Progress On Court Cases Related To Bankers

1875/2013 SBI PENSIONERS FEDERATION Vs Union of India and others
8095/2016 Umesh Sharma Vs State Bank of India
9679/2016 Manoharlal Vs State Bank of India
The above cases  were pending for a long time for various reasons.   On 27th March 2019 DHC Bench heard partially and posted the case on 1st April 2019.  The cases were heard on  01/04/2019, 02/04/2019 and 03/04/2019.    The following are the messages that were sent during the period:

01/04/2019
 Pension Case: Delhi High Court: Case was called up at 2.15 pm . Sri Mishra Sr Advocate for Federation resumed the arguments. In nutshell, he Summarised the various provisions of Bipartite Settlements leading Anomalies and in the process creating classes of Pensioners thus disturbing the homogeneity of same class. He then one by one ‘ demolished ‘ the counter arguments given by the Bank . Thereafter, he referred to various communications exchanged by the Bank with DFS . He also referred to the hollowness of the report of Govt appointed Committee.
Finally, he attended to the queries of Hon’ble Court. At 4.15 pm Court adjourned to resume hearing tomorrow ie 02/04/19
Thanks n Regards
Umesh Sharma

Court proceedings can be interpreted in anyway to blame each other . But this will only demotivate  people in the PENFED who are not only sincere on the job but also painstaking in their efforts. Of Course, there is no two opinions on our ultimate goal which is not only 50% but also Updation.

The information received by me is that nothing had been uttered by Shri. Misra, the Sr. Counsel of the Federation detrimental to the interest of Pensioners as is being circulated by those under hearsay versions.

Even assuming but without admitting that Shri. Misra has told that he is not raising an issue on Updation, there is nothing wrong in such a statement for certain genuine reasons. I remember that in one of the court proceedings of MHC before Justice Chandru wherein when two different WPs as regards the prayer for  50% LDP as Pension filed by two sets of SBI Pensioners listed for hearing, Justice Chandru posed a pertinent question to the petitioners as to whether they pray for Updation of Pension. The counsels appearing for Petitioners clarified that they are not pleading for Updation and their prayer is only for 50% LDP as pension in terms of SBI Pension Fund Rules. So there will be every possibility for the Judge(s) to get confused over the prayers.

Pensioners should be aware that there are two sets of WPs focused on different angles. One WP filed in the year 2011 before SC by the PENFED with prayers focusing only on a single issue ie. 50% of the as LDP as Pension, dragging various functionaries of the Bank and more particularly the DFS of GOI as parties which was  subsequently transferred to DHC in the year 2013. Whereas the other WPs. filed in the year 2017 by two different petitioners in their individual capacity raised not only 50% of the LDP as Pension but also various other matters such as 100% DA Neutralisation, Improvements in Family Pension and Updation without mentioning GOI as a party.

The issue regarding 50% LDP as Pension is an issue concerning only SBI Pensioners and all other issues are common to the pensioners belonging to the entire Banking Industry including SBI and when the other Banks' Pensioners achieve the same, then only there will be a force in demanding such benefits by the SBI Pensioners. RBI Pensioners had been struggling to get Updation of Pension despite RBI Management favouring the same, for want of GOI approval. Only very recently RBI was able to achieve Updation, of course that too after getting the approval of GOI. In view of RBI getting this achieved, this issue has gained momentum among the Pensioners community in the Banking Industry only very recently.

Unfortunately in the given circumstances, the two sets of WPs in question before DHC containing different prayers and different parties as Respondents are being listed in seriatim as a batch for hearing before the Bench on every occasion despite raising objections. Hence it is all the more necessary for the PENFED & its Sr. Counsel to ensure that the Bench should not gain an impression that these two sets of WPs are raising simila…
🖕🖕🖕.  The above message is from Shri Ganapathy, President, SBI Pensioners Association, Chennai

Federation case 1875//2013
The case came up for hearing at 2.37 pm and went upto 3.59pm.
The undernoted issues were discussed by our Sh.Misra assisted by Sh.Panda & ECV,Advocate on record.
Taking away of eligible allowances such as PQP and FPP relating to 7th Bipartite retirees while agreeing to pay 40% as per the Committee (GOI)
The leaving out of retirees w.e.f.1-11-2002 to 30-04-2005 was forcefully argued.
Reply of MOF on three retiral benefits was demolished by quoting Supreme Court Judgement on the subject.
CPI details,on query by the Bench,on 1616-1684 issue was replied to by quoting the paragraph from the Committees Report (7th Bipartite).

50%/40%issue was discussed in greater details today once again by referring to the chart already handed over to the Bench.
Lastly IBI Judgement was read out to the Bench for justifying the demand of 50% of the last pay drawn for all.
Tomorrow (02-04-2019)Sh Misra is likely to quote some more Judgements and propose to close our side of the hearing where after the Govt ASG/Bank’s advocate may record their submissions.
Over all developments today were very encouraging and our Sh.Misra was able to send the message across for which the Federation went to Supreme Court/High Court very forcefully.
Regards
P.K.Pathak
GS SBIPA Delhi Circle

Just now I spoke to Alex. He said that Mishra had spoken about non-compliance with the directions issued to the Bank in 1989 judgement. As I finished my conversation with Alex Umesh rang me up. He was telling that Mishra was making fun of the Government on DA based on CPI1684 when the Government advocate stated that DA is on industrial practice.He seemed to have questioned why SBI pensioners alone should have 50%/40% ceilings when all banks have 50% as ceiling. He seems to have mocked at the Committee report especially on the logic given in the report for justifying the twin ceilings. He is reported to have even commented on Regulation 27.

Alex says that this bench is good and receptive and was seeking clarifications where necessary. I was told that the Bench cancelled other cases listed for tomorrow only to finish the hearings from our counsel.

Regards,
Upadhyaya.   1.4.2019

[
02/04/2019

Case called up at 2.40 pm. Mr Mishra Counsel for Federation resumed arguments to provide more clarity on Govt appointed Committee, applicability of SC order in DS Nakra, V Kasturi &  Bank of Baroda Vs G Palani , Indian Oil  Corp , RBI Cases. He also quoted huge disparities in the pension paid to Chairman, MD , & other Sr Executives vis a vis Class III Employees. He also covered issues of DA . Mr Mishra also dealt with quite effectively by counter logic supported by various orders of SC & Constitutional provisions like Article 14, 20
He concluded his arguments and prayed for setting aside the amendments effected and brought by way of Pension Regulations in place of Pension Rules . He spoke very well for almost 2 hrs as he finished at 4.10 pm . Our Counsel Dr Jose Varghese was told to argue our case tomorrow ie 03/04/19 from 2.30 pm onwards.
Thanks n Regards
Umesh Sharma

What I can't believe is whether he is the same Mishra who kept quiet for months after the committee report was released and the DFS asked Bank to introduce amendment? I had written to Chairman not to issue the Circular regarding amendment stating that it is illegal. I am happy that he has fallen in line with thinking that SBIEPFR is invalid and only RULES should prevail. Now it had become easy for us realise our expectations.
Upadhyaya. 2.4.2019

The matter was discussed in grater detail by our Sr.Counsel which covered some of the issues of case connected with ours .Our arguments are almost over. The counsel for other two cases mentioned to the Bench that they adopt All the arguments of Sh. Misra . Our Sh.Misra told the Bench that ours is a case transferred from Supreme Court and it should be finished accordingly. The Chief Justice acknowledged this fact and deal with it accordingly.The hearing will continue tomorrow at 2.15pm.
Message received from
P.K.Pathak Vice President nd
General Secretary
SBIPA Delhi Circle.

Now our task is easier. I learn that Dr. Jose Varghese was unaware of Section 50(4). Now with the opening created by Mishra, he need not require additional time. He seems to have told that he is aware of Nakara and V.Kasturi judgments. Tomorrow is important. Let us hope for the best.

Regards
Upadhyaya.   2.4.2019

03/04/2019

Delhi High Court: Our Cases were finally & fully heard by the Hon’ble Court. Dr Jose Verghese pleaded our cases and he put forward arguments in addition to what was argued by Federation Counsel. Dr Verghese stressed reading of Sec 50(1),(3) & (4) while deciding the validity of Banks’ action in effecting changes in Pension Payment Structure initially decoded & implemented in the Bank

Dr Verghese also pleaded to the court to grant the payment of overdue interest on 10% portion illegally withheld by the Bank @ 12% pa . Hon’ble Court agreed that since Pension Fund has earned interest which rightfully belongs to pensioners has to be paid back if Court decides to restore 50% pension.
Written submissions about Family Pension, DA Parity & Updation ( Ref V Kasturi Case) were taken on Record. Thus the petitioners argument part is now over .
Bank would submit their final arguments on 29/04/19 and thereafter final order would be passed
Thanks & Regards
Umesh Sharma

It appears that the judges had some doubts on Sections 50(1),50(3) and Section 50(4) of SBI Act and there were some discussions on them. The judges seem to have told that they would have a review of these provisions. They also seemed to have told about payment of D.A, updation and Court's rulings dated 23.2.89 &9.10. 98 that they have been covered extensively by Mishra and all those points have been noted down and Dr.V need not traverse through them again. They also seemed to have added that they are clear about V.Kasturi judgment and they don't want further elaboration. It appears the Bench cautioned ASG appearing for the Bank that if the Bank doesn't appear on 29.4.2019, the Court will deliver its verdict.  Dr.V had also reported to have told about the delaying tactics adopted by the Bank to frustrate the Pensioners.
Regards,
Upadhyaya.  3.4.2019
Read what Supreme Court told on Pension fixation