New Model Google Ad

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Petition to Hon'ble PM / FM

 30th  OCT 2017 by  Jayaprakash Nagarajarao

 Our sincere thanks & gratitude to one & all who have been consistently supporting our endeavour of periodically raising the plight of our Bank Retirees of not getting lawful & legitimate rights of periodical Updation of pension, 100% DA Neutralisation, improvement in Family Pension, besides denial of pension option to CRS, Resignees etc.,


Support to our endeavour received from more than 7500 & pace of encouragement is still in full swing. Thank you. 

Respected Bank Retirees are aware that how the UFBU & IBA have been signing joint notes in each every wage settlement since 1995, the year Bank Employees Pension Fund Regulations came in to in force violating important provisions of the Regulations. 

The so called protectors of Bank Retirees have not ensured that Banks were mandatorily expected to make contribution solely to pension fund as per Reg. 5 & violating that, additional contributions was detrimentally recovered from arrears & otherwise during 2010 which was totally unlawful. This needs to be refunded with interest to all. 

Regulation 56 has not been forcefully demanded for periodical updation as equally applicable to central govt pensioners.

Regulation 11 has been grossly violated.

Section 19 of Banking Regulation Acquisition & Transfer of undertaking Act has been totally violated.

All the joint notes signed prejudicially with IBA & administrative orders issued periodically by MOF are mandatorily required to be placed before the Parliament for assent within 30 days failing which all such agreements, understandings reached between the cozy parties becomes null & void.

It is ridiculous to note that IBA always declined to consider pension updation citing subjudice as some cases are pending in various courts. Stray cases are filed by individuals in respect of infringment of Leave encashment, gratuity, pension option to CRS, Resignees & others.

When IBA cites certain individual stray cases, at the same time, why IBA is not respecting judicial pronouncements already held in cases like D. S Nakara, WP 1123/2015, WP 4005/2017, Writ of Mandamus decided by Kerala High Court in favour of Sri. Venupal. 

Now, it is left to the wisdom of the UFBU to introspect all their previous actions of understandings reached during last 25 years. Taking the verdicts of various courts, UFBU should introspect & should file suit organisationally against IBA/Govt and ensure reinstament of periodical updation of pension & other legitimate rights to Bank Retirees as per Reg 56 at par with Central gov pensioners.

Our pension Corpus funds are exceedingly abound without any cost to the exchequer & interest earnings on said accumulated fund itself is sufficient to service payment of pension & periodical updation. After all, the legitimate rights demanded are to be considered from our own accumulated Corpus fund and not against any budgetory allocations.

This can be achieved by exerting pressure on decision makers & all other counterparts, if all Retirees lodge individual plaints poured on pgportal.

Please act now within the remaining longivity, otherwise it will never be achieved.
Thank you.


29th OCT 2017 by Jayaprakash Nagarajarao

 Retirees are feeling why IBA is reluctant to consider Updation of Pension at every stage of negotiation & why Associations are also effectively not challenge the stand taken a by IBA.
Retirees Pension Fund is self sufficient to service the regular payment of pension including periodical updation from interest income alone.

IBA says it is subjudice because some cases are filed by individuals. Infact, Individuals have filed cases in respect of Leave encashment, gratuity, second option to CRS, Resignees, Dismissal etc that is based on case to case basis. IBA contention should be challenged by UFBU who have been signing settlements since implementation of Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. If IBA contention is correct, they should have respected the SC judgments in D S Nakara & in WP 1123/3015, WP 4005/2017 in Madras High Court, Writ of Mandamus in which Kerala High Court has directed Finance Secretary to rectify violations done from 1995 to 2017. UFBU & Retirees Association should unitedly fight the case. When affected individuals can file cases, why Associations are not doing the same despite having above decided cases on hand in pension issues. 
How IBA has been violating pension Reg. 5, 7, 11, 54, Sec 19 of Banking companies regulation Act. 
If UFBU continues to do injustice in this ongoing XI bps also, then retirees can understand the hidden agenda of IBA & UFBU. Better sense prevail


Petition to Hon'ble PM / FM:

Jayaprakash Nagarajarao
India
28 OCT 2017 — WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS FILED BY SRI. VENUGOPAL, ON SERIOUS VIOLATIONS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS:
By taking cognizance of serious violations, THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA WAS PLEASED TO ISSUE INTERIM ORDERS & DIRECTED THE SECRETARY, UNION FINANCE
MINISTRY TO RECTIFY VIOLATIONS in tune with Banks’ Pension Act, 1995 passed by Indian Parliament, assented by The President and duly published in the official gazette.

I have also submitted following two letters to the Secretary, Law & Justice, Central Government in PGPORTAL AS ACKNOWLEDGED HEREUNDER. I Sincerely request all other Bank Retiree friends to send the similar letter changing the From address individually to strengthen the endeavour of Mr. Venugopal to bring moral pressure on the decision maker. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LETTER FORMAT
LETTER NO. 1:
N. JAYAPRAKASH
No. 121, 3RD Main, 3rd Phase, 6th Block, 3rd Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore-560085
Email: njayaprakash18@gmail.com, Mob: 9902889812
28th October 2017
To:
The Secretary,
Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India,
4 th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. R P Road, New Delhi -110 001

Dear Sir, 

Derogation of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995

I write to inform that Ministry of Finance issued its administrative instructions vide letter DONo.14/1/1/2007-IR dated 10.08.2010 according sanction for implementation of a Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 which was in the nature of amending the Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulations), a subordinate legislation framed pursuant to Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 (the Act), pending amendments to the Pension Regulations.
1. In terms of section 19.1 of the Act, any amendment to a regulation could be made only through notification in the gazette.

2. In terms of section 19.4 of the Act, any amendment to a regulation, as soon as may be after it is made under the Act or any scheme thereunder, shall be laid in both the Houses of the Parliament for a period of thirty days and will have effect only if approved by both the Houses.

3. Sections 19.1 & 4 of the Act prohibit any amendment that prejudice what is done earlier under a regulation.

4. The Joint Note has not so far been notified in the gazette, not laid in the Houses in spite of the lapse of a period of seven years though it was to be laid immediately after making the regulation and its conclusions are in the nature of circumventing the Pension Regulations.

5. Whereas regulation 52.1 of Pension Regulations lays down that a pension shall become payable from the day following the date on which an employee retires, conclusion 8 of the Joint Note prescribed that in the case of employees who retired prior to its date, pension shall be paid from 27.11.2009 to all the retired, irrespective of the date of retirement.

6. Whereas regulation 5.2 and 11 of Pension Regulations fix the banks as contributor to Pension Fund, the Joint Note provided for a levy of 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 for employees on rolls and 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement for retired employees opting pension under it to Pension Funds.

7. Regulation 3 lays down that option for pension shall be exercised within 120 days of the notification of the of Pension Regulations. The last date expired on 26.01.21996. No one could be admitted to the benefits of Pension Funds created pursuant to the Regulations after 26.01.1996, the regulation 3 remaining the same. Hence pension paid on the basis of the Joint Note from 27.11.2009 to retired employees is thus unauthorized by the Pension Regulations.

8. Regulation 5.2 lay down that the Pension Fund has the sole purpose of payment of pension/family pension in accordance with the Regulations. It has no provision for payment of pension in accordance with the Joint Note to those who were taken into the Pension Scheme after 26.01.1996 and whatever pension paid out of Pension Funds has to be from the date following the date of retirement.

It is learnt that in the case of RBI Pension Regulations, Law Ministry had advised Ministry of Finance that the regulations are statutory having been framed pursuant to the RBI Act and that any administrative instructions/orders circumventing them is unsustainable and the regulations have precedence over administrative instructions / orders in 2009.

I earnestly request you to kindly advice the Ministry of Finance on the irregularities that have taken place in the administration of the Pension Regulations for regularizing the matter, under intimation to me, at the earliest.

Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,

N. JAYAPRAKASH
cc.to:
The Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice. For kind information. It is submitted that the Joint Note cannot be tabled in the Houses as its conclusions prejudice relative regulations (sect.19.1 & 19.4) and the time frame for tabling it expired long ago section 19.4).
________________________________________________

LETTER NO. 2:
N. JAYAPRAKASH
No. 121, 3RD Main, 3rd Phase, 6th Block, 3rd Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore-560085
Email: njayaprakash18@gmail.com, Mob: 9902889812
28th October 2017
To:
The Secretary,
Ministry of Law & Justice, Govt. of India,
4 th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. R P Road, New Delhi -110 001

Dear Sir,

Regulation 35.1 of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995

I am furnishing below the details of regulation 35.1 of the Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 as appearing in the original regulation notified on 29.09.1995 and amendment to it carried out in the year 2003 for your kind perusal:

Regulation 35
Sub-regulation (1) 
In respect of employees who retired 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 formulae given in Appendix I Regulation 35
Sub-regulation (1) 
Basic pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix I


The deletion of the period of applicability in respect of “employees who retired between 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 31st day of October, 1987” gives clear indication that the regulation has been made applicable to all employees irrespective of their date of retirement and the substitution of the words “shall be” in place of “will be” shows that the updation of pension is to be done invariably wherever applicable. In case there is no updation as per the pension scheme, the provision regarding updation would not have found a place in the regulation.

This apart, regulation 56 of Pension Regulations lays down that “In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these relegations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules, 1972, or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time determine.”.

The Central Government has not so far permitted any deviation from regulation 56 to any bank and as such the Pension Regulations having been exactly on the premise of the Central Civil Pension, pension in banks has to be revised in tune with the bipartite settlements in the same way Central Civil Pension gets revised with the implementation of each Pay Commission. But this has not so far been permitted by the Ministry of Finance.

In terms of section 10.7 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980, a bank is permitted to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as reserves in its books only after making due provisions for all legitimate expenditure including superannuation funds. But in derogation of the Act, banks had been regularly declaring dividend and paying to government and other stakeholders from time to time.

I earnestly request you to examine the anomaly in detail and to advise Ministry of Finance about the imperative need of adhering to the Pension Regulations and the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were put in place as otherwise the entire process of law making will become meaningless. I request you to kindly let me have a copy of the guidelines that will emanate to Ministry of Finance from you in this regard.

Thanking You,
Yours faithfully, 
N. JAYAPRAKASH
_________________________________________________________________________
I request all affected Bank retirees / pensioners to send similar letters individually to decision makers and post the same in pgportal & change.org.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Use This Safe Link To Buy Goods Of Your Choice