Status Of Court Cases Related To Bankers

Reproduced hereunder a write up published in a SBI retirees group....
I request all bankers to share details of other court cases related to  bank employees to create awareness in larger section of bankers. Further if you have more updated status or you find any discrepancy in following information  please let me know to correct the same. The more we spread the information the more will be possibility of early solution.

Cases Related To Pension, gratuity, wage hike, payment for 2nd option of Pension, promotion injustice, Medical insurance etc are pending in various courts. Please share with all if you feel there is harm in it.

This MONDAY 17.09.18 MID-MONTH REVIEW OF COURT CASES

1.PENSION UPDATION CASE
Case No.
SLP(C) No. 005561 / 2016 Registered on 22-02-2016
Present/Last Listed On 28-08-2018 [HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA]
Status/Stage Pending - (Motion Hearing
[SERVICE/COMPLIANCE]-BEFORE REGISTRAR(J) / [AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES]) Adjourned for (D:0,W:4,M:0)-Ord dt:28-08-2018
Tentatively case may be listed on (likely to be listed on) 05-10-2018

Last hearing order :Date : 28-08-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Four weeeks' time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner(s) to comply with the office report dated 20.04.2018. (here, the retirees lawyer did not comply with court procedure)

2. A) 100% DA CASE High Court of Madras
Case Status Information System
Case Status : Pending Status Of : WRIT PETITION 4213 Of 2013

Litigants : Y.GOPALAKRISHNA, Vs. INDIAN BANK,
Pet's Adv : M/S.M.RANGARAJULU Res's Adv : M/S.AIYAR &DOLIA FOR R1
Last Hearing Date : Friday, February 22, 2013

2. B) 100% DA CASE REVIEW PETITION IN SUPREME COURT Diary No. 23564/2018 Filed on 02-07-2018 11:02 AM
PENDING [SECTION: XVI] Case No. R.P.(C) No.

Petitioner(s) 1 UNITED BANK OF INDIA RETIREES WELFARE ASSOCIATION OFFICE AT 20, HEMANTU BASU SARANI (PREVIOUSLY), OLD COURT HOUSE STREET, 4TH FLOOR, KOLKATA ,KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

Respondent(s) 1 UNITED BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OFFICE AT 11, HEMANTA BASU SARANI , DISTRICT: KOLKATA ,KOLKATA , WEST BENGAL

Judgement Challanged Judge1/ Judge2
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION(s)
Reg. No./I.A. No.Particular Remark Filed By Filing Date Sr. No.
Status.Entered On 87035/2018 ORAL HEARING
ARUN K. SINHA 02-07-2018 1P02-07-2018 11:05:58

3 A) 2nd pension option anamolies
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Main NumberWP 6468/2003SR NumberWPSR 35674/2003

PetitionerGORRE VEERA VENKATA RAO 34 ORS
Respondent CHAIRMAN MD.,INDIAN BANK,CHENNAI ANR
Petitioner Advocate D V BHADRAM
Respondent Advocate AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA
Case Category SERVICE
DistrictEAST GODAVARI
Filing Date 09/04/2003
Registration Date 10/04/2003
Listing Date  09/11/2015
Case Status PENDING BUT CONNECTED WP641/2002 DISPOSED AS FOLLOWS

Purpose SPECIALLY IDENTIFIED CASES
Scrutiny Officer name
Hon'ble Judges The Honourable Sri Justice S.RAVI KUMAR
Category Category WP
Sub Category NATIONALISED BANKS (MISC.MATTERS)
Sub Sub Category ALL SERVICE MATTERS IA DETAILS
IA Number
Filing Date
Advocate Name
Misc.Paper Type
Status
Prayer
Order Date
Order
IA 1/2003(WPMP 8445/2003)
09/04/2003
D V BHADRAM
Fix an Early Date
Pending
IA PRAYER
-
IA 1/2013(WPMP 134041/2013)
20/08/2013
T A KUMAR
Fix an Early Date
Pending
IA PRAYER
-
USR Details
USR Number
Advocate Name
USR Type
USR Filing Date
Remarks
1/2004
3680/P S SASTRY
Counter Affidavit
17/08/2004
-
CONNECTED MATTERS
Connected Case Number
WP 0007399/2002
WP 0000641/2002

BUT CONNECTED WP641/2002 DISPOSED AS FOLLOWS

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.641 OF 2002 Dated 16-9-2010
Between:
M/s. Central Bank of India, Retired Officers Welfare Association (Regd.No.8372/2001), having its Office at 102/3RT, APHB, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad-29 represented by its General Secretary. …Petitioner.

And: Union of India, through Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi and others.

...Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.641 OF 2002

 ORDER: When this matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the circular issued by the Central Bank of India, Terminal Benefits Department, Mumbai, dated 16-8-2010 in CO:HRD:TLBNFTS:2010-11:2697, the subject matter of this writ petition has become infructous.

Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as infructous giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter according to law. No costs.
____________________________                             JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated 16-9-2010
3B) 2nd Pension Option Anamolies
High Court of Kerala
Case Status Information System

Case Status : Pending Status Of : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL 10189 Of 2018 Litigants : K K RATNALATHA Vs. SECRETARY(BANKING), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Pet's Adv : SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH
Res's Adv :
Last Date of Hearing : Friday, March 23, 2018 Next / Final Date of Hearing : --- Case Updated On : Monday, March 26, 2018
Category : Service - Bank

4A) 19193-1994 GRATUITY CASE WP 16399 / 2005 WPSR 81738 / 2005 CASE IS:PENDING
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT
SRI S.K. RAMA RAO, VIJAYAWADA & ANOTHER
VS
THE INDIAN BANK, CHENNAI & ANOTHER
PET.ADV. : PRASAD
RESP. ADV. : AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA
SUBJECT: ALL SERVICE MATTERS
DISTRICT: KRISHNA
FILING DATE: 18-07-2005
POSTING STAGE : FOR ORDERS OF COURT
REG. DATE : 26-07-2005
LISTING DATE : 23-06-2011
STATUS : ---------
HON'BLE JUDGE(S):
G.CHANDRAIAH
MAIN PRAYER TEXT
to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring clause 15 (iv) of the Joint Note dated 23-3-1995 which was entered into by the Indian Banks Association with All India Officers Associations of varsious banks as illegal, null, void, unconstitutional and issue a consequential directrion to the 1st respondent Bank to pay the difference of gratuity amount payable to the petitioners calculated on the revised pay scales and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

4 b) SUPREME COURT JUDGEMNET ON SIMILAR CASES FROM KARNATAKA AND MADRAS

9. However, having regard to the fact that the retired employees before this Court have been fighting for around quarter of a century and taking note of the fact that they are only a few in number, we are of the view that this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

We, therefore, direct that the appellants Banks shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) in full and final settlement of all their claims including the expenses which they have incurred for litigation for more than two decades. The amount, as above, shall be paid within eight weeks from today.

10. We make it clear that as far as the civil appeals arising out of Writ Appeal Nos. 1758-1785 of 2003 (S-RES) & other connected matters are concerned, the benefit, as above, shall be limited to those persons, who were in the party-array before the High Court and whose names had already been furnished to the High Court when the writ petition(s) was/were considered by the High Court, and a certificate from the High Court shall be obtained for that purpose.

11. With the above observations and directions, these appeals are disposed of. .......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]
New Delhi; March 29, 2017.
5. CASE PENDING IN MADRAS HIGH COURT
Case Status : Pending Status Of : WRIT APPEAL 1279 Of 2012

Litigants : THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK Vs. INDIAN BANK VOLUNTARY RETIREES
Pet's Adv : M/S. KING & PARTRIDGE
Res's Adv :
Last Hearing Date : Friday, March 09, 2018 Category : Service
PETITIONER(S)
S.NO
PETITIONER(S) NAME
1
Sri S.K. Rama Rao, S/o. Chinna Narasaiah,
2
Sri T.S.N. Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy,
RESPONDENT(S)
S.NO
RESPONDENT(S) NAME
1
The Indian Bank, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, # 66, Rajani Salai,
2
The Indian Banks Assn. Rep by its Chairman, Stadium House, 6th Floor, Block No. 3,



Received through WhatsApp group:
A Case for UPDATION ...
(Excerpts from the Draft WP of Sri M.K R (73) Dy.Manager Union Bank of India
**************************
Bank Pensioners are deprived of a life with dignity at old age as their pension is not revised ever since the inception of the pension scheme
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
********
The petitioner joined the services of the Bank on 19/12/1967 and retired  as Deputy Manager on 20.04.2001 after having put in a total service of 33 years

Petitioner has opted for pension as per the Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995. He was paid pension at the rate of Rs.6483/- per month (Basic Rs.4395/ + DA Rs.2088/-) as per pension payment order No.6613011 dated 28.11.2001. The basic pension of the petitioner remains static without any revision whereas the
petitioner is getting a monthly pension of Rs.24,099/- considering the increase in D.A. and commutation of pension.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that there is no revision of basic pension to the petitioner and other pensioners though they are entitled for revision of basic pension in view of explicit provisions of Pension Regulations 1995. Regulation 35 (1) of the Pension Regulations notified on 29.09.1995 provided that “In respected of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formula given in Appendix - 1”.


The second respondent amended the said regulation on 18.05.2002 to read it as “Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formula given in Appendix –I” making it unambiguous and mandatory that the basic pension shall be updated simultaneous with the increase in pay bands arising out of Bi-Partite Settlements reached from time to time.
Clause 56 of the Pension Regulations makes it abundantly clear that the Pension Scheme is exactly on the premise of Central Civil Pension rules by stating under Residuary Provisions that “In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these regulations, 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.”. Regulation 35 (1) and 56 thus make it clear beyond any conundrum that the second respondent(Union Bank of India) shall revise the basic pension of its retired employees simultaneous with wage revisions taking place through Bi-Partite Settlements in the way Central Civil Pension gets revised automatically with the implementation
of each Pay Commission.
**
In spite of regulation 35 (1) as amended on 18.05.2002 mandating the updating of pension in the case of employees retiring on any date and regulation 56 making it clear that the
Pension Scheme is exactly on the premise of the Central Civil Pension, the respondents have not so far updated the pension of the Petitioner and similarly placed employees in defiance of regulations 35 (1) and 56, depriving them of their right to live with dignity in old age, through denial of the statutorily vested updating of pension out of their own deferred wages held in trust in the Pension Fund, while the first respondent updates the Central Civil Pension to its
employees regularly with the implementation of each Pay Commission, out of the exchequer.
***
The Pension Fund of the second respondent need not service employees who joined its service after 31.03.2010 as they are covered under the PFRDA Scheme of Pension of the first respondent. As such, the pension liability of the second respondent will extinguish in course of
time when the last pensioner breaths his last and the Pension Fund will vest with the respondents. In this circumstance, the respondents are acting in connivance and detaining the
money in the Pension Fund without paying the statutory benefits conferred by regulations 35 (1) and 56 with the evil design of snatching it away for themselves in the long run when the beneficiaries of the Pension Fund get extinct.
**
In terms of section 10 (7) of the Act, the Board of Directors of the second respondent can declare a dividend and retain the surplus profits as accumulated reserves only after making due provision for superannuation funds like pension, the said section giving a prior charge to
pension over the profits of the Bank by stating as infra:
Section 10 (7):
“After making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation in assets, contributions to staff and superannuation funds and all other matters for which provision is necessary under any law, or which are usually provided for by banking companies, a corresponding new bank may out of its net profits declare a dividend and retain the surplus if any.”
14. Section 10 (7) of the Act puts an onus on the respondents to pay the statutorily defined pension even in case of operating in loss. The second respondent was declaring dividends ranging from 13 percent to 80 percent to the stakeholders including the first respondent and
increasing its reserves and surpluses from Rs.15,092.64 Crores as on 31.03.2013 to Rs.22,747.76 Crores as on 31.03.2017 without paying the statutorily defined pension in gross derogation of regulations 35 (1) and 56 of the Pension Regulations out of the Pension Fund, neglecting section 10 (7) of the Act  Section 10 (7) of the Act gives a prior charge to superannuation funds over the profits of the second respondent which is a statutory guarantee to the employees while taking over banks through Act 5 of 1970 and even in case of loss, banks cannot evade payment of superannuation benefits. Inasmuch as pension is payable out of the Pension Fund which is the deferred wages of the employees and pension costs zero expenditure to either of the respondents, the respondents, by not revising pension as mandated by regulations 35 (1) and 56 are indulging in a heinous crime of detaining the money of the employees and denying them their right to live unbecoming of its status as the government and “state”.
**
The first respondent(Union of India) that has the ownership and control over nationalized banks, including the second respondent, is having vested interest in getting higher sums as dividends and was not revising the pay and pension in banks and thus exploiting the employees in them / retired
employees in defiance of section 10 (7) of the Act for getting a higher dividend for paying higher pay and pension to its direct employees.  The rulings made by the Apex Court even when pension is payable by the state causing an expenditure to the exchequer is that state cannot take a plea of financial burden to deny the legitimate pension, pension is property within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (f) and 31
(1) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the State Government to avoid unwarranted litigation etc. and as such the respondents are not justified in denying due pension and updating ,
**
The employees of nationalized banks are employees of the state by reason of ownership of banks by the government and the status of the bank as “state” under Article 12 of
the Constitution and the employees of banks are the people who implement all the financial policies of the Central Government. Though their wage bills are to be paid by the government thus, it is paid out of the profits the employees themselves make in banks and the government
does not have to pay them anything. Employees of banks had a higher pay than that of the employees of the government in the pre 1980 period, which was given to them through Awards like Desai Award in view of the higher financial risks, extended working hours, transfer to remote
locations etc. The first respondent implemented the Pillai Committee Recommendations on
01.07.1979 in banks including the second respondent bank to bring about parity in pay with the government employees. Though parity of reasoning requires pay in banks to be at least equal to the pay in government, it is now less than two third of the pay prevailing in government. The first respondent was giving a discriminatory and step-motherly treatment to employees of banks, darkening the lives of the people who illuminated the other segments of the society.
The petitioner and similar retired employees are very much forced to the walls as their pension
has nexus with the salary payable to the employees which is not revised adequately and the
basic pension is never revised in tune with revision in salary through bipartite settlements ever
since the inception of Pension Scheme in gross derogation of regulations 35 (1) and 56 of the Pension Regulations.
**
The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent on 16.6.18 praying for revision of pension as mandated by pension Regulations and to pay him the arrears.The respondent has not issued any reply.
**
The Hon’ble Court can only despise the action of the respondent in denying the
updating of pension as regulation 35 (1) and 56 of Pension Regulations are their own rendering specifically mandating the updating and payment of due benefits as Pension Fund has the potentials for paying four times the present pension to all the pensioners with no cost to the respondents, more so as the view adopted by the Apex Court even when
pension is payable by the state out of the exchequer is that right to receive pension is property
under Article 31 (1) and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution of India; pension is not a bounty depending
upon the sweet will of the employer; but is the deferred wages of the employee and an inalienable right earned through relentless service.
**
The Petitioner humbly submits that it is essential that the respondents implement in letter and spirit regulations 35 (1) and 56 which are their own rendering approved by the
Legislature as a subordinate legislation and are the rules in force applicable. 
A) The Bank is “state” as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is to act in furtherance of the welfare of the subjects of the Pension Regulations making it
essential to desist itself from denial of due benefits to the subjects of the beneficial legislation,
with the end in view of snatching away the property of the employees in the long run.
B) The respondents are bound to act in accordance with the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in order dated 13.02.2018 in Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2012 viz. Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs.
G Palani & Ors. that “the regulations have statutory force, having been framed in exercise of the
powers under section 19 (2) (f) of the Act of 1970 and are binding”, and that “That it is it is not
permissible to add or subtract any word in a provision is a settled principle in statutory
interpretation” since the ruling is squarely applicable in the case of regulations 35 (1) and 56
and disregard to the ruling is could lead to contempt of the Apex Court.
C). Reckoning the observation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in clause 26 of the Ext.P4 order
that “in that case the right to receive pension was treated as property under Articles 31 (1) and
19 (1) (f) of the Constitution the respondents are unlawfully detaining the property of the
petitioner and are to refrain from such unlawful act.
D) is under an obligation to is to revise the pension of its employees in view of the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in All India Reserve Bank
Retired Officers Association and Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992) Suppl.1 664) in clause 21
of Ext. P4
“5. The concept of pension is now well known as has been clarified by this Court time and again.
It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of the compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socioeconomic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Prayer:
To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction directing the respondents to update the pension of petitioner as mandated by regulation 35 (1) and 56 of the Pension Regulations and to pay arrears of pension with interest  Hon`ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to update the pension of petitioner forthwith, and pay the Interim Relief  pending final disposal of the Writ Petition.
(Our Thanks to Sri K Mohandoss Krishnan  CB)