Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 6 updates in 3 topics

54 views
Skip to first unread message

vaidya nathan

unread,
May 27, 2026, 12:31:07 AM (8 days ago) May 27
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Updation of Pension. 
Sir. All are accepting that 35/1 regulation donot provide room for Updation of Pension. At the same time, it also does Not Say that Updation Should Not Be Done.   While UBFU  escapes with No Provision of Updation,  Court can Easily Say That There Is NO AGREEMENT for No Updation.  Hence,  our Lawyers can place More Valuable Arguments to finalise Updation in our Favour. 

On Tue, May 26, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: May 25 01:35PM

Dear Shri Narayanan Venkateshwaranji,

Please go through both the 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlements applicable to Officers as well as Award Staff. During the period 1986–87, there existed three different DA rates and three separate formulae for computation of Dearness Allowance. Pension Regulations could not have provided three different Dearness Relief formulae based on cadre or category of employees. Therefore, Appendix I came into existence only with a view to harmonise the position and introduce a single uniform Dearness Relief formula for all pensioners.
 
Dearness Relief could never have formed part of Appendix I, which itself forms part of Appendix II. If, as is now being contended, pension updation was the intention behind Clauses 1 and 2 of Appendix I, then there ought to have been a Clause 3 as well, bringing 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlement retirees to the 1148 points level itself at the time of notification, because the 6th Bipartite Settlement was already in force. In fact, Appendix II of the original notification dated 29.09.1995 itself contains the Dearness Relief formula based on 1148 points under the 6th Bipartite Settlement.
 
It is also pertinent to note that Appendix II specifically incorporates the Dearness Relief formula of the 6th Bipartite Settlement. On behalf of our organisation, State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune, this issue has been repeatedly explained.
 
Further, it is impossible to calculate pension solely on the basis of the formulae contained in Appendix I, because addition to Basic Pay is on slab basis, whereas DA to be added for computation of Basic Pension is specifically provided through a TABLE. The law does not permit selective application of provisions in parts, nor can Courts add to or modify statutory provisions. This flows from the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judiciary cannot step into the shoes of the legislature.
 
Once the Singla case reaches finality, we shall organise a Webinar or YouTube Live discussion on this issue. Whatever has been stated above is already within the knowledge of all stakeholders, including IBA and the Government. The legal position referred to above has already been cited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case argued by Shri Dhruv Mehta, where his contention did not succeed. Shri Dhruv Mehta is presently appearing on behalf of the respondents, including Punjab National Bank, and is fully aware of this settled legal position.
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Monday, 25 May 2026 at 04:29:54 pm IST, Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The batch of  86/87 pensioners of the period 01/01/86  to 31/10/87 belongs to 4th BPS. Appendix 1 picks up this batch for special treatment by way of a formula. There is no doubt as discovered by Ms Sanjay&Ramani duo,  of an element of upward revision. Whether it is incidental or intentional is not known in the absence of explanatory note.They deserve the hike as otherwise they would have been left far behindIn pension fixation. We can take it as principle of natural justice. 
Should  not the same logic be applied in comparison between pre 2002 pensioners and post 2022 ? Probably for the said reason the Hon court had called for chart for comparative study Whether judiciary takes legality of 35(1) or natural justice has to be seen. Let jurisprudence prevail. C VNarayanan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9owQbYRvx_GTd90Qdv0mMGx-1oHSHSyfJFDdmLzGHabw%40mail.gmail.com.
Satyanarayana Rao <karna...@yahoo.co.in>: May 26 05:40AM

If the statutory provisions are ultravirous to the principles of Natural justice and constructional rights provided under article 14 and16 and 21.
The Supreme court judges can
use other provisions of the constitution to restore the justice and ignore and set aside the legislative laws and direct the defendants to implement and fallow the pension updation formula of RBI as per the pleadings of petitioners in Siglji case.
Any legislative laws or the regulations are not over and above the constitutional rights of Pensioners.Any executive  or state law or orbitarly denying the legally binding benifit by wrong understanding and with sole intention of denying the same is unconstitutional and there fore rectified.
This shall be done by striking down the High court verdict and upholding the petitioner's please for justice and pension updation in Sri Singla ji Case.
 
