Category Archives: pension

Pension issues in SBI -latest analysis:

The readers have already been apprised of the relative developments through the predecessor posts on this blog and this one is the latest dexterously release by him. It covers many a minute intricacies in the matter with a threadbare analysis. The full contents of the subject are given below exhaustively for the benefit and advantage of the readers particulary the retiree pensioners of State Bank of India. The items are serialised item by item:

STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND RULES WERE FORMED W.E.F 1.07.1955 WHEN IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA WAS NATIONALISED AND STATE BANK OF INDIA CAME IN TO EXISTING W.E.F 1.07.1955.RULE 23 RELATES TO CALCULATION OF PENSION.THIS RULE WAS IN IMPERIAL BANK OF INDIA ALSO AS RULE 20.THEN IN STATE BANK OF INDIA THIS RULE IS NOW CALLED REGULATION 23 W.E.F 18TH SETEMBER,2014 WHEN STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND REGULATIONS -2014 WAS NOTIFIED IN THE GAZETTE OF the GOVERNMENT OFINDIA.

Image result for kr saini

REGULATION 23(1)

THE PENSION PAYABLE UNDER regulation 22(REGULATION22 STIPULATE MINIMUM SERVICE FOR PENSION IN S.B.I)SHALL BE THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ONE-SIXTIEST PART OF EVERY YEAR’S PENSIONABLE SERVICE OF THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE  SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS.THIS FORMULA WAS IMPLEMENTED WE.F 1.1.1986.

 WITH THE ADVENT OF BIPARTITE SYSTEM IN BANKING INDUSTRY,THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN BASIC PAY OF EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.HOWEVER,THE PENSION  CEILINGS REMAINED CONSTANHT AT RS750/ AND RS1000/,WHICH RESULTED EROSION OF CONCEPT OF 50% OF PAY.MANY SENIOR  OFFICERS STARTED DRAWING PENSION MUCH LESS THAN 50% OF THE LAST DRAWN PAY.THIS CREAT MUCH HEART -BURN.THE PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION DELHI CIRCLE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT FOR RELIEF,WHICH AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONERS GAVE A DIRECTION ON 23.02.1989 TO BANK TO ENHANCE THE PENSION CEILING TO RS2400/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.1.1986.IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE SALARY SCALES WERE CONSTRUCTED AT 332 POINTS OF CPI,THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF SENIOR MOST EXECUTIVE(DY MD) WAS AT RS4800/PER MONTH.THE COURT HAS UPHELD THE CONCEPT OF 50% OF BASIC PAY AS PENSION UPTO THE LEVEL OF DY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

                              ANOMALY OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

             ALTHOUGH PENSION HAS BEEN PAID AS PER RULE 23(1),HOWEVER,WITH A CEILING OF RS2400/ WHICH WAS HALF OF THE SALARY OFDEPUTYMANAGING DIRECTOR OF 4TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WHICH ENDED ON 31.10.1987..SUBSEQUENTLY,WHEN THE SALARY REVISION TOOK PLACE W.E.F 1.11.1987,BASED ON MERGER OF600 POINTS OF CPI,THE SPIRIT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BEENN KEPT IN MIND AND PENSION CEILINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED TO RS3775/ WHICH WAS 50% OF THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF SENIORMOST EXECUTIVE OF THE BANK.UNFORTUNATELY CEILING WAS NOTREVISED THOUGH PROPOSAL WAS PUT UPTO GOVERNMENT IN 1989.

                                                     COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

      ”THE CEILING OF MAXIMUM PENSION IN SBI TO BE INCREASED FROM RS2400/ TORS3775/PER MONTH W.E.F 1.11.1987 BASED ON THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF DMD WHICH WAS FIXED RS 7550/ ONTHE JOINT NOTE DATED 11.06.1989.”

                  IT HAS BEEN OBSEVED THAT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F DO NOT CARE REGARDING INTHE PAST AND DECISION OF1989 HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN IN 2017 AFTER 28 YEARS WHILE MAKING ARREARS OFPENSION TO 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

 NOW QUESTION ARISES HOW MANY PENSIONERS OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES SURVIVE NOW?

                                                ANOMALIES OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                       THE NEXT WAGE REVISION MERGER OF 1148 POINTS OF CPI WHICH WAS EFFECTED FROM 1.11.1992 IN THE CASE OF AWARD STAFF AND 1.07.1993 IN THE  CASE OF OFFICERS,THE PENSION CEILING WERE REVISED TO RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E F 1.11.1993 WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL SALARY SCALES DRAWN BY OFFICERS.THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF EXECUTIVE(DMD) WAS RS14800/ AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE RS7400/ PER MONTH BUT MAXIMUM WAS FIXED AS RS4250/PER MONTH .THIS HAS RESULTED IN FURTHER REDUCTION IN BASIC PENSION TO 28.71%.

IN FEBRUARY 1999 GOVERNMENT BROUGHT IN A CONCEPT OF 40% OF THE LAST DRAWN BASIC PAY OVER AND ABOVE RS8500/ PAY WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.03.1999

                                                            COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

      PENSION IS CALCULATED ON LAST DRWN PAY WHICH WAS REVISED IN CASE OF AWARD STAFF W.E.F 1.11.1992 AND FOR OFFICERS W.E.F 1.07.1993.

                                  ANOMALIES OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                   PENSION HAS BEEN PAID ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES AT 50%/40% FORMULA WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ FOR 50% SLAB PAY  OF RS8500/ AND ABOVE BASIC PAY OF RS8500/ AT 40%.

                                    COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

             THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENSION FOR PAY RS14240/ PER MONTH SHALL BE COMPUTED AT 50% OF PAY AND IF   THE PAY IS ABOVE RS14240/ PER MONTH BE COMPUTED AT 40% OF PAY W.E.F 1.11.1997 FOR AWARD STAFF AND W.E.F 1.04.1998 FOR OFFICERS .PENSION FOR THE PERIOD 1.11.1997/1.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005 BE MADE BY ARRIVING AT THE CORRESPONDING STAGE BY DIVIDING BY 1684 AND MULTIPLYING BY 1616 SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS6883/ FOR 40% SLAB(-HALF OF 14240 MULTIPLYING BY 1616 AND DIVIDING BY 1684.) AND THEREAFTER AS COMPUTED SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS7120/ W.E.F 1.05.2005.MAXIMUM PAY OF DMD WAS RS 23700/INCASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE 50% OF RS23700/ AS RS11850/.

                            ANOMALY OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

           THE SHIFTING OF EFFECTIVE DATE FROM 1.05.2005 TO 1.11.2002 FOR CUT OF POINT OF RS21040// NOT ACCEPTABLE TO COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F.

IT MAY BE THAT COMMITTEE PROTECTED THE VESTED INTRESTS OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS ,BECAUSE IN THEIR CASE ALSO PENSION WAS REVISED FROM 1.05.2005 FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETREES NOT FROM 1.11.2002..

    LEGAL POINTS

1 WHEN THEN DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CDO SHRI ASHWINI MEHERA ON 14.12.2015 ADVISED BY EMAIL TO SHRI UPADHYAYA JI ”THE PENSION REGULATIONS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA ARE DIFFERENT FROM PENSION FUND REGULATIONS  OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS”   THEN WHY GOVERNMENT/BANK ARE IMPOSING PENSION REGULATIONS OF OTHER BANKS TO S.B.I RETIREES PARTICULARILY CLAUSE 16 OF7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IMPOSED ON S.B.I PENSIONERS;RETIREES

2  PENSION IS GOVERNED BY RULES/REGULATIONS  AND AN EMPLOYEE COMING WITHIN THOSE RULES/REGULATIONS IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM RIGHTFUL AND LEGIMATE PENSION.HOWEVER,THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT HASNOT MENTIONED THE RULES/REGULATIONS INTHEIR REPORT AND GOVERNMENT HAS ALSONOT MENTIONED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THEIR ORDER.THIS SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOWS THE VESTED INTERESTSOF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS.

 .

3 VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA BYCREATING 50%/40% FORMULA FORPAYMENT OF PENSION TOS.B.I RETIREES.4 WHEN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DECIDED ON 23.02.1989 IN THE W.P(C)305/1987 THAT PENSION SHOULD BE PAID AT 50% OF LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE’PAY’ THEN WHY 50%/40% FORMULA TOS.B.I PENSIONERS/RETIREES

 4 WHENI.B.A HAD ALSON ADVISED THE BANK IN2000 THAT PENSION REGULATIONSOF OTHER BANKS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO S.B.I RETIREES THEN WHY 50%40% FORMULA FOR S.B.I RETIREES.

5OUR W.P(C)1875/2013 W.P(C)1931/2002 PREM VATIBAGGA &BOTHERS V/S UOI &OTHERS HAVEPRAYED 50% AS PENSION ANDQUASHINGTHE RULE23(2) FOR 40%SLAB TEN WHY GOVERNMENT /BANK HAVEDECIDED TO IMPLEMENT50%/40% FORMULA BYMAKING PEREDENCE FROM 1.03.199 TO31.10.2017(FROM 6TH TO 10THBIPARTITE RETIREES) AND ALSO WANTS TO THIS FORMULA OF50%/40%INFUTUREALSO I.E FROM 11TH BIPARTITE AND SOON

REGULATION 23(1)

THE PENSION PAYABLE UNDER regulation 22(REGULATION22 STIPULATE MINIMUM SERVICE FOR PENSION IN S.B.I)SHALL BE THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ONE-SIXTIEST PART OF EVERY YEAR’S PENSIONABLE SERVICE OF THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE  SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS.THIS FORMULA WAS IMPLEMENTED WE.F 1.1.1986.

       WITH THE ADVENT OF BIPARTITE SYSTEM IN BANKING INDUSTRY,THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN BASIC PAY OF EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.HOWEVER,THE PENSION  CEILINGS REMAINED CONSTANHT AT RS750/ AND RS1000/,WHICH RESULTED EROSION OF CONCEPT OF 50% OF PAY.MANY SENIOR  OFFICERS STARTED DRAWING PENSION MUCH LESS THAN 50% OF THE LAST DRAWN PAY.THIS CREAT MUCH HEART -BURN.THE PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION DELHI CIRCLE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT FOR RELIEF,WHICH AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONERS GAVE A DIRECTION ON 23.02.1989 TO BANK TO ENHANCE THE PENSION CEILING TO RS2400/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.1.1986.IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE SALARY SCALES WERE CONSTRUCTED AT 332 POINTS OF CPI,THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF SENIOR MOST EXECUTIVE(DY MD) WAS AT RS4800/PER MONTH.THE COURT HAS UPHELD THE CONCEPT OF 50% OF BASIC PAY AS PENSION UPTO THE LEVEL OF DY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

                              ANOMALY OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

             ALTHOUGH PENSION HAS BEEN PAID AS PER RULE 23(1),HOWEVER,WITH A CEILING OF RS2400/ WHICH WAS HALF OF THE SALARY OFDEPUTYMANAGING DIRECTOR OF 4TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WHICH ENDED ON 31.10.1987..SUBSEQUENTLY,WHEN THE SALARY REVISION TOOK PLACE W.E.F 1.11.1987,BASED ON MERGER OF600 POINTS OF CPI,THE SPIRIT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BEENN KEPT IN MIND AND PENSION CEILINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED TO RS3775/ WHICH WAS 50% OF THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF SENIORMOST EXECUTIVE OF THE BANK.UNFORTUNATELY CEILING WAS NOTREVISED THOUGH PROPOSAL WAS PUT UPTO GOVERNMENT IN 1989.

                                                     COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

      ”THE CEILING OF MAXIMUM PENSION IN SBI TO BE INCREASED FROM RS2400/ TORS3775/PER MONTH W.E.F 1.11.1987 BASED ON THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF DMD WHICH WAS FIXED RS 7550/ ONTHE JOINT NOTE DATED 11.06.1989.”

                  IT HAS BEEN OBSEVED THAT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F DO NOT CARE REGARDING INTHE PAST AND DECISION OF1989 HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN IN 2017 AFTER 28 YEARS WHILE MAKING ARREARS OFPENSION TO 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

 NOW QUESTION ARISES HOW MANY PENSIONERS OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES SURVIVE NOW?

                                                ANOMALIES OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                       THE NEXT WAGE REVISION MERGER OF 1148 POINTS OF CPI WHICH WAS EFFECTED FROM 1.11.1992 IN THE CASE OF AWARD STAFF AND 1.07.1993 IN THE  CASE OF OFFICERS,THE PENSION CEILING WERE REVISED TO RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E F 1.11.1993 WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL SALARY SCALES DRAWN BY OFFICERS.THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF EXECUTIVE(DMD) WAS RS14800/ AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE RS7400/ PER MONTH BUT MAXIMUM WAS FIXED AS RS4250/PER MONTH .THIS HAS RESULTED IN FURTHER REDUCTION IN BASIC PENSION TO 28.71%.

IN FEBRUARY 1999 GOVERNMENT BROUGHT IN A CONCEPT OF 40% OF THE LAST DRAWN BASIC PAY OVER AND ABOVE RS8500/ PAY WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.03.1999

                                                            COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

      PENSION IS CALCULATED ON LAST DRWN PAY WHICH WAS REVISED IN CASE OF AWARD STAFF W.E.F 1.11.1992 AND FOR OFFICERS W.E.F 1.07.1993.

                                  ANOMALIES OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                   PENSION HAS BEEN PAID ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES AT 50%/40% FORMULA WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ FOR 50% SLAB PAY  OF RS8500/ AND ABOVE BASIC PAY OF RS8500/ AT 40%.

                                    COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

             THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENSION FOR PAY RS14240/ PER MONTH SHALL BE COMPUTED AT 50% OF PAY AND IF   THE PAY IS ABOVE RS14240/ PER MONTH BE COMPUTED AT 40% OF PAY W.E.F 1.11.1997 FOR AWARD STAFF AND W.E.F 1.04.1998 FOR OFFICERS .PENSION FOR THE PERIOD 1.11.1997/1.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005 BE MADE BY ARRIVING AT THE CORRESPONDING STAGE BY DIVIDING BY 1684 AND MULTIPLYING BY 1616 SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS6883/ FOR 40% SLAB(-HALF OF 14240 MULTIPLYING BY 1616 AND DIVIDING BY 1684.) AND THEREAFTER AS COMPUTED SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS7120/ W.E.F 1.05.2005.MAXIMUM PAY OF DMD WAS RS 23700/INCASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE 50% OF RS23700/ AS RS11850/.

                            ANOMALY OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

           THE SHIFTING OF EFFECTIVE DATE FROM 1.05.2005 TO 1.11.2002 FOR CUT OF POINT OF RS21040// NOT ACCEPTABLE TO COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F.

IT MAY BE THAT COMMITTEE PROTECTED THE VESTED INTRESTS OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS ,BECAUSE IN THEIR CASE ALSO PENSION WAS REVISED FROM 1.05.2005 FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETREES NOT FROM 1.11.2002..

    LEGAL POINTS

1 WHEN THEN DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CDO SHRI ASHWINI MEHERA ON 14.12.2015 ADVISED BY EMAIL TO SHRI UPADHYAYA JI ”THE PENSION REGULATIONS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA ARE DIFFERENT FROM PENSION FUND REGULATIONS  OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS”   THEN WHY GOVERNMENT/BANK ARE IMPOSING PENSION REGULATIONS OF OTHER BANKS TO S.B.I RETIREES PARTICULARILY CLAUSE 16 OF7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IMPOSED ON S.B.I PENSIONERS;RETIREES

2  PENSION IS GOVERNED BY RULES/REGULATIONS  AND AN EMPLOYEE COMING WITHIN THOSE RULES/REGULATIONS IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM RIGHTFUL AND LEGIMATE PENSION.HOWEVER,THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT HASNOT MENTIONED THE RULES/REGULATIONS INTHEIR REPORT AND GOVERNMENT HAS ALSONOT MENTIONED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THEIR ORDER.THIS SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOWS THE VESTED INTERESTSOF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS.

 .

3VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA BYCREATING 50%/40% FORMULA FORPAYMENT OF PENSION TOS.B.I RETIREES.4 WHEN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DECIDED ON 23.02.1989 IN THE W.P(C)305/1987 THAT PENSION SHOULD BE PAID AT 50% OF LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE’PAY’ THEN WHY 50%/40% FORMULA TOS.B.I PENSIONERS/RETIREES

 4 WHENI.B.A HAD ALSON ADVISED THE BANK IN2000 THAT PENSION REGULATIONSOF OTHER BANKS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO S.B.I RETIREES THEN WHY 50%40% FORMULA FOR S.B.I RETIREES.

5OUR W.P(C)1875/2013 W.P(C)1931/2002 PREM VATIBAGGA &BOTHERS V/S UOI &OTHERS HAVEPRAYED 50% AS PENSION ANDQUASHINGTHE RULE23(2) FOR 40%SLAB TEN WHY GOVERNMENT /BANK HAVEDECIDED TO IMPLEMENT50%/40% FORMULA BYMAKING PEREDENCE FROM 1.03.199 TO31.10.2017(FROM 6TH TO 10THBIPARTITE RETIREES) AND ALSO WANTS TO THIS FORMULA OF50%/40%INFUTUREALSO I.E FROM 11TH BIPARTITE AND SOON.

REGULATION 23(1)

THE PENSION PAYABLE UNDER regulation 22(REGULATION22 STIPULATE MINIMUM SERVICE FOR PENSION IN S.B.I)SHALL BE THE AMOUNT CALCULATED AT THE RATE OF ONE-SIXTIEST PART OF EVERY YEAR’S PENSIONABLE SERVICE OF THE AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE  SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS.THIS FORMULA WAS IMPLEMENTED WE.F 1.1.1986.

       WITH THE ADVENT OF BIPARTITE SYSTEM IN BANKING INDUSTRY,THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN BASIC PAY OF EMPLOYEES AND OFFICERS.HOWEVER,THE PENSION  CEILINGS REMAINED CONSTANHT AT RS750/ AND RS1000/,WHICH RESULTED EROSION OF CONCEPT OF 50% OF PAY.MANY SENIOR  OFFICERS STARTED DRAWING PENSION MUCH LESS THAN 50% OF THE LAST DRAWN PAY.THIS CREAT MUCH HEART -BURN.THE PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION DELHI CIRCLE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT FOR RELIEF,WHICH AFTER HEARING THE PETITIONERS GAVE A DIRECTION ON 23.02.1989 TO BANK TO ENHANCE THE PENSION CEILING TO RS2400/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.1.1986.IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE SALARY SCALES WERE CONSTRUCTED AT 332 POINTS OF CPI,THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF SENIOR MOST EXECUTIVE(DY MD) WAS AT RS4800/PER MONTH.THE COURT HAS UPHELD THE CONCEPT OF 50% OF BASIC PAY AS PENSION UPTO THE LEVEL OF DY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

                              ANOMALY OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

             ALTHOUGH PENSION HAS BEEN PAID AS PER RULE 23(1),HOWEVER,WITH A CEILING OF RS2400/ WHICH WAS HALF OF THE SALARY OFDEPUTYMANAGING DIRECTOR OF 4TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WHICH ENDED ON 31.10.1987..SUBSEQUENTLY,WHEN THE SALARY REVISION TOOK PLACE W.E.F 1.11.1987,BASED ON MERGER OF600 POINTS OF CPI,THE SPIRIT OF HON’BLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE BEENN KEPT IN MIND AND PENSION CEILINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED TO RS3775/ WHICH WAS 50% OF THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF SENIORMOST EXECUTIVE OF THE BANK.UNFORTUNATELY CEILING WAS NOTREVISED THOUGH PROPOSAL WAS PUT UPTO GOVERNMENT IN 1989.

                                                     COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

      ”THE CEILING OF MAXIMUM PENSION IN SBI TO BE INCREASED FROM RS2400/ TORS3775/PER MONTH W.E.F 1.11.1987 BASED ON THE MAXIMUM BASIC PAY OF DMD WHICH WAS FIXED RS 7550/ ONTHE JOINT NOTE DATED 11.06.1989.”

                  IT HAS BEEN OBSEVED THAT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F DO NOT CARE REGARDING INTHE PAST AND DECISION OF1989 HAS NOW BEEN TAKEN IN 2017 AFTER 28 YEARS WHILE MAKING ARREARS OFPENSION TO 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

 NOW QUESTION ARISES HOW MANY PENSIONERS OF 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES SURVIVE NOW?

                                                ANOMALIES OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                       THE NEXT WAGE REVISION MERGER OF 1148 POINTS OF CPI WHICH WAS EFFECTED FROM 1.11.1992 IN THE CASE OF AWARD STAFF AND 1.07.1993 IN THE  CASE OF OFFICERS,THE PENSION CEILING WERE REVISED TO RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E F 1.11.1993 WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL SALARY SCALES DRAWN BY OFFICERS.THE HIGHEST BASIC PAY OF EXECUTIVE(DMD) WAS RS14800/ AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE RS7400/ PER MONTH BUT MAXIMUM WAS FIXED AS RS4250/PER MONTH .THIS HAS RESULTED IN FURTHER REDUCTION IN BASIC PENSION TO 28.71%.

IN FEBRUARY 1999 GOVERNMENT BROUGHT IN A CONCEPT OF 40% OF THE LAST DRAWN BASIC PAY OVER AND ABOVE RS8500/ PAY WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ PER MONTH W.E.F 1.03.1999

                                                            COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

      PENSION IS CALCULATED ON LAST DRWN PAY WHICH WAS REVISED IN CASE OF AWARD STAFF W.E.F 1.11.1992 AND FOR OFFICERS W.E.F 1.07.1993.

                                  ANOMALIES OF 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

                   PENSION HAS BEEN PAID ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES AT 50%/40% FORMULA WITH MINIMUM OF RS4250/ FOR 50% SLAB PAY  OF RS8500/ AND ABOVE BASIC PAY OF RS8500/ AT 40%.

                                    COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.

             THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PENSION FOR PAY RS14240/ PER MONTH SHALL BE COMPUTED AT 50% OF PAY AND IF   THE PAY IS ABOVE RS14240/ PER MONTH BE COMPUTED AT 40% OF PAY W.E.F 1.11.1997 FOR AWARD STAFF AND W.E.F 1.04.1998 FOR OFFICERS .PENSION FOR THE PERIOD 1.11.1997/1.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005 BE MADE BY ARRIVING AT THE CORRESPONDING STAGE BY DIVIDING BY 1684 AND MULTIPLYING BY 1616 SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS6883/ FOR 40% SLAB(-HALF OF 14240 MULTIPLYING BY 1616 AND DIVIDING BY 1684.) AND THEREAFTER AS COMPUTED SUBJECT TO MINIMUM OF RS7120/ W.E.F 1.05.2005.MAXIMUM PAY OF DMD WAS RS 23700/INCASE OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND BASIC PENSION SHOULD BE 50% OF RS23700/ AS RS11850/.

                            ANOMALY OF 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES

           THE SHIFTING OF EFFECTIVE DATE FROM 1.05.2005 TO 1.11.2002 FOR CUT OF POINT OF RS21040// NOT ACCEPTABLE TO COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY M.O.F.

IT MAY BE THAT COMMITTEE PROTECTED THE VESTED INTRESTS OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS ,BECAUSE IN THEIR CASE ALSO PENSION WAS REVISED FROM 1.05.2005 FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETREES NOT FROM 1.11.2002..

    LEGAL POINTS

1 WHEN THEN DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CDO SHRI ASHWINI MEHERA ON 14.12.2015 ADVISED BY EMAIL TO SHRI UPADHYAYA JI ”THE PENSION REGULATIONS IN STATE BANK OF INDIA ARE DIFFERENT FROM PENSION FUND REGULATIONS  OF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS”   THEN WHY GOVERNMENT/BANK ARE IMPOSING PENSION REGULATIONS OF OTHER BANKS TO S.B.I RETIREES PARTICULARILY CLAUSE 16 OF7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT IMPOSED ON S.B.I PENSIONERS;RETIREES

2  PENSION IS GOVERNED BY RULES/REGULATIONS  AND AN EMPLOYEE COMING WITHIN THOSE RULES/REGULATIONS IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM RIGHTFUL AND LEGIMATE PENSION.HOWEVER,THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT HASNOT MENTIONED THE RULES/REGULATIONS INTHEIR REPORT AND GOVERNMENT HAS ALSONOT MENTIONED THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THEIR ORDER.THIS SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT SHOWS THE VESTED INTERESTSOF OTHER NATIONALISED BANKS.

 .

3VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AND ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA BYCREATING 50%/40% FORMULA FORPAYMENT OF PENSION TOS.B.I RETIREES.4 WHEN HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DECIDED ON 23.02.1989 IN THE W.P(C)305/1987 THAT PENSION SHOULD BE PAID AT 50% OF LAST 12 MONTHS AVERAGE’PAY’ THEN WHY 50%/40% FORMULA TOS.B.I PENSIONERS/RETIREES

 4 WHENI.B.A HAD ALSON ADVISED THE BANK IN2000 THAT PENSION REGULATIONSOF OTHER BANKS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO S.B.I RETIREES THEN WHY 50%40% FORMULA FOR S.B.I RETIREES.

5OUR W.P(C)1875/2013 W.P(C)1931/2002 PREM VATIBAGGA &BOTHERS V/S UOI &OTHERS HAVEPRAYED 50% AS PENSION ANDQUASHINGTHE RULE23(2) FOR 40%SLAB TEN WHY GOVERNMENT /BANK HAVEDECIDED TO IMPLEMENT50%/40% FORMULA BYMAKING PEREDENCE FROM 1.03.199 TO31.10.2017(FROM 6TH TO 10THBIPARTITE RETIREES) AND ALSO WANTS TO THIS FORMULA OF50%/40%INFUTUREALSO I.E FROM 11TH BIPARTITE AND SOON.

K.R. SAINI

Advertisements

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 -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:


KRSaini_thumb.jpgOUR 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.

K.R.SAINI

 


 

 

Pension issues–Those in the harness of championing the cause deserve laurels:


History has it that it is always a few as from the masses who take up the cudgels against some barbaric injustice or the other perpetrating to the roots. Pension issue in State Bank has all along been a  mirage and unwanted issue for the Bank’s managementKRSaini and the Government of India as if the aggrieved ones do not belong to the very soil of the country.The Supreme Court of India only the other day point blank turned down the pensioners demand for cent percent DA merger ruthlessly throwing justice element to winds despite potent most arguments put forth by Ramchandra Upadhyaya and also KR Saini. Saini also made a self explicit Statement on the pension issues before Indian Banks Association (IBA) which was laudable enough almost on all anomalies in relation to pension issues. The most indefatigable an endeavour made by a talented pleader with merit like Ramchandra Upadhyaya solidly supported by KR Saini strengthens the case with utmost clarity and there can be no gainsaying accepting the arguments unless seen with contemptuous disdain but this is what is visible on the surface. Pensioners owe a solemn gratitude to the duo.pensioner Pensioners in general hanker with a grievance that nothing tangible is coming out but I make an appeal to you all to keep patience and some day you will emerge successful and the light of smiles shall fill again in the lids that overflow with tears. Pensioners owe a solemn gratitude to the duo. Pensioners in general hanker with a grievance that nothing tangible is coming out but I make an appeal to you all to keep patience and some day you will emerge successful. Comments by KR Saini on the latest developments particularly the ones dated 31st January and 1st February’2017 are pertinently important and they are required to be gone through threadbare and meticulously to arm all the concerneds thoroughly. Your cooperation and support are a dire need at every step. No halt to the Jehaad unless the goal is reached and this is how Vibekanand said “Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached”.


Pension issues–Those in the harness of championing the cause deserve laurels:


History has it that it is always a few as from the masses who take up the cudgels against some barbaric injustice or the other perpetrating to the roots. Pension issue in State Bank has all along been a  mirage and unwanted issue for the Bank’s managementKRSaini and the Government of India as if the aggrieved ones do not belong to the very soil of the country.The Supreme Court of India only the other day point blank turned down the pensioners demand for cent percent DA merger ruthlessly throwing justice element to winds despite potent most arguments put forth by Ramchandra Upadhyaya and also KR Saini. Saini also made a self explicit Statement on the pension issues before Indian Banks Association (IBA) which was laudable enough almost on all anomalies in relation to pension issues. The most indefatigable an endeavour made by a talented pleader with merit like Ramchandra Upadhyaya solidly supported by KR Saini strengthens the case with utmost clarity and there can be no gainsaying accepting the arguments unless seen with contemptuous disdain but this is what is visible on the surface. Pensioners owe a solemn gratitude to the duo.pensioner Pensioners in general hanker with a grievance that nothing tangible is coming out but I make an appeal to you all to keep patience and some day you will emerge successful and the light of smiles shall fill again in the lids that overflow with tears. Pensioners owe a solemn gratitude to the duo. Pensioners in general hanker with a grievance that nothing tangible is coming out but I make an appeal to you all to keep patience and some day you will emerge successful. Comments by KR Saini on the latest developments particularly the ones dated 31st January and 1st February’2017 are pertinently important and they are required to be gone through threadbare and meticulously to arm all the concerneds thoroughly. Your cooperation and support are a dire need at every step. No halt to the Jehaad unless the goal is reached and this is how Vibekanand said “Arise, awake and stop not till the goal is reached”.


Pension issues in banks–a pointer by Ramchandra Upadhyaya:

pensioner

KR Saini (2)

Given below is a full length communication addressed by PPR Upadhyaya on pension issues. The author is well known for his superb presentation of the issues and that is reflected well in the following narrative giving full coverage of the issues quite meaningfully. The pension community owes him a gratitude. The contents of the message are required to be gone through with requisite attention sharing the same with others. Thanks to KR Saini who provided me the material for the purpose.


My dear Friends,

Report of the Committee constituted by the CentralGovernment (CG) It is highly disturbing to learn that quite a few pensioners would like to jump at the offer made by the abovementioned report as they are too impatient to wait till the Writs filed by the Group of Pensioners (GOP) is decided, which has the potential to be decided soon. In this connection, I would like to request those impatient Pensioners to carefully go through the contents of the following paragraphs before they take any decision in the matter.

2.Why the committee has been set up and would it serve any purpose.?                      Never in the history, has the management of any institution, of the stature and reputation of the Bank which is also a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and looked upon as a model employer, been meticulously robbing its retirees of their pension for almost three decades, defying settled laws on pension which had ruled pension as a property. In terms of these laws, the Bank should not have withheld even a part of the pension payable to its employees without the due process of law as per provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Probably, the Bank with the backing of a few officials of the CG had been intentionally robbing the pensioners without any compunction since they did not foresee that one day, the Right to Information Act would be introduced and their actions would be exposed. The constitution of the committee is therefore a ploy, ill- conceived by both the CG & the Bank to bury their misdeeds in a great hurry in the wake of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High court dated 9. 2. 2016, vide paragraph 7 ibid, wherein the Court stated, “We direct Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel appearing for SBI and Mr. Kavindra Gill, learned counsel for Union of India to place before this court the status of the approval which was sought with regard to the pension and commutation to employees who had retired/retire drawing pay and allowances in the revised scales for the above period, within one week from today.” In the same order, in paragraph 6 ibid, the Court wanted to know, “Given the clear mandate of the regulations (which have also been challenged before us), we find no explanation on the record as to what approval was being sought.” None would expect either the Bank or the CG to offer the explanation sought by the Court as both have too many skeletons in their cupboards to hide. If only the Federation had drawn the attention of the Court to its order dated 9.2.2016 and demanded compliance of the order by the respondents, the Writ Petition 1875/2013 could have been decided in favour of the pensioners latest by March 2016. However, it was not to be and the passive approach of the Pensioners’ Federation to the Court’s order was a bit disappointing but was only to be unexpected considering the fact that the Federation never appeared to be enthusiastic in espousing the cause of the 7th bipartite pensioners. Since the Federation did not object to the CG’s offer to decide the Federation’s grievance through a committee, the Bank perhaps thought that the Federation, the plaintiffs in the writ 1875/2013, would agree to the recommendations of the committee which would facilitate closure of the three decade old sordid episode without further probing. The Bank’s false notion in this regard is due to its inability to appreciate the subtle difference between salary and pension. Salary revision is approved by the CG after wage negotiations, whereas, there can be no negotiation between the representatives of the management of the Bank and representatives of working staff federations for determining the quantum of pension, which is payable only as per pension regulation, which has a statutory force. The Pensioners’ Federation has no authority to settle pension issues on behalf of its members, either on the quantum of pension payable or the date from which pensionary benefits can be made available to it members since pension is a property of the pensioners. The RULES/SBIEPFR cannot be replaced by the recommendations of the committee irrespective of whether the Bank accepts them or the CG clears them. As per sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the ACT, any amendment which does not permit a perceptible improvement in the pensionary benefits would be viewed as prejudicial to the validity of the previously done regulation and hence becomes null and void. Thus, the combined ploy of the Bank and the CG to deceive its retired employees must fail. Since pension payable as per the regulation alone is legally accepted as the property of a pensioner, the Bank’s responsibility towards pensioners to pay their pension as per the regulation would continue till the pensioners are paid their legitimate pensionary benefits. The Government committed as it is, to the rule of law, cannot also force the Bank to make payment to its employees, pension as recommended by its committee, if the committee’s recommendations are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the regulation initially approved by it while framing the regulation. The Bank’s figment of imagination that once the recommendations of the committee, if approved by the CG would be binding on all concerned in view of Section 50 of the ACT can, therefore, only be a myth and cannot be legally valid. The Bank’s eagerness to see that the recommendations of the committee are implemented also exposes its multiple standards. For nearly three decades, it did not feel that it should be bound by the regulation framed by its Central Board as per Section 50 of the ACT, but now, it suddenly it imagines that all concerned would be bound by the committee’s report if approved by the CG.A proper analysis of the entire matter should convince everyone that the report of the committee would not be legally valid and hence, in final analysis, one can conclude that it was one of the attempts jointly made by the Bank and the CG to shield themselves but it should fail!

3.Steps initiated by the GOP to protect the pensionery benefits of the Retirees.                          A Group of Pensioners (GOP), who were watching the developments in the Writ Petition, with bated breath, decid
ed to stem the unforeseen and unwelcome development narrated in the previous paragraph, swung into action and filed two writs in the Delhi high court against the Bank demanding payment of pension to its employees strictly as per the SBIEPFR with a ceiling of 50% of the average substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months with D.A as approved by the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment dated 23.2.1989. The demand made by the GOP also includes payment of family pension uniformly at the rate of 30% of the average substantive salary drawn for all employees (approved by the Apex Court but not implemented by the Bank) and updation of pension which is available to SBI Pensioners since all are governed by the same non-contributory liberalised pension regulation, because of which the Bank has continuing liability to pay pension to its pensioners till their death. Besides the above demands, the GOP is also claiming payment of overdue interest at 18% payable from the date of retirement till the payment of arrears since unnecessary harassment was caused to the pensioners for periods ranging up to three decades. Several Supreme Court judgments have been cited in support of the demands made by the GOP, which cannot be ignored. The Bank has given its counter citing cases, and unwittingly, the Bank has fully supported the contentions of the GOP due to its poor understanding of legal matters.                               3.1. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 30.4.1985 in Smt.Poonamal vs Union of India, has observed thus: “It is not necessary to examine the concept of pension. As already held by this Court in numerous judgments that pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment, the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right…… In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfillment of a constitutional promise, inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of underserved want (1) [1971] Supp. SCR 634 (2) [19761 3 SCR 360. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate.”                  3.2. The Supreme Court in paragraph 33 of its judgment dated 25.2.2008 in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs P.Laxmi, had observed thus:                          In India the Grundnorm is the Indian Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows :                                      i)The Constitution of India;                           (ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by Parliament or by the State Legislature                                               (iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of Rules made under the Statute, Regulations made under the Statute, etc.;                                     (iv) Purely executive orders not made under any Statute.                                        In paragraph 86 of the same judgment the Apex Court had observed, “The Courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the citizens, and they will be failing in their responsibility if they abdicate this solemn duty towards the citizens. For this, they may sometimes have to declare the act of the executive or legislature as unconstitutional.”                                3.3. In view of what is stated in paragraph 3.2 (supra), SBI Pensioners, being citizens of the country cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits due to them under the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 guaranteed under the Constitutions of India and their pension cannot also be decided as per the discretion of the CG. It follows that, as decided in the Nakara case, they have the right to demand payment of their pension legitimately due to them taking into consideration the length of service put in by them as per provisions of the RULES/SBIEPFR                                   3.4.The Pensioners’ attention is also drawn to the Regulation 23(16), in terms of which provisional pension can be paid at the discretion of the Trustees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending. I am sure that Pensioners would not like to be seen as employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending by opting for receiving payment of pension as decided by the committee. Self respect demands that the Pensioners spurn the offer made by the CG which has no locus standi to decide on the quantum of pension receivable by them. The wording of the relative office order issued by the CG in connection with the constitution of the committee would suggest that the Bank has been unreasonably seeking approval for enhancement in pension ceiling after changes in bipartite settlements and also shifting of effective date of revision of ceiling in pension in some case. As if the CG is very generous in showering benefits on the Pensioners, the order states that the committee is set up for making suggestions on the pension issues of SBI and for making improvements in Pension Scheme of retirees of SBI. What a blatant lie! Its generosity has still left the pensioners of 6thbipartite where they were without any improvement in the quantum of pension paid on an arbitrary pay fixed by the CG earlier for pension payable to them. It is indeed shameful on the part of the Bank that it had not denied the CG’s statement that it had not sought any improvement in pension package as stated in its order. It had also not informed the committee that the pay for purpose of pension was arbitrarily fixed by the CG. The net result is that not only the 6th bipartite pensioners but all the pensioners would be denied payment of appropriate D.A and even overdue interest for the undue delay spanning over 2 to 3 decades in settling their demands. What is worse, with the Bank’s connivance, the committee ensured that the disputes and issues, which the Hon’ble High court wanted it to consider, vide its order dated 26.4.2016 were conveniently left out. The CG and the Bank think that the Pensioners are so gullible that they can be hoodwinked by offering some benefits! We, the Pensioners, possessing self-respect and intelligence to understand the game that is being played against us, should have the will to demand and succeed in our just fight to ensure that the Bank pays us the quantum of pension that is payable to us as per the RULES. Friends, we should resist our temptations to meekly surrend
er and accept whatever may be offered to us. We should not only think of the benefits that might accrue to us immediately which would be a pittance when compared to the updation benefits with other entitlements such as payment of appropriate D.A, ceiling of 50% of the average substantial salary drawn and overdue interest at 18% interest from the date of retirement which cannot be denied to us as per the settled Supreme Court judgments.

4. Friends, the GOP expects that the Writs filed by it would be decided expeditiously in favour of the Pensioners as it had, in its Writs, cited many settled cases in favour of its claims. The Bank asserts in its reply that choosing the cut-off dates arbitrarily is within the domain of Executive powers. Since such pernicious and heinous acts cause discrimination among a group of similarly placed persons, the Supreme Court of India had condemned  such acts of discrimination in its judgment dated 23.11.1973 in E.P.Royappa &ors vs the State of Tamilnadu thus: “the basic principle which informs both Arts. 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court further observed as under: From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarchy. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.” The Bank also assertsthat employees retiring on different dates can be treated as members of different class by citing a few Supreme Court cases to support its view. Such audacious assertions can be associated with monarchy and the above cited observation of the Supreme Court applies on all fours to the assertion made by the Bank. Such assertions being made by the Bank even after 30 years of denial of payment of pension to its employees, defying constitutional provisions and settled Supreme Court decisions applicable to Pension matters,  may not be appreciated by the High court. Besides, such assertions made by the Bank would mean that it was autocratic in its approach towards its retired employees. Unfortunately, due to its hasty approach, it had failed to verify whether the cited cases are appropriate to the Writs filed by G.O.P.

5. Friends, in the backdrop of the contents of the previous paragraphs it should be obvious that the pensioners would be heavy losers if they were to accept the recommendations of the committee. It would also be advisable for the Federation to discard the committee’s report. Notwithstanding the decision of the Federation, the GOP would pray the Hon’ble Delhi High court to decide the issue strictly as per the RULES/SBIEPFR and Constitutional provisions, all of which are heavily loaded against the Bank.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

P.P.R.Upadhyaya                               


Pension issues in banks–a pointer by Ramchandra Upadhyaya:

pensioner

KR Saini (2)

Given below is a full length communication addressed by PPR Upadhyaya on pension issues. The author is well known for his superb presentation of the issues and that is reflected well in the following narrative giving full coverage of the issues quite meaningfully. The pension community owes him a gratitude. The contents of the message are required to be gone through with requisite attention sharing the same with others. Thanks to KR Saini who provided me the material for the purpose.


My dear Friends,

Report of the Committee constituted by the CentralGovernment (CG) It is highly disturbing to learn that quite a few pensioners would like to jump at the offer made by the abovementioned report as they are too impatient to wait till the Writs filed by the Group of Pensioners (GOP) is decided, which has the potential to be decided soon. In this connection, I would like to request those impatient Pensioners to carefully go through the contents of the following paragraphs before they take any decision in the matter.

2.Why the committee has been set up and would it serve any purpose.?                      Never in the history, has the management of any institution, of the stature and reputation of the Bank which is also a State under Article 12 of the Constitution and looked upon as a model employer, been meticulously robbing its retirees of their pension for almost three decades, defying settled laws on pension which had ruled pension as a property. In terms of these laws, the Bank should not have withheld even a part of the pension payable to its employees without the due process of law as per provisions of Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. Probably, the Bank with the backing of a few officials of the CG had been intentionally robbing the pensioners without any compunction since they did not foresee that one day, the Right to Information Act would be introduced and their actions would be exposed. The constitution of the committee is therefore a ploy, ill- conceived by both the CG & the Bank to bury their misdeeds in a great hurry in the wake of the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High court dated 9. 2. 2016, vide paragraph 7 ibid, wherein the Court stated, “We direct Mr. Rajiv Kapur, learned counsel appearing for SBI and Mr. Kavindra Gill, learned counsel for Union of India to place before this court the status of the approval which was sought with regard to the pension and commutation to employees who had retired/retire drawing pay and allowances in the revised scales for the above period, within one week from today.” In the same order, in paragraph 6 ibid, the Court wanted to know, “Given the clear mandate of the regulations (which have also been challenged before us), we find no explanation on the record as to what approval was being sought.” None would expect either the Bank or the CG to offer the explanation sought by the Court as both have too many skeletons in their cupboards to hide. If only the Federation had drawn the attention of the Court to its order dated 9.2.2016 and demanded compliance of the order by the respondents, the Writ Petition 1875/2013 could have been decided in favour of the pensioners latest by March 2016. However, it was not to be and the passive approach of the Pensioners’ Federation to the Court’s order was a bit disappointing but was only to be unexpected considering the fact that the Federation never appeared to be enthusiastic in espousing the cause of the 7th bipartite pensioners. Since the Federation did not object to the CG’s offer to decide the Federation’s grievance through a committee, the Bank perhaps thought that the Federation, the plaintiffs in the writ 1875/2013, would agree to the recommendations of the committee which would facilitate closure of the three decade old sordid episode without further probing. The Bank’s false notion in this regard is due to its inability to appreciate the subtle difference between salary and pension. Salary revision is approved by the CG after wage negotiations, whereas, there can be no negotiation between the representatives of the management of the Bank and representatives of working staff federations for determining the quantum of pension, which is payable only as per pension regulation, which has a statutory force. The Pensioners’ Federation has no authority to settle pension issues on behalf of its members, either on the quantum of pension payable or the date from which pensionary benefits can be made available to it members since pension is a property of the pensioners. The RULES/SBIEPFR cannot be replaced by the recommendations of the committee irrespective of whether the Bank accepts them or the CG clears them. As per sub-section 4 of Section 50 of the ACT, any amendment which does not permit a perceptible improvement in the pensionary benefits would be viewed as prejudicial to the validity of the previously done regulation and hence becomes null and void. Thus, the combined ploy of the Bank and the CG to deceive its retired employees must fail. Since pension payable as per the regulation alone is legally accepted as the property of a pensioner, the Bank’s responsibility towards pensioners to pay their pension as per the regulation would continue till the pensioners are paid their legitimate pensionary benefits. The Government committed as it is, to the rule of law, cannot also force the Bank to make payment to its employees, pension as recommended by its committee, if the committee’s recommendations are inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the regulation initially approved by it while framing the regulation. The Bank’s figment of imagination that once the recommendations of the committee, if approved by the CG would be binding on all concerned in view of Section 50 of the ACT can, therefore, only be a myth and cannot be legally valid. The Bank’s eagerness to see that the recommendations of the committee are implemented also exposes its multiple standards. For nearly three decades, it did not feel that it should be bound by the regulation framed by its Central Board as per Section 50 of the ACT, but now, it suddenly it imagines that all concerned would be bound by the committee’s report if approved by the CG.A proper analysis of the entire matter should convince everyone that the report of the committee would not be legally valid and hence, in final analysis, one can conclude that it was one of the attempts jointly made by the Bank and the CG to shield themselves but it should fail!

3.Steps initiated by the GOP to protect the pensionery benefits of the Retirees.                          A Group of Pensioners (GOP), who were watching the developments in the Writ Petition, with bated breath, decided to stem the unforeseen and unwelcome development narrated in the previous paragraph, swung into action and filed two writs in the Delhi high court against the Bank demanding payment of pension to its employees strictly as per the SBIEPFR with a ceiling of 50% of the average substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months with D.A as approved by the Supreme Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment dated 23.2.1989. The demand made by the GOP also includes payment of family pension uniformly at the rate of 30% of the average substantive salary drawn for all employees (approved by the Apex Court but not implemented by the Bank) and updation of pension which is available to SBI Pensioners since all are governed by the same non-contributory liberalised pension regulation, because of which the Bank has continuing liability to pay pension to its pensioners till their death. Besides the above demands, the GOP is also claiming payment of overdue interest at 18% payable from the date of retirement till the payment of arrears since unnecessary harassment was caused to the pensioners for periods ranging up to three decades. Several Supreme Court judgments have been cited in support of the demands made by the GOP, which cannot be ignored. The Bank has given its counter citing cases, and unwittingly, the Bank has fully supported the contentions of the GOP due to its poor understanding of legal matters.                               3.1. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 30.4.1985 in Smt.Poonamal vs Union of India, has observed thus: “It is not necessary to examine the concept of pension. As already held by this Court in numerous judgments that pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment, the payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right…… In fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfillment of a constitutional promise, inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of underserved want (1) [1971] Supp. SCR 634 (2) [19761 3 SCR 360. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate.”                  3.2. The Supreme Court in paragraph 33 of its judgment dated 25.2.2008 in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs P.Laxmi, had observed thus:                          In India the Grundnorm is the Indian Constitution, and the hierarchy is as follows :                                      i)The Constitution of India;                           (ii) Statutory law, which may be either law made by Parliament or by the State Legislature                                               (iii) Delegated legislation, which may be in the form of Rules made under the Statute, Regulations made under the Statute, etc.;                                     (iv) Purely executive orders not made under any Statute.                                        In paragraph 86 of the same judgment the Apex Court had observed, “The Courts are guardians of the rights and liberties of the citizens, and they will be failing in their responsibility if they abdicate this solemn duty towards the citizens. For this, they may sometimes have to declare the act of the executive or legislature as unconstitutional.”                                3.3. In view of what is stated in paragraph 3.2 (supra), SBI Pensioners, being citizens of the country cannot be deprived of the pensionary benefits due to them under the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 guaranteed under the Constitutions of India and their pension cannot also be decided as per the discretion of the CG. It follows that, as decided in the Nakara case, they have the right to demand payment of their pension legitimately due to them taking into consideration the length of service put in by them as per provisions of the RULES/SBIEPFR                                   3.4.The Pensioners’ attention is also drawn to the Regulation 23(16), in terms of which provisional pension can be paid at the discretion of the Trustees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending. I am sure that Pensioners would not like to be seen as employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending by opting for receiving payment of pension as decided by the committee. Self respect demands that the Pensioners spurn the offer made by the CG which has no locus standi to decide on the quantum of pension receivable by them. The wording of the relative office order issued by the CG in connection with the constitution of the committee would suggest that the Bank has been unreasonably seeking approval for enhancement in pension ceiling after changes in bipartite settlements and also shifting of effective date of revision of ceiling in pension in some case. As if the CG is very generous in showering benefits on the Pensioners, the order states that the committee is set up for making suggestions on the pension issues of SBI and for making improvements in Pension Scheme of retirees of SBI. What a blatant lie! Its generosity has still left the pensioners of 6thbipartite where they were without any improvement in the quantum of pension paid on an arbitrary pay fixed by the CG earlier for pension payable to them. It is indeed shameful on the part of the Bank that it had not denied the CG’s statement that it had not sought any improvement in pension package as stated in its order. It had also not informed the committee that the pay for purpose of pension was arbitrarily fixed by the CG. The net result is that not only the 6th bipartite pensioners but all the pensioners would be denied payment of appropriate D.A and even overdue interest for the undue delay spanning over 2 to 3 decades in settling their demands. What is worse, with the Bank’s connivance, the committee ensured that the disputes and issues, which the Hon’ble High court wanted it to consider, vide its order dated 26.4.2016 were conveniently left out. The CG and the Bank think that the Pensioners are so gullible that they can be hoodwinked by offering some benefits! We, the Pensioners, possessing self-respect and intelligence to understand the game that is being played against us, should have the will to demand and succeed in our just fight to ensure that the Bank pays us the quantum of pension that is payable to us as per the RULES. Friends, we should resist our temptations to meekly surrender and accept whatever may be offered to us. We should not only think of the benefits that might accrue to us immediately which would be a pittance when compared to the updation benefits with other entitlements such as payment of appropriate D.A, ceiling of 50% of the average substantial salary drawn and overdue interest at 18% interest from the date of retirement which cannot be denied to us as per the settled Supreme Court judgments.

4. Friends, the GOP expects that the Writs filed by it would be decided expeditiously in favour of the Pensioners as it had, in its Writs, cited many settled cases in favour of its claims. The Bank asserts in its reply that choosing the cut-off dates arbitrarily is within the domain of Executive powers. Since such pernicious and heinous acts cause discrimination among a group of similarly placed persons, the Supreme Court of India had condemned  such acts of discrimination in its judgment dated 23.11.1973 in E.P.Royappa &ors vs the State of Tamilnadu thus: “the basic principle which informs both Arts. 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court further observed as under: From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarchy. Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Art. 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment.” The Bank also assertsthat employees retiring on different dates can be treated as members of different class by citing a few Supreme Court cases to support its view. Such audacious assertions can be associated with monarchy and the above cited observation of the Supreme Court applies on all fours to the assertion made by the Bank. Such assertions being made by the Bank even after 30 years of denial of payment of pension to its employees, defying constitutional provisions and settled Supreme Court decisions applicable to Pension matters,  may not be appreciated by the High court. Besides, such assertions made by the Bank would mean that it was autocratic in its approach towards its retired employees. Unfortunately, due to its hasty approach, it had failed to verify whether the cited cases are appropriate to the Writs filed by G.O.P.

5. Friends, in the backdrop of the contents of the previous paragraphs it should be obvious that the pensioners would be heavy losers if they were to accept the recommendations of the committee. It would also be advisable for the Federation to discard the committee’s report. Notwithstanding the decision of the Federation, the GOP would pray the Hon’ble Delhi High court to decide the issue strictly as per the RULES/SBIEPFR and Constitutional provisions, all of which are heavily loaded against the Bank.

With regards,

Yours sincerely,

P.P.R.Upadhyaya