee

ALL RETIRED PERSON SHOULD RAISE THEIR VOICE THROUGH "TWITTER", "FACE
BOOK" AND OTHER MEDIAS AGAINST THE DISCRIMINATION ON GRATUITY PAYMENT
BY THE FINANCE MINISTRY. FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAS PASSED AN ORDER W.E.F.
01.01.06 TO PROVIDE THE BENEFIT TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES THOSE WHO ARE
NOT RELATED TO ANY PROFIT MAKING INSTITUTION OTHER THAN TO WIN THEIR
MIND PRIOR TO ELECTION BUT FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES OF PSU/PVT.SECTOR IT IS
24.05.2010 ON THE PLEA THAT TO REDUCE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE GOVT.
PROFIT MAKING ORGANISATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED WITH THE CHANGE WITHOUT
HAVING ANY RATIONALITY

YOU SHOULD TAKE INITIATIVE SO THAT ALL M.P.s in PARLIAMENT AND
RAJYASABHA MAY RAISE THE QUESTION " WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION ON THE
QUESTION OF GRATUITY PAYMENT FOR EFFECTING THE DATE. I HAVE WRITTEN
IN TWITTER AND FACE BOOK ON DIFFERENT OCCASION BUT I LIKE ,YOU SHOULD
ALSO PROTEST IN WRITING AS NEXT PARLIAMENTARY SEASON WILL START VERY
SHORTLY. PRIYA BRATA CHAKRABARTI - RETIRED OFFICIAL OF SBI AND SBI
PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION(BENGAL CIRCLE)

LODGE YOUR PROTEST AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF GRATUITY
ACT-2010

DC AHUJA [dca...@gmail.com ] has sent the following draft of a letter
which can be used for lodging the protest against the discriminatory
implementation of Gratuity Act 2010.

All those bankers who have been affected by non implementation of the
Act from back date, should send the letter on the following lines to
all the authorities separately. These bankers should also contact the
union leaders and ask them to send the letters on their letter pads to
these authorities. The central union leadership should also follow up
with the government as this has been a major loss to a large number of
bankers who have recently retired.


To,

The Hon’ble President of India,
President House,
New Delhi-110001.
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
Supreme Court of India,
New Delhi.


The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
Central
Secreteriate,
New Delhi-110001. .
New Delhi-110001.


The Hon’ble Labour Minister,
Ministry of Labour,
New
Delhi-110001

Respected Madam / Sir,

PROTEST AGAINST THE DISCRIMINATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF GRATUITY ACT,
2010 w.e.f. 24TH MAY, 2010 FOR PSU/BANKS/ INSURANCE SECTORS.
(GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HAVE GOT THE SAME w.e.f.01-01-2006)

We are thankful to Government for amending the Gratuity Act, 2010
effective from 24thMay, 2010. The Gratuity Act amendment 2010 is for
Private Sectors / Banks / Insurance and Public Sector Undertaking,
whereas the Government has amended the Gratuity Act in August 2009 for
Central Govt. Employees effective from 01-01-2006.

As per the Fundamental Rights mentioned in our Constitution RIGHT TO
EQUALITY article 14 guarantees equality before law as well as equal
protection of the Law to all persons within the territory of India.
This includes the equal subjection of all persons to the authority of
law, as well as equal treatment of persons in similar circumstances.

As per the Fundamental Rights described in our Constitution RIGHT TO
FREEDOM article 21 extend the protection that any law laying down a
procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.

On going through the above articles of Fundamental Right in our
Constitution we presume that it is a great injustice with the
employees of Private Sectors / PSU / BANKS / INSURANCE SECTORS as the
date of implementation of Gratuity Act is w.e.f. 24thMay,2010. The
Government implemented the 6th Pay Commission in the year 2008 and
amended the Gratuity Bill for Central Government Employees in August
2009 effectivefrom 1st Jan., 2006. Another Gratuity Act amended in
May 2010 for Private Sectors / PSU / BANKS / INSURANCE Sectors
effective from 24th May, 2010.

It took Government more than two years, after implementation of 6th
Pay Commission, to move the Gratuity Bill before the Parliamentary
Committee and then get the bill passed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya
Sabha. The bill was moved only when most of the Trade Unions met the
Hon’ble Labour Minister from time to time, whereas it would have been
moved in the year 2008 itself after implementation of the 6th Pay
Commission..

