Eye Opener Information For Bankers By Mr JN Shukla

BANKS' MANAGEMENTS/IBA STAND TO LOSE HEAVILY........
ONCE THEY ARE DRAGGED TO COURT!

POINT IS..
JUST BELL THE CAT & SEE IT DANCING

( Though, it is little bit lengthy, but must read for complete understanding on many confronting issues of interest of banking fraternity. Further, if you find it useful, please share it with others.
-J. N. Shukla, PRAYAGRAJ. 9559748734)

Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 clause 22 (4)(b) was amended favorably by  (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 amending regulation 22 (4) (b), wherein 'participation in strike' was treated as interruption to forfeit right to pension. This derogatory condition of 'participation in strike's was expunged from the said clause, through Pension (amendment) Regulations, 1998. It was a favourable change in scheme and by this amendment, banks were under obligation to give a second option to those who didn't opt for pension earlier as per Pension Regulations, 1995.

As per statistics 52% employees/officers didn't opt for Pension, as offered under Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, solely for 'derogatory' condition as contained under Cl.22(4) (b), which stipulated forfeiture of past services in case of strike, for calculation of Pension.

 Now, let us examine the gravity of this 'derogatory' clause. If you opt for pension, as precondition, you were going to surrender your employer's share of PF+interest. Now,  with this condition you opted for Pension. Then, at later date if you went on strike and caused disruption, you were liable to forfeit your past services for Pension calculation. Look to twin financial losses in such an event, one you lost your CPF benefit, and secondly you lost your pension right as well. Now, you stand nowhere. Looking to such gravious condition, arising out of the said derogatory clause & option being irrevocable in nature coupled with the strike being eminent in industrial relations, majority of people didn't gather courage of the short to opt for pension and run in trouble in case of strike & disruption, which often happens in Banking.

Pursuent to aforesaid 'favourable' change in condition through amendment in original Regulations, 1995, the Bank's were under obligation to give chance to all for another option, which the Banks did not give with sole intention to deprive large section of employees & officers from the inherent benefits flowing from the said amendment of 1998. We Bankers knew the very purpose of the said amendment which was to create a favourable term to facilitate those who didn't opt for pension because of this derogatory clause in question.

However,  Banks gave  an option on the basis of the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 on certain conditions, contrary to already laid down norms in Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. According to  Joint Note dated 27.4.2010 for pension option (I) serving employees were required to  pay a contribution of 2.8 times of their revised pay for November, 2007 to the Pension Fund and irrevocably agree to transferring their CPF with accrued interest  to the Pension Fund,  (ii) retired employees were required to contribute 56 percent of CPF+interest in addition to surrender   CPF paid on retirement and (iii) Retired employees become eligible to pension from 27.11.2009 or afterwards, irrespective of actual retirement prior to 27.11.2009.

As the facts stand, the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 envisaged the procedures for retirees between
1. 1.1986 to 31.10.1993 with regard to  refund of Bank's share of PF+interest, which the retirees had got on retirement along with 6% simple interest, and (ii) payment of Pension from the date of retirement. Under second option pre 27.9.09 retirees have not been treated at par with 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 retirees. Second optee retirees were discriminated as against those who retired between 1.1.1986 & 31.10.1993 in refund of employer's PF, additional cost and payment of pension date. Under Regulations, 1995, Pension to retirees was paid from retirement date, but in second option case pension started from 27.9.09, irrespective of actual date of retirement. All were asked to pay fixed additional cost, irrespective of period they held PF+Interest or actual gap from the date of retirement and 27.9.2909. Here considerable point is that in second option pension beneficiaries were discriminated two ways. One with those who were retired during 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1993 and second among second optees themselves.In Pension Regulations, 1995 employer's PF portion was to be refunded with 6% simple interest and pension was released from the date of retirement, but contrary to this in second option scheme employer's PF portion was refunded with 56% of CPF in place of 6% simple interest and pension payment was postponed to 27.11.2009.

The option under the Pension Amendment Regulations 1998  remained a distant factor. It was not demanded by any Union under UFBU. Rather, they showed to their followers that they are fighting for second option, which ultimately they achieved, as above, terming as landmark achievement in bank employees service conditions. Amendment Regulations, 1998 is integral part of Pension Regulations, 1995. This Regulations, 1995 is a subordinate legislation under section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980.

The aforesaid contributions from serving employees and retired employees were inconsistent with regulations 5 (3) and 11 which determined the Bank as the sole contributor to the Pension Fund and the payment of pension to retired employees was inconsistent with regulation 52 (1) of the Pension Regulations and hence were impermissible under Pension Regulations, 1995.

The Banks realized additional amount of 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement, as cost to give right to pension to which people were legitimately entitled upon Amendment Regulations, 1995, but denied pension from the date of  retirement ie to 27.11.2009.

Since the Pension Regulations, 1995 in force did not contain any provision for the 'contribution' or to deny pension from the date of my retirement it's absolutely unlawful acts of Banks. As per Pension Regulations, 1995 in force, second optreden could have been asked to refund employer's portion of PF+interest along with 6% dimple interest, as envisaged in Regulations, 1995 and paid pension from the date of their retirement.

Further, in 10th settlement with a view to deprive full pension, an agreement is reached between IBA & UFBU to create a Special Allowance with disqualification to Pension calculation. It is similar to creating a notional pay structure in 7th settlement at 1616 indices. Hon'ble SC has already held it unlawful. Looking to SC judgement, the management was required to correct the blunder they committed in 10th settlement in Special Allowance matter disqualifying it for calculation of Pension.

Further, having perused SC judgement in RRB pension matter, I find two important wrongs in reference to other Banks. One, SC orders refund of employer's portion of PF+ interest only whereas in other Banks case it is with 6% simple interest or with 56% of PF+ internet. In terms of SC order, banks should refund whatsoever they recovered as 6% or 56%. Second, in RRB matter SC ordered to pay pension from date of retirement, whereas in second option, it is made from 27.11.2009 irrespective of earlier date if retirement. This negates the provisions as set out in Pension Regulations, 1995 as well as contravenes the latest judgement of SC.

Hon'ble SC judgement in RRB pension disput, the old pension scheme continues upto 31.3.2018, whereas in Banking it was abondoned in 2010 and NPS was introduced. Here, another conflict of interest arise as to why old pension scheme abondoned in 2010 should not be extended up to 31 3.2018 in terms of SC judgement in RRBs matter. Ultimately it is a judgement of highest court of the land and it prevails. All RRBs are sponsored by some PSBs. It means RRBs are subsidiaries of some PSBs. Logically, they can't have superior service conditions than sponsorers. Since this comes as per SC order, it must now flow down to sponsorer Banks. Neither RRBs, nor govt or Sponsored Banks filed any review petition against the SC judgement in this regard and time is over.