The "Hidden" Discrimination of DR: Why Rate Parity is a Mirage.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Members,

A recent discussion raised a pertinent question: "If the DA/DR rate percentage is the same for everyone within a settlement period, where is the illegality?"

It is vital that we do not let this technicality obscure the financial reality. The discrimination we face today is not in the Rate (the percentage), but in the Formula (the principle) applied to it. We are witnessing the creation of a "Pension Apartheid" based on an arbitrary cutoff date of November 1, 2022.

Here is the breakdown of why this is legally unsustainable and financially damaging:

1. The "Base Year" Wall (1960 vs. 2016)
The 12th Bipartite Settlement introduced a structural split:

• Class A (Privileged): Serving employees and Post-Nov 2022 Retirees. Their DA is calculated on the modern 2016 CPI Base.
• Class B (Disadvantaged): Pre-Nov 2022 Retirees. We remain stuck on the obsolete 1960 CPI Base (via conversion factors).

2. Rate vs. Yield: The Financial Truth
Arguments that "the percentage is the same" are a sleight of hand.

• A 25% increase on a defective yardstick (1960 series) delivers structurally less cash than a 25% increase on a corrected yardstick (2016 series).
• The Cost: Preliminary calculations suggest a loss of approx. ₹3.89 per ₹100 of Basic Pension due to this formulaic suppression.

Furthermore, the IBA-Unions Minutes of 8 March 2024 have already acknowledged the need to merge CPI up to 8088 points for pre-November 2022 retirees. This commitment has not been implemented.

3.The Rupee Reality — Who is Losing How Much

The table below illustrates the monthly pension received by retirees from different cohorts on a basic pension of Rs. 10,000 (February 2026 estimate).

Retiree Cohort	Base CPI	Formula Type	Est.Total  Pension	Monthly Loss
7th BPS (Pre-2002)	1684	1960 Base / Tapering	₹ 12,049	- ₹ 3,100
9th BPS(Pre-2012)	2836	1960 Base / 0.15%	₹ 13,619	- ₹ 1,530
10th/11th BPS	4440	1960 Base / 0.10%	₹ 14,958	- ₹ 191
12th BPS (Benchmark)	2016 Base	New Unitary Formula	₹ 15,149	Benchmark

 

As you can see, the 7th BPS (pre-2002) retirees are the worst affected.

4. The Constitutional Violation
This "Class within a Class" distinction violates the core ratio of two landmark Supreme Court judgments delivered this year:

• State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar (April 10, 2026): The Court ruled that since inflation hits both serving and retired employees with "equal force," any differentiation in the mechanism of relief violates Article 14.
• State of West Bengal v. Confederation (Feb 5, 2026): The Constitution Bench affirmed that DA/DR is a right under Article 21 and cannot be diluted by "financial constraints."

Our Stand
The cutoff date of Nov 1, 2022, has no "rational nexus" to the objective of neutralizing inflation. Inflation does not check your retirement date before hitting you with 'equal force'.

We must shift our demand from "hikes" to "Parity in the Measuring Tape." If the 2016 CPI series is the industry standard for measuring inflation, it must be the standard for all pensioners. Anything less is not just unfair—it is now proven to be unconstitutional.

Let us urge our Unions to file a representation demanding the immediate migration of all pre-2022 retirees to the 2016 CPI Base, citing the Vijayakumar precedent.

Regards.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Members,

As a follow-up to my previous mail, I would like to draw a connection to the letter from Shri Girish Chandra Arya (BMS), which was posted in this group by Shri P. Mohan ji on April 19th.

On April 15^th, Shri C.N.Prasadji raised this question:

In Banking Industry, two different rates of Dearness Allowance/Relief are not in existence. That being so, how can we apply the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in KSRTC pensioners issue?

In many ways, that BMS representation serves as the perfect answer to the question raised by Shri C.N. Prasad ji regarding how the Vijayakumar (KSRTC) judgment applies to us.

