Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 8 updates in 3 topics

40 views
Skip to first unread message

vaidya nathan

unread,
May 30, 2026, 6:11:36 AM (4 days ago) May 30
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
3rd Benefit of CPF.

I am doubtful whether Central, State Govt employees get three benefits like SBI. Just because Someone is getting, everyone can not demand it as Right. 
VAIDYANATHAN 

On Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:43 PM vaidya nathan <vvn.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
CPF payment. 
Mr. Sanjay Ji Sir.  Till date, I am confused about the views on CPF payment.  I am also of your view, Pansion in paid In Lieu Of CPF. Bank contribution.  That Applies to All Associate Banks of SBI.  If CPF also to be paid to pensioners, IBA will better think of enforcing Updation In Easy terms. 
VAIDYANATHAN 
Banglore 

On Fri, May 29, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: May 28 05:26PM +0530

Sanjay sir,
 
 
 
Your post – looks very logical and made me to think twice. After analysing
the issue, the following are my observations :
 
 
 
*1. *We are claiming that DFS submitted report that if they allow
update in RBI – there may be claim from PSB pensioners also. But in case
of SBI 40/50% case, it is duly mentioned in the Tangirala Report, it is
clearly stated as follows :
 
*“In respect to the possibility of NBs (Nationalised Banks) raising a
demand for CPF, IBA apprised the Committee that no such demand has been
received till date”*
 
 
 
Kindly read the above sentence again, will it not be prudent for
Nationalised Bank Pensioners to ask CPF ?? Are we not fools – if we don’t
claim even after reading the above ?
 
 
 
2. If at all CPF is the issue is only for eABs, in the report IBA would
not have mentioned NBs. Let us not get confused in this regard.
 
3. eABs issues, their unions / associations shall fight it out – as we
are not fully abrest of the details/situation. Without details – drawing
conclusions is not desirable.
 
4. Most of us are being Nationalised Bank pensioners – we shall fight
for our benefits – and at the same time we shall support each other
benefits (beyond NBs) – wherever support is mutual.
 
 
 
Really puzzling the resistance to claim CPF for Nationalised Bank
Pensioners/optees. Whatever we claim – will certainly will benefit us in
many ways. Had we put it on record again and again CPF demand - certainly
we would have also got some additional bargaining power , thereby benefits.
 
 
 
I am of firm belief that ‘claiming CPF’ now on record again and again – and
keeping the demand alive – we will be benefitted in days to come. We shall
act wise and keep demanding CPF for NBs also. We are not claiming in lieu
of any other benfits – and there is no need for any reservation or
hesitation or guilty in claim CPF for Nationalised Bank Pensioners. We
shall be sure of that.
 
ALL OF US SUPPORT CPF CLAIM, CERTAININGLY WE WILL GET BENEFIT IN ONE FORM
OR OTHER.
 
 
 
Niranjan
 
Ex Canara
 
 
 
Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: May 28 11:51AM

Dear Shri Ramaniji,
 
This is further to my response on an email from Shri Sanjayji.  I am repreducing my email to Shri Somashekaraji, which is already available in this group, for your immediate reference:
QUOTE
 
Dear Shri Somashekara,
With an exception of not amending Pension Regulations, absolutely there is no difference between erstwhile Associate Bank Pensioners and other Public Sector Bank Pensioners.  Even those who have retired from State Bank of India, but opted for Superannuation Benefits of erstwhile Associate 
Banks are also receiving pension & other Superannuation benefit same as that of other Public Sector Banks.
The problem we are facing is that we have presumed that SBI Pensioners are entitled to more.  They are enjoying more because we are fighting for them.  But, they do not fight for us.  Let alone them, we ourselves have not made any attempt to learn and understand.  
 
We have been cheated.  It is because our our own inaction.  Our organisations are fighting for equality.  But your organisation/s is/are subservient to SBI Organisation.
UNQUOTE
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Thursday, 28 May 2026 at 02:49:27 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Shri Ramani ji,
 
Your understanding of the matter is correct; Mr.Prasad’s statement applies only to his group, not as a universal solutionfor all pensioners.
 
Mr. Prasad’s statement is not based on a general right forall bankers, but on a specific claim of discrimination within the State Bankgroup. His argument is that employees of Erstwhile Associate Banks (eABs)were denied the "3rd Benefit" (Pension + PF + Gratuity) that SBIemployees enjoy. He is fighting for "parity with the parent bank," alegal ground that does not exist for Nationalised Banks.
 
