Pension Funds

[Prasad C N]

Dear Friends,

Several apex organisations representing bank pensioners have been highlighting the substantial balances available in Pension Funds and asserting that these funds are sufficient to support pension updation multiple times.

Recently, when one of our friends, who is an LIC agent, visited our office, we enquired about the purchase price of an annuity. We obtained the following information, the authenticity of which may be independently verified:

• Purchase Price: ₹73,09,942
• Monthly Pension (Annuity) payable for life: ₹50,000

This indicates that, to secure a monthly annuity of ₹50,000 for life, an amount of approximately ₹73.10 lakh is required as the initial investment. The purchase price works out to about 12.18 times the annual payout.

Private sector banks cannot maintain separate Pension Funds and, instead, meet their pension obligations through annuity arrangements with LIC.

We request our members to examine whether our understanding is correct. If the same multiple is applied, an annual increase in pension outgo of ₹6,000 crore would require an additional provision of approximately ₹73,099 crore.

It is, therefore, necessary for all of us to introspect and assess whether the claims being made in certain quarters regarding the adequacy of Pension Funds are realistic and actuarially sustainable.

We invite informed discussion and feedback from members on this important issue.

Thanks a million.

With regards,

Prasad C. N.

[SBMPC Blore]

Dear Mr. Rama Prasanna,

No funds have been collected by Mr. C. N. Prasad for any litigation.

We have examined the legal position relating to the applicability of Regulation 35(1) and, based on our understanding of the law, have not initiated any legal proceedings in this regard. We have, however, informed our members about our views on the applicability of Regulation 35(1) through our official magazine.

Further, no contributions or funds have been collected for filing any case concerning Regulation 35(1).

You are neither connected with the proposed or ongoing legal proceedings nor a member of the SBM Pensioners' Commune. Therefore, whether any case is filed or not is not a matter that directly concerns you. In any event, you cannot claim any benefit arising from litigation initiated by the SBM Pensioners' Commune.

There is no obligation to share internal information regarding such matters with persons who are unconnected with the organisation or its activities.

Thank you.

With regards,

C. N. Prasad

General Secretary

On Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 16:49, Rama Prasanna <mkrpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Various letters and articles written by C N Prasad of SBM comune indicates that he is not interested in PENSION UPDATATION  of pensioner.

Apart from this he says that he has filed some cases with regard to 35/1 etc., by collecting money from members but ,till date he has neither furnished the Case no and present position etc., in the absence of case no it rises doubt about  FILING OF CASE ITSELF.

--
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/1689216761.133167.1781864017643%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Rama Prasanna,

Whether you have doubt or not, in what way Bank Pensioners are bothered.

On Friday, 19 June 2026 at 04:49:10 pm IST, Rama Prasanna <mkrpr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Various letters and articles written by C N Prasad of SBM comune indicates that he is not interested in PENSION UPDATATION  of pensioner.

Apart from this he says that he has filed some cases with regard to 35/1 etc., by collecting money from members but ,till date he has neither furnished the Case no and present position etc., in the absence of case no it rises doubt about  FILING OF CASE ITSELF.

On Fri, 19 Jun, 2026, 16:42 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Rama Prasanna]

Various letters and articles written by C N Prasad of SBM comune indicates that he is not interested in PENSION UPDATATION  of pensioner.

Apart from this he says that he has filed some cases with regard to 35/1 etc., by collecting money from members but ,till date he has neither furnished the Case no and present position etc., in the absence of case no it rises doubt about  FILING OF CASE ITSELF.

On Fri, 19 Jun, 2026, 16:42 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Rama Prasanna]

Furnish the case NO and details if at all you /your organization has filed any case.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

There is an unsubstantiated  accusations by Mr.Ramaprasanna regarding my view on Pension Updation.  

I would like to clarify abundantly that my personal understanding is very much clear that Pension Updation would certainly happen by way of Bipartite Settlement.  I am also confident that it is not necessary to wait for very long time.

I firmly believe that  the legal route  may not yield desired result on account of Hon'ble High Courts in four Judgments, have not accepted what petitioners are claiming.  Petitioners have invented grounds and seeking what cannot be implemented.

Therefore,  please ignore motivated campaign.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

PRASAD C N

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "Prasad C N" <sbmpen...@gmail.com>

To: "cn_pr...@yahoo.com" <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>

Cc:

Sent: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 19:29

Subject: Fw:  bankpensioner Pension Funds

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sbmpensioners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sbmpensioner...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sbmpensioners/644978593.163750.1781878254764%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

First IBA and UFBU had to arrive at updation formula. Merging DA@ 8088 level will increase pension by an average of Rs.1000-1500 only. However this will at least protect existing DA.

Adding load  factor will increase in pension. This is subject to negotiation. DFS has stipulated 10%. for RBI pensioners.

In PSU banks pre 2002 retirees basic  pension has not been updated even once. So 10% can be fixed for this category. Next for each category load factor can be reduced .

So Cost of updation varies  for each BPS. Only after negotiating the load factor exact cost can be arrived.

