Notes on our pension demandTHERE 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 Bank’s 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 Bank’s 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