We all know that Private Sectors / PSU / BANKS / INSURANCE Sectors are
earning profits and are the back bone of the Country. Then why there
is discrimination between Central Government Employees and the
employees of Private/ PSU / BANKS / INSURANCE Sectors. All these
sectors stand strongly during the recession in the world.

Is this not a great INJUSTICE ? Is this not INEQUALITY as per the
Fundamental Rights mentioned in our CONSITUTION ?

We once again request The Hon’ble President of India, The Hoin’ble
Chief Justice ofIndia, The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, The
Hon’ble Labour Minister of India, to consider our genuine demand being
the RIGHT OF EQUALITY as mentioned in our Constitution and amend the
date of implementation of Gratuity effective from 01-01- 2006 instead
of 24th May, 2010.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

( )
Retired from :…………………..
Date of Retirement :……………

CC: To the Secretary General, Committee on Petitions, Rajya Sabha, New
Delhi-110001,
with a request to redress our genuine demand under article
350 of the Constitution
of India.


APPEAL BY Dr. G. Sanjeeva Reddy, MP, FOR EXTENDING THE BENEFITS OF
ENHANCED GRATUITY TO THOSE WHO RETIRED BETWEEN 2006 AND 2010

Dr. G. Sanjeeva Reddy in his speech in Parliament urged the
government to implement the amended Gratuity Act with retrospective
effect

Sir, the Minister has proposed some amendments to the Gratuity Act. We
welcome them and support this Bill. But we have some suggestions to
make. The sixth Central Pay commission has recommended gratuity of ten
lakhs rupees to the Central Government employees with retrospective
effect. The same provision is adopted here in the Gratuity Act also
but it is not being done with retrospective effect. This means workers
who have retired during the period from 2006 to 2010 are denied the
benefit. All the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission
have been implemented and gratuity has been paid to employees with
retrospective effect whereas in this case, if the private employers
are going to give these benefits in this manner, who is going to
benefit? It is not going to be taxed on public sectorcompanies. It is
for the benefit of the private sector employees. If implemented with
retrospective effect, this would benefit people who retired from 2006
onwards otherwise the employees who retired before this Bill would get
only Rs. 3,50,000.

Sir, the Bill says that it shall come into force on such date as the
central government notify in the Gazette. So, it is really depriving
workers of their genuine right. I can submit to the hon. Minister to
please reconsider this. After passing the Gratuity Bill in 1972 the
amount of gratuity of Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand was fixed
by amendment in 1997.

You have not changed the quantum. Every worker is entitled to have
gratuity at the rate of 15 days wages only for every completed year of
service. For quite a long time, this 15-days entitlement is there. We
thought that the Government is considering favourably increasing this
15-days wages to 30 days. It has been the demand of all the trade
unions. Since the cost of living is very high and the prices are
soaring high, the quantum of 15 days wages should be increased to 30
days. But that has not been done. Only the big entrepreneurs are going
to get the benefit, not the working class. You are denying this right
to employees who are working in the private sector. It is the grave
injustice to these employees. I am sure that the Hon. Labour Minister
can understand the feeling of the working class. Poor workers should
not be denied their right. Another point is that, Sir, gratuity is
given in lieu of service rendered to the industry. For thirty or forty
years workers render service to the industry and thatindustry has to
pay gratuity to workers because workers are not entitled to pension at
this moment. A large number of workers do not get any pension. They
get only gratuity benefit on retirement. Today neither you are
increasing the quantum of gratuity entitlement nor implementing it
with retrospective effect. It is really a grave injustice to workers.
I can only request that our Government should reconsider this matter.
Therefore, I request the hon. Minister to consider it with
retrospective effect. If it is not passed with retrospective effect,
it will be an injustice to the working class. I once again appeal to
the Government to please reconsider it otherwise working class may
start agitation saying that you are discriminating between the
Government employees and private sector employees and you are bringing
this Act without retrospective effect only to benefit the private
employers. It is not good for the prestige of the Government.
Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Minister to reconsider this. There are
no financial consequences on the Government and there is no excess
burden on the Government. There is burden only on the private sector.
Therefore, I earnestly request the hon. Minister to please reconsider
this small thing.

This is a social security benefit that you have to give. Nothing else
can compensate the workers for their long service to the industry.

Publish by
Subhash S.Sawant
General Secretary
Indian National Bank Employees Federation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hundreds and thousands of representations were already mailed and the
matter is under active consideration.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 24, 7:32 pm, venkat rao <venkatra...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

> Dear  Friends,
> The reason for not demanding enhanced gratuity from 01/01/2006 is very strange.If that is the case, why you people are demanding 100% nutralisation,5years addition for pension and updation of pension,medical aid for all pensioners of banks etc.If banks are not in a position to pay Why demand  and write on this blog.?I did not understand this dichotamy.I request some learned members explain and enlighten me.
> Thanks a billion billion
> Venkatrao.H
> SBM Mysore

> --- On Sat, 24/9/11, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: bankpensioner Re: Gratuity discrimination.
> To: "pattabhi sastry" <iprsas...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, 24 September, 2011, 5:13 PM
>
> Dear Mr.Sastry,
> I have already made known my views in this matter earlier.  In fact, I had discussion with some of the Senior Trade Union leaders regarding this issue of payment of Gratuity from 1.1.2006 instead of 24.5.2010. 
> It is their opinion (not that of mine) that they look at less privileged salaried employees than those who are better off.
>   The increased amount is applicable to only those who are getting higher amount of salary.  
> Then to my question, how payment from an anterior date would effect such class of employees, they informed me that there are lakhs of employers in the country and if an anterior date becomes the effective date, many of such employers do not have capacity to pay and if they are forced to pay, then employment of crores of people may get effected.  They say that there is no bar for the affordable employers to Pay Gratuity with revised higher limit and they may even bear the IT cost on additional amount of Gratuity.
> They say that the Government as an employer has
>  revised payment of Gratuity.   Then why not banks also pay from 1.1.2006 ? 
> Unions/Associations are not much interested as these employees are already retired and the present employees are covered under revised ceiling.  Therefore, interest of their membership is protected.
> For retirees' Organisations, other demands, like 100% nutralisation, Updation, improvement in Medical benefit schemes, etc are more important ans these issues encompasses even those who are retired between 1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010.   Just do the survey among fellow members of this group with a question which one is important ?
> Is it Gratuity from 1.1.2006 or 100% nutralisation ?  
> You have the answer. Thanks, a Million.
>
> With regards,
> Prasad C N

> From: pattabhi sastry <iprsas...@gmail.com>
> To: cn_prasa...@yahoo.com

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Perhaps, many a times I personally feel that I should not debate in this group.  If one says you are entitled to get benefit, even if you are not, that person is a positive person.  If I say that we should and get 100% of our Pay as pension, I may also be branded as positive and if I say what we are legally, morally and ethically entitled to, I am branded as 'negative'.

Even before we make a demand before the Management, we debate in our Organisation and present the demand backed by right and useful information.  Our desires do not become demands.  I firmly believe that  if I demand something, I must secure that, with a little compromise here and there. I am of the opinion that what I demand reflects my ability to understand the ability to pay and legality of demand.  Need to pay is also an  important element.  Unless you have the ability to expect what Management is going to ask, you cannot prepare yourself with right answer.  Do not say that because somebody else has got something, we should also get same thing.  This is also universally applicable.  

Before, you compare with Central Government employees, compare within our industry. There are various benefits which are enjoyed by in some banks only and some benefits are enjoyed by only a section of employees only. 

NOW, I REPEAT THAT I AM HAPPY, IF THE BANK MANAGEMENT PAYS GRATUITY WEF 1.1.2006.  If they do not pay, do not feel bad.

100% nutralisation, Updation, 5 Year benefit, Pension on 50% of Pay, etc. are legal entitlement backed by various judgements of Supreme Court/High Courts.  But, 'Cut-off dates' are not illegal in terms of various judgements.  Please find out result of case pertaining to fixing of 1.1.1986 for cut off date for getting pension.  

Personally, I am more interested in pension as per our Regulation to pre-1986 retirees also.  One who retired on 1.1.1986 is getting a pension of Rs.15000/-, but a person in the same bank with same service, same pay, but retired on 31.12.1985 is getting Rs.2,400/- as pension.  Why left hand and right hand theory is not there ?

It is not a vast majority who are getting this benefit from 2006.  Central Government employees constitute a small percentage of employees who are getting Gratuity.

Left hand and right hand are not treated alike.  Even by you.  There is 100% nutralisation for Subordinate Staff.  At the highest slab, nutralisation is 50% for those who are higher pay scales.

