February 25, 2026 Hearing Highlights by AI

[Sanjay J]

AI's update:

February 25, 2026 Hearing Highlights 

• Part-Heard Status: The case has officially reached the stage of final arguments and is now designated as "Part-Heard". This means the court has begun a deep dive into the merits and will continue from this point in the next session.
• Judicial Observation: During the proceedings, the Bench (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) reportedly observed in open court that "Banks are liable to pay the pension as per the pension Regulations". This signals a potentially favourable lean toward the petitioners' legal rights.
• Next Hearing: The matter has been fixed for the next hearing on March 12, 2026.

Documents Filed and Under Review

The court is currently scrutinising specific data to cut through the IBA’s claims of "financial burden": 

• Pension Entitlement Charts: Following previous court directions, the petitioners have filed detailed charts showing pension entitlements across three critical eras: Pre-1987, 1987–2003, and Post-2003.
• PNB's Submission: Punjab National Bank (PNB) filed its own pension paid charts, though retirees' advocates pointed out that these charts showed basic pensions remained unchanged, only including "Ex Gratia" payments added in 2022.
• IBA's Stand: The IBA filed a 118-page document, which some observers describe as a repetition of their previous affidavits, potentially aimed at further delaying the updation process.
• Joint Note: PNB has also sought to bring on record a "Joint Note" related to the 12th Bipartite Settlement as additional evidence. 

Summary of Progress

Key Milestone	Status as of February 26, 2026
Case Designation	Part-Heard (Final Arguments started)
IBA Position	Citing high financial impact; requesting more time to study records
Court's Focus	Verifying actual pension regulation compliance over "Ex-Gratia" patches
Upcoming Date	March 12, 2026

The court appears determined to resolve the technicalities of Regulation 35(1) while acknowledging the advanced age of the 7.8 lakh affected retirees. 

 

[Sanjay J]

When asked “What possible outcomes the Court may realistically deliver?”, ChatGPT gave the following five possible outcomes. These are only possibilities. In reality, any one of these or other than these five, could happen.

---

The Court usually chooses one of a few structured paths — not unlimited possibilities.

1️. Full Relief to Pensioners (Strongest Outcome)

What it would mean:

• The Court interprets Regulation 35(1) as implying periodic pension updation.
• Holds that denial amounts to arbitrary discrimination.
• Directs banks to implement a formula for revision.

Realistic Probability:

This is legally possible but less common, because:

• Courts are cautious in mandating large financial policy shifts.
• Pension funds and sector-wide impact are significant.

---

2️. Partial Relief (Most Balanced Outcome)

This is often the most realistic judicial route.

The Court may:

• Recognize pensioners’ grievances as genuine.
• Avoid declaring automatic updation as a right.
• Direct Government/IBA to:
• Re-examine the issue
• Consider a structured formula
• Take a policy decision within a time frame

Why this is likely:

Courts often avoid directly restructuring economic frameworks but may push authorities to reconsider fairly.

---

3️. Interpretation-Based Relief (Technical Narrow Ground)

The Court may:

• Interpret Regulation 35 in a limited way.
• Clarify that it governs only initial fixation.
• But suggest that if funds permit, banks may evolve an updation scheme.

---

4️. Dismissal (No Judicial Interference)

The Court could hold:

• Regulation 35(1) fixes pension only at retirement.
• No statutory mandate for updation exists.
• Cut-off dates are permissible.
• Matter is policy-driven.

However, even in dismissal, the Court may:

• Make strong observations about fairness.
• Leave the door open for executive action.

---

5️. Reference or Larger Bench (Less Likely but Possible)

If the Bench feels:

• There is conflict with earlier pension jurisprudence (like Nakara line of cases),
• Or constitutional interpretation needs reconsideration,

It could refer the matter to a larger Bench.

This would delay the final outcome but elevate constitutional clarity.

---

The most realistic possibility is:

🔹 Partial structured relief.

If the Bench finds:

• Regulation 35 clearly implies dynamic linkage → stronger relief.

If it finds:

• No explicit mandate → matter likely left to policy.

The judgment will hinge more on statutory interpretation than on emotional or equity arguments.

---

 

 

--
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-UeKXhuLTryGtNPFKJybuhY4A%2BH_Yd%3DTaG0wGbU8cX66Jpw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

[Sanjay J]

The core of the legal debate on Regulation 35(1) and Appendix-I as of 2026 is whether the text is a "static" historical record or a "dynamic" mandate for the future. Primary contention of the IBA and some observers is the lack of explicit, self-executing language for automatic revisions. 

As the Supreme Court prepares for the March 12, 2026, hearing, here is how both sides are navigating this textual challenge:

1. The "Static" Argument (IBA's Contentions)

Critics of updation argue that the text is restrictive for the following reasons:

• Historical Fitment: They claim Appendix-I was designed solely to fix the pension of those who retired between January 1, 1986, and October 31, 1987, to bring them on par with the 4th Bipartite Settlement scales.
• Missing Formulas: A significant hurdle is that Appendix-I currently contains no formulas for those retiring after November 1, 1987. The IBA argues that without a new formula added to the Appendix via a fresh Bipartite Settlement, the Court cannot "fill the gap" or invent a dynamic updation mechanism.
• Settlement Supremacy: They contend that because bank pensions are a product of industrial settlements, the Court must stick to the literal text rather than importing "spirit" or "intent" from other sectors. 

2. The "Dynamic" Counter-Argument (Retirees' Stand)

The petitioners argue that the 2003 amendment fundamentally changed the nature of the clause:

• "Will" to "Shall": Advocates emphasize that the amendment changed "will be updated" to "shall be updated" and changed "formula" to the plural "formulae." They argue this pluralization implies an intent to add new formulas for every subsequent pay revision.
• The "Bloomer" Argument: Retirees' counsel has characterized the failure to update Appendix-I after each settlement as a "clerical bloomer" or administrative lapse by the banks. They argue the banks cannot benefit from their own failure to update the Appendix as required by the "shall be updated" mandate.
• Parity with RBI: It is argued that since the 1993/1994 agreements explicitly stated the scheme would be "on the lines of the RBI," any ambiguity in Regulation 35(1) must be resolved by looking at how the RBI updates its pensions. 

3. The Court’s Current Approach

In the hearing on February 25, 2026, the Bench (Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta) appeared to look past the textual absence of new formulas. By observing that "Banks are liable to pay as per Regulations" and demanding comparative charts for three distinct periods (Pre-1987, 1987–2003, and Post-2003), the Court is essentially asking: If the regulation says pension 'shall' be updated, is the current payment fulfilling that mandate? 

The March 12, 2026 hearing will likely be the final arena where these two interpretations clash. The Banks side will debate the literal words of Appendix-I, while the other side (and broader legal principles) will decide if a "shall be updated" clause can be rendered meaningless simply because a table was not appended. 

The IBA sees the Regulation as a closed door (only for 1986-87 retirees), while the petitioners see it as a permanent bridge to the RBI/Central Government model. The Supreme Court's decision on March 12, 2026, will likely decide once and for all which has the correct reading of the law.

[Asok Bhaumik]

The verdict may be in the line of point 2 or 3.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BY14yRdApHGXWyNzrA3%2BX%2BJ3mExxot-M6N0u6DRDxB2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

What all of us are doing is not considering the complete sentence.  Regulation 35(1) says that :

(1) Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I

Even the Courts cannot modify any portion.   Portions could be quashed portion, if there is any illegality.  The scope of Regulation 35(1) cannot go beyond the formulae given in Appendix I. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BY14yRdApHGXWyNzrA3%2BX%2BJ3mExxot-M6N0u6DRDxB2w%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Sanjay J]

"Dear Shri Prasadji,

You are absolutely right that, literally speaking, the scope is tied to Appendix I. You’ve touched on the exact point the IBA uses to defend its stance—that the scope is strictly confined to Appendix I. However, the legal crux of the M.C. Singla case is not about modifying the regulation, but about giving it effect.

Here are two points to consider regarding that 'complete sentence':

1. The 'Shall' Mandate: By using the word 'shall,' the Regulation creates a mandatory statutory duty. If the Banks fail to update the formulae in Appendix I after every wage revision, they are effectively nullifying the Regulation itself. A 'mandate' that is never updated becomes a 'dead letter,' which the Supreme Court often views as an administrative failure.

2. The Doctrine of 'Incompleteness': In the 1993/94 Settlements, it was agreed that the scheme would be 'on the lines of the RBI.' Since the RBI updates its formulae dynamically, the legal argument is that the IBA has a continuing duty to notify and insert the new formulae into Appendix I. Their failure to do so for 30 years is a 'clerical bloomer'—and the law generally does not allow a party (the Banks) to benefit from its own lapse.

   Mandatory vs. Directory: The Supreme Court often holds that when a statute says a thing 'shall' be done in a certain manner (like updating per formulae), the failure of the authority to provide that manner (the formulae) does not extinguish the right of the citizen (the retiree).

   The Nakara Precedent: In the famous D.S. Nakara v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that pensioners constitute a single class and cannot be arbitrarily discriminated against based on their date of retirement. By freezing the formulas in Appendix I for only one group (pre-1987), the Banks are creating an 'arbitrary classification' that violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

   The petitioners' strongest counter rests on the well-established legal maxim: 'Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet' (No one can derive an advantage from his own wrong).

The Court’s demand for charts across three distinct periods is precisely to see if the 'formulae' have been updated as mandated. The Bench isn't looking to 'modify' the law, but to ensure the Banks fulfill the mandate they have ignored for decades.

As Justice Holmes famously said: 'The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.' The experience of 7.8 lakh retirees cannot be ignored simply because a table in an Appendix wasn't updated by the employer."

With warm regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/966508617.2608684.1772535663813%40mail.yahoo.com.

[nook raju]

Dear Sri CN Prasad ji your msg is in so small letters difficult to read kindly write in a little bit big font

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/966508617.2608684.1772535663813%40mail.yahoo.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

Updation of Pension is no doubt, a reasonable and justifiable  long pending demand of bank pensioners.

We need to counter the legal aspects in any case with valid /factual points before court.

As we observe in ongoing case of Late MC Singla before SC is found focussed on a single point of application of 35(1) with a formula as per Annexure-1,under BEPR,1995  amended in 2003.

The pertinent question here is;will it give us Updation of Pension as we demand? Answer is: No.

Even though our  demand is not for OROP,the very concept of revision of pension in nut shell  is that an employee retired under 5^th BPS(or earlier)/Joint Note to be brought to 12th BPS/JN same scale and grade with similar years of service.( Which is equally applicable to 6^th to 11^th BPS/JN pensioners)

So naturally we should have  a formula to bring all pensioners from 5^th BPS/JN to 12 th BPS/JN with a load factor.Court cannot and may not evolve any formula for revision of pension of bank pensioners!

At the most on comparison of three charts of different periods submitted by parties open up   avenues before court if court decide so, to advice IBA/DFS to find out suitable formula   to up date pension of all bank pensioners with a time frame  which may or may not happen.

Though our Retirees organisation refers  a formula as implemented in RBI for revision of their pension,there  too further anomalies may crop up, certainly  in the case of post 10^th BPS/JN pensioners.

Let us wait and see the developments in above case.

 

 

 

--

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Sri Sanjay.
U have presented the legal status of the Case and very perfectly underlined the basic points how the judges will take final view and give verdict.
The judges have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall be ensured.
Let us hope for positive judgement.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BES3E5%3Dz7MFTMVMoHa4X6_2moD4zp6vrFM4moooE9Lww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mani B]

Mr.Mohan,

Your voice is against application of reg 35(1) which was a reg under BEPR 1995 and a part of it.

But, you have totally forgotten, like our great cherished leader, CHV, who is having selective amnesia about the works done by him in BEPR 2003, the subsequent insertion of word "shall" replacing "will" in 2003 amendment.

The learned councils and sentinel jurys will look into its applicability for pension updation and availability of funds in pension corpus, which is not our job but if the banks, who are expected to provide sufficient funds as and when required, as per the BEPR 1995, which is a statutory requirement, as per actuarial calculations.

Who has given wrong advice to actuaries and statutory auditors, who were also blind enough to see and understand the clauses with right interpretations and did their statutory obligations towards the pension corpus and balance sheet of the banks.

Infact, all signatories of BEPR 1995 / 2003 must be penalised with 9% interest on the loss to the pensioners with every new BPS and credit the same to the respective banks pension corpuses. 

Please go through your earlier mails, before amalgamation with SBI and after it. There is a drastic change in your rhetoric on 35(1) and pension fund.

Also, please wait till the final verdict comes in MC Singla case pending SC and accept the court orders in this regard.

Bala

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR4EgkxLow-BKqJ%2BAEOMpskA2q-xNE%3DEPLqnZMdp_k6MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

In any settlement/ agreement, there will be some kind of anomaly to few or a group. First, let the updation come, later the anomaly can be sorted out. After the 5th bps,  the 100% da issue of pre nov 2002 was ignored by ufbu, which was a serious anomaly. Inspite of adverse verdict from SC, the matter was settled in2023, due to the intervention of Dfs, for which Aibparc played a great role. Senior pensioners lost heavily for 18 years.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR4EgkxLow-BKqJ%2BAEOMpskA2q-xNE%3DEPLqnZMdp_k6MQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Harish Midha]

Dear Sanjay Sir, 

You have raised and answered pertinent points in their technicalities. Am sure this msg would have gone to and forwarded to the team of activists and legal team fighting our case in court.

As one of our friends put it, our legal team ought to be amore aggressive and we should not take the IBA/Govt  side lightly as they will be represented by heavyweights.

Lastly, if it comes to that, wherever there is likely hood of two interpretations to an issue relating to welfare of pensioners, the one favourable to the pensioners should be given effect to.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGcEjHGVsoJKqZ%2Bj_EymfdF%3D3gJssK%2BjGKWZizrwy0%2BuKynEvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Role of Reg35/1 is very limited. It only says pension of retirees of a certain period shall be updated, Purpose of Reg35/1 ends there.  It does not bar updation of pension  for other retirees.

So for updating the pension of other retirees Reg 35/1 is irrelevant.

So the next question is whether existence of provision for updation in pension regulation  necessary?

DFS has clearly said not necessary by approving updation in RBI multiple times even though RBI pension rules does not have provision for updation. 

Petitioners of M C Singhla case have brought this to the notice of Hon.Judge through supporting documents.

Hon Judges should be convinced that there is disparity in pension and it is discrimination.

Earlier High court judge dismissed the case observing disparity is not discrimination.

Hon.Judges of SC have asked for documents to examine disparity.                          

Further there is resolution of 08.03.2024.

There is no cause for celebrations yet and also we cannot predict case will be dismissed.

We have to wait for final verdict.

  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpKWt%2Bt-ZpuoL-6amzP36aEYDu2Waqk7Y2DnK5jbVNHgfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Mr Mani,

In fact I do not wish to write further on this subject.

I have   stated only the  facts and impact on application of referred regulation which is not meant for updation of pension as and when wage revision takes place at industry level.

Please understand that by mere merging of DR to basic pension may not give  updated  pension, as we demand,unless a load factor is added on .

Necessity of a formula for updation of pension  comes into picture at this point. If not RBI formula,a suitable one is inevitable to complete the process.

Let us wait for the further developments in court.

Regards

Mohan P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJR4tpKWt%2Bt-ZpuoL-6amzP36aEYDu2Waqk7Y2DnK5jbVNHgfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Screen shots omitted to be attached to my email sent a short while ago. I regret the omission.

On Thu, 5 Mar, 2026, 6:48 pm Ramani Konnayar, <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

In the charts attached which were submitted to Court by IBA,  they have shown the amount of pension in respect of a clerk and a general manager 

a) that is presently being paid

b) that would become payable if updation is done and

c) the difference between the above two amounts.

The differences are sizeable amounts,

but it is not known/mentioned which formula has been applied to arrive at the updated pension. Kindly inform if you could find a mention of that formula elsewhere in the affidavit.

K N RAMANI 

 that would become payable 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSD0%2BqzO7OaHxY_h8-xTUJu6br1C3smbiSc%2BHmrcHuFkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Let us take it that regulation 35 is total discard. But how about mention  without  let up of pension updation as RESIDUAL ISSUE,invariably in minutes of joint meetings innumerable times? Were they all  jumla!. IBA needs to clarify to court when they oppose regulation 35 during the proceedings on 12thMarch.

C V N arayanan

On Thu, 5 Mar, 2026, 4:19 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSD0%2BqzO7OaHxY_h8-xTUJu6br1C3smbiSc%2BHmrcHuFkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

In the charts attached which were submitted to Court by IBA,  they have shown the amount of pension in respect of a clerk and a general manager 

a) that is presently being paid

b) that would become payable if updation is done and

c) the difference between the above two amounts.

The differences are sizeable amounts,

but it is not known/mentioned which formula has been applied to arrive at the updated pension. Kindly inform if you could find a mention of that formula elsewhere in the affidavit.

K N RAMANI 

 that would become payable 

On Thu, 5 Mar, 2026, 4:19 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDSD0%2BqzO7OaHxY_h8-xTUJu6br1C3smbiSc%2BHmrcHuFkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Ramani Ji,

The charts submitted by PNB referred here is self explicit.I did'nt find any formula with amount shown in chart  as" if updated " 

Right now we have seen a formula on which RBI pensioners pension was revised.As per which  one Apex Retirees Organisation  has circulated it as follows:

Merger of CPI with certain points(now it comes 8088 points) plus load factor of 10%.As I have stated earlier, post 10th BPS/JN pensioners may have adverse impact if  the same is applied 

I am not going now in detail.For example while you take a retiree of 1998 (7 th BPS/JN to 8th BPS) multiplying factor would come to 1.50.Cumulative factor may be more and vary for each settlement period 

So once revision of pension takes place with an apt formula  naturally increase would be higher.

Any way let us wait for developments in court.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zUy56PbK5zzsOT5PRbWzZuX6k46SwJoASChqisKDUJig%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

Please pordon me for not having attached the Judgment.  Please remember that the case pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court is not an appeal filed by IBA/PNB, but filed by Late Shri Singla & others challenging the Judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.  

Regret error

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Friday, 6 March 2026 at 10:46:00 am IST, Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Sanjay,

Perhaps, you must have read latest issue of Mysore Bank Shathayu.  Even in a case, there is minimum scope for adverse Judgment, we have stated that Therefore, SBMPC is confident of positive outcome.  However, it is reiterated that Decision in any Court proceedings may be in favour of either of the parties.  But, filing of appeals are a certainty and these proceedings would culminate in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Does that mean, we have negative attitude in respect of our own case?  Certainly not.  But it is our duty to forewarn about possible adverse outcomes.

Interpretation of a statute involve applying literal meaning, nothing beyond.  Goebble's theory at work.  We have been continueously misrepresented and made us to believe that the word 'Shall' has overriding effect on 'as per formulae in Appendix I'.  The word could be both directory or mandatory.  In either case 'as per formulae in Appendix I' restricts its application.

Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the house has informed that the Regulation 35(1) is for fixation of Basic Pension.  Replying on the floor of the Parliament is with responsibility.  We ignore such statement, but we trust and believe those who are saying contrary.

Both Single Judge Bench and Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not accepted the arguments that are being advanced with regard to Regulation 35(1).  Still, we have more faith in those who says 'Pension should be updated', but not even Courts.  Single Judge is Justice Nagaprasanna, who as an Advocate won the case for RRB retirees to get Pension and won the case for Bank Pensioners in 1616-1684 case.

I am extracting from the Judgment of Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Singla's case:

3. The petitioners' claim to a right for seeking for updation of pension came in the wake of a rejection of the petitioners' plea through a cryptic order issued by the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs that there was no scope for updation of post-01.11.1987 retirees from the Banks through its letter dated 04.01.2005.

 

If the intention of the Government to update pension in 2003, when they amended Regulation 35(1), it is impermissible for the Government to say that 'there is no scope for updation' on 04.01.2005.  

It is most unfortunate that all those who are misleading and make everyone to believe their version regarding Regulation 35(1) are aware of all these facts.  Still, we have more faith in them and accuse or abuse those who try to place true facts.  Most of the information, we are placing are in Public domain for a long time.  We have not spent time in ascertaining truthfulness of the claims.  We trust them.

I request all members of this group to read the Judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, with I am attaching, before any accuse or abuse me.

Only intention to bring all these facts before Bank Pensioners is to make them understand that there are chances of adverse Judgment also and not to take the decision in our favour granted.  I have courge and conviction to share the information I have, without any fear, because I believe that I should be known for someone who is willing to take abuses for telling the truth.  We shall ensure against making Bank Pensioners 'Ullus'.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BES3E5%3Dz7MFTMVMoHa4X6_2moD4zp6vrFM4moooE9Lww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjay,

Perhaps, you must have read latest issue of Mysore Bank Shathayu.  Even in a case, there is minimum scope for adverse Judgment, we have stated that Therefore, SBMPC is confident of positive outcome.  However, it is reiterated that Decision in any Court proceedings may be in favour of either of the parties.  But, filing of appeals are a certainty and these proceedings would culminate in Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Does that mean, we have negative attitude in respect of our own case?  Certainly not.  But it is our duty to forewarn about possible adverse outcomes.

Interpretation of a statute involve applying literal meaning, nothing beyond.  Goebble's theory at work.  We have been continueously misrepresented and made us to believe that the word 'Shall' has overriding effect on 'as per formulae in Appendix I'.  The word could be both directory or mandatory.  In either case 'as per formulae in Appendix I' restricts its application.

Hon'ble Minister on the floor of the house has informed that the Regulation 35(1) is for fixation of Basic Pension.  Replying on the floor of the Parliament is with responsibility.  We ignore such statement, but we trust and believe those who are saying contrary.

Both Single Judge Bench and Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has not accepted the arguments that are being advanced with regard to Regulation 35(1).  Still, we have more faith in those who says 'Pension should be updated', but not even Courts.  Single Judge is Justice Nagaprasanna, who as an Advocate won the case for RRB retirees to get Pension and won the case for Bank Pensioners in 1616-1684 case.

I am extracting from the Judgment of Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Singla's case:

3. The petitioners' claim to a right for seeking for updation of pension came in the wake of a rejection of the petitioners' plea through a cryptic order issued by the Government of India, Department of Economic Affairs that there was no scope for updation of post-01.11.1987 retirees from the Banks through its letter dated 04.01.2005.

 

If the intention of the Government to update pension in 2003, when they amended Regulation 35(1), it is impermissible for the Government to say that 'there is no scope for updation' on 04.01.2005.  

It is most unfortunate that all those who are misleading and make everyone to believe their version regarding Regulation 35(1) are aware of all these facts.  Still, we have more faith in them and accuse or abuse those who try to place true facts.  Most of the information, we are placing are in Public domain for a long time.  We have not spent time in ascertaining truthfulness of the claims.  We trust them.

I request all members of this group to read the Judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, with I am attaching, before any accuse or abuse me.

Only intention to bring all these facts before Bank Pensioners is to make them understand that there are chances of adverse Judgment also and not to take the decision in our favour granted.  I have courge and conviction to share the information I have, without any fear, because I believe that I should be known for someone who is willing to take abuses for telling the truth.  We shall ensure against making Bank Pensioners 'Ullus'.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BES3E5%3Dz7MFTMVMoHa4X6_2moD4zp6vrFM4moooE9Lww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

I think, the only reason for anomalies to crop in the pensions of those belonging to 10th and subsequent BPS groups, if RBI formula is applied for updating pension, is the Special Allowance component, the percentage of which has increased in every BPS. I also think that, it is a problem of our (UFBU)own making. To my knowledge, the reason for introducing Special Allowance in the 10th BPS coinciding with the second option for pension has not been explicitly informed. Am I right?

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTMEhQw%3Dox%3DTEVUOvQ-CGu-dZgF_5ooPSVtq0p%3Dgx6RBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

1. The basic error is ignoring the words 'as per formulae in Appendix - I'. 

This begs the questions:

Who agreed to these words ? 

Why ? 

Were the Pension Regulations drawn up without any consultation with Unions and Associations ?

2. Asserting now that there is a catena of judgements on these words, shows that those who represented the pensioners all along [from the days of their status as working employees / officers] were either misled or didn't understand the import of the change from "will" to "shall". It was a cosmetic change but the leaders, it appears were happy with such theatrics and crumbs.

3. What is the use of placing an important issue [Pension Updation] as part of residual issues ? It is only to be hoped that there was no quid-pro-quo. But, the leadership has to answer. 

4. If Pension Scheme could be dragged  back (extended) from 1995 to 1986, [why from 1986 ?] could not the leadership INSIST on clarity while 35(1) and Annexure A were AMENDED ?

5. Was Pension revised or updated for that group of 86-87 pensioners? 

6. Was any issue which was "sub-judice" ever discussed with The Management? Were not other sub-judice issues fought for, discussed and clinched by the leadership? Why only tag Pension Updation as 'sub-judice' ? Doesn't the present group of pensioners include those leaders who are NOW deprived of Updation because of the lack of fight regarding this very issue?

7. At least, in hindsight, would that OLD leadership ACCEPT that they have FAILED THEMSELVES in safeguarding their interests, and regret that OLD stance ?

8. Even today, shouldn't the leadership of UNIONs / ASSOCIATIONs SUPPORT the Fight For Updation and USE THEIR MIGHTY POWER with working employees / staff  / members for the CAUSE OF JUSTICE? (since they too must be feeling the pinch of injustice)

9. LONG LIVE Pensioners UNITY.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/853838109.801367.1772774377173%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasadji,

Namaskar.

I am writing this not just as a member of this group, but as one of the many beneficiaries of your tireless crusade for the retiree community. It is important that amidst the technical debates in this group, we do not lose sight of the monumental work you have done.

You have been the "brain" behind SBMPC. Whether it was the legal brilliance that secured us lakhs of rupees as arrears in the five-year case and commutation, which in turn resulted in ultimate increase in monthly pension, the grit you showed in fighting the SBI management to retain SBMPC office space in the same Mysore Bank building, your fingerprints are on every benefit we enjoy today. Very few leaders would have the courage to file a contempt petition against a titan like SBI and bring the "supremo" to court to ensure justice was served—but you did.

Beyond the courtroom also your touch has been very impressive. Your dedication in publishing a monthly newsletter to keep the members informed of the latest developments; from establishing Holiday Homes to organizing pilgrimages (imagine the practical difficulties in taking 50 or so senior citizens of different health conditions on a few days trip) and the celebrations in Mysore, you have ensured that our "sunset years" are defined by dignity, relaxation, celebrations and spirit, rather than just age and ailment.

We are acutely aware of the physical and mental toll this takes. During the final hearing of the contempt petition you have travelled several times from Bangalore to Delhi. It is a strain even for those in their 30s; for you, a senior citizen, to undertake all these activities shows your firm commitment to the cause.

Why am I writing this now?

I want to assure you that we never view your insights as negative. Coming from a leader who has toiled so much in the trenches, your caution—that we must not take a favourable judgment for granted and that "adverse chances" exist—is received in the right spirit. It is the pragmatic advice of a seasoned general who knows the unpredictability of the battlefield.

We await March 12th with both the 'caution' you have suggested and the 'hope' that the highest court sees the spirit behind the wordings.

We pray to the Almighty to grant you robust health and continued fighting spirit.

With highest respect and kind regards.

 

 

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/1971430558.3251001.1772774160569%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Dear Ramaniji

It is not clear why  IBA has submitted a chart with  updation on the basis of some formula. Does it signify a tacit commitment or to highlight the load the load factor. Strange are the ways of IBA

C V Narayanan

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/853838109.801367.1772774377173%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Very nice presentation of the legal position of the pension updation case.
Multiple options and opinion about final verdict are common.
But lots of ifs and buts are confusing the pension updation case by debating participants.
Legal luminaries are expressing their views and quating high court verdicts .
The crux of the issue is we have changed the negative verdicts of the High courts through the Singla case which is going on in Supreme court and the final verdict is awaiting.
Here the legal experts are not sure of favourable verdict in updation of pension to pensioners.
It is commonsense that the proceedings are very much in favour of updation and sure favourable verdict shall be ensured by the judges by applying the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence.
Pl don't have any doubt and confuse the ordinary laymen with your confusing views atleast till the final verdict is delivered which I repeat that the judges have understood that there is deleberate vicious consistent planned efforts by the nexus OF IBA AND UFBU.
The upcoming favourable verdict shall be a big slap on the advacates who oppose our pension updation case.
Just like Sri Nakara ji case
Sri Singla ji Case will be historic
and will be remembered by all beneficiaries.
Justice shall prevail.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 15:49, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1971430558.3251001.1772774160569%40mail.yahoo.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Shri Ramani Ji,

The special allowance introduced in the 10th Bipartite Settlement (effective Nov 2012) was primarily a strategy to restrict the massive increase in pension liabilities (superannuation costs) for banks while providing a wage hike to serving employees It was structured to not to count as "pay" for calculating retirement benefits,pension,gratuity and commutation.

 By keeping a significant portion of hike in salary (eg:7.75% ,16.4% to 26.5%-31.5% in last three BPS)carved out of basic pay banks avoided the compounding impact on pension,gratuity and leave encashment as part of their cost management.

As per management, Pension fund of many banks were under pressure and including this allowance would have required significantly higher contributions.

The overall increase of 17% or more in take home  salary of employees is the result without creating immediately a proportional liability for retirees.

This move caused significant disparities with pension increases for 10 th/11th BPS  retirees being much lower compared to earlier settlements .

The inclusion of this allowance continues to be subject of litigation and debate. 

There are favourable verdicts from different High courts and some pending before Apex Court.

