Circular by CBPRO is reproduced below
Quote
Dated: 29.11.2018
The General Secretary,
All Constituents of CBPRO & AIBRF
Dear Comrade,
Dharna
at Large Centres throughout the Country
We refer to our circular no. 007/2018dated
26.10.2018 advising our constituents about the proceedings of a joint meeting
of CBPRO and AIBRF held on 24.10.2018. It was decided in the said meeting to
hold massive Dharna and Demonstrations in important cities across the country
culminating in big Dharna/Demonstrations in Delhi & Mumbai. Accordingly it has been decided to hold
Dharna/Demonstrations at important centres like (1) Kolkata, (2) Chennai, (3)
Bengaluru, (4) Hyderabad, (5) Ahmedabad, (6) Cochin, (7) Thiruvananthapuram,
(8) Delhi, (9) Mumbai and other State Capitals.
The date for Dharna / Demonstrations at
individual centres maybe mutually decided by the leaders of the constituents of
CBPRO & AIBRF at respective centres between 15.12.2018 and 15.01.2019. A
list of centre wise leaders/organisers of the constituents of CBPRO & AIBRF
will be furnished separately to facilitate mutual contacts to successfully hold
Dharna/Demonstrations.
It is also proposed to submit a Joint Memorandum
to the Hon’ble Prime Minister and to the head of local chapters of IBA and the
MD & CEO of the Bank having head quarters at respective centres. A copy of the joint memorandum on Pending
Issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees is enclosed for use of the leaders at
the designated centres of Dharna & Demonstrations.
We request all our Comrades to participate in
Dharna / Demonstrations in large numbers and make it a grand success. The
senior leaders at respective centres are specially requested to impart guidance
and use their good offices for not only total involvement of the Pensioners
& Retirees but also solicit help from all those who are in the position of
power and can influence early resolution of our pending issues.
With Comradely regards and best wishes for
success of Dharna/Demonstrations.
Yours
faithfully,
(A.Ramesh Babu) (K.V. Acharya) (S.C. Jain)
Joint
Conveners, CBPRO General
Secretary, AIBRF
Encl: Joint Memorandum
JOINT MEMORANDUM ON
PENDING ISSUES OF BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES
We wish to introduce ourselves as a Joint
Coordination of Coordination of Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations
(CBPRO, having 5 constituents viz Federation of SBI Pensioners’ Organisations,
AIBPARC, RBONC, AIRBEA and FORBE) and AIBRF representing 100% of the Bank
Pensioners & Retirees numbering about five lacs. We have been taking up the
grievances of Bank Pensioners & Retirees with Indian Banks’ Association and
Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India. We are committed to the cause of Bank
Pensioners & Retirees so as to bring about happiness and cheers on their
faces in the evening of their life. The
following issues remain unresolved despite our several requests, reminders and
personal meetings with the competent authorities. We therefore request you to help us in getting
these matters resolved early.
- Uniform 30% Family Pension :
a.
Family
Pension in Banks is payable @ 30%, 20% and 15% of last drawn pay where lower
percentage being assigned to higher pay with a specified ceiling on the amount
of Basic Family Pension.
b.
The
above mythology effectively resulted in the Family Pension working out to
nearly 7 to 10% of last drawn pay restricting Basic Family Pension to a meagre
sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 14000/- after attainment of notional age of 65 years
by the deceased employee or 7 years from the date of death whichever is
earlier.
c.
Government
and RBI Pensioners are paid Family Pension uniformly at 30% of last drawn pay
without any ceiling.
d.
Un-affordability
of proposed improvement in Family Pension is being arbitrarily quoted to deny the
benefit despite there being adequate provision made during the service tenure
of the employee by the Bank for payment of full Pension to the employee. Thus
Family Pension being lesser than the Pension of the Employee, it would involve
a negative cost to the Pension Fund.
Hence the contention of IBA/Government about cost consideration defies
logical, economic sense, rationality and above all humane consideration.
e.
Family
Pension being a highly emotive issue needs to be resolved urgently as assured
at the time of last Wage Settlement vide second issue listed in Record Note
dated 25th May, 2015.
- Updation of Pension:
a.
Pension
Regulation 35(1) provided for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension
in respect of those Employees/Officers who retired between 01.01.1986 and
31.10.1987 and at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme in Banks during
1995-96 it was so given to them as they alone were eligible for Updation at
that stage.
b.
Pension
Regulation 35(1) was amended vide Gazette Notification No:9 dated 01.03.2003
providing for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension wherever
applicable thus making it an open-ended scheme to provide the benefit of
Pension Updation to all Retirees who become eligible on periodical revision of
Pay through Industry level Wage Settlements.
c.
IBA/Government
has been denying the benefit of Pension Updation despite clear provision in
Pension Regulation 35(1) quoting cost consideration.
d.
Pension
is a Deferred Wage and a property under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of
Constitution of India and hence a statutory obligation of the Banks which are
State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constituents of India.
e.
Pension
including updated Pension and Family Pension become payable out of Pension
Fund. The present Pension Fund of the
Public Sector Banks including State Bank of India is quite robust and healthy
at more than Rs. 300,000 crores with
potential to afford payment of 3 to 4 times of present disbursements on account
of Pension and Family Pension.
f.
In Banks Pension is paid out of Pension Fund
which is created by the surrender of the mandated management contribution of
Provident fund by the Bank Employees and Officers during their service. Pension is not paid out of profits but of
that fund so created. Hence payments so
to be made as per Pension Regulations will not affect the Balance Sheet of the
Banks. Provision, if any, for Pension
Fund is a charge on Profit & Loss A/c and hence is not payable out of net
profit of the Banks. Net profit has to
be arrived at only after making all provisions including for payment of Salary
and Pension which are statutory in nature.
Statutory payments cannot otherwise also be denied for cost
considerations.
g.
Banks
have introduced New Pension Scheme for those employees who have been recruited
after April 2010 and there is separate Fund created for the same. This limits the number of Pensioners under
Old Pension Scheme and even this number is subject to reduction with every
passing year. Ultimately when all
Pensioners die their Pension Fund which is held in Trust shall remain hugely
underutilised. This further strengthens
our contention for improvement in pension by periodical updation so that the
Pension Fund of the Retired Employees is put to proper and intended use.
- 100% DA Neutralisation:
a.
Government
of India introduced 100% DA Neutralisation in lieu of tapering DA vide 5th
pay Commission (1996). Subsequently 100%
DA neutralisation was extended to all Pensioners of the Banks except those who
retired before 01.11.2002. It was on
account of wrong interpretation of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement/Joint
Note signed during 2005 between IBA and Unions/Associations.
b.
Aggrieved
Employees approached the Hon’ble High Courts and were awarded relief but
Management of United Bank of India filed SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court. During the final hearing and finding merits in
the arguments of the Employees, the Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court observed
that they had already passed an adverse order in a similar case and hence
reversal of that order could be done only by a larger Bench. Alternatively the Employees in whose case the
adverse order was passed should file a review petition which could be tagged
with the case of United Bank after condoning the delay. Accordingly the review petitions were filed,
delay condoned and petitions tagged with the case of United Bank of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court yet again passed an
adverse order without any justification merely by stating that since earlier
appeals of the employees were dismissed, the appeal of United Bank Management
is allowed.
The Judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court came as a bolt from the blue to the employees.
c.
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court based its Judgement on a misplaced ground of arithmetic
consideration by stating that the improvement in DA for Pre-November, 2002
Retirees would result in exceeding the Wage Revision load factor of Rs1288 crores
and thus may warrant a corresponding downward revision of Basic Pay structure of
the employees and Officers which were covered by Wage Revision settlement made
effective from 01.11.2002. This was completely wrong consideration as DA did
not form part of the components of load factor. The arithmetical error
committed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court needs correction.
d.
100%
DA Neutralisation to similarlily placed Pensioners is made available to the
Pensioners of RBI and LIC of India.
Hence denial to a small section of Bank Pensioners is beyond reasonable
comprehension.
e.
Compelling
Senior Citizens to knock the doors of judiciary to realise their legitimate
claims and aspirations is against the spirit of National Litigation Policy of
the Government.
- Pension for those who Resigned after
completing 20 years of Service:
a.
IBA
had been denying Pension option to those who had resigned from the service of
the Bank after completing minimum qualifying Pensionable service in the Bank.
Aggrieved resignees sought judicial remedy and ultimately in case of the
Employees of Vijaya Bank the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered extension of the
benefit of Pension option to the petitioners who were allowed to opt for
Pension.
b.
IBA
has refused to extend the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
similarly placed persons in Vijaya Bank and also in other Banks. Expecting
every individual to go to Supreme Court and struggle for several years for
final judgement is unfair and also against the spirit of Litigation Policy of the
Government.
c.
IBA
was kind enough to extend the similar benefit to all the compulsorily retired
people after few of the compulsorily retired people got favourable judgement
from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence
denial of Pension option to resignees is unfair and illogical.
- National Litigation Policy:
The policy is a good
initiative of Government of India. But
various instrumentalities of the Government including Public Sector Banks which
are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India have
been driving their Employees/Pensioners to seek legal remedy on settled issues,
thereby defying the spirit of Nation Litigation Policy. Such a situation causes a huge drain on the
resources (judicial) of the Government while forcing avoidable financial burden
on the Employees/Pensioners. It is
requested to ensure creation of a mechanism for resolving the anomalies created
by wrong interpretation of the settlements or the provisions of settlements or
wrong implementation and interpretation of various Regulations despite their
being subordinate legislation – statutory in nature.
- Demand for Negotiating rights with IBA:
It is requested to ensure creation of a
mechanism for resolving the anomalies created by wrong interpretation of the
settlements or the provisions of settlements or wrong implementation and
interpretation of various Regulations despite their being subordinate
legislation – statutory in nature. It will also help the Retirees to strive for
further improvements wherever necessary.
To obviate and resolve
such anomalous situations, we demand the following:
i)
The
Organisations of Bank Pensioners and Retirees should be provided a structured
forum to discuss their issues with Indian Banks’ Association.
ii)
Anomaly
Resolution Committee should be constituted to look into the grievances of Bank
Pensioners and Retirees.
We also demand that
IBA calls us for formal discussion / negotiations for resolution of Pending
issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees before sighing of 11th BPS
with the constituents of UFBU.
7: Reckoning of
Special Allowance for Pension & Gratuity:
Last wage settlement
dated 25th May, 2015 provided for introduction of a new special
allowance carrying DA as applicable on Basic Pay. However the settlement also
provided for a negative clause that special allowance shall not be considered
for calculation of superannuation benefit viz Pension & Gratuity. This
negative clause is illegal and cannot be used to the detriment of Retirees. Not
reckoning special allowance for the purpose of calculating superannuation
benefit is violative of Pension regulation 2 (s)(a)(ii) which provides that all
allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the provident fund
and for the payment of dearness allowance shall be included as a component of
pay. It is pertinent to mention hear that provident fund not being contributory
does not constitute a benefit to an employee. It leads the payment of dearness
allowance as the only benefit available to employees on special allowance as in
case of Basic Pay. Under such circumstances a negative clause in the 10th
Bipartite Settlement to the effect that special allowance will attract DA but
shall not reckon for calculation of superannuation benefits is illegal and
contrary to the provision of Pension Regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). The only purpose
of this negative clause was to take away the right conferred under pension
regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Pension Civil No:5525 of 2012 filed by Bank of Baroda that by signing a
settlement or a joint note there is no
estoppel as against the enforcement of
statutory provisions(Pension Regulations) which could not have been tinkered
with in an arbitrary manner. Extending
the same rule of law, the negative clause in the 10th Bipartite
settlement/Joint Note about not reckoning special allowance for calculating
superannuation benefit is violative of existing pension regulations and hence
arbitrary and illegal.
8. IBA’s Medical Insurance Scheme:
In pursuance of the
directives issued by Dept of Financial Services, Govt of India on 24.02.2012,
IBA was expected to evolve a Medical Insurance Scheme both for Serving and Retired
employees. However IBA evolved a Medical Insurance Scheme for Serving employees
providing for its cost to be borne by the Banks where as in case of Retired
employees the premium was passed on to the Retirees though there was no such
directive in the government communication. The medical insurance premium was
quite reasonable and also subsidized by many Banks initially but with every
successive renewal the premium was increased and subsidy from Banks
disappeared. The premium amount which was Rs7500/- in the first year has gone
beyond Rs90,000/- for the current year.
The Retirees and Pensioners are rendered helpless to suffer injustice
and cannot also go back to their own individual medical insurance policy
discontinued after introduction of IBA scheme as they have crossed the minimum
prescribed age for obtaining fresh medical insurance cover.
There is urgent need
for Banks to bear the entire medical insurance scheme premium charged on IBAs
Medical Insurance Scheme and also wave such premium from levy of GST so as to
reduce the burden on Banks.
9. Effective Date of Gratuity Enhancement:
The recommendations
of 7th Central Pay Commission to enhance Gratuity from Rs10 lacs to
Rs20 lacs for Central Government Employees was accepted and implemented
wef:01.01.2016 whereas the payment of gratuity act was amended at a later date
and enhanced amount of Rs20 lacs was made effective from 29.03.2018 for the
employees other than those working in Central Government. It astonishes that
the Ministry of Labour & Employment has notified 29.03.2018 as the date of
effect of enhanced gratuity despite a clear legal opinion from Ministry of Law
& Justice, Dept of Legal Affairs that enhancement of gratuity and its
admissibility/eligibility from particular date are issues relatable to social
beneficial legislation and are to be construed liberally. It was further opined
that according parity for quantum as well as effective date for employees
governed by Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 vis a vis Central Government Employees
has rationale and reasonable nexus and hence there appears to be no legal objection
if said parity is allowed by Ministry of Labour & Employment. In this
background the decision of the government to make the enhancement effective
from 29.03.2018 thus hurting the interest of Senior Citizens is beyond
comprehension.
There are other pending issues agitating the
minds of Bank Pensioners and Retirees and the same are being actively taken up
with Indian Banks’ Association for early resolution. Such issues include grant of stagnation
increment to those who retired between 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2015 in terms of 10th
Bipartite settlement/Joint Note dated 25.05.2015 as has been allowed to the
employees and officers of State Bank of India vide circular dated 18.07.2018
issued by CGM(HR) of State Bank of India, Corporate Office, Mumbai.
We request you to extend necessary help for
resolution of these issues by Indian Banks Association/ Dept of Financial
Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India at the earliest.
(A.Ramesh
Babu) (K.V. Acharya) (S.C. Jain)
Joint Conveners, CBPRO General Secretary, AIBRF
Unquote