You correctly pointed out that for Nationalised Banks (PSBs),the Pension Scheme (BEPR 1995) was structured as a "Second Benefit" inlieu of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). As you noted, PSB employeessurrendered the Bank’s PF contribution to create the Pension Corpus.
 
Therefore, your stand is well-founded:
 
For SBI/Associate Banks: The structure allows for "Pension ANDPF."
 
For Nationalised Banks: The structure was legally defined as "Pension ORPF."
 
For a PSB pensioner to now receive the "3rdBenefit," the Bank would theoretically have to refund the surrendered PFcorpus (plus 30 years of interest) while simultaneously maintaining the pensionpayments. This creates a massive financial contradiction that does not apply tothe SBI group, where the funds were always kept separate.
 
Mr. Prasad cites the Dr. Tangirala Committee tohighlight that Nationalised Banks never formally demanded CPF as a 3rdbenefit during the original negotiations. He uses this to distinguish his casefrom yours, essentially stating that the Associate Banks have a documentedhistory of demanding this right, while the Nationalised Banks do not.
 
Mr. Prasad is confident because he is fighting aniche battle for Associate Bank retirees based on historical discriminationrelative to SBI. As you rightly pointed out, his potential victory would likelynot set a precedent for Nationalised Bank pensioners, given the fundamentaldifference in how your pension funds were capitalized.
 
With regards,
 
Sanjay J.
 
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:10 PM Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
Thank you for explaining the situation very clearly in an elaborate manner, in the first two paragraphs of your letter.This situation was not known, at least to me, prior to receipt of your response.
I think this group consists of pensioners from PSBs, eABs as well as private banks. The subject of the letters being "Discrimination in PSBs", I thought you were voicing your concerns on behalf of the PSB pensioners too. Otherwise,I would not have waded into the matter at all.
However, I had a doubt and that is why I had written in my letter that the matter may be applicable only to the pensioners of eABs and not those of PSBs.
You may please rest assured that I will not write further on this subject.
K N RAMANI 
 
On Wed, 27 May, 2026, 10:01 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Ramaniji,
I would like to abundently clarify that whatever we are suggesting regarding elimination of disparity and discrimination, we are fighting by impleading in Writ Appeal.  We are confident and have sufficient grounds to get extension of third benefit for former employees of erstwhile Associate Banks.  Not only thrid benefit, we are also getting for OPS for NPS employees who were from erstwhile Associate Banks.
If other Banks' retirees have various questions and problems in demanding third benefit or atleast while updating pension, some thing more for non-SBI Pensioners, we are not responsible for getting them the benefits.
I am extracting from Dr.Tangirala Committee.  This should be an eye opener for those who still thinking whether we can demand or not.
 
2.20 Thereafter, representative from Department of Expenditure, Shri B K Manthan asked Shri Mehta whether there has been any demand from Nationalised Banks (NBs) for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in addition to pension, which is already prevelent in SBI.  Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand for CPF from any of the NBs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
Even when IBA CEO himself says there is no such demand from NBs, Hon'ble members in this group themselves express their doubts about availability of funds, etc. can we expect anyone taking up the cause of Pensioners from other Banks.  But, they do not have any such doubts, when it comes to Pension Updation.  
Unlike other organisations, our Associations is fighting for rights of its members, we have already succeeded in some and fighting for remaining.  It is immaterial, whether we succeed or not. Honestly and sincerely fighting to secure the benefits, without misguidance and misrepresentation.  Let others be happy.
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Tuesday, 26 May 2026 at 03:15:49 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well said Mr.Raman, if IBA has no funds even for a few hundred rupees increase of  Ex gratia how are we going to achieve parity with SBI?
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 9:45 AM Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
In my view, in respect of disparities existing between SBI and other PSBs as well its erstwhile associate banks which have been merged with it, the pensioners of eABs and the PSBs are on totally different footings. Because, the pensioners of eABs are now pensioners of SBI and are entitled to claim the benefits enjoyed by the original pensioners of SBI. Also, such a claim for parity will be much more legitimate, stronger and meaningful than a similar claim by pensioners of PSBs. For them,the parity has to happen in respect of PSB employees first, and only then it can percolate to the pensioners. Being fully aware of this reality, the PSB pensioners, especially those in their late seventies and above are chasing their dream of updation of pension and nothing else.
Additionally, if PSBs cannot provide the  Funds required for updation, how can they do it for the reportedly bigger benefits that will result for their pensioners from parity with SBI pensioners.
K N RAMANI 
 
 
On Mon, 25 May, 2026, 4:30 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear PrasadjiAchieving updation is sure to rejuvenate us to confront issues of discriminationRegdsCVNarayanan
On Mon, 25 May, 2026, 9:20 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Sir,
All other issues must also be that of Trade Unions.  But, as far as Pension Updation is concerned, we have a different take. Why this dichotomy?
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Friday, 22 May 2026 at 04:11:29 pm IST, Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear sri PrasadjiAgreed.There are scores of such disparities visible and invisible created from iMPERIAL BANK TIMES IN SBI AND PSBS under private hold. You will agree it is the responsibility of Trade Unions to SIFT and SIEVE important issues atleast for serving employees .Pensioners are ofcourse. aliens as tutored by IBA..They (TRADE UNIONS) cannot afford to defy HIS MASTERS VOICE to protest in issues like  Iran Israel/USA conflict rather than pensioners  issue.. Unions have no willpower to take up Updation Issue  which is the only discernible issue for pensioners especially senior category.
C V NARAYANANOn Friday, May 22, 2026 at 9:41:13 AM UTC+5:30 Prasad C N wrote:
 
Dear friends,
Repeatedly, I have posted messages regarding discrimination within Banking Industry.  We are losing huge amount on account of such discrimination. Including Shri Sanjayji and Shri Sathyanarayana Rao, many have spent enough time in such beautiful narrations, with charts, etc. even in cases where the increase is minimal.  This has received appreciation.  Rightly so.  Still, I am unable to decipher the reason for turning a blind eye on discrimination within our own backyard.  
We are demanding parity with RBI, but not parity with SBIWe are demanding parity with Government, but not with SBIWe have Regulation 35(1), but they are not having 35(1). Still we demand parity for them in Pension Updation issue.We are demanding paltry subsidy and GST waiver, but we do not demand parity with SBI Retirees as far as Medical Insurance & Medical benefits.Are we demanding parity with SBI?
We got 100% DA, SBI Pensioners also got.We got improvement in Family Pension, they also gotWe got Ex-gratia, they also got.But, what we have got, when their maximum pension was less than that of a Scale I Officer in State Bank of India at the time of introduction of pension during 1993 - 1996, which is at same 50% as we are getting now, Have we demanded parity?
 
We are happy to live and die as second class pensioners.
Why we do not atleast discuss the discrimination.  Is it because we do not know or we are ignoring?  Are we happy to make SBI pensioners happier.  But, we keep talking about discrimination, Article 14.
Another observation.  We fight for every benefit which only SBI pensioners and their organisation and its top Executives want, even if that benefit is not for us, but only to SBI Pensioners.  We whole heartely support.  We also fight for the benefits which not only those pensioners from other Banks, even those from State Bank of India are the beneficiaries.  In both these cases, SBI Pensioners are the beneficiaries.  But, I have not seen any instance where SBI Pensioners or their organisations support and/or demand any benefit to non-SBI Pensioners.  Unfortunately, they have even objected too.
Why we do not invoke Artice 14, 16 and 21 in that case?Why we do not even say that we are cheated?Why we do not even make any calculation?
Now, I am sure after having read mail,Shri Sanjayji, Shri Sathyanaryana Rao and Shri Somashekarji would fight for parity for you and me.
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
 
--
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/33b35821-e245-4267-8457-99a21c89c416n%40googlegroups.com.

 
--
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/1885250153.2843600.1779539317311%40mail.yahoo.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAJev%3Da_xm9tsand_Csbv-2G3CnLS1ZM40E86VizrTf01bHKFmA%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAKcPo_xy%2BKA%3DBOa3WkUWdyV9CrcbM52rjcz05KyRB4p5oSwoKA%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAM%3DeiW0pXZOapaTNA1pSfqyE38MYDe%3DB0dX0wNV7jtxAO-T3Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

 
--
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/1929484703.3307670.1779792309603%40mail.yahoo.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAKcPo_yH7Erhn3e0UTn8OhSThou%2BRT-eB4QnZ71A4p6mazcB4g%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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-Ue%2BK3_pq_fvcJSW0H1mxXLJCLfKLa3%2Bxw-9yBB07gLRo0g%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: May 28 11:48AM

Dear Shri Ramaniji,
What Shri Sanjayji's has interpreted is completely wrong.  As far as Superannuation Benefits are concerned, Superannuation Benefits of erstwhile Associate Banks and that of other Public Sector Banks are identical.  We are also covered by Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and Grautity Rules.  Even employees of erstwhile Associate Banks who continued their service in State Bank of India and opted for Superannuation Benefits of erstwhile Associate Banks, continue to be covered by Superannuation Benefits of erstwhile Associate Banks only.  All Associate Banks were parties in both Pension Settlements, like any other Public Sector Bank.  There were/are two benefits only.
As said earlier, there is no difference between other PSBs and Associate Banks as far as law and regulations of Superannuation Benefits are concerned.  There are many similarities to claim Provident Fund.  Dr.Tangirala Committee has concluded that 
Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand for CPF from any of the NBs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
What is stated is NBs, but not ABs.  I also request Shri Sanjayji to visit our Office and discuss.  There will not be any such occasion to misinterpret and misrepresent.  All of us can make use of precious time in a better manner.
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Thursday, 28 May 2026 at 02:49:27 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Shri Ramani ji,
 
Your understanding of the matter is correct; Mr.Prasad’s statement applies only to his group, not as a universal solutionfor all pensioners.
 
Mr. Prasad’s statement is not based on a general right forall bankers, but on a specific claim of discrimination within the State Bankgroup. His argument is that employees of Erstwhile Associate Banks (eABs)were denied the "3rd Benefit" (Pension + PF + Gratuity) that SBIemployees enjoy. He is fighting for "parity with the parent bank," alegal ground that does not exist for Nationalised Banks.
 
You correctly pointed out that for Nationalised Banks (PSBs),the Pension Scheme (BEPR 1995) was structured as a "Second Benefit" inlieu of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). As you noted, PSB employeessurrendered the Bank’s PF contribution to create the Pension Corpus.
 
Therefore, your stand is well-founded:
 
For SBI/Associate Banks: The structure allows for "Pension ANDPF."
 
For Nationalised Banks: The structure was legally defined as "Pension ORPF."
 
For a PSB pensioner to now receive the "3rdBenefit," the Bank would theoretically have to refund the surrendered PFcorpus (plus 30 years of interest) while simultaneously maintaining the pensionpayments. This creates a massive financial contradiction that does not apply tothe SBI group, where the funds were always kept separate.
 
Mr. Prasad cites the Dr. Tangirala Committee tohighlight that Nationalised Banks never formally demanded CPF as a 3rdbenefit during the original negotiations. He uses this to distinguish his casefrom yours, essentially stating that the Associate Banks have a documentedhistory of demanding this right, while the Nationalised Banks do not.
 
Mr. Prasad is confident because he is fighting aniche battle for Associate Bank retirees based on historical discriminationrelative to SBI. As you rightly pointed out, his potential victory would likelynot set a precedent for Nationalised Bank pensioners, given the fundamentaldifference in how your pension funds were capitalized.
 
With regards,
 
Sanjay J.
 
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:10 PM Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
Thank you for explaining the situation very clearly in an elaborate manner, in the first two paragraphs of your letter.This situation was not known, at least to me, prior to receipt of your response.
I think this group consists of pensioners from PSBs, eABs as well as private banks. The subject of the letters being "Discrimination in PSBs", I thought you were voicing your concerns on behalf of the PSB pensioners too. Otherwise,I would not have waded into the matter at all.
However, I had a doubt and that is why I had written in my letter that the matter may be applicable only to the pensioners of eABs and not those of PSBs.
You may please rest assured that I will not write further on this subject.
K N RAMANI 
 
On Wed, 27 May, 2026, 10:01 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Ramaniji,
I would like to abundently clarify that whatever we are suggesting regarding elimination of disparity and discrimination, we are fighting by impleading in Writ Appeal.  We are confident and have sufficient grounds to get extension of third benefit for former employees of erstwhile Associate Banks.  Not only thrid benefit, we are also getting for OPS for NPS employees who were from erstwhile Associate Banks.
If other Banks' retirees have various questions and problems in demanding third benefit or atleast while updating pension, some thing more for non-SBI Pensioners, we are not responsible for getting them the benefits.
I am extracting from Dr.Tangirala Committee.  This should be an eye opener for those who still thinking whether we can demand or not.
 
2.20 Thereafter, representative from Department of Expenditure, Shri B K Manthan asked Shri Mehta whether there has been any demand from Nationalised Banks (NBs) for Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) in addition to pension, which is already prevelent in SBI.  Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand for CPF from any of the NBs.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
Even when IBA CEO himself says there is no such demand from NBs, Hon'ble members in this group themselves express their doubts about availability of funds, etc. can we expect anyone taking up the cause of Pensioners from other Banks.  But, they do not have any such doubts, when it comes to Pension Updation.  
Unlike other organisations, our Associations is fighting for rights of its members, we have already succeeded in some and fighting for remaining.  It is immaterial, whether we succeed or not. Honestly and sincerely fighting to secure the benefits, without misguidance and misrepresentation.  Let others be happy.
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Tuesday, 26 May 2026 at 03:15:49 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well said Mr.Raman, if IBA has no funds even for a few hundred rupees increase of  Ex gratia how are we going to achieve parity with SBI?
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 9:45 AM Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
In my view, in respect of disparities existing between SBI and other PSBs as well its erstwhile associate banks which have been merged with it, the pensioners of eABs and the PSBs are on totally different footings. Because, the pensioners of eABs are now pensioners of SBI and are entitled to claim the benefits enjoyed by the original pensioners of SBI. Also, such a claim for parity will be much more legitimate, stronger and meaningful than a similar claim by pensioners of PSBs. For them,the parity has to happen in respect of PSB employees first, and only then it can percolate to the pensioners. Being fully aware of this reality, the PSB pensioners, especially those in their late seventies and above are chasing their dream of updation of pension and nothing else.
Additionally, if PSBs cannot provide the  Funds required for updation, how can they do it for the reportedly bigger benefits that will result for their pensioners from parity with SBI pensioners.
K N RAMANI 
 
 
On Mon, 25 May, 2026, 4:30 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
Dear PrasadjiAchieving updation is sure to rejuvenate us to confront issues of discriminationRegdsCVNarayanan
On Mon, 25 May, 2026, 9:20 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
 
Dear Sir,
All other issues must also be that of Trade Unions.  But, as far as Pension Updation is concerned, we have a different take. Why this dichotomy?
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Friday, 22 May 2026 at 04:11:29 pm IST, Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear sri PrasadjiAgreed.There are scores of such disparities visible and invisible created from iMPERIAL BANK TIMES IN SBI AND PSBS under private hold. You will agree it is the responsibility of Trade Unions to SIFT and SIEVE important issues atleast for serving employees .Pensioners are ofcourse. aliens as tutored by IBA..They (TRADE UNIONS) cannot afford to defy HIS MASTERS VOICE to protest in issues like  Iran Israel/USA conflict rather than pensioners  issue.. Unions have no willpower to take up Updation Issue  which is the only discernible issue for pensioners especially senior category.
C V NARAYANANOn Friday, May 22, 2026 at 9:41:13 AM UTC+5:30 Prasad C N wrote:
 
Dear friends,
Repeatedly, I have posted messages regarding discrimination within Banking Industry.  We are losing huge amount on account of such discrimination. Including Shri Sanjayji and Shri Sathyanarayana Rao, many have spent enough time in such beautiful narrations, with charts, etc. even in cases where the increase is minimal.  This has received appreciation.  Rightly so.  Still, I am unable to decipher the reason for turning a blind eye on discrimination within our own backyard.  
We are demanding parity with RBI, but not parity with SBIWe are demanding parity with Government, but not with SBIWe have Regulation 35(1), but they are not having 35(1). Still we demand parity for them in Pension Updation issue.We are demanding paltry subsidy and GST waiver, but we do not demand parity with SBI Retirees as far as Medical Insurance & Medical benefits.Are we demanding parity with SBI?
We got 100% DA, SBI Pensioners also got.We got improvement in Family Pension, they also gotWe got Ex-gratia, they also got.But, what we have got, when their maximum pension was less than that of a Scale I Officer in State Bank of India at the time of introduction of pension during 1993 - 1996, which is at same 50% as we are getting now, Have we demanded parity?
 
We are happy to live and die as second class pensioners.
Why we do not atleast discuss the discrimination.  Is it because we do not know or we are ignoring?  Are we happy to make SBI pensioners happier.  But, we keep talking about discrimination, Article 14.
Another observation.  We fight for every benefit which only SBI pensioners and their organisation and its top Executives want, even if that benefit is not for us, but only to SBI Pensioners.  We whole heartely support.  We also fight for the benefits which not only those pensioners from other Banks, even those from State Bank of India are the beneficiaries.  In both these cases, SBI Pensioners are the beneficiaries.  But, I have not seen any instance where SBI Pensioners or their organisations support and/or demand any benefit to non-SBI Pensioners.  Unfortunately, they have even objected too.
Why we do not invoke Artice 14, 16 and 21 in that case?Why we do not even say that we are cheated?Why we do not even make any calculation?
Now, I am sure after having read mail,Shri Sanjayji, Shri Sathyanaryana Rao and Shri Somashekarji would fight for parity for you and me.
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
 
--
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/33b35821-e245-4267-8457-99a21c89c416n%40googlegroups.com.

 
--
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/1885250153.2843600.1779539317311%40mail.yahoo.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAJev%3Da_xm9tsand_Csbv-2G3CnLS1ZM40E86VizrTf01bHKFmA%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAKcPo_xy%2BKA%3DBOa3WkUWdyV9CrcbM52rjcz05KyRB4p5oSwoKA%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAM%3DeiW0pXZOapaTNA1pSfqyE38MYDe%3DB0dX0wNV7jtxAO-T3Qg%40mail.gmail.com.

 
--
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/1929484703.3307670.1779792309603%40mail.yahoo.com.
 
 
 
--
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/CAKcPo_yH7Erhn3e0UTn8OhSThou%2BRT-eB4QnZ71A4p6mazcB4g%40mail.gmail.com.
 
 
 
--
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-Ue%2BK3_pq_fvcJSW0H1mxXLJCLfKLa3%2Bxw-9yBB07gLRo0g%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com>: May 29 10:33AM +0530

Dear Shri Prasad ji,
 
Thanks for the information. I have a few points to raise on the matter of
PSB pensioners making a claim for CPF as 3rd benefit.
 
However, I find that Sri Somashekar has already raised these in his letters
which were in response to your letters. I have been going through all the
mails daily and I have not seen your response/comments. If you have, please
provide me a copy thereof.
 
For your ready reference, I have reproduced hereunder the relevant portions
of his letters.
 
Quote:
 
When the pension scheme was being drafted, except AIBEA, other unions
demanded three benefits but AIBEA was firm on two benefits. At that time
other unions beca\me villains and were accused that ,they were putting
brakes on the pension scheme.. So AIBEA only signed the 1993 agreement.
 
I have no idea how CPF as a third benefit will work out for retirees after
25 years of SVRS. However I request Mr.Prasad to enlighten us about this
benefit.
 
Unquote:
 
My further doubts;
 
1. In as much as pension scheme was introduced as a result of an agreement
between the employees unions and IBA, wherein, pension was offered in lieu
of CPF, the demand for granting CPF to existing Pensioners, I think, has to
be made by the employees' unions only,
since pensioners organisations are not even recognised by IBA. Am I right?
 
2. Suppose, pensioners organisations of PSBs approach courts seeking
parity with SBI in respect of CPF as third benefit, will the prayer be on
strong legal footing/principles, as the pensioners had specifically opted
for/chosen pension in lieu of CPF as a second benefit and it was not thrust
upon them.
 
Thanks
 
K N RAMANI
 
 
 
 
On Fri, 29 May, 2026, 9:42 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: May 29 10:59AM +0530

Dear Shri Ramani ji,
 
I am writing to further clarify my interpretation shared in my previous
mail, in light of Shri Prasad ji’s observations.
 
While Shri Prasad ji is technically correct that both erstwhile Associate
Banks (e-ABs) and Nationalised Banks (NBs) operate under the Bank
Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995, his subsequent remarks inadvertently
confirm the exact divergence I highlighted to you.
 
In his previous mail, Shri Prasad ji explicitly emphasizes a critical
distinction from the Dr. Tangirala Committee report:
 
*“Shri Mehta informed the Committee that there has never been any demand
for CPF from any of the NBs... *What is stated is NBs, but not ABs.”
 
By drawing this precise line, Shri Prasad ji confirms my previous note: the
legal and historical grounds being pursued for e-AB retirees are distinct
from those of Nationalised Banks.
 
For Nationalised Banks, the 1995 Pension scheme was fundamentally
established as a second benefit *in lieu of* the Contributory Provident
Fund (CPF). To retroactively grant a "Third Benefit" (Pension + matching
CPF) to an NB pensioner today would require *a complete rewriting of how
the Nationalised Banks' pension corpuses were legally and financially
capitalized over the last three decades.*
 
Conversely, the litigation for e-AB pensioners relies heavily on a
specialized argument of intra-organizational parity and historical demands
unique to the State Bank group structure, particularly following the
post-merger successor liability of SBI.
 
*Therefore, your original assessment remains entirely sound.* The
mechanism, the historical record of demands, and the legal pathways for an
e-AB retirement structure to claim a third benefit *cannot be universally
duplicated* *or applied* as a boilerplate precedent for Nationalised Bank
pensioners.
 
I will now recuse myself from this thread and leave the floor open to you
and Shri Prasad ji to continue your valuable debate on the historical
progression of these settlements.
 
With warm regards,
 
Sanjay J.
 
On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:41 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: May 29 12:13PM +0530

There is no doubt that erstwhile SBI subsidiary banks and PSB pensioners
both are covered under BEPR 1995 and demands are identical. PSB pensioners
fully support any demand of SBM commune also.
But is it wise to take the statement of IBA that there is no demand for
CPF as prima facie honest? Periodical updation in every settlement was
also one of the agenda before the committee appointed by DFS. As this is a
long pending demand IBA should have supported this. But iBA said this
demand pertains to all pensioners and it will be discussed separately. (IBA
was aware that illogical reasons like sub judice will be accepted only by
unions so iBA did not give such reasons to the committee) But in the next
BPS meeting IBA should have initiated discussion on updation as it agreed
before the committee. But IBA avoided discussion stating the issue is
subjudice. Like its response to updation before the committee, IBA also
should have assured the committee that it will look into the matter of
CPF after consulting unions. IBA has not taken initiate discussions on
issues where there is demand like merger of DA, uniform DA for all
pensioners, base year 2016 for all pensioners, improvement in ex gratia
etc. IBA and UFBU have not taken seriously there own minutes of 08.03.24.
There is no reason to take the IBA statement on CPF before the committee
seriously.
Large numbers of pensioners have taken VRS in 2000-2001 and opted for
pension. Now 25 years have lapsed. We have opted for pension in lieu of
PF,surrendering Bank contribution of PF. Bank has not forced us to forego
PF.
Bank has given us the option to select either PF or pension. We voluntarily
opted for pension. After selecting a pension voluntarily would any court
approve our demand for CPF ? Updation was a natural claim.
After merger of SBM and other subsidiary banks with SBI it is justified to
demand benefits including CPF as third benefit available to SBI
pensioners, to all merged Bank employees. But no such rights exist for
PSB pensioners.
Still nobody has clarified how CPF as a third benefit will work out for PSB
pensioners after 25 years of retirement? If we raise CPF as a new demand,
what about updation demand? CPF as a third benefit is a long drawn battle
and considering the background of IBA and UFBU it is clear it will take
another 5-10 years even for discussion to start.
Pensioners particularly pre 2002 pensioners do not have such luxury of such
long time left.
 
 
 
On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 9:42 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: May 28 03:09PM +0530

Adjourned to 31.07.26
 
Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com>: May 28 12:50PM -0400

What is the guarantee for a favourable verdict? Any miracle has been
forecast by any astrologer because Guru's transition to Cancer.?
Let me know.
 
On Thu, 28 May, 2026, 05:19 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner, <
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.

vaidya nathan

unread,
May 30, 2026, 6:11:36 AM (4 days ago) May 30
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Third Benefit of CPF 
Mr. Niranjan Sir
Many think it is wise to ask CPF back as third Benefit, since SBI has paid.
If it is so,  thinking all are Banking employees, doing same type of work, why Not AIBOA AIBOC  and UBFU ask for same Pay for All just like wage revision effected in RBI for SBI and PSU banks.  That will be More possible than asking for another benefits. After all all are Banking Employees , maybe doing different type of jobs in Banking Organisation.
UFBU cannot even implement Exgratia payment to All Private Bank Retirees.
VAIDYANATHAN 
Banglore 

vaidya nathan

unread,
May 30, 2026, 6:11:38 AM (4 days ago) May 30
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages