346 views
Skip to first unread message

T.ASHOK SHENOY

unread,
Sep 16, 2011, 12:54:51 AM9/16/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
RESPECTED SIR,

I HAD SUBMITTE4D A PETITION IN MAY, 2011 BRINGING TO YOUR KIND KNOWLEDGE4 BLATANT INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE LAW.

THIS  IS BLATANT VIOLATION AND DISCRIMINATION TO RETIREES OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS RETIREES PRIOR TO 1.11.2002.  IN THE CASE OF PENSIONERS WHO RETIRED IN MAY, 2001, FOR  OVER 10 YEARS THE DA HAS NOT BEEN NEUTRALISED AND THE PENSION HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED.

IBA AND MINISTRY O9F FINANACE HAVE DONE THIS DELIBERATELY AND MANY HAVE GONE TO VARIOUS HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY AND FILED WRIT PETITIONS WHICH ARE PENDING FOR YEARS.

ALL RETIREES ARE EQUALS ABOUNG THE EQUALS SIX CATEGORIE4S OF UNBEQUALS HAVE BEEN CREATED. AS  PER THE BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS 1995, INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION HAD AGREED TO DISCUSS AND FINALISE THE ISSUES LIKE UPDATION OF PENWSION AND NEUTRALISATION OF D.A. BEFORE 31.12.1993. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE TILL THIS DATE.

IN CERTAIN CASES WHERE HIGH COURTS HAVE GIVEN JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RETIREES, INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION .MINISTRY OF FINANCE ARE ADVISING THE CONCERNED BANKS TO GO IN FOR APPEALS JUST TO DELAY THE MATTER THEREBY MAKING THE BANKS AND GOVT. TO SPEND FOR LITIGATION ON FRIVOLOUS GROUNDS EVEN THOUGH THE4Y KNOW FULLY WELL THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THEIR APPEALS.

I EARNESTLY LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND SEE THAT JUSTICE PREVAILS THE SENIOR CITIZEN RETIREES GET THEIR LEGITIMATE DUES WITHOUT DELAY.

THANKING YOU AND ANTICIPATION,

T.ASHOK SHENOY
ADVOCATE,
ON BEHALF OF ALL RETIREES PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS






From: 

To: ashoks...@live.com
Subject: 
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 20:48:46 +0530asho...@live.com

 
 
 
T.ASHOK SHENOY,B.A.B.L.,CAIIB.,                                BANGALORE
ADVOCATE,
A1-401, SHRIRAM WHITE HOUSE,                      DATED  18.5.2011
15TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN,
R T NAGAR, 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE- 560032.
Karnataka State
 
 
TO:
 
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI- 110001

 
 
 
                                    PUBLIC INTERESTLITIGATION PETITION 
                  BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 
1. EARLIER SENIONER CITIZENS WERE CONSIDERED TO BE THOSE WHO HAVE COMPLETED 65 YEARS.NOW A SENIOR CITIZEN IS A PERSON WHO HAS COMPLETED 60 YEARS.
 
2.I AM REFERRING TO THE PENSION REGULATIONS OF BANK EMPLOYEES IN INDIA,1995.
 
3.I HAVE PUT IN 41 YEARS IN THE BANK AND WORKED IN VARIOUS CA[ACITIES AND VOLUNTARILY RETIRED AS A DIVISIONAL MANAGER. MY PRESENT MONTHLY PENSION IS RS, 15833/= WHILE CLERK WHO RETIRED RECEINTLY IN JUNE,2010 IS GETTING A MONTHLY PENSION OF OVER RS. 18000/=
 
4.IN THE BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS 1995, IN THE LAST PARA IT IS MENTIONED THAT IN CASE ON ANY POINT OR MATTER THE REGULATION IS SILENT, THE PENSION RULES APPLICABLE TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE APPLIED. IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT EMPLOYEES, AS AND WHEN THE PAY IS REVISED AS PER PAY COMMISSION REPORTS, PENSION ALSO IS UPDATED BY NEUTRALISING DEARNESS ALLOWANCE AND UPDATING THE PENSION. THIS IS NOT FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES. ALL RETIREES ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND MANY OF THE RETIREES HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED. NATURALLY THE PENSIONERS WANT TO GET THE BENEFITS DURING THEIR LIFETIME INSTEAD OF AFTER DEATH.
 
5.THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRIES, INCOME TAX DE[T, INDIA RAILWAYS ARE GIVING CERTAIN CONCESSSIONS TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS. PENSION CAN BETTER BE CALLED AS A SOCIAL SECURITY. IT IS DURING OLD AGE, THE PENSIONERS GET SICK AND HAVE TO SPEND LOT ON MEDICINES AND TREATMENT.
 
6.IN THIS MATTER SEVERAL WRIT PETITIONS AR PENDING FOR YEARS IN VARIOUS HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY WHICH ARE YET TO COME UP FOR HEARING AND JUDGEMENT. THIS PROCESS MAY TAKE MANY MORE YEARS AND  BY THAT TIME EVEN THE PRESENTLY LIVING OLDAGED PENSIONERS MAY LEAVE THIS WORLD.
 
7. BY WAY OF ANNEXURES, I AM ATTACHING TWO JUDGEMENTS ON WRIT PETITION AND APPEAL, PRONOUNCED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN WHICH ARE SELF EXPLANATORY. IN THIS CONTEXT, I MAY MENTION THAT DELAY DEFEATS JUSTICE AND JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED.. I HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAY  YOU TO TAKE INTO COGNIZANCE THIS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION PETITION ON PRIORITY AND ISSUE SUMMONS TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE,GOVT.OF INDIA,CHAIRMEN OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS AND THE INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION TO HEAR THEIR ARGUMENTS. THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THE SITUATION IN WHICH I AM PLACED NOW, WILL HAVE TO BE FACED BY THEM. LET THEM KNOW THIS CLEARLY. NOW THEY DONT UNDERSTAND THIS AND DONT CARE TO LISTEN TO OUR GRIEVANCES NOR READ OUR REPRESENTATIONS.

 
 
       I THOUGHT IT FIT TO APPROACH THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTRY 
IN ORDER TO GET QUICK JUSTICE AND HENCE THIS PETITION.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
T.ASHOK SHENOY
ADVOCATE AND PETITIONER
REPRESENTING ALL RETIRED BANK OFFICERS ,

 
 




ATTACHMENT OF JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF RETIREES OF LIC







Disposing off the writ petition filed by Asthana, a single judge bench of Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari in its order dated January 12, 2010 had asked LIC to take immediate steps to implement the resolution of LIC board and held, "In the present matter, there was no reason to seek approval of the Central government. The law in this regard is settled and even counsel for union of India had accepted that it is only a policy decision, that too, involving public interest and not every decision of the board, which needs approval by the central government." Feeling aggrieved of this order, the LIC filed an appeal before the division bench. 
The division bench took a serious note of the conduct of LIC in not adhering to its board resolution on one or the other account. Justice Dalip Singh observed, "The LIC is making an eyewash by not falling in line with its own board decision and it is an extreme ridiculous situation that the corporation itself has filed an appeal now saying that the order of the single judge is not tenable whereas the LIC still maintains that the board resolution has not been rescinded and the corporation is not challenging its own board's resolution." 
"LIC is making a sheer misuse of the judicial system by filing frivolous appeal and trying to dislodge the retired pensioners from their valid right merely on the ground that the resolution was never approved by the ministry of finance. Such a ground is not maintainable when the Government of India has never filed an appeal against the order of single judge as also the LIC is an autonomous statutory body which need not depend on the government for its day-to-day functioning. Hence the appeal is not maintainable," observed Justice Mahesh Bhagwati.













T.ASHOK SHENOY

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 5:15:02 AM9/17/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

KINDLY GO THROUGH THE ANNEXURE WHICH IS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE RETIREES OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS



DOES A MOVE IS UNDER WAY BY RBI TO COVER UP PAST LOOT OF EMPLOYEES PENSION FUNDS - FEW FACTS THAT NEEDS TO BE PONDERED UPON BY EVERY BANKER AND STATUTORY AUDITORS ?

We reproduce extracts from the letter sent by Mr R.K. Singhal to RBI and others. This letter raises a number of questions which needs to be discussed and put up in the right perspective. We invite all the bankers, bank management, government officials and union leaders to give their views on these issues (specially who do not agree with these facts and can counter the same with relevant facts, so that necessary corrections can be made in such facts).

http://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/Bs_RbiEmailMaster.aspx?name=NKrishnaMohan

gove...@rbi.org.in

kcchak...@rbi.org.in

sandi...@rbi.org.in

30.07.2011

Dy Governor

Governor

Reserve Bank of India
Central Office Building

Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg
Central Office,
Fort , Mumbai 400001

Dear Sir

Re: RBI wants uniform Pension provision in PSU banks? Really or allowing cover up of past loot of Employees pension fund by Bank Management and distribution of loot as dividend/ incentive?

All issues listed below are based on fact which are verifiable from respective banks website and easily available at your end being part of regulatory compliances submitted by these banks to RBI and other regulators.

Issue No 1

We refer to you’re your comment appearing in Business Standard dated 14.07.2011 & 15.07.2011 “Same Pension Provisions for the Banks” Draws RBI Flak” detailed as under:

“After coming down heavily on banks for not making adequate provision for increased pension liabilities arising out of wage revision, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) now wants all public sector banks to have uniform pension liabilities.

According to sources in the banking industry, the central bank sees no reason why each public sector bank should have different pension liabilities, since the inputs which go into calculation of pension provision are nearly the same.

“RBI says the salary structure is same, the mortality rate is similar and the attrition rate is almost the same for all government-owned banks—at around 0.5 per cent. There is no reason for different actuarial estimates for banks. It feels all public sector banks should have similar actuarial estimates,” said a banker after discussing the matter with RBI officials. The basic pension of retirees from all government banks is 50 per cent of the last salary drawn.

Bankers said actuaries of different banks have different estimates, particularly on parameters like the discount rate and the attrition rate for calculating pension liability, which has led to a variation in the burden. As far as the mortality rate is concerned, most banks follow Life Insurance Corporation of India's estimates.

The pension provision issue cropped up in the last quarter of the previous financial year, when State Bank of India (SBI) had sought the regulator's approval for pension provision from the bank's capital reserve for wage increases. As a prudential practice, banks make provision out of their profit and loss account. To use capital reserves for provision, banks need RBI's approval. After RBI’s approval, SBI charged nearly Rs 8,000 crore from its reserves to provide for pension liabilities. As a result, SBI’s capital eroded, with Tier-I capital falling below eight per cent.

Though RBI had allowed SBI to make provisions from reserves for pension liabilities, the regulator had made it clear that such requests would not be entertained in the future. The central bank had come down heavily on the bank’s chairman and managing directors at an interaction. The regulator had also made it clear such practices were non-compliant with International Financial Reporting Standards.

In 2010-11, provisioning had increased sharply because of the pay revisions agreed during the ninth bipartite settlement. Wages were raised 17.5 per cent and a second pension option was given to both current and retired employees. Gratuity limits were also increased from Rs 3.5 lakh to Rs 10 lakh. According to RBI's financial stability report, the expected additional liability for 24 public sector banks was Rs 30,366 crore, which constituted 81.9 per cent of their net profit for 2009-10. Indian Banks' Association has been mandated by RBI to prepare a pension scheme to facilitate the assessment by banks and help provide adequate provisions for such liabilities.”

Question: Why RBI has chosen to ignore the fraud committed by SBI chairman during last 4 to 5 years for showing bloated/inflated profits , higher dividend/higher ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted them?. Whether AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash? Why Chairman/ ED was allowed to loot incentive of Rs 10 lacs when profits were manipulated and he has not achieved the target set by MOF in SOI. . The detailed analysis on SBI matter has been sent to you (on 06.07.2011 through e-mail and hard copy by registered post.

Issue No 2

Why uniform guidelines today when the bank employees pension regulation 1995 which has parliamentary sanction, which have been vetted by RBI itself, already prescribed uniform guidelines for funding and administration of pension fund and pension liability?. Complete guidelines are already available with RBI because they have vetted them, which are mainly as under:

As per pension regulations 1995, 10% of pay as Statutory contribution every month should be deposited by bank in the pension fund trust.

In addition to above at the end of each year the bank shall carry out actuarial valuation and Gap if any

shall be met by the bank and deposited in the pension fund.

As per 7th BPS the Bank has to deposit from 01.11.1997 to 31.10.2002 Statutory 10% contribution +

Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 8.25% Plus Employer share 8.25% ) should be deposited

in pension fund.

·

As per 8th BPS the Bank has to deposit from from 01.11.2002 to 31.10.2007 Statutory 10%

contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 9.25% Plus Employer share 9.25% )

should be deposited in pension fund.

·As per 9th BPS the Bank has to deposit from from 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2012 Statutory 10%

contribution + Incremental cost of pension (Employees share 13.00% Plus Employer share 13.00% )

should be deposited in pension fund.

· As per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing employees and the total liability on above account is Rs 6000 cr, out of which 4200 cr is to be borne by the banks and 1800 cr by employees. The banks have recovered Rs 1800 cr from the employees but not deposited/ their share of 4200 crores in the pension fund trust.

Violation of above statutory obligations by the Banks, give right to RBI to issue fresh guidelines and accede to request for amortization?

Question: Whether Why RBI has ensured that Statutory & Regulatory Compliances are followed by Public Sector banks for above pension liability?. Whether RBI Compliance Policy is worthless when the banks are violating the law settled by BPS, which have a parliamentary sanction? Whether RBI is choosing to ignore the fraud committed by Chairman on pension fund & showing bloated/inflated profits , higher dividend/higher ROA/ ROE/ higher book value took investor or ride, looted them?. Whether AFIR conducted every year by RBI was an eye wash?

Why Chairman’s/ EDs were allowed to loot incentive of Rs 10 lacs when profits were manipulated and in fact they have not achieved the target set by MOF in SOI in the past years?.

Issue No 3

Amortization of the pension cost.

· RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated 09.02.2011 permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension liability on account of new pension option under 9th BPS and amendment of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 to banks, at the request of IBA vide your guidelines on Prudential Regulatory Treatment.

Please note as per 9th BPS one more option of pension to existing employees was given and the liability of Rs 4200 cr was to be borne by the banks. 1/5th of Rs 4200 crs i.e. Rs 840 cr was to be charged in Profit and Loss in 2010-11 and remaining Rs3360 cr was to be charged to Profit & loss in remaining 4 years

Against Rs 4200 crs the banks have amortized Rs 19611 cr as per table given below:

Complete data is based on published result as on 31.03.2011 is given below:

S.No

Name of the Bank

Pension Liability amortised as per RBI guidelines as on 31.03.2011

( in crore)

Amount charged to Profit & Loss for Existing employees

( in crore)

Amount charged to Profit & Loss for

Retired employees

( in crore)

Balance carried forward to be charged to PL in remaining -4- years ( in crore)

1

Allahabad Bank

468.31

93.66

53.20

374.65

2

Andhra Bank

708.07

141.61

Not reported

566.46

3

Bank of Baroda

1829.90

365.98

554.14

1463.92

4

Bank of India

2212.15

442.43

707.7

1769.72

5

Bank of Maharashtra

512.38

102.48

Not reported

409.90

6

Central Bank

1476.91

295.38

569.62

1181.43

7

Canara Bank

2373.12

493.28

259.45

1482.86

8

Corporation Bank

552.53

110.51

Not reported

442.02

9

Dena Bank

353.92

70.78

117.64

283.14

10

Indian Bank

153.06

813.22

148.38

650.62

11

IOB

758.65

151.73

188.28

606.92

12

OBC

854.50

170.90

150.85

683.60

13

PNB

2757.65

551.53

Not reported

2206.12

14

PSB

811.78

162.36

Not reported

649.42

15

Syndicate Bank

726.90

145.32

364.00

581.52

16

Union Bank of India

1690.21

338.04

375.65

1352.17

17

United Bank of India

268.16

53.61

99.98

214.52

18

UCO Bank

507.84

101.56

265.06

408.28

19

Vijay Bank

595.53

119.11

Not reported

476.42

Total

19611.57

4723.49

3853.95

15803.67

Question:·

How RBI has permitted amortization of Rs 19611.57 cr against agreed pension liability of Rs 4200 crs as per 9th BPS.

· Whether RBI has authority to allow violation of Pension settlement/ violation of pension regulations which have parliamentary sanction.

· Whether RBI knows that Banks have not deposited Rs 19611.57 cr in the pension fund . The banks are causing loss to the pension fund trust by not depositing their liability in the trust account. They are cheating the pension trust with a criminal intention to deny updation of pension.

· What is he meaning of amortization?. When employees have deposited their share out of agreed pension liability in the pension fund, why RBI has allowed Banks to violate the settlement by not depositing Rs 19611.57 cr in pension fund.

Issue No 4

Amortization of the pension cost: Accounting entries to be passed by Banks.

RBI circular No DBOD.No.BP.BC:80/21.04.018/2010-11 dated 09.02.2011 permitted amortization of enhanced expenditure of pension liability on account of new pension option.

We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement your amortization guidelines.

We are of the opinion that Bank should pass the following entries:

· Dr - Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension Option Rs 19611.57 cr

· Cr - bank employees Pension Fund Trust Account

· Dr P/L Liability on account pension 1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr – Every Year

· Cr -Differed Pension Liability on account of New pension Option1/5 of Rs 19611.57 cr

The Banks have violated the pension settlement and have deposited on 1/5 of 19611.57 c in the pension fund. It has resulted in perpetual loss of interest/earning to the pension fund. Amortization do not mean denial of due amount to pension fund trust.

We request RBI DBOD to clarify what entries bank should pass to implement your amortization guidelines?.

· The RBI must take note of fraud in the pension fund trust of bank employees is more than Rs 30000 cr alone during 2010-11 (SBI Rs 10400 crores and PSBs Rs 19611.57 cr as clear from the above chart). Whether RBI AFIR is an eye wash? How you are ensuring compliance?.

· The fraud on pension fund is being perpetuated since 01.11.1997 when 7th BPS for sharing of incremental cost was signed. Amount of fraud is much higher because six banks viz Andhra bank, Bank of Maharashtra., Corportion Bank,, PNB, PSB, Vijaya bank data of retired employees is not available on their website). Have you taken note of it Mr Governor & Dy. Governor , CGM DBOD, CGM Dept of Banking supervision ?

Questions to RBI Governor/ Dy. Governor:

· The RBI is carrying out Annual Financial Inspection (AFIR) of Banks every year. Is the AFIR of RBI is an eye wash?

· Whether during the course of AFIR, RBI monitor that regulatory/ statutory compliances have been followed by the bank?. (Please note that the depositing retirement dues are is statutory compliance).?

· Whether RBI treat such misreporting in the balance sheet & Profit & loss as fraud, if not than why it is not. Do you follow different yardsticks for different Company. Satyam chairman in Jail.

· Whether RBI has sent any special investigation team to SBI/ other PSBs to unearth the biggest scam in the pension fund trust of employees?.

· Whether RBI has taken any action or advised to ICAI to initiate action against -SCAs of SBI/ Other Banks who have certified the falsified balance sheet of past years?.

· How incompetent CAs are finding there name in the panel approved by RBI?.

· Whether RBI has reported to other regulator like SEBI, a watchdog to safeguard the investors interest. How the investors have been taken for ride by misleading balance sheet in previous years?

· Whether RBI has taken the matter with Institute of Actuaries to take action against actuaries who are giving reports which suits to then management? Have you asked the institute to carry our independent investigation of pension liability and punish the wrong doer forgiving false actuarial valuation in the previous years.?.

·CBI has already prosecuted Hiranandani builders of Mumbai and Mr Raju of Satyam computers under 120 B (punishment for conspiracy)read with 409 (breach of trust) 420 cheating 467/468 forgery 471 use of forgery 477A falsification of accounts .

·Statutory Auditors are liable under company act/ IPC /CA act for gross negligence of professional duty, failure to report material misstatement. Price Water Coopers (PWC) an international Chartered Account Firm) have also been prosecuted by CBI in Satyam Scandal.

· SEBI can prosecute under SEBI ACT because investors have been looted/cheated.

· SFIO can investigate under 235 to 247 of companies Act 1956. Please note that Satyam CMD/ Auditor/are s being prosecuted under above acts.

· Whether RBI Governor/ Dy Governor feels that by merely issuing press statement will absolve them from their constitutional/regulatory liability?.

The above communication may please be taken note for compliance because this is part of judicial proceeding of various HC/ Supreme Court where pension issues are pending and role of Regulator is under scrutiny.

Rajendra Kumar.Singhal

CONVENOR

FORUM FOR JUSTICE TO BANK EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.

Legal Aid Cell

Bhartiya Janta Party

11, Ashok Road

New Delhi-110001

rkumar...@rediffmail.com.rkumarsinghal@rediffmail.com

CC to Shri G. Jaganmohan Rao,CGM-in-Charge, Dept of banking supervison http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/Bs_RbiEmailMaster.aspx?name=NKrishnaMohan

Shri B Mahapatra,Chief General Manager –in- Charge Department of Banking Operations and Development Mumbai – 400 005

Comments : Do you feel the above comments are biased ? If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group.

You can submit your comments on : allbankin...@gmail.com

Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views. The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked. In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankin...@gmail.com so that we can review the same


T.ASHOK SHENOY

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 5:30:10 AM9/17/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Feb 14, 2011
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Google



Other States

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Other States - Orissa Printer Friendly Page Send this Article to a Friend

Bank officers seek pension


Staff Reporter




BERHAMPUR: Members of the Rushikulya Gramya Bank Officers' Organisation (RGBOO) demanded introduction of pension schemes for them which should be on a par with their counterparts working in nationalised banks.
It was a major demand discussed at the eleventh annual general body meeting of the RGBOO held in the city on Sunday. They also reiterated their demand for amalgamation of all RRBs in the country for the establishment of a ‘Rashtriya Gramin Bank'.
New office bearers of the organisation were also elected during the meeting. Ramnath Panda was elected as its president and Dilip Das, who also happens to be the State general secretary of the Bhratiya Mazdoor Sabha (BMS) in Orissa, was elected secretary of the RGBOO. The officers of the RGB protested against the disparity in pension, allowances and other benefits between the employees of an RRB and that of a commercial bank. They also wanted reimplementation of compassionate appointment of family members of employees who die while in job and provident fund at par with commercial banks.
These officers said their counterparts in nationalised banks were getting allowance for 40 litres of petrol every month but officials of RRBs who have to serve in extreme rural pockets were not eligible for such allowances. They pointed that that RRBs were fast becoming short staffed although their scope of operation was being increased. Recruitment of manpower for vacant posts of clerks, and officers of different ranks was not being done.
The RGBOO also pointed out that the RGB had obtained license from the Reserve Bank of India for three new proposed branches at Randha, Nilaknthanagar in the city and Ganjam town. All these are yet to be opened up. The officers of the RGB said migration of all branches of the bank to Core Banking Solution (CBS) platform at the fag end of the current financial year without enhancing infrastructure was causing problems for the staff and customers of the RGB. They also added that the interest rate of the RGB on deposits was lowest in comparison to other commercial banks, due to which the RRB was suffering from withdrawal of deposits.
Members of the RGBOO have decided to hand over memorandum to the local MPs and MLAs regarding their demands during this month. They would also hold demonstrations in front of their head office on Feb 28 and would hold demonstration in front of the head office of the sponsor bank on March 14.





Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Keshav Saini

unread,
Sep 16, 2011, 11:21:08 PM9/16/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
DEAR SHRI ASHOKSHENOY,AS YOU ARE AWARE ALL RETIREES PRIOR TO 1-11-2002 ARE IN THE AGE OF 70 YEARS AND ABOVE ARE GETTING NOMINAL PENSION NOT MORE THAN RS15000/PER MONTH WHEREAS A SENIOR CLERK RECENTLY RETIRED IN AUGUST 2011 IS GETTING PENSION ABOVE RS 22000/ PER MONTH. SO MUCH SO IN SBI RETIREES RETIRED AFTER 1-04-1998 TO 31-10-2002 ARE STILL GETTING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BUT RETIRED IN 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT. HOWEVER, IN OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS THIS ANOMALY HAS BEEN REMOVED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-05-2005. I APPRECIATE YOUR ACTION OF MAKING PRAYER TO SUPREME COURT TO REMOVE THE ANOMALIES OF PENSION OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS. IN THE MEANTIME LET ME KNOW YOUR CASE HAS BEEN ADMITTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OR NOT .ADVISE ME THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE CASE. THANKS. WITH BEST REGARDS. K.R.SAINI
From: ashoks...@live.com
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: bankpensioner
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:24:51 +0530


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

T.ASHOK SHENOY

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 1:50:57 AM9/17/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
I AM PRODUCING BELOW THE VIEWS/OBSERVATIONS AND DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE MATTER OF PENSION. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO CATEGORISE THE PENSIONERS INTO DIFFERENT CLASSES/CATEGORIES

Shalimar Garden
04.06.2010
Now, whereas Pensions of Central Government Employees and State Government Employees are Updated / Revised at Every Pay Revision, Pensions of Bank Employees are Not Updated / Revised at Every Wage Revision / Pay Revision. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Stressing the Need for Revision / Updation of Pensions, Categorically Stated in Countless Judgments thereof, “that the Benefits of Pay Revision / Wage Revision” “Must be Passed on to the Existing Pensioners also”. First and Foremost amongst them all is,”the 5 Judge Constitution Bench Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara and other Vs. Union of India”, “the Ratio of which is being followed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in all the Subsequent Judgments thereof”. I would like to Acquaint the “Visitors of allbankingsolutions.com”, “With the Case-Law of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India on Revision / Updation of Pensions”. 
Before Referring to the Case-Law of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India on Updation / Revision of Pensions, I would like to State that “there are Now as Many as Four Kinds / Four Types of Pensions”, “being Paid to the Banks’ Pensioners”, “Based on their Dates of Retirement”. They are :
For Employees Retired Between April, 1998 and October, 2002 : 50% of the Pay as Per  the 7th B.P. 
For Employees Retired Between November 2002 and April, 2005 : 50% of the Pay as Per 8th BP. 
For Employees Retired / Retiring from May, 2005 : 50% of the Pay as Per 8th BP. This Higher Pension will be paid from 1st May, 2005.
For Employees Retired on or after 01.11.2007 : 50% of the Pay as per the 9th BP.
There is Not a "Single Valid and Rational Justification" for “Applying Different Yardsticks” and “Different Criteria for Payment of Pensions” to the Banks’ Pensioners, “Depending on their Dates of Retirement” and also the “Bi-partite Settlement Periods” / “the duration of the Bi-partite Settlement”, “during the Currency of which, the Employees / the  Pensioners of the Banks Retired therefrom”. The Banks are extending “Differential Treatment to their Pensioners”, “without any Rational Relation to the Object Sought to be Achieved by the Pension Scheme.” It can also be seen from Item Nos. 2 and 3 above, "that there are Two Kinds of Pensions”, “even for those Employees”, “who Retired During the Currency of the 8th Bi-partite Settlement Period itself”. There is “Not a Single Valid, Justifiable and Cogent Reason” forthcoming from the Banks “for Dividing Pensioners / Employees”, “who Retired During the 8th Bi-partite Settlement itself”, “Except their Decision to Pay Something More to Some Pensioners", "who Retired Subsequent to a Specified Date”, “Simultaneously, Denying the Same to those who Retired Prior to that Specified Date". This Attitude had been Spurned and Strongly Denounced by  Hon’ble  the Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara and Others. Versus Union of India,, in the Following Words : 
“If it appears to be Indisputable, as it does to us, that the “Pensioners for the Purpose of Benefits form a Class”, would its Upward Revision “Permit a Homogeneous Class to be Divided by Arbitrarily Fixing an Eligibility Criteria”, “Unrelated to Purpose of Revision” and “would Such Classification be Founded on Some Rational Principle ?” The Classification has to be based” “as is well settled”, “On some Rational Principle” and the “Rational Principle must have Nexus to the Objects Sought to be Achieved”. It the State Considered it Necessary to Liberalise the Pension Scheme, We Find No Rational Principle Behind it, for Granting these Benefits "only to those who Retire Subsequent to that Date". It the Liberalization was Considered Necessary “for Augmenting Social Security in Old Age to Government Servants”, “then those who Retired Earlier Cannot be Worst off than those who Retire Later”. Therefore, this Division “Which Classified Pensioners into Two Classes is Not Based on any Rational Principle” and “if the Rational Principle is the One of Dividing Pensioners”, “With a View to giving Something More to Persons otherwise Equally Placed”, “it would be Discriminatory”. To Illustrate, take Two Persons, one Retired Just a Day Prior and Another a Day Just Succeeding the Specified Date. Both were in the Same Pay Bracket;, the Average Emoluments was the Same and both had Put in Equal Number of Years of Service. How does a Fortuitous Circumstance of Retiring a Day Earlier or a Day Later Will Permit Totally Unequal Treatment in the Matter of Pension ?  One Retiring a day Earlier, “Will have to be Subject to a Ceiling of Rs. 8100/- P.A.” and “Average Emoluments to be Worked out on 36 Months’ Salary”, “While the Other will have a Ceiling of Rs. 12,000/- P.A.” and “Average Emoluments will be Computed on the Basis of last 10 Months’ Average”. “The Artificial Division Stares into Face” and is “Unrelated to any Principle" and whatever Principle, if there be any, "has Absolutely No Nexus to the Objects Sought to be Achieved" by Liberalizing the Pension Scheme. In fact this Arbitrary Division has Not Only No Nexus to the Liberalized Pension Scheme, but it is Counter -Productive and Runs "Counter to the Whole Gamut of Pension Scheme".  The Equal Treatment "Guaranteed in Article 14 is Wholly Violated", Inasmuch as the Pension Rules being Statutory in Character, Since the Specified Date, "the Rules Accord Differential & Discriminatory Treatment to Equals", in the Matter of Computation of Pension. “A 48 Hours' Difference in Matter of Retirement would have a Traumatic Effect”.  “Division is thus both Arbitrary and Unprincipled.” Therefore, the Classification does Not Stand the Test of Article 14. 
Further, "the Classification is Wholly Arbitrary", because We do Not Find a "Single Acceptable or Persuasive Reason for this Division". This Arbitrary Action "Violated the Guarantee of Article 14". 
Also Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Strongly Disapproving of Payment Of Different kinds of Pensions, “Based On dates of Retirement”, "Who Retired Prior to a Certain Date" and who Retire "Subsequent to a Certain Date", Observed as under at Para 35 in D.S. Nakara and Others Versus. Union of India : 
“With this Background, Let Us now turn to the Challenge Posed in these Petitions. The Challenge is Not to the Validity of the Pension Liberalization Scheme. The Scheme is Wholly Acceptable to the Petitioners; Nay, they are Ardent Supporters of it. Nay further they Seek the Benefit of it. The Petitioners Challenge Only that Part of the Scheme, “by which its Benefits are Admissible to those”, "Who Retire from Service after a Certain Date".  In other words, they want that the Scheme "Must be Uniformly Enforced", "With Regard to all Pensioners" "for the Purpose of Computation of Pension", "Irrespective of the Date when the Government Servant Retired", Subject to the Only Condition that he was Governed by the 1972 Rules. No doubt, “the Benefit of the Scheme will be Available from the Specified Date,” “Irrespective of the Fact” "when the Concerned Government Servant Actually Retired from Service”. 
  Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India held as under, in the Selfsame Context, in the above Case at Paras 37 to 39 : 
Para 37 : “If such be the Goals of Pension, if such be the Welfare State which We Propose to Set up, if such be the Goals of Socialism and Conceding that any Welfare Measure may Consistent with Economic Capacity of the State, “be Progressively Augmented with Wider Width and a Longer Canvas”, “Yet when the Economic Means Permit the Augmentation”, Should Some be Left Out for the Sole Reason that While in the Formative Years of the Nascent State they Contributed their Mite”, but “When the Fruits of their Labour led to the Flowering of Economic Development and Higher Gross National Produce Bringing in Larger Revenue” and “Therefore Larger Cake is Available”, “Would they be Denied any Share of it ?”  “Indisputably”, "Viewed from Any Angle Pensioners for Payment of Pension form a Class”.
Also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, Strongly “Denouncing the Attitude of Paying Different Kinds of Pensions”, “Based on Dates Retirement”, held as under at Paras 38 and 46 in DS Nakara’s Case : 
Para 38 : “What then is the Purpose in Prescribing the Specified date "Vertically Dividing the Pensioners", between "those who Retired Prior to the Specified Date" and those "Who Retire Subsequent to that Date?" That Poses the Further Question, “Why was the Pension Scheme Liberalized ?”  “What Necessitated Liberalization of the Pension Scheme ?”    
Para 46 : “Only the Pension will have to be Recomputed in the light of the formula enacted in the liberalised Pension Scheme and Effective from the date, the Revised Scheme Comes into force. And “Beware that it is Not a New Scheme”, “It is Only a Revision of an Existing Scheme”. “It is Not a New Retiral Benefit”. “It is an Upward Revision of an Existing Benefit”. “If it was a Wholly New Concept”, “a New Retiral Benefit”, One could have Appreciated an Argument that those who had Already Retired Could Not Expect it. It could have been urged that it is an Incentive to Attract the Fresh Recruits. “Pension is a Reward for Past Service”. It is Undoubtedly a Condition of Service but Not an Incentive to Attract New Entrants, because if it was to be Available to New Entrants Only, it would be Prospective at such Distance of Thirty-Five Years Since its Introduction. But “It Covers all those in Service Who Entered Thirty-Five Years Back”. “Pension is thus Not an Incentive but a Reward for Past Service”. “And  Revision of an Existing Benefit Stands on a Different Footing than a New Retiral Benefit”. And “Even in the Case of New Retiral Benefit of Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “Past Service was taken into Consideration”. Recall at this Stage the Method Adopted When Pay Scales are Revised. Revised Pay Scales are Introduced from a Certain Date. “All Existing Employees are brought on to the Revised Scales by Adopting a Theory of Fitments and Increments”, “for Past Service”. “In Other Words, Benefit of Revised Scales”, “Is Not Limited to those Who Enter Service Subsequent to the Date Fixed for Introducing Revised Scales”, “but the Benefit is Extended to All those in Service Prior to that Date”. “This is Just and Fai”r. Now if Pension as we View it, “is Some Kind of Retirement Wages”, “For Past Service”, “Can it be Denied to those who Retired Earlier”, “Revised Retirement Benefits, being Available to Future Retirees only?”  
Explanatory Note: Now, “Look at the Intrinsic Beauties” and the “Intensely Incisive Interpretative Analysis of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India”, “Speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desa”, “in Drawing Parallels from Pay Revisions and Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “to Stress and to Drive Home the Point”, “that the Benefits of Pay Revision / Wage Revision have to be Passed on to the Existing Pensioners also”. Let Me List Out One after the Other. 
“And beware that it is Not a New Scheme”, “it is Revision of an Existing Scheme”. “It is Not a New Retiral Benefit”. “It is Upward Revision of an Existing Benefit”. If it was a Wholly New Concept, One Could have Appreciated an Argument that those Who had already Retired Could Not Expect it. It could have been Urged that it is an Incentive to Attract the Fresh Recruits. “Pension is a Reward for Past Service”. 
Explanatory Note: The Idea here is to suggest “that the Upward Revision of Pension” “is Nothing but Extending the Benefits of Revised Pay Scales to the Existing Pensioners also”. “Revision of Pension is Not Conferment of a New Retiral Benefit on the Pensioners”. 
And Now, See how Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India “Draws a Parallel from the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “to Justify the Stand taken by it”, “that the Benefit of Pay Revision / Wage Revision” “Must be Passed on to the Existing Pensioners also”, When it Says : 
“And Even in the Case of New Retiral Benefit of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “Past Service was taken into Consideration”. 
In fact, in Making a Reference to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, “Went a Step ahead of What it said Earlier”, as Extracted by me hereinabove, like : 
“If it was a Wholly New Concept, One Could have Appreciated an Argument that those Who had already Retired Could Not Expect it”. “It Could have been Urged that it is an Incentive to Attract the Fresh Recruits”.  
The Initial Suggestion in the Above Words is that, “if Revision of Pension is a New Concept / a New Retiral Benefit”, “it would have been taken that that was a New Retiral Benefit” and that, “the Existing Pensioners Should not Expect it”; because “that was a New Retiral Benefit”; but “Revision of Pension is Not  Conferment of a New Retiral Benefit at all” and, “Revision of Pension is Extension of the Benefit of Revision of Pay Scales / Wage Revision to the Existing Pensioners Only”. 
Now, after the Initial Observation as above, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India “takes a Giant Leap”, when it Draws a Parallel, from the Payment of Gratuity Act. The Clear Indication here is that, “Even though Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “is a New Retiral Benefit”, “its Benefit is Extended”, “Even to those”, “Who are already in Service” and “Past Service Prior to 1972”, (Prior to the Enactment of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) “is also taken into Consideration”. The Logical Point that Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Drives Home here is, “When the Benefit of Payment of Gratuity Act is Extended”, “Not Just to the New Recruits”, “who were Recruited to Service”, “from the Date of Enactment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “but even to those who were already in Service as on the Date of Enactment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972”, “Why Should Not the Benefit of Revision of Pay Scales / Wage Revision be Extended to the Existing Pensioners ?”
Another Suggestion here is also that, the Benefit of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, “is not Only Extended to the Employees, who are already in Service as on the date of its Enactment”, “But even the Service Rendered Prior to the Enactment of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is also taken into Consideration” and when that is so “Why should Not the Benefit of Revision of Pay Scales / Wage Revision be extended to the Existing Pensioners also ?” 
“Such is the Logic” and “Such are the Sublime Sentiments” that Can be found in Nakara’s Case. 
Now, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, Justifying its Decision to Direct Union of India, to Extend the Benefits of Revised Pension Formula, “Even to those who Retired Prior to the Notified Dates, i.e. Prior to 31.03.1979 & 01.04.1979, Draws “Another Parallel”, When it says at Para 46 of its Judgment, as Under : 
“Recall at this Stage the Method Adopted when Pay Scales are Revised. Revised Pay Scales are Introduced from a Certain Date. All Existing Employees are brought on to the Revised Scales “by Adopting a Theory of Fitments and Increments”, “for Past Service”. In Other Words, “Benefit of Revised Scales is Not Limited to those”, “Who Enter Service Subsequent to the Date fixed for Introducing Revised Scales”, “but the Benefit is Extended to all those in Service” “Prior to that Date”. “This is Just and Fair”. Now if Pension as We View it, is “Some Kind of Retirement Wages” “For Past Service”, “Can it be Denied to those who Retired Earlier”, “Revised Retirement Benefits, being Available to Future Retirees only ?” 
Now, It we Dissect the “Entire Portion of this Judgment herein”, of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara and others Vs. Union of India, “The Singularly Scintillating Sentiments and Highly Illuminative Interpretative Analysis Of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Of India”  “Only Can be Seen”. 
Look at the Parallel Drawn here : 
“Just as When Pay Scales are Revised, all the Existing Employees are Brought on to the Revised Scales”, “by Adopting a theory of Fitments and Increments for Past Service”, “So also, Past Retirees’ Pensions also have to be brought on to the Corresponding Stage of the Employees”, “Who are in Service” and “The Benefit of Revised Pay Scales Should be / Must be Extended to the Existing Pensioners also”, is the “Logic and Rationale” Behind the Direction of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Nakara’s Case that “the Revised Pension Formula” “Should be Applied and Extended to the Existing Pensioners also”. Also “it is Not as if”, “the New Pay Scales”, “Whenever they are Introduced”, “are Extended to New Recruits only”; but, “the Existing Staff / Employees are brought on to the New Pay Scales”, “by Adopting a theory of Fitments and Increments”, “for the Past Service”. That Means, the Suggestion here is, “When the Government is giving the Benefit of New Pay Scales / Revised Pay Scales to the Existing Employees also”, “Instead of Confining the Benefits of New Pay Scales to the New Recruits only”, “What is the Problem for the Government in Extending the Benefits of Revised Pay Scales for the Existing Pensioners also”, by “Updating and Revising their Pensions”, “After Bringing the Pensioners on to the Corresponding Scale and  Stage of the Existing Employees” and “Why Should Not the Existing Pensioners be Brought into the Mainstream ?” 
Also We can see here that “there is Another Logic”, in Referring to the Revised Pay Scales. “Revised Pay Scales”, “in Connection with a Pension Related Matter”, i.e. “While Fixing the Basic Pay of Employees”, “as Per the Revised Pay Scales/ Pay Structure”, “Consequent upon Wage Revision / Pay Revision”,  Govt. Employees are brought on to the Revised Pay Scales, by Adopting the Theory of Fitments and Increments, “for Past Service”. Likewise, “On a Parity of Reasoning”, When the Existing Employees are “brought on to the Mainstream by Adopting a Theory of Fitments and Increments”, “for Past Service”, “Pensions also Should be Revised and Updated”, “Keeping in View”, “The Past Service Rendered by the Pensioners”,  “Since the Reasoning / Ratio behind Updation / Revision of Pensions”, in the View of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India  is, “Just as the Existing Employees”, “Though they are Not Newly Recruited Employees”, “are brought on to the Revised Pay Scales”, “Whenever Pay Scales are Revised”, by Adopting a Theory of Fitments and Increments, “for Past Service”, “So Also”, “Pension of Employees have to be Revised / Updated”, “at Every Pay Revision”, “Taking into Account the Past Service Rendered by the Pensioners”. So, “that is the “Exquisitely Excellent Reasoning and Logic” “of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India”, “in Espousing the Cause of the Pensioners”. 
The Meticulous Research that Can be Found in the Singularly  Superb and Landmark Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Nakara’s Case, “Does Not End there”. Now, Look at the Other Example, in Nakara’s Case itself, When it says, as under at Para 32 :  
“Having Succinctly Focused Our Attention on the Conspectus of Elements and Incidents of Pension, the Main Question May Now be Tackled. But, the Approach of the Court while Considering such Measure is of Paramount Importance. Since the Advent of the Constitution, “the State Action Must be Directed towards Attaining the Goals Set Out in Part IV of the Constitution”, which, when Achieved, Would Permit us to Claim that we have Set Up a Welfare State. Article 38(1) Enjoins the State to Strive to Promote Welfare of the People, by Securing and Protecting as Effectively as it May a Social Order in which Justice –– Social, Economic and Political –– Shall Inform all Institutions of the National Life. In Particular the State Shall Strive to Minimise the Inequalities in Income and Endeavour to Eliminate Inequalities in Status, Facilities and Opportunities. Article 39(d) Enjoins a Duty to see that there is Equal Pay for Equal Work for Both Men and Women and this Directive should be Understood and Interpreted in the Light of the Judgment of this Court in Randhir Singh V. Union of India. Revealing the Scope and Content of this Facet of Equality, Chinnappa Reddy, J. Speaking for the Court Observed as under : (SCC p. 619, Para 1) 
“Now, thanks to the Rising Social and Political Consciousness and the Expectations Aroused as a Consequence, and the Forward – Looking Posture of this Court,” “the Underprivileged also are Clamouring for their Rights” and “are Seeking the Intervention of the Court with Touching Faith and Confidence in the Court”. The Judges of the Court have a Duty to Redeem their Constitutional Oath and do Justice No Less to the Pavement-Dweller than to the Guest of the Five-Star Hotel”. 
“Proceeding Further, this Court Observed that “Where all Relevant Considerations are the Same”, “Persons Holding Identical Posts May Not be Treated Differently in the Matter of their Pay”, “Merely because they Belong to Different Departments”. “If that can’t be Done When they are in Service”, “Can that be Done During their Retirement ?”  “Expanding this Principle, One Can Confidential Say that if Pensioners Form a Class”, “their Computation Cannot be by Different Formula Affording Unequal Treatment”, “Solely on the Ground” “that Some Retired Earlier” and “Some Retired Later”. 
The Other Part of this Para Can be Easily Understood by all. But, I Would Like to Explain the Content of “that Part Of the  Para Mentioned hereinbelow” : 
From : Article 39(d) Enjoins a Duty ..……. some Retire Later”.
The Idea given here is that When Article 39(d) Enjoins “A Duty on the “State” (Roughly Speaking, “State” Means, “All Governments and their Undertakings”) to See that “there is Equal Pay for Equal Work”, “both for Men and Women”. “there should be Equal Pay for those Who Work in Different Departments of the Same Government” and “there should be No Discrimination” on the Ground that, “Some Worked in One Department” and “Some others Worked in Some Other Department”. But, “It should be Noted here that the Employment Must be under the Same Roof”. Expanding the Principle Further, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Says that this Article 39(d) Enjoining a Duty on the State (Government and their Departments / Undertakings) to see that there is Equal Pay for Equal Work Must be Understood and Interpreted in the Light of the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, “Wherein the Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India said” that, “In View of Rising Social and Political Conciseness and the Expectations Aroused and the Forward Looking Posture of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India”, “the Underprivileged People are also Approaching Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, “With Touching Faith and Confidence therein”. 
But, here the “Most Operative Part” of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Randhir Singh V. Union Of India, “as Reproduced in DS Nakara and Other Vs. Union of India” is : 
“Proceeding Further, this Court Observed in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India that “Where all Relevant Consideration are Same”. “Persons Holding Identical Posts Many not be Treated Differently”, “In the Matter of their Pay”, “Merely because they Belong to Different Departments”. 
As Explained by Me Hereinabove, “the Operative Part of the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India”, is : 
“Where all the Relevant Considerations are Same”, “Persons holding Identical Posts should Not be Treated Differently”, “On the Simple Ground” “that they Belong to Different Departments”.
Now, at this Stage, I Once Again come Back to the Logic and the Parallel Drawn in Nakara, from Randhir Singh’s Case, by Reproducing What Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India said in Nakara, at Para 32, “In Continuation of the Above Observation”: 
“If that Can’t be Done”, “When they are in Service”, “Can that the Done During their Retirement ?” 
Expanding this Principle, One Can Confidently Say that, “If Pensioners form a Class”, “their Computation of Pension cannot be by Different Formula”, “Affording Unequal Treatment”, “Solely on the Ground”, “that some Retired Earlier”, and “Some Retire Later”. 
Now, Look at the Parallel Drawn “from Men in Service”, to Emphasise, that, “There Cannot be and Should Not be Different Kinds of Pensions”, “Based on dates of Retirement”.  The Analogy Drawn is : 
As Per the Ratio of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, “Persons Holding Identical Posts should Not be Treated Differently”, “In the Matter of their Pay”, “Merely because they Belong to Different Departments”. Now, after Expanding this Principle Laid Down in Randhir Singh’s Case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India says in Nakara’s Case, that, “If Such Differential Treatment is Not Permitted / Permissible”, “While in Service”, “Can that Be Permitted to be Done During their Retirement ?” 
Now, if We Apply this Ratio of Nakara’s Case, “Can Payment of Four Kinds of Pensions”, “by Public Sector Banks”, “Based on their Dates of Retirement” “be Permitted at all?” I have already “Listed Out hereinabove at the Very Outset”, “the 4 Kinds of Pensions that Public Sector Banks are Paying to their Pensioners”, “Based On their Dates of Retirement”. The Idea given here is “If According / Affording” “Differential Treatment in the Matter of Pay of Employees”, “Merely on the Ground” “that they belong to Different Departments” “is Not Permissible”, “Can Payment of “Different Kinds of Pensions” to Pensioners”, “Based on the Dates of their Retirement” be Permitted at all ?” 
Also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India has held in K.L. Marwaha Versus. Union of India and Others (4 JT 1987 (3) SC 292), Disapproving of and Denouncing Classification of Pensioners, “who were working in the Government / Autonomous Bodies” “into two Classes”, “Merely on the Basis of the Date of Retirement” at Page 297, as under : 
“There is No Justification” “for Denying the Benefit of the Government Order” “to those Who had Retired”, “Prior to the Date on which the Government Order was issued”. The Respondents have not Furnished “any Acceptable Reason in Support of their Case”, “Except Saying that the Petitioner was Not Entitled to the Benefit of the Government Order”, “Because the Order Says” “that it would Not be Applicable to those” “Who had Retired Prior to the date” “On which it was Issued”. “In the Absence of any Explanation, “Which is Worthy of Consideration”, “it has to be held” “that the Classification of the Pensioners Who were Working in the Government / Autonomous Bodies into Two Classes”, “Merely on the Basis of the Date of Retirement”, “as Unconstitutional”, “as it Bears No Nexus to the Object  sought to be Achieved by the  Order”. 
Therefore, in View of the Above Directions of  Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the above Judgment, “ Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Directed the Respondents” “to Revise the Pension Payable to the Petitioner”, “In Accordance with the Government Order”, “By Giving him the Benefit of the Government of India Order”, “From the Date of the Government Order”, though not from the Date of His Retirement, in the following Words, at Para 11 of the Judgment at Page No. 297 (4 JT 1987 (3) SC 292) : 
“We, therefore “Direct the Respondents” “to Revise the Pension Payable to the Petitioner” “in Accordance with the Government Order,” “by giving Him the Benefit of the Service Rendered by him” “in the Central Government”, “While Computing his Qualifying Service for Pension”.
Also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India held and Categorically Stated that, “Whenever “there is any Improvement” “in Pension Computation Formula” / “Pension Payment Formula”, “the Benefit of “Such Improvement” “in Pension Computation Formula”/”Pension Payment Formula”, “Should be “Passed on” to the “Past Retirees also” / “Existing Pensioners also”, “In Subrata Sen and Others V. Union of India and Others”. The Following are the “Relevant Extracts” from that Judgment at Paras 16, 18 and 19 : 
Para 16 : “The Rules for Grant of Pension Provide that an Employee Mentioned in Specified Category Shall Automatically be Member of Pension Fund” and “is Entitled to get Pension on the Date of his Retirement”. Amount of Pension is to be Determined as Per the Rules. “That Rule is Modified” and “the Petitioners Seek Relief on the Basis of the Amended Rule”, “On the Ground that there Cannot be Any Discrimination between the Employees”, “Who Retired Prior to” or “after a Particular Date”, as held in Nakara’s Case”, “Which is “followed by this Court”, “in Various Decisions”, including V. Kasturi” [J T 1998 (7) SC 147]. Further, “there is No Question of Pensioners (Retired Employees) Dividing the Pension Fund” “for Payment of Pension” “to be Made” “only from the Pension Fund”. “The Liability to Pay Pension Arises” “because of Provisions Made in the Rules”. 
Para 18: Same is the Position in the Present Case. As Observed in the Aforesaid Case, in Case of an Employee Governed under the Pension Scheme, “Relations with the Employer “Merely” Undergo a Change”, “but are Not Snapped Altogether”. “There is No New Scheme for Payment of Pension”; “but, it is only a Revision of the Existing Pension Scheme”. Under the New Pension Scheme, “Pension is Required to be Paid “on the Basis of 40 Percent of the Average of the Last Ten Months Salary, Including Average Dearness Allowance, Drawn by the Officer”, “Over the Last Ten Months of his Service”, “Instead of Earlier 40 Percent of the Average of the Annual Average Basic Salary for the Last Five Years of Service”, “Immediately Preceding the Date of Retirement”.  
Para 19: “In View of the Aforesaid Legal Position”, this Petition is “Required to be Partly Allowed” and “the Respondents are Directed” “to give Pensionary Benefits to the Petitioners”, “on the Basis of the Notification”, “Dated 10th March, 1995”, “by Deleting the Words”, “Retiring from December, 1994 Onwards”, “from the said Notification”. 
Also, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, Speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Who Subsequently Became the Chief Justice of India), Held as under, “Emphasising the “Need to Periodically Revise” the Pensions” in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association Vs. Union of India :  
“…It Must be Realized that in the Case of an Employee “Governed by the CPF (Contributory Provident Fund) Scheme”, “his Relations with the Employer come to an end on his Retirement” and “On Receipt of the CPF Amount”. “But in the Case of an Employee Governed under the Pension Scheme”, “His Relations with the Employer “Merely” Undergo a Change”, “But Do Not Snap Altogether”. “That is the Reason Why this Court in Nakara’s Case Drew a Distinction”, “Between Liberalisation of an Existing Benefit” and “Introducing of a Totally New Scheme”. “In the Case of Pensioners”, “It is “Necessary to Revise the Pension” Periodically”, “As the Continuous fall in the Rupee Value” and “the Rise in Prices of Essential Commodities” “Necessitates an Adjustment of the Pension Amount”; but, that is Not the Case of Employees Governed under the CPF Scheme, Since they had Received the Lump Sum Payment which they were at Liberty to Invest in a Manner that would Yield Optimum Return, which would take Care of the Inflationary Trends.
Explanatory Note: In the Instant Case of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association, “Pensioners’ Matter is Not an Issue at All”: because”, “as in the Case of Public Sector Banks”, “for Reserve Bank Employees also”, “Pension Option was given from 01.01.1986 Only”. But, those who Retired from the Service of Reserve Bank India, “Prior to 01.01.1986 also”. “Wanted an Option to be given to them for Pension”, “Whereas Reserve Bank of India Refused to give an Option to the Employees of the Reserve Bank of India”, “Who Retired Prior to 01.01.1986 to Switch Over to the Pension Scheme”. “Revision / Updation of Pension” “is Not an Issue at all” in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association Vs. Union of India. “Even While “Dismissing the Petition / Case”, “In Reserve Bank Retirees’ Case”, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India “Found an Occasion” to Express its “Anxiety and Serious Concern” towards the Pensioners”, “Whose “Real Value of Pensions” have “Substantially Comedown”. 
It Must be Noted here that, “While Dismissing the Case of CPF Optees of Reserve Bank of India, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India”, “Expressed its Serious Concern at the Pathetic Plight of Pensioners”, “If Pensions are Not Revised Periodically”. “We Can Find Even at the “First Sight of this Paragraph itself”, as to, “How “Deeply and Seriously” “Concerned and Moved” Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is “at the “Pathetic Plight” of the Pensioners”, “If Pensions are not Revised Periodically”. 
Explanatory Note: It Must be Noted here with Interest, “as to how Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Draws a Distinction”, “Between the PF Scheme / CPF Scheme and the Pension Scheme”. “Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India, Speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Ahmadi (Who Subsequently became the Chief Justice of India) “Drives Home” “the Important Distinction” “between the PF Scheme/CPF Scheme” and “the Pension Scheme”. That Distinction is Explained hereinbelow : 
“In the Case of an Employee “Governed by the PF Scheme / CPF Scheme”, “His Relations with the Employer come to an end”, “on his Retirement” and “On Receipt of the PF / CPF Amount”. But, “In the Case of an Employee” “Governed by the Pension Scheme”, “His Relations with the Employer “MERELY” Undergo a Change”, “But do Not Snap Altogether”. The Idea Behind in Clearly Explaining “The “Subtle Distinction” and “Relationship”, “Between the of PF / CPF Optees” and “the Pension Optees” with his Employer / Ex-Employer” is to Make it Clear that “It is Incumbent on the Employer / Ex- Employer”, “to take Care of the Pension Optees’ Interests”, “throughout”, “Whereas that Situation is Not there” / “Whereas the Situation is Different”, “in the Case of PF / CPF Optees”. 
This Fact is “Brought Out Clearly”, When Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Says that, “In the Case of an Employee, Governed under the Pension Scheme”, “His Relations with his Employer “Merely” Undergo a Change”, but, “Do Not Snap Altogether”. 
If We Closely Dissect the “Subtle Cue”, We Can Easily See the Implications of “this Elucidation”. The Clear Distinction as Brought out herein by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India is in the Case of PF / CPF Optees, “the Relationship between the Employer and the Employee Ceases”, the Moment, “the PF Optee, Receives the PF / CPF Amount”, “On his Retirement”, Whereas, “In the Case of a Pension Optee”, “A Clear “Duty is Cast” on the Employer”, “to take Care of” / “to Look into the Needs of” the Pensioners”, “At all Subsequent Stages”, “Even After Retirement”. This is the “Clear Implication” of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India’s Observation in the All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association’s Case, When it Says that : 
“In the Case of an Employee Governed by the CPF (Contributory Provident Fund) Scheme”, “His Relations with the Employer Come to an End”, “On his Retirement” and “On his Receipt of the CPF Amount”; But “In the Case of an Employee, Governed Under the Pension Scheme”, “His Relations with the Employer “Merely” Undergo a Change” :  but, “Do Not Snap Altogether”. In fact, if We Delve Deep into this Observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that, “In the Case of Pensioners”, “Relations with their Employers Merely Undergo a Change”, “But Do Not Snap Altogether”, an Important Facet, “Which was Discussed in Nakara’s Case at Para 8 also Comes to the Fore”, When Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Said : 
“Primary Contention” is that the Pensioners of the “Central Government Form a Class”, “for the Purpose of Pensionary Benefits” and “There Could Not be Mini-Classification”, “Within the Class Designated as Pensioners”. “The Expression ‘Pensioner’ is Generally Understood “in Contra-Distinction” to the one in Service”. “Government Servants in Service”, in other Words, “those who have Not Retired”, “are Entitled to Salary and Other Allowances”. “Those Who Retired and are Designated as ‘Pensioners’ are Entitled to Receive Pensions”, “Under the Relevant Rules”. Therefore, “this would “Clearly Indicate” that “those who Render Service and Retire” “on Superannuation” or “any other Mode of Retirement”, and are “in Receipt of Pension”, “are Comprehended in the Expression Pensioners”. 
Likewise, here in RBI Retirees’ Case also, When Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India said that, “in the Case of Pensioners, the Relationship with the Employer Don’t Snap Altogether” and “the Relations with the Employer Merely Undergo a Change”, “It is Clear” that, “a Duty is Cast on the Employer to take Care of his Pensioners”, “Even after Retirement also”, “Which Clearly Suggests “that the Employers Cannot” and “Should Not”, “Wash their Hands”, “after Paying a “Nominal D.R”. at Half-Yearly Intervals”. “This Approach of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Can be Seen”, “When it says in RBI Retirees’ Case”, as under : 
“That is the Reason why this Court in Nakara’s Case Drew a Distinction Between “Liberalisation of an Existing Benefit” and “Introducing of a Totally New Scheme”. “In the Case of Pensioners “it is Necessary to Revise the Pension Periodically”, “as the Continuous fall in the Rupee Value” and “the Rise in Prices of Essential Commodities”, “Necessitates an Adjustment of the Pension Amount”
The Clear Idea Suggested here is “about the Continuing Responsibility of the Employers”, “to take Care of the Interests of their Pensioners”.
Such is the “Solicitude and Concern” of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India”, “for” and “to-wards the Pensioner Community in India”. It has to be Remembered here, “as I Mentioned at the very outset”, “that in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association’s Case”, “The Issue before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India”, “was Not about Revision / Updation of Pensions at all”, and the Issue was “as to whether those Reserve Bank Employees”, “Who Retired Prior to 01.01.1986 were entitled to get Option to Switch Over to the Pension Scheme”; Still, if Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India “Went all out in the Cause of the Pensioners”, “Can any one Still be left in Doubt”, “as to how Independent and Robust our Judiciary is”, “and as to How Liberal” is the “Interpretative Process”, “of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India?”. I have a given a Few Examples, Quoting from the Important Supreme Court Case-Law to show, “as to How Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India Came Forward”, “In Protecting the Interests of Pensioners in India”. Still, and “Even after Going through this Analytical Presentation”, “giving a Complete Picture” of How Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India “always Stood for Protecting the Interests of the Pensioners” and “the Pensioner Community”, “Can anyone be Still left in Doubt”, “as to whether Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India will Come Forward or Not”, “In Protecting the Interests of and coming to the Aid and Rescue of Lacs of the Much Beleagured and Battered  Banks’ Pensioners, “whose Meagre Pension Amounts” “Remained Stagnant”, “Since 1997” i.e., since the commencement of the VII Bi-partite Settlement, even though two Bi-partite Settlements, namely VIII Bi-partite Settlement and IX Bi-partite Settlement have been brought into force for the In-service Bank Employees ?” 




Residence & Office 
A-104, Swetha Apartment, 
Ground Floor, Flat No. 13,
  Shalimar Garden Extn.-II,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

Page PAGE 1 of NUMPAGES 26


PAGE  



SUPREME COURT (CASE-LAW) ON REVISION / UPDATION OF PENSIONS



N. PRADEEP KUMAR 
ADVOCATE
Supreme Court of India
Cell Phone Nos. :  (1)  9310572530
(2)  9278983944

T.ASHOK SHENOY

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 2:35:43 AM9/17/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com


I AM FURNISHING BELOW THE EXTRACT OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY OUR COMRADE TO INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE SAME .IT IS VERY INTERESTING AND CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH ARE TRUE  AND GIVES US AN INSIGHT INTO THE FUNCTIONING OF IBA WHICH IS NOT A STATUTORY BODY BUT A MERE  ASSOCIATION TO CONVEY WHAT IS COMMUNICATED BY FINANCE MINISTRY TO THE BANKS. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY MEANS TO VERIFY WHETHER THE COMMUNICATION IS TRUE OR NOT.


Sub : Arbitrary Denial of one more option at your behest to employees voluntarily retired vide rule

of VRS framed under statutory Regulation No. 19 of Bank Officers Service Regulation

1979/1980.

1. I have written to you series of letters during the last one year on the above matter. None of them are acknowledged by you. I am however thrilled by the ultimatum issued to you by the General Secretary of AIBOC vide his letter No. 1452/281/11 dated 25/07/2011. I am equally thrilled by the decision dated 28/07/2011 given by Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal No. 6013 of 2011 arising out of SLP No. 3777 of 2007 between Sheel Kumar Jain vs New India Insurance company.

At this stage it is to be remembered that all pension regulations are adopted by respective units of Central Government on the basis of a model draft circulated to them by the Government. The pension regulations of general insurance companies are found to be exactly similar to the Bank employees pension regulations 1995. Hence this decision can be made easily applicable to voluntary retirees of public sector Banks provided the officers retired after completing 20 years of qualifying service with 3 months notice.

2. In its decision dated 28/07/2011, the Apex court has set at rest different kind of interpretations made so far by the courts between the 'Resignation' and "voluntary retirement". The Apex court has narrowed down the chances of making perverse interpratations hereafter as according to it whatever may be the exist route, it has to be tested with reference to the number of qualifying years of service put in by an employee i.e. 20 years minimum.

3. Paradox is that services of Indian Banks Association a non statutory and private association as a broker to decide the service conditions of Bank officers are being availed by statutory bodies like public Sector Banks and Constitutional authority like Central Government. In the matter of Joint note dated 27/04/2010 also Banking Division of Ministry of Finance, a Constitutional entity, instead of communicating its approval to the concerned banks, preferred to do so by direct communication to Indian Banks Association. It is not known whether the subsequent clarification given by IBA to public Sector Banks has really emanated from Banking Division or not. This is because the said communication from Government to IBA has not been seen by any entity. This type of process is a clever ploy indulged by statutory/Constitutional entities to escape from the coverage of Right to information Act 2005. This situation has enabled the Indian Banks Association to render advices indiscriminatly to banks as well as to Central Government “without any accountability.” The clarification given on its own by IBA to banks not to extend the second option to retirees of statutory VRS of 1980 is one such indiscriminate advice. It has also made Indian Banks Association a defecto controlling authority in service matters of Bank officers which in fact is vested collectively and exclusively with Reserve Bank of India and Central Government and Board of Directors interms of the provisions of section 12 and 19 of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act 1970.

4. Whatever it may be the letter dated 25/07/2011 of the General secretary of AIBOC has given an opportunity to IBA to enact a drama by convening a meeting of all the signatories of Joint note dated 27/04/2010 to regain its image lost on cunningly created through unprincipled adulteration while communicating to the Banks to deny second option to retirees of VRS framed under statutory rules of section 19 of Bank officers service Regulations 1979/80. This will save the Central Government from an embarrassing position. I hope that wiser sense will prevail among the members of Managing Committee of IBA sooner than later to relieve the senior retirees from mental agony caused by giving wrong clarification by your heartless officials who are masters of english language and who are academically brilliant.

Srinivasa Murti Devulapalli

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 9:52:23 AM9/18/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
At the out set, I express my immense gratitude to Sri T. Ashok Shenoy and Sri N. Pradeep Kumar,   who have initiated a cause of action on behalf of the fraternity of Bank Retirees.   I am making my humble efforts to enlighten my friends of your efforts in this behalf. We are at your command to strengthen your hands in what ever manner you deem fit.  Thanking you  and looking forward to your directions if any in the mean while.

          D. Srinivasa Murti:  (Retd.Manger, Syndicate Bank-  VRS:2001)
          devulapa...@gmail.com  :  cell:  9989318300

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.



