Dear Friends,
Copy of the circular dated 21.11.2017 issued by AIBRF on declaration of IBA as Public Authority under RTI Act 2005 is furnished here below for information of all:
To the office Bearers/ Central Committee Members/ State Body Chiefs
Dear Comrades
Re IBA declared Public Authority under RTI Act,2005 by
The Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi
We are happy to inform you that as per the order of Central Information
Commissioner dated 13.11.2017, Indian Banks’ Association has been declared Public
Authority under RTI Act ,2005. IBA has been asked to appoint CPIO under the act
within 30 days from the order from the information can be obtained by the public.
2. It is big victory for the work force including retirees. So far IBA has been denying
the information to the public including retirees under the pretext that it is not public
authority and therefore not covered under RTI Act. This is historical judgement of CIC
and will empower the retirees in obtaining the required information and thereby
making IBA accountable towards retiree issues.
3. We congratulate petitioners for successfully fighting this legal battle and
empowering work force of this country in banking industry.
4. We enclose copy of the order for your ready reference.
With Warm Regards.
Yours Sincerely,
( S.C.JAIN)
GENERAL SECRETARY
Shri S.C.Jain,
General Secretary,
AIBRF,
Indore.
Dear Sir, GST on Health Insurance Premium
At our recently held CC at Ujjain, we had discussed measures to approach the authorities on reducing the GST on health Insurance premium, especially for Senior citizens in India. The increase in the health premium has become exorbitant for the Bank retirees, as also for senior citizens of India.
We are attaching a letter addressed to the Prime Minister, written by the General Insurance Pensioners All India Federation, making out a case for reduction in GST on Health Insurance premium. It is pertinent to point out the sentence, among other well stated points of arguements:
"While health Care is out of GST, Health Insurance is subject to GST at the normal rate of 18%. The premium in health insurance is going up due to increase in the claims in recent years."
We feel that in the interests of Bank retirees, as well as the general senior citizens of India, we too should state our case to the government of India for reduction in Health Insurance Premium.
We hope this suggestion will meet with your approval.
With Regards
M.K.MUNDUL
Jt,Gen.Sec., AIUBRF
Massive Rise In Pension of Private Sector Employees after Historic Order Given By Supreme court In august 2016
This refers to news published today regarding 1200% rise in pension of some retired employees who have been fighting his case in court for last four years ---
In his 37-year career Praveen Kohli hadn't got the kind of hike that he received four years after he retired as a general manager with Haryana Tourism Corporation.
On November 1 this year, Kohli's pension rose by nearly 1200%-from Rs 2,372 to Rs 30,592 per month.
The windfall was courtesy a Supreme Court order of October 2016 that directed the EPFO to revise the pension of 12 petitioners under the employee pension scheme (EPS).The pension scheme, which is part of EPF, has over 5 crore members. Every employee in the organised sector contributes 12% of basic salary and dearness allowance to EPF. The employer makes a matching contribution. Of the employer's contribution, 8.33% goes to the EPS. When people withdraw their EPF after a job switch or during unemployment, the EPS is not given out. It's payable only after superannuation.
There is also a ceiling on EPS contributions. The current cap on salary (basic + DA) is Rs 15,000 per month so, the maximum one can contribute to the EPS is 8.33% of Rs 15,000, which is Rs 1,250 a month.
Between July 2001 and September 2014, the EPS salary cap was Rs 6,500 a month, which translated to a maximum contribution of Rs 541.4 a month. Prior to 2001, the ceiling was Rs 5,000, which yielded a maximum contribution of Rs 416.5.
So how did 62-year-old Kohli get a pension of over Rs 30,000 a month with such a meagre contribution to the pension fund?
Cases were filed against EPFO in various high courts. By 2016 all except one high court ruled against EPFO stating that the six-month deadline was arbitrary and the employees must be allowed to raise their pension contribution whenever they wish to. The case went to Supreme Court which, in two separate rulings in 2016, ruled in favour of employees' right to raise their contributions to pension fund without imposing any cut-off date for eligibility.
Following is link to Newspaper
Period Of Service As ‘Work-Charged Employee Will Be Treated As ‘Qualifying Service’ For Pension-Supreme Court [Read Judgment] BY: MANU SEBASTIAN SEPTEMBER 16, 2017 11:22 AM...
In a judgment which could give major relief to fourth class employees in government department rendering services as work charged or officiating or temporary, the Supreme Court has held that period of service as ‘work charged’ will also be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
Read more at:
http://www.livelaw.in/period-service-work-charged-employee-will-treated-qualifying-service-pension-supreme-court/
http://www.livelaw.in/period-service-work-charged-employee-will-treated-qualifying-service-pension-supreme-court/
The appellants were employees in the service of Uttarakhand Governmnet. Rule 370 of Uttarakhand Civil Service Regulation provided that following services will not count for pension :- Periods of temporary or officiating service in a non-pensionable establishment Periods of service in a work-charged establishment Periods of service in a post paid from contingencies. A pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules was struck down by a Full Bench of Punjab & H...
Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/period-service-work-charged-employee-will-treated-qualifying-service-pension-supreme-court/
Right to pension cannot be taken away pending proceedings: Apex Court-Hindu Business Line
20 august 2013
Observing that gratuity and pension are hard earned benefits of an employee and right to receive pension is in the nature of “property”, the Supreme Court has held that this right cannot be taken away from a government employee pending departmental or criminal proceedings.
“It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not the bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and un-blemished service. It is thus hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”.
“This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India,” a bench of justices K.S Radhakrishnan and A.K Sikri said.
The court passed the judgement while dismissing the appeal of Jharkhand government against the state’s high court order directing it to release the withheld dues of its retired employee Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, who had criminal cases pending against him.
“We are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner (Srivastava) to receive pension is property under Article 31(1) (of the Constitution) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same.
“The order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)of Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable,” the bench said.
It also said “a person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced.”
The state government had moved the apex court challenging the October 31, 2007 order of a division bench of the high court which had held that under the Bihar Pension Rules, the government does not have power to withhold gratuity and pension during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceeding and or withhold leave encashment at any stage either prior to or after conclusion of the proceeding.
The order of the high court had come on a writ petition filed by the petitioner, who had retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi in 2002, seeking release of part of his pension and other dues.
Read full news in following link
No comments:
Post a Comment