Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 22 updates in 7 topics
38 views
Skip to first unread message
vaidya nathan
Mar 19, 2026, 6:15:06 AM (23 hours ago) Mar 19
to bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sir Ramani Konnaiyar
Fourth category of persons. Who have No Pension, No NPS and No savings. No Insurance No support No relatives. All of us are Blessed with any amount of Pension, some money in Hand and kids to take care atleast at time of Illness.
Self satisfaction is the Biggest Happiness one gets on age.
God knows what is Good for Us. He will Certainly Pay the Dues if any, to one and All.
VAIDYANATHAN
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- Late MC Singla case in SC - 4 Updates
- NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983) - 8 Updates
- WHERE IS MONEY FOR UPDATION - 5 Updates
- When HC judges can't decide the correct answer, how can law graduates? Supreme Court on law officer exam question - 1 Update
- Supreme Court case defense - 2 Updates
- Regulation 35(1) of pension Regulation - 1 Update
- 10 months average basic pay. - 1 Update
Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 04:02PM +0530
*Part I.*
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
The "Vested Rights" doctrine essentially says that if the law (like the
2003 amendment) granted you a benefit, the IBA’s failure to "notify a
formula" is their administrative mistake, and the pensioner shouldn't be
the one to pay for it.
*1. The "Quantum" vs. "Right" Fallacy*
You suggest that once the bank starts paying you *any* amount, the "vested
right" is satisfied.
- *The Reality:* The Supreme Court (in *D.S. Nakara* and *V. Kasturi*)
ruled that the *"Formula"* for calculating pension is as much a vested
right as the pension itself.
- *The Point:* If the 2003 Amendment changed the formula from "static"
to "dynamic" (by using "shall be updated"), then the updated
quantum becomes the vested right. *You aren't asking for a "new"
pension; you are asking for the correct calculation of your existing vested
right.*
*2. When does a "Future Updation" become a "Vested Right"?*
- *The Law:* The moment the Government notified the *2003 Gazette*, the
"Right to Updation" was *accrued* for all bank employees.
- *The Logic:* It isn't a "future" gift; it is a *current statutory
obligation* that the *banks have simply failed to calculate.* In legal
terms, an "accrued right" includes the right to have your benefit
calculated according to the *current valid law*.
-
*3. The "Arbitrary Date" Trap*
Extending Nakara would cover "every former employee."
- *The Truth:* That is exactly what Nakara intended! The judgment was
designed to prevent the State from creating *"haves" and "have-nots"* among
retirees based on a date.
- *The Defense:* If the Banks update pensions for one batch (Pre-1987)
but stop for another, they are creating the exact "arbitrary
classification" that Nakara strictly forbids.
-
*4. "Vested vs. Accrued" distinction fails:*
In the *Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah* case, the Court
held that *any amendment* that reduces the *amount* of pension a person is
entitled to *(by failing to update it as per rules)* is a *violation of
vested rights.*
*****
*Part II.*
Dear Friends,
I have read the recent responses with interest. It is clear that within our
group, there are two distinct schools of thought *regarding CA 7993/2023:*
1. Those who believe that the 2003 Amendment and the Nakara Precedent
provide a pathway for the Supreme Court to grant updation or *substantial
relief.*
2. Those who believe that the literal text of Appendix-I and the
historical High Court rulings preclude any such outcome.
Both sides are clearly settled in their convictions, perceptions, and
understanding of the law. At this stage, continuing the debate often leads
to the same questions being met with the same answers, without bringing us
any closer to a shared conclusion. I feel, further debate will only lead to
a circular and divisive atmosphere.
There is a profound saying: *'Silence is the highest teaching.'*
I believe it is time for me to embrace that teaching. We have all placed
our best arguments on the table. The matter is now exactly where it
belongs—before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Let us allow the Bench to perform
its duty while we, as a group, preserve our unity.
I suggest we all rest and relax until April 9th. Let us wait for the
Court’s observations in the next hearing to show us the path forward.
With regards to all.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:51 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <
Lingan Ramalingam <pacha...@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:08AM +0530
Very nice and authentic presentation.Thanks Gentleman
Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com>: Mar 18 01:47PM +0530
Sir,
I have been in this group for the past 2 years or so and do not remember to
have seen your letters prior to the commencement of hearing in S.C. in the
Singla case.
In spite of containing so many legal jargons, your letters always make
interesting reading to me and I enjoy going through them for the sheer
clarity with which you argue on your points of contention.
Apart from the 2 categories mentioned by you, I am afraid there is also
another minor category which feels that when compared to the plight of
those under NPS, the BEPR pensioners should consider themselves to be
blessed ones and try to remain content with periodical DR increases and
ex-gratia. No doubt, this category will become majority should the updation
remains a dream for ever.
K N RAMANI
Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: Mar 18 09:10AM
Dear Shri Sanjay,
Bank Pensioners are being misguided and mislead by quoting a part of what is stated in Regulation 35(1). We are conveniently ignoring the words 'as per formulae in Appendix I'. When we take shelter under the word 'shall', the force of word 'shall' is applicable to words 'as per formulae in Appendix I' also. Law does not allow cherry picking.
Vested or Accrued right refers to what is payable 'as per formulae in Appoendix I'.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,Prasad C N
On Wednesday, 18 March 2026 at 09:56:37 am IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:
Part I.
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
The "Vested Rights"doctrine essentially says that if the law (like the 2003 amendment) granted youa benefit, the IBA’s failure to "notify a formula" is theiradministrative mistake, and the pensioner shouldn't be the one to pay for it.
1. The "Quantum" vs."Right" Fallacy
You suggest that once the bankstarts paying you any amount, the "vested right" issatisfied.
- The Reality: The Supreme Court (in D.S. Nakara and V. Kasturi) ruled that the "Formula" for calculating pension is as much a vested right as the pension itself.
- The Point: If the 2003 Amendment changed the formula from "static" to "dynamic" (by using "shall be updated"), then the updated quantum becomes the vested right. You aren't asking for a "new" pension; you are asking for the correct calculation of your existing vested right.
2. When does a "FutureUpdation" become a "Vested Right"?
- The Law: The moment the Government notified the 2003 Gazette, the "Right to Updation" was accrued for all bank employees.
- The Logic: It isn't a "future" gift; it is a current statutory obligation that the banks have simply failed to calculate. In legal terms, an "accrued right" includes the right to have your benefit calculated according to the current valid law.
-
3. The "ArbitraryDate" Trap
Extending Nakara would cover"every former employee."
- The Truth: That is exactly what Nakara intended! The judgment was designed to prevent the State from creating "haves" and "have-nots" among retirees based on a date.
- The Defense: If the Banks update pensions for one batch (Pre-1987) but stop for another, they are creating the exact "arbitrary classification" that Nakara strictly forbids.
-
4. "Vested vs.Accrued" distinction fails:
In the Chairman, RailwayBoard vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah case, the Court held that anyamendment that reduces the amount of pension a personis entitled to (by failing to update it as per rules) is a violationof vested rights.
***
Part II.
Dear Friends,
I have read the recent responseswith interest. It is clear that within our group, there are two distinctschools of thought regarding CA 7993/2023:
- Those who believe that the 2003 Amendment and the Nakara Precedent provide a pathway for the Supreme Court to grant updation or substantial relief.
- Those who believe that the literal text of Appendix-I and the historical High Court rulings preclude any such outcome.
Both sides are clearly settled intheir convictions, perceptions, and understanding of the law. At this stage,continuing the debate often leads to the same questions being met with the sameanswers, without bringing us any closer to a shared conclusion. I feel, furtherdebate will only lead to a circular and divisive atmosphere.
There is a profound saying: 'Silenceis the highest teaching.'
I believe it is time for me toembrace that teaching. We have all placed our best arguments on the table. Thematter is now exactly where it belongs—before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Let usallow the Bench to perform its duty while we, as a group, preserve our unity.
I suggest we all rest and relaxuntil April 9th. Let us wait for the Court’s observations in the next hearingto show us the path forward.
With regards to all.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 9:51 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear friends,
We have been referring to applicability of Nakara Case to Singla's case. While going through old issues of Mysore Bank Shathayu, May, 2024 issue, I found an article on Nakara's case. A copy of the Magazine is attached for information. Request all to go through all these materials, before assuming anything.
I have also extracted from the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the very same Singla's case regarding funding. Applicability of Nakara's case has been extensively referred. Please find these two sets of information in the attachments.
Please do not swayed by the speeches or postings of some who theselves have not gone through the Judgments in these cases. Anyone with minimum knowledge of understands the application or otherwise of Nakara's case.
The observations regarding rights in respect of 'Pension' is restricted to vested and accrued right, but not any 'Pension'. If that interpretation is extended, every former employee is covered by Nakara's Judgment. I am also attaching Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nakara's case. Please have patience & go through.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,Prasad C N
On Monday, 16 March 2026 at 03:45:51 pm IST, kumar n <k9444...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir, concur Satynanayanan sir's view. Removing a beehive yourself is dangerous.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 9:42 AM 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
All these veiws will have answer through Supreme court verdict in Singla case which is on fast track.
No two layers agree while fighting the case .
The debate which is going on is used as exchange of ideas.
Nobody has right to step in to the shoes of the judges and presume and assume.
Let us wait for the final verdict from Supreme court which will put an end to decades old issue which delebrately created by the UFBU and IBA nexus in denying the pension updation/Pension revision and delebrately supported by legal luminaries with in with out.
Where is will there is a.way.
That way shall be ensured by update of pension through Supreme court favourable verdict.
Wait and watch.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 16:26, SBMPC Blore<sbmpen...@gmail.com> wrote: Mr.Prasad Sir,
Dear Shri Somashekaraji, my answers are palatable for many. Having fought and continue to fight cases before High Courts and Supreme Courts, I have seen how Hon'ble Judges view or consider pleadings. In case, if I do not share information or understanding I have, I am misrepresenting. I do not want to mislead. Whatever knowledge or information I have, I am sharing in Bold :
First of all is it mandatory that provision for pension updation should exist in Pension regulations for implementing updation?
There is no Pension Regulations or Rules in the country, including that of Central Government and Reserve Bank of India has any clause or word pension updation. There cannot be any such clause because there cannot be a constant formula for wage revision. Even Reference to Pay Commission does not include issues of pension improvement. Rerserve Bank of India formula has loading of 10%. In case, improvement in superannuation benefit reduced to any percentage, which is even less than 10%, Pensioners load cannot continue to be at 10%. Perhaps, this example explains why there cannot be any clause in any Pension Regulations.
Was there procision for enhancement of family pension?
There is no bar in any law to extend the benefit. This is because right of any person is adversly affected by improvment in Family Pension. Law protects existing benefits.
Finance Minister has approved Updation in RBI multiple times that too with arrears even though there is no provision for pension regulations. In the past DFS mentioned that if Updation in RBI approved, similar demand from PSU Bank pensioners will come. DFS never said there is no provision for pension in BEPR 1995. Infact DFS in reply to a member of Parliament replied that if a proposal submitted by IBA it will be considered. Neither Central Govt pension rules, RBI pension rules, LIC and nabard pension rules did not have provision for updation. It was introduced later due to consistent demand from unions. It is unfair and illegal on the part of iBA to file affadavit
Government of India approved the proposal of Reserve Bank of India to revise pension after due approval of its Board. Eventhough LIC Board has approved pension revision, pension has not been revised in LIC. Unfortunately, we are blaming Indian Banks Association and the Government. Pension could have been revised in case if we were to impress upon the CMDs/MDs/EDs need for pension revision. We have failed in our duty.
Petitioners have filed copies of resolution dated 08.03.24 and DFS notification extending updation for third time which also made it clear that DFS is in favour of extending benefit to all.BEPR 1995 is a subordinate legislation. There is a clause that if there is any doubt reference should be made to Central Government pension regulations. IBA says it is neither a government entity nor a regulatory authority.
Indian Banks Association's status has no relevance. It is not negotiating on its own. But, it is acting as a Mandate holder, like a Power of Attorney holder or an agent, based on mandate by the Banks. Managing Committee consists of MDs/EDs only. They act only in their interest only. That is why both 100% DA & FP are improved and maximum benefits flows to them only.
Both Division Bench and Single Judge benches of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Singla's case have dealt with Regulation 56. There are other Judgments also regarding Regulation 56, which are not in favour. That is the reason, I am not quoting them. There is a need for existence of three ingredients. First, there should be doubt. Second, such doubts relate to existing Regulations. Third, there should be corresponding Regulations in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. There is no Regulation in our Pension Regulations, 1995. There is no word updation in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. In the absence of any Rule in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 regarding Pension Updation, Regulation 56 cannot assist us. What I am saying is nothing new. Hon'ble Courts have already decided. Therefore, please go through the Judgments of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court & Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Courts have decided these issues. We are neither submitting any counter with force to get the reversal of the Judgment nor providing any other cogent grounds which has force, better than that of the defence of the Judgment by IBA/PNB.
IBA has no authority to interpret legal meaning of terms of BEPR 1995, IBA should have referred the matter to the Central Government and obtained its opinion in writing. In case Central Government interpretation is not satisfactory the same can be challenged in the court. Since IBA has filed affidavit giving its own interpretation of Reg35/1 and amendment of 2003, the same is challenged in the Supreme court and the supreme court is the final authority to give legal interpretation of terms of BEPR1995.
It is Pensioners who want the benefit, IBA is an organisation of Management, who has to pay. There Regulations are formulated and amended with indulgence of IBA. Any scope of interpretation or existence of any provision in Pension Regulations, 1995 is invented, but not discovered. No one so far provided any case for interpretation in Pension Regulations, duly providing reasons thereof. IBA has stated in its Affidavit that 'It is not the case of the Petitioners that Pension is not being paid in terms of Regulations. So far, I have not seen any document submitted by the Petitioners/those representing Pensioners which supports the cause of the Pensioners providing cogent proof dislodging the claim of IBA/PNB.
Yes there is some lack of clarity on calculation of Updation. Hope pensioners side will demand definite formula for updation submitting charts.aggaFor every agreement be it the agreement of 1993 and 1994 and Pension regulations there are two parties, IBA and UFBU. High court judges in M C Singla case only relied upon affidavit of IBA without any documentary support and only iBA interpretation of clauses of the above agreements in the absence of Unions statements.High court judge was not aware that petitioners are not allowed to negotiate and even iBA not ready to communicate with them.
Majority of the litigants in court vases win not because they presented true facts but argued the case in convincing manner with whatever documentary support they hacve. IBA did the same for the last 20 years convincing courts about the huge cost of updation without producing cost data and convincing court about the committee without submitting committee report.If anybody has any solution they are free to advise pensioners' advocates.. I am confident that Pensioners advocate will have clarity on formula for updation and convince the court.