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xUV336g_2Hbm_oZ1DC1AOt%3D1SYmpNCYV6wo%3DYWdv_wEQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

It depends on the bargaining power of the unions. In 2019 DFS has stipulated the same conditions for updation in 2019 for RBI pensioners but allowed benefit from 01.11.2022 in 2025.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTy6DrXJ0Bh8VOmwAaKjj70rJUbeSRFKodryQTLa6RDgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[R Balaji]

Only because 10 & 11th bipartite retirees get less increases in pension updation retirees of earlier period should not be affected by fixing lesser updation factory

10th & 11th bipartite working staff getting more take home pay due to special allowance to that extent their salary revised upwards but since UFBU & iba ageeed not to include spl allowance for pension they will lose pension benefits 

R BALAJI

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. We accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTy6DrXJ0Bh8VOmwAaKjj70rJUbeSRFKodryQTLa6RDgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

Thank you very much for your prompt and exhaustive reply, the inference from which is that the introduction of the concept of Special allowance as well its increasing share in the total emoluments in every BPS has been done by IBA  only with due consultation with UFBU, which, perhaps  feels it is quite a justified and necessary step to ensure that the minority of their members who are in service and covered by BEPR do not continue to derive benefits at the cost of the majority under NPS. In my opinion,

it is for this same reason, UFBU has not shown keen interest in the matter of pension updation.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTy6DrXJ0Bh8VOmwAaKjj70rJUbeSRFKodryQTLa6RDgw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Ananda Rao,

We are the victims of misinformation campaign.  With an effort to show themselves as someone who is working for Bank Pensioners, many issues and grounds are raised most of which are invented.  Misinformation campaign has made us to believe many of the information provided are gospel truth.  Some of us, who have courge and convition to place truth are called as those who are supporting IBA.  We are only place truth.

I am making an attempt to share my personal views.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Monday, 9 March 2026 at 09:52:12 am IST, Anand Rao <anan...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. The basic error is ignoring the words 'as per formulae in Appendix - I'. 

This begs the questions:

Who agreed to these words ? 

Why ? 

Were the Pension Regulations drawn up without any consultation with Unions and Associations ?

All clauses which forms a part of Appendix - I are/were a part of Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note.  There is one such clause in BPS/JN dated 08.03.2024.   Without these words, the clauses in Appendix - I will have no connection with the main clause.  Even in the absence of such a clause would not have helped us in the absence of specific provision with specific formula in Pension Regulations.  We cannot have any such clause.

2. Asserting now that there is a catena of judgements on these words, shows that those who represented the pensioners all along [from the days of their status as working employees / officers] were either misled or didn't understand the import of the change from "will" to "shall". It was a cosmetic change but the leaders, it appears were happy with such theatrics and crumbs.

All clauses in Regulation 35(1) is known to everyone and those who have minimum knowledge of law, with the exception of those who have invented ground are/were aware of full meaning.  They have clear understanding.  They have included a clause relating to two settlement periods tomake it a part of Appendix -I.  This information is in Black and White.  It is surprising to note that the leaders of are claiming Pension Updation in terms of Regulation 35(1) were a part of negotiating team after amendment.  They themselves did not raise when they were a part of the negotiating team.  Only after their retirement, they have started advancing this ground.  

3. What is the use of placing an important issue [Pension Updation] as part of residual issues ? It is only to be hoped that there was no quid-pro-quo. But, the leadership has to answer. 

Recent developments regarding five day Banking and PLI demonstrate the limitations under which Associations/Unions are working.  When the Government is not agreeing to provisions which are a part of the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note, do they have ability and strength to push our case,which does not affect them.  One weapon, strike which they had is blunted, when more than 95% of the transactions are digital.  Those who think with responsibility understand their limitation.  I am not defending them, but only presenting true facts.

4. If Pension Scheme could be dragged  back (extended) from 1995 to 1986, [why from 1986 ?] could not the leadership INSIST on clarity while 35(1) and Annexure A were AMENDED ?

Meaning assigned to 2003 amendment is invented.  Regulation 35 and 38 are only for fixation of Basic Pension and these Regulations are subject matter of dispute in Palani's case.  In fact, Regulation 35(1) is extracted in Palani's Judgment.  If we feel that Regulation 35(1) has the force for getting our pension updation, what stopped these people from filing Contempt Petition seeking Pension Updation?  

5. Was Pension revised or updated for that group of 86-87 pensioners? 

There were three rates of Dearness Allowance and three categories of Pensioners during that period.  To harmonise, that clause was incorporated.  In fact, there is no revision or updation in respect of 6th Bipartite retirees, but pension is calculated only on pre-revised Special Allowance and is   

6. Was any issue which was "sub-judice" ever discussed with The Management? Were not other sub-judice issues fought for, discussed and clinched by the leadership? Why only tag Pension Updation as 'sub-judice' ? Doesn't the present group of pensioners include those leaders who are NOW deprived of Updation because of the lack of fight regarding this very issue?

Absolutely there is no bar in discussing and deciding in respect of cases pending before Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court.  There are several instances, before.  They are using 'sub-judice' as reason for delying or denying pension revision.  

7. At least, in hindsight, would that OLD leadership ACCEPT that they have FAILED THEMSELVES in safeguarding their interests, and regret that OLD stance ?

We have seen many finding fault with then leadership.  Unfortunately, no one is finding fault with those who are responsible for more than half of employees opting for PF defying the call for opting for pension.  Officially call was given to those who have more than ten years to opt for PF.  Referring to Canara Bank and another Bank, employees were told to opt for PF, even if the service left is more than 5 - 6 years.  Now, retirees blame themselves quoting higher interest rate.  Whether leadership was not aware that interest rate is dependent on inflation which was at 16%.  If interest rate were to continue at 14%, Dearness Allowance would have also increased by 16%.  Did anyone who told us to opt of PF tell anyone else about this factor.   

8. Even today, shouldn't the leadership of UNIONs / ASSOCIATIONs SUPPORT the Fight For Updation and USE THEIR MIGHTY POWER with working employees / staff  / members for the CAUSE OF JUSTICE? (since they too must be feeling the pinch of injustice)

Recent developments regarding five day Banking and PLI demonstrate the limitations under which Associations/Unions are working.  When the Government is not agreeing to provisions which are a part of the Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note, do they have ability and strength to push our case,which does not affect them.  One weapon, strike which they had is blunted, when more than 95% of the transactions are digital.  Those who think with responsibility understand their limitation.  I am not defending them, but only presenting true facts.

9. LONG LIVE Pensioners UNITY.

Basic problem with Bank retirees is prejudiced perception and mind.  We should enlist support of every organisation and every individual.  We need to understand we must have the support of every organisation and every individual.  Some take credit for every benefit or attribute flow of such benefits some one else.  But, we blame UFBU and leaders for every problem.  We must have wisdom to add support, but not discount.  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPkEc8tmB3e_G4ZPZ0DOgbKwJu3oOrqV5eh3_RJo_iGPx_JyTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Sir,

The referred chart has been  drawn and filed before court by ,Mr.P. K. Manohar Advocate for Resp. No. 5,and not by IBA.

I have posted copy of the file here,earlier.

Regards

Mohan.P

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJev%3Da-jCa6PP%2BtFdOZ%3DX0CeOLy1XiRsvxjbkCjUkZ215xNxNA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mathew Pc]

Can you attach the chart once again?

Thanks

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR-mMWxtzwWPqzu36e3dM7gi%2B1s6f7ERdo3c1g3v8o8Sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

For discussion on updation issue is subjudice. But While cases against denial of pension benefits on Special allowance are pending in HC and SC, IBA  UFBU discussed special allowance and increased  it there by further increasing loss for pensioners. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR-mMWxtzwWPqzu36e3dM7gi%2B1s6f7ERdo3c1g3v8o8Sg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sirs,

The case is only for considering the Special Allowance for Pension in Courts and the court cases are nothing to do with the special allowances to working employees.

Hence the conclusion/comparison  drawn by you may not be appropriate.

 

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3d_7T1ic5ok58eu5p4qnhMLprzkEX05dkNrZQ0o1kHFQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Srinivasan Badri]

A wonderful pains taking analysis by a seasoned leader Com. CN Prasad  covering all aspects and the likely out come  of Late Singla case

The lacuna in clause 35 after amendment  especially the absence of any formula for updation in Appendix I is the crux of the problem.

It is pathetic that when the amendment was done  the working employees/ officers associations failed to discuss the formula for employees officers retiring after 1986-87.

The absence of this vital issue   how the court can  order ? The court it appears cannot insert any formula etc in the regulations .

The change of the words a will to shall  though may imply for future in the absence of specific period, most probably the court will order to formulate  a formula and give updation after the insertion in clause 35 appendix I. As it can be taken as an administrative  error.

[krishna mohan nidumolu]

Pl kindly comment on Charts submitted by parties and your interpretation or inference from Judges side of view. 

Why three charts required at all in the place. Basic Pension was remained same and static. How the DA Relief will be viewed by Hon'ble Judges. Is there any unknown angle here. 

Pl kindly enlighten us 

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG-kmoOs1Hu0gXVpgz5_2V6n2SQs7OMZyJ8dkQRSoAfT0YY-mw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mathrubootham Sreenivasan]

In central govt the basic pay  of the retired employee  will be   fitted  into  new  scale  and then merging  new da and then new salary will be calculated and afterwards new pension is fitted/granted  I presume   i.e scale  to scale

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJyqt%3DWP4uNzDg%3D%2BtL%3DzkewUjDR6MhTy6MTsKpexN9_KmGYhww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The judges have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail.
The supreme court bench will veiw the charts which clearly indicateds the disparity of pension paid to the retirees who have put in same service and same position but retired in defferent bipartite settlement which created vast defferenc and it is totally wrong and voilates the principles of Natural justice, equity and fair play and an affront on the dignity and decent living conditions of seniors and voilates the article 14 and 16 of the constitution and the directive principles of the state.
All negative interpretation given by the learned participants and defendants shall be rejected and the petitioner's appeal shall be ensured by the favourable verdict for pension updation and the formula for fixation shall be on RBI formula to have uniform pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/96660427.89645.1773813860671%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The judges have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail.
The supreme court bench will veiw the charts which clearly indicateds the disparity of pension paid to the retirees who have put in same service and same position but retired in defferent bipartite settlement which created vast defferenc and it is totally wrong and voilates the principles of Natural justice, equity and fair play and an affront on the dignity and decent living conditions of seniors and voilates the article 14 and 16 of the constitution and the directive principles of the state.
All negative interpretation given by the learned participants and defendants shall be rejected and the petitioner's appeal shall be ensured by the favourable verdict for pension updation and the formula for fixation shall be on RBI formula to have uniform pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 at 15:57, 'Mathrubootham Sreenivasan' via bankpensioner

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

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/96660427.89645.1773813860671%40mail.yahoo.com.