Re: The "Ghost" of 2018 – Why this time is different.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Members,

I realized that my previous post regarding the United Bank of India (2018) Judgment appeared as a separate thread and might have lacked the necessary context.

That detailed legal differentiation was a specific reply to a very valid caution raised by Shri C.N. Prasad ji. He rightly pointed out that we had approached the Supreme Court earlier on similar grounds and lost.

For clarity, here is the important query raised by Shri Prasadji that triggered my analysis of why 2026 offers a new opportunity that 2018 did not:

***   

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

On 02.06.2005, 8th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note were signed.  Dearness Relief at one rate was introduced instead of slab system.  Many of us felt the same way we are all feeling now, when single slab DA formula was extended only to those who were in that Bipartite Period (i.e. 01.11.2002 onwards), but not to those who retired earlier. Crying discrimination, just like we are doing now, when the difference was far greater, we went to Court.  Unfortunately, Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with us. Review Petition and Curative petitions were filed, which did not help us.  I am attaching the Judgment, for your immediate reference.

If you can go through and help us in differentiating, it would be of great help to all of us.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

***  

Regards.

 

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 2:20 AM Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Prasadji,

Thank you for sharing the United Bank of India (2018) judgment. You are absolutely right to sound this note of caution. That judgment was indeed a painful blow, where the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, ruling that pre-2002 retirees could not claim the "Single Rate" benefit achieved in the 8th Bipartite Settlement merely on the grounds of equality.

However, I strongly believe that 2026 is not 2018. The legal ground beneath our feet has shifted. The specific arguments that defeated us in the UBI case have been neutralized by the recent Constitution Bench rulings.

Here is a detailed differentiation of why the 2018 logic no longer blocks us:

ANALYSIS: Why the 2018 Case Failed vs. Why We Win Now

Feature	The 2018 Failure (UBI Case)	The 2026 Opportunity (Current Context)
1. The Core Issue	Contractual Benefit. The Court viewed 100% DR as a specific "concession" won in a wage deal (8th BPS). The logic was: "You cannot claim the benefits of a contract you were never part of."	Constitutional Parity. Our argument today is not about a "BPS term"; it is about the Index itself. We are challenging the use of a defective yardstick (1960 CPI) that yields less money than the industry standard (2016 CPI).
2. The Defense	"Financial Burden." The Banks successfully argued they couldn't afford it. The Court accepted that "paying capacity" is a valid ground to fix a Cut-off Date for new benefits.	"Financial Defense Rejected." The Constitution Bench in State of WB v. Confederation (Feb 2026) explicitly ruled that DA/DR is a right under Article 21. It stated: "Financial constraints cannot be a ground to deny a statutory right."
3. The Legal Test	Classification. The Court accepted that "Date of Retirement" is a valid line to draw classes (pre-2002 vs post-2002) for salary structures.	Arbitrariness. The Vijayakumar (April 2026) judgment ruled that differentiating based on retirement date for Inflation Relief is "arbitrary." Since inflation hits both groups with "Equal Force," the mechanism of relief must be equal.

 

The Conclusion

In 2018, we lost because we asked the Court to rewrite a Commercial Contract (the Bipartite Settlement).
Today, we are asking the Court to enforce a Constitutional Right (Equality in Inflation Neutralization).

The evidentiary record is now richer. Mr.Ramani's arithmetic, (The Court said no illustration had been placed showing substantial disadvantage),  the IBA March 2024 minutes (The IBA's own March 2024 admission of the need for merger at 8088 is new material), and the demonstrable widening gap with every DA revision are materials that did not exist in 2018.

The UBI judgment says you can have different contracts for different eras. The Vijayakumar judgment says you cannot have different Constitutionality for different eras. That is the bridge we must cross.

Regards.

[Sanjay J]

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

The difference in Dearness Relief between pre-1.11.2022 and post 31.10.2022 is not on account of change in the index.  It is because of fixing higher rate, i.e 1% instead of 0.99% is giving higher amount of Dearness Relief.  Whenever such higher amount of loading happens, Employees have to forego a portion of the additional load, which was 17% in that particular Bipartite Settlement.  

There is a circular from AIBOC General Secretary in this regard.  I am trying to lay my hands on the same.  If I get it, I will certainly share.

The Judgments you are referring to is that of Government of India or State Government, where Dearness Relief is paid not on account of Statutory Rules, but by Administrative Order/Instructions/Memorandum.  

What I have found is that, we are focussing on some benefits, where we do not have claim which as per enforceable law.  But, there are a large number of provisions, perhaps, we may get good amount of benefit, which is legally enforceable and can succeed in a Court of Law also.  Courts decide based on Law and Logic, i.e from the Brain, but not from the heart.  All of us would agree without any doubt that we should get Pension Updation, DA at 8088 points, 100% DA from 01.05.2005, etc. if we thing from the heart.   Perhaps, if we were to say all these things during negotiation, we may get a good hearing.

I would like to conclude with extract from Manku Thimmana Kagga:

§gÀ¢ºÀÄzÀgÉtÂPÉAiÀÄ° §A¢ºÀÄzÀ ªÀÄgÉAiÀÄ¢gÀÄ

UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÉƽwgÀĪÀÅzÀ£À PÉÃlÄUÀ¼À £ÀqÀĪÉ

EgÀĪÀ ¨sÁUÀåªÀ £É£ÉzÀÄ ¨ÁgÉ£ÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄ ©qÀÄ

ºÀgÀĵÀPÀzÉ zÁjAiÉįÉÆ

 

While in the yearning for the unattained, forget not of the attained.

Observe the presence of goodness amidst evils.

Reminding the thyself of the privilege thou possess, let go of that you don’t.

That is way to happiness.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKhnAeAj3mp1kb%2BNgoaRVDO%2B%3DnHXiSOSQ%2BxsjJWA-H7uQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasadji,

Thank you for your perspective and for sharing that beautiful extract from Manku Thimmana Kagga. It is indeed a profound reminder to find contentment in what exists.

Since you have set the tone with DVG’s wisdom, I was reminded of another verse from the same Kagga that seems to capture the essence of our exchange:

ಅರಿವು ಸಾಸಿವೆ ಕಾಳು; ಅರಿಯದದು ಪರ್ವತವು |
ಪರಿಬಗೆಯಲೊಂದು ನಯ; ಹಳಬಗೆಯಲೊಂದು ||
ನರಮತಿಗತೀತವಿದು; ನಾನಾಮುಖದ ಸತ್ಯ |
ಮರುಳ ಮುನಿಯನ ಮತಿ ಇದು - ಮಂಕುತಿಮ್ಮ ||

“What we know is but a grain of mustard; what we do not know is a mountain. One logic seems right today, another from the past seems different. Truth has many faces and is often beyond the reach of human intellect.”
— Manku Thimmana Kagga, Verse 19

We are looking at different "faces of the truth" regarding Bipartite Settlements and Constitutional rights. 

Let us leave the arguments to the mountains of the unknown and find peace in our shared goal for the welfare of all retirees.

With regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1460114582.1594088.1777032015649%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjay,

My object.of bringing to notice of the members of this group regarding Singla's case, is about the challenges before Hon'ble Supreme Court only & bring in sanity. Those who understand and appreciate my concerns are my target.  Certainly not those who have been fed with certain narratives. I am aware that there is no need to be told anything.  They are fully entitled to have their opinion and am nobody to tell anyone & there is nothing to prove. I am aware that I do not have ability tell anything to those who have decided that:

a. There is sufficient balance in Pension Funds to Update pension

b. There are provisions in Pension Regulations for updating Pension in terms of RBI formula

c. There are provisions in Pension Settlement for updating Pension

d. The word 'shall' is so powerful that even Hon'ble Supreme Court should agree with our             views & update pension

e. Minutes of meeting also provide for Pension Updation

f.  P&H Court has erred in not appreciating the good grounds raised

g. Supreme Court Judges are convinced that our Pension should be updated 

h. We are entitled to updation with effect from March 2019

i.  We have several Judgements in our support, like Nakara, Vijay Kumar, etc.

j. Prayers are not a major factor 

I am extremely sorry, if I have left out if any.  No need to convince. You have enough information during last eight to ten years 

Thanking you,

With regards 

C N Prasad

On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 16:32, Sanjay J

<sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLmJz4Be_KGW-61%2BNQ8zk%2BEVTDnrhkEm15HhqWFA3-APw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

Has the DA case been reopened due to the latest developments as stated?

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1190663578.2062943.1777308439157%40mail.yahoo.com.