Friday, June 25, 2010

Pension agreement cleared by Govt

It is learnt that Finance Minister has cleared the pension agreement beween IBA and constituent units of UBFU. The Govt. advice to IBA is being communicated today. The Banks will take steps to implement the agreement like issue of Option Letters etc. on receipt of direction of IBA.

Source - AIBOA Website


  1. o.k. but what are the provisions for the revision of basic pension for retirees between 01/11/07 and 30/05/10 who are already drawing pension?these have an increased basic in service till their date of retirement.What is their revised basic pension as per 9th bipartite?why the matter has no HIGH LIGHTING in the details being communicated from time to time?

  2. Dear Friends,
    in today's The Hindu magazine there appears a news item. The Madras high court has granted interim stay of the clause in the 9th BPS w.r. to the contribution 2.8 times of salary by the P.F. Optees who like to opt for pension. The appeal is filed by the Canara Bank Workers union, Nungambakkam and one Mr. R.Radhakrishnan, a members of the union. The main argument in this case is as follows. In the previous two settlement all employees had contributed to the pension fund and why the discrimination only this time by insisting the PF Optees who have been opting for pension and leave all the existing pensioners and other PF optees ( remaining as PF Optees). The court has issued notice regarding admission returnable in three weeks

  3. It is a matter of great pleasure that Madras High court has granted interim stay on the clause authorizing banks to deduct 2.8 times of November revised salary from the arrear of PF optees who are likely to opt for second option of Pension, an opportunity granted under 9th Bipartite Settlement signed between IBA and leaders of unions of various banks. I congratulate officers of Canara Bank unit who initiated the legal battle against discriminatory settlement signed by union leaders in banks and I take this opportunity to condemn IBA team under the leadership of Mr. M V Nair who left no stone unturned to divide the officer’s fraternity by introducing various discriminatory and unconstitutional clauses in the said settlement.

    It is open secret that bank management is made of flatterers and yes-men who are least bothered of ethics or constitutional values or even the quality of assets of banks. They are least bothered of genuine grievance of loyal and devoted workers who think, act and even dream for the benefit of banks they are associated with. It is banks where even posting and promotions are effected not based on merit but on the strength of an officer in yesmanism and his ability to flatter his bosses and capability in earning illegal money and sharing with the same with the bosses.

    In such position officers annoyed with discriminatory elements of the said settlement have got a great relief after the stay granted by Madras High Court .I hope even now our Finance Minister and Prime Minister will understand the facts related to agreement mentioned above and perpetual reign of injustice prevailing in banking industry particularly PSU banks. I hope Government of India will act against dirty elements in Banking industry and especially in IBA and get rid of them before it is too late.

    I would like to add here that if justice is not delayed in courts and good advocates become available at reasonable cost in all towns and cities I think thousands of cases will be filed against reign of injustice perpetuated by bank management.

    I am ready to extend my whole hearted support to all those who have initiated legal battle against the bank and who have contributed directly or indirectly in the fight to get justice. I pray judges to quicken the process at their best so that bank management may not take advantage of judicial delay in carrying out their whimsical decisions based on vested self interest.

  4. Contrary to our expectations, it is not the IBA which is now rushing to get the stay vacated, but the guardian angels of the working class movement are working overtime to get it done for them.

    The money collected through the levy from us would be spent by them to fight the cases filed by the employees against the Pension Settlement. AIBEA have already proved their love and affection for the bank employees by not only deciding to sign anti-constitutional pension settlement but also forcing other unions to sign it. Their attitude towards bank employees is evident from the scrolling message on their site

  5. Dear friends,

    It is regrettable to note that neither the workers union or officers association (AIBOC) has not issued circular in clear terms amongst the retirees, WHO are eligible for second option for pension. The same leaders have drafted the clauses after discussing with UBEF leaders and signed them. It is high time that they are asking the retirees to wait till official circulars are issued by concerned Banks. This does not sound well. It gives a feeling that without knowing full implications and understanding all the union/association leaders have signed the settlement.

    It is the duty of the leaders to issue detailed circular regarding 2nd option of pension to retired officers, either on superannuation or through VRS, under special scheme or under normal circumstances. This clarification is required to clear the mis-interpretation of the clauses by many persons.

    Yours sincerely,


  6. The unions & IBA sign bipartite settlemens although they theremselves are not cear in their minds as to what is beneficial (to ultimate beneficiaries, the employees). Hence, the settlements give room for unending litigations. In 1993 agreement, Bank staff were left with no clue in regard to choosing / opting the beneficial between PF and Pension. Instead of making the 1993 wage agreement historic with clear and decisive clauses beneficial only to the members, unions left employees to 'choose / opt' for themselves. When expert union leaders / IBA luminaries were not aware which was beneficial to whome, how can an ordinary employees would know about the intricacies of opting taking into account the long term aspects in changing economy? Can there be such wage agreements with clauses uncertain as to benefits accruing to the members covered? But, most unfortunate thing happened in signing of the 1993 bipartite settlement in banks with such clauses of 'choosing' wage terms. This was the original cause leading to innumerable discrepancies since 1993, in settlement after settlement arrived thereafter. Atleast now, the Finance Ministry / GOI should help put a full stop for the continuing agitation in banks for over 15 years with regard to this one single dispute i.e. Pension). Extending FINAL UNCONDITIONAL OPTION will solve majority of disputes / discrepancies as to Pension in banks. Banks should bear any financial burden in this regard as the employees had more than adequately made their contribution to bear the burden of creating pension fund by agreeing for reudced wages since 1993.