UNION BANK REJECT REPRESENTATION OF RAVINDRAN IN DISPOSED CASE OF KERALA HC

[mohan p]

For Information.

Dear Friends,

Hope you may recall the verdict of Kerala High Court in the matter of Updation of Pension filed by Mr M K Ravindran V/s Union of India ,under Regulation 35(1),vide WP(C)29890/2018 dt 16th August'22.Hon HC has disposed of the case with following observations.

Relevant part of referred verdict  is furnished here under for your reference:

Quote:

"In view of the above findings, the writ petitions are disposed of permitting the petitioners to file a detailed representation high lighting their grievances. There upon, the second respondent shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within two months. For effective consideration of the representation, the petitioners shall make available copy of the writ petitioners shall make available copy of the writ petitions along with certified copy of the judgment."

Sd/-

 V.G.ARUN

Judge

In compliance of the Hon'ble High Courts direction, Shri.M.K. Ravindran has submitted his representations vide letter dated 20.09.2022 which was received by Union Bank of India  on 26.09.2022.

For this a reply in detail has been given by Union Bank of India on 18.11.22.

Relevant part is furnished here below for information:

QUOTE:

"5.4. Further, I am of the view that Regulation 35(1) of the Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 clearly states that basic pension shall be updated as per the formula given with Appendix 1. It can be said that up-dation is being carried in accordance with Appendix 1. 

The argument/contention that the up-dation ought to be in accordance with Central Civil Pension Rules or employees of Reserve Bank of India, is too far fetched and same cannot be accepted."

**

5.6." After taking holistic view of the contention of Shri.M.K.Ravindran as quoted in above para along with conjoint reading of the Regulation 5(2) of Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995, I observed that unlike Government, wherein, pensionary benefits of the Government towards retired government servants is treated as revenue expenditure and gets the necessary budgetary allocation, under pension scheme of the Union Bank of India, payment to the retired employees of the Bank is carried out from a fund called "Employee's Pension Fund" which has been constituted out of the contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten percent per month of the pay of the employee;

(b) the accumulated contribution of the Bank to the Provident fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of the employees

 (c) the amount consisting of contribution of the bank along with interest refunded by the employees who have retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in the regulations;

 (d) the investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;

(e)amount of capital gains arising out of the capital asset of the Fund;

(f) the additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with provisions contained in regulation 11 of the Pension Regulations;

 (g) any income from investment of the amounts credited in the fund ;and

(h) the amount consisting of contribution of the bank along with

 interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee"

 **

5.9

"Further with regard to the contention of Shri.M.K. Ravindran that "unjust deprivation of the pensioners to whom the money belongs" it could be appreciated with this line of reasoning that Union Bank of India's Pension Fund is not a contributory scheme and pension is paid from the pension fund, created out of the Banks contribution to the Provident Fund. Therefore, there is no question of dividing the pension fund. Therefore, the contention of divisions of a cake, larger the number of sharers, smaller the share and absence of residue and therefore by augmentation of beneficiaries, pro rata share is likely to be affected and their absence making relief impermissible, is an argument born of desperation, and is without merit and is rejected as untenable."

"In view of the above, the representation of Shri.M.K.Ravindran is rejected and he is not eligible for revision of pension and subsequent arrears and updated pension."

Hence, ordered accordingly."

Date: 18.11.2022

Place: Mumbai

General Manager (HR)"

 

 

 

[Anantharaman Tg]

Will Sri Ravindran again approach the Court with
the reply of the Bank?

> --
> 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/CAMCbyDSCAitGQZHjypz%2B6kcTJY%3Dg-SzaBAQGdzYF8CKf1gZx-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

Certainly, he may approach Hon.High Court with  the reply received from UBI.

