......our answer to all your banking needs


Follow AllBankingSolutions


    Follow allbanking on Twitter

BackGround and Status of 1st Pension Options  and 2nd Pension Option in Banks 

Ads by Google



Satyanarayana Katari


(We are giving below a brief of the background for pension in India which was uploaded by Mr Katari as comment in one of our articles.   We found the same informative and decided to keep this on our website as a separate article so that it can be referred by our readers as and when needed for specific purposes)




Government had liberalised pension Scheme w.e.f. 1 1 1986.RBI introduced Pension Scheme in 1990. In Banks Pension scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1.11.1993.But Regulations were notified through the Official Gazette on 29 09 1995.   A provision was made for those who retired between 1.11.1993 and 29 09 1995 to opt for pension refunding PF+ Interest with further 6% simple interest from date of settlement of PF account till date of refund to Pension Fund to be eligible for the payment of benefits of pension as per provisions under Regulation 52 , i.e., from the date following the date of retirement(Retirees).

Due to the presence of "Strike" clause in Regulation 22, fearing forfeiture of qualifying service many employees did not opt for 1 st time option.  Consequent to Bi-partite settlement dated 11 11 1997 "Strike " clause was removed amending the Regulation 22 on 2.1.1998 which was duly notified in the Official Gazette on 16 03 2000.

The intendment in the above amendment as notified on 16 03 2000 was to extend the 2nd option for the Existing Pension Scheme,1995( as it is , without any proposed amendments) to the left out employees/retirees consequent to the said Bi-Partite Settlement dated 11 11 1997 entered into between IBA and UFBU that could not be extended till a further Settlement and Joint Note dated 27 04 2010 .
The Government of India through its Ministry of Finance has the obligation to execute the provisions of the Statute Governing the Public Sector Banks as per Act 5 of 1970/1980, and before bringing out any amendment to/annulment of the existing provisions of the Regulations , as per the provisions under Section 19 of the said Act ,It has invariably got the authority to implement the existing provisions of the Regulations without prejudice to the interest of the subjects governed by such Statute.




Ads by Google


Though the Government had accorded an approval for a cut-off date 27 11 2009 arbitrarily/artificially fixed through the Joint Note besides bringing out controversial amendments to other procedural provisions under Regulations 3, 7, 11, etc., it is the legitimate expectation of the left out employees/retirees who had opted for the 2nd option and became members of the Pension Fund, that ultimately they shall be governed by the Statute that is in force and effect on the date of their joining the Pension Fund as a Member.

Since no amendments as proposed in the joint Note dated 27 10 2010 could be brought to the Statute even by now, it is the legitimate expectation for the second time optees( including the prospective Resignees/ VRS (OSR 1979) retirees etc., who are eligible to join the Pension Fund)  for 

1.Payment of only 6% simple interest with PF+ Inyt. instead of Paying 56% with PF+ Interest.
2.Become eligible for payment of benefits of pension from date of retirement as per Regulation 52 instead of from 27 11 2009 as per Joint Note as the case may be.
3.Refund by the Banks to the employees of the 2.8 months Nov.2007 salary equivalent wrongly collected from them contrary to provisions under Regulations 5,7,and 11.


It is any body's guess how this matter could be so far and would be hereafter in the light of the emerging decisions of various Hon'ble courts and the Government's own instructions above be viewed by

a) Reserve Bank of India when it has got to give its consultative advice to Government /concurrence to the policies being adopted by the Banks keeping in view of the notification of the amendment to Pension Regulation 22 as notified on 16 03 2000 for advising the Banks to initiate steps for according the 2nd option as per statute then and there so that necessary provisions could be made by them in conformity with the Regulation 7 and 11 in fulfilling its obligation under Act 5 of 1970. This could have been done on an annual basis by the RBI through its regulatory functions like approval of audited balance sheets of the public sector banks. 

b) Securities and Exchange Board of India by examining the statutory liability accrued due to vested rights conferred upon the constituents out of the enforceable Pension Regulations of the Banks before according permission to the Public Sector Banks to go for public subscription to equity etc,( It ought to have examined the right of the Bank to postpone any of its obligation arising out of the beneficial amendment to Regulation 22 as notified on 16 03 2000 in the Official Gazette ) for enabling the intending subscribers from the public to let know the actual/ contingent liability that may arise for the said bank in case the provisions under the Statute are to be implemented and assess the actual/prospective net worth of the Bank before becoming its subscriberfor the equity etc., .

c) Indian Bank's Association which is a voluntary association of the Managements of the Banks without any legal entity supposed to represent only the views of the Banks without having any vested powers of giving directions to its members. It represents the views of the Banks to the Government and conveys the Orders of the Government which in turn consults with RBI as per Act 5 of 1970.- It has lost its face in the light of Government's letter dated 25 07 2012.

d) UFBU - It had self inflicted restrictions to enter into any matter pertaining to the Joint Note dated 27 04 2010 vide its clause 13 leave alone think about the irregularities set in through the said Joint Note in consonance with the IBA in an apparent furtherance of its negotiations for wage revision..

e) The Government of India which is directly responsible for the procrastination in according the second option having got the intended amendment to Regulation 22 notified on 16 03 2000 but subjecting the matter unnecessarily to negotiations between IBA and UFBU which do not virtually have got any role what so ever to play for the bringing out constitutional changes to the fundamental rights conferred through the procedures already adopted for implementation of Pension in lieu of CPF.

Along with the notification dated 16 03 2000 it could have got the Banks indicated with the implementation of the pension scheme to left out employees in consultation with RBI.It is the responsibility of the Government only to make necessary provisions for the due payment of the arrears of benefits of pension that had arisen out of its procrastination only.

At the best the Joint Note can be used as a special purpose vehicle for arriving at the modalities for implementation of the 2nd option within the confinements of the Statutory provisions as laid down without affecting the Fundamental rights conferred upon the subject employees under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution following the guidelines under Regulation 56 only , but not for amendment/annulment or overriding of the existing procedural provisions.


Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Government to see that the provisions under the Statute are implemented in fulfillment of the objectives of Parliamentary Democracy.Let us hope that day arrives very soon for the hapless Bank Employees.




You can give your feedback / comments about this Article.   Please give only relevant comments as irrelevant comments are waste of time for yourself and our other readers.



blog comments powered by Disqus