Notes on our pension demand

THERE IS NO SWEAT LESS LABOUR THERE IS NO PAINLESS STRUGGLE

the issues of the pensioners lucidly explained ISSUES OF THE PENSIONERS
http://www.thearise.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Arise-Magazine-August-toOctober-15-1.pdf

Sound Legal Aspects for Updation of Pension Retired Bankers Must Get Updated Pension by S. Ramachandran
The article

in the link below justified cogently our genuine demand

http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/Pension-Updates/Legal-Issues-inUpdation.htm

PENSION SCHEME IN BANKS WAS BASED ON THE MEMORANDUM OF

SETTLEMENT DT. 29TH OCTOBER 1993 BETWEEN IBA AND AIBEA AND
WAS AGREED TO BE ON THE PATTERN OBTAINING IN THE
GOVERNMENT AND RBI AND BASIC PENSION IS REVISED FOR
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH PAY
COMMISSION.
PENSION
REGULATIONS
FOR
BANKS
KNOWN
AS BANK
EMPLOYEES PENSION
REGULATIONS
1995 HAVE
BEEN INTRODUCED IN BANKS IN CONSULTATION WITH RESERVE
BANK OF INDIA AND WITH PRIOR SANCTION BY GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA AND ALSO IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED BY
CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 19 OF THE BANKING

COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT,

1970 (5 OF 1970). THUS THESE REGULATIONS BECAME STATUTORY
AND AS SUCH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE
REGULATIONS. THESE PENSION REGULATIONS ARE ALSO AKIN TO
PENSION SCHEME IN RBI AND ALSO THE PENSION SCHEME
APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF GOVT. OF INDIA AS THEY ARE
FORMULATED MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF CENTRAL GOVT./RBI
PENSION SCHEME. BUT INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION (THE
REPRESENTATIVE
AND
NEGOTIATING
BODY
OF
BANKS
MANAGEMENTS) AND INDIVIDUAL BANKS ARE MISINTERPRETING
THESE REGULATIONS AND ARE IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF
PENSION SCHEME ARBITRARILY AS PER THEIR WHIMS AND
FANCIES AND ARE DISOBEYING EVEN THE CONTENTS OF THE
STATUTORY DOCUMENT OF PENSION REGULATIONS WHILE THEY
ARE EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THE PENSION REGULATIONS INTOTO.
Officers Service Regulations/ Bi-partite Settlement provisions for workmen, interalia, provide for post- retirement benefits including Pension/ PF/ Gratuity etc.
These are in the nature of statutory obligations on the part of Banks. In these
circumstances, how can it be inferred that there is no contractual relationship
between Banks & Retirees/ Pensioners? Moreover in case of officers, Officers
Service Regulations/ Disciplinary Rules providing for disciplinary proceedings
after retirement will lose the test of validity before law in the absence of
contractual relationship.
Likewise in the absence of any contractual relations with Pensioners, clause 48 of
the Pension Regulations 1995 i.e. right to proceed against retired employees will
also not have any sanctity
PENSION FUNDS OF BANKS ARE VERY COMFORTABLE SO AS TO
ABSORB THE COST OF INCREASE IN PENSION BENEFITS TO ALL LIKE
100% DA NEUTRALISATION, IMPROVEMENT IN FAMILY PENSION,
PENSION UPDATION, EXTENDING ONEMORE PENSION OPTION ALL
ELIGIBLE LEFT OVER CATEGORIES, ETC. A STATEMENT SHOWING
BANKWISE POSITION OF PENSION FUNDS AS ON 31.03.2015 IS
ATTACHED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL.
IN THE CASE OF THE LEFT OVER CATEGORIES CONSISTING OF
RESIGNEES, CRS/VRS RETIREES, EXIT OPTEES, ETC. WITH
PENSIONABLE SERVICE, THEY ARE DENIED PENSION OPTION INSPITE
OF ELIGIBILITY IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE

GOVT. OF INDIA AND INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR THIS.
PENSION FUND CAN BE USED ONLY FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS OF
THE SCHEME. SINCE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE RECRUITED AFTER 01 - 04
-2010 ARE COVERED BY PENSION SCHEME OF PFRDA, THE PENSION
FUND OF THE BANK WILL NOT HAVE TO SERVICE THEM AND THERE
IS NO POINT IN DENYING PENSION AND UPDATION OF PENSION WHEN
THE GROWTH IN PENSION FUND FOR A SINGLE YEAR CAN SERVICE
PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF PENSION TO ALL THE PENSIONERS OF THE
BANKS WITHOUT ANY IMPACT ON THE WORKING RESULTS OF THE
BANK. THE CASE WITH OTHER PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS IS ALSO
SIMILAR.
EVEN THE PENSION FUND CREATED IS ONLY OUT OF CONTRIBUTION
OF MANAGEMENTS SHARE OF PROVIDENT FUND OF BANK
EMPLOYEES (WHICH OTHERWISE IS PAYABLE TO THE RETIREES AT
THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT AND THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT)
UNLIKE IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS FOR WHOM
THE PENSION IS PAYABLE OUT OF BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS. THUS
THE MONEY HELD IN PENSION FUND TRUST BELONGS TO THE
RETIREES MANAGED BY A TRUST LEGALLY CONSTITUTED.
THE APEX COURT HAS RECOGNISED PENSION AS DEFERRED WAGE
AND AN INALIENABLE RIGHT OF THE EMPLOYEE EARNED THROUGH
LONG AND RELENTLESS SERVICE IN HIS HEYDAYS WITH THE SWEAT
OF HIS BROWS AND NOT AS A CHARITY DOLED OUT TO THE RETIRED
EMPLOYEE AND ALSO AS A SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT TO ENABLE
HIM MAKE A DECENT LIVING AND THEREBY IT HAS TO BE
INVARIABLY REVISED WITH INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING TO MEET
THE INTENDED PURPOSE, LEST IT AMOUNTS TO NON-PAYMENT OF
WAGES.
Periodical updation/improvement in pension ... ... on the lines of Central
Government.
Pension Scheme in Banks is the replica of RBI Pension Scheme and Central Civil
Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension)
Rules,1981 as applicable to Central Government Employees (Reg. 56 of Pension
Regulations, 1995). Updation of pension was implemented by Central
Government on the recommendation of V Central Pay Commission as from 01-01-

2006 though the Government was functioning since centuries. As mentioned

above it was agreed in the original pension agreement dated 29-09-1993 and by a
Joint Agreement with IBA and UFBU as per agreement dated 14-03-2010 cited
above. Even in the case of Central Government employees it was introduced for
the first time since 2006.
IN "D.S. NAKARA:S CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD
THAT ANY IMPROVEMENT IN PENSION SHOULD RESULT IN BENEFIT
TO ALL RETIREES AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISCRIMATION.
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED
THAT DENIAL OF PENSION/UPDATION OF PENSION FOR ELIGIBLE
RETIREES IS AN INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT TO
EQUALITY UNDER ARTICE 14 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA.
PENSION REGULATIONS OF BANKS APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT
OF THE COUNTRY ALSO CONTAIN A SPECIFIC REGULATION REG. 35(1)
FOR UPDATION OF PENSION AND THUS THE POSITION IS A SETTLED
ONE.
BUT, THERE HAD BEEN NO REVISION OF PENSION IN THE CASE OF
BANK EMPLOYEES WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL PENSION
AGREEMENT, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL PENSION
SETTLEMENT BY IBA AND IS ALSO IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY ENSHRINED IN THE MAGNIFICENT
CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE
GOVERNMENT
FAILURE TO REVISE PENSION IN TUNE WITH INFLATION AND COST OF
LIVING IS DENIAL OF RIGHT TO THE RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES
(WHO ARE SENIOR CITIZENS), TO LIVE A DECENT LIFE. WHEN PAY
AND ALLOWANCES OF EMPLOYEES ON ROLLS OF BANKS ARE
REVISED WITH EACH PAY REVISION THROUGH BIPARTITE
SETTLEMENTS AND THE PENSION OF PAST RETIREES IS NOT AT ALL
REVISED, THE RETIRED ARE EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATED AND THEY
SUFFER AS COMMODITY PRICES ARE COMMON FOR EMPLOYEES AND
THE RETIRED ALIKE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS BEING IGNORED AND TWISTED BY IBA
TO SUIT THEIR ARGUMENTS CITING COST FACTOR AND FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINTS WHILE IT IS MANDATORY ON THEIR PART. THUS IT IS
CLEAR THAT IBA/BANKS HAVE NO RESPECT TO THE PARLIAMENT OF