Shri Arya’s letter brilliantly deconstructs the "Base Year" disparity, proving that being stuck on the 1960 index is a structural disadvantage that costs us real money every month. My analysis resulted from synthesizing the legal principles of the recent SC judgments with the technical data provided in the BMS letter.

I realized after hitting "send" that I had not explicitly credited that letter. I must thank Shri Girish Chandra Arya for the "enlightenment" (to use a favorite group term!) on this matter.

It is encouraging to see that the arguments we are discussing here are the same ones being presented to the Hon'ble Finance Minister. It validates our stance that the "Base Year" split is the new legal frontier for bank pensioners.

Regards.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjay,

 Shri Girish Chandra Arya (BMS)'s communication is based on the information provided by others.  I have spoken to him.

Unlike Government Dearness Allowance/Relief, there is a provision in our Pension Regulations in Regulation 37 - Appendix II regarding Dearness Relief.  Yesterday, Central Government has announced increase of DA/DR by 2%.  It is discretionary, as it is outside their rules.  So is, rules in KSRTC. There were two rates of DA/DR in common notification in KSRTC case, which is not so in our case.

Base year has already been changed in respect of those who have already retired on or after 01.11.2022 or in service. Similar challenge/claim was made in 100% DA case.  There is no difference in arguments in respect of both these issues.  Shri Sanjayji, we have lost the 100% DA case in two Civil Appeals in Supreme Court.

To the extent possible, I do not misguide.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKx6Bv%3DX07dCgGs2AwM5xCPPVXw5REQeescxx_CwLFLrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

The difference what is shown is not on account of change in base year, but loading by 0.01% per slab DA.  There is a communication from AIBOC in this regard.  When Basic plus DA upto certain point gives advantage only to the extent of rounding off.  

Since, our similar claim in 100% DA is already settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Please remember our DA is based on Bipartite Settlement and incorporation in Pension Regulations.  Therefore, it is statutory in nature & we have to challenge Statute. For abundent clarification, I would like to say that what needs to be pursued outside Court needs to be pursued outside Court only.  This is one such example.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJQXs2xXD5K2dThBi_9bij%3DfCgGW4g0t%2Bm%3DqBEvPa_YoQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Here is the observation of AI for your arguments. 

Your argument is forceful and structured, but it mixes strong financial reasoning with legal claims that need a bit more caution. Here’s a clear evaluation—what holds up well, what’s debatable, and where the case could be strengthened.

---

1. Rate vs. Formula — a valid and important distinction

This is the strongest part of your argument.

You correctly point out that:

• समान DA/DR percentage ≠ समान monetary outcome
• The base (CPI series) determines the real benefit

In economic terms, you’re highlighting a denominator problem—two people can get 25%, but if their base indices differ, the effective inflation compensation diverges.

Your illustration of loss (₹3.89 per ₹100) is plausible in principle, though it would need:

• transparent methodology
• reproducible calculations

👉 Bottom line:
Financial discrimination via formula, not rate, is a logically sound claim.

---

2. “Pension Apartheid” framing — rhetorically powerful, legally risky

The phrase is emotionally compelling but could weaken your case in formal settings.

• Courts generally prefer measured language
• Strong rhetoric can sometimes signal advocacy over precision

👉 Suggestion:
Reframe as:

• “structural disparity”
• “arbitrary classification among homogeneous pensioners”

Same point, stronger legal credibility.

---

3. Cutoff date argument — potentially strong, but not automatically unconstitutional

Your core legal claim hinges on Article 14 (equality).

Indian constitutional law allows classification if:

1. There is an intelligible differentia, and
2. It has a rational nexus to the objective

Your claim:

Inflation affects all equally → no rational basis for cutoff

That’s persuasive—but not airtight.

Likely counterargument from the employer/IBA:

• Pension revisions are tied to settlement cycles
• Financial sustainability and actuarial calculations justify phased application
• Different cohorts are governed by different service conditions at retirement

Courts have historically:

• Sometimes struck down arbitrary pension cutoffs
• But also upheld them when tied to policy or financial structuring

👉 Bottom line:
Your argument is arguable, not “proven unconstitutional.”

---

4. Use of recent Supreme Court cases — needs verification and caution

You cite:

• State of Kerala v. M. Vijayakumar

• State of West Bengal v. Confederation

These are presented as:

• declaring DA/DR a fundamental right under Article 21
• rejecting financial constraints as justification

That is a very strong claim—stronger than most established jurisprudence.

Historically:

• DA/DR is treated as a policy/contractual entitlement, not an absolute fundamental right
• Courts rarely say financial constraints are irrelevant

👉 Risk:
If these cases are:

• misinterpreted, or
• not yet settled law,

then your legal argument could be challenged quickly.

👉 Recommendation:

• Quote exact paragraphs
• Avoid overgeneralizing holdings

---

5. “Equal force of inflation” argument — morally strong, legally nuanced

This line is compelling:

Inflation does not check retirement date

True in economics—but courts may respond:

• Pension is based on terms at retirement
• Not all benefits must evolve identically across cohorts

👉 However, your counterpoint is sharp:
If DA/DR’s purpose is inflation neutralization, then:

• using different CPI systems undermines that purpose

This is where your argument has real legal traction.

---

6. Data table — persuasive but needs methodological backing

Your comparison table is effective rhetorically.

But for legal or negotiation purposes, it needs:

• clear formulae
• CPI linkage explanation
• assumptions (conversion factors, slabs, etc.)

Otherwise, it can be dismissed as:

“illustrative but not authoritative”

---

7. IBA Minutes (March 2024) — strong if documented

If the commitment to merge CPI up to 8088 is accurately recorded, this is one of your best points.

Why it matters:

• Shows acknowledged inequity
• Suggests intent to correct
• Strengthens claim of arbitrariness in delay

👉 This is more powerful than constitutional rhetoric in negotiations.

---

Final Assessment What is strong:

• Clear distinction between rate vs. formula
• Economic logic of index base disparity
• Argument that DA/DR must actually neutralize inflation
• Use of internal commitments (IBA minutes)

What is moderate:

• Article 14 violation claim (plausible but contestable)

What is weak/risky:

• Assertion that unconstitutionality is already “proven”
• Broad reading of Supreme Court rulings
• Use of emotionally charged terminology

---

How to strengthen your case

1. Lead with economics, not constitution
   • Show measurable loss
   • Demonstrate distortion in inflation compensation
2. Frame legal claim narrowly
   • “Arbitrary classification without rational nexus”
   • Avoid absolute claims like “clearly unconstitutional”
3. Anchor in precedent carefully
   • Quote judgments precisely
   • Avoid expanding their scope

4. Push the “same purpose, different method” contradiction

   • This is your sharpest legal edge:

   Same DA purpose + different CPI systems = irrational design

---

Bottom line

Your central thesis is solid:

The issue is not equal rates, but unequal measurement of inflation.

That’s a legitimate and potentially strong challenge.

But the leap from financial inequity → constitutional violation needs tighter legal grounding before it can succeed in court.

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

I would like to bring to one instance, how one of the Bank Retirees' Association, reacted.  It has stated as under in its communication dated 29.07.2020 addressed to Shri Sanjeev Bandlish, the then Convener, UFBU, that :

We wish to invite a reference to the letter number two thousand twenty - two thousand twenty two/428 dated 25.07.2020 written by AIBRF to you suggesting merger of DA into basic pay at 6352 points to arrive at new basic pension for all the seven Groups of retirees and leave the demand of updation proper to the next settlement. This proposition is fraught with inconsistencies and the following risk.

A.     Mere merger of DA as it is without following uniform de-neutralization entailing no cost as suggested by AIBRF gives no comfort or no relief to the pensioners hence not acceptable to us. pension updation though a statutory

Dearness Relief would have happened authomatically, if uniform DA at 6352 points were to be accepted.  It is we retirees who do not accept and we find fault with all others.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Sanjay ji,

I find that based on a recent Supreme Court judgement,  the two major organisations of pensioners have already represented to IBA to remove the disparity in calculation of DR between those who retired on or after 1/11/2022 and those who retired prior to 1/11/2022 due to applying the 2016=100 CPI series only to the former category. 

Of course, pension regulations stipulate that a pensioner shall be paid DR under the same method of calculation that existed on his date of retirement. However, this need not be implied to mean that the pensioner will not be entitled to be brought under any improved formula that might be introduced subsequently.

If IBA contends that the above judgement cannot be applied to pre 1/11/2022 pensioners to bring them on par with those who retired on or after 1/11/2022 by extending 2016=100 series after merger of DA at 8088 points,

pensioners will be left with no other option than approaching courts and wait for years together with no guarantee for a favourable verdict.

K N RAMANI 

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKx6Bv%3DX07dCgGs2AwM5xCPPVXw5REQeescxx_CwLFLrg%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Dear Friends,

All these discussions are based on recent SC verdict .

01.As far as IBA / Banks/DFS are concerned ,the current system of different DR rates to bank pensioners — consequent upon DA mergers at different CPI levels under each bipartite settlement and the 2016-CPI series change being applied prospectively from the 12th settlement — is expressly authorised by Regulation 37 read with Appendix II of the BEPR 1995 (as amended) and the IBA’s implementing circulars.

02.Any change toward uniformity would require either a fresh bipartite settlement / regulatory amendment or a specific judicial direction, neither of which has occurred.

As such the ideal way out is to resolve the issue through existing bilateral negotiation.

03.As I have mentioned earlier,stake holders have already recognised the the same already and recorded .Minutes of discussions held between Indian Banks' Association and serving employees Unions on 8th March, 2024 it was agreed between them that some of the unresolved issues under COD for 12th BPS/JN shall be discussed and reach on mutually acceptable  resolution within 6 months time which Include merger of:

"DA scheme for all pensioners to be at the uniform Index of 8088 points"

Unfortunately same was not materialised within above time frame.

04.Naturally once it is implemented a uniform DR rate need to be applied automatically to.all segments of pensioners which will resolve existing DR related issues.

05.However, Courts have not struck down the settlement-linked existing differentiation in base indices, slab rates, or starting points. Banks/IBA have consistently taken the position (and courts have not overturned it) that each bipartite settlement creates its own DR scheme tied to the pay structure and merger point prevailing at the time of retirement.

Regards

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_yjSFTctDAZazotpAWJ8Cma7%3D13zEitiKDO39t8pL0DsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

This issue is not in court. BMS is pursuing this issue with DFS.  I think with some little more effort by BMS this issue can be solved amicably.

Only if we approach courts rules and regulations matter.

UFBU can at any time negotiate for improvement of existing benefits. Pension regulations were framed 30 years back.  If Reg 35/1 does not provide for updation anend pension regulations to provide for updation.

We are proud we have the best legal luminaries in our forum. But such knowledge is useful when an issue is contested in courts,

Merging of DA@8088 points and applying a new DA base for all retirees is now a matter of  negotiation between UFBU and IBA.  UFBU has been promising merger of DA@8088 points and uniform DA  in their circulars but so far not negotiated. Once the  merger of DA and  uniform DA for all pensioners is implemented, shifting to a new base year will automatically happen. 

Pension regulations are created by IBA/UFBU only and every provision in pension regulations can be amended if an agreement is arrived at by iBA and UFBU and further formalities will be completed by respective boards.

Earlier there were hundred messages in this forum claiming pension to resignees not possible  by quoting case laws and rules.But DFS just by one notification approved pension to resignees and necessary amendments were carried out later. 100% DA which was rejected by court was also approved by DFS.

Official notification of DFS appointing a committee a s per DH directions is available in this forum. DFS has directed the committee to study the feasibility of  updating the pension of all pensioners in every settlement.

This  clearly implies no provision is necessary for updating pension.

We are unnecessarily making issues  like merger of DA and Uniform DA which are not in courts complicated by quoting case laws and projecting these benefits are impossible to achieve.

I request legal luminaries to guide pensioners properly and clarify is it impossible to negotiate these issues by UFBU and whether Reg 37 restricts further improvement through negotiation?

Also guide us how to convince UFBU to negotiate these issues early as pensioners are already aged 75 and above.

It is unfortunate that AIBPARC did not seek advice from experts in our forum. If they had done so, the case would have been stronger.

Now there is no alternative but to wait for the verdict and negotiate other issues.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_yjSFTctDAZazotpAWJ8Cma7%3D13zEitiKDO39t8pL0DsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mohan ji,

That the items mentioned as outstanding in the minutes of the meeting on 8/3/2024 and agreed to be resolved within 6 months are unresolved even after 24 months is proof enough that UFBU is having its own problems, unknown to us, in forcing a quick solution.

The situation is akin to the100% DA matter that used to be discussed in every BPS but found a permanent place in "residual issues" till it was finally resolved after many years through the intervention of DFS.

Issues concerning working staff can afford to be delayed but not those relating to pensioners, especially those in their late seventies. If at all, there is any intention to get at least some minor benefits, leave alone the major demand of updation, it is essential to concede these early lest not many beneficiaries will be left to enjoy these when they are given after many years.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%3DVu2cZumhNtvR15%2BpB1TzLP5i4NA7i2Ebd0Khhir9tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mohan Sir  is correct.

Merger of DA@8088 points and Uniform DA for all pensioners is to be negotiated by UFBU but we have no idea how to  convince them to take up these issues on priority basis.

If we take these issues to courts this will never be resolved during our lifetime.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ%3DVu2cZumhNtvR15%2BpB1TzLP5i4NA7i2Ebd0Khhir9tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramachandran Bella]

AIBEA heads did not do any favour to pensioners for the last 30 years. Do you still think they sit with IBA and get something for us?Never imagine comrade. We have been fathom buried by these guys.  Don't you know even the existing  DA  was tapered for several years? Thereby lakhs of rupees was lost by individual pensioners. What was guaranteed in the last  settlement? They said "without pension updation we will not sign".  Did you see their mind?  Enough is enough to what an extend  we have been fooled. They will never do a favour henceforth. In future, let us not fool ourselves. The only way is through the judiciary. If God thinks and wants to do some favours let us have it. Or better leave it. Lakhs of our comrades left this world. Remeber how eagerly they awaited pension updation during their fag ends while on the other hand suffering even to meet out medical expenses at their  fag end.
In the meantime we are always indebted to certain  individual  stalwarts pensioners who lead certain cases individually including late Mr.  Singla and  who fought  and got certain benefits.   Where were these AIBEA AND UFBU? 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wgVMSXjROLtiSLWp55CLmV-cqTBNjh3-4QEbmT%3DqYGeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Somashekaraji,

You have touched upon the ground reality.

I agree that rushing to court for every new grievance is not always the answer. We have been waiting 18 years for a final "Yes" or "No" in the Singla case. Given our age, we simply do not have another decade to spare.

However, considering the current mindset of the IBA and UFBU, expecting a solution solely through "amicable negotiations" feels like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. For years, the "merger at 8088" has been a promise on paper but a phantom in practice.

We use this forum to empty our minds—overflowing with arguments, debates, and frustrations. But as we age, there is a certain wisdom in the thought: "Be content with what comes of itself."

As Mr. Ramachandran Bella rightly pointed out, we must remain forever indebted to the stalwart individuals, like the late Mr. Singla and others, who fought lonely battles for collective benefits and gave us the leverage to negotiate in the first place.

