REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Friends,

REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

After a long discussion about the subject, I understand 100% D.A neutralization and updating of pension as under:

100% D.A. neutrlisation will compensate only the D.A. loss to the pre-2002 retirees as compared to the present employees or retirees. Further it will not be of much benefit to retirees from Award Staff category and to the family pensioners, because of a lower basic.  Also, it will not compensate for the loss in ‘Basic’ consequent upon upward revision of ‘Pay’ to the present batches.  In other words, benefits of salary revision will not be passed on to the retirees of previous bipartite periods. Updating of pension will compensate D.A. loss fully and ‘Basic’ loss partially to all the categories of pensioners. This is because our basic pension will not be calculated on scale-to-scale fitment basis. It will be revised with a merger of certain percentage to ‘Basic’ as explained in an example below:                                                                                             

                                                                                                                     [Position as on August 2012]

Particulars	Old Pay of  7th Bipartite Period	Present Pay in Corresponding Scale (9th Bipartite)	New fitment with,  Say, a 100% merger
Basic	15,380	32,400	30,760
FPA	380	800	760
PQA	135	410	270
Total ‘Pay’	15,895	33,610	31,790
Basic Pension (for full service)	7,948	16,805	15,895
Present DA	10,822
D.A. with 100% neutralisation	14,421	11,797	11,158
Gross Pension	22,369	28,602	27,053

 

Let this happen as early as possible.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-VRS 2001

[C P V Nair]

TKU Raoji, for your beautiful presentation.If it happens, good.But what is the guarantee?

Secondly, we lose on ac of DA from 2001/2005.No compensation?

 

Updation also would not be an easy walkover.IBA seems to more adamant this time.

 

Let us pray to the IBA/new FM- what else can we do?

 

It is heard that AIBRF plans for demonstration before the parliament.But the Govt itself seems to head for new crisis on ac of 'Coalgate'.So....

 

 

Warm Reg

 

 

 

CPVNAIR

 

 

 

 

--
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.

[PARASURAMAN K R]

Dear Rao,

Thanks for for your chart showing the comparable benefits of pension updation with respect 100% DA neutralization. Whereas I00% DA neutralization fetches a hike of Rs3599/- pension updation would fetch a increase of Rs8283/- But for achieving the latter benefit we should negotiate with IMF and not with IBA.

Parasuraman.K.R
Trichur

--

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

Who will say no, if we are going to get about 20 a percent increase after updation? But what is the prospects of getting updation? Is there any positive signal uptil now? And what about the loss so far suffered and how the arrears will be compensated? Personally I am willing to forego the arrears, if updation is secured. Though this is a personal opinion, I still feel that there is no light at end of the tunnel as far as updation is concerned. And again what will be the formula of updation? Will the one suggested by Shri Mohandas Rao be implemented. Hypothetical, these are all and we are not sure what is on store for us in theI future!

G.Ramachandran

CB SVRS.

--

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for sharing your understanding of Updation. Though it may not have 100% accuracy, it gives a broader picture and fair idea of what updation would be.

M.Perumal

-- 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.Ramachandran,

Please understand that it took decades for Updation of Central Government Pension and 100% nutralisation was also took another two decades for them to get.  It was Updation first, not 100% nutralisation.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran <chandra...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Friends                    23/08/2012

    I observe that inspite of explaining the differance between 100% neutralisation and Updation, many are arguing for 100% first fearing that  UPDATION MAY NOT COME AT all.

      But we need to see he reality. No doubt, this group contains  only (95%)   with Officers and above category retirees and there may be just 2-5% of Spl Assts or clerks. 

      Maximum of workmen group do not have pension basic of above 6000. Then forget about sub staff.The average pension basic of clerks may be around 4500 to 5500. Under the circumstance, the 100% neutralisation may give them an added income of below Rs.700/- per month. It means that even if we take workmen retirees at 50% to 60% of total pensioners, their first option will be Updation and not 100% neutralisation. 

     Just because, officers are more in this group with basic pension of 7000 and above, we are getting more support for 100% first. Had this benefit is only below 700-1000, we too would opt for Updation first.

    Under the circumstance, I personally believe that movement by ALL pensioners- Substaff to DM retirees- TOGETHER is most needed AND UPDATION WILL GIVE EQUAL JUSTICE TO ALL as against the 100% which benefits prorata on designation. 

AS SUCH, IT SEEMS MORE ADVISABLE TO PUT MORE PRESSURE FOR UPDATION AS IT MAY GET SUPPORT FROM ALL THE PENSIONERS (and also from UFBU) instead of 100% which has backing of only pre 2001 Officers and above. Any way Updation includes 100% but not vice versa.

With regards

Suresh Bhat M

Canara Bank SVRS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[R Balaji]

That is what I am repeatedly hinting at.

[J SOMASEKARA]

We have to wait for charter of demands by UFBU  to confirm that Pension Updation is one of rhe demands. UFBU must be specific about this. Demand like improvement in Pension Scheme does not necessarily mean that it includes Pension Updation.
The term improvement is vague. It must be PENSION UPDATION and other improvements in Pension Scheme. IBA is famous for twisting even perfect agreements to its convenience. While so if we put forth such vague demands IBA is sure to claim that there is no demand for pension updation.
I request attention of the members to draft pension agreement during 1995 wherein Pension Updation was specifically mentioned. However when final agreemnt was signed such demand was missing and in its place vague clause 56 was added which do not give any rights to pensioners to claim updation.
Let us hope AIBRF will take care to ensure that PENSION UPDATION is included in charter of demands.

[PARASURAMAN K R]

Dear Friends,

Nobody is objecting to pension updation and its is the most welcome benefit if it happens. We are also aware that updation would lead to 100% DA neutralization prospectively. We understand that by updation basic pay increases with the merger of DA. Our fear is that pre-2002 pensioners are getting truncated DA and merger of this lesser DA would cause much loss if pension updation happens. We are already loosing a substantial amount on account of tapered DA and the loss will be carried and the gap will more between pre and post 2002 pensioners if 100% neutralization is not achieved before updation. That is why we are clamoring 100% DA neutralization. Hope the leadership would understand our plight.

Parasuraman.K.R

Trichur  

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Parasuraman,

Now, we understand why many retirees of pre-2002 were vehemently insisting on 100% nutralisation first and not too bothered about Updation.

Updation is not a one time affair and there cannot be any loss, merely because updation takes place.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:34 AM

[PARASURAMAN K R]

Dear Sri Prasad,

Please clarify whether you agree with my statement and if not why? Further please explain why there will not be any loss for pre-2002 pensioners on updation even if 100% DA neutralization is not done before updation? 

Please note that we  whole-heartedly welcome  updation but not at the cost of loosing further on this count. Please clear our apprehension if we are wrong.

with best wishes,

Parasuraman. K.R

[C P V Nair]

This is the real problem.Charter of Demands in r/o updation/DA may be termed in vague terms to confuse us(or to take us for a ride?).We have to be very careful in analysing such eventualities.

 

As known to all of us, UFBU may find it a bit difficult this time in negotiating with IBA.So where do we stand? We engaged in  debating whether we want updation or DA first.(Egg-chick theory?)

 

Anyway, let us be hopeful on our beloved UFBU-let us see what transpires.

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

[C P V Nair]

Dear friends,

 

I totally disagree to this new theory.No workmen or officers among retirees.WE ARE ONLY RETIREES.Please do not try to find any demarcting points among the RETIREES.

Dear friends, all of us should argue for uniform pattern of DA for ALL retirees as well as for updation,WITH EQUAL WEIGHT.Arguments with compartmentalised thinking would take us to nowhere.

 

Moreover, we share only our thoughts.We cannot influence IBA or Govt,though we maintain some wishful thinking.

 

We don't argue in terms of the quantity of take away.If quantity is the only factor, persons like me should argue only for DA issue.

It is purely my prerogative to fight DA or updation issue legally.But organisationally, I fight for both.Our common agenda is DA as well as updation.No Officers or Workmen among us.We have dumped those demarcations at the time of our retirement.

Even the usage 'pre 2002 retirees' is biased.But the lethargy on the part of IBA/Govt forces us to qualify a section among us in that name.

 

Very sorry my dear Bhatji, I was a bank officer till 31/3/2001 but now I am a bank retiree.I fight for the common problems- DA, updation, medical aid, family pension,gratuity and finally 'pension to all retirees/resignees'

Let us forge ahead.

 

Warm Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

SBT VRS

----- Original Message -----

From: sureshbhat M

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[C P V Nair]

Dear all,

 

As Parasuji observes, if it happens positively, LET US WELCOME UPDATION.

Let us also hope for the solution of DA, before the BPS.

Dear Parasuji, the leadership of UFBU is seized of our problem, but we are unaware of their problem this time.IBA appears to wear the mask of  a grim face.UFBU seems to be under some difficulty in unmasking the task masters.

 

Warm Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR 

----- Original Message -----

From: PARASURAMAN K R

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[Keshav Saini]

DEAR SHRI PRASAD,ONE OF THE MAIN REASON IS ALL PRE 2002 NORMAL RETIREES ARE IN THE RANGE OF 70YEARS TO 85 YEARS OLD AND THEY ARE BECOMING OLD DAY BY DAY AS YOU ARE AWARE UPDATION OF PENSION WILL TAKE AT LEAST TWO TO THREE YEARS BUT 100% D.A CAN BE ACHIEVED BY INVOKING CLAUSE 6 OF MOU DATED 30-10-1993 AS 100% D.A HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN RBI WEF 1-02-2005 AND CLAUSE 6 OF MOU CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ALL BANKS WILL GET D.A SIMILAR TO IN RBI. K.R SAINI: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:08:18 +0800
From: cn_pr...@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Trichur  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: "bankpensioner@googlegroups.com" <bankpensioner@googlegroups.com>

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

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensioner@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensioner@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensioner@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensioner@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensioner@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[sureshbhat M]

Dear Nair Sir                               24/08/2012

     Your allegation that I am  demarcating between Officers and workmen is totally wrong and not acceptable.  What I wish to make clear to you is that- Do you have figures how many Retirees in Industry are with below 7000 basic pension and how many are above to that. It is the bitter truth that 90% of  workmen and substaff are drawing less than 5500 basic and their extra gain on 100% is just or below 700 PM. Their loss can be set right only on updation along with 100%. In case you argue that we can overlook retirees having low basic and discuss ONLY for OUR gain on 100% and think of updation later, I am very much sorry.

     

      Here the question comes as to how much each retiree gains or looses on implementing Updation first or 100% first. In case the number of gainees are more for Updation, then we support it FIRST and vice versa. 

     Further, no where it is accepted that Updation is without 100% neutralisation and arrears for past days. First of all are you sure that UFBU considers any of of requests favourably in next settlement or prior to that?

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Keshav,

We should broad base our outlook.  That is the only way we can succeed.  I am unable to agree with those who believe 100% nutralisation only and not too bothered about others.  It is to say 100% nutralisation or nothing

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Keshav Saini <krs...@hotmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:54 PM
Subject: RE: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Nair,

What Mr.Suresh said made sense.  He was referring to maximum possible'Pay' received at the time of retirement and this is dependent on his cadre.  It is not about what position post retirement.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: C P V Nair <cpvnai...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 1:58 PM

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Parasuraman,

8th BPS and 9th BPS retirees are getting 100% nutralisation and without effecting 100% nutralisation, it would be difficult to construct updation formula.

