MY DEAR FRIENDS,
AKBRF IMPLEADS IN THE PENDING SLP ON PENSION REVISION
YOU ARE QUITE AWARE THAT AIBPARC THROUGH IT'S AFFILIATE- Viz: 'ARSISE' OF IOB - HAVE ALREADY IMPLEADED BY FILING IT'S COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AGAINST THE ONE FILED BY THE IBA IN THE PENDING CASE FILED BY LATE MC SINGLA & Ors. IN THE SUPREME COURT POSTED TANTATIVELY ON 02 01 2023.
IN THIS CONNECTION, ALL KERALA BANK RETIREES FORUM - AKBRF HAS ALSO FILED THEIR APPLICATION FOR TRANFER OF THEIR PENDING W.P.(C). NO. 25671 OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE TRANSFER APPLICATION OF THE ABOVE CASE WAS FILED ON 14 12 2022 & THE SAME IS TAKEN ON RECORD BY THE SUPREME COURT UNDER CASE# T.P(C) 002974 ON 19 12 2022 BY TAGGING THE SAME WITH THE MAIN CASE POSTED TO 02 01 2023.
I CONGRATULATE THE LEADERSHIP OF AKBRF FOR THEIR INITIATIVE TO SUPPORT & SUPPLIMENT THE EFFORTS ALREADY BENIG PUT IN BY OUR COMRADES FROM PNB / IOB/ AIBPARC.
THE NOTABLE POINT HERE IS, EVEN THE AKBRF ALSO RAISED UNDER POINT #(D) IN THEIR W.P.(C). NO. 25671 OF 2020 ( NOW TRANSFERED TO SUPREME COURT ) ON "MIS- MANAGEMENT OF PENSION CORPUS BY A FEW BANKS" -
THIS IS THE VERY SAME ISSUE WHICH WAS ALREADY RAISED BY ME DEMANDING FOR "CAG" AUDIT UNDER MY CAPTION --
" DIVERSION OF PENSION CORPUS FUNDS TO PRIVATE INVESTMENTS & AN URGENT NEED FOR AN AUDIT BY "CAG" - THE ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY".
(Click the following link for full details)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xWCQCH1BIeSvKuSBeubMgrI2g5BxdrlV/view?usp=drivesdk
THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY AKBRF HAVE ALSO BEEN HIGHLIGHTED HERE FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
WITH GREETINGS & REGARDS,
||यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः|| IS THE ULTIMATE
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి
D S MURTI
✴️QUOTE✴️
ALL KERALA BANK RETIREESFORUM (AKBRF - Affiliated to NCCPA)
TC 42/2009, Befi Centre, Mele Thampanoor, Trivandrum-695 001, Kerala e-mail akbrfkerala@gmail.com
POINTS RAISED
A) In the backdrop of Clause 12 of providing for updating pension on lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India; whereby revision of pension has been ordered in Reserve Bank of India; non-consideration of demand of petitioners for revision of pensionary benefits, is illegal;
B) In the backdrop of the fact that basic pension payable to pensioners in banks has ever since introduction of the Pension Scheme been static and frozen at the amount fixed on their respective dates of retirement at 50% of their last drawn basic pay, without any revision, despite the lapse of nearly 3 decades since the introduction of Pension Scheme and despite drastic revisions in the wages/pay of the bank employees effected on five different occasions in between; it is arbitrary for respondents in not having reckoned demand for revision of basic pension made from the side of the pensioners of the banks;
C) Inaction of respondents to consider petitioners’ demand for revision of pension payable to pensioners in banks, is illegal, when by Record Note, consideration of revision of pensionary benefits was agreed to by banks through upon undertaking a study as to costsimplications and availability of sufficient funds in pension corpus, which exercise has till date not been undertaken at all by any of the banks or by 2nd respondent;
D) Petitioners having brought to the notice of respondents, specific instances of non-remittance of mandatory contributions to pension funds by few banks and unauthorized withdrawals made from pension funds and short falls, substantiated by Exhibits P10 to P12; necessarily request of petitioners in Exhibits P7 to P9 representations for an independent investigation, enquiry and audit into pension funds should have been ordered and directed to be conducted, so as to make up short fall and depletion in corpus of pension funds on account of such unauthorized non remittances, withdrawals and short falls;
E) In the backdrop of provisions in Exhibit P3 PensionRegulations as also obligations imposed thereunder on respondents; necessarily an independent investigation,
enquiry, and audit into pension funds of banks is warranted especially in the background of instances of non-remittance and withdrawals pointed out by petitioner in Exhibits P7 to P9 representations; and
F) Inaction of 1st respondent, in any view of the matter, to consider Exhibits P7 to P9 and reckon facts pointed out therein as also requests made therein, is illegal;
Acts/Rules to be Relied
1) Constitution of India
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14fo0G5c8t-5zOfpR3GRuu4juKHRqZUVf/view?usp=drivesdk
✴️UNQUOTE ✴️