PENSION OPTION FOR RESIGNEES - Qualifying service less than 20 years but more than 19 years 6 months

[murthyduvvuri2012]

I understand that there are few employees who resigned after completing 19 years 6 months but before completing 20 years.

Some of the banks which issued circular seeking pension option from resignees, added the criteria for qualifying service as 20 years, (though this was not stated in the Joint agreement). 

Though Sec 18 of the pension regulations provides for rounding the qualifying service of 19 years 6 months and above as 20 years, banks are not giving that benefit. 

In this situation, all such affected employees should come together. I created a Google form to collect the data of all such employees. 

I request all such employees to fill their details in the attached Google form. 

https://forms.gle/zVYQaH8Mwtv65mKb9

Regards,

D S N Murthy

Mobile # 88849 22272

Ex-employee of Syndicate Bank

[Arun Sharma]

Mr.. Murthy,

Well, I have 17 years , 11 months and 14 days of service. I am not even close to what you requested. 

Regards,

Arun Sharma

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/e5f10ec7-b16a-4a72-b20a-647fc4462ee3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Perianayagam velu]

Sir,one of our indiAn Bank staff retired on vrs initially diD not opt for pension.but he apted when second option was given.as his service was less than 15 years by few days

His request was rejected.he apporoched court and court judge in his favour and he is being paid pension.shortage of service was waived.you can do like that

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

As it has been highlighted number of times in this forum, the MOU signed between UFBU and IBA does not contain any clause to make 20 years service as eligibility. Even the sanction from the Government has not stipulated any such condition. The MOU says the persons should be otherwise eligible for pension. As per pension regulation 10 years is the qualifying service for pension. 

When I moved an application under RTI, PNB has informed that they do not have any document which stipulates the eligilble service as 20 years. 

My RTI to PNB was as follows: 

Please let me have a copy of the document from the Indian Banks Association or the Government or from any other competent authority, which contains instructions to treat qualifying service as 20 years to apply for pension by eligible resignees instead of 10 years as mentioned in the Pension Regulation 1995.

Reply from PNB:

No such document available.  

Hence it is a wrong interpretation given by banks without any merit.  Affected persons must represent to Government and UFBU. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Ramani Konnayar]

As mentioned by you, the pension offer to resignees has been made as a result of an agreement between IBA (representing the banks) and UFBU. 

When the agreement has not mentioned specifically the number of years of service required for eligibility, the clarification has to be only provided by the parties to the agreement. Individual banks and UFBU have already stated in their communications that the required length of service is 20 years. 

No doubt, the stipulation as above has to be based on the relevant clauses of BEPR 1995. Since resignees were not eligible for pension at all as per BEPR, the length of service would have now been decided by treating the resignees on par with retirees under normal VRS which is still in force. In my view, in as much as BEPR itself was borne out of an agreement between IBA and UFBU, they are better placed than others to correctly interpret the regulations. If we disagree with their interpretation, the only option available to us is to go to a court of law and seek remedy. 

The Government will only give their approval to agreements entered into between IBA and UFBU and will neither add/delete/alter anything contained therein nor provide any clarification on their own. 

K N Ramani

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5a10ebf-1509-47e3-810e-b98ff9fbc680n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vijay Singh]

🙏sir,

HC Shimla HP

Chamman singh vs UCO Bank

Writ allows by single bench judge for pension &retirel benifits on 9 yrs 6 months service.

Appeal of UCO Bank HC Shimla dismissed by DB bench DT 26/04/2024.

UCO Bank not appeal in SC till today.

20 yrs service compulsory for pension condition rejected.

10 yrs bank service eligible for pension say court.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5a10ebf-1509-47e3-810e-b98ff9fbc680n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vijay Singh]

Pls Post Bank letter of RTI reply.  "*No Such documents available*"

On Fri, May 17, 2024, 3:41 PM Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <1952...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/d5a10ebf-1509-47e3-810e-b98ff9fbc680n%40googlegroups.com.

[R.K. Pathak]

Dear Sir/s

As on the date following FIVE Banks have issued the circular for inviting option to join the Pension Scheme in pursuance of the IBA circular dated 13/03/2024:-

1] Bank of Maharashtra

2] Punjab National Bank

3] Punjab & Sind Bank 

4] Indian Bank And

5] Bank of India.

All these banks have stipulated the service criteria of 20 years though the IBA circular and DFS approval is silent on the issue.

Some of the bank employees have completed service of 19 years 6 months and above but less than 20 years are entitled for pensionary benefit with proper interpretation of Regulation 18 of BEPR-1995.

Such employees need to apply to the Bank for Pension Option along with the following covering letter. Please make changes in the Name of the Bank, Address at appropriate places.

As the number of such employees is less than 100, I hope HRM of Banks may consider by respecting orders / Judgements of the Supreme Court.

Thanks & Regards

Pathak R K

9373053695

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To,

The General Manager [HRM]

Indian Bank  

Chennai

Dear Sir,

Sub: - Application for Pension Option- [Name of the Applicant]

Ref: - 1] IBA letter No.CIR/HR&IR/G2/2023-24/0913 dated 16.03.2024 & Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, vide letter eF.No.4/8/1/2023-IR dated 16th March 2024.

2] Indian Banks Circular No.22552 dated 09/05/2024.

In pursuance of the communication under reference, I am submitting the application for pension option. I am eligible to join the pension scheme as I have completed 20 years of qualifying service as per the provision of Regulation 18 of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulation -1995.

The Regulation -18 of Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 was subject matter of interpretation before the Division Bench of Madras High Court in “Venkataramani N Vs. Indian Bank [WP-14744-2003] on 4th July 2005, by setting aside the order of Single Judge held that petitioner Venkataramani N having completed 15 years of service, according to provision of Regulation 18, he is entitled for pension & order to pay pension with interest from the date of retirement.

Indian Bank escalated the issue before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 where leave was granted and Special Leave Petition No.19062 of 2005 was converted to Civil Appeal 3989 of 2007.

Finally Apex Court by dismissing the civil appeal of the Bank on 30/08/2007 ordered as under:-

“13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, no case has been made out for interference of the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-.”

The ratio laid down in Indian Bank and another v. N. Venkatramani (2007) 10 SCC 609 has been affirmed by the honorable Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal 172 of 2010 in the matter of State Bank of Patiala   vs. Pritam Sing Bedi. Dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the Bank on 07/07/2014 [2014 (13) SCC 474] held that:-

23. It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank that the respondents in all the appeals have completed much more than 19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example, respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of 2010 had joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March, 2001. Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28 days of qualifying service on the date of relieving from service.

24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if the broken period is more than six months, it shall be Page 16 16 treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents -Writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service.

25. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondent’s writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.

As the provisions of Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 are uniform in Public Sector Banks and as such law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of interpretation of Regulation 18 in the above judgments is binding on you.

In view of the above, I have served the Bank for 19 years --- months and ---- days and am entitled for the benefit of regulation 18 for computing my qualifying service as 20 years.

Lastly, as I am --- years old & cannot approach the judiciary on account of physical & financial incapacities, I request you accept our application & grant the pension to me.

Thanks & Regards

[ Applicant]

[Mohan V.R]

Thank you for the wonderful news. Request your help for case number and other details so that full judgements could be studied 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPPDPsSfJSmVcxZrA8JXALXS2g2BEZ5DAVg%3DOLegt13B%3DAJOCA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

It has already been posted under a different thread here. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

You have stated 

"Since resignees were not eligible for pension at all as per BEPR, the length of service would have now been decided by treating the resignees on par with retirees under normal VRS which is still in force"

Why should it be treated as under normal VRS? This is purely arbitrary interpretation. In the MOU or in the government approval it has not been mentioned that it will be treated like normal VRS. It simply says that the person should be otherwise eligible for pension (subject to other conditions). Then the question arises who is otherwise eligible. As per Clause 14 of the Regulation qualifying service is only 10 years. That should be the correct interpretation. 

 "It is settled law that when financial rules framed by the Government such as Pension Rules are capable of more interpretations than one, the Courts should lean towards that interpretation which goes in favour of the employee."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO…………….. of 2022 [DIARY NO. 27824 OF 2020] STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS .....PETITIONERS VERSUS O.P. GUPTA ......RESPONDENT 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Raghunathan D S]

Respected Pathak Sir,      19-5-24

  Your concern for the resignees who has put 19 y 6m and denied for option is quite welcome and understandable. The communication to those fellow resignees to approach respective banks with your guidance and  also with well brought out format to apply and to stake their claim is timely. Definitely it will fetch the desired result.

    What abt pvt banks ?? They have not been even addressed to  by IBA .They are parties to settlement and also taken over banks like eLVB were parties to the all settlements.

Why we have been left out ? is there no resignees with same service 19.6 yrs above. I thought it is your duty to get all of us, the well fought obtained result. Why IBA is hesitant to issue circular ?!  

What is the fate of merged banks? On the assurance of the Mou all of us  have with- drawn cases and is it fair on IBA's part to dictate terms to their whims now.

      

  I feel you are the only warrior of whom we have all dependent as without you, all these things could not have seen  the light.

    Kindly look into this aspect and kindly bestow your attention on all resignees, whether they are PSB or PVT banks and also on certain banks they got taken over, namely elvb which was taken over by DBS bk etc

    We depend solely  on your good selves , we have all withdrawn cases as per MOU , the task spearheaded by our organisation. We belive in you Pathak a lot and it is your duty to complete the formalities as only with your tireless work and Govt initiative ,we are within a distance to get the desire fulfilled.

Raghunathan 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKK4Yz4RxO%3DCCm7_ntQofu6XgEMwzpDgJ5apzrshOxoYN1TQ3g%40mail.gmail.com.

[kalyanam rajagopal]

Pension  option  for   resignees eligible otherwise while in service:

A new class of pension is sought to be created under BEPR 1995 as per the Joint Note/ Settlement dated 8.03.24 . As per the Indian Bank circular , it is termed as “ Pension for Resignees”.  The Mou or Joint Note mentioned that option would be given for those resigned and otherwise eligible for pension while in service. In 22 Vijaya Bank resignees case in KHC , the ratio decidendi  adopted was 20 years of qualifying service as as quint essential condition. Similarly  some  resignees of   PNB , PSB and UCO Bank , who filed cases in HCs  and won,  have completed 20. Years of service. Those courts also adopted the same qualifying service as eligible service.. Till now, no single  resignee with less than 20 years of service has succeeded in the courts.. 

. These resignees pleaded in the courts that their voluntary exit in essence  is voluntary retirement as they met all the conditions of voluntary retirement under Reg 29 of BEPR 1995 I.e. 20 years of service, notice period and acceptance by the competent authority    Undoubtedly, the Joint Note/Settlement did not specify the number of years of service  for pension option to Resignees.  But 5 banks  which have have acted on Joint Note  issued circulars specified 20 years of qualifying service as eligible service. All these banks issued circulars pending amendment to BEPR 1995. As on date, there is no Regulation applicable to them.  The proposed amendment may  include resignees with 20 years of service as eligible class .  All these eligible resignees may  be included under CHAPTER II and Reg 3 APPLICATION AND ELIGIBILITY by causing an appropriate amendment  . But for  the word Voluntary resignation used in their application, they  are eligible for voluntary retirement pension under  Reg  29.  In view of the above, the eligible service is taken as 20 years of qualifying service. 

Kalyanam Rajagopal 

[MURALIDHARA E.V. EYUNNY]

Sir this pension option agreement is applicable to all banks which are signatories to the settlement irrespective of PSBs or pvt banks. But why pvt Bank management want to get clarification from IBA reg this. Pl clarify it applies to all or only PSBs.    Muralidhar

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

--

[Sriramamoorthy Seethepalli]

Dear Sri Pathak Ji,

Namaskar.  I have resigned from SBI after 18 years 3 months 3 days, as on 28 December 1986. I have accumulated earned leave to my credit. Bank declined to allow me to encash earned leave as  I opted to resign but not retired.

I am now 80 years + old. I came across a HC judgement perhaps from Karnataka High court that earned leave should be recokned and added to the period of service, for the purpose of arriving the eligibility for pension. Request to xplore this option , which may help old resigneeslike mine.

Kindly advise.

Regards& Thanks,

S.Srirama Murthy

7989061906

--