That is the reason I said, Updation takes care of 100% nutralisation.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

From: PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 1:28 PM

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

Shri Suresh Bhat is right when he says that the beneficiaries of 100 percent DA would be very less. This strengthens our view that to that extent the financial outgo will be every less, whereas updation comes with a heavy load. Hence it would  be very prudent to solve the issue of less financial commitment first. And the argument that as the beneficiaries are less can one ask them to forego the arrears?

Still having said the above we are all arguing searching a dark object In a black room! Everyone will try to justify his position, but the loss to pre 2002 retirees are going up every month. Who is going to compensate that? Updation or DA neutralization, anyone or both has to come fast, that's our wish, as our age is catching up!

G.Ramachandran

CBSVRS.

[C P V Nair]

TKU.Anyway we can continue presenting our cases to IBA.Thanks

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: sureshbhat M

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[C P V Nair]

Don't get dejected, anybody.Let us carry all.

 

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Prasad C N

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[C P V Nair]

May be .We should prevail upon IBA for all these.

 

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Prasad C N

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[C P V Nair]

All these arguments stand excellent for future.

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Prasad C N

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[J SOMASEKARA]

We have been discussung as if IBA has offerred us to opt for 100% DA or Updation. Either updation or 100% DA is a distant dream that is unlikely to be fulfilled unless there is some judicial or divine intervention.  IBA is violating every major rule in Pension regulations. Every other day various courts across the country are delivering verdicts in pensioners favour.  IBA is no mood to implement these verdicts and dragging every matter small or big to SC. Unions due to their limitations have not been able to solve these issues before going to court and also not successful in convincing IBA to implement verdicts. When benefits that were guaranteed under pension regulations and statutory in nature  is being denied then how can IBA bend its knees and agree for updation? I am not advocating even 100% DA because that also not possible.

 

As for 100% DA is concerned Perumal sir rightly said that  in 8^th or 9^th  BPS 100% DA was not achieved in either insurance sector or RBI  as such UFBU could not persuade this matter. Now updation is not yet implemented in insurance sector and RBI. At least there is resolution by their respective boards.

In Banking sector there is none. There was demand for second option for long.

Updation is not even considered once. There is no change in IBA attitude till date. Unions are resorting to strikes claiming that IBA is ignoring them.

 

There is already a failed court case reg updation which is plus point for IBA.

There is no strong factors in pensioners favour that can motivate IBA to agree for Pension Updation. Please remember that in RBI and Insurance sector fight for updation going on since last many years. In spite of board resolutions and court verdicts Central govt putting obstacles in implementing updation in these sectors.

So suddenly we demand updation in X BPS and both IBA and Central govt accepts it. Can we believe this?

 

Even Pension updation is implemented by miracle chances are that it is only made applicable to post 2002 retirees. As they are already enjoying 100% DA

Cost of up dation is not much for them  as compared to 2002 retirees.

Since Updation is not in pension regulations it is anew benefit and IBA can can apply it to persons retired after particular year. If we cannot question 100% DA in court same goes to updation.

 

UFBU aware of its limitations well and is non committal and only demanding improvement in pensions sceme and no where specifically demanded periodical revision of pension as in the case of serving employees. In RBI also recently some improvement in Pension Scheme made without updation.

 

As UFBU have their own priorities we cannot blame them. It is immature on our part to put too much hopes on UFBU and if they let us down  then blaming them.
We have to explore other avenues along with UFBU.

[Narayana Melkote]

Sri.G.Ramachandran is right and is not biased!   100% DA nuetralisation is a chronic anomaly and requires immediate redressal.   In the larger interest of all retirees, updation is equally and immediately warranted as the inflation is galloping day by day.   Social security of all pensioners and in particular pre-2002 retirees is under threat and alarming!   If demand for updation, if at all met, should be effective retrospectively so that no pre-2002 retiree stands to lose!!

Be happy (and happiness is a state of mind!)

Narayana Melkote

---

From: Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran <chandra...@gmail.com>

To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 24 August 2012 9:09 PM

--

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Friends,

Further to my posting of 21.08.2012 regarding 100% neutralisation or updating of pension, I had taken by salary particulars for the example. My assumption of 100% merger for fitment was not unrealistic, as the pay scale has been increased by more than 100% in the 9^th B.P. as can be seen in the table provided by me.

I now discuss about a basic pension of Rs.3,550/- of a retiree of the 7^th settlement, as an example. Here the D.A. up to a basic of Rs.3,550/- is not a staggered DA and hence I have selected this basic pension to illustrate benefit on 100% and with updating of pension, other assumptions being the same:

Position as on August 2012

Particulars

Old Pay of  7th Bipartite Period

New fitment with, say 100% merger
Basic	3,550	7,100
Present DA	6,441 [756 slabs @ 181.44%]
D.A. with 100% neutralisation	6,441 [756 slabs @ 181.44%]	4,984 [468 slabs @70.20% during 9thB.P.]
Gross Pension	9,991	12,084
Benefit	Zero	2,093

 

Same will happen to family pension basic of 7^th bipartite settlement retirees, whose family pension basic is usually below Rs.3,550/-. For example I retired when I was a Deputy Manager, reaching the maximum in the scale; my present family pension basic is projected as just Rs.2,385/-, which is below Rs.3,550/-

Now it is left to you to choose between 100% DA neutralisation or updating of pension.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

[Dear Moderator, please retain this message for some time to facilitate further discussion.]

[R Balaji]

what about pre 1986 retirees ?

[Mohandas Rao]

Dear Sri Somashekhar,

 

I have never said that either updating of pension or 100% DA neutralisation proposal is accepted by IBA. It is still a dream. We were, for the time being, discussing the possibilities with a positive attitude, so that we may have a broad idea of what exactly we mean by these two terms.

 

As a retiree from SBM we are more disillusioned than you, as we are not yet allowed with the notional weight age for service. That does not mean that we have to loose hope. Nothing is possible without a demand or a fight, which I am fully aware.

 

Hence I request you to be patient. As pointed out by Sri C.N. Prasad, improvements in Central Pension took decades. They got updating of pension only after a century during 1995 or so, with continued struggle. Our pension scheme was born in 1995 and is comparatively a younger one.

 

With regards,

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

[lakshmanan shankarnaraynan]

Dear sir,   If we reconcile that IBA will not accept 100% DA neutralisation to pre 2002 retirees or for updation and UFBU  has limitations to fight for these, then we have to lay our hopes on Courts and offer prayers to God for a miracle to happen. DA is given to compensate the rise in the cost of living which is common to all. UFBU should not have agreed for a cut off date on 100% DA neutralisation and insisted for the same to all the pensioners. As such it is an anomaly and corrected early.   S.Lakshmanan(IB-VRS2001) --- On Sat, 8/25/12, J SOMASEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SIKANDER GULATI]

Dear Friends,
I have been sharing the concerns of my friends on DA neutralization and up dation issue
from time to time and had been advising  the correct law position on this issue.  To reiterate, I may again say that the D.A issue is not discriminatory and it well settled  between the UFBU and the IBA. So, it is industry wise settlement. Because we are affected now after our VRS, we feel it discriminatory  vis a vis  the low basic pension holders or the now retired personnel. Needless to add that now retired personnel and also governed by the extant agreements (BPS) and hence they get 100% neutralization.  Today, in case the unions are successful in securing the up dation  or 100% DA neutralization in the ensuing BPS, our feeling of discrimination(legally we are not discriminated) will end.  No court is likely to interfere in this matter,  leave alone hearing the arguments. Up dation through courts  appears a distant reality.
It is only the settlement (BPS), which can  give relief to us. And some of our right thinking people like  Mr Prasad, Mr. Mohandas, and Perumalji and some others are time again the stressing the need of  UFBU intervention to achieve this  feat.  Otherwise, more than 11 years have passed and another 11 more will pass and we may not be able to see the light of the day.  I once again press my point that DA issue/ up dation through courts does not appear  to be possible rather will damage the path of negotiations. 
 Now it is, for you to decide and think.

Regards.

S.L.Gulati
Adv. & Tax Consultant
PNB-EVRS-2000

[C P V Nair]

Really so.Some friends seem to misunderstand us.Well if we are able to win updation first, the pre 2002 retirees would be the first to welcome it.

 

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

--

[C P V Nair]

Yes Narayana Melkote ji!All of us are unbiased.Let us fighrt for all our issues.ThanQ.

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

[C P V Nair]

Who says they are NOT out of our perphery.Most of them live in penury.We should do something for their sake.Well Balaji Sir, you deserve full appreciation for reminding everybody!

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: R Balaji

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[C P V Nair]

Yes Raoji, let us all share our deams and remain in a dreamland as dreamboys and dreamgirls.

 

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Mohandas Rao

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

Thank you Mr.Melkote, for the understanding. As Mr Gulati has pointed out the wrong( if it is not an anomaly) can be corrected only by another Settlement, as the tapered DA formula was the culmination of an agreement between the IBA and the unions. Hence the unions have to take the first step in rectifying the situation. I am to sure how the courts will be able to intervene in the settlement, as it requires an expert legal luminary to argue our case. But if can be settled out of court it would be a good thing to happen for the pre 200 retirees. Let us see how the unions respond to our requests.

G.Ramachandran

CB SVRS.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Ramachandran,

If cost and numbers are the issue, then Gratuity from 1.1.2007/1.11.2007 should have happened, already.

No trade union in the world prefers issues/benefits which affects small numbers.  Always, broad based issues have precedence over issues which benefits a few. They would like to bring in some happiness to more number of people, than more happiness to only a small section.   

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: C P V Nair <cpvnai...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 2:48 PM

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Narayana Melkote,

I would like to reiterate, 100% nutralisation is neither an anomaly nor a chronic problem.  If that is an anomaly, all those who retired prior to 1.11.2002 should get arrears of salary from the date of their joining the Bank.

Please understand the background of 100% nutralisation.  This was introduced only in 5th Pay Commission in Central Government and this was extended to Bank employees only from 1.5.2005.  Supreme Court has clearly decided in several cases, any benefit that is extended to future employees does not create anomaly and those who retired do not have a claim.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

From: C P V Nair <cpvnai...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 2:58 PM

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Ramachandran,

Even the second reading of Mr.Gulati's mail does not give any impression that '100% nutralisation' is wrong.  He has rightly pointed out legal position.

I request all of you to remove from your mind that great injustice has been done to pre-2002 retirees by allowing 100% nutralisation to those who are in service with effect from 1.11.2002.

Central Government Pensioners are getting 100% nutralisation on account of 'Updation', but not otherwise.

Why are not discussing even greater in justice to those who retired on or before 31.12.1985. If we have the right to receive 100% nutralisation, then they are also entitled to Pension in terms of 1995 Pension Regulations ?  When we feel that paying Ex-gratia to them is not an anomaly, how 100% nutralisation can become an anomaly ? 

Government of India is sitting on papers which has recommended increase in their ex-gratia. I think there is none from that category amongst us.  Therefore, we do not care.

Erase from your mind that either Updation or 100% nutralisation is going to happen from 1.5.2005. Current position is that neither IBA/Government is willing to extend benefit to us outside Bipartite load nor UFBU is willing to share our load.  I repeat, please broad base your demands.  Chances of extending 100% nutralisation benefit to retirees are more as updation cannot take place without 100% nutralisation.  Financial burden of 100% nutralisation is quire substantial and form a major portion of updation cost. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran <chandra...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 5:21 PM

[C P V Nair]

Let the DA issue be resolved.

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Rajender Sharma

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 3:36 PM

Subject: bankpensioner Re: REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

Sir,

From the illustration,it is obvious that the pre-2002 retirees are suffering  a huge loss

every month in terms of gross pension.

So the issue of 100% DA neutralization is even more important for this category of pensioners.