Without arriving at the exact cost  each side is coming out with speculative figures. I do not find there is any problem in IBA and UFBU discussing the issue and arriving at exact cost.

Even if it is 73000 crores the cost for each bank  will be 6000 crores.

If it is amortized for 5 years the cost will be 500 crores for each bank.

Alternate solution

Still there is a problem the same actual cost of  Rs.6000 crore can be paid  by way of Ex gratia for 13th BPS period So that there will be no need of provision.

First there should  be willingness on the part of iBA and UFBU.

However I am hopeful of a positive outcome of the M C Singla case.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

There is an unsubstantiated  accusations by Mr.Ramaprasanna regarding my view on Pension Updation.  

I would like to clarify abundantly that my personal understanding is very much clear that Pension Updation would certainly happen by way of Bipartite Settlement.  I am also confident that it is not necessary to wait for very long time.

I firmly believe that  the legal route  may not yield desired result on account of Hon'ble High Courts in four Judgments, have not accepted what petitioners are claiming.  Petitioners have invented grounds and seeking what cannot be implemented.

Therefore,  please ignore motivated campaign.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

PRASAD C N

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "Prasad C N" <sbmpen...@gmail.com>

To: "cn_pr...@yahoo.com" <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>

Cc:

Sent: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 19:29

Subject: Fw:  bankpensioner Pension Funds

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "SBMPC Blore" <sbmpen...@gmail.com>

To: "Rama Prasanna" <mkrpr...@gmail.com>

Cc: "Tejaswini Raghavan" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Fri, 19 Jun 2026 at 17:21

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Pension Funds

Dear Mr. Rama Prasanna,

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

We discussed this point earlier enough. 

There is no question of excess or shortfall in the Pension Corpus fund.

Necessary (Required) funds  are mainained so as to pay pension up to the last pensioner/family pensioner, as per existing pension rules. 

Calculation of necessary funds is arrived at based on actuary estimation and actuary considers various factors into account like mortality rate, interest rate, inflation rate, number of present and future pensioners, wage revision etc. Claiming that the pension corpus fund is having huge sum, is simply undermining the role of actuary and auditors. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

In continuation of earlier post, I draw the kind attention of of our members, the prideful utterance of minister of state for finance in Parliament during question hour about satisfying amount of regular da being paid to bank pensioners to combat inflation with no justification for more as updation. 

It would not have missed the attention of pensioners that the increase received during last financial year was peanuts 

C V Narayanan

On Sun, 21 Jun, 2026, 7:23 pm Narayanan Venkateshwaran, <seevi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is felt ,drawing  parellel between an Individual’s task of garnering funds for annuity benefit with that of a state/ Institution   may not be appropriate. In Banks'  pension scheme the govt committed himalayan blunder of  divesting their holding upto 49% without forethought of  immense harm that was to follow from funds angle when updation issue comes up as, they cannot raise funds at will  as part owners. 

The govt was taking shelter under the ignorance of pensioners from whom there was no claim for very long time. Still the govt holds the untenable stand that  the pension agreement has no proviso for updation. There are pensioners who believe the same. It is saddening, the Union toes the line of DFS. 

One can assertively say  Defined Pension scheme as ours categorically  casts responsibility on the authors  unless specifically denied. 

The singla case verdict is not in sight any soon. 

Govt has very many ways to mobilise funds. 1.Use the handsome internal generation of banks 2.Provide long term loans to needy Banks 3.increase authorised, paid up, subscribed capital of those wanting banks for private  placement to repeat the old process of divestment in future

C V narayanan

. 

[Srinivasan Badri]

Yes . Sri CN prasad observation is correct about the fund position. 

But we cannot take our right to updation if at all confirmed as existing in the pension regulations  to the availability of funds. 

If the court confirms pension updation is there for all categories ie periods of retirements then banks are obliged to update irrespective of so called fund’s availability. They can pay from revenue expenditures like salaries to their P& L account whether there is profit or not.

When Govt induce funds for capital adequacy to write off thousands of crores, the same logic of availability should be applied for the pension updation a requirement for ever increasing galloping inflation  on the principle of Natural justice. 

However the paradox is that SC cannot decide the formula to be applied 

It has to therefore appoint an arbitrator to arrive. 

I think that is why Lokadalat was suggested 

I think the proposal should have been given consent instead of continuing the case in Supreme Court.

We cannot take our expect supreme court court any new clause or formula for updation

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

It is felt ,drawing  parellel between an Individual’s task of garnering funds for annuity benefit with that of a state/ Institution   may not be appropriate. In Banks'  pension scheme the govt committed himalayan blunder of  divesting their holding upto 49% without forethought of  immense harm that was to follow from funds angle when updation issue comes up as, they cannot raise funds at will  as part owners. 

The govt was taking shelter under the ignorance of pensioners from whom there was no claim for very long time. Still the govt holds the untenable stand that  the pension agreement has no proviso for updation. There are pensioners who believe the same. It is saddening, the Union toes the line of DFS. 

One can assertively say  Defined Pension scheme as ours categorically  casts responsibility on the authors  unless specifically denied. 

The singla case verdict is not in sight any soon. 

Govt has very many ways to mobilise funds. 1.Use the handsome internal generation of banks 2.Provide long term loans to needy Banks 3.increase authorised, paid up, subscribed capital of those wanting banks for private  placement to repeat the old process of divestment in future

C V narayanan

. 

On Fri, 19 Jun, 2026, 4:42 pm 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "Satyanarayana Rao" <karna...@yahoo.co.in>

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

Cc:

Sent: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 11:17

Subject: Re:   bankpensioner Pension Funds

Sri Rama Prasanna.
It is nun of your business to make unnecessary comments about the cases filed by our commune and about the financial services to fight the court cases.
As you are not the member of our commune you have no locus stand to poke your nose in the functioning of the organisation and about the financial resources and find management etc.
Our  General secretary is known for his leadership as well as for his abundant legal knowledge and experience in fighting several cases and winning the court cases.
He has got full backing of the entire membership to take any decision to file the cases and raise financial resources to meet legal expenses.
What ever opinions he has expressed about 35/1 and appendix 1 and pension updation case are based on the legal validity of the claim of petitioners and based on the high court verdicts judgements.
No body can doubt about the tharough research mind of Sri C.n Prasad on legal matters concerning bank retirees issues including that of Pension updation case pending before supreme court.
It is subjudice to comment on the final verdict.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/644978593.163750.1781878254764%40mail.yahoo.com.

[RAMANI NV]

Thanks for the clarification. 

--
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/c9ca2d0f-a3ca-4294-a08d-a024e8972f5bn%40googlegroups.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

while we have difference of opinion on some issues we cannot demand case no etc and make personal accusations

Mr. C N Prasad has fought few cases successfully like 5 year benefit  1616-1684 issue  and also ensured that commutation recovery is done from date of payment. There is genuine reason why case details not disclosed. There is possibility of some vested interests joining case as impleader to delay case. However he will come out with details if required. As we are not members of the SBM commune we cannot interfere with their internal organization issues.

As regards pension funds we expect IBA and UFBU to arrive at an updation formula and publish actual cost and provisional cost and find sources instead of spreading speculative figures.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG-kmoM_Cgma3iEZVKpLsuV13rri3eS_rBOAWPuKQ%2Bm313JV-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Rama Prasanna.
It is nun of your business to make unnecessary comments about the cases filed by our commune and about the financial services to fight the court cases.
As you are not the member of our commune you have no locus stand to poke your nose in the functioning of the organisation and about the financial resources and find management etc.
Our  General secretary is known for his leadership as well as for his abundant legal knowledge and experience in fighting several cases and winning the court cases.
He has got full backing of the entire membership to take any decision to file the cases and raise financial resources to meet legal expenses.
What ever opinions he has expressed about 35/1 and appendix 1 and pension updation case are based on the legal validity of the claim of petitioners and based on the high court verdicts judgements.
No body can doubt about the tharough research mind of Sri C.n Prasad on legal matters concerning bank retirees issues including that of Pension updation case pending before supreme court.
It is subjudice to comment on the final verdict.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/644978593.163750.1781878254764%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Rama Prasanna]

If Prasad is of the view that court cases will not resolve any issues and is to be settled through Bipartite settlement.

"WHY did he copied my plaint in respect of 5 years Notional increment,filed by me in respect of EXIT OFFICERS in the year 2006/2007

through BANGALORE LAW ASSOCIATE  and Prashant associate

BASED On the orders more than 120 officials were benefited and got the arrears paid. Apart from that even contempt petition was fied against SBI by Ramaiah and attended by Prashant associate advocate. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG-kmoM_Cgma3iEZVKpLsuV13rri3eS_rBOAWPuKQ%2Bm313JV-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Rama Prasanna
Congratulations to you if you have successfully faught for justice.
SBM pensioners commune under the leadership of C.N.prasad has successfully faught for 5 years benifit for 2001 VRS retirees we got arrears and huge increase in monthly pension.
When our legal achievements speak volumes your presumption that we are not fighting for justice through filing
Case at appropriate level is not correct.
We believe in negotiated bipartite settlement of Retirees issues through UFBU.
Where ever there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by IBA and on strong legal grounds we have filled several cases and proceedings are going on.
Therefore your views on Our legal strategy is false.
Just to clarify i have responded to your mail though u are not connected to our commune.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CADSSUzj%2BO_A-rA%3DO%2BiEEPXa%3DWyZmUFO664tr29D8kXJotW-qsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vvns Varaprasadrao]

If we cannot trust Sri C N Prasad and his activities, there is no body to help/guide on retirees issues.

At least there's one who can lead us, correct us and advise us suitably in case of need by taking all the pains.

Even if you don't trust the Doctor, the costly and good medicine prescribed by him may not work.  So repose confidence and encourage to do more favours to the retirees community.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/865385554.558194.1782137317083%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Rama Prasannaji,

 

I don’t think any pensioner/unions (either working/Retiree) is against the updation and everyone wants updation.  It is foolish to think that anyone is against updation.  The means/approach may be different – to achieve the benefits for pensioners.

 

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CADSSUzg6%3D6VTxK-HWm16jnkK7p%3DrTM%3Dy67xaJZ-Hch8J6HUUow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chinnasamy Rajagopalan]

Unnecessary and avoidable aspersions are cast on Mr.C.N Prasad.He always sticks to what is in black and white and his arguments are based on preceding HC rulings.Some writings on this page reveal that he is not interested in pension updation.It is far from truth.When he himself is a beneficiary of updation why he should block our way.As Mr.Sanjay said the apex Court may look beyond regulations and decide on updation on humanitarian grounds.Time and Court alone can say what is in store for all pensioners.The cat will be out of the bag soon.Let us hope for the best

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAFwtfmdMsWP-THFCnXsLhzO0Y2u-0mR5d48fRCJ2yzQRQk5dnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

No pensioner can/will be against updation of pension at the earliest in view of the fact that many of them especially those who retired prior to November 2002 who have suffered much more than others by way of low pensions as well as tapered DA formula.

However, I am afraid, some appear to feel that it would be better if updation happens after the issue of non-inclusion of Special Allowance for pension(in respect of pensioners from 10th BPS onwards) is settled by the Court. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPBKNJTMaXsN89kpR-Osy8p_MAL3nhJPRjarrLqggpwguyT_Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Clause 17 of 1993 agreement  provides for mutual discussion and settlement in case of any doubts regarding provisions of the agreement

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 11:12 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr.Niranjan

Banks, DFS, IBA, and UFBU are not against Updation but they are not interested in resolving it because there is no demand from pensioners.

For Banks to give a specific mandate to IBA to discuss updation there should be persistent  and specific demand from UFBU leaders. UFBU leaders will take interest when  there is consistent demand from pensioners.

1. Various posts from pensioners themselves on social media indicates that they do not want updation.

2. Pensioners' duty is to present a specific demand for updation based on a formula and keep consistent pressure on the Unions to take up the issue on a priority basis. 

3. When demand is consistent and  due to mounting pressure management will take up the issue for consideration. Management will find resources based on the agreement arrived.

4. But we are continuously campaigning that for updation huge funds are required and updation is not possible, though we do not have single data as to how much funds required for updation.

5. We are continuously campaiging that Pension funds lack provision for regulations and we are also arguing that  we have no right to updation.

6.Any benefit for retirees comes after quality negotiations between IBA and UFBU.

   Excess or shortage in Pension fund has no relevance to  securing updation.

   In 2018, the SC passed a verdict, and Banks had to pay several hundred crores by way of Interest. Banks did not plead before the court that pension funds did not have an adequate balance.Banks will provide funds whenever required. Instead of demanding updation we are busy in finding resources which is not our duty.

7. Reg35/1 may be a matter for contest in court. but is totally irrelevant for IBA and UFBU as they have authotity to discuss and recommend amendments to regulations.

8. Clause 17 of the 1993 agreement clearly provides that  clause 12 allows for updatiom which Banks also accepted, subject to future negotiations. This should be a plus point for UFBU in negotiations.  AIBOC and AIBOA, NOBO all often agreed that our pension scheme is based on RBI pension structure. 

9.  DFS approved Updation multiple times in RBI. This fact is also a positive point for UFBU  in negotiating updation.

As on date there is no hurdle for UFBU to negotiate updation, including the pending M C Singla case as SC itself has given green signal for mediation and negotiation.

But the problem lies with us. We believe pension regulations does not provide for updation. We have no right on updation. Pension Updation provision cost is enormous and banks cannot provide  funds. So we are not asking UFBU to negotiate updation. UFBU also not interested in Updation. 

IBA/UFBU are watching our comments/posts. Because of this IBA is claiming everywhere that there is no demand from unions/Pensioners.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPBKNJTMaXsN89kpR-Osy8p_MAL3nhJPRjarrLqggpwguyT_Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri.C.Rajgopalan.

Yes. U r 200 percent correct.

This group/forum is only to share and care about our issues.We are all very senior and matured members of the group.

Let us not make any changes or unpleasant remarks or personal comments on any organisation or individual.

We shall maintain the decency and dignity and decorum of the group while sharing the information about on going debate on various pending issues.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPBKNJTMaXsN89kpR-Osy8p_MAL3nhJPRjarrLqggpwguyT_Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Niranjan

Banks, DFS, IBA, and UFBU are not against Updation but they are not interested in resolving it because there is no demand from pensioners.

For Banks to give a specific mandate to IBA to discuss updation there should be persistent  and specific demand from UFBU leaders. UFBU leaders will take interest when  there is consistent demand from pensioners.

1. Various posts from pensioners themselves on social media indicates that they do not want updation.

2. Pensioners' duty is to present a specific demand for updation based on a formula and keep consistent pressure on the Unions to take up the issue on a priority basis. 

3. When demand is consistent and  due to mounting pressure management will take up the issue for consideration. Management will find resources based on the agreement arrived.

4. But we are continuously campaigning that for updation huge funds are required and updation is not possible, though we do not have single data as to how much funds required for updation.

5. We are continuously campaiging that Pension funds lack provision for regulations and we are also arguing that  we have no right to updation.

6.Any benefit for retirees comes after quality negotiations between IBA and UFBU.

   Excess or shortage in Pension fund has no relevance to  securing updation.

   In 2018, the SC passed a verdict, and Banks had to pay several hundred crores by way of Interest. Banks did not plead before the court that pension funds did not have an adequate balance.Banks will provide funds whenever required. Instead of demanding updation we are busy in finding resources which is not our duty.

7. Reg35/1 may be a matter for contest in court. but is totally irrelevant for IBA and UFBU as they have authotity to discuss and recommend amendments to regulations.

8. Clause 17 of the 1993 agreement clearly provides that  clause 12 allows for updatiom which Banks also accepted, subject to future negotiations. This should be a plus point for UFBU in negotiations.  AIBOC and AIBOA, NOBO all often agreed that our pension scheme is based on RBI pension structure. 

9.  DFS approved Updation multiple times in RBI. This fact is also a positive point for UFBU  in negotiating updation.

As on date there is no hurdle for UFBU to negotiate updation, including the pending M C Singla case as SC itself has given green signal for mediation and negotiation.

But the problem lies with us. We believe pension regulations does not provide for updation. We have no right on updation. Pension Updation provision cost is enormous and banks cannot provide  funds. So we are not asking UFBU to negotiate updation. UFBU also not interested in Updation. 

IBA/UFBU are watching our comments/posts. Because of this IBA is claiming everywhere that there is no demand from unions/Pensioners.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 9:36 AM Chinnasamy Rajagopalan <cira...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPBKNJTMaXsN89kpR-Osy8p_MAL3nhJPRjarrLqggpwguyT_Hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekaraji,

I am extracting below the relevant portion of the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, which is self-explanatory. The Hon'ble Court has not held that bank pensioners are ineligible for Pension Updation. Hon’ble Cour has not rejected our claim.  On the contrary, it has observed that the issue is one to be resolved through negotiations.  It has stated that:

"Thus Regulation 56 cannot be treated to confer certain benefits upon the appellants, which the Reserve Bank of India's Regulations or the Central Civil Services Pension Regulations provided for. Further, Clause 17 of the settlement provides that if there is difference of opinion with regard to interpretation of any of the provisions of the settlement, the matter can be taken up at the level of IBA and All India Bank Employees Association for discussion and settlement. Presumably this clause impelled the learned Single Judge to observe that it would be open for the appellants to make demand for parity if they are so advised and use their bargaining skills through their associations."

I reiterate my view that Pension Updation will certainly happen. It is reasonable to expect that it will be implemented along with the next Bipartite Settlement. Achieving this through the judicial route is difficult because the Hon'ble Courts are conscious of the constitutional principle of separation of powers and have consistently held that they cannot add to or amend a statute. Several Constitution Benches have reiterated this principle, and we have relied upon those judgments in other cases as well.

Fortunately, there are also reasons to expect an early conclusion of negotiations, particularly in view of the Government of India's direction for early finalisation of the next Bipartite Settlement. It is reasonable to infer that the Government intends all consequential amendments to the Pension Regulations to be completed before 1st November 2027, especially in the light of the judgment in the Palani case and our claim for payment of pension strictly in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995, as applicable on the date of retirement. We are only seeking faithful implementation of the statutory Regulations and the judgment.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2ZM_WQ7umMUEAo44ghhouZizhOP%2BtOpP5Mu717VdGZhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Dear sri Somasekara

The theme of my post dt 21st is same as elaborately made out by you today. But my post seems to have been  hardly glanced but subsumed in the melee of  charges, counter charges and display of oneupmanship on some other issue. 

This kind of disunity will never see us through our goal. 

In the context of funds issue being projected  as major stumbling block, I have in the said post made some suggestive remarks. I request for the "see" Of those interested to make a critical analysis which may pave way for adoption by IBA/DFS

Txs

CV narayanan

. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW39DXRhYBnFY_R3BUNyeWfgHQz1hLmDY%3DgV9i3L3WHxxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Mr. Somashekarji,

 

An attempt has been made to air an opinion on the various issues raised and the replys are marked in yellow after each point of yours.  Hope this will bring some clarity.

 

Banks, DFS, IBA, and UFBU are not against Updation but they are not interested in resolving it because there is no demand from pensioners.

Remarks : Statement is factually incorrect – interested or not – how to decide – was there any choice before them any point of time to decide on updation ?

 

For Banks to give a specific mandate to IBA to discuss updation there should be persistent  and specific demand from UFBU leaders. UFBU leaders will take interest when  there is consistent demand from pensioners.

Remarks :  Singlas case is final stages – Retirees are very hopeful of updtion as per RBI lines – All are waiting for court decision.  Why to settle anything less now ??

 

1.    Various posts from pensioners themselves on social media indicates that they do not want updation.

Remarks :  Kindly share such social media posts sir

 

2.    Pensioners' duty is to present a specific demand for updation based on a formula and keep consistent pressure on the Unions to take up the issue on a priority basis. 

Remarks :  Unions proposing updation stage by stage (in two or three) years back.  Retirees/Associations were against this – and wanted updation for all in go – hence the wait.  Had they not opposed, by this time all of us would have benefitted.  Whom to blame ?

3.    When demand is consistent and  due to mounting pressure management will take up the issue for consideration. Management will find resources based on the agreement arrived.

Remarks : Sir please think over – whether first total cost is finalised or formula will be finalised without referring to the costs ?

4.    But we are continuously campaigning that for updation huge funds are required and updation is not possible, though we do not have single data as to how much funds required for updation.

Remarks :  There is no doubt that funds are required for updation.  We should ask the banks to provide certain amount of corpus – that can be distributed to pensioners (like wage revision).

5.    We are continuously campaiging that Pension funds lack provision for regulations and we are also arguing that  we have no right to updation.

Remarks : This is answered in High Court Judgements already – appeal is pending in SC. Wait for judgement it will answer all the questions in clear terms.

 

6.Any benefit for retirees comes after quality negotiations between IBA and UFBU.

Remarks :  If SC orders updation, no role for UFBU.  Having waited for long, wait for SC judgement.

 

Excess or shortage in Pension fund has no relevance to  securing updation.

Remarks :  Excess/shortage – that should not be the case in pension funds.  Any additional benefits needs funds naturally.

   

In 2018, the SC passed a verdict, and Banks had to pay several hundred

crores by way of Interest. Banks did not plead before the court that pension funds did not have an adequate balance.Banks will provide funds whenever required. Instead of demanding updation we are busy in finding resources which is not our duty.

Remarks :  If it is a legal requirement – Banks have no choice they will provide.  Issue is the retiree unions/petitioners are arguing in SC that sufficient funds are already available.  In reply Banks are telling that is not the case.

 

6.    Reg35/1 may be a matter for contest in court. but is totally irrelevant for IBA and UFBU as they have authotity to discuss and recommend amendments to regulations.

Remarks :  Wait for judgement – that will answer the doubts.

7.    Clause 17 of the 1993 agreement clearly provides that  clause 12 allows for updatiom which Banks also accepted, subject to future negotiations. This should be a plus point for UFBU in negotiations.  AIBOC and AIBOA, NOBO all often agreed that our pension scheme is based on RBI pension structure. 

Remarks :  Please read clause 12 – The plain reading will makes one to understand that the clause was relevant at the time of implementation of Pension only.  One can refer to HC Judgements also.

 

8.    DFS approved Updation multiple times in RBI. This fact is also a positive point for UFBU  in negotiating updation.

 

Remarks :  Wait for SC Judgement.  I don’t think that UFBU leaders are so naïve that not aware of the pensioners issues.

 

As on date there is no hurdle for UFBU to negotiate updation, including the pending M C Singla case as SC itself has given green signal for mediation and negotiation.

Remarks :  Wait for the judgement – that will answer the issues.  Only after that if required, negotiations can take it forward.  Pensioners are made to understand that ‘updation’ is their right.  IF that is the case, how right can be negotiated ?  Wait for judgement.

 

But the problem lies with us. We believe pension regulations does not provide for updation. We have no right on updation. Pension Updation provision cost is enormous and banks cannot provide  funds. So we are not asking UFBU to negotiate updation. UFBU also not interested in Updation. 

IBA/UFBU are watching our comments/posts. Because of this IBA is claiming everywhere that there is no demand from unions/Pensioners.

Remarks :  Certainly problem is with retiree unions who are misinforming the members – first stating that pensioners money is with Banks, but they are not updating;  second, even SC Senior Advocate went to the extent of offering reduction of the pension – if funds are not sufficient; third, the return of the existing funds are sufficient for updation and there is no burden on Banks Balance Sheet.  These arguments are hurdle as the environment is vitiated and once the judgement comes – our friends will be able to understand the truth.

 

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2ZM_WQ7umMUEAo44ghhouZizhOP%2BtOpP5Mu717VdGZhg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

What is the issue before Supreme court in late  Sri Singla
Ji Case?
What is the prayer of the petitioners ?
Whether Regulation 35/1 and appendix 1 is tenable for pension updation?
If the pension updation is tenable what is the formula to calculate and update pension?
The prayer of the petitioners is dismissed by all the high courts.
Why and on what basis the supreme court bench is revisiting the high court verdicts and admitted the petitioners prayer with out straight away dismissing by upholding the high court verdicts?
Here comes the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence undert article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution.
The Supreme court judges have understood that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the government DFS and IBA nexus by deliberately suppressing the pension updation  and orbitarly denying pension updation on the ground that there is no provision for pension updation.
The same Deffendents have permitted pension updation on RBI and Nambard retirees while denying the same for PSB pensioners.
This orbitary decisions are under scrutiny of the Supreme court and the Denial of pension updation orbitarly is against the principles of Natural justice and fair play and equity and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21.
It is for gone conclusion that the supreme court bench will deliver the judgement in favour petitioners prayer and shall order the Deffendents to update the pension as being done in RBI and Nambard.
The other ifs and buts are irrelevant ,delivering justice is
the sacred constitutional rights of the Supreme court judges.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 16:15, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1268917559.1125642.1782373836526%40mail.yahoo.com.

