Pension issues in SBI–Background clippings: {Part 5}


In continuation:

This one is yet another clarification by KR Saini with specific reference to pay scales and pension emanating from the 7th bi-partite settlement involving adverse anomalies in the matter of fitment and other conditions. This may prove to be of interest to the retiree pensioners to understand better the complications so impliedly affecting the issues. His note by way of a meaningful comment in the date of 2nd August’2014 on this blog is reproduced for the knowledge and information of the readers who always need an elaborate explanation on varied issues to understand them more thoroughly.

“THE REVISION OF OUR PENSION ON SEVENTH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES AND PAYMENT OF PENSION AT 50% OF THE LAST DRAWN AVERAGE PAY ARE OUR MAJOR PENDING PENSION ISSUES.ON THESE TWO ISSUES WHICH RELATE TO STATE BANK OF INDIA ONLY AND NOT TO OTHER BANKS.I HAVE WRITTEN/DISCUSSED MUCH ON THESE TWO .NOW,IN THIS NOTE I WILL TRY TO JUSTIFY THESE TWO ISSUES FROM THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW AND I REQUEST TO ALL THE READERS OF THIS BLOG FOR GOING THROUGH THIS NOTE AND SUBMIT THEIR OWN COMMENTS/REPLIES/FEEDBACK.
7TH BIPARTITE ISSUE IN STATE BANK OF INDIA.
WHAT LAW OF THE LAND SAYS–CONCEPT OF PARITY AMONG THE PENSIONERS IS BASED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS.D.S. NAKRA CASE AS DETAILED BELOW—–”IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT IF THE PENSIONERS FROM ONE CLASS,THEIR CALCULATION OF PENSION CANNOT BE BY DIFFERENT FORMULA AFFORDING UNEQUAL TREATMENT SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT SOME RETIRED EARLIER AND SOME RETIRED LATER.THIS IS TO US THE DECISION OF D.S NAKRA CASE AND NO MORE.”
HERE YOU WILL OBSERVE THAT GOVERNMENT/BANK MADE THE AMENDMENT IN THE STATE BANK IF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES FOR THE 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ONLY(THOSE RETIRED AS ON 1.11.2002 OR AFTER IT) WHEN BOTH 7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE ON EQUAL FOOTING BECAUSE 7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE GETTING PENSION ON THE SAME FORMULA BUT BANK REVISED THE SALARY OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES W.E.F 1.5.2005.IF A RETIRED PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION AND IF HE SURVIVES TILL THE TIME OF SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT OF THE RELEVANT PENSION SCHEME,HE WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE TO GET THE ENHANCED PENSION OR WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE TO GET MORE PENSION.I AM OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE PENSION REVISION OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES TOOK PLACE IN 2006 W.E.F 1.5.2005 BANK/GOVERNMENT HAD TO REVISE THE PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIRES ALSO W.E.F 1.5.2005 AS IN THE CASE OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES”
. K.R.SAINI

Advertisements

Author: neelkanth

Certainly not a celebrity but do have inquisitiveness to know things, realise them and live them to the extent possible. My interest in History, Art of Living and behavioural science is an element that inspires me.Am a poet,an author,a consultant, an advisor on computers and behavioural science.Served as Director in Central Board of State Bank of India.Remained associated with trade union activities and industrial relations as President,All India State Bank of India Staff Federation.Led a delegation on computers to several countries abroad number of times as from State Bank of India/ Banking Industry. Was twice accorded with NATIONAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE by All India Freelance Journalists Association, Chennai (India). My email address is: neelkanthshahi@gmail.com

52 thoughts on “Pension issues in SBI–Background clippings: {Part 5}”

  1. This is for the information of S.B.I.Pensioners Federation and all pensioners association to note the work done by Sh K.R Saini and Sh Neelkanth ji for the knowledge of the S.B.I Pensioner specially the 7th bipartite pensioners. The S.B.I Award Staff Union/Federation, S.B.I Supervising Staff Federation., I.B.A. The Management of S.B.I. ,The Finance-ministry, and all others unions of the banks to think about the 7th bipartite pensioners of the State Bank Of India. Why All the Union Leaders/ Ministers under U.P.A. headed By Sh Manmohan Singh Ji and Finance=minister Sh P. chidambaram were silent on this issue, injustice has been done with the pensioners of the biggest bank of the country.Now this should be brought in to the notice of the Delhi High Court / to finalize the court case referred by the Supreme-court to Delhi court with out further loss of time., otherwise the Bank pensioners specially the Pensioners from the S.B.I. will loss the faith in judiciary . Now the responsibility of the Finance minister under N.D.A Govt. is much more , as he feels he will do justice with every effected person under the leadership of Sh Modi , the Prime-minister of India,.We have positive hope in him. let us pray to God to give them the wisdom to decide the case which is pending in Supreme-court since 2002, and 2011.

    Rajkumarnegi

    Like

  2. FIRST OF ALL THANKS TO SHRI NEELKANTH JI AND SHRI NEGI JI WHO USED TO READ MY WRITE UPS AND ENCOURAGE ME TO WRITE MORE AND MORE ON THIS TOPIC.I ASSURE THEM I WILL TRY TO WRITE ON THIS TOPIC IN DETAIL.NOW I WILL WRITE ON THIS PENSION ISSUE (7TH BIPARTITE ISSUE)IN MY COMMENTS.K.R SAINI

    Like

  3. IN STATE BANK OF INDIA THERE IS NO DIRECT RELATION BETWEEN WAGE REVISION AND REVISION IN PENSION.WHENEVER WAGE REVISION TAKES PLACE AFTER BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT,THE REVISION IN PENSION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE AUTOMATICALLY/IMMEDIATELY.AS PER 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT,THE NEW PAY SCALES WERE GRANTED TO THE EMPLOYEES AFTER 27TH MARCH 2000 AND PAYMENT OF ARREARS OF SALARY REVISION WERE PAID TO EMPLOYEES DUE TO 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IN APRIL 2000.
    IN THIS CONNECTION ALL THE S.B.I PENSIONERS PLEASE NOTE WHENEVER THE CIRCULAR REGARDING REVISION OF SALARY AFTER EACH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IT IS MENTIONED THAT”THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CENTRAL BOARD HAVE ALSO APPROVED THE CONTINUATION OF PENSION AS PER THE EXISTING RULES” WHEN 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT SALARY REVISION CIRCULAR WAS ISSUED IN APRIL 2000,AT THAT TIME PENSION OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES W.E.F 1.11.1993 WAS 50% MAXIMUM RS 4250/ THIS FORMULA WAS IMPLEMENTED ON THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.IN OTHER WORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF PENSION,PAY SCALES AS PER 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AS NECESSARY SANCTIONS WERE NOT ACCORDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.K.R SAINI

