Re: Digest for bankpensioner@googlegroups.com - 5 updates in 3 topics

[vaidya nathan]

Mr. CN Prasad Sir

Your message is clear. Many times I wondered how the Govt. And Bank management had accepted Pension Scheme to retirees. Many Europeans are worried about this same subject and are thinking of putting a Cap on Pension.  Many State govt. Spend  50 percent of their income for Pension and Salary payment.  To remain in power, they spend Freely on Freebies Also.  Now in dilema for Development.   While I donot deny that Pension Option gives tremendous Dignity and Livelihood  for every Retirees, let us also ponder over other issues of Govt . Hope No one feels  negativity on my Opinions.

VAIDYANATHAN 

Bangalore 

On Fri, Jun 19, 2026, 5:25 PM <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• Pension Funds - 1 Update
• Pension to Resignees - 3 Updates
• AIBRF -PENSION UPDATION - 1 Update

Pension Funds

Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: Jun 19 10:13AM Dear Friends,   Several apex organisations representing bank pensioners have beenhighlighting the substantial balances available in Pension Funds and assertingthat these funds are sufficient to support pension updation multiple times.   Recently, when one of our friends, who is an LIC agent, visited ouroffice, we enquired about the purchase price of an annuity. We obtained thefollowing information, the authenticity of which may be independently verified: - Purchase Price: ₹73,09,942 - Monthly Pension (Annuity) payable for life: ₹50,000   This indicates that, to secure a monthly annuity of ₹50,000 for life, anamount of approximately ₹73.10 lakh is required as the initial investment. Thepurchase price works out to about 12.18 times the annual payout.   Private sector banks cannot maintain separate Pension Funds and,instead, meet their pension obligations through annuity arrangements with LIC.   We request our members to examine whether our understanding is correct.If the same multiple is applied, an annual increase in pension outgo of ₹6,000crore would require an additional provision of approximately ₹73,099 crore.   It is, therefore, necessary for all of us to introspect and assesswhether the claims being made in certain quarters regarding the adequacy ofPension Funds are realistic and actuarially sustainable.   We invite informed discussion and feedback from members on thisimportant issue.   Thanks a million.   With regards,   Prasad C. N.

Back to top

Pension to Resignees

Sudesh Kumar Kalra <sudesh...@gmail.com>: Jun 19 06:08AM +0530 Respected Arun Sharma Sir My case is 19 yrs. of service at the time of VRS. I hav also opted pension at the time of option taken by the bank. So I am getting pension since VRS i.e.31.12.2000.   Regards Sudesh Kumar Kalra 9311283095

Prasad C N <cn_pr...@yahoo.com>: Jun 18 10:22AM Dear Sir,   This extract is taken from State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi, (2014) 13 SCC 474 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 414 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 548 at page 483   24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondent-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in Bank of Baroda [Bank of Baroda v. Ganpat Singh Deora, (2009) 3 SCC 217 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 622] or Bank of India [Bank of India v. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 524 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32] .   Thanks, a Million.  With regards,Prasad C N   On Thursday, 18 June 2026 at 03:32:24 pm IST, Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <1952...@gmail.com> wrote: See the para 7 of the judgement: 7. Further, in pursuance of the signing of the 12th Bipartite Settlement with theWorkmen's Unions and 9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024, a provision was introduced toinclude a new class of beneficiaries i.e resigned former employees. Accordingly, theemployee must have been in service on or after 01.01.1986; the employee must havejoined before 01.04.2010; the employee must have resigned on or before 26.04.2010; theemployee must have been otherwise eligible to join the Pension Scheme while in serviceand the employee must have completed 20 years of qualifying service. See also para 8 of the judgement:  8. Thus, it is clear that as per the 12 Bipartite Settlement/9th Joint Note dated 08.03.2024,the pension benefit extends to the resigned former employees only on condition that theyhave completed 20 years of qualifying service. In the bipartite settlement or in the joint note there is no such provision of prescribing 20 years of qualifying service. Hence factually it is incorrect/erroneous statement in the judgement.  What is stated is that otherwise one should be eligible. Eligibility is 10 years as per Regulation.  Aggrieved persons must go on appeal to get justice.  Regards. S Kalyanasundaram    On Thursday, June 18, 2026 at 10:13:14 AM UTC+5:30 Arun Sharma wrote:   Subject: Pension to Resignees I understand that since Voluntary Retirement has 20 years of service requirements and on this basis Resignees with less than 20 years of service are not eligible to opt for pension Benefit.  This criteria is baseless. Resignation and Voluntary retirement are two different options and should not be related to each other for Pension Benefit scheme 1993 which clearly stated that all employees with 10 years of uninterrupted service will be eligible under the scheme.  This is injustice to the employees who have between 10 and 20 years of service and are considered ineligible.  Arun S.    On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 9:24 PM kalyanam rajagopal <kalyan...@gmail.com> wrote:   It is a case of resigned former employee of Indian bank with less than 20 years , rejected by the bank and also by the court by applying the terms of JN dt 08,03,24 and Indian bank circular dated 07,05.24On Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 9:56:31 PM UTC-7 Satyanarayana Rao wrote:   It is not only the myth it proves the failure of the UFBU to assert the organisational strength to get uniform implications of benefits to their members. UFBU has lost It's strength to fight for their own benefits to get implemented to their members even though the agriment is signed under Id act.     Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Wed, 13 May 2026 at 16:26, Veera Reddy<veer...@gmail.com> wrote:   There must be system of ensuring proper implementation of the settlement.The parties to the settlement should own the responsibility for proper implementation, else the settlements are myth  Regards  On Wed, May 13, 2026, 9:55 AM 'MURALIDHARA E.V. EYUNNY' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:   Sir for pvt sector bank resignees although our bank is party to settlement not extended the same. Where to approach we senior citizen don't know. UFBU is not at all making any effort to get pension to resignees who have served for 20 years. Whether UFBU is only for public sector banks?   Yahoo Mail: Search, organise, conquer On Tue, 12 May 2026 at 15:53, Sriramamoorthy Seethepalli<srira...@gmail.com> wrote:     12/05/2026                                                                                                     FOR URGENT CONSIDERATION OF BANK COLLEAGUES                                Dear Mr.Sharma , Thanks for your mail   I have served SBI for 18 years and 3 months and resigned in 1986. I am now 82. I was denied pension and some other terminal benefits on the pretext of not completing requisite service as per the service conditions at the time of joining the Bank as probationary officer My appeals to the SBI Management, and even to the Finance Minister were rejected.  I AM OF THE STRONG OPINION THAT THE SC (Honourable JUS. MISRA) decision of 2015 and many other decisions of various courts in various pension claims if read in totality in conjunction with Nakara case clearly build a case in law & Equity for the eligibility of resignees with confirmed service of 15 years eligible for full/Proportionate pension The old pensioners are most vulnerable in every respect and powers in question are fully aware of it. Even the Unions would not be inclined to fight for  Resignees. The Moot Point is that pension is a right for service  rendered and not a bounty, by both the Resignees  or Retirees. The differentiation is the period of service. It is arbitrarily fixed  by the Bank Managements to deprive the Resignees from getting their rightful pension. They can at best reduce the quantum of pension (as the full pension for which eligibility is 20 years service). But total denial is arbitrary and devoid of principles of natural justice .  I strongly believe that Hon.Jus Misra's decision of fixing 15 years for full pension can be a strong point for all those  completing 15 years and even if the bank managements are stuck to the arbitrary period of 20 years,at least  for a proportionate pension But It requires collective fight both legally or otherwise. If any active  relatively young bankers are going to lead the fight, many like me can contribute towards expenses. It may be thought out before it is too late for many of usI have represented this to Mr Pathak who has been making efforts in this direction and also raising this in this forum for many yearsRequest all concerned to help their elderly resignees to get their rightful due Thanks & Regards,S.Srirama Murthy7989061906srira...@gmail.com       -- Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAECOHc9k%2B1CcOGD1fKXFg0%3DBkBJGYxF8LtbXNxR2UV7hQPZMHQ%40mail.gmail.com.     -- 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/879101242.623334.1778582132080%40mail.yahoo.com.       -- 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/CA%2B%3Dp5wZm28sHf3-CpUQ5Sd5pJNYzCUQQjbXR1H9QFi1c4k9NSQ%40mail.gmail.com.       -- 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/62f50f9a-f6df-4917-99a0-e71d0a0a6ae0n%40googlegroups.com.         -- 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/4495e364-ec6e-42d5-bd44-e8f063804d77n%40googlegroups.com.

Arun Sharma <917...@gmail.com>: Jun 18 10:10AM -0700 When pension Regulations clearly stated that eligibility is 10 years of service, why IBA decided that only employees with 20 years of service will fall under this option for Benefits to pension scheme. It is not easy to find the right platform where this can be represented and court order be challenged to the next level. Regards arun   On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 3:02 AM Kalyanasundaram Subramaniam <

Back to top

AIBRF -PENSION UPDATION

JSOMA SHEKARA <jsomase...@gmail.com>: Jun 19 12:46PM +0530 Mr.Niranjanp UFBU has the right to negotiate pensioners' issues. That right also comes with accountability, responsibility to ensure benefits of agreements reaching pensioners as intended. UFBU also has the moral responsibility to ensure equal justice to all pensioners while negotiating issues and signing agreements. We do not find any logic in denying 100% DA to pensioners drawing Rs.10000 Pension and extending the benefit to pensioners drawing higher pension. As much as Banks/IBA/DFS the AIBEA and AIBOC both are equally liable to account for any ambiguous clauses and if any clause is misrepresented by IBA to gain advantage, AIBEA and AIBOC should both step in and protect the interests of pensioners as they have signed agreements on behalf of pensioners and not IBA. If leaders do not want to ensure equality of justice in agreements and does not want to ensure agreements are not properly implemented both leaders of AIBEA and AIBOC need not waste time travelling to Mumbai and Delhi to sign agreements and just authorise one of their office staff who will sign agreements on dotted lines as directed by IBA. 1. Should pensioners drawing meagre pension spend thousands of Rupees and energy in their old age to travel to courts in various cities and SC to set right the anomaly? Frequently this is happening and both AIBEA and AIBOC remained unconcerned. If UFBU had formed an office bearers team to ensure proper implementation of the agreements this would have been avoided. 2. To claim AIBEA and AIBOC signed agreements for workmen and officers respectively does not hold good for pensioners issues. Has AIBEA signed the 1993 agreement for workmen only? How do we explain discrimination or misinterpretation of agreements every time? If pensioners are a burden for UFBU they should relinquish their rights for negotiating retirees issues. DFS will appoint a committee to resolve issues and we will get something. 3. Is it right to accept sub judice as reason for not discussing Updation when DFS itself included periodical updation in every settlement in the agenda of the committee appointed by it while M C Singla case is pending. 4. AIBEA has signed a 1993 agreement and pensioners believe it is the bedrock foundation for pension regulations? IBA is giving ambiguous statements regarding validity of the agreement On the one hand IBA claims Clause 12 provides for updation subject future negotiations and at the same time argue 1993 agreements is just preliminary discussions. As AIBEA signed on behalf of pensioners, is it not the responsibility of its leaders to clarify whether the 1993 agreement has any legal validity or just a piece of paper? Asking for clarifications is not accusations. While SBI and RBI employees unions are active and securing benefits for pensioners, UFBU is continuing signing agreements with anomalies and using the right to negotiate retirees issues as leverage to gain something for existing employees.

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.