Until the "black cat" is found, we continue to share our thoughts here.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0LrCf76JAkcvLb3MzchDZsPYiSc2KJXhZomjnpOaMCZA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Mere merger of DR at 8088 level with basic pension will result only in a very nominal increase in the total pension.

For instance, I am a 6th BPS pensioner

with a basic pension of ₹4572 and DR of ₹34325 making a total of ₹38897. (A)

On merger of DA at 8088 level (607.25%)

viz., ₹27763, the Basic will become ₹32335. Under 1960=100 series DA @20.5% (for 410 slabs over 8088 @ 0.5% per slab) DA will be ₹6629 making a total of ₹38964. (B)

Increase of B over A is a paltry ₹67.

However, DA for ₹32335 @ 25% under 2016=100 series will be ₹8084 making a total of ₹40419 (C).

Increase of C over A is ₹1522.

This  will go up with every upward revision of DA as it happened in case of tapered DA for pre Nov 2002 retirees over 18 years.

This is the reason for IBA - UFBU not shifting pre Nov 2022 pensioners to 2016=100 series.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-Ue%2BytCEvuopkkGoAasUg9Ft7xZOjw53Fw8n5kTOCHZHh3w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Please read 0.5% in the penultimate line of  paragraph 3  as 0.05%. The inadvertent error is sincerely regretted.

K N RAMANI 

[Sanjay J]

Dear Members,

I wish to thank Mr. K.N. Ramani for his brilliant case study. It mathematically exposed the "optical illusion" that we must all be wary of.

His calculation proves a terrifying reality: A "Merger at 8088" without shifting to the "2016 Base Year" is financially worthless.

The Math of the Trap:

• Merger Only (1960 Base): Result is a measly ₹67. This is because we are simply moving money from the "DA Column" to the "Basic Column" while still using the obsolete 1960 yardstick to measure the remaining inflation.
• Merger + Base Shift (2016 Base): Result is ₹1,522. This gain comes entirely from switching to the modern inflation formula (2016 series) that serving employees enjoy.

The Strategic Conclusion:
Mr. Ramani is absolutely right—this financial gap is precisely why the IBA resists the shift. They know that keeping us on the 1960 series saves them roughly ₹1,500 per pensioner per month.

We must stop demanding "Merger" in isolation. A merger on the old formula is a hollow victory. Our demand must be "Merger PLUS Migration to 2016 Base." Anything less is just accounting jugglery.

Regards.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_wRNz-Pqag%3D%2BQ%3D5ZjJTqewdB0Po5MeSpQChG%3DpPRLqOcA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

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

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

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLkTrU5ha9DJT5Q_gj2V0H%2BxM3gsT8NQa-O3H8ycRS%3D-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anand Rao]

Fully agree with the reasoning of Sri Ramani. 

We have some more days before the case comes up for hearing. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeLkTrU5ha9DJT5Q_gj2V0H%2BxM3gsT8NQa-O3H8ycRS%3D-g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

As pointed out by you, the situation with regard to not bringing the pre 1/11/2022 retirees under the 2016=100 series for DA calculation is similar to not extending the 100% DA benefit to the pre 1/11/ 2002 retirees. No doubt, the case against this discrimination which was decided in favour of pensioners by a single judge of Madras High court was quashed by a Division bench of the same court and this act of Division bench was finally upheld by the Supreme Court too.

However, we cannot lose sight of the following.

1. Most of our rules, laws and regulations leave scope for varying interpretations.

2. This leads to judges in a bench delivering contradictory judgements and the matter is finally decided by a larger bench based on the opinion of the majority. Does this mean that the opinion of the minority was wrong?

3. In general, it is said that in respect of laws and regulations pertaining to workers and employees welfare, in case of differing interpretations, the one benefiting the workers should be given effect to.

As already mentioned in my earlier letter,

in as much as Regulation 37 has not expressly barred any future benefits from accruing to past pensioners, the interpretation should be done in favour of pensioners.

