IBA FILE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE APEX COURT.NOT POSSIBLE FOR UPDATION!

[mohan p]

IBA states:

"That in view of the foregoing, it would neither be 

appropriate nor possible for the Banks to consider the 

request of the Representation/Claim requesting for 

Updation of Pension"

Pl.read Affidavit of IBA filed before Apex Court in SLP(C)5561/2016.

[mohan p]

Dear Friends,

As we have often said, since we were fighting a lost case in Punjab and Haryana High Court ,Chandigarh on Updation of Pension, we need not have much to expect on outcome of the same.

Still few were expecting favourable verdict from court.Though final verdict is yet to come,we need not keep any hope now.

The case was made  delayed first by petitioners themselves seeking time to see the report of so called Sub Committee formed by IBA exclusively to look into updation of pension!Later IBA itself sought time for reconstitution of committee!

While looking into the Affidavit filed by IBA,now, before Hon.Apex Court in SLP(C)5561/2016 filed by Late M.C.Singla and Ors V/s Union of india  Now it is crystal clear that, IBA is on the same old stand of 25th May 2015 while signing a Record Note jointly with UFBU.Not an inch has been moved forward after lapse of seven years!

It may be interesting to know,now, what exactly has been stated in Record Note of 25.5.2015.

Quote:

06.Updation of Pension for all existing pensioners and family pensioners

This being a funded scheme in lieu of contributory PF.As it is Banks are contributing several times the statutory PF contribution towards funding pension scheme every year.Hence providing for the periodical updation is not possible as this will have serious impact on the working of banks

[RANGARAJAN M R]

It may not be surprising if another news surfaces after 23rd meeting in the back drop of this affidavit putting at rest all expectations of pensioners. This reminds us of the  "Record Note" . Still if the statements of UFBU/AIBEA leaders are genuine and to be taken seriously there is a ray of hope provided DFS takes a sympathetic view for final seal.

M.R.RANGARAJAN

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR9z4CExZjeHzi4t_w89kOnxxgxoWuzyBypZiv2ny5nrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

The affidavit submitted  suppresses the following fact: 

• On 29 10 1993, an Industrial level settlement  was arrived at between Indian Banks Association and Bank Employees unions  and this paved the way for introduction of pension scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund as in RBI
• 
  
• Para 12 of  the said settlement provided for formation of a small committee consisting of representatives of IBA and unions to work out details on similar lines as RBI pension regulation and Central Civil Services Pension Rules applicable to Central Government employees.
• 
  
•  The said Small committee has recorded the following as part of the minutes of the meeting held on 26th March 1994: “Formula for updating pension should be on the lines of the same given in the Reserve Bank pension scheme. Any change therein should be introduced only after mutual agreement.”

This suppression is very material for the case and the IBA should be exposed for this omission properly. When RBI has done updation it should be applicable for banks also. 

The court can also be apprised of the fact that officials in the government had expressed apprehension while conceding RBI updation that similar demand will come from bank employees. Hence everyone was aware of the legal entitlement of bank employees. 

S Kalyanasundaram

[seshadri nadhan]

matter over

seshadri

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDTfjC%3DrYc1Un6psrpYFu1MEGnNS7uBM3_Z-iRBKyaB6uw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

The affidavit suppresses the fact that our pension is in tune with RBI pension but the signatory to the affidavit has signed with the clause " no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom"

He should be taken to task. 

S Kalyanasundaram 

[vrsivaram...@yahoo.in]

Employees of public sector banks have opted pension as per 1993 settlement. The pension regulations is changed without the knowledge of employees and it is illegal. Banks have to inform the pension optees  that PENSION will not be revised at the time of wage revision and pension regulations were amended subsequently.. The pension scheme was introduced in 1993 and how in 1995 itself the banks  say  that pension  will not be revised This is not internal matter of banks to change or alter the records of banks as they like. UNIONS have played a big role against its own employees. So it is high time that we must  JOIN ☺️😉 our hands with the employees in service  and raise our voice asking the leaders to resign from union/ association.  Unions are not clubs to enjoy their life. We demand pay commission in banks by sending this commission agents out of banks.

Many PENSIONER'S have left the world already , if more than 50% of PENSIONER' die whether these  unions will DEMAND 200% of pension to remaining PENSIONER'S.

The leaders are enjoying their life at the cost of pensioners and Employees

            S H A M E L E S S

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR9z4CExZjeHzi4t_w89kOnxxgxoWuzyBypZiv2ny5nrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

Dear Friends,

We have been discussing these points especially on Clause No.12 of Memorandum of Settlement on Pension.Dt.29.10.1993,which provide for updating pension, as well as on subsequent Minutes of Small Committee dt.26^th March 1994,which mention on our pension scheme as on the lines of RBI pension scheme

Unfortunately retirees could not succeed under legal front,on Updation of Pension,filed by Late M.C.Singla and Ors Vs Union of India,either before single bench or division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court,Chandigarh.(Ref.WP(c)6233/2008 -16.04.2012and LPA 789/2013.09.09.2015.both cases were dismissed)

High court  has stated on this point as follows:

“25. Ad finem, a word about minutes of meeting dated March 26,

1994 of the Small Committee on Pension whereby it is said to have been

accepted that formula for updating pension should be on the lines of same

given in Reserve Bank’s Pension Scheme. Discussions held and agreements.

reached in this meeting, in our view, are nothing more than parleys

preliminary to the final decision which came in the form of pension scheme

of 1995. Therefore, the minutes cannot vest the appellants with a right to

claim parity with employees of Reserve Bank of India.”

Pension Updation in RBI is a reality since 2019.IBA avoided,any reference of RBI pension scheme at this point.

We do not know how the petitioners, counter the arguments of IBA  in SLP(C)5561/2016,when hearing takes place.

Whatever may be the developments,we cannot hope much in this case.

Next-What would be the discussion on updation of pension, (if any) while UFBU meet IBA on 23rd Sept'22!

 

--

[Paul Wilson]

The entire funding for Government pensioners is funded from Budgetary resources. The Bank retirees also contribute to Revenue through our Taxation obligations. However Resources for our Pension fund is an existing one built up from Banks contribution to our erstwhile CPF as a contractual obligation. Our portion of CPF was refunded in lieu of Pension as a Second benefit while the Third benefit claimed was done away with. Again it's contributed additionally by Bank as per Actuarial estimates of shortcomings on yearly basis.At least that's the agreement. So we have at least the Resources ready at least to a major extent in the form of Pension fund. So whats the Hype involved in claiming that Government pensions are Budgetary allocation? Aren't we better disposed with funds to meet Pension obligations? Govt is not contributing to the Pension fund especially since 2010 NPS introduction. At the same time we are individually contributors as Tax payers to meet Govt obligations of Pension to Central Govt Retirees and Working personnel. If only SC is able to see this point and deliver equitable justice to us also. How can they go by IBA affidavit? 

Regards 

Paul

--

[Gopalakrishnan Ramachandran]

The question raised was about updation of pension. For denying updation, IBA has found reasons and quoted them. It is for the petitioners to challenge the affidavit. Not quoting RBI pension may not be a crime as IBA has taken only valid points felt by them. With UFBU to support its contention, updation of pension will be a tough nut to crack.

Now the only alternative is merger of 6352 points which will benefit the senior pensioners to some extent, as envisaged by the Finance Minister two years back.

G Ramachandran

CB-SVRS 

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/fae87d19-b628-4a3f-8b77-aba0b4daeef8n%40googlegroups.com.

[NSS]

Friends

This is the affidavit filed by IBA in reply to the Honourable Court's direction to submit the final report or the interim report of the committee within three months. IBA would have submitted its counter affidavit in reply to the petition (appeals) of the appellants long back. Why was this affidavit leaked now?  So far affidavits or any other document pertaining to Bank Pensioner's cases have not come into the public domain.  

No one expected IBA to give updation on a platter. The affidavit is not the end of the appeals. Rather this is the beginning. Now that IBA had informed the decision of the Committee to the Court, hearing of the appeals will commence. We have a strong case and there is no need to feel dejected.

N.Sankara Subramanian

[mohan p]

For Information:

Listed On	15-09-2022
Court No.	11
Item No.	9

SECTION IV-B

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 5561, 8455 and 22266 OF 2016

WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

Process Id: 966/2022

M.C. SINGLA (DEAD) THR. LR. AND OTHERS	Versus	... Petitioner
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS		... Respondent

OFFICE REPORT

The matters above mentioned were listed before the Hon'ble Court, on 20th January, 2022 with office report dated 19.01.2022, When the following order was passed:

" Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) including Indian Banks' Association, submits that the Committee which was supposed to consider the representation/claim of the petitioners and similarly placed persons, is required to be reconstituted, as the Chairman of the Committee is demitting office. In the circumstances, we give three months' time to the Indian Banks' Association to do the needful and submit appropriate report regarding the decision taken on the proposal. 

 If final decision cannot be reached, the Indian Banks' Association must submit interim report before the next date of hearing. 

 List these matters after three months."

It is submitted that, Mitter & Mitte Co. Advocate, has on 13.09.2022 filed an affidavit on behalf of Respondent no.3 in SLP(C) No. 5561/2016 in compliance of aforesaid Order. Paper books of the same are being circulated with this office report for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

SLP(C) No. 5561/2016

It is submitted that, there are total 5 Respondent (Respondent No.5 is impleaded Party and represented through Mr. P.K. Manohar, Advocate) in the instant matter.

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel has already filed Vakalatnama/Appearance and Counter Affidavit for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books.

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has on 23.04.2018 filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books. 

It is further submitted that, Respondent No.1 has been served through Ld. Standing Counsel representing the Union Of India.  But no one has entered appearance on behalf of Respondent no.1 so far.

It is further submitted that, I.A. No. 21016/2019 Application for substitution to bring on record Lrs. of deceased Petitioner No.1 has been allowed vide Ld. Registrar Court's Order dated 06.05.2019 accordingly, Cause Title has been amended and copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books.

It is further submitted that, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Counsel  has on 15.074.2019 filed an application  seeking permission to filed additional documents. The same has been registered as I.A. No. 102809/2019 and copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 

Service of show cause notice is complete.

SLP(C) No. 8455/2016

It is submitted that, there are total 4 Respondent in the instant matter.

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel has already filed Vakalatnama/Appearance and Counter Affidavit for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books. 

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has on 23.04.2018 filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books. 

It is further submitted that, Respondent No.1 has been served through Ld. Standing Counsel representing the Union Of India.  But no one has entered appearance on behalf of Respondent no.1 so far.

Service of show cause notice is complete.

SLP(C) No. 22266/2016

It is submitted that, there are total 4 (Respondent No.4 is impleaded Party and represented through Mr. P.K. Manohar, Advocate) Respondent in the instant matter.

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel has already filed Vakalatnama/Appearance and  Counter Affidavit for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books. 

It is further submitted that, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has already filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 3.Copies of the same have been included in the SLP paper books. 

It is further submitted that, Respondent No.1 has been served through Ld. Standing Counsel representing the Union Of India.  But no one has entered appearance on behalf of Respondent no.1 so far.

Service of show cause notice is complete.

The matters above mentioned are listed before the Hon'ble Court with this office report.

Dated : September 14, 2022

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/ede0c194-c183-4b16-9038-900f164f36a4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Mani B]

Let us hv a positive hope

Bala

[Mohan V.R]

Dear colleagues, 

The following message received in whatsApp. But it is unverified. 

*_SC : SLP(C)s 005561/ 2016 & 003099/2016  Late Sri M C Singla_* 

through Association Vs PNB & Union of India , IBA : 15/09/22 

Petitioners have sought adjournment of the case for a week. The next date will be uploaded on website of supreme court. Detailed order awaited.

*_Com. Umesh Sharma_*

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Recently CHV while attending the executive meeting of Pensioners association gave a short speech about Pension updation. Affidavit filed by IBA looks like exact copy of CHV speech and it covers all points raised by CHV.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAE0--Gy5v-B-_AiHa397pCx16sGU4qwcVMGLbBHg246u-nf0zw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Gajanan Chaudhari]

If IBA thinks. There is no matter for discussion as per regulations.; then why the committee was formed for discussing up dation.?This is all illusion.

[Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam]

It is true that small committee minutes have not been accepted. But when the present affidavit was elaborating the history of how pension was introduced why it has suppressed the fact of small committee minutes. The  present appeal itself is against the non-acceptance of small committee meeting. The IBA has not come to the court with clean hands and they should be pulled up.

S Kalyanasundaram

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

Who is fooling whom?

1. There is no provision for Pension updation in Pension regulations..

2.  Updation is not financially viable.

3.  For Bank Pensioners Pension is paid out of pension fund funded By Banks  whereas for Govt employees  it is paid out of budgetary allocations.

IBA, Unions, DFS have been singing the same tune for the last 10 years or so in Parliament. Courts and other forums.

CHV is telling the same since last many years,

But this committee of veterans from Banks, SBI and RBI after researching for 8 months (may be they have been paid hefty fees for committee sittings)  came to conclusion  that updation is not viable  for the reasons mentioned in Points 1-3 which every pensioners got tired hearing since last 10 years from iBA, UFBU and DFS.

So why the drama of the committee?

[Anantharaman Tg]

Dear Sir,

Your mail with regard to IBA's affidavit gives a sort of

hope to the pensioners.

From one of your earlier mails, it is understood that you

are in touch with the advocate of the appellants of the

case. Hope you will please provide with  him the necessary 

and pertinent points to him for arguing the case.

Regards.

--
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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/ede0c194-c183-4b16-9038-900f164f36a4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Raghavan s]

Pl send this to FM who has assured pension updation 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDR2a8FgzAU5_Xj56qwmNn-azs%2B5eS2cxLCnMZxWgfuijA%40mail.gmail.com.

[mohan p]

There need not have any surprise on views presented by IBA in its affidavit submitted to Apex Court.

They may only say so.

But why they took so much time to present it before court!

Yes.This drama of IBA seems to be continued further,to befool retirees!

Under legal side, it is the petitioners to see to counter the arguments of IBA in appropriate manner, with valid legal points substantiated by facts and figures. 

IBA has narrated in one sentence that "there is no provision in Pension Regulations in 1995 

(BEPR, 1995) for any Updation in the Pension of Bank 

Employees and Officers. That, therefore, it would neither 

be appropriate in-principle nor would be financially viable"

We have been hearing the story since long.So what?

Whether RBI employees Pension Regulations, provide for updation of pension?Still they have secured  it.

Do CCS pension rules provide for revision of pension as and when salary revision takes place as per Pay Commission recommendations?

There too based on 6th CPC recommendations revision of pension is carried out.

While talking about the financial viability, IBA has not found submitted any statistics to substantiate their arguments.

Do they have factual report on any actuarial valuations conducted exclusively  to study the impact of revision of pension?

Since matters related to IBA are not transparant we do not have any data with us on such matters.

Whatever may be the theory or arguments the reality is that all pensioners are getting older and majority are now may be in their 75-85 yrs!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0anr-ewuXbK%3Dd1tn7wALKuiYqfWhAAXBS3NSmexeyPow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anantharaman Tg]

Immediately on the RBI pensioners' success in

getting the updation of pension, our associations

should have brought pressure for our updation also.

The FM must be knowing this, we believe and  

now we may try to get similar benefit like RBI's.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAMCbyDS7sJUQk3%3D98g6%3DZL2BTqFbQ93aJC27vYF%2BeZ%3DxhjpD1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Please inform why the points 1 to 3 mentioned by you are incorrect with due reasons..  Hope you will not disappoint without explanation.

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0anr-ewuXbK%3Dd1tn7wALKuiYqfWhAAXBS3NSmexeyPow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anantharaman Tg]

It all depends upon how the appellants advocate 

argue in the Court.

Let us hope he should be well briefed  in the matter

by those involved in the case. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/e7133dd5-fc59-41ce-b316-b9f1154ea9a3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Please refer RBI Pension Reguilations and inform which Rule mentions regarding updation for benefit of fellow members.

Niranjan

--

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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/fae87d19-b628-4a3f-8b77-aba0b4daeef8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Paul Wilson]

RBI pension Regulations preceded our PR95 and it was only the PR 1993 that started mentioning about Updation. Though we state it's modelled on same lines as that of RBI, there is no mention of it. We cling on to this Cl12 because of what happened as Updation in RBI. Updation of pension is inseparable from Pension. All progressive Pension Regulations provide for it. The Central Pay Commission is not because of any Updation clause in previous settlements. It's only just and fair in a progressive Society. When RBI gets it without specific mention of such clause the PR95 looks superior to it. Despite Reg 35(1) that specifically mentions Updation to Pension, it's "interpreted conveniently" as applicable only to a section of Retirees involved in the preceeding Bipartite and Joint Note signed between Unions and IBA. At the same time it never stated expressely that it " shall not be applicable to future retirees or that it is restricted to only the segment of workmen retirees and officer retirees specifically mentioned". Since these were the segment involved as Retirees prior to the date of PR95., the detailed Illustriation in Appndx 1 and 2 of Reg.35 also illustrated Updation to that extent. I still fail to understand why the present Interpretation is getting accepted. 

Then comes absence of sufficient balance in Pension funds. The Central Govt that runs a Fiscal deficit of +Rs.2 lac crores is budgeting for Pay revision. We, Retirees, are also footing that burden as Tax payers. The Income tax rules are of no relief to senior Retirees . Isn't it a paradox? So it's no Expenditure but a Social cost in a progressive society. Here we have funds and the shady recommendation is about it's inadequacy. Let me ask our Retirees .."If there is no provision for Updation, why should they discuss the inadequacy of funds in accomodating an Updation?" This has to be explored in detail by our Petioners while replying to IBA affidavit.

So, it's not correct and constitutes a misrepresentation of facts. 

Pl represent further or correct my wrong notions in the matter.

Regards 

Paul

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWFxsUqDRmtBhKzSQEA8kKrKMenZT-WW_P2dDJAYZVnRYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

I am attaching here a copy of the Kerala High Court Judgment in WP 29890/2018 regarding Pension Updation.

Hon Judge made favourable observations but did not pass any specific order.

The legal position being as above, I find
substantial force in the contention that the
accumulated surplus ought to be utilised by
revising the pension periodically. In matters of
pension, there has to be a holistic approach and
not constricted interpretation of certain
provisions.
In view of the above findings, the writ
petitions are disposed of permitting the
petitioners to file a detailed representation
highlighting their grievances. Thereupon, the
second respondent shall consider the
representation and pass appropriate orders
thereon within two months. For effective
consideration of the representation, the
petitioners shall make available copy of the writ
petitions along with certified copy of the
judgment.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
W.P.(C) No.29890/2018 & 41327/2018

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAJhYRk13Jen%2BXw8Tj_TY3E3Bn4q8Ucxte4yJr5SLskud4TgwfA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Niranjan Cn]

Can there be surplus in Pension Fund of any Bank at any point of time ??  Anyone explain.. please

Niranjan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3eZN%2BbpnhDwLocopuqhik%2BqsUt0Wvn0X7GPrrZpfPt8w%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

There is no provision for updation in Pension regulations.

There is no surplus in pension funds

Updation cost is huge

******************************

Are we pensioners responsible for these? IBA and unions signed a draft agreement dated 29.10.1993. They did not ensure periodical updation of pension. They did not consult pensioners or their organizations before signing the draft agreement. Since 1950 the constitution has been amended 105 times. While it is so, is it a himalayan task to amend pension regulation to provide for periodical pension updation?  Unions should have demanded amendment of pension regulations to pave the way for updation. Why should they blame pensioners for their fault?

Banks provide funds whenever required as per  actuary calculations. No where in Pension regulations ir is mentioned subject to availability of funds. If IBA and UFBU arrive at an agreement on the updation, banks will provide funds.

RBI pension regulations also did not have provision for updation. In RBI also Govt is not making any contribution to their Pension fund. RBI pension fund also does not have excess funds but is contributed by the Bank whenever required. So when RBI board recommended updation and approved by DFS

In Nabard also updation is approved. So why in Banks only absence of provision for updation in pension regulations should be a problem.

The onus of proving that  updation is financially unviable lies on the IBA and unions not pensioners.

Let CHV come with a detailed circular explaining why Pension regulations cannot be amended or is there any clause in Pension regulations which prevents improvement in Pension scheme. It only says any changes subject to mutual agreement. And also exact cost of pension updation to prove why it is not affordable. Why I am saying CHV is AIBOC seems to have abandoned pensioners. .

Pension fund rules only say if there is any shortfall the same shall be funded by Banks upon actuarial calculations. Such shortfall arises when IBA and Unions agree for any improvement in the Pension scheme like Family pension improvement.  So if iBA and the Unions agree for the updation pension funds will have shortage and banks will provide funds as per acturiaries estimates. The reason that the government is not providing funds to pension fund is false because there is no provision in Pension regulations that requires contribution from the government.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAAX%2BdWG75ZEUoMFgo%2BkA2et-8xHCy06%2BJq_OGdQYOHbE39RETA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraju Kakani]

Sairam, Your reasoning is excellent.It is time now to you all like you to join hands to convince the IBA and UFBU to bring the Pension Updation.We the Super Senior Citizens like me in the back drop of retirees before 2002, looking at you all for a good day soon.

May I request Sri Prasad, NSS, DS Murty, Mukherji, Shukla, Mohan Rao, you and others to find out a way to succeed in this 100%DA, Pension Updation matter before it goes out of our hands.

Please do some thing before 23 rd Sept 2022.

With regards,

Nagaraju Kakani

Hyderabad.

BOI 2000 SVRS/2009 Pensioner/Aged 75 yrs.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2zRDd5yWn4dvrXHhh95UW_9TtWYvBejqsGAXNSLpPsQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Parvatam Veera Bhadra Swamy]

I fully agree with your views and opinions on the subject matter and if ufbu sincerely takes up the matter with iba  its definitely possible to get updation within no time.

When family pension has been updated silently without discussing any cost factor etc, this long pending item also can be solved by mutual agreement by iba and ufbu.

Pvbswamy 

On Mon, 19 Sept 2022, 16:09 JSOMA SHEKARA, <jsomase...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2zRDd5yWn4dvrXHhh95UW_9TtWYvBejqsGAXNSLpPsQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ravi Kumar]

Reply to.IBA 

Sir

We should bring out the fact that

IBA members are MDs  of Banks

So mandate from the banks means getting a reply from the member itself which is contradictory. 

Pension is as per agreement  made  by MDs  of Banks with representatives  of bank employees and officers.  1995 regulations are clear that the pension will be as per the RBI pension plan. 

RBI have now updated the pension so banks too must update the pension.in lines of that in RBI 

[krishna mohan nidumolu]

More than IBA and UFBU, we ourselves fooling our Retiree community too much. Exaggerated and superfluous arguments are being put forth every day by many our Colleagues. If you have documentary proof let us play the ball. Provide to UFBU Negotiating Members. we have worked in Senior positions and we know how to avoid financial issues. Pl kindly excuse me for this post. Let us not raise anxiety any more. 

Regards 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW2wyDq8a1JrSbJb7UyqwEXvDpwFKyJ%2BYkLu%3DnC5PaWooQ%40mail.gmail.com.