Ads by Google
Last few months have seen a number of developments whereby IBA's negative role in giving 2nd pension option has been exposed for more than once.
(a) On 9th November, 2012, IBA had to issue circular allowing 2nd Pension option to VRS optees too. IBA had been strongly opposing this for long time resulting in loss to a large number of senior banker. However, IBA had to bow to pressures of Court rulings and constant hammering at internet about the negative role of IBA, and pressure exerted by some affected bankers through various forums.
(b) a number of Court rulings now point out that IBA's stand to not allow 2nd pension option to resignees / CRS / Dismissed bankers too will not stand the scrutiny of the Courts and IBA is likely to be forced to reverse its stand with great humiliation.
Now some new facts have been sent to us by Mr R K Pathak, which once again expose how bankers were denied Pension option earlier. Before, I give below the full details of the new revelations, I would like IBA to re-think about its role and adopt humanitarian and positive thinking and help the left over bankers to enjoy their right to pension. I would also like union leaders to appreciate the problems being faced by senior bankers who are still being denied wrongly the pension. I understand there is a going to be a meeting on 22th April, 2013 with IBA to discuss certain left over issues. I am sure this forthcoming is a great opportunity for IBA as well as union leaders to give a serious thought and settle this issue once for all. If this opportunity is lost, both of them may have to face humiliation if Courts later this year issue directions and banks are left with no option but to give pension to all left over bankers. This will be bigger slap on their faces as has happened earlier for VRS employees.
Ads by Google
Now we give the details as sent to us by Mr R K Pathak from Pune (and few others also) :-
"Indian Bank Association had vide their circular No.PD/CIR/76/G(II) 1842 dated 17/03/1994 forwarded the pension regulation 1993 to its member Bank with advice to get it approved in the meeting of Board of Directors of the Bank & circulate to the members calling for pension option before 30/09/1994. Accordingly Bank of Maharashtra on approval from its Board of Directors, circulated the pension regulation 1993 vide their circular No. AX1/ST/OSR/CI/24/94 dated 06/04/1994. (Click here to view a copy of this circular) ;
According to above circular, (See Page 7 and Regulation 10 in chapter II “Application and Qualifying Service” of the Pension Regulation 1993), the relevant regulations as approved by the Board of Directors which states as follows:
“Forfeiture of service: Dismissal, termination of or resignation by an employee from the service except where the Service Regulations/Service Rules/Settlements do not disentitle such employee from receiving superannuation benefits shall forfeit his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pension payment".
However, the actual Regulation 22(1) Chapter IV “Qualifying Service” of Bank of Maharashtra (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 states as follows :
“Forfeiture of Service”: Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits;
Thus, we find that the following words ' except where the Service Regulations/Service Rules/Settlements do not disentitle such employee from receiving superannuation benefits', have been omitted in the final regulation.
The above circular was followed by circular dated 10th November, 1995. This covering letter of the bank vide which Pension Regulation 1995 were made known to employees, has a direct reference of circular of 6th April 1994 & never states that Pension Regulation 1995 supersedes the pension regulation 1993. (Click here to view a copy of this circular) ;
I am also enclosing herewith similar circular of Vijaya Bank & first para pf the circular clearly states that " The Board of Directors has accorded approval for introduction of Pension Scheme as second retiral benefit in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund with effect from 1.11.1993 as per the memorandum of settlement / Joint note on agreed conclusions signed between India Bank Association & Workmen Unions ( Viz AIBEA, NCBE, INBEF & BEFI) & Officers Associations ( Viz AIBOC, AIBOA & INBOC ) on 29/10/1993.
It is not known at whose behest this change has been brought out and why it has not been circulated for the information of the employees before converting it into regulation. The words “except where the Service Regulations/Service Rules/Settlements do not dis entitle such employee from receiving superannuation benefits” appearing in draft regulations are deleted in Pension Regulations 1995.
The same procedure is practiced by all the Member Banks.
It is crystal clear that Both Unions ( Officers / Workmen) & IBA agreed to give pension to Resignees / CRS/ Dismissal employees if they entitled to receive superannuation benefits ( provident fund & Gratuity) as per settlement of 1993. The options for pension were obtained from employees / officers based on the regulations of 1993 too. Thus as on date, both regulations are in existence as option exercised in 1993 are considered VALID Option in 1995 too. However, while sending notification for approval of Government & publication in Gazettes, it appears that either a typographical error occurred & “except where the Service Regulations/Service Rules/Settlements do not dis entitle such employee from receiving superannuation benefits" were not typed or it might have been done intentionally by some mischievous officials. This minor mistake / change proved to be fatal for the employees getting pension from the the year 1986 onward & till the date.
In all the cases of Pension to Resignees before all the courts ( High Court & Supreme Court), Banks have suppressed the Pension Regulation 1993 & obtained the judgments denying lawful right of pension to Resignees ".
Even Supreme Court takes a serious view of suppression of the facts by either party. In this case IBA is a culprit as it has not placed full facts before any of the Courts and as why there was need to amend the regulations when it was part of the BPS. In Criminal Appeal No 1406 of 2012, SC has dealt in detail about the consequences of suppression of the facts (Kishore Samrite vs State of UP and others).
AT LEAST NOW THE MEMBERS OF UFBEU BRING THESE FACTS TO NOTICE OF THE IBA AND UNDO THE GRAVE INJUSTICE CAUSED TO THEIR COLLEAGUES.