LATE M C SINGLA CASE PROCEEDINGS DT 22ND JULY - LISTED TO 12TH AUG'26

[MOHAN P]

Court order on proceedings dt 22th July 2026 in CA 7993/23 before SC in  M C SINGLA CASE 

[Sarangapani Rao]

What additional information  PNB want to supply which they could not furnish for nearly 3 decades. ? It is cunning procrastination strategy to postpone the solution. Perhaps ,they have set a target of 100 adjournments to achieve so that all pensioners by that time would have vanished into thin air & Supreme court would be pleased to close the case& the IBA combo would celebrate it with great eclat. !! May God provide relief to the pensioners at the least in the next world. !

Regards

Sarangapani

IBA/ VRS 2000

On Thu, 23 Jul, 2026, 5:15 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Court order on proceedings dt 22th July 2026 in CA 7993/23 before SC in  M C SINGLA CASE 

--
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/CAMCbyDRBSFerDGq_JqmcxXEaGE11Bj-7o7o2EuO2iTpUhS-Wmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Subramani S]

Well said.  Off late the main movie of the IBA (banks) side is to drag the case forever.  They have even bent the registry to postpone the hearings. Advocate Mr. Druv Mehta 's arguments also lack the punch. For him the only hold - it seems - to cling to 1) 35/1  is not for all period pensioners   and  2)  The pensioners are paid DA .   They will do whatever needed to drag the case further.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGJJNEUQ0vx6ANGh%2BjdiT7FPm63KmpTnf0G8-xWgrJuBt4BjfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

A I B E A

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGJJNEUQ0vx6ANGh%2BjdiT7FPm63KmpTnf0G8-xWgrJuBt4BjfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Murali]

IBA, Bank managements, courts etc., play their administrative roles. The government,  which owns the banks, although it may deny this fact citing technicalities, is run by elected representatives of the people. They are expected to understand the human element behind mounds of paper and mumbo jumbo dished out by bureaucrats.

Denying parity among various categories of pensioners like the banks, RBI, NABARD, etc is again violative of the right to equality and principles of natural equity.

Sadly, the ruling politicians, right from 1998 or so, have been indifferent and unsympathetic to our cause. 

Unless and until we manage to get the nod from the rulers, lawyers and experts would ultimately end up making more money than the sum total of pension updation and arrears payable to us.

Muralidharan 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGJJNEUQ0vx6ANGh%2BjdiT7FPm63KmpTnf0G8-xWgrJuBt4BjfQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

No preparation is necessary. Since 2008 IBA has been repeating the same lies, and High Courts have accepted these lies without scrutiny and dismissed the case. IBA expects the SC to follow suit.

1. SC should accept the argument of iBA  that there is no provision for updation in pension regulations.

    What if SC consider petiioners argument also that no provision necessary for updation considering case of RBI and already produced DFS letter in this regard.

2.  IBA argues Clause 12 does not provide for updation

     IBA/Banks accepted before the High Court that clause 12 does provide for updation, subject to future negotiations.

     Petioners advocate explained the updation like DA merger and adding load factor etc and aruued that  Rs.100 Basic fixed at the date of  retirement remains the same today,  

IBA expects the SC to dismiss the case  accepting its argument: "Clause 12 does not provide for updation:"

But SC is asking whether pensioners' DA is also merged with Basic during every wage revision?

3. What if the SC asks why Regulation 35(1) was not extended to others?

4.  When petitioners demand updation quoting Clause No.12 and clause no 56 DFS argue rhat RBI pension rules and Central govt pension rules are different and Bank pensioners cannot claim similar benefits.

But in case of commutation DFS argue that BEPR 1995 are broadly based on Central Govt pension rules and we will decide tht same.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I am sure SC will not base its verdict just reading contractual terms like High courts did but consider equality of Justice.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8Ozk1RNfPOd_duTjy457iWpniwV_0HK1umMRjNa1DP7f8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[yogendra singhal]

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAGDV8S3gdXrdBUEaAz3vxU7XxvJxW6s1rMtL5soakzBQS73%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Somashekara ji.
You have rightly said that the supreme court judges will not go by verbatic misguiding arguments of Deffendents advocate.
The learned judges have understood that there is injustice and deliver the judgement in favour petitioners for pension updation on the principles of Natural justice and fair play and based on the principles of equity and equality of law for all under article 14 and16 and 21.
Nobody is above law.
We will get favourable verdict and updation of pension for us will soon take place.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAE%2BWO5j_mJ%2B0opWH-ris4vr-5fV9ObABA1fgMS4Bv%3DMALv4RQ%40mail.gmail.com.