My Dear Friends,

"LET US NOT BE CARRIED AWAY"

The so called " updation " as being tossed now by UFBU/IBA during the ongoing negotiations is still to take a final shape.  That too, the said so called "upation" is not an updation in its real sense as per the MOU signed by the UFBU before the introduction of the Pension Scheme in the Banking Industry.  

To remind you specifically, the updation clause which was present in the MOU (as forwarded by the MOF/GOI) signed by the IBA/UFBU was  DELIBERATELY DELETED WHILE ADOPTING THE SAME AS REGULATIONS !   

So as I believe, let us not be carried away by mere baseless communications - which are quite common during the negations as in the past. According to me,  these false communications need to be thrown to the dust bin. 

In this connection, I would like to annex here the clarification  already given by our Learned Comrade - Sri J Somasekara Garu which will certainly throw some light to the point:

QUOTE:
In the past both IBA and UFBU postponed discussing 100% DA issue citing pending court cases as reason. Now there is no case pending in courts. Surprisingly 100% DA issue is not on the agenda of BPS meetings now. Instead the following old demand is raised again.
Updation of pension of all past retirees at a common index point as would be applicable under 11th BPS.  
However 5 workmen Unions have not given clarification how this will be implemented. 

For in service employees it has been agreed that DA index level @6352 points will be merged.  For Pensioners also DA will be merged at same index level of 6352 points  It is not a problem for post 2002 retirees as they are enjoying 100% DA.
But pre-2002 retirees are getting tapered DA. 

So for pre-2002 retirees if existing DA @index level 6352 is merged again the 100% DA anomaly will continue.
But some whatsup messages are claiming that DA for pre-2002 retirees @DA index level 6352 will be arrived after applying 100% DA and then new DA will be merged with Basic.
AIBRF has to address this issue and ensure that again 100% DA anomaly is not continued.
Unquote: 

Therefore, I am also of the considered opinion that 100% DA issue to the pre-2002 retirees must be resolved on war footing .  

Only leagal recourse is the ultimate remedy as the same is waiting at the door steps of the Apex Court for logical conclusion as already enunciated by our learned comrade Sri NSS garu:

Quote:
 
R.K. Pathak wrote:
Tue, 12 Feb, 18:46 (3 days ago) 
 
It is not wise to file curative petition and I am sure that AIBRF or AIBPARC Will avoid to file curative petition 
 
 IN REPLY TO THE ABOVE , OUR LEARNED FRIEND SRI NSS Wrote:

NSS via googlegroups.com 
13 Feb 2019, 16:45 (2 days ago) 
 
Dear Mr.Pathak

I am surprised to see a blunt statement like this from a person of your stature. You should have substantiated your view with reasons. Why it is not wise to file Curative Petition?
No one has so far said that the Supreme Court judgment denying 100% DA is correct in facts and Law. It is based on misconceptions and suffer from violation of Natural Justice and bias. In such a situation any normal person will file Curative Petition to get justice. The High Power Committee also decided to file Review Petition followed by Curative Petition if necessary. Accordingly Review Petition was filed. As expected it did not succeed. It should have been followed up by Curative Petition as was decided in the Committee. Why the Curative Petition is not being filed?. Were there subsequent developments which necessitated modification of the earlier decision of the committee. If so what was the development? Can anyone say that filing of Curative Petition will be detrimental to the interest of the Pre November 2002 pensioners ? Let the Association explain how it will be detrimental and how their present stand of not to file Curative Petition is beneficial. All lame excuses like high cost, cumbersome process, imposition of exemplary costs etc only have been put forth so far. At the time the Committee took the decision, did they not consider all these factors?      
Curative Petition is not a costly affair if you take into account the money sunk so far in this issue. I have confirmed with Mr.Debesh of UBIRWA and money is not a problem.

I am a lawyer and have gone through all the relevant material. It is not correct to say that defects in the original petition cannot be cured. Only condition is no new ground can be taken in Curative Petition other than the grounds taken in Review Petition (and not the Original Petition.) In fact there was no defect in our original petition as the Kolkota HC  Judgment shows. 

We lost in the appeal in SC due to the erroneous understanding of the DR scheme in Banks by the Court. As all of us know the Judges have wrongly concluded that the three pre Nov 2002 pensioner groups and the post November 2002 pensioners are governed by distinct formula and rates and it would not be possible to have a synthesis on any count or put both the sets of retirees on any common parameters. 

Reality is that the parameters and rates are one and the same for all though the numbers are different.  In appeals, Court can decide the case even on a ground which was not put forth by either of the parties. However the views of the party who will be adversely affected should be ascertained. In our case we were not given the opportunity to explain how the parameters are one and the same for all. Not getting our views amount to violation of natural justice.  

Another error the Court committed is with regard to  the reasonableness of the classification of pensioners into post Nov  2002 retirees and pre Nov 2002 retirees. The Court had relied on a number of judgments to rule that classification of pensioners for extending benefits is permissible. However the Court had omitted to discuss how the classification is reasonable and the nexus the classification had with the object sought to be achieved. The reasonableness of the classification and the nexus the classification has with the object are the two tests for determining whether Article 14 is attracted. Failure to go into the reasonableness of the classification etc can be due to pre deciding the issue by the Court  which amounts to bias.

The two foregoing grounds have been taken in the Review Petition and therefore we can file the Curative Petition with confidence in its  success.

I do not understand the Risk you are writing about. Risk of failure is there in every effort. That should not deter us from trying our best. There is no other risk and the threat of Court imposing Exemplary Costs is only imaginary and is spread with ulterior motive. Having approached the Court and fought the case for several years and brought  it up to the stage of Review Petition, any prudent person will file Curative Petition without any hesitancy.  

Many members of this group are demanding the filing of the Curative Petition and a few have suggested reasons for not filing the petition. But the Retirees Association is keeping quiet. If they have any valid reason for not filing the Petition they should bring it to the knowledge of the pensioners so that the controversy can come to rest. 

Regards

N.Sankarasubramanian

UNQUOTE:

THEREFORE FRIENDS ! LET US NOT BE CARRIED AWAY--
OUR STRENGTH LIES IN OUR FIRM CONVICTION, COMMITMENT AND COURAGE....

With Regards and   Greetings to You all,

“|| यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः ||” IS THE ULTIMATE......

 I Remain - Yours,

దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి / Devulapalli Srinivasa murti

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h0-0-uKTJaPwtZok85fkqp31O1tTvGhq/view?usp=sharing