HON' BLE F.M'S VOWS TO BANK PENSIONERS - A RETROSPECTION
My Dear Friends,
PREAMBLE:
At the outset, Thanks to Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman garu, our Hon'ble Finance Minister for having exhibited her firm concern in letter and spirit for Bank Retirees for Pension Revision.
Please Click the following Audio Link for the UNTOLD EPISODE BEHIND THE CURTAIN - IMMENS THANKS TO COM. UMESH SHARMA GARU (SBI.Retd. DGM from Delhi)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_uGwRS1Iwejaa6ruwV4pyyaYaiyzpa8M/view?usp=drivesdk
This was immediately followed by the formation of a Parliamentary Committe on Govt. Assurences on Pension Revision under the Rajya Sabha Act - The 12 - Member Navaneetha Krishnan Committee - jointly with IBA representation. (6+6)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lsQ1lMdGPz9yO2HhDMjq80KYn3kinAYc/view?usp=drivesdk
In this regard, I take plessure to annex here a detailed retrospection as made out by our learned friend Com. Venugopalan for your information.
Cotents are self-explicit.
Useless UFBU has never been in the picture . On the contrary, they had been creating the hurdels "TILL RECENTLY" in our endeavors only to delay the entire process.. SHAME...SHAME....SHAME
FOR US, BETTER DAYS ARE AHEAD...
Cotents are self-explicit
With Greetings & Regards,
||यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः||
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి
Hyderabad :: 24 06 2023
With Greetings & Regards,
✴️QUOTE✴️
No.230625 25th June, 2023
To : All bank pensioners
Dear Comrade,
Bank pensioners rejoiced seeing Money Control report dated 20.06.2023 that as told by Shri. K V Acharya, President of AIBPARC, the Hon’ble Minister for Finance has called upon IBA to respond to the demands of AIBPARC within Seven days. Reportedly, FM asked IBA to respond to all the issues like updating of pension, 100 percent DA neutralization, payment of medical insurance premium by banks etc. If things move on expected lines, some good formula can evolve by 27th June, 2023. They can hope that some of their issues including updating of pension could find a solution by the 27th June, 2023.
The communication No. 076 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 of AIBRF to its office bearers/Central/ State Committee members shows that it was pursuing the demand of pension updating through vigorous efforts like dharnas, memorandum to 10 Central Ministers, 110 members of Parliament, online petition to 545 members of the Parliament, petition signed by 5,00,000 members to PMO, delegations which met 38 Members of Parliament and Her Excellency, the President of India with commitment till the demand is achieved. AIBRF is seemingly under an impression that the order dated 14.06.2023 of DFS on formation of a Committee to look into the improvement of pension in SBI for submission of its report before 21.07.2023 was a direct outcome of the various steps initiated by it over the years. AIBRF added that though the notification covers improvement of pension in SBI alone, it will have direct bearing on the updating exercise in other banks, which is under discussion as residual issue between IBA and UFBU. However, the text of the notification of DFS shows that only the issues in SBI may get addressed before 21.07.2023. It is doubtful whether the statement of AIBRF about the petition signed by 5,00,000 members will stand up to scrutiny as the five lakhs members will not normally sign a petition for updating of pension in SBI alone.
•AIBRF claims that its efforts to pursue the issue as a mission with commitment to fight till the demand is achieved resulted in the order of the DFS, the order shows the intention of the government to address the issue of updation in the banking industry, the terms of reference listed under para 2 of the notification by and large meet the demands and expectations of AIBRF and that AIBRF is happy that the Government fixing a date of 21.07.2023 for the committee to give its recommendations with a view to attending the issue on priority basis.
Whereas the terms of reference indicate the issues in SBI alone, it is not clear whether the AIBRF took up the matter of updating of pension in SBI only, leaving alone the other banks. The High Court of Delhi in its order dated 13.04.2023 in Writ Petition (C) 1875 of 2013 filed by viz, Federation of SBI and Others and connected cases commented that let the petitioners submit a representation within one week to the Ministry of Finance to examine the grievance, appropriate action be taken before the next date of hearing, however, in case the respondents decide not to accede to the request, the reasons thereof should be communicated to the court before the next date of hearing and listed the petitions for posting on 31.07.2023. It is very clear that the formation of the Committee by the Central Government is in response to the orders of the Delhi High Court and those staking credit for the same should be knowing well in their heart of hearts that their claim is specious.
