MY DEAR FRIENDS,

 

"..UPGRADING ALL PENSION TO 8088 POINTS .." ?? - AIBEA'S YET ANOTHER PLOY TO DITCH THE PENSIONERS  ??

 

REFERRING TO THE ABOVE, I ANNEX THE COPY OF AIBEA'S COMMUNICATION  Cir.No. 2917/23/2023/42 DATED 31 10 2023 HIGHLIGHTING ..... "UPGRADING ALL PENSION TO 8088 POINTS.."

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XTGTQEDtCkfBA16A2LJ3u4Pvx8o_E41k/view?usp=drivesdk

 

WITH THE ABOVE COMMUNICATION, AIBEA SEEMS TO "READ INBETWEEN" TO RAISE CURTAIN FOR A "PLOY" SEEMINGLY TO DITCH THE RETIREE FRATERNITY YET AGAIN.

 

IN THIS CONNECTION, I ANNEX THE FOLLOWING COUNTER ISSUED BY COM. K.S RENGARAJAN , PRESIDENT, "ARISE " WITH FACTS & FUGURES (In fact, "ARISE" has already impleaded in the Late MC.Singla's case pending in the Supreme Court which is now stands adjourned to 21 11 2023)

FURTHER,  ALSO ANNEXED HEREWITH IS A BEFITTING LETTER OF REJOINDER  BY OUR LEARNED SENIOR FRIEND - COM. C N VENUGOPALAN GARU ADDRESSED TO THE AIBEA LEADERSHIP.

 

THE CONTENTS ARE SELF EXPLICIT:

 

దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి 

 

 

::QUOTE::

 

AIBEA's circular of 31.10.2023 regarding updation of pension is a mischief to interchangeably use updation and upgrading as synonyms. 

 

While the Updating is aimed at ensuring that a pensioner does not draw a pension which is lesser than 50 percent of the corresponding basic pay in the revised pay scale, the upgrading is an altogether different concept which is available to Government Pensioners in addition to updation. 

 

Upgrading entitles a Pensioner to an increased basic pension @ 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 100% of basic pay on completing the age of 80, 85, 90, 95 and 100 years respectively instead of 50% fixed at the time of retirement. 

 

With a view to expose the futility of the exercise of updating/upgrading at a DA merger of 8088 points, as advocated by AIBEA, Com K S Rangarajan, President ARISE, and Sr Vice President, AIBPARC has done a brief working which is reproduced below for a better understanding of all concerned:

 

Quote:

 

TO ELABORATE MISCHIEVOUS PLAN OF AIBEA, WE SHALL EXPLAIN UPDATING AT 8088 POINTS WITH AN EXAMPLE:

A pensioner retired in 1999 and draws basic Pension of Rs.8024/-

Present D.A is 44.24%

If 44.24÷0.07=632 slabs 

632×4 =2528 points

Add 6352 points

Total 8880 points

(-) Merger proposed by AIBEA: 8088

Balance 792

 

New D.A would be -

6452×0.07÷8088 =0.055 per slabs

792÷4=198 ×0.055=10.89%

Merger point = 8088

Less merged= 1684

Balance =6404/4=1601 slabs

1601×0.24 =384.24%

Basic Pension = 8024

D.A. 8024×384.24%=30831

Basic Pension = 8024

New Basic pension.=38855

D.A @10.89% = 4231

Total pension =43086

Present Pension ===42668

Increase on account of updating @8088 points =418

IS IT PENSION UPDATION??

 

A mere farce . We have to expose such a distorted Updating idea

 

Just for information of everyone. 

 

The increase on account of such updating is not going to benefit any retiree but will help mischievous elements very much.

K.S.Rengarajan

Unquote. 

Let us oppose such moves tooth and nail. Please post it in all your groups.

Dr J D Sharma

Vice President,  ARISE/AIBPARC

*******************************

From:

C N Venugopalan
Ex- Manager, Union Bank of India & Former Independent Director (GOI Nominee) e- State Bank of Travancore
9447747994

To:

Shri. C H Venkitachalam,
AIBEA, Chennai

Comrade,

It is strange that after propounding the mango theory you have now called for suggestions for improvement in the Pension Scheme from various quarters.  Bank pensioners do not demand any improvement in the Pension Scheme. What they want is only the proper implementation of the Pension Regulations sanctioned by the Legislature of India.
As per regulation 35 (1)  pension has to be updated simultaneous with the revision in pay scales arising out of Bipartite Settlements.
As per regulation 56, the pension regulations is exactly similar to Central Civil Service Rules ,1972. No bank has determined exceptions and modifications from Central Civil Service Rules making them inapplicable to Bank pensioners. As such, just in the same way civil pensioners get their pension updated along with the implementation of each Pay Commission,  pension in banks is to be updated on the basis of revised pay scales arising out of each Bipartite settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in DS Nakara case that pension is governed by rules and is not subject to the discretion of the government. In State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Mahendranath Sarma and it's. It was held by the Supreme Court that pension shall not be less than 50 percent of the running pay bands corresponding to the pre-revised scales of pay.  In State of Rajasthan vs. OP Gupta, it was held that when pension rules are capable of more Interpretations than one, the Court shall lean to the one favourable to the employee. So regulation 35 (1) and 56 haveto be interpreted in favour of the employees.

Leave alone all the above, as per the memorandum of settlement dated 29.10.1993, the pension scheme in banks have to be on the lines of that in RBI. But when pension was revised in RBI as per Ministry of Finance letter dated 05.03.2019, similar updating was not granted in banks.  Nobody can put any blame on you for demanding that pension in banks shall be updated with effect from March 2019 as was done in RBI. 

All the above apart, the FM had advised IBS at its 73rd Annual General Meeting in October, 2020 that bank employees shall be given OROP in view of the laudable service they did to the  banks. It is a poor show of UFBU that it could not secure the updating in spite of everything.

I have appraised the IB A about the mischief it had done so far in not updating the pension. This will reduce your job for bargaining with IBA. The letter I sent to IBA is readable from the link below:-

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-C-OxTSmnnmNwVb0ImigQuPx5SJhBcpT/view?usp=sharing

In the Record Note dated 25.05.2015, you agreed with IBA, without the mandate from retirees, that there is no contractual relations for banks with their retirees.  The offer for pension by banks, payment of CPF by employees as consideration and it's acceptance etc create a contractual relationship between banks and retired employees to pay them pension till their death and family pension to the spouses as per the provisions of the Regulations till they pass away.

Courts have laid down several times that paucity of funds cannot be a reason for denying pension even in cases where pension is payable out ovf the exchequer. In the case of banks, pension is payable out of the Pension Funds,  which are the property of employees as pension funds are created out of the CPF of employees. Pension Funds have a corpus of about Rs.3,58,000 Crores and are capable of paying 2 to 4 times the present pension to all the pensioners without touching the corpus as the pay out of benefits at present is less than 25 percent of the annual growth. {Though it was agreed in the Record Note that   the cost of updating will be assessed to consider updating, the details which are the click of a mouse away have not been collected during the subsequent eight years to settle the promised updating} 

In case you are true to yourself, you can claim the various things including payment of arrears of 100 percent DA neutralisation with retrospective effect.

With pitiable regards, I remain.
Yours faithfully.

C N Venugopalan

**********************************

A CRITIQUE ON 100% DR NEUTRALISATION TO THE PRE-NOVEMBER 2002 BANK PENSIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER 2023 

*************************************

Show your power by creating problems for others, by keeping the problems alive as long as possible, by resisting opposition with all your might, and by voluntarily solving the problem to some degree. This is what the trio - the DFS, the IBA and the Trade Unions  - have done to the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners. They have demonstrated to the pre-November 2002 pensioners a brazen display of absolute power.

Firstly, they knowingly set off a discrimination among  pensioners by agreeing for 100% DR neutralization to the post-November 2002 pensioners with effect from May 2005 and by leaving out the pre-November 2002 pensioners from the benefit, for no rhyme or reason. It is difficult to understand how and why the mighty trade unions backed this unpardonable discrimination forsaking its past members. 

The question which the mighty trade unions will have to answer is: Will they allow  a situation in which the serving employees who joined later are given higher DA Neutralisation compared to serving employees who joined earlier. Is not the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 100% DR neutralization case, likely to be construed as an implied authorisation for such a discriminatory dispensation? What is the guarantee that the DFS and the IBA will not use this judgment to apply higher DA neutralization rate to a section of the serving employees who joined later and lower DR neutralization rate to another section of serving employees who joined earlier. Will the mighty unions meekly agree to such a discrimination if it is applied to serving employees? Will the mighty unions not go to the Court? Will the mighty union keep away from raising the issue just because a serving employee agitates the matter in a Court? Are not disputes referred to Courts settled outside the Courts?

The IBA issues guidelines to banks on Fair Banking Practices Code. This presupposes that the men at the helm of the IBA know what is fair, what is unfair, what is ethical, and what is unrighteous. And, as the apex body representing  all the member banks in India, it is not unfair to expect fairness from the IBA in the way they deal with bank personnel, both serving and retired. Certainly, it is not possible to meet all the demands of bank-men both past and present. But, at the same time everyone would agree that it is unfair and unethical to divide and rule,  treat equals as unequals and prefer one set of pensioners  and disprefer another set especially in matters like dearness relief which is meant to protect the purchasing power of the basic pension. Fairness is what justice really is. Not that those in charge at the DFS and the IBA did not know this. Not that they did not know what they did  was wrong, absolutely wrong. Yet they wronged, puffed with power, and inflicted pain and pangs on the pre-November 2002 pensioners for reasons best known to them. 

What wrong did the pre-November 2002 pensioners do to the DFS, the IBA and the Unions to attract a discriminatory treatment in the matter of dearness relief neutralization for 18 long years? Fairness should pervade all our acts and deeds. Despite the undeniable truth that inflation is neutral to retirement dates, one cannot understand how the IBA, which is credited with the responsibility for issuing guidelines to banks on fair practices relating to business, consciously chose to be unfair to the pre-November 2002 pensioners by denying them the benefit of 100% DR neutralization with effect from May 2005 even though they thought it fair to extend the benefit  to the post-November 2002 pensioners 

Secondly, the IBA-DFS combine vehemently resisted all Court cases for 100% DA neutralization from pre-November 2002 retirees though they knew well that they were ethically on a weak wicket on the issue. The Unions too did not support the cause of the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners at this stage as well. How can you expect an aggressor to come to your protection? The Unions took a stand which was perfunctory and ambivalent. The Unions attributed their inability to be of help in the matter by blaming the retirees for resorting to litigation, as though it is a vice to approach courts for justice. 

Thirdly, the DFS and the IBA  opposed 100% DR neutralization to the pre-November 2002 pensioners in courtrooms with force and ferocity. The leadership of the Unions covertly sided with the Management and chose to neglect the genuine grievance of its  past members who built the edifice of the Unions brick by brick. They could not have acted otherwise given their part ownership of the discrimination.

Finally, the trio turned Good Samaritans - half hearted though - by agreeing to 100% DR neutralization for the pre-November 2002 pensioners with effect from October 2023. The pre-November 2002 bank pensioners must thank the triumvirate  for dispensing a favor by ceding 100% DR neutralization to them by  calling off, with effect from October 2023, a well orchestrated and long drawn-out joint invasion of their right, dating back to May 2005, for DR neutralization on par with subsequent retirees.

What has changed between then and now to justify 100% DR neutralization to the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners with effect from October 2023 which the trio withheld from them for more than 18 years? What is the newfound justification for taking a U-Turn in the matter after years of oppressive treatment? Only the threesome knows the answer. 

Whatever may be the answer, the fact remains that the trio has treated the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners as the children of a lesser god in the matter of DR neutralization. The trio has hit the pre-November 2002 pensioners below the belt by denying equality in DR neutralization for nearly two decades. The cumulative loss caused to them over this period is very large - from high six digit to low seven digit figures.  Who is responsible for this? Who will compensate them for the loss suffered?

The trio may tout the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to defend their stand. 

It is often said that the “Supreme Court is final not because it is right and Supreme Court is right because it is final”  No one, including judges, can claim infallibility. We respectfully submit the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5252 - 5255 of 2018 [ United Bank of India & Ors. - Appellants Vs. United Bank of India Retirees Welfare Association [UBIRWA] & Others -  Respondents ] was erroneous both in terms of law and known facts. 

It is true that the denial of a favor is not an invasion of a right.  But, when someone invades your right, and later on, after having tormented you to their heart’s content,  retracts the invasion either out of fatigue and / or out of realization of having wronged the victim, does it amount to a favor? You be the judge.

C N VENUGOPALAN

::UNQUOTE::