Why ? (Of course, we are demanding 100% nutralisation for all). 

Please think completely before you comment.  Please do not misguide others in the group.  Do your home work.  

Some of us want only convenient information, but not the right information. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: bass <basha...@rediffmail.com>
To: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 25 September 2011 1:35 AM

Subject: bankpensioner Re: Gratuity discrimination.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Natrajan Balasubramanian]

THE VIEWS OF SHRI PRASADJI DO NOT APPEAR TO BE SOUND.  THERE IS NO CORELATION  BETWEEN ENHANCED GRATUITY VS 100% DA NEUTRALISATION.

ENHANCED GRATUITY IS SOUGHT BY PERSONS RETIRED AFTER 01.01.2006 UPTO 23.05.2010.  THEY ARE ALREADY GETTING D.A. AT 100% NEUTRALISATION.

THE DEMAND OF 100% NEUTRALISATION OF D.A. IS THE DEMAND OF ALL THE RETIREES BEFORE 01.01.2002.  THEY HAVE NO CLAIM FOR ENHANCED GRATUITY FROM 01.01.2006 BECAUSE THEY HAVE RETIRED LONG BEFORE THAT DATE.

THE LEADERS OF THE SERVING EMPLOYEES FEDERATION ARE NOT DOING ALL THEY SHOULD DO FOR RETIREES BECAUSE THEIR CONSTITUENCY IS EXISTING EMPLOYEES.  ONCE THEY RETIRE, THEY MAY REALISE THEIR OWN DISCRIMINATION.  WHILE THERE ARE UMPTEEN JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF PENSION WITHOUT CUTOFF ETC. THE RETIREES ARE COMPELLED TO FILE CASES AFTER CASES. WHY CANT UNIONS LAUNCH AGITATION EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE RETIREES DEMANDS?

[bhaskara sarma]

DEAR VENKAT RAO,
I DO FULLY AGREE WITH YOU AND ALL THE DEMANDS ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AND THE UNIONS/ASSOCIATIONS HAVE TO TAKE UP THE ISSUES AND TRY TO SETTLE THEM SINCERELY.FIGHTING AMONG OURSELVES WILL ONLY BE SUICIDAL.I REQUEST ONE AND ALL NOT TO BELITTLE ANYBODY SINCE WE NEED UNITY AND CO OPERATION AMONG OURSELVES TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS.
YOURS SINCERELY,
P B SARMA,SB,SVRS2001.

[Venkata S.Akella CFE]

Dear M/s.Prasad & Basha,

I have been closely following the email-discussions/debates as well as friendly guidance and support/advise etc.

provided by brothers like you, Mr.Basha and many others..

I earnestly request you to keep always in mind the fact that there are always some passengers in a public

transport who would never contribute in any way for its onward journey to reach the destination safely and in time; instead

they engage themselves in distracting the attention and energy of the crew for their self-centered ends.

People like you are striving  your best through various means like lobbying, discussions, delegations, representations,

persuasions etc.

Pl continue the great and good work for the all round benefit of the community in the order of priority of the need, intensity and importance to the retirees of all banks in the country etc.viz. 50%, 5years addition, neutralization, one cadre one pension, gratuity and medical benefit etc.    

Pl continue to keep your spirits high and  vast fraternity of the retirees of the entire banking industry are with you.

With best regards.

Murthy AVSN   

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[Chinnagourishankar]

Dear prasad,

It is very easy to comment  . I know how much difficult to get the demands get fulfilled from the management I.e. I. B.A  you are doing a very good job. Please go on doing the same safeguarding the interests of all pensioners in the banking industry 100%neutralization and 50%pension uniform medical aid will benefit majority of pensioners.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Gourishankar,united bank vrs

Sent from my iPad

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[pattabhi sastry]

Dear Sir,
We have done a sample survey among fellow serving members with a
question, Is it Gratuity or nutralisation ? which one is important
?. After verification of salary slips, they said that none of the
two items figure in their monthly salary slips. I frequently read in
news papers, Govt announcing ex-gratia of Rs.5 to 10 lakhs to accident
victims. No one need feel shy to demand higher Gratuity from an
anterior date to employees who retires after putting up long service
till it is considered.

Regards,
Rama Sastry

[y.manickam]

Knowingly or unknowingly we ourselves are discussing this under the
head GRATUITY DISCRIMINSATION.That conveys a lot of meaning and the
arguments and excuses for not getting this CANNOT SUPPLEMENT &SUPPORT
THE REASONS FOR DENIAL.Why put this as an option to surrender to get
something else?both are our rights and as leaders try to get both
instead of trying to differentiate for your convenience..What has been
cruelly denied for a very very long time ,namely pension/family
pension increases , DA 100%neutralisation,periodical updating
etc.will not be achieved by giving up this recent demand for a few
affected pensioners of a particular block.Banks cannot say that they
have no funds.Those who argue on behalf of PSU"S non paying capacity
need not worry about them .They have their unions /assns.to play their
role.You concentrate and restrict yourself to the banks' alone.Do not
try to set their house properly when you have not succeeded in setting
up your house properly for so many years.No PSU unions will take up
these issues for you .As one friend has pointed out these are two
different issues and need not and should not be clubbed together for
the simple reason that both have different dates of
implication.PENSION REVISION FOR ALL PENSIONERS IS A MUST,A GENUINE
DEMAND,A TRIBUTE TO THE OLD WAR HORSES FOR THEIR MAGNIFICENT
CONTRIBUTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BANKING SECTOR IN
INDIA.GRATUITY REVISION IS A RECENT BACK STABBING ON THE PENSIONERS OF
RECENT BLOCK WITH THEIR 100%KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS YET ANOTHER STRAIGHT
DEFEAT ON THE FACE OF THE PRESENT LEADERS.TRY TO DO JUSTICE ,DO NOT
GIVE LAME & UNCONNECTED EXCUSES ON VARIOUS PLATFORMS AND PLAY TO THE
GALLERY.THESE UNFORTUNATE PENSIONERS HAVE NO EFFECTIVE FORUM TO
REPRESENT ,HENCE ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS.IT IS ALREADY LATE AND YOUR
"LUKE WARM"INTEREST HAS NOW BECOME "COLD".TRY TO DO GOOD OTHERWISE DO
NOT TRY TO DIVIDE THE PENSIONERS BY DISTORTING THE ISSUES.WITH REGARDS
TO ALL MY PENSIONER FRIENDS
On Sep 25, 9:31 pm, Chinnagourishankar <gourishanka...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear prasad,
> It is very easy to comment  . I know how much difficult to get the demands get fulfilled from the management I.e. I. B.A  you are doing a very good job. Please go on doing the same safeguarding the interests of all pensioners in the banking industry 100%neutralization and 50%pension uniform medical aid will benefit majority of pensioners.
> Thank you
> Yours faithfully,
> Gourishankar,united bank vrs
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

> On Sep 25, 2011, at 1:59 AM, Prasad C N <cn_prasa...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Dear friends,

>
> > Perhaps, many a times I personally feel that I should not debate in this group.  If one says you are entitled to get benefit, even if you are not, that person is a positive person.  If I say that we should and get 100% of our Pay as pension, I may also be branded as positive and if I say what we are legally, morally and ethically entitled to, I am branded as 'negative'.
>
> > Even before we make a demand before the Management, we debate in our Organisation and present the demand backed by right and useful information.  Our desires do not become demands.  I firmly believe that  if I demand something, I must secure that, with a little compromise here and there. I am of the opinion that what I demand reflects my ability to understand the ability to pay and legality of demand.  Need to pay is also an  important element.  Unless you have the ability to expect what Management is going to ask, you cannot prepare yourself with right answer.  Do not say that because somebody else has got something, we should also get same thing.  This is also universally applicable.  
>
> > Before, you compare with Central Government employees, compare within our industry. There are various benefits which are enjoyed by in some banks only and some benefits are enjoyed by only a section of employees only.
>
> > NOW, I REPEAT THAT I AM HAPPY, IF THE BANK MANAGEMENT PAYS GRATUITY WEF 1.1.2006.  If they do not pay, do not feel bad.
>
> > 100% nutralisation, Updation, 5 Year benefit, Pension on 50% of Pay, etc. are legal entitlement backed by various judgements of Supreme Court/High Courts.  But, 'Cut-off dates' are not illegal in terms of various judgements.  Please find out result of case pertaining to fixing of 1.1.1986 for cut off date for getting pension.  
>
> > Personally, I am more interested in pension as per our Regulation to pre-1986 retirees also.  One who retired on 1.1.1986 is getting a pension of Rs.15000/-, but a person in the same bank with same service, same pay, but retired on 31.12.1985 is getting Rs.2,400/- as pension.  Why left hand and right hand theory is not there ?
>
> > It is not a vast majority who are getting this benefit from 2006.  Central Government employees constitute a small percentage of employees who are getting Gratuity.
>
> > Left hand and right hand are not treated alike.  Even by you.  There is 100% nutralisation for Subordinate Staff.  At the highest slab, nutralisation is 50% for those who are higher pay scales.
> > Why ? (Of course, we are demanding 100% nutralisation for all).
>
> > Please think completely before you comment.  Please do not misguide others in the group.  Do your home work.  
>
> > Some of us want only convenient information, but not the right information.
>
> > Thanks, a Million.
>
> > With regards,
> > Prasad C N

> > From: bass <basha_4...@rediffmail.com>

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Manickam sir,

I understand your anxiety, anger and despair. But you have to concede to certain ground realities.

You know very well that Awardstaff who retired in the referred period are not affected or only a few marginally would have been affected as their pay would have entailed them less than Rs3.5 lacs. Hence, it is futile to expect any workmen union taking up the cause of officers. Still, if you want UFBU/workmen unions  to pursue, then we have to demand for radical change of Gratuity itself, ie, Gratuity to be paid at the rate of ONE month of pay(if possible Gross pay) for every completed year of service subject to a maximumm of 33 months(to coincide with pension benefit) and without any ceiling. This should be also demanded retrospectively from atleast 1/1/1986 for ALL. This demand will certainly unite all-- both serving and retired/workmen unions and officers unions. If this proposal sounds very odd, then you have to expect only AIBOC to your rescue.It has already written a LETTER to IBA. Let us expect the Gov't  agrees  to implement the enhanced Gratuity of Rs10 lakhs wef 1/1/2006for all Officers in SBI first.

With hope.

M.Perumal

Chennai

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
> > To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[R Balaji]

Why SBI first/tell all first.
Balaji

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[bass]

Dear Sir,

Why we should we presume that due to non beneficial to award staff,
the unions have not vigorously demanded for this extension of enhanced
gratuity. If so, the gratuity effective date from 24.5.2010 is not
including award staff ?

Here, the question is why a particular group which were a few in
number who retired in between 1.1.2006 to 23.5.2010, have been denied
the enhanced gratuity benefit. The denial was for whose benefit ? Why
to bother about the financial position of employers instead of
bothering about senior employees who have served for their lifetime to
their parent companies ? After all it is only one time pay out that
too at the fag end of their retirement. And everybody were covered
except this group. What hell it is ? What is their sin and what
punishment it is ? It is not the question of quantum of money or
benefit. Same amendment, same benefit and with different dates and
denial to one particular group. What is this ?

Kindly think on this lines and think within the guidelines of the
amendment and no need to go beyond. Then, it will appear glaringly
unfair with a lot of discrimination and injustice to human kind and
that too for a section of people.

I came to know that the kerala high court has admitted the case which
filed by one of the retirees association. Let us wait for the out
come.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

On Sep 27, 11:41 am, perumal maruthu <perumalmaru...@yahoo.co.in>
wrote:

> Dear Manickam sir,
> I understand your anxiety, anger and despair. But you have to concede to certain ground realities.
> You know very well that Awardstaff who retired in the referred period are not affected or only a few marginally would have been affected as their pay would have entailed them less than Rs3.5 lacs. Hence, it is futile to expect any workmen union taking up the cause of officers. Still, if you want UFBU/workmen unions  to pursue, then we have to demand for radical change of Gratuity itself, ie, Gratuity to be paid at the rate of ONE month of pay(if possible Gross pay) for every completed year of service subject to a maximumm of 33 months(to coincide with pension benefit) and without any ceiling. This should be also demanded retrospectively from atleast 1/1/1986 for ALL. This demand will certainly unite all-- both serving and retired/workmen unions and officers unions. If this proposal sounds very odd, then you have to expect only AIBOC to your rescue.It has already written a LETTER to IBA. Let us expect the Gov't  agrees  to implement the enhanced
>  Gratuity of Rs10 lakhs wef 1/1/2006for all Officers in SBI first.
> With hope.
> M.Perumal
> Chennai
>

> ________________________________
> From: y.manickam <manicka...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[ravi jain]

sir,

everybody is showing anger that GOVT  is not conceding demand of gratuity from 01/01/2006. A demand which affects all pensioners, in lakhs, and is being discussed from so many yrs has till date not been listened then the latest demand of thousand persons will be listened after how much time is a QUESTION OF TIME MATTER. however have hope that either thru union or thru court it can be achieved.

be happy

ravi jain (PSB) 

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[yagneswaran manickam]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: yagneswaran manickam <manic...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Gratuity discrimination.

To: perumal...@yahoo.co.in


There is a rumor that some banks have paid revised gratuity to its employees from 01/01/2006.Employees retiring after 24/05/2010 should automatically  receive the revised gratuity as per their eligibility under the new ceiling.This cannot be a news /tall claim at all.What is being sought is  the uniform implementation date as that  applicable to govt.employees namely 01/01/2006.In fact my only contention is for uniform date of implementation which has to taken up only ,i repeat, only by the official forum with the sanctioning forum for implementation,but this is not being taken up @all and no interest seems to be evinced by the concerned organisations.Will you not agree if i say this is a  right due to us and SHOULD be got even without our representations.What is really happening ,once a member retires he is discarded  immediately  after the retirement function is over.As pensioners cannot help their head counts they are interested in the working employees only.In the process they forget that they are also PENSIONERS OF TOMORROW.For the already suffering  retirees this is a new addition to their already full  and overflowing cup of voes with no solutions yet seen on the horizon.WITH REGARDS

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:06 PM, yagneswaran manickam <manic...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear shri PERUMAL MARUTHU Thanks for your reply.But one basic thing is the revision of gratuity was implemented from 01/01/2006  by the govt. being the date of  PAY COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION.So we can only ask for a similar implementation.It is nice to have it implemented from 01/01/1986 itself for the help of retirees also and we will  only be too happy.Even if done no one will get the maximum of Rs.10lakhs but whatever they get will be helpful to them. will the govt.do it?and (once again)will our LEADERSHIP FRIENDS get it for us?It is not a crime to ask for one's rightful dues.As i have already said if this denial will result in more pension by diversion to our old pensioner friends we will be too glad. to forgo revised gratuity.For enhanced pension a struggle is already on & wish it is got immediately for our suffering senior pensioners.BUT THE EQUATIONS QUOTED ARE NOT CONGRUENT AND ONCE AGAIN I STATE THAT THESE ARE  TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.I am no doubt disappointed what with serving the bank for 40 odd years.But can you say other pensioners are happy on this score?well that will be HIMALAYAN LIE.,if said.We have lost on several fronts and this is a deliberate sabotage by the powers that be.A negligent percentage of the SCAM AMOUNTS would serve all the problems of the pensioners.So why discrimination? Unethical accumulation of money is permitted but a genuine demand faces flak. There was a question on the date 01/01/2006.It can be only that being the govt.declared date.If predated i would be the first person to welcome it.But when we are not paid from 01/012006 itself what can  you expect from the GOVT.in the act of predating further?please analyse leisurely because this is only THINKING in TYPING. WITH REGARDS TO ALL FELLOW PENSIONERS.

[pattabhi sastry]

Dear Sir,
I am afraid,  that the issues involved in the   enhanced gratuity are not comprehensively understood by majority of the retired and existing staff members, as the issue comes up only at the time of superannuation.   As pointed out, there is no correlation between enhanced gratuity demand  and any of the rest of the issues. It has been no show by top leaders.The silence adopted by many of leaders on the issue  has contributed to the pushing of  the issue to oblivion.  It is now or never for the retired staff in  the block 1.1.2006 to 23.05.2010. The people retired in the block 2006-2010  are like 40 years  Insurance  policy holders, for whom  assured sum was denied on maturity by the insurer on technical grounds, with no help extended by the policy mobilization  agents. As per  Sri.yagneswaran manickam    ALL BANKING SOLUTIONS SITE does not open to the sub head EFFECT OF GRATUITY AMENDMENT ACT DATED 18/05/2011 ON BANKS.So there are reasons to suspect  that even the feed backs are not allowed to reach the affected employees.Know your friends and supporting leaders.  Let the issue be first understood first  by all retirees.

Rama Sastry

[Subramanian C]

Gratuity Ceiling to 10 lacs

Can any body throw some light on the fact where do we stand in respect of retrospective effect

at least from November 2007.

C SUBRAMANIAM