Pension issues in SBI–A review on regulations by K.R. Saini:



Image result for a poor pensioner in sbi

KESHAV RAI SAINI
Feb 07, 2015 @ 19:58:01

STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ‘PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014.
AS ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT ”PENSION SCHEME” IN STATE BANK OF INDIA IS GOVERNED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ‘PENSION FUND RULES. HOWEVER ,RECENTLY NOW PENSION SCHEME IN STATE BANK OF INDIA IS GOVERNED BY ”STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014”.YOU CAN GO THROUGH THESE PENSION FUND REGULATIONS -2014 BY VISITING http://WWW.SBI.CO.IN/SBIPENSION/USER.HTM. I MEAN TO SAY THAT THESE REGULATIONS-2014 CAN BE AVAILABLE FROM THE BANK’S PENSION PORTAL.THESE NEW RULES NOTIFIED ON 18.09.2014 IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THESE RULES ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EXCEPT THOSE  WHO JOINED/APPOINTED IN THE BANK ON 1.08.2010 OR AFTRERWARDS.
THESE RULES ARE FRAMED IN EXCERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 50 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955(23OF 1955) BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AFTER CONSULTATION WITH RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND WITH PRIOR SANCTION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. NOW BANK’ PLEA IS THAT THE PRESENT PENSION STRUCURE IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AS PER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S APPROVAL AND ALL APPROVALS ON THEIR RECORD .
IN THIS CONNECTION, I MAY ADD AS PER RULE 23(1) OF OUR PENSION FUND RULES PENSION HAS TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE LAST DRAWN SALARY.WITH THIS RULE STILL IN FORCE AND NOT ON PRE-REVISED SALARY. IF THE AMOUNT OF OUR PENSION IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY LINKED TO OUR LAST DRAWN SALARY, IT WILL BE AN ABERATION OF THIS RULE. BANK SHOULD FOLLOW UP THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS MADE THEIR PROPOSAL DATED 30.10.2002 AND AGAIN SENT ON 28.06.2008 FOR PAYMENT OF OUR PENSION WITH A CEILING OF 50% OF THE LAST DRAWN PAY AND WITHOUT THE STIPULATION OF ANY FIXED MONETARY CEILING.
ALL THE PENSIONERS ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE THEIR FEED BACK/COMMENTS/VIEWS ON THIS WRITE UP AS THIS WRITE UP IS VERY IMPORTANT SO FAR OUR PENSION ISSUES IN S.B.I ARE CONCERNED.

K.R.SAINI

This article is partly edited.

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “Pension issues in SBI–A review on regulations by K.R. Saini:”

  1. The amended SBI Pension Fund Regulations 18th September 2014, adversely affect all the pensioners who retired on or before 31st October 2002 with retrospective effect. This is against the settled law vide the Supreme Court of India
    U.P. Raghavendra Acharya And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 12 May, 2006 Bench: S.B. Sinha, P.P. Naolekar CASE Appeal (civil) No.1389 of 2006. There are a number of W.P./Appeals already under process. The extant rulings should be brought to the kind attention of the judiciary in the interest of the SBI Pensioners.

    Like

      1. I can be reached through e-mail shripadgudi@gmail.com Mobile 91-9535279932
        With the help from seniors I am in touch with, I can provide well studied analysis and few more case laws. I hope you have read an Appeal dated 7th February 2015 addressed to the Hon. Finance Minister Shri Arun Jaitley by Shri P.P.R. Upadhyaya. I can provide that appeal in case you are interested.

        Like

  2. SHRI SHRIPAD GUDI,I AM GLAD TO GO THROUGH YOUR WRITE UP DATED THE MARCH 01,2015.I HAVE ALSO READ AN APPEAL DATED 7TH FEBRUARY 2015 ADDRESSED TO THE FINANCE MINISTER SHRI ARUN JAITLEY BY SHRI P.P.R.UPADHYAYA AND HE HAS GOT THE REPLY THROUGH THE BANK ON THE SAME LINES WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN IN MY ABOVE POST .HOWEVER,BANK HAS ADVISED IN THE LAST LINE OF THE REPLYOF THE BANK TO SHRI UPADHYAYA——”-INCIDENTELLY WE HAVE TAKEN UP THE MATTER WITH THE GOVENMENT A FRESH.” NOW WE SHOULD SEE A RAY OF HOPE FOR REVISION OF PENSION OF 7TH BIPARTITE.LET US HOPE FOR THE BEST.
    SO FAR AS YOU MENTIONED A SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT OF 2006 I HAVE TO ADVISE THAT WE ARE NOT A LEGAL EXPERT AND YOU SHOULD TAKE UP THE MATTER WITH PENSIONERS FEDERATION THEY WILL CONSULT WITH THEIR COUNSELS AS AN AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED BEFORE THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING ON 6.04.2015.PENSIONERS FEDERATION ADDRESS IS PENCARE2003@YAHOO.COM KINDLY ADVISE ACCORDINGLY IN THIS POST.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

    1. I am responding to your comment in all humbleness. I do not intend to take this issue with the Federation. I am clearly aware that the Federation does not take kindly to any suggestion made. The Federation did not listen to a practicing advocate, Mr. Prabhakar Malge, who had suggested 25+ changes in the draft W.P. before it was filed. Federation did not respect the assurance given by the then Chairman Mr. O.P. Bhat and filed the petition directed in the Supreme Court despite a Mr. Verma, a senior knowledgeable person. The Federation also did not heed to the similar advice by Mr. Prabhakar Malge. It is only the SBI Pensioners’ luck that the case was magnanimously transferred to Delhi H.C. But for the humanitarian consideration, the W.P. could have been dismissed. I am not a person qualified in Law. But, at least, I can read and understand the opinion of those who are learned.

      Like

    1. the lateest news is that the person who has messed up the matter shri.PPS MURTHY FED GS WHO HAS BEEN DEFEATED IN THE CHENNAI CIRCLE ELECTION HELD ON 27.9.2015.SHRI.RAJESH RAJU HAS TAKEN OOVER THE POST OF GS OF THE FEDERATION ON 18.10.2015GOVERNING BODY MEETING.SHRI SARAVANAMUTHU FOMER PRESIDENT OF SBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION& PRESENT V.PRESIDENT OF SBI PEN ASSN CHENNAI HAS DEFEATED SHRIPPS MURTHY.THIS SI FOR THE KIND INFORMATION OF ALL SBI PENSIONERS.LET US HOPESHRI.RAJESH RAJU GS SBI PENSIONERS ASSN HYDERABAD & OTHER FEDRATION LEADERS WILL TAKE UP OUR ISSUE IN A DIFFERENT& USEFUL DERECTION.GODD BLESS U ALL.R.RAMAKRISHNAN MANAGER RETD SBI AGE3D 73

      Like

  3. IN THIS POST I HAVE REQUESTED THE S.B.I PENSIONERS TO GIVE FEED BACK ON ”S.B.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014” I HAVE WRITTEN THIS WRITE UP ON THE 7TH FEBRUARY,2015 AFTER THE BANK HAS LAUNCHED THEASE REGULATIONS ON 2.02.2015 AND MADE THE ABOVE REQUEST REPEATLY BUT ONLY TWO PENSIONERS RESPONDED.NOW I WILL TRY TO ANALYSIS THESE REGULATIONS TO MY BEST OF ABILITY AND CAPACITY AND DURING THIS ANALYSIS ,FEEDBACK OF THE S.B.I PENSIONERS IS WELCOMED BY ME.
    THESE REGULATIONS ARE FRAMED IN EXCERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY SECTION 50 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955 IN THE PLACE OF STATE BANK INDIA PENSION FUND RULES. REGULATION NO 2 SAYS–”SAVE OR OTHERWISE PROVIDED,THE REGULATIONS SHALL COME INTO FORCE FROM THE DATE OF THEIR PUBLI8CATION OF THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE.” REGULATION NO 1 SAYS”THESE REGULATIONS MAY BE CALLED THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ‘ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS,2014.”
    THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CAME TO MY MIND–WHY THESE REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CIRCULATED TO THE BRANCHES OF OUR BANK AND THESE REGULATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE MEMBERS OF OUR PENSION SCHEME.IF ANY CIRCULAR(S) HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THIS REGARD,COPIES THEREOF MAY BE PROVIDED TO ME BY EMAIL AT MY EMAIL ID krsaini@hotmail.com k.r.saini
    THESE REGULATIONS ARE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 18.09.2014. K.R.SAINI

    Like

  4. OUR W.P(C) 1875/2013 AT DELHI HIGH COURT– I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29.01.2015 IN RESPECTED OF THIS COURT CASE AND AS PER VERVAL ROCEEDINGS THAT TOOK PLACE OUR FEDERATION’S COUNSEL WILL FILE AN AFFIDAVIT ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E ON 6.04.2015.NOW BANK HAS DISPLAYED/LAUNCHED ”STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014” ON 2.02.2015.THESE REGULATIONS HAVE SUPER CEDED OUR PENSION FUND RULES.IN OUR W.P,WE ARE SEEKING THE QUASHING OF THE PROVISO 23(2) STIPULATING THE MONETARY CEILINGS.AS THESE RULES UNDER CHALLENGE IN OUR W.P HAVE SINCE BEEN SUPERCEDED,OUR ENSIONERS FEDERATION ARE ARRANGING TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD,AS SUGGESTED BY THE COUNSELS.THIS MTTER ALREADY BROUGT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT AT HEARING HELD ON 29.01.2015 AND COURT HAS SAID THAT PENSIONERS FEDERATION CAN FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  5. COMPUTATION OF PENSION(CALCULATION OF PENSION)
    THERE ARE COMMON RULE NO 23 AND REGULATION NO 23 IN THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOEES PENSION FUND RULES-1955 AND STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATION -2014 RESPECTIVELLY THESE BOTH RULES NO 23 SAYS”PENSION TO BE COMPUTED ONLY ON THE LAST 12 MONTHS PENSIONABLE SERVICE AND NOT ON PRE-REVISED SALARY”.FURTHER STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014 DOES NOT AFFACT THE S.B.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES–1955 BECAUSE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014 ARE ONLY CONSOLIDATIONS OF SB.I EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014 EXCEPT SOME ADDITIONS/DELETIONS OF RULES SUCH AS THESE REGULATIONS—2014 WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES WHO JOINS THE SERVICE ON 1.08.2010 OR AFTERWAEDS.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  6. kindly read from bottom in third line ”employees pension fund rules-1955 instead of”’ employees pension fund regulations-2014”in my write up dated 3.03.2015.the inconvenience caused to you regrettable.
    k.r.saini

    Like

  7. KINDLY GO THROUGH THE PREAMBLE OF S.B.I EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014 NOTIFIED ON 18TH SEPTEMBER,2014 IN THE GAZETTE..THE S.B.I FUND RULES HAVE BEEN SUPERCEDED W.E.F 1.07.1955,ASD UNDER SECTION 49 AND 50 OF S.B.I ACT 1955,ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE RULES AND S.B.I CAN MAKE ONLY REGULATIONS.IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION UNDER ADVICE FROM LAW MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT,THE S.B.I FUND RULES HAVE BEEN SUPERCEDED RETROSPECTLY.THE PROVISIONS OF RULES 22,23(1) AND 23(2) ARE RETAINED UNDER REGULATIONS-2014 AS WELL.HOWEVER,IT IS NECESSARY TO AMEND OUR (PENSIONERS FEDERATION) PRAYERS FOR QUASHING THE PROVISION TO REGULATION(2) BY FILING A FRESH AFFIDAVIT .
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  8. AS I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT PROVISIONS OF RULES 22 ,23(1) AND 23(2) OF S.BI EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND RULES-1955 ARE RETAINED UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014 AS WELL OUR W.P 1875/2013 PENDING AT DELHI HIGH COURT,ORGINALLY FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT ON 11TH MARCH,2011 AND THAT TIME PENSION OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES IS REGULATED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES-1955 BUT NOW ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF S.BI IS REGULATED UNDER THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES ‘REGULATIONS–2014 W.E.F 18.09.2014(GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATE) FOR THIS REASON FRESH AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED BY THE PENSIONERS FEDERATION ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING.THE MAIN GIST OF THE PRAYERS BEFORE THE COURT WILL BE THAT ALL THE S.B.I PENSIONERS WILL GET THE PENSION @50% OF THE LAST DRAWN AVERAGE 12MONTHS SALARY W.E.F 1.11.1987 OR FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT(S) WHICH EVER LATER. WITH 30 YEARS OF PENSIONABLE SERVICE.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  9. REGULATION 22 IS FOR ”MINIMUM SERVICE FOR PENSION” AND REGULATION 23 IS FOR ”COMPUTATION OF PENSION” I.E FOR CALCULATION OF PENSION AND THESE REGULATIONS ARE SIMILAR TO RULE 22 AND 23 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-1955 REGULATION NO 23(1) SAYS”SUBJECT TO PROVISIONSSUB-REGULATIONS(2) AND(3),THE PENSION PAYABLE UNDER REGULATION 22 SHALL BE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ON-SIXTIETH PART PART OF EVERY YEAR’S PENSIONABLE SERVICE OF THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS’ PENSIONABLE SERVICE”
    REGULATION 23(2) THE MAXIMUM PENSION SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE-HALF OF THEVAVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS PENSIONABLE SERVICE OR RUPEES TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED PER MONTH(PRO-RATA IN THE CASE OF PART TIME EMPLOYEES)WHICHEVER IS LESS;
    PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WITH EFFECT FROM IST MARCH,1999 THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENSION FOR THE MEMBERS WHO RETIRED OR RETIRE DRAWING SUBSTANTIVE SALARY IN THE PAY SCALES EFFECTIVE FROM THE IST NOVEMBER,1992(AWARD STAFF)OR THE IST JULY ,1993(SUPERVISING STAFF)AND THEREAFTER SHALL BE COMPUTED TIL FURTHER AMENDMENTS IN THIS VREGARD,AS UNDER—-
    (a)WHERE VTHE AVERAGE OF MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS’ PENSIONABLE SERVICE IS UPTO RUPEES EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PER MONTH,FIFTY PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THEV LAST TWELVE MONTHS’ PENSIONABLE SERVICE(PRO- RATA IN THE CASE OF PART-TIMEEMPLOYEES)AND
    (b0 WHERE THEV AVERAGE OF MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS’ PENSIONABLE SERVICEIS ABOVE RUPEES EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PER MONTH,FORTY PER CENT OF THE AVERAGE OF MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS’PENSIONABLE SERVICE SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RUPEES FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY(PRO-RATAQ IN THE CASE OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES)
    SIMILARLY PENSION PAYABLE TO 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES W.E.F 1.05.2005 AND PENSION PAYABLE TO 9TH BIPARTITE RETIREES W.E.F 1.11.2007 HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN REGULATION NO 23-2014 .
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  10. REGULATION 26 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014 PRESCRIVED A FORM ”I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTODD THE REGULATIONS OF STATE BANK OFVINDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUBD AND I HEREBY SUBCRIBE AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE SAID REGULATIONS”. THIS FORM WILL BE DULY WITNESSED BY A WITNESS WITH DESIGNATION AND ADDRESS.AND BANK WILL GIVE A CERTIFICATE THAT PARTICULARS FOUND CORRECT AND SIGNATURE VERIFIED.
    IN THIS CONNECTION I MAY ADD THIS FORM CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE SERVING EMPLOYEES AND HOW THIS FORM CAN BE OBTAINED FROM PENSIONERS. BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF FORM HAS ALREADY BEEN OBTAINED FROM EVERY PENSIONERS WHEN THEY JOINED THE BANK AND GAVE A CERTIFICATE THAT THEY HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD”’ THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES–1955”
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  11. REGULATION 27 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS –2014.REGULATION 27 SAVING CLAUSE———”’ALL THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND ANYTHING DONE UNDER AND AS PER THE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES-1955 SHALL REMAIN VALID AND BINDING ON THE CONCERNED PARTIES.THE SUPRESSION OF THE AND THE STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND RULES1955LATIONS SHALL NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF VARIOUS DEETIONS/ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THE SAID RULES”.
    I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT AND I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND REGULATIONS 26 AND 27 AND I REQUEST TO S.B.I PENSIONERS TO SUBMIT THEIR FEED BACK IN THIS REGARD.I WILL WAIT THEIR REPLIES EAGERALLY.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  12. PENSION IS PAID IN ACCODANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS DULY NOTIFIED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND AS FAR AS RETIRED EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS ARE CONCERNED,NOT EVEN EXTRA RE ONE CAN BE PAID AS PENSION TO ANY ONE UNLESS PENSION REGULATIONS ARE AMENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
    REGULATION 10 RELATES TO BANK’S CONTBUTION TO
    PENSION FUND .ON OR AFTER THE 25TH JANUARY,2012 CONTRIBUTION TO PENSION FUND WILLBE MADE AFTER ACTURIAL INVESTGATION OR VALUATION EACH YEAR ENDING 31ST MARCH .IN THIS LETTER ISSUED BY M.O F WHILE MAKING AMENDMENT TO RULE 10ADVISED THE BANK NOT TO CHANGE THE PRESENT STRUCTURE OF PENSION AND FAMILY PENSION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF M.O.F.ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENT OF PENSION FOR S.B.I PENSIONERS AND BANK HAS NO POWER FOR IMPROVING THE PENSION OF S,B,I PENSIONERS.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  13. I believe now is the time to have the issues settled along with the new wage settlement and the bank’s association can play a positive role.

    Like

  14. SHRI BMK CHOPRA,THANKS FOR SUBMITTING A COMMENT ON MY ABOVE NOTE.HOWEVER, S.B.I PENSION ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT FROM BANKING INDUSTRY PENSION ISSUES,THERE IS NO DOUBT SOME LINK WITH 10TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT FOR EXAMAMPLE 100% D.A NEUTRALIZATION TO PRE2002 RETIREES AND IMPROVEMENT IN FAMILY PENSION THESE TWO ISSUES WILL BE SETTLED IN 10TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT THE THIRD ISSUE IS PENSION UPDATION OF PAST RETIREES .HOWEVER PENSION UPDATION IS NOT EXIT FOR THE PRESENT IN R.B.I,L.I.CAND G.IC AND OTHER FINANCIAL SECTOR FOR THIS REASON GOVRNMENT MAY AGREE OR NOT PENSION UPDATIN IN BANKS.
    THERE ARE TWO MAJOR PENSION ISSUES IN SB,I PENSION @ OF50 % OF THE LAST DRAWN PAY AND PENSION TO 7TH BIPATE RETIREES ON THEIR PAY SCALES.BOTH THE ISSUES MAY BE SOLVED BY THE GOVERBNMENT BUT GOVERNMENT IS ADAMANT NOT TO PROVIDE ANY BENEFITS TO S.B.I PENSIONERS.EVEN THEN LET US HOPE FOR THE BEST.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  15. Respected Sir
    We the pensioners not only before 2002 but all pensioners of State Bank of India are very hopeful of your struggle to erase the anomaly in the area of pension.We salute to you and Mr. K.R.Saini to strive peremptorily to achieve the goal. Both of you are effulgent leaders of the pensioners. We all prosper and inspire to read your heigh and laudable article.

    Like

    1. Mr. P.P.R. Upadhyaya in his appeal has reproduced the observations of the Hon. Supreme Court in A. Raghavachari vs. state which says that pension fund act, rules cannot amended with retrospective effect to the disadvantage of the pensioners. This appeal has been sent by Mr. Upadhyaya to the Federation of Pensioners’ Associations. There are few other landmark judgments which support our demand. In addition, in so far as 7th B.P. pensioners are concerned, the Bank is paying pension (?) based on pre-revised scales. None of the rules or even regulations recently issues by way of Gazette Notification state that computation of pension be based on the pre-revised scales.

      I fail to understand the reasons for stubborn refusal on the part of the Federation of SBI Pensioners’ Associations to include the how the pension is being paid for the last 15 years to the 7th B.P. pensioners for one. It was not done although one of our own pensioners Mr. Prabhakar Malge, Sangli, Maharashtra, brought this to the notice of the Federation well before the filing of W.P. No.184/2011 before the Hon. Supreme Court. I have had the opportunity of going through the original writ petition. It took me several readings to understand despite the fact that I am fully conversant with the service rules and pension rules etc. I also understand that the Hon. S.C. itself, a few years back, directed the Government to ensure payment of pension in accordance with the settled laws and not to approach the judiciary on frivolous grounds. The Hon. S.C. it appears also added that its precious time should be burdened because of narrow interpretations by those who did not enjoy authority. If I remember right such a view was expressed in one judgment itself in a pension case.

      I also would like to know whether VRS-2001 guidelines contained any clause through which the State Bank of India reserved its right to depart from the principle in paying pension because of opting to retire under VRS and getting ex-gratia. To my understanding there was no such clause. Now is it fair in law that administrative orders restricted any expected normal application of the clauses as existed as on the date of retirement under VRS viz. 31.3.2001 and to ratify it by way of Gazette Notification dated 15th September. With whom the balance of convenience lies. On the one side is gigantic financially powerful institution and on the other side it is hapless pensioners in their seventies plus with meagre pension forced live life of misery for substantial part of pension is spent for health concerns.

      I and many reasonably feel that there is undisclosed agenda behind all the prosaic explanations which do not touch the basics.

      Truth does not need lengthy explanations. It is falsehood that needs winding vocabulary, long sentences and extraneous matters.

      Majority of the pensioners keep expressing on a one on one basis. Hardly very few dare to call a spade and spade. Not just the ignorant even the educated class of pensioners are afraid of brute authority.

      I have lost hopes. I may leave this world without getting my legitimate pension. But I now feel comfortable for having spoken on what is nagging me for quite sometime. I had great hope this time viz. first week of April 2015. This golden opportunity has been frittered away by very highly intelligent group of people.

      Like

  16. An Interesting and landmark Judgement of Madra High Court, upheld by Hon’ble SC, would be useful to many of SBI Colleagues..

    “14. Thus, pensionable service of the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on 23.2.1987. Computing the period from that day, the writ petitioner had completed more than 20 years pensionable service as required under Rule 22(i) of the SBI Rules, as on the day his request for Exit Option was accepted, i.e., on 15.6.2007.

    15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner had not completed 20 years of pensionable service, as required under the provisions of law. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is, accordingly, set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. The writ petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits, payable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

    SC upheld the Above Division Bench Judgement and dismissed SLP of SBI on 6.7.2015..

    Honorable Madras High Court Divison Bench Land Mark Judgement on 16.02.2015 ordered SBI to count Pensionable (qualifying) service from Initial date of Appointment and not from date of Confirmation. Hon’ble SC upheld the same and dismissed The SLP filed by SBI on 06.07.2015, paving way for number of SBI Employees to get Pension, which has been denied by SBI for several decades. Hon’ble SC Order is attached..http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%201647815p.txt

    Like

      1. No mention sir. You are spearheading such a Movement and gave us space for us. The Pensioner cause which we have been collectively working to gather people across the Country and finally we succeeded..still yet to travel a small distance, which we hope will achieve shortly..

        Like

      2. THE TASK IN QUESTION WHICH WE ARE PURSUING IS QUITE NOT INVINCIBLE WHEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THERE TO EXTEND SUPPORT WITH GOOD WISHES. ONCE AGAIN MY THANKS.

        Like

      3. Kindly spread this message, “Date of Initial Appointment” is to be taken for calculation of Pensionable Service, and not “date of confirmation” as per this Landmark Judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court and upheld by Hon’ble SC..Many would benefit based on the Judgement, either VRS 2001, Exit Option or Normal Retirees.

        Like

  17. FRIENDS, THIS IS VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT THAT OUR EMPLOYER(STATE BANK) SHOULD SHOW DEFINITE AND CORRECT ATTITUDE TOWARDS ITS EMPLOYEES AND UNNECESSARY LITIGATION DO NOT TRAVEL TO COURT.BUT THE ATTITUDE OF STATE BANK IN THIS REGARD IS ALWAYS NEGATIVE BECAUSE NOT A SINGTLE DECISION IN FAVOUR OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES BY VARIOUS DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE BANK BUT DRAGGED TO VARIOUS HIGH COURTS( KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE YEAR 2010,CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE YEAR2012,DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN APRIL,2015) INCLUDING SUPREME COURT(MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN THE YEARS 2008 TO 2010).SOME OF THE COURTCASES STARTED IN THE YEAR2001 TO 2003BUT NO LOGIC RESULT SOFAR.THESE ALL CASES RELATE TO7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  18. I AM A RETIREE OF 7TH BPS. I VOLUNTARILY RETIRED ON 30.4.1998. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 7TH BPS IS 1ST APRIL 1998. MY REVISED BASIC PAY WAS Rs.15,000 AND GOT ONE MONTH’S ARREARS. BUT MY BASIC PENSION CONTINUES TO BE 4,250 INSTEAD OF 7500, 7TH BPS STATES THAT PENSION SHALL BE BASED ON THE LAST DRAWN BASIC SALARY. I WROTE TO TRIVANDRUM LHO TO THIS EFFECT ENCLOSING A COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAIPURIAR, BUT TO NO AVAIL. IT IS NOW THAT I REALISE THE STRENGTH,ADVANTAGE AND
    VALUE OF A TRADE UNION OF WORKING PERSONNEL.

    NOW COMING TO OUR CASE No.1875/2013 IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT, CASE LISTED AS ITEM No 5 HAS SINCE BEEN FINALISED AND JUDGEMENT DELIVERED. A LADY JUDGE IN OUR BENCH IS REPORTED TO BE ON LEAVE. WE HAVE NO IDEA AS TO WHEN SHE WILL REPORT FOR DUTY. OUR CASE IS DRAGGING SINCE 29TH JUNE, THE DAY ON WHICH THE COURT REOPENED AFTER SUMMER HOLIDAYS. AGAIN ANOTHER CASE NUMBERED AS 1-B HAS BEEN INSERTED BETWEEN 1 AND 1A. THE FATE OF OUR CASE SEEMS TO BE LIKE THAT OF PREMAVATHI BAGGA WHICH WAS FILED IN 2002.

    WHAT TO DO OTHER THAN RESIGNING TO OUR SAD FATE.

    Like

  19. OUR CASE No.1875/2013 IS DRAGGING ON FOR EVER IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. AMONG THE FIRST FIVE, ITEM No.5 WAS DECIDED AND JUDGEMENT DELIVERED. NOW ANOTHER CASE NUMBERED AS ITEM No.1B HAS BEEN INSERTED IN BETWEEN 1 AND 1A. TO ADD FUEL TO FIRE, ONE OF THE JUDGES IS ON LEAVE AND NOTHING AN BE DONE IN HER ABSENCE
    NO IDEA AS TO WHEN OUR CASE WILL COMMENCE HEARING. IS THERE ANY WAY TO ASCERTAIN THE DATE ON WHICH GH JUDGE WILL BE BACK OR IS THERE ANY WAY BY WHICH WE CAN CHANCE THE BENCH.

    Like

  20. Respected Sir, I am a retired employee of SBI. At the time of Superannuation I put 22 years 11 months 15 days service. But for pension only 22 y 5 months 15 days was counted reducing 6 months the probationary period. The 12 monthly
    average emoluments meant for this 23 years service was equated to 30 years that is the maximum qualifying service and my pension was fixed pro rata.. Now the Central Govt consequent on the 6th CPC recommendations, have delinked
    requirement of 33 years qualifying service from the central civil service rules.. 20 years service is enough for earning full pension ie. 50% of the last 10 months average emoluments. This benefit is given effect from 01.01.2006. I am anxiously look forward the STATE BANK also delink the requirement of 30 years qualifying service from the pension rules to give the full pension benefit subject to their ceiling to retired employees like me. Mostly ex-servicemen employees are affected because they cannot put 30 years qualifying service at the time of superannuation. Sir, shall we get a fair deal in this respect similar to government employees retired. Please evaluate this matter. with thanks.

    MN.THIRUNAVUKKARASU
    Email: mntarasu1@gmail.com

    Like

  21. @s_sundararajan: @EconomicTimes #A landmark Judgement Honorable SC,many Retireesfought decades benefit http://t.co/sEUvzFWWsV… (http://t.co/UYLS2Zdj8x…)…This is a landmark judgement of Honourable SupremeCourt dated 12.10.2015, Amin vs LIC of India..The 2 points covered clearly..1. Delay in filing a writ claiming Pension can’t be a reason for denial of pension, that too after completing qualified service for pension, and in this case 14 years delay..2. Resignation and voluntary retirement are both voluntary, and the employee deserves pension, if he completed qualifying service…GOI, IBA, Banks must Sou moto pay pension to employees, who have resigned, whether they have gone to the Court or not. Finance Ministry, has already proactively advised Banks not to resort to Court Proceedings, the dispute between them, may advise Banks to follow the SC orders..

    Like

  22. @s_sundararajan: @EconomicTimes #A landmark Judgement Honorable SC,many Retireesfought decades benefit http://t.co/sEUvzFWWsV… (http://t.co/UYLS2Zdj8x…)..A land Mark judgement Gave clear direction on 1. Those who have not gone to court for pension, can’t be denied, just it is delayed..In this case 14 years delay..2. Resignation and Voluntary retirement both are vOluntary and eligible for pension, if qualifying service criteria is fulfilled. Now, Govet, IBA and Banks proactively sanction Pension as a Model Employer, as per the SC Judgement..Now, Modi Govt, in a far reaching decision, have advised Banks not to proceed to legal proceedings for resolving disputes (ET Report) and avoid spending huge money to Legal and formed a committee, Pensioners Issue can be resolved similarly, without going to Court, putting the Pensioners into lot of difficulty.

    Like

  23. Courtesy: Livelaw.in

    Beneficial Legislation warrants liberal interpretation by the State as a Model Employer: Supreme Court
    By: Anju Cletus | October 13, 2015
    Supreme Court of India
    2
    This is a peculiar case in which both the appellant and respondent have acted in accordance with law; said the Supreme Court

    The Apex Court while adjudicating a Civil Appeal observed that the State as a model employer should construe provisions of a beneficial legislation in a way that extends the benefits thereunder to its employees, instead of curtailing it.

    The appeal was preferred by Asger Ibrahim Amin against the order of Life Insurance Corporation of India by virtue of which he was denied pension on account of his voluntarily resignation from the service of Corporation in 1991.

    According to the appellant at the time of his termination a distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” had not been made out in the concerned service rules. He was also not covered by any beneficial pension scheme at that time .

    Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules which came up in 1995 subsequent to his resignation provide that resignation from service would lead to forfeiture of the benefits of the entire service including eligibility for pension. Besides, the appellant’s claim was raised after a lapse of 14 years from the date of his resignation. His claim of pension was objected by the Corporation on these grounds.

    As far as the laches were concerned the court approved of earlier observations made in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 that in cases of continuing or successive wrongs, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart the claim so long as the claim, if allowed, does not have any adverse repercussions on the settled third-party rights.

    The question whether the termination of service of the appellant remains unalterably in the nature of resignation, with the consequence of disentitling him from availing of or migrating/mutating the pension scheme was answered by the court in negative. The court held that appellant’s termination from service shall be viewed as a voluntary retirement so as to bestow the benefit of pension to him who had ‘resigned’ after reaching the age of fifty and having served the LIC for over twenty three years.

    According to the scheme of 1995 Rules, an employee governed by it may be permitted to retire at any time after he has completed twenty years of qualifying service, by giving notice of not less than ninety days in writing to the appointing authority. Where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The Court noted the fact that the appellant, though unknowingly, had complied with all the requirements under the Rules so as to be eligible for pension. The Court observed that the Corporation being State is deemed as model employer who could and should have extended the advantage of these benevolent provisions to the appellant thereby safeguarding his pension entitlement.

    The Court also noted that this is a peculiar case in which both the appellant and respondent have acted in accordance with law.

    “The commendable objective of the Pension Rule is to extend benefits to a class of people to tide over the crisis and vicissitudes of old age, and if there are some inconsistencies between the statutory provisions and the avowed objective of the statute so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries within the class, the end of justice obligates us to palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them as far as possible. We would be failing in our duty, if we go by the letter and not by the laudatory spirit of statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”,observed the Court while allowing the appeal.

    Like

  24. Sir, The above Landmark Judgement has clarified without ambiguity on two points..1. Resigned Employees to be treated as Voluntary Retirement, as both are Voluntary in nature and hence eligible for Pension, otherwise required qualifying service of 20 years wef date of initial appointment, criteria is fulfilled. 2. Those Employees who even gone to the Court demanding Pension , after rejected by the Organisation, with a time delay of 14 years, have been considered sympathetically..Let us spread this message, so that Employees who resigned, retired, and Even if it is a delay to approach the Court , may approach the Court based on this Well written above Judgement..The judgement may be viewed in the attachment..@s_sundararajant #A landmark Judgement Honorable SC,many Retirees benefit http://t.co/sEUvzFWWsV… (http://t.co/UYLS2Zdj8x…)

    Like

  25. IN RESPONSE TO WRITE UPS OF SHRI SUNDARLAYMAN AND SHRI RAJAN DATED THE 13TH AND 14TH OCTOBER,2015 EXPRESSING A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT ,I SHALL BE GLAD IF YOU KINDLY SEND A COPY OF THIS FULL JUDGEMENT TO PENSIONERS FEDERATION FOR QUOTING THIS JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF W.P(C) 1875/2013 FOR REMOVING THE ANOMALY IN PENSION OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AS IN THEIR CASE REVISION OF PENSION IS PENDING FOR THE LAST 18 YEARS AND MAJORITY OFTHESE RETIREES RETIRED UNDER VRS AND THIS JUDGEMENT CAN HELP THEM.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  26. IN RESPONSE TO SHRI MN,THIRUNAVUKKARASU WRITE UP DATED THE 7TH OCTOBER,2015,OUR PENSION IS REGULATED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS –2014 KINDLY GO THROUGH REGFULATIONS NOS 21,22,AND 23 FOR PENSION PURPOSE WHICH ARE APPLICABLE AS PER OUR SERVICE CONDITIONS AND CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSION RULES CANNOT BE COMPARED AND APPLIED IN OUR BANK.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  27. For Shri K.R.Saini Sir.

    This is further to my write up dt 7oct 15 and your reply dt15Oct 15. In this connection I wish to state that the Central Government Pay Commission is headed by Honourable Judges of the Apex Court. Thus the recommendations of the pay commission implies more judicious weightage and serve as a benchmark.for others to follow because after analysing in depth the matters, the commission recommends changes which are needed in these days, in their report. So delinking the clause ie. the maximum qualifying service 33 years required for reckoning pension is one of the recommendations. The Govt. also rightly agreed to this and amended the pension rules delinking the same.

    Our STATE BANK also extended a GOODWILL Package (a lump sum grant) to its pensioners when they attain the age of 70,80,90 years as against the central the Central Govt. granting old age special pension to pensioners. The same Central Govt. is going to approve whatever changes needed for State Bank Pension Rules. The Central Govt. can not deny or ignore ,if it is sought for by State Bank.

    It is requested STATE BANK may also undo the clause ie. the maximum30 years Q.S. for reckoning pension,

    Sir, your honour being a luminary on pension matters can solve this matter with STATE BANK as it is a fair and just demand. We solicit your involvement to get this done. Thanks.

    Like

  28. Respected All,
    I had a naive question. My father worked for SBI for 40 years and retired on January 2007.

    INCASE THERE IS ANY REVISION IN PENSION AMOUNT, DOES THE BANK MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES ON THEIR OWN OR DO THE PENSIONERS HAVE TO SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR THE REVISION?

    My father has been out of touch with all colleagues so he doesn’t get any important revision or notices.
    We are from kolkata, currently residing in bangalore.
    Thank you in advance.

    Like

    1. If taken on simple terms the aggrieved member of the family has to take the requisite initiative to secure decision from the concerned Bank but on the face of the fact that the whole matter is pending nod as from the Government and there lies the dead lock.We are knocking all doors with the hope that some day the issue has tobe solved.

      Like

  29. Dear sir, I have completed 33 years of unblemished service. The bank has terminated my service ( dismissal )in 2014. There were some irregularities incorporated by I O in 2010. On the basis of Insp. Report charge sheet was served. Insp Report was closed. During my tenure 2008-10 no fraud or any type of complaints lodged. In the absence of field officer more than 12 months some irregularity persist. Sir can you help me to overcome from agony. I am 60 year old.
    Regards

    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