On the part of  respondent they have  considered the representation of Mr M K Ravindran as per court order,within the time frame.However  passed  orders of rejection there on.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGpzJrAjwDXkU_q2MNOno_NH2PdEQ-zCYbQAb7pf-_oKULwXaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[C.M. PANICKER]

It is only logical that the petitioner should approach the court with the reply received from Union Bank.Let the court pronounce the final observation and judgement.C M PANICKER (e-SBT PENSIONER)

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSCAitGQZHjypz%2B6kcTJY%3Dg-SzaBAQGdzYF8CKf1gZx-Q%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 bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGpzJrAjwDXkU_q2MNOno_NH2PdEQ-zCYbQAb7pf-_oKULwXaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I have no hesitation to say Banks/IBA/AIBEA/AIBOC/DFS/AIBRF/AIBPARC all are cheating retirees.

1. Since 2000 all authorities are saying Reg35/1 does not provide for Updation for all.

But why does nobody answer the  question asked hundreds of times?

Is it a big deal to amend pension regulation when our constitution itself is amended 27 times?.

2.  Why CHV repeatedly talks about huge costs without deciding the formula of Updation. Only when you decide on a formula and arrive at the cost for that particular formula can one assess whether the cost is affordable or not.

If UFBU does not address these issues, then even till next century Banks will go on taking the same illogical defense.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS3HrEzXmuRSREbx84XYA2xU8DcJ3_Rke5zqZadmT1R2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

It will be waste of time and money.  Repeated failures at courts by C n Venugopalan May do more harm than favour to pensioners.

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS3HrEzXmuRSREbx84XYA2xU8DcJ3_Rke5zqZadmT1R2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anil Verma]

Mr ravinderen should contest the bank's reply with reference to IBA letter no PD/CIR/76/G(ii)/1905 dt.31st March 1994 & 1842 dt.17th March 1994. Clearly mentioning their reference to annexure III  & IVMinutes of the meeting of the small committee on pension held on 26th March 1994. The draft circulated was mutually accepted by the parties. The  points mentioned there were further discussed and accepted and has become part of pension regulations. IBA had already directed all chief executives of member banks to effect changes as per the minutes accepted and agreed upon. mr.ravinderen should stress upon the bank to incorporate changes and update the pension regulations before disposing off his representations. If bank still refuses to act upon his representations then the  matter should be brought to the notice of learned court.

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/1761711735.2364256.1669265815435%40mail.yahoo.com.

[mohan p]

Sir,

Though IBA has found forwarded the Minutes of the meeting of Small Committee on pension held with Unions /Officers Associations on 26th March, 1994,to CEOs of member banks,on 31st March 1994, it may be noted that
Point No.2 under Minutes, Annexure-lll,which read as here under:

"Formula for updating pension should be on the lines of the same given in the Reserve Bank pension scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement."
has not been incorporated in Bank Employees' Pension Regulations,1995 when it is adopted by banks boards.

While dismissing LPA
No. 789 of 2013,on 9th Sept 2015, filed by Late M.C.Singla and Ors V/s Union of India , before Punjab and Haryana High  Court,at  Chandigarh,Division Bench had made following  observations,  on Small Committee,of 1994.

( here in this case,the focus were on (on updation of pension) under Clause No.12 of Memorandum of Settlement ,and on Regulation 56 under BEPR,1995.)

"Ad finem, a word about minutes of meeting dated March 26,
1994 of the Small Committee on Pension whereby it is said to have been
accepted that formula for updating pension should be on the lines of same
given in Reserve Bank’s Pension Scheme. Discussions held and agreements reached in this meeting, in our view, are nothing more than parleys
preliminary to the final decision which came in the form of pension scheme
of 1995. Therefore, the minutes cannot vest the appellants with a right to
claim parity with employees of Reserve Bank of India."

In  WP(C) NO. 29890 OF 2018,filed by   Mr.M.K.Ravindran, the significance was made on Regulation 35(1) and Pension Fund ,which was disposed off by High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam, on 16.08.2022,with a direction to represent to bank.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAOHEo%2BfozSePZhx_KOgzAX570jmaLmoAO-FFqj5wPp49gqUDtw%40mail.gmail.com.