[unmesh bhatt]

Mr. Niranjan,

 

Great work! !!!!!!!

Appreciate your work. 

Unmesh Bhatt 

Sent from my iPhone

On 25 Jun 2026, at 4:15 PM, Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWGryFRp3AfpKGTMT6W0mN5anjqhkqpe_HnhQ5VbaCiEDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank you  Prasad Sir

Let us hope that UFBU will prioritize the updation and resolve it early along with the 5-day banking issue.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWGryFRp3AfpKGTMT6W0mN5anjqhkqpe_HnhQ5VbaCiEDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji,

Those who are pensioners today have toiled with dedication, sweat, and sacrifice during their service. They laid the foundation for the growth and stability of our Banks. Their commitment and hard work have enabled the Banks to generate profits running into lakhs of crores of rupees. Therefore, we deserve pension updation in recognition of our own contribution—not merely because another institution has revised the pension of its retirees.

In my respectful opinion, seeking pension updation solely on the ground that some other institution has revised its pension is, in a way, an affront to our own contribution and dignity. We deserve pension revision on our own merits.

Those who possess wisdom always build upon their strengths rather than their weaknesses. Pension revision in the Reserve Bank of India undoubtedly strengthens our moral case and provides a persuasive precedent during negotiations. However, it cannot, by itself, constitute a legally enforceable ground before a Court of Law. During negotiations, we should certainly rely upon the RBI model with full force. Before a Court, however, our arguments must necessarily rest upon enforceable legal rights.

Therefore, I reiterate my view that pension updation can ultimately be achieved only through a Bipartite Settlement. We must have patience. Even in the Reserve Bank of India, pension revision came only after nearly 29 years.

I have attempted to answer the questions and concerns raised by you on the basis of the legal arguments that we have legitimately advanced by us before Courts where the Bank, the Government and/or the IBA are parties. What I am referring to is not new to those who are well versed in law. They would have encountered these principles while arguing similar cases. This is precisely why I have consistently maintained that litigation is not our strongest route for securing pension revision. Unfortunately, we appear to be relying upon our weakest avenue.  We must get pension updated through negotiation.  Let us not allow personal prejudices to dictate our views.  Our views should be guided by facts and law, not by personal prejudices.

There is a Kannada proverb which aptly conveys this situation. It is like a cat closing its eyes while drinking milk, believing that nobody is watching. Pretending that inconvenient provisions of law do not exist does not make them disappear.

My views on the issues raised by you are as follows.

1. What are the prayers in the Original Petition?

The following is extracted from the Judgment:

"Their grievance is that there has been no updation of their pension in the manner that was contemplated at the time when pension scheme was introduced through Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. This was pursuant to a settlement between the Bank employees and the Management on 29.10.1993. Originally, it was contemplated that the scheme would apply to employees retiring on or after 01.11.1993. Subsequently, by a separate notification, it was extended to those who had retired on or after 01.01.1986. The petitioners contend that the Regulations envisaged pension on the lines applicable to the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, but did not provide for periodical updation of pension corresponding to successive revisions in pay scales."

The claim for pension updation based on Regulation 35(1) is, in my respectful opinion, an invented interpretation that lacks support in any enforceable statutory provision. Likewise, a prayer seeking pension updation on the basis of the Reserve Bank of India formula is legally vulnerable under Article 14 of the Constitution, as it seeks parity with employees governed by a different statutory framework and is likely to create anomalies among pensioners governed by the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations.

2. Whether Regulation 35(1) and Appendix I provide for Pension Updation? (Whether Regulation 35/1 and appendix 1 is tenable for pension updation? If the pension updation is tenable what is the formula to calculate and update pension?)

Regulation 35(1) reads:

"Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I."

Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji, kindly do not overlook the words "as per the formulae given in Appendix I."

For quite some time I have been reading social media posts and watching YouTube discussions. Surprisingly, many commentators deliberately omit this crucial part of the Regulation. One naturally wonders why.

Appendix I contains only two clauses. The applicability of both clauses is confined to a specific period. I leave it to your wisdom to consider whether these clauses can be extended to cover employees who retired after 31.10.1987.

If one believes they are applicable, the next question naturally arises—what would be the formula for such updation?

One must also consider an important principle of statutory interpretation. Can a Court, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, add words or expressions which the Legislature or Rule-making Authority has consciously omitted? Can a statute be extended to cover a situation for which no provision has clearly been made? These are important legal questions.

3. Why did the Hon'ble Supreme Court grant Leave instead of dismissing the Special Leave Petition? (Why and on what basis the supreme court bench is revisiting the high court verdicts and admitted the petitioners prayer with out straight away dismissing by upholding the high court verdicts?)

 

Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution are often dismissed in limine when the Hon'ble Supreme Court finds no reason to examine the matter further. In such cases, even notice is not issued.

Where the Court considers that substantial questions of law arise, or that both parties deserve an opportunity of being heard, it grants leave and hears the appeal.

However, grant of leave should never be construed as an indication that the judgment of the High Court will necessarily be reversed.

Our own Palani case is a good example. Leave was granted in all the Special Leave Petitions arising from the judgments of the High Courts of Karnataka, Madras and Delhi. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the Karnataka and Madras High Courts while reversing only the Delhi High Court judgment.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that admission of an appeal or grant of leave guarantees success.

4. Whether denial of Pension Updation violates Articles 14, 16 and 21?

(Here comes the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence under article 14 and16 and 21 of the constitution. 

This orbitary decisions are under scrutiny of the Supreme court and the Denial of pension updation orbitarly is against the principles of Natural justice and fair play and equity and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21).

You have referred to the principles of natural justice and the guarantees under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

Article 14 undoubtedly embodies equality before law and equal protection of laws. However, where there is a conflict between equity and an express provision of law, it is the law that prevails.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that mere non-revision of pay scales cannot be treated as a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21, observing that such an interpretation would stretch Article 21 too far.

There is equally no dispute that Article 16 extends protection to pension. However, the protection is available in respect of an existing, vested and legally enforceable right. It does not extend to an expectation or aspiration unless the law itself creates such a right.

5. RBI Pension Revision and PSB Pension Revision

(The Supreme court judges have understood that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the government DFS and IBA nexus by deliberately suppressing the pension updation  and orbitarly denying pension updation on the ground that there is no provision for pension updation.

The same Deffendents have permitted pension updation on RBI and Nambard retirees while denying the same for PSB pensioners).

You have expressed the view that the Government, the Department of Financial Services and the IBA have permitted pension revision for retirees of the Reserve Bank of India and NABARD while denying similar benefits to Public Sector Bank pensioners.

While this undoubtedly raises questions from the perspective of fairness, one must also recognise the legal distinction between different institutions. When our own claim of equality among employees, officers and pensioners within Public Sector Banks itself encounters legal limitations, it becomes even more difficult to establish legal parity between entirely different statutory institutions governed by different service conditions and regulatory frameworks.

This distinction may not diminish our moral claim, but it certainly affects the legal sustainability of the argument before a Court.

Our objective should remain clear. We should continue to pursue pension updation vigorously through negotiations while ensuring that our legal arguments before the Courts remain firmly anchored to enforceable statutory rights.

Thanks a million.

With regards,

Prasad C. N.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/766688422.1208514.1782396674395%40mail.yahoo.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

We are fortunate to have a leader like Shri C N Prasad,  among us here ,( though he is GS of SBM pensioners commune and otherwise busy with their own issues and legal fight) to make us understand and learn on issues  affecting us in crystal clear manner backed by legal aspects.

Despite his consistent efforts to clarify on points raised by each one, we find that at least a few   make unwarranted  statements on person/ on our issues which are yet to be resolved.

Our legitimate demand for updation of pension  may certainly happen without delay and no doubt about it.However we need not go behind misleading narratives and misinformation running under  social media or elsewhere, on issues pending before Hon.courts where only legally entitled issues may only succeed.Let a verdict come.We cannot anticipate much.

Naturally the final way out may only be  through a negotiated settlement.Let us wait and watch to see our major demand is resolved in near future.

Instead of blaming each other look forward to resolution of our issues.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/776678794.1477509.1782548029872%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Dear sri prasadji, 

Your long mail to sri  satyanarayana Rao

You are quite right that law takes precedence over equity,Article 14 of Constitution included. 

Setting aside controversy on regulation 35(1), where is the law clause  in our pension regulation coming in the way of updation. 

Ours is defined pension scheme and not annuity. Nowhere can we find a   specific clause denying updation facility. 

You are optimistic that updation is a possibility in 13th BPS to commence from nov 2027.

There is a long way to go to reach nov 2027

Why not  management finalise updation now to be ratified during BPS? 

During 12 th BPS also we nurtured such a hope, only to be belied

Regards

CV Narayanan

29th june 2026

On Mon, 29 Jun, 2026, 9:41 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/776678794.1477509.1782548029872%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Prasad C.N.
At the outset I am very much enlightened by you eloberate clarification and point by reply to my emails with humility and regards.
Your deep penetration and abundant legal knowledge and experience in explaining the
Intercacies of legal issues verses constitutional rights is highly appreciated and acknowledged.
Here and there you have expressed and partially indicate d positive opinion while affirming that petitioners prayer is not sufficiently backed by enforceable pension regulations and not acceptable etc.
I really appreciate your patience and concern to deal the debate in a very pleasant way is commendable.
Any way we have discussed and debated the core issues in Sri Singla ji Case, let us wait for final verdict which is going to be in our favour and the supreme court bench will deliver the judgement oo pension updation in our favour.
I am confident deep in my heart that we shall overcome all the ifs and buts and ultimately celebrate the ligal victory and achieve justice through Supreme court favourable verdict.
With regards and thanks.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 at 9:41, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/776678794.1477509.1782548029872%40mail.yahoo.com.