Why Pension Updating is Necessary?

Copied from Facebook
Facebook link is here

Why There is a Need for Updation of Pension for Bankers At the time of Every Settlement

Without updating in pension, the pre 2002 retirees are getting reduced pension because of a) non-revision of their basic pension and b) no provision for 100% neutralization in their case. Thus the loss for them is for two reasons. For the recent two categories (8th and 9th bipartite), the loss is due to non-revision of their basic pension only. The older categories are drawing nominal pension, which also need immediate attention.  Denial of pension itself to certain categories of retirees (resignees, regular voluntary retirements etc.) also needs immediate corrective steps so that they also made eligible for pension.
No updating of pension for bank pensioners is like no periodical salary/pay-scale revision for a serving bank employee.  The latter is at least getting periodical increments in his scale, up-to the last stagnation increment, unlike a pensioner. He is also eligible for a promotion to a higher grade.

The formula of updating should be such that all the existing pensioners will get D.A. under a uniform formula (of course with 100% neutralization). Calculation of D.A. then will be by multiplying the basic pension with a certain percentage as in the case of recent pensioners.  Pensioners retired long back should also get the benefit of revision of their basic pension, and consequent upward revision in gross pension as and when pay-scales of employees in service revise periodically. Of course, they will not get further commutation arrears because of rise in their basic pension, nor they will get proportional benefit due to increase in number of stagnation increment to employees in service.


These are my expectations and benefits to be enjoyed in future. In that case any improvement in the pay-scales of the Bank Employees in the Bipartite Settlements will be of more interest to the pensioners, due to the consequent benefit to them also. For this concerted efforts by the pensioners, employees in service, union leaders, co-operation of the management of banks, support of Government, judiciary, etc.  are needed. Let our dream come true!


Updation of pension demand requires immediate attention of the Leaders as denial of the same hitherto has dis-united the retired staff into Pre-2002 and post 2002. The pre-2002 retired pensioners are paid every month lesser DA. Higher the basic pension Lesser the DA % increase resulting in monthly loss of 1000-3300. Before starting the Bipartite Talks, Unions should sincerely take efforts to abolish this  GROSS INJUSTICE to the senior citizen retirees.


After the introduction of the New Contributory Defined Pension from 2006, Central Gov't has nowhere permitted the OLD central pension scheme except in Banking Sector in April 2010 benefiting nearly 250000 PF Optees. Leaders achieved the un-achievable albeit with huge monetary sacrifice. When they could achieve this FEAT of one more option involving Rs4800crores additional burden every year, can't they get JUSTICE to the Pre-2002 retired pensioners by restoring to them 100%DA neutralization (the same percentage enjoyed by those who retired after 1/5/2005) which involves monthly cost of Rs2-5crores per Bank? What they ask for is not NEW or Additional Benefit. It is restoration of their rightful share of pension illegally denied for more than 10 years.

Updation/revision of pension and other pensionary matters can be taken up with Bipartite Talks.

May I expect our Leaders to fulfill the expectations of 1 lakh pre-2002 retired pensioners!

In central Govt this is done automatically and salary is revised. There is no specific wording in each salary revision agreements.

This should be done automatically in our case also. If you ask for specific clause tomoroow they may say there is no clause to revise DA etc.

This should be taken in residual issues itself.

 we, senior citizens who retired from different banks in the country after putting in meritorious service as officers for upto four decades, submit the following memorandum for your kind perusal and necessary action.

2. When an officer retires from a bank, the pension payable to him is fixed at the half the basic pay drawn by him. This is his basic pension for life. It is never revised upwards. In other sectors like the government and public sector corporations, the position is quite different: the basic pension is revised as and when the salary and allowances of those in service are revised.

3. As a result, we have a situation where there is a huge gap between the pension received by retirees of yester-years and those retiring now. Our point can be best illustrated by the following example:

An officer who retires from a bank in the juniormost rung of officers today will get a minimum of Rs 12,850 as basic pension. Compare this with the pension of an officer who retired in 1986 as the Chairman of a bank: it is a mere Rs 3,500, the level at which it was fixed at the time of his retirement. Even a peon who retires today from the bank gets a pension of Rs 7,025. Need we say more?

To cite a live case, the basic pension paid to Shri C John Jacob, who retired in October 1987 from State Bank of Travancore as a middle level officer in October 1987 is a mere Rs 1,713. Shri S S Menon, who retired in September 1986 as an Assistant General Manager draws a basic pension of Rs 2,322, while an officer who retires today in the same grade receives Rs 17,600 as basic pension.

There are several such instances which we can quote. If the matter is not addressed at least now, the gap will grow to unimaginable proportions in the years to come.

4. This deplorable state of affairs and the huge disparity in basic pension are entirely due to the absence of pension updation. There is urgent need to extend the practice applied in the case of Central and State Governments, Government-owned Corporations and autonomous bodies where the formulae applied for revision of salary in the case of serving officers/employees are applicable to pensioners also.

5. The case of family pension is worse: it is nominal, being a mere 15% of the pension of the deceased officer for most of the senior among the retirees.

For example, the pittance that Smt C Lakshmi devi, the widow of the late Shri V Balachandran, who retired in July 1987 and expired on the 6th February 2008 receives as family pension is a mere Rs 600. Smt Saramma Chellappan, the widow of the late Shri P I Chellappan, who retired in September 1986 and expired on the 31st October 1987 receives family pension of just Rs 671.

This needs to be viewed in the context of the recent amendment in the Family Pension Scheme of Central Government Employees, 1964, which provides for family pension at 30 per cent of the Basic Pension of the deceased pensioner and the nine-fold increase in the family pension: the minimum family pension which was at Rs 375/- per month before updation now stands at Rs 3,500/- per month and maximum family pension has been raised from Rs 2,500/- to Rs 27,000/-.per month.

6. There was no pension in banks till the end of 1985. The pre-86 retirees are given a paltry sum as an ex gratia payment. They live a life of misery in the last lap of their life.

The basic ex gratia pension received by S/Shri M M Mathew and H Padmanabhan, who retired in September 1982 and September 1985 respectively as Assistant General Managers, is just Rs 300 (Including dearness allowance, they receive under Rs 2,100), while their counterpart retiring today would receive Rs 17,600 as basic pension.

7.  The plight of the spouses of the pre-1986 retirees is even more pathetic.

Consider the case of Smt Annamma George and Smt Saramma Peter, widows of former General Managers the late S/Shri K V George and V C Peter who retired in July 1981 and August 1984 respectively. They are paid a consolidated amount of Rs 1,000 as family pension.

8.  Sir, these are not solitary instances. The condition of the retired bank officers and their families is pathetic, as you can see from the above instances. They live in utter penury. Receiving peanuts of a pension which diminishes as age advances is humiliating to the ex-employees who spent the whole of their productive life for the growth and development of the bank. The amount of ex gratia pension paid to pre-1986 retirees and their spouses makes the proposition look like a cruel joke.

9. The contrast can be best appreciated by recalling that when Bank Officers’ Service Regulations,1979 was framed, their pay scale was on par with that of the Class I officers of the Central Government. There are no grounds for bank pensioners being denied the benefit of pension updation.

10. The Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, implemented in 1996 with effect from 01-01-1986 was also drawn up on the lines of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1972. There is, therefore, a strong case for updation of pension to all the pensioners and family pensioners on the above basis.

11. Post-retiral welfare of the bank pensioners/family pensioners is a social obligation of the Government and the Government should not be found wanting in discharging this obligation. Most banks have unbroken record of profits. The average year-on-year profit is in the range of 15 to 20 per cent. In the circumstance, the burden that updation of pension would cast on banks will not be heavy. Further, with the introduction of the new Pension Scheme in Banks, the liability of banks would only diminish in due course of time.

12. In the wake of the Supreme Court judgment providing for pension updation for all pensioners/family pensioners of the Central Government, several individuals and organizations of bank pensioners had taken up the issue with the appropriate authorities at the Centre, but nothing has transpired. Litigation, as you would kindly appreciate, is a long drawn and money consuming process which the aggrieved pensioners, at this stage of their life, can ill-afford.

13. Sir, it is time that the issue is raised on the floors of the Parliament and serious attention of the Government is drawn for its resolution. We honestly believe that the humanist and enlightened Parliamentarian in you will carry the House with you in rousing the conscience of other Hon’ble Members of the Parliament and persuading the Government of India to look at the whole issue in the perspective of pure humanism and natural justice. Sir, we are too weak and exhausted to stand the nightmare at loitering court corridors, braving all seasons.