UNITED BANK OF INDIA VRS-2001 SCHEME

[SBMPC Blore]

Dear friends,

I request friends from United Bank of India to provide the following information :

a. Date of issue of Circular as to VRS in 2000/01

b. Date of issue of Circular advising non-applicability of benefit under Regulation 29

c. Date of passing of amendment modifying Regulation 28

It would be great if you can get me copies of these circular.

Thanking you,

With regards,

Prasad C N

[Chinnagourishankar]

Dear prasad,

You may get the required information and copies of circulars from our UBIVRS retirees welfare association 60/2A Pathakpara road kolkcata 7000600 they filed the case for 5 years notional service at Calcutta high court and also in the supreme court. You please write to them 

Yours faithfully,

Gourishankar Vrs UBI 

Sent from my iPad

--
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.

[Mohan badi]

Sirs,

Those who have completed active service of 20 years and plus they all are eligible for additional benefit of notional five years, It is decided case in some court I have gone through . I am sure.. but  those  CRS  and compassionate pensionary  will not get this additional five years even though they have completed more than 20 yrs..I shall verify and let you know or send copy of this case on internet to you all.

From M.R.Badi

Ex-United Bank of India

---

From: Chinnagourishankar <gourish...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner UNITED BANK OF INDIA VRS-2001 SCHEME

[Mohan badi]

RAKESH SHARMA ( ex-Punjab National Bank)                                   Sharm...@hotmail.com   A Premananda Pai <mal...@mfgroupco.com> has requested for Letters to be addressed to members of parliament seeking their assistance for resolving the problems of VRS optees   Sub : Discrimination of highest order meted out by Banking       Division of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India while       extending the facility of pension scheme to a group of       voluntarily retired Officers. During  the recently concluded wage revision and  pension  option settlement  dated 27/04/2010 between Public sector Banks and  its officers it was mutually agreed inter alia among other things  to extend  the  benefit  of  existing pension  scheme  1995  to  all officers who were in service as on 29/09/1995 but retired  before 27/04/2010.   However  later,  it appears,  at  the  instance  of Banking Division of Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, suo-moto decided to exclude a group of officers retired voluntarily  after completion  of 30 years of unblemished service under a  statutory scheme of 1980 from opting for pension scheme and instead decided to  extend  the  facility  of pension  scheme  only  to  officers retired  voluntarily  after completion of meagre service  of 15 years under a non-statutory scheme of 2000 (popularly  known  as special  scheme  of  voluntary retirement 2000).   This  type  of  unprincipled  classification  is not countenanced by  Article  14 (Equality before law) of the Constitution of India.  There are several hundreds of retiree officers in the country who are  thus  deprived of their right for pension at  the  stage  of  their last span of  life.  I have been requested by said group of officers  to seek your assistance in ascertaining  the  following information  from  the Govt. of India during  ensuing  Parliament session. 1.   Whether Indian Banks Association was authorised  by  Banking Division  of Ministry of Finance to negotiate wage  revision  and pension  settlements  of Bank officers and sign an  agreement  on behalf of public sector Banks ? 2.   Whether in the settlement signed on 27/04/2010 it  has  been  mutually  agreed to extend one more option to Bank  officers  who were  in service as on 29/09/1995 but retired  before  27/04/2010 for  the pension scheme under existing Bank  (Emoloyees)  Pension  Regulation 1995 ?  3.  Whether Banking Division of Ministry of Finance is aware that in  14  Public Sector Banks the earliest  special  and  statutory scheme  to  retire  voluntarily prior to  the  date  of  ordinary retirement  was  famed  under section 19  (1)  of  Bank  officers  service  regulation  1979  and Second special  scheme  (but  non- statutory)  to retire voluntarily prior to the date  of  ordinary retirement was framed in the year 2000 ? 4.  Whether Banking Division of Ministry of Finance has  directed Indian  Banks  Association  to agree for  extending  the  pension facility  to officers who have voluntarily retired on account  of second  special  scheme (non-statutory) of  Voluntary  retirement  after rendering service for a meagre period of 15 years ? 5.  Whether Banking Division of Ministry of Finance is aware that Indian  Banks Association is now forcing Public Sector Banks  not to  extend  the  facility  of existing  pension  scheme  1995  to officers  who  have retired voluntarily under  the  first  scheme (statutory) of Voluntary retirement after rendering a minimum  of service of 30 years framed under section 19 (1) of Bank  officers service regulations 1979 ? 6.  Whether Banking Division of Ministry of Finance is aware that Supreme  Court  of  India on  05/04/2000  while  pronouncing  its judgement  on a batch of 83 civil applications filed  by  several Public  sector  Banks & Indian Banks  Association  (citation  No. 2000-I-LLJ-1617  between  Bank  of  India  Vs  Indu  Rajagopalan) disapproved  the action of Banks and Indian Banks Association  as unprincipled  and  unconstitutional for having devided  into  two groups  the  voluntarily retired officers of Banks  for  deciding their eligibilty to opt for pension ? 7.   Whether the Banking Division of Ministry of Finance has  any proposal  to  advise Indian Banks Association to  reconsider  the decision    to   avoid   such   blatant   and    unconstitutional   discrimination ? All the retiree officers of Banks are looking towards you to take up  the  above issues at the earliest through  question  hour  of Parliment Proceedings. Thanking you, Yours faithfully,   Parthasarathi Gupta has sent the following letter to IBA and UFBU: gupta.par...@rediffmail.com Respected sir,             Reg: PENSION OPTION TO OFFICERS ON VOLUNTARY / COMPULSORY RETIREMENT We, the  officers of Allahabad Bank, who retired from bank’s service after the age of 55 as per the voluntary retirement scheme of the bank and the officers who were compulsorily retired from service  by bank are deeply distressed and disillusioned by the fact that they were not included in that scheme. This is an injustice we presume. The persons  who were in service of the bank at the time of last bipartite settlement also contributed 1% from their dues towards pension fund and are entitled to get all the benefits similar to a general retiree. It is observed that although those who sought VRS in 2001 were covered under this scheme but those who retired under banks’ VRS scheme and CRS retirees were not covered by this announcement.  While calculating the pension burden etc. these persons were included but later on why excluded from the announcement, we fail to understand.     In fact the retiree officers include a) officers who retired from bank’s service on superannuation b) officers who retired from bank’s service after completing 20 years of service / 55 years of age  under Voluntary Retirement scheme of the bank c) Officers who retired under special VRS of 2000-2001 d) officers who were retired by the bank on the basis of order of the bank to retire prematurely and officers who were compulsorily retired from service as a penalty between 29.09.1995 to 26.04.2010. However, you have decided to choose to restrict the 2nd pension option to the officers 1) who retired on superannuation and death and retired under special VRS scheme of 2000-2001 which is partial and unilateral. As per Pillai Committee recommendation an officer is entitled to pension if he serves for 15 years. We would also like to mention that even the apex court also expressed views to include the above retirees. We, therefore, urge upon you to reconsider your decision and  to include these persons also at your earliest and to issue suitable guidelines to banks within the time limit and date scheduled by you. Your early action in the matter is solicited.                                                                                                                                          Y elsa mathew <mathe...@yahoo.com> says : I Elsamma. M. K. quit the services from Canara Bank on 6-11-2007 due to personal reasons after rendering more than 31 years of service at the age of 55. At the time of  quitting I was working as a Spl Asst. Though I had applied  for VRS, I was asked to resign as no VRS facility exists in Canara Bank for workmen staff Now the second option facility is denied to employees like me.Pension which is a social security benefit should be based on the length of service rendered and not the mode of exit This has more relevance when workmen staff had no VRS facility in banks ,where as it was available in SOME of the banks for officers For some reasons Union Leaders did not give due attention to this Even the vol retirees who are eligible as per the MOS are also excluded now and it appears that Union Leaders are helpless now. So  I  feel that  the only way left is to fight jointly by all(VRS& REsignees) before court Of law. Some organizations preferably some retired employees org like Canarabank Employees Federation or so may please do the same .The cost can be born by the beneficiaries. My mail ID is  mathe...@yahoo.com   Sachin Gupta <sgup...@verizon.net> says : If I am right, the agreement states Retired Employees, it is being interpreted differently by the Banks Managements, for the Reasons Best known to them. One reason may be to eliminate as many faces as possible. Friends,  please, go through the IBA circular of April 27th, 2010  to Bank Managements it has only said Retired Employees.   The earlier agreement included a wide section of employees. There are very many lacunas in this agreement, the Prime Facie being on the lines of Natural Justice. It is difficult to pin point who is to be blamed for this Mess, but friends it takes two hands to clap.  Unless , we  all unite & Condemn the enforcement of this fishy agreement, nothing will come out.    There seems to be no transparency in all quarters. Satish Gupta Ex –Officer Scale 111  Compulsory  Retired by Syndicate Bank   vani chandra <vanig...@yahoo.co.in> says : I am one of the ex-bank employees who is being denied the 2nd pension option.I joined Syndicate bank in 1981 and resigned---as per the bank's norms----in 2007.  But after serving for so many years and after participating in all agitations / programmes during my service period, people like me are not being given the 2nd pension option. Isn't this injustice being meted out to people like me? Further, everybody used to keep harping while demanding 2nd pension option that pension demand is for the 'social security'' of the employees . Then , why now this kind of social injustice towards resignees? Just because we have resigned---that too as per the concerned bank's norms-----be denied pension option----that too after serving for more than 20yrs?????? WHY THIS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST US??????????? iS THE UNION TAKING UP THIS MATTER OR NOT/ OR IS ANYBODY TAKING UP THIS MATTER? iF ANY ACTION IS BEING TAKEN BY ANYBODY, i WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE. i have posted this opinion of mine on other related portals, but sadly, I have not got a single response.   I hope that at least this portal would fetch me an answer for the course of action to be taken by me.    Rakesh Pathak rakeshp...@yahoo.com Resigned from Bank of India as Staff Officer after completing 27 years of service. My service was very good. I had to resign because I was transferred out of Zone and my family circumstances did not allow me to continue the job. But there has been discrimination by the IBA because they have not considered the resignee officers for the 2nd option. We will have to knock the doors of the Court. The persons who are affected, should unite and collectively go to the court for justice. MY contact Nos. 97811-17799, 94173-90768. Rakesh Kumar Pathak, Ferozepur (Punjab)   mahesh agrawal <mca...@rediffmail.com> says : AN APPEAL TO EVERY ONE CONCERNED WITH THE PENSION ISSUE TO NORMAL VRS AND RESIGNEES: 1.Can We write a letter to National Human Rights Commission,N.Delhi also in this regard? 2.Whether the press and media people and opposite Political parties can be involved in raising the issue in parliament? All the concerned are requested to use their contacts since we do not expect any thing more  from our IBA/unions because of their indifferent and casual attitude on the issue of pension to normal retirees and resignees   krishna kumar sharma  <kkps...@gmail.com> says : This is in reference to VR Sirdharan discussion note displayed in your popular website on 29/8/2010, In my view that in the joint note dated 27/4/2010 anomalies have been addressed by the IBA and UFBU vide para 7 in the joint note, I also endorsed his view that a tribunal must be established to take care all the grievances of the retired bank men as judiciary proceedings are long way to decide the cases and by the time the retired employee may say good by to this world. Our leaders mostly who are retired bank employees must feel the pain of petty retired bank men, as still there is further scope of improvement in pension scheme such as revision along with the wage settlement and family pension etc. Further the IBA is note covered under RTI Act 2005, we have to for long way in this regard ie legal battle.   PASUMARTHY MALLIKARJUNASARMA <sarma...@gmail.com says : My self P.Mallikarjuna Sarma,worked almost for 22 years and resigned on 03-04-2004 in State Bank of Hyderabad.  I felt very happy when IBA agreed for 2nd Pension Option.   At the same time I was disappointed when it comes to reality. I felt very happy by seeing the article by N.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, Supreem Court Of India in your home page. I appeal all the resignees/P.F. optees who are not covered / have not been given the elegibility for 2nd Pension Option to come unitedly and proceed further through court of law. I extend my full support in this regard in any ma With Warm Regards. P.M.Sarma.   ++++++++++++++++++++++
	Quote : "An economist is an expert who will know tomorow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". Laurence J. Peter

Who's Online

 

Comments :  Do you feel the above comments are biased ?  If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group. You can submit your comments on : allbankin...@gmail.com

Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views.  The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankin...@gmail.com so that we can review the same

[Mohan badi]

Quote : "An economist is an expert who will know tomorow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". Laurence J. Peter

Who's Online

Comments :  Do you feel the above comments are biased ?  If so, you can send your views alongwith the facts to counter the same so that bankers can have the real factual position. However, the comments should not be of any personal nature or against a group.

You can submit your comments on : allbankin...@gmail.com

Disclaimer : The views expressed here are the personal views of our readers and www.allbankingsolutions.com may not subscribe to such views.  The contents or data has not been verified / re-checked.  In case, any abuse is noticed, the same may be brought to our notice at allbankin...@gmail.com so that we can review the same

Gourishankar sir, plz see this case whether it is you asking for?

---

From: Chinnagourishankar <gourish...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner UNITED BANK OF INDIA VRS-2001 SCHEME

[savithry nambissan]

Mr.Mahesh Agrawal, Whether the denial of 2nd option comes under human rights(though injustice).I think press&other media&other opp. political parties can help us for a speedy solution.How can we proceed to seek the assistance?Any idea? Even-though we are a small group&that itself scattered,we have to think of new steps to be taken. Savithry SBT-exit policy2007  --- On Sun, 7/8/11, Mohan badi <banking...@yahoo.com> wrote: