They are Members of Parliament representing the people of the Country with a mandate to serve them adequately and honestly in all the matters of welfare for a tenure of five years normally. It’s different matter that with the exception of a limited few the rest always are deeply prone to foster their own personal interests say their rise of salary at par with top beaurocrats on which count they raised all hue and cries on the floor of Parliament. They ultimately got it obviously at the cost of the public exchequer. As a result several other important sectors like Banking were ignored which trend still continues unabated. Initially there was nothing like a fixed salary but an allowance of Rs.2,500/ and that too was an optional feature differing from an MP to MP.
- Emerge as they do from the 90% Ad-Hoc arrears released by the State Bank of India to its retiree pensioners which is still in the process, the sequence of events in relation to this stands multiplied resulting into one complication or the other. KR Saini, the veteran in such matters, has already released several clarifications in the matter and the series continues. He has addressed two of his interpretations preceded by similar ones by PPR Upadhyaya most justifiably commenting on the anomalies ably and nicely. The retiree pensioners are still at a fix watching the development with suspense and doubts. KR Saini’s writeups numbering two are to be reproduced -the first one is appended right now with the the other one to follow later for the perusal of the readers who are supposed to take the contents in the right earnest:
”STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES 1955 NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS 2014–ANOMALIES IN PENSION OF 5TH,6TH,7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES—COMMITTEE ON PENSION MATTER OF STATE BANK OF INDIA–ITS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.”
5TH BIPARTITE FROM 1.11.1987 TO 31.10.1992.
AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F TO REVISE THE PENSION OF 5TH BIPARTITE OF S.BI.IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL RECEIVE,THE 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WOULD BE GETTING 50% OF LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE PAY MAXIMUM RS3775/ PER MONTH .IN THEIR CEILING OF PENSION INCREASED FROM 2400 / TO RS 3775/ PER MONTH I.E 50% OF THE PAY OF THEN DEPUTY MANAGING DIRCTOR.
6TH BIPARTITE FROM 1.11.1992 TO 31.10.1997.
HOWEVER,IN THE CASE OF RETIREES OF 6TH BIPARTITE THEY ARE PAID PENSION AT 50% UPTO THE PAY OF RS8500/ W.E.F 1.03 .1999(WHICH IS ONLY A NOTIONAL AMOUNT,AS THERE IS NO BASIC PAY OF RS8500/IN THE 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES).THE MAXIMUM PAY OF JMGS AS PER 6TH BIPARTITE IS RS9200/ AND NOT RS8500/.ABOVE THE PAY OF RS8500/ THE PENSION WOULD BE PAID AT 40% OF THE DRAWN AVERAGE 12 MONTHS PAY.THUS RESTRICT THE MAXIMUM BASIC PENSION OF RS5920/.IN THIS CONNECTION KINDLY GO THROUGH THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 9.02.2016 IN W.P(C)1875/2013.
HOWEVER,THE PAY OF THEN DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTORWAS RS14800/ AND 50% OF IT COMES RS7400/ AS PENSION OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.THEY ARE BEING PAID AN ARBITRARY AND ADHOC PENSION WHICH IS SANS ANY LOGIC.THUS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN BDONE TO 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.
7TH BIPARTITE FROM 1.11.1997 TO 31.10.2002.
IN THEIR CASE THE PAY OF DEPUTY MANGING DIRECTOR WAS 23700/ AND 50% OF IT COMES RS11850/ HOWEVER THEY WOULD GET MAXIMUM BASIC PENSION OF RS9480/AT 40 % OF RS23700/.
NOW I WILL WRITE HOW INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE TO 7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF S.B.I .
THIS WILL BE SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION AT THE TIME OF 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.
RECORD NOTE OF DISCUSSIONS HELD ON VARIOUS DATES BETWEEN INDIAN BANKS’ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING MEMBER BANKS AND AUTHORISED REPSENTATIVES OF WORKMEN UNIONS AND OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN THE MATTER OF PENSION..
PAY FOR PENSION
IN RESPECT OF AN EMPLOYEE RETIRING ON OR AFTER 1.05.2005”AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS” AS DEFINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENSION BE CALCULATED RECKONING PAY LAST DRAWN DURING THE LAST TEN MONTHS OF THE EMPLOLYEES’ SERVICE IN BANK.
Please note this discussion IS for other nationalised bank s and has affect on s.b.i pensioners of 8th bipartite retirees and committee did not accept the date of shifting for 8th bipartite retirees FROM 1.05.2005 TO 1.11.2002.
similarly FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ,SINCE THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE EXISTING PROVISIONS,IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL DECISIONS OBTAING IN THEMATTER,THE PENSION OF RETIREES OF THE PERIOD 1.04.1998 TO30.04.2005 IS TO BE RE-FIXED WITH EFFECT FROM 1.05.2005 RECKONING ACTUAL ‘PAY’ DRAWN BY THEM PRIOR TO RETIREMENTI.E DURING THE LAST TEN MONTHS SERVICE IN THE BANK .
NOW A QUESTION ARISES THAT WHEN BANK HAS ADVISED TO SHRI UPADHYAYA JI THAT REGULATIONS OF OTHER BANKS IS DIFFERENT FROM REGULATIONS OF S.B.I ON PENSION AND I.B.A ALSO OBTAINED LEGAL OPINION IN THIS REGARD AND ADVISED THE S.B.I ACCORDINGLY IN 2000 THEN WHY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND BANK ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE WHICH HAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED ”THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REGULATIONS 2014” ON PENSION IN ITS REPORT AND EMPLOYEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA ARE GOVERNED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS 2014.
STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS 2014—SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 23.02.1989–COMMITTEE’S CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F ON PENSION MATTERS OF S.B.I–ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION:
OUR PENSION ISSUES REMAIN UNRESOLVED DUE TO ADAMANT STAND BEING ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS FROM THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON PENSION MATTERS OF STATE BANK OF INDIA.FOR THIS UNDERNOTED PRECEPTION ENTERTAINED BY VARIOUS OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.BECAUSE OF ADDITIONAL BENEFIT MADE AVAILABLE IN THE FORM OF CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TO ITS EMPLOYEES BY STATE BANK OF INDIA,THE PENSION BENEFITS CANNOT BE PROVIDED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF 50% OF PAY TO ALL THE ELLIGIBLE PENSIONERS.
THE QUESTION OF THE SUPERANNUATION BENEFIT IN THE FORM OF CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME AND THREE RETIRAL BENEFITS PROVIDED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME OF VERDICT BY SUPREME COURT ON 23.02.1989 W.E.F 1.1.1986 FOR 4TH BIPARTITE RETIREES FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF 1.1.1986 TO 31.10.1987.AS OUR PENSION SCHEME IS ARCHAIC PENSION SCHEME FROM THE TIME OF IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA AND THEN STATE BANK OF INDIA W.E.F 1.07.1955.
our bank did not conclude any pension settlement with serving federations either along with OR SUBSEQUENT TO THE BIPARTITE WAGE SETTLEMENTS SO FAR CONCLUDED.OUR BANK HAS BEEN TAKING A STAND THAT ITS PENSION SCHEME IS INDEPENDENT OF INDUSTRY LEVEL PENSION SCHEME AND NO CONTRIBUTION TO BE MADE BY ITS EMPLOYEES TO ITS PENSION FUND.THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY OUR BANK TO OUR PENSION IS NOT REQUIRED, NOT TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED FOR PENSION FUNDING PURPOSES IN THE INDUSTRY LEVEL BIPARTITE WAGE SETTLEMENTS.
THIS CONTRIBUTION WAS THEREFORE DETERMINED AS PER ACTUARIAL ASSESSMENT AND CONTRIBUTION BY OUR BANK ACCORDINGLY.IN THIS CONNECTION PLEASE REFER TO REGULATION NO 10 OF” STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS 2014” OUR BANK WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING A STAND THAT IS OBLIGED TO BUILD UP ITS PENSION FUND ADEQUATLY WITHOUT ANY UNDER FUNDING.WHILE OUR PENSION FUND RULES PROVIDE FOR A STATUARY CONTRIBUTION AT AT 10% OF BASIC PAY TO OUR PENSION FUND,IN TERMS OF SECTION 38 OF STATE BANK OF INDIA ACT 1955,OUR BANK HAS BEEN PROVIDING MORE THAN10% OF BASIC PAY,AS PER ACTUARIAL ASSESSMENT TO OUR PENSION FUND.
ARREARS OF PENSION AT 50%/40% PAY AS PENSION 1616-1684 C.P.I=1960
IN ORDER TO PAY LESS ARREARS CLAUSE 16 OF THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES IS IMPLEMENTED WHICH IS ILLEGAL.
IN THIS CONNECTION PLEASE REFER TO ORDER SHEET NO 1 W.P 1317 OF 2009 OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH V/S STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS——-THIS JUDGEMENT IN FAVOUROF AN AWARD EMPLOYEE OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREE AND THIS CASE IS IN THE KNOWLEGE OF” STATE BANK OF INDIA PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION BENGAL CIRCLE” AND SHRI SUJOY GHOSH TO WHOM I AM ALSO SENDING THIS EMAIL.
COURT OBSERVED THAT IN CASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREE PENSION HAS BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF PAY UNDER THE 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT,WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED THEREFORE ORDERS BE PASSED INFAVOUR OF THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREE AND CLEARLY SAID THAT CLAUSE 16 IS FOR” REGULATIONS 1995” FOR OTHER BANKS AND STATE BANK EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE PAID AS PER” STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES 1955”.HOWEVER, BANK DID NOT ABIDE THIS JUDGEMENT .AND SHRI SALIL KUMAR GHOSH PETITIONER DIED IN 2013.
IN ANOTHER CASE SUPREME COURT DECIDED 50% PAY AS PENSION 1616-1684 C.A NO 5604/2010 DATED 13.02..2014 FOR PAYMENT OF ARREARS FROM DATE OF RETIREMENT TO 30.04.2005 WHOSE BASIC PAY WAS TREATED AT 1616 POINTS THE PETITIONER IS CANARA BANK EMPLOYEE SHRI DALIP KUMAR DEV. KINDLY VISIT ALL INDIA CANARA BANK RETIREES FEDERATION WEB SITE AND” ALL INDIA BANK RETIREES FEDERATION”REFERENCE NO 2014/87 DATED 31.03.2014 LETTER ADDRESSED TO I.B.A BY SHRI S.C JAIN SECRETAY .HOWEVER, SHRI DALIP KUMAR DEV GOT THE ARREARS ON 1684POINTS FROM DATE OFBRETIREMENT TO 30.04.2005 AS PER SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTLIKE KIRAN KUMAR JAIPURIA GOT THE REVISED PENSION NOT OTHER PENSIONERS.
Appended is an important communique addressed to Alex Joseph by PPR Upadhyaya, himself an ex senior executive of State Bank of India, which adequately expatiates the role of the Trustees Board in the matters of requisite decions on pension issues an essentially needful area, more so as it amply supplements the views of the Supreme Court of India. I am fully aware of their fishy deals and anomalous roles and pointed them out several times in my capacity as the then Director of the Bank’s Central Board. The relevant text is importantly of interest and to the retiree pensioners of the Bank and is a MUST READ for the readers:
Trustees’ Powers to sanction Pension to SBI Employees.
I invite your attention to the observations, particularly those which have been highlighted, made by the Supreme Court in its judgment in D.S.Nakara &ors vs Union of India, which reads thus: “Summing-up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d’être for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age.”
- However, SBI, ignoring that pension is compensation for loyal service rendered in the past by an employee, and a stated allowance or stipend payable by it from a kind of saving made by him through the best of service rendered by him/contribution he had made for the growth of the organisation, in his hey- day, has/had been making provisional/ad hoc payments to its retirees in lieu of pension payable to them as per SBI Pension regulations since 1987, i.e., for almost thirty years.SBI continues to justify its treacherous misdeeds on the plea that payment of pension to its employees need the previous sanction from the Central Government (CG). SBI’s contention is not supported by fact since the Trustees are empowered to sanction pension as can be seen from Regulation 23 (6), which reads thus: “23 (6) No pension shall be paid to a member unless it has been sanctioned by the trustees under these regulations.” Further, the wide discretion vested with the Trustees can be inferred from the Regulation 23 (16), which reads, “23 (16) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 15 or sub-regulation (4) of regulation 23, in the case of a member against whom disciplinary proceedings under the Rules of Service applicable to him have been continued after he ceases to be in the Bank’s service or where, for the purpose of considering whether sanction for retirement should be granted by the Executive Committee or the Local Board, as the case may be, any investigation or enquiry in respect of any act committed by the member while in service has been initiated or continued by the Bank after he ceases to be in the Bank’s service, the member may be paid at the discretion of the Trustees a provisional pension of an amount not exceeding the maximum amount of pension which would have been admissible to such member under these regulations on the basis of qualifying service up to the date he ceases to be in the Bank’s service or if the member was under suspension on such date up to the date immediately preceding the date of such suspension.
(b) The amount paid as such provisional pension shall be adjusted against the amount of final pension if sanctioned on conclusion of such disciplinary proceedings or investigation or enquiry but no recovery of such amount shall be made if the member is ultimately dismissed from the Bank’s service and the retirement benefits are forfeited.
(c) If at any time in the opinion of the Bank, such member is found not co-operating with the conduct of such disciplinary proceedings or investigation or enquiry, the payment of the provisional pension may, at the discretion of the Trustees, be stopped.” 2.1. It is evident from Regulation 23 (16) that provisional pension/ad hoc pension is payable at the discretion of the Trustees only for retirees against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. 2.2. It is hard to reconcile that the Trustees having discretion [paragraph c of Regulation 23 (16)] to decide on payment of pension to members of staff facing disciplinary proceedings do not have discretion to pay pension to retirees, whose retirements were approved in the normal course.SBI should be asked whether it is aware of the Regulation 23 (16) and if the answer is in the affirmative, it should be asked whether disciplinary actions have been initiated against all the retirees from 1987 and if so SBI should be asked to state the nature of disciplinary action initiated against them. If SBI is unable to state the details of disciplinary actions initiated against the retirees, it should be asked whether it is fair on its part to deny payment of pension as per the provisions of SBIEPFR. SBI should also be asked how it proposes to compensate the surviving pensioners for the mental anguish and monetary loss the retirees had suffered despite the valuable and loyal service rendered by them in their hey-days and how it would compensate the family members of the deceased retirees, who have also been denied payment of family pension as approved by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 23.2.1989.
- SBI might try wriggle out of the situation by stating that for fixing the ceiling of pension it has to refer to the Central Government. SBI’s defence should be demolished by stating a) that the ceiling of pension should have been as observed by the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of its judgment dated 23.2.1989 but was violated intentionally by the Bank, and b), in the original regulation prepared by the RBI and approved by the Central Board of SBI, the ceiling of pension was 30/60thof the average of the last three years’ substantive salary, i.e., 50% of the average of last three years’ substantive salary, which was changed to one-half of the average substantive salary drawn during last 12 months’ pensionable service with an outer ceiling of Rs.2400/- in the revised Pension-Plan submitted by SBI to the Supreme Court in connection with the Writ Petition(Civil) 305/1987 by the IBI Pensioners, an improvement over the first regulation. Any amendment which would be prejudicial to the first regulation made by the RBI, which was improved upon in 1987 by SBI is not permissible as per sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the ACT
Leaders who are supposed to lead instead if they mislead they are not the leaders and the very characteractic of the leading role is lost. If they are honest to themselves, they are supposed to remain committed to the cause of the people they represent as against politicians who are always hankering to grind their axe at the first available opportunity ignoring the very cause for which they are there. The personalty in the background too is too important. I happened to be the Chief Guest in a conference aimed at promoting anti smoking campaign where another leader, a leftist of prominence, was also present and the fellow happened to be a chain smoker chewing an imported brand of cigar like a chockolette all the time even during his otherwise a lengthy speech advocating no smoking in any form. The crowd laughed and started making faces as a gesture of ridicule. Such is not a solitary instance as there are many to quote. On the routine front too there are many claiming to be the leaders of their union but every time there are queries and questions as from the gathering they lack the requisite details to explain the anomalies. This is a common feature in the case of unions in State Bank of India where the enthusiasts from the membership go back disgruntled and disappointed in the absence of a well interpreted questions and answers session. The workforce always, and rightly so, hankers for correct informations with latest data available for the purpose and not the leaders looking right and left in the absence of the relevant answers. If you are honest to the task assigned to you, do it properly otherwise quit is the option.
The premier banking organisation in the country State Bank of India has no more a good health suffer as it does from many an anomalies on operation front and popularity amongst workforce itself and also the banking public, more so in its offices abroad. No any business organisation can afford flourishing if it is sans goodwill of the people in general and the working personnel in particular. Staff is deprived of any incentive for the last several years that counts and the issues like pensionary benefits including that of an improved pension to the retirees which is pending for a long time in different courts of Law and bilateral tiers. The honest handling of transactional virtue too is suffering from a colossal parameter and the dealings are no more above board. Commision aspect is talk of the town in all places with fishy deals. Staff shortage is a curse that has overgulped the avenues of a better service to the customers. Looks like this once called a giant bank of global significance is reduced to the status of a pigmy money lender. In the process the dignity of labour too is miserably lost. Working hours for all categories of the personnel which were brought into effect after several trade union leaders had to lay down their life to fetch this demand are badly mutilated forcing again an unlimited sort of working hours at all administrative offices and the branches. There is no replacement on retirements and deaths and the staff strength is getting reduced day by day with the result that the residual employees are overburdened with huge workload which again adversely affects the requisite attention to the important customers. If ‘it is never too late to mend’ is the adage, it is high time for the top management of the Bank to mend their overall modus operandi to repair and rejuvenate the system and style of working.
This 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
10:24 PM (11 hours ago)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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: