The case regarding 100 percent D.A. neutralisation (A.B. Kasturirangan & others Vs Canara Bank & others ) came up for hearing on 29th June 2016, in Supreme Court of India. Regular hearing of this case could not take place on the date. Hon Supreme Court directed to list the case in the month of Jan 2017.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Updation of Pension in Banks - Letter from Shri C N Venugopalan former Director State Bank of Travancore and Ex-Manager Union Bank of India
C N Venugopalan (Former
Director, State Bank of Travancore and Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India)
|
“Nandanam”, Kesari Junction, North Paravoor,
Kerala -683 513
Phone: 0484 2447994 Mob: 9447747994
|
No.160611
11th
June, 2016
To:
All beneficiaries of Joint Note and original
pensioners
Updation of Pension in Banks
Retired
bank employees / organizations are clamoring for up-dation of pension for years
unable to establish that it is an already sanctioned benefit vide regulation 56
and demanding it as a fresh claim, thus strengthening the stand of the
managements in not giving it.
Regulation
56 viz.
Residuary Provision states that “in case of
doubt in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had to
the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Service Rules, 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable to Central Government
employees with such exemptions and modifications as the bank, with the previous
sanction of central government, may from time to time, determine. So long as IBA / banks have not sought any
exemption or modification, it is in derogation of regulations that up-dation of
pension is denied so far for years.
The
regulation makes limpid, beyond nay conundrum, that bank pension has invariably
to be on the pattern of pension of central government employees and
non-revision of pension with each bipartite settlement (unlike in the case of
revision with each pay commission in the case of central civil pension) is in gross
breach of the Pension
Regulations put in place in banks with
the nod of the Parliament. Denial of revision is apparently in
derogation of the pension regulations and rebelliousness to the Indian Parliament.
Regulation
56 is an inbuilt provision for up-dation of pension; but all are under an
impression that it has to be sanctioned
by IBA / government not knowing that it is a
statutorily vested benefit. The demand
for it without seeking enforcement of regulation 56 as per the intentions is
preposterous.
In
terms of regulation 3, all categories of employees had to exercise option
within 120 days of notification, i.e. on or before 26.01.1996. Unless the regulation 3 is amended, no
one can be granted an option after 26.01.1996. the option given under the joint note is ultra vires
powers of IBA
/ banks. Having granted pension to 50,000 plus retired and conferred the
coverage to about 5,00,000 employees on rolls, IBA / banks can have no roll back on this.
Banks
granted pension to VRS retirees who had 15
years of service when qualifying service
for pension to VRS retired was 20 years in terms of regulation 29. The pension so paid was unauthorized
by pension regulations and pension fund trust rules. Pension Fund Trust
has no provisions to pay such pension. To escape from the accountability
aspect of the erroneous payments, banks amended regulation 28 relating to
superannuation pension by adding to it a clause that “with effect from 1st
sept.2000, pension shall also be payable to an employee who opts to retire
through any scheme formulated y by the bank with the sanction of the
government, after purring in a service of 15 years. The net result is that regulation 29
on pension on Voluntary
Retirement remains the same and the
pension so paid is still unauthorized.
Confusion was created in regulation 28
on Superannuation Pension by adding to it that an
employee who has put in 15 years of service can get pension on
superannuation. Are these not stupidities?
Clause
10 of Joint Note stipulates that IBA
should send it to government for its approval and further action in
terms of section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980. Section 19 (4) of the Act
stipulates that the amendment to
regulations carried out has to be laid by the government, as soon as it is made, in the houses of the Parliament for 30 days and will have
effect only if approved by the Houses , or be of no effect, if not approved. The Joint Note framed on 27.04.2010 has not so
far laid in the houses albeit lapse of 6 years and cannot be laid forever immediately
on account of passage of six years. It is thus obliterated and is void. It is on the basis of the void joint
note that banks denied pension from the date of retirement to the arbitrary
date 27.11.2009 fixed in it to employees retired prior to the date of the Joint Note.
Regulation
5 (3) fixes the banks as sole contributor to Pension Fund.
And the contribution banks make is not
a gratuitous one, but is the statutorily payable EPF contribution, which the banks were to
make pursuant to EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 prior to notification of Pension Regulations. Any contribution to Pension Fund is thus the deferred wages of the
employees statutorily payable by banks . It is not the money of the banks; but the money of the employees.
The
contribution at 56 percent of EPF paid on retirement in the case of retired employees and 2.8
times pay for November,
2007 in the case of employees on rolls raised by banks on the basis of the Joint Note for granting second option is
inconsistent with regulation 5.3 and regulation 11. The boards of banks have no powers to
make such regulations / amendments that prejudice the validity of what is done
earlier under a regulation vide section
19 (1) and 19 (4) of the banking companies ( acquisition and transfer of
undertakings) Act, 1970/1980. as such,
the Joint Note containing such prohibited
covenants can never be placed in the parliament to take its nod. This is why the Joint Note is not so far laid in the Parliament.
If
there is any organization i.e. union or association that is worth its name and
banner and is having commitment to the members in the industry, it can simply
give a notice to the Central Labour Commissioner pointing out the breach of covenant 10 of the Joint Note which makes the Joint Note obliterated and void. If so the amount
of unlawful collections made by banks to
Pension Fund from retired employees and
employees on rolls and the pension denied from the date of retirement to the
date 27.11.2009 will become payable back to all, together with compound interest. Pension Fund had been earning income on the
unlawful collections at compound rates by way of interest on Pension Fund investments and banks run no loss
in making the refund to those concerned.
The
Pension Funds of all banks have
money enough to pay three to four times the present pension to all their
pensioners as the resources are abounding in them and the annual growth can
contain such payment with no impact on profits. To cite an example the Pension Fund of union bank had a growth of Rs.. 6574.01 crores in five years after
the date of the Joint Note. There are 3,106 retired employees and
17,473 employees on rolls from whom unlawful contribution of Rs. 134.33 crores had been collected
on the basis of the Joint Note. After repayment of the amount with interest, which can be
contained in a maximum sum of Rs.300.00croes, the five years’ growth will still have a
residue of Rs.
6,274.01 crores. This sum can foot payment of arrears
of pension with interest to 3,106 retired employees at Rs..2.02 crores per capita. The actual arrears payable per
capita will be in the range of Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs. 35.00 lakhs only. When the amounts can be paid without
any pinch either to the bank –as pension is payable out of pension fund with no
impact to it – or to the government by way of any budgetary allocation,
non-payment is totally meaningless and lawlessness. The present pay out of benefits i.e.
pension / family pension is only 23.25 percent of the annual growth ( year
ending 31.03.2015). The position of other banks is also
similar and all of them can pay two to three times pension to all their pensioners,
without affecting profits.
IBA
and banks cheated the work force by not granting an option when the government
directed IBA
to advise all banks to scrap the clause for forfeiture of service in regulation
22 (4) (b) and to give effect to it vide F. No.4/8/4/95-IR dated
24.12.1997 which was received at IBA on 27.12.1997.
Giving effect to it meant that an
option be extended in the wake of the deletion to those who could not opt when
thee deleted clause was present in the regulations. Banks amended the regulation but did
not give effect to it, duping the target group. Union Bank amended the regulation on
27.02.1999 and kept it clandestinely in
camera until 08.10.2002 and published it with a delay of 43 months on that
date. There were no unions/associations who
could detect the fraudulent acts / omissions and challenge it.
Section
10 (7) of the Banking
Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 empowers the Board of a bank to declare a dividend
and to retain surplus profits as reserves in its books only after making due
provisions to superannuation funds. Given that the public sector banks had,
all along been, declaring dividends to
the government, which was applied for paying higher salaries and pension
to government employees and for paying
salaries to Ministers,
MPs etc. all had been robbing bank
employees, the Peter to pay to government employees, the Pauls. The bank officer had a higher pay than the
government office in the 1970s. When the bank officer drew Rs.500/- the government officer had Rs.450 only. With the nationalisation, an ethnic prejudice that set in the minds of government officials resulted in
staggering bank pay on a level with government pay at Rs..725/-. Though parity of reasoning requires
that bank pay ought to be protected at the level of pay in government, it is
now lesser by Rs..30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- a month. The bank employee worked for six days
a week in hectic mode while the government employee worked for five days only
in a casual manner. All policies of government are
implemented through banks. The government employees merely watch
/ monitor. The process of nation building was
done by bank employees while the government employees are merely regulating and
monitoring.
with
nationalisation of banks and government ownership, bank employees became
quasi-government employees whose salaries are reasonably to be foot by the
government. But they draw their compensation out
of the profits they make and not from exchequer. They do not pass on the burden to the government. Yet they are given a step motherly
treatment by the government, in the
matter of compensation for work.
The
leaders who have raised hefty subscriptions from members have never lived up to
the expectations of members. In signing the Joint Note too, they surrendered even the statutorily vested
rights of the members. Their have to be more loyal to the
managements that regularly collect subscriptions / levies from members through
check off and give it to them. The Leaders of various organizations were of
the view that fresh option is not viable in the industry. Much was their concern in not securing
fresh option. After fighting for option
for some five years after my voluntary retirement at the age of 49, I had to issue a Circular on 10th January, 2006 , country-wide, to
appraise the victims who missed the option for pension about the follies of the organizations. The following link will furnish testimony : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_UI4pgwLPCjYU9zVHd1azdEdWc/edit?usp=sharing
. Please click on it. The issue of option which was dormant
till then came into limelight only through this. This only forced organizations, that were
silent on it for years to make a demand for it. Though a MOU was signed on 25.02.2008 after three
to four agitations to conclude the matter within three months, it took another
26 months to sign the Joint Note on 27.04.2010. And while
signing it, the statutorily vested rights of the employees were surrendered. It was the silent, solo, valiant struggle I conducted for a decade that brought
5,00,000 employees on rolls within the abmit of pension again and secured
pension to about 50,000 retired bankers who were on cross roads. It is this work that redeemed the right of pension that was
lost forever for the bank employees and brought about a renaissance in the
industry. Retiree organizations got so much members as a result of second option as otherwise,
they would have got scattered away.
Time
is not late even now for us and for organizations too. The unions can merely appraise the CLC
and ask to set aside the Joint Note on the ground that clause 10 of
it is remaining undone and also make a demand for proper compliance with
regulation 56. It can take care of
refund of the unlawful contributions with interest to all, pension from the
date of retirement to all those who are denied it till 27.11.2009 and also up-dation of Pension.
If
the banking barons numbering some 100 to 200 can act in derogation of rules and
regulations and deceive the vast number of pensioners and employees on rolls
with their money power, the deceived have to defend themselves by remaining
united and proving their might. If all the victims join together and
take legal recourse, nothing is impossible for them. We may be able to hire Prasanth Bhushan, Jethmalani etc also, if needed. We have a strong case and we can fight
legally engaging prominent counsels up to the level of Apex Court, in a different way. Sometimes, three to four suits may be
required to make claim in each one simple, sharp and indefeasible. If versatile decisions are emerging at High Court level itself, there will be no
scope for IBA
to fight it in appeal and take it beyond it.
THOSE
BENEFICIARIES OF THE JOINT
NOTE AND ORIGINAL
PENSIONERS SEEKING UP-DATION OF PENSION
WHO WANT TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE , CAN BE IN TOUCH WITH - C N
VENUGOPALAN WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA ,
ALUVA, ceeyenvee@gmail.com .
It is
not necessary for all to join the writ petitions.
Thanks and Regards
Yours
sincerely,
C N VENUGOPALAN
Labels:
Pension Revision
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
CBPRO MEETS IBA
Circular issued by CBPRO is reproduced below.
Quote
Circular 006/2016 Dated:
30.05.2016
To all the Constituents of CBPRO
Dear Comrades,
CBPRO MEETS IBA
It is a red letter
day for Bank Pensioners and Retirees when the CBPRO leadership met the Senior
IBA Officials and held detailed discussions on 26.05.2016 at IBA office Mumbai
in respect of Bank Pensioners and Retirees long pending issues. The wise move by the Apex Bank Retiree
Organisations to come together and form a coordinated body named as Coordination of Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations led to this welcome development of getting an
audience with the IBA. This facilitated a meaningful dialogue. This also ensured dignity and self respect to
the Senior Citizens of the Banking Industry.
The IBA response throughout the discussion had been one of cordiality,
concern and solemn assurances on their intentions and keenness to sort out the issues.
The IBA team was led
by Shri K. UnniKrishnan, Deputy Chief Executive accompanied by Shri K. S.
Chauhan, Senior Vice President. The
CBPRO team consisted of Com. A.Ramesh Babu, General Secretary SBI Pensioners’
Federation and Joint Convener CBPRO, Com. K.V.Acharya, President AIBPARC and Joint
Convener CBPRO, Com. Ramesh Deshpande, General Secretary RBONC, Com. R.K. Acharya,
General Secretary AIRBEA, and Com. M.D. Deshpande, President FORBE. The team was also assisted by Com. K.S. Rengarajan
of AIBPARC, who had made exhaustive calculations in respect of 100% DA,
Improvement in Family Pension and Pension Updation. The CBPRO also submitted a representation to
the IBA emphasising the need to show great urgency in resolving the
issues. The list of the issues to be
discussed was also submitted.
Shri K. Unnikrishnan,
Deputy Chief Executive IBA, in his initial remarks expressed the keenness of
IBA to resolve the long pending issues but at the same time also expressed
anxiety of IBA about the health of various Banks which has become a hindering
factor in meeting our expectations. He informed us that IBA is in the final
phase of getting the Actuary’s report as all the data pertaining to the issue
of 100% DA Neutralization and Improvement in Family Pension have been received
from the Member Banks and already handed over to the Actuary.
Com. A.Ramesh Babu,
Joint Convener CBPRO, thanked the IBA for giving the opportunity to CBPRO to
discuss the issues and described the event as a satisfying development and hoped
that the deliberations would culminate in the resolution of the issues. He also explained to the IBA about the
formation of CBPRO and hoped that this would facilitate meaningful dialogues
with Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations.
During the course of
the meeting IBA pointed out about the cost implications and the huge provisions
Banks have to make to meet the requirements of AS 15 (Revised) in respect of
provisioning. However the CBPRO
responded elaborately and some of the main observations from our side are
mentioned hereunder:
1.
As regards Uniform DA Relief, the Number of
the Retirees deprived are less than one third of the total Number of Retirees
including SBI and out of that nearly thirty thousand have already crossed the
age of 85 and looking at their very advanced age justice should be delivered to
them before it is too late.
2.
As regards Family
Pension, it is an emotional issue apart from being a humanitarian issue. The bulk of the Family Pensioners are widows
of the Retired Employees and going by the sensitivity involved the IBA should
initiate improvement of Family Pension to 30% from the present 15% without any
ceiling.
3.
Regarding Pension
Updation, IBA expressed its reservations to take up the issue immediately. We
submitted that non updation from 1989 onwards has resulted in great and
unimaginable distortions and if not set right the gap between the recent
Retirees and old Retirees would further steeply widen. We also stated that the
Courts have held that Wage Revision and Pension revision are inseparable.
4.
Extending Pension
entitlements to Resignees is a well settled matter with the Judicial
pronouncement by the Highest Court of
the Land and their number being just less than four thousand the IBA should
implement the Court order in respect of all eligible Resignees. So also in respect of Compulsorily Retired, the
Pension eligibility should be given to all Retirees irrespective of the fact
that they are award staff or officers. Here also we pointed out that there are
decided cases where Courts have upheld the right to Pension to the Compulsorily
Retired Persons.
5.
As regards
domiciliary treatment entitlements from the newly introduced Medical Insurance
Scheme, the IBA showed us the serious correspondences they have undertaken with
the Insurance Company insisting on the Insurance Company to implement the
Scheme in its original form without any distortion and assured us that they
would ensure the full implementation of the scheme. We also pointed out that
the Government communication in the year 2012 had asked IBA to come out with a
Medical Insurance Scheme both for Serving Employees as well as Retired
Employees and never intended the scheme to be different for Serving Employees
and Retired Employees. The Insurance
Company can’t and should not meddle with the provisions of the last wage
settlement between the Unions and IBA in respect of the Medical Insurance Scheme.
We also requested IBA to advise all
member Banks to extend the Medical Insurance Scheme to all Ex-Employees and
Officers even if those ex-Employees/Officers have undergone extreme penalties
in disciplinary proceedings. The reason
being that Medical treatment is an issue of extreme sympathy and also the persons
covered are ready to pay the premium from their own sources and the Insurance
Company also wants to cover large number of persons.
6.
We also had
discussions on leave encashment to Compulsorily Retired persons without any
cutoff date and also permitting Retired Employees and Officers to defend those
who are unfortunately subjected to charge-sheets even after retirement.
Comrades,
from the repeated assertions made by the IBA during the course of our
discussions, we hope that the extension of 100% DA neutralization and
improvement in Family Pension would get top priority by the IBA. On
Updation also the IBA will take a favourable view and ensure that the
legal and
statutory requirements are given due consideration and help in removing
the
serious erosion that has taken place in the Basic Pension in the case of
Past
Retirees due to various subsequent wage settlements. We had also
pointed out that Pension is
coming under the Defined Benefit Pension
Scheme and also being a close ended scheme the availability of huge corpus
should enable the resolutions of the issues without any further burden on the
Banks. Moreover, since Pension
Regulations are statutory Regulations, these Regulations get precedence over all
other provisional requirements including provision for NPA.
We are extremely thankful
to Shri K. Unnikrishnan, Deputy Chief Executive IBA who sat through for one
hour though he was busy with ongoing interviews in IBA. He set the tone for the meeting in a very
positive way. The meeting continued for
another one hour along with Shri K.S. Chauhan, Senior Vice President, where
issues were discussed with further details and he warmly appreciated the
homework done by CBPRO in collecting the required informations and arriving at
calculations. The inputs submitted by us
were duly received and appreciated.
Comrades, we
have given in a nutshell the important points of discussion. We hope with this meeting a new era has
started for Bank Pensioners and Retirees and formation of CBPRO had been a
great effort by the Apex Retiree Organisations who exhibited throughout a spirit
of comradeship to achieve the common objective of ensuring justice to the Bank
Pensioners and Retirees. We once again
appeal to all to join the CBPRO and further strengthen the Bank Pensioners and
Retirees Movement,
CBPRO is
also seeking the support of UFBU to
use their good offices with the IBA and help us in achieving the objectives of
Retirees Movement. CBPRO firmly believes
that it is an organisation which strives for the benefit of all Bank Employees
and Officers, PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE
and with the number growing and vibrance demonstrated we are confident that SUCCESS SHALL BE OURS.
With Warm Greetings,
A.Ramesh Babu
Unquote
Labels:
Pension Revision
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)