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”.


Advertisements

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                               


Pension Issues–developments:


I received a message on date as from one of the activists Rakesh Kumar Saxena the contents of which are yet to be authenticated but the same is reproduced here for the information of the pensioners, the retirees and the readers in general. They may apply their own sources for securing the authenticity on the issue. We shall be releasing necessary message to you all after the news is finally confirmed or it is the other way round.

Rakesh Kumar Saxena commented on your activity onWordPress.

Rakesh Kumar Saxena

October 13 at 12:28pm

This msg has been confirmed by Sri K P Rao ex GM . You can trust. [?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?] A Writ Petition filed 22/08/2016 by a group of SBI Pensioners in Delhi HC. WP admitted on 14/09/2016, with No 8085/2016. Relief claimed: (1) uniformly to all 50% of avg of last 12 months pay as pension (2) DA at qly intervals as paid to serving employees (3) periodical revision of pension with every salary revision (4) family pension @ 30% (min). Grant of all these reliefs within powers of Bank’s Board & no sanction of GoI required. WP prepared on basis of various SC & HC judgments, consultation with Sr advocates & reference to Pension Fund Rules & Regulations. About Rs. 9 lacs contributed by several Pensioners (including former Chairmen/MDs). Rs. 4.75 lacs spent till admission of WP. Much more money required. Appeal to all Pensioners & serving employees to contribute as much as they can, BUT REQUEST FOR MINIMUM OF Rs. 1,000/-. Contributions be remitted to Current Account No. 3520438380854 opened in names of Rajesh Rai, MMK Sardana & Umesh Sharma at Jagriti Vihar Branch, Meerut: Code:16607. IFS Code: SBIN0016607. After remitting contributions please SMS Umesh Sharma on 8979199558 giving details of name of remitter, city residing in, amount remitted & branch from where remitted. Details could also be mailed toumesh.sharma492@gmail.com. Details of WP & references posted on Team Meerut’s Facebook page. WP initiated by PPR Upadhyaya, Retd GM of Bangalore Circle now settled in Mysore. This WP different from one filed by Pensioners’ Federation many years ago before same HC. Latter has asked for only 50% of pay as pension and they made GoI made a party by which is not required. Please confirm it’s genuineness”

Pension issues in SBI–spree of deferments continues:


KRSainiAS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT ,THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2016 IN RESPECT OF OURT COURT CASE W.P(C)1875/2013 IS AS UNDER———————-

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES HAVE OBTAINED INSTRUCTIONS AND STATE THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THIS BENCH HEARING THE WRIT PETITION.
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE UP THE MATTER FOR HEARING TODAY AS 13TH SEPTEMBER,2016 WAS DECLARED HOLIDAY AND THE MATTERS RELATING TO 13TH SEPTEMBER,2016 ARE ALSO LISTED TODAY.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER STATES THAT THERE IS NON COMPLIANCE OF THE INTERIM ORDERS.COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS DISPUTES THE SAID VERSION AND SUBMITS THAT THEY HAVE FILED THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.THE SAME IS LEFT OPEN AND IF REQUIRED WOULD BE EXAMINED ONTHE NEXT DATE.
RELIST ON 8TH NOVEMBER,2016 AT THE END OF THE BOARD.
SEPTEMBER 14,2016 SANJIV KHANNA JUSTICE
SUNITA GUPTA JUSTICE.

K.R.SAINI

The above is the message from  K R Saini about the development of the pension issue pending with Delhi High Court. Whatever could be the reasons, justifiable or otherwise, but the visible position on the surface is that the case used to be deferred abnormally in the past and is lurking on the same lines even after a new bench was formed. This is for the information of the retirees/pensioners. The readers have no option but to wait, I don’t say till eternity.

Pension case in Delhi High Court–date shifted to 14/9/2016:


Small post:

Based on the following information received from K R Saini the next date in Delhi High Court on pension issue is fixed up for 14th September’2016 as repeated below. This is besides the important news that are regularly published in the ‘NewsPage’ of this blog:

DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 22.08.2016 IN RESPECT OF OUR COURT CASE NO W.P(C)1875/2013

DEAR SIRS,AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT,THE ABOVE NOTED ORDER IS AS UNDER———–

”IT IS INFORMED TO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE  PARTIES THAT WIFE OF ONE OF US(SANJIV KHANNA JUSTICE) HAS SOME SHARES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA.LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES WANTS SOME TIME TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS.

RELIST ON 14.09.2016.”

AUGUST 22,2016                                    SANJIV KHANNA JUSTICE

    SUNITA GUPA JUSTICE”


K.R.SAINI

 

Advanced technology–a handy tool in perpetrating frauds:


images (2)

Frauds are no more a difficulty, they are rather more user friendly to the cheaters, thanks to the highly developed modern technology in the country. Neelramesh Neelakantan, a veteran on awareness issues and front runner in the movement on pension issues in State Bank of India. He published a story in facebook narrating his experience gained through a friend of his. The message so published is important to every body as it may happen with any one and from that point of view it acts as a warning signal to the advantage of a large number of people. The relevant portion of the message is reproduced below:

This is to caution my friends about door to door delivery scam, pls take a bit of time to read it: The message was sent to me by one of my friends
This scam is actually very cleverly worked out that you will not suspect of anything wrong:
The following is an account of the incident.
《Wednesday a week ago, I had a phone call from someone saying that he was from a company called: "Express Couriers," He asked if I was going to be home because there was a package for me that required a signature .
The caller said that the delivery would arrive at my home in roughly an hour. Sure enough, about an hour later, a uniformed delivery man turned up
with a parcel and a bottle of wine. I was very surprised since there was no special occasion, and I certainly didn’t expect anything like it. Intrigued, I inquired as to who the sender was.
The courier replied, "I don’t know, I’m only delivering the package."
Apparently, he said the sender would want to give you a surprise and a card would be sent separately… , it happened that my birthday was on the way also, so we thought could be from a distant friend. There was also a consignment note with the gift.
He then went on to explain that because the gift contained alcohol, there was a Rs 257.50 "delivery/ verification charge," providing proof that he had actually delivered the package to an adult (of legal drinking age), and not just left it on the doorstep where it could be stolen or taken by anyone, especially a minor.
This sounded logical and I offered to pay him cash. He then said that the
delivery company required payment to be by credit or debit card only, so
that everything is properly accounted for.
He added they also don’t carry cash to avoid loss or likely targets for
robbery.
My wife, who by this time was standing beside me, pulled out her credit card, gave to him to swipe the card on a small mobile card machine with a small screen and keypad and asked to key in the verification code.
Frankly at this point we never suspected anything abnormal and a receipt was printed out and given to us, he then wished us good day and went off as normal,
To our horrible surprise, between Thursday and the following Monday, Rs 50,000 had been charged/withdrawn from our credit account at various ATM machines.
Apparently the "mobile credit card machine," which the delivery man carried had all the info necessary to create a "dummy" card with all our card details, of course with the verification code.
Upon finding out about the illegal transactions on our card, we immediately notified the bank to stop payment, but already too late.
We went to make a Police report, and was confirmed quite a number of households had been similarly hit.
WARNING: Be wary of accepting any "surprise gift or package," which you neither expected nor personally ordered, especially if it involves any kind of payment as a condition of receiving the gift or package. Also never accYuhept jI anything if you do not personally know or there is no proper
identification of who the sender is.
Above all, the only time you should give out any personal credit card information is when you yourself initiated the purchase or transaction!
PLEASE Pass this on, it may just prevent someone else from being swindled.

Pension issues in SBI–Yet more of a meaningful material:

There is an ocean of views and opinions in regard to pension issues in State Bank as from the readers and also dexterously competent people like Ramchandra Upadhyaya and K R Saini. In fact there is no dearth of the requisite material as on date to justify the pensioners claims if honestly adhered to by the authorities involved. While clearing heap of arrears on my laptop today I came across a circular letter addressed by Ramchandra Upadhyaya that highlights several factors supporting the issues. To enable it to reach bigger number of people, the same is reproduced below verbatim for the benefit of the readers.

4.6.2016

Dear Friends,

Amendment to SBIEPF Rules 1955.

Twin ceilings on maximum pension payable.

In the attached note, I have established that the amendment carried out to the SBIEPF Rules with effect from 1.3.1999 at the behest of the Central Government is unconstitutional, illegal and not in conformity with various Supreme Court rulings on Pension related matters.

2.I am aghast at the servile attitude of the management of the Bank towards the Central Government officials, which is very well evident from the manner in which the Bank was trying to justify the captioned amendment in paragraph 4.5 (page 12) of Annexure I to the letter no CDO/PM/16/SPL/1187 dated 30.10.2002. The excerpts from the relevant paragraph are reproduced which reads thus: “The above ceiling was probably based on a rationale that SBI officers are getting Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) where Bank is contributing 10% and hence in their case pension be calculated at 40% of the Basic Pay instead of 50% if they were drawing substantive pay of more than Rs. 8500.00 p.m but minimum pension of Rs.4250.00 p.m., which they would have drawn had their basic pay been less, be protected. The rationale which counted with the Government for fixing a ceiling of 40% for the officers drawing pay of Rs.8500.00 and above affected only the officers who constitute about 23% of the total staff strength whereas the facility of CPF where Bank makes contribution of 10% is equally applicable to such of the employees who are drawing pay of below RS.8500.00”

3. The Bank’s attempt to rationalize the Central Government’s instruction is inexplicable as it should have been aware that while contributions to CPF would end with the retirement of an employee, his pension starts accruing on the first day succeeding that of retirement and shall be payable monthly to the retiree and hence the benefit the employee had from the CPF can no way be linked with the pension payable to the employee on retirement.

4. While I was examining the Supreme Court’s order with regard to its directive on ceiling on maximum pension payable, I noticed that the order meant up gradation of pension. As I have been receiving phone calls seeking clarifications on whether the SBIEPFR .provides for up gradation of pension to SBI Pensioners, I thought of sharing my thoughts which are not my own but backed by the observations from Supreme Court rulings, relevant portions of which are reproduced in the attached note. I would like to reiterate that for offering up gradation facility, the Bank need not seek prior approval from the CG as this needs to be done in accordance with the existing Regulations, the provisions in respect of which were already cleared by the CG before the Regulations were framed. The up gradation would only require the approval of the Bank’s ECCB.

A copy of this letter will be forwarded to our advocate.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

P.P.R.Upadhyaya