--
D S MURTI








































Mohan badi

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 5:08:13 AM9/18/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sirs,

Is today's case of Central Bank of India, Mumbai pertaining to one staff who died in 2001 and her family suffered  till 2011, for not  having paid her, VRS benefits, by that bank, not enough? How many such cases are there? has any one tried to find out? How many died without getting pension even after serving for more than 30 years?
Almost in every court or high court there are many pension cases, Who is bothered  Sirs,? please make survey and try to get quick justice to them. Note please that most of them  Senior citizens. Please help them. In every court, cases  are getting adjourned by one week, call after two week, again call nest month, see now N.Pradeep kumars case only, SC asked from August  to 11 october, now If SC  does like this, means what one can imagine about small court and  high courts too.and Lawyers are very talent. I am talking in general, and what I am finding in my case too. two weeks, two weeks, two weeks three times given by two different Judges, It may not be their fault, but at old age we doubt whether would we our pension?.

Hope someone will do justice, Rome will not be built in one day. I know.but sincere request to  you all here for  doing  something  so that our senior citizens will see and live little longer happily  remaining few days , months and  years and die peacefully with pension in hand and pass it onward to their family, at  your earliest.

Thanking you all in anticipation, with due respects and worm regards.

Yours loyally,

Prof.M.R.Badi
Bangalore

From: T.ASHOK SHENOY <ashoks...@live.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 17 September 2011 2:45 PM
Subject: bankpensioner

Ramesh Pandey

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:57:08 AM9/18/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
It was the most informative piece I have come across in this site during the last so many months.  The approach of SCI is seen to be  purely humanitarian and bodes optimism for justice for all bankers.  The only concern is  delay....Time is of essence for us....If some preferential or some priority could be accorded to cut down the inordinate delay...
 
Any way I am  Extremely thankful to the Blogger for this brilliant exposition.
 
CAPT PANDEY
PNB SVRS 
 

From: ashoks...@live.com
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: bankpensioner
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:20:57 +0530

Narasaiah Ch

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 3:09:46 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sirs,
Please inform any one to the following:
1. Is there any difference in providing benefits superannuation retirement and VRS under       
    pension scheme.

2. Whether VRS retiree is eligible for transportation of his house hold articles to his permanent
     residence. i.e., transportation charges, lumpsum etc.

with regards,
ch.v.narasaiah
 

lajpat rai

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 4:41:03 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.

NO

YES










--- On Mon, 19/9/11, Narasaiah Ch <chvnar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
--

Krishnan

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 4:54:29 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sirs,
There is not much of a difference except
The pension will be fixed as per salary in force at the time of VRS
medical benefits are given to superannuated /retired persons normally not to to VRS retirees.
Yes transport/TA bill will be sanctioned as per eligibility even for VRS retirees to the place of permanent settlement.


--

karunakaran duraisamy

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 5:50:42 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sirs,
As a SVRS 2001 retiree, my TA bill of Rs.35000/- for Transporting my
personal effects from Mumbai to Coimbatore as my final destination was
returned unpaid.

karunakaran IBVRS 2001 / Coimbatore

MOHANDAS RAO

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 7:33:59 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Friend,
 
In SBM we have received our claim for transportation of personal effects from the place of retirement to the place of domicile or the chosen place of permanent settlement to SVRS.  In respect of medical reimbursement also there is no differentiation between superannuation pension or SVRS.
 
K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001

bass

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 8:00:18 AM9/19/11
to bankpensioner
Dear Sir,

Transportation of personal effects, all are eligible.

But, In Andhra Bank, employees who retired from service on
superannuation only are eligible for medical reimbursement as per
service regulations.

With regards
S.M.BASHA

In Aermanent settlement to SVRS.  In respect of medical reimbursement
also
> there is no differentiation between superannuation pension or SVRS.*
> **
> *K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001*
> *
>
> *
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:20 PM, karunakaran duraisamy <
>
>
>
> karankarandu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Sirs,
> > As a  SVRS 2001 retiree, my TA bill of Rs.35000/- for Transporting my
> > personal effects from Mumbai to Coimbatore as my final destination was
> > returned unpaid.
>
> > karunakaran IBVRS 2001 / Coimbatore
>
> > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Krishnan <kann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Sirs,
> > > There is not much of a difference except
> > > The pension will be fixed as per salary in force at the time of VRS
> > > medical benefits are given to superannuated /retired persons normally not
> > to
> > > to VRS retirees.
> > > Yes transport/TA bill will be sanctioned as per eligibility even for VRS
> > > retirees to the place of permanent settlement.
>
> > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Narasaiah Ch <chvnarasa...@yahoo.com>
>  <http://www.winkcomical.com/wp/ie.php?plg=ie&subs=gmail&elm=sign>

Ramesh Inamdar

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 9:58:20 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Excellent work. Big thanks. One observation, In categorization of
pensioners, pl. include retired prior to 1998.

R Y Inamdar

Sumati M

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 11:51:42 AM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sirs

This Judgement has clearly and succinctly put the facts in order and our justification in demanding what is our right.

How come nobody is aware of this judgement for the past one year?

Maybe now on production of this landmark judgement, we can fight our case and make the management see sense and release the pensioners from the agony of the long wait for our dues.

Thanks and regards,

Sumati
SBM SVRS
SUMATI M

Rajagopal Shankaranarayana

unread,
Sep 19, 2011, 1:46:19 PM9/19/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sir,

In Canara Bank, upon taking VRS i was denied transportation charges, air fare, etc to my native place from the place of work. But it is paid on superannuation retirement.

--
Thanks & Regards
 
R.Shankaranarayana
Be Confident. Try & Try till you succeed in Life.
============

--

perumal maruthu

unread,
Sep 20, 2011, 1:13:42 AM9/20/11
to c.su...@gmail.com, bankpe...@googlegroups.com, cn_pr...@yahoo.com, mohand...@gmail.com
Dear Madam,
It is not a judgment from SC. It is the plaint filed by Mr.Pradeepkumar.
I think some people have tinkered with the original version of the plaint and made it appear to be a verdict from SC.
Pl refer to www.allbankingsolutions.com and read for yourself the plaint of Mr.Pradeepkumar.
M.Perumal

Padmanabhan R

unread,
Sep 20, 2011, 3:37:31 AM9/20/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Hi..I retired under banks vrs in 2007 from Bank of Baroda I had opted for PF.In BOB we get transportion, travelling expenses etc
to our native place as given to superannuation employees.
This is for your information.

Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi

unread,
Sep 22, 2011, 9:12:06 AM9/22/11
to dk...@rediffmail.com, bankpensioner
Dear Sir,
good evening.
 It seems U have not mentioned Ur bank's name. If any retiree with such grievances, may kindly, furnish his Bank's name, wherein somebody in this enlightened group can guide U or anybody for that matter. 
Any ways, U may contact Ur erstwhile colleague or a working colleague to inform U the email/postal address of Ur Bank's retirees association to  seek help from them.
There are many a no. of genuine grievances as per Ur letter which deserve immediate attention of Ur Bank's management.
regards,
Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi,
Syndicate Bank Pensioner,

karunakaran duraisamy

unread,
Sep 23, 2011, 8:19:57 AM9/23/11
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Mr.Bhupathi,
I thank you for your concern expressed. In fact, I joined Indian
Bank in 1973. At that time, as soon as you join the Bank , Union
people will make you a member of the Union the same day. I took an
active part in the Trade Union activities until 1977. In fact, my
Branch Manager used to doubt whether I am a naxalite. During
emergency period, I received a charge memo. But, during the 4 years,
I observed that the management and the Unions were hand and glove in
promotion, transfer etc. One has to beg either the Union people or the
management for a transfer or for promotion. That was not acceptable
to my nature and hence I resigned from the Union in the year 1977.

From that day, the fight was against the Unions/Associations only. I
was able to survive the attacks, even physical, since I had very good
friends in my branch until 1979 i.e. when I was promoted to officer
cadre. The trouble was not from the management.

On becoming Officer, there were different set of people to put me into
task. Because of my sincere work and very good relationship with
every customer of the Bank, I could survive all the attacks. Even a
branch inspecting official, who is of the scale as I am used to, put
me in trouble. I was often threatened with a transfer to Assam,
Gujarat etc. quite often.

But I was ready to go where ever I am posted. I thought, Once you are
out of your home town, Mumbai and Calcutta are one and the same. I
never applied for a transfer except for constructing a house at Erode.
There also I was challenged by the Association people.
Even when I was posted to Madras, I wanted a transfer to then Bombay.

My fight continued with the Unions/Associations and with the
Management people who were erstwhile Association/Union office bearers,
until the day I was relieved under SVRS in July 2001.

I never had the habit of requesting any body for any favors. In fact,
I really enjoyed the fight with the people. It made be sharpen my
brain since I used to fight with a cunning group of people always.

What I really want now is: A reasonable pension for my honorable
and sincere service
I had given to the bank. No
more than that. No alms. Pensioners
are not beggars.

I do not want the UFBU and IBA to cheat their employees. I do not
expect any alms from any body. The DHARMA will always protect us.
Even if the IBA and UFBU does not do justice, I may not worry,
because the ultimate sufferers are those who do wrong and not me.
Today they may rejoice cheating the employees, but to-morrow, it may
be a different story altogether. Thank you once again.


D.karunakaran IB VRS (dk...@rediffmail.com)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages