New Model Google Ad

Sunday, May 27, 2018

100% DA Case Judgement In Supreme Court

ALL INDIA BANK RETIREES’ FEDERATION (REGD.)

NOTE ON SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON 100 PER CENT DA FOR
DISCUSSION IN CORE COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD ON
2ND & 3RD JUNE 2018 AT DELHI

1 HISTORICAL PROSPECTIVE/ DEVELOPMENTS IN LEGAL BATTLE ON 100
100 PERCENT DA TO PRE NOVEMBER 2002 RETIREES

Wage settlement was signed in banking industry on 2nd June, 2005 providing 100 per cent DA to all employees and retirees. However those retired prior to November 2002 were denied the benefit of 100 per cent DA.
Aggrieved retirees filed WPs in Madras High Court in 2006 against this discrimination.
Similarly, United Bank of India Retired Employees Welfare Association and some individuals from Kolkata also filed WP praying for 100 per cent DA to pre- November 2002 as per the provisions of 1993 settlement on pension.
Single Judge Bench of Madras High Court decided in favour of retirees on this issue. However double bench of this court reversed the judgment of single bench and admitted SLP of bank managements thereby deciding the case against the retirees.
In 2013, Retirees from Chennai preferred the appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court . However, in February, 2017 SLPs filed by retirees were dismissed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage itself. Subsequently, retirees filed Review Petitions which were also rejected by the Court. In this way, legal battle was virtually lost by the retirees in the matter of 100 per cent DA .
However, luckily, judgment of Kolkata High Court in the single bench as well as double bench was in favour of retirees giving new hopes to retiree community on legal front.
However, United Bank Management preferred appeal against Kolkata High Court in Supreme Court in December, 2016.
Along with legal battle being fought by our comrades in different courts, AIBRF was making organisational efforts to achieve this demand right from 2005 as per its policy and object .
There was industry level settlement in 2010 after 2005 which granted 100 per cent DA to post November 2002 retirees. This issue could not be resolved despite all organisational efforts as the priority for the organisation was to achieve one more pension option to the left over retirees which were about 60000 in number. Therefore this demand has to be kept pending.
Again , AIBRF stared renewed efforts to achieve this demand during 10th wage settlement right from 2012. Though it was looking achievable on the basis of positive developments taking place during negotiation process of 2 years. But at the last minute developments , it was not approved by IBA.
Subsequently, Record Note dated 25.05.2015 where we had some hope for achieving this demand was also closed by IBA in the name of absence of mandate from the bank management to do so.
In March, 2107 AIBRF was approached by UBIREWA to extent support – financial and logistic to handle the case in Supreme Court in view of their limited resources and lack of network in Delhi. Though AIBRF consistent policy has been to make all organisational efforts to achieve the demand, we simultaneously extended required support to the retirees fighting in courts as it was affecting large number of our membership. In view of this we agreed for to give them support and took initiatives to engage advocates for them, incurring legal expenses and handling legal work for them.
As all our organisational efforts were not bringing desired results immediately, AIBRF in its Indore meeting decided to file Intervention Application in Supreme Court looking to interest of more than 1 lakh retirees. Accordingly IA was filed by AIBRF in April 2017.
It may be clarified that the case and arguments were basically based on written reply filed by UBIREWA which was drafted, vetted and approved by the UBIREWA and its advocates.
UBI SLP was argued in Supreme Court on 01.08.2017 by two senior councils engaged by AIBRF on behalf of UBIREWA and AIBRF. To prepare for hearing on 1.08.2018, we had long discussion with the Senior Council on 29.07.2017 where The General Secretary of UBIREWA, Shri Debesh Bhattachrya was also present and participated in discussion. He was kept fully informed about the development and the case was handled based on the Written Reply submitted by them.
To handle this case , AIBRF constituted committee of Delhi based office bearers namely Shri D.P.Gupta, VP, Shri A.K Bansal, DGS and Shri Suresh Sharma , organising Secretary along with GS Shri S.C.Jain. In addition to this many activists from Delhi extended all support to handle the case in Supreme Court. There sincere and continuous efforts in arranging several rounds of meetings with advocates, preparing documents for filing in courts coordinating with different persons / agencies were really valuable and appreciable and were made with honest and sincere intention to achieve the organisational goals.
AIBRF efforts created new hopes when Supreme Court passed order on 02.08.2017 recalling dismissed SLPs of retirees against the judgment of Madras High Court.
On completion of hearing on 23 August, 2017the judgment was reserved .
The Judgment was delivered on 16.05.208 after lapse of more than 8 months.
To our great dismay, disappointment and shock, against our logical and strong hopes the judgment has been unfavorable for retirees.

2. ANALIYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The judgment is delivered on 16.05.2018 by the bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice U.U. Lalit though heard by the bench of Justice Adarsh Goyal and Justice U.U.Lalit as new bench was constituted to deal with labour cases in the intervening period.
It is observed that the judgment lacks logical sequence in dealing the matter, has several contradictions, many vital facts brought through documents were either ignored or misinterpreted etc. They are specifically dealt in following Paras.
Page No. 01- It is stated Civil Appeal No. 5255-5255 of 2018 ( arising out of SLP –Civil Nos. 7368-71 of 2017). Judgment was reserved on 01.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 after the closer of arguments on SLPs arising out of Kolkata High Court judgment and recalled SLPs arising out of madras High Court Judgment. Therefore it is not clear how reference of above 2018 SLPs has been made in the Judgment dated 16.05.2018. No details of Civil appeal No 5255- 5255 of 2018 are given and how it is connected with this judgment are dealt with.
Recalled SLPs arising out of Madras High Court Judgments were heard on 23.08.2017 and the judgment was reserved on them. However, Judgment dated 16.05.2018 is silent on it and there is no mention of these SLPs in the judgement . On page no 40( Para 26) of the judgment it is stated that decision of Madras High Court has already been confirmed by the Supreme Court. This statement is very vital inaccuracy and completely contrary to the actual happenings/ facts. Therefore, the judgment is based on inaccurate facts.
Page No. 03- The Court has completely ignored clause no 06 of 1993 which deals with DA as per RBI formula without giving any reasons and upheld appendix II of pension Regulations 1995 which is subject to provisions of clause no 6. In 1995 banks were paying DA on tapering basis to employees as well as all categories of pensioners. In 2005 DA formula was modified in banks as well as RBI. Therefor clause 6 becomes operative and appendix II need to be suitably modified. These vital analysis is completely missing in the judgment.
It was specifically brought out through oral arguments and documentary evidence that there is no specific provision in the settlement dated 02.06.2005 debarring pre-2002 retirees from this benefit. IBA circular dated 28.06.2005 only put a provision to exclude pre-2002 retirees from the benefit. This was merely administrative circular which can not override provisions of the settlement. These facts were neither discussed and mentioned in the Judgment dated 16.05.2018.
Page No. 09- ( Para 7)- It is stated that subsequent settlement dated 27.04.2010 signed after gap of 5 years ratified the instruction to debar pre- 2002 retirees given in IBA circular dated 28.06.2005 . But there is no mention how such modification with retrospective effect is legally correct.
Page No 12-15- It deals with RBI circulars giving 100 DA benefits to pre- November 2002 retirees with effect from 01.02.2005. No reason was given as to how these developments were not made applicable to bank retirees despite clause of 1993 settlement.
In general all irrational facts and logics of Madras High Court were accepted in Toto in ignorance of logical facts appreciated in Kolkata Judgment-both at single as well as double bench level.
Notes on analysis of the Judgment by Andhra Pradesh State Committee and Comrade N. Sankarsubramaniyam after comprehensive study of it are enclosed which could be of help for meaningful discussion.

3. FURTHER LEGAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO RETIREES

Having lost the case in Supreme Court, the Retirees have two more legal options available to pursue the case in the court. As per provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution, Review petition can be filed for review of the judgment.
Review Petition need to filed within 30 days. 30 days period for our case will expire on 14th June 2018. However, during this period Supreme Court will remain closed for summer vacation, therefore, Review petition can be filed up to 02.07.2018 the date when the courts reopen.
Review Petitions are not heard in open court. They are disposed in Chamber of judges.
After the review petition is dismissed, Curative Petition can be filed. Curative Petition can be filed with the certification of a senior advocate. It is handled by 3 senior most judges and 2 judges of the bench who passed the judgment if available. The Court can impose exemplary cost to the petitioners if his plea lacks merit.
Detailed Note prepared on procedure for Review & Curative Petitions are enclosed for ready reference of the committee.

4. GROUND REALITIES FOR FILING REVIEW PETITION

Review Petitions are attended by the same bench who passed the judgment.
Rejection Ratio of Review petition is close to 99 per cent . So chances of success are very low.
In this case, AIBRF legal position is as intervener as we filed only IA. Normally Review Petitions are filed by main parties to SLP. However as AIBRF is affected party, chance can be taken to file Review Petition.
We find that UBIREWA has already taken decision to file Review Petition independently without any consultation and coordination with AIBRF. It looks that they do not feel it necessary at this stage to coordinate with AIBRF for Review despite the fact that AIBRF has invested heavily in handling the case in Supreme Court in terms of money as well as strong logistic support.
Four Review petitions filed by our comrades from Chennai have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
On one side aspiration and expectation of large number of retirees are attached with this in particular after AIBRF filing IA and not to pursue the case legally whatever worth it is may spread further frustrations and one another side, involving the organisation too much in litigation may have bearing on our organisational image and capacity to handle them in different forum effectively.
It will cost considerable money and efforts for which organisation should be ready .
In case of further losing the legal battle may give opportunity to some individual to spread emotional outburst against the organisation. This tendency is already seen. Some of our activists are already active in spreading the general emotional outburst and messages circulated by them are enclosed for the information and knowledge of the committee.


Submitted for consideration


( S.C.JAIN)
GENERAL SCRETARY




Summary Of 100% DA Case Supreme Court Judgement

ALL INDIA BANK RETIREES’ FEDERATION (REGD.)

NOTE ON SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON 100 PER CENT DA FOR
DISCUSSION IN CORE COMMITTEE MEETING TO BE HELD ON
2ND & 3RD JUNE 2018 AT DELHI

1 HISTORICAL PROSPECTIVE/ DEVELOPMENTS IN LEGAL BATTLE ON 100
100 PERCENT DA TO PRE NOVEMBER 2002 RETIREES

Wage settlement was signed in banking industry on 2nd June, 2005 providing 100 per cent DA to all employees and retirees. However those retired prior to November 2002 were denied the benefit of 100 per cent DA.

Aggrieved retirees filed WPs in Madras High Court in 2006 against this discrimination.

Similarly, United Bank of India Retired Employees Welfare Association and some individuals from Kolkata also filed WP praying for 100 per cent DA to pre- November 2002 as per the provisions of 1993 settlement on pension.

Single Judge Bench of Madras High Court decided in favour of retirees on this issue. However double bench of this court reversed the judgment of single bench and admitted SLP of bank managements thereby deciding the case against the retirees.

In 2013, Retirees from Chennai preferred the appeal against the judgment of Madras High Court . However, in February, 2017 SLPs filed by retirees were dismissed by the Supreme Court at the admission stage itself. Subsequently, retirees filed Review Petitions which were also rejected by the Court. In this way, legal battle was virtually lost by the retirees in the matter of 100 per cent DA .

However, luckily, judgment of Kolkata High Court in the single bench as well as double bench was in favour of retirees giving new hopes to retiree community on legal front.

However, United Bank Management preferred appeal against Kolkata High Court in Supreme Court in December, 2016.

Along with legal battle being fought by our comrades in different courts, AIBRF was making organisational efforts to achieve this demand right from 2005 as per its policy and object .

There was industry level settlement in 2010 after 2005 which granted 100 per cent DA to post November 2002 retirees. This issue could not be resolved despite all organisational efforts as the priority for the organisation was to achieve one more pension option to the left over retirees which were about 60000 in number. Therefore this demand has to be kept pending.

Again , AIBRF stared renewed efforts to achieve this demand during 10th wage settlement right from 2012. Though it was looking achievable on the basis of positive developments taking place during negotiation process of 2 years. But at the last minute developments , it was not approved by IBA.

Subsequently, Record Note dated 25.05.2015 where we had some hope for achieving this demand was also closed by IBA in the name of absence of mandate from the bank management to do so.

In March, 2107 AIBRF was approached by UBIREWA to extent support – financial and logistic to handle the case in Supreme Court in view of their limited resources and lack of network in Delhi. Though AIBRF consistent policy has been to make all organisational efforts to achieve the demand, we simultaneously extended required support to the retirees fighting in courts as it was affecting large number of our membership. In view of this we agreed for to give them support and took initiatives to engage advocates for them, incurring legal expenses and handling legal work for them.

As all our organisational efforts were not bringing desired results immediately, AIBRF in its Indore meeting decided to file Intervention Application in Supreme Court looking to interest of more than 1 lakh retirees. Accordingly IA was filed by AIBRF in April 2017.

It may be clarified that the case and arguments were basically based on written reply filed by UBIREWA which was drafted, vetted and approved by the UBIREWA and its advocates.

UBI SLP was argued in Supreme Court on 01.08.2017 by two senior councils engaged by AIBRF on behalf of UBIREWA and AIBRF. To prepare for hearing on 1.08.2018, we had long discussion with the Senior Council on 29.07.2017 where The General Secretary of UBIREWA, Shri Debesh Bhattachrya was also present and participated in discussion. He was kept fully informed about the development and the case was handled based on the Written Reply submitted by them.

To handle this case , AIBRF constituted committee of Delhi based office bearers namely Shri D.P.Gupta, VP, Shri A.K Bansal, DGS and Shri Suresh Sharma , organising Secretary along with GS Shri S.C.Jain. In addition to this many activists from Delhi extended all support to handle the case in Supreme Court. There sincere and continuous efforts in arranging several rounds of meetings with advocates, preparing documents for filing in courts coordinating with different persons / agencies were really valuable and appreciable and were made with honest and sincere intention to achieve the organisational goals.

AIBRF efforts created new hopes when Supreme Court passed order on 02.08.2017 recalling dismissed SLPs of retirees against the judgment of Madras High Court.
On completion of hearing on 23 August, 2017the judgment was reserved .

The Judgment was delivered on 16.05.208 after lapse of more than 8 months.
To our great dismay, disappointment and shock, against our logical and strong hopes the judgment has been unfavorable for retirees.

2. ANALIYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The judgment is delivered on 16.05.2018 by the bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice U.U. Lalit though heard by the bench of Justice Adarsh Goyal and Justice U.U.Lalit as new bench was constituted to deal with labour cases in the intervening period.
It is observed that the judgment lacks logical sequence in dealing the matter, has several contradictions, many vital facts brought through documents were either ignored or misinterpreted etc. They are specifically dealt in following Paras.

Page No. 01- It is stated Civil Appeal No. 5255-5255 of 2018 ( arising out of SLP –Civil Nos. 7368-71 of 2017). Judgment was reserved on 01.08.2017 and 23.08.2017 after the closer of arguments on SLPs arising out of Kolkata High Court judgment and recalled SLPs arising out of madras High Court Judgment. Therefore it is not clear how reference of above 2018 SLPs has been made in the Judgment dated 16.05.2018. No details of Civil appeal No 5255- 5255 of 2018 are given and how it is connected with this judgment are dealt with.

Recalled SLPs arising out of Madras High Court Judgments were heard on 23.08.2017 and the judgment was reserved on them. However, Judgment dated 16.05.2018 is silent on it and there is no mention of these SLPs in the judgement . On page no 40( Para 26) of the judgment it is stated that decision of Madras High Court has already been confirmed by the Supreme Court. This statement is very vital inaccuracy and completely contrary to the actual happenings/ facts. Therefore, the judgment is based on inaccurate facts.

