Pensioners Issues–Many a sips between cup and the lips:

It’s a sort of a renaissance period going on in relation to pensioners issues and every time a clinch to the problems look imminent some hurdle or the other jumps to the scene and it appears as if there is no end to such impediments. In reply to some of the enthusiasts, KR Saini has given a clarification that reads like this:

    ….,AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT FOR COMPUTATION OF PENSION PURPOSE BASIC PAY,PROFESSIONAL QULIFICATION PAY AND FIXED PERSONAL PAY ARE TO BE TAKEN.HOWEVER,NEITHER IN THE COMMITTE’S REPORT NOR IN THE APPROVAL LETTER THERE IS MENTIONED OF P.Q.P ANDF.P.P.SIR, WHILE CONVEYING APPROVAL OF REVISION OF PENSION FOR 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES THIS TYPE OF MISTAKE OCCURED NOT INCLUDING F.P.P INTHE FIRST INSTACE AND ON TAKING UP BY THE BANK F.P.P WAS ALSOKRSaini INCLUDED FOR PENSION PURPOSE TO 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES.IN THIS CONNECTION KINDLY REFER TO WEB SITE OF SBI PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION(MUMBAI)PUNE (BANK’S CIRCULAR) AT SERIAL NO4.SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF 9TH BIPARTITE RETIREES P.Q.P AND F.P.P HAS NOT BEEN  INCLUDED FOR PENSION PURPOSE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE BY THE BANK.LATERON BY TAKING UP THE MATTER WITH GOVERNMENT THIS MISTAKE WAS ALSO RECTIFIED.IN THIS CONNECTION,KINDLY REFER CIRCULARS AT SERIAL NO 32 AND  34  OF THE WEB SITE OF SBI PENSIONERS’ ASSOCIATION (MUMBAI)PUNE.

         FURTHER,I HAVE TO ADVISE THAT ALL INDIA STATE BANK OFFICERS’ FEDERATION HAS ALREADY TAKEN UP  THIS ISSUE IMMEDIATELY WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF S.BI FOR INCLUDING P.Q.P AND F.P.P FOR PENSION   PURPOSE VIDE CIRCULAR NO 42.WE ARE REQUISTING THAT OUR PENSIONERS’ FEDERATION SHOULD ALSO TAKE UP THE MATTER IMMEDIATELY WITH S.B.I FOR RECTIFICATION  FOR   CALCULATION OF REVISED PENSION TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES BY INCLUDING P.Q.P AND F.P.P.KINDLY DO REPLY ME.


 

Advertisements

Dates in Delhi High Court on Pension issue–corrigendum:


A short post:

As per the following intimation received from K R Saini, the changed date in Delhi High Court is like this:

AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT,THE CORRECT NEXT DATE OF HEARING OF OUR COURT CASE NO W.P(C)1875/2013 IS ”COURT NO 6,THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING14.09.2016”THE INCONVIENCE CAUSED TO YOU IS REGRETABLE FOR ADVISING YOU AS 12.09.2016 IN MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE.
K.R.SAINI “

 

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

Pension issues in SBI–yet another bouncer from PPR:


images (5)

You are all aware of the very indefatigable endeavors Ramchandra Upadhyaya, himself having retired from State Bank of India from the top rung of executive position, struggling hard to secure much overdue issues in relation to pensioners/retirees claims. It’s a big series of letters he addressed to the Chairperson but none of them was ever paid a heed. Such a negative attitude on the part of the top management of the Bank is not only highly callous but utterly condemnable. Reproduced below is the latest of the communications addressed to the Chairperson of the Bank by Ramchandra Upadhyaya most logically providing the merit parts of the issues. The campaign is vigorously pursued by him in a laudable manner and deserves all praise from the retirees /pensioners who owe him a solemn gratitude.

13.1.2016.

Madam,

GRIEVANCE

Nonpayment of Pension to 7th Bipartite Pensioners of SBI (RETIREES)

For about a decade and a half due to the Bank’s inaction.

Bank of India& ors vs K,Mohandas&ors

I write this letter with rightful indignation as all my letters, addressed to you expressing the genuine grievance of the RETIREES, don’t seem to receive the attention they deserve and instead, I am afraid, they are being consigned to the legal department, from where they don’t see the light of the day! I fervently appeal to you to devote your precious time at least for reading this letter as it would make you aware that all the sufferings of the RETIREES can be attributed to the management’s ill-conceived notion that the previous sanction of the GOI is a must each time revision of pension is made following revision in salary; this ill-conceived notion has been resulting in perpetuation of acts of breach of Law.  It is imperative that you attend to resolve the sufferings of about one lakh families, including those of RETIREES, which have been hounding them for over one and half decades. It is not an exaggeration when I assert that all your other preoccupations can’t be more important than the lives of those who struggled hard for the cause of the Bank during their hey days. I hope, as a human being, you would have some genuine pity and consideration for their welfare as their sufferings should prick your conscience.

2. In the last line of paragraph 30 of SC judgment dated 26.2.2015 in Civil Appeal no 2463 of 2015 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3686 OF 2007), Justice Dipak Misra had observed “The SBI Pension Rules have been framed under Section 50 of the SBI Act, 1955. The Rules have statutory force. The concept of any kind of promissory estoppel, if any, could not be applicable to promote or condone the breach of law,” He added further in the first line of paragraph 31, ibid, “In Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. Vs. R. Hanumaiah & Ors, it has been held that rule of promissoryestoppel cannot be availed to permit or condone a breach of law. It cannot be invoked to compel the Government to do an act prohibited by law, for such a direction would be against the statute.

2.1.In paragraph18 of the above mentioned judgment, Justice Dipak Misra after reproducing excerpts from IBA’s letter dated 11.12.2000 reading “employees who apply for voluntary retirement after having rendered a minimum of 15 years of service under a special/ad hoc scheme formulated with the specific approval of the Governmentand the Board of Directors will be eligible for pro rata pension for the period of service rendered as they are to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on that date,” had observed vide the first line of paragraph 19, “It was contended before the High Court that under the said recommendation the bank was obliged to pay pension to them butthe said contention was not accepted by the Single Judge on the ground the said letter is not a binding circular under Section 18 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

2.2. I reproduce excerpts from paragraph 43 of the same judgment “Rule 22(i) (a) deals with the concept of retirement and 22(i) (c) deals with the concept of retirement on request. In K. Mohandas (supra),the Rule was read into the Scheme in the absence of any other postulate. Same is the case here and, therefore, I read the Rule to the Scheme. Interpreting the 1995 Regulations, this Court had said that it will apply in entirety and, therefore, benefit was extended in Rule 29(5). Be it noted, in the said Regulation, it was categorically provided that pensionary benefits should be available to a person seeking voluntary retirement if he has put in 20 years of service. Same is the provision here, that is, 20 years of service irrespective of the age.

2.3. The Justice concluded in paragraph 44 thus, “In the absence of withdrawal, there cannot be any trace of doubt that the employees would be governed by the rules existing at the time of floating of the Scheme which has to be read into the Scheme, for the Scheme clearly stipulates that the employees availing the benefit of the Scheme would be entitled to pension as per the Pension Rules— InK. Mohandas (supra), if an employee has completed 20 years of service, apart from pensionary benefits, he would also get the benefit under Regulation 29(5) as stipulated therein.”

3. Madam, contrary to the statement made by the Dy.MD &CDO in his email of 14.12.2015 (copy attached), in the judgment, the SC had quoted extensively from the BOI vs K.Mohandas judgment dated 27.3.2009 before concluding as stated in paragraph 2.3 (supra),making it clear as daylight that Mohandas judgment is equally applicable in the case of SBIVRS retirees. The contents of paragraph 2& 2.1 should also convince you that the Bank need not have to await the clearance, nay it need not have to refer to the GOI at any stage for making payment of pension to its retirees. All that the Trustees have to do is to simply act as per the provisions of the Regulations. It is a PITY that because of the ignorance of the management, in the entire Banking industry, including the subsidiaries of SBI, in the case of the RETIREES alone, pension was paid as per pre-revised salary, while all others got pension as per their Pension Rules as evidenced by excerpts from paragraph 17 of K.Mohandas case, which reads “17. The optees have been given retiral benefits by the respective banks under VRS 2000 save and except the benefit of pension under Regulation 29(5).” While the officials of the GOI had advised banks to change the definition of pay for purposes of pension as per the 6th bipartite salary, perhaps, only the SBI management acted as per these instructions, which speaks volumes about the servility of the management, little knowing that by doing so, it is violating the statute!

4. It took more than 300 years for the Country to get freedom from the British Rule, but the Bank’s management still seems to be functioning under the impression that it has no freedom to act on its own as, perhaps, it believes that MOF owns it. I wish to bring to the attention of the management, Maha Kavi Bharathiar’s inspiring Tamil song Achamillai, Achamillai Acham Enbadillaiye, Uchi meedu van vizhuntha pothilum achamillaiye (meaning fear not, fear not, there is nothing like fear; even if the heavens were to fall on our heads, we won’t have fears!) sung to inspire the citizens during days of Independence struggle. The Bank being an autonomous body should act fearlessly on its own to remove the sufferings of its family members and law permits it to do so! No need to refer to the GOI on pension matters. Can we expect your munificence at least now to end the long struggle of the RETIREES? It is a pity that for getting our own property, we have to cringe and beg repeatedly! Does the GOI have jurisdiction over SBI Pensioners only? Is there any logic in it?

Yours sincerely,

P.P.R.Upadhyaya 

Pension issues in SBI–answering questions:


There is a series of questions every now and then being raised by the readers, certain of them being of vital importance. It is not possible to answer every question but the ones that concern the pending issues of pension in different courts of Law are essentially replied by our experts with a view to clearing the confusion in the minds of the readers. One such question raised by Sujoy Kumar Ghosh is elaborately replied by K. R. Saini covering various angles including fitment formula. The question raised as a comment by Sujoy Kumar Ghosh is important and so is its reply, hence quoted below for the information of the readers in general and the pensioners in particular:

Question comment by Sujoy Kumar Ghosh:

Mr.Saini-W.P(C)1931/2002-Prem Vati Bagga& others vs UOI & others.-What do the 5th.& 6th. BP say about calculation of pension on last 12 months salary? If it is the same as the 7th.BP where Jaipuriar has got an order on his pleadings is it not possible for the petitioners in this case as well to plead accordingly? has this aspect been examined ?.

Reply (in two parts) by K.R. Saini:

  • kINDLY NOTE THAT IN  STATE BANK OF INDIA,PENSION IS TO BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE MONTHLY SUBSTANTIVE SALARY DRAWN DURING THE LAST 12 MONTHS PENSIONABLE SERVICE AND THIS HOLDS TRUE FOR ALL THE PENSIONERS OF S.B.I FROM THE YEAR 1986EXCEPT FOR THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WHERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF PENSION,PAY SCALE AS PER 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BUT THEY WERE DRAWING SALARY IN THE SCALES OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AT THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT(S).
         IN THE CASE OF 5TH BIPARTITE WHICH STARTS FROM 1.11.1987 TO31.10.1992,CALCULATION FORMULA FOR PENSION IS 50% MAXIMUM RS2400/ WHICH IS FROM 1.1.1986 AFTER THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AND GOVERNMENT DID NOT REVISED THE PENSION FORMULA FOR 5TH BIPARTITE RETIREES HOWEVER  SCALES/GRADES REVISED W.E.F
    1.11.1987.IN THE CASE OF 6TH BIPARTITE RETIREES FORMULA WAS 50% MAXIMUM RS4250/  W.E.F 1.111993 AND AFTERWAEDS FORMULA IS 50%.40%W.E.F 1.3.1999.
            W.P(C)1931/2002 REGARDING PREM VATI BAGGA &OTHERS V/S U.O.I& OTHERS WAS FILED BY 6 PENSIONERS AND 1 FAMILY PENSIONER RETIRED BEFORE 1.11.1993
    .
  • DEAR SIRS, IN OTHER BANKS PENSION TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES WERE BEING PAID AS PER CLAUSE 16 OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT
                             CLUSE 16 OF 7TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT—-PAYMENT OF PENSION.
    ”IN RELATION TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO RETIRES OR DIES WHILE IN SERVICE OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF APRIL,1998’PAY’ FOR PUPOSE OF PENSION SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE PAY DRAWN BY MEMBER OF THE AWARD STAFF IN TERMS OF 6TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTDATED THE 14TH FEBRUARY,1995 AND THE DEARNESS ALLOWANCE THEREON CALCULATED UPTO INDEX NUMBER 1616 POINTS IN ALL INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS IN THE SERIES 1960=100.THIS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF BANK(EMPLOYEES) PENSION REGULATIONS 1995.” 
              IN OTHER BANKS PENSIONFORMULA IS PENSION BEING PAID ON THE LAST 10 MONTHS AVERAGE SALAY AND @ 50% TO ALL PENSIONERS WITH 33YEARS PENSIONABLE SERVICE W.E.F 1.1.1986 AND REGULATIONS 1995 FOR OTHER BANKS ONLY NOT FOR S.B.I
        THIS ABOVE NOTED ANOMALY HAS BEEN REMOVED IN THE 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND NOW ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF OTHER BANKS IN REGARD TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES ARE GETTING PENSION ON THE LAST 10 MONTHS AVEAGE SALARY W.E.F 1.5.2005 BUT SBI EMPLOYEES ARE STILL GETTING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF 6TH BIPARTITE PAY SCALES AND DEARNESS ALLOWANCE THEREON CALCULATED UPTO INDEX NUMBER 1148 POINTS IN ALL INDIA CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKER IN THE SERIES 1960=100(DEARNESS ALOWANCE FOR SBI EMPLOYEES ONLY FOR OTHER BANKS IT IS ABOVE 1684POINTS.)

Pension issues in SBI read in conjunction with judicial system of India:


Judicial system in India being most grotesque one, the pension issues in the case of retirees from State Bank of India are grossly subjected to a frustration laded confusion resulting into a tortuous plight for them. KR Saini, an ardent pursuer of the pension related cases gave his explicit views on the topic some time back to let the readers know the exact complications for a better understanding. The very narrative is reproduced below:

KESHAV RAI SAINI
Nov 29, 2014 @ 22:34:07

OUR PENSION ISSUES AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF INDIA.

AS YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE PENSION ISSUE THAT CONCERNS EXCLUSIVELY THE RETIRED PEOPLE PARTICULARLY OLD PENSIONERS WHO ARE 70 YEARS TO 87 YEARS OLD,VERY MUCH A WRONG SIDE OF AGE——–IT IS SURPRISING THAT OUR CASE NO W.P(C) 1875/2013 WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO DELHI HIGH COURT FOR DISPOSAL FROM SUPREME COURT ON SOME TECHNICAL GROUNDS WAS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.11.2014 AND NEXT DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN FIXED ON 29.01.2015* AFTER A GAP OF 2 MONTHS.
ALTHOUGH OUR THIS COURT CASE WAS COMPLETELY HEARD IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FOR MORE THAN ONE AND HALF YEAR BUT THE BANK AND THE GOVERNMENT HAD SUCCEDED IN GETTING IT TRANSFERRED TO DELHI HIGH COURT ON SOME TECHNICAL GROUNDS WITH A VIEW TO PROLONG  IT FURTHER.THE OBVIOUS REASON FOR THE SUPREME COURT TO DIVERT OUR WRIT PETITION TO DELHI HIGH COURT IS THE ADAMANT STAND OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR ORDER ON THE 27 FEBRUARY’ 2013 SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED AS SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE LAST ONE AND HALF YEAR ,WE DEEM IT PROPER TO TRANSFER THE PETITION PAPERS TO DELHI HIGH COURT AND REQUEST THE LEARNED HIGH COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO ASSIGN THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE A BENCH OF HIS CHOICE FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER AT ANY RATE WITHIN THE OUTER LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE RECORDS. BUT NOW THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS NOT DECIDED THE CASE WITHIN EVEN ABOUT ONE AND HALF YEARS.
IN THIS CONNECTION, I MAY ADD THAT I HAVE REACHED 74 YEARS OLD AND THIS CASE MAY TAKE ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO DECIDE AND ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT WILL BE THE FATE OF THIS COURT CASE
THERE HAS BEEN REVISION OF PENSION FOR THE 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES OF OTHER NATIONALIZED BANKS WHICH ARE GETTING PENSION @50% W.E.F 1.05.2005 HOWEVER I AM GETTING BASIC PENSION @27%..WHAT A STEP MOTHERLY TREATMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH S.B.I PENSIONERS
.?
K.R.SAINI

* The next date so deferred is 29/01/2015