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.