In any Court case, it is the duty of the Petitioners to prove, but not that of the Respondents. We are all making one mistake. The cost of Pension Revision is dependent on the formula. Neither IBA, nor the UFBU nor the Committee nor the Pensioners can say without applicable formula. Can anyone say what is the cost of cloth, without measurement? Reserve Bank of India Pension Revision Formula is out of question because by seeking RBI formula, we are seeking far more than One Rank One Pension. To illustrate, go through the following example:
Gross Pension of a General Manager retired on 31.10.2022(11th Bipartite Settlement) is Rs.1,02,607/- and Gross Pension of a GeneralManager retired on 31.08.2023 is Rs. 1,08,663/- (12th Bipartite Settlement) andthe difference in pension is Rs.6,056/-. In case, Pension is revised asper RBI formula, pension of a General Manager retired earlier during 11thBipartite period would be Rs.1,15,294/-, which would be more than Pension(Rs.1,08,663/-) of a General Manager retired during 12th Bipartite Settlement.
I have repeatedly requesting everyone, including warriors, crussadors and fighters, what is the applicable formula for Pension Updation sought before Hon'ble Supreme Court and basis for such a claim. There are no words Reserve Bank of India in Regulation 56 and Regulation 35(1). Then what is the formula, we want? It is unfortunate that we are raising hopes without even providing a formula, which could be enforced alongwith basis for such a claim. All other stories hold good during a negotiation. Courts do not write stories but enforce laws.
I am aware that what I have said is not palatable to many. I cannot be misrepresenting or playing fraud, by providing false narratives. If I do not share the information, what I believe is true, then I am playing fraud. Thank you for raising doubts and questions. I have no problem in sharing my thoughts.
I do have experience in litigation. We are fighting State Bank of India, which was represented by Shri Tushar Mehta and other very Senior Advocates. Despite that we have secured apology from the Chairman, State Bank of India in Supreme Court. Shortly, we are launching one more contempt proceedings against the Chairman. There is no need to raise hopes. My conscious do not permit telling lies. I do not want to be a hero. Atleast, I shall not propogate false narratives.
Note: Regulation 35 is for fixation of pension at the time of retirement, but not for revision. In Reserve Bank of India
SHAILEN Bhavnani <sgbha...@rediffmail.com>: Mar 17 09:57AM
Dear Mr. Prasad,
You are again trying to save the persons who have damaged tha SPIRIT of Bipartite NEGOTIATIONS.
PLEASE GO THROUGH THE NOTE SENT BY SHRI SBC KARUNAKARAN AND ANALYSE YOURSELF:
*QOUTE*
Com SBC Karunakaran
General Secretary
ARISE / Working
President AIBPARC /
President AIBPARC
Tamilnadu State Unit speaks on grounds of our Prayer in Singla Case.
IBA says there is no provision for updation in BEPR notwithstanding the amendment to Reg 35{1) that made updation mandatory.
Suppose, a rule says hourly wages shall be at rates prescribed in appendix but no rates are yet specified, IBA will deny wages to a worker because no rates are prescribed in appendix.
Or even if rates are prescribed, IBA may still refuse wages stating the rule only speaks of wage rates but does not say WAGES OUGHT BE PAID. IBA may contend that in the absence of a direction to pay, no duty is cast to pay any wage merely because wage rates are prescribed. Will any rule state 'rates as prescribed' for anything that is not payable? Yes - in IBA's Blunderland. Can anybody refuse to pay by not prescribing the rates? Yes- IBA can.
This is the absurdity we witness today when IBA says there is no provision for pension updation in spite of unambiguous amendment for open ended mandatory updation in Reg 35(1).
Will a rule specify rates for a thing that does not exist. In day to day life, we talk of rates only for a thing ( goods or services) that exists and traded. In other words, any mention of rates PRESUPPOSES a thing that exists or arises.
You are aware that Reg 35(1) appears in Chapter Titled " RATES OF PENSION" in BEPR. Its very appearance under this chapter on Rates of Pension is proof that updation exists and only it's rates are to be specified. To remove any doubt, Reg 35(1) does not merely read as " Updation formula is given in appendix 1". instead it reiterates pension has to be updated and the formula ( ie rates) in appendix 1 has to be applied; hence it reads as Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable shall be UPDATED as per formulae given in appendix 1.
You may also note that this chapter on Rates of Pension itself starts with Reg 35(1) whereas only as an explanation following Reg 35(1), basic pension and additional pension are described.
The pre-eminent and primacy of position given to Reg 35(1) in this chapter emphasizes that the pension one has to receive is only UPDATED Pension ( wherever applicable). This prime position in this chapter in BEPR conveys in no uncertain terms that only UPDATED Pension is payable to all eligible pensioners.
IBA, though admitted that pension settlement of 29/10/1993 required provisions be made on the lines of RBI for pension updation, repudiated the very same settlement stating that this settlement was SUPERSEDED by BEPR ( as held by P&H HC ). It is wrong to say this settlement was SUPERSEDED when BEPR had no Non Obstante clause to that effect. Inasmuch as Pension updation agreed in Pension settlement does not contradict BEPR, more so in the light of Reg 35(1) ( both before & after amendment), it is mandatory to have updation on the lines of RBI or by a still better formula.
IBA also talks of Funds constraints and takes refuge claiming ours is a Funded scheme. In the first place, funds constraint cannot be a factor to implement an existing statutory obligation - Pension updation as mandated in Reg 35(1) (and updation on the lines of RBI as per past practice and as required under Pension Settlement of 1993) is a statutory obligation and a charge on P&L A/c ranking prior to even regulatory NPA provisioning. Pension updation is not a demand to introduce a new benefit but a demand to fulfill/implement an existing obligation for which funds cannot be a factor as held by SC in many cases. Updated pension is part of pension, a deferred wage and hence a property protected under Art 300A of the constitution. So, pension updation is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right. ( BTW, the pension corpus with future contributions as hitherto is robust enough to meet updation cost easily).
The claim of ' Funded scheme's has no legal basis. As per Accounting standards, there is no such thing called Funded Scheme. Accounting standards AS 15 classify pension into Defined Benefit Scheme ( like ours) or Defined Contribution Scheme ( like NPS) and a Fund is established and maintained under both schemes - while in DBS, the contribution to the fund may vary year to year depending on the quantum of expected pension payout ( Ref Reg 11 speaking of making good any shortfall in contribution to Pension Fund on annual actuarial valuation), in DCS, the contribution is fixed ( as in NPS in banks presently at 14% of BP &DA). IBA's claim of Funded scheme is flawed and illogical. In fact, Reg 11 of BEPR enjoins banks to make good the shortfall to meet pension payout commitments on annual actuarial valuation. Pension payouts mean and include paying updated pension to eligible pensioners.
From the above, it can be seen the question before the SC is simple and straight forward and the facts are irrefutable to answer them in our favour.
1) Is there a provision in BEPR to update pension at every wage revision?
Yes - as per amended Reg 35(1).
2) Is Pension Settlement of 1993 binding even after BEPR coming into operation?
Yes - Pension Settlement of 1993 is also binding inasmuch as BEPR does not have any Superseding Non Obstante clause to extinguish the Pension settlement of 1993.
3) Should updation be as per RBI formula?
Yes - in view of Pension settlement of 29/10/1993. Updation formula can be better than or as per RBI formula.
4) Can Funds Constraint relieve banks from statutory obligation of pension updation?
No - Funds can be a factor for INTRODUCTION of a scheme but NOT for IMPLEMENTATION of an existing/inherent statutory or constitutional obligation.
5) Is our pension scheme a Funded Scheme that makes pension updation not obligatory?
This is a baseless plea of IBA because the accounting standards has no such classification. As per AS 15, ours is DBS and hence it is obligatory to have actuarial valuation done and Fund maintained accordingly for pension payouts that mean and include updated pension.
The questions are simple and the answers are all straight - Still, our journey of pension updation could not reach the destination due to the machinations of many, all creating obstacles and choosing not to play fair and according to good conscience.
In contrast, in RBI, the Board passed resolution in support of Pension updation and all its Governors pursued with the Govt in favour of it. But neither IBA nor any CEO of a bank batted for this demand. RBI serving employees unions went on strike exclusively for this demand. They have since got pension updated thrice upto the current settlement. In LIC too, the Board passed resolution for updation.
This case at SC is nearing its conclusion. Let us hope and trust justice, long denied to us, is delivered soon.
SBCK
*UNQUOTE*
I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND NOW, LET US WAIT FOR THE FINAL OUTCOME.
SORRY IF I HAVE OFFENDED YOU IN ANY MANNER.
Thanks & Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341
From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 15:48:41
To: 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
Dear Shri S G Bhavnani,
There is no need to answer and we take your comments on our stride.
It is unfortunate that we prefer to shut our mouth and do not make comments when:
a. We were misled to believe that Provident Fund is better than Pension and 52% of us opted for Provident Fund. We shut our mouth did not tell these leaders that they are misguiding us. This misguidance and over 52% opting for PF resulted in loss of 15 years. We realised AIBEA was right. Do you know the cost of shutting the mouth. I have never seen any of us finding fault with them;
b. Do you know, four Officers' Organisations, including AIBOC has sought actuarial valuation to ensure adequate provision in Pension Fund. We do not find fault with them? Why we do not ask them shut their mouth?
c. Do you know, it is Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which has said that Regulation 35(1) does not help us?
d. When Pension of one section of Bank Pensioners is improved, when they sought payment of pension as per our scheme, we say in writing that we do not demand commensurate benefit. Even IBA says that there is no such demand from Nationalised Banks. But, we do not demand parity within the Banking industry and shut our mouth. Therefore, who is the stooge of IBA?
e. When the then General Secretaries of AIBOC and NCBE write letter to IBA not to implement the scheme of second pension option, when they do not sign MOU on 27.11.2010, when Second Pension option was extended on account of perservance of leadership of AIBEA, we shut our mouth. Who is the stooge of IBA?
f. When we know that our own Bank has sought amortisation of additional cost for extending improvement in Family Pension, when we claim there is huge amount in Pension Fund, we shut our mouth and sing the same song?
g. When the Government, Courts, RBI, etc. never claimed that there is no provision in their Pension Rules/Regulations, still their pension is revised, why they are saying so in our case?
h. We have shut our mouth, when our leaders did not or are not enforcing the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then tell me who is helping IBA and who are the stooges of IBA?
This list is very long. One who wants to tell truth should have courage and conviction, but not those who are fooling us by misguiding us. Instead please ask them to shut their mouth.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,
Prasad C N
On Monday, 16 March 2026 at 10:09:00 am IST, 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mr Prasad,
You have been receiving some favour from your Guru, which is why you are always keep harping the same tune ,HMV. NO CLAUSE FOR UPDATION , LIKE IBA, ITS STOOGE AIBEA.
If you really in favour of PENSIONERS, PLEASE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT FOR SOME MORE TIME TILL THE HON'BLE JUSTICES GIVE THEIR OPINION.
-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341
From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:58:18
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
Dear Shri Somashekharaji,
Whether there is any claim from anyone that those who have retired on or after 31.10.1987 are not eligible for Pension Revision?
Even if Pension is updated, whether any clause after such updation can be incorporated in Appendix - I?
Those who are saying that there is no provision in Pension Regulations for pension updation are saying so only after some started invoking existence of provision for pension updation in Regulation 35(1). In case, we stop claiming existence of clause in Regulation 35(1), then IBA and the Government will stop saying that there is no provision for Pension Updation.
Regulation 35 is for fixation of Basic Pension, but not for altering Basic Pension. The formula in Clause a of Appendix I is only by adding Dearness Relief to Basic Pay, but not by adding any load. Formula adopted is akin to what we are asking with regard to payment of pension at 8088 points.
I have been continueously asking simple questions. I have received various narratives, but not the answer. My Questions are:
What is the 'Prayer' with regard to Pension Updation in Singla's case?
If our prayer is Pension Updation as per RBI formula, what is the connection between, pension Revision as per RBI formula and Regulation 35 or Regulation 56, wherein not even mention of the words, Reserve Bank of India?
What is the meaning of 'Pension Updation', the words used in Regulation 35(1)? Where it is defined?
Beyond expecting order for Pension Updation if we succeed in Singla's case, what is the expectation regarding order and the formula and basis for such order?
Whatever questions I have, must be a part of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners to win the case, while claiming order for Pension Updation.
FORGET ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE & THE BASIS FOR SUCH INCREASE IN YOUR PENSION? THOSE WHO ARE FINDING FAULT IN OUR VIEWS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CALCULATE & TELL WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN PENSION & BASIS THEREOF.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,
Prasad C N
On Thursday, 12 March 2026 at 03:58:46 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is no discovery or wisdom or workshop required in finding that Reg 35/1 does not does not fetch us updation. CWP2008 of Punjab and Haryana Court verdict CWP 6333 0f 2008.
1. Reg 35/1 provides updation for pensioners for a certain period but it does not say
employees retired after this period are not eligible for updation,
2. So claiming there is no provision for updation in Pension regulations is utterly false.
Then we can also claim that there is no provision in Pension regulations that
bar updation for employees retired after 1986.
3. No provision for updation is required for revising updation and
there are many decisions taken which support this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:14 AM Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir it not supporting the case or supporting IBA. Just because one told truth - does not mean that one is against. His words has to be taken seriously and remedies/solutions to be found for the issues raised. One should live in 'La La land'.
Niranjan
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:56 PM 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Some super inteligents are ment to undermine the Sri Singla ji Case by their own rules and assumptions and presumption.
The learned judges of the high court have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail in favour of updation.
Let us wait for the final verdict.
Those who support IBA and UFBU combine and play second fiddle are minimum.and interpret pension regulations in their own way.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 15:42, Harish Midha
<harish...@gmail.com> wrote:
And above that one of our Honourable member in this group will continuously keep on harping on the interpretationsPrasad C N <sbmpen...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 10:41AM
Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Rao,
We fully appreciate your optimism. Congratulations.
I would say that it is height of optimism, because of your expectation that the Hon'ble Judges would decide on what we want, they would decide why we want and they would also decide how much we want. Thereafter, they would order whatever we want, they also decide why want and how much we want and decide.
Thanking you,
With regards,Prasad C N
On Tuesday, 17 March 2026 at 09:54:10 am IST, 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
It is unfortunate that the discussion is going out of subject matter and leading to personal hipocracy and self aggrandise.
Let us have patience and wait for the final verdict.
Those who are having knowledge and self conviction can preserve the same for themselves.
Those who have hopes that the judges have understood that there is something that calls for justice and positive verdict based on the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence have got their own right.
Nobody has got right to step in to the shoes of judges and presume and assume things against the best interests pension updation case till a judgement Is pronounced.
Let us not cross the lakshman rekha .
There is enough scope and grounds for favourable verdict irrespective of what C.N prasad please instead of guiding the pro pension updation advacates by using his information.
Let us exercise caution and patience till the verdict is delivered.
Let Us understand that knowledge and jurisprudence will not go together.
In Sri Singla ji Case the verdict shall be on the basis of Natural justice and jurisprudence of the judges shall be ensured it will be in favour of pension updation only.
All the questions and points and doubts raised by Sri CN Prasad shall be answered by Supreme court favourable verdict.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 15:48, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Shri S G Bhavnani,
There is no need to answer and we take your comments on our stride.
It is unfortunate that we prefer to shut our mouth and do not make comments when:
a. We were misled to believe that Provident Fund is better than Pension and 52% of us opted for Provident Fund. We shut our mouth did not tell these leaders that they are misguiding us. This misguidance and over 52% opting for PF resulted in loss of 15 years. We realised AIBEA was right. Do you know the cost of shutting the mouth. I have never seen any of us finding fault with them;
b. Do you know, four Officers' Organisations, including AIBOC has sought actuarial valuation to ensure adequate provision in Pension Fund. We do not find fault with them? Why we do not ask them shut their mouth?
c. Do you know, it is Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which has said that Regulation 35(1) does not help us?
d. When Pension of one section of Bank Pensioners is improved, when they sought payment of pension as per our scheme, we say in writing that we do not demand commensurate benefit. Even IBA says that there is no such demand from Nationalised Banks. But, we do not demand parity within the Banking industry and shut our mouth. Therefore, who is the stooge of IBA?
e. When the then General Secretaries of AIBOC and NCBE write letter to IBA not to implement the scheme of second pension option, when they do not sign MOU on 27.11.2010, when Second Pension option was extended on account of perservance of leadership of AIBEA, we shut our mouth. Who is the stooge of IBA?
f. When we know that our own Bank has sought amortisation of additional cost for extending improvement in Family Pension, when we claim there is huge amount in Pension Fund, we shut our mouth and sing the same song?
g. When the Government, Courts, RBI, etc. never claimed that there is no provision in their Pension Rules/Regulations, still their pension is revised, why they are saying so in our case?
h. We have shut our mouth, when our leaders did not or are not enforcing the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Then tell me who is helping IBA and who are the stooges of IBA?
This list is very long. One who wants to tell truth should have courage and conviction, but not those who are fooling us by misguiding us. Instead please ask them to shut their mouth.
Thanks, a Million.
With regards,Prasad C N
On Monday, 16 March 2026 at 10:09:00 am IST, 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mr Prasad,
You have been receiving some favour from your Guru, which is why you are always keep harping the same tune ,HMV. NO CLAUSE FOR UPDATION , LIKE IBA, ITS STOOGE AIBEA.
If you really in favour of PENSIONERS, PLEASE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT FOR SOME MORE TIME TILL THE HON'BLE JUSTICES GIVE THEIR OPINION.
-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341
From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:58:18
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
Dear Shri Somashekharaji, Whether there is any claim from anyone that those who have retired on or after 31.10.1987 are not eligible for Pension Revision?
Even if Pension is updated, whether any clause after such updation can be incorporated in Appendix - I? Those who are saying that there is no provision in Pension Regulations for pension updation are saying so only after some started invoking existence of provision for pension updation in Regulation 35(1). In case, we stop claiming existence of clause in Regulation 35(1), then IBA and the Government will stop saying that there is no provision for Pension Updation.
Regulation 35 is for fixation of Basic Pension, but not for altering Basic Pension. The formula in Clause a of Appendix I is only by adding Dearness Relief to Basic Pay, but not by adding any load. Formula adopted is akin to what we are asking with regard to payment of pension at 8088 points.
I have been continueously asking simple questions. I have received various narratives, but not the answer. My Questions are:
What is the 'Prayer' with regard to Pension Updation in Singla's case?
If our prayer is Pension Updation as per RBI formula, what is the connection between, pension Revision as per RBI formula and Regulation 35 or Regulation 56, wherein not even mention of the words, Reserve Bank of India? What is the meaning of 'Pension Updation', the words used in Regulation 35(1)? Where it is defined?
Beyond expecting order for Pension Updation if we succeed in Singla's case, what is the expectation regarding order and the formula and basis for such order? Whatever questions I have, must be a part of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners to win the case, while claiming order for Pension Updation. FORGET ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE & THE BASIS FOR SUCH INCREASE IN YOUR PENSION? THOSE WHO ARE FINDING FAULT IN OUR VIEWS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CALCULATE & TELL WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN PENSION & BASIS THEREOF. Thanks, a Million. With regards,Prasad C N On Thursday, 12 March 2026 at 03:58:46 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote: There is no discovery or wisdom or workshop required in finding that Reg 35/1 does not does not fetch us updation. CWP2008 of Punjab and Haryana Court verdict CWP 6333 0f 2008. 1. Reg 35/1 provides updation for pensioners for a certain period but it does not say employees retired after this period are not eligible for updation,2. So claiming there is no provision for updation in Pension regulations is utterly false. Then we can also claim that there is no provision in Pension regulations that bar updation for employees retired after 1986.3. No provision for updation is required for revising updation and there are many decisions taken which support this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:14 AM Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir it not supporting the case or supporting IBA. Just because one told truth - does not mean that one is against. His words has to be taken seriously and remedies/solutions to be found for the issues raised. One should live in 'La La land'. Niranjan On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:56 PM 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Some super inteligents are ment to undermine the Sri Singla ji Case by their own rules and assumptions and presumption.
The learned judges of the high court have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail in favour of updation.
Let us wait for the final verdict.
Those who support IBA and UFBU combine and play second fiddle are minimum.and interpret pension regulations in their own way.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 15:42, Harish Midha<harish...@gmail.com> wrote:And above that one of our Honourable member in this group will continuously keep on harping on the interpretations showing all negative views and meanings of every comes, semi colon, full stop etc etc without even touching on even a single word as nicely put forth by Somasekhra ji.Very unfortunate. On Tue, 10 Mar, 2026, 09:52 JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
Two factors that are making pre 2002 retirees suffer are1. Commercialization of trade Unions 2. Utilizing funds meant for retirees to increase wage revision percentage. Leaders take up issues of employees who are paying subscriptions. They do not want to invest their time and\ money on retirees who are not paying subscriptions. Moreover those unions who seriously take up retirees issues like updation are barred from BPS. VIZ Befi and AIBOA. BEFI which issues lengthy circulars on Social justice, equality, protecting rights of workers etc etc stopped talking about updation from the very moment it was barred from BPS. Unions were afraid of permanent suspension from BPS and thereby losing membership and subscription. Just imagine even a Unions is having 2000 members and collecting monthly membership of Rs.100, the annual income of Unions is 24 lakhs per month + levy once in 5 years, If levy is just Rs.1000 for 2000 members total collections is Rs. 20 Lakhs. Total 5 years annual income is Rs.1.40 crores. Who will lose such an amount by taking up the issue of pre 2002 retirees and get barred from BPS? This is one of the reasons unions are accepting illogical reasons of Sub judice and avoiding discussions.2. How the rule pension basic shall be fixed on last 10 months average emoluments.is being twisted Based on this employees retiring during 10th, 11th and 12th BPS should have got more pension as their Basic salary +DA+allowances and yearly increments are increased in every BPS. IBA/UFBU could not have straight away rejected proportionate pension on their average emoluments or 50% pension on last drawn salary as it violates pension rules. So the best way to reduce salary itself, by converting it as a special allowance and denying pension benefits on it.. So amounts saved by denying pension on special allowance, updation, merger of DA etc is used for increasing wage revision to 17%. Where is the guarantee that UFBU will not agree to increasing the special allowance to 50% and denying pension on it in 13th BPS. It is my strong wish that affected retirees win special allowance case and get arrears from their date of retirement So all Unions prefer to keep the right to negotiate on behalf of retirees and use it to get better perks for employees who pay subscriptions. So far no union leader has come out with the circular explaining why 100 % DA was denied to pre 2002 retirees, what is the actual cost of updation, why merger of DA not demanded,why ex gratia not reviewed, why Special allowance agreed denying pension benefits, the Medical agreement was signed making retirees pay 100% of premium there by keeping 80% of pensioners out of medical care. The reason is the above two factors mentioned. On Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 3:18 PM Ramani Konnayar <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Sir, In my opinion, pre 1/11/2002 retirees are definitely eligible for 100% DR neutralisation retrospectively from 1/2/2005 as otherwise, there was no need for specifically incorporating a clause in the relevant MOU entered into between IBA and UFBU that no arrears would be paid and the implementation would only take prospective effect from 1/10/2023. In all probability, the arrears were not paid only to cut/save costs. These retirees had abandoned all hopes after losing SLP in the Supreme Court and so even the prospective effect was an unexpected bonanza for them. The organisations representing them too did not bother to raise the issue of arrears, perhaps because this group consists of less than 15% of the total number of pensioners. To preclude the possibilities of any claim for arrears in future, the MOU - agreement route was specifically chosen. Though the sanctioning of 100% DA as above preceded the 12th BPS, it was very much incorporated in that BPS along with the sanctioning of Ex-gratia to all those who retired prior to 1/11/2022. However, while Ex-gratia was given retrospectively from 1/11/2022, 100% DA was not given retrospective effect even from 1/11/2022. As a consequence, the ex-gratia for the pre2002 retirees was calculated on the basis the tapered DA paid to them in October 2022 and the loss is around ₹700 - 800 per month.This anomaly continues till date although UFBU assured as early as in April 2024 to get it rectified. In short, among all the pensioners, those who retired prior to 1/11/2002 are the worst sufferers and justice is repeatedly denied/delayed to them. K N RAMANI On Mon, 9 Mar, 2026, 10:00 am RAMAKRISHNAN R P, <ramakri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 6 Mar, 2026, 18:20 RAMAKRISHNAN R P, <ramakri...@gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: RAMAKRISHNAN R P <ramakri...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar, 2026, 12:22
Subject: NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
To: <bankpe...@googlegroup.com>
Cc: RAMAKRISHNAN R P <ramakri...@gmail.com> Dear Friends,We should know how our DFS , is doing INJUSTICE to Pre 2002 Retirees in comparison with 2002 post Retirees. Pre 2002 Retirees were not given 100 % D.R from 01.05.2005 to 30.09.2023 and from 01.10.23 onwards only this 100 % D.R Neutralization have been implemented by DFS not with Restropective but with prospective only. As per NAKARA Case, and as per our Supreme court judgement on NAKARA,Case, Pensioners form one Homogeneous Class and Artificial Division based solely on retirement dates violets equality. Date based discrimination held arbitrary. Even if regulations or silent , constitutional equality prevails. Administrative interpretation cannot defeat beneficial legislation. Whether DFS has RIGHT TO GIVE THEIR OWN VERDICTION BY DENYING RETROSPECTIVELY AGAINST PROSPECTIVELY , IS MY QUESTION. IS IT NOT 10 AMOUNTS TO ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION AGAINST THE LEGISLATION. I welcome if any of you clear my doubts !!! Due to this , you all know how much arrears we are lestimately to RECEIVE. With best regards, Ramakrishnan RP, VRS Retiree.
--
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/CACpU%3DyTKZv3YQj5K-ApwYO-x1wB925nZULNgRGeUxfmw3g4d0w%40mail.gmail.com.
--Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 05:00PM +0530
Somashekharji, 35(1) is the main point of argument in Singlas case - that
is drawing everyones attention. Since the claim is made as per 35(1) -
that is being discussed. There is no clause in Regulations which prohibits
doubling of pensionsion every year - that doesnot mean we should to ask for
it - as it is not logical.
There is no need of any supportive clause for improvement in pension.
There are many instances, wherein - without any supporting regulations,
benefits have been given to pensioners first and Regulations amended
subsequently.
Hope no one will fall back Reg 35(1) for updation.
Niranjan
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026 at 3:53 PM, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
wrote:
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 05:31PM +0530
Dear Prasad Sir
whatever your opinion regarding 100%DA case in SC is correct. Courts decide
discrimination legal or not and pass verdict. But I think leaders must
have moral obligation to ensure that as far as possible benefits agreed
should reach all pensioners as all pensioners come under same pension
regulations.
Regarding to formulas for updation UFBU had not arrived at consensus and
has no clarity on the formula and load factor.
In fact as you said nobody has idea of formula.
But I will bring to your notice three types of formula you have suggested
in this forum sometime back. You have also
suggested Ipso factor a formula to CHV.
You will agree that cost of updation vary significantly basing on each
formula.
But one question pensioners are asking and agitated is this.UFBU has not
arrived at formula and none of us is aware of any specific formula. While
it is so AIBEA general secretary often claiming pension updation cost is
too huge without having any decision on formula is right?
Is this not a big road block for BPS discussions? It is like surrendering
weapons even before war started.
Nobody has so far clarified why he is claiming so?
JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 07:32PM +0530
I attach herewith a formula suggested by Sri. C N Prasad in his letter
dated 23.11.2023 to Sri. C H Venkatachalam.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 5:31 PM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:52AM +0530
Mr Shailen Bhavnani,
At present OFficers constitute 75% of the Bank staff and workmen
constitutes only 25% of the total staff. Out of 25%, SBI wherein NCBE is
having say constitutes 10%. AIBEA is having only 15% of the total Strength
in UFBU. Really puzzling how 85% is compromised with 15% leader ?
One should not hate or like anyone for the sake of it. There should be
objective/rationale - in whatever we say.
The Pension Settlement signed during 1993 and there after Regulations were
framed and notified during 1995.
SBCK QUESTION
SBCK ANSWER
COUNTER – CLARIFICATION NEEDED
1) Is there a provision in BEPR to update pension at every wage revision?
Yes - as per amended Reg 35(1).
35(1) and Appendix 1 does not contain any sentence which is beneficial to
us – if implemented. No one says how to implement 35(1), if not
implemented already
2) Is Pension Settlement of 1993 binding even after BEPR coming into
operation?.
Yes - Pension Settlement of 1993 is also binding inasmuch as BEPR does not
have any Superseding Non Obstante clause to extinguish the Pension
settlement of 1993
Please read the HC Judgement in Singlas Case. One has to answer/clarify to
the Supreme Court satisfactorily. But, SBCK, never touches HC judgement –
as it is inconvenient to answer but the present appeal is against that HC
judgement only and there is no escape.
3) Should updation be as per RBI formula?
Yes - in view of Pension settlement of 29/10/1993. Updation formula can be
better than or as per RBI formula.
Again this has to be justified duly explaining counters to HC Judgements –
as already ruling has come. So far no explaination to Judgements is given
4) Can Funds Constraint relieve banks from statutory obligation of pension
updation?
No - Funds can be a factor for INTRODUCTION of a scheme but NOT for
IMPLEMENTATION of an existing/inherent statutory or constitutional
obligation.
If it to be paid as per Regulations, providing funds is banks head ache.
For last three years, all banks have provided more Rs. 1 lakh crores
towards shortfall (beyond the mandated 10%). Better not touch Funds part
any time – as it is a slipper slope.
5) Is our pension scheme a Funded Scheme that makes pension updation not
obligatory?
This is a baseless plea of IBA because the accounting standards has no such
classification. As per AS 15, ours is DBS and hence it is obligatory to
have actuarial valuation done and Fund maintained accordingly for pension
payouts that mean and include updated pension.
Banks have obligation to provide funds as per Regulations and Regulations
only. We cannot expect the bank to provide for the updation on undecided
formula and without any reference to Regulations.
No pension regulations are having clause /formula for future updation.
Niranjan
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 9:56 AM 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner <
Mani B <mani...@gmail.com>: Mar 18 10:12AM +0530
Why people are deliberately forgetting the changes of language in 2003 in
reg 35(1). This speaks volume of it courts including SC and small committee
meeting held and recorded in 1994 before framing EPR 1995.
If lower courts dismisses by not accepting 35(1) and 1994 recorded
agreement, it doesn't mean that justice is totally denied for us.
In order to get a fair justice MC Singla case is under final hearing on
09.04.26.
Laws and regulations are susceptible for misinterpretation always for
taking favourable sides for the stake holders.
We are resting our hope in this case to see a light in our dawn periods.
Let us wait for the final verdict.
Bala
Prasad C N <sbmpen...@gmail.com>: Mar 18 09:52AM
Dear Shri Somashekara,
Formula what is suggested is for negotiation and is the best possible, but cannot be enforced through Courts of Law. In a negotiation, one who gives has an upperhand, but not those who are at receiving end. In the changed circumstances, UFBU has limited strength to enforce whatever they want. Please remember over 98% of transactions are digital. Com.C H Venkatachalam is the General Secretary of Workmen Union, which does not even have 25% of membership. Now, AIBOC is the largest of the organisations. Unfortunately, we have developed a phobia.
Formula what I suggested is not a 'Ipso facto' RBI formula. 'Ipso facto' means "automatically/by that very fact/necessarily". UFBU works in the interest of its members. We are all former members. If UFBU takes up our issue, it is UFBU is helping us. I know that I may be labelled. But, I request all Bank Pensioners, what we did, when we were employees. As an employee, did we protest, when 1616-1684 issue was brought in or when Special Allowance is brought in. Vast majority of us opted for PF, but we find fault with Pension Settlement. We find fault with UFBU after retirement, but not when we are in service.
Whether so called 'champions of bank pensioners' are demanding parity with pensioners of 'State Bank of India'? Whether these champions have ensured implementation of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court? Due you know the Banks from which these leaders have retired have recovered from pension, while implementing the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court?
I am extremely sorry, we have double standards. We only know, to blame everyone else.
We believe anyone who says pension is going to be enhanced, without even understanding the merit of such statement.
Thanking you,
With regards,Prasad C N
On Wednesday, 18 March 2026 at 10:01:12 am IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Prasad Sirwhatever your opinion regarding 100%DA case in SC is correct. Courts decide discrimination legal or not and pass verdict. But I think leaders must have moral obligation to ensure that as far as possible benefits agreed should reach all pensioners as all pensioners come under same pension regulations. Regarding to formulas for updation UFBU had not arrived at consensus and has no clarity on the formula and load factor.In fact as you said nobody has idea of formula.But I will bring to your notice three types of formula you have suggested in this forum sometime back. You have alsosuggested Ipso factor a formula to CHV.You will agree that cost of updation vary significantly basing on each formula.But one question pensioners are asking and agitated is this.UFBU has not arrived at formula and none of us is aware of any specific formula. While it is so AIBEA general secretary often claiming pension updation cost is too huge without having any decision on formula is right?Is this not a big road block for BPS discussions? It is like surrendering weapons even before war started.Nobody has so far clarified why he is claiming so?
On Tue, 17 Mar 2026, 15:53 Ramani Konnayar, <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Mohan ji,
The scope for various interpretations of Registration 35(1) would not have arisen at all, had the purpose of that Regulation been spelt out alongside. So also, the purpose of the subsequent modification in 2003. It is also unclear whether it is simply a merger of DA with basic or something more than that.
No doubt, the contention that the above Regulation provides for periodic updation of pension for ALL Pensioners as has been happening to Government and RBI pensioners has not been accepted by some High Courts. This being so, why one Apex organisation is sticking to this stand in the Singla case is not known. Perhaps, their advocates strongly feel that Supreme Court would interpret differently.
Only thing that has raised expectations now is the calling for statistics by Supreme Court, rather than straightaway dismissing the appeal by concurring with the judgements of the HCs.
As very rightly pointed out by you, the main reason for updation not happening so far (as it has happened in RBI thrice)is the disinterest/disinclination of UFBU to take up the matter seriously. Of course, they have their own reasons which they have not spelt out openly/clearly but given enough indications in speeches by the leaders on different occasions.
K N RAMANI
On Tue, 17 Mar, 2026, 1:09 pm MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear FriendsDiscussion on our issues may continue to take place here or elsewhere till the issues are finally resolved,whether one like it or not.Updation of pension is our legitimate demand.Let it happen.
There are reasons for it.One Apex Organisation and individuals/social media harp on the same point and mis information is passed on as if only favourable verdict may be given on next date in apex court.( Social media has gone on calculations !)
Naturally there may have proper clarifications and explanations based on factual/legal positions of the point/issue from others too.
Let us understand that even without any specific clause/Regulation in RBI or CCS rules in Central Govt. their pensioners could secure revision of pension.Of course in RBI with joint struggles with employees along with legal front too,and with Pay Commission recommendation for Govt staff.
We are still hovering on one clause as if our entire issues may have instant resolution! Let the verdict come,let it be positive or negative.
While dismissing the first case No WP(C)No.6233 of 2008 dt 16.04.2012 filed by Late M C Singla & ors before P&H High Court,Hon court has said that "it would be open for the petitioners to make the demands for parity if they are so advised and use their bargaining skills through theirassociations and press for the reliefs though the mechanism providedunder the Industrial Disputes Act."
Unfortunately employees associations could not proceed with any serious discussion with IBA on methodology/formula etc on the subject issue so far and retirees organisation too could not initiate to jointly take any solid action towards this.Court may not or cannot evolve any formula for updation of bank pension.If Hon.Court, direct the parties, to explore for any suitable way out, let it happen.
In one of the cases in our favour on inclusion of Special Allowance for Basic Pension before Kerala High Court in Nov 2019, Hon.court has directed bank to do the necessary action within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of thejudgment.Nothing happened so far!Still such cases are in Appeal stage.
An healthy discussion is always better for understanding the issues in right perspective than abuses and blame game on individuals and organisations!
Regards
On Tue, 17 Mar, 2026, 9:54 am ashok goel, <ashok...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Ramani rightly said. Thanks.Ashok goel
On Mon, 16 Mar, 2026, 3:48 pm Ramani Konnayar, <knra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Mohan ji,
I fully endorse your views. It is absolutely necessary to avoid usage of harsh and unparliamentary words in our letters posted in the group.
As for the Singla case, I feel that we need not go too far into the legal technicalities, deficiencies, lacunae etc.,in the plaint, arguments etc., and predict the outcome of the case. Suppose the judgement comes in our favour, notwithstanding all the perceived shortcomings, are we going to reject it?
Securing benefits is more important than through whose efforts it happens, I feel. In short, rivalry among organisations should not be allowed to spoil the chances.
K N RAMANI
On Mon, 16 Mar, 2026, 10:51 am MOHAN P, <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr Shailendra,
All members under this forum have every right to express their views on subjects referred here.The language you have used against a member in your message is not fare.Please desist from using such words.Mr C N Prasad is sharing his views based on facts and if any one wish to counter the same please put forward the same instead of blaming person(s)A healthy debate is the best way.RegardsMohan .P
On Mon, 16 Mar, 2026, 10:09 am 'SHAILEN Bhavnani' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mr Prasad,
You have been receiving some favour from your Guru, which is why you are always keep harping the same tune ,HMV. NO CLAUSE FOR UPDATION , LIKE IBA, ITS STOOGE AIBEA.
If you really in favour of PENSIONERS, PLEASE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT FOR SOME MORE TIME TILL THE HON'BLE JUSTICES GIVE THEIR OPINION.
-- Regards,
S.G. Bhavnani
Contact No. +919540410341
From: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:58:18
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NAKARA V. UNION OF INDIA (SC.1983)
Dear Shri Somashekharaji, Whether there is any claim from anyone that those who have retired on or after 31.10.1987 are not eligible for Pension Revision?
Even if Pension is updated, whether any clause after such updation can be incorporated in Appendix - I? Those who are saying that there is no provision in Pension Regulations for pension updation are saying so only after some started invoking existence of provision for pension updation in Regulation 35(1). In case, we stop claiming existence of clause in Regulation 35(1), then IBA and the Government will stop saying that there is no provision for Pension Updation.
Regulation 35 is for fixation of Basic Pension, but not for altering Basic Pension. The formula in Clause a of Appendix I is only by adding Dearness Relief to Basic Pay, but not by adding any load. Formula adopted is akin to what we are asking with regard to payment of pension at 8088 points.
I have been continueously asking simple questions. I have received various narratives, but not the answer. My Questions are:
What is the 'Prayer' with regard to Pension Updation in Singla's case?
If our prayer is Pension Updation as per RBI formula, what is the connection between, pension Revision as per RBI formula and Regulation 35 or Regulation 56, wherein not even mention of the words, Reserve Bank of India? What is the meaning of 'Pension Updation', the words used in Regulation 35(1)? Where it is defined?
Beyond expecting order for Pension Updation if we succeed in Singla's case, what is the expectation regarding order and the formula and basis for such order? Whatever questions I have, must be a part of the arguments on behalf of the Petitioners to win the case, while claiming order for Pension Updation. FORGET ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE & THE BASIS FOR SUCH INCREASE IN YOUR PENSION? THOSE WHO ARE FINDING FAULT IN OUR VIEWS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO CALCULATE & TELL WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN PENSION & BASIS THEREOF. Thanks, a Million. With regards,Prasad C N On Thursday, 12 March 2026 at 03:58:46 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote: There is no discovery or wisdom or workshop required in finding that Reg 35/1 does not does not fetch us updation. CWP2008 of Punjab and Haryana Court verdict CWP 6333 0f 2008. 1. Reg 35/1 provides updation for pensioners for a certain period but it does not say employees retired after this period are not eligible for updation,2. So claiming there is no provision for updation in Pension regulations is utterly false. Then we can also claim that there is no provision in Pension regulations that bar updation for employees retired after 1986.3. No provision for updation is required for revising updation and there are many decisions taken which support this.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:14 AM Niranjan Cn <niran...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sir it not supporting the case or supporting IBA. Just because one told truth - does not mean that one is against. His words has to be taken seriously and remedies/solutions to be found for the issues raised. One should live in 'La La land'. Niranjan On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:56 PM 'Satyanarayana Rao' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Some super inteligents are ment to undermine the Sri Singla ji Case by their own rules and assumptions and presumption.
The learned judges of the high court have understood that there is something that calls for justice and justice shall prevail in favour of updation.
Let us wait for the final verdict.
Those who support IBA and UFBU combine and play second fiddle are minimum.and interpret pension regulations in their own way.
Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer
On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 15:42, Harish Midha<harish...@gmail.com> wrote:And above that one of our Honourable member in this group will continuously keep on harping on the interpretations showing all negative views and meanings of every comes, semi colon, full stop etc etc without even touching on even a single word as nicely put forth by Somasekhra ji.Very unfortunate. On Tue, 10 Mar, 2026, 09:52 JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
Two factors that are making pre 2002 retirees suffer are1. Commercialization of trade Unions 2. Utilizing funds meant for retirees to increase wage revision percentage. Leaders take up issues of employees who are paying subscriptions. They do not want to invest their time and\ money on retirees who are not paying subscriptions. Moreover those unions who seriously take up retirees issues like updation are barred from BPS. VIZ Befi and AIBOA. BEFI which issues lengthy circulars on Social justice, equality, protecting rights of workers etc etc stopped talking about updation from the very moment it was barred from BPS. Unions were afraid of permanent suspension from BPS and thereby losing membership and subscription. Just imagine even a Unions is having 2000 members and collecting monthly membership of Rs.100, the annual income of Unions is 24 lakhs per month + levy once in 5 years, If levy is just Rs.1000 for 2000 members total collections is Rs. 20 Lakhs. Total 5 years annual income is Rs.1.40 crores. Who will lose such an amount by taking up the issue of pre 2002 retirees and get barred from BPS? This is one of the reasons unions are accepting illogical reasons of Sub judice and avoiding discussions.2. How the rule pension basic shall be fixed on last 10 months average emoluments.is being twisted Based on this employees retiring during 10th, 11th and 12th BPS should have got more pension as their Basic salary +DA+allowances and yearly increments are increased in every BPS. IBA/UFBU could not have straight away rejected proportionate pension on their average emoluments or 50% pension on last drawn salary as it violates pension rules. So the best way to reduce salary itself, by converting it as a special allowance and denying pension benefits on it.. So amounts saved by denying pension on special allowance, updation, merger of DA etc is used for increasing wage revision to 17%. Where is the guarantee that UFBU will not agree to increasing the special allowance to 50% and denying pension on it in 13th BPS. It is my strong wish that affected retirees win special allowance case and get arrears from their date of retirement So all Unions prefer to keep the right to negotiate on behalf of retirees and use it to get better perks for employees who pay subscriptions. So far no union leader has come out with the circular explaining why 100 % DA was denied to pre 2002 retirees, what is the actual cost of updation, why merger of DA not demanded,why ex gratia not reviewed, why Special allowance agreed denying pension benefits, the Medical agreement was signed making retirees pay 100% of premium there by keeping 80% of pensioners out of medical
GARIMELLA SESHAGIRIRAO <giri...@gmail.com>: Mar 17 04:04PM +0530
Cost factor is the headache of management.court will give judgements as per
law. If law is there we will get.not any body's charity.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 3:53 PM Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages