Reg 35(1): An Updation Engine, or a mere Fitment?
Sanjay J
Dear Members,
Mr. Ramani has shared some interesting findings regarding Reg 35(1) that are very relevant to our M.C. Singla Pension Updation case. His original post was inadvertently tucked away in the DA/DR parity thread and could easily be missed.
Because I feel this is an important discovery, I’ve started this new thread to make it easier to find for future reference. Please find my views and his findings below:
Dear Shri Ramani ji,
Thank you for sharing this deeper dive. Your calculation is the "Missing Link" in the argument that Regulation 35(1) was a mere "fitment" or "merger."
Particular case of 4th BPS pensioner on applying Appendix 1 formula (Nov 1995):
|
Item |
A. Without Appendix 1 |
B. With Appendix 1 |
|
Basic Pension |
Rs. 830 |
Rs. 1,383 |
|
DA Slabs |
305 slabs |
238 slabs |
|
DA Rate |
1% per slab (305%) |
0.67% per slab (159.46%) |
|
DA Amount |
Rs. 2,532 |
Rs. 2,205 |
|
Total Pension (Nov 1995) |
Rs. 3,362 |
Rs. 3,588 |
B-A= 3588-3362=226 (6.7%)
The Findings:
- The Proof of Intent: The initial gap of ₹226 represents the 10% Value Improvement (Loading). It proves that Regulation 35(1) was designed to enhance pension value, not just merge DA.
- DNA of Updation: This also proves that the Principle of Updation was successfully practiced for the first batch of retirees using the very Regulation [35(1)] we are currently defending.
- The ₹2,202 Growth: This "Updation Seed" has grown over 30 years. By projecting this formula to February 2026, the gap widens significantly:
Let’s look at the two critical takeaways from your analysis:
- The "Simple Merger":
You have proved that if we simply merge DA (as the IBA often suggests at the 8088 level) without any "Loading," the benefit to the pensioner is a measly ₹28 to ₹67. In some cases, it even leads to a negative result! This proves that a "Merger" alone is a mathematical illusion.
- The Appendix-1 "Loading" Proof:
In contrast, look at what happened to the 4th BPS retirees under Regulation 35(1). In 1995, they got a ₹226 monthly boost (6.7% improvement). As you pointed out, that original advantage has compounded into the ₹2,202 monthly surplus we see today.
The Conclusion:
If Appendix-1 was just a "fitment/merger" rule, that benefit should have been Zero. The fact that it was NOT zero proves that Regulation 35(1) is a functional Updation Engine.
It should be ensured that the Hon'ble Supreme Court understands that we aren't asking for a "new" right—we are asking for the restoration of a mathematical formula that worked perfectly for the 1987 batch but was unfairly "switched off" for later retirees.
Let us stand by this data. It is the most potent rebuttal to the IBA’s "fitment-only" narrative.
With regards.Mr. Ramani’s original post:
Dear Shri Sanjay ji,
The purpose of Regulation 35(1) not being stated explicitly, two different interpretations are being given, viz., 1) fitment of basic Pension with a simple merger of DA at the 5th BPS level for the 4th BPS retirees without any loading and 2) updating the total pension.
Now, in the light of the discussions going on about merger of DA at 8088 level for all groups, I made a study as follows.
I am a 6th BPS pensioner with a basic pension of ₹4572 and DR of ₹34325 making a total of ₹38897. (A) On merger of DA at 8088 level (607.25%) viz., ₹27763, the Basic will become ₹32335. Under 1960=100 series DA @20.5% (for 410 slabs over 8088 @ 0.05% per slab) DA will be ₹6629 making a total of ₹38964. (B)
Increase of B over A is a paltry ₹67. (Increase of 0.17%)
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT WHENEVER DA IS MERGED WITH BASIC PAY WITHOUT ANY LOADING THE RESULTANT INCREASE WILL ONLY BE NEGLIGIBLE AND IN A FEW CASES, THERE WILL BE A MARGINAL REDUCTION TOO AS AN ANOMALY. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE.
In the Excel Sheet posted by Shri Kushal Mukhoti, he has proceeded on the presumption that while merging DA at 8088 level with basic, the adoption of 2016=100 series will be automatic and has thus applied the uniform DA rate of 25% for all BPS groups. So, there is a reasonable increase for all groups. However, if there is only a simple merger and 1960=100 series continues, the increases for the cases taken as example by him will be Rs 28, 45, 61, &33 for 5th to 8th BPS groups and it will be (-125) , (-451) & (-3) for 9th, 10th and 11th groups probably due to the special allowance factor.
NOW LET ME DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENED TO A PARTICULAR CASE OF 4TH BPS PENSIONER ON APPLYING APPENDIX 1 FORMULA
Basic Pay = 1660
Basic Pension @ 50% = 830
Basic Pension upon
Applying APPENDIX 1 = 1383.
Formula
CALCULATION OF PENSION FOR NOVEMBER 1995. (INDEX AT 1553)
(1)F APPENDIX 1 WAS NOT APPLIED. (2) ON APPLYING APPENDIX 1
Basic Pension = 830. Basic Pension. = 1383
DAfor305 slabs. DA for 238 slabs
(1553-332÷4)@. (1553-600÷4)@
1%per slab @. 0.67% per slab@
305%. = 2532. 159.46%. = 2205
Total pension. =. 3362. (A) Total pension. =. 3588 (B)
The increase in the very first pension due to the application of Formula in Appendix 1 is Rs 226 which works out to 6.7%. This happened 35 years ago and so Rs.226 was a sizeable amount in those days' standards. This increase has now grown to Rs.2202 in Feb 2026 as mentioned in an earlier letter of mine.
Further, compared to the present 2-digit increases observed in the 8088 mergers, Rs.226 in 1995 is definitely a very substantial amount taking into consideration the much lower cost of living prevailing at that period of time.
THIS RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS ONLY AMERGER THAT WAS DONE THROUGH APPENDIX 1 FOR THOSE WHO HAD RETIRED DURING 1/1/1986 AND 31/10/1987 (4TH BPS)
K N Ramani
JSOMA SHEKARA
--
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%2BFjp3txL7r7jooizpX2J5xLsZMmLF9wHjgcgq%3DZG1-QA%40mail.gmail.com.