Category Archives: news

On population growth?

Image result for population growthIndia is confronted with the unruly  populatioan, say population growth, and there is hardly any one to bother the least including political heavy weights and the reason is once bitten twice shy. During Emergency this was top agenda of Sanjai Gandhi and it cost Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of the country, her government. It was virtually once bitten twice shy and the till then   a great furore got silenced. None was bold enough to take cudgels against the public and the issue got fully gorbaged. Infact none had guts to bell the cat since then. There are murmers that some selected individuals are there who tried to raise their voice but they were silenced by the power blocks. True, moves are there on developmental programmes and progress of the country but gains on that count only get submerged leaving nothing for the people.The need of the hour  is to enable a plug that is capable of arresting population growth failing which all pro development and reconstruction activities would have to get doomed.

Image result for population growth


Advertisements

What is it they owe to the people?

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.

Government sponsored festivities on next Holi:

Yes, as announced by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Adity Nath Yogi, the next Holi has to be celebrated at a grand scale at Mathura/ Brindaban sponsored by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. There are already murmurs in different quarters for and against the move and the possibilities of  a repeat what is happening in Rajasthan can’t be ruled out. Leaders  of different political parties are greesing their palms against one another.


 

Share market -thorny ups and downs:

Just a game, or say a gamble or a sophiscated race with tricks and wits, share market is a match between money enthusiasts and their competitors in the field -some winning and some losing. This has been continuing like this for the last  several decades. Originally it was called Satta Bazaar  and the oldies still prefer to call it as such. Whatever the name the market is able to benefit lot of people and in the same measure there are thousands of people who go a  pauper and they not only lose their own invested amount of money they also have to borrow money to pay for the overdues on account of loss. Jua as it was called earlier is still there in several parts of the country and is a great social evil warranting to be immediately arrested by the Government of India.Image result for stock market

The wild too could be a family friend:

Image result for pet tigerThe ferocious  most wild cat well known for its valour to shake the whole forest is not just terrific roars causing a jolt all around is the one  who can be taken into confidence and turn to a tamed one with a family atmosphere. Love is something that can make it possible. Man has to learn many a lessons like this.

Pension issues in SBI -Relative rules and their regulations:

  • KRSaini.jpgEmerge 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.

K.R.SAINI

Pension issues in SBI -Trustees jurisdiction?

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:

5.9.2017

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.”

  1. 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.                                                     

 

  1. 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