    Like

  4. IN JULY 2000,FURTHER MODIFICATIONS WERE EFFECTED W.E,F 1.3.1999 AS UNDER.
    EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS HAVING PAY UP TO RS 8500/ 50% OF THE PAY.
    EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS HAVING PAY EXCEEDING RS 8500/ 40% OF THE PAY SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF RS 4250/.
    THIS 50%/40% FORMULA IS STILL GOING ON 6TH,7TH, 8TH AND 9TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS.
    WHEN IN JULY 2000 HAD RECEIVED THIS MODIFICATION FOR 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES,BANK RECOMMENDED TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE FOR REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ALSO BUT ON 50/40% FORMULA AS UNDER
    ALL EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS
    DRAWING PAY AND APPLICABLE ALLOWANCES UP TO 50% OF THE
    MAXIMUM PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF J.M,G OFFICERS PAY &APPLI
    (AFTER SCALE MOVEMENT AND SANCTION OF STAGNATION CABLE ALLO
    INCREMENT,P.Q.P &F.P.P)
    OFFICERS DRAWING PAY AND ALLOWANCES 40% OF THE PAY AND APPLI
    MORE THAN AS ABOVE. ABLE ALLOWANCES SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE MAXIMUM PAY AND ALLOWANCES PAYABLE TO OFFICER J.M.G OFFICERS(AFTER SCALE MOVEMENT AND SANCTION OF STAGNATION INCREMENT,P.Q.P & F.P.P.) K.R SAINI.

    Like

  5. THE ABOVE PROPOSAL FOR REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE WAS PASSED IN THE CENTRAL BOARD ON 26TH JULY 2000 AND RECOMMENDED THE REVISION OF PENSION W.E,.F 1.03.1999 FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES MODIFICATION OF PENSION FOR 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES W.E.F 1.03.1999 WAS PASSED IN THE CENTRAL BOARD ON 26TH JULY 2000.FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION THIS RECOMMENDATION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WAS UP TO SALARY OF RS 14240/ 50% AS PENSION ABOVE RS 14240/ 40% MINIMUM RS 7120 AS PENSION AND THIS PROPOSAL WAS SENT TO M.O.F BY BANK VIDE LETTER C.D.O/PM/16/SPL/344 DATED 26TH JULY 2000. K.R SAINI

    Like

    1. Sh Saini ji., I was going through your comments on the 7th bipartite retirees, you have mentioned that “recommendations for 7th bipartite retirees was up to salary of Rs.14250/- @50% as pension, above Rs.14240/-,40% minimum Rs.7120/- as pension and this proposal was sent to M.O.F.by the Bank wide letter C.D.O/PM/16/SPL/344 dated 26th July 2000. ” What was the result of that recommendations to the M.O.F.? What was the reply of the bank to the pensioners federation ? Why there is Basic difference in the Basic pension of retirees of State Bank Of India and the other Banks ? In State Bank Of India the basic pension in M.M.G.S II maximum Rs. 4250/- as compare to other banks there basic pension is Rs 7120/-. Why our S.B.I pensioners federation was sleeping on this issue specially the union leaders of the supervising federation, who participated in the 8th bipartite , and signed the 8th bipartite without any wisdom, those union leaders should be brought in the notice of the general public /retirees. What was there gain in the bipartite., why they accepted the 8th bipartite without analyzing the details.These union leaders are the main culprits of the loss to the 7th bipartite retirees from 1998 on wards and the loss in lacks per pensioner. I request you to please give your views on the loss of the S.B.I. Pensioner Per employee, and the total loss to them. Please seek guidance from sh Neelkanthji on this topic and I request the readers to please give their views on this topic. Now I have realized why the Union leaders have lost their credit ability among the pensioners

      Rajkumarnegi

      Like

  6. AFTER SUBMITTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ON 26TH JULY 2000 ,BANK TAKE UP THE MATTER WITH I.B.A FOR CLARIFICATION ON 19TH AUGUST 2000 IN TERN I.B.A REPLIED VIDE LETTER NO P.D/GSN/SBI/G2/970 DATED 9TH SEPTEMBER 2000,BANK HAD SENT A REMINDER TO M.O.F VIDE LETTER NO CDO/PM/16/10421 FOR APPROVAL OF REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AFTER CLARIFICATION FROM I.B.A THAT THERE IS NO LINKAGE WITH THE BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS FOR PENSION IN BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT FOR OTHER BANKS.HOWEVER MINISTRY OF FINANCE VIDE LETTER NO F NO1/7/200-IR DATED 6TH FEBRUARY 2001 HAD ADVISED THE BANK THAT THE EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS RETIRING ON OR AFTER 1.11.1997/1.4.98 MAY BE UPDATED BY MERGER OF DEARNESS ALLOWANCE UPTO 1616 POINTS AND NOT AS PER THE REVISED SCALES.AS REGARDS REVISION OF EXISTING CEILING OF RS 4250/,STATE BANK OF INDIA MAY WORK OUT REVISED CEILING BY MERGER OF D.A UPTO 1616 POINTS AND S.BI SUBMIT TO GOVERNMENT FOR CONSIDERATION.
    IN OTHER WORDS AS AT PRESENT THE BASIC IS PRE-REVISED PAY SCALES OF 6TH BIPARTITE.BECAUSE OF MERGER OF D.A AT 1616 POINTS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES THE BENEFIT WOULD NOT ACCRUE TO THE PENSIONERS(7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES) WITH THIS FORMULA.THE PENSIONERS FEDERATION/SERVING EMPLOYEES FEDERATIONS IS SEIZED OF THE PROBLEM.K.R SAINI

    Like

  7. THE ABOVE FORMULA WHICH GOVERNMENT WANTED TO APPLY ON STATE BANK OF INDIA FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES I.E BY MERGING 1616 POINTS NOT 1684 POINTS LEAD TO BIG ANOMALY BECAUSE OF 50%/40% FORMULA IN S.B.I .MOREOVER THIS FORMULA WAS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF OTHER BANKS THEY ALSO GOT PENSION ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES PLUS D.A MERGER OF 1616 POINTS .IN OTHER WORDS THEIR PAY FOR PENSION WAS ALSO REDUCED DUE TO THIS FORMULA.THEY WERE DRAWING ABOUT 43% OF THE 7TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES DUE TO THIS FORMULA.HOWEVER THEY WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THIS ANOMALY IN 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT NOW THEY ARE DRAWING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF PAY SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT W.E.F 1.05.2005.K.R SAINI

    Like

  8. IN 2000 OUR PENSIONERS FEDERATION FILED A WRIT PETITION IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THE CEILING OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE NOT RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT,ALL THE 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES(1.11.1987 TO 31.10.1992) ARE STILL GETTING PENSION @50% MAXIMUM RS 2400/ THEY SHOULD GET PENSION @ 50% MAXIMUM RS 3775/ ONLY PRAYER WAS IN THE SUPREME COURT WAS ALL THE PENSIONERS SHOULD GET 50% AS PENSION AND WHENEVER WAGE REVISION TAKES PLACE PENSION SHOULD BE REVISED .BUT SUPREME COURT ADVISED THE PENSIONERS FEDERATION THAT THEY SHOULD FIRST FILE THE WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT THEN THEY SHOULD APPROACH THE SUPREME COURT.AT THE ADVICE OF SUPREME COURT OUR PENSIONERS FEDERATION WITHDRAW THE CASE FROM SUPREME COURT ON 16TH OCTOBER 2000.K.R SAINI

    Like

  9. IN 2001 FOUR WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY 157 PENSIONERS OF STATE BANK OF INDIA IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT .THESE ALL PETITIONS RELATE TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES FOR REVISION OF PENSION.THIS COURT CASE THE SINGLE JUDGE GAVE JUDGEMENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS ON 16.10.2008 LIKE THIS ”SINCE,SBI HAS PROPOSED TO REFIX THE PENSION IS AWAITING THE APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT AND DIRECT THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL SENT BY S.B.I AND GRANT THE APPROVAL.BUT GOVERNMENT DID NOT IMPLEMENTED THE JUDGEMENT AND PETITIONERS FILED A WRIT IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND WHEN THE DOUBLE BENCH WERE GOING TO VERDICT THE BANK MOVED TO SUPREME COURT IN 2013 FOR TRANSFER THESE PETITIONS TO DELHI HIGH COURT FOR THESE CASES WITH FEDERATIONS’ CASE WHICH TRANSFERRED FROM SUPREME COURT .THESE TRANSFER PETITIONS ARE PENDING WITH REGISTRAR OF SUPREME COURT FOR THE LAST ONE YEARS WHEREIN BANK IS THE PETITIONERS AND PENSIONERS ARE THE RESPONDENTS .NEXT DATE OF HEARING IN JULY 2014.K.R.SAINI

    Like

  10. IN 2003 ,20 PETITIONERS(7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES) FILED A WRIT PETITION IN KERALA HIGH COURT FOR REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AND KERALA HIGH COURT HAS ALSO GIVEN VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF THE PENSIONERS ON 16.09.2010. THIS JUDGEMENT IS ALSO BY A SINGLE JUDGE AND HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THE BASIS OF RULE 23(!) OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES.THIS JUDGEMENT DIRECT THE BANK THAT PENSION SHOULD BE PAID TO ALL PENSIONERS OF S.B.I INCLUDING PETITIONERS ON THE BASIS OF RULE 23(1) OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES.BUT THIS VERDICT OF KERALA HIGH COURT IS ALSO NOT IMPLEMENTED BY THE BANK.HERE I HAVE TO MENTIONTHAT DURING THE LAST 25 YEARS NO VERDICT OF HIGH COURT /SUPREME COURT DECLARED BY DOUBLE BENCH AND IN CASE VERDICTS CAME IN FAVOUR OF PENSIONERS BY A SINGLE JUDGE ,THAT VERDICTS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT/BANK SO FAR .IN THE MEANTIME NOW ALL THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE ABOUT 70 YEARS AND ABOVE OLD. K.R SAINI

    Like

  11. IN JUNE 2005 ,8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WAS FINALIZED AND IN THAT SETTLEMENT PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WAS ALSO SETTLED BUT OTHER THAN STATE BANK OF INDIA .KINDLY GO THROUGH CLAUSE 7 OF 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT FOR OTHER BANKS”WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST MAY 2005,THE PENSION OF OFFICERS WHO RETIRED OR DIED WHILE IN SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL 1998TO 31ST OCTOBER 2002 WILL BE RE FIXED BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF ”PAY” AS DEFINED CLAUSE 5 OF THE JOINT NOTE DATED 14TH NOVEMBER 1999.NO ARREARS OF PENSION AND COMMUTED VALUE OF PENSION WILL BE PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH RE FIXING OF PENSION.”
    IN OTHER WORDS OTHER BANKS ARE ABLE TO SOLVE THE ANOMALY OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES DURING THE SETTLEMENT OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES .
    BUT STATE BANK OF INDIA CONTINUE TO MAKE PAYMENT TO 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DURING 2005.I MEAN TO SAY THAT 7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE GETTING PENSION @50% UP TO RS 8500/ AND ABOVE RS 8500/@ 40% SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS 4250/IN 2005 EVEN AFTER THE SETTLEMENT OF 8TH BIPARTITE IN JUNE 2005. K.R SAINI

    Like

    1. Sir,Thank you for making update to all pensioners in respect of pension issue. On this issue I want to give a suggestion and if you find it appropriate, please consider:-
      In my view now one meeting with this finance minister is required by pensioners delegation headed you.

      Like

  12. I have given a suggestion to Mr. K.R.Saini to think over for a meeting with finance minister and I hope that if this meeting would place Mr. Saini may get return of his efforts.

    Like

  13. Thanks to Mr Saini for the detailed information on 7th bipartite pensioners ,specially in State Bank Of India. Veepee 269 has given the suggestion to Mr. K.R.Saini for one meeting with the Finance-minister of the country.headed by sh saini . I think the S.B.I pensioners association / federation leaders do not have the time to read this blog, which is very beneficial for the pensioners. The union leader s are concerned only for the Finance of the association , and how they can utilize the funds for their benefits. They are not answerable to any one ,not even to the pensioners. lacks of rupees are in their association account, and not a single pensioner has any knowledge ,how much money has been paid to the Lawyers to fight the case in the High court/ Supreme-court.
    Mr Saini and Sh Neelkanthji both are doing this service free, and all the money is being spent from their own pockets.My suggestion to the office bearers of the pensioners association of every circle to please spare time to read such explanations. ,and these might be helpful in the court cases..
    Rajkumarnegi

    Like

  14. Respected Sir,
    It is necessary to meet with finance minister with Mr. K.R. Saini along with the pensioners in your leadership . If there is no problems then some office bearer of pensioner’federation should also be with you,

    Like

  15. THANKS FOR THE WARM AND ENCOURAGING RESPONSES TO MY WRITE UP TITLED”PENSION ISSUES IN S.B.I -CLIPPING (PART 5).IN THIS CONTEXT,I WOULD LIKE TO ENLIGHTEN THE READERS OF THIS BLOG THAT THE CONTENTS AND SUBSTANCE OF MY NARRATIVES ARE ALREADY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE S.B.I PENSIONERS FEDERATION /ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE MAKING STRENUOUS EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE PENSION ISSUES IN S.B.I.ALSO IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THE BEING PLAYED BY VETERNS LIKE SHRI NEELKANTH/SHRI NEGI & OTHERS IN EDUCATING & HIGHLIGHTING THE VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF PENSIONERS’ ISSUES IN S.B.I.ALL THESE EFFORTS COMBINED HAS BEEN KEEPING THE MATTER ALIVE AND EN -LIVING THE HOPE FOR SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE THE SUFFERING OF THE OLD PENSIONERS.
    LET US HOPE FOR THE TANGIBLE RESULTS IN THE DAYS TO COME. K.R SAINI

    Like

  16. IN APRIL 2006,A HISTORIC INDEFINITE STRIKE TOOK PLACE ON ONE ISSUE THAT IS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PENSION.IT WAS THE FIRST JOINT INDEFINITE STRIKE WHICH HAS CEMENTED THE UNITY OF THE WORKMEN AND OFFICERS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA. THE STRIKE ENDED ON 9TH APRIL 2006 AFTER ARRIVING SETTLEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT AND SETTLEMENT WAS DECLARED BY SHRI P.C .CHINDARUM THEN FINANCE MINISTER ON TELEVISION AND NEXT DAY IN THE PRESS.THIS NEWS WERE PUBLISHED IN ALMOST ALL LEADING NEWS PAPERS .SHRI SHANTA RAJU THEN GENERAL SECRETARY OFALL INDIA STATE BANK FEDERATION HAD ALSO GAVE AC PRESS NOTE IN THE PRESS.ON 16TH APRIL 2006 SHRI SHANTA RAJU HAD ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO 57 DATED 16.04.206 INFORMING THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AS A RESULT OF INDEFINITE STRIKE.IN THE SAID LETTER HE INFORMED THE MEMBERS”THE SETTLEMENT WOULD RESULT IN ENHANCEMENT OF MONTHLY FINANCIAL RELIEF APPROXIMATELY RANGING FROM RS 3000/ TO RS 7000/ FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.11.2002 AND RS 1400/ TO RS 1550/ FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.4.1998 UP TO 31.10.2002.” ALL THE 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE BENEFITTED AS SHRI SHANTA RAJU SAID BUT 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE STILL SUFFERING DUE TO NON REVISION OF PENSION OF THESE RETIREES.HOWEVER BOTH 7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE DRAWING PENSION ON THE SAME FORMULA BEFORE THE STRIKE. K.R SAINI

    Like

  17. IN THIS WRITE UP I AM GOING TO MENTION THE MODIFICATION/IMPROVEMENT IN THE PENSION SCHEME IN S.B.I AFTER THE HISTORIC STRIKE IN S.B.I IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL 2006.I AM QUOTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO M.OF VIDE LETTER NO CDO/PM/16/SPL/29 DATED 19TH APRIL 2006.EXTRACT FROM THIS SAID LETTER.
    ”DURING THE DISCUSSION HELD ON 9TH APRIL 2006,AT BANKING DIVISION WHICH WAS ATTENDED BY THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM GOVERNMENT,BANK AS WELL AS BOTH OFFICERS AND STAFF FEDERATIONS,IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE FORMULA 50%/40% WILL CONTINUE IN THE REVISED PENSION ALSO BUT THE CUT OFF POINT SHALL BE FIXED AT RS 21040/IN THE PAY SCALES EFFECTIVE FROM 1.11.2002(8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT) SHALL BE GIVEN PENSION AT 50% AND THOSE DRAWING ABOVE RS 21040/SHALL BE GIVEN PENSION @40% WITH A MINIMUM OF RS 10520/”’KINDLY GO THROUGH THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
    ”WE WISH TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS ONE CLASS OF RETIREES WHO DRAWING PAY SCALE OF 1997/1998(7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT) BETWEEN 1992/1993 SCALE(6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT) AND 1.11.2002 PAY SCALE(8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT).FOR THEM WE PROPOSE TO FIX CUT OFF POINT OF RS 14240/ CORRESPONDS TO THE MAXIMUM PAY SCALES APPLICABLE TO J.M.G.S 1 WITH TWO STAGNATION AGREEMENTS.THE PRINCIPLE OF RS 14240/+P.Q.P+F.P.P SHALL BE APPLICABLE AS FIXED IN 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND CORRESPONDING JOINT NOTE FOR THIS CLASS OF RETIREES..”
    ”THE REVISION OF PENSION WILL BE EFFECTIVE FROM 1.5.2005.NO ARREARS IN PENSION AND COMMUTATION VALUE OF PENSION BE PAID PRIOR TO 1.5.2005.”
    ”WE REQUEST THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO APPROVE AFORESAID PROPOSAL IN RESPECT OF PENSION AND DEARNESS RELIEF ON PENSION.ON RECEIPT OF GOVERNMENT APPROVAL WE SHALL APPROACH THE CENTRAL BOARD OF THE BANK FOR AMENDMENT IN THE I.B.I/ S.B.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES AND THEREAFTER SEEK PERMISSION FOR NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.”

