Demand for 3rd Retiral Benefit for e-AB Pensioners.
Sanjay J
Dear Shri Prasadji,
I write this letter with respect for your commitment to the welfare of e-SBM retirees, but with equal candour about what I believe are two serious errors of legal reasoning in your recent communications — errors that, if left unchallenged, may mislead our fellow pensioners and weaken the credibility of our legitimate demands.
I address two specific propositions attributed to you:
(i) That SBMPC will demand the 3rd retiral benefit (CPF alongside pension) for e-AB pensioners; and
(ii) That nationalised bank pensioners can also follow suit and demand the same.
With respect, both positions are legally untenable. I set out my reasons below.
PART I: THE DEMAND FOR 3rd BENEFIT FOR e-AB PENSIONERS
1. THE FOUNDATIONAL LEGAL POSITION
The pension scheme applicable to e-AB employees — including e-SBM employees — was introduced pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and subsequently notified as the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. From the very inception, this scheme was framed as pension IN LIEU OF Contributory Provident Fund — not in addition to it. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is the explicit basis on which the scheme was settled.
FSBIPA, the apex body representing e-AB interests, has itself admitted before courts that the pension scheme of e-AB employees is "in lieu of CPF". This admission on record before a court of law is a serious obstacle to any demand for CPF as an additional benefit. An organisation cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously — a principle well settled in Indian law.
2. THE EMPLOYEE-LEVEL CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDICIALLY REVERSED
The matter of CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB officers was sub-judice in a writ petition. In January 2025, the judgment in that writ petition was reversed. This means that the court has, at the present level of adjudication, declined to grant CPF as a 3rd benefit to e-AB employees — that is, to those who were actively in service at the time of the merger and whose service conditions were directly before the court.
If the serving employee's claim for the 3rd benefit has been judicially rejected, on what legal foundation does SBMPC propose to demand the same for pensioners — who left service earlier, under terms that were even less proximate to SBI's pension framework?
Pension is a deferred wage. Its entitlement flows from the service conditions applicable during employment. If the service condition itself does not confer the 3rd benefit, the pensioner cannot claim a superior right that the employee never had.
3. THE STRUCTURAL BAR
The SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules — under which native SBI employees enjoy the 3rd benefit — have never been extended to e-AB employees post-merger. The merger of 2017 was a corporate and statutory amalgamation of entities under the SBI Act, 1955. It did not, by operation of law, migrate e-AB employees into the SBI pension framework. This has been consistently maintained by SBI management before courts and in administrative proceedings.
The Dr. Tangirala Committee (constituted by the Delhi High Court order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1875/2013) did establish a valuable principle — that two rates of pension cannot exist within the same bank's rules. This principle led to the abolition of the 40/50 formula in SBI. However, the Tangirala Committee's remit was the SBI Pensioners' Federation's writ petition, not e-AB grievances. Its findings do not create a new legal right to CPF for e-AB pensioners.
PART II: THE SUGGESTIVE NATURE OF YOUR EMAIL THAT NATIONALISED BANK PENSIONERS CAN ALSO DEMAND THE 3rd BENEFIT
4. THE 1993 SETTLEMENT — A DELIBERATE AND BINDING CHOICE
The history of pension in nationalised banks is unambiguous on this point. On 21st October 1993, in negotiations between the Government, IBA, RBI on one side and AIBOC on the other, an understanding was arrived at for pension IN LIEU OF CPF. This was a conscious decision — arrived at because there was no unity among employee organisations to fight for pension as a third retiral benefit.
The Desai Tribunal itself had placed on record that the workmen demanded pension in addition to Provident Fund and Gratuity. The Tribunal heard that demand. It was not granted. What the employees' organisations ultimately accepted, through bilateral negotiation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pension as a substitute for CPF — not an addition to it.
The IBA has consistently, including in affidavits before courts, stated that the pension scheme in banks is a funded scheme in lieu of CPF. This is not merely IBA's characterisation — it is the structural basis of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 themselves.
5. THE CONTRACTUAL FINALITY OF A BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
A Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a binding instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such settlements, once arrived at by parties with the authority to negotiate, bind all parties and cannot be reopened unilaterally. The 1993 MoS under which pension was introduced is precisely such an instrument.
Demanding that nationalised bank employees now receive CPF in addition to pension, 30 years after their own representatives voluntarily surrendered that position at the bargaining table, has no legal basis. It is not a demand — it is a wish.
6. EVEN THE SECOND OPTION OF 2010 MAINTAINED THE "IN LIEU OF" STRUCTURE
In 2010, after sustained agitation, a second option was offered to nationalised bank employees who had remained with the CPF scheme to switch to pension. Even this concession — hard-won as it was — was structured as pension in lieu of CPF, with the employees themselves bearing a portion of the additional cost. This demonstrates that even the most recent expansion of the pension framework for nationalised banks has proceeded on the consistent regulatory understanding that pension and CPF are mutually exclusive for these employees.
7. THE CONFUSION BETWEEN TWO DISTINCT DEMANDS
I respectfully submit that your suggestion may have arisen from a conflation of two legally distinct matters:
(a) Pension Updation — which is a legitimate, legally grounded demand based on Regulation 35(1) of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and Clause 12 of the 1993 MoS, which mandates that the pension scheme in banks shall be on the lines of the Reserve Bank of India. The Supreme Court's order in CA No. 6254/2012 (AIRBE vs. Union of India) and the subsequent pension revision in RBI and NABARD give strong legal support to this demand.
(b) CPF as a 3rd benefit — which is a demand that was raised, negotiated, and consciously abandoned in 1993 by the very organisations that represent bank employees. It has no current legal basis.
These two demands are entirely separate. Conflating them — or presenting the second as a corollary of the first — causes confusion and undermines the credibility of the legitimate updation demand.
CONCLUSION
I close by respectfully but firmly submitting that:
(i) SBMPC's demand for CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB pensioners has no legal foundation, particularly after the judicial reversal in January 2025 of the e-AB employee-level claim. A pensioner cannot have a superior right to that which the serving employee has been denied.
(ii) The suggestion that nationalised bank pensioners can demand the 3rd benefit misreads the settled contractual and regulatory history of bank pension, which has treated pension as being in lieu of CPF since 1993.
I make these submissions not in a spirit of adversarialism, but in the belief that our pensioner community is best served by demands that are legally well-founded and strategically sound. Raising demands that have no legal grounding only exposes organisations to the charge of making uninformed claims — and courts do take note of this.
I trust you will consider these submissions in the spirit in which they are made.
With regards,
Sanjay J.
Satyanarayana Rao
--
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-Ue%2BO2jDCApJyBj6UgEgHbZY%2BiORpFtDBi_kVf3A8jSDGTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Niranjan Cn
Sanjay Sir, I had requested a small details from you regarding the bank from which you retired and also retirement year. Yet to hear from you regarding this.
The following are my observations (MARKED IN COLOUR) regarding various points raised by you - pointwise :
1. THE FOUNDATIONAL LEGAL POSITION
The pension scheme applicable to e-AB employees — including e-SBM employees — was introduced pursuant to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and subsequently notified as the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. From the very inception, this scheme was framed as pension IN LIEU OF Contributory Provident Fund — not in addition to it. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is the explicit basis on which the scheme was settled.
FSBIPA, the apex body representing e-AB interests, has itself admitted before courts that the pension scheme of e-AB employees is "in lieu of CPF". This admission on record before a court of law is a serious obstacle to any demand for CPF as an additional benefit. An organisation cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously — a principle well settled in Indian law.
REMARKS : Can there be two types of the pension in the same bank ? Whether a set of employees can be discriminated ? What about article 14, etc ? - Will it not applicable here ? Why sir ?
2. THE EMPLOYEE-LEVEL CLAIM HAS ALREADY BEEN JUDICIALLY REVERSED
The matter of CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB officers was sub-judice in a writ petition. In January 2025, the judgment in that writ petition was reversed. This means that the court has, at the present level of adjudication, declined to grant CPF as a 3rd benefit to e-AB employees — that is, to those who were actively in service at the time of the merger and whose service conditions were directly before the court.
If the serving employee's claim for the 3rd benefit has been judicially rejected, on what legal foundation does SBMPC propose to demand the same for pensioners — who left service earlier, under terms that were even less proximate to SBI's pension framework?
Pension is a deferred wage. Its entitlement flows from the service conditions applicable during employment. If the service condition itself does not confer the 3rd benefit, the pensioner cannot claim a superior right that the employee never had.
REMARKS : Why different yard sticks to different pensioners ?? Whether updation for PSB pensioners flows from where sir ? When PEnsion Regulations itself does not have any clause or mention about RBI lines - then can PSB pensioners can claim Updation on RBI lines sir ?
3. THE STRUCTURAL BAR
The SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules — under which native SBI employees enjoy the 3rd benefit — have never been extended to e-AB employees post-merger. The merger of 2017 was a corporate and statutory amalgamation of entities under the SBI Act, 1955. It did not, by operation of law, migrate e-AB employees into the SBI pension framework. This has been consistently maintained by SBI management before courts and in administrative proceedings.
The Dr. Tangirala Committee (constituted by the Delhi High Court order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 1875/2013) did establish a valuable principle — that two rates of pension cannot exist within the same bank's rules. This principle led to the abolition of the 40/50 formula in SBI. However, the Tangirala Committee's remit was the SBI Pensioners' Federation's writ petition, not e-AB grievances. Its findings do not create a new legal right to CPF for e-AB pensioners.
REMARKS : When that is not applicable within the Bank, how RBI updation is applicable to PSB PEnsioners sir ? Further, we have authorised for transfer of the balance in PF as on that date to Pension Fund. Nowever, we have relinquished the right of getting management contribution of 10% to PF. For information, PF rules cannot be dictated by Pension Regulations. Both are independent of each other.
PART II: THE SUGGESTIVE NATURE OF YOUR EMAIL THAT NATIONALISED BANK PENSIONERS CAN ALSO DEMAND THE 3rd BENEFIT
REMARKS : BY APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLE - WHETHER IT IS SUGGESTIVE NATURE FOR PSB PENSIONERS TO CLAIM PLENION UPDATION AS PER RBI LINES ?
4. THE 1993 SETTLEMENT — A DELIBERATE AND BINDING CHOICE
The history of pension in nationalised banks is unambiguous on this point. On 21st October 1993, in negotiations between the Government, IBA, RBI on one side and AIBOC on the other, an understanding was arrived at for pension IN LIEU OF CPF. This was a conscious decision — arrived at because there was no unity among employee organisations to fight for pension as a third retiral benefit.
The Desai Tribunal itself had placed on record that the workmen demanded pension in addition to Provident Fund and Gratuity. The Tribunal heard that demand. It was not granted. What the employees' organisations ultimately accepted, through bilateral negotiation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was pension as a substitute for CPF — not an addition to it.
The IBA has consistently, including in affidavits before courts, stated that the pension scheme in banks is a funded scheme in lieu of CPF. This is not merely IBA's characterisation — it is the structural basis of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 themselves.
REMARKS : AIBOC SIGNED THE PENSION SETTLEMENT WITHOUT UPDATION CLAUSE DURING 1995. SIR DOES IT MEANS THAT THEY HAVE ACCEPTED PENSION WITH OUT UPDATION FOR FUTURE ALSO ? WHETHER THAT IS THE INFERENE /CONCLUDE ?
5. THE CONTRACTUAL FINALITY OF A BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
A Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a binding instrument. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such settlements, once arrived at by parties with the authority to negotiate, bind all parties and cannot be reopened unilaterally. The 1993 MoS under which pension was introduced is precisely such an instrument.
Demanding that nationalised bank employees now receive CPF in addition to pension, 30 years after their own representatives voluntarily surrendered that position at the bargaining table, has no legal basis. It is not a demand — it is a wish.
REMARKS : BY THE ABOVE LOGIC - BPS - IS BINDING AND CANNOT BE REOPENED ?. WITH THIS STATEMENT - IS IT CONCLUDED THAT PSB PENSION UPDATION CANNOT BE SOUGHT AS NOT COVERED IN BPS ?
6. EVEN THE SECOND OPTION OF 2010 MAINTAINED THE "IN LIEU OF" STRUCTURE
In 2010, after sustained agitation, a second option was offered to nationalised bank employees who had remained with the CPF scheme to switch to pension. Even this concession — hard-won as it was — was structured as pension in lieu of CPF, with the employees themselves bearing a portion of the additional cost. This demonstrates that even the most recent expansion of the pension framework for nationalised banks has proceeded on the consistent regulatory understanding that pension and CPF are mutually exclusive for these employees.
REMARKS : EVEN WHEN SECOND OPTION CAME IN 2010, EVEN THOUGH REGULATIONS AMENDED 35(1) IN 2003 - WHY UPDATION OF PENSION WAS NOT SOUGHT DURING SECOND OPTION. ?? WHETHER - BECAUSE OF THAT CAN IT BE CONCLUDED THAT PSB PENSIONERS FOREFIETED UPDATION FOR EVER ?
7. THE CONFUSION BETWEEN TWO DISTINCT DEMANDS
I respectfully submit that your suggestion may have arisen from a conflation of two legally distinct matters:
(a) Pension Updation — which is a legitimate, legally grounded demand based on Regulation 35(1) of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 and Clause 12 of the 1993 MoS, which mandates that the pension scheme in banks shall be on the lines of the Reserve Bank of India. The Supreme Court's order in CA No. 6254/2012 (AIRBE vs. Union of India) and the subsequent pension revision in RBI and NABARD give strong legal support to this demand.
(b) CPF as a 3rd benefit — which is a demand that was raised, negotiated, and consciously abandoned in 1993 by the very organisations that represent bank employees. It has no current legal basis.
These two demands are entirely separate. Conflating them — or presenting the second as a corollary of the first — causes confusion and undermines the credibility of the legitimate updation demand.
REMARKS : PLEASE READ CLAUSE 12 OF MOS AGAIN SIR AND ALSO THE HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THIS REGARD. PSB PENSIONERS WILL BE ON THE LINES OF RBI - AT THE TIME OF IMPLEMENTATION. THERE IS NO INFERENCE OR EXPRESSESION TO SAY FOR FUTURE (AFTER THIRTY YEARS ALSO ) IT IS APPLICABLE. IF ANY SENTENCE INDICATES - PLEASE REPRODUCE THE SAME.
CONCLUSION
I close by respectfully but firmly submitting that:
(i) SBMPC's demand for CPF as a 3rd benefit for e-AB pensioners has no legal foundation, particularly after the judicial reversal in January 2025 of the e-AB employee-level claim. A pensioner cannot have a superior right to that which the serving employee has been denied.
(ii) The suggestion that nationalised bank pensioners can demand the 3rd benefit misreads the settled contractual and regulatory history of bank pension, which has treated pension as being in lieu of CPF since 1993.
I make these submissions not in a spirit of adversarialism, but in the belief that our pensioner community is best served by demands that are legally well-founded and strategically sound. Raising demands that have no legal grounding only exposes organisations to the charge of making uninformed claims — and courts do take note of this.
I trust you will consider these submissions in the spirit in which they are made.
REMARKS : IF THE PENSION UPDATION IS HAVING ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION, THEN CPF AS ADDITIONAL BENEFIT - ALSO HAS EQUAL LEGAL GROUNDS. THE CLAIM IS FOR WORKING EMPLOYEES ALSO - CPF BENEFIT SIR.
IN TANGILALA COMMITTEE REPORT – ONE CAN OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR CPF FROM NATIONALISED BANKS (NOT eABS) UNTILL NOW. IS STATED CLEARLY. INDICATING THAT THERE CAN BE DEMAND IN FUTURE. WE SHOULD TAKE CLUE FROM THIS ALSO.
WHEN THE PSB RETIREES CAN CLAIM PENSION UPDATION AS PER 35(1), WHY NOT CLAIM CPF ALSO ? ANY HURDLE ? ANY PROBLEM ? ANY CONSTRAINTS ?
SIR, ONE CANNOT HAVE TWO YARDSTICKS IN THE SAME ANY BANK OR THERE CANNOT BE TWO STANDARDS BE ADOPTED. IT IS AGAINST THE EQUALITY WITHIN THE SAME INSTITUTION.
IT IS WISER FOR US TO CLAIM THE CPF BENEFIT ALSO - IN THE PROCESS WE CAN BARGAIN AND GET OTHER BENEFITS ALSO. WE WILL BE FOOLS IF WE DONT CLAIM. ONE SHOULD LEARN FROM SBI RETIREES - HOW GRADUALLY GOT IMPROVEMENTS. WE SHOULD FOLLOW THEM AND REDUCE THE GAP GRADUALLY. THERE IS UNAMITY FOR THIS CLAIM.
SIR AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE GAP IN TERMINAL BENEFITS BETWEEN SBI RETIREES AND NATIONALISED BANKS HAS TO BE REDUCED STEP BY STEP. WHATEVER, SBI WAS NOT HAVING THEY ARE CLAIMING BUT WE SIMPLY DON’T ASK AT ALL – THAT IS NOT DESIRABLE.
EVEN MEDICAL INSURANCE IN SBI – IS ALSO NOT ASKED BY NATIONALISED BANK PENSIONERS ON SBI LINES…. ALWAYS ON A BACK FOOT TO ASK SIMILAR TO SBI RETIREES. I AM VIEW THAT WE SHOULD COME OUT THIS FOBIA (NOT DEMANDING) AT THE EARLIEST FOR OUR BENEFIT.
Niranjan
Ex Canara
--
Prasad C N
Dear Shri Sanjayji,
I have gone through your email. Although I was not inclined to respond, owing to my preoccupation with my responsibilities as General Secretary of the State Bank Retirees’ Association and the State Bank of Mysore Pensioners’ Commune, I feel compelled to do so because of the contents of your communication. I believe that remaining silent may result in misrepresentation and the further spread of misinformation.
On several occasions, I have requested you to visit our office and obtain complete information or seek clarification on any issue. I was under the impression that, before sending such an email, you would have either visited us or contacted us directly. Unfortunately, I do not have the luxury of engaging in prolonged correspondence through social media or email. In any case, it is practically impossible to provide comprehensive explanations or clarifications on complex legal and factual issues through such platforms. Therefore, I may refrain from responding to similar emails in the future.
Your narrative, in my view, reflects an incomplete appreciation of the applicable legal position and reveals certain gaps in the understanding of the relevant facts. I do not think it would be incorrect to state that advancing arguments without a full grasp of the facts and governing law may do a disservice to the community of bank retirees.
Responding to and clarifying every such communication consumes scarce time and resources. Nevertheless, before I conclude, I would like to state that we have substantial grounds to support our position and that we are on a very strong footing. We are confident that the merits of our case provide a sound basis for achieving the desired outcome.
Thanking you.
With warm regards,
C. N. Prasad
Sanjay J
Dear Satyanarayana Rao ji,
Point well taken. You are not alone — at least one more very senior member has expressed the same view, and I can sense the dislike and disapproval from several members in the group.
I assure you — I will not drag this debate any further from my end. The 3rd benefit question has been examined, its legal hollowness has been placed on record, and that is where it rests.
Our focus must remain undivided — Pension Updation, DA parity, and justice for the surviving pensioners of Singla ji's generation who have waited long enough.
Let us move forward together.
Sanjay J.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/118927399.4327195.1780316757550%40mail.yahoo.com.
Prasad C N
Dear Shri Sathyanarayana Raoji,
I find a certain dichotomy in your stand. We would have been much happier had this issue been taken up with the Unions and Associations even before we raised the demand for Pension Updation. Had such a demand been pressed every time there was an improvement in pensionary benefits in the State Bank of India, all retirees would have been brought under the Pension Scheme much earlier, without having to wait for the Second Pension Option and the payment of 156% or 2.8 times the deficit amount. By now, we might even have secured Pension Updation.
Senior leaders like you could have taken the initiative and exerted pressure on the Unions and Associations to pursue these issues at the appropriate time. However, instead of questioning the delay in raising the demand, we now find fault being found with the very act of raising it, albeit belatedly.
When we demanded 100% Dearness Relief neutralisation, improvement in Family Pension, and the removal of the 40%/50% pension disparity, we did not raise any objection that such demands would delay Pension Updation. In fact, had we postponed those issues in favour of Pension Updation alone, we might have achieved updation much earlier. Yet, there was no opposition or concern expressed at that stage.
Thank you a million for sharing your views.
With regards,
C. N. Prasad
Ramani Konnayar
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWEf-nyW%3DiugBaJKTXoihsb%3DqV%2BDwcxjQL3UH6pcXPgB9w%40mail.gmail.com.
Prasad C N
Dear Shri Sanjayji,
I have seen your mail addressed to Shri Sathyanarayana Rao. You have stated that, “The 3rd benefit question has been examined, its legal hollowness has been placed on record, and that is where it rests.” This sentence itself demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of both law and facts.
This is not the first instance. You initially relied upon the KSRTC judgment in support of your arguments on Dearness Allowance, despite the ratio of that judgment being wholly inapplicable. Both the facts and the legal principles involved are entirely different. You chose to treat an applicable judgment as inapplicable, while simultaneously seeking the application of a judgment that has no relevance either on facts or in law. Further, you dismissed two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered on identical facts and legal issues, yet attempted to rely on a judgment where neither the facts nor the law bear any resemblance to the present issue.
Thereafter, you shifted to Regulation 35(1) in relation to pension updation. It was surprising to note that, in support of your position, you sought to invoke constitutional provisions. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the claim of pension updation based on provision in Regulation 35(1). The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the writ petition filed by CBROA was delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who, as an Advocate, successfully fought for pension benefits for Gramin Bank employees and retirees and was instrumental in securing the judgment in our VRS 5 years case and 1616–1684 case relating to bank pensioners. The said judgment has also been affirmed by the Division Bench. It is therefore difficult to understand how you are able to discover constitutional infirmities in a claim when neither Justice Nagaprasanna nor the Division Bench found any such infirmity.
Your latest conclusion concerns the legality of the claim for extension of CPF benefits. There is no need for anyone to convince you against your will. However, if such narratives are left unanswered, there is always a danger that repeated assertions may gain acceptance merely through repetition.
Regulation 3(4) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, applicable to all Public Sector Banks, clearly provides that employees who “join the service of the Bank on or after the notified date” are eligible for pension. In such cases, there is no question of transferring the employer’s contribution to the Provident Fund, as the Pension Regulations contain no such provision. The real question then is whether such employees are entitled to Provident Fund benefits at all. Our claim is validated by a Senior Advocate of Hon’ble Supreme Court & impleading application is filed. Your answer to this issue only highlights the hollowness of your understanding of the legal framework governing pension and provident fund benefits/rules/regulations.
Likewise, your advice to ignore the CPF issue and its potential positive implications for pension updation further exposes the weakness of your position. It would be a great service to bank pensioners if you refrain from misleading them on matters involving legal and pension-related rights.
As far as I am concerned, responding to such narratives is an unproductive use of my valuable time. Therefore, I do not intend to engage further on these issues.
Thanking you,
With warm regards,
C N Prasad.
Sanjay J
Dear Shri Prasad ji,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate that despite your preoccupations, you found time to reply. I will address your points briefly and directly.
You mention that on several occasions you invited me to visit your office for complete information and clarification. I appreciate the invitation. However, I must respectfully submit that no such need arose on my part — my position was based on publicly available legal instruments, namely the MoS dated 29.10.1993, the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995, and the judicial record. I had no gaps that required filling by a personal visit.
You were also under the impression that I should have visited your office or contacted you directly before responding to your post in the group. With respect, I am genuinely puzzled by this expectation. You placed your views before a group of pensioners—openly, for their reading and consumption. I responded to that open post, in the same open forum. That is the natural and legitimate way a group discussion works. If visiting your office is a precondition for responding to your group posts, does that obligation apply equally to every other member who may hold a contrary view? Surely, Shri Prasad ji, an open post in a pensioners' group invites open responses — that is its very purpose.
You observed that it is practically impossible to provide comprehensive explanations on complex legal and factual issues through such platforms. I agree entirely — which is precisely why it may be advisable to exercise caution before introducing complex and far-reaching claims, such as the demand for CPF as a 3rd benefit, on such platforms in the first place. If the subject is too complex for the platform, the post perhaps ought not to have been made.
Finally, it is heartening to learn that you are on strong footing and are confident of achieving the desired outcome. That is genuinely good news. Please do proceed. The beneficiaries will acknowledge your achievement with gratitude.
Until then, let the pensioners’ collective focus remain on what is immediate, urgent, and judicially ripe — Pension Updation in CA 7993/2023, scheduled for hearing on 22nd July 2026.
With warm regards and respect,
Sanjay J.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/650202832.196582.1780400456285%40mail.yahoo.com.
JSOMA SHEKARA
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/289548718.60604.1780401347970%40mail.yahoo.com.