Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Message from Devulapalli Srinivasa Murti.

27 DEC 2018 — 
My Dear Friends,
 
SUBJECT:       
 
RECENT AMENDMENTS TO THE  BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS IN REPLACEMENT TO THE ALREADY EXISTING PROVISIONS - ABERRATIONS WHILE PLACING THOSE AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
  
Referring to the above,  at the outset,  I congratulate my learned friend – Com. Katari Satyanarayana garu for his valiant efforts to “unearth” the  “Constitutional impropriety” indulged in by the authorities concerned, while placing the Gazette Notification/s brought out by the Bank Management/s much detrimental to the interests of the SENIOR BANK RETIREES.  
 
 In fact, Com. Satyanarayana had a detailed discussion with me a few days ago on this issue and who made it a reality ultimately .
 
Through his untiring efforts,  our learned friend, com. Katari has sought for the “Recommendations/Observations of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the Rajya Sabha, in addition to various other documents relevant to the issue, under RTI Act.
 
 
IN THIS CONNECTION, IT’S VERY MUCH PERTINENT TO REMIND OURSELVES OF THE  SPEAKING ORDERS OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN ITS  LANDMARK  JUDGMENT - dtd. 13th. FEBRUARY, 2018 IN OUR 1616-1684 CASE  SAYING:-
QUOTE:

“29. Thus, in our opinion, the Regulations which were in force till 2003, would apply with full force and as a matter of fact, the amendments made in it by addition of Explanation (c) in Regulation 2(s) did not have the effect of amending the Regulations relating to pension, as contained in Regulation 38 read with Regulations 2(d) and 35 of the Regulations of 1995. Even otherwise, if it had the effect of amending the pay and perks ‘average emoluments’, as specified in Regulation 2(d), it could not have operated retrospectively and taken away accrued rights.   Otherwise also, it would have been arbitrary exercise of power. Besides, there was no binding statutory force of the so called Joint Note of the Officers’ Association, as admittedly, to Officers’ Association even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and joint note had no statutory support, and it was not open to forgo the benefits available under the Regulations to those officers who have retired from 1.4.1998 till December 1999 and thereafter, and to deprive them of the benefits of the Regulations. Thus, by the Joint Note that has been relied upon, no estoppel said to have been created. There is no estoppel as against the enforcement of statutory provisions. The Joint Note had no force of law and could not have been against the spirit of the statutory Regulations and the basic service conditions, as envisaged under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1970. ……”
UNQUOTE:

The above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which have a DIRECT BEARING  on the above amendments, must have necessarily been placed before the Rajya Sabha Committee for its consideration  – which is a major lapse on the part of the authorities concerned.
Please click the following link for the details:
 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19DadmdNzspm4QikteBGTgNcKcRICzy3-/view?usp=sharing    
 
In fact, I vividly explained in my letter dated October 22, 2018, the ill-conceived antecedents on the part of the Bank Managements/IBA/MOF combine, leading to such a glaring act much detrimental to the senior bank retirees - the lamenting lot of our fraternity- devoid of justice and fair play . Please click the following link for the details:

I once again congratulate our learned friend Com. Katari Satyanarayana garu for his commendable job.

Regards and greetings,

I remain- Yours,

No comments:

Post a Comment