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 9:46, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Narayanan Venkateshwaranji,

Please go through both the 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlements applicable to Officers as well as Award Staff. During the period 1986–87, there existed three different DA rates and three separate formulae for computation of Dearness Allowance. Pension Regulations could not have provided three different Dearness Relief formulae based on cadre or category of employees. Therefore, Appendix I came into existence only with a view to harmonise the position and introduce a single uniform Dearness Relief formula for all pensioners.
 
Dearness Relief could never have formed part of Appendix I, which itself forms part of Appendix II. If, as is now being contended, pension updation was the intention behind Clauses 1 and 2 of Appendix I, then there ought to have been a Clause 3 as well, bringing 4th and 5th Bipartite Settlement retirees to the 1148 points level itself at the time of notification, because the 6th Bipartite Settlement was already in force. In fact, Appendix II of the original notification dated 29.09.1995 itself contains the Dearness Relief formula based on 1148 points under the 6th Bipartite Settlement.
 
It is also pertinent to note that Appendix II specifically incorporates the Dearness Relief formula of the 6th Bipartite Settlement. On behalf of our organisation, State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune, this issue has been repeatedly explained.
 
Further, it is impossible to calculate pension solely on the basis of the formulae contained in Appendix I, because addition to Basic Pay is on slab basis, whereas DA to be added for computation of Basic Pension is specifically provided through a TABLE. The law does not permit selective application of provisions in parts, nor can Courts add to or modify statutory provisions. This flows from the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Judiciary cannot step into the shoes of the legislature.
 
Once the Singla case reaches finality, we shall organise a Webinar or YouTube Live discussion on this issue. Whatever has been stated above is already within the knowledge of all stakeholders, including IBA and the Government. The legal position referred to above has already been cited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case argued by Shri Dhruv Mehta, where his contention did not succeed. Shri Dhruv Mehta is presently appearing on behalf of the respondents, including Punjab National Bank, and is fully aware of this settled legal position.
 
Thanks, a Million. 
With regards,Prasad C N
 
On Monday, 25 May 2026 at 04:29:54 pm IST, Narayanan Venkateshwaran <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

The batch of  86/87 pensioners of the period 01/01/86  to 31/10/87 belongs to 4th BPS. Appendix 1 picks up this batch for special treatment by way of a formula. There is no doubt as discovered by Ms Sanjay&Ramani duo,  of an element of upward revision. Whether it is incidental or intentional is not known in the absence of explanatory note.They deserve the hike as otherwise they would have been left far behindIn pension fixation. We can take it as principle of natural justice. 
Should  not the same logic be applied in comparison between pre 2002 pensioners and post 2022 ? Probably for the said reason the Hon court had called for chart for comparative study Whether judiciary takes legality of 35(1) or natural justice has to be seen. Let jurisprudence prevail. C VNarayanan
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da9owQbYRvx_GTd90Qdv0mMGx-1oHSHSyfJFDdmLzGHabw%40mail.gmail.com.

 
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1334484358.3119092.1779716144179%40mail.yahoo.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: May 26 10:54AM +0530

There are instances of SC passing balancing verdict taking into
consideration statutory laws and need for equality of justice. BEPR1995
rules were framed 30 years back. No legislation or act can be stagnant. It
needs to be revised /amended as per developments.reforms done in other
financial sectors. Hon judges of the High court in M C singla case also
observed that petitioners should negotiate with management to improve the
pension scheme and should have demanded extension of Reg35.1 for all
pensioners. It is sheer injustice to deny basic pension revision for 30
years to pre 2002 pensioners existing and family pensioners of deceased
quoting outdated Reg35/1. The irony is that those who have authority to
amend reg 35/1 to provide for updation are filing affidavits in SC saying"
I have authority to amend pension regulations, but I have not done that. So
present Reg35/1 prevents revising pension. So my lord do not accept demand
of petitioners to revise pension"
Though Dhruv Mehta argues that regulations do not provide for updation, we
are confident that Hon.Judges will acknowledge the discrimination and
disparity and pass a balancing verdict.
Whatever be the legal position, and irrespective of negative verdict if any
IBA and UFBU can discuss, negotiate and reach an agreement on Updation,
and pension regulations can be amended accordingly. DFS has done this in
case of RBI pensioners, DFS approved family pension and regulations were
amended later.
Merger of DA@8088 points, Uniform DA for all pensioners and base year 2016
for all pensioners, will be taken care of if a settlement on Updation is
reached,
Problem lies not with regulations which can be amended at any time, but
with Union leaders firmly sticking to their positions for 15-20 years
which is undemocratic. A retired leader with vast trade union experience
becoming leader of a major union could have been a boon for retirees but it
has turned into a nightmare for retirees. Since the pension scheme launched
in 1995 only a second pension option was negotiated with penalty and
anomalies. There are plenty of demands pending unresolved. Benefits are
not negotiated and after court verdicts implemented without interest. New
young dynamic persons with legal knowledge and negotiating skills and with
no self goal should occupy the post inplace of stagnant old guards.
 
