Clause 35(1) of pension Regulation 1995

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

In the Singla case proceedings in SC the other day, it appears to be uncalled for mention of  a non existent updation clause in regulation, by the counsel. 

Even otherwise this clause has become infructuous in the context of RBI pensioners with no updation clause in  their regulation having achieved updation not once but thrice.

Regarding adequacy of resources to absorb the updation cost in the fund itself  as affirmed by our counsel, is it supported by actuarial assessment by pensioners body?

Banks' side also should have done acturial exercise. Why it is under wraps

On the management side, it was thoughtful of them to have extended Some  benefit to family pensioners as also bringing resignees under pension fold.

So they could do for updation also in the background of Banks' performance looking up. What is wanting is will  and systemised approach. 

THERE HAS BEEN NO PENSION SCHEME WITH FIXED BASIC AND ONLY INFLATION INDEX LINKED D A. Only in Annuity we have fixed amount pension. 

Our pension scheme is not conceived that way. Our DA increase is nebulous and not matching with inflation. 

Pensioners  are denied decent living especially survivving lot of 2001 and earlier batches. 

It is expected that Singla case ending will bring succour to BanK pensioners I depends on presentation in SC. 

C V Narayanan

[Ramani Konnayar]

Very well written. Let us hope, we will get some succour through the Supreme Court, though it may not be fully to our expectations due to multivarious factors.

K N RAMANI 

--
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/CAJev%3Da-FAuiJawvEZmAo-dRYeofGtbvLJWZD309iX2j7Hw5KVA%40mail.gmail.com.