"PASSING ON THE BUCK " ATTITUDE OF THE TOP MANAGEMENT OF SBI TO FIND A SCAPEGOAT... 

MY DEAR FRIENDS,

"PASSING ON THE BUCK " ATTITUDE OF THE TOP MANAGEMENT OF SBI TO FIND A SCAPEGOAT... (click the link to zoom the image for more clarity to read)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qFezTHJBFkvdDv0YXRbc3cLRhLdKZbAW/view?usp=sharing

STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE OFFICE IS NOW FINDING FAULT WITH THEIR BANGALORE LHO FOR THE NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT - A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS NOW SERVED ON AN INNOCENT OFFICIAL OF LHO BANGALURU FOR NOT FAULT OF HIS VIDE THEIR LETTER DT.03 07 - 2019 --  THIS IS NOTHING BUT FINDING SCAPEGOAT & PASSING ON THE BUCK ATTITUDE OF THE SBI TOP MANAGEMENT WHO SUFFERED BITTER HUMILIATION  BY TENDERING UNCONDITIONAL APPOLOGY BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT  FOR THEIR OWN DELEBERATE ACTION OF DEFYING THE COURT ORDERS....

I ANNEX HERE THE COMMUNICATION AND THE PHOTO COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS FORWARDED BY OUR LEARNED FRIEND  COM. K. MOHANDAS RAO.K,  
QUOTE:

Mohandas Rao K
6 hrs · Edited
The SBI, LHO, Bangalore is being made a scapegoat for the delay in releasing the arrears by the Corporate Office of SBI. Without specific instructions from the Corporate Office and requisite other supports, they are also helpless. A memo to the concerned is attached. The Law Officers of e-SBM and the big brother SBI were solely responsible for dragging the issue of 18 long years! An appeal against the single judge verdict of KH; An appeal against bench verdict of KHC; Non-implementation of SC verdict. A chain of blunders and giving merciless trouble to the pensioners, who are Senior Citizens, who spent their golden years in serving the bank.

UNQUOTE:

FURTHER, I APPEND IN THE FOLLOWING LINK THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED BY SRI S. C. JAIN , THE GENL.SECY. OF AIBRF AS APPENDED IN THE FOLLOWING LINK FOLLOWED BY THE REPLY GIVEN BY COM. C. N. PRASAD , GENL.SECY. OF SBI RETIREES ASSOCIATION (CONTENTS ARE SELF-EXPLICIT)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YiP2LIYj1VB6IuEwVMiKeTghmUMyrPx6/view?usp=sharing

AIBRF'S  COMMUNICATION ON THE RECENTLY DELIVERED SUPREME COURT ORDERS ON THE CONTEMPTE PETITION FILED BY SBM COMMUNE -

I ALSO APPEND HERE THE REPLY GIVEN BY COM. C. N. PRASAD, GENL.SECY. SBI RETIREES ASSOCIATION WHO CAUSED TO FILE THE CONTEMPT PETITION AND WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING UP THE ISSUE SINCE 2001.  ( From Syndicate Bank, My self along with 25 others colleagues from Andhra Pradesh are also the petitioners in the WP filed in Karnataka High Court-Bangalore immediately on our retirement on VRS in 2001 along with many others.  All the cases were clubbed under common proceedings, and a common judgement was pronounced which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court)

Long Live Our Crusade for Justice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GFnTDb4Ew8

================================================

REPLY TO THE ABOVE BY COM. C. N. PRASAD; GENL.SECY. SBI RETIREES ASSOCIATION

QUOTE:

SBMPC has now sent an e-mail to AIBRF in response to this circular:

Dear Shri S C Jain,

One of your member has brought your letter No.2019/310 dated 05.09.2019, to our notice. We are proud that we have not only secured the favourable orders in respect of Commutation, where Commutation is paid now and recovery for a period of fifteen years only from the date of payment. In fact, family pensioners in respect of those who retired under 7th Bipartite period would get Commutation amount, but would not be recovered at all. Please do not undermine our efforts. You have alleged that 'some of activists on social media have been commenting and spreading unfounded rumours that the contempt petition is connected to the matter of 1616-1684'. On the contrary, they are right and indeed this benefit is applicable to 1616 – 1684 beneficiaries. We are also proud that our Bank has tendered ‘unconditional apology’ for delay in paying differential commutation. We are extracting from the orders, with regard to our claim before Hon’ble Supreme Court, hereunder :

He submitted that, firstly, the dearness allowance has not been correctly calculated as per the Pension Regulation No.37 of Pension Regulations, 1995, whereas, as per the respondent, it has been computed as per the bipartite settlement. Second submission raised is that differential amount of the commutation value of the pension on the basis of the correct dearness allowance has not been paid.
From the above extract, it is abundantly clear that we never agitated the issue of payment of benefit under Regulation 29 (i.e notional addition of five years) in our Contempt Petition, before Hon’ble Supreme Court. We are also extracting following from the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 28.08.2019 :

The petitioners are entitled to payment of pension calculated on the basis of actual pay fixed, personal pay, special pay and other allowances and emoluments drawn by them during the last ten months of service as provided under Regulations 35 and 38 of the Pension Regulations together with Dearness Allowance thereon and the respondent-bank shall pay the differential amount of pension and commutation value of pension to the petitioners on that basis, within a period of eight weeks, if not earlier and in the event of failure to make the payment as above, the banks shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10% on the said amounts till the date of payment.
Portion in bold deals only with 1616 – 1684 issue only, not as you have stated in your Circular-letter. Therefore, this order is applicable to everyone who has retired during 7th Bipartite Period.

We draw the satisfaction that we are no longer part of AIBRF. One question is and was lingering in our mind. When AIBRF is unable to get an Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court implemented and the leadership does not understand the orders of the Court, when AIBRF could not convince Indian Banks’ Association regarding payment of Commutation amount of differential Basic Pension, what would happen to the delivery of other benefits including Pension Updation, etc.

In fact, when we were a part of AIBRF, we had requested AIBRF to implead/intervene in SLP filed by State Bank of Mysore. This was also raised in Ujjain CC meeting. In case, if AIBRF were to implede/intervene, benefit of five years of service to those who retired under VRS – 2001 from remaining Associate Banks and also 1616 – 1684 benefit to Private Sector Banks’ pensioners would have been extended. It was also at our Cost and responsibility. It is unfortunate that for the reasons best known to you or on account of ill-advise or misguidance or deliberately, AIBRF did not implede. We would leave it your wisdom, whether this inaction is betrayal of membership or not.

In case, if we were not to file Contempt Petition, this benefit would not have been extended to any of the beneficiaries. We have observed that legal luminaries who are Office Bearers, who could not get the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court implemented in their Banks, are misguiding you and you have indeed formed wrong opinion that the payment of Commutation results in ‘negative’. Please stop misguiding Bank retirees.

We would continue to fight for the benefits of Bank retirees.
Thanking you,
With regards,
Prasad C N General Secretary
SBM Pensioners' Commune.
UNQUOTE:
===========================================
KUDOS TO COM. C. N. PRASAD FOR HIS VALIANT FIGHT ON THE LEGAL FRONT.......TO BOOST THE MORALE OF THE LAMENTING LOT OF OUR FRATERNITY.....
Long Live Our Crusade for Justice.

With Greetings and Regards,

“|| यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः ||” IS THE ULTIMATE......
I remain - Yours,
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి /Devulapalli Srinivasa Murti.  
VIJAYAWADA   521108 ::   SEP. 05, 2019
9989318300