Saturday, July 25, 2015

Appeal to Chief Justice , Supreme Court of India

An appeal is made to Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, by Shri S  Ramchandran ,Pune based bank pensioner, aged 76 years. The appeal is signed by 20 senior citizens amongst whom  Shri S. G. Lele is 87 years old and Shri C. M Bhat is 86 years old.  Subject of the appeal is  as following :
Violation of fundamental rights of senior citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of constitution of India
Unreasonable and unjustified denial of Updation of Pension, improvement in family pension and 100% DA neutralization to the Bank Retirees [during the recently concluded wage revision] since 1995

Last para of the appeal is reproduced hereunder
It is in view of the facts referred at points 1-10 above and average litigation span of ten years & short of life at our disposal, specifically of Mr. S G Lele (87 years), Mr. C M Bhat (86 years) and other signatories of 80+years, we earnestly pray for your intervention and this Petition may kindly be treated as a Suo-Moto Writ Petition on the appellate side of the Honorable Supreme Court

Therefore for the points 1 to 10 above, we pray your lordship may be pleased to call for

1. the records and minutes of wage revision discussions in which our issues were discussed and finally taken the stand as mentioned in Record Note of Discussion dated 25.05.2015.

2. to investigate into the cost of updation of pension, improvement in family pension and 100% DA neutralization by Actuarials defined in Pension Regulations 1995.

3. Upon investigation report from actuarials, to order to the concerned banks RBI and GOI, to arrive at the decision on the demands of the retirees.

For the kind response and acts of your Lordship, we all, shall always remain obliged, as duty bound.
With Respectful &Warm Regards, 



Click here to view the list of signatories.

Interested  bank pensioners can send such petition to Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, with suitable modifications.
The exhibits referred in the appeal can be had from Shri S. Ramchadran (email : or Shri R. K. Pathak ( email :

Source: Bankpensioner google group

Monday, July 13, 2015

Supreme court Judgement on pension

Hon Supreme Court has spelt out clearly that Govt should avoid litigations for the sake of litigation, in recent verdict in  Civil Appeal No 1123 of 2015, Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 321 OF 2015 between State of Rajasthan and Ors. ... Appellants Versus Mahendra Nath Sharma ...Respondent and ors.
In this regard AIBPARC Gen Secretary has written a letter to the chairman IBA which is reproduced below.

The Chairman,
Indian Banks Association,
Dear Sir,
We draw your kind attention to the Supreme Court Judgement delivered on 01.07.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (c) No. 321 of 2015). The judgement has recognized that revision of pension and revision of pay scales are inseparable. It has also reiterated that on revision, the basic pension cannot be less than 50% of the basic pension in the minimum of the pay band in revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale. When pension is upheld to be a right and not a bounty, as a corollary to above, upgradation of pension is also a right and not a bounty. Because of the pre-enumerated on the above judgement and also those in the case laws like D.S. Nakara and others, the demand of upgradation of pension of retired employees in the banking industry should immediately be reconsidered by the IBA and Govt. of India.
We hope to hear from you at the earliest.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
(Source : AIBPARC  website)

Saturday, June 13, 2015

AIBOC's letter to IBA regarding record note on the issues of bank retirees

We reproduce below the letter by AIBOC to IBA
Ref: IBA/2015/68                         Dated: 12/06/2015
Indian Banks’ Association,
6th Floor, Centre 1 Building,
World trade Centre Complex, Cuff Parade,
Mumbai – 400005.

We invite reference to the Record Note dated 25.05.2015  jointly signed by the representatives of IBA and all the 9 Unions/ Associations of Bank Employees/ Officers on the issues pertaining to Bank Retirees along with Joint Note on Salary Revision.
2. While the above Record Note incorporates some of the demands of Retirees referred to in the Charter of Demands and discussed by officers organization with IBA during the process of discussion and IBA’s response there to, we would like to put the records straight by furnishing in brief our view
point as under on IBA’s response:
a) At the outset we do not accept that no contractual relationship exists between Banks & Retirees and that their demands can be examined only as a “Welfare Measure”. We maintain that payment of Pension cannot be construed as a mere Welfare Measure. As a matter of fact, there are several court judgments upholding that pension is a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered. In landmark “Narkara Case”, the Hon. Supreme Court has held that “Pension is a statutory, inalienable, equally enforceable right that has been earned by the sweat of brow. As such it  should be fixed, revised and modified/ changed in the
ways not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees.”
b) Besides, the Pension Regulations have been framed under section 19(1) of Banking Companies (Acquisition & transfer of undertakings) Act 1970/1980 and as such the
relationship between Banks & Retirees is a statutory one.
c) Officers’ Service Regulations/ Bi-partite Settlement  provisions for workmen, inter- alia, provide
for post- retirement benefits including Pension/ PF/ Gratuity etc. These are in the nature of statutory obligations on the part of Banks. In these circumstances, how can it be inferred that there is no contractual relationship between Banks & Retirees/ Pensioners? Moreover in case of officers, Officers’ Service Regulations/ Disciplinary Rules providing for disciplinary proceedings after retirement will lose the test of validity before law in the absence of contractual relationship.
d) Like wise in the absence of any contractual relations with Pensioners, clause 48 of the Pension Regulations 1995 i.e. right to proceed against retired employees will also not have any sanctity.
e) As regards comparison with Central Government Pension Scheme, we specifically bring to your notice that Pension Regulations under the head Residuary Provisions,  specifically stipulates that “in the matter of application of these Regulations regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 applicable for Government Employees with such
modifications as the Bank with previous sanction of Central Government, may from time to time determine”. It is clearly understood that Bank Employees Pension Scheme has been drawn primarily on the basis of Pension Scheme applicable to Central Government Employees/ RBI Employees. Hence comparison with the Central Government Employees pension Scheme is not out of Place.
3. Referring to IBA’s response to the demands referred to in the Record Note, we have to state as under:
a) While on several aspects of pension improvement, IBA has been repeatedly forwarding the plea of cost burden but at no point of time during negotiations, authentic data has been presented in support of its contention. On the contrary, authentic pension fund data categorically reveals that as on 31.03.2014, the corpus of Pension Fund stood at about Rs.
1,14,000/- crores. More importantly Pension Funds of Banks are in surplus consecutively over the years and such surplus is growing year by year despite the fact that Banks have failed to provide for the required sum in pension funds as agreed in Bipartite Settlements. Under these circumstances, demands of retirees for improvement in Family Pension in line with RBI, 100% DA neutralization to pre Nov 2002 retirees as also updation of Pension, cannot be delayed/
b) We may point out that Bank Employees Pension  Regulations specifically provide for updation of Pension. We invite reference to Regulation 35 (1) thereof which reads as under; “Basic Pension and additional pension wherever applicable shall be updated as per formula given in Appendix I” As a matter of fact, such updation has already been given effect earlier for the pensioners retired prior to 01.11.1987, who were positioned on par with retirees under
01.11.1987 Wage Settlement. In view of the above, updation of Pension has a statutory basis and it becomes a statutory obligation.
c) In the matter of 100% DA neutralization for retirees prior to 01.11.2002 for which IBA was positive during discussion, there have been several speaking judgments and favourable court orders. Though the matter is still sub- judice, IBA should settle the matter positively so that the expensive litigation can be put to rest once and for all. But waiting for conclusion of court proceedings will only add to the delay denying justice to pensioners who are above the age of
72-75 years and are anxiously waiting for the justice.
d) The issue of Pension to left overs also a vital one. The category of those retired compulsorily and the resignees have been denied benefits due to strict interpretation of instructions from the Government in June, 2012. Existing Pension Regulations categorically provide for pension
to those compulsorily retired from service. Denial of pension option to them is violative of the very existing Pension Regulations itself. Denial of Pension option to Resignees has also been tested through litigation and several judgments including the one in Vijaya Bank Case,is a
clear pointer that they cannot be denied pension after the stipulated period. In fact consequent upon such court verdict, several resignees have already been conceded the
benefit of pension option. It is also pertinent to note that the number of those retired compulsorily as also those resigned from Banks (after putting in requisite pensionable service)
is very small and the cost cannot stand in the way of extending benefits to them.
e) Apart from the above, there are still several issues of  pension, which need to be discussed and sorted out.
We, therefore, request you to take a positive view and hold discussion on all the issues of retirees on the basis of authentic facts, data and figures. On our part, we are also willing to exchange facts and figures so that a meaningful dialogue can take place with a view to resolving these issues.
We look forward to your early response.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,


Saturday, May 30, 2015

Record Note dated 25/05/15 on issues relating to retirees - AIBRF requests UFBU to clarify position and stand of UFBU on it

We reproduce below circular issued by AIBRF regarding Record note dated 25/05/15 

 Ref: 2015/190 Date 28.05.2015
Shri M.V.Murli
Convenor, United Forum of Bank Unions
Dear Sir
Re: Record Note dated 25.05.15 on issues relating
       To Retirees.
We have come to know that while signing wage settlement on  25th May, 2015, separate Record Note of discussion on retiree  issues was signed jointly by IBA and 9 constituents of UFBU.
2. We find from this document that in its opening Para , IBA
has made statement “ any demand of retirees can be examined as a welfare measures as contractual relationship does not  exist between banks and retirees “ Further it is observed that  unions have not recorded their view points on this issue separately in the document thereby endorsing the stand of IBA  while signing it.
3. As you are well aware that pension scheme applicable in the  banking industry is Defined Benefits Pension Scheme and has been designed on the models of pension schemes applicable in the government sector and Reserve Bank of India. Basic principle and premises of pension scheme applicable in banking industry and those in Govt./ RBI is that pension payment to retirees is nothing but DEFFERED WAGES and is legal right  enforceable in court of law. This right has been acquired with long drawn battles by working class of the country. The status  of deferred wage to pension has been confirmed in several  judgements delivered from time to time by courts of the  country including Supreme Court. As you know this principle has been laid down by 5 judges constitutional bench of  Supreme Court in the famous case of Nakara Versus Union of  India. The courts have further ruled that the provisions of  pension scheme under concept of deferred wages need to be  reviewed periodically along with the wage revision of  employees.
4. In view of this we are of strong view that it is not correct for
IBA to say that demand of retirees can be examined as welfare measure only and contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees and this statement is an attempt to reverse the hard earned legal rights of retirees and working class with serious repercussions in the coming years.
5. Considering the seriousness of the issue, we shall feel
obliged if you will clarify the position and stand of UFBU on it.
With Respectful Regards
Yours Sincerely
( S.C.JAIN )


AIBRF has also issued a circular presenting detailed analysis on various aspects / points covered in the Record Note  and future action plan.

Click here to view AIBRF circular

Monday, May 25, 2015

10th Bipartite Settlement / Joint Note signed today between IBA and UBFU

10th Bipartite Settlement / Joint Note signed today at Mumbai beween IBA and UFBU. Nothing is mentioned in favour of retirees in current settlement. Hospitalisation / Medical Expenses reimbursement scheme may be extended to retirees on payment of premium. Record note on discussion of  retirees'  issues between IBA and UFBU is released  by  IBA / UFBU.

Click here to view Record Note on Retirees' Issues

Click here to view 10th Bipartite Settlement

Click here to view Joint note regarding officers wage revision.