Pension to Resignees

[Sriramamoorthy Seethepalli]

12/05/2026                                                                                                     FOR URGENT CONSIDERATION OF BANK COLLEAGUES                               

Dear Mr.Sharma ,

Thanks for your mail

I have served SBI for 18 years and 3 months and resigned in 1986. I am now 82. I was denied pension and some other terminal benefits on the pretext of not completing requisite service as per the service conditions at the time of joining the Bank as probationary officer

My appeals to the SBI Management, and even to the Finance Minister were rejected.

 I AM OF THE STRONG OPINION THAT THE SC (Honourable JUS. MISRA) decision of 2015 and many other decisions of various courts in various pension claims if read in totality in conjunction with Nakara case clearly build a case in law & Equity for the eligibility of resignees with confirmed service of 15 years eligible for full/Proportionate pension

The old pensioners are most vulnerable in every respect and powers in question are fully aware of it. Even the Unions would not be inclined to fight for  Resignees.

The Moot Point is that pension is a right for service  rendered and not a bounty, by both the Resignees  or Retirees. The differentiation is the period of service. It is arbitrarily fixed  by the Bank Managements to deprive the Resignees from getting their rightful pension. They can at best reduce the quantum of pension (as the full pension for which eligibility is 20 years service). But total denial is arbitrary and devoid of principles of natural justice . 

I strongly believe that Hon.Jus Misra's decision of fixing 15 years for full pension can be a strong point for all those  completing 15 years and even if the bank managements are stuck to the arbitrary period of 20 years,at least  for a proportionate pension

But It requires collective fight both legally or otherwise. If any active  relatively young bankers are going to lead the fight, many like me can contribute towards expenses. It may be thought out before it is too late for many of us

I have represented this to Mr Pathak who has been making efforts in this direction and also raising this in this forum for many years

Request all concerned to help their elderly resignees to get their rightful due

Thanks & Regards,

S.Srirama Murthy

7989061906

srira...@gmail.com

[Nagaraj Tirumani Vemula]

TO   SRIRAMAMURTHI    12*05*2026    BANGALORE

SIR,       I HAVE  UNDERSTOOD  THE PROBLEM   AND  APPRECIATE  YOUR EFFORT

 TO GET  THE  TERMINAL BENEFIT  AT LEAST  ON PRO RATA BASIS.

EVERY   ISSUE  HAS  TWO ASPECTS   -  

  ONE   NEGOTIATION ASPECT  WHICH IS CALLED   INCLUSION  ASPECT.

TWO    ENFORCEABILITY   ASPECT -      ENCEABLE  UNDER

SECTION 37  OF INDIAN  CONTRACT  1872.

RIGHT NOW YOUR CASE  IS UNDER  FIRST  ASPECT.

IF  YOU CAN SEND  TO ME  YOUR  SERVICE  DETAILS

FROM  APPOINTMENT DATE  TO  RETIREMENT DATE

ALONGWITH   REASONS  FOR  CESSATION OF SERVICE,

I WILL TRY  TO FIND OUT   A RAY OF HOPE  TO GET JUSTICE FOR YOYU.

WITH REGARDS,       NAGARAJ  TV     RETIRED  FROM  SBI

MY  PF NO.1883070.

--
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/CAECOHc9k%2B1CcOGD1fKXFg0%3DBkBJGYxF8LtbXNxR2UV7hQPZMHQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[MURALIDHARA E.V. EYUNNY]

Sir for pvt sector bank resignees although our bank is party to settlement not extended the same. Where to approach we senior citizen don't know. UFBU is not at all making any effort to get pension to resignees who have served for 20 years. Whether UFBU is only for public sector banks?

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

[Veera Reddy]

There must be system of ensuring proper implementation of the settlement.

The parties to the settlement should own the responsibility for proper implementation, else the settlements are myth 

Regards 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/879101242.623334.1778582132080%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

It is not only the myth it proves the failure of the UFBU to assert the organisational strength to get uniform implications of benefits to their members.
UFBU has lost It's strength to fight for their own benefits to get implemented to their members even though the agriment is signed under Id act.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CA%2B%3Dp5wZm28sHf3-CpUQ5Sd5pJNYzCUQQjbXR1H9QFi1c4k9NSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[kalyanam rajagopal]

It is a case of resigned former employee of Indian bank with less than 20 years , rejected by the bank and also by the court by applying the terms of JN dt 08,03,24 and Indian bank circular dated 07,05.24

[Arun Sharma]

Subject: Pension to Resignees

I understand that since Voluntary Retirement has 20 years of service requirements and on this basis Resignees with less than 20 years of service are not eligible to opt for pension Benefit.  This criteria is baseless. 

Resignation and Voluntary retirement are two different options and should not be related to each other for Pension Benefit scheme 1993 which clearly stated that all employees with 10 years of uninterrupted service will be eligible under the scheme. 

This is injustice to the employees who have between 10 and 20 years of service and are considered ineligible. 

Arun S. 

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/62f50f9a-f6df-4917-99a0-e71d0a0a6ae0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Vijay Singh]

Sharma ji 

SC as well as govt of India DFS affidavit in contempt pitition all india gramin bank pension case,  court said that bipartite settlement Dt 29/10/1993 is act of full force. Thus forefieture clause 22 PR 1995 not applicable on resignees because bipartite settlement Dt 29/10/1994 forfeiture of service clause 10 allows resignees 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGdD0Kg161zuy2XQ24%2BH8mwqnNR0S9wCb7z7BN%2B%2B%2Bb%3DVuKC0wQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

See the para 7 of the judgement:

7. Further, in pursuance of the signing of the 12th Bipartite Settlement with the Workmen's Unions and 9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024, a provision was introduced to include a new class of beneficiaries i.e resigned former employees. Accordingly, the employee must have been in service on or after 01.01.1986; the employee must have joined before 01.04.2010; the employee must have resigned on or before 26.04.2010; the employee must have been otherwise eligible to join the Pension Scheme while in service and the employee must have completed 20 years of qualifying service.

See also para 8 of the judgement: 

8. Thus, it is clear that as per the 12 Bipartite Settlement/9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024, the pension benefit extends to the resigned former employees only on condition that they have completed 20 years of qualifying service.

In the bipartite settlement or in the joint note there is no such provision of prescribing 20 years of qualifying service. Hence factually it is incorrect/erroneous statement in the judgement. 

What is stated is that otherwise one should be eligible. Eligibility is 10 years as per Regulation. 

Aggrieved persons must go on appeal to get justice. 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Sudesh Kumar Kalra]

Respected Arun Sharma Sir

My case is 19 yrs. of service at the time of VRS. I hav also opted pension at the time of option taken by the bank. 

So I am getting pension since VRS i.e.31.12.2000.

Regards

Sudesh Kumar Kalra

9311283095

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAGdD0Kg161zuy2XQ24%2BH8mwqnNR0S9wCb7z7BN%2B%2B%2Bb%3DVuKC0wQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

This extract is taken from State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi, (2014) 13 SCC 474 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 414 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 548 at page 483

24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondent-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in Bank of Baroda [Bank of Baroda v. Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 622] or Bank of India [Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 524 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32] .

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/4495e364-ec6e-42d5-bd44-e8f063804d77n%40googlegroups.com.

[Arun Sharma]

When pension Regulations clearly stated that eligibility is 10 years of service, why IBA decided that only employees with 20 years of service will fall under this option for Benefits to pension scheme. 

It is not easy to find the right platform where this can be represented and court order be challenged to the next level. 

Regards

arun

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/4495e364-ec6e-42d5-bd44-e8f063804d77n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Mr Arun Sharma

Pension was extended to resignees based on the Bipartite settlment. When the Bipartite settlement/Joint Note is silent about the number of years, it is simply wrong interpretation by IBA with the tacit approval of UFBU. Very well,, they could have stipulated 20 years in the Settlement or Joint Note itself, and in such a case, we cannot demand eligibility should be with 10 years of service. But that is not the case. 'Otherwise eligible' cannot be interpreted with 20 years of service. 

When I asked Bank of India, the basis of this 20 years, they informed me as follows: "There is no communication from IBA or Government in this regard."

Bank of Maharashtra informed me "No document is available"

PNB informed me 'No such document available"

Some banks have not provided the information sought. Some banks have provided irrelevant information. Some banks have declined to provide the information.

Affected persons must proceed legally. If anyone is willing to file a case, I shall provide details of all RTI applications with me. 

You may also contact Mr Pathak who was taking steps to address these issues. 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Arun Sharma]

I joined the bank in April 1970 and resigned in March 1988 as Staff Officer . Bank confirmed by their letter that I have 18 years and 6 months of service but regret that I am not eligible for the pension option as I need 20 years of qualifying service in the bank at the time of resignation. 

I appealed to the bank for reconsideration of my request stating that "AS per Pension Regulation, required service is only 10 years for eligibility". 

Memorandum issued by all PSB's on the directives from IBA included a clause adding 20 years of service requirement that was unjust and arbitrary. Appeal made by many of our aggrieved staff members falling in this category to various courts has been rejected. 

It is my personal opinion, an Appeal to the Supreme court or PMO office, if someone can initiate it, may bring positive results.  

Arun

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/664501717.1837223.1781778156996%40mail.yahoo.com.

[R.K. Pathak]

Thanks for the clarification. Though I am involved in finalising WP for Bank of Maharashtra Resignees, only 11 Resignee shown willingness to share the cost as against around 200 resignees of BoM alone in the bracket of service above 15 to 20 years.

I had 3 round of discussion with DFS official but though conveninced are initiating actions for lack of support of desired level from politicians.

Under the circumstances, I can only provide documentary support for willing resignees to exercise their right.

Thanks and regards

Pathak R K

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/f66c50c6-9e66-4d01-b261-372042888a08n%40googlegroups.com.

[R.K. Pathak]

I had 3 round of discussion with DFS official but though conveninced are NOT initiating actions for lack of support of desired level from politicians.

Under the circumstances, I can only provide documentary support for willing resignees to exercise their right.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Mr Arun Sharma 

Please refer to your last para - which says "if someone can initiate it, may bring positive results."

Actually this is the problem with resignees. Why do you expect that someoneelse may initiate? Each and everyone of you must come forward, get yourself organized and proceed legally. 

Expecting someoneelse will do it, is not in right direction. Unfortunately UFBU is not taking up the case. 

I am not an affected person. However, I filed applications under RTI to almost all the banks. When the reply was not favourable, I filed first appeal. Got some relief. Then in some cases I submitted second appeal. There were hearings in the second appeal. I requested some of the affected persons to appear for the second appeal hearing. No one came forward. I could not attend pesonally. Then based on my written submissions, second appeals were disposed off. 

If you people are not willing to take up, Mr Pathak alone cannot fight legally, as it involves lot of money. 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Vijay Singh]

Pandit ji pranam 🙏 

below is gazette notification new bank of india in compliance 12BPS for RESIGNEES PENSION. 

My question is 

1 why pension optees resignees excluded who resigned after 27/04/2010

2 In 12 BPS में implementation from prospective date 

In gazette notification implementation restrospective date

 

3 pension regulations dt 27/04/2010  "new pension scheme launched " so it should implement on those who joined bank on or after 27/4/2010.how this settlement date debar those who had already joined old pension scheme 

In 1994 but resigned after 27/4/2010.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKK4Yz6%3DOnQJg6AWSg37DPso2aCad67EkaJ92XOR%2B-RAODQztA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Vijay Singh]

Pls add me as 12 members to share writ cost but I resigned from SBBJ now SBI bank 

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026, 10:12 AM R.K. Pathak <ratnaka...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKK4Yz6%3DOnQJg6AWSg37DPso2aCad67EkaJ92XOR%2B-RAODQztA%40mail.gmail.com.

[MURALIDHARA E.V. EYUNNY]

Is bipartite settlement for pension to  resignees only for public sector banks or for all banks who are signatories to settlement?. Pl clarify mr. Pathak sir

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKK4Yz6TBACUbrJBFX3%2BTzYwi5%2BD_68Hc8Cy_osuew9OwwcMZw%40mail.gmail.com.

[MOHAN P]

Sir

Pension option to all eligible resigned employees has been alowed as per 12th BPS/JN to resigned employees of  all public sector banks as well as private sector banks who are signatories to settlement. However private banks are yet to implement the same.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1414075611.476538.1782115459297%40mail.yahoo.com.

[kalyanam rajagopal]

1. The Joint Note/Settlement dated 08.03.2024 extends a fresh option only to PF‑opted resigned former employees, and not to those employees who had already opted for pension but later resigned. This distinction is now overtaken by the amended Regulation 22, which expressly provides that any employee who (i) had 20 years of qualifying service, (ii) resigned between 01.01.1986 and 26.04.2010, (iii) exercised the pension option within the stipulated time, (iv) submitted the prescribed undertaking, and (v) agreed to refund the Bank’s contribution, shall not forfeit past service and shall be eligible for pension on voluntary retirement under — without notional service and without commutation.

   Employees who were already in the pension scheme and had 20 years of qualifying service had no occasion to resign to forfeit service, because their eligibility for already flowed from the statutory framework. If such employees nevertheless resigned, they are entitled to approach the Court seeking a declaration that their exit be treated as voluntary retirement under Regulation 29, by demonstrating the valid grounds for tendering resignation

   By contrast, PF‑opted resignees who exited on or after 27.04.2010 continue to litigate their claims independently, as their rights arise from the Joint Note/Settlement of 27.04.2010, not from the amended Regulation 22. Two such cases reached Supreme Court. In one case bank has come forward to pay prospectively under the settlement dt 08.3.24 and a consensus reached , bank paid pension accordingly . In another case bank is contesting that the ex employee is neither covered by the settlement dt 27.04.2010 ( due to reg 22) nor the settlement dt 08.03.24 as he resigned after 26.04.2010.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

37. Option for resigned employees to join Pension Scheme In terms of the Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between the parties vide MoU dated 7th November, 2023, it is agreed, subject to approval by the Government, that employees who were in service of the Banks on or after 1-1- 1986 and had joined the Banks before 1-4-2010 and who have resigned from the service of the Bank on or before 26-04-2010 and who were otherwise eligible to join the pension scheme while in service will be given an option and opportunity join the pension scheme on the following terms and conditions: 

1. The following categories of former employees, who satisfy all the conditions stated in sub-clauses (a) to (c) herein below, would be eligible for exercising an option to join the Pension Scheme within ninety days of announcement of such option as one time measure only. 

a. Employees and officers who were in service of the Banks on or after 1-1- 1986 and had joined the Banks before 1-4-2010 and who have resigned from the service of the Bank on or before 26-04-2010 and who were otherwise eligible to join the pension scheme while in service and 

b. Who agree to refund to the Bank the entire Bank's contribution to Provident Fund (along with accumulated interest thereon) received by them at the time of their resignation or later from the Bank, and 

c. Who agree to execute an undertaking as per draft provided by the Bank 

2. All such eligible former employees as mentioned above and their surviving spouse or eligible family member shall be entitled for pension / family pension, if they exercise the option, subject to the following conditions 

a. That the pension will be paid prospectively from the month following the month in Bank receives the Bank’s contribution towards PF L the 0 }@ (along with accrued interest thereon) received by the former empioyee/former officer at the time of resignation or later. 

b. The commutation of pension will not be extended to them and they will not demand.

 c. Pension shall be computed as per the applicable provisions of the Pension Regulations, as applicable to relevant Bi-partite settlement / Joint Note in which he / she resigned. 

3. The Associations / Unions of employees or former employees / former officers who have initiated any pending legal proceedings for and on behalf of the former employees/officers wherein the right of the former employees or former officers, who have resigned from the service of the Bank, to opt for pension is directly or indirectly one of the issues for consideration by the concerned Court or Authority, having jurisdiction and powers to adjudicate or decide, unequivocally agree to unconditionally withdraw such proceedings or take necessary steps to ensure that the right of the former employees / former officers who have resigned from the services of the bank, to opt for pension is no longer Res Integra in such proceeding and also agree not to initiate any proceedings concerning such right in future.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[Hemantkumar Gandhi]

Pathak Sir 

Please add me as 13 resignee member 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDQ5qsBa_RxkgCGbFUXBnGRcjOi_0Fhu6MXgFw9J6bgbqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sanagavarapu Sarma]

Can you please forward Canara Bank reply to your RTI application.  Thanks and regards

Sarma

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/f66c50c6-9e66-4d01-b261-372042888a08n%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

I am attaching copies of the connected correspondence. 

Regards.'

S Kalyanasundaram

[unmesh bhatt]

Agree. I too would support.

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jun 2026, at 3:43 PM, Sanagavarapu Sarma <ssar...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF-TfGuKDizN3ge1zVQTaJenq%2BHHGb8GboWVVuBdYDBFrQ9pNg%40mail.gmail.com.

[kalyanam rajagopal]

Now  circular/ joint note dt 08,3,24 era is over. All banks, except SBI (eABs) have amended pension regulations and defined resigned former employees . resigned former employee’ means an employee, who –

(a) was in the services of the Bank on or after the 1st January, 1986;

(b) joined the Bank before the 1st April, 2010;

(c) has resigned from the services of the Bank on or before the 26th April, 2010; and

(d) was otherwise eligible to join the pension scheme while in service of the Bank;

and brought them under classification of pension -  Regulation 29 - Pension on voluntary retirement - Qualifying service 20 years. 

‘EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM of gazette says 

“These regulations which have been given retrospective effect are as per the agreed terms and conditions of the settlements and Joint Notes signed between the Indian Banks’ Association on behalf of member banks on the basis of specific mandate given by the respective banks in this regard and apex level workmen Unions and Officers’ Associations of the banks. Therefore, interests of no person shall be adversely affected by such retrospective effect.’ 

Any interpretation of the Agreement/Joint Note dated 08.3.24 or  changes in the contents of the settlement cannot be given effect by IBA/DFS/Banks unilaterally. No signatory to the settlement objected to the 20 years of qualifying service  when the banks issued circulars in 2024 or when  further  notified in the gazette in 2025.   That means both the parties of the settlement are in unison on eligible service.    

There are a few who have completed more than 19.6 years of service. Their eligibility for joining the pension scheme is a matter of interpretation of Reg 18

 ‘Broken period of service of less than one year -

If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored:

Provided that provisions of this regulation shall not apply for determining the minimum service required to make an employee eligible for pension.’

The issue of interpretation of Reg 18 after introduction of the sub provisio is under adjudication in SC in UCO Bank vs Chaman Singh in appealed by the bank against the division bench order of HC of Himachal Pradesh. 

I have only presented the factual position to the best of my knowledge. 

Kalyanam RAJAGOPAL 

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

Please refer to your statement "Any interpretation of the Agreement/Joint Note dated 08.3.24 or  changes in the contents of the settlement cannot be given effect by IBA/DFS/Banks unilaterally. No signatory to the settlement objected to the 20 years of qualifying service  when the banks issued circulars in 2024 or when  further  notified in the gazette in 2025.   That means both the parties of the settlement are in unison on eligible service"

The interepretation of the bank prescribing 20 years as qualifying service is against the bipartite settlment/Joint Note. Regulation cannot have anything other than the agreed terms in writing. Just because that no party has so far objected to something does not mean that it becomes acceptable or enforceable.  

Where is in the Bipartite settlement or Joint Note prescribing 20 years of service as eligibility for resignees to join pension scheme?

Where is such a provision to treat Resignation as equivalent to Voluntary Retirement in the Bipartite settlement or Joint Note?

In fact there are decided cases that VR is different from Resignation. In case if the bank accepts VR is equivalent to Resignation, it will be a big victory for resignees as there was no reason to refuse pension to them all these years. 

Regards.

S Kalyanasundaram 

[kalyanam rajagopal]

Yes, Courts have consistently distinguished between resignation and voluntary retirement.  Banks have taken the position that voluntary retirement (VR) is not equivalent to resignation.

However, courts have repeatedly held that in exceptional circumstances, where:

• a statutory scheme or provision for voluntary retirement exists, and
• the employee’s resignation satisfies all substantive and procedural conditions of voluntary retirement,

then such a resignation may be treated as voluntary retirement in law.( Para 52. United Bank of India vs SWAPAN MULICK.) 

 The 2025 Amendment: A New Eligible Category, Not a New Class of Pension

The amendment introduced a new eligible category under Regulation 3(15) — namely, employees who met the definition 2Wa   accepting to refund PF, giving an undertaking in the format given by the bank  within the stipulated time.  

But critically:

• No new class of pension was created.
• These employees were absorbed into the existing class of pension under Regulation 29 — Pension on Voluntary Retirement.

This is because the Regulations themselves define the exit of such employees as one that must be “in accordance with the provisions contained in Regulation 29”.

Thus, the legal fiction is clear:

Their exit remained   resignation but made eligible for Pension on  voluntary retirement, by amending reg 22 , their service made qualifying service, 

Why Their Exit Falls Under Regulation 29

Under Regulation 2(y), the expression “retirement” includes exits that occur in accordance with Regulation 29.

For the newly included category, this definition applies because:

(a) They had 20 years of qualifying service

This is the quint essential and substantive condition for voluntary retirement under Regulation 29.

(b) Their exit was voluntary

They left service on their own volition, not due to dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement.

(c) They gave due notice, or the competent authority waived the notice

This is the procedural hallmark of voluntary retirement.

A resignation does not require acceptance; voluntary retirement does.

Where the competent authority accepted or waived notice, the exit follows the retirement pathway, not the resignation pathway.

(d) The Board approved the category under the amended Regulations

This completes the statutory chain, bringing them squarely under Regulation 29.