• It is visible that the formation of the Committee is meant only for SBI
pensioners, it has no relation to pensioners in general and the time frame fixed of 21.07.2023 for the recommendations of the Committees aims at submission of the report of the Committee to the Delhi High Court before the next hearing date of 31.07.2023. It is not known as to what the Court will decide, whether IBA will abide by the order or will ask SBI to escalate matter to higher levels.
Considering that the present pathetic state of bank pensioners arose through the lack of diligence of the leaders of the past and that the retiree organizations headed by them have the onus of undoing the wrongs, the efforts calibrated now cannot be considered as praiseworthy. What they are doing now is making amends for their acts of omissions and commissions which has hit the members who reposed unalloyed faith in the leadership.
Pension activists like Shri. DS Murthy, Shri. Vasanth Vankudre, Shri. V K Khanna, Shri. Kamlesh Chaturvedi, Shri. M S Sidhu, Shri. Katari Satyanarayana, Shri. J N Shukla, Shri. R S Sharma, Shri. Anil Kumar Mehta, Shri. M L Arora, Shri. Umesh Sharma and many others have also been doing much for the welfare of the retirees and for regaining what had been ceded by the organizations negligently. Many from the retiree community were acknowledging to me that ‘whatever we are going to get is the fruits of your relentless work and you have not left any stone unturned to retrieve our lost rights’. It is only human nature to attribute any developments to particular happenings. When Smt. Rohini Rao started addressing the issue after retirement, some were commenting that the issues will be resolved soon. It was a consolation for me rendering a feeling that I can relax and sit quiet. When Shri. Thejaswi Surya took up the matter in the Parliament, we thought things would be resolved. The delegation of women retirees met Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman at Bengaluru, it was also reassuring. When Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman exhorted IBA that bank pensioners shall not be forgotten postretirement, everyone believed that a happy ending of the issues was taking place.
The dharnas held in Delhi and other places also had no successful outcome. Still, nothing came out. But all these had created a good awareness of the issues faced by bank pensioners among the general public, though DFS remained solid on its view that pension is based on the agreement between IBA and Unions notwithstanding that the Settlement dated 29.10.1993 agreed in unambiguous terms that the Pension Scheme in banks shall be on the lines of the RBI Pension Scheme and pension in banks was not revised by DFS at the time of revising the pension is RBI from 01.04.2019.
Now, as per Shri. Acharya’s disclosure to Money Control, FM has asked IBA to respond to the demands of retirees in seven days. This is a positive indication for nationalized bank retirees.
The formation of a committee to deal with the updating of pension in SBI and to give a report before 21.07.2023 may indirectly help the retirees of other banks too perhaps.
I cannot be wrong in believing that my communication dated 18.06.2023 on the caption MODI GOVERNMENT MISERABLY FAILS TO SOLVE ISSUES OF BANK PENSIONERS also might have influenced the direction of the Finance Minister to IBA to respond to the demands of bank pensioners as the government cannot allow anything that lessens its sheen especially in the wake of the forthcoming elections. The copy of the communication was sent to BJP Head Quarters, PMO, Finance Ministry by E-mail on 19th June, 2023 morning. The hard copies were sent to all the 47 judges in the High Court of Delhi by one of our comrades Shri. P Surendra Babu of e-Corporation Bank on 20th June, 2023 so that all the judges note the violations of the regulations while deciding the petition on pension from the date of retirement and refund of the 56 percent of CPF and 2.8 times revised pay for November, 2007, which may come up for hearing in the reopening court. My hair-split analysis of regulation 35 (1) and regulation 56 also helped retiree organisations to mention the presence of enough provisions for updating of pension in the regulations. It is only our big brother
Shri. C H Venkatachalam and his AIBEA along with some of their accomplices, who maintain that there are no sufficient provisions in the Pension Regulations for updating of pension and revolve round the mango tree.
The final information dated 20.06.2023 from Lok Sabha Secretariat following initial information supplied on 09.06.2023 in response to my RTI application dated 08.05.2023 shows that the Under Secretary, Committee Section, Lok Sabha had forwarded my representation dated 16.08.2023 to the Department of Financial Services and their reply is awaited. The delay in furnishing the details by DFS is indicative of the fact that they do not have anything to refute in the matters presented in the petitions.
DFS is virtually tied up in every detail and I cannot be wrong in thinking that the recent development can, to some extent, be attributed to my efforts also. As such, if any retiree believes that whatever benefit he is going to get is the result of my work as well, he cannot be wrong and be blamed.
There is no gainsaying the fact that AIBEA has been yielding to the machinations of the Indian Banks Association in recent years. In earlier days, the wages of bank employees was better than that of the government servants. It has now shrunk to less than two thirds of the latter through each settlement.
Elongation of the tenure of Bipartite Settlements from 4 to 5 years has resulted in forgoing one settlement in 20 years. This was done for concluding the Settlements in time, but the delay in signing the settlements were also increased, helping the unions to collect more “levy” at the end of each wage settlement. As a quid pro quo for the settlement, they felt no qualms in surrendering the statutorily vested rights of bank pensioners conferred through the Pension Regulations.
The Bipartite Settlements after the advent of Pension Scheme earmarked a portion of the load factor to the Pension Fund, despite the fact that the pension burden was one conscientiously undertaken by the banks through regulation
5(3) and 11 of the Pension Regulations and banks could not renege on their statutory commitment under any circumstance.
The constituents of UFBU blissfully ignored the fact that no bank has provided the earmarked portion of the load factor to the Pension Fund.
Coming to the second option for pension, AIBEA was creating a stumbling block in winning it. Now its captain claims that it is the AIBEA that achieved the second option without giving any credit to the rest of the constituents of UFBU.
In fact, he was telling to me during 2007-2008 that I will never get another option for pension and added that those who trusted him are happy and those disbelieved are in plight.
My crusade for another option started in 2002 after my exit from UBI on 21.04.2001. Some of the leaders of Associations who are presently heading AIBPARC now concluded that another option is not at all viable and that I was out of proper senses.
Writ Petition No.11108 of 2003 filed in the name of some friends did not see the light even after three years. It then occurred to me that it could be accomplished by bringing pressure on those who were (ir)responsible. A nationwide four pages circular dated 10.06.2006 was sent to all the Cheque Clearing Houses across the country highlighting how and why another option is to be granted to those who missed it earlier spending about Rs. 2 lakhs out of the terminal benefits received by me. The unions were inert in the matter. The issue of option which was buried in the graveyard for years together got resurrected and started figuring in the charters of demand of the unions /associations and an understanding to grant the second option within three months from then was reached on 25.02.2008. Yet the lethargy of the negotiators took another 26 months and the Settlement/Joint Note was signed on 27.04.2010 resulting in loss of pension for another two years to the retired employees/families of deceased employees. I was struggling without any income from salary or pension and my work revived the lost dream of about five lakhs bank employees, serving and retired by bringing about a renaissance in the industry. Those in service on 27.04.2010 got pension without losing it for any day and the retired and families of deceased employees also got it, though losing it for some period, without giving any levy to any union/association.
AIBEA and UFBU seem to be unaware of the fact that the sole purpose of the Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 1998 was granting an option to those who missed it earlier, and the Amendment Regulations, 1998 is still in force. Without enforcing the Pension Amendment Regulations, 1998, UFBU consented to granting an option on unlawful terms of serving employees paying 2.8 times the revised pay for November, 2007 and retired employees and families of deceased employees paying 56 percent of CPF paid on rinirement in addition to surrender/refund of the CPF and also agreeing to exclude employees who joined service of banks after 31.03.2010 from the Pension Scheme by placing them in the New Pension Scheme and also subject to payment of pension to retired employees / families of deceased employees from a common date of 27.11.2009 instead of from the date of retirement.
Employees who retired prior to 27.04.2010 and families of deceased employees had to pay 56 percent of the CPF which was a fairly large sum to the Pension Fund. One who retired fourteen years back had to pay a small sum, say Rs.1 to Rs.2 lakhs whereas one who retired one month back had to shed a huge sum of Rs. 6 to Rs.8 lakhs on the contribution while an employee on rolls of the bank had to pay a negligible sum, say Rs.0.80 lakh to Rs.1.5 lakh despite all of them being one and the same class for the purpose of Pension Regulations. This was highly irrational and discriminative.
Payment of pension from 27.11.2009 to retired employees/families of deceased employees was resulting in serving employees getting pension from the date of their retirement without losing it even for a single day and retired employees/families of deceased employees, who are similar people, losing pension for periods varying from 26 days to 14 years. This was also bringing in discrimination which has no parallel.
The exclusion of employees who joined service after 31.03.2010 was virtually killing the pension scheme as the contributions which banks are to make to the Pension Fund get siphoned to the New Pension Scheme and the huge balance in the Pension Funds, which is the property of employees held in trust exclusively for payment of pension, would become the property of the banks when employees who joined service till 31.03.2010 and their families vanish. The unlawful acts were agreed upon through a settlement/Joint Note without having provisions therefor in the Pension Regulations. Afterwards
UFBU remained mute when the Pension Regulations were amended through Pension Amendment Regulations, 2017 to give legs to the unlawful acts when the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970 pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were framed confers powers to make regulations that are not inconsistent with the Pension Scheme and the amendments made were inconsistent with the Pension Scheme.
Notwithstanding that, the Pension (Amendment) Regulations 2017 were notified with a fraudulent averment that the banks make them in exercise of powers conferred vide clause (f) of sub section 2 of section 19 of the Act 5 of 1970.
Shifting of employees to the New Pension Scheme is void in terms of section 19 (1) and 19 (4) of the Act as reiterated by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 13.02.2018 in Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2012 viz. Bank of Baroda and Another Vs G Palani and Others and without taking up the issue with IBA as provided in the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, AIBEA is demanding ttheestore the Pension Scheme for those employees to justify the wrong act of the banks. Likewise, with a view to justifying the non-updating of pension by banks, AIBEA has been demanding infusion of provisions for updating pension when regulations 35 (1) and regulation 56 contain clear provisions for updating of pension.
Surprisingly, the UFBU agreed with IBA in its Record Note dated 25.05.2015 sans the mandate of retired employees that banks have no contractual relationship with them for denying them updating of pension notwithstanding that the Pension Regulations create a contractual and statutory relationship of a lifelong nature between banks and retired employees as pension was introduced as a benefit in consideration for sthatndering/refunding the CPF of employees. Leave alone the Pension Regulations, AIBEA can demand updating of pension at least from 01.04.2019 merely on the strength of the Settlement dated 29.10.1993 entered into pursuant to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 wherein it was agreed that the DA formula, amount of pension, updating etc would be exactly on the lines of the Reserve Bank of India Pension Scheme, in the wake of updating the pension in RBI from that date. It is regrettable that the Unions are requesting the IBA for a “favor of pension revision” whereas they can claim it as “a matter of right” in accordance with the Pension Regulations.
My work for retrieval of the statutorily vested benefits and updating of pension are going on in full swing through several writ petitions in Kerala High Court in spite of one of my petitions getting disallowed through an unfortunate judgment by the Single Bench, Division Bench and also in the Supreme Court.
All these had to be done because of the neglect of the core and legitimate issues by the unions/associations. I am now getting a pension which is only one half of what is payable as per the Pension Regulations in force, thanks to the lapses of the unions/associations to which I paid subscriptions all along while in service. Hence, I do have at least the right to make everyone aware of how I had to sustain huge losses on account of the negligence of the unions/associations.
In case AIBEA / UFBU are worth their salt and earnestly desirous of retrieving their status as a trade union of the bank employees, it is for them to approach IBA with the solid facts and demand updating of pension, refund of the unlawful contributions to Pension Fund and pension from the date of retirement to all. They can also demand pension for resigned employees who have qualifying service of 15 years or more in the context of pension being paid to voluntarily retired employees also since resignation and voluntary retirement have the same effect on the employees and banks. Undoubtedly, the AIBEA has championed the cause of bank employees in a big way all these years. But, in recent times, one gets a feeling that it is losing its sheen and it should make amends to regain its past glory. The Settlement dated 29.10.1993, the Pension Regulations 1995, Section 10 (7) of the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970, Pension Amendment Regulations 1998, and the Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 2017 will help them stake a claim on their basis as below-Settlement dated 29.10.1993
Clause 6
Dearness relief to pensioners will be granted at such rates as may be determined from time to time in line with the dearness allowance formula in operation in Reserve Bank of India
Clause 12
Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this Settlement by 31st December, 1993 for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions, etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India
Clause 14
The terms and conditions hereof shall continue to govern and bind the parties until the Settlement is terminated by either party giving to the other a statutory notice as prescribed in law at the material time.
Since pension in RBI was revised from 01.04.2019, pension in rest of the banks has to be revised effective from the same date.
Pension Regulations, 1995
Regulation 35 (1)
The purpose was to make the benefit of updating applicable even to employees who retired prior to the advent of the Pension Scheme and it does not restrict the updating to employees who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987. The regulation was amended in 2002/2003 with the proviso Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per formulae given in Appendix-1 giving stress to the updating and also by giving emphasis to the updating by engaging the words ‘wherever applicable’ also in the proviso.
Regulation 56
The regulation has applicability to all other regulations and establishes beyond doubt that unless banks does not determine exceptions and modifications from the Central Civil Pension Rules with the previous sanction of the Central Government and notify them in the gazette of India making them inapplicable to the bank pensioner, all the provisions of the Central Civil Pension Rules shall apply to the Bank Pension Scheme also. banks having not determined any exceptions and modifications by following the due procedure, pension in banks has to be updated in tandem with the revises scales of pay arising out of each Bipartite Settlement in the same way Central Civil Pension gets revised along with the implementation of each Pay Commission.
Section 10 (7) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act,1970 The section empowers banks to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as accumulated reserves in the books only after making due provision payment of superannuation benefits among other establishment expenses. In terms of this, even if banks are running in red, the have to make due provisions to superannuation funds.
But banks had been declaring dividends ranging from 10 to 270 percent without making due provisions for the Pension Funds-Pension Amendment Regulations, 1998
The sole purpose of the amendment was granting an option afresh to those who could not exercise their option earlier. The amendment is remaining to be implemented.
UFBU has to demand its implementation by deeming the options granted under the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 as options for the purpose of the Pension Regualtions, 1995.
Pension Amendment Regulations 2017 (PAR, 2017)Banks infused the provisions for raising the contribution to Pension Fund at 2.8 times revised pay for November, 2007 from serving and 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement from retired employees in addition to surrender/refund of the CPF for granting option for pension and for paying pension from 27.11.2009 to retired employees/ families of deceased employees only through the Pension Amendment Regulations, 2017. Clause 1 (2) of the PAR, 2017 lays down that these regulations [clause 3 (b) of it in furtherance of the contributions vide sub regulations 11 to 14 and clause 8 (b) of it for payment of pension from 27.11.2009 to employees who joined the Pension Scheme on or after 27.04.2010 come into force only on the date of the notification, making it clear that banks were guilty in having raised the contributions and in having denied pension from the date of retirement on the basis of the Settlement/ Joint Note dated 27.04.2010. The amendment to regulation 52 (1) to pay pension from 27.11.2009 being inconsistent with regulation 52 (1) of the Pension regulations, in terms of which pension is payable from the date following the date on which employee retires , attracts prohibition under section 19 (1) (3) and 19 (4)] of the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings Act, 1970. There is nothing wrong on the part of UFBU from demanding refund of the contributions and payment of pension from the date following the date of retirement of the employee.
Banks have, vide clause 8 (a) of the PAR, 2017 notified that “ Except in the case of an employee to whom the provisions of regulation 34 or regulation 46 apply, a pension other than family pension shall become payable from the date following the date on which an employee retires.” Regulation 34 relates to Payment of pension or family pension in respect of employees who retired or died between 10.10.1986 to 31.10.1993 and regulation 34 relates to payment of provisional pension to employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. These regulations being inapplicable to employees who retired either on superannuation or through voluntary retirement, pension is payable from the date of retirement to them in terms of the PAR, 2017. There is nothing precluding the UFBU from asking banks compliance with the amended regulation 8 (a).
Though Pension Funds have the sole purpose of paying pension/family pension to the employee or his family in accordance with the Pension Regulations, Banks had been paying pension out of the Pension Funds to their whole-time directors who are not employees in terms of regualtion 2 (n). Instances had been reported by the press that Pension Funds had been applied for other purposes by Punjab National Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bank of Baroda etc. The Directors representing employees/Officers on Boards of banks are no more there.
Unions/Associations that raise subscriptions from members regularly are presenting themselves as teethless by shutting their eyes on everything in consideration of the banks collecting the subscriptions from employees and remitting to them regularly.
At any rate, the recent developments like the direction of the Minister for Finance to IBA to look into the demands of retirees in seven days from 20.07.2023 and the formation of the Committee to look into the updating of pension in SBI and to submit recommendations by 21.07.2023 are reassuring in nature, let us hope our long and impatient wait for justice will end soon.
With sincere to all, I remain.
Yours comradely,
C N VENUGOPALAN
✴️UNQUOTE✴️