There is an ocean of views and opinions in regard to pension issues in State Bank as from the readers and also dexterously competent people like Ramchandra Upadhyaya and K R Saini. In fact there is no dearth of the requisite material as on date to justify the pensioners claims if honestly adhered to by the authorities involved. While clearing heap of arrears on my laptop today I came across a circular letter addressed by Ramchandra Upadhyaya that highlights several factors supporting the issues. To enable it to reach bigger number of people, the same is reproduced below verbatim for the benefit of the readers.
Amendment to SBIEPF Rules 1955.
Twin ceilings on maximum pension payable.
In the attached note, I have established that the amendment carried out to the SBIEPF Rules with effect from 1.3.1999 at the behest of the Central Government is unconstitutional, illegal and not in conformity with various Supreme Court rulings on Pension related matters.
2.I am aghast at the servile attitude of the management of the Bank towards the Central Government officials, which is very well evident from the manner in which the Bank was trying to justify the captioned amendment in paragraph 4.5 (page 12) of Annexure I to the letter no CDO/PM/16/SPL/1187 dated 30.10.2002. The excerpts from the relevant paragraph are reproduced which reads thus: “The above ceiling was probably based on a rationale that SBI officers are getting Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) where Bank is contributing 10% and hence in their case pension be calculated at 40% of the Basic Pay instead of 50% if they were drawing substantive pay of more than Rs. 8500.00 p.m but minimum pension of Rs.4250.00 p.m., which they would have drawn had their basic pay been less, be protected. The rationale which counted with the Government for fixing a ceiling of 40% for the officers drawing pay of Rs.8500.00 and above affected only the officers who constitute about 23% of the total staff strength whereas the facility of CPF where Bank makes contribution of 10% is equally applicable to such of the employees who are drawing pay of below RS.8500.00”
3. The Bank’s attempt to rationalize the Central Government’s instruction is inexplicable as it should have been aware that while contributions to CPF would end with the retirement of an employee, his pension starts accruing on the first day succeeding that of retirement and shall be payable monthly to the retiree and hence the benefit the employee had from the CPF can no way be linked with the pension payable to the employee on retirement.
4. While I was examining the Supreme Court’s order with regard to its directive on ceiling on maximum pension payable, I noticed that the order meant up gradation of pension. As I have been receiving phone calls seeking clarifications on whether the SBIEPFR .provides for up gradation of pension to SBI Pensioners, I thought of sharing my thoughts which are not my own but backed by the observations from Supreme Court rulings, relevant portions of which are reproduced in the attached note. I would like to reiterate that for offering up gradation facility, the Bank need not seek prior approval from the CG as this needs to be done in accordance with the existing Regulations, the provisions in respect of which were already cleared by the CG before the Regulations were framed. The up gradation would only require the approval of the Bank’s ECCB.
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to our advocate.
With kind regards,