Updating of pension may be a long winding process but ,through sustained efforts of the AIBRF,

the DA issue can certainly be resolved at the time of 10th Bi-bipartite talks.

Thanks a lot.

R.K.Sharma

PNB Retired Staff Welfare Association

Hisar ( Haryana)
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:56:45 AM UTC+5:30, MOHANDAS RAO,SHIMOGA wrote:

Dear Friends,

REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

After a long discussion about the subject, I understand 100% D.A neutralization and updating of pension as under:

Let this happen as early as possible.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-VRS 2001

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bankpensioner/-/liXF0McZGz4J.

[Keshav Saini]

DEAR SIR,YOUR VIEWS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT.BUT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS JUDGEMENT IN A CASE KNOWN AS V.KASTURI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS-''IF A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT AND IF HE SURVIVES TILL THE TIME OF HIS SUBSEQUENT  AMENDMENT OF THE RELEVANT PENSION SCHEME,HE WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE TO GET MORE PENSION AS PER THE NEW FORMULA OF COMPUTATION OF PENSION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT INTO FORCE,HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF THE AMENDED PENSION PROVISION FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER 'IT IS ALSO LAID DOWN THAT SUCH PENSIONER CANNOT BE DENIED ADDITIONAL BENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD RETIRED PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL BENEFIT WAS CONFERRED ON ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SAME CLASS OF PENSIONERS. K.R.SAINI

---

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:13:48 +0800

[Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli]

Dear Sri Prasadgaaru,

I agree with your line of thinking in so far as our chances of clinching the twin issues -viz:DA neutralization and updation.  However, I need some more clarity on the last para of your above letter ie: 

Quote:

.......   Chances of extending 100% nutralisation benefit to retirees are more as updation cannot take place without 100% nutralisation.  Financial burden of 100% nutralisation is quire substantial and form a major portion of updation cost.  

Kindly clarify the above point for my better understanding.  Thanking you in the mean time.

-Devulapalli Srinivasa Murti: Syndicate Bank (VRS:2001):Ramavarappadu (PO):Vijayawada 521108

D S MURTI

[varkey .v.v.]

total injustice done to the  bank employees retired before 1.11.2002 is reserved for fighting the general injustice of denying upgradation of pension in india!.this is injustice.upgradation of pension is a general issue in almost all sectors for which an all india movement in general is required where as the illogical practice of paying lesser DA to a section of people who retired during a particular period of not their choice is a standing monument of injustice!.the unions are to be blamed for this naked injustice.
regards
v.v.varkey

 

---

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:30:05 +0800
From: cn_pr...@yahoo.com

[Narayana Melkote]

Dear Mr.Prasad,

     Thank you for your clarification.   The only way now left before the pensioners (particularly pre 2002) is demand for updation.   Whether updation is going to be a reality is anybody's guess!  The DA increase based on price index is hardly a compensation for the current socio economic scenario.   It is high time the UFBU take stock of this as among other top prioritised demands and ensure that pensioners are suitably insulated against inflation.

Be happy

Narayana Melkote

    

    

---

From: Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 2:13 AM

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Srinivasa Murtigaru,

Since there is only 100% nutralisation at present, updation of pension cannot take place without extending 100% nutralisation.  Since, cost of 100% nutralisation is more or less fixed, non-100% nutralisation share is only open for negotiation.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli <devulapa...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 5:49 AM

[Prasad C N]

Dear Mr.Verkey,

With an exception of Govt Pensioners and now RBI, none of the other group of Pensioners who have retired prior to 2002 enjoy 100% nutralisation.  For a moment, please think what would have happened if nutralisation were to come down or 100% nutralisation is not introduced.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: varkey .v.v. <vark...@hotmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Mr Varkey,

Had you ever raised this 'discriminated' DA while you were in service?

The sub-staff enjoyed 100% DA. Why the clerks & Officers were denied 100% DA?

For everything there is a time factor!

M.Perumal

From: varkey .v.v. <vark...@hotmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 27 August 2012 10:13 AM

Subject: RE: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

total injustice done to the  bank employees retired before 1.11.2002 is reserved for fighting the general injustice of denying upgradation of pension in india!.this is injustice.upgradation of pension is a general issue in almost all sectors for which an all india movement in general is required where as the illogical practice of paying lesser DA to a section of people who retired during a particular period of not their choice is a standing monument of injustice!.the unions are to be blamed for this naked injustice.
regards
v.v.varkey

 

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:30:05 +0800
From: cn_pr...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr.Ramachandran,

Even the second reading of Mr.Gulati's mail does not give any impression that '100% nutralisation' is wrong.  He has rightly pointed out legal position.

I request all of you to remove from your mind that great injustice has been done to pre-2002 retirees by allowing 100% nutralisation to those who are in service with effect from 1.11.2002.

Central Government Pensioners are getting 100% nutralisation on account of 'Updation', but not otherwise.

Why are not discussing even greater in justice to those who retired on or before 31.12.1985. If we have the right to receive 100% nutralisation, then they are also entitled to Pension in terms of 1995 Pension Regulations ?  When we feel that paying Ex-gratia to them is not an anomaly, how 100% nutralisation can become an anomaly ? 

Government of India is sitting on papers which has recommended increase in their ex-gratia. I think there is none from that category amongst us.  Therefore, we do not care.

Erase from your mind that either Updation or 100% nutralisation is going to happen from 1.5.2005. Current position is that neither IBA/Government is willing to extend benefit to us outside Bipartite load nor UFBU is willing to share our load.  I repeat, please broad base your demands.  Chances of extending 100% nutralisation benefit to retirees are more as updation cannot take place without 100% nutralisation.  Financial burden of 100% nutralisation is quire substantial and form a major portion of updation cost. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

[M V Sethuraman]

Dear Sir,

I think you may do well to get a copy of the said SC judgement and
send the same to Shri Pathak who is taking care of all our court
cases, especially of those resignees, as the issue of pension to
all others are almost settled now.

