New Model Google Ad

Saturday, November 11, 2017

Open Letter To UFBU And Ministry of Finance

Following  letter has been  written by Mr C N Venugopalan on 12th of November 2017 which is relevant and effective . It exposes the hollowness and mischievous mind of top officials of banks whose decisions taken in the past caused enormous loss to all staff of the bank including those who retired. 

As such it is reproduced as it  appeared today  on Facebook . I personally thank And admire Mr Venugopalan who has been consistently fighting against the management, union leaders and government for the benefit of common bankers specially for pensioners.

Please forward this link or letter to all bankers you know, working or retired. In my blog I have recently posted his previous letter too which is available on right side of this blog or by looking in past blogs on this site.

C N VENUGOPALAN   Former Director (GOI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore & Ex Manager Union Bank of India

 “Nandanam”  Kesari Junction, North Paravur, Kerala -683 513   Mob: 9447747994 E – Mail:
 No. MOF :171112                                                                                                12th November, 2017
The Secretary, (Banking)
Government of India, an Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
Jeevan Deep Building,
New Delhi – 110 001


Notification No. 428 in the gazette dated 6th November, 2017 –
Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 2017

I write to point out to you the discrepancies in the above Pension Amendment Regulations, 2017 notified on 6th November, 2017 in the Gazette of India for doing appropriate corrigendum notification as the contents are unlawful besides being disastrous and detrimental to the subjects of the regulations and infringes their  fundamental rights on the following grounds:

1. The notification is issued in the name of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services and it bears the authorization of Shri. R R Mohanty, General Manager (HR).  Whereas there is no such designation assigned to any official of Department of Financial Services, the matter is to be regularized.

2. In regulation 3 sub regulation 10 reads as :
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (2), (5), (6) and (8), in cases where an employee had retired /died after retirement on or after the 1st day November, 1993, but on or before the 1st day of April,1995, or where an employee had died while in service of the bank on or after the 1st day of November,1993, but on or before 1st day of April, 1995, such an employee or the family of the deceased employee, as the case may be, shall refund within the period specified in aforesaid sub-regulation the entire amount of the bank contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the provident fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the bank or till the 1st day of April, 1995, whichever is earlier.

The notification states that “after sub regulation 10 the, following sub-regulations shall be inserted namely:

(11) were in the services of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and continue in the services of the Bank as on the 27th April, 2010 provided such employee meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement.
(12) were in the services of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and retired after that date and prior to 27th April, 2010 provided such employee meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement.
(13) were in the services of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and retired after that date and had died in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations if the family of the deceased meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement.
(14) were in the services of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and died while in service of the Bank after that date in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations if the family of the deceased meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement.

In the first place, the aforesaid sub-regulations 11 to 14 are not co-related to regulation 3 or to sub-regulation 10 and there is no mention of any settlement earlier either in the preamble, definitions or in any regulations making the settlement unable to link to any regulation.  The sub-sections fail to convey any sense.

In the second place, if regulations 11 to 14 are linked to regulation 10, and the settlement is the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, regulation 10 stipulates refund of CPF with six percent simple interest   till the date of its refund to the bank or till the 1st day of April, 1995, whichever is earlier and sub regulations 11 to 14 stipulates refund of CPF with 56 percent of it through the settlement which are prejudicial and in clash with each other.

Thirdly, the last date of option in terms of regulation 3 in respect of any category of employees / family of employee was 120 days within the notification of the principle regulations on 29.09.1995 which period ended on 26.01.1996 and no one can be admitted to the benefit of pension on the basis of these sub-regulations without giving the options a retrospective effect from a date prior to 26.01.1996.  In other words no one can be given an option in terms of the settlement,   after the last date of option viz. 26.01.1996. without amending the regulation suitably.

2. Per clause 4 of the notification, after the proviso of the regulation 28 of the said regulations, the following proviso was inserted,  namely:

“Provided further that employees who ceased to be in service on or after 29th September, 1995 on account of voluntary retirement before attaining the age of superannuation but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in accordance with the Scheme framed in this regard by the Board with the approval of the Government, shall be entitled to join the Pension Fund, subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Scheme”.

In terms of gazette notification dated 13th July, 2002, which was conveyed by Staff Circular No.4904 dated 8th October, 2002 of the Bank, the following clause was inserted below regulation 28 earlier, namely:

“Provided that, with effect from 1st day of September, 2000, pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”.

It has hence to be clarified as to whether the insertion vide clause 4 of the notification is meant to be inserted before the insertion of 13th July, 2002 or after it and whereas pension also became payable to employees retired through voluntary retirement with effect from 1st September, 2000 through insertion dated 13th July, 2002,  without compliance with the “terms and conditions mentioned in the scheme” specific reason as to why compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme is made through the new insertion.

3. In terms of regulation 7 notified on 29.09.1995,  the Pension Fund can receive only the components  specified in it which excludes a contribution from the employee other than the initial transfer of his CPF balance. Regulations 5.3 mandates that the Bank shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the regulations besides regulation 11 stipulating additional annual contributions to the Fund by the Bank on the basis of an Actuarial valuation.  Apparently the terms and conditions of the settlement referred to in the notification dated 6th November, 2017 prejudices the regulations 7, 5.3 and 11 and prescribes contributions to Pension Fund to the tune of 2.8 times salary for November, 2007 and 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement in the case of employees in service and retired employees respectively to their detriment. The contributions envisaged under the settlement prejudice the extant regulations and make the settlement unfit to be  laid in the Houses of the Parliament vide section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were stamped by the Parliament.  The relative sections of the Act violated are reproduced in clause 6 infra.

4. Per clause 8 (b) in the notification in relation to regulation 52, it is stated that in sub-regulation (3), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

“Provided that pension including family pension to those who opted to join the Bank Employees’ Pension Scheme on or after the 27th April, 2010 shall be payable with effect from the 27th November, 2009”.

The insertions apparently prejudices regulation 52 (1) which mandates payment of pension from the date following the date on which an employee retires and hence is unsustainable in law on the premise of section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980  which are given under clause 6 infra:

5. Relative sections of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 referred in clause 3 and 4 supra:

Section 19.1
The Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any scheme made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act.

Section 19.4
Every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank, be forwarded to the Central Government and that government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should. not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.

6. Since the sections 19.1.and 19.4 makes beyond any conundrum that amendment to regulations not inconsistent with the Act alone can be made and any such modification or amendment shall only be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulation, the terms of the settlement with special reference to clause 3 and 4 supra are unsustainable as per rules in force.  Hence the amendments notified on 6th November, 2017 prejudice what was done earlier under the relative regulations and are unsustainable. The notification is hence an affront to the Legislature and to the Constitution of India.

7. The notification carries an Explanatory Memorandum that the regulations which have been given retrospective effect are as per the agreed terms and conditions of the settlements and Joint notes singed between the Indian Banks‘ Association on behalf of member banks on the basis of specific mandate given by the respective banks in this regard and apex level workmen unions and officers’ associations of the Banks and therefore, interests of no person shall be adversely affected by such retrospective effect.   This is beyond any conundrum wrong and malicious as the contributions of 2.8 times Salary for November, 2007 in the case of employees on rolls and 56 percent of CPF in the case of retired employees are disastrous and the insertion under regulation 52 (b) providing for payment of pension from 27.11.2009 in the settlement is much detrimental to employees  who retired prior to 27.04.2010and prejudices the very same regulations which mandates payment of pension from the date following the date of retirement.   Unions and associations have no mandate from retired employees to discuss on Pension Regulations and to arrive at conclusions that are damaging to them and the Bank cannot affix a label to such conclusions that they are not affecting any person adversely.

You may kindly note that the notification is mischievous and unlawful in toto and detrimental to the beneficiaries of the Pension Regulations depriving the fundamental rights of the subjects.   A request is hence made hereby to repeal the same immediately in the event you have nothing to refute on what are stated above.  Please confirm compliance within a period of one month from the date of receipt hereof.

Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,


Following is an old letter to UFBU which is relevant today too and hence posted on Facebook by a banker and the same is reproduced below for creating awareness among common bankers.


It is unfortunate that the constituents of UFBU representing the Bank employees and the Indian Banks Association representing various Banks have been entering in to unlawful understandings / settlements in every wage revision hazarding the welfare of the Bank serving employees in general and Bank Retirees / Pensioners in particular.

The unholy bonding between them is evident from the Record of Joint Notes signed on 27.04.2010 & 25.05.2015. in terms of Ministry of Finance, New Delhi vide their own letter dated 23.10.2009 stated in clause 5.1 (a)(b) & 5.4 addressed to Mr. Arvind Ganesh Karnik and two others in relation to Reserve Bank of India Pension Regulations any administrative order or instruction which circumvents the provisions of Pension Regulations is unsustainable. But, the MOF implemented the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 & 25.05.2015 in Public Sector Banks  under its control, envisaging amendments to Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995  framed under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 intercepting its regulations 5 (3), regulation 11, regulation 7 and regulation 52 (1), without amending the Pension Regulations.

Is it not a fact that Employees representative organizations have failed in their bounden responsibility of their duties while signing the repeated settlements knowing very well that any extraneous actions of theirs requires amendments  to the Pension Regulations within the stipulated time frame. Specific to the issues of Retirees/Pensioners, are they not aware of the Pension Regulations 5, 7, 11, 13, 52 & 56. Because of their lack of knowledge or deliberate interconnection with IBA, have been repeatedly put the rightful demands of the Retirees at stake in respect of their (a) Periodical Updation of Pension, (b) 100% DA neutralization, (c) Improvement in Family Pension, (d) One more option of Pension to left out CRS, VRS, Resignees etc.,

Despite their representatives in the Board of the Banks & having tremendous members support have failed to ensure:

• That the employee’s Salary revision & other benefits are at par with employees of Central Government.
• that the Bank Pension Funds are maintained as per the norms of Pension Regulations 1995, resulting in apprehension that  the Banks Contribution to Pension Fund under Reg 5 is not done regularly right from the inception of the Pension Regulations, 1995 till date.
• The actuaries are not correctly calculated on annual basis under Reg. 2
• The Pension Fund maintenance in respective Banks are not monitored periodically
• Failed to demand need of Retirees Representatives in the Pension Fund Trust maintained by the respective banks.
• It is also appears that they were keeping silent when funds are wrongly or deliberately transferred by some banks from Employees’ Pension Fund to show fictitious Profits.
• Failed to clinch  long pending (a) Periodical Updation of Pension, (b) 100% DA neutralization, (c) Improvement in Family Pension, (d) One more option of Pension to left out CRS, VRS, Resignees etc. based on various court judgments
• Failed to impress the Government that the Pension Corpus Fund which is contributed by the members is sufficient to service the above demands
• Impress the government that their demands does not require any budgetary allocations and there are is no burden to the exchequer.
• Failed to challenge the government that the under Reg. 56, Bank employees’ Pension Regulations are equally applicable at par with CCS Rules, 1972.

It is high time that the so called Employees representatives shall introspect their deeds done earlier and strive their sincere, honest efforts & ensure that the justice is reinstated at least now in the ensuring XI BPS.

Please demand for scrapping of IBA which is an unregistered & unauthorized voluntary organization not appointed by the govt, not funded by the govt, but funded by the member banks out of public money without any responsibility & accountability for its action on behalf of Banks. This has been confirmed by Central Information Commission (CIC).

In view of the fast changing scenario of impending bank mergers, the position of Pension Fund is apprehended to be put in mess &disorder and before that, demand for Financial, Performance and Compliance audit under Article 149 & 151 by Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) in respect of individual bank Pension funds for the period from 1995 to 2017 to safe guard the interest of its beneficiaries viz. Bank employees/ Retirees /Pensioners.

Further, impending bank mergers, it is apprehended that the BPS at industry level may be affected as Individual Banks may opt for Bank-wise settlement, Hence, demand for separate Bank Pay Commission at par with Central Govt. employees Pay commission.

It appears that the UFBU is reluctant in helping Retirees (as evidenced in Joint Note dated 25.05.2015). There is a proverb i.e. ‘after chess game is over, King and soldiers are put in same box’. Similarly, after retirement, all are called as Retirees/Pensioners only irrespective of their past designations. Hence, all the leaders of Retirees Association are requested to shed their reservation if any and get united under one banner and fight for the rights of the Retirees/Pensioners instead of always depending on leaders of Serving Organisations.

People wanted to know the reality. We request the leaders of all associations under UFBU to respond to this letter and assure that you are not shirking the responsibility and would work for the rightful cause of the Serving & Retirees at least in the ensuing XI BPS.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully, 

Dr. Dhananjaya Bhupathi, B.Sc.,MA.,LLB.,CAIIB,MD[Acupressure],
(Former Manager at Syndicate Bank and
Visiting Professor to Medical Colleges,
Address: Care:Mr.Vikas Rao, 1-8-702/62/9[Upstairs],Near HanumanMandir, Padma Colony, Nallakunta,HYDERABAD-500 044, TELANGANA STATE. Email, Mobile No.9198 4936 7207.
Dated: 28.07.2017.

Banks have been forced to conduct loan melas to disburse loans sacrificing quality of loaning process and banks have been forced to write off loans so that vote banks of ruling party is safe and become greater.

Banks have been used to carry out all non - productive services like tax collection or salary payment or disbursing subsidy oriented loans under various government sponsored schemes or reckless branch expansion in the name of service area approach or PM Jan Dhan Yojana.

Further to make the situation worse, banks have been directed and allowed by previous government to do non- banking business like insurance, mutual fund, demat etc. In this way banks sacrificed the safety of bank's core assets and wasted time in capturing insurance business from own customers. They could earn a few crores of rupees in commission on selling insurance policies but they lost hundreds and thousands of crores of rupees by financing to bad borrowers or by neglecting monitoring loan asset or by writing off bad loans.

There is a saying " Penny wise pound foolish"Naked Truth!

Starting January 2014, a Reservation Clerk in Railway will earn Rs.35,370 after taking into account the recent 10% DA hike announced by the Govt.On an average there will be jump in salary to the extend of 2.6times after every pay commission. So after 7th pay commission, if we consider the worst case scenario and suppose salary will jumpby 1.6times, from 2016 a booking clerk will get Rs.57,250 as agaisnt the 18000 drawn by Bank Clerk and 30000 drawn by Bank Officers.The entire thing has to be read against the backdrop that during the year 2012-13, Railways made aloss of Rs.24,600 and the minister was quick in attributing the loss to the gloomy Economic Scenario prevailing in the country.
It is worth to mention here that IBA restricted the wage revision to 5% citing poor profitability of Banks, whereas data reveals that during the last 5 years, Gross Profit of PSBs jumped by141% to Rs.1,07,731Cr.Can anyone explain the rational prevailing in this GREAT country in giving Rs.57000 salary to a booking clerk who key- in nothing but passenger detail and a bank officer who appraise and sanctions credit worth crores of rupees!
This is old story posted on Facebook today but it holds truth today too.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Use This Safe Link To Buy Goods Of Your Choice