Updation of Pension (Suggestions)

Latest Indian Business News Financial World - Latest Articles Latest World News

Updation of Pension (Suggestions)

In view of the suggestions called for by your esteemed website regarding Updation of PENSION , i would like to focus on the following points for the consideration of all concerned union leaders/ UFBU Office-bearers.

1. Already the updation of pension issue is a long overdue one and hence there is no reason to take up the issue of Updation of Pension belatedly ie till 1-11-2012 in as much as ever since the Pension Regulations in Banks have come into effect w.e from 1-11-1993 there has been no updation of pension though 4 Bipartite Settlements have since been signed by the IBA &Bank unions for the serving employees.

2. Further even if the issue is taken up along with the next Bipartite Settlement it will take additionally minimum 2 years to reach an Agreement with IBA and then come into effect.

3. Even at the time of negotiation for the 10 th Bipartite Settlement the priority will naturally be to arrive at the New Pay Structure for the serving employees and hence the union leaders will be pre-occupied with the issues of the serving employees.I t is therefore appropriate for the union leaders to take up the pension updation issue right now in all earnestness, when they are having comparatively enough time to devote to mitigate the pressing problems of 100% neutralisation of D.A and Pension Updation and similar other issues.

4. Again it can be seen that most of the pre-2000 retirees are now in their seventies and eighties
age group and hence to obtain the benefit of Updation of Pension in their lifetime will be a great solace to them to cherish with as their medical needs are very much on the high side to cope up with their present meagre income.It is pertinent here to mention that those who have retired prior to 1-11-2002 are not getting 100% D.A neutralisation to meet the present day cost of living pressures. Even with 100% D.A neutralisation the retirees find it extremely difficult to meet the minimum necessities of life.At least union leaders can take up the issue of 100% neutralisation immediately as the number of pensioners in this category are very few and not much financial commitment is involved for the Banks in this regard and thus a big injustice can be eliminated.
Even the computation of Consumer Price Index is outmoded since it was devised in 1960s. and does not take into account many of the essential expenditures like enhanced cost of cooking gas, conveyance and transportation cost, cost of medicines etc.

5. Central and many State govt. Pensioners are getting updation of pension whenever Pay Commission awards revised Pay Scales to serving employees.

6. Finally, among bank pensioners within each Rank there are 8 or 10 categories of Basic Pension and 10 or12 variety of D.A Calculations (for the same Basic Pension there exists 2 D.A Calculations -- based on variation of 100% D.A neutralisation) thus creating highly confusing and complicated Pension Structure in the banking industry. In such a situation it is very essential to have a unified and updated version of Pension Structure free from anomalies for which the concerned unions/ UFBU and IBA needs to enter into negotiations from now onwards instead of waiting for the next Bipartite Settlement.

By A Dayanandan
Retd Sr. Manager, PNB

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

IMPLEMENTATION OF 'ONE RANK ONE PENSION', UPDATION OF PENSION WITH EACH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT AND 100% NEUTRALIZATION OF DA TO ALL RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES

ramadasan7@gmail.com

(1). Updation of pension to all retired bank employees, 100% neutralization of DA.
(2) Revision in rate of family pension of retired bank employees.
(3) Revision in commutation quantum to 40% of the Basic pension as in the case of retired Government employees.

---------------------------------------------------------

The Central/State Government has accepted the captioned principles and are paying pension to their retired employees accordingly. So, it is a question of EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE that the same principle is extended to all the retired bank employees.

Also, the family pension of the retired bank employees need to be revised on the same lines as those of the retired Government employees.

Last but not the least, the commutation of pension of the retired bank employees be increased to 40% of the Basic Pension as in the case of the retired Government employees.

ALL THE ABOVE ARE BASED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE AND NONDISCRIMINATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE Indian CONSTITUTION.

P. Ramadasan
retired Bank Officer.

Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 14.09.2010

UPDATE OF PENSION CASE IN DELHI HIGH COURT

We are glad to advice writ pettion filed by retirees SRI R P GOSWAMI AND SRI J B JAIN ( who are also ARISE MEMBERS) in the DELHI HIGH COURT for pension updation(revision of Pension) and 100% neutralization of DA for all those who retired before 2002 is admitted for ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO IOB/IBA/GOVT. Four weeks time given for filing counter by IBA and others and there after rejoinder will be filed by our members. Next hearing will be in MARCH 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT E WP(C).No. 27929 of 2003(Y)

1. T.R. VIJAYAN, 50/1701, THAREPARMBIL, ... Petitioner

2. GEORGE MATHEW, MULLAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,

3. AMBIKA GOPALAKRISRNAKULAMHNAN, 'ARATHI',

4. ALICE SEBASTIAN, KONTHURUTHY HOUSE,

5. A.K. SOMAN, VAZHAKOTTU PARAMBU,

6. V.N.KESAVAN NAIR, 'DHANYA',

7. R. MADHUSUDANAN NAIR, FLAT NO.2/3,

8. V.G.JOSEPH, VALIARUMPETH, V.T.NADA.P.0.

9. O.K.VIJAYAN, 'GITANJALI', KUNNUMPURAM,

10. XAVIER.M.R., MANTHRA HOUSE,

11. P.M.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER,

12. K.C.SOMANATHAN, 'KRISHNARPANAM',EXCELL P

13. V.N.SHANMUKHAN, 35/585 A,

14. K.A. JOSEPH, 'ZION', 35/527, KEERTHI

15. T.V.PRABHAKARAN, 8/1596 HARISREE,

16. K.V.KURIAN, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE,

17. K.PYTHAMBARA, 35/2181, SINDHU COTTAGE,

18. P.SIVADASAN, 37/619, KOIPURAM,

19. A.K. SIVAPRAKASAN NAIR, 'ANUGRAH',

20. JOHN.T.J., MANIKATH HOUSE,

1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ... Respondent

2. THE EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE,

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

4. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :14/09/2010

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C).No. 27929 of 2003

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010

J U D G M E N T

A section of retired employees of the State Bank of India has filed this writ petition, with a

complaint that they are being discriminated in the matter of payment of pension by restricting payment of revised pension only to some of the retired employees on the basis of dates of retirement. The facts are a little complex. In view of the fact that the petitioners now restrict their prayers, for the present, for the same benefit as in Ext.P4 order issued by the Bank in favour of some other retired employees, I am not going into the details of the facts, on the basis of which, other contentions are raised.

Presently, the petitioners would contend that they are also entitled to the benefits given in
Ext.P4 to the persons, who have retired on or after 1.11.2002. According to the petitioners,
by Ext.P4, pending amendment to the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules,
the employees who have retired on or after 1.11.2002, have been given enhanced pension
benefits, as provided in Ext.P4, subject to amendment of Rule 23 of the State Bank of India
Employees' Pension Fund Rules. According to the petitioners, there is no logic in restricting
such enhanced benefit only to persons who have retired on or after 1.11.2002 and the same
should be uniformly made applicable to all retired employees of the State Bank of India,

without reference to any w.p.c.27929/03 cut of date based on the date of retirement.

2. The answer of the respondents to the same is that the pension in the State Bank of

India to the employees of the State Bank of India can be paid only in accordance with the

State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules framed under the State Bank of India

Act. They would, therefore, contend that the petitioners cannot now claim payment of pension more than what is provided for under Rule 23 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules unless the Rules are appropriately amended.

3. After considering the rival contentions on this question, I am prima facie of opinion

that the employees of the State Bank of India should be paid pension uniformly, that too, in
accordance with Rule 23(1) of the State of Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules as
it exists presently. But if pending finalisation of the amendment to the rules, the State Bank of India decides to give an adhoc payment of increased pension, then that has to be made

applicable to all retired employees of the State Bank of India irrespective of any cut of date on the basis of the date of retirement. That is a matter which has to be decided by the State
Bank of India in its discretion. But if they decide to implement Ext.P4, that shall be uniformly
implemented without reference to any cut of date on the basis of the date of retirement,
which, in other words, would mean w.p.c.27929/03 that benefit of Ext.P4 should be extended
to all retired employees including persons like the petitioners also. But if the State Bank of
India decides that unless and until the Rules are formally amended by a process known to
law, enhanced pension cannot be given to the employees of the State Bank of India, then that shall also be uniformly applied to all retired employees of the State Bank of India and if any amount has been paid pursuant to Ext.P4 to any employees of the State Bank of India, that shall be promptly recovered. The State Bank of India shall take a decision on the basis of the above directions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

4. The petitioners have raised other questions also regarding the validity of fixing

different percentage of salary as pension to different employees based on the maximum

salary payable, which are left open to the agitated by the petitioners appropriately, if necessary, in future. I make it clear that I have not considered the questions on merit in view of the
above directions, which would presently satisfy the petitioners.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.