Thanks n regards
Sethuraman
लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु।

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

While it is at one time argued that the beneficiaries of DA neutralization will be less compared to the updation, the load factor is coming into play, saying that the former will eat the cost of updation. We can argue at our convenience and the fact remains that the p 2002 retirees continue to lose heavily whether it is due to anomaly, adjustment, or settlement. It is also a fact that the updations took many years in the central government to see the light of the day and in RBI and LIC still they are denied. At this rate we will have to wait for many more years, if past is an indication. I am not a pessimist. But let us be practical minded. I repeat,I am not against updation, but what are the chances? The only course open to us is now to wait for the charter of demands, which should pave the way for updation as well as full DA.

G.Ramachandran

CB SVRS

On Monday, August 27, 2012, Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli wrote:

Dear Sri Prasadgaaru,

I agree with your line of thinking in so far as our chances of clinching the twin issues -viz:DA neutralization and updation.  However, I need some more clarity on the last para of your above letter ie: 

Quote:

.......   Chances of extending 100% nutralisation benefit to retirees are more as updation cannot take place without 100% nutralisation.  Financial burden of 100% nutralisation is quire substantial and form a major portion of updation cost.  

Kindly clarify the above point for my better understanding.  Thanking you in the mean time.

-Devulapalli Srinivasa Murti: Syndicate Bank (VRS:2001):Ramavarappadu (PO):Vijayawada 521108

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Mr.Ramachandran,

Even the second reading of Mr.Gulati's mail does not give any impression that '100% nutralisation' is wrong.  He has rightly pointed out legal position.

I request all of you to remove from your mind that great injustice has been done to pre-2002 retirees by allowing 100% nutralisation to those who are in service with effect from 1.11.2002.

Central Government Pensioners are getting 100% nutralisation on account of 'Updation', but not otherwise.

Why are not discussing even greater in justice to those who retired on or before 31.12.1985. If we have the right to receive 100% nutralisation, then they are also entitled to Pension in terms of 1995 Pension Regulations ?  When we feel that paying Ex-gratia to them is not an anomaly, how 100% nutralisation can become an anomaly ? 

Government of India is sitting on papers which has recommended increase in their ex-gratia. I think there is none from that category amongst us.  Therefore, we do not care.

Erase from your mind that either Updation or 100% nutralisation is going to happen from 1.5.2005. Current position is that neither IBA/Government is willing to extend benefit to us outside Bipartite load nor UFBU is willing to share our load.  I repeat, please broad base your demands.  Chances of extending 100% nutralisation benefit to retirees are more as updation cannot take place without 100% nutralisation.  Financial burden of 100% nutralisation is quire substantial and form a major portion of updation cost. 

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

---

From: Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran <chandra...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 5:21 PM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

--
D S MURTI

[OM PRAKASH SHARMA]

Dear Perumal,

 

The messages from some of my friends on this blog relating to 100% DA neutralization for 2002 Pre- retirees are unambiguously, unmistakably and unequivocally are clear, lucid and vociferous. .These retires are definitely feeling distressed and are shattering  under the clutches of pain, anguish and agony both at the hands of the distinguished leaders as well as the official of IBA/MOF. Needless to mention that the union leaders have been negotiating with these IBA/MOF officials from time to time for allowing the benefit of 100% DA neutralization to 2002 Pre retirees but they have not been able to induce and convince the tough, hard-hitting, bigheaded and haughty officials of IBA/MOF on this issue for the last more than 10 years.

 

Let us strengthen, fortify and reinforce the hands of our distinguished leaders so that in the next meeting, they could fight and wrestle vociferously and determinedly with the so called egotistical and supercilious officials of IBA/MOF. Strike calls for a longer period is the prerequisite and necessity for shattering and fracturing the muscle powers acquired by IBA over the years. We have to crack and rupture down the ego and personality of these self-aggrandizing and snooty officials of IBA so that when they sit on the negotiating table, they could apprehend and recognize that these union leaders can languish and fester the working of the banks.

 

I would therefore make an appeal to Mr. Perumal to convey this message to our distinguished leaders so that they could work out matching strategies to come successful in getting all the demand of the bank’s employees approved  in the ensuing BPS including 100% DA neutralization for  2002 Pre retirees.

 

Kind regards.

 

O.P. SHARMA

OBC

[perumal maruthu]

Thank you Mr.Sharma! Your views are conveyed to AIBRF(through the Dy.Gen.Secretary).

M.Perumal

From: OM PRAKASH SHARMA <opsh...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

Dear Perumal,

 

The messages from some of my friends on this blog relating to 100% DA neutralization for 2002 Pre- retirees are unambiguously, unmistakably and unequivocally are clear, lucid and vociferous. .These retires are definitely feeling distressed and are shattering  under the clutches of pain, anguish and agony both at the hands of the distinguished leaders as well as the official of IBA/MOF. Needless to mention that the union leaders have been negotiating with these IBA/MOF officials from time to time for allowing the benefit of 100% DA neutralization to 2002 Pre retirees but they have not been able to induce and convince the tough, hard-hitting, bigheaded and haughty officials of IBA/MOF on this issue for the last more than 10 years.

 

Let us strengthen, fortify and reinforce the hands of our distinguished leaders so that in the next meeting, they could fight and wrestle vociferously and determinedly with the so called egotistical and supercilious officials of IBA/MOF. Strike calls for a longer period is the prerequisite and necessity for shattering and fracturing the muscle powers acquired by IBA over the years. We have to crack and rupture down the ego and personality of these self-aggrandizing and snooty officials of IBA so that when they sit on the negotiating table, they could apprehend and recognize that these union leaders can languish and fester the working of the banks.

