Pension updation case before Hon'ble Supreme Court

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

First round of hearing by Hon’ble Supreme Court is complete.  There is a forward movement in the issue of Pension Updation. Transcript of proceedings, restricting to observations of the Hon’ble Judges, is provided as under:

We just put a simple question calculate their pension as per Appendix I. Are doing that or not? Demonstrate that. What are you adding other than Dearness Allowance please?  Simple question Mr. Mehta, are you adding anything other than Dearness Allowance? Let us see Appendix I. No dispute on Appendix I applicability. You cannot dispute fairly so. Now let us see. You cannot canvas this argument. This is how the pension has to be calculated. Irrespective of their argument, forget it. You tell us whether you are calculating pension according to this regulation or not. Simple as that.  This is the only controversy. Precisely according to this Appendix I. Mr. Mehta, as I said argument is irrelevant. This is the only issue. You are bound by the regulation. You have to pay your employees as per the Regulations. If you are not paying you will have to pay.

After listening to these comments/observations of the Hon’ble Judges, personally I have following doubts.  I request my learned friends to guide and help me in getting following doubts cleared and answers to observations:

a.     Whether Hon’ble Judges have restricted the scope of the dispute to existing Pension Regulations, more particularly, Regulation 35(1) – Appendix I?

b.     Whether Hon’ble Judges are of the view that the Banks should pay Pension in terms Pension Regulations only? 

c.     In case Hon’ble Judges restrict the scope of the dispute before them to Pension Regulations, we are making out a case under which clause of Appendix – I, we are asserting our right to Pension updation?  

d.     Whether Regulation 35(1) which provides that ‘Basic pension and additional pension, whereaver applicable shall be updated as per formulae given in Appendix 1’ helps in getting our pension updated as per any other formula OR restricts Pension Updation to formulae which are available in Appendix – I, more so when there is no formula in existence in Appendix – I for those who have retired on or after 01.11.1987?   

e.     By invoking the provisions in Regulation 35(1), whether we have forgone opportunity to invoke sympathy and other provisions/claims for pension revision? 

f.       Whether Hon’ble Supreme Court can amend or insert any provision in existing Pension Regulations or can order any formula for Pension updation or Banks to insert any particular formula for updating Pension? 

g.     Whether any order which results in revised Pension of those who retired earlier getting higher amount of pension than those who have retired later?  

We have also observed that most of the YouTube Channels and individuals raising too much of expectations about the outcome of the Case.  Some are even circulating the charts.  I have even seen some asking question, whether the pension updation is prospective or retrospective.   An assumption has been created.  Pension updation is round the corner on account of Judgment in Singla’s case.

Thanking you,

With regards,

C N Prasad

[Ramani Konnayar]

As mentioned by me in my another mail

in this group, Section 35 (1) and its Appendix-1 seem to be inseparable. But, the formula therein is totally different from the one followed for RBI pensioners and found in the communications of

AIBPARC. I don't think AIBPARC is unaware of this. 

 We have to wait and see

1) whether the Court upholds the judgements of HCs and closes the case OR 

2) quashes the HC order and orders updation of pension as per the formula in Appendix-1 OR

3) decides, after viewing the huge disparities between the pensions of various BPS groups, that we are eligible for treatment on par with RBI pensioners, notwithstanding the non-availability of any clause in the BEPR stipulating periodical updation and orders to update our Pension following the RBI formula.

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/1012798132.913622.1770806736888%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

Is it matter to raise various doubts about the Case that has reachef final stage.
The judges have called for the pension paid to retirees in three time slots with same service and same position.
This is the only point that gives hopes to pensioners that the judges have understood that there is something that calles for justice on the principles of Natural justice , equity and fair play as restricted period of time frame retirees were given pension updation and that restrictive clause is removed in 2003 paving way for updation of all retirees uniformly.
The judges have understood that there is case for justice to the demand of pension updation as the pension updation/revision has taken place in RBI and Nambard retirees though there is no speaking clause for pension updation.
The same is the case even in central government and state government Pensioners.
As the public sector banks are owned by the government on the same grounds the bank retirees may get favourable verdict.
Other wise the supreme court could have dismissed our case without calling for the details.
All said and done let us hope for positive judgement from apex court and the soul of late Sinlaji may find eternal peace.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

C N Prasad Sir, has raised valid questions. Ordinary pensioners opinion is immaterial and does not matter.

We are all aware  that only 3 unions matter in UFBU l.e. AIBEA, AIBOC and AIBOA. 

Let us know what these unions say about Reg35/1.

AIBOC

In its letter dated 02.05.2015 acknowledged that BEPR 1995 cannot be static and needs revision(Amendment) relook to suit changing times.

It may please be noted that there is a clear cut provision of such updation in Clause No. 35(1) of Pension Regulation.  At the time of adoption of Pension Regulations, a particular section of retirees were fouled by their junior counterparts because of signing of the next BPS. In order to protect their interest, the modus operandi of updation has been specifically spelt out in appendix 1. 

As regards IBA’s contention that no provision of updation is there in Bank Pension Regulation, we have already told in the foregoing paragraph that it is there in the Regulations. Moreover, plain reading of the minutes signed on 26^th March, 1994 between AIBOC and others on one side and IBA on the other QUOTE  “The regulation was to be done on similar lines as Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations and Central Civil Services Pension Rules applicable to Central Government employees by making suitable modification in relation to its applicability to the Banking industry” UNQUOTE substantiate our view that Bank  pensioners are entitled to all such benefits which accrue to their counterparts in RBI and Government. 

AIBOA also in its latest cir released few days ago agreed that amendment in 2002 removed restrictions on applicability of REg35/1 to all pensioners. further AIBOA also agreed that agreement dated 1994 clearly provides for updation as our pension scheme is modelled on RBI pension structure.

AIBEA Is silent and has not expressed any opinion on record.

AVAIABILITY OF FUNDS

AIBOC replied to IBA on 02.05.2015 that

.       It is also an oft-quoted contention of IBA that pension is paid to the citizens of the country who contribute in different ways to the accumulation of the fund. As for ourselves, the question of inadequacy of fund Government employees out of budgetary allocation and bank pension is a funded one.  You will surely appreciate that budgetary funds are accumulated from different sources of which revenue is an important inlet and we, the is ruled out. Clause no. 11 provides that on 31^st day of March every year, Bank shall have to cause an investigation by an Actuary into the financial condition of the fund and make additional contribution to the fund as may be required to secure payment to the benefits under the Regulations

AIBOA states that adequate funds are available but interests of all employees who joined on 31.02.2010 and earlier should be protected.

AIBEA says there are no funds for updation.

As regards Sub judice

AIBOC told IBA that We like to make it categorically clear that any Indian citizen does have the right to approach any court of law if he feels that his grievances as a citizen of the country are not being lawfully redressed. We, however, feel that there is no prohibitive or injunctive order passed by any court in this regard which can stand in the way of arriving at a bilateral understanding.  If, however, IBA takes a positive decision in this regard, all court cases will virtually be redundant

As evident in AIBOC replies to IBA and AIBOC latest circular, Unions agree that Reg35/1 with subsequent amendment provides for updation, Our pension scheme is modelled on RBI pension structure and all benefits provided to RBI pensioners shall be available to us. Though divided, 2 unions agree that pension funds are adequate and  has mechanisms to provide funds whenever required.

[Narayanan Venkateshwaran]

Prasadji

It appears, after necessary amendment in clause 35(1) of pension regulation requisite addenda/correction has been omitted to be done  in the appendic 1 which is a bloomeer on the part of architects of the draft. 

For 86/87 batch the appendix provides the way for whole restructuring of basic whereas for subsequent period  the base basic remains the same

The defence cannot take shelter under this bloomer after having committed for updation elsewhere.

The advocates have the responsibility of explaining this to court

Regards

C V Narayanan

On Thu, 12 Feb, 2026, 9:37 am 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner, <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Anand Rao]

Yes, the International Labour Organization (ILO) standards establish that old-age pensions should be periodically adjusted to maintain their purchasing power in line with changes in the cost of living or general earnings. 

International Labour Organization

International Labour Organization

Here are the key details regarding the ILO and pension updation:

ILO Standards (Convention 102 & 128): Convention No. 102 and Convention No. 128, along with Recommendation No. 131, provide the framework for social security. These standards indicate that pension benefits should be adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living.

*Purpose of Updation: The goal is to ensure income security and maintain a dignified standard of living after retirement, preventing the erosion of the pension's value due to inflation.*

Recommendation vs. Mandatory: While ILO Recommendations (like No. 131) and Conventions set international standards for member states to strive toward, they are not strictly legally binding on domestic policy unless ratified and implemented into national law.

Context of Application: The ILO notes that while periodic adjustment is key to adequacy, many countries balance this with financial sustainability, particularly in the face of economic challenges. 

Specific Case (India - Bank Pensioners):

Regarding the long-standing demand for pension updation for public sector bank retirees, while the ILO principles encourage it, Indian courts have often indicated that bank pension updation is not automatic and depends on government notifications and bipartite settlements, rather than a direct, mandatory order from the ILO. However, in 2024, discussions regarding the 12th Bipartite Settlement continued to focus on these issues. 

International Labour Organization

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Present appeal in M C Singla case was filed against the  previous verdicts of High courts which rejected pensioners' case on the following grounds.

1. Banks argued that agreements of 1993nand 1994 are only preliminary discussions and not resulted in any fruitful result regarding periodical updation. But as mentioned earlier AIBOC and ABOA said on record that both agreements provide for updation and modelled on RBI pension structure. So who is lying? Banks/IBA or UFBU?

2. Banks/IBA argued that even RBI has not implemented Updation. But when RBI implemented updation IBA changed its stand and  started claiming sub judice.

AIBOC stand regarding sub judice is on record. Then why AIBOC is accepting IBA reply of Sub judice now?

Honn High court judge in response to argument of Banks regtading no provision for updation directed petitioners to approach management for benefit instead of coming to court.

But UFBU did not negotiate and petitioners have to rely on Reg 35/1 to prove their point and could not have just asked parity

Only UFBU is authorised to negotiate and get modification to Pension regulations and provide for updation. Pensioners can only act within the limits of existing rules and interpret it based on Unions recorded statements. But unions always sided with IBA to deny updation by abandoning minutes of 8th March 2024, accepting sub judice reply though they know the truth,

Anyhow Reg35/1 is under scrutiny of Supreme court and if verdict is positive pensioners get relief. Otherwise the issue will be wide open for UFBU to negotiate.

[S L GULATI-ADV:-]

Dear Friends,

In respect of employee who retired between the 1st of January 1986 but before the 31st day of October 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix-I.

This wording clearly limited pension updation (i.e., recalculating pension amounts with reference to inflation and later salary levels) to that 1986-1987 retiree period only.

However, with a subsequent amendment in 2003, the text of Regulation 35(1) was altered to remove that time restriction. After the amendment, Regulation 35(1) reads more general.

 Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formula given in Appendix-I.

That change made the provision open-ended — meaning it no longer explicitly limited updation only to retirees in 1986-87. Instead, the language theoretically makes pension updation applicable whenever it is appropriate under the formula in Appendix I, without a fixed retirement year cut-off. 

Despite this amendment being gazetted and legally in force, actual implementation of broad pension updation for all eligible bank pensioners has not yet happened in practice. The amendment simply allows updation; it *does not by itself mandate the government or banks to notify the specific updated values or the dates for revision for all retirees. This has been a major point of contention among bank retirees and pensioner groups, and it has also been the subject of legal arguments and petitions due to the long period in which no updation beyond the 1986-87 group was announced.

• Before 2003: The Pension Regulations only provided formula-based updation for a narrow set of retirees (1986-87).
• After the 2003 amendment: The wording was broadened so that updation can apply generally wherever applicable, based on the Appendix formula.
• Practically: Banks and the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) have not implemented this open-ended updation in the same systematic way that the RBI has done for its pensioners, leading to ongoing debates and demands for full implementation.
• • The 2003 notification was officially published in the Government of India Gazette under Part III, Section 4, giving it statutory force.
  • That published amendment is incorporated into the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations as adopted by individual banks (e.g., in Pension Regulation texts of major public sector banks).
  •  
  • The amendment changed the wording from a time-bound updation to an open requirement to update basic and additional pension wherever applicable, effectively removing the fixed retirement-date restriction.
  • Despite this statutory amendment being in place since 2003, actual periodic updation of bank pension values (e.g., similar to RBI or government pension updations) has not been implemented across Indian banks, which is why this provision remains a subject of legal and policy debate. 
  
  
• Regards

S.L.Gulati
Advocate  (EX-PNB-SVRS-2000)

90348-89525.93062-80765

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 9:37 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

[Ramani Konnayar]

To my knowledge, the 'updation' effected (at the time of fixing the pension itself in 1993) for those who had retired during 1/1/86 to 31/10/87 under 4th BPS was intended to make their DA rates same as that of 5th BPS by increasing their Basic pay suitably for calculation of pension.

On going through the formula devised for this purpose, as contained in Appendix-1,

I think, only merger of DA with Basic Pay had been done. In other words, there was no loading as done in BPSs. So, the increase resulting from this 'updation' would have been just nominal. Thus, this formula is totally different from the one adopted by RBI  in updation, for its pensioners

As regards the reasons for amending the regulation 35(1)in 2003 to make it available wherever applicable, I understand from people conversant in these matters, that, this formula is used to fix the basic pensions of those retirees whose last 10 months of service falls under 2 successive BPSs. However, I request anyone in the group adept in this topic to clarify/confirm.

To conclude, I think, we are now pleading for updation in terms of Section 35(1) but under a formula different from the one mentioned in its Appendix-1.

Let us wait and see how things take shape in the Court on 18/2.

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2-548zKFQL35asG4tPqFjfVgoR7Dq%2BT2NACx1FvgHE4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir Shri Somashekara,

You have said a lot of things about many things.  Without getting into what has been saidby you, I humbly request you to help me by finding answers to what has been raised.  

I have not gone beyond what is said by the Hon'ble Judges during last five minutes of Arguments.  Therefore, please provide the applicable formula for updating pension in Regulation 35(1) - Appendix - I.   Just a reminder, Even Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot even order adding or modifying any clause.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW01TeV7f%3DxcL4zwbXpig_4AKnM%3DJjnVPGbQSADXU0%2BboA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Gulati Sir,

Regulation 35(1) is amended in 2003 only to incorporate provisions relating to period subsequent to 1987.  I have attached a copy of the Appendix I.  You can observe that Clauses 2 to 5 are added, which pertain to subsequent to 31.10.1987.  Please tell me whether it is possible to incorporate provisions relating to subsequent period without removing restrictive clause relating to period.    Unfortunately, all of us ignore the portion of the clause "as per the formulae given in Appendix I".  But, the clause restricting the period continue to exist in Appendix I.

I have one more doubt.  Please let me know why this updation excercise is restricted to only 4th & 5th Bipartite, but 6th Bipartite Settlement pension is not updated, eventhough 6th Bipartite Settlement period provisions are incorporated in Pension Regulations, when it was notified on 29.09.1995? 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG_RgPHX1tDqKp0t%3DgrVAZYGNLrkoApN0MgHFxeXKzQwN0sDJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[kameswararao marella]

Hi, 

Can anyone share the full text of amendment to ordinf in appendix 1 (connected to regulation 35(1) and/or the formula there in in 2002-2003.  

Many have provided wording of amendment to regulation 35(1), but none have provided amendment to wording or formula in  annexure 1.  

Asking because if annexure 1 was not amended, any benefit that may accrue vua Singla's case will be limited to those retired upto 1987 only (I believe, but will be happy to be proved wrong)

Kamesh

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG_RgPHX1tDqKp0t%3DgrVAZYGNLrkoApN0MgHFxeXKzQwN0sDJg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

Dear Shri Prasad ji,

I request you to clarify the doubts raised by me in my earlier mail sent on 12/2  in this chain appearing just ahead of the one from Sri. Gulati, particularly the formula adopted for fixing the pension of retirees with last 10 months service under 2 successive BPSs.

Thanks and regards

K N RAMANI 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1050031836.1184382.1770894572402%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Harish Midha]

Dear Mr Prasad, 

Appreciate your request as above seeking clarifications to questions from learned friend Mr Somasekhra.

In the same breath ,instead of countering him  suggest if you can also simultaneously request Mr CHV to reflect on the valid  points raised by Adv Patni ( in his letter addressed tor CHV ) which is there in social media and ponder and respond pointwise  .

It is very unfortunate that the suffering of lacs of Bank pensioners who gave their sweat n blood for banks and for the unions have to suffer for so long due to the denial their rights due to the attitude of IBA/UFBU/DFS .

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1050031836.1184382.1770894572402%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

It is unfortunate that the inteligencia among pensioners are trying to indulge in finding inadvacies in Sri late Singlaji case .The comments have gone beyond the  comprahencrve and positive response in reinventing regulations 35/1 to render justice to pending decades old issue of pension updation.
What right the decenders have got to raise various doubts about the validity of regulation 35/1 and continuously expressing chagrin when the case has drawn the positive attitude of learned judges.
They don't have enough patience to wait for final verdict and expressing unsolicited veiws .
Let us hope the dissident opinions will be struck down by the learned judges and the helpless pensionert Wil get favourable verdict and Late Sri Singla ji gets happiness and peace in the other world.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKHz0FzwaN0Hid5T7nbrs0RDdohiuaMan3QBQEv5XS1mVA7jHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Sir,

Com.CHV needs no advice from us, as he is fully aware of all these issues.  Though I am not holding a brief for him, I want to know why Pension Updation is not happening and if everyone else is aware and can get our Pension revised, there is no reason for anyone including CHV to come in the way of getting our pension revised.  After all, Com.CHV is also a beneficiary.  Just a reminder, there are eight other organisations in UFBU and why we are dependent on Com.CHV.  We shall enlist support of all others in getting our Pension updated.  If Com.CHV is responsible for updation of pension, then can we say that he is only responsible for whatever benefits we have got during last four years?

Will respond to Shri Patni's every question seperately.

Thanks, a million,

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKHz0FzwaN0Hid5T7nbrs0RDdohiuaMan3QBQEv5XS1mVA7jHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Dear Prasad.

         I agree that Reg35/1, is a bad law and does not help us in securing updation.

Law is an ass. Some laws are irrational, unreasonable or unjust often applied to rigid interpretations that defy common sense. Reg35/1 could have  been flexible.

The letter of the law is followed but the spirit of justice is ignored.

Pension regulations was authored in 1995. Had they included provisions of agreements of small committee meetings and 1993 agreement in pension regulations this Reg35/1 would not have been a bar for updation of later retirees. 

However there is no clause in BEPR 1995 that prevent updation of pension for retirees from 1987 to till date.

Saying Reg35/1 does not provide updation is very easy.We have been saying it 100 times a day. But the question is do any of us have any better alternative solution? 

You will agree that only IBA/UFBU could remove this clause by amending pension regulations. They gave us some hope by amending pension regulations by signing minutes on 8th March 2024. But reasons best known to them abandoned it. I believe it is done to help IBA defend their case better in  MC Singla case.

After the High Court rejected updation case petitioners had to change their strategy and could not have repeated their same arguments. Considering limited options available petitioners choose to base their arguments on Reg35/1. Opinion is divided on interpretation of Ref35/1 and amended 2003 rules.

The

Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that if pension rules or regulations are capable of more than one interpretation, the courts should lean towards the interpretation that favours the employee or pensioner. SC may interpret this reg on petitioners favour.

On the one hand UFBU is helping IBA to make their case stronger by not discussing updation, abandoning minutes of 8th march, intentionally submitting false statement before CLC that residual issues are being discussed, though in reality IBA is refusing to discuss updation stating sub judice. Though AIBOC said on record that there is no bar on discussing updation is now completely cooperating with IBA by keeping silent and not protesting sub judice reply of IBA. In total UFBU has laid strong foundation for IBA defense in M C Singla case totally abandoning retirees.

Even after DFS sanctioned RBI pensioners  updation multiple times we have not learnt any lessons. We are completely divided. Unions hate each other.Retiree associations hate each other. We pensioners think we know better than other.

After DFS sanctioned updation to RBI pensioners  even though their pension rules does not provide pension updation we should have united and chalked out plan for updation.  DFS has shown mirror to us that the fault is not in pension regulations but fault is with us. DFS also gave hint that if IBA send a proposal it will be considered.

There is no use in fighting  ourselves that  which regulation does not give us updation or not. Now is the time for pensioners to unite and meet UFBU leaders and strongly insist them to discuss updation and resolve it, irrespective of regulations.

As already said since the 2016, date of filing of Singla appeal UFBU is only creating hurdles for petitioners but failed to assist them legally or otherwise. Either other retiree associations or any pensioner suggested any alternative legal point to petitioners, though petitioners advocate requested for suggestions. Considering the limitations, petitioners have choose to rely on Reg35/1. 

Instead of debating on Reg35/1, my suggestion is we should write a reasonable and strong letter to UFBU leaders with maximum  names of pensioners, to discuss updation and resolve it as RBI pensioners have got updation multiple times.

Finally pensioners are waiting for updation for last 25 years. It is immaterial how we get it through litigation, agitation or negotiation.

This is just my suggestion.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAPh3Y0FRzdGioiS5YzTBPZ8sbwO_wd%2BpsUjHDu_Qb7YagckF5w%40mail.gmail.com.

[S L GULATI-ADV:-]

Friends,                                                        To clarify certain doubts of friend, I have further analyised the contexts and rules relating to pension updation and reached the following conclusions.                                  Regulation 35(1) is procedural in nature; Appendix-I is substantive in nature.

Updation of pension cannot operate beyond the restricted period unless the restrictive applicability clause in Appendix-I is expressly deleted or amended by statutory notification.

Inclusion of later periods without beneficiary expansion has no legal effect.

Pension updation for 6th Bipartite Settlement pensioners lacks statutory, formulaic, and settlement-based foundation and therefore does not create a legally enforceable right.

Thanks & regards.
Sincerely yours,

S.L.Gulati
Advocate  (EX-PNB-SVRS-2000)

90348-89525.93062-80765

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/975318267.110418.1770968485613%40mail.yahoo.com.

[RAGHUNATH JAGIRDAR]

All this discussion is a waste of time and unnecessary just for time pass bcz we seniors have ample time at our disposal. Raising unnecessary doubts and just going on prolonging the discussion when the issue has to be ultimately settled by the Supreme Court. Why dont we wait till this issue is taken up and resolved by SC

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAKcPo_xfUycgOXYD2iAV_3e5F2UCw%2BAQH8RxtSH7i7Dn3Cwivg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sridhar Mandyam]

Raghunath sir,

 

Your comment is very apt.  Pensioners have absolutely no say in the outcome, Still we are arguing and fighting. It is a nice timepass for me to read the messages 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF%2B-Jg0Kezafy_KiO%3Dia4Ne2ocd_VWf83eiQD%3Dtvxf4MEgOccg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

We got Family Pension improvement,  DA % DR, etc - we got without court Intervention and support from REgulations.  The 'subjudice' has delayed the improvement in pension.  We should be prudent to approach court for solution - unless, there is a strong ground.

Of late, there is a fashion to file cases - left, right and centre - without thinking of repercussions.  Just to become popular some are indulging in writing letters, filing cases, raising funds, etc.  Social media - is creating havoc with misinformation.

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3m4_M5UiribRpi2sU97Uy_yvg6rmEQ%3D%3Dn7s1Txn%3D_Mng%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Pension updation can be achieved by 

1.Negotiation  2. Agitation  3. Litigation

1. We should note that only UFBU leaders are authorized to Negotiate updation issue. IBA has made it very clear that it will not communicate with retirees  either individually or through their associations.

Without targeting any particular leader we need clarification  from UFBU.

1. Whether Reg35/1 or any other clause prevents the  IBA and UFBU from negotiating  the updation and resolving it? They have authority to amend pension regulations to provide for updation and there is no clause in BEPR 1995 that prevents amendments?.. Even tomorrow they can implement updation scheme and get it amended later on. IBA did it many times.There is no provision for pension to resignees in Pension regulations 1995. Even courts have rejected the pension to resignees. In spite of this IBA and UFBU signed an agreement providing pension for resignees. This shows absence or negative clauses are no bar for iBA and UFBU to negotiate any issue. 

2. Is it ethical on the part of UFBU to accept the reply of sub judice when AIBOC had said on record that no court has barred IBA and UFBU from negotiating the issue.  High court judge in M C singla case has directed petitioners to negotiate with management for updation. Since petitioners have no right to negotiate issues, this is a direction to UFBU leaders to negotiate updation.  

1. UFBU /IBA signed agreement in 1616-1684 case in 2005 when several court cases were pending praying for benefit from the Date of retirement.

2.  In Spite of several cases pending against the agreement of 10th BPS denying superannuation benefits to retirees on special allowance, IBA and UFBU signed agreements denying superannuation benefits on special allowance in 11th and 12 th BPS.

This shows subjudice claims are illegal, unwarranted and intentionally used to avoid discussion on updation.

It is unfortunate that UFBU leaders themselves are claiming there are no funds for updation. The question of shortage or excess arises when IBA and UFBU discuss updation and decide on formula, load factor, whether it includes all pensioners covered under BEPR 1995, is it prospective or retrospective etc. There are many social media users who are guessing and claiming pension updation costs anything between Rs.25 thousand crores to One lakh crore. It does not matter. But UFBU leaders have  responsibility and such  vague statements from UFBU leaders not only affect negotiations and disappoint pensioners.

So there is nothing preventing the IBA and UFBU from negotiating updation issue.

When UFBU is participating and  going on strikes on issues non related to Banking is it too difficult for UFBU to take a delegation to DFS exclusively for updation?

DFS has sent a clear message in Parliament that IBA and UFBU should discuss updation issue and send a proposal to DFS.

I believe UFBU leaders are as experienced, qualified and have equal trade union rights like RBI employees Unions. But when RBI unions succeed in getting updation multiple times in spite of absence of provision for updation in their pension rules, it is time to introspect where we have failed and why issues are pending unresolved for decades? 

As signatories of BEPR 1995 UFBU are trusted and expected to protect the interests of the pensioners who are beneficiaries of the regulations. Is it ethical to ignore such responsibility and leave the pensioners to fend for themselves.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAG_RgPGsL46K%2Bk6fLTqxkicQCU%2B%3D4sZR0eVHoZ5LAhY3VY3KTw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramani Konnayar]

This is just a time passing activity for some people in the group like me, who have got spare time to discuss. Writing a mail takes not more than 15 or 20 minutes and I don't think it is a big waste of time. It is similar to talking over the phone on mundane issues.

That's all. Anyway, each member is entitled to have his own view and I respect yours.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAF%2B-Jg0Kezafy_KiO%3Dia4Ne2ocd_VWf83eiQD%3Dtvxf4MEgOccg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear Shri Somashekara,

I agree with you that the issue of Pension Updation is not moving forward, the way we want.  There is no role for UFBU in Singla's case, neither UFBU can help us nor harm us, because UFBU is not a party.  I do not know how UFBU can help IBA.

There is no clause and there could be any clause in any Pension Regulations/Rules, perhaps in the Country, if not in the whole world.  There cannot be any clause based on conjunctures in any law.  There cannot be any fixed formula, that could be inserted.  Therefore, even if all of desire, there cannot be any clause in Pension Regulations mandating Pension Updation.  

There is no scope for more than one interpretation of clauses in Appendix I.  Therefore, application of selection of any of them does not arise.  

In case we agree that Regulation 35(1) provides for updation of pension, we should have no option but to agree that we cannot travel beyond clauses in Appendix I, which are existing today.  Restriction and force, both have to be in existence. 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3m4_M5UiribRpi2sU97Uy_yvg6rmEQ%3D%3Dn7s1Txn%3D_Mng%40mail.gmail.com.

[R N Yadav]

Excellent/ marvelous view points/write-up.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3Gzup2j5VK1KcVXpHR3ViLqQ%3DA_hrbD9CTKzSZFmqwUg%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Prasad your statements are correct  based on the existing regulations. But UFBU leaders themselves have different opinions on record favourable to pensioners contrary to iBA statements in court but not ready to depose in the court. Some of the members here may not have access to AIBOC reply to IBA

 which point by point dismissed IBA arguments in court  for denying updatkion. I am attaching a copy of the same. Had IFBU deposed in the court on behalf of pensioners we would not have lost M C Singla case in High Court.

You are a learned man. You have fetched us benefits in the past and are fighting for DA as per Reg 37. I wish you success. I have great respect for you.I cannot argue with you any more.

Better to wait for Final verdict in M C Singla case.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1023373023.381377.1771139182641%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ramakrishnan S]

The majority swim along the current and stand with the victor. All wisemen expect for the descendance of some Avatar for fighting for jusrice. They are afraid to do anything for the group..we, especially the VRS optees got all our legitimate reights through court battle. We salute those heroes for their sacrifice. Many of them left this world without able to enjoly the fruit. So it is moral duty to stand with those men, who takeup retirees cause. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1023373023.381377.1771139182641%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Sir,

If AIBOC was so concerned about pension, they wouldn’t have pushed special allowance.

All the  points are good for discussion only and not for presenting before court and it would not have made any difference even if they had deposed before SC.

Court would have told them to use negotiating skill and settle.

Niranjan

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3DKkiKb56uMoJOg0bxCsZO%3DqaaVC8dgE0GJRmFEwG%2BfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Mr.Niranjan

Verdict in M C Singla case will be out within few weeks. Let us wait for the judgment. This is not the right time to declare that the court will dismiss the case etc. Nobody can predict court verdicts. 

but in my opinion IBA/UFBU have authority to amend pension regulations through mutual discussion.

So giving reasons like

1. There is no provision in pension regulations

2. Sub judice

3. Crying huge cost without arriving at exact cost, updation formula, load factor etc

Is misleading, mischievous and betrayal.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWFp4_pfog18fMyy5w3ZKCbZkLP4JMYdp941Mcand7Q06A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Satyanarayana Rao]

One more prediction and presumption.
When the 35/1 and Apendix 1 is
Re constructed and forming the
very strong base to the case in favour of updation and the UFBU and IBA will get slap and the judgement will be favorable and put an end to all ifs and buts.
The IBA and UFBU wii have to shut there mouth and implement the order.
Here also they will indulge in mischief.
We will get the justice and Sri Singlaji will be remembered for ever for his fighting power.

Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW1caxx6%2BgNrG6c-NxbNT10cHBq%2BAGixHiB-OvYA9tyoFg%40mail.gmail.com.