After waiting for considerable time for redressal of our grievances, today, I have filed the following complaint with NHRC for their intervention in the matter. ================================================= A. COMPLAINANT’S DETAILS From: JAYAPRAKASH .N Ex Senior Manager at Punjab National Bank, No. 121, 3rd Main, 3rd Phase, 6th Block, 3rd Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore-560085 Mobile No. 9902889812 email: njayaprakash18@gmail.com Date: 21.04.2018 To: --------------------------------------------- National Human Rights Commission Manav Adhikar Bhawan Block-C, GPO Complex, INA, New Delhi – 110023 Email; jrlaw@nic.in (for complaints) Complaints maybe filed online by clicking on the following link: http://164.100.51.5/HRComplaint/NewHRComplaint.aspx Sub: Violation of fundamental right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India Social and Civil Rights and Economic Rights under Right to life, liberty, Right to security of Person, Right to property, Right to adequate standard of living and Right to social Security. – NHRC Initiative- Victims: Unreasonable and unjustified denial of fundamental right under Article 21 to all Bank Retirees / Pensioners in respect of: (1) Periodical Updation of Pension & (2) Improvement in family pension and (3) Additional contributions from the Retirees unauthorisedly & illegally collected in the 9th Bipartite Settlement to fill the gap in the Fund which is in total violation of the Regulations. And such unauthorized funds wrongly collected violating the Regulations needs to be refunded with up to date interest. The employees of State / Central Government, Law Makers and many other Institutions are being sanctioned with periodical updation of pension on every revision of pay commission, the Bank Retirees /Pensioners are denied & deprived of the same. Arbitrary and unfounded rejection of Updation of Pensio and improvement in family pension to the Bank Retirees during the recently concluded wage revision for bank employees. The unfortunate senior citizens of the country in sunset & fag end of their lives, most humbly submit to you the following specifics for your positive attention. 1. The Bank senior citizens have served their respective banks for 30 to 40 years and have been drawing pension fixed on the Basic Pay and other eligible allowances, which were being paid at the time of their retirement and thereafter, this amount of basic pension was never updated during the subsequent wage revisions which are taking place every 5 years in the banking industry. 2. On account of this non-updating of pension, a situation has arisen that a very senior executive in the rank of General Manager who retired 20 years back, is getting lower pension than the Clerk retired recently. The retirees who are in advanced age of 70 years plus, whose medical care expenses and inflation has beaten the meager monthly pension received by them. 3. During the earlier concluded wage revision on 25.05.2015, none of the issues of the bank retirees were attempted to be resolved and in turn the Indian Bank Association (IBA) representing all Banks and United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) representing Bank employees/officers issued a damaging Record Note of Discussion saying that there is no contractual relationship between the banks and retirees. IBA also informed that in view of high cost involved, it would be difficult to agree to updation of Pension. 4. In this regard, the relationship between banks and retirees has been dealt and touched upon by Hon’ble Courts as hereunder: A. 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 in Writ Petitions Nos. 5939-5941 of 1980 i) Pension is property and not a bounty based upon the sweet will or grace of the Employer, therefore reiterated. ii) Cut-Off dates deprecated. iii) Arrears have to flow from the date of inception of anomaly. iv) Employees who are not on rolls on the date of subsequent revision of pensionary benefit(s) are also eligible for further revision of pension. v) Government should not perpetuate litigation. B. 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 judgement is as under: i) 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. ii) The judgement has recognized that the revision of pension and revision of pay scales are INSEPARABLE. iii) The bench has reiterated that revision in 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. iv) The government CANNOT take a plea of financial burden to deny legitimate dues of the pensioners. v) The Government SHOULD AVOID unwarranted litigation and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. vi) 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, upgradation of pension is also a RIGHT AND NOT A BOUNTY. C. In the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. No. 4005 of 2017 passed orders on 17.02.2017 on the following: i) Sri. V Sivarama Krishnan & 29 others, the Retirees of Syndicate Bank has submitted their representation on 09.12.2016 praying for updation of pension ii) As the Bank did not respond, the above case came to be filed before the Hon’ble Court by Sri. V Sivarama Krishnan & 29 others vs. Syndicate Bank iii) The Hon’ble Court taking in to consideration the limited scope of the prayer in the Writ Petition, has pleased to dispose of the case at the admission stage itself passing the orders that “This Court, taking in to consideration the limited prayer sought for by the Petitioners and without going in to the merits of the claim projected by the petitioners, direct the 1st Defendants to consider and dispose of the Petitioners joint representation dated 09.12.2016 on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioners” iv) Even such judicial orders yet to be implemented. D. In the High Court of Kerala at Ermnakulam in W.P (C) No. 21532 of 2017 (M) passed orders on 30.06.2017 on the following: i) Sri. C N Venugopalan vs. Ministry of Finance, Union of India ii) The Secretary of Ministry of Finance, Union of India has referred the petitioner’s representation was referred to IBA directly without any consideration by the Govt. of India iii) The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to pass the following orders: “In view of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner, I am of the view that it is a matter to be considered by the respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on representation, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner” iv) Even such judicial orders yet to be implemented. E. In the Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 5525/2012 between Bank of Baroda & another vs. G. Palani & others with C.A.NOS.6254/2012, 5611/2012, 3026-3253/2013, 3257-3262/2013, 11205-11340/2014, 11342-11435/2014,9533-9646/2014, 8357/2014, 4711-4800/2014 AND C.A.NO.1880/2018 @ SLP(C)NO.23773/2012, C.A.NOS.1881-1888/2018 @ SLP(C)NOS.20661-20668/2012, C.A.NO.1890/2018 @ SLP(C)NO.24851/2012, C.A.NOS.1892-1912/2018 @ SLP(C)NOS.23777-23797/2012, C.A.NO.1918/2018 @ SLP(C)NO.23848/2012, C.A.NOS.1919-2087/2018 @ SLP(C)NOS.15640-15808/2013 & C.A.NOS.2088-2092/2018 @ SLP(C)NOS.31470-31474/2012. The Hon’ble Court observed & ordered as under: i) Para 15: The Regulations have statutory force, having been framed in exercise of the powers under Section 19(2)(f) of the Act of 1970 and are binding. They could not have been supplanted by any executive order or Joint Note, which has no statutory basis. The Joint Note of the officers also had no statutory force behind it and could not have obliterated any of the provisions of Act of 1970 or the existing Regulations. Thus, Joint Notes could, not have taken away the rights that were available under the Pension Regulations of 1995 to the Officer. ii) Para 18. It is settled proposition, that pension is not a bounty, as has been held by this Court in Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1971 (2) SCC 330 = 1971 Supl. SCR 634, as under: “...But we agree with the view of the majority when it has approved its earlier decision that pension is not a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that, on the other hand, the right to pension is a valuable right vesting in a government servant….. …..we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Act. 31(1) and by a mere executive order the State had no power to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Art.19 (1)(f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5)of Art.19……...” iii) Para 20. In Bharat Petroleum (Erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (1988) 3 SCC 32 = 1988 (1) Supp. SCR 312, this Court has observed : “Pension is no longer considered as a bounty and is has been held to be property. In a welfare State as ours, rise in the pension of the retired personnel who are otherwise entitled to it is accepted by the State and the State has taken the liability…….” iv) 21. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992) Suppl.1 664, this Court observed: “5. The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by this Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socioeconomic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.” v) Para 22. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2006) 9 SCC 630, this Court has observed thus: “Pension, as is well known, is not a bounty. It is treated to be a deferred salary. It is akin to right of property. It is co-related and has a nexus with the salary payable to the employees as on the date of retirement. …..Such emoluments were to be reckoned only in terms of the statutory rules.” vi) This Court in Raghavendra Acharya (Supra) further observed that number of times it has been held that executive instructions cannot take away the vested or accrued right. If the incumbent became entitled to the benefits of the revised scale of pay, and consequently to the pension calculated on the said basis in terms of the impugned rules, there would be reduction of pension with retrospective effect, it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court observed thus: vii) Para “28. The impugned orders furthermore is opposed to the basic principles of law inasmuch as by reason of executive instructions an employee cannot be deprived of a vested or accrued right. Such a right to draw pension