NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

[MOHANDAS RAO]

          UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES

 

·       Pension Scheme in Banks is a new thing. I was introduced in 1995. Then also option for pension was not compulsory and some remained in P.F. option.  Later they realized that pension is better than P.F. option and thereafter, with much struggle, they got a fresh opportunity for shifting to pension option recently.  After this final chance most of the retired and staff at the fag end of their service has now opted for pension. There are so many short-comings in the present Pension Regulations.

·       One of such things is regarding neutralization of D.A.  Another is for fixation of basic pension, last 10 months’ salary drawn is taken into consideration, while for Central Government employees, it is the last month’s basic salary. We in banks have to complete 33 years’ of service to get full pensioner benefits. Otherwise we will get proportionate; for an example a person put in 30 years of service will get 30/33th or 10/11th of the full basic. In Central Government more senior citizens are getting some extra percentage of pensions according to their age. Of course, we cannot compare the regulation with such a senior and improved regulation of Central Government, where funds for pension is being paid from budgetary provisions (tax collected), wherein here in case of banks any higher expenditure affects profit and loss of the bank. However, improvement in the Pension Regulations in Banking Industry by amending it from time to time is a necessity to maintain justice and equality.

·       One of the most pressing or urgent thing is about updating of pension in banks. As per present rules, once a basic pension is fixed, it will continue forever without any upward revision. The only change in the gross pension is on account of rise or fall in D.A. payable half-yearly. Pre 11/2002 pensioners are not getting 100% neutralization in D.A. unlike the post 2002 pensioners. The result is that very senior bank pensioners are drawing very small basic pension, a larger portion of their gross pension is by way of fluctuating D.A.  An employee now retired from with a lower grade or rank is drawing higher gross pension than his predecessor. The difference is going to increase by rise in D.A. index and consequent D.A. change due to different D.A. formulae. The process of getting a higher gross pension by a new comer will continue as and when fresh pensioners join the stream. To rectify the position, the only solution left is updating pension from time to time, as and when pay scales get revised. This will be in tune with one of the Regulations of the Central or State Government Employees.

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS (Retired in 2001)

 

[Sumati M]

Dear Mr RAo,

Thank you for your concise explanation.  It has cleared my mind regarding the the basic issues which we are fighting for.

Regards

Sumati M

SBM SVRS 

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

--
SUMATI M

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Mr Mohandas Rao's details need a small correction. For eligibility of full pension, a notional service of 5 years is added to all those who have put in 28 years of service and thus they ( who have put in 28 years of service) are entitled to full pension. This notional addition of years of service was denied to the Special VRS 2000 retirees and they were paid only prorata pension based on the number of years of service. This was challenged successfully before Madras High Court and full pension was subsequently restored to all the affected pensioners as per court orders and arrears were also paid by the respective banks during 2009.

 

 

V Raghavan ( Indian Bank retiree-Special VRS 2000)

---

From: Sumati M <c.su...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 21 July, 2011 11:20:40
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

[GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN]

Friends, 

Mr. Mohandas Rao`s statement does not require any correction. He is narrating the benefits not covered under our PENSION REGULATIONS, in relation to the benefits available to the Government Pensioners.  Adding 5 years of service to VRS retirees (5years or less upto 33 years of service) is available under Regulation 29(5)  of the Pension Regulation 1995. But the Banks have refused to apply the Regulation.It was held by  the Hon`ble Supreme Court of India (civil appeal no.1943 

 of 2009 dated 27 03 2009)that employees are entitled to the weightage in terms of Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995. Based on this judgment, Hon`ble High Court of Madras vide WP no.3895 of 2003 dated 11 06 2009 delivered a judgment on the same lines.But the judgment of Hon` ble High Court of Madras has relieved the apprehensions of SVRS retirees to a great extent as  it was made applicable for OTHER EQUIVALENT EMPLOYEES WHO OBTAINED VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER VRS 2000.  Another point to be highlighted in this judgment  "However, if the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, then, in such case, the employees can claim interest and the Bank shall pay such dues with INTEREST OF 8% from the date of this judgment till the amount is paid. That is why the arrears were paid hurriedly by INDIAN BANK.    

                            G JANAKIRAMAN - SVRS 2000 retiree INDIAN BANK

[Sumati M]

Dear Mr. Raghavan,

I have a clarification.  As per Special VRS 2000, I understand that 5years service was added for those who had put in 28 years of service, but those who had put in less than 28 years were not given the addtional notional 5 years of service for getting their terminal benefits.

My understanding is that we are now fighting to get the notional five yeaRS  service for all the SVRS optees irrespective of the number of years of service put in.  So as I have put in 20 years at the time of SVRS 2001, I am entitled to an addtion of 5 years to my service, thus my pension should have been calculated for 25 years.

Can you clarifiy?

Thanks and regards,

Sumati

[Chinnagourishankar]

All those who have completed 20 years of service are eligible for additional service of 5 years for calculation of pension as per the supreme court order. You please apply your bank for the same 

Sent from my iPad

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Dear Shri Janakiraman

 

My observation on Mr Mohandas Rao's details was only with regard to a factual omission. It was mentioned that Bank employees are entitled to full pension only on putting 33 years of service. The entitlement of 5 years of notional service was not found in that communication. The denial of this notional service to VRS-2000 retirees was separate from this. I have dealt with this aspect and the subsequent developments as a result of Madras High Court;s favourable orders, also in my response.

 

Regards

 

V Raghavan

---

From: GOPALAN JANAKIRAMAN <gj1...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 21 July, 2011 15:19:21

[premchand jaswal]

Dear Gaurishankar,

                            It is a matter of pleasure for all the retirees that all those who have completed 20 years of service are eligible for additional service of 5 years for calculation of pension as per the Supreme Court ruling. Sir,please attach the SC ruling for the benefit of all the retirees.

Thanks & Regards

P.C.Jaswal             

[MOHANDAS RAO]

THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IS ENCLOSED AS AN ATTACHMENT.

 

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS

P.C.Jaswal             

SBM SVRS 

--
SUMATI M

--
SUMATI M

[Ramesh Megaravalli]

Dear Mr. Raghavan,

As far as my poor knowledge goes, ( With all pleadings that my
comprension may be wrong)
If a person retires on attaining age of superannuation without
completing 33 years of service, no additional notional service up to 5
years shall be added to make good the remaining years for the
completion of 33 years. Rationally thinking, the person retiring
after attaining the age of retirement will have no further age to
serve the bank, and hence no additional service will be added.
Whereas in case of a person retiring before attaining the age of
superannuation (VRS)
he will have further age to serve the bank and it will be justified
adding 5 years of notional service.

Ramesh Megaravalli

>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Sumati M < <c.su...@gmail.com>c.su...@gmail.com>
>>>> *To:* <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>bankpe...@googlegroups.com
>>>> *Sent:* Thu, 21 July, 2011 11:20:40
>>>> *Subject:* Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR

>>>> RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.
>>>>
>>>> Dear Mr RAo,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your concise explanation. It has cleared my mind
>>>> regarding
>>>> the the basic issues which we are fighting for.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sumati M
>>>> SBM SVRS
>>>>
>>>> On 20 July 2011 17:16, MOHANDAS RAO < <mohand...@gmail.com>

>>>> mohand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES*
>>>>>
>>>>> * *
>>>>>
>>>>> · *Pension Scheme in Banks is a new thing. I was introduced in

>>>>> 1995. Then also option for pension was not compulsory and some remained
>>>>> in
>>>>> P.F. option. Later they realized that pension is better than P.F.
>>>>> option and thereafter, with much struggle, they got a fresh opportunity
>>>>> for
>>>>> shifting to pension option recently. After this final chance most of
>>>>> the retired and staff at the fag end of their service has now opted for
>>>>> pension. There are so many short-comings in the present Pension
>>>>> Regulations.

>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> · *One of such things is regarding neutralization of D.A.

>>>>> Another
>>>>> is for fixation of basic pension, last 10 months’ salary drawn is taken
>>>>> into
>>>>> consideration, while for Central Government employees, it is the last
>>>>> month’s basic salary. We in banks have to complete 33 years’ of service
>>>>> to
>>>>> get full pensioner benefits. Otherwise we will get proportionate; for
>>>>> an
>>>>> example a person put in 30 years of service will get 30/33th or 10/11th
>>>>> of
>>>>> the full basic. In Central Government more senior citizens are getting
>>>>> some
>>>>> extra percentage of pensions according to their age. Of course, we
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> compare the regulation with such a senior and improved regulation of
>>>>> Central
>>>>> Government, where funds for pension is being paid from budgetary
>>>>> provisions
>>>>> (tax collected), wherein here in case of banks any higher expenditure
>>>>> affects profit and loss of the bank. However, improvement in the
>>>>> Pension
>>>>> Regulations in Banking Industry by amending it from time to time is a

>>>>> necessity to maintain justice and equality.*
>>>>>
>>>>> · *One of the most pressing or urgent thing is about updating of

>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>> *K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS (Retired in 2001)*
>>>>>
>>>>> * *

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "bankpensioner" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send an email to

>>>>> <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>>>> <bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

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

>>>> <bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>>>> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB>

>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "bankpensioner" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send an email to <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>

>>>> bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>>> <bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>>>> bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB>

> <http://www.topamusing.com/wp/ie.php?plg=ie&subs=gmail&elm=sign>

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

--
M.S.Ramesh

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Dear sir,

 

You r very much right.

 

Regards

 

V Raghavan

---

From: Ramesh Megaravalli <ramesh.me...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, 22 July, 2011 16:55:08
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

>>>>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> SUMATI M
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "bankpensioner" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send an email to <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> <bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>>>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups
>>>> "bankpensioner" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send an email to <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> <bankpensioner%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

>>>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

>>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

>>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

>> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>>
>
>
>
>  <http://www.topamusing.com/wp/ie.php?plg=ie&subs=gmail&elm=sign>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "bankpensioner" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>
>


--
M.S.Ramesh

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[ashok goel]

10th.BPS IN BANKS

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

THE CONVENOR

UFBU

KINDLY SUBMIT 2 CHARTERS ONE FOR ECONOMIC DEMANDS AND THE OTHER FOR NON MONETARY DEMANDS.

---

PENSIONERS ARE WAITING UPDATION SINCE YOU, SIR FINALISATION OF PENSION PACT IN 1993.

RETIREES  BETWEEN 1.11.2002 TO 30.04.2005 ARE GETTING 50PECENT OF PAY DRAWN ONLY FROM 1.05.2005. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE PENSION FROM THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENTS AND ARREARS OF COMMUTATIONS TOO.

RETIREES FROM 1.04.1998 TO 31.10.2002 HAS GOT PENSION REVISION AFTER 1684 INDEX ONLY FROM 1.05.2005.

THEY LOST THEIR PENSION ARREARS DFROM 1.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005.

THESE RETIREES ALSO DID NOT GET COMMUTATION ARREARS.

RETIREES FROM 1.01.1986 TO 31.10.2007 ARE PATIENTLY WAITING AND WATCHING FOR UPDATION.

RETIREES BEFORE 1.1.1986 ARE GETTING ONLY 300RS. PM AS EXGRATIA AND WAITING FOR SOME ENHANCEMENT.

 RETIREES FROM 1.1.1986 TO 31.10.2002 ARE GETTING DEARNESS RELIEF ON TAPERING BASIS WHEREAS RETIREES FROM 1.11.2002 TO TILL DAT AR GTTING DA ON 100 PRCENT NEUTRALISATION.

AT TH TIM OF 2ND OPTION TO PNSION OPTES WERE DISCRIMINATED TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF COMMUTATION.

RETIREES FROM 1.1.1986 ARE GETTING DARNSS  RLIF ON HALF YARLY BASIS WHRAS IN SRVICE BANKERS ARE GETTING ON QUARTERLY BASIS.

PLEASE START TALKS ON THES POINTS AND SHOULD B SIGND OUT OF TH LOAD FOR 10TH. BPS.

 

THANKS AND RGARDS

ASHOK KUMAR GOL

24.07.2011

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[srinivasa devulapalli]

I do agree with you Mr. Mohandas Rao Garu,

The existing pension rules need to be amended through a guideline to
that effect from the Government to the PSBs through IBA. This could
be done only through a direction from the Supreme Court of India,
besides exerting pressure on the Government through political
lobbying. I am given to understand that already some Writ Petitions
are pending before various High courts and Supreme Court as well. We
should co-ordinate with the petitioners in Supreme Court for
expeditious disposal. If you have details as to the pending WPs in
this matter, I request you to share the same through this forum.
Thanking you , (D.S.Murti: Manager-retd under VRS 2000 from
Syndicate Bank. emai: devulapa...@gmail.com)

On Jul 20, 4:46 pm, MOHANDAS RAO <mohandasr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> *          UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES*
>
> * *
>
> ·       *Pension Scheme in Banks is a new thing. I was introduced in 1995.

> Then also option for pension was not compulsory and some remained in P.F.
> option.  Later they realized that pension is better than P.F. option and
> thereafter, with much struggle, they got a fresh opportunity for shifting to
> pension option recently.  After this final chance most of the retired and
> staff at the fag end of their service has now opted for pension. There are

> so many short-comings in the present Pension Regulations.*
>
> ·       *One of such things is regarding neutralization of D.A.  Another is

> for fixation of basic pension, last 10 months’ salary drawn is taken into
> consideration, while for Central Government employees, it is the last
> month’s basic salary. We in banks have to complete 33 years’ of service to
> get full pensioner benefits. Otherwise we will get proportionate; for an
> example a person put in 30 years of service will get 30/33th or 10/11th of
> the full basic. In Central Government more senior citizens are getting some
> extra percentage of pensions according to their age. Of course, we cannot
> compare the regulation with such a senior and improved regulation of Central
> Government, where funds for pension is being paid from budgetary provisions
> (tax collected), wherein here in case of banks any higher expenditure
> affects profit and loss of the bank. However, improvement in the Pension
> Regulations in Banking Industry by amending it from time to time is a

> necessity to maintain justice and equality.*
>
> ·       *One of the most pressing or urgent thing is about updating of

> pension in banks. As per present rules, once a basic pension is fixed, it
> will continue forever without any upward revision. The only change in the
> gross pension is on account of rise or fall in D.A. payable half-yearly. Pre
> 11/2002 pensioners are not getting 100% neutralization in D.A. unlike the
> post 2002 pensioners. The result is that very senior bank pensioners are
> drawing very small basic pension, a larger portion of their gross pension is
> by way of fluctuating D.A.  An employee now retired from with a lower grade
> or rank is drawing higher gross pension than his predecessor. The difference
> is going to increase by rise in D.A. index and consequent D.A. change due to
> different D.A. formulae. The process of getting a higher gross pension by a
> new comer will continue as and when fresh pensioners join the stream. To
> rectify the position, the only solution left is updating pension from time
> to time, as and when pay scales get revised. This will be in tune with one

> of the Regulations of the Central or State Government Employees. *
>
> *K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS (Retired in 2001)*
>
> * *
>
>  <http://www.winksfine.com/wp/ie.php?plg=ie&subs=gmail&elm=sign>

[perumal maruthu]

Thanks for highlighting the vital and urgent demands. I strongly opine that any load factor or cost factor in respect of setting right the INJUSTICE/ANAMOLIES suffered by the pre-2002 retired pensioners should not be accepted by the negotiating Leaders as Banks are undulyand unjustifiably enjoying the withheld payments for more than 10 years. Interest on the withheld portion of Commutation and monthly DA will be more than what they may incur  due to restoration of 100% neutralization of DA.

Therefore, pending matters inrespect of the Pre-2002 should be resolved first and cost/load factor not to be linked to wage revision Talks.

M.Perumal

Chennai-95

[PM]

Dear Friends,

It is only as agreed between IBA and Union Leaders, the cost of
pension was shared equally between the parties at the decided rates
during past three Bipartite settlements. Union leadership are not
unaware of the facts.

The unholy nexus between IBA and UFBU,paved way for this unethical
practice,which was started during the course of 7th BPS when UFBU
permitted IBA on sharing cost of pension in violation of Pension
Settlement dated 29.11.1993 and Pension Regulation of 1995.

In the 7th Bipartite Settlement, the pension cost of 26.5% was shared
at 10% + 8.25% from amount of wage revision for employees and balance
8. 25% additionally by banks.

In 8th Bipartite Settlement, also the pension cost of 30.5% was
shared at 10% + 9.25% out of wage revision amount and balance 11.25%
by banks.

Same story continued in 9th BPS and pension cost of 36% was shared
at 10+13% out of amount of wage revision and balance 13% by banks.

100% DA neutralisation of pre-2002 pensioners has to be sorted out by
IBA/Bank Managements without resorting further unethical practices
like updation of pension.
In 2012 BPS?
Hope better council will prevail upon IBA/Management.


On Jul 24, 2:31 am, perumal maruthu <perumalmaru...@yahoo.co.in>
wrote:

> Thanks for highlighting the vital and urgent demands. I strongly opine that any load factor or cost factor in respect of setting right the INJUSTICE/ANAMOLIES suffered by the pre-2002 retired pensioners should not be accepted by the negotiating Leaders as Banks are undulyand unjustifiably enjoying the withheld payments for more than 10 years. Interest on the withheld portion of Commutation and monthly DA will be more than what they may incur  due to restoration of 100% neutralization of DA.
> Therefore, pending matters inrespect of the Pre-2002 should be resolved first and cost/load factor not to be linked to wage revision Talks.
> M.Perumal
> Chennai-95
>

> From: ashok goel <ashokgoe...@gmail.com>
> To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, 24 July 2011 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.
>
> 10th.BPS IN BANKS
> --------------------
> THE CONVENOR
> UFBU
> KINDLY SUBMIT 2 CHARTERS ONE FOR ECONOMIC DEMANDS AND THE OTHER FOR NON MONETARY DEMANDS.
> ---
> PENSIONERS ARE WAITING UPDATION SINCE YOU, SIR FINALISATION OF PENSION PACT IN 1993.
> RETIREES  BETWEEN 1.11.2002 TO 30.04.2005 ARE GETTING 50PECENT OF PAY DRAWN ONLY FROM 1.05.2005. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE PENSION FROM THEIR DATES OF RETIREMENTS AND ARREARS OF COMMUTATIONS TOO.
> RETIREES FROM 1.04.1998 TO 31.10.2002 HAS GOT PENSION REVISION AFTER 1684 INDEX ONLY FROM 1.05.2005.
> THEY LOST THEIR PENSION ARREARS DFROM 1.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005.
> THESE RETIREES ALSO DID NOT GET COMMUTATION ARREARS.
> RETIREES FROM 1.01.1986 TO 31.10.2007 ARE PATIENTLY WAITING AND WATCHING FOR UPDATION.
> RETIREES BEFORE 1.1.1986 ARE GETTING ONLY 300RS. PM AS EXGRATIA AND WAITING FOR SOME ENHANCEMENT.
>  RETIREES FROM 1.1.1986 TO 31.10.2002 ARE GETTING DEARNESS RELIEF ON TAPERING BASIS WHEREAS RETIREES FROM 1.11.2002 TO TILL DAT AR GTTING DA ON 100 PRCENT NEUTRALISATION.
> AT TH TIM OF 2ND OPTION TO PNSION OPTES WERE DISCRIMINATED TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF COMMUTATION.
> RETIREES FROM 1.1.1986 ARE GETTING DARNSS  RLIF ON HALF YARLY BASIS WHRAS IN SRVICE BANKERS ARE GETTING ON QUARTERLY BASIS.
> PLEASE START TALKS ON THES POINTS AND SHOULD B SIGND OUT OF TH LOAD FOR 10TH. BPS.
>  
> THANKS AND RGARDS
> ASHOK KUMAR GOL
> 24.07.2011
>

> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:16 PM, MOHANDAS RAO <mohandasr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>           UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES> 
> >·       Pension Scheme in Banks is a new thing. I was introduced in 1995. Then also option for pension was not compulsory and some remained in P.F. option.  Later they realized that pension is better than P.F. option and thereafter, with much struggle, they got a fresh opportunity for shifting to pension option recently.  After this final chance most of the retired and staff at the fag end of their service has now opted for pension. There are so many short-comings in the present Pension Regulations.
> >·       One of such things is regarding neutralization of D.A.  Another is for fixation of basic pension, last 10 months’ salary drawn is taken into consideration, while for Central Government employees, it is the last month’s basic salary. We in banks have to complete 33 years’ of service to get full pensioner benefits. Otherwise we will get proportionate; for an example a person put in 30 years of service will get 30/33th or 10/11th of the full basic. In Central Government more senior citizens are getting some extra percentage of pensions according to their age. Of course, we cannot compare the regulation with such a senior and improved regulation of Central Government, where funds for pension is being paid from budgetary provisions (tax collected), wherein here in case of banks any higher expenditure affects profit and loss of the bank. However, improvement in the Pension Regulations in Banking Industry by amending it from time to time
>
>  is a necessity to maintain justice and equality.>·       One of the most pressing or urgent thing is about updating of pension in banks. As per present rules, once a basic pension is fixed, it will continue forever without any upward revision. The only change in the gross pension is on account of rise or fall in D.A. payable half-yearly. Pre 11/2002 pensioners are not getting 100% neutralization in D.A. unlike the post 2002 pensioners. The result is that very senior bank pensioners are drawing very small basic pension, a larger portion of their gross pension is by way of fluctuating D.A.  An employee now retired from with a lower grade or rank is drawing higher gross pension than his predecessor. The difference is going to increase by rise in D.A. index and consequent D.A. change due to different D.A. formulae. The process of getting a higher gross pension by a new comer will continue as and when fresh pensioners join the stream. To rectify the position, the only solution left is updating
>
>  pension from time to time, as and when pay scales get revised. This will be in tune with one of the Regulations of the Central or State Government Employees.>K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM SVRS (Retired in 2001)
> > 
>

> >--
> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
> >To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends, I have been observing comments by friends and I feel that they have not understood the reason behind the 7th BP Settlement  Pension issue.   Before, I proceed further, please understand, Commercial Banks are not 'Government', eventhough Public Sector Banks are 'State' in terms of Article 12 of Constitution.  All BPS also cover Private Sector Banks.  Even Public Sector Banks are also commercial institution.  I would like to remind you about deferment of payment of benefits during 7th BPS in respect of stressed banks.  These banks have to compete with Banks which are not members of IBA and not covered by BPS. Governments can pay  Gratuity from 1.1.2006.  There is no word called 'loss' in Government, but it is only 'deficit'.  If enhanced Gratuity is extended to Banks, the same have to be extended to every industry in the Country.  Even though, the Govt should have extended this benefit from an earlier date, there are many entities including PSUs which do not have capacity to pay this benefit to its former employees. For most of them, their job is important than payment of enhanced 'Gratuity'.  With the limited knowledge in law, I can only conclude that it is difficult to succeed through Courts.  To succeed in Courts, any such rules must be opposed to Law/Constitution.  In respect of Gratuity, there is not violation. The cut-off date of 1.1.1986 for pension option is upheld by the Supreme Court and the same principles are applicable in respect of Gratuity. Regarding 7th BPS, UFBU has ensured insertion of the 'Clause' "This shall be subject to the necessary amendments to be made to the relevant provisions of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995", makes denial of benefit without amending Pension Regulations, impossible.  Rangadamaiah's case makes it impossible for the Banks to amend Pension Regulations, retrospectively.  Finally, every retiree who are deprived of benefits in respect will get eventually.    Thanks, a Million. With regards, Prasad C N --- On Sun, 24/7/11, PM <moha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[PM]

Dear Friends,
Inadvertantantly an omission has been crept in my earlier message
which should be read as:-

" 100% DA neutralisation of pre-2002 pensioners has to be sorted out

by IBA/Bank Managements without resorting to further unethical
practices.Like wise Updation of pension should also be resolved
without delay"

instead of

"DA neutralisation of pre-2002 pensioners has to be sorted out by
IBA/Bank Managements without resorting further unethical practices
like updation of pension."

Regret for omission.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Dear sirs,

 

While sharing our concerns on various factors concerning pension issues through these mails, we should refrain from indulging in any blamegame against UFBU and using epithets like "Unholy nexus between IBA and UFBU" et al should be avoided. Given the situation in which they were placed in, the main concern for UFBU was to secure third option for pension to those who did not opt earlier and in the process UFBU had to adopt some flexible approach. Let us not indulge in any hindsight refrains against UFBU. Let us think of the future.

 

Regards

 

V Raghavan (IB VRS 2000)

---

From: PM <moha...@gmail.com>
To: bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 24 July, 2011 17:09:20

> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensioner+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

Dear Shri Raghavanji,

good evening. I fully agree with Ur 'idea' not to indulge in mud-slinging against anyone hereinafter. It is too late to repent on the spoilt milk Let us unite ourselves with all our wisdom to find a remedy under the existing circumstances, which many of our friends are already doing the job--- Like,Ms.Venugopal, CN Prasad, Bajranglal, Narayan, Mohan and many other friends.  

regards,

Dr.DB.

SB Pensioner.

---

From: vaidyanathan raghavan <rag...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 25 July, 2011 1:46:33 PM

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[perumal maruthu]

Dearsir,

I concur with your views. One should not cast aspersions on others. But can you tell us why did Leaders of AIBOC,BEFI  opt for Pension in 1991-93 eventhough they vociferously goading their gullible followers not to opt for the same? If this is not betrayal, then how else to call their act? What was the reason or the quid provoco they recieved for mis leading 2.5 lakh Bankmen to continue in PF? Instead of accepting Pension as a SECOND benefit and fighting for its improvement, why did such Leaders try to thwart the operation of the scheme by spreading rumours,canards and utter lies in 1991-93? And what made them in 2009-10 to accept the same scheme with huge monetary loss for the same individual?

M.Perumal

Chennai-95

From: vaidyanathan raghavan <rag...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, 25 July 2011 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

Dear sirs,

 

While sharing our concerns on various factors concerning pension issues through these mails, we should refrain from indulging in any blamegame against UFBU and using epithets like "Unholy nexus between IBA and UFBU" et al should be avoided. Given the situation in which they were placed in, the main concern for UFBU was to secure third option for pension to those who did not opt earlier and in the process UFBU had to adopt some flexible approach. Let us not indulge in any hindsight refrains against UFBU. Let us think of the future.

 

Regards

 

V Raghavan (IB VRS 2000)

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

[vaidyanathan raghavan]

Dear sir,

 

You r very much right. . Because of  that many had to suffer.
But let us not harp on the past as it is of no avail now. For ur reference I attach my first mail sent to this site on the topic which almost reflects ur concerns.

 

Regards

 

V Raghavan (IB VRS 2000)

---

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "rag...@yahoo.co.uk" <rag...@yahoo.co.uk>; kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>; siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>; balasubramanium sr mgr <dhan...@rediffmail.com>; "moha...@gmail.com" <moha...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 25 July, 2011 16:34:26

[Dr.dhananjaya Bhupathi]

Friend,

I have been told that if all the bank men opt for pension, the Govt., might reject out-rightly; by seeing the enormous burden ob the exchequer. Hence, they opted for pension superstitiously along with their henchmen. When I asked my wife, she told that  'U should have used Ur own wisdom or to have asked me,instead of blaming others'.

The political brains are like that only. All the leadership, silently, opted for pension and went on VRS by getting the double benefit for themselves and their families. We r the victims of our own lack of foresight.

That's how, I feel myself to be, instead of blaming others.Any ways, better late than never. Thank God.I'm also a Pensioner by paying 56% extra contribution.

Dr.Dhananjaya Bhupathi,

Syndicate Bank Pensioner. 

---

From: perumal maruthu <perumal...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "rag...@yahoo.co.uk" <rag...@yahoo.co.uk>; kaliappan <kalia...@dataone.in>; siva <sivaram...@gmail.com>; balasubramanium sr mgr <dhan...@rediffmail.com>; "moha...@gmail.com" <moha...@gmail.com>

Sent: Mon, 25 July, 2011 4:34:26 PM

[nishikant bandivadekar]

dear sir,

                  you are right. Past is past, let us see the future unitedly.

 

boi.bandivadekar 

[Nageswara Rao Gullapalli]

AS Mr Vidyanathan has said there is use in worrying about the past. :let us concentrate in future and fight unitedly for betterment of our lot

G Nageswara Rao

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
G Nageswara Rao

[saradindu basu]

Dear Sirs,
Agreed that we were misled. But we should also agree that we allowed ourselves to be misled. We never looked into neighbourhood where many pensioners had been enjoying a sense of protection. Perhaps the then prevailing high rate of interest regime clouded our mind and we lost vision. Past is past. Now we must motivate our children who are working in organizations where there is no pension benefits to opt for NPS without looking into monetary return aspect.
People in the know tell that UBFU had to concede a lot of ground to get 2nd option for pension from IBA/Govt. As our pension is charged against P&L A/c of our bank, it is in our interest that our Banks maintain their good health. Advocates of free economy throughout the world consider pension payment as wasteful expenditure. It recently happened in Greece. Even in our country powerful people are pointing out loudly that Banks have to make huge provisions for pension payment. There is a signal in it. Hope our UBFU leadership will remain alert.
--Saradindu Basu
  Greater Noida.
 

 

---

Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 16:34:26 +0530
From: perumal...@yahoo.co.in

Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
CC: rag...@yahoo.co.uk; kalia...@dataone.in; sivaram...@gmail.com; dhan...@rediffmail.com; moha...@gmail.com

[MOHANDAS RAO]

Dear Friends,

Discussion regarding the urgent need for updating of Pension to Bankers is taking place in a right direction. To sum up, without updating in pension, the pre 2002 retirees are getting reduced pension because of a) non-revision of their basic pension and b) no provision for 100% neutralization in their case. Thus the loss for them is for two reasons. For the recent two categories (8^th and 9^th bipartite), the loss is due to non-revision of their basic pension only. The older categories are drawing nominal pension, which also need immediate attention.  Denial of pension itself to certain categories of retirees (resignees, regular voluntary retirements etc.) also needs immediate corrective steps so that they also made eligible for pension.

No updating of pension for bank pensioners is like no periodical salary/pay-scale revision for a serving bank employee.  The latter is at least getting periodical increments in his scale, up-to the last stagnation increment, unlike a pensioner.

The formula of updating should be such that all the existing pensioners will get D.A. under a uniform formula (of course with 100% neutralization). Calculation of D.A. then will be by multiplying the basic pension with a certain percentage as in the case of recent pensioners.  Pensioners retired long back should also get the benefit of revision of their basic pension, and consequent upward revision in gross pension as and when pay-scales of employees in service revise periodically. Of course, they will not get further commutation arrears because of rise in their basic pension, nor they will get proportional benefit due to increase in number of stagnation increment to employees in service.

These are my expectations and benefits to be enjoyed in future. In that case any improvement in the pay-scales of the Bank Employees in the Bipartite Settlements will be of more interest to the pensioners, due to the consequent benefit to them also. For this concerted efforts by the pensioners, employees in service, union leaders, co-operation of the management of banks, support of Government etc.  are needed. Let our dream come true!

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001.

[perumal maruthu]

Dear sir,

I agree with your views intoto.

Thanks for summing up.

M perumal

Chennai-95

 

From: MOHANDAS RAO <mohand...@gmail.com>
To: bankpe...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2011 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner NECESSITY FOR UPDATING OF PENSION FOR RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES.

Dear Friends,

Discussion regarding the urgent need for updating of Pension to Bankers is taking place in a right direction. To sum up, without updating in pension, the pre 2002 retirees are getting reduced pension because of a) non-revision of their basic pension and b) no provision for 100% neutralization in their case. Thus the loss for them is for two reasons. For the recent two categories (8^th and 9^th bipartite), the loss is due to non-revision of their basic pension only. The older categories are drawing nominal pension, which also need immediate attention.  Denial of pension itself to certain categories of retirees (resignees, regular voluntary retirements etc.) also needs immediate corrective steps so that they also made eligible for pension.

No updating of pension for bank pensioners is like no periodical salary/pay-scale revision for a serving bank employee.  The latter is at least getting periodical increments in his scale, up-to the last stagnation increment, unlike a pensioner.

The formula of updating should be such that all the existing pensioners will get D.A. under a uniform formula (of course with 100% neutralization). Calculation of D.A. then will be by multiplying the basic pension with a certain percentage as in the case of recent pensioners.  Pensioners retired long back should also get the benefit of revision of their basic pension, and consequent upward revision in gross pension as and when pay-scales of employees in service revise periodically. Of course, they will not get further commutation arrears because of rise in their basic pension, nor they will get proportional benefit due to increase in number of stagnation increment to employees in service.

These are my expectations and benefits to be enjoyed in future. In that case any improvement in the pay-scales of the Bank Employees in the Bipartite Settlements will be of more interest to the pensioners, due to the consequent benefit to them also. For this concerted efforts by the pensioners, employees in service, union leaders, co-operation of the management of banks, support of Government etc.  are needed. Let our dream come true!

K. MOHANDAS RAO, SBM-SVRS 2001.

On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:49 PM, saradindu basu <saradin...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sirs,
Agreed that we were misled. But we should also agree that we allowed ourselves to be misled. We never looked into neighbourhood where many pensioners had been enjoying a sense of protection. Perhaps the then prevailing high rate of interest regime clouded our mind and we lost vision. Past is past. Now we must motivate our children who are working in organizations where there is no pension benefits to opt for NPS without looking into monetary return aspect.
People in the know tell that UBFU had to concede a lot of ground to get 2nd option for pension from IBA/Govt. As our pension is charged against P&L A/c of our bank, it is in our interest that our Banks maintain their good health. Advocates of free economy throughout the world consider pension payment as wasteful expenditure. It recently happened in Greece. Even in our country powerful people are pointing out loudly that Banks have to make huge provisions for pension payment. There is a signal in it. Hope our UBFU leadership will remain alert.
--Saradindu Basu
  Greater Noida.