Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 14 updates in 4 topics

[vaidya nathan]

Sir.

In many criminal and civil cases there is No clear verdict of Law of Justice. It is ALL the thinking of One or Three Judges opinion. Not truth.  So any verdict given is ONLY Man made.  When Rules can be interpreted to human thinking, there is No Justice.  Since Law is Not Dharma,  Lower Court verdict may be Wrong in High Court and  be wrong in Supreme Court. And One man Verdict of Supreme Court May be Wrong by Three Judge or Five Judges. 

So friends, seven lac retirees Fate is rested with One or Three Persons in Socalled Supreme court.

VAIDYANATHAN 

Banglire

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• CA 7993/2023 LATE M C SINGLA CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT ON WEEKLY LIST - 3 Updates
• Civil Appeal by Shri (Late) Singla & Ors pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. - 8 Updates
• Pension updation case before Hon'ble Supreme Court - 2 Updates
• SC PENSION AS PER REGULATIONS 35 (1) APPENDIX 1 - 1 Update

CA 7993/2023 LATE M C SINGLA CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT ON WEEKLY LIST

SUMAN KUMAR Suman <suman...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 10:58PM +0530 INSTEAD OF APART FROM ALL BETTER WHATS BASIC AT STARTING THEN NETX LIKE 6TH TO 12TH BASIC SALARY ON THAT PENSION BASIC SHOULD BE THEN ALL CALCULATIONS OF DR OR DA APPLICABLE AT THOUSE PERIODS OK BETTER KNOW THINK THINK THINK         -- *suman.*

SUMAN KUMAR Suman <suman...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 11:04PM +0530 BASIC SALARY AT STARTING 100 THEN 5TH 6TH 7TH 8TH ETC TILL 12TH FIX THE PENSION ON IT DR OR DA APPLICABLE TO ALL AS PER PENSION REGULATION S     On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 10:58 PM SUMAN KUMAR Suman <suman...@gmail.com> wrote:     -- *suman.*

Ramakrishnan S <ramakri...@gmail.com>: Feb 17 09:36AM +0530 We, bank retirees are not a homogeneous group. From 5th to 12th BPS, we draw different quantum of pension Due to non implementation of pension revision and inflation, the worst hit pensioners are from 5th, 6th and 7th Bps period retirees and to little extent, 8th bps retirees. Unfortunately, majority of pensioners of pre 5th bps, 5th bps and 6th bps period pensioners have already left this world and a lot of pensioners of ,7th to 12th bps too are not there, to enjoy the pension revision(if we get a favourable sci judgement). In case of pension revision, Retirees of 5th to 7th bps period are reasonably to get increase in pension and 8th period pensioners too to little extent and 9th to 11th little. The writing of certain people reflect their mind and it speaks, they are not happy about the senior pensioners get some extra. Anyway, our speculation will be there, afew days more, till sci judgement. Let us hope for the best.     On Tue, 17 Feb 2026, 9:12 am SUMAN KUMAR Suman, <suman...@gmail.com> wrote:

Back to top

Civil Appeal by Shri (Late) Singla & Ors pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Saibabu Madiraju <madiraj...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 07:27PM +0530 Why you are saying this now, with false motive, otherwise you should have told 10years back, just before judgement you are telling, why   On Mon, 16 Feb, 2026, 3:45 pm 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <

Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 12:08PM -0500 The Karnataka highcourt is telling merely because " shall " is used it has not changed appendix 1 which is for retirees of a particular period. This valid point ☝️ will be used by IBA about the absence of updation from time to time. Merely because RBI updated pension though there was no such clause in their regulations, it doesn't ipso facto apply to bank pensioners. Court can consider sympathetically and advise to consider updation as per existing Bipartite route   On Mon, Feb 16, 2026, 11:57 AM Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ramakrishnan S <ramakri...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 08:34PM +0530 Mr. PRASAD, What is the position of the contempt petition filed by you in Sci, against iba and banks on the issues of commutation, DA at 1616 points ie at.35% etc. Once I spoke to you and you happened to mention that forget 100% da issue and .35 % Da is more advantageous to old pensioners. Please inform the latest.   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026, 4:05 pm Ramakrishnan S, <ramakri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Srinivasan Badri <sriniva...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 11:57AM -0500 Yes sir   Your opinion is laudable. It shows your legal acumen and analysis of pension regulations. As you said sir, unless the verdict comes we cannot assume things and making various charts for arrears etc making pensioners anxious . Law is an ass. It can kick either side. Pension regulations is not very clear on updation. Generally benefit of doubt is given to the affected as per general justice   Let us keep our fingers 🤞 crossed. Srinivasan B Retired officer e United Bank       On Sun, Feb 15, 2026, 11:44 PM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <

harinarayana sarma nandivada <nhns...@yahoo.com>: Feb 17 01:31AM Friends, Keeping  restraint at this crucial moment is more than helping the cause.  Any real well wisher does the same.  No hopes. No desperation.  All are equally knowledgeable and matured.  Simply our over expectations or over anxiety or desperation will not change the mind of the court too.  Hence more patience is the only need of the hour.  HARINARAYANA SARMA On Monday, February 16, 2026 at 03:44:36 PM GMT+5:30, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Dear friends,   We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All of us are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries are won.  I had posted email on the 16th, with good intention of informing Bank Retirees, some sense.  Want to make them understand that there is a possibility of adverse decision also.  But, I have come across some messages finding fault.  Very fact that these Pensioners are finding fault confirms my fears.  It is unfortunate that Bank Pensioners are made believe that there is a very strong case.  They do not have full knowledge of law.   It is also unfortunate that we believe that those who are representing IBA are ignorant of law and they are guided by what is written in social media.  Please remember they have unlimited resources.    I repeat, whatever I have written are known to all those who have even minimum knowledge of law.  Whatever, I have written are based on the claims or Judgment in Bank of Baroda Vs. G Palani & Ors.  Perhaps, most of you are not aware that there are Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pension Updation case where the ground of amendment to Regulation 35(1).  Both Writ Petition & Writ Appeals are dismissed.  Judgments are attached.        Thanks, a Million.  With regards,Prasad C N   On Monday, 16 February 2026 at 10:14:00 am IST, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Dear friends,   We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All ofus are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries arewon and accidents also do happen.  Still,there is every reason to expect positive outcome.  We shall seek divine intervention and getfavourable orders.   Having said that, we should also understand that thereare two sides in every dispute before the Courts, except where it isex-parte.  Both the sides feel that theyare on the right side of law.    With whatever exposure and experience I havepersonally, I never assume victory or defeat, till the Judgment isdelivered.  Judges are at liberty todecide, what they think that is correct. Therefore, before assuming, please remember, it is too early to decide.   Now, we have sufficiently impressed upon the Hon’bleCourt with regard to our claim on Pension Updation based on Regulation 35(1) –Appendix I.  Regulation 35(1) says that “(1)Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated asper the formulae given in Appendix I”. Our claim is based on insertion of the word ‘SHALL’, while amending in2003.  We have treated this insertion as ‘mandatoryprovision’, because of existence of the word ‘SHALL’.   Assumingour claim is correct,  we should alsoinfer that entire clause, viz. “Basic Pension and additional pension, whereverapplicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I”, is amandatory provision.  If it is amandatory provision for the Banks, it is also a mandatory provision for BankPensioners also.  If Bank is bound toupdate in terms of Regulation 35(1), we cannot also compel the Banks to gobeyond Appendix – I or what is mentioned therein. Therefore, I do not know, ifentire clause is a mandatory provision, whether it helps or harms.  Hon’ble Judges might have also considered theforce of this provision and have restricted application only to PensionRegulations, more particularly Appendix I. It is the claim of the Petitioners/Appellants or impleaded Respondents is that Pension shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I.  Therefore, we cannot go beyond AppendixI.  Words, 'Reserve Bank of India' or 'Government of India' are absent in entirety. Really, I do not know how Mr.Singhvi convinces the Court aboutapplicability of formula in Reserve Bank of India, in the absence of any clausein this regard, if the Judges stick to what is there in Appendix – I only.   All of us aware that the words ‘Reserve Bank of India’are absent in Regulation 56 and there is no word ‘updation’ in Reserve Bank ofIndia Pension Regulation.  Hon’ble Judgesare speaking only about Pension Regulations. We shall wait and watch, keeping our fingers crossed.   I never thought of writing anything with regard toSingla’s case.  But undue expectationshave been raised.  I thought, it isbetter to place some information on record.     Thanking you,   With regards,   C N Prasad           -- 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/169456831.379456.1771139526600%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/42226739.434609.1771234285267%40mail.yahoo.com.

Ramakrishnan S <ramakri...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 04:05PM +0530 Mr. Prasad, Hope is the cause of survival. So why you disappoint senior pensioners by giving interpretations as above. When we could wait and face defeat of 100% da case, let us all pray together that the outcome of Singla case became our success.   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026, 10:14 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <

Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: Feb 17 05:23AM It is very funny to read various views regarding Singla case. Nobody is worried about the outcome. As things stand we will get favourable verdict. Some stalwarts who advocated and  argued that there no provision in regulations and no updation now started to impress that some hope is possible for favourable verdict. Good that they too started feeling for favourable verdict. Singlaji shall be ensured that the judges have understood the truth.     Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 9:11, 'harinarayana sarma nandivada' via bankpensioner<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Friends, Keeping  restraint at this crucial moment is more than helping the cause.  Any real well wisher does the same.  No hopes. No desperation.  All are equally knowledgeable and matured.  Simply our over expectations or over anxiety or desperation will not change the mind of the court too.  Hence more patience is the only need of the hour.  HARINARAYANA SARMA On Monday, February 16, 2026 at 03:44:36 PM GMT+5:30, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Dear friends,   We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All of us are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries are won.  I had posted email on the 16th, with good intention of informing Bank Retirees, some sense.  Want to make them understand that there is a possibility of adverse decision also.  But, I have come across some messages finding fault.  Very fact that these Pensioners are finding fault confirms my fears.  It is unfortunate that Bank Pensioners are made believe that there is a very strong case.  They do not have full knowledge of law.   It is also unfortunate that we believe that those who are representing IBA are ignorant of law and they are guided by what is written in social media.  Please remember they have unlimited resources.    I repeat, whatever I have written are known to all those who have even minimum knowledge of law.  Whatever, I have written are based on the claims or Judgment in Bank of Baroda Vs. G Palani & Ors.  Perhaps, most of you are not aware that there are Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Pension Updation case where the ground of amendment to Regulation 35(1).  Both Writ Petition & Writ Appeals are dismissed.  Judgments are attached.        Thanks, a Million.  With regards,Prasad C N   On Monday, 16 February 2026 at 10:14:00 am IST, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote: Dear friends,   We are all waiting for the D-Day, 18.02.2026. All ofus are curious.  Naturally so.  We should also remember that the Lotteries arewon and accidents also do happen.  Still,there is every reason to expect positive outcome.  We shall seek divine intervention and getfavourable orders.   Having said that, we should also understand that thereare two sides in every dispute before the Courts, except where it isex-parte.  Both the sides feel that theyare on the right side of law.    With whatever exposure and experience I havepersonally, I never assume victory or defeat, till the Judgment isdelivered.  Judges are at liberty todecide, what they think that is correct. Therefore, before assuming, please remember, it is too early to decide.   Now, we have sufficiently impressed upon the Hon’bleCourt with regard to our claim on Pension Updation based on Regulation 35(1) –Appendix I.  Regulation 35(1) says that “(1)Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated asper the formulae given in Appendix I”. Our claim is based on insertion of the word ‘SHALL’, while amending in2003.  We have treated this insertion as ‘mandatoryprovision’, because of existence of the word ‘SHALL’.   Assumingour claim is correct,  we should alsoinfer that entire clause, viz. “Basic Pension and additional pension, whereverapplicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I”, is amandatory provision.  If it is amandatory provision for the Banks, it is also a mandatory provision for BankPensioners also.  If Bank is bound toupdate in terms of Regulation 35(1), we cannot also compel the Banks to gobeyond Appendix – I or what is mentioned therein. Therefore, I do not know, ifentire clause is a mandatory provision, whether it helps or harms.  Hon’ble Judges might have also considered theforce of this provision and have restricted application only to PensionRegulations, more particularly Appendix I. It is the claim of the Petitioners/Appellants or impleaded Respondents is that Pension shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I.  Therefore, we cannot go beyond AppendixI.  Words, 'Reserve Bank of India' or 'Government of India' are absent in entirety. Really, I do not know how Mr.Singhvi convinces the Court aboutapplicability of formula in Reserve Bank of India, in the absence of any clausein this regard, if the Judges stick to what is there in Appendix – I only.   All of us aware that the words ‘Reserve Bank of India’are absent in Regulation 56 and there is no word ‘updation’ in Reserve Bank ofIndia Pension Regulation.  Hon’ble Judgesare speaking only about Pension Regulations. We shall wait and watch, keeping our fingers crossed.   I never thought of writing anything with regard toSingla’s case.  But undue expectationshave been raised.  I thought, it isbetter to place some information on record.     Thanking you,   With regards,   C N Prasad           -- 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/169456831.379456.1771139526600%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/42226739.434609.1771234285267%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/1595019373.1148432.1771291886698%40mail.yahoo.com.

Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com>: Feb 17 11:10AM +0530 In my opinion, updation of pension in PSBs would have happened long ago but for the replacement of BEPR Scheme with NPS wef 1/4/2010.   BEPR was based on the pension scheme of Central government employees and so when that scheme was abolished wef 1/4/2003, PSBs had to follow suit. Because, it was only 10 years old at that time, BEPR was allowed to continue for 7 more, perhaps.   However, NPS being much less beneficial than BEPR, pay scales of employees were hiked liberally in each BPS as a barter deal/compensatory measure. The biggest beneficiaries in this arrangement are those who joined service in the few years ahead of 1/4/2010. They get good salaries and equally good pensions too. Actually, the concept of special allowance that is not eligible for pension was introduced only to curtail the above to some extent and the share of it has been purposely going up sharply in each BPS. This is also why UFBU is not supporting the demand to make it eligible for pension.   The courts may not entertain the petitions of pensioners to make Special Allowance eligible for pension in as much as the petitioners have accepted its ineligibility through BPS and signed the agreement thru UFBU when they were in service.   As for updation, there can be no doubt about our eligibility for it. Because, while initially rejecting to approve the RBI pensioners' updation, DFS had gone on record saying that it could lead to similar demands in future from PSB pensioners. This point will also put forth by our advocates. However, ultimately, it all depends on how the judges view and appreciate our pleas. That they have called for the comparative charts has raised our expectations. Whatever be the result, let it come early without keeping us in suspense for long as we have already waited for too long.   K N RAMANI               On Tue, 17 Feb, 2026, 9:11 am Ramakrishnan S, <ramakri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Back to top

Pension updation case before Hon'ble Supreme Court

Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 10:17PM +0530 Sir,   If AIBOC was so concerned about pension, they wouldn’t have pushed special allowance.   All the points are good for discussion only and not for presenting before court and it would not have made any difference even if they had deposed before SC. Court would have told them to use negotiating skill and settle.   Niranjan   On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 at 3:44 PM, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Feb 17 12:21PM +0530 Mr.Niranjan Verdict in M C Singla case will be out within few weeks. Let us wait for the judgment. This is not the right time to declare that the court will dismiss the case etc. Nobody can predict court verdicts. but in my opinion IBA/UFBU have authority to amend pension regulations through mutual discussion. So giving reasons like 1. There is no provision in pension regulations 2. Sub judice 3. Crying huge cost without arriving at exact cost, updation formula, load factor etc Is misleading, mischievous and betrayal.

Back to top

SC PENSION AS PER REGULATIONS 35 (1) APPENDIX 1

SUMAN KUMAR Suman <suman...@gmail.com>: Feb 16 11:05PM +0530 ITS BETTER THINK WHATS BASIC NOT PENSION SALARY FROM STARTING TO TILL 2026 THEN PENSION UPDATION ON PRESENT BASIC AND DA BETTER KNOW FOR EXP MY BASIC AT STARTING IS 100 THEN ALL 6 TO PRESENT BASIC 12 TH SETTLEMENT IS MORE WORTH KNOW THINK THINK   On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:44 PM Mattar Kamalaksha Kini <   -- *suman.*

Back to top

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.