THIS COUNTRY ALSO WHILE THEY ARE UNDER OBLIGATION TO

IMPLEMENT PENSION REGULATIONS/STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS
INSTRUMENTALITIES OF THE STATE.
HERE IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO BRING TO YOUR KIND
NOTICE THE VITAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF IBA IN NOT COMPLYING
WITH THE UNDERTAKING IT HAS GIVEN UNDER CONCLUSION NO.(10)
OF JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010 THAT READS:
"(10) THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AND RECORDED IN THE ABOVE
CLAUSES TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE SCHEME OF PENSION
WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY IBA FOR THEIR
APPROVAL AND FURTHER ACTION IN TERMS OF SECTION 19 OF THE
BANKING
COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION
AND
TRANSFER
OF
UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970/1980 BY COMPLYING WITH THE
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT OF THE RELEVANT PENSION
REGULATIONS.."
BUT SO FAR , NO PENSION AMENDMENT SCHEME,2010 WAS GOT
PREPARED BY IBA TO BE ADOPTED BY THE BOARDS OF ITS MEMBER
PS BANKS AND HENCE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD ON
01 04 2015 RULED THAT WITH OUT CARRYING OUT THE TERMS OF THE
JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010 AS AMENDMENTS TO THE
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE
MEMBER BANKS TO IMPLEMENT ACCORDING TO LAW , SUCH OF
THOSE TERMS OF THE JOINT NOTE WHICH ARE IN VARIANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS IN THE CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS AND HENCE
WHILE UPHOLDING EXTENSION OF SECOND OPTION UNDER THE
JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT
HAD ON 01 04 2015 DIRECTED THAT THE REGULATIONS IN FORCE ON
THE DATE OF SUCH EXTENSION OF OFFER FOR SECOND OPTION
SHALL ALONE BE ENFORCED AND HENCE THOSE PETITIONERS WHO
HAD RETIRED UNDER CRS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE OFFERED WITH
ONE MORE OPTION AS PER THE SAID REGULATIONS NOTIFIED ON 29
09 1995 AND IN FORCE.
THIS IS A VITAL ASPECT OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE BY WHICH IT
BECOMES VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT ALL THE UNTENABLE TERMS OF
THE SAID JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010 LIKE 56% LUMP SUM
PAYMENT BY RETIREES IN PLACE OF 6% P.A SIMPLE INTEREST, 2.8

MONTHS NOV.2007 PAY AS CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYEES ON

ROLLS AND CUT-OFF DATE 27 11 2009 FOR THOSE WHO RETIRED
BETWEEN 29 09 09 1995 AND 26 11 2009 CAN NOT BE ENFORCED AS
THEY LACK THE AUTHORITY FROM THE PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM
OF APPROVAL FOR THE REQUISITE PROPOSED PENSION AMENDMENT
SCHEME, 2010 INCORPORATING THE PROPOSED TERMS OF JOINT NOTE
AS AMENDMENTS TO THE CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS.
SIMPLE LAWS OF CONTRACT AND JURISPRUDENCE TELL US THAT
WHILE ANY TWO PARTIES CAN AGREE MUTUALLY TO CONFER A
BENEFIT ON A THIRD PARTY, THEY CAN NOT CONSPIRE AND
CONFISCATE ANYTHING FROM SUCH THIRD PARTY LEST IT SHOULD
CONSTITUTE A ROBBERY. THE RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES WERE
NOT MEMBERS OF ANY TRADE UNIONS OR OF IBA IN ORDER
TO AGREE ANYTHING ON THEIR BEHALF. BUT THE IBA AND UNIONS
AGREED MUTUALLY TO APPARENTLY SNATCH AWAY THE
PENSION RIGHTS WHICH ARE ANALOGICAL TO LOOTING AND THIS IS
WHAT IBA DID IN THE RECENTLY CONCLUDED X BP SETTLEMENT
SIGNED ON 25.05.2015.
PLEASE PONDER OVER WHAT IS HAPPENING . WE DO NOT REQUIRE
ANY THING TO BE ACCORDED AS A MEASURE OF CHARITY AT THE
COST OF OUR DIGNITY.WE DON'T REQUIRE ANY SUCH BOUNTY. WE
NEED EXACTLY WHAT IS DESERVED BY US ACCORDING TO THE
ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT DATED 29 10 1993 AND THE LAW IN
FORCE EQUITABLY.
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA STRIKES AT
ARBITRARINESS IN STATE ACTION AND ENSURES FAIRNESS AND
EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO ALL. IT IS ATTRACTED WHERE EQUALS
ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE BASIS. THE
PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE GUARANTEE IS THAT ALL PERSONS
SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE BOTH IN
PRIVILEGES CONFERRED AND LIABILITIES IMPOSED. EQUAL LAWS
WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL IN THE SAME SITUATION AND
THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND
ANOTHER IF AS REGARDS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE
LEGISLATION THEIR POSITION IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.
ARTICLE 14 FORBIDS CLASS DIVISION. THE CLASSIFICATION IS
FOUNDED ON AN INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA WHICH DISTINGUISHES
PERSONS OR THINGS THAT ARE GROUPED TOGETHER FROM THOSE

THAT ARE LEFT OUT OF THE GROUP AND THAT DIFFERENTIA MUST
HAVE A RATIONAL NEXUS TO THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED
BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.
IT ONLY MEANS THAT ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED
SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE BOTH IN PRIVILEGES AND LIABILITIES
IMPOSED. EQUAL LAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL IN THE
SAME SITUATION, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION
BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER IF AS REGARDS TO THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER.
THE POINT TO BE NOTED HERE IS THE BENEFIT OF REVISED SCALES
OF PAY IN THE PAY BANDS AND GRADE PAY IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE
WHO ENTER SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE FIXED FOR
INTRODUCING REVISED SCALES BUT IS EXTENDED TO ALL THOSE IN
SERVICE PRIOR TO THAT DATE. EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE NEW
RETIREES; THE BENEFIT OF GRATUITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF
GRATUITY ACT, 1972, PAST SERVICE WAS TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION. IT IS THEREFORE EMPHASIZED THAT THE SCHEME
OF WAGE REVISION IS NOT FOR NEW RETIREES BENEFIT ONLY.
PENSION HAS CORRELATION TO AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS AND THE
LENGTH OF QUALIFYING SERVICE AND THE REVISION IS NOT MEANT
MERELY FOR THE FUTURE RETIREES AFTER A SPECIFIC DATE.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, FOR OVER 15 YEARS WE ARE GETTING THE
SAME PENSION, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN THREE
BIPARTITE AGREEMENTS SIGNED ON WAGE REVISION, NOTHING HAS
BEEN DONE IN THE CASE OF BANK RETIREES. A GENERAL MANAGER
OF A BANK RETIRED LONG BACK GETS LESSER PENSION THAN A
PEON RETIRING NOW. WHAT MORE INJNUSTICE THAN THIS IS
NEEDED?
IN THE CASE OF RESIGNEES, CRS/VRS RETIREES, EXIT OPTEES, ETC.
WITH PENSIONABLE SERVICE, THEY ARE DENIED PENSION OPTION
INSPITE OF ELIGIBILITY IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE INSTRUCTIONS
OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
WE MAY FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD OF LIC AS WELL AS RBI
HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF UPDATION OF PENSION TO THEIR
PAST RETIREES AND HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE GOVERNMENT
FOR CONSIDERATION. DOES IT MEAN THAT LIC BOARD AND RBI ARE
NOVICE AND HAVE ACTED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE
OF CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP?

PENSION FUND WHICH IS PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF PENSIONERS IS

BEING MANAGED WITHOUT ANY REPRESENTATION FROM
PENSIONER. SOMETIMES THE PENSION FUND YIELDED NEGATIVE
RETURN DUE TO WRONG INVESTMENT STRATEGY ADOPTED BY
TRUSTEES AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IRRESPONSIBLE
INVESTMENT STRATEGY? IF THERE IS NO CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATION THEN WHY OUR (RETIREES) DEMANDS WERE INCLUDED
UNDER CHARTER OF DEMANDS BY UFBU AND OFFICERS
CONFEDERATION?
FURTHER, COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION AFFECT ALL RETIREES AS
WELL AS PEOPLE IN SERVICE EQUALLY. ALL PENSIONERS ARE
EQUALS AND THE EQUALS HAVE BEEN CATEGORISED INTO SIX
CATEGORIES OF UNEQUALS. MANY OF THE PENSIONERS HAVE FILED
WRIT PETITIONS IN VAROUS HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY.
SEVERAL HIGH COURTS HAVE GIVEN JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
RETIREES. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS
BEEN DISCRIMINATION, BLATANT VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS TO EQUALITY. BUT, IBA HAS CHOSEN TO PREFER APPEALS
JUST TO DELAY THE MATTER EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW FULLY
WELL THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THEIR APPEALS THEREBY
INCURRING AVOIDABLE EXPENDITURE ON LITIGATIONS. THE LATEST
ONE SUCH JUDGMENT IS FROM KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN RESPECT OF
PARITY IN DA NEUTRALISATION TO PRE NOV 2002 RETIREES OF
BANKS ALONG WITH OTHERS IN LINE WITH RBI PENSIONERS.
THEREFORE IBA OWES ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BANK
RETIREES/PENSIONERS TO ANSWER FOR ALL THEIR MISDEEDS AND
MISCHIEVOUS DECISIONS POINTED OUT ABOVE.
IBA IS DENYING THE LEGITIMATE BENEFITS TO BANK PENSIONERS
AND BANK RESIGNEES, COMPULSORILY RETIRED WITH PENSIONABLE
SERVICE, EXIT OPTEES, ETC.BY DENYING THEM PENSION AND IS
THUS SHOWING APATHY TO BANK RETIREES TOTALLY.
LITIGATION MEANS DELAY AND COSTS. YOU WILL KINDLY
APPRECIATE THAT "DELAY DEFEATS JUSTICE" AND JUSTICE DELAYED
IS JUSTICE DENIED. ALL THE RETIREES ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AGED 70
YEARS AND ABOVE. MANY OF THEM HAVE PASSED AWAY AND BY
THE TIME THE JUSTICE IS DONE, EVEN THE SURVIVING RETIREES

ALSO MAY LEAVE THIS WORLD. NATURALLY, THE RETIREES WANT TO

AVAIL THEIR LEGALLY ENTITLED AND LEGITIMATELY DUE
BENEFITS DURING THEIR LIFE TIME INSTEAD OF THEIR LEGAL HEIRS
GETTING IT.
Court casers of senior citizens
Dear Friends, I understand that various cases are filed and pursued in different
courts in the above two matters. It may be noted that the above things are pending
for more than 10 years and the care should be taken to invoke the benefits
available for senior citizens while pursuing the court cases. The courts should be
impressed that the beneficiaries are above 60 years,and many would have already
expired and hence the decisions should be made at the earliest so that at least the
living pensioners could enjoy the benefits.This would lead for the speedy disposal
of the cases.......................................................................................
As we are aware different ministries at Central govt. are extending
certain concessions and facilities to Senior citizens of the
country.Income tax rebate by Finance ministry,Concession on travel by
Railway Ministry and Ministry of Civil Aviation etc are few of
them.State Govts also extending certain facilities beneficial to
senior citizens.
Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is the nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens.
It is stated that Courts in the country accord priority to cases
involving older persons and ensures their expeditious disposal!!
What is the reality is a matter for debate.
In general as well as in specific cases filed before Hon.Courts in
India, it can be found that there is inordinate delay in delivering
judgement which often takes more than ten years.In respect of cases
filed by Senior Citizens are also not having any exemption.Thus the
very purpose of filing cases are defeated.
Of course,our judiciary system has its on inherent constraints and
limitations to proceed fast as all are aware.More than that
unfortunately our political leadership is also not much interested to
streamline the process for early disposal of cases, for their own
vested interests.

BRIEF NOTE ON COURT CASES:

SUPREME COURT:
1. In the Civil Appeal No.1942/2009 Bank of India Vs K.Mohandas, Supreme
Court has awarded landmark judgement of 5 Years notional weightage to
SVRS Pension optees. While many Public Sector Banks implemented the
above judgement of apex court, the same has not yet been implemented
in Vijaya Bank & Associated Banks of SBI.
2. In the Civil Appeal No.6013/2011 Sheelkumar Jain Vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court delivered judgement in favour of
the resignee through beneficial interpretation of Pension Regulations.
3. In the WP (C) 184/2011 Federation of All India SBI Pensioners
Association Vs Union of India, the Federation has prayed for updation of
pension to SBI pensioners in line with periodical upward wage revisions of
serving employees.
4. In the Civil Appeal No.2739/2007 Uco Bank Vs Rajinderlal Kapoor, the
Apex Court has held that issuing Chargesheet to bank pensioners after
retirement on superannuation is illegal.
5. In the WP (C) No.184/2011 - Federation of All India SBI Pensioners
Associations Vs Union of India admitted by the Supreme Court, the
Federation has prayed that:
Pension should be paid as per Pension Fund Rules calculated at 1/60th of
last average 12 months pay reckoning pension service upto a maximum of
30 years without omitting any pensionable service rendered.
HIGH COURTS:
1. In the Writ Appeal No.1209/2007 G.Palani & Others Vs Bank of Baroda,
Madras High Court delivered judgement in favour of the Pensioners
granting payment of Arrears of Pension & Commutation to those retired
between 01-04-1998 and 30-04-2005. However, Bank of Baroda
management has preferred appeal through Special Leave Petition before
the Supreme Court.
2. In WP (C) No.27929/2003 T.RVijayan Vs State Bank of India, Kerala High
Court awarded the judgement in favour of pensioner granting 100%
Neutralisation of Dearness Relief.
3. In WP No.34619/2003 Jateendranath Vs State Bank of Mysore and other
related cases in WP Nos: 19267/2003, 46601/2004 & 10514/2005,
Karnataka High Court gave judgements in favour of affected pensioners
by ordering payment of Pension/Commutation arrears to those retired
during 01-04-1998 to 30-04-2005.
1

4. In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 493/2010 LIC of India Vs Asthana,
Jaipur bench of Rajasthan High Court ordered LIC management to
implement its own Resolution and implement uniform Dearness Relief
Formula for all pensioners without any discrimination, besides updation.
5. In the WP No.37198/2001 M.C.Ratnakaran Vs Canara Bank, Kerala High
Court has ordered fixation of pension as 50% of average emoluments for
the last 10 months as defined in the statutory pension regulations and
consequent payment of arrears of Commutation/Pension from the date of
retirement till date of re-fixation.
6. In respect of WP 710/2009 Karnik Vs Reserve Bank of India it was urged
before Bombay High Court for implementation of Updation of Pension as
contained in the RBI Circular dated 01-09-2003.
7. In the Writ Petition No.26916/2010 - D.Arun Kumar & 56 Others Vs
Canara Bank, the Officers, who were denied pension option in 2010 on
account of their Voluntary Retirement from Banks service as per Officers
Service Regulations, joined together and filed Writ Petition in Madras High
Court seeking justice. Also a petition was filed seeking priority hearing of
the case on grounds of litigants being Senior Citizens.
8. With regard to Writ Petition No.23522/2011 M.P.Ramachandran Rao & 31
Others Vs Canara Bank the Officers, who were denied pension option in
2010 on account of their Voluntary Retirement from Banks service as per
Officers Service Regulations, joined together and filed Writ Petition in
Karnataka High Court seeking justice. Also, it is learnt that another
petition has been filed for clubbing similar cases of Officials from various
banks for common hearing in the Karnataka High Court
Updation Case
Shri T Ashok Shenoy from Bangalore has send a public interest litigation to
Supreme Court of India, regarding various pension related issues like updation of
pension, neutrlization of DA etc on. 8th May,2011
Further .....SLP filed by Mr M C Singla ...likely hearing on 22nd Sept
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Case Status Status : PENDING
Status of : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 5561 OF 2016
M.C. SINGLA AND ORS. .Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Pet. Adv. : MR. SUNNY CHOUDHARY Res. Adv. : M/S MITTER & MITTER
CO.Subject Category : LABOUR MATTERS - OTHERS
LIKELY TO BE LISTED ON : 22/09/2016
Rajsthan HIGH COURT'S VERDICT ON
UPDATION OF PENSION TO LIC EMPLOYEES!
JAIPUR:
The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily on the inaction of the Life
Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) for not adhering to its board resolution
to pay equal pension to all the retirees across the country irrespective of their
date of retirement. The court verdict is bound to affect thousands of retired
personnel of LIC in the country.

A division bench comprising Justice Dalip Singh and Justice Mahesh

Bhagwati directed the LIC to give effect to its board decision dated November
24, 2001 to revise the pension and dearness allowance ( DA) payable to its
retired employees corresponding to the successive revisions of the pay scales
that took place in 1986, 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2007 respectively.
Presently, the retired employees of LIC are drawing pension based on the last
pay which was payable to them at the time of their retirement and the same
were never revised creating different classes of employees based on their date
of retirement. This was challenged by Krishan Murarilal Asthana, general
secretary of Retired Insurance Employees' Association of LIC. The LIC
board, infact, took the decision to do away the disparity among pensioners but
did not implement the same on the ground that the ministry of finance has not
given its approval.

Disposing off the writ petition filed by Asthana, a single judge bench of Justice
Munishwar Nath Bhandari in its order dated January 12, 2010 had asked LIC
to take immediate steps to implement the resolution of LIC board and held,
"In the present matter, there was no reason to seek approval of the Central
government. The law in this regard is settled and even counsel for union of

India had accepted that it is only a policy decision, that too, involving public
interest and not every decision of the board, which needs approval by the
central government." Feeling aggrieved of this order, the LIC filed an appeal
before the division bench.
The division bench took a serious note of the conduct of LIC in not adhering
to its board resolution on one or the other account. Justice Dalip Singh
observed, "The LIC is making an eyewash by not falling in line with its own
board decision and it is an extreme ridiculous situation that the corporation
itself has filed an appeal now saying that the order of the single judge is not
tenable whereas the LIC still maintains that the board resolution has not been
rescinded and the corporation is not challenging its own board's resolution."
"LIC is making a sheer misuse of the judicial system by filing frivolous appeal
and trying to dislodge the retired pensioners from their valid right merely on
the ground that the resolution was never approved by the ministry of finance.
Such a ground is not maintainable when the Government of India has never
filed an appeal against the order of single judge as also the LIC is an
autonomous statutory body which need not depend on the government for its
day-to-day functioning. Hence the appeal is not maintainable," observed
Justice Mahesh Bhagwati.

The Times of India: 25.01.2011

On 20/06/11 Writ Petition of Shri N. Pradeep Kumar was filed In Supreme Court

ALSO PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT LANDMARK JUDGMENT

Writ Petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from respondents 1 and 2 quash
the staff circular No.5690 dated 27.8.2010 of the first respondent insofar as Clause
7 including compulsory retired person has not eligible for pension option and the
order of the 2nd respondent dated 13.2.2013 bearing DP Pension 159 13 and
consequently direct the respondent to grant pension to the petitioner in terms of
Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 from 27.11.2009
along with arrears and interest @ 18% p.a.

http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/2nd-Pension-OptionDenial/UBI-Madras-HC-CR-bankers-pension-case.pdf
But with all the excellent grounds on which our case stands, unless there is an
effective case management and convincing arguments before the Supreme Court
leading to a favourable verdict for pensioners, all the write-ups generated will only
turn out to be good material for an academic discourse. The utmost need now is
for concrete action by way of concerted strategic moves by counsels of all the
sets of pensioner groups in carrying the legal struggle in a unified manner towards
a successful conclusion.

Unless the Govt and people at helm of affairs initiate earnest steps
to give top priority to cases filed by Senior Citizens in the country
justice will be denied.
Only collective organizational pressure and efforts will succeed for
any speedy measures in this direction.Let us hope for the best.
during July2010, Madras High Court has initiated steps to Fast Track all cases
filed by senior Citizens.A press release was also made in this
direction, by Hon.Justice,M.Y Eqbal as follows:
"All senior citizens whose cases are pending in the High Court in
respect of all categories may directly approach the Registrar
(Judicial) and furnish the details regarding pendency of the cases.
This would enable the court to take up the cases on a priority basis "
Similar action was initiated by Mumbai High Court also earlier.
As mentioned earlier,Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, the
nodal Ministry
responsible for welfare of the Senior Citizens is also states that
Courts in the country accord priority to cases involving older persons
and ensures their expeditious disposal.
However the outcome in such cases are not known.

......................................................................................

it is true that the Presiding Officers in any court are very much kind with a
human heart and in one personal case @ High Court of AP., Hyderabad, the Judge
is kind enough to fix-up a date in July, 2011 for final hearing. Actually, the
case is pending since past 15 years. All the appellants can approach the The
Registrar and thence the Presiding Judge.
When the litigants/appellants approach the High Courts, they can as well move
levers of power to approach the Judicial Officer concerned and represent for
early and final hearing.
The Higher-ups/decision makers in the Banks should realize that they occupied
the seat[s] of power on our blood & sweat. They should not forget it. They never
come from heavens.
.....................................................................................
________________________________
In karnataka High Court also, I was told, that there was a move to accord
priority in cases filed by Senior Citizens and Subsequently I could not
gather information as to how they are doing it. Probably, the concerned
petitioners have to approach the Courts through their lawyers and try
to find early justice. Let the senior litigants take steps to get advantage
of this.
....................................................................................

.
As all are aware, Government of India has earmarked special benefits
and concessions for Senior Citizens of India.Different ministries,have
notified the details from time to time.
In the matter of cases involving senior citizen, The Chief Justice
of India had advised Chief Justices of all High Courts to accord
priority to cases involving older persons and ensure their
expeditious disposal. [vide letter of Government of India, Ministry of
Social Justice & Empowerment (SD Section), New Delhi, F. No. 20-76/99SD dated 03.11.1999]
Accordingly in 1999 itself Mumbai High Court had issued a circular to
this effect in the matter of cases involving Senior Citizen for speedy
disposal.At that time the age limit was 65 yrs.Last year the same has
been modified by reducing the age to 60 yrs and above.
However, as we know, the huge backlog of cases in various courts in
the country, as well as shortage of manpower in Judiciary and cases
coming up on priority basis etc. caused delay in the process of
hearing of cases and delivery of judgement.
Once, during his stint with the Bombay HC, Justice R M Lodha
commented that 70% to 80% cases involved senior citizens as parties.
In the midst of all these realities if Senior Citizens cases are
considered for speedy disposal it is a welcome move and great thing
indeed.
Is it really happening in all courts in the country?

ONLY UNITY OF ALL PENSIONERS ORGANIZATION OF BANK

EMPLOYEES SUSTAINED AGITATION BACKING OUR LEGAL
PETITIONS BY FORMING UNTIED FORUM OF BANK PENSIONER
AT ALL INDIA LEVELS AND AT RESPECTIVE BANKS SEEMS TO BE

ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SEIZE OUR LIFE ISSUES FROM

UNYIELDING HANDS
S.Srinivasan

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO CONTINUOUS AND ARDUOUS

STRUGGLES
LET US DARE TO FIGHT AND DARE TO WIN