Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
Prasad C N
Raosg Mysore
--
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/149252323.194708.1788286036470%40mail.yahoo.com.
R Balaji
--
Satyanarayana Rao
The attached file is showing details of revision of benifits for the retirees who retired in 10 th, 11th and 12th bipartite settlement retirees.
What about the retirees who retired prior to 10 th bipartite settlement?.pl enlighten.
On Wed, 2 Sept 2026 at 9:35, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
--
JSOMA SHEKARA
--
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
VASUDEVAN CHENNAI
--
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
Based on the judgment and the circular you shared, the answer appears to be quite narrow at present.
1. Is it applicable only to SBI Associate Banks?The present Karnataka High Court judgment directly concerns a retiree of the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (SBM), which was an SBI Associate Bank.
The crucial facts were:
- The petitioner was originally an employee of the erstwhile SBM.
- At the time of merger with SBI, he exercised the option to continue under the SBM Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995.
- Those regulations were subsequently saved and continued for such employees.
- His claim was specifically for Dearness Relief under Regulation 37 of the SBM Pension Regulations.
Therefore, the judgment does not automatically apply to all banks.
However, the legal principle relied upon by the Court—particularly the Supreme Court decision in Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani—is broader: a Joint Note or administrative arrangement cannot override statutory Pension Regulations. The judgment itself records that pension regulations had been introduced in nationalised banks and subsidiary banks, though the precise facts of each bank and its regulations may differ.
So, in practical terms:
- Direct beneficiary class: Former employees of the relevant SBI Associate Banks who are similarly governed by their erstwhile banks' statutory pension regulations.
- Possible wider application: Retirees of other public-sector banks having materially similar statutory pension regulations and a similar conflict between those regulations and Joint Note provisions.
- But: Other-bank retirees cannot yet claim that this Karnataka judgment automatically gives them the same benefit.
There is an important distinction here.
The petitioner in this case retired in 2020, but the judgment does not say that only post-2020 retirees are eligible. In fact, the Association's circular says that the benefit, if applicable, would arise from the date of retirement, subject to the regulations and the judgment.
The original pension regulation itself contains different historical categories:
- employees retiring between 1 January 1986 and 31 October 1993; and
- employees retiring on or after 1 November 1993.
These categories relate to the formula for Dearness Relief.
The bank's argument also referred to a category of employees who retired after 1 April 1998, but that was part of the historical formula/category discussion and should not be confused with a general eligibility cut-off created by this judgment.
My reading in one sentenceThere is no indication that the Karnataka judgment is confined to retirees after a particular retirement year; the decisive issue appears to be whether the retiree was governed by the relevant statutory Pension Regulations and whether the disputed Dearness Relief was paid contrary to those regulations.
Important cautionThe Court's actual operative order is technically framed as a direction to consider the individual petitioner's representation within 12 weeks. It did not issue a blanket direction ordering SBI to pay arrears to every retiree.
S Kalyanasundaram
MOHAN P
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM9qrocTYmODDCqJGbQd11sGR12yosEBUnLPCr-%3DMOG4QUA5mQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM9qrocTYmODDCqJGbQd11sGR12yosEBUnLPCr-%3DMOG4QUA5mQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Satyanarayana Rao
On Wed, 2 Sept 2026 at 15:35, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/6df66609-0493-4570-847e-2d6b93a6230cn%40googlegroups.com.
Logu Kuppan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRh%2Bd60779YUNHfNiQNZrp2y7F024Dot0h93RQf7bK0BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Logu Kuppan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDRh%2Bd60779YUNHfNiQNZrp2y7F024Dot0h93RQf7bK0BQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Satyanarayana Rao
I also congratulate Sri S.G.Rao who was the chairman of the SBM
officers association and the spirit and guiding force in fighting the 37 D.R case and getting a favourable verdict for Karnataka High court.
Let us wait and see how the SBI management respond to the directions of the Karnataka High court.
On Wed, 2 Sept 2026 at 15:35, JSOMA SHEKARA<jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3JJq7f1-hxSM%2Bif4wqRdVOfCqvfh8_0ry43Qbfhopt8g%40mail.gmail.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
--
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/92a98dee-b02a-4451-a0a5-776327298485n%40googlegroups.com.
Harmeetpal Singh
retirees from which year are benefited with judgement?
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1661334796.62729.1788329150500%40mail.yahoo.com.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF_reYXjtBZia%3DccauwN57pkHvBv7OEUYCCurSjY9Ms6bzPwvg%40mail.gmail.com.
Satyanarayana Rao
On Thu, 3 Sept 2026 at 16:07, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/a7254ea6-9f12-4e9f-a6d4-c6a2eab0508cn%40googlegroups.com.
Ravi Kumar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3Dxv-mxyb4CrRhvaK-Emr8NtmfuSwRreicC0s1sJjNBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3Dxv-mxyb4CrRhvaK-Emr8NtmfuSwRreicC0s1sJjNBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Logu Kuppan
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zZuC6%3D7oT6XmC8ywDFz_GVsK%3DJHRhAiSmwwNNXAmU6EA%40mail.gmail.com.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1496227101.339088.1788435882836%40mail.yahoo.com.
Srinivasan Badri
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2g_%3D2u_fjJUd4fTta5c1FUf44xaTTeQeAKsS_zN%3DUL0Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam
I have examined the circular and the 10 August 2026 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench. The most important point is that the circular's description is broader than what the actual operative portion of the judgment orders.
My interpretation 1. Is the benefit applicable to all retirees?No — the judgment does not itself grant the benefit to all retirees.
The actual order is expressly in the case of Shivanand L. Naik, who retired from SBI in 2020 after having been an employee of the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (SBM). The Court issued a mandamus directing SBI to consider his representation for payment of Dearness Relief under Regulation 37 of the SBM Pension Regulations.
This distinction is important.
The judgment establishes a legal principle favourable to retirees:
statutory pension regulations cannot be overridden by a Joint Note having no statutory force.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani, which held that the 1995 Pension Regulations could not be supplanted by an executive order or Joint Note.
But the Karnataka High Court did not issue a general direction to SBI to recalculate DR for every retiree.
In fact, the Court specifically left the question of striking down Clause 9(c) of the 8th Joint Note open for an appropriate case.
2. Is there a particular retirement period?The judgment does not prescribe a single retirement cut-off date for the benefit.
This is where the wording of the Pension Regulations becomes important.
Regulation 37 says that DR is to be paid on basic pension according to Appendix II.
Appendix II itself divides retirees into categories:
- Retired from 1 January 1986 to before 1 November 1993 — one formula.
- Retired on or after 1 November 1993 — another formula.
Therefore, the retirement date matters for calculating the statutory DR, but the Karnataka judgment does not say that only persons retiring during a particular period are entitled.
Indeed, the petitioner retired on 4 May 2020, yet the Court accepted that his entitlement had to be examined under the SBM Regulations because he had opted for those regulations.
So I would not interpret this judgment as a "pre-1993", "pre-2010" or "post-1998" judgment.
The reference to 1 April 1998 in the judgment occurs in discussing the Supreme Court's earlier G. Palani case and the third category of employees under the relevant regulations. It is not a cut-off date imposed by the present Karnataka judgment.
3. Is it only for SBM retirees? The actual judgment: Yes, essentially SBM-specific.
This is the crucial limitation.
The petitioner was:
- originally an employee of erstwhile State Bank of Mysore;
- governed by the SBM Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995;
- given an option at the time of amalgamation;
- he opted for SBM terminal benefits;
- and the SBI Pension Fund Amendment Regulations subsequently saved the SBM Regulations for employees who had opted for them.
The Court's conclusion was based on those specific circumstances. It said that because the petitioner had opted for terminal benefits under the SBM Regulations, he became entitled to consideration of his representation under those Regulations.
Therefore, a retired employee of, say, Bank of India, Canara Bank, Punjab National Bank or another nationalised bank cannot simply approach the bank and say that this Karnataka judgment automatically gives him the same benefit.
There has to be a corresponding statutory/regulatory basis applicable to that retiree.
4. But is the underlying principle applicable to other banks? Potentially yes — and this is probably the most significant aspect of the judgment.
The judgment makes a much broader observation about the banking industry.
The Court records that the pension regulations introduced following the 1993 settlement applied to all nationalised banks and banks formed under the SBI (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, except SBI, where pension already existed.
More importantly, the Court relies upon the Supreme Court's G. Palani judgment, which laid down the general principle that:
statutory pension regulations cannot be overridden by a non-statutory Joint Note.
The Karnataka High Court expressly says that an employee's rights are drawn from the statute and that a Joint Note cannot override statutory benefits.
Thus there are two different questions:
Question
My reading
Does this judgment automatically give enhanced DR to every bank retiree?
No
Does it automatically cover every SBI retiree?
No
Does it automatically cover every SBM retiree?
No — the operative order is for the petitioner
Is it potentially applicable to similarly situated SBM retirees?
Yes, subject to their regulatory status and appropriate proceedings
Can retirees of other banks rely on its legal reasoning?
Yes, potentially
Do other-bank retirees automatically get the benefit because of this judgment?
No
Is there a general all-bank implementation order in this judgment?
No
5. The circular itself confirms that it is not yet a general implementation order
This is perhaps the strongest evidence.
The circular says that the judgment will be brought to the attention of other High Courts where similar writ petitions are pending, and that the Association will seek appropriate orders for applying the principles of this judgment to those pending cases.
That wording itself demonstrates that further judicial orders are contemplated.
If the Karnataka judgment had already automatically conferred the benefit on every similarly situated retiree, there would be no need to seek orders from the other courts.
The circular also specifically describes the case as involving the State Bank of Mysore Pensioners' Commune and the former Associate Banks.
6. What about the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in G. Palani?
This is extremely important.
The Karnataka High Court is not creating the principle from scratch. It is applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda v. G. Palani & Others.
The Supreme Court had held that the statutory 1995 Pension Regulations could not be displaced by a Joint Note because the Joint Note did not have statutory force.
The Supreme Court's reasoning also specifically dealt with employees who had retired from 1 April 1998 onwards, stating that they could not be deprived of benefits available under the Regulations by relying upon the Joint Note.
That is a much wider precedent than the present Karnataka case, because G. Palani arose in the context of a nationalised bank and the 1995 Pension Regulations.
So, for determining whether other nationalised bank retirees can claim the benefit, I would regard G. Palani + the applicable bank's statutory Pension Regulations as more important than the fact that the present petitioner happened to be an SBM retiree.
7. One important correction to the circular's claim
The circular says:
"The benefit is from the date of retirement, subject to the applicable Regulations and the terms of the judgment."
That should not be read as a blanket judicial declaration that every retiree will receive arrears from his date of retirement.
For Shivanand Naik, the issue concerns entitlement under the SBM Regulations from his retirement, but the operative order merely directs the Bank to consider his representation within 12 weeks.
The Court did not itself quantify arrears or direct immediate payment of a specified amount.
Bottom line
My reading is:
The 10 August 2026 Karnataka High Court judgment is not an all-India order granting enhanced DR to all bank retirees. It is an order in favour of a particular SBM-origin retiree who had specifically opted to retain the SBM Pension Regulations.
However, the legal principle on which the judgment rests is much wider: where a retiree's pension is governed by statutory Pension Regulations, a non-statutory Joint Note cannot simply take away an accrued statutory entitlement.
Therefore:
SBM retirees: The judgment provides a strong basis for similarly situated SBM retirees, particularly those who opted to remain under the SBM Regulations.
Other SBI Associate Bank retirees: Their position needs to be examined under the particular erstwhile bank's saved Pension Regulations and their option at amalgamation.
Retirees of other nationalised banks: They do not automatically get the benefit, but they may have a strong basis to invoke the G. Palani principle, provided their own 1995 Pension Regulations contain the corresponding statutory entitlement.
Retirement period: There is no blanket cut-off period in the Karnataka judgment. The applicable retirement date/categories in Appendix II determine the statutory DR formula. The 1 April 1998 date appearing in the judgment comes principally from the G. Palani discussion and should not be treated as a general cut-off created by this judgment.
Regards.
S Kalyanasundaram
Satyanarayana Rao
I fully appreciate your detailed narration of the 37 pension regulation case in the light of Recent favourable karnataka high court verdict.
Let us wait and watch how the SBI management respond to the orders of the mendamus passed against SBI.
On Wed, 9 Sept 2026 at 9:36, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam<1952...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/7a98533d-0054-4e7e-bdab-f667c42e5cdan%40googlegroups.com.