Petition to Hon’ble PM / FM: UPDATE: 27.10.2017 The original petition was initiated by TEAM Jayaprakash, Jayaraman, Jayaram, HSN Murthy, Vasudevarao & Vijayalakshmi & submitted on 12.12.2016 followed by detailed justification submitted from time to time based on judicial pronouncements passed in various cases & monitored periodically through updates seeking implementation of : 1} Updation of Pension to Retires of Banking Industry 2) 100% DA Neutralization 3) Improvement in Family Pension Ever since the enforcement of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, almost all the material contents of the regulations have either been grossly diluted or violated, be in periodical wage settlements and/or in respect of settlement of terminal benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Pension option to Employees/Officers on their cessation from service under Resignation, Compulsory Retirement, Dismissal, Termination etc., giving different interpretations at individual Banks in collusion with IBA. We invite your personal attention to the following for your kind perusal & for rectification of anomalies created by IBA & UFBU at the earliest: I. Unlawful implementation of the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 in Public Sector Banks: 1) The Ministry of Finance permitted Indian Banks’ Association to implement the above Joint Note in public sector banks (PSBs) under its control vide letter DO No.14/1/1/2007-IR dated 10.08.2010 without amending the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, which was statutory. 2) In terms of sub section 1 of section 19, of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 (“the Act”) pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were put in place, amendment to a regulation could be done only through notification in the gazette. 3) Sub-sections 1 and 4 of section 19 of the Act prohibit making of an amendment which prejudice what is done earlier under a regulation. 4) In terms of sub-section 4 of section 19 of the Act, any amendment to a regulation shall, as soon as it was made under the Act, be laid in the Houses of the Parliament within a period of 30 days for their sanction and shall have effect only if both the House agreed in making it. 5) Conclusion 10 of the Joint Note specifically mandates that the Joint Note shall, along with the a copy of the Scheme of Pension, shall be forwarded to the government for its approval and further action of amending the Pension Regulations in terms of section 19 of the Act in compliance with the due procedure of amending the relevant Pension Regulations 6) The due procedure in law to be complied with in terms of sub section 4 of section 19 of the Act, which was to be done immediately after the Joint Note was signed, and of notifying it in the gazette in terms of sub-section 1 of section 19 of the Act are remaining undone in spite of the lapse of a period of seven years, resulting in the Joint Note having no force of law or has become null and void. 7) The Joint Note, under conclusion 8 of it stipulated payment of pension to retired employees from 27.11.2009 when the relative regulation 52 (1) of Pension Regulations mandated payment of pension from the day following the date on which the employee retires. 8) In terms of conclusions 1 to 5 of the Joint Note, employees on rolls of PSBs on its date had to make a contribution to the tune of 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 and retired employees had to refund the CPF received by them on retirement together with 56 percent of it to the Pension Fund of their respective banks to avail option for pension/pension. These contributions derogates regulation 5 (3) and regulation 11 of Pension Regulations which make the bank the sole contributor to the Pension Fund. 9) Regulation 7 of Pension Regulations limits the components of the Pension Funds of PSBs to the items listed under it and excludes a contribution by the employee other than the initial transfer of his CPF balance to the Pension Fund. Hence the contributions from employees on rolls and from retired employees stipulated in the Joint Note derogate regulation 7 also besides regulations 5(3) and 11. 10) The pension denied from the date of retirement to the arbitrary date of 27.11.2009 mentioned in the Joint Note to retired employees and the contributions to Pension Funds of PSBs from employees on rolls and retired employees are payable / refundable to them as the Joint Note has no force of law and the relevant Pension Regulations are remaining the same. Furthermore, in the case of retired employees, when the CPF paid on Retirement is captured back with 56 percent of it, presumably by way of interest for the period the amount was with them, pension, the benefit in lieu of CPF shall flow from the date of retirement and not from 27.11.2009. 11) The conclusions in the Joint Note ostensibly prejudicial what was earlier done under regulations 5 (3), 7, 11 and 52 (1) of Pension Regulations which are alluded to under clauses 7 to 9 herein, make the Joint Note unfit to be laid in the Houses of the Parliament. This apart, the due procedure in law of amending the Pension Regulations mandated under sub-sections 1 and 4 of section 19 which are narrated in clauses 2 to 5 above are remaining undone, making the Joint Note a worthless document. 12) Clauses 1 to 10 above makes it limpid that the implementation of the Joint Note constituted total lawlessness and the Joint Note has to be rolled back for making PSBs compliant with the Pension Regulations that are statutory and are remaining in full force and effect. 13) During the wage revision on 25.05.2015, a damaging Record of Joint Note was signed between Indian Banks Association (IBA) representing all Bank managements and United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) representing Bank employees/officers without involving the representatives of any of the Retirees Association resulting in rejecting the lawful entitlement of 1) Periodical Updation of Pension, (2) 100% DA Neutralization and (3) Improvement in Family Pension to the bank retirees, rather wrongfully & unconstitutionally concluded out rightly on following two counts: a) There is no Contractual relationship between the Banks and Retirees once employees are retired b) High cost involved in agreeing to consider: • a) In this regard, the relationship between banks and retirees has been dealt and touched upon by Hon’ble Courts and ordered “that revision of pension and revision of pay scales are INSEPARABLE, up gradation of pension is also a RIGHT AND NOT A BOUNTY.” The relationship between Bank and Pensioner is Trustee and Beneficiary under Pension Regulation 2(zd) and it is wrong to misinterpret with an intention to cheat the Retirees & deny benefits on the basis of “there is no relationship between Pensioners and Banks”. • b) It is the statutory responsibility of the Banks to periodically systematize the actuaries’ Annual valuation of actuaries made by individual banks under Pension Regulations 2 (b) and it is Banks’ sole responsibility to provide, contribute on its own to the Pension Corpus Fund as per Pension Regulations 5(3). 14) The IBA has been miserably failed to adopt all the other General Conditions etc., of Clause No. 12 of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and always fraudulently misled the Retirees and the Courts by giving false information about the Pension Fund position of all the Banks and thereby mentioning that Banks Financial position cannot afford to fulfill the demands of the Banks’ Pensioners. 15) The numerical strength of the Pensioners under deferred Pension as per Pension Regulations 1995 is already known and predetermined without further addition as the Pension payment of persons joining Banks after 01.04.2010 are under defined Pension i.e. New Pension Scheme (NPS). Thus, the servicing of pension and cost of updation etc., of the existing Pension optees can be sufficiently met by interest alone earned on their own accumulated & growing Pension Corpus Fund without a burden on exchequer through budget allocation. 16) The PSU banks have adequate/enough pension funds as on 31.03.2015 with a whopping balance outstanding of more than Rs.2,00,000 Crores and that the interest earned on such corpus pension fund itself is sufficient to service and payment of periodical pension & updation, further monthly contributions from employees and interest earned on such funds are added to the corpus fund, thereby there is accrued annual growth in the funds of the banks. 17) The CCS Rules, 1972 equally applicable to Bank Retirees in terms of Regulation 56 of Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 in the matter of Pensionary benefits to Bank Retired/Pensioners as Government of India is the Employer being the owner of all Public Sector Banks getting periodical Dividends and also by virtue of Regulator of all Banks is now initiating merger of Banks based on weak performance. Every citizen is well aware, how corporate borrowers have defaulted led to weakening of Banks and for no fault, the Serving and Retired employees are being victimized & deprived of their fundamental right under Article 21. 18) Pension Regulation 14 has been conveniently misinterpreted by IBA & Banks and denying Pension on cessation of service under whatever nomenclatures like Resignation, VRS, CRS, Termination, Dismissal, etc despite their eligibility under Qualifying service in terms of Reg 14 and unnecessary allowing for protracted litigation in courts. II. Wasteful expenditure by misusing Public Money on perpetuating legal proceedings by PSBs: 18. The PSBs have been extravagantly spending on legal expenses to prolong cases & perpetuating legal proceedings for the sake of filing cases despite judicial pronouncements are already there in similar case. Example: The Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed 7 SLPs & 1 RP during last six years on the issue of giving Pension option to Compulsorily Retired employees. The details of Seven SLPs filed are by United Bank of India (1 SLP), Punjab National Bank (2 SLPs), Andhra Bank (2 SLPs & 1 Review petition), Punjab & Sind Bank (1 SLP), Central Bank of India (1 SLP) A. Now, another PSB, Union Bank of India has filed SLP No. 9784 of 2017 against orders of Madras High Court in WA 891 of 2015 which is eighth in order on the similar issue of pension option to CRS employees which was already decided by Supreme Court in earlier seven SLPs. B. How, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law & IBA have not noticed this perpetuation of legal proceedings and extravagant spending of public money on such wasteful litigation and why no action has been taken as per Article 141 of Constitution which reads as: “Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India” The public money is being misused without any accountability which needs to be probed. • In 1978, in Maneka Gandhi case, it ruled by Honorable lordship that the expression ''life'' did not mean mere animal existence but with dignity, it added another legal leaf in 2008 in Deepak Bajaj case, when it said right to life encompassed a person's reputation as well. • By Supreme Court of India in D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 130, 1983 SCR (2) 165 • Madras High Court WP No. 4005 of 2017 in case of Syndicate Bank Retirees Association has advised the Syndicate Bank management to settle the issue as per Bank Pension Regulation Act • Similarly, in the Writ of Mandamus of filed by Sri. C N Venugopal, Ex ED of SBT, after taking cognizance of serious violations, the High Court of Kerala in its Order directed the Secretary of Union Finance Ministry to rectify the violations in implementation of Banks Pension Regulations particularly the violations in Joint Record Notes signed in X BPS. • Supreme Court of India CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 321 OF 2015] State of Rajasthan and Ors. ... Appellants Versus Mahendra Nath Sharma ...Respondent dated 1st July 2015 on the subject of pension in the case titled State Of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Nath sharma. The Hon'ble Court, inter alia, has reiterated the following tacitly and directly. The salient features of the judgment is as under: - The bench has authoritatively ruled that Pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government. Pension is governed by rules and a Government Servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. - The judgment has recognized that the revision of pension and revision of pay scales are INSEPARABLE. - The bench has reiterated that on every revision the Basic pension cannot be less than 50% of the Basic Pension in the minimum of the Pay Band in the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale. - The government CANNOT take a plea of financial burden to deny legitimate dues of the pensioners. - The Government SHOULD AVOID unwarranted litigation and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. - When pension is upheld to be a right and NOT A BOUNTY, as a corollary to the averment that revision of pension and revision of pay scales are INSEPARABLE, up gradation of pension is also a RIGHT AND NOT A BOUNTY. 19. It is a matter of distress to note that though the dialogues under IX BPS has started, there has been no mention of Retirees issues and we apprehend that UFBU & IBA might continue to do injustice to Retirees this time also. It is right time all Retirees Association in unison should fight for their survival. C. In order to confirm strict compliance of Statutory & mandatory provisioning, Responsibility & accountability on Bankers towards periodical contribution of Funds from its own source to Pension Fund and to remove any Apprehension of misappropriation, misapplication, misuse and inadequate funding of Pension Corpus Fund and to know the mismanagement of Pension Fund if any and to redress or stop Violation of fundamental right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is strongly entreated that Pension Fund of all individual Banks shall be subjected to Financial, Performance & Compliance audit by Comptroller & Auditor General of India (CAG) to assess the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of the schemes by the Pension Funds managed by all & individual Banks right from 1995 to 2017. ELEVEN PETITIONS FILED SO FAR DISPOSED OFF PREJUDICIALLY: The petition was repeatedly lodged in http://pgportal.gov.in vide Registration Nos. (1) No. DPG/*B/2017/80056 dated 06.01.2017, (2) No. PMOPG/E/2016/0582101 dated 16.01.2017, (3) No. PMOPG/E/2017/0123160 dated 03.03.2017, (4) No. PMOPG/E/2017/0163262 dated 23.03.2017, (5) No. PMOPG/E/2017/0171644 dated 26.03.2017, (6) No. DOPPW/E/2017/05209 dated 06.04.2017, (7) No. PMPPG/E/2017/0200371 dated 07.04.2017, (8) No. DOPPW/E/2017/03836 dated 10.04.2017, (9) No. DOPPW/E/2017/06222 dated 23.04.2017, (10) No. DOPPW/E/2017/09450 dated 14.06.2017, (11) No. DOPPW/E/2017/10011 dated 22.06.2017, but the same has been prejudicially disposed of neither giving proper justification nor giving personal hearing to the petitioners. In case there is anything to refute in what is stated above and the sanction dated 10.08.2010 of Ministry of Finance to Indian Banks’ Association is maintainable in law, kindly inform me within a month from the date of receipt of this letter. Or else, the Joint Note may kindly be rolled back at the earliest and PSBs may be directed to release the pension updation unlawfully denied and refund the unlawful contributions raised to Pension Funds on the basis of the Joint Note, at the earliest. We, the hapless & helpless Retirees therefore make a fervent appeal that: a) Requisite corrigendum action may kindly be done forthwith to uphold the statute and the dignity of the government by undoing the damages that have taken place on the basis of the unsustainable Joint Note b) A thorough audit by Comptroller Auditor General of India (CAG) to clear any anomaly, violations in management of Pension Funds maintained by Individual Banks and messing up the portfolio before issuance of Notification for merger of any Public Sector Banks. c) The Ministry of Finance & Law should probe the extravagant public money being spent by PSBs on perpetuating litigation for the sake of litigation and advice Banks to abide by the Orders of the Court given in one case is equally applicable to all other similar cases. d) A separate Bank Pension Commission in place of IBA may be constituted e) All the Bank Retirees Association under one unified entity “The United Bank Retirees Associations’” may be involved to negotiate the Bank Retirees issues in future. We express our sincere thanks to one & all who have been supporting our cause and the pace of support is moving forward by crossing 7083. Finally, it is hereby requested that all Bank Employees / Retirees may file as many individual petitions and endorse support online by login into following portals to bring moral pressure on the decision makers seeking reinstatement of natural justice & protecting the fundamental right under Article 21 in favour of the Bank Retirees at least in the forthcoming XI bipartite settlement. 1. http://164.100.51.5/HRComplaint/NewHRComplaint.aspx 2. http://pgportal.gov.in 3. www.Change.Org Search Petitioner Jayaprakash and support the petition Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Team: Jayaprakash & others.