Page No. 03- The Court has completely ignored clause no 06 of 1993 which deals with DA as per RBI formula without giving any reasons and upheld appendix II of pension Regulations 1995 which is subject to provisions of clause no 6. In 1995 banks were paying DA on tapering basis to employees as well as all categories of pensioners. In 2005 DA formula was modified in banks as well as RBI. Therefor clause 6 becomes operative and appendix II need to be suitably modified. These vital analysis is completely missing in the judgment.

It was specifically brought out through oral arguments and documentary evidence that there is no specific provision in the settlement dated 02.06.2005 debarring pre-2002 retirees from this benefit. IBA circular dated 28.06.2005 only put a provision to exclude pre-2002 retirees from the benefit. This was merely administrative circular which can not override provisions of the settlement. These facts were neither discussed and mentioned in the Judgment dated 16.05.2018.

Page No. 09- ( Para 7)- It is stated that subsequent settlement dated 27.04.2010 signed after gap of 5 years ratified the instruction to debar pre- 2002 retirees given in IBA circular dated 28.06.2005 . But there is no mention how such modification with retrospective effect is legally correct.

Page No 12-15- It deals with RBI circulars giving 100 DA benefits to pre- November 2002 retirees with effect from 01.02.2005. No reason was given as to how these developments were not made applicable to bank retirees despite clause of 1993 settlement.

In general all irrational facts and logics of Madras High Court were accepted in Toto in ignorance of logical facts appreciated in Kolkata Judgment-both at single as well as double bench level.

Notes on analysis of the Judgment by Andhra Pradesh State Committee and Comrade N. Sankarsubramaniyam after comprehensive study of it are enclosed which could be of help for meaningful discussion.

3. FURTHER LEGAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO RETIREES

Having lost the case in Supreme Court, the Retirees have two more legal options available to pursue the case in the court. As per provisions of Article 137 of the Constitution, Review petition can be filed for review of the judgment.

Review Petition need to filed within 30 days. 30 days period for our case will expire on 14th June 2018. However, during this period Supreme Court will remain closed for summer vacation, therefore, Review petition can be filed up to 02.07.2018 the date when the courts reopen.

Review Petitions are not heard in open court. They are disposed in Chamber of judges.

After the review petition is dismissed, Curative Petition can be filed. Curative Petition can be filed with the certification of a senior advocate. It is handled by 3 senior most judges and 2 judges of the bench who passed the judgment if available. The Court can impose exemplary cost to the petitioners if his plea lacks merit.

Detailed Note prepared on procedure for Review & Curative Petitions are enclosed for ready reference of the committee.

4. GROUND REALITIES FOR FILING REVIEW PETITION

Review Petitions are attended by the same bench who passed the judgment.

Rejection Ratio of Review petition is close to 99 per cent . So chances of success are very low.

In this case, AIBRF legal position is as intervener as we filed only IA. Normally Review Petitions are filed by main parties to SLP. However as AIBRF is affected party, chance can be taken to file Review Petition.

We find that UBIREWA has already taken decision to file Review Petition independently without any consultation and coordination with AIBRF. It looks that they do not feel it necessary at this stage to coordinate with AIBRF for Review despite the fact that AIBRF has invested heavily in handling the case in Supreme Court in terms of money as well as strong logistic support.

Four Review petitions filed by our comrades from Chennai have already been rejected by the Supreme Court.

On one side aspiration and expectation of large number of retirees are attached with this in particular after AIBRF filing IA and not to pursue the case legally whatever worth it is may spread further frustrations and one another side, involving the organisation too much in litigation may have bearing on our organisational image and capacity to handle them in different forum effectively.

It will cost considerable money and efforts for which organisation should be ready .
In case of further losing the legal battle may give opportunity to some individual to spread emotional outburst against the organisation. This tendency is already seen. Some of our activists are already active in spreading the general emotional outburst and messages circulated by them are enclosed for the information and knowledge of the committee.


Submitted for consideration


( S.C.JAIN)
GENERAL SCRETARY




Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Good Initiative on Gratuity Justice

Payment of gratuity should be made effective from 01.01.2016:

 Lucknow based IOB group has filed a WP in Delhi HC  praying that revised limit under PGAct 1972 should be implemented wef 01.01.2016. The WP is in the nature of representative suit where employees of all banks/ RRB/ FI have joined. The purpose of representative suit is, to make it applicable to all.

The writ has been admitted in Delhi High Court vide diary no.139558/2018  dated  22/05/2018  There were some minor objections which kept coming in piece meal fashion but finally,  it has been accepted. Now this will come up for hearing and after some clarifications or arguments, if sought  by the Judge,   it will be accepted for hearing.

Friday, May 11, 2018

UFBU Plan Agitation And Two Day Strike

CIRCULAR No. UFBU/2018/09              Date : 10-05-2018

TO ALL CONSTITUENT UNIONS/MEMBERS

Dear Comrades,

• UFBU’s CLARION CALL
• OBSERVE 48 HOURS CONTINUOUS STRIKE ON 30TH & 31ST MAY, 2018
We have already informed our units and members about the outcome of the bipartite talks with IBA held on 5th May, 2018.  In order to draw the attention of the Government, we had addressed our communication immediately and seeking their intervention.  As expected, the Government has not responded so far and hence, as decided in our UFBU meeting, we give hereunder the agitational programmes.

16-05-2018 UFBU Memorandum to IBA
17-05-2018 Demonstrations before branches in all centres
18-05-2018 UFBU Memorandum to Finance Minister
19-05-2018 UFBU Memorandum to Labour Minister
21-05-2018   Onwards Posters display at all Branches
22-05-2018 UFBU Memorandum to Secretary, DFS, MoF, GOI
24-05-2018 Press Meet in all State Capitals
24-05-2018 Demonstrations before branches in all centres
28-05-2018 Black Badge Wearing
29-05-2018 Centralised Demonstrations in all centres
30-05-2018 All India Strike
31-05-2018 All India Strike

The strike action will begin at 6:00 AM  on  30th May, 2018  and  end at 6:00 AM on 1st June, 2018. 
Our strike Notice on IBA has been served today.

WE OPPOSE:
• IBA’s delay in resolving Charter of Demands
• Government’s casual approach to wage revision for bank employees/officers
• IBA’s meager offer of 2% hike in wage bill towards wage increase
• Partial mandate given by some of the Banks only upto Scale III Officers

WE DEMAND :
• Expeditious and early wage revision settlement.
• Adequate increase in salary and improvement in other service conditions
• Wage revision settlement to include all officers upto Scale VII

We call upon all our unions and members to close up their ranks and implement the programmes successfully.  Maintain unity, exhibit militancy and make the strike a total success...

Forwarded as received.....


Bank unions' strike on May 30 & 31..



News in Business Line

The United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU), a representative body of nine bank unions, have called for a bank strike on May 30 and 31.
This comes in the wake of Government’s casual approach to wage revision for bank employees/officers; IBA’s meagre offer of 2 per cent hike in wage bill towards wage increase and IBA’s delay in resolving charter of demands, C H Venkatachalam, General Secretary, All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA), told BusinessLine.
The UFBU has demanded expeditious and early wage revision settlement. Also, the wage revision settlement should include all officers up to Scale VII, Venkatachalam said.




Monday, May 7, 2018

Supreme Court Order on Pension

4) Pension a right not subsidy. SC tells UOI

*Pension is a right, not subsidy. How can you link Aadhaar to it, asks SC*

The Supreme Court questioned the Centre about its decision to link Aadhaar with pensions, reasoning that it is not a subsidy but an entitlement of a person for years of service he or she has rendered to the government in the discharge of official duties.

Referring to the argument of petitioners that many pensioners have been denied their only subsistence in old age due to technical and physical reasons, the bench asked whether the Centre was going to deny pension, a rightful entitlement, just for want of Aadhaar. Venugopal said Aadhaar has been instrumental in eliminating many bogus pensioners drawing post-retirement benefits for years.

Justice A K Sikri said: “Pension is an entitlement and not a benefit under the social welfare schemes. How is it included under Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016? Pension is a return for services rendered. There are many pensioners who live with their children who are settled abroad. Can such category of pensioners be told that they would not be granted pension unless they have an Aadhaar card?”

Justice Chandrachud said, “There is another category of persons who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease and may have serious dementia. There are those old persons whose biometrics do not match with the Aadhaar data. Where do they go? Pension is a rightful entitlement and not a bounty given by the state”.

5)Ref:2018/027 The Office Bearers/ Central Committee Members/State Body Chiefs A.I.B.R.F

Dear Comrades,

Re: IBA circular on implementation of SupremeCourt Judgement on 1616-1684 issue

With further reference of our circular No.25 dated 16.03.2018 in particular Para 8 thereof, We are glad to inform that IBA has since issued circular no. 4786 dated 03.04.2018 advising member banks including private sector banks to implement Supreme Court judgement inm the matter of fixing basic pension on 1684 index instead of as fixed on 1616 under the 7th wage settlement and

pay the arrear to those retired after 01.04.1998 till the anomaly was removed under 8th settlement signed on 02.06.2005 from the date of retirement instead of from 01.05.2005 as provided in the settlement dated 02.06.2005. with interest @ 9 per cent p.a. for the delayed period. These arrears have to be paid within from the date of order i.e. by 13.06.2018. Copy of the IBA circular is enclosed.

2. Effect of the above IBA circular will be as under:

(a) All those retired after 01.04.1998 till 02.06.2005 will be eligible to receive arrears on re-fixation of basic pension on index of 1684 from the date of retirement.

(b) Approximate number of retirees who will get monetary benefit is about 1.20 lakhs due to high number of VRS optees during this period.

(c) Amount of arrear per retiree on an average will be Rs. 40000 to Rs. 1,50,000 depending upon the period involved and grate from which one retired.

(d) Family pensioners/ Legal heirs of the pensioners will also be eligible to receive the arrears.

(e) Advise by IBA to private banks in this regard is positive development

(f) It may be mentioned that this is one time payment. Improved pension on index of 1684 is being already paid w.e.f. 01.05.2005.

3. It is historical victory for the bank retirees and the justice could be secured after long legal battle. We congratulate the bank retiree community and especially to the petitioners who fought long legal battle. AIBRF has been taking up this issue with IBA/ Government for last several years. AIBRF significant contribution in this regard is that we could persuade IBA to extend the benefit to all similarly affected retirees instead of restricting the benefit coming out due to the court order to the petitioners only. This positive reversal in the approach of IBA has come due to the long struggle for last 2 years launched by the retirees under the banner of AIBRF.

4. We convey our thanks to the Finance Minister, DFS officials, bank managements IBA and its managing committee for showing very positive gesture towards bank retirees in extending benefits to all eligible retirees.

5. You will find that in last 60 days three big violations in implementation of the wage settlement have been resolved with benefit to all eligible retirees. We expect the retirees to get monetary benefit of more than 1000 crores because of these three corrections . It is much needed relief to the bank retirees who could not get any monetary benefit in the last wage settlement but continued to support the struggle with all zeal and enthusiasm. We are confident that our cadre will extend the same support to our organisation for achieving other pending demands.

6. Our affiliates are requested to take all necessary steps to ensure that the benefits under the 3 circulars of IBA namely notional service benefit to specialist officers, pension option to the compulsorily retired employees and arrears for 1684 reach to one and all eligible retirees particularly to the families of the deceased retirees without fail.

7. On this occasion, we appeal to collect suitable levy from the members who have received benefits and remit @ Rs. 10/- per member for the total membership as on 31.12.2017 to AIBRF by 31.07.2018. as per the decision taken by office bearers’ meeting held at Vijayawad

Yours Sincerely,

( S.C.JAIN)

GENERAL SECRETARY

👆 For Information.


STRAIGHT FORWARD
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial services vide its letter no. F.NO.11/5/2001-IR dated 26.02.2018 conveyed to RBI that “As regards update of pension, any change in the manner of calculating pension is likely to result in similar demands in Public Sector Banks and Financial Institutions, most of which are currently experiencing financial difficulties.”

 This letter along with other documents, after being notarized have been filed in Bombay high court by RBI in RBI pensioners UPDATION CASE.

The Secretary Finance is absolutely right when He stated that Banks are in great financial difficulties. Rather 2017-18 is financially worst year for Banks during the last 40 years.
BUT payment of pension and updating of pension has no bearing on the Financial MESS in the Banking Sector.

Pension is not paid from Revenue of the Bank, BUT from PENSION TRUST FUND. This fund is created out of contributions of the employees during their service in the Bank.

Bank holds these funds as trustee and not the owner. Bank has no right over this trust fund. This pension fund is healthy fund and it is more than 2lac crores. The annual interest income is more than 20,000 crores, whereas the annual payment of pension is not more than 7000 crores.

THE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES OF BANKS HAS NO LINK OR BEARING WITH UPDATING OF PENSION.

Rather pension fund is being misutilized by banks for purposes other than payment of pension which is a criminal breach of trust.
DFS has refused updating of pension to RBI because it will unstable the Financial position of Banks, but this is not true- a misleading statement. RBI has knowingly and intentionally filed a wrong affidavit which is contempt of Court.

Ministry of Finance, during the current budget session of Parliament enhanced the Gratuity limit fromRs.10lacs to Rs.20lacs. Just doubled.
The gratuity is to be paid by bank from its revenue. It will add to the financial difficulties of the Banks. While enhancing the gratuity limit, DFS did not think that it will adversely affect the revenue of the Banks. Where as It is direct burden on the Bank.

WHY: Because the benefit of enhanced gratuity will also go to Secretary Finance and the staff of G.O.I.

Why the logic as conveyed to RBI is not applicable in this case?

Why these double standards?

State Governments follow the Central Pay commission for salary of their employees. Many of the States are not able to pay salaries to their employees regularly. Pension is not paid for months together. Some of the States have yet not cleared the arears of 6thPay commission.

Yet 7th Pay commission has been implemented from 01.01.2016 without considering how much strain it will put on the finances of the State Governments.

Arears of 6th Pay commission has not been cleared, yet 7th Pay commission has been put on top of it. The states will never be able to clear the Back log.

WHY IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED THAT 7THPAY COMMISSION WILL CREAT FINANCIAL MESS FOR THE STATES.

WHY: Because the benefit of 7th pay commission was to go to the Secretary Finance also along with G.O.I employees. Just double standards of the Ministry.

Another fraud is being committed on the Bank Pensioners by the Ministry. Regulation 35(1) of Pension Regulations 1995 stated:
(In respect of employees who retire between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 31st day of October,1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in appendix-I).

This has been amended in 2002 by Gazette notification. The period of 01.01.1986 to 31.10. 1987 has been replaced by term (where ever applicable).

Now what is -where ever applicable?

On enquiry under RTI as to who have been given benefit of updating of pension under the amended Regulation. Bank reported that all those who qualified have been given this benefit of updating. Bank has no record, whose pension was updated in the last 16 years under the amended regulation.

Now what are the qualifications for updating of pension?

 The word qualification is not defined anywhere in Regulations. Yet the bank gives the definition of QUALIFICATION by quoting section 2 from annexure-I of Pension regulation 1995 which pertains to updating of pension for those who retired between 1.1.1986 to31.10.1987. This deals with additional pension on special allowances only.

THIS AMENDEMENT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY BANK AFTER APPROVAL OF THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND WETTING BY MINISTRY OF LAW.

No employee has got benefit of updating of pension under the amended regulation WHERE EVER APPLICABLE. It is 16 years since this amendment was introduced.

Why this amendment when benefit was not to be given? 
Only to fool the employees of Banks.

You are requested to circulate this information in the public and media so that every one knows the FRAUD being perpetuated on the Banking Sector employees by the Ministry of Finance.
M.S.Sidhu   Mobile : 9876101509

Use This Safe Link To Buy Goods Of Your Choice