mahesh agrawal

unread,

Sep 11, 2010, 11:05:55 PM9/11/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

COURT CASE AT JAIPUR

It has been reported that All India Bank Employees PF Optees Forum,
registered as a society, has filed a WP before the Hon'ble Rajasthan
High Court-Jaipur bench. The case is listed as civil writ CW 11861/2010
on 27.08.2010

The petitioners have also sought a stay of operation of Clause No. 32 of
the workmen BPS and clause no, 20 of the Officers Joint Note, vide their
CMS 4964/2010.

Interim relief is to be considered after service of notices to the
respondents, which include all the UFBU constituents (officers & workmen)
besides the IBA, GoI and a few of the banks. The case has been posted for
next hearing on 23.10.2010

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION / AFFIDAVIT

lionmoreshwar bhalerao

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 4:14:58 AM9/12/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Mr. Manish Agrawl,

the WP file sent with your mail could not be opned bycliking on the icon,

please attached the same as word document or pdf file.

Thanks

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

mahesh agrawal

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 5:52:29 AM9/12/10

to lionmsb...@gmail.com, bankpe...@googlegroups.com

pls see allbankingsolutions.com
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 14:40:09 +0530 wrote

>Mr. Manish Agrawl,
the WP file sent with your mail could not be opned bycliking on the
icon,
please attached the same as word document or pdf file.
Thanks

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:35 AM, mahesh agrawal

wrote:

COURT CASE AT JAIPUR

It has been reported that All India Bank Employees PF Optees Forum,
registered as a society, has filed a WP before the Hon'ble Rajasthan

High Court-Jaipur bench. The case is listed as civil writ CW 11861/2010
on 27.08.2010

The petitioners have also sought a stay of operation of Clause No. 32
of
the workmen BPS and clause no, 20 of the Officers Joint Note, vide
their

CMS 4964/2010.

Interim relief is to be considered after service of notices to the
respondents, which include all the UFBU constituents (officers &
workmen)
besides the IBA, GoI and a few of the banks. The case has been posted
for

next hearing on 23.10.2010

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION / AFFIDAVIT

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

--
>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "bankpensioner" group.
>
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
>

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.
>

Bajrang Lal Choudhary

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 6:50:13 AM9/12/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Please be alert…. Please be alert.

Dear Sirs,
I am a little offbeat, and many of the members may already knowing these but in my view it is important for those who not yet know these facts. So, I with the humble permission of all as well as the blog Manager, narrate the following with a request to give it a wide publicity-

A gang of culprits operating from an unknown place is doing this action. They make a call, Suppose you are a BSNL consumer, they will call from a mobile similar to that used by BSNL for such purposes and tell that I am speaking Engineer or Technician from BSNL fault control office and this number has got a problem. Please follow my instructions to rectify the fault. He will tell you to press 3 or 4 keys on your handset at small intervals like, now press1, now press A, now press 2, now press B and so on. After the call is ended you will see that the balance in your account is 00.00. Your total balance will be transferred to the culprit’s account. Some times he will not take the balance but he will take a copy of your SIM Card(Called the clone). This clone will serve as like your own sim card. All the calls made by him will be debited to your account. In such case besides the financial loss, you will be legally responsible for all calls and messages sent by him or any damages caused thereof to any body. In some cases the complete handsets have become useless and irreparable.

Some times you will receive an SMS from a number similar to your service provider saying your hand set has developed an error in software and it has been rectified, please restart your hand set. Kindly be alert and never restart and better to contact your service provider.

This is not limited to BSNL only. I have used BSNL as an example only. These things are happening in every service like Vodafone, airtel, Tata Indicom, Idea, Reliance and all other services without the knowledge of the service providers but in all cases the number from which the call has been initiated will be similar to those used by that particular service provider.

The following information received from one of my friend is also sent forthose members who not yet know these. Please note that these points are applicable to NOKIA hand sets only-
1) Emergency number the Emergency Number worldwide for Mobile is 112. If you find yourself out of coverage area of your mobile network and there is an emergency, dial 112and the mobile will search any existing network to establish the emergency number for you, and interestingly …this number 112 can be dialed even while the keypad is locked. Try it out.
2) Locked the keys in the car? Your car has remote keys? This may come in handy someday. Good reason to own a cell phone: If you happen to lock your keys in the car and the spare keys are home, call someone on your cell phone. Hold your cell phone about a foot from your car door and have the other person at your home press the unlock button, holding it near the phone on their end. Your car will unlock.Saves someone from having to drive your keys to you.Distance is no object. You could be hundreds of miles away, and if you can reach someone who has the other “remote” for your car, you can unlock the doors (or the trunk).Editor’s Note: *It works fine! We tried it out and it unlocked our car over a cell phone!”
3) Hidden Battery power imagine your cell battery is very low, u r expecting an important call and u don’t have a charger. Nokia instrument comes with reserve battery. To activate, press the keys *3370#Your cell will restart with this reserve and the instrument will show 50% increase in battery. This reserve will get charged when u charge your cell next time.
4) How to disable a STOLEN mobile phone? To check your Mobile phone’s serial number, key in the following digits on your phone:
* # 0 6 # A 15 digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it somewhere safe. when your phone get stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won’t get your phone back, but at least you know that whoever stole it can’t use/sell it either.
5) Be careful while using your mobile phone When you try to call someone through mobile phone,don’t put your mobile closer to your ears until the recipient answers. Because directly after dialling, the mobile phone would use it’s maximum signalling power, which is: 2 watts = 33dbi, Plz Be Careful, Message as received (Save your brain) Please use left ear while using cell (mobile), because if you use the right one it will affect brain directly. This is a true fact.

6) To Know the brief details of a NOKIA Phone press “*#0000#”.

7) To Know the detailed information of a NOKIA Phone press “*#92702689#”. Please note that after this command you will have to shutoff and restart your NOKIA Phone.

With Regards,

B L Choudhary

sundararaajan seshan

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 9:12:42 AM9/12/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Dear Mr. Bajrang Lal Choudhary,

I am regularly following up our blog. Thank you for your kind advises / suggestions in this blog with regard to bank pension matters and other such matters which We are all interested / which may affect us if we are not careful enough in our activities.

Pleas guide us in all such matters thanks once again

Sundararajan S

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To post to this group, send an email to bankpe...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bankpensioner?hl=en-GB.

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3129 - Release Date: 09/12/10 00:04:00

Rajiv Suri

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 10:04:44 AM9/12/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Thanks for the Information.

Rajiv Suri

Bajrang Lal Choudhary

unread,

Sep 12, 2010, 11:07:15 AM9/12/10

to bankpe...@googlegroups.com

Dear sirs,

The Complete text of the writ petetion filed at Rajasthan High Court jaipur is given below.

B L Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. _____/2010

IN

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ______/2010

1. All Bank Employees PF optees Societies through its Secretary R.P. Purohit S/o V.N. Purohit, aged around 57 years, R/o 2/297, Vidydhar Nagar, Jaipur. Presently working as Dy. Manager, SBBJ LCPC, SMS Highway, Jaipur.

2. P.K. Mohanty S/o late Shri Nityanand Mohanty, aged around 50 years, R/o A-14 SBBJ Officers Flat, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. Presently working as Chief Manager, SBBJ, Head Office, Jaipur.

3. Lalit Kumar Sharma S/o late Shri Ramji Lal Sharma, aged around 48 years, R/o C-196, Shashtri Nagar, Jodhpur. Presently working as Dy. Manager, SBBJ, Reg-3, 20, Jodhpur.

4. Gopal Lal Morya S/o Shri Dhanna Lal Morya, aged around 48 years, R/o 4/43, Jagannath Puri, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. Presently working as Officer, Central Bank of India, Amer, Jaipur.

5. Arvind Pareek S/o Shri Durga Prasad Pareek, Aged around 54 years, R/o C-25 Vikas Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur. Presently working as Officer, The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Mansarovar Branch, Jaipur.

6. Umesh Papdiwal S/o late Shri Nathu Lalji Papdiwal, aged around 50 years, R/o 2363, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta IInd Cross, Johri Bazar, Jaipur. Presently working as C.T.O., Bank of Baroda, 22 Godown, Jaipur.

7. Ravi Yadav S/o Karan Singh Yadav, aged around 46 years, R/o 87, Vivek Vihar, Sodala, Jaipur. Presently working as Computer Operator, Union Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Jaipur.

8. Ashok Kumar Papdiwal S/o late Shri Surajmal Papdiwal, aged around 57 years, R/o A-286, Triveni Nagar, Jaipur. Presently working as C.T.O., Syndicate Bank, Sethi Colony, Jaipur.

9. Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Goverdhan Prasad Gupta, aged around 58 years, R/o 10/1195, Joshion Ka Mohalla, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Presently working as Officer, Syndicate Bank, Ser Branch, Jaipur.

10. Satish Sharma S/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, aged around 42 years, R/o 367-A, Rajni Vihar, Hirapura, Jaipur. Presently working as C.T.O. Punjab National Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

11. Thawar Mal S/o late Shri Udmi Ram, aged around 54 years, R/o B-84, Budh Vihar, Alwar. Presently working as Officer in Punjab National

Bank, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

12. Sudhir Miglani S/o Suraj Prakash Miglani, aged around 52 years, R/o 312, Raja Park, Gali No.6, Jaipur, Presently working as Special Assistant, UCO Bank, Jawahar Naga, Jaipur.

13. Rajendra Kumar S/o Manphool Singh, aged around 45 years, R/o House No.50, Near Ram Nagar, Goner Road, Jaipur. Presently working

as Head Cashier, UCO Bank, Agra Road, Jaipur.

14. Ashok Chhabra S/o Late Shri Trilok Chand Jain, aged around 56 years, R/o 329, Sindhi Colony, Near Jain Hospital, Jaipur. Presently working as Special Assistant, Bank of India, Sanganer

15. Rama Kant Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, aged around 61 years, R/o 65/341, Ganga Marg, V.T. Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur. Retired from SBBJ, Jaipur.

…………PETITIONERS

Versus

1. Union of India represented by Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), Government of India, New Delhi.

2. Indian Banks Association represented by its Chairman, World Trade Centre, 6th Floor, Centre I, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005.

3. UCO Bank represented by its Chairman, 10, B.T.M., Sarani, Kolkata – 700001.

4. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Office Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

5. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Head Office Patel Marg, `C’ Scheme, Jaipur.

6. Central Bank of India, Head Office Chandra Mukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

7. Bank of Baroda, Corporate Centre, C-26, Block Bnadra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai –400051.

8. Union Bank, Head Office, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

9. Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manpal – 576104(Karnatka).

10. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066.

11. Bank of India, Head Office, Star Home, C-5, 6-Block, Bandra Parla Complex, Bandar East, Mumbai – 400051.

12. All India Bank Employees Association represented by its General Secretary, Singapore Plaza, 164, Linghi Chetty Street,Chennai – 600001.

13. National Confederation of Bank Employees, represented by its General Secretary C/o State Bank of India – LHI, 3rd Floor, Bhadra, Lal Dharwaja, Ahmedabad – 380001.

14. Bank Employees’ Federation of India (BEFI), represented by its General Secretary, Naresh Paul Centre, 53, Radha Bazar Lane (First Floor), Kolkata – 700001.

15. Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation (INBEF) represented by its General Secretary, Bajaj Bhawan-1 Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.

16. National Organisation of Bank Workers’ (NOBW), represented by its General Secretary, Ram Naresh Bhawan, Tilak Gali, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi – 110 055.

17. All India Bank Officers’ Confederation (AIBOC), State Bank Building, St. Marks Road, Banglore 560001.

18. All India Bank Officers’ Association (AIBOA), A.K. Nayak Bhawan, 14 IInd Line Beach, IInd Floor, Behind G.P.O., Chennai – 600001.

19. Indian National Bank Officers (Congress) C/o Bank of Baroda, Billard Teir Tort, Mumbai.

20. National Organisation of Bank Officers, Kasturi Samerpeet, Pune.

………RESPONDENTS

SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 14 & 39 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF SBBJ BANK (EMPLOYEES’) PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF 9th BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT ON WAGES AND OTHER SERVICE CONDITIONS

AND

SETTLEMENT ON PENSION DATED 27.4.2010 ENTERED BETWEEN INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE DIFFERENT 46 Banks & UNITED FORUM OF BANK UNIONS REPRESENTING WORKMEN OF THE MEMBER BANKS.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF JOINT NOTE DATED 27.4.2010 ON PENSION SIGNED BETWEEN THE IBA & OFFICERS UNIONS REPRESENTING OFFICERS OF THE MEMBERS BANKS.

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other

companion Judges of the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench,

Jaipur.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS :

The humble petitioners above named most respectfully submit this writ petition as under :-

1. That the petitioners are citizens of India. Hence, they are competent to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. That the petitioner No.1 is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act, 1958 having registration No.254/2010-11 and is represented by its Secretary. Petitioner No.2 to 15 are in the category of officers and workmen of different Banks. All the petitioners are aggrieved by insertion of clause No.32 of the 9th Bipartite Settlement on Wages and Other Service Conditions and Settlement on Pension dated 27.4.2010 entered between the employers and the workmen and clause No.20 of Joint Note in respect of officers. The representatives of employers, who signed the above settlement were authorized on behalf of Indian Banks’ Association and the workmen represented by five Unions viz. All India Bank Employees’ Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Bank Employees Federation of India, National Organisation of Bank workers and Indian National Bank Employees Federation, as also four Officers Associations. The representatives of the Management are from 46 banks, names of which have been mentioned in Schedule appended to the settlement. Para 32 of the settlement is on the subject “another option for pension” (in Banks other than State Bank of India). Para 32 of the settlement incorporate condition that the employees of the Bank, who are in service of the Bank as on 27.4.2010 and who exercised option to join Pension Scheme in accordance with settlement dated 27.4.2010 will contribute towards pension fund at the rate of 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November, 2007. The share of such employees in the pension fund would be an amount of Rs.878 crores in respect of

workmen and Rs.922 crores in case of Officers. Thus, the total share of the employees amounting to Rs.1800 crores, who are in service of the total 46 banks which are member of IBA. In addition to above, retired employees have also been burdened with 935 crores by receiving from them 156% of the amount which they received at the time of retirement. Para 32 of the settlement reads

as under:-

“32. Another Option for Pension (in Banks other than State Bank of India) Workmen employees in the service of the bank as on 27th April 2010 and who exercise their option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of the Settlement dated 27th April 2010 will contribute from their arrears on account

of wage revision in terms of this Settlement an amount of Rs.878 crores towards their share in case of workmen and Rs.922 crores in case of officers in the amount of Rs.1800 crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs.6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007.”

3. That the settlement on pension was signed by Indian Banks Association (representing 58 member Banks) and their workmen represented by All India Bank Employees’ Association and other unions on 29.10.1993 in which decision was taken to introduce and implement pension for the bank employees. Prior to the above settlement, service conditions of the employees in the Bank (other than State Bank of India) did not provide pension on retirement from service and the employees were getting the benefit of contributory provident fund. Having entered

into an agreement on 29th October, 1993 with the workers and officers of the Banks’ Associations, a separate Joint Note was also initiated with the representatives of the officers’ Association for introduction of pension as retirement benefit. In the said Settlement as well as in the Joint Note, decision was taken to implement the provision of pension as retirement benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. As a consequence of the said Settlement and Joint Note referred to above, a scheme incorporating applicability, qualifying service, amount and classes of pension including commutation of pension, family pension and other guidelines were framed. These guidelines have been framed in consultation of Reserve Bank of India and with prior approval of Union of India in the month of September, 1995. The pension regulations, so framed, were notified in the official gazette of India by all the nationalized banks and the associate Banks of State Bank of India. Thus, the decision taken in the Settlement and Joint

Note became Regulations by way of supporting legislation. The Pension Regulations, so framed, were amended from time to time. The Pension Regulations framed by different natioalised Banks, associate Banks are similar. The SBBJ framed regulations titled as SBBJ Bank (Employees’) Pensions Regulations, 1995. These regulations were framed in exercise of power conferred by Section 19(2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. These regulations hereinafter shall be referred as “Pension Regulations, 1995”. Regulation 5 which is part of Chapter-III of the Regulations of 1995 provides that the Bank shall constitute a fund to be called by SBBJ (Employees) Pension Fund under an irrevocable trust within 120 days from the notified date. Regulation 5(2) of these regulations provides that fund shall have for its sole purpose the provision of payment of pension or family pension in accordance with Regulations of 1995 to the employees or his family. Regulation 5(3) provides that the Bank shall be a contributor to the Fund and shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under these regulations. Regulation 6 of these Regulations provides that Provident Fund Trust shall immediately transfer its accumulated balance of the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon upto the date of such transfer in respect of every employee, to the newly created Bank Employees Pension Fund constituted under Regulation 5 of the Regulations of 1995. Regulation 7 of these Regulations make provision regarding

composition of the fund. Regulation 7 enumerate 8 different heads for composition

of pension fund. These components of the Pension Fund are the contribution by the Bank at the rate of 10% per month of the pay of the employee. Regulation 5, 6 & 7 are reproduced hereinbelow :-

“5. Constitution of the Fund-

1) The Bank shall constitute a Fund to be called the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees’) Pension Fund under an irrevocable trust within one hundred twenty days from the notified date.

2) The fund shall have for its sole purpose the provisions of the payment of pension or family pension in accordance with these regulations to the employee or his family.

3) The Bank shall be a contributor to the Fund and shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to beneficiaries under these regulations.”

“6. Liability of the Provident Fund Trust - The Provident Fund shall, immediately after the constitution of the Fund, transfer to the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Employees’) Pension Fund the accumulated balance of the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon upto the date of such transfer in respect of every employee, who exercise their option for pension.”

“7. Composition of the Fund – The Fund shall consist of the following, namely –

I. the contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten percent per month of the pay of

the employee;

II. the accumulated contributions of the Bank to the Provident Fund and interest

accrued thereon upto the date of such transfer in respect of the employees;

III. the amount consisting of contributions of the Bank alongwith interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension

in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations;

IV. the investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;

V. amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund;

VI. the additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these regulations;

VII. any income from investments of the amounts credited to the Fund;

VIII. the amount consisting of contribution of the Bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.

4. That Chapter-IV of the Regulations of 1995 is on the subject “qualifying ervice”.

According to Regulation 14, qualifying service for pension is 10 years of service ubject to other conditions contained in these regulations which commence from the date, the employee takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on permanent basis. Regulation 22 (1) of the Regulations of 1995 put a restriction on qualifying service and provides that resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service. Consequently such an employee shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Regulation 22(2) puts a restriction and provides that an interruption in the service of bank employee entail forfeiture of his past qualifying service to be reckoned for pension. Regulation 22(4) sub-clause (b) provides that nothing in clause (a) of Regulation 22 (4) (a) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation in a strike provided that before making entry in the service record of the Bank employee regarding forfeiture of past service because of participation in the strike, an opportunity of representation may be given to such Bank employees. The above regulations are para materia to the regulations framed by different nationalized Banks and Associate Banks of S.B.I. in conformity with the Agreement, Settlement and Joint Note dated 29.10.1993. That on 27.3.2000 another Memorandum of Settlement was entered between the Management of 55 (“A” class) Banks as represented by Indian Banks’ Association and their workmen and officers represented by United Forum of Bank Unions consisting of various association and federation of Banks’ workmen and officers. In the above settlement, the regulation regarding pension fund remained unchanged.

5. That in the Pension Regulations of 1995, chance of exercising option was given to the retired employee of the bank and to families of the bank employee, who died, who were in service as on 29.9.1995 (date of notification). According to Regulations, regulations were made applicable upon three categories of employees i.e.

(1)(a) employees who were in service of the of the Bank on or after 1.1.1986, but

had retired before 1.11.1993.

(b) employees who exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become member of the fund.

(c) persons from category - a & b, who refund within 60 days after expiry of 120 days of option indicated in category-b above, the entire amount of Banks’ contribution to the provident fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest from the date of withdrawal of provident fund amount till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank.

(2)(a) employees who have retired on or after 1.11.1993 before the notified date i.e. 29.9.1995.

(b) exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date i.e. 29.9.1995 and refund within 60 days of the expiry of 120 days from the notified date the entire amount of banks’ contribution towards Provident Fund including interest therein with a further simple interest from the date of withdrawal from PF till the date of refund.

3(a) are in service of the bank before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the bank on or after the notified date.

(b) exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become a member of the Fund.

(c) authorize the trust of the provident fund of the Bank to transfer the entire fund of the Bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund constituted under Regulation 5.

(4) join the service of the bank on or after the notified date. The four categories of the bank employees mentioned above include retired employees, which have been sub-divided in two categories based on the date of retirement, the serving employees and the employee who would join the bank services after the notified date. Apart from above category of employees, fifth category was also provided i.e. families of the deceased bank employee. Such families were also given chance to exercise option for pension on the condition similar to that of retired employees.

6. That Regulation 11 of the Regulations of 1995 provides that Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by Actuary into the financial condition of the Fund as on 31^st March of each financial year and shall make such additional annual contribution to the Fund as may be required to secure payment of the benefits under these Regulations. These Regulations provided that the Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial conditions of the Fund as on 31st March immediately following the financial year in which fund is constituted. Thus, according to Regulation 11, the Pension Fund shall be under investigation of Actuary and the additional fund, if required, shall be contributed by the bank itself.

7. That Regulation 11 of the Regulations of 1995 do not provide for contribution of

employees to ensure and secure payment of the benefits of pension to the employees under these regulations.

8. That under the Regulations of 1995 based on the Settlement and Joint Note dated 29.10.1993, the employees who opt for pension are required to surrender only the Banks’ contribution towards provident fund along with the interest accrued thereon till the date, funds are transferred from the Provident Fund to Pension Fund.

9. That in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Regulation of 1995 past service rendered can be forfeited in the circumstances stipulated in Regulation 22. Regulation 22(4) sub-clause

(a) provides that in absence of specific indication to the contrary in the service record an interruption between two spells of service rendered by a Bank employee shall be treated as automatically condoned and preinterruption service shall be treated as qualifying service, but this condition will not apply in case of interruption on account of resignation, dismissal or removal from service or on account of participation in a strike. Thus, apart from resignation, dismissal and

removal, participation in a strike also resulted in forfeiture of past services rendered before the strike and during the period of strike.

10. That in pursuance of the Pension Regulations of 1995, number of employees opted for pension. Such employees surrendered the Banks’ contribution to the Provident Fund along with interest accrued thereon for depositing the same in the Pension Fund. Such employees were never ever asked, forced and directed to contribute any sum above the Banks’ PF contribution and interest earned on it for Pension Fund.

11. That in Banking industry service condition of workmen are settled through bipartite settlements which are negotiated and entered through associations. In case of officers also, Joint Notes are signed by unions representing officers. For exercising power and right of collective bargaining call of real or symbolic strikes are also given. Thus, association with union has assumed important of high nature in the Bank service.

12. That large number of employees did not opt for pension because of the fear that in case they participate in ensuing strikes their past service would not be reckoned for payment of pension because of Clause 22 of the said Pension Regulations. Even in some Banks revocation of pension options was allowed and a large section of employees withdrew from pension scheme and decided to come in CPF scheme.

13. That after the Pension Regulations of 1995 were framed, the wages of the Bank employees underwent change by way of wage revisions in the year 1999-2000 and thereafter in 2005. Thus, pay revisions were agreed by Bipartite Settlements. The Bipartite Settlement entered in 1999-2000 is known as 7th Bipartite Settlement whereas Bipartite Settlements of the year 2005 is known as 8th Bipartite Settlement

14. That in the 7th Bipartite Settlement i.e. settlement of the year 1999-2000, it was

agreed that a share of wage revision increased shall be passed on to the Pension Fund. This proposal was made by Indian Banks’ Association and was agreed upon by the Apex Unions of different Banks, which were parties to the Settlement. Such a contribution towards pension is not provided in the Regulations of 1995.

15. That an assessment of increased cost of the pension was worked out in the above Settlement i.e. 7th Bipartite Settlement. According to the assessment, increased cost of pension was 26.5% of pay. Out of the above 26.5%, 10% was to be contributed by the Banks as statutory contribution provided in Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1995. Rest of the increased cost i.e. 16.5% was equally shared between all the employees (pension optees as well as P.F. optees) and the Banks. Thus, 8.25% of increased cost amounting to Rs.934.605 crore was shared by the employees and total share of the Bank was 18.25%.

16. That in the 8th Bipartite Settlement of the year 2005, the increased cost of pension was worked out to 28.5% which was shared both by employees and the Banks in the following manner:-

1. 10% statutory contribution of the Bank.

2. 9.25% by the employees (pension optees and PF optees both)

3. 9.25% by the Banks

Thus, total share of the Banks was 19.25%. Thus, the employees were forced to contribute 9.25% in addition to their PF contribution which amounted to Rs.1657.015 crores to the increased cost of pension contrary to the scheme of option and the Regulations of 1995.

17. That in 9th Bipartite Settlement, cost of pension was estimated 36% which was shared by employees and the Banks in the following manner:-

(i) 10% statutory contribution by the Banks.

(ii) 13% by the employees.

(iii) 13% by the Banks.

Thus, total share of the Bank was 23%.

18. That, similarly, in the 9th Bipartite Settlement the employees of the Banks have been forced to contribute 13% of pay amounting to Rs.7633.790 crores to make good the deficiency in the Pension Fund in addition to their contribution to Provident Fund i.e 10% of the pay.

19. That PF optees did not opt for pension which includes the employees who remain out of the Pension Fund on account of condition of forfeiture of past service rendered for the purpose of reckoning of pension on account of strike.

20. That it would be pertinent to mention here that the Reserve Bank of India took a liberal policy decision by extending three chances of option to the employees for exercising option for pension after introducing pension in the year 1990 for its employees, whereas, the IBA did not extend any option even after deletion of the said clause of forfeiture of past service for participating in strike.

21. That on 27.11.2009, the Indian Banks’ Association and unions of Bank employees working in Banks known as United Forum of Banks Unions and officers’ unions agreed to extend second option to be an opportunity of the pension scheme and a chance was given to the Bank employees to exercise the option for pension. Copy of the Minutes of the Discussions and Record Note of Discussions dated 27.11.2009 in which above decision was taken is submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1.

22. That on 27.4.2010, the Indian Banks’ Association and United Forum of Banks Unions entered in yet another settlement by which chance of second option was given to the employees who did not opt for pension under the Regulations of 1995. Copy of the Settlement dated 27.4.2010 is submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-2.

According to the above settlement, the employees were broadly divided in following

categories:-

1. Working employees

2. Retired employees or families of the retired employees.

(1) The working employees, who opted for pension in accordance with the Settlement would contribute from the arrears on account of wage revision an amount of Rs.878 crores in case of workmen and Rs.922 crores in case of officers. The United Forum of Banks Union agreed to share 30% of the estimated fund gap. 30% of the gap referred to above come to Rs.1800 crores. The amount of Rs.878 crores was to be paid @ 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007 for each individual workman employee.

(2)The employee, who were in service of the Bank prior to 29.9.1995 (nationalized Banks) and on 26.3.1996 (Associate Banks of SBI) and who are continuing in service of the Bank till the date of Settlement, were given chance to exercise the option in writing within 60 days from the date of such offer in favour of the pension provided. They agreed to transfer their entire contribution towards Provident Fund made by the Bank along with interest accrued thereon to Pension Fund.

23. That after the above settlement dated 27.4.2010, another settlement was entered between Indian Banks’ Association and different Apex Unions of the Banks with regard to the wages and other service conditions of the employees. The above Settlement is known as 9th Bipartite Settlement. True and correct copy of the above Settlement is submitted herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-3.

24. That according to the Settlement dated 27.4.2010, the employees to whom option has been extended to opt for pension shall have to pay 2.8 times of the revised pay of November, 2007 from the arrears payable to them on account of 9th Bipartite settlement and in addition of the Banks’ contribution to PF and the interest on such contribution.

25. That the above decision entered between the Indian Banks’ Association and the Apex Unions of different Banks has been applied to the officers of the Banks also. It may be clarified here that Associations which signed the Settlement consists of the workmen and the officers are not part of such Unions. However, by a Joint Note signed by the Officers’ Union and Bank Management on the same lines and therefore, the decision dated 27.4.2010 has become applicable on all employees of the Banks i.e. officers as well as workmen.

26. That the petitioners challenge correctness, validity and legality of Clause-32 of the 9^th Bipartite Settlement dated 27.4.2010 as well as Clause 20 of the Joint Note dated 27.4.2010 to the extent it requires contributory Provident Fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November, 2007 to the Pension Fund.

27. Being aggrieved by the 9th Bipartite Settlement to the extent it requires contribution of 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November, 2007 to become member of Pension Fund, the petitioners submit this writ petition on the following grounds amongst others without prejudice to each other :-

GROUNDS

A. Because Pensions Regulations of 1995 which are statutory Regulations do not

provide for contribution more than Provident Fund contribution of the Bank made towards the Provident Fund @ 10% of the pay. The settlement dated 27.4.2010 (Clause 32 in case of workmen and Joint Note Clause 20) is, therefore, contrary to Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1995.

B. Because the condition in Clause No.32 of the Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and the similar provision i.e. Clause 20 of the Joint Note is a drastic departure from settled practice followed in the 7th & 8th Bipartite Settlement (Bipartite are made periodically after five years in respect of wage revisions). In 7th & 8th Bipartite Settlements, who are under the pension scheme or under the provident fund scheme were required to contribute to the Pension Fund. However, in the 9^th Bipartite Settlement, the burden of funding the gap in the Pension Fund has been

shifted only upon those employees to whom second chance has been extended to opt for pension and the employees who are already in pension scheme have been left free. The employees who are under the pension scheme by virtue of option exercised by them earlier would get the benefit of pension from the Pension Fund

and they should legitimately share the funding gap of the Pension Fund. Though, they will derive the benefit of Pension Fund, but they do not share the burden of fund gap which has been entirely vested upon the new optees. Such an act is in fact amounts to payment towards pension of old optees by the new optees of the pension. Such an act is unreasonable, unjust, improper and thereby violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

C. Because even if a second change of option is not extended for pension then also the gap in the Pension Fund would remain and in such a situation, the past optees who exercised the option earlier and PF optees would have to bear the burden to fill in the funding gap or the Bank would have shouldered the burden. Thus, merely by extending a second chance of option for pension, the beneficial scheme of pension has been loaded with a clause which is unreasonable in-as-much-as the second lot of optees is being forced to contribute towards the Pension Fund from which the pension shall be paid to the optees, who exercised the option at the first instance also. Thus, the category / class of the second optees shall pay towards Pension Fund and the first optees from the wages which they would earn from month of November, 2007.

D. Because each employee who would exercise the option for pension now on account of second option would have to transfer a huge amount in between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1.50 lacs depending upon category of the employees and the sum of arrears payable on account of wage revision for a period starting from 1.11.2007 to 30.4.2010.

E. Because for the purpose of comparison, case of two identical employees in the same cadre with the same date of joining and retirement is taken and one of whom is a Pension optee and the other one is a PF optee then the PF optee will have to shell out an additional amount of anywhere between Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1.50 lacs to join the Pension Fund now, though ultimately both of them will be drawing the same amount of Pension after their retirement. If giving option on different dates is the only reason for this disparity then it is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. F. Because from time to time the Reserve Bank of India and Indian Railways have given 2nd and 3rd option to join Pension Scheme to its employees and there was no provision for transfer of any additional cost apart from employer’s contribution to Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest. Especially in the case of Railways, as a result of various improvements in the service conditions or implementation of the Pay Commission’s recommendations etc. fresh options were again allowed to the staff to join the pension scheme as these improvements had bearing on the pensionary benefits. In all 12 such options were allowed. Thus, the above provision is discriminatory. G. Because the provision of transfer of additional amount to the tune of 2.8 times

of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007 apart from Banks’ contribution to the Provident Fund Account with accrued interest is not envisaged under the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and is against the provisions of Article 309 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the operation of the provisions for transfer of 2.8 times of revised pay as of November 2007 apart from Banks’ contribution to the Provident Fund account along with accrued interest as embodied in Clause 1 and 2 of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause 32 of the 9th Bipartite Settlement dated 27.4.2010 is not quashed then a large number of employees of the Bank shall be driven out and dissuaded to exercise the option and they shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury and the same would be by way of penalty for not opting earlier.

H. Because by virtue of Regulation 7 and Regulation 11 of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, there is bsolutely no scope for the 2nd respondent to recover any amount except the Banks’ contribution of PF and interest accrued thereon, and whatever the sum of money recovered earlier from the wage revision

of individual employees in the name of bridging the Pension Fund gap is highly illegal and therefore, such amounts so deducted by the member Banks of the 2^nd Respondent have to be refunded to all such employees. I. Because the respondent Banks did not give another option for opting pension when the said Clause No.22 of Pension Regulations, 1995 was deleted by the member banks of IBA.

J. Because under the Settlement dated 27.11.2009, the employees who retired prior to this date have been termed as retired employees and they have to contribute 156% of the PF amount together with the interest which they received at the time of retirement, whereas in 1993, the employees who retired between 1986 and 1993 (i.e. dates of implementation and date of pension settlements) were not burdened with 156% load. Such employees had to pay only 6% interest on the amount of PF and interest thereon which they received at the time of retirement. This action of the respondent Banks is, therefore, discriminatory in nature.

K. Because this cost sharing concept is against the principal right of the employees to receive pension as a superannuation benefit from the budget / expenses of the employer in recognition of the unblemished service rendered by him for the Institution.

L. Because in contravention to the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1995, the member Banks of Indian Banks Association have transferred a sum of 8.25%, 9.25% and 13% of the revised pay in 7th, 8th & 9^th Settlements respectively from the

Settlement package, which was otherwise to be paid to employees of the Banks. This action of the respondent Banks is, therefore, illegal, unjust and unfair.

M. That other grounds shall be urged at the time of oral submissions.

28. That the petitioners are left with no other alternative, efficacious or speedy remedy except to approach this Hon’ble High Court under its extraordinary civil jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

29. That the petitioners have not filed any such writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Apex Court.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this writ petition and further be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to the respondents to the following nature :-

(i) By issuing writ, order or direction, the impugned Clause No.32 of Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 in case of workmen and Clause No.20 of Joint Note dated 27.4.2010 in case of officers be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By issuing writ, order or direction, the impugned orders issued by the respondents requiring the petitioner PF optees to contribute 2.8 times of their November, 2007 revised salary be quashed and set aside and the amount so deducted from the arrears paid to them on account of 9th Bipartite Settlement on wages be refunded to the petitioners. The respondents be further directed to give fresh option to opt pension without any rider or condition.

(iii) By issuing writ, order or direction, the amount which was illegally transferred to

Pension Fund in excess of 10% while implementing 7th, 8th and 9th Settlements should be refunded to the petitioners on pro-rata basis with interest.

(iv) By issuing writ, order or direction, the impugned Clause No.32 of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 requiring the retired employees to pay back to the respondents the additional amount of 156% of PF which they received together with the interest received thereon.

(v) Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.

HUMBLE PETITIONERS

Through their counsel,

(R.N. MATHUR )

(M.S. Nahar, Rishi Sharma,

Ankur Shrivastava, Amit Tanwani)

Advocates

NOTES :

1. That no such writ petition has been filed previously either before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This is as per the information gathered from the petitioners.

2. This is S.B. Civil Writ Petition as no vires of any Act, rule or notification is under challenge.

3. P.F., notices & extra sets shall be submitted with the time stipulated.

4. Pie papers are not readily available and hence stout papers have been used.

5. This writ petition has not been typed by any member of the High Court.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO………/2010

All Bank Employees PF optees Societies (Retd.) & Ors.

V/s

Union of India & Ors.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE WRIT PETITION

I, R.P. Purohit S/o V.N. Purohit, aged around 57 years, R/o 2/297, Vidhdhar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) presently working as Dy. Manager, SBBJ LCPC, SMS Highway, Jaipur, do hereby take oath and state as under:-

1. That I am the Secretary of All Bank Employees PF Optees Societies in the above noted case and have been authorized by the petitioners to swear this affidavit on their behalf.

2. That the annexed writ petition has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions. 3. That the contents of Para 1 to 29 of the annexed writ petition have been read over to me and explained to me in Hindi and same is understood by me fully and the same are true and correct to my personal knowledge whereas the legal submissions made there under are also believed to be true and correct on the basis of legal advice.

(DEPONENT)

VERIFICATION

I, the abovenamed deponent do hereby declare and verify that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. Nothing material has been concealed there from and no part of it is false. So help me God.