to the extent of 50% of the emoluments, computed in terms of the rules, w.e.f. 1.1.1996, vested to the appellants in terms of Government notification read with Rule 296 of the Rules. viii) Para 23. Pension is a right and is not a bounty, and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. In the instant cases the existing provisions could not have been amended with retrospective effect, taking away accrued rights on the basis of joint note which had no statutory backing. ix) Para 26. In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar &Ors., [1971] Supp.) SCR 634, decided by a Constitution Bench it has been laid down : “31. ……….Pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that on the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant." In that case the right to receive pension was treated as property under Articles 31(1) and 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. F. 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. NOW THE INTERPRETATION OF VARIOUS REGULATIONS UNDER BANK EMPLOYEES PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 IS AS UNDER: 1. “Trust” under Regulation 2 (zc) means the trust of the (Employees’) Pension Fund constituted under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 5; 2. “Trustee” under Regulation 2 (zd) means the trustees of the (Employees’) Pension Fund constituted under regulation 5; This clearly establishes the relationship between Bank and Pensioner as Trustee and Beneficiary and it is wrong to deny benefits on the basis of there is no relationship between Pensioners and Banks 3. “Actuary” under Regulation 2 (b) BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995 has not been complied with by all banks periodically and hence, audit by CAG needs to be ordered to verify the correctness of the Actuaries calculated. 4. Constitution of Pension Fund: under Regulation 5: (1) The Bank shall constitute a Fund to be called the (Employees) Pension Fund under an irrevocable trust within one hundred twenty days from the notified date. (2) The fund shall have for its sole purpose the provision of the payment of pension or family in accordance with these regulations to the employee or his family. (3) The Banks shall be contributors to the Fund and shall ensure that Sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to beneficiaries under these regulations. Banks are not periodically contributing the adequate funds based on actuaries’ right from 1995 till date, rather additional contributions from the Retirees were collected in the 9th Bipartite Settlement to fill the gap in the Fund which is in total violation of the Regulations. And such unauthorized funds wrongly collected violating the Regulations needs to be refunded with up to date interest. 5. Composition of the Fund under Regulation - The Fund shall consist of the following, namely:- (a) The contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten per cent per month of the pay of the employee; (b) The accumulated contributions of the Bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of the employees; (c) The amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations; (d) The investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon; (e) Amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund; (f) The additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulations 11 of these regulations. (g) Any income from investment of the amounts credited to the Fund; (h) The amount consisting of contribution of the Bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee. Banks are not periodically contributing the adequate funds based on actuaries’ right from 1995 till date, rather additional contributions from the Retirees were collected in the 9th Bipartite Settlement to fill the gap in the Fund which is in total violation of the Regulations. And such unauthorized funds wrongly collected violating the Regulations needs to be refunded with up to date interest. 6. Regulation 56. Residuary provisions under BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS, 1995, In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these relegations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules, 1972, or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time determine. Hence, CCS Rules, 1972 equally applicable to Bank Pension Regulations, 1995 in the matter of Pensionary benefits to Bank Retired/Penbsioners as Government of India is the Employer being the owner of all Public Sector Banks getting periodical Dividends and also the Regulator of all Banks. The following table gives the factual and actual position of pension Funds in Trusts of PSU Banks (Amount in Crores of Rupees) 7. With regard to cost factor, the PSU banks have adequate/enough pension funds as on 31.03.2017. The quick glance of the position is as under: (All figures are taken from the annual reports of the respective banks) PENSION FUNDS POSITION OF PSU BANKS AS ON 31.03.2017 (Amounts in Rs. Crores) Opening Balance on 01.04.16 207079.79 Service Cost 10976.17 Interest Cost 15475.00 Benefits Paid 15757.43 Actuarial Gain/Loss +18821.46 Closing Balance on 31.03.17 234531.23 From the above it is very much evident that the interest earned on corpus pension fund is sufficient to service pension paid, further monthly contributions from employees are added to the corpus fund, and thereby there is annual growth in the funds of the banks. 8. As the IBA, GOI, individual banks, RBI, UFBU have not taken care of our Bank Retired/Pensioners issues, and there is no transparency in the wage revision negotiations, any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for violation of human rights/judicial/administrative/executive redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision. Hence the need for Updation of pension was felt as applicable to Pensioners of State and Central Government and other similar Institution as per Article 21 of the Constitution. 9. Provisions made by a Scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties of this Settlement, by 31.12.1993, 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. 10. From the above you will observe that IBA has 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. 11. Now it is clear to the individual banks, IBA and UFBU to take stock of factual and actual sound position of pension funds of PSU banks and work out the cost of pension & Family Pension updation. So In this regard, the Secretary, Finance Ministry, Government of India is requested to give suitable instructions to the negotiating committee of IBA, as the demand for updation of pension and improve in family pension is viable and affordable. So also the Apex Court has upheld the theory of One Rank One Pension recently in respect of Retired Judges’ Pension case. 12. As the IBA, GOI, individual banks, RBI, UFBU have not taken care of the Bank Retirees/Pensioners issues and there is no transparency in the wage revision negotiations and as such with paltry pension amount, we are become orphans / destitute life in the society in total violation of Article 21. 13. Added to above, our efforts to seek redressal from judiciary has been scuttled down by banks by contravening the “National Litigation Policy” & by resorting to unjust adjournments in the High Courts. 14. All the above acts of Banks through its representative IBA and UFBU has led to non-revision of pension for last 22 years and the quantum of pension that we are receiving is not adequate EVEN to take care of increasing cost of medical requirement of the family that makes us impossible to leave with dignity & reputation, and enjoy the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and we have no recourse other than approaching your Lordship 15. India's justice system is perceived to be a world exemplar in sloth and inefficiency, with more than 3 crore cases pending and average litigation completion time being over a decade. Several hundred cases are in courts for over two decades. 16. It is in view of all the facts referred above, and average litigation span of ten years & short of life at our disposal specifically of some pensioners of 80+years, I earnestly for myself & on behalf of all Bank Retirees/Pensioners pray for your personal intervention to protect the Fundamental rights of the Pensioners under Article 21 of the Constitution. 17. Name, designation & address of the authority/officials who are public servant answerable to the present pathetic plight of the Bank Retirees/Pensioners: 1. Hon’ble Prime Minister of India 02. Hon’ble Minister of Finance, 03. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, 4. All Chairman/Managing Directors/CEOs of Member Banks (1) Allahabad Bank (2) Andhra Bank (3). Bank of Baroda (4). Bank of India (5). Bank of Maharashtra (6). Canara Bank (7). Central Bank of India (8). Corporation Bank (9). Dena Bank (10). Indian Bank (11). Indian Overseas Bank (12). Oriental Bank of Commerce (13). Punjab & Sind Bank (14). Punjab National Bank (15). Syndicate Bank (16). UCO Bank (17). Union Bank of India (18). United Bank of India (19). Vijaya Bank (20). State Bank of India (21). State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (22). State Bank of Hyderabad (23). State Bank of Indore (24). State Bank of Mysore (25). State Bank of Patiala (26). State Bank of Travancore, (27) Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (28) The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (29). The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (30). The Federal Bank Ltd. (31). ING Vysya Bank Ltd (32). The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. (33) the Karnataka Bank Ltd. (34). The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. (35) the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (36) The Nainital Bank Ltd. (37) The Ratnakar Bank Ltd. (38) The South Indian Bank Ltd. 05. Indian Bank Association (IBA) representing all the above Banks. It is pertinent to mention here that IBA is not a registered organization, not appointed by Government, not funded by Government, not an NGO but an unregistered voluntary Organisation getting funds by above Banks and signing the settlements on behalf of above banks without any responsibility and accountability. 6. United Forum of Bank Unions representing (1) All India Bank Officers’ Confederation (2) All India Bank Officers’ Association (3) Indian National Bank Officers’ Congress (4) National Organisation of Bank Officers (5) All India Bank Employees’ Association (6) National Confederation of Bank Employees (7) Bank Employees’ Federation of India (8) Indian National Bank Emp Federation (9) National Organisation of Bank Workers In view of the above, I for myself and on behalf of all Bank Retirees/Pensioners plead you to kindly pass appropriate orders reinstating natural justice and strictly protect the fundable rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: I. (a) I request Hon’ble NHRC to issue ‘writ of Certiorari’ to, the IBA and all Chairmen/MDs., of Nationalized Banks. (b) It shall be in the interest of all Bank retirees, to bring Banks Pension Fund to the scrutiny of CAG and to bring out the truth and book the culprits found. The lost funds must be ensured. (c) In pursuance to provisions of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995, all nationalized banks to transfer employer’s portion of EPF to Pension Fund lying in the individual accounts of all the then working employees and thereafter to contribute ‘monthly’ 8%-10%-12% basic pay to pension Fund in lieu of EPF. (d) From 1995 to 2010, all banks en-masse stopped to contribute monthly and to pay pension to the then retired employees recovered from Bi-partite settlements [1995-2007]. (e) When comrade Venugopalan, senior Manager [retd.] of UBI filed a petition with the then PM of India [Dr.Manmohan Singh], he was offered the nominated post ‘The Director of SBT for a term of 2 years in recognition of petition. Thereafter, all the Banks, reportedly, commenced contribution of 10% Basic Pay towards credit of Pension Fund. (f) But, employer’s portion of EPF of working employees from 1995-2010 was not credited to Pension Fund, so far. (g) It is clear that some of the nationalized banks, fraudulently, failed en masse. Where has that money gone? Who swindled it? Such moneys run in thousands of crores. (h) It is not clear, if Banks are contributing every month to pension fund or not? II. In this regard, a Petition was submitted to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and the Hon’ble Finance Minister on 16.12.2016 besides lodging the same online in http://pgportal.gov.in followed by seeking public support through www.Change.Org a worldwide platform. The grievances since followed up repeatedly on various dates but of no avail as all them were either disposed of indiscriminately without according any valid justification. Few of the Complaints lodged are quoted hereunder for your information: (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, (12) No. DOPPW/E/2017/09661 dated 17.06.2017 (13) No. DOPPW/E/2017/18811 dated 28.10.2017, (14) No. CBODT/E/2017/21887 dated 31.10.2017 III. Call for the records and minutes of wage revision discussions in which our issues were discussed and finally taken the illegal stand as mentioned in Record Note of Discussion dated 25.05.2015. IV. Direct the banks to submit the Actuaries calculated from 1995 till date V. Direct the Banks to Confirm that the adequate Funds have been provided as per Regulation 5(3) and submit the latest Position of Pension Fund accounts VI. Investigate into the cost of updation of pension, improvement in family pension and by Actuarials defined in Pension Regulations 1995, in a time-bound manner. VII. The cost is not depended on budget allocation but purely from the interest earning of the already existing own Corpus Pension Fund without burden on the exchequer. VIII. Order the concerned banks, RBI and the Finance Department of GOI, to arrive at the decision on the demands of the retirees complying Regulation on Actuaries and Bank Funding IX. Order for complying & reinstating Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution as their own Pension Corpus Fund will service the updation amount and No Budgetary allocation required. Further Pension is not a bounty based upon the sweet will or grace of the Employer and Supreme Court Judgment reiterates that the Govt. should not perpetuate litigation for the sake of litigation. X. We request you to take in to consideration that Our Own Pension Corpus Fund will service the updation amount, No Budgetary allocation required, Pension is not a bounty based upon the sweet will or grace of the Employer, Supreme Court Judgment reiterates, Govt. should not perpetuate litigation for the sake of litigation and accordingly pass appropriate orders for sanctioning the following in favour of Bank Retirees/Pensioners demand of: (1) Periodical Updation of Pension, (2) Improvement in family pension and (3) Additional contributions from the Retirees unauthorisedly & illegally collected in the 9th Bipartite Settlement to fill the gap in the Fund which is in total violation of the Regulations. And such unauthorized funds wrongly collected violating the Regulations needs to be refunded with up to date interest. Yours Sincerely, (JAYAPRAKASH. N) Deprived Retiree/Pensioner Encl: Order copies of the above Court judgment Orders for reference.