A formal representation to SBMPC.
Sanjay J
The General Secretary,
State Bank of Mysore Pensioners' Commune (SBMPC).
Subject: Formal Representation Regarding Differential Applicability of the Pension Updation Prayer in CA No. 7993/2023 (M.C. Singla vs. Union of India) to Erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (e-SBM) Pensioners — Request for Urgent Organisational Intervention.
Respected Sir,
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
I write this representation to bring to the urgent attention of the Commune a critical legal and regulatory concern: the differential manner in which a favourable judgment in CA No. 7993/2023 (M.C. Singla vs. Union of India) would operate — or may fail to operate — for e-SBM pensioners, as compared to mainstream SBI pensioners.
As we are aware, the next hearing in this matter is scheduled for 22nd July 2026, before the Hon'ble bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. At this critical juncture, it is imperative that the Commune take cognisance of the structural vulnerability particular to our category of pensioners.
2. THE CORE LEGAL ISSUE — TWO DISTINCT REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
The pension updation case in CA 7993/2023 rests on three foundational instruments:
(i) Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th October 1993;
(ii) Regulation 56 of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995; and
(iii) Minutes of the Small Committee Meeting dated 26th March 1994.
These instruments govern the pension of nationalised bank employees and, by extension, erstwhile Associate Bank employees (including e-SBM employees), under the respective adapted Pension Regulations of 1995. Our pension entitlement flows directly from this framework.
SBI pensioners, by contrast, are governed by a parallel and entirely separate legal framework — the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Regulations 2014, rooted in the State Bank of India Act 1955 — which predates the 1993 Bipartite Settlement and is independent of the IBA negotiation mechanism that produced Clause 12.
Accordingly, the ratio of any judgment in CA 7993/2023, if based on Clause 12 of the 1993 MOS or Regulation 56 of the 1995 Regulations, will have direct and immediate applicability to e-SBM pensioners—far more squarely than to SBI pensioners, who would require a separate administrative direction from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) for extension of equivalent benefits.
3. THE SPECIFIC VULNERABILITY OF e-SBM PENSIONERS
While the legal framework of CA 7993/2023 covers us squarely in principle, a specific structural vulnerability exists for e-SBM pensioners that could render even a favourable judgment practically unenforceable unless proactively addressed. This concern is three-fold:
3.1 Non-Amendment of the e-SBM Pension Regulations
The Associate Bank of Mysore Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 were notified on 23rd March 1996 and have not been formally amended even once thereafter. The Karnataka High Court, in its order dated 08th March 2012, found it necessary to censure the State Bank of Mysore and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per petitioner for this very failure. SBI, as the successor entity, has inherited this regulatory vacuum.
If the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in CA 7993/2023 directs updation "in accordance with the prevailing Pension Regulations," SBI may contend that the regulatory machinery for implementing updation for e-SBM pensioners does not exist — since the governing regulations have never been updated or aligned with subsequent bipartite settlements. This could effectively exclude us from the benefit of the judgment, notwithstanding our being legally covered by its ratio.
3.2 The Question of SBI's Successor Liability
Upon merger of the Associate Banks with SBI on 1st April 2017, SBI assumed full responsibility for the pension obligations of e-AB (including e-SBM) pensioners. However, SBI continues to operate two distinct pension frameworks—one under the SBI Act (for its own pre-merger employees) and one under the 1995 Pension Regulations (for e-AB pensioners). Any ambiguity in a Supreme Court order could be exploited by SBI to apply the judgment only to one category and not the other.
3.3 Risk of Being Left Out of Article 142 Relief
In the event the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to mould the relief—as it is competent to do—and issues directions for pension updation across all PSB pensioners, there is a risk that e-SBM pensioners may be overlooked unless their category is explicitly brought to the Court's attention. The original petition was filed by PNB retirees, and e-AB pensioners are not named parties. Without specific mention, the order may be read as applying to nationalised bank pensioners stricto sensu, potentially leaving e-AB pensioners in a regulatory grey zone.
4. SPECIFIC REQUESTS TO THE COMMUNE
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the Commune to take up the following actions with the requisite urgency, particularly before the next hearing on 22nd July 2026:
1. Formal Representation to AIBPARC/CBPRO:
The Commune may formally write to the All India Bank Pensioners' and Retirees' Confederation (AIBPARC) and the Confederation of Bank Pensioner and Retiree Organisations (CBPRO)—the umbrella bodies coordinating the litigation—to ensure that the specific concerns of e-SBM/e-AB pensioners are placed on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, either through the existing petitioners' counsel or through an appropriate intervention application.
2. Prayer for Explicit Inclusion in Court Orders:
The Commune may request that any final order or direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court explicitly covers all pensioners drawing pension under Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995, including those of erstwhile Associate Banks of SBI, and directs SBI to implement updation for e-AB pensioners through appropriate regulatory amendments.
3. Advocacy for Regulatory Rectification:
The Commune may initiate a parallel representation to SBI's Central Board and to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), Ministry of Finance, seeking immediate amendment of the Associate Bank of Mysore Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 to bring them into alignment with the provisions applicable to other nationalised bank pensioners—so that the regulatory machinery for implementing any updation order exists and is operational.
4. Legal Opinion:
The Commune may consider obtaining an independent legal opinion on whether e-SBM pensioners would be automatically covered by any favorable order in CA 7993/2023, and if not, what steps—including filing an intervention petition or a separate writ—may be necessary to secure our entitlements.
5. Communication to the Membership:
The Commune may issue a clear and informative communication to all e-SBM pensioner members explaining the procedural status of CA 7993/2023 (which is listed for hearing on 22nd July 2026 and is not yet reserved for judgment), and the specific concerns outlined in this representation, so that the membership is accurately informed and can extend their support.
5. CONCLUSION
The petition in CA 7993/2023 represents the culmination of eighteen years of legal effort by bank pensioners across the country. For e-SBM pensioners, the stakes are particularly high—not only because we share the common grievance of pension stagnation since retirement, but because the regulatory peculiarities of our situation could, without timely intervention, result in our exclusion from the very relief that our legal framework entitles us to.
I have full confidence in the Commune's commitment to protecting its members' interests and trust that this representation will receive the earnest consideration it merits.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sanjay J.
Satyanarayana Rao
I am confident that Our Commune leadership will not miss the long awaited justice and take care of the alert message sent by Sri Sanjay with right earnest and abundant caution.
Pl clarify the status and legal process of content of the alarm alert alert communication and step and stand of our commune to protect the benefits of Sri Singla ji Case favourable verdict in favour of pension updation.
With 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAP9-UeJkysvH3pvUadh8ezYk_FOd2xEViNXEP1bMZM%2BEmMJkiA%40mail.gmail.com.
Niranjan Cn
Dear Sanjay sir,
Your post evoking response even from the leaders of associations and congratulate for your efforts. AI can be used for culling out the facts and only after understanding the output to the actual position – with suitable changes it has to be posted. Our posts should not become GIGO . The posts should be a clarification or genunine question in best interest of the fellow pensioners. All questions/discussions are welcome for a healthy debate. Thanks again MR. Sanjay for making an opportunity for me – to put my thoughts across the issues raised by you. I am sure SBM Retiree union will respond – appropriately.
ALL POINTS ARE SPECIFICALLY ANSWERED UNDER REMARKS – MARKED IN RED
Niranjan
Ex Canara
Subject: Formal Representation Regarding Differential Applicability of the Pension Updation Prayer in CA No. 7993/2023 (M.C. Singla vs. Union of India) to Erstwhile State Bank of Mysore (e-SBM) Pensioners — Request for Urgent Organisational Intervention.
Respected Sir,
1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
I write this representation to bring to the urgent attention of the Commune a critical legal and regulatory concern: the differential manner in which a favourable judgment in CA No. 7993/2023 (M.C. Singla vs. Union of India) would operate — or may fail to operate — for e-SBM pensioners, as compared to mainstream SBI pensioners.
As we are aware, the next hearing in this matter is scheduled for 22nd July 2026, before the Hon'ble bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. At this critical juncture, it is imperative that the Commune take cognisance of the structural vulnerability particular to our category of pensioners.
2. THE CORE LEGAL ISSUE — TWO DISTINCT REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
The pension updation case in CA 7993/2023 rests on three foundational instruments:
(i) Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th October 1993;
(ii) Regulation 56 of the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995; and
(iii) Minutes of the Small Committee Meeting dated 26th March 1994.
These instruments govern the pension of nationalised bank employees and, by extension, erstwhile Associate Bank employees (including e-SBM employees), under the respective adapted Pension Regulations of 1995. Our pension entitlement flows directly from this framework.
SBI pensioners, by contrast, are governed by a parallel and entirely separate legal framework — the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Regulations 2014, rooted in the State Bank of India Act 1955 — which predates the 1993 Bipartite Settlement and is independent of the IBA negotiation mechanism that produced Clause 12.
Accordingly, the ratio of any judgment in CA 7993/2023, if based on Clause 12 of the 1993 MOS or Regulation 56 of the 1995 Regulations, will have direct and immediate applicability to e-SBM pensioners—far more squarely than to SBI pensioners, who would require a separate administrative direction from the Department of Financial Services (DFS) for extension of equivalent benefits.
REMARKS : All the above three points are discussed and judgements are given duly explaining. Please provide any counters/explanations – why the High Court has errored in their judgement duly discussing the above points (which you have mentioned). Singlas case is an appeal, one has to address the issues raised in judgement to proceed further. Talking in air or generating points using AI will not serve any purpose. There will be more misguidance/misinformation spread if one uses AI – without understanding the context of the case or its background.
3. THE SPECIFIC VULNERABILITY OF e-SBM PENSIONERS
While the legal framework of CA 7993/2023 covers us squarely in principle, a specific structural vulnerability exists for e-SBM pensioners that could render even a favourable judgment practically unenforceable unless proactively addressed. This concern is three-fold:
3.1 Non-Amendment of the e-SBM Pension Regulations
The Associate Bank of Mysore Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 were notified on 23rd March 1996 and have not been formally amended even once thereafter. The Karnataka High Court, in its order dated 08th March 2012, found it necessary to censure the State Bank of Mysore and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- per petitioner for this very failure. SBI, as the successor entity, has inherited this regulatory vacuum.
If the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in CA 7993/2023 directs updation "in accordance with the prevailing Pension Regulations," SBI may contend that the regulatory machinery for implementing updation for e-SBM pensioners does not exist — since the governing regulations have never been updated or aligned with subsequent bipartite settlements. This could effectively exclude us from the benefit of the judgment, notwithstanding our being legally covered by its ratio.
REMARKS : Sir have you read the amendments ? Whether any material difference it will make ?? Can explain how the benefits will flow to pensioners after amendment ?? Please read Regulation 35(1) alongwith Appendix 1 and explain how it can be implemented.
3.2 The Question of SBI's Successor Liability
Upon merger of the Associate Banks with SBI on 1st April 2017, SBI assumed full responsibility for the pension obligations of e-AB (including e-SBM) pensioners. However, SBI continues to operate two distinct pension frameworks—one under the SBI Act (for its own pre-merger employees) and one under the 1995 Pension Regulations (for e-AB pensioners). Any ambiguity in a Supreme Court order could be exploited by SBI to apply the judgment only to one category and not the other.
REMARKS : There is already an occasion, where SBI tried to exploited the situation, which made them to provide ‘unconditional apology to the Supreme Court’. If they try again – there are enough grounds to hit them back. Please be through with legal matters/judgements .
3.3 Risk of Being Left Out of Article 142 Relief
In the event the Hon'ble Supreme Court exercises its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to mould the relief—as it is competent to do—and issues directions for pension updation across all PSB pensioners, there is a risk that e-SBM pensioners may be overlooked unless their category is explicitly brought to the Court's attention. The original petition was filed by PNB retirees, and e-AB pensioners are not named parties. Without specific mention, the order may be read as applying to nationalised bank pensioners stricto sensu, potentially leaving e-AB pensioners in a regulatory grey zone.
REMARKS : Already Supreme Court has not considered request of Article 142 Relief several times in the case. Latest being the AIBOA case. Never quote Article 142 Relief – without understanding its relevance/veracity, etc.
4. SPECIFIC REQUESTS TO THE COMMUNE
In light of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the Commune to take up the following actions with the requisite urgency, particularly before the next hearing on 22nd July 2026:
1. Formal Representation to AIBPARC/CBPRO:
The Commune may formally write to the All India Bank Pensioners' and Retirees' Confederation (AIBPARC) and the Confederation of Bank Pensioner and Retiree Organisations (CBPRO)—the umbrella bodies coordinating the litigation—to ensure that the specific concerns of e-SBM/e-AB pensioners are placed on record before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, either through the existing petitioners' counsel or through an appropriate intervention application.
REMRKS : If AIBPARC/CBPRO – can take care of SBI Pensioners who are not party to the BPS/Pension Settlement/35(!)/RBI Formula. Please request AIBPARC/CBPRO – first take care of their members at SBI and other banks. That may be appropriate suggestion one can make to CBPRO.
2. Prayer for Explicit Inclusion in Court Orders:
The Commune may request that any final order or direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court explicitly covers all pensioners drawing pension under Bank Employees' Pension Regulations 1995, including those of erstwhile Associate Banks of SBI, and directs SBI to implement updation for e-AB pensioners through appropriate regulatory amendments.
REMARKS : Please refer to the remarks above.
3. Advocacy for Regulatory Rectification:
The Commune may initiate a parallel representation to SBI's Central Board and to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), Ministry of Finance, seeking immediate amendment of the Associate Bank of Mysore Employees' Pension Regulations 1995 to bring them into alignment with the provisions applicable to other nationalised bank pensioners—so that the regulatory machinery for implementing any updation order exists and is operational.
REMARKS : The amendments done in Regulations in 35(!) in other banks have not provided any benefits to pensioners of the respective banks. This has been amply explained in the Canara Bank Pensioners – updation case at Karnataka. Please read the judgements, before suggesting anything. NEVER ATTEMPT TO MISGUIDE gulliable fellow pensioners.
4. Legal Opinion:
The Commune may consider obtaining an independent legal opinion on whether e-SBM pensioners would be automatically covered by any favorable order in CA 7993/2023, and if not, what steps—including filing an intervention petition or a separate writ—may be necessary to secure our entitlements.
REMARKS : Already explained the applicability of amendement. Wait for the judgement – which will answer all the queries. Please explain how the CA 7993/2023 – can provide benefits to SBI ?? Any explanations ? Any explanations from CBPRO ??
5. Communication to the Membership:
The Commune may issue a clear and informative communication to all e-SBM pensioner members explaining the procedural status of CA 7993/2023 (which is listed for hearing on 22nd July 2026 and is not yet reserved for judgment), and the specific concerns outlined in this representation, so that the membership is accurately informed and can extend their support.
REMARKS : I am reading the ‘Shatayu’ published by SBM pensioners Assn – periodically explained the issues/concerns of pensioners in details with examples, truth, and facts. Kindly rquest CBPRO – to explain their members the truth with facts . That may be best thing one can do to help fellow pensioners.
5. CONCLUSION
The petition in CA 7993/2023 represents the culmination of eighteen years of legal effort by bank pensioners across the country. For e-SBM pensioners, the stakes are particularly high—not only because we share the common grievance of pension stagnation since retirement, but because the regulatory peculiarities of our situation could, without timely intervention, result in our exclusion from the very relief that our legal framework entitles us to.
REMARKS : Any attempt to create confusion and misguide the fellow pensioners are deplorable. SBM Pensioners union is the only one who fought the case in Supreme Court through contempt case got the benefits to its members. They are legally knowledgeable / connected and have the required experience to deal the court cases. There is no need to worry about any of the concerns expressed and be rest assured that – interest of the pensioners are well taken care and this has been proved on earlier occasions.
I have full confidence in the Commune's commitment to protecting its members' interests and trust that this representation will receive the earnest consideration it merits.
REQUEST : SIR, kindly never make any attempt to confuse and misinform the fellow pensioners without understanding the case or its legal background. Already fellow pensioners are aged and having several health issues and it is responsibility of any one not to create confusion/anxiety by spreading misinformation or half truths or gossips. Kindly abstain from spreading misinformation.
I AM SURE BETTER SENSE WILL PREVAIL AND ONCE AGAIN REQUESTING NOT MAKE COMMENTS/COMMUNICATE WITHOUT FACTS /LEGAL POSITION /REALITY. ANY GOOD SUGGESTION IS WELCOME IN BEST INTEREST OF THE FELLOW PENSIONERS EVEN IN OTHER BANKS.
Yours friendly,
Niranjan
Ex Canara
--
Prasad C N
Satyanarayana Rao
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/198448760.3071925.1779701139417%40mail.yahoo.com.
Srinivasan Badri
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/909798259.2978473.1779957832238%40mail.yahoo.com.