    Like

  18. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAD REVISED THE CEILING OF PAY FOR DETERMINATION OF PENSION FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ONLY. VIDE LETTER F NO1/7/2000-IR(PART 2) DATED THE 19TH JULY 2006”;THE EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS OF S.B.I WHO RETIRED OR DIED WHILE IN SERVICE OR OTHERWISE CEASES TO BE EMPLOYMENT ON OR AFTER 1ST MAY,2005,THE PENSION SHOULD BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PAY SCALES EFFECTIVE 1.11.2002 AS UNDER..
    ”EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS HAVING PENSIONABLE PAY UP TO RS 21040/+P.Q.P+F.P.P@ 50%OF THE AVERAGE PAY OF LAST 12 MONTHS.
    EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS HAVING PENSIONABLE PAY ABOVE RS 21040/@40 % OF THE AVERAGE PAY OF LAST 12 MONTHS,SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF RS 10520./
    THE PENSION OF THE RETIREES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.11.2002 TO 30.04.2005 WILL ALSO BE REVISED W.E.F 1.5.2005 ON THE BASIS STATED ABOVE,BUT NO ARREARS OF PENSION FOR COMMUTED VALUE OF PENSION IS PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH RE-FIXING OF PENSION.” K.R SAINI.P.S THIS IS IN RESPONSE OF BANK’S LETTER AS STATED ABOVE..K.R SAINI

    Like

  19. PENSION ISSUES IN S.B.I-BACKGROUND CLIPPING (PART 5) WHEREIN I REQUEST TO ALL THE READERS OF THIS NOTE FOR GOING THROUGH THIS NOTE AND SUBMIT THEIR OWN COMMENTS/REPLIES/FEEDBACK.I AM WRITING MY OWN COMMENTS ON THIS NOTE FOR THE LAST 4 DAYS BUT I GOT ONLY VERY VERY LESS COMMENTS FROM FOUR READERS ONLY.I,THEREFORE AGAIN REQUEST TO ALL THE READERS TO SUBMIT YOUR OWN COMMENTS /REPLY /FEEDBACK,BECAUSE IN MY COMMENTS I TRIED TO APPARISE THE ALL READERS HOW ANOMALIES IN PENSION HAVE BEEN CREATED IN S.B.I AND TRIED TO JUSTIFY FOR RESOLVING THE PENSION ISSUES FROM THE LEGAL POINT OF VIEW.
    IT IS EVIDENT THAT STEP MOTHERLY TREATMENT WAS CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FROM 1987 I.E FROM THE 5TH BIPARTITE AS THE PENSION CEILING OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WAS NOT RAISED UP TO NOW AND FROM 1.3.1999 FORMULA OF 50%/40% HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED ON THE 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES. FURTHER REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE UP TO NOW WHERE AS PENSIONERS OF OTHER BANKS ARE GETTING PENSION @50% FROM 1.11.1993 AND MOREOVER 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE GETTING PENSION ON THE PAY SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT W.E.F 1.05.2005 BUT IN STATE BANK OF INDIA 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE STILL SUFFERING DUE TO NON REVISION OF PENSION OF THESE RETIREES. K.R SAINI

    Like

  20. IN DECEMBER 2006 STATE BANK OF INDIA HAD REVISED THE PENSION OF 8TH BIPARTITE W.E.F 1.05.2005 AND GOVERNMENT APPOINTED A COMMITTEE TO GO INTO VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PENSION FUND IN S.B.I.THE COMMITTEE WAS ADVISED TO COMPLETE THE TASK AND SUBMIT ITS REPORT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS.BUT COMMITTEE SUBMITTED ITS REPORT ON 23.09.2007.THE GROUP CONSTITUTED TO MAKE IN-DEPTH STUDY OF THE PENSION FUND IN S.B.I HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION IN THE PENSION FUND AND HAS MADE DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REGARD..THE COMMITTEE ON PENSION SET UP BY THE S.B.I ON THE ADVICE OF OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ALSO DELIBERATELY ON THE ISSUE OF REVISION OF PENSION OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.IT RECOMMENDED GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE DE-NOVO..BUT DESPITE RECOMMENDATIONS BY SHRI O.P BHATT THEN CHAIRMAN SEVERAL TIMES IN THE YEAR 2007,2008,2009 AND 2010,,GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACCORD THE SANCTION FOR REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.
    WHEN THIS ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN SORT OUT THEN OUR PENSIONERS FEDERATION FILED A WRIT PETITION IN SUPREME COURT IN 2011 BUT SUPREME COURT TRANSFERRED THE COURT CASE TO DELHI HIGH COURT ON 27.02.2013 WITH A DIRECTION TO COMPLETE THE CASE WITHIN 6 MONTHS BUT THIS CASE IS STILL PENDING AT DELHI HIGH COURT AND NEXT DATE OF HEARING IS 25.09.2014.K.RSAINI

    Like

  21. LEGAL POSITION
    IN STATE BANK OF INDIA ALL THE PENSIONERS ARE BEING PAID THE PENSION ON THE BASIS OF LAST TWELVE MONTHS AVERAGE PAY W.E.F 1.1.1986 BUT EXCEPT 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.
    PENSION CANNOT BE PAID ON NOTIONAL PAY.SINGLE OUT OF THE RETIREES DURING THE CURRENCY OF THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT MAY BE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.IT IS LEGAL,EQUITABLE AND JUSTIFIED TO PROVIDE FOR PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THAT OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.DENYING THE SAME TO THESE RETIREES AMOUNTS TO DISCRIMINATION.PENSION TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES IS NOT ON THE LINE OF PENSION FUND RULE 23(1) OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES..K.R SAINI

    Like

  22. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAD REVISED THE PENSION OF THE EMPLOYEES WHO RETIRED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1,1997,AND THAT THIS REVISION WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.HOWEVER,I BEG TO STATE THAT THERE IS MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IN THE R.B.I’S CONTENTION AND THAT OF S.B.I’S PENSION SCHEME.IN THE CASE OF R.B.I,THEY HAVE GIVEN ENHANCED PENSION CALCULATED ON ”[NOTIONAL PAY”I.E ON A SALARY WHICH THE EMPLOYEES NEVER EARNED AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO.THE ”NOTIONAL PAY” WAS BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REVISION IN SALARY AND WILL PERPETUATE CONTINUOUS REVISION,MORE OE LESS SIMILAR LINES AS THAT FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 5TH PAY COMMISSION AWARD
    IN S.BI,THERE IS NOT THE CASE.THE PENSION DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY ”NOTIONAL PAY” CONCEPT,BUT IS PAID ON THE LAST AVERAGE PAY ACTUALLY DRAWN AND REMAINS STAGNANT THEREAFTER.HOWEVER,IN THE CASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES THE PENSION IS BEING CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF LAST AVERAGE PAY DRAWN BY AN EMPLOYEE AS PER 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES.WHICH IS AN ABERRATION AND NEEDS CORRECTION .K.R BSAINI

    Like

  23. FOR COMPUTATION OF PENSION IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES IN S.B.I IS GOVERNED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES.FROM 1.03 1999 BOTH 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES(FROM 1.04.1998)AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES (FROM 1.11.2002)WERE DRAWING PENSION ON THE SAME FORMULA I.E @50% UP TO AVERAGE SALARY OF RS 8500/ AND . ABOVE AVERAGE SALARY OF RS 8500/@ 40% SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS 4250/.BUT GOVERNMENT GAVE THE APPROVAL FOR REVISION OF PENSION FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WITH EFFECT FROM 1.05.2005 AFTER THE STRIKE IN S.B.I IN APRIL 2006.THE CUT-OFF DATE OF 1.11.2002 IS ARBITRARY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.IT IS HELD THAT ALL PERSONS IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TO BE TREATED ALIKE IN PRIVILEGE CONFERRED AND LIABILITIES IMPOSED.EQUAL LAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL IN THE SAME SITUATION AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER,. BUTB DISCRIMINATION AND GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES. K.R.SAINI

    Like

  24. IN STATE BANK OF INDIA,PENSION HAS NEVER BEEN SETTLED/IMPROVED BY MEANS OF ANY SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE SERVING EMPLOYEES/OFFICERS FEDERATIONS IN BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS.AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO STUDY THE PENSION FUND IN S.B.I HAD SUBMITTED ITS REPORT ON 23.09.2007 THAT REPORT SAID THAT PENSION @50% IS NOT NEGOTIABLE AS IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED @50%/40% FORMULA AND REVISION OF PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES MAY BE CONSIDERED AFRESH BY THE GOVERNMENT.THIS THE REASON THAT OUR PENSIONERS’ FEDERATION MAY TREAT THIS ISSUE AS ONE WHICH WILL BENEFIT ONLY ONE PARTICULAR GROUP.IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE .AND OUR PENSIONERS FEDERATION FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN MARCH 2011 WITH ONLY ONE PRAYER TH AT ALL THE PENSIONERS W.E.F 1.11.1987 SHOULD GET THE PENSION@50% OF THE AVERAGE PAY OF LAST 12 MONTHS WITHOUT ANY CEILING.SUPREME COURT TRANSFERRED THIS CASE TO DELHI HIGH COURT ON 27.02.2013 AND NOW IS PENDING AT DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING IS 25.09.2014..BUT 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES HAVE SUFFERED THE WORST.THIS IS THE ONLY GROUP OF PENSIONERS GETTING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF PAY FIXED IN THE PREVIOUS SETTLEMENT(6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT)THEY ARE SUFFERING W.E.F 1.04.1998 I.E FOR THE LAST 16 YEARS AND NOW ALMOST ALL THESE PENSIONERS ARE IN RANGE OF 70 YEARS TO 76 YEARS OLD AND I REQUEST THE FEDERATION TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE ON TOP PRIORITY .K.R SAINI

    Like

  25. PENSION IN STATE BANK OF INDIA IS GOVERNED BY THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES.AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT MADRAS HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 16.10.2008 DIRECTED THE GOVERNMENT TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED TO GOVERNMENT AFTER STRIKE.THESE DIRECTIONS ARE FOR THE GOVERNMENT. AS YOU ARE AWARE GOVERNMENT APPROVED THE REVISION OF PENSION FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES .THEREAFTER BANK ISSUED CIRCULAR VP& HRD SL NO 283/2006-2007 ON 25TH AUGUST, 2006 WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED PENDING AMENDMENTS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES HAS APPROVED RELEASE OF BASIC PENSION AND DEARNESS RELIEF THEREON ON AN AD-HOC BASIS TO THOSE WHO RETIRED ON OR AFTER 1.11.2002.THE REVISION IN PENSION WILL BE SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT IN RULE 23 OF S.BI EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES. THIS RULE 23 IS STATUTORY IN NATURE .ON THE BASIS OF THIS RULE KERELA HIGH COURT GAVE A WONDERFUL JUDGEMENT.SINGLE JUDGEMENT AS PENSION SHOULD BE PAID UNIFORMLY THAT TOO IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 23(1) OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES AS IT EXISTS PRESENTLY AND STATE BANK OF INDIA SHOULD PAY THE INCREASED PENSION TO ALL PENSIONERS INCLUDING PETITIONERS. BANK DID NOT IMPLEMENT THIS JUDGEMENT ALSO .THE FATE OF THIS JUDGEMENT IS NOT GOOD EVEN NOW BECAUSE REVIEW PETITION/CONTEMPT PETITION IS STILL PENDING AT KERALA HIGH COURT FOR THE LAST ABOUT FOUR YEARS AS NO BENCH HAS BEEN APPOINTED AND NO DATE OF HEARING IS FIXED BY THE COURT SO FAR .RULE 23 (1)OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND AS UNDER”PENSION PAYABLE UNDER RULE 22 SHALL BE THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ONE-SIXTIETH PART OF EVERY YEAR’S PENSIONABLE SERVICE OF THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS’ PENSIONABLE SERVICE.”’KINDLY GO THROUGH YOUR PENSION CALCULATION SHEET AND YOU WILL FIND THIS CALCULATION FIRST AS THIS RULE IS STATUTORY IN NATURE FROM 1955. K.R SAINI

    Like

  26. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF OTHER BANKS NOT FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA.
    PENSIONABLE PAY FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREE OF BOTHER BANKS———AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT PAY SCALES OF DIFFERENT BIPARTITE(S) ARE ARRIVED BY MERGING OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX POINTS.IN THE CASE OF 6TH BIPARTITE SCALES IT IS FRAMED BY MERGER OF 1148 POINTS AND 7TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES ARE FRAMED BY MERGER 1684 POINTS HOWEVER,.IN THE CASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF OTHER BANKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF PENSION,7TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES ARE FRAMED BY MERGER OF 1616 POINTS THAT SCALES WERE LESS THAN ACTUAL PAY SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.IN OTHER WORDS PENSIONABLE PAY BECAME LESS THAN ACTUAL PAY SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.FURTHER IN CASE OF OTHER BANKS PENSION IS PAYABLE @ 50% FOR ALL GRADES BUT IN CASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE THIS PENSION REDUCED TO 43% OF THE PAY.BUT THIS ANOMALY HAS BEEN SOLVED BY THE PENSIONERS IN THE 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND NOW ALL THE PENSIONERS OF OTHER BANKS ARE DRAWING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF PAYS SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE W.E.F 1.05.2005.

    NOW SUPREME COURT IN ITS JUDGEMENT DATED 13.02.2014 HAS ALSO DIRECT SOME BANKS TO PAY THE PENSION TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES FROM DATE(S) OF RETIREMENT TO 30.04.2005 ON THE BASISOFB PAY SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE BY MERGER OF 1616 POINTS TO 1684 POINTS..
    IT MAY BE POSSIBLE NOW I.B.A MAY REOPEN THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DUE TON THIS JUDGEMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER BANKS.
    BUT IN STATE BANK OF INDIA PENSION TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE BEING PAID ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAYVSCALES.K.R SAINI

    Like

  27. iN ORDER TO ME MORE CLEAR IN THE ABOVE CONCEPT ,KINDLY GO THROUGH THE CLAUSE 16 OF THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
    PENSION(OTHER THAN STATE BANK OF INDIA) WHICH SAYS”IN RELATION TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO RETIRES OR DIE WHILE IN SERVICE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST OF APRIL,1998 ”PAY” FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAY DRAWN BY THE MEMBER OF THE AWARD STAFF IN TERMS OF 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DATED 14TH FEBRUARY ,1995 AND THE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE THEREON CALCULATED UP TO INDEX NUMBER 1616 POINTS INN THE CALL INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN THE SERIES 1960= 100.THIS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF BANK (EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS 1995.”””KINDLY GO THROUGH JOINT NOTE DATED 14TH DECEMBER 1999 FOR 8TH BIPARTITE WHICH SAYS”’WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST MAY 2005,THE PENSION OF OFFICERS WHO RETIRED OR DIED WHILE IN SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD 1ST APRIL 1998 TO 31ST OCTOBER 2002 WILL BE RE-FIXED ON THE DEFINITION OF ”PAY AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE 5 OF THEN JOINT NOTE DATED 14TH DECEMBER 1999.NO ARREARS OF PENSION AND COMMUTED VALUE OF PENSION WILL BE PAYABLE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH RE-FIXING OF PENSION.”’ THE THIRD JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF AN AWARD STAFF EMPLOYEES BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT SAYS”AS THE PETITIONER WAS AN AWARDEE STAFF OF STATE BANK OF INDIA HIS PENSIONARY BENEFITS WERE TO BE GOVERNED UNDER THE 1955 PENSION RULES OF STATEN BANK OF INDIA.RULE 23 OF THE 1955 RULES IS APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONER AND THERE UNDER 50% OF THE LAST THREE YEARS PAY SHOULD BE PENSIONARY BENEFITS.CLAUSE 16 OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT DEALS WITH PENSION AND PAY FOR PURPOSE OF PENSION AS DRAWN IN TERMS OF 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE TO 1995 REGULATIONS,WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO THE PETITIONER.BUT THE AMENDMENTS MUST BE MADE TO THE 1955 PENSION RULES OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA.ALTHOUGH UNDER 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT REVISION OF PAY WAS AFFECTEDAND THE REVISED PAY WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.”ON THIS BASIS SINGLE JUDGE GAVE VERDICT IN FAVOUR OF SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH THE PETITIONER IN THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ON 13TH SEPTEMBER 2012 THIS CASE IS ALSO PENDING AT CALCUTTA HIGH COURT FOR REVIEW FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. K.R SAINI

    Like

  28. EXTRACT FROM THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT ”” THE PETITIONER RETIRED ON 30TH NOVEMBER,2001 BY WHICH TIME THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT;WAS IN EXISTENCE AND REVISION OF PAY HAD ALSO BEEN EFFECTED THEREUNDER .IN FACT,AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT THE PETITIONER WAS RECEIVING THE REVISED PAY UNDER THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.THEREFORE,THIS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE THE BASIS WHILE CALCULATING THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS.THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT CAME INTO EFFECT ON AND FROM 1ST NOVEMBER ,1997 FOR 5 YEARS,I.E TILL 2002.RULE 223 OF 1955 RULES POSTULATES AN AVERAGE TO BE TAKEN OF THE LAST 12 MONTHS .ADMITTEDLY,IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS,THE PETITIONER WAS RECEIVING PAY UNDER 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND THEREFORE,THE APPLICATION OF PAY RECEIVED UNDER 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT BY THE BANK FOR CALCULATING PETITIONER’S PENSIONARY BENEFITS IS UNJUSTIFIED.”
    ACCORDINGLY,THE BANK IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS OF THE PETITIONER ON THE BASIS OFD THE REVISED PAY RECEIVED BY HIM UNDER THE 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT,AS THE PENSIONARY BENEFITS HAVE BEEN DISBURSED TO THE PETITIONER SINCE HIS RETIREMENT WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER.ON A CALCULATION MADE OM THE BASIS MENTIONED ABOVE,IF SUMS ARE FOUND DUE AND PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONER,THE SAID SUMS BE PAID WITHIN THREE WEEKS.” K.R SAINI

    Like

  29. What i do not realize is in fact how you are not really a lot more
    neatly-appreciated than you may be now. You’re very intelligent.

    You recognize therefore significantly relating to this matter, produced
    me for my part imagine it from so many numerous angles.
    Its like men and women aren’t involved except it is one thing to do with Girl gaga!

    Your own stuffs great. All the time handle it
    up!

    Like

  30. On 13-2-1987, a false case was foisted against me by bank and I was placed under suspension ‘pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings’. In 1989, CBI filed a charge sheet against me and I was acquitted in the case. From Feb 1987 to March 1990, no charge memo was issued to me, despite several reminders from me. I filed for reinstatement in High Court of A.P. who were kind enough to rule that I should be paid full salary as there was neither a criminal case nor a charge sheet.
    I was reinstated in March 1991 and issued a charge sheet. I replied rejecting the charges. A domestic enquiry was ordered. During the enquiry, I had exposed that bank had tampered with evidence of documents held by Regional Office. EO agreed with me and chided the PO. Later I had again exposed that PO had collected the documents summoned by defense but reported to EO that custodians refused to give certified copies, hence not able to furnish the same. After this statement, he presented the same documents (duly certified) as prosecution documents, which I had objected to. EO had severely reprimanded PO and put the comments in the proceedings.
    EO was changed shortly thereafter & another EO was appointed who had conducted a kangaroo trial and closed the enquiry without giving opportunity to defense to present witnesses.
    In Nov. 1996, Disciplinary Authority had issued ‘order of Removal from Service’.
    I had challenged the order in Hon’ble High Court.
    The petition was finally heard on 21-6-2013. I had requested order for interim relief. The Hon’ble Judge was pleased to order ‘payment of all terminal benefits as per eligibility’ in lieu of my relinquishing my claim of all employment benefits.
    The bank declared I was not eligible for pension but paid principal of PF & gratuity only. Interest was not paid as was Pension.
    I had filed a revision petition on which final order was passed that suspension period was pensionable service as Disciplinary Authority did not prohibit the same and thus said I was eligible for pension.
    Bank had appealed the order before a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of AP & Telanagana which was rejected by the Court.
    Even now the bank is not inclined to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
    Even though there are judgments of High Courts on the issue of suspension period being pensionable and I had furnished the same, bank is not prepared to honour the order.
    My contempt petition will come up for hearing in Oct 2014.
    Is there any other solution to this tangle please?

    Like

    1. Nice that you have fought your case well. There could be other options too to be resorted to but better for the present would be to wait for what transpires in the case next month as you have stated. Wish you all the best.

      Like

  31. Sir
    Couldnot understand d reason for punishing 7th Bypartites of SBI pensioners,whereas other Banks amicably setteled d case of their 7th bypartite pensioners.Actually who are villans behind d drama and what is their intension ? Even though our Supreme Court has sent our case to Delhi High Court with an order to finalise it within a stipulated time shedule,There also d case is indefenitly dragging / postponing for the reasons unkwown.Is it d way of showering justice to the most senior senior citizens of this country? Now where & to whom we have to approch for justice

    Like

  32. I am quite impressed after reading the analysis made by s/Shri K R Saini and Neelkanth. I hope better sense will prevail and verdict will be in favour of the 7th bipartite retirees very soon. Thanks once again for enlightening the retirees.

    Like

  33. Respected Magon Sahib,
    I am also happy to note the hard work done by Sh Saini for the pensioners.I am also impressed after reading the analysis made by sh K.R.Saini and sh Neeelkanthji But feel sorry to mention that The Leaders of pensioners association of Chandigarh circle are not ready to get the services of Mr Saini for the pensioners . They the union leaders are the dictators of the pensioners association chandigarh circle , They have highjaked the association for the last ten years and spending /misusing the association funds as per their own benefits.
    travelling by Air and Taxis
    Rajkumarnegi

    Like

  34. I am indeed grateful to Shri Saini to focus the issue which is very vital for the pensioners.I donot understand as to why all the circles pensioners associations unite on the issue and press the Mgmt/Federations to settle the issue during bipartite for ever.I also suggest that the Govt should think to provide pensions to the bankers on the same pattern #one rank one pension# Why there is a discrimination within the cadre of officers to get50% and 40%pensions All pensioners must get 50% as pension of their last pay drawn similar to what was done by RBI as stated by Shri Saini in his blog.I think the leaders of both the federations settling the bipartite are mainly responsible for this state of affairs in SBI

    Like

  35. I TOOK RETIREMENT IN 2001 UNDER VRS AFTER 39 YEARS OF SERVICE AS SCALE III OFFICER.IF JUDGEMENT IN DELHI HIGH COURT IS PASSED IN OUR FAVOUR.ARE WE EXPECT TO GET ARREARS FROM DATE OF RETIREMENT OR FROM 1.5.2005.

    Like

  36. If everything works out well state bank of India pensioners will feel proud to be a part of it but one thing for the next generation when it comes to pass on the fruits of progress people in the same organisation must never hesitate or play games of delaying tactics which has affected the moral of so may who worked sincerely and honestly for the progress of this great country thriugh the stateBank of India which has contributed to the progress of this country. I salute all those veterens who have worked hard thorugh the net to make it a reality.

    Like

  37. The State Bank has issued circular dated 20-12-200 stating the pension of the employeesretired after 1-03-1999 and those reitring hereafter shall be calculated on the basis of revised pension rules but with reference to pre-revised pay and allowances. sighned by J.P.Verma (CGM) has no aprroval from GOI and it has misleading and arbitary and detrimental to the intersest of the pensioners/retirees

    Like

  38. IN RESPONSE TO SHRI PRABHAKAR KULKARNI COMMENT DATED 30TH MAY,2015@01.29.224 KINDLY READ ALLTHE COMMENTS ON THIS POST BY ME THENYOU WILL FIND THE ANSWER OF YOUR THIS COMMENT.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s