On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 9:45 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <
Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com>: May 25 08:10PM +0530

Dear Shri Prasad ji,
 
In my view, in respect of disparities existing between SBI and other PSBs
as well its erstwhile associate banks which have been merged with it, the
pensioners of eABs and the PSBs are on totally different footings. Because,
the pensioners of eABs are now pensioners of SBI and are entitled to claim
the benefits enjoyed by the original pensioners of SBI. Also, such a claim
for parity will be much more legitimate, stronger and meaningful than a
similar claim by pensioners of PSBs. For them,
the parity has to happen in respect of PSB employees first, and only then
it can percolate to the pensioners. Being fully aware of this reality, the
PSB pensioners, especially those in their late seventies and above are
chasing their dream of updation of pension and nothing else.
 
Additionally, if PSBs cannot provide the Funds required for updation, how
can they do it for the reportedly bigger benefits that will result for
their pensioners from parity with SBI pensioners.
 
K N RAMANI
 
 
On Mon, 25 May, 2026, 4:30 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: May 26 11:01AM +0530

Well said Mr.Raman, if IBA has no funds even for a few
hundred rupees increase of Ex gratia how are we going to achieve parity
with SBI?
 
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: May 25 07:44PM +0530

Dear Shri Prasadji,
 
Thank you for your responses to my formal representation and the subsequent
Position Paper. I am writing this single, consolidated letter to address
both of your replies, as the core of my intervention stems from your own
correspondence.
 
My previous letters were directly prompted by an earlier email from you, in
which you stated:
 
*“We fight for every benefit which only SBI pensioners and their
organisation and its top Executives want, even if that benefit is not for
us, but only to SBI Pensioners. We whole heartely support. We also fight
for the benefits which not only those pensioners from other Banks, even
those from State Bank of India are the beneficiaries. In both these cases,
SBI Pensioners are the beneficiaries.”*
 
This specific statement raised a strong concern regarding who the actual
beneficiaries of the *M.C. Singla* case would be, and whether there was a
risk that erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (e-SBM) pensioners might lose out
on benefits resulting from a favourable judgment.
 
However, your latest reply has cleared the air. e-SBM pensioners can now
rest assured knowing that the leadership is fully equipped, as per your
statement:
 
*“The Organisation is well guided by battery of Senior Advocates, former
Judges and former Law Officers of erstwhile Associate Banks. It has
complete wherwithal not only to protect its members, but also to secure
every legitimate benefit to its members. It has clear understanding of law
and the leadership has the courage and conviction to call spade a spade.”*
 
Secondly, regarding my email with the subject *"Position Paper on
Discrimination,"* this too was a direct response to your earlier remarks
where you observed:
 
*“I have posted messages regarding discrimination within Banking Industry.
I am unable to decipher the reason for turning a blind eye on
discrimination within our own backyard. We are demanding parity with RBI,
but not parity with SBI. We are demanding parity with Government, but not
with SBI. We are happy to live and die as second-class pensioners. Now, I
am sure after having read mail, Shri Sanjayji, Shri Sathyanaryana Rao and
Shri Somashekarji would fight for parity for you and me.”*
 
It was precisely to address this concern and to assure you of our
solidarity that the Position Paper was shared. Your reassurance that the
organisation possesses the legal acumen and the willingness to fight for
all legitimate, enforceable benefits—without sacrificing pension
updation—effectively resolves those apprehensions.
 
In summary, my letters were sent to exercise caution and express solidarity
based on your initial concerns. Your subsequent replies have successfully
alleviated those fears. Thank you for the clarification.
 
With warm regards,
 
*Sanjay J.*
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.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages