Fw: DA-DR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS: SUPREME COURT VERDICT-11TH APRIL 2026.

[Prasad C N]

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

----- Forwarded message -----

From: "Prasad C N" <sbmpen...@gmail.com>

To: "Sanjay J" <sanjay...@gmail.com>

Cc:

Sent: Fri, 15 May 2026 at 14:38

Subject: Re: DA-DR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS: SUPREME COURT VERDICT-11TH APRIL 2026.

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

Thank you for your kind words.

State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune is perhaps the only organisation which consistently takes up not only issues involving existing legal rights, but also matters that may adversely affect the rights and interests of pensioners in the future.

The issue relating to payment of uniform rates of Dearness Relief has already been considered by two separate Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In one of the matters, Shri R. Venkataramani, the present Attorney General of India, appeared for the concerned parties, and in another matter, Justice Bali, former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, appeared in the Civil Appeal. Both the Civil Appeals came to be dismissed.

In those cases, the Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 had introduced two different systems for calculation of Dearness Relief. Similarly, the Joint Note dated 08.03.2024 has also created two different systems for calculation of Dearness Relief. Therefore, the factual matrix in both situations is substantially identical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept the claim for application of a uniform formula for all pensioners.

The facts and circumstances in the KSRTC case are entirely different. In the KSRTC matter, all pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement, were paid Dearness Relief at the same rate. However, in the case of bank pensioners, the rate of Dearness Relief applicable is linked to the rate that was applicable to employees at the time of retirement, as is the practice in other Public Sector Banks also. Hence, the factual position is fundamentally different.

Further, in the KSRTC case, different rates of Dearness Relief were specifically notified in the very same order. In contrast, in the case of bank pensioners, the rate applicable to pensioners is the same as the rate applicable to serving employees during the relevant settlement period in which the pensioner retired. Therefore, the situation contemplated in the KSRTC judgment does not arise in the case of bank pensioners.

There is one more substantial reason why State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.

We request you to kindly visit our office on any working day between 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. for a detailed discussion. There is considerable information to share, and your doubts can be clarified comprehensively through personal interaction. Such meaningful exchange is often not possible through social media platforms, where the scope for detailed discussion remains limited.

Thanking you.

With regards,

C. N. Prasad

General Secretary

On Friday, 15 May 2026 at 01:56:53 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

To SBMPC

April 15, 2026.

 

Sub: DA-DR DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND PENSIONERS: SUPREME COURT VERDICT-11TH APRIL 2026.

Respected Sir,

Words cannot describe my joy and gratitude that my request to the leadership of retiree associations fell upon the ears of at least one association—our mighty SBMPC.

Given the SBMPC's past achievements, which I gratefully recall, its acknowledgement of the request gives great hope that progress on the DA/DR parity issue is truly possible.

I am well aware that it is not easy to convince a leadership of your stature on every matter. However, I am sure that if you are fully convinced of a cause and put your whole mind and organizational strength into a task, like Archimedes with his lever, success is guaranteed.

It is heartening that SBMPC has taken note of this request. It indicates it finds merit in the constitutional arguments raised. If this conviction is translated into organizational action, I am certain it will bring a monumental shift for the entire bank pensioner community.

From my point of view, because we are traditionally tied down by the fine print of BEPR 1995, our whole argument now needs to rise above contract law and stand firmly on "Constitutional Principles."

Hence, a formal legal opinion, suggestion, and direction from a senior advocate who is a specialized expert in Constitutional matters would be an invaluable asset. This will serve as our core leverage whenever we take our DR/DA parity claims forward to the IBA, UFBU, DFS, or even to the apex court.

Heartfelt thanks and best regards,

Sanjay. J

P.S. Archimedes famously said: "Give me a place to stand, and a lever long enough, and I will move the world." In this context, SBMPC is the force, the Constitution (Article 14) is the lever, and the unyielding BEPR 1995 is the heavy world that needs to be moved.

[Sanjay J]

[Sanjay J]

To

The General Secretary, SBMPC.

Subject: Re: Understanding the Past Failures vs. The Post-April 10 Constitutional Reality

Respected Shri Prasadji,

Thank you for your detailed response and for highlighting the historical dismissals and the United Bank of India (2018) judgment you shared on April 20th. Your caution is deeply appreciated. However, reviewing these past cases alongside our current predicament reveals that all previous failures share the exact same DNA: they were fought entirely under the rules of the "Contract Era".

We must recognize that April 10, 2026 (The KSRTC Judgment) serves as a monumental demarcation line in Indian judicial thinking.

Before this date, all cases were trapped inside commercial contract law, regulations, joint notes, and bipartite settlements—boundaries the Supreme Court consistently refused to rewrite. But post-April 10, the paradigm has shifted from commercial terms to Constitutional Mandates. For a bank pensioner, this recent judgment is the wooden log coming the way of a drowning man. We must seize it.

PRE-APRIL 10, 2026 (CONTRACT ERA).	POST-APRIL 10, 2026 (CONSTITUTIONAL ERA).
Tied to Bipartite Text / BEPR 1995	Governed by Articles 14 & 21
Courts refuse to alter agreements	Courts override rules if outcomes discriminate
Result: Standard Dismissals	Result: Universal Inflation Protection Mandated

 

*  

ANALYSIS: Why the Past Contract Era Failed vs. Why the Constitutional Era Wins Now (UBI 2018 example taken)

Feature	The Pre-April 10 Failure (e.g., UBI 2018)	The Post-April 10 Opportunity (Current Context)
1. The Core Issue	Contractual Benefit: The Court viewed 100% DR as a concession won in a specific wage deal (8th BPS). The logic was: "You cannot claim the benefits of a contract you were never part of." (p. 1)	Constitutional Parity: Our argument today is not about a "BPS term"; it is about the Index baseline itself. We are challenging a defective yardstick (1960 CPI) that yields less absolute money than the modern industry standard (2016 CPI)
2. The Defense	"Financial Burden": Banks successfully argued a lack of paying capacity, which the Court accepted as a valid ground to fix cut-off dates for new benefits	Financial Defense Rejected: The Constitution Bench (State of WB v. Confederation) explicitly ruled that DA/DR is a right under Article 21 Financial constraints cannot be used to deny a statutory/constitutional right
3. The Legal Test	Classification: The Court accepted the "Date of Retirement" as a valid line to draw distinct classes for salary and settlement structures	Arbitrariness: The Vijayakumar (April 10, 2026) judgment ruled that differentiating based on retirement date for Inflation Relief is inherently arbitrary. Because inflation hits all retirees with equal force, the relief mechanism must be equal.

 

*

The New Arithmetic Evidence (Filling the 2018 Empty Record)

In the 2018 UBI case, the Supreme Court specifically noted that no concrete illustration had been placed on record showing a substantial financial disadvantage. Today, our evidentiary record is rich, undeniable, and strictly mathematical:

1. The Multiplier Squeeze: To link our pensions from the 1960 series to the 2016 series, our inflation updates are compressed through a cumulative linking factor of 69.93.
2. The Absolute Rupee Gap: This formula does not result in a "marginal difference of a few hundred rupees." (Details below)
3. The Admission of Material Fact: The IBA’s own signed minutes from March 8, 2024, explicitly admit the necessity of a merger at 8088 points. This admission is brand-new evidentiary material that did not exist during the 2018 litigation.

On the "Marginal Benefit" vs. Real Financial Impact:

You mentioned that this involves a "comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees." I respectfully beg to differ on the math.

When a pre-2022 retiree's pension is locked into the CPI 1960 series, every subsequent inflation hike is squeezed through an outdated conversion multiplier. If we calculate the absolute difference between a basic pension run through the CPI 2016 index versus the CPI 1960 index, the gap is not a few hundred rupees—it translates to a recurring loss of ₹3,000 to ₹7,000+ every single month for a vast majority of senior pensioners. For an octogenarian facing skyrocketing medical inflation, this is a massive, life-altering sum, not a marginal one.

Upward Equalization: Zero Risk to Existing Benefits

I wish to directly address the fear that pursuing index parity risks or foregoes the monthly DR increases (₹30,000 to ₹1 Lakh+) won by 10th, 11th, and 12th Bipartite pensioners.

In Constitutional welfare law, courts operate on the strict principle of upward equalization. When a judicial body finds a calculation index discriminatory, it upgrades the aggrieved older generation to the superior baseline; it never strips away, scales back, or stops the vested benefits of newer retirees. This is an add-on correction for pre-2022 seniors, not a zero-sum trade-off.

Conclusion

The UBI judgment of 2018 established that you can have different contracts for different eras. The Vijayakumar judgment of April 10, 2026, establishes that you cannot have different Constitutionality for different eras.

While I deeply respect your immense experience, Prasadji, I only urge the Commune’s legal team to stop viewing this through the lens of old, failed contract disputes and instead wield the fresh, post-April 10 constitutional lever that the Supreme Court has handed to us.

With deep regards,

Sanjay J.

 

On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 2:38 PM Prasad C N <sbmpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

Thank you for your kind words.

State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune is perhaps the only organisation which consistently takes up not only issues involving existing legal rights, but also matters that may adversely affect the rights and interests of pensioners in the future.

The issue relating to payment of uniform rates of Dearness Relief has already been considered by two separate Benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In one of the matters, Shri R. Venkataramani, the present Attorney General of India, appeared for the concerned parties, and in another matter, Justice Bali, former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, appeared in the Civil Appeal. Both the Civil Appeals came to be dismissed.

In those cases, the Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement dated 02.06.2005 had introduced two different systems for calculation of Dearness Relief. Similarly, the Joint Note dated 08.03.2024 has also created two different systems for calculation of Dearness Relief. Therefore, the factual matrix in both situations is substantially identical. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not accept the claim for application of a uniform formula for all pensioners.

The facts and circumstances in the KSRTC case are entirely different. In the KSRTC matter, all pensioners, irrespective of the date of retirement, were paid Dearness Relief at the same rate. However, in the case of bank pensioners, the rate of Dearness Relief applicable is linked to the rate that was applicable to employees at the time of retirement, as is the practice in other Public Sector Banks also. Hence, the factual position is fundamentally different.

Further, in the KSRTC case, different rates of Dearness Relief were specifically notified in the very same order. In contrast, in the case of bank pensioners, the rate applicable to pensioners is the same as the rate applicable to serving employees during the relevant settlement period in which the pensioner retired. Therefore, the situation contemplated in the KSRTC judgment does not arise in the case of bank pensioners.

There is one more substantial reason why State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.

We request you to kindly visit our office on any working day between 11:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. for a detailed discussion. There is considerable information to share, and your doubts can be clarified comprehensively through personal interaction. Such meaningful exchange is often not possible through social media platforms, where the scope for detailed discussion remains limited.

Thanking you.

With regards,

C. N. Prasad

General Secretary

On Friday, 15 May 2026 at 01:56:53 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Niranjan Cn]

Sanjay Sir,

All pensioners wants/needs more money.  Some we have to get by persuasion, agitation, sympathy, etc.  Unless, there is a strong legal grounds - one should not venture into filing of cases - which will not stand in court of law.  It is observed that 'constitution' is invoked at the drop of hat .  Please clarify - whether our Pension Regulations and Kerala Govt KSRTC pension order - on the same footing ??  IF so what are the similarities - other than both are pensions ?  Please prepare four strong points by consulting good advocate (are even by using AI) and share the same for discussion in the group - so that our group members can value add to those points.

Just by quoting 'constitituion' - we cannot get any benefits.

One should be clear - as to which is the best way to take forward for success.

Thanks for initiating the discussion.

Niranjan

--
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/CAP9-UeK6Or_ZOSF14BoP8-_UKunaaEq4Rx3L6C%2Bs8B2qX5orVg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

Without wading into merits or demerits of your propositions, we are reproducing a portion of our response, which amply provides reasoning for our decision.  We are responsible for protecting the interest of our members and securing the benefits for them.  There are leaders, activists and organisations (who are more knowledgeable than us) to fight and get the benefits to retirees/pensioners who are not our members or members of affiliates of our Apex organisation, State Bank Retirees' Association and we would like to keep at arm's length in respect of any other issue, which has no or minimum connection with our members or our organisation.

QUOTE :

There is one more substantial reason why State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.

UNQUOTE

Before, I conclude I request you to refer to your source and tell us, how can there be different rates of DR for different periods of retirees?

Thanking you,

With regards,

C N Prasad

General Secretary

[Satyanarayana Rao]

It is very interesting and informative discussion that is going on between two legal experts in the group.
The arguments basically is the validity of pension regulations and it's interpretation verses the constitutional fundamental rights gaurenteed under article 14 and 21.
Both are right as we won some cases purely based on the letter and spirit of understanding of the statutory rights of Pensioners.
The recent supreme court bench verdict of April 26 in DA and DA releif case is purely based on the principles natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and fair play and equality of law enforcement as gaurenteed under article 14 and16 of the constitution.
Even though the pension regulations are regulations are statutory in nature the same cannot be enforced of the pension regulations are ultravirous to the fundamental rights gaurenteed under article 14 and16 of the constitution.
The supreme court judges are very much perticular and asserting the that the orbitary decision of the state in framing and implementing their own discriminative rules are under scrutiny of the Supreme court judges in Sri Singla ji Case and that is why the supreme court bench is revisiting the high court verdicts.
It is matter of time to hear the favourable verdict in favour of petitioners.
The constitutional fundamental rights shall prevail over orbitary decision of denying pension updation by IBA and DFS and UFBU combine who perpetually forced on pensioners which is fraud deliberately created.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Mon, 18 May 2026 at 9:41, Prasad C N

<sbmpen...@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/2141304688.1463900.1778925153205%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Criticizing AIBPARC and petitioners for the line of arguments adopted by them in the M C Singla case is unwarranted and unfair  to thousands of retirees waiting for the M C Singla case verdict.

UFBU should take all the blame and face brickbats if  singla case fails because they have failed to amend pension regulation even after 30 years of signing it. Shall we blame AIBPARC and petitioners if Reg35/1 does not provide for updation? Who is responsible for changing it?  There are zero negotiations in BPS and UFBU is also not taking up the issue with DFS. Like RBI employees unions they should have convinced DFS to approve updation  subject to amendment at a later date of iBA is not responding.

If IBA and UFBU had taken 08.03.24 resolutions to its logical end, issue would have been resolved and AIBPARC would have withdrawn the case. UFBU did not follow up the issue with IBA  because the intention is not to harm the iIBA stand in M C singla case.  AIBPARC and petitioners in the absence of zero cooperation and help from UFBU have taken the best possible stand and nobody can criticize it. If anybody thinks the AIBPARC  line of argument is wrong they can suggest alternative solutions to advocates of M C Singla case and not ridicule it.Can anybody trust UFBU that they would have taken up updation issue with IBA if AIBPARC had not filed an appeal in the M C Singla case? If they had such commitment, sincerity and professionalism they would not have accepted the absurd reply SUB JUDICE.

Under these circumstances We appreciate Mr.Sanjay  and Mr.Raman for some hard work and suggesting additional inputs to advocates of M C Si ngla case for strengthening the arguments.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWHNGWNCLUX8P4xvDi0rpnT1aJxtmVG7H0OCYS_fesUQxg%40mail.gmail.com.

[SBMPC Blore]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

We appreciate the considerable efforts you have made to substantiate your point of view. However, on behalf of State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune, we feel that you may be missing the wood for the trees.

For ready reference, we reproduce below the important portion of our earlier email:

“There is one more substantial reason why the State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.”

Consequently, the merits of your arguments may ultimately be inconsequential for the members of State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune.

In the meantime, we would also like to share our views regarding your narration and claims. Except in the case of erstwhile Associate Banks, most Banks have already amended their Pension Regulations by incorporating the provisions relating to Dearness Relief under the 12th Bipartite Settlement. Therefore, the payment of Dearness Relief is now governed by Statutory Regulations. Any challenge, therefore, would necessarily have to be directed against the amendments made to the Pension Regulations themselves.

At present, Dearness Relief is being paid based on the same index, irrespective of the date of retirement. Since Appendix II of the existing Pension Regulations continues to adopt the 1960 series, the 2016 index is being converted into the 1960 series by applying the multiplication factor of 65.738592 (4.93 × 4.63 × 2.88).

With the limited legal knowledge available to us, we are unable to find any apparent violation of Constitutional rights in the present arrangement.

What is even more surprising — and rather unfortunate — is that we have not received even a single query from anyone regarding our claims relating to the huge increase and substantial difference in pension amounts. That, indeed, is the real tragedy.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

C N Prasad

General Secretary

--

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

Whatever you have written is about Singla's case.  Trail mails do not relate to Singla's case.  

Whatever you have stated would be answered appropriately after the delivery of the Judgment.  Perhaps, you yourself might find answers.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3MY7B3bJQXnvdSwO1PJ877S4%3DmU6hFP9er1iMraFBoKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Somashekarji,

One should understand the Singlas case.  ITs origin and both the judgements at High Court.  Present case is only an appeal against the dismissal and we expect the court to order updation.  That is perfectly right - for pensioner to think based  on the information placed before them.

What is the prerequisite when we file an appeal against the dismissal ?  First we should highlight where HC has erred point-wise by duly providing the reliable material to Supreme Court.  No one wants to speak about High Court judgements , as it is inconvenient to them.  Without duly addressing the issues raised in HC - it is herculan task to convince the Supreme Court regarding claim regarding 'Updtion'.   Are we asking updation as per Central Government or RBI ? We should be very clear - originally, the case was for updation as per Central Govt Pension.  Whether the same stand continued now ??  Else shifted the goal post to RBI Updation ??

It is very easy to convince and win over fellow pensioners - by highlighting /bringing about various aspects like constituion article 14, etc. - but these narratives cannot work before supreme court.  Otherday, Judges asked whether the pension as per regulations or not ?  If not paid, banks have to pay as per regulations.  Where we stand on this ?  Any material to quote that Banks are not paying as per Regulations ?  In entire paper book (of nearly 1000 pages) submitted to the Supreme Court - there is no allegation against the banks on these lines.  What does it mean ?  Are we accepting pension is paid as per Regulations ??

One should speak truth and facts even if it is unpleasent one.  We are seniors and have seen all the up and downs in life.  All are capable of understanding the truth and appreciate the facts.  One should not shy away from telling the truth and it will be service to fellow pensioners.

Present day REtiree leaders were UFBU leaders who were signing BPS.  What they have done to Retirees then ?  Are they sincere now  or doing only drama by propogating false narrative ?

By going through the various communcations/speeches by the leaders of retiree confiderations/associations,  does not instill confidence in getting the needful done through court.

Any attempt to push facts and truth below the carpet is deplorable and has to be considered as disservice to the fellow pensioners.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3MY7B3bJQXnvdSwO1PJ877S4%3DmU6hFP9er1iMraFBoKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

It is true that as pointed out by you, to arrive at the CPI levels to calculate the DR of pre Nov 2022 pensioners, the 2016=100 series is only used and the figures are obtained by using the conversion factor.

But, the crux of the matter is, as already pointed out by some member a few days ago in this forum, the neutralisation rate for the 12th BPS retirees and those in service has been fixed at 1% for every increase/decrease of 1 point in the 2016=100 series while it ought to have been slightly lesser at 0.9% or so. 

This small difference, though, 

 has resulted in a substantial benefit on account of high levels of basic pay/pension.

So, there is a clamour among the pensioners belonging to the pre Nov 2022 groups to not only merge the DR at 8088 level with basic pensions but effect the shift to 2016=100 series too simultaneously.

It is a fact that pensioners from 10th BPS onwards have been losing a lot by way of reduced basic pension due to non-inclusion of Special allowance for pension and also the DR on that amount.

As you would kindly agree, this situation has resulted as per bipartite agreements

and the banks have appealed against the judgements ordering  for inclusion of Special allowance for pension.

The question before us now,  is, whether the pensioners from 4th BPS to 9th BPS

who have already lost heavily due to non- updation and tapered DA should also wait to get updation or atleast DR under 2016=100 series till the issue of Special allowance as mentioned above is resolved for the retirees from 10th BPS onwards.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3MY7B3bJQXnvdSwO1PJ877S4%3DmU6hFP9er1iMraFBoKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Padam Singh]

Shri Prasad sir, I sent my contact number to you through Shri Mohan sir, but I think that you may have not received.If you are facing any problem to contact me , please reply by the e mail in the group or send me your contact number , if you please. It will be better if you clear my confusion by replying through e mail in the group whether PQA AND FPA must be included for calculating of basic pension in 7th bps for svrs 2001 .I will wait for your kind response when ever you get time .

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALXgLCFeWjfj9LA-FDsYaXOyfPEjBbF9PUnUhiL1Uk-7WKA1qw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Rao,

If you find provision in Appendix II relating to DR in respect of post 31.10.2022 is ultra virus of the Constitution, then every provision in Appendix II is ultra virus.  Merely change in Index does not make the provision ultra virus.  As I have already explained, in KSRTC case, same order had two rates of Dearness Relief.  There challenge was not the rules, but two rates in the same order.  It is 11% & 14%.  Every employee and retiree is/was getting Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief at the same rate. 

I do not have knowledge and ability to find ultra-virus in Bank Dearness Relief  of post 31.10.2022 case. 

Since you are also from State Bank of Mysore, choice is yours. I do not want to settle a few hundred rupees increase by discovering or inventing grounds.  Please inform SBMPC that you prefer benefit out of this alledged illegality, rather than the struggle SBMPC is undertaking.  Let Article 14, 16 and 21 bring in more benefit. Please go through:

There is one more substantial reason why State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2086843637.1741551.1779097515862%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sanjay Sir,

Thanks a lot for explaining the difference between 'contract era' and 'constitutional era' with narration.  It is very good analysis to read - by reading email - I learnt the new ways of interpretation and understanding.  Thanks again sir.

We should be clear - what should be approach with regard to DR ? Please clarify - you mean to say - legal option is the best ?  If so, try to list out all the favourable points in support of DR revision - which will stand in court of law - please also include relevant citations.  Unless, base work is done - no meaning in beating around the bush.  Kindly prepare a concrete plan - how to proceed - you may also invoke the help of AI /legal experts you know.  Once the the approach is clear - we can debate it and discuss - the ways and means to take it forward.  Our group is vibrant - and members certainly come forward - for help in case of need  if the approach is convinced to them.

Sanja Sir, please go ahead - prepare a clear approach papaer - which can adopted in the court for winning the case.  All our energy can be channalised in a more productive way to achive common objective sir.

Looking forward for your approach write up on DR - for a court case.

Niranjan

Ex Canara

--

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/CAP9-UeK_Ma6h6HydMARnXyrvAnHZ6bfZ%2BjYWeX2%3DYuF92CfKhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Further Mr.Sanjay and Raman have submitted new inputs which suggested that Reg,35/1 is not just merger of DA but also updation, which advocates of M C Singla case have acknowledged and included the same in their arguments. This is also a plus point.

On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:35 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr.Niranjan

I am not saying arguments advanced by petitioners are 100% Correct.

Hon. HC Judge assumed pensioners are demanding OROP. Updation is nothing but merging DA to existing Basic not OROP. However he  ruled that there is no provision for updation in pension regulations. Reg35/1 did not provide for updation and also advised petitioners to negotiate with management for better benefits. 

M C Singla demanded updation as per Central Government pension updation scheme and also argued that our pension scheme is structured on RBI pension scheme for which respondent banks have countered that RBI also has not implemented pension updation scheme.

AIBPARC modified appeal taking into consideration following developments that took place post High court judgment.

1. RBI introduced Updation in 2019.

2. RBI implemented updation in spite of absence of provision for updation in their pension rules and again in 2025. Pension rules were amended later.

3. IBA and UFBU signed minutes agreeing to discuss and amend pension regulation to provide for updation.

So the IBA argument that proviison is necessary to provide for updation does not hold water after DFS approved updation in RBI. AIBPARC now argues that amendment in 2003 by including the word 'shall', will provide for updation.

Yes Hon.Judge said pension should be paid as per regulations. He has also sought charts to decide whether disparity exists or not. MC Singla did not have resources to engage eminent lawyers. AIBPARC has resources and submitted additional documents.

High courts and Supreme courts pass different verdicts. High courts strictly limit its verdict to rules and regulations whereas SC go ino equality of justice and not just rules.

There are cases where the same arguments failed in HC but were successful in SC and vice versa. We got a favourable verdict in Kolkata HC in 100% DA case but it was rejected by SC. Delhi HC rejected 1616-1684 and 5 years case but SC gave favourable verdict.

Having said this, nobody can predict court verdicts. 

Instead of allowing the case to die, AIBPARC is doing the best possible within the limitations of regulations.

On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 10:21 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Prasad Sir,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zdCjVxP5dzgrHH8JdHSqr98eJH3FdtsZaPZKFbDw%2B-Tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank you Prasad Sir,

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zdCjVxP5dzgrHH8JdHSqr98eJH3FdtsZaPZKFbDw%2B-Tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

I presume that SBMPC is fighting a court case for inclusion of Special Allowance for calculating basic pension in respect of pensioners belonging to 10th, 11th and 12th BPS and the figures ranging from ₹30,000 to ₹1,00,000 are the losses suffered by these pensioners with varying basic pensions, due to the exclusion of Special allowance (and DR thereon) for pension.

I also infer from what you have written,

SBMPC feels that, if the shift to 2016=100 series along with merger of DR at 8088 points is extended to the above group of pensioners and accepted by them, it will amount to their tacit acceptance of the resulting new Basic Pension (that excludes the Special allowance) and thus weaken the case in the court. Is my inference correct?

Further, in as much as, the exclusion of Special allowance for pension has been done through BPS, what is the stand of UFBU in the matter?

Please respond.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1092420986.1782682.1779109989755%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Niranjan

I am not saying arguments advanced by petitioners are 100% Correct.

Hon. HC Judge assumed pensioners are demanding OROP. Updation is nothing but merging DA to existing Basic not OROP. However he  ruled that there is no provision for updation in pension regulations. Reg35/1 did not provide for updation and also advised petitioners to negotiate with management for better benefits. 

M C Singla demanded updation as per Central Government pension updation scheme and also argued that our pension scheme is structured on RBI pension scheme for which respondent banks have countered that RBI also has not implemented pension updation scheme.

AIBPARC modified appeal taking into consideration following developments that took place post High court judgment.

1. RBI introduced Updation in 2019.

2. RBI implemented updation in spite of absence of provision for updation in their pension rules and again in 2025. Pension rules were amended later.

3. IBA and UFBU signed minutes agreeing to discuss and amend pension regulation to provide for updation.

So the IBA argument that proviison is necessary to provide for updation does not hold water after DFS approved updation in RBI. AIBPARC now argues that amendment in 2003 by including the word 'shall', will provide for updation.

Yes Hon.Judge said pension should be paid as per regulations. He has also sought charts to decide whether disparity exists or not. MC Singla did not have resources to engage eminent lawyers. AIBPARC has resources and submitted additional documents.

High courts and Supreme courts pass different verdicts. High courts strictly limit its verdict to rules and regulations whereas SC go ino equality of justice and not just rules.

There are cases where the same arguments failed in HC but were successful in SC and vice versa. We got a favourable verdict in Kolkata HC in 100% DA case but it was rejected by SC. Delhi HC rejected 1616-1684 and 5 years case but SC gave favourable verdict.

Having said this, nobody can predict court verdicts. 

Instead of allowing the case to die, AIBPARC is doing the best possible within the limitations of regulations.

On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 10:21 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Yes . Sri Somashekara.You are perfectly right.
Instead of indulging in extraneous statements and finding faults with any organisation the learned inteligencia could have streanthend the case by finding ways to convince the Supreme court judges for favourable verdict.
At least they could have restraint from making disappointing statements through their views.
As the case has reached crucial stage and the judges have understood that the Deffendents ie DFS. IBA have delegately ond orbitarly suppressed pension updation and played mischief with the able support of UFBU combine.
Now let us wait for final verdict which is going to be in our favour.
Let anybody think otherwise article 14 and16 and 21 and the wisdom of Supreme court judges shall deliver positive verdict infaour of pension updation applying the principles natural justice, fair play and equity and equality of law with the application of jurisprudence.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1080130020.1774275.1779106412378%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The delivery of the judgement will be historic and favourable verdict and beyond the thinking capacity of the distracters.
The judgement will also give big kick to the DFS, and IBA and UFBU combine who perpetually forced injustice and orbitarly suppressed pension updation.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Tue, 19 May 2026 at 9:41, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1080130020.1774275.1779106412378%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

The demand to include the Special Allowance in basic pay for pension calculations and the demand to shift the base year to 2016=100 for calculating Dearness Relief (DR) represent two distinct objectives. Given their separate natures, why does a conflict of interest appear to exist between them?

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_zdCjVxP5dzgrHH8JdHSqr98eJH3FdtsZaPZKFbDw%2B-Tw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

We shall not criticise AIBPARC and Petitioners for the line of arguments, even if they damage our cause;

We shall blame UFBU for not amending the Pension Regulations, even after 30 years.  But, can you suggest what and where of Pension Regulations should be amended

We shall not blame AIBPARC if Regulation 35(1) does not provide for updation.  But, having claimed updation on account of Regulation 35(1), can you provide or ascertain and provide what is the increase if Pension is updated in terms of Regulation 35(1) for a Basic Pension of Rs.7,500/- if the date of retirement is 31.03.2002?  Or any leader of AIBPARC can answer?

Since AIBPARC is claiming pension updation in terms of Regulation 35(1), please you help us by advising us the formula to be adopted, in case Hon'ble Supreme Court accepts the argument and orders Pension Updation as per Regulation 35(1).

Whether 'who is responsiblefor changing it' makes any difference? We are all aware that the Boards of the Banks without approval of the Governement & RBI amends Regulations?

Whether whatever agreed, settled and signed on 08.03.2024 have been implemented?

When AIBPARC is fighting in the Court, in what way follow up by UFBU could have helped pensioners or harmed IBA, please enlighten us. 

Please also guide and enlighten us how UFBU could have helped and cooperated with us with regard to Court case.  As General Secretary of SBMPC, I will write letter, if I can get valid suggestion. 

Action of anyone's is criticised certainly, if such action is inappropriate.  Can there be any pre-condition that there must be anything or any other means else to criticise? 

Do you mean to say that UFBU need not take up if we lose Singla's case?  There is no need to depend on UFBU if we win the case, but will we get faith in UFBU if we lose the case?.

Dear Shri Somashekara, we have to fight the Court case to win, by providing cogent, valid and acceptable grounds.  Any narrative or suggestion cannot strengthen the case.  We cannot defend or justify any pleadings or action of any person or any organisation, merely because UFBU has not got what we want, nobody has given any right to any individual or organisation to damage our interest.  No action or inaction of anyone else can insulate them.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Monday, 18 May 2026 at 04:31:34 pm IST, JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3MY7B3bJQXnvdSwO1PJ877S4%3DmU6hFP9er1iMraFBoKw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Mukhoti ji,

The 'conflict of interest' is only my presumption/inference. That is why I had, in my letter, requested Sri Prasad ji to confirm that I am correct.

I also reproduce here below the contents of my letter addressed to him.

Quote:

I presume that SBMPC is fighting a court case for inclusion of Special Allowance for calculating basic pension in respect of pensioners belonging to 10th, 11th and 12th BPS and the figures ranging from ₹30,000 to ₹1,00,000 are the losses suffered by these pensioners with varying basic pensions, due to the exclusion of Special allowance (and DR thereon) for pension.

I also infer from what you have written,

SBMPC feels that, if the shift to 2016=100 series along with merger of DR at 8088 points is extended to the above group of pensioners and accepted by them, it will amount to their tacit acceptance of the resulting new Basic Pension (that excludes the Special allowance) and thus weaken the case in the court. Is my inference correct?

Further, in as much as, the exclusion of Special allowance for pension has been done through BPS, what is the stand of UFBU in the matter?

Please respond.

Unquote:

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8OwM9Jr_N8P4c_s-_TSAEqaoXqaDMBjB0Ewa1qiHUqm_-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

It is important that an association takes up the retirees' case in court. Appointing eminent lawyers and continuous monitoring of the case is required.

Many individuals filed cases in the High court against the IBA/UFBU agreement of denying pension on special allowance. But all cases  were transferred to SC as per the appeal of IBA. Now all litigants have to  arrange lawyers and travel to Delhi often and they are disorganized. Now every time the case is listed at  above 200 serial numbers and not taken up for hearing. Nobody is filing a memo for early hearing. It may take another 5 years for the verdict.  Even if it is favourable if the verdict is made from prospective date pensioners will lose lakhs.

Who cares? Will UFBU, which filed the case for PIL money, care?

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 11:58 AM JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Prasad Sir,

For your valuable suggestions.

As we are aware there are three ways to achieve any issue that is Negotiation, agitation and litigation.

Retirees cannot go on agitation except arranging Dharna etc  which has zero effect on authorities. IBA, Banks also do not communicate with us. So only two options left Negotiation and litigation. Retirees are depending on UFBU to negotiate issues.

There is a limitation period for filing cases and  petitioners cannot wait 10-15 years for negotiations. M C Singla case was filed 8 years after implementation of pension scheme. It is to be noted that Hon.judges have taken objections for filing cases with delay but condoned it. Since there was no effort on the part of UFBU to take up the issue with IBA for 8 years since implementation of the pension scheme  M C Singla filed the case. Final verdict by the High court came in 2012.  Hon judge observed that petitioners could have negotiated with management for updation.  Between 2012-2016 no case was pending with regard to updation and UFBU could have negotiated the issue with IBA as directed by the High court.

keeping quiet when no case is pending in court and crying sub judice after an appeal filed after 4 years of High court verdict is inexplicable. Further no court has passed an order restraining IBA and UFBU discussing updation issue and any time the case can be withdrawn if settlement is reached by negotiations. IBA and UFBU discussed and settled 1616-1684 issues when hundreds of cases were pending in court.

Often we hear phrases like pensioners are misled, misguided, whatsup university professors etc. In such a situation it is the responsibility of UFBU being parties to the pension settlement to issue detailed circular explaining Reg35/1 and subsequent amendment, Provision for pension updation etc and other terms. I was also misled,under the false impression that as there is no proviison for Updation in regulations, Updation cannot be done by going through IBA statements in courts. But DFS proved that it is a misleading statement by sanctioning updation in the absence of provision for updation in their rules.

I do not know the inside stories and I have not come across any court order restraining iBA and UFBU from discussing and settling issues or communication from DFS preventing discussions. In fact DFS has replied in Parliament that if a proposal is sent by IBA it will be considered.

So why minutes  of 08.03.24 not followed up by UFBU.When DFS itself approved updation in RBI without provision in pension rules, how far is it fair to claim that only PSU bank pension rules must have provision to sanction updation? Why UFBU silent on this and closing BPS meetings accepting sub judice.

Unfortunately in 2018 Mr.Singla left this world when case was pending.

From 2001-2016 UFBU did not take to demanding IBA to discuss the  issue and amend regulations to provide for updation. So Reg 35/1 remained as it is without change even after 25 years. 

After the demise of Mr.Singla there were two options. Allow singla case to die along with original litigant or continue the case within the limitations of  pension regulations. We must note that if singla case is allowed to die no union is standing in line to negotiate the issue. They could have done so when the High court made such observations.

So I'm not defending the AIBPARC line of arguments but appreciate their initiatives to interfere with the case to take into its logical end. 

Nobody is asking UFBU this question. If M C Singla case is sub judice then why one of their constituents filed a case in Bombay High court instead of negotiating the issue?

Since 1995 the only issue UFBU has resolved is the second pension option with penalties and anomalies.

1616-1684, 5 years benefit, 100% DA, second pension option to CRS retirees, pension option to resignees, resolved by pensioners themselves through judiciary 

Pending issues: Commutation recovered from DOR, Merger of DA, uniform DA for all pensioners, Application of new base year for all pensioners.

No action taken by UFBU on any of these issue.

They will start crying sub judice after some frustrated pensioner approach courts on any of these issues. Simply spreading narratives that DFS could have put brakes on IBA to discuss issues is meaningless. What Unions are there?

So the line of arguments of petitioners may be wrong but there is no option for retirees except to continue the case as UFBU has not shown iota of interest in resolving the issue.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8OwM9Jr_N8P4c_s-_TSAEqaoXqaDMBjB0Ewa1qiHUqm_-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Thank you Prasad Sir,

For your valuable suggestions.

As we are aware there are three ways to achieve any issue that is Negotiation, agitation and litigation.

Retirees cannot go on agitation except arranging Dharna etc  which has zero effect on authorities. IBA, Banks also do not communicate with us. So only two options left Negotiation and litigation. Retirees are depending on UFBU to negotiate issues.

There is a limitation period for filing cases and  petitioners cannot wait 10-15 years for negotiations. M C Singla case was filed 8 years after implementation of pension scheme. It is to be noted that Hon.judges have taken objections for filing cases with delay but condoned it. Since there was no effort on the part of UFBU to take up the issue with IBA for 8 years since implementation of the pension scheme  M C Singla filed the case. Final verdict by the High court came in 2012.  Hon judge observed that petitioners could have negotiated with management for updation.  Between 2012-2016 no case was pending with regard to updation and UFBU could have negotiated the issue with IBA as directed by the High court.

keeping quiet when no case is pending in court and crying sub judice after an appeal filed after 4 years of High court verdict is inexplicable. Further no court has passed an order restraining IBA and UFBU discussing updation issue and any time the case can be withdrawn if settlement is reached by negotiations. IBA and UFBU discussed and settled 1616-1684 issues when hundreds of cases were pending in court.

Often we hear phrases like pensioners are misled, misguided, whatsup university professors etc. In such a situation it is the responsibility of UFBU being parties to the pension settlement to issue detailed circular explaining Reg35/1 and subsequent amendment, Provision for pension updation etc and other terms. I was also misled,under the false impression that as there is no proviison for Updation in regulations, Updation cannot be done by going through IBA statements in courts. But DFS proved that it is a misleading statement by sanctioning updation in the absence of provision for updation in their rules.

I do not know the inside stories and I have not come across any court order restraining iBA and UFBU from discussing and settling issues or communication from DFS preventing discussions. In fact DFS has replied in Parliament that if a proposal is sent by IBA it will be considered.

So why minutes  of 08.03.24 not followed up by UFBU.When DFS itself approved updation in RBI without provision in pension rules, how far is it fair to claim that only PSU bank pension rules must have provision to sanction updation? Why UFBU silent on this and closing BPS meetings accepting sub judice.

Unfortunately in 2018 Mr.Singla left this world when case was pending.

From 2001-2016 UFBU did not take to demanding IBA to discuss the  issue and amend regulations to provide for updation. So Reg 35/1 remained as it is without change even after 25 years. 

After the demise of Mr.Singla there were two options. Allow singla case to die along with original litigant or continue the case within the limitations of  pension regulations. We must note that if singla case is allowed to die no union is standing in line to negotiate the issue. They could have done so when the High court made such observations.

So I'm not defending the AIBPARC line of arguments but appreciate their initiatives to interfere with the case to take into its logical end. 

Nobody is asking UFBU this question. If M C Singla case is sub judice then why one of their constituents filed a case in Bombay High court instead of negotiating the issue?

Since 1995 the only issue UFBU has resolved is the second pension option with penalties and anomalies.

1616-1684, 5 years benefit, 100% DA, second pension option to CRS retirees, pension option to resignees, resolved by pensioners themselves through judiciary 

Pending issues: Commutation recovered from DOR, Merger of DA, uniform DA for all pensioners, Application of new base year for all pensioners.

No action taken by UFBU on any of these issue.

They will start crying sub judice after some frustrated pensioner approach courts on any of these issues. Simply spreading narratives that DFS could have put brakes on IBA to discuss issues is meaningless. What Unions are there?

So the line of arguments of petitioners may be wrong but there is no option for retirees except to continue the case as UFBU has not shown iota of interest in resolving the issue.

On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 9:48 AM kushal mukhoti <kush...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8OwM9Jr_N8P4c_s-_TSAEqaoXqaDMBjB0Ewa1qiHUqm_-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

Shri Somashekara ji kindly mentioned my name and Mr. Ramani in this exchange. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to respond directly to the specific technical questions you raised, as they deserve factual answers. 

Your Question — The Regulation 35(1) Formula and Quantum

You have asked what the increase would be for a basic pension of ₹7,500 for a retiree of 31.03.2002, and what formula should be adopted if the Supreme Court accepts the updation argument under Regulation 35(1).

Here is the direct answer.

A retiree of 31.03.2002 falls under the 7th Bipartite Settlement, with an applicable DR rate of 482.64%. Applying the RBI/Central Government updation formula — which is the standard model demanded by all pensioner organisations and consistent with Regulation 35(1) read with Appendix I of BEPR 1995:

 

Formula: Updated Basic Pension = Basic Pension + DR merged + 10% Loading

 

Component	Calculation	Amount
Basic Pension	Given	₹7,500
Current DR @ 482.64%	₹7,500 × 4.8264	₹36,198
Notional Pay	₹7,500 + ₹36,198	₹43,698
10% Loading	₹43,698 × 10%	₹4,370
Updated Basic Pension	Notional Pay + Loading	₹48,068
Updated DR @ 25%	₹48,068 × 25%	₹12,017
Updated Total Pension	Updated Basic + Updated DR	₹60,085
Current Total Pension	₹7,500 + ₹36,198	₹43,698
NET MONTHLY GAIN	Updated Total − Current Total	₹16,387
Annual Gain:  ₹16,387 × 12 = ₹1,96,644   |   Over 10 years:  ₹19,66,440

 

This is not ‘a few hundred rupees.’ It is ₹16,387 every single month — or nearly ₹2 lakhs every year — for just one retiree with a modest basic pension of ₹7,500.

The Full Picture — Every BPS Category

Since you have asked for the formula and its application, I am pleased to present the calculation across every BPS category from 5th to 11th, using the same consistent formula throughout. The 7th BPS row (marked ★) corresponds directly to your specific query.

 

BPS	Retirement Period	DR Rate	Example Basic Pension	Current DR	Current Total Pension	Updated Basic Pension	Updated DR @ 25%	Updated Total Pension	NET MONTHLY GAIN
5th & earlier	Before 01.11.1992	1528.94%	₹2,500	₹38,224	₹40,724	₹44,796	₹11,199	₹55,995	₹15,271
6th BPS	01.11.1992–31.10.1997	750.75%	₹4,000	₹30,030	₹34,030	₹37,433	₹9,358	₹46,791	₹12,761
7th BPS ★	01.11.1997–31.10.2002	482.64%	₹7,500	₹36,198	₹43,698	₹48,068	₹12,017	₹60,085	₹16,387
8th BPS	01.11.2002–31.10.2007	334.80%	₹10,000	₹33,480	₹43,480	₹47,828	₹11,957	₹59,785	₹16,305
9th BPS	01.11.2007–31.10.2012	258.45%	₹16,000	₹41,352	₹57,352	₹63,087	₹15,772	₹78,859	₹21,507
10th BPS	01.11.2012–31.10.2017	132.20%	₹28,000	₹37,016	₹65,016	₹71,518	₹17,880	₹89,398	₹24,382
11th BPS	01.11.2017–31.10.2022	59.08%	₹42,000	₹24,814	₹66,814	₹73,495	₹18,374	₹91,869	₹25,055

 

Three facts emerge from this table that cannot be argued away:

 

1.  NOT A SINGLE BPS CATEGORY is unaffected. Every pre-November 2022 retiree stands to gain substantially.

2.  The monthly gain ranges from ₹12,761 (6th BPS) to ₹25,055 (11th BPS) — far from a ‘marginal benefit.’

3.  Annually, each retiree gains ₹1.53 lakhs to ₹3.0 lakhs — a life-changing sum for elderly pensioners.

4.  The 10th and 11th BPS retirees gain the MOST in absolute terms: ₹24,000–₹25,000 per month.

5.  The formula is transparent, consistent, and based on the established RBI / Central Govt updation model.

 

On ‘Damaging the Cause

You suggested that AIBPARC’s arguments, even if wrong, should not be criticised — but then proceed to suggest they ‘damage your cause. Respectfully, this position cannot stand both ways. 

AIBPARC has done what no negotiation, no bipartite settlement, and no union follow-up has achieved in thirty years — it has placed the pensioners’ case before the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is now seized of the matter. The April 2026 ruling in 2026 INSC 352 has strengthened the constitutional foundation. Whatever the outcome, the attempt itself is honourable and necessary.

The pensioners in their seventies and eighties who are waiting for this verdict have neither the luxury of time nor the comfort of alternatives.

On the Formula for the Supreme Court

You asked whether any leader of AIBPARC can provide the formula. The formula is stated above. It is transparent, consistent with established judicial precedent in the RBI and Central Government contexts, and mathematically demonstrable. I have also attached a computational tool to my previous email. This tool, available to any pensioner, calculates this figure individually based on their basic pension and BPS category.

If there is a better formula or a stronger argument, we would welcome it with open arms. The cause belongs to all pensioners.

Regards,

Sanjay J.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2091088545.1091787.1779196247372%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kalyanam rajagopal]

Sanjay Sir, the  DA as on date was taken for arriving the revised basic pension- Only DA as on 31.10.22 is to be merged.  Merger is to take place at 8088 points , if at all happens 

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

I am reproducing from the communication from  State Bank of Mysore Pensioners Commune, wherein relevant portion of the Judgement you are referring to has been extracted and the same has been highlighted now.

We request you to please refer to para 28, wherein it is stated that ‘But once a decision is taken to provide certain allowances as also to increase them, based on inflation, fixing a higher rate of increase for the ones who are serving than the ones who have retired, would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution’.  This portion of the Judgement clearly provides ratio decidendi with regard to applicability of Article 14.   Please go through Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement dated 08.03.2024, wherein same rates are prescribed for both serving and retired.  We do not know in what way constitutional provisions are violated by non-application of 12th BPS formula to those who have retired earlier, when both serving as well as retired during the 12th BPS period have got or getting DA/DR rates.  Consequently, there is no scope for your interpretation, as where, why and how Article 14 is applied is already decided.  Unless we can show two different rates of DA/DR during the same period of time.

Dear Mr.Sanjay, please remember that in respect of Government Pensions, two distinct features are there vis-a-vis our pension.  All pensioners are brought to common index and there is only one formula for all pensioners is applied, because Dearness Relief is merged upto a poi9nt as per recommendation of the Pay Commission.  Payment of Dearness Allowance/Relief is not a part of Statutory Regulations, but done through Orders/Office Memorandum.  Cabinet or concerned Board decides and pays Dearness Relief.  Therefore, we must be very careful while bringing our case under the sweep of Judgments concerning Government Department.  During COVID there was no increase in DA and Courts have upheld the authority of the Government to release or not to release on account of absence of statutory compulsion.  In KSRTC case also different rates of DA/DR are applied, but there is no such instance in our case. 

Without getting into calculation part (The way you have calculated is wrong.  But you would be praised for having shown higher amount), I would say that you have not adopted the formula in Appendix I.  In Appendix I, last 10 months average pay is taken in to account, but not Pension.  Hon'ble Supreme Court has already ordered payment of pension in terms of Regulation 35 and 38.  Regulation 35(1) is also a part of the Regulation 35.  Please apply last ten months average salary and then calculate by adopting the same formula.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJ0KjYHi4SyW0s%3Dgo6a35rP-SSEwUOPepwshPcB5gp7Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekaraji,

I could not find cogent answers or information.  What you have stated, mostly it is repeation.  Please ask leaders of CBPRO, they would tell you why there was no demand for updation till 2015.  If you do not get answer, please listen to the speech of Mr.Nadaf in recently held conference of CBROA at Bengaluru.

If UFBU were to demand pension updation before 2010, most of those who are commenting now would not have been pensioners.  What made them not to opt for pension? 

I request you to kindly read my earlier email again.  You will certainly get answers.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3fMTr%3Dq_nK_jmb%3DKgob5-h4W7WSt5s2zc%3DN%3DGxOFe%3D9Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasad ji (and Members), 

Kindly ignore my previous mail, as some calculation errors occurred in the tables. I have corrected those in this final mail.

I am deeply grateful to Shri J. Somashekara ji for his kind words and for acknowledging and appreciating our grassroots efforts. Since our names have been directly drawn into this exchange, I feel honour-bound to answer as follows:

The Formula and Quantum

You asked what the increase would be for a basic pension of ₹7,500 for a retiree of 31.03.2002 under Regulation 35(1). Here is the answer — which is the same RBI formula on which our demand is based.

A retiree of 31.03.2002 falls under the 7th Bipartite Settlement. The cumulative updation factor for this batch, extended to the current 12th BPS level of 8088 points, is 8.32.

 

Formula: Updated Basic Pension = Current Basic Pension × Updation Factor (RBI method).

 

Component	Calculation	Amount
Basic Pension	Given	₹7,500
Updation Factor (RBI Formula)	@8088 points	8.32
Updated Basic Pension	₹7,500 × 8.32	₹62,400
Updated DR @ 25% (12th BPS rate)	₹62,400 × 25%	₹15,600

Updated Total Pension

Updated Basic + Updated DR

₹78,000
Current Total Pension	₹7,500 + ₹36,198 (Basic + DR today)	₹43,698

NET MONTHLY GAIN

Updated Total − Current Total

₹34,302

Annual Gain:  ₹4,11,624   |   Over 10 years:  ₹41,16,240

 

This is not a ‘marginal benefit.’ It is ₹34,302 every single month — or over ₹4 lakhs every year — for one retiree with a modest basic pension of ₹7,500.

The Full Picture — Every BPS Category (5th to 11th)

The same formula, applied consistently across all BPS categories, reveals the following. The 7th BPS row (marked ★) corresponds directly to your specific query. All factors extended to the 12th BPS level of 8088 points.

 

BPS	Retirement Period	Factor @8088

Example Basic Pension	Current DR	Current Total Pension	Updated Basic Pension	Updated DR @ 25%	Updated Total Pension	NET MONTHLY GAIN

5th BPS & earlier	Before 01.11.1992	28.26	₹2,500	₹38,224	₹40,724	₹70,650	₹17,663	₹88,313	₹47,589
6th BPS	01.11.1992–31.10.1997	13.38	₹4,000	₹30,030	₹34,030	₹53,520	₹13,380	₹66,900	₹32,870
7th BPS ★	01.11.1997–31.10.2002	8.32	₹7,500	₹36,198	₹43,698	₹62,400	₹15,600	₹78,000	₹34,302
8th BPS	01.11.2002–31.10.2007	6.28	₹10,000	₹33,480	₹43,480	₹62,800	₹15,700	₹78,500	₹35,020
9th BPS	01.11.2007–31.10.2012	4.08	₹16,000	₹41,352	₹57,352	₹65,280	₹16,320	₹81,600	₹24,248
10th BPS	01.11.2012–31.10.2017	2.32	₹28,000	₹37,016	₹65,016	₹64,960	₹16,240	₹81,200	₹16,184
11th BPS	01.11.2017–31.10.2022	1.43	₹42,000	₹24,814	₹66,814	₹60,060	₹15,015	₹75,075	₹8,261

 

Key observations from this table:

 

1.  The updation factors are derived from the official AIBPARC/RBI formula — batch-wise incremental DA merger with 10% loading — as communicated by AIBPARC vide Circular No. 90-20 dated 07.10.2020.

2.  NOT A SINGLE BPS CATEGORY is unaffected. Every pre-November 2022 retiree stands to gain substantially — from ₹8,261 (11th BPS) to ₹47,588 (5th BPS & earlier) per month.

3.  The 7th BPS retiree with a basic pension of ₹7,500 gains ₹34,302 per month — or ₹4,11,624 every year. This is not a marginal benefit.

4.  The highest gains accrue to the oldest retirees — 5th and 6th BPS — who have waited the longest and whose purchasing power has been eroded the most severely.

5.  This is what justice, if delivered by the Supreme Court in CA 7993/2023, would mean to every single pensioner — personally, monthly, and permanently.

 

On ‘Damaging the Cause’

You suggested that AIBPARC’s arguments may ‘damage your cause.’ With respect, this position deserves scrutiny. AIBPARC has placed the pensioners’ case before the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is now seized of the matter. Whatever the outcome, the attempt itself is honourable and necessary.

“I can accept failure; everyone fails at something. But I cannot accept not trying.” — Michael Jordan.

The pensioners in their seventies and eighties who are waiting for this verdict have neither the luxury of time nor the comfort of alternatives.

If there is a better formula or a stronger argument, we would welcome it with open arms. The cause belongs to all pensioners.

Regards,

 

Sanjay J.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

I fully agree with the reply and details given by Sanjay to all the doubts and questions raised by C.N.prasad.
Sri C .N.Prasad has raised several legal issues in Sri Singlaji case for pension updation and the arguments of peteetioers .
The debate will go on till the Supreme court verdict is delivered.
Two important stand taken by the learned participants are very clear.
Most of the participants rely upon the constitutional validity of orbitarly denying pension updation suppressing the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and fair play and equality of law under the article 14 and16 and 21.
This is the very foundation and bedrock of arguments for justice and the demand for pension updation on RBI formula.
The second argument is as there is no provision for pension updation in pension regulations for pension updation the demand for pension updation may not stand the test of the Deffendents ie DFS and IBA.
As the pension updation case is on fast track for final verdict in the Supreme court.
The judges shall give very favourable verdict by going by the constitutional rights of Pensioners.
Let us wait for the final verdict.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 21 May 2026 at 9:30, Sanjay J

<sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKAhFiHV3VTqpvEAMa_5NGxPzz7mRaFb_N3-0wQ8NYH5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

PQA and FPA were included with my basic pay when calculating my basic pension under 7th BPS. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAA3NOtTzHJoVRJQjn%2BhTkS0Oq-DdofgL9qT3EOYV8kf41oAUkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

My request to Shri Somashekaraji was to provide calculation as per Regulation 35(1).  I have not requested as per RBI formula.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKAhFiHV3VTqpvEAMa_5NGxPzz7mRaFb_N3-0wQ8NYH5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

For the same Basic Pension, the corresponding pension in 12th Bipartite Period, after payment of DR at 8088 points by applying 2016 series is Rs.65,800/-, whereas you have provided the figure of Rs.78,000/-.   These figures are as per the statement submitted to Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, 12th BPS retiree who is in the corresponding 'Pay' receives Rs.12,200/- less even after getting Dearness Relief at 8088 points, by applying 2016 CPI Series.

You are well versed with Constitution. Whether Article 14 allows such a situation?

Your calculation is not even in terms of Regualtion 35(1).

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeKAhFiHV3VTqpvEAMa_5NGxPzz7mRaFb_N3-0wQ8NYH5g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

The debate is about pension updation and not on 12 th bipartite settlement.
The main issue is Sri Singla ji Case for pension updation waiting for final verdict.
The Supreme court is hearing the case.
There is voiletion of constructional rights of Pensioners rights which are gaurenteed under article 14 and16 and 21 by orbitarly denying the pension updation by IBA and DFS combine ignoring the the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and fair play and equality of law.
The pension regulations are under scrutiny of the Supreme court judges therefore highest Supreme court judges have revisited the high court verdicts where the constitutional rights of Pensioners are not looked into and the High courts have dismissed our pension updation case.
The Supreme court judges have understood that there is injustice perpetually forced on pensioners by the IBA and DFS combine orbitarly suppressed pension updation pleading that there is no provision for pension updation as per Regulations.
The Supreme court judges are very serious about the validity of 35 /1 pension Regulations and are spending time to review the High court verdict based on the principles of Natural justice and jurisprudence and equity and fair play and equality of law under article 14 and16 and 21.
That's all.
Beating arround the bush is no significance.
The Supreme court judges have asked the deffendent advocate whether the banks are paying pension as per Regulations or not?
The defendants have no straight answer.
The Supreme court judges have asserted that if the banks have not paid pension as per Regulations they have to pay.
Here comes the pension regulations 35/1 for justice which is misinterpreted by all who have opposed pension updation orbitarly denying pension updation to Retirees.
The Same DFS has already permitted pension updation/revision periodically for Central government, RBI, Nabard retirees though there is no provision for pension updation.
The deceitful stand taken by the defendants advocates will be thrashed and petitioner prayer for justice and pension shall be upheld.
Please wait for final favourable verdict , which will clear all ifs and buts of the Sri Singla ji Case.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

On Thu, 21 May 2026 at 16:22, 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner

<bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/357461210.2437555.1779353375623%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Padam Singh]

Kushal sir , Were pqa and FPA , included fully or certain percentage to calculate the basic pension? I am also svrs. 2001 retiree with 18 years completed service and I was granted pension as per second pension option, although I had  opted pension option when pension scheme was implemented.I request you to please send my actual basic pension as per rule .I furnish my detail herebelow. Basic pay 8980 , permanent head cashier e cat allowance 906 , pqa 421 , FPA 121..My basic pension is fixed as below.....8980+906= 9886/2= 4943×18/33=2697.........I received all pension arrears from 1.4.2001......I will contact local head office if you clear my confusion, I will wait for your kind response.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8OwZf4Mkt0EV%2Brv3O_5MT8zxFnz87xW1HYtFqFHoo9oMSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Rao,

I have only requested for providing calculation of pension of a person with Basic Pension of Rs.7,500/- by applying provisions in Regulation 35(1).  This is nothing to do with law or Singla's case.  So far, including Shri Sanjayji, no one has given me calculation, as per what is stated in Appendix I.  I have been raising this question, last several years, ever since pension updation as per Regulation 35(1) is being demanded.  I repeat, I have neither said anything about law nor sought anything relating to law

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/2027828188.2384349.1779342726437%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

My phone number is 9740072620. Call between 11 am and 7 pm on any day.  I need to talk to you.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

On Tuesday, 19 May 2026 at 09:41:34 am IST, Padam Singh <p469...@gmail.com> wrote:

Shri Prasad sir, I sent my contact number to you through Shri Mohan sir, but I think that you may have not received.If you are facing any problem to contact me , please reply by the e mail in the group or send me your contact number , if you please. It will be better if you clear my confusion by replying through e mail in the group whether PQA AND FPA must be included for calculating of basic pension in 7th bps for svrs 2001 .I will wait for your kind response when ever you get time .

On Mon, 18 May, 2026, 4:31 pm SBMPC Blore, <sbmpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

We appreciate the considerable efforts you have made to substantiate your point of view. However, on behalf of State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune, we feel that you may be missing the wood for the trees.

For ready reference, we reproduce below the important portion of our earlier email:

“There is one more substantial reason why the State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune believes that such a claim may ultimately harm the interests of its members. We cannot afford to forgo monthly Dearness Relief increases of approximately Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- in the case of 10th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, Rs.60,000/- to Rs.90,000/- in the case of 11th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, and more than Rs.1 lakh in the case of 12th Bipartite Settlement pensioners, merely for the sake of a comparatively marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees.”

Consequently, the merits of your arguments may ultimately be inconsequential for the members of State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune.

In the meantime, we would also like to share our views regarding your narration and claims. Except in the case of erstwhile Associate Banks, most Banks have already amended their Pension Regulations by incorporating the provisions relating to Dearness Relief under the 12th Bipartite Settlement. Therefore, the payment of Dearness Relief is now governed by Statutory Regulations. Any challenge, therefore, would necessarily have to be directed against the amendments made to the Pension Regulations themselves.

At present, Dearness Relief is being paid based on the same index, irrespective of the date of retirement. Since Appendix II of the existing Pension Regulations continues to adopt the 1960 series, the 2016 index is being converted into the 1960 series by applying the multiplication factor of 65.738592 (4.93 × 4.63 × 2.88).

With the limited legal knowledge available to us, we are unable to find any apparent violation of Constitutional rights in the present arrangement.

What is even more surprising — and rather unfortunate — is that we have not received even a single query from anyone regarding our claims relating to the huge increase and substantial difference in pension amounts. That, indeed, is the real tragedy.

Thanking you,

With warm regards,

C N Prasad

General Secretary

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CALXgLCFeWjfj9LA-FDsYaXOyfPEjBbF9PUnUhiL1Uk-7WKA1qw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAA3NOtTzHJoVRJQjn%2BhTkS0Oq-DdofgL9qT3EOYV8kf41oAUkA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Dear Mr Prasad 

 As per Regulation 35(1), the formula for updating basic and additional pension is exclusively applicable to employees who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987. It does not extend to other retirees.

Consequently, this provision cannot be applied to an individual who retired on 31.03.2002.

Because the regulation does not legally cover this period, it is mathematically and legally impossible to provide a valid pension updation calculation under this specific clause as requested.

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Padam Singh]

Prasad sir, ok and thanks a lot for providing your contact number, I will contact as time mentioned by you.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1873546415.2491472.1779365019849%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

Sir, 

Full FPA and PQA are eligible for superannuation benefits. You should enquire with the appropriate authority whether these were already included in the basic pay. 

Thanks. Regards

KM. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAA3NOtSXhbXV27jWDZ66xk1Ywxc5mG36oCE7tSvULBjpPRM3%2BQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanjay J]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

The figure of ₹78,000 was based on an estimated extrapolation of the AIBPARC/RBI batch-wise formula. However, incorporating your correction makes the picture even more interesting.

Even on Your Figure — The Gain Is Substantial

Accepting ₹65,800 as the correct updated pension for the same basic pension:

Component	Amount
Updated Total Pension (as per SC statement)	₹65,800
Current Total Pension (Basic ₹7,500 + DR ₹36,198)	₹43,698
Net Monthly Gain	₹22,102
Annual Gain	₹2,65,224

₹22,102 every month. Over ₹2.65 lakhs every year. For one retiree. With a modest basic pension of ₹7,500. This remains—by any measure—far from a "marginal benefit of a few hundred rupees."

On Your Article 14 Question — You Have Made Our Case

You have answered your own earlier question about whether AIBPARC's arguments damage the cause. The damage is not in the argument—it is in the thirty-year denial of what Article 14 plainly requires.

On Regulation 35(1)

I would be genuinely grateful if you could share or indicate the correct Regulation 35(1) formula, so that our community calculations align precisely with the legal pleadings.

The goal, after all, is one—justice for every pensioner.

With regards,

Sanjay J.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/357461210.2437555.1779353375623%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sanjayji,

You are changing your goal post and you have floating ideas. What I requested Shri Somashekara is what is the updated pension as per Regulation 35(1), but not any other formula.  I fully concur with views of Shri S Kalyanasundaram and that is the essence of the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case filed by an affiliate of AIBPARC.   

We fully appreciate your efforts in answering which pleases members of this group. Members in the group are very happy the way you are making efforts to find reasons to make them happy.  But, you have not answered how Regulation 35(1) helps us in getting the amounts you have indicated.  

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeK5JGP%2B0Z4xnZQ23UWTAUuzum4ELvgY5F4Mj5dMkG5YZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Padam Singh]

Kushal sir , I have just checked my ppo for confirmation.Ppo shows only basic pay 8980 and permanent e cat head cashier allowance 906 , while fpp and pqa coloums are blank and total shows 8980+906=9886/2= 4943×18/33=2697 as my basic pension.I want to enquire about pqa 421 and FPA 121 .You have mentioned on superannuation.I have to inform you that although I completed 18 yrs. confirmed service but in 7th bps last pay scale ends on 8980 which was my last basic ie..8980.Is it superannuation or minimum 20 years will be counted for superannuation. Please clear.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKGV8OwU_JgisZZgtb5aM%3D-iPd_1MUMkH9VAcBeD%2Be5e_DhdGQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji,

Whether the issue of 8088 points - 2016 index is about Pension Updation?

IBA itself in its Affidavit stated that "it is not the case of the Petitioners that the Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations".  This is an Affidavit and Writing.  Now it is the right and duty of the Petitioners that Pension is not being paid in terms of Pension Regulations.  By the way can you guide and advise under which Regulation, Pension is not being paid?  We would be grateful to you.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/477087574.419496.1779364397909%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kushal mukhoti]

Mr Padam Singh,

Our initial basic pension underwent several modifications due to various reasons. I have sent a screenshot of a section of my pension records to your personal email address showing how my basic pension was modified several times. I hope you will find your answer in this file. I think anyone, even your HO, will come forward to answer your queries about this matter since more than two decades have already passed. 

KM. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAA3NOtTRSvAT%3DS5tbPw3VoD0DLOED_bmdO%3DeD%3DfjA-ZMKo3_GA%40mail.gmail.com.