100 % D.A. neutralization to pensioners - AIBOC letter to IBA

There is long pending demand for 100 % neutralization of DA to pensioners/ family pensioners retired from the services of the bank prior to 1/11/2002. AIBOC addressed a letter to IBA highlighting the need to extend 100% DA neutralization to pensioners and family pensioners in the banking industry who retired before 01.11.2002 on par with RBI scheme w.e.f.,  01.05.2005. Click on the link below to view the circular on this subject.

AIBOC  Circular

Bank loses Rs 5 Lakhs in bid to deny 9 Lakhs VRS benefit

MUMBAI: The Central Bank of India spent Rs 5.33 lakh in a 10-year legal battle to avoid paying Rs 9.5 lakh as retirement benefit to an employee on the grounds that she died two days before they cleared her name for the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). But both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court have ruled that Homai Darayas Postwala - an officer in the investment department - was entitled to the benefits.
Postwala, who served the Central Bank for 30 years, died on June 23, 2001. The bank argued that as it accepted her in the VRS retirement scheme on June 25 - two days after her death - her heirs were not entitled to the benefits of the scheme.
Eight years later, the HC ruled that as the bank had failed to provide the family any record or notification of her acceptance (or rejection) under the scheme, "it would have to be held that the application was accepted when she (Postwala) was alive".
When her husband and son filed an RTI application in June 2011, they learnt that the bank had spent nearly half the amount due to Postwala fighting the case. They have now moved the Bombay High Court to enhance her pension from Rs 4,700 to Rs 6,700 per month after the Supreme Court accepted her rights under VRS.
Postwala had applied for the bank's VRS scheme on February 22, 2001- the day it was announced. The bank did not include her in the first list, but her name appeared on the second list on June 30, 2001. The bank claimed that they had approved her name for the second list on June 25, two days after her death.
While arguing their side of the case in court, Postwala's heirs said the bank had failed to communicate their decision, be it an acceptance or rejection, as is the norm. In fact, the family learned of her acceptance under the scheme only when they enquired with the bank after her death. They were told that she was not eligible for VRS.
The HC in July 2009 directed the bank to pay retirement and other dues under VRS to Postwala's legal heirs in three months. The bank then appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the HC order in April 2011.
Postwala's family has now filed a contempt petition in the HC since the pension amount has not been increased retrospective from July 2001. The family has also filed an appeal against the RTI order because the bank refused to provide receipts showing money paid to the lawyers. 

Source - Times of India, 18th Sept. 2011

Supreme Court notice to Governmet on PNB employees demand of medical benefits after retirement

New Delhi, Sep 13 : The Supreme Court today issued notices to the Union Government and four other respondents on a petition filed by a PNB bank employee seeking medical aid to the retired employees of the country.

A bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma issued showcause notice to the Union of India, the Punjab National Bank Chairman, Indian Banks Associations and United Forum of Bank Union on a special leave petition, filed by All India PNB Workers Federation general secretary J K Sawhney against the Delhi High Court order which had dismissed the bank employees demand. 

The High Court had on March 14 this year dismissed the bank employees' petition saying, "It will be for the bank employees and the management of the banks to sit together and decide as to how best such medical facilities can be extended to the retired employees." The petitioner has raised the question of constitutional validity of the state's duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to safeguard the right to life of every person and demanded medical facilities not be denied to the employees after retirement as grant of medical facilities to a person is a fundamental right. 

The petitioner said when the medical bills of full-time directors of the banks can be reimbursed then why there is parity between the retired employees of the bank.

Demanding their fundamental right of life to healthcare, the petitioner said it is the obligation of the state to look after the health of the employees who have served the banks for 60 long years. 
- UNI

Finance Ministry rejects Khandelwal report for bankwise wage talk and stock option.

The finance ministry has rejected a suggestion of a government panel to grant stock options to top-level employees in state-run banks, saying that such an incentive could not be given until a wider assessment mechanism was put in place.

It, however, supported a proposal for a rural stint for newcomers. The committee, set up to look into human resource issues at state-run banks, had recommended that 15% of the performers could be given employee stock options. Headed by formerBank of Baroda chairman A K Khandelwal, the panel had suggested sweeping changes in changes in remuneration and employee-related practices "First we need to set up a mechanism to monitor the performance of employees across different banks and then make it an all-inclusive process before offeringESOPs," said a finance ministry official requesting anonymity. ESOPs, or employee stock options, grant the right, but not the obligation, to buy a certain amount of shares in the company at a predetermined price. 

REFIXATION OF BASIC PAY TO THE OFFICERS WHO RETIRED BETWEEN 01.04.1998 TO 30.04.2005

In the case filed by Bank of Baroda retirees in Madras High Court , the Hon’ble High Court has ordered to pay pension to all the officers who retired from service of the Banks after 01.04.1998 on the revised salary as per the VI Bipartite settlement. The Hon’ble Court has also ordered payment of differential commutation to all the affected officers. In this regard AIBOC has taken up matter with IBA and written a letter to IBA chairman requesting implementation of High Court  order. To view circular issued by AIBOC and letter to IBA, click on the following link.

AIBOC  Circular