 

I would therefore make an appeal to Mr. Perumal to convey this message to our distinguished leaders so that they could work out matching strategies to come successful in getting all the demand of the bank’s employees approved  in the ensuing BPS including 100% DA neutralization for  2002 Pre retirees.

 

Kind regards.

 

O.P. SHARMA

OBC

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:53 AM, M V Sethuraman <sethur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sir,

I think you may do well to get a copy of the said SC judgement and
send the same to Shri Pathak who is taking care of all our court
cases, especially of those resignees, as the issue of pension to
all others are almost settled now.

Thanks n regards
Sethuraman
लोकाः समस्ताः सुखिनो भवन्तु।

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Keshav Saini <krs...@hotmail.com> wrote:

DEAR SIR,YOUR VIEWS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT.BUT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS JUDGEMENT IN A CASE KNOWN AS V.KASTURI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS-''IF A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT AND IF HE SURVIVES TILL THE TIME OF HIS SUBSEQUENT  AMENDMENT OF THE RELEVANT PENSION SCHEME,HE WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE TO GET MORE PENSION AS PER THE NEW FORMULA OF COMPUTATION OF PENSION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT INTO FORCE,HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF THE AMENDED PENSION PROVISION FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ORDER 'IT IS ALSO LAID DOWN THAT SUCH PENSIONER CANNOT BE DENIED ADDITIONAL BENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD RETIRED PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL BENEFIT WAS CONFERRED ON ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SAME CLASS OF PENSIONERS. K.R.SAINI

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:13:48 +0800

From: cn_pr...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr.Narayana Melkote,

I would like to reiterate, 100% nutralisation is neither an anomaly nor a chronic problem.  If that is an anomaly, all those who retired prior to 1.11.2002 should get arrears of salary from the date of their joining the Bank.

Please understand the background of 100% nutralisation.  This was introduced only in 5th Pay Commission in Central Government and this was extended to Bank employees only from 1.5.2005.  Supreme Court has clearly decided in several cases, any benefit that is extended to future employees does not create anomaly and those who retired do not have a claim.

 

Thanks, a Million.

With regards,
Prasad C N

From: C P V Nair <cpvnai...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 25 August 2012 2:58 PM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

Yes Narayana Melkote ji!All of us are unbiased.Let us fighrt for all our issues.ThanQ.

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Narayana Melkote

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 9:14 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

Sri.G.Ramachandran is right and is not biased!   100% DA nuetralisation is a chronic anomaly and requires immediate redressal.   In the larger interest of all retirees, updation is equally and immediately warranted as the inflation is galloping day by day.   Social security of all pensioners and in particular pre-2002 retirees is under threat and alarming!   If demand for updation, if at all met, should be effective retrospectively so that no pre-2002 retiree stands to lose!!

Be happy (and happiness is a state of mind!)

Narayana Melkote

From: PARASURAMAN K R <paras...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 11:34 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

Dear Friends,

Nobody is objecting to pension updation and its is the most welcome benefit if it happens. We are also aware that updation would lead to 100% DA neutralization prospectively. We understand that by updation basic pay increases with the merger of DA. Our fear is that pre-2002 pensioners are getting truncated DA and merger of this lesser DA would cause much loss if pension updation happens. We are already loosing a substantial amount on account of tapered DA and the loss will be carried and the gap will more between pre and post 2002 pensioners if 100% neutralization is not achieved before updation. That is why we are clamoring 100% DA neutralization. Hope the leadership would understand our plight.

Parasuraman.K.R

Trichur  

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:34 AM, J SOMASEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have to wait for charter of demands by UFBU  to confirm that Pension Updation is one of rhe demands. UFBU must be specific about this. Demand like improvement in Pension Scheme does not necessarily mean that it includes Pension Updation.
The term improvement is vague. It must be PENSION UPDATION and other improvements in Pension Scheme. IBA is famous for twisting even perfect agreements to its convenience. While so if we put forth such vague demands IBA is sure to claim that there is no demand for pension updation.
I request attention of the members to draft pension agreement during 1995 wherein Pension Updation was specifically mentioned. However when final agreemnt was signed such demand was missing and in its place vague clause 56 was added which do not give any rights to pensioners to claim updation

--
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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://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 mailto:bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

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

[varkey .v.v.]

dear perumalji,
thank u very much.ur response was too hasty to consider the following points:-
1)i did bother about the discreminated da payment in respect of sub-staff and other category of staff(denying 100%da to cleriks&officers) like any otheraffected ones.this anomaly was identified long back and it was corrected for ever.this very reason is a valid point against the more open violation of equal da payment to the very same category of staff now.so ur point that the denial of 100% da to the clerks&officers in the log past is reason for the present denial does not hold good.
2)the relevance of "time factor" is not clear to me.
thank u very much.
v.v.varkey

 

---

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:36:04 +0800
From: perumal...@yahoo.co.in

[varkey .v.v.]

dear mr.prasad,
thank u very much  for urbalanced and  wholesome approach.
regards
v.v.varkey

 

---

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:17:41 +0800

[OM PRAKASH SHARMA]

Dear Mr. Perumal,

Thanks for conveying my message on behalf of all the Pre-20002 Retirees to the union Leaders for suitable action at their end.


Kind regards

O.P. SHARMA

OBC

[varkey .v.v.]

dear perumalji,
thank u very much.ur response was too hasty to consider the following points:-
1)i did bother about the discreminated da payment in respect of sub-staff and other category of staff(denying 100%da to cleriks&officers) like any otheraffected ones.this anomaly was identified long back and it was corrected for ever.this very reason is a valid point against the more open violation of equal da payment to the very same category of staff now.so ur point that the denial of 100% da to the clerks&officers in the log past is reason for the present denial does not hold good.
2)the relevance of "time factor" is not clear to me.
thank u very much.

v.v.varkey

 

---

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:36:04 +0800
From: perumal...@yahoo.co.in

[perumal maruthu]

Dear Sir,

Only in the 8th BPS, uniform DA Neutralization was introduced with retrospective effect from 1/2/2005. Till then, every one (other than the Sub-staff &below) had suffered tapered DA Relief.

No one complained against the Sub-staff getting the FULL neutralization. But it was the accepted thing even though all the Unions demanded FULL neutralization.

Though the Central Staff started getting 100% from 1996, for Banks/RBI/LIC/GICs it was introduced (wef 1/2/2005) after more than 10Years only. THIS I called the TIME factor!

For Pensioners who retired before 1/11/2002, 100% is yet to be introduced in LIC/GICs/SBI. Only in RBI this has been introduced in 2011(wef 1/5/2005).

We shall also get our DA in FULL!

M.Perumal

From: varkey .v.v. <vark...@hotmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 28 August 2012 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: bankpensioner REVISION OF PENSION WITH 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION OR WITH UPDATING OF PENSION

dear perumalji,
thank u very much.ur response was too hasty to consider the following points:-
1)i did bother about the discreminated da payment in respect of sub-staff and other category of staff(denying 100%da to cleriks&officers) like any otheraffected ones.this anomaly was identified long back and it was corrected for ever.this very reason is a valid point against the more open violation of equal da payment to the very same category of staff now.so ur point that the denial of 100% da to the clerks&officers in the log past is reason for the present denial does not hold good.
2)the relevance of "time factor" is not clear to me.
thank u very much.
v.v.varkey

 

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

Thank you, Mr.Perumal, your optimism is astounding and definitely refreshing. With the strong feeling we will smell the victory before long.

G.Ramachandran

CBSVRS.

--
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

[C P V Nair]

Prasadji has raised our hopes on DA issue.Thank you ji!

 

Reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

----- Original Message -----

From: Prasad C N

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

[sailendra kr de]

 Present Price Index is 9122 points which means 2280 slab ignoring the decimal  figure . I retired from Bank's service 31/03/2012 under 9th Bipartite Settlement  With Basic Pension  Rs12885/= of   0.15 percentage per DA  slab . which means 342% DA on my Basic Pension Rs 12885/=  is  equal to RS. 44066.70  . If this total amount of DA is merged with my original basic Pension RS. 12885/=, it stands Rs (12885+44066.70)=Rs 56951.70. This should be my New basic Pension provided  hundred percent DA is merged with Basic  . This calculation is made on 9th Bipartite Settlement. Like wise those who are retired under  6th , 7th 8th Bipartite settlement, please find out their DA figure following the above formula  and add it with their respective Basic pension   to ascertain their new Basic pension  This calculation would also be applicable of pre-retirees 2002 following the above formula to find out the  percentage of DA  without tapering the   figure .  Thereafter , please calculate the  New Basic Pension of each and every one  under RBI  formula and take the decision without involving an altercation .

[S.T.CHANDRASEKHAR Babu]

My dear friends ,Drawing discussions ,writing long replies will not help to solve our issues. Legal position is very clear in our favour. 1. Nakara case 2. Judgement of SC of justice rastogi bench where it was held any decision with prospective effect taking away the rights of employee is violation of article 14 and 19. As far as updation is concerned even in CCS72 , the word updation is not there. But wherever CCS 72 is accepted ,updation in same proportion of wage revision is done in central and state govts and PSUs. Another land mark judgement of SC says whenever there is wage revision ,all the employees retired should be placed in the same band of scale as per revision. Only issue is legal case should be fought duly placing all the information before the judges. All depends how we present the case. With regards.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/4bcac3f7-e17a-4727-9926-d0b6d56ae29fn%40googlegroups.com.

[Jayateerth Koti]

The DA expected for the half year ending July, 2024 itself is 235.80 %. 

Sailendra kr to please clarify his figure of 342%.

Regards 

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Do we find whether Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has considered whatever you have stated including Nakara's case, while dismissing the Writ Appeals filed by Late Singla & Ors ?  

Unfortunately, many of warriors have wrongly created false hopes with wrong narratives.  Many wants to become heros unmindful of damage they are creating.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CANid4%3DpykHZEuA%3DduyxRFrEj6y6L2NsKBZB6WGxuCVX25t-EOw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Courts have not drafted pension regulations. The agreement is prepared  and signed by IBA and UFBU. If there is  legal loopholes IBA and UFBU can set right it with mutual agreement,

IBA and UFBU  have no willingness to resolve the updation issue.

If there is no provision for Updation in Pension regulations it can be amended to provide for Updation.

This is not the problem. There is no provision for  Pension to resignees in Pension regulations; If this issue is resolved why noy updation.

IBA and UFBU should arrive at consensus  on some formula, arrive at cost and find resources for the same.

If we  give reason, cost cannot be afforded, will it come down in future? Every year the cost of the Updation will go up. They should arrive at some formula if not the RBI formula and work out a solution.

They should consider the plight of Pre 2002 retirees  who have not got revision in Basic since 24 years.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/966638553.1214202.1707904894632%40mail.yahoo.com.

[harinarayana sarma nandivada]

I endorse the views expressed by Sri Somasekhara. Where there is a will there is always a way.  If there is no provision for revision of pension which is accepted by Courts as a deferred wage, on what basis wage revision is taking place?  IF PENSION REVISION IS NOT A LEGAL RIGHT, THEN WHAT ABOUT WAGE REVISION? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1LqcG7sGbpBc89qosGE4s%2BxtYqiJj1dtYx5FTECRnUkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hans Raj Manuja]

Sir, can you post a screenshot of the regulation that says that pension would be surely updated without fail !

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1424545993.2754805.1707996113741%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Perianayagam velu]

In case of any doubt central govt pension regulation may be followed.what purpose this was included in bank  pension regulation.now the time has come we have insist for following this clasuse

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAAFBgEbnqjCrGzLZqQXuye7WD33up0bU07GJntEsYM%2BN%2BAbdw%40mail.gmail.com.