LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON UPDATION OF PENSION. POSTED BY MR.UMESH SHARMA, EX SBI.

13,520 views
Skip to first unread message

Debasish Mukherjee

unread,
Jul 5, 2021, 6:05:33 AM7/5/21
to bankpensioner


_*LANDMARK JUDGMENT*_ 
 _*IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS*_ 


 *===================* 

*[04/07, 5:27 pm] SBI Delhi - Umesh Sharma* :

 _*Dr Ved Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs State of HP & Others*_ :

 *_Upheld Right to Pension Updation for those retired prior to subsequent pension revision & Upholds Principle if Same class of Pensioners and  discriminatory treatment is violation of Article 14 of Constitution_* :

 *In nutshell Hon’ble Mr Justice Sureshwar Thakur has relied on SC order in    :--                                            .                                                     V KASTURI  Vs. SBI (1998)8 SCC 30 ( page 7 para 20)* 

 *QUOTE* 

 _*The Supreme Court observed that if the person retiring it is eligible for pension at the time of retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme he would become Eligible to get an enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the formula of the computation of pension subsequently brought into force , he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be member of the very same class of pensioners then the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them in such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of President cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on the members of the same class of pensioners*_ "

 *UNQUOTE*

 *This is the logic for Updation !!*


On page 8 therefore the Hon’ble court has said “a reading of the aforesaid extract relevant paragraphs does graphically pronounce that within the homogeneous classes of Pensioners no arbitrary fix of any cut-off date or any relevant purpose in as much as the addition on to or addition of any non-practising allowance is a basic pay being restricted to Retirees whose superannuation occurred xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx assume any tinge of constitutional validity and nor would stand the constitutional touchstone of article 14 of th e Constitution of India !

 *Copy of the order attached for information* 

 *Umesh Sharma* 
GOP

Sent from RediffmailNG on Android

Vidya Krishnamachar

unread,
Jul 5, 2021, 11:48:57 PM7/5/21
to bankpensioner
I would appreciate the presentation of facts 20th point to be seen by the DFS, SBI, MOF, wherein judgement in SBI case is highlighted.

VIDYA S K

--
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/20210704142515.16760.qmail%40f4mail-235-148.rediffmail.com.

Sriramamoorthy Seethepalli

unread,
Jul 6, 2021, 6:19:37 AM7/6/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com, Ramarao Velagapudi, LakshmanRao Kantamsetti, amba...@gmail.com
K/A: Sri Umesh Sharma Ji
This is landmark Judgement particularly to those Resignees who were denied on the basis of "Cut Off" date. Judgement of Kasturi Vs. SBI in this context is VERY RELEVANT.THE JUDGEMENT QUOTING ARTICLE 14 IS HIGHLY RELEVANT. ANY DECISION BY ANY GOVT/PRIVATE AUTHORITY VIOLATING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS  AB INITIO NULL AND VOID
 I am victim . I am from SBI and resigned in 1986, after puttin 18 years 3 months confirmed service. I am 78 now.
QUESTION OF  SENIOR CITIZEN RESIGNEES APPROACHING COURTS AT THIS LAST STAGE OF THEIR LIFE IS NOT AT ALL PRACTICAL

REQUEST YOUR CONSIDER RESPONSES

S.SRIRAMA MURTHY
7989061906
SO ALL SIMILARLY SUFFERING SHOULD   THINK OF COLLECTIVE ACTION   . 


NSS

unread,
Jul 6, 2021, 6:21:37 AM7/6/21
to bankpensioner
Friends
This judgment may not apply to us. The dispute in this case  is regarding improvement in a benefit extended to a set of pensioners and not to all. The demand was to extend the benefit to all the pensioners and the Court had ruled that the improvement should be extended to all the pensioners who were drawing pension on the date of implementation of the improvement. In our case, updation of pension has not been extended to anyone. Therefore this judgment will not apply to our demand for updation. 

N.Sankarasubramanian 

Prasad C N

unread,
Jul 7, 2021, 12:21:09 AM7/7/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sir,

This Judgment has not brought in any new principle.  It is based on Kasturi's case and is being quoted in many case.

In your case, you will get pension only if :

a. Banks extend the benefit of pension to those who have resigned ;
b. Banks also allow pension to those who have served over 15 years and retired/resigned.  It is because, minimum service for those who retire voluntarily is 20 years and even if you were to retire after serving 18 years +, there is entitlement to pension as per existing provision.

Otherwise, these judgments have no relevance to you.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,
Prasad C N


chaudhari shashikumar

unread,
Jul 7, 2021, 6:21:20 AM7/7/21
to 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner
Hi,

100% D.A. Neutralisation is made applicable to those who retired after 01.11.2002.
This is an improvement in the Pension Regulation in respect of Dearness Relief Payable.
As per the Judgement in question there should not be any CUT-OFF DATE.
It amounts to class within the class.

So will this judgement will help us in 100% D.A. Neutralisation?

Please educate me in this respect.

Thanks 

S V Chaudhari
Retired from Bank of Maharashtra 

Ramarao Velagapudi

unread,
Jul 7, 2021, 6:21:20 AM7/7/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sir,

Yes, this is a very erudite judgement in favour of pensioners. But banks are dilly dallying on implementation of orders. So, a group of pensioners or an Association of Pensioners led by you must petition the court after bank refuses or delays implementation of this order.
First, apply under RTI forwarding the order. Bank will NOT implement. Then file petition for enforcement and contempt.

Ramarao
7-7-2021

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 3:35 PM 'Debasish Mukherjee' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

NSS

unread,
Jul 8, 2021, 12:55:56 AM7/8/21
to bankpensioner
Friends
There are a number of past judgments based on the principle, " Cut off date cannot be imposed for availing improvement in an existing benefit .Cut off date is  permissible to join a new Pension Scheme."(D.S.Nakra v Union of India 1983, Union of India v S.R.Dingra 2008, Union of India v V.P.N.Menon 1994, State of Punjab v Justice S.S.Dewan) In the 100% DA case, this principle was not applied. Though some of these judgments were discussed and the relevant portions of the judgments were quoted by the Judges,  the principle enunciated in these judgments was not applied to our case. 
The omission by the Court to apply this principle should have been brought out in the Curative petition. We do not know whether this was done. No Writ Petition can be filed now on the strength of this omission alone. However we can file a WP on the ground that the earlier WP was not conducted bonofide .  

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

JSOMA SHEKARA

unread,
Jul 8, 2021, 6:07:22 AM7/8/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
There are a number of verdicts which say cut off date cannot be imposed for availing improvement in existing benefit,
But this applies to only government pensioners.
There are a lot of differences and legal implications of the wage revision system for the government pensioners and Bank pensioners.
1. In the case of the Government pensioners benefits are recommended by the Pay Commission and approved by the Government.
Here neither serving employees nor pensioners are party to such a process and their consent has not been obtained.
Hence pensioners can question the same in courts and court verdicts most of the time are in favour of pensioners.
But in the case of Bank pensioners, serving employees unions who are legally representing pensioners have given consent to such a cut off date and signed agreements.
This is one major reason for losing a 100% DA case.
2. Government pensioners are not divided on the basis of the period of pay commission  they have retired. All pensioners are treated by court as one homogeneous  class and any improvement in benefit will be equally available to all.Whenever the government tries to impose a cut off date based on date of retirement such order has been quashed by courts.
But in the case of Bank pensioners as on date pensioners are divided into several groups Courts have ruled that pensioners retiring in earlier periods  cannot claim benefits given to pensioners retired in another BPS. These divisions are accepted by unions and relevant benefits given to one group of pensioners and denying benefits to others is done as per agreements signed by unions. Banks/IBA argue that a package was offered and accepted by pensioners represented by their unions. Such arguments have been upheld by courts.
At the agreement stage itself  Unions should have refused to sign such agreements which deprive benefit to one group of pensioners. Having agreed to such weird proposals by IBA and signing agreements which have been adopted by Banks and converted into statutory acts, Unions cannot question it in courts.
So though pensioners are struggling to get justice in courts unions are keeping silent and not supporting pensioners.
Retiree associations should have demanded that pensioners' issues should have been separated from BPS and decided by a separate committee in consultation with retirees. In such cases all pensioners will be treated as one homogeneous class.
Since Retiree associations are nothing but subsidiaries of two major unions they will divert attention from real issues by conducting dharnas etc.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/665bec36-1b86-4630-9f36-46fc07948e6dn%40googlegroups.com.

Murali

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 1:04:16 AM7/9/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Yes. This is the crux of the issue. 

Is it possible for lobbying with DBS/MOF to create a separate Tribunal for RBI/PSU FI/PSU Insurance and Bank Pensioners which should have the mandate for Pension Revision everytime there is a revision for serving employees....

We need a powerful lobbyist

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3zfaZ%2Bf4vBG031eHq_dceDpF_uNYQLCW-3_yEC2KibsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Debasish Mukherjee

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 1:04:17 AM7/9/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Problem is no hearing takes place in deciding a Curative petition or in Review petition. Generally in both the appeal the case is reviewed by the same judge or the same bench who pronounced judgement. Same had happened with 100% D.A. case. No hearing had taken place in Review petition nor for Curative petition.
Under this circumstances filing a fresh w.p. is the only way to open the lost 100% D.A.case. Legal experts may consider this and a fresh petition may be filed seeking financial contributions from the blog members.
Debasish Mukherjee.


Sent from RediffmailNG on Android




--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

NSS

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 1:06:31 AM7/9/21
to bankpensioner
Friends

The Judgments apply to Bank Pensioners also. If they are not applicable, the Court need not have quoted elaborately from these judgments. Public Sector Banks are State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whenever they classify  employees for extending any benefit, the classification should stand the tests of Article No.14 . In this regard, please refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Others  v Union of India and others dt. 10/12/1991. (Writ Petition(Civil) No.10 of 1991), (paragraphs No.8 and 10.) Madras HC (Single Judge Bench) and Kolkata HC also have applied the ratio of D.S.Nakra in our 100% DA case and decided in our favour. Thus the Judgments are applicable to us also.

Pensioners are covered by Pension Settlement and Pension Regulations only. Our claim for 100% DA and Updation should be on the strength of these documents only.( We are not claiming the benefits extended in subsequent BPS.)  The only instance where a benefit has been extended to one group of pensioners and denied to the others is the 100% DA. This classification attracts Art.14 and we should have got a favourable judgment.  The final judgment went against us and the reason for that is known to all.

Both  Two Judge Bench of Madras HC as well as the Supreme Court applied the ratio of Herbertsons Ltd to the Bipartite Settlement (which extended 100% DA to post Oct 2002 retirees ). The Courts should have applied the ratio to Pension Settlement 1993. Judgment in Herbertsons states that , a settlement should be either accepted entirely or rejected entirely. The employees cannot accept the clauses favourable to them and reject the unfavourable clauses. The Court applied this to the BPS and ruled that as the employees have accepted the other benefits they cannot question the improvement in DA extended to post Oct 2002 retirees.  Had the Court applied this principle to the Pension Settlement 1993 , it would have found that it is not the pensioners but the Management which has rejected the clause unfavourable to them (DA as per RBI formula.)

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian 

JSOMA SHEKARA

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 6:18:11 AM7/9/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Thank you NSS
You are right. But there is no guarantee that courts will apply Nakara Case verdict to Bank pensioners. There are adverse verdicts. Whereas in almost 90% of cases of govt pensiones it is applied.
Since neither UFBU nor IBA are consulting retirees before taking decisions on behalf of them it is utmost necessary that entire pensioners issues /post retirement benefit issues should be separated from BPS, A separate committee including representatives from DFS, Banks and SBI should be formed. Such a committee is responsible, covered under RTI and will submit its report within reasonable time.
As another member suggested a Banking tribunal shall be formed to look into the grievances of Bank employees and retirees. Position as on today is if an ill informed and arrogant officer makes a mistake in calculation of gratuity and other retirement benefits and refuses to rectify it, there is no other alternative for retirees except approaching court spending lakhs on legal and advocate fees and wait for justice for an indefinite time.
If we search google we find there are many number of Bank retirees/pensioners are fighting lone battles in courts.
No union leader is supporting them.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/0615e44d-e0aa-4aff-bcb3-9e25361b76e9n%40googlegroups.com.

Gopalan Ramanuja

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 6:18:11 AM7/9/21
to bankpensioner
I agree appointing  a separate Pay Commission covering  Bank Pensioners, Insurance pensioners etc.,shall be the right step to find remedies to our issues. Atleast we will not at the whims and fancies of the Unions and IBA. At least we can avoid the ongoing uncertainty. We should lobby for this and convince FM and MOF on this.

Regards

R Gopalan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJeVgxGZiZvhL49wMf_yVuuD-y0W%2BPEC4yW2yBWucrbDgn0p0w%40mail.gmail.com.

NSS

unread,
Jul 9, 2021, 6:18:11 AM7/9/21
to bankpensioner
Friends

Mr.C.N.Prasad  is the right person to file the petition seeking 100% DA. I request him to give his consent so that the matter can be taken forward.

N.Sankarasubramanian

Debasish Mukherjee

unread,
Jul 10, 2021, 1:33:41 AM7/10/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com, mail
I fully agree with Mr.N.Sankara Subramaniam and the pre Nov.2002 retirees are aware that how the Genaral Secretary of AIBRF in connivance with the unscrupulous UFBU leaders sabotaged UBIREWA's review & Curative petitions in the Supreme Court on 100% D.A.case. But merely discussing the issue in this platform will not solve our problem. We have to directly write to the Finance minister as also to Prime minister appraising them that the IBA under pressure of the UFBU particularly from the leaders of two communist controlled unions AIBEA & BEFI
have violated Article 14 of the Constitution and pursuing discrimination in payment of 100% D.A. nutralisation benefit selectively only to the pre Nov.2002 retirees.

Debasish Mukherjee.

Sent from RediffmailNG on Android




From: NSS <nsanka...@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 10:36:41 GMT+0530
To: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON UPDATION OF PENSION. POSTED BY MR.UMESH SHARMA, EX SBI.

Friends

The Judgments apply to Bank Pensioners also. If they are not applicable, the Court need not have quoted elaborately from these judgments. Public Sector Banks are State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and whenever they classify  employees for extending any benefit, the classification should stand the tests of Article No.14 . In this regard, please refer to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Others  v Union of India and others dt. 10/12/1991. (Writ Petition(Civil) No.10 of 1991), (paragraphs No.8 and 10.) Madras HC (Single Judge Bench) and Kolkata HC also have applied the ratio of D.S.Nakra in our 100% DA case and decided in our favour. Thus the Judgments are applicable to us also.

Pensioners are covered by Pension Settlement and Pension Regulations only. Our claim for 100% DA and Updation should be on the strength of these documents only.( We are not claiming the benefits extended in subsequent BPS.)  The only instance where a benefit has been extended to one group of pensioners and denied to the others is the 100% DA. This classification attracts Art.14 and we should have got a favourable judgment.  The final judgment went against us and the reason for that is known to all.

Both  Two Judge Bench of Madras HC as well as the Supreme Court applied the ratio of Herbertsons Ltd to the Bipartite Settlement (which extended 100% DA to post Oct 2002 retirees ). The Courts should have applied the ratio to Pension Settlement 1993. Judgment in Herbertsons states that , a settlement should be either accepted entirely or rejected entirely. The employees cannot accept the clauses favourable to them and reject the unfavourable clauses. The Court applied this to the BPS and ruled that as the employees have accepted the other benefits they cannot question the improvement in DA extended to post Oct 2002 retirees.  Had the Court applied this principle to the Pension Settlement 1993 , it would have found that it is not the pensioners but the Management which has rejected the clause unfavourable to them (DA as per RBI formula.)

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian 

On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 15:37:22 UTC+5:30 jsomase...@gmail.com wrote:

--
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/CAECOHc_KZS+QmWxAo2nriPbA...@mail.gmail.com.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

JSOMA SHEKARA

unread,
Jul 10, 2021, 1:33:43 AM7/10/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
UFBU meeting with IBA on
Renewal of Medical Scheme
*********
Dear Comrades,
Discussions with the IBA on Group Medical Insurance Scheme
UFBU CIRCULAR NO. 11 dated 8-7-2021 : “ Units and members are aware that under our 10th Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note achieved in 2015, a Group Medical Insurance Scheme has been introduced both for the in-service employees and officers as well as for the retired staff and these Policies have been getting renewed every year since then. This year’s policy also needs to be renewed from October/November, 2021. While IBA has initiated the process for such renewal, they wanted to hold a meeting with UFBU to elicit our views and suggestions based on the experiences and feed back received from our unions and members. Accordingly, IBA convened a meeting today through Google Meet App. All constituent Unions of UFBU participated in the meeting. IBA was represented by Mr. Gopal Murali Bhagat, Dy. Chief of IBA, Mr. Brajeshwar Sharma, Sr. Advisor-HR&IR, IBA, Mr. S.K. Kakkar outgoing Sr. Advisor, HR, and CGM/GM-HR of PNB, BOB, Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, Bank of India, Indian Bank and Karnataka Bank who are members of the Sub-Committee dealing with this issue. Initiating the discussion, the IBA informed us that they are in the process of finalising the rates of premium for the ensuing year based on the quotation/offer from National Insurance Company and if there would be any increase in their quote over the current year’s premium, they would float fresh tender seeking quotation from all others. In this background the IBA wanted the viewpoints from our Unions. From our side, the following points were raised and taken up during the meeting.
● The Group Medical Insurance Scheme should be continued.
● Accordingly the policy should be renewed further
. ● If possible, the renewal may be for 2 or 3 years in one go.
● At the time of introduction of the Scheme, it was assured that more and more hospitals would be tied up for cashless facility. This should be followed up with Insurance company and TPAs and more number of hospitals should be covered by cashless facility, particularly in smaller cities and towns so that employees are not required to travel to bigger cities for treatment.
● Wherever cashless facility is not in place in a hospital where an employee/officer is getting admitted for treatment, then some advance amount should be made to him/her to deposit the same with the hospital as may be required by the hospital concerned.
● TPAs have to be strengthened and TPAs should be advised to settle the claims within a timeframe failing which, penal conditions should be made applicable.
Medical expenses reimbursement is to be treated as a welfare measure and not as a business opportunity for the Insurance Company or TPAs.
● Proper information/details should be made available to the claimant employee about the claims settled and items rejected, etc.
● Management should enable help desks to follow up the claims with the TPAs for expeditious settlement.
● Bank-level Committees of management, TPA and Union should be set-up to take up and resolve the issues pertaining to delay or non-settlement of claims or disputes on claims, etc.
● The flexible options available under the Retirees Scheme should be continued.
● Premium under Retirees scheme to be reduced by finetuning the scheme.
● A portion of the premium payable by the retirees should be subsidised by the Banks under respective Staff Welfare Schemes.
● Apex Unions to be periodically provided details of claims settled, Claim-settlement ratio, etc.
● Utilisation of Buffer amount to be made more transparent.
● Ex-gratia of Rs. One lac payable for major ailments should be paid immediately on claim as delay defeats the purpose of such ex-gratia.
● New types of treatments being suggested by Doctors and hospitals to be included in the Policy for reimbursement.
● Problems of pending claims at the time of change of TPAs to be addressed and resolved.
● Tracking system to be introduced to follow up pending claims
. ● Existing coverage of Rs. 3 lacs/4 lacs to be revised upward.
● In view of present pandemic situation, special provisions like cost of treatment during home quarantine/isolation period to be included for reimbursement.
● IBA to take up with the Government for exemption of premium amount from GST. IBA took note of these suggestions and assured to keep these points in mind while further processing the renewal of the Policy. IBA also requested us to inform them of any further suggestions to further make the implementation of the Scheme more employee-friendly. Improvement in Family Pension/NPS : During this meeting, we pointed out to the IBA that there is undue delay in the approval of the agreed issues i.e. 1) improvement in Family Pension and 2) enhancing Banks’ contribution to 14% under NPS.
Sd…. S K Bandlish, Convener.”
**********************************************
UFBU leaders did not mention delay in resolving updation.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/7fdeda3c-db1f-41c1-bfbe-c32549e20dben%40googlegroups.com.

Nagaraju Kakani

unread,
Jul 10, 2021, 1:36:40 AM7/10/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sairam, Finally we have to come to an agreement to request  for 1.Banking Pay Commission for Retirees 2.Banking Ombudsman for Bank Retirees grievance redressal. 
Let us all decide on this forum and draft request and put on change. Org and send to the PM, FM, Amit Shah, RSS Chief etc. 
With regards 
Nagaraju Kakani 
Hyderabad. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGm4aagQkp0yE-2tOA9D%2BnwyR_bhn-Hy52%3D8hnxyUqrhTOw5Yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy

unread,
Jul 11, 2021, 4:21:15 AM7/11/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com, mail
Yes sir,  we should bring it to the notice of our beloved PM/FM through our active members who are having some good direct contacts and the main delay in sending the proposal of updation of pension in pension is because of these leaders. 
Pvbswamy 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1625830074.S.55006.autosave.drafts.1625831390.20759%40webmail.rediffmail.com.

narinder singh

unread,
Jul 12, 2021, 12:16:38 AM7/12/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Greetings for this 
But Sir how the result of updation will take shape in banks
This issue of implementation is lingering n lingering
Rgds
Narinder


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, July 5, 2021, 00:25, 'Debasish Mukherjee' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Boxbe This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (bankpe...@googlegroups.com) Add cleanup rule | More info


_*LANDMARK JUDGMENT*_ 
 _*IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS*_ 


 *===================* 

*[04/07, 5:27 pm] SBI Delhi - Umesh Sharma* :

 _*Dr Ved Prakash Sharma & Anr Vs State of HP & Others*_ :

 *_Upheld Right to Pension Updation for those retired prior to subsequent pension revision & Upholds Principle if Same class of Pensioners and  discriminatory treatment is violation of Article 14 of Constitution_* :

 *In nutshell Hon’ble Mr Justice Sureshwar Thakur has relied on SC order in    :--                                            .                                                     V KASTURI  Vs. SBI (1998)8 SCC 30 ( page 7 para 20)* 

 *QUOTE* 

 _*The Supreme Court observed that if the person retiring it is eligible for pension at the time of retirement and if he survives till the time of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme he would become Eligible to get an enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the formula of the computation of pension subsequently brought into force , he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be member of the very same class of pensioners then the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them in such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of President cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on the members of the same class of pensioners*_ "

 *UNQUOTE*

 *This is the logic for Updation !!*


On page 8 therefore the Hon’ble court has said “a reading of the aforesaid extract relevant paragraphs does graphically pronounce that within the homogeneous classes of Pensioners no arbitrary fix of any cut-off date or any relevant purpose in as much as the addition on to or addition of any non-practising allowance is a basic pay being restricted to Retirees whose superannuation occurred xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx assume any tinge of constitutional validity and nor would stand the constitutional touchstone of article 14 of th e Constitution of India !

 *Copy of the order attached for information* 

 *Umesh Sharma* 
GOP

Sent from RediffmailNG on Android

--
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.

KUNAL SINGH KHARAYAT

unread,
Jul 12, 2021, 6:13:45 AM7/12/21
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

This is endless process. 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: 'narinder singh' via bankpensioner
Sent: 12 July 2021 09:46
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: bankpensioner LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON UPDATION OF PENSION. POSTED BYMR.UMESH SHARMA, EX SBI.

 

Greetings for this 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages