PENSION UNDER 7th CPC - RECOMMENDATION

[PM]

FOR INFORMATION:

            7th Pay Commission has recommended two formulas on revision of pension of central govt employees as follows:

                                           

"10.1.66 Recommendations of the Commission:

 For employees joining on or after 01.01.2004, the concept of pension, so far as Civilian employees including CAPFs are concerned, has undergone a complete change. After the enactment of the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Act, 2013, it is not the exclusive liability of the government to pay the pension. As per the new dispensation the employee and the government are to make equal matching contribution towards their pension. This dispensation is not applicable to the defence forces personnel. They continue to get the defined benefit pension as before. In this section the Commission is dealing with Civilian pensioners under the old pension scheme, i,e, those who joined before 01.01.2004.

10.1.67 The Commission recommends the following pension formulation for civil employees

including CAPF personnel, who have retired before 01.01.2016:

i) All the civilian personnel including CAPF who retired prior to 01.01.2016

(expected date of implementation of the Seventh CPC recommendations) shall

first be fixed in the Pay Matrix being recommended by this Commission, on

the basis of the Pay Band and Grade Pay at which they retired, at the minimum

of the corresponding level in the matrix. This amount shall be raised, to arrive

at the notional pay of the retiree, by adding the number of increments he/she

had earned in that level while in service, at the rate of three percent. Fifty

percent of the total amount so arrived at shall be the revised pension. 

ii) The second calculation to be carried out is as follows. The pension, as had been

fixed at the time of implementation of the VI CPC recommendations, shall be

multiplied by 2.57 to arrive at an alternate value for the revised pension.

iii) Pensioners may be given the option of choosing whichever formulation is

beneficial to them.

10.1.68 It is recognised that the fixation of pension as per formulation in (i) above may

take a little time since the records of each pensioner will have to be checked to ascertain

the number of increments earned in the retiring level. It is therefore recommended that

in the first instance the revised pension may be calculated as at (ii) above and the same

may be paid as an interim measure. In the event calculation as per (i) above yields a

higher amount the difference may be paid subsequently.

10.1.70 Pensioner ‘A’ retired at last pay drawn of ₹79,000 on 30 May, 2015 under the VI CPC

regime, having drawn three increments in the scale ₹67,000 to 79,000:

Amount in ₹

1. Ba sic Pension fixed in VI CPC                                                             39,500

2. In itial Pension fixed under Seventh CPC (using a multiple of 2.57) 1,01,515-

Option 1

3. M inimum of the corresponding pay level in 7 CPC                           1,82,200

4. No tional Pay fixation based on 3 increments                                      1,99,100

5. 50 percent of the notional pay so arrived                                                99,550-

Option 2

6. Pe nsion amount admissible (higher of Option 1 and 2)                               1,01,515

Case II

10.1.71 Pensioner ‘B’ retired at last pay drawn of ₹4,000 on 31 January, 1989 under the IV

CPC regime, having drawn 9 increments in the pay scale of ₹3000-100-3500-125-4500:

Amount in ₹

1. Basic Pension fixed in IV CPC 1,940

2. Basic Pension as revised in VI CPC 12,543

3. In itial Pension fixed under Seventh CPC (using a multiple of 2.57) 32,236

Option 1

4. M inimum of the corresponding pay level in 7 CPC                           67,700

5. No tional Pay fixation based on 9 increments 88,400

6. 50 percent of the notional pay so arrived                                             44,200

Option 2

7. Pe nsion amount admissible (higher of Option 1 and 2)                       44,200"

[Gajanan Chaudhari]

Pension calculations may not be so simple.The rise in pension is estimated by the commission is 24%.
We will have to wait for detailed report in this regard.

[Chandrasekaran Venkataraman]

This formula is very good.Can we ,retired bankers,expect such updation during our life time?
V.Chandrasekaran
RETD. PNB

--
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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[cpvnair]

NEVER IN OUR LIFETIME

 

 

 

Warm reg

 

 

CPVNAIR

[Gajanan Chaudhari]

The formula is good.Earlier I had a doubt .The revised pension is arrived at from existing basic but is inclusive of the
dearness allowance.The overall rise may come to about 24 %.Let our associations now press for early settlement of our
pension issues on these lines.

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 7:53:28 AM UTC+5:30, PM wrote:

[Chandrasekaran Venkataraman]

Thanks for improving the General Knowledge of poor bank pensioners like me
V.Chandrasekaran
VRS 2001 PNB

[Anantharaman Tg]

Dear Shri Nair,

That means we bank pensioners/retirees are relegated to such a position

for no fault of ours!?

Anantharaman

[Nagaraju Kakani]

Dear Friends, 

One has to read and go through the 880 pages report and jot down various paras and points which the committee explained and considered for updation of the pension as recommended by them to support our cause of various demands of the pensioners, and present all these to IBA, GOI and if need be in the court too, if IBA & GOI denies our just cause.

Let our group seniors and past leaders take the initiative and allot chapter wise to few people to do the above job at the earliest to present to AIBRF/AIBPARC for further action.

With regards, 

Nagaraju Kakani.

Sent from my iPhone

[s.srinivasa Rao]

why all this round about. Let the unions call for a strike for the cause of retirees.  Have they not gone strike for other than their wages in the past? choose Thursday followed by second Friday holiday and second Saturday. If they do not want to do this much?  Then retirees must stage Dharna in front of union offices and Federation.  The soft pedalling is enough.

with best wishes

S.Srinivasa Rao (SS Rao)

---

From: Nagaraju Kakani <rajag...@gmail.com>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: PENSION UNDER 7th CPC - RECOMMENDATION

[s.srinivasa Rao]

I am writing once again. Seventh Pay Commission cannot be imagined under any stretch for Bank Retirees. We are just fighting for the anomalies arising out of earlier Bi partite settlements. First resolve the issues for which appeals are pending in Supreme Court, the unwanted and avoidable litigation.

with best wishes

S.Srinivasa Rao (SS Rao)

---

From: s.srinivasa Rao <ssraol...@yahoo.co.in>
To: "bankpe...@googlegroups.com" <bankpe...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Sharbat Jain <sharb...@rediffmail.com>; S. RAVINDRANATH <ravi.se...@gmail.com>; Y. V. S. <yvs...@yahoo.com>; T. Sekhar <tsek...@gmail.com>; Rajendraprasad Attili <rpat...@gmail.com>; Mnvs Murthy <mnvsm...@yahoo.co.in>; I. Viswanath <viswanat...@gmail.com>; AVV Raghava Rao <asba...@gmail.com>; Kandala Ashok <kand...@gmail.com>; Boipra Ap <boip...@gmail.com>; ALL INDIA <aicbr...@gmail.com>; AIBOC/FBOIOA <fboioa...@yahoo.com>; C. H. <chv....@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2015 10:27 AM

[s.srinivasa Rao]

How these Govt. provisions are relevant to us. We are governed by bi partite settlements and  Pension Regulations. Moreover we ae not able to get discrimination in DA resolved. What is the use of drawing comparison of 7th  CPC. Government can meet demands of employees from tax payers money and levy more taxes. Where as banks have to pay from profits. Banks will not be able to pay as they are doing business in a competitive market. Hence drawing comparison is futile. let the retirees unions (which are dependent on employees unions) first sort out, the self created anomalies

with best wishes

S.Srinivasa Rao (SS Rao)

---

From: kandala ashok <kand...@gmail.com>
To: s.srinivasa Rao <ssraol...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Sunday, 22 November 2015 10:43 AM

Subject: Re: bankpensioner Re: PENSION UNDER 7th CPC - RECOMMENDATION

please refer to page 381 of the report:eff

Pensions- Constitutional Provisions and Judicial Position

10.1.2 Article 366(17) of the Constitution defines pension as: “Pension means a pension,

whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person,

and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by

way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of

subscriptions to a Provident Fund.”

10.1.3 Pension has been the subject matter of a number of landmark judgements by the

Supreme Court of India in which its nature, obligations of the government thereon and the

recognition of distinctiveness in categories of pensions and pensioners has been settled.

10.1.4 In its judgment in D.S. Nakara and others Vs Union of India [AIR 1983 SC 130] the

Supreme Court held that a pension scheme consistent with available resources must provide

that a pensioner would be able to live free from want, with decency, independence and self

respect and standard equivalent at pre-retirement level. It held that pension is not an ex-gratia

payment but payment for past services rendered. At the same time in Indian Ex-Services

League & Others Vs Union of India & Others [(1991) 2 SSC 104] the Supreme Court held that

the decision in the Nakara case has to be read as one of a limited application and its ambit

cannot be enlarged to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical

amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement,

even though the reckonable emoluments for computation of their pension be different. In the

judgement in Vasant Gangaramsachandan Vs State of Maharashtra & Others [(1996) 10 SSC

148] Supreme Court reiterated that pension is not a bounty of the State. It is earned by the

employee for service rendered to fall back upon after retirement. It is attached to the office and

it cannot be arbitrarily denied.

10.1.5 In the case of petitioners who were retired Railway employees, covered by or who opted

for the Railway Contribution Fund Pension Scheme, the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Vs

Union of India and Others [(1990) 4 SSC 207] averred that it was never held that both the

pension retirees and PF retirees formed a homogenous class and that any further classification

Report of the Seventh CPC

382 Index

among them (viz., pension retirees and PF retirees) would be violative of Article 14. Under the

Pension Scheme, the government’s obligation does not begin until the employee retires but it

begins on his/her retirement and then continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the

retirement of an employee, government’s legal obligation under the PF account ends while

under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the PF and its contribution are entirely

different from the rules governing pension. An imaginary definition of obligation to include

all the government retirees in a class was not decided and could not form the basis for any

classification for this case.

[bhaskara sarma]

In 1970s and early 80s if a letter is written by unions,the IBA used to wake up and take immediate remedial steps.But now practically no value.All the unions written letters 3-4 years back for extension of second option of pension to Resignees.But what happened to those letters?

P B Sarma.

[PM]

For Information:

Text of letter written to Convenor UFBU by GS of BEFI on 22nd Nov 2015 on relook the BPS and Pension Updation etc in the light of recent developments under LIC's proposed wage revision as well as 7th CPC recommendations.

The Convener,

United Forum of Bank Unions,

 State Bank of India,

Hyderabad.

Dear Comrade,

10th. BPS. Pension Updation & related issues.

In the course of negotiations for 10^. Bipartite Settlement, IBA had, repeatedly and consistently, insisted that the Government would not, under any circumstances, allow the Banks to undertake any further load on account of Pension. As such, while rejecting the demand for improvement in Pension (updation, uniform DA, improvement in Family Pension, Ac.), IBA also refused to accept any load on the Basic Pay of the serving employees, ostensibly, because of its impact on the future liability on account of Pension. The employees had, therefore, to reluctantly accept a pittance of 2, load on their Basic Pay (after the agreed merger of DA) and a substantial portion of the meager wage As (of 15%) in the form of Special Allowance not attracting terminal benefits.

The recent pay revision in Insurance Sector and the Report of the 7^. Pay Commission have exposed, beyond an iota of doubt, the hollowness of the various contentions put forward by IBA to deny the Bank employees and officers a legitimate and justified wage rise and improvement in Pension.

We are of considered view that the developments, as aforesaid, warrant a serious retook into the whole issue and reopening of dialogue with IBA for restoring justice for the Bank employees and officers who have been seriously denied their legitimate dues.

We, therefore, request your convening a meeting of UFBU, at your earliest convenience, for a full-fledged discussion on the issue and to take appropriate decision in the matter.

With warm greetings,

Pradeeb Biswasd

General Secretary

Comradely yours,

[cpvnair]

Go ahead comrades! The entire bank employees/retirees are ditched by all concerned.You have taken the lead.Go ahead with all other organizations including AIBEA and AIBOC.The members of all the organizations are well aware that they have lost in the series of BPS from 1995 vis- a- vis CPC.Intensify the movement….

 

 

 

Warm reg

 

 

 

CPVNAIR

--

[Ramachandran Menon]

The contention of IBA is wrong.  Financial liability on account of pension up gradation or any other payment relating to pension need not to be provided for by either the banks or the GOI. The income from the corpus of the pension fund is more than sufficient to bear the burden relating to the pension arrears of bank employees and officers.  IBA does not want to give any benefits to the retired bankers. That  is the reason behind their argument.