Pension issue in State Bank of India has all along been too grotesque to be legible to the people in general as different persons have been giving different interpretations for every thing that even remotely concerns the topic. This has been causing too much of a confusion at the level of the pensioners at the receiving end. K R Saini, a stalwart on pension issues, has been clarifying the anomalies all these years and now he has been joined by another stalwart H. Ganapathy to the benefit of the readers of this blog. This is a happy combination of the duo to the gross advantage of the retiree pensioners and also the readers in general and other well wishers who are in large number supporting the cause. Hopefully the retiree pensioners and all other readers would go through the dialogue between the two experts Saini and Ganapati. I am thankful to both of them. The writeup as whole is only partly edited. The paragraph added at the end is the latest one from H. Ganapati.
DEAR SIR ,MY SINCERE THANKS TO YOU FOR ADVISING ME THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ABOVE COURT CASE AND OUR W.P (C)1875/2013 IN DELHI HIGH COURT.THE ABOVE NOTED IS A TIMELY JUDGEMENT BY THE SAME DOUBLE BENCH WHO IS HEARING OUR DFEDERATION’;S CASE,THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING IS 6TH MAY,2015.YOU SHOULD NOW TAKE UP WITH THE BANK MANAGEMENT FOR RECALCULATING THE PENSION OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ON THE BASIS OF LAST TWELVE MONTHS AVERAGE PAY WHICH THEY DRAW AT THEIR RETIREMENT(S) AND PAY THE ARREAR TO THEM IMMEDIATELY PENDING OUR COURT CASE W.P (C) 1875/2013 RELATING TO 50% AS PENSION TO ALL PENSIONERS OF S.B.I.WITH BEST REGARDS.KINDLY CONFIRM TO ME YOUR ACTION.I WILL WAIT YOUR REPLY EAGERILY.
Subject: RE: ORDER DATED 6.04.2015 OF DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED IN W.P 2353/2014 FILED SHRI JAIPURIAR PENSIONER
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 11:01:58 +0000
DEAR SHRI GANAPATHY JI,IN THIS CONNECTION I MAY ADD THAT NOW EVERY POINT IS LAID DOWN BY THIS JUDGEMENT AND I AM WRITING THE POINTS.
(1)FOR PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF BASIC PENSION AN AVERAGE OF THEVSALARY FOR 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING DATE OF RETIREMENT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
(2)FOR CALCULATION OF BASIC PENSION OF THOSE PENSIONERS WHO ARE DRAWINGT PARTLY PRE-REVISED SALARY BSCALE AND PARTLY REVISED PAY AS IN THIS CASE BANK LAID DOWN THE INSTRUCTIONS IN E -CIRCULAR P&HRD283/2006-2007 CIRCULAR NO CDO/P&HRD/PM/26/2006-2007 DATED 25TH AUGUST 2006.
(3)D.A ON BASIC PENSION HAS ALSO BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE REGULATION23(10) OF STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS–2014.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING I AGAIN REQUEST YOU KINDLY TAKE UP WITH THE MANAGEMENT THE REVISION OF PENSION OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES PENDING OUR W.P 1875/2013FOR BASIC PENSION AS @50%.
KINDLY REPLYB MY THIS EMAIL.I WILL WAIT YOUR REPLY EAGERILY.
We have to wait and see as to how the Bank is going to pay the DA to Mr. Jaipuria whether on 1148 points or on 1684 points. Further, the Bank may sure to take up a position that it applies only to Pensioner. Anyhow, by May the Federation case will certainly be taken up and the mind of the DB is now known from this order which is in fact favourable to the 7th BP retirees. Regards.- Ganapathy.
Sent from my iPhone
DEAR SIR ,I AM QUOTING” REGULATION 23(10) a IN THE CASE OF MEMBERS WHO RETIRE FROM THE BANK’S SERVICE ON OR AFTER IST NOVEMBER 1993,DEARNESS RELIEF SHALL BE PAYABLE FOR EVERY RISE OR RECOVERABLE FOR EVERY FULL,AS THE CASE MAY BE OF EVERY 4 POINTS OVER 1148 POINTS IN THE QUERTERLY AVERAGE OF ALL INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN THE SERIES 1960=100.”THIS IS FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
Please verify whether the Regulation 23(10) specify DA over and above 1684 points in relation to the revised pension for 7th BP retirees. Since I am in Bangalore, I do not have the copy of the regulations right now. I have a doubt whether Regulation 23(10) contains DA over and above 1684 points on the revised pension for 7th BP retirees. Regards.- Ganapathy.
Sent from my iPhone
DEAR SIR ,I FULLY AGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS AND D.A FORMULA OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES IF PENSION IS REVISED WILL BE ON THE LINE OF FAMILY PENSIONERS BECAUSE FAMILY PENSION IS CALCULATED ON THE REVISED SALARY.
This DA is applicable only in the case of retirees whose wages were revised by merging 1148 points of DA i.e. 6th BP retirees. Once the revised wages after the merger of 1684 points in the case of 7th BP retirees is to be taken into account for pension computation, the DA will have to be calculated only above 1684 points and not above 1148 points, otherwise the 7th BP retirees will get a double benefit of 536 points both in basic pension and its relative DA. Hope you will agree with me on this. Regards. – Ganapathy
Sent from my iPhone
This reproduction is from a letter written to a friend of mine RO Shah, a veteran trade union letter highlighing the scenario …
First of all, my view on Sec. 50(3) is only for academic interest. If it is raised in a court of law, then it will have a detrimental effect on the pensioners. In other words, if it is challenged invoking 50(3), then the pensionary benefit will never flow from the "Regulations". In view of the advices given by the GOI Law Ministry over the misuse of authority by SBI in framing "Rules" on pension, there is no protection for the payment of pension under "Rules" also as the same loses its sanctity due to the said advices. I raised this issue of 50(3) because whether I can take a plea before the court wherein I appeared challenging the New Pension Scheme in the case of new recruits who are now disentitled to become the members of the Pension Fund with retrospective effect under the Regulation 7. The Bank can not take a plea that the Regulations were made only after consulting RBI because the Sec. 50(3) is very clear that the First Regulation of this kind can be made only by RBI and not by SBI. More so, even there were consultations, RBI was categorical in their advice that any provision in the "Regulations" as regards giving retrospective effect will invite certain legal complications. So while framing "Regulations" SBI circumvented such advices of RBI by introducing a Saving Clause providing that its earlier decisions and actions in pursuance of the "Rules" shall be valid and binding. Otherwise, if there is no saving clause like this, the payment of pension to the pensioners has to be stopped on account of supercession of "Rules". Though the "Regulations" are prospective except in the case of admission of employees who joined the service after 01/08/2010 to the Pension Fund and in the case of additional contribution to the Pension Fund, the same has a provision for continuity by means of saving clause. No doubt, in terms of Sec. 50(2A) the Regulations can be made retrospectively but it should be beneficial and not detrimental to the employees / pensioners. Here they made it retrospective in the case of those who joined the Bank on or after 01/08/2010 disentitling them from becoming a member of the non-contributory pension fund and forcing them to contribute from the Salary & DA to get pension under NPS. This is certainly a detrimental one. And if at all if the Bank wants to modify the "Regulations" in any manner they wish by means of amendments, it can only be for the benefit of pensioners and not to their detriment. That is why the Federation of Pensioners Associatios challenged "Rules" now " Regulations" which modified half of Last Drawn Pay as Max. Pension ie. 50% to 40% detrimental to certain category of pensioners. My only concern as regards the Saving Clause is this. The computation of pension to those who retired drawing the pay effective from 01/11/1997 or 011/04/1998 as the case may be is based on pre-revised scale i.e. 6th BP pay in terms of certain administrative instructions issued in December 2000. As long as "RULES" were in vogue, the said administrative instructions remain as administrative instructions only, but after making of "REGULATIONS" and on account of the "Saving Clause" in the newly framed "REGULATIONS" stipulating all decisions and actions by the Bank in pursuance of "RULES" shall be valid and binding on all, thus making such administrative instructions to get sanctified by means of "Saving Clause". Your apprehension that the Bank is now empowered to take unilateral view is right, but it is in only respect of "Family Pemsion" and also in respect of "Pension Payment" to the pensioners belonging to Subsdiaries on account merger or amalgamation wherein it is clearly stipulated that only Central Board of the Bank has the power. Hope I have exhaustively clarified the position. Awaiting your response. – Ganapathy