On Pension issues -KR Saini’s release:


KRSaini.jpgThis one is a latest release by KR Saini on the plight of pension issues confronted with some hurdle or the other and the gap is turned to several decades on an outcome. It is shared with readers so that they could be in the know of the developments.

W.P(C)1875/2013 S.B.I PENSIONERS FEDERATION &OTHERS V/S UNION OF INDIA &OTHERS.AT DELHI HIGH COURT

Inbox
x

Keshav Saini

10:24 PM (11 hours ago)

to SBIantonyChandrasekharanAtamDhanabalanbabu2609SBI.Penchoprabmk1945govinds65GopalShripadhganaiyer46HarbhajanSJayakrishnanjpdattaJaspalSudhirKanayalalLakshmananLAXMANmurthymenroygkmeneelrameshl

                                   A MATTER OF JUSTICE

              S.BI PENSIONERS RESENT UNFAIR DEAL

THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE EXISTING POLICY ON BANK PENSION.THE FEDERATION OF S.B.I PENSIONERS’ HAS BEEN RUNNING FROM PILLAR TO POST FOR 30 YEARS FOR JUSTICE.

                                                          PENSION

STATE BANK OF INDIA WHICH CAME INTO BEING ON THE IST JULY 1955 BY TAKING OVER AS SUCCESSORRS TO ONE OF THE MOST COMMERCIAL BANK THE IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA. THE IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA PENSION AND GUARANTEE FUND WAS ESTABLISHED.ALSO STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND RUlES WERE INTRODUCED W.E.F 1.07.1955.THE RULES REMAINED ALMOST STATIC UPTO 1986 MAY BE SUMMED UP AS FOLLOWS—

MAXIMUM PENSION RS750/ RELAXABLE UPTO RS1000/ FOR SENIOR OFFICERS AT THE DISCRRETION OF THE TRUSTEES OF THE PENSION FUND.

                                      W.P(C)1875/2013

     HOW OUR PENSION IS PROTECTED LEGALLY AT THE RATE OF 50% OF THE LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE PAY OF PENSIONABLE SERVICE.

         THE ABOVE NOTED COURT CASE AT DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN CATEGORISED BY DELHI HIGH COURT AS UNDER———-

     SUBJECT  1–OTHER SERVICE MATTERS(OTHER THAN ARMED FORCES).

  SUBJECT 2———CONSTITUTIONAL VALDITY.

NOW I WILL WRITE ON THE ABOVE TWO SUBJECTS.

                                                SERVICE CONDITIONS

      1 STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955.

  2THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT BY JUDGEMENT DATED 23.02.1989.

               STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955      —– CHAPTER III

SECTION 7  ”TRANSFER OF SERVICE OF EXISTING OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA TO STATE BANK OF INDIA.ANY PERSON WHO ON APPOINTED DAY I.E 1.07.1955,IS ENTITLED OR IN RECEIPT OF A PENSION OR OTHER SUPERANNUATION OR COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE OR BENEFIT FROM IMPERIAL OF INDIA OR ANY PROVIDENT,PENSION OR OTHER FUND OR ANY AUTHORITY ADMINISTERING SUCH FUND THE SAME PENSION,ALLOWANCE OR BENEFIT WAS GRANTED AND IF ANY QUESTION ARISES WHETHER HE HAS OBSERVED SUCH CONDITIONS,THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED GOVERNMENT AND THE DECISION OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THEREON SHALL BE FINAL”

         RULE FIXING PENSION AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF STATE BBANK OF INDIA W.E.F 1.07.1955.

IN IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA PENSION WAS CALCULATED EVERY YEAR’S SERVICE M0ONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DURING THE LAST 5YEARS AND IN STATE BANK RULES PENSION WAS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF 3 YEARS  AVERAGE PAY.AS THE FIXATION OF MAXIMUM PENSION IS CONCERNED,THE CEILING WAS RS 750/RELAXABLE UPTO RS1000/

   IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING OUR PENSION IS WELL PROTECTED AT THE RATE OF 50% OF SALARY AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT UNDER STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955.THIS FORMULA OF CALCULATION OF PENSION IS ALSO STILL EXIST IN STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS 2014 AS REGULATION NO 23.IN THIS CONNECTION ALSO REFER TO DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER 9.02.2016 IN W.P(C)1875/2013 THIS FORMULA WAS MENTIONED AND ON 10.02.2016 A COMMITTEE WAS CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F.

                                            SERVICE CODITION WAS CHANGED DUE TO SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 23.02.1989.

      SUPREME COURT OBSERVED”PENSION IS A RIGHT AND NOT A BOUNTY.ITWOULD THEREFORE NOT BE PROPER TO LEAVE THE QUANTUM OF PENSION IN EACH CASE.TO DO SO WOULD BE LEAVE THE EMPLOYEES AT THE MERCY OF TRUSTEES WHO WOULD NATURALLY EXCERCISE THE DISCRETION IN ANY MANNER THE LIKE IN THE ABSENCE 0F

GUIDELINES.”

        SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN AS PER 4TH PAY COMMISSION WITH SINGLE CEILING OF RS2400/ W.E.F 1.1.1986AS PENSION  IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF MAXIMUM MONTHLY SALARY OF RS4800/ OF DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR IN STATE BANK OF INDIA AT THAT TIME.THE PROVISION IS MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL VIZ 50% OF AVERAGE SUBSTANTIVE SALARY NOT EXCEEDING RS4500/ PER MONTH FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES(VIDE CHAPTER V,PART II OF 4TH PAYCOMMISSION REPORTW.E.F .1.1986)AND UNIFORM PENSION RULE AT50% ON THE AVERAGE OF LAST 12 MONTHS’ PAY FOR I.B.I AND SBI EMPLOYEES NOT 5YEARS FOR I.B.I AND 3YEARS FOR S.B.I EMPLOYEES.DURING THE HEARING OF SUPREME COURT S.B.I PROPOSE MAXIMUM PENSION FOR AWARD STAFF RS1300/ AND RS2400 FOR OFFICERS  IN 1988 BUT SUPREME COURT GAVE VERDICT 50% MAXIMUM RS2400/ FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES  I.E OFFICERS AND AWARD STAFF.YOU WILL BE SURPRISED TO  NOTE THAT W.E.F 1.1.1996 THE CENTRALPAY COMMISSION V REMOVED THE CEILING OF PENSION FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’ AND PENSION @ 50 % OF THE LAST 10MONTHS AVERAGE PAY.

                                               CONSTITUTIONAL VALDITY

1 ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA.   ”  EQUALITY BEFORELAW—THE STATE NOT DENIED TO ANY PERSON EQUALITY BEFOREVLAW OR EQUAL PROTECTION OFLAWS WITH IN THE TERRITORY OFINDIA.

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW IS A NEGATIVE CONCEPT,EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW IS POSITIVE ONE.THEFORMER DECLARES THATBEVERY ONE VIS EQUAL BEFORE LAW ,THATBNO ONE CAN CLAIM SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND ALL CLASSES IARE EQUALL SUBJECT TO ORDINARYN LAW OF LAND,THEBLATTER POSTULATES AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF ALL ALIKE INTHE SAME SITUATION ANDUNDER LIKE CIRCUMSTANCES.NO DISCREMINATION CAN BE MADE EITHER IN PRIVILEGES CONFERRED OR LIABILITIES IMPOSED.”

HOWEVER THERE IS DISCRIMINATION IN THE SAME CLASS BY CREATING TWO CATEGORIES OF PENSIONERS BYBSTATE BANK OFVINDIA AND BANK SHOULD FOLLOW THE ESTABLISH NORM OF PENSION BEING 50% SALARYBLEVEL OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT.

                             ARTICLE 366(17)

2      TO COUNTER THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F,ARTICLE 366(17) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CAN BE QUOTED WHICH SAYS”ARTICLE 366(17) OF THE CONSTITUTION DEFINES AS”PENSION MEANS A PESION,WHETHER CONTRIBUTORY OR NOT,IF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER PAYABLE TO OR IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON,AND INCLUDES RETIRED PAY SO PAYABLE,A GRATUITY SO PAYABLE AND ANY SUM OR SUMS SO PAYABLE BYWAY OF RETURN,WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST THEREON OR ANY OTHER

ADDITION THERETO,OF SUBCRIPTION TO A PROVIDENT FUND.”

K.R.SAINI

Pensions issues,delay,developments,dillydallying


How come there are advertisers who take my site as a charity home posting their ads arbitrarily. If you so do it, please pay for it:

-________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________        

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “On Pension issues -KR Saini’s release:”

  1. The office bearers of both the Fedaration of award and officers did not evince any interest to study and understand the SBIEPFR as they were wasted their time and energy in solving petty issues like transfers,medical/LFC bill payments,protecting wrong doers,etc.They were not thorough with either SBIEPFR or verious court judgements particularly v.Kasthuri V SBI and Nakara cases.The present Penfed and circle associations office bearers are also like frogs in the well.They are/were unfit to be called as unionists.As such running piller to post is inevitable for them.

    Like

  2. It is never the intention of penfed
    to take Care of the interest of members. they were power and benefits mongers. They never thwarted efforts of management tO stop formation of committee formation. Many of them are responsible for the 7th bipartite retirees drawing 6th bipartite pension . They were indefinitely permitted goi postpone the proceedings
    Even on 11th their unwarranted submission in court that the da increase alone will take care of the pensioners and said not demanding updation. Meagre arrears belatedly paid and sTill paying.

    Like

  3. The first blunder committed by the so called Penfed bosses(yes even after retirement they think that they are bosses and do whatever they like without lending their eares to the points raised by ,eminent,highly knowledgeble,upright pensioners like sarvashri.PPR.Upadyaya,Umesh Sharma, Antony d couto, etc) is IMPLEADING GOI as one of the respondents in their WP.I will ask a simple question to the so called Penfed leaders in general and shri.R.N.Banerjee in particular that is if you want to withdraw money from your savings a/c will you seek the permission of your neighbor.If the answer is “no” then same logic applies to our pension fund also.It is pensioners property and no Tom, Dick,Harry ‘s permission is required.More over the pension fund is our property and not even a single pie is contributed by the GOI.As such how the GOI can interfere? The Penfed bosses should atleast do some home work about SBIEPFR and various court judgements in this regard.Instead of Penfed bosses enlightening the members,the members have to enlighten them,but fell in deaf eares.

    Like

  4. MY SINCERE THANKS TO SHRI NEELKANTH JI AND SOME OF FELLOW PENSIONERS WHO ACKNOWLEGED MY THIS WRITE UP/ARTICLE .AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT DELHI HIGH COURT CASES ARE LISTED TO DAY FOR ARGUMENT AND THIS ARTICLE MAY BE HELPFUL FOR ARGUMENT BY PETITIONERS.I AGAIN GRATEFUL TO SHRI NEELKANTH FOR PUBLISHING THIS WRITE UP AS POST IMMEDIATELY WHEN I HAVE SENT EMAILS TO PENSIONERS WHO ARE IN MY CONTACT.I CAN WRITE MORE ON THIS TOPIC ,,AT THIS STAGE IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO WRITE MORE ON THIS TOPIC. LET US HOPE FOR THE BEST.
    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