A misunderstanding clarified.
Sanjay J
Respected Shri Prasadji,
My reply (Mail No.2) was the answer to your email pasted below (MAIL NO.1). I think you attributed my reply to some other mail you probably wrote to J. Somashekara. Now if you read my reply in the context of your mail pasted below, you will understand the truth. Kindly check the trailing mails. Usually, these types of confusions arise when a thread reaches 40 or so emails.
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
Regards,
Sanjay J.
*****
To clear your confusion, I give below all three trail emails to understand the sequence. Please start from (Mail 1) at the bottom.
MAIL NO.3
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
***
MAIL NO.2
On Friday, 22 May 2026 at 04:11:30 pm IST, Sanjay J <sanjay...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
***
MAIL NO.1
On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 4:22 PM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
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
***