My Dear Friends,
OUR LEARNED FRIEND COM. CN VENUGOPALAN HAS ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION TO OUR HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER SRI NARENDRA MODIJI HIGHLIGHTING THE VERY CASUAL APPROCH OF THE MOF/DFS OFFICIALS WHILE DISPOSING THE COMPLAINTS RELATING TO THE BLATENT VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES & REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE BANK RETIREES PENSION ISSUES.
EVEN THE SPECIFIC & SERIOUS INSTANCES OF " CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST" ARE NOT GIVEN THE REQUIRED IMPORTANCE & DELIGENCE BY THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS IN THE FINANCE MINISTRY RESULTING TO CAUSE DISREPUTE TO THE GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY.
IN FACT, I FORE WARNED ALL THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED AS TO THE IMPENDING DANGER OF THEIR PROSECUTION ON THE CHARGES OF CONVERSION FOR CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST IN MY ADDRESS TO THE ALL INDIA GENERAL BODY OF AIBRF HELD AT NEW DELHI WAY BACK 2019 ITSELF:
(Also Listen to the following AUDIO link for more clarity)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FDP6sgGLyIMufdjlYWO1RjlW8Z9sCgZd/view?usp=drivesdk
IN THIS PROCESS, THE "PASSING IN THE BUCK" ATTITUDE OF THE BEUROCRATS ATTACHED TO THE DFS/MOF ARE PAINS TAKINGLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF OUR HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER.
CONTENTS ARE SELF-EXPLICIT
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి
HYDEARBAD 500079
9989318300
✴️QUOTE ✴️
C N VENUGOPALAN
Ex-Manager Union Bank of India & Former (Independent) Director, (GoI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore (2011-14)
------------------------------------------
Nandanam, Kesari Junction, N Paravur, Kerala -683513 e-mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
No.230121 21st January, 2023
The Hon’ble Prime Minister,
PMO, Raisina Hill, Delhi 110011
Respected Prime Minister,
Department of Financial Services violating the regulations which they themselves laid down
I bring to your kind attention that, when it suits their whims and fancies, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) does not mind taking u-turn from the Regulations which they themselves have framed and approved. The Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations (BEPR) are put in place with the previous sanction of the Central Government, more particularly by the DFS, but the DFS is making banks breach them. Though the Pension Regulations already contain enabling provisions for periodic updating of pension the DFS is not allowing banks under its control to update the pension of their retirees in breach of regulation 35 (1) and regulations 56 for the past three decades.
Regulation 35 (1) of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 (BEPR) in its original form reads as follows:
“In respect of employees who retired between the 1st day of January, 1986 but before 31st day of October, 1987, basic pension and additional pension will be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix-I”.
This had left some doubt as to whether updating of pension is limited only to employees who retired in the specified time zone. The Appendix-I cited in the
regulation contained four other formulae too for updating of basic pension to workmen retired between 1st November, 1992 and 1st September, 1993 and to officers retired between 1st July, 1993 and 1st May, 1994 and also for reckoning additional pension on Special Allowance, Dearness allowance etc.
The intention behind the various formulae in Appendix-I was to extend the benefit of pension updation even to employees who retired prior to the implementation of the Pension Regulations.
If the updating process was not intended to be an integral part of the Pension Regulations, why did the banks extend the benefit of updation to employees who retired prior to the implementation of the Pension Regulations?
The Pension Regulations must have surely intended periodical updation as its integral and continual part on the basis of the formulae in Appendix - I.
Anyone would agree that when the Pension Regulations were introduced in 1995, it was well nigh impossible, at that point of time to lay down an updation formula / formulae covering all retirees, far into the future, since any pension updation formula has to be on the basis of revised emoluments arising out of subsequent bipartite settlements.
How can one say that just because the narrative in the initial regulation 35 (1) addressed only the pension updation of employees who retired between 01.01.1986 to 31.10.1987, it is not applicable to the subsequent retirees?
There is no express mention in the Pension Regulations excluding future retirees from the benefit of periodic updating. Any arguments to the contrary by the banks can only be an afterthought.
To facilitate the updating of pension of subsequent retirees, the regulation was later amended as under:
“Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per formulae given in Appendix-I”
What was the purport of this amendment, if pension updation was not the intention?
Here, it is pertinent to highlight the following:
(a) The words “WILL BE UPDATED” have got replaced by the words
“SHALL BE UPDATED”. This is in sharp contrast to the gentlemanly
treatment given to the Central Government pensioners for whom
pension gets upgraded automatically with the implementation of each Pay Commission recommendation.
b) The words “WHEREVER APPLICABLE” too needs elaboration. In banks, the words “additional pension” refers to the pension element linked to Special Pay drawn by an employee at the time of retirement.
While “pension” is based on basic pay, “additional pension” is based on special pay. In other words, we can summarise the position as under:
Basic Pension :Every pensioner is entitled to basic pension.
Additional Pension : It is applicable only to those pensioners who were drawing Special Pay at the time of retirement.
The words “WHEREVER APPLICABLE” is used to pinpoint this fact.
From the above, it would be clear that the words “WHEREVER APPLICABLE” in Regulation 35 is linked to Additional Pension alone and any attempt to misrepresent its real import by connecting the words “WHEREVER APPLICABLE” to pension updation is improper.
Regulation 56 of BEPR mentions that in case of any doubt regarding the interpretation of any of the regulations, the corresponding provisions of the Central Civil Pension Rules shall apply unless
(i) the bank has, with the
previous sanction of the Central Government, determined and notified the corresponding regulations in the Central Civil Pension Ru,les which will not apply to bank pensioners and
(ii) the bank has, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, determined and notified the modifications with which the corresponding regulations shall apply to bank pensioners. Leave alone the notification of modifications and exemptions, Banks have, so far:
(i) not determined any exceptions from the corresponding provisions of the Central Civil Pension Rules which shall not apply to Bank Pensioners and
(ii) determined any modifications with which corresponding provisions of the Central Civil Pension Rules shall apply to bank pensioners. It therefore follows that recourse is to be had to all the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Pension Rules, in case there is any doubt or dispute regarding the interpretation of any Regulation in BEPR.
In spite of regulations 35 [1] envisaging updating of pension and regulation 56 making it explicit that the Pension Scheme in banks is identical to the Central Civil Pension Scheme, DFS has not allowed banks to update the pension notwithstanding that the updating is out of the Pension Funds, which is the money, property and deferred wages of the employees.
The Pension Funds of banks are built up of the CPF of serving employees and the CPF refunded by the employees who retired after 01 01 1986 and by families
of deceased employees. Pension being payable out of the pension funds is out of the deferred wages of employees and not from the revenue accounts of banks or out of the budgetary allocations of the government from the taxpayers’ money. Updating of pension is denied when the Pension Funds are having enough money to pay three to four times the present pension to all the pensioners in all banks.
It is pertinent in this context that the DFS was aware that it can put on hold the updating of pension in banks only so long as it does not update the pension in Reserve Bank of India and DFS was blocking the updating of pension in RBI when RBI recommended the updating of pension to its employees on a lame plea that if it is sanctioned, it will result in similar demands arising from public sector banks.
Finally when DFS approved updating of pension in RBI effective from 01.03.2019 by a factor of 3.63 for pensioners who retired prior to 1.11.2002, by a factor of 2.44 for pensioners who retired during the period from 1.11.2002 to 31.10.2007 and by a factor of 1.76 for pensioners who retired during the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.10.2012 vide letter F No.11/5/2001-IR dated 05.03.2019, similar updating was not granted in Public Sector Banks in gross discrimination.
To top it all, the Hon’ble Minister for Finance had, two years back exhorted the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) at its 73rd Annual General Meeting that considering the yeoman service the bank retirees had rendered during their heydays to banks, they shall not be forgotten post retirement and shall be granted OROP (One Rank, One Pension). But IBA, banks and DFS have cared twopence for her words. Seemingly the Hon’ble Minister is also not having the courage of conviction to ensure that the banks carry out her words.
DFS has also been instrumental in making banks pay pension out of the Pension Funds to their retired whole-time directors who are not employees as defined under regulation 2 (n) of the Pension Regulations when the Pension Fund has the sole purpose of paying pension or family pension to the employee or his family.
THIS IS CONVERSION OF THE PENSION FUNDS FOR PURPOSES INCONSISTENT WITH THE ENTRUSTMENT OF MONEY COMMING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF AN OFFENCE COGNIZABLE UNDER SECTION 4065 AND 409 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE FOR BREACH OF TRUST BY PUBLUC SERVENT AND BY BANKER.
WHAT IS MORE DISTURBING IS THAT DFS PROVIDES DISTORTED INFORMATION TO THE MINISTERS CONCERNED, WHO, IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS RELATING TO UPDATING OF PENSION IN BANKS FROM HON'BLE MPs IN RAJYA SABHA AND LOK SABHA ARE MADE TO REPLY LUDICROUSLY THAT PENSION IN BANKS IS PAYABLE AS PER THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN IBA AND BANK UNIONS / ASSOCIATIONS WHICH TURN OUT TO BE LUDICROUS AS PENSION IS PAYABLE AS PER THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE PARLIAMENT AND THE DFC IS CAUSING BANKS TO BREACH THE PENSION REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE ITS OWN RENDERING. THE MPs RAISING THE QUESTIONS AND THE MINISTER REPLYING ARE FOOLED IN THE PROCESS AND MAKING MOCJERY OF THE DEMOCRAY IN THE NATION.
DFS IS ALSO HABITUATED TO EVADING ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS FOLLIES SANS COURAGE AND CONVICTION MERELY FORWARDING THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO IT IN RELATION TO THE "BREACHES" OF THE PENSION REGULATIONS EITHER TO THE INDIAN BANKS' ASSOCIATION -OR- TO THE CONCERENED BANK NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO IT MERIT A PROPER AND REASONABLE REPLY FROM IT. IT ALSO SAYS, AFTER CLIPPING THE WINGS OF THE BANKS, THAT THE BANKS HAVE AUTONOMY OF OPERATION IN ALL MATTERS AS IF IT IS FOR THEM TO REPLY THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE DFS.
Since the various acts of the DFS are touching the nadir of ethics and putting the government to shame, I make a fervent appeal to your good office that DFS may kindly be directed to undo the wrongs and to update the pension of bank retirees forthwith and mitigate the hardships of bank pensioner in old age all over the country, who are driven to various courts for getting justice.
I hope and pray that I also be able to join you in saying सबका साथ सबका विकास, मेरा भारत महान
With respectful regards, I remain.
Yours faithfully,
C N VENUGOPALAN
Mob: 9447747994
✴️UNQUOTE✴️