Moreover, the very objective of DA being to compensate the employee/pensioners against rise in cost of living, it becomes all the more necessary to extend the benefits of any new formula to those drawing lesser salaries/pensions. This is why under the earlier tapering DA formula, sub staff were given 100% neutralisation.

So, I feel that, if a case is filed now in respect of 2016=100 issue, in the light of the SC's verdict, Court may take a stand different from the one taken by it in the 100% DA case. After all, there have been quite a few instances when courts have differed from the principles of their earlier judgements.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/523776279.305145.1776920293322%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Sanjay ji,

The purpose of Regulation 35(1) not being stated explicitly, two different 

interpretations are being given, viz., 1) fitment of basic Pension with

a simple merger of DA at the 5th BPS level for the 4th BPS retirees without any loading and

 2)updating the total pension.

Now, in the light of the discussions going on about merger of DA at 8088 

level for all groups, I made a study as follows.

I am a 6th BPS pensioner

with a basic pension of ₹4572 and DR of ₹34325 making a total of ₹38897. (A)

On merger of DA at 8088 level (607.25%)

viz., ₹27763, the Basic will become ₹32335. Under 1960=100 series DA @20.5% (for 410 slabs over 8088 @ 0.05% per slab) DA will be ₹6629 making a total of ₹38964. (B)

Increase of B over A is a paltry ₹67. (Increase of 0.17%)

IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT WHENEVER DA IS MERGED WITH BASIC PAY WITHOUT ANY LOADING THE RESULTANT INCREASE WILL ONLY BE NEGLIGIBLE AND IN A FEW CASES THERE WILL BE A MARGINAL REDUCTION TOO AS AN ANOMALY. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE.

In the Excel Sheet posted by Shri Kushal Mukhoti, he has proceeded on the presumption that while merging DA at 8088 level with basic, the adoption of 2016=100 series will be automatic and has thus applied the uniform DA rate of 25% for all BPS groups. So, there is a reasonable increase for all groups.

However, if there is only a simple merger and 1960=100 series continues,

the increases for the cases taken as example by him will be Rs 28, 45, 61, &33 for 5th to 8th BPS groups and it will be (-125) , (-451) & (-3) for 9th, 10th and 11th groups probably due to the special allowance factor.

NOW LET ME DEAL WITH WHAT HAPPENED TO A PARTICULAR CASE OF 4TH BPS PENSIONER ON APPLYING APPENDIX 1 FORMULA 

Basic Pay = 1660

Basic Pension @ 50% = 830

Basic Pension upon 

Applying APPENDIX 1 = 1383.

Formula

CALCULATION OF PENSION FOR NOVEMBER 1995. (INDEX AT 1553)

(1)F APPENDIX 1 WAS NOT APPLIED.      (2)   ON APPLYING APPENDIX 1

Basic Pension          =    830.                            Basic Pension.        =    1383

DAfor305 slabs.                                                 DA for 238 slabs

(1553-332÷4)@.                                                (1553-600÷4)@

1%per slab @.                                                    0.67% per slab@

305%.                         =  2532.                           159.46%.                  =     2205

Total pension.          =. 3362.   (A)                     Total pension.       =.    3588 (B)

The increase in the very first pension due to the application of

Formula in Appendix 1 is Rs 226 which works out to 6.7%. This happened 35 years ago and soRs.226 was a sizeable amount in those days' standards. This increase has now grown to Rs.2202 in Feb 2026 as mentioned in an earlier letter of mine.

Further, compared to the present 2 digit increases observed in the 8088 merger, Rs.226 in 1995 is definitely a very substantial amount taking into consideration the much lower cost of living prevailing at that period of time.

THIS RAISES SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS ONLY A

MERGER THAT WAS DONE THROUGH APPENDIX 1 FOR THOSE WHO HAD RETIRED DURING 1/1/1986 AND 31/10/1987 (4TH BPS)

K N Ramani