Sunday, May 31, 2015

EDITORIAL CARTOON : So far, repeat, SO FAR...

SC 7th May Order

Let us not pay too much attention to the OROP 

imbroglio. As far as we are concerned it is a mirage.
OROP is a special gift to the armed forces for the sacrifices 
they have made in defending our borders and it has to be 
understood that it is given only to the uniformed personnel 
and not to all civilians.

That being the truth how are we concerned about the delay or non compliance of the earlier commitment by GOI. Let us think about our own cases, the likely unexpected obstacles we may have to face in the light of the unclear SC order of MAY 7 and if any earlier SC judgments could come to our rescue especially with regard to the doubt whether the 20% arrears will be paid to all and whether it will comprise both the DA ANAMOLY AND PENSION UPGRADATION. 

These doubts get momentum especially when JUNE 18 is not far off and there is no semblance of the respondent LIC having initiated any machinery to collect the required data. At the cost of repetition I have to draw our attention to the following two judgments of the SC which could assuage some doubts entertained by the pensioner’s fraternity :-


….. If they have any doubt or if the order was not clear it was always open to them to approach the court for clarification of the said order. Without challenging the said direction or seeking clarification IA could not circumvent the same ON ANY GROUND WHATSOEVER.DIFFICULTY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT HOWEVER GRAVE ITS EFFECT MAY BE IS NO ANSWER FOR ITS NON-IMPLEMENTATION.

Delhi court judgment WP(C) 184/2007




  A summing up by IPS retd Lawyer 

Dr. Ashok Dhamija

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based 

Supreme Court Advocate, author of law books 

and an ex-IPS officer having also worked in CBI. 

About 25 lakh retired military personnel have been demanding “One Rank, One Pension” (OROP) for a long period. It has not been implemented by the Central Government so far, even though the Government has already accepted it in principle and there are judgments of the Supreme Court laying down that discrimination in the matter of grant of pension on the basis of the date of retirement is not permissible as it is violative of the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In fact, recently, I have also won a case against discrimination in the grant of pension to similarly situated retired IPS officers who retired prior to 2006 vis-a-vis those who retired on or after 01.01.2006, which means that this principle would be applicable to civil services also; but, more on this slightly later. Let me first explain what “One Rank, One Pension” is, why it is the mandate of law, and also why it must be implemented by the Government forthwith.
“One Rank, One Pension” rule basically implies that retired soldiers of the same rank with the same length of service will be entitled to get the same amount of pension, irrespective of the date or year of their retirement. Simply put, it means if someone has retired from the Army from a particular rank having rendered a particular number of years’ service, then he will get the same pension that is paid to another person who subsequently retires from the same rank with the same number of years’ service. For example, if a sepoy (i.e., jawan or sipahi) retired in 1990 after rendering service for 15 years, he must get the same pension as is given to a sepoy retiring in 2014 after rendering the same service for 15 years.
In fact, it is really surprising and shocking as to how different retired persons, who retired from the same position or rank after having rendered the same number of years’ service but retiring at different times, are paid different and unequal pension amounts. Why this inequality, in spite of the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution?
Such inequality in pension has been the result of the recommendations of various pay commissions which gave higher increase in salaries to the serving personnel (who will then get higher pension after their retirement), while the pension of the existing retired pensioners was not increased appropriately in the same ratio. Thus, over a period of time, there is a vast difference between the pensions of retired personnel retiring at different times even though they might have retired from the same position and with the same number of years’ service.
For example, the media reports suggest that a sepoy who retired before 1996 gets 82% less pension than a sepoy who retired after 01.01.2006, and a major who retired before 1996 gets 53% less pension than a major who retired after 01.01.2006. This is ridiculous and a clear violation of the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
It is pertinent to point out that in the case of Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1971) 2 SCC 330 (at page 344), a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held 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”.
Likewise, in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 (at page 323) : AIR 1983 SC 130, it was held by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in the aforesaid Deokinandan Prasad case wherein it was authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.
It was further held in the above case of D.S. Nakara that the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered.
In the above case of D.S. Nakara, it has also been held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that all pensioners have equal right to receive the benefits of a liberalised pension scheme. It was also held that the pensioners form a class as a whole and cannot be micro-classified by an arbitrary, unprincipled and unreasonable eligibility criterion for the purpose of grant of revised pension. Moreover, the criterion of enforcement of the revised pension scheme entitling benefits of the revision to those retiring after a specific date while depriving the benefits to those retiring prior to that date was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Joint Front

Dear Editor, 

In response to a post from  Sh. S.N. Chhabra from Panchkula, I am simply amused and reminded of your Cartoon showing a patient losing his sleep due to anxiety for visualising a Joint Working Front of Pensioners Associations in the organisation from which he retired.

Two recent developments on your blog are eye openers for all of us. First being a case of Mistaken Identity revolving around one Mr Narayana retiring as Manager Sales with that of another Narayana being present GS AIRIEF and Second one revolving around questioning of highly learned Personality Sh. C.H. Mahadeven on the plea that how he can answer a query when he was not present in Supreme Court on last hearing for 7th May and a befitting reply from him in this context.

Yes there is no harm for wishing even Mission Impossible .

May I request to republish version-2 of your same cartoon now showing another patient in this context.


Dear Sir,

This is with reference to your mail in the PC suggesting formation of a United Front with the retirees from the nationalised banks etc etc.

Earlier in the day Mr Angurajan sent a mail written by Mr M P Subrahmanian proposing grand alliance of all the retirees from the financial institutions in the country to fight for the updation of the pension.

To my mind,any such laudable scheme will remain a non starter. I have my reasons to think like that.
It all happened in distant past. I was invited to video viewing London Philharmonic Orchestra performance of Western Classical Music. We sat in pin drop silence watching 100 odd persons with as many instruments playing symphonies of Mozart and Beethoven.

In half trance after the overwhelming performance, we spread in the vast lawn of the house for the cocktails. An English gentleman among the guests caused a flutter by saying "Such orchestras are not possible in India.You Indians don't know how to work in unison!".

This changed the thought line in the assembly. People got into serious discussion and agreed most of our leaders are petty-minded dissipating their energies trying to prove their supremacy over their peers.Our religiosity is based on symbolism only. And so on and on.  These impressions stuck to my memory and have been confirmed with subsequent experiences over the past 50 years.

Reverting to your suggestion I feel occasion to contemplate such joint action will arise after 23rd Sept. Before that,we have to decide:-

A. If it is desirable to file a brief explanatory note in the Chandigarh HC as orally suggested by the Bench.

B. Whether or not will it help if we send a suitable note to LIC, giving some exact calculations specifying the correct amounts payable under the HC Judgment.

C. Will it become necessary to file a COC case in the SC after 18th June with LIC response known? Will such case be initiated by Jaipur only?

D. Will it be worthwhile and legally possible for the Federation to get itself I pleaded
in the case in the SC?

E. Preparations for 23rd Sept jointly with no feeling of 'I know better'.

Your attempt to join Bankers starts about this stage.

S N Chhabra

SC judgment in Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar

I reproduce the  operative part of the judgment:

“Having due regard to the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Art. 3 1 (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. Therefore, it follows that the order dated June 12, 1968 denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, and as such the writ petition under Art. 32 is maintainable.”
.... ....
“The order dated June 12, 1968 stating that under r. 46 of the Pension Rules, the Department is unable to grant the petitioner pension is also set aside and quashed. As the petitioner himself claims that he has been retired from service on superannuation, a writ of mandamus will be issued to the respondents directing them to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The petitioner is entitled to his costs from the first respondent, the State of Bihar.
V.P.S.                                                                    Petition allowed.”

The crux of the matter is that  right to pension has been recognised by the Supreme Court as  right to property.

Pension management in USA

I reproduce an article that I came across 
in internet which indicates that in a good 
number of states in USA,pensions are 
treated as contractual obligations and 
treated as property  that needs protection.

C H Mahadevan

How Are Pensions Protected State-by-State?

Over the last century, states have adopted the idea that pensions are a form of deferred compensation and, along with that change, has come certain protections.

 by Liz Farmer  |  January 28, 2014

Pensions both public and private started out as a worker’s perk – a gratuity that could be amended or removed entirely at any time. But over the last century, that perception has given way in most states to the idea that pensions are a form of deferred compensation.

Along with that change has come certain protections via either specifically in state constitutions or through a court’s interpretation of the constitution. Nearly all states have some kind of protection for pensions. Most (41) protect pensions under contract theory which prohibits states from passing a law that impairs a contract, whether public or private.

Some states (seven) have a constitutional provision that specifically states that public pension plans create a contract between the state and participant (employee) although the protections vary state-to-state. Michigan, for example, has a constitutional provision that protects benefits accrued to date while Illinois’ constitution says accrued and future retirement benefits are protected. These kinds of specific protections make it impossible (barring extreme circumstances) to change an employee’s retirement benefit. This rigidity is why unfunded pension liabilities in these states (Illinois in particular) are so alarming – because the law essentially prohibits the legislature to making any changes that could decrease that liability. The law only allows for changes to future employees, whose benefits are of course not included in that unfunded liability.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Scrapping NPS to remove future anomaly

New Pension Scheme (NPS)



I am regularly reading the blog.

Recently  I am reading the comments regarding Bank Settlement and its effect on pensioners.
  • I think it is natural that the existing employees will not take care for pensioners. If this is the position now what will happen when majority of existing employees are covered under New Pension Scheme? Will not there be anomaly of pension amount amongst those retiring in the same rank? Have the pensioners thought of this anomaly?
  • Therefore, priority of demand and struggle should be to scrap the New Pension Scheme and to cover all employees in D.A.linked benefit purchase pension scheme the benefit of which we enjoy now. 

Shri SN (1992 pensioner) has made available the following 
additional information on New Pension Scheme.

Public Sector Bank(PSB) employees pension scheme : Public Sector Banks employees, who have joined on or after 1.4.2010 are covered under New Pension Scheme (NPS) and , the employees of State Bank of India, who have joined on or after 1.8.2010 are covered under New Pension Scheme (NPS).

The below detailed information was presented as a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha by the Minister of State for Finance Shri.Namo Narain Meena on 8.3.2013. 

"Most of the employees of various Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are covered under Bank Employees Pension Regulations pronounced in 1995. Employees who did not opt for pension scheme are continuing under Contributory Provident Fund. Employees who have joined on or after 1.4.2010 are covered under New Pension Scheme (NPS). Employees of State Bank of India are covered under SBI Pension Fund Rules which came into existence in 1955. Employees joining State Bank of India on or after 1.8.2010 are covered under New Pension Scheme (NPS). 

Employees of Regional Rural Banks cannot be included in the prevailing Pension Schemes of the PSBs since they belong to different organisations. 

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development( NABARD) has framed a draft Model Pension Scheme and Regulations on the above lines for introducing pension for RRBs which envisages RRBs to decide on introduction of pension for its employees at par with nationalised banks taking inter alia their financial position into consideration".

Friday, May 29, 2015


The 10th BPS in Banks caused 

what is known as an " Exothermic Reaction " 

(Hope our friends remember their Chemistry 

subject. Exothermic means heat is liberated). 

You can also characterise it as a highly 

volatile situation with a low flash point 

(some of you must have noticed the letters 

painted on petroleum/oil tankers. They 

prominently display the temperature at 

which the liquid will remain as a liquid).

Such exothermic reactions are handled carefully with all precautions by chemical engineers/technicians. Otherwise there will be a disaster. 

The leaders of the organisations who signed the BPS along with " Record Note," know the reactants they mixed and this tremendous heat generated in the hearts and minds of pensioners and the possible toxic climate, must have been known to these signatories. 

For the time being there seems to be clapping with one hand only (from pensioners' side). The second hand is not joining the clapping. The organisations must be busy convening meetings of activists to organise collection of levies ( after all that is the bread and butter).  It remains to be seen how much cheer this BPS brought to employees in service and how it takes care of their present and future (after retirement). Every employee has to retire some day. Our date of birth fixes our retirement. The existing employees will be tomorrow's pensioners and let us hope they show good will and understanding to the anguish among the existing pensioners. Or do they take a philosophical view and say ' who knows in what shape this industry would be in next decade itself?'

The feelings of hurt and pain among pensioners on being classified as " Receivers of Charity and welfare measures" and as those with whom " the banks have no contractual relationship" is wholly understandable and justified.

Shri Srinivasa Murthy wrote that there is no other way than to gather pensioners' organisations in Banks, RBI and Insurance on to a common platform to launch a big legal offensive, if need be by hiring top names in legal field to represent us. The idea is good enough. Was it not said in our prayers " Na Anyah Pantha Vidyathe...." 

But I would add a line of caution. First let there be a common and collective expression of the grievance of pensioners from a common platform of RBI/Banks/Insurance sectors. Indeed I wrote about the need for such activity a few times in this blog. Being an eminent legal person himself Shri Murthy visualised this unity to launch big fight in Supreme Court. I would say the common platform visualised must launch agitations ( may be in a limited way consistent with our age and energies.) Politicians would not take notice of anything unless media coverage is there. The proposed joint activity must be of high profile involving big names in trade unions/ legal/political fields. Right now we alone know why we are weeping. The whole country has to know. All this requires cool-headed planning and preparation. 

So even in this hot summer with temperatures hovering around 47 degrees celsius, lack of electricty, water etc. and the extra heat let off by the chemists of 10th BPS, let us keep our cool and start organising. Nothing happens suddenly at the eleventh hour that would come to our rescue. Life is not fantasy. We are fed with sufficient fantasy for one year. Let us be cool and practical.

B. Ganga Raju




(From All Banking Solutions.com)



Who ever said there is no contractual relationship between Banks/LIC and pensioners? The Meriam –Webster Dictionary gives the meaning of  the word 'contract'(verb) as “shrink, lessen esp. to draw together esp.so as to shorten”.
True to this meaning, with every wage revision, the salaries of employees expand and the pension in relation to them contract! 

Forget that the policy document is an evidence of an insurance contract and the Pension Rules  1995 are an evidence of the  Pension contract!

The IBA could very well have conceded that there is a contractual relationship between the Banks and Pensioners within this dictionary meaning of the word ”contract” instead of labouring hard to deny such a relationship. There would then  have  been no legal hassles for them in future.


C H Mahadevan 


Banks and Retirees


WE ARE LOSING GROUND, like beach sand below our feet. We need to ACT to stop the erosion and regain our position of strength.  

Many would have watched last night, the spirited panel discussions on the mainstream electronic media focussing on the ever elusive OROP commitment by the Government of the day. One leading national Channel asked the panellists and its viewers ‘Is OROP a reality or a pipedream’? The official spokespersons of BJP & Congress (both had no clue of what is going on in the corridors of power) had simply cut a sorry figure before the Nation.

Some of our Pensioner-colleagues have already written to the Chronicle questioning the wisdom/correctness of the Bank Employee Associations in signing the settlement and in being a party to the joint ‘Notorious Note’. Let us not be na├»ve to think that the Bank Unions had any choice in it. It’s a diktat from the Government. Just conveyed by the IBA adding strength from its own known stand. If the Bank Unions don’t sign on the dotted line, there is no 10th BPS. LIC top management and our own employee Unions, have reasons to rejoice.  They could spread their philosophy to Banking Sector.   

I have already given my views on the new scene that is dangerously emerging. It is going to be Sovereign Government, willing Managements, openly supported by the in-service employee Unions.  All ganging up to isolate, disable and leave the pensioners in the lurch. We should not underestimate the significance of the choice phrases in the Joint Note. It reflects a firm resolve to keep the retirees permanently under check. Clear all hurdles to complete the process. Exploit the vulnerability of the retirees. It’s a diabolical game.  

When ex-servicemen could almost be ditched so brazenly by not honouring the OROP commitment, when Supreme Court’s stern orders can be kept in cold storage with such a criminal indifference, when categorical assurances to the Reserve Bank retirees could be reneged and its Governor silenced, where do we the LIC Pensioners stand? How does one explain the direct entry of the Union of India in LIC’s on-going CAs full FIVE YEARS after the judgements were delivered? They are determined not to take any chances in the matter.

What is the way out? Certainly not keep quiet or buckle under the pressure of attacks from multiple fronts. Let us come together and search for the best solution, under the circumstances. Collaborate with retirees in all other sectors. Loudly announce that the next in the line of firing would be Government servants and even the judiciary. Let us actively organize the ‘counter ripple effect’.

It is time that we do not rest any more and be content with our so-called favourable judgements, Board Resolutions, tacit approvals and the like. Let us project our case and protect our rights at a much higher level. For that our current level of preparedness is hopelessly inadequate. By the time our Appeals are taken up for hearing in September 2015, we should try to organize every other section of the retirees, including RBI & Public sector Banks to file fresh batches of writs/implead and come before the Bench.  We should be able to ask for a larger Constitutional Bench to hear the entire gamut of the ‘CASE & INALIENABLE RIGHTS’ of the country’s total retiree-class. The APEX Court should be persuaded to re-visit the Nakara case and restate and lay the law once and for all in such a manner that the Government will have no choice except ‘fall in line’.

The task is gigantic. But it is eminently doable. Country’s best legal luminaries should be hired overcoming the financial constraints. One big name for ALL LIC Pensioners, one for RBI and one for ALL Public Sector Banks, should be engaged to argue before a Constitutional Bench to address and resolve the common issues coming in the way of implementing OROP as the Country’s policy – uniformly, without exceptions.


M Sreenivasa Murty


Subject :Circular dated 27.5.'15 by AIBRF 

Yours sincerely,
General Secretary


Thursday, May 28, 2015

Deferred or Suffered wages ?





With greetings,

C H Mahadevan

Deferred wages

Unresolved Issues of Bank Pensioners - UFBU leaders may act fast

UFBU leaders had to subscribe 

their signatures to the note 
of discussions with IBA regarding 
the issues relating to the bank 

But, before signing a document, it would have been wise if they had not agreed with certain observations of the IBA. " Contractual relationship does not exist between the banks and retirees". ( in essence, the retirees here refer to pensioners? ). 

The learned leaders of UBFU better had objected to the IBA observation negating the contractual relationship between the banks and retirees/pensioners.They could have mentioned their objection in the note, if they had felt the statement was not correct.

Further, the IBA has not said any thing new that the financial implications will need to be fully examined before any change in benefits payable to pensioners. In short, their views are as under:

(i) The cost involved in grant of family pension (at par with GOI and RBI) is significant. IBA will examine cost implication at a 'future date'.

(ii) 100% neutralisation in DA/DR --sub judice ! Are the pensioners responsible? The cost factor being examined.

(iii) updation of pension and family pension --unions suggested for collection of details, ascertaining actual cost, so a solution can be worked out.

Now that, the UFBU - leaders - have achieved their main objectives of revision of pay and perks of the serving employees, they have ample time at their disposal to concentrate on the unresolved issues of the pensioners. It is not difficult for the leaders to collect detailed data of about 1,25,000 pensioners and family pensioners in about a month or two. They must act fast.

SN ( a 1992 pensioner )


EarthSky // Earth, Human World, Science Wire Release Date: May 27, 2015

The National Disaster Management Authority of India advises the following to minimize the impact during the heat wave and to prevent serious illness or death due to heat stroke:

– Avoid going out in the sun, especially between 12 noon and 3 p.m.
– Drink sufficient water and as often as possible, even if not thirsty
– Wear lightweight, light-colored, loose, and porous cotton clothes. Use protective goggles, umbrella/hat, shoes or chappals while going out in sun.
– Avoid strenuous activities when the outside temperature is high. Avoid working outside between 12 noon and 3 p.m.
– While traveling, carry water with you.
– Avoid alcohol, tea, coffee and carbonated soft drinks, which dehydrates the body.
– Avoid high-protein food and do not eat stale food.
– If you work outside, use a hat or an umbrella and also use a damp cloth on your head, neck, face and limbs
– Do not leave children or pets in parked vehicles
– If you feel faint or ill, see a doctor immediately.
– Use ORS, homemade drinks like lassi, torani (rice water), lemon water, buttermilk, etc. which helps to re-hydrate the body.
– Keep animals in shade and give them plenty of water to drink.
 Keep your home cool, use curtains, shutters or sunshade and open windows at night.
– Use fans, damp clothing and take bath in cold water frequently.

  • Bottom line: A deadly heatwave has gripped India since April. CNN reported yesterday (May 26, 2015) that the death toll has risen above 1,100.


C H Mahadevan



Subject :
​ Letter dated 28.5.'15 by AIBRF to UFBU

Yours sincerely,
General Secretary

Chandigarh High Court Order dated 21 May 2015 in the Contempt Case against LIC‏

206 COCP No. 2975 of 2013(O&M)
Sanjeev Gandhi and others vs. R.K.Takru and others


Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 prays for time to file reply. Adjourned to 20.07.2015.

[Rakesh Kumar Jain] 21st May, 2015 Judge

( M Sreenivasa Murty )


Punjab & Haryana 

High Court order reported 

on 25/5/ 2015 re Haryana 

Financial Corporation 

vs K K Sharma & Ors‏            

It  is significant  that  the Division Bench has observed  “ in view of  the fact that no stay was granted  by this court, there is no rhyme or reason for not giving effect to the judgment of the Single Judge ”.

The appeal to the Division Bench is posted to be heard on 11/8/2015.This observation by the Bench makes it clear that LIC should have  implemented the judgments  of the three High Courts even before the Supreme Court refused to stay the High Courts' Orders.

Now that the COCP is pending in the PB&H HC,the same HC which has made the above observations, LIC will definitely be hauled up for contempt if the High Court is not satisfied that LIC has implemented the order in the proper manner.

The Chandigarh petitioners are strongly moving in that direction.

With greetings,
C H Mahadevan 

Bipartite Record Note is a Record of Sorts

The annexure to 10th BPS 

in banks with a new 

nomenclature " BR Note " 

has to be studied and 

analysed carefully. 

I think the signatories 

knew the implications 

while affixing their 

signatures to the note.

The preamble or the opening portion of the note itself has many gems to think about.

(1) Retirement Benefits depend on the service conditions prevailing at the time of retirement and do not change subsequently

We have to analyse whether this statement is valid for all times. How is it when new benefits are given to members of parliament the same are extended to old MPs who are no longer members of either house?

(2) Pension and other issues of retirees can be considered only as a welfare measure as contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees.

This statement reflects the perverted thinking of bureaucrats and the government they serve.

Is the pension paid to me as per pension regulations 1995 a welfare measure like Government's welfare measures to BPL families? For example Food Security..Rice of 1 Kg @ Rs.1 or the old age pensions paid to poor people or the various goodies like cookers, mixies, laptops given to poor people in some states.

The list can go on. Welfare measure implies something given at the cost of government without any contribution from the beneficiary. Is our pension scheme one such welfare measure? Why poor people ? laptops are given to even Municipal councillors, legislators etc. though many
of them do not even know how to open the systems.

Do the Unions concur with the statement that pension is a welfare measure? WHAT HAPPENS TO COURT  VERDICTS IN THE PAST?

(3) IBA conducts wage revision exercise only on mandate from member bankers about wages and service conditions of serving employees...

This can be understood to mean "do not talk about retirees and their pension and related issues."

When pension was introduced and regulations were made was it meant only for serving employees at that point of time ? Then how was Second Option allowed? It is not the question of mandate from member Bankers. It is the directives from finance ministry that matter for IBA. Did member bankers ask IBA to talk about wage rise only? Is this position acceptable to Unions?

(4) Is the IBA unaware of the provision that in all matters not explicitly mentioned in regulations, the provisions in CG Employees' scheme would apply?

(5) Pre-2002 DA issue...IBA condescends to view it from humanitarian point of view! For Unions also is it a humanitarian issue? That is as if the DA parity issue to be treated as a Charity?

(6) Upgrading Basic pension @ 4440 CPI ... IBA would examine the cost implication but UPDATION OF PENSION ....."impossible!"

By the usage of terms like " welfare measure " " Humanitarian point of view " etc. etc. I feel the retirees are insulted and humiliated.

Is it not time we show our protest and disapproval of such Record Notes? The signatory unions also have to explain how they understand the contents of the so-called note and the terms used to brush-aside retirees' problems.

B. Ganga Raju


Circular issued by AIBRF after handing over 
Memorandum to Chairman, IBA​

General Secretary

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Chronicle cartoon

Dear Editor,

I must appreciate your sense of humor and creativity. 

Your cartoon on mission impossible - 
Joint Front of all LIC Pensioners Associations 
is really superb.



Courtesy: JK SHARMA


Q: What can a financial institution possibly do in response to 
               an interim order of the Supreme Court?

Q: What will happen next?

A: Start from Week 1 afresh!


    Joint Front

    FIVE Common Mistakes People Make When Planning For Retirement

    Retirement may be many years ahead, but what you do today will determine how smoothly you handle your post-retirement life.

    Dreaming about your retirement is the first step; planning and working towards your retirement goals is what will actually get you there.

    Here are some of the common mistakes to avoid and what to do instead.

    Mistake #1: Not creating a retirement road map

    What does your retirement plan look like? Retiring in your own farm house? Taking an exotic vacation? Or doing all the things on your bucket list?

    Create a retirement road map to help you know what you want to do, how much you need to save and how you will achieve your goals. Here are some useful questions you could ask yourself to help you identify your retirement goals
    What kind of lifestyle do I wish to lead when I retire?
    Will I continue working during retirement?
    Will there be medical expenses based on my current health and that of my family?
    What are my family commitments? Is my spouse and children dependent on me?
    Will I still be paying rent or a home loan, or do I want to own a house?
    Will I have travel plans? And how long will I want to travel and where?
    Will I want to pursue a hobby that costs money?

    Tuesday, May 26, 2015


    “Till last month, the circulars of UFBU and the statements of leaders upto end of April 2015, indicated as if they are hotly pursuing with IBA for settling certain demand of retired bankers.   UFBU have already resisted any attempt by Retiree Associations get involved in the negotiation talks as they viewed it as part of the negotiations.   

    Till 9th BPS also, the pension issue for the retired bankers was part of the negotiations, and thus everybody was hoping that leaders will be taking up the issue of retired bankers once they have concluded broadly the negotiations for the serving bankers.     

    For last one week or so, retired bankers started getting feedback as if UFBU has withdrawn itself for taking up the issues of the retired bankers.  It was too late for the retired bankers to understand and react to this volte  face by UFBU in connivance with IBA.

    Along with the Joint Note, they have released a Record Note of Discussions with IBA on the issues relating to Retired Bankers.   We place below the copy of the record note for the benefit of all our retired colleagues so that they know exactly how they have cheated them:-“

    (by Shri   Rajesh Goyal   in www.allbankingsolutions.com)

    With greetings,

    C H Mahadevan

    The Record Note signed after discussions between the IBA and the Bank employees’ Associations on 25/5/2015 is nothing but an agreement between two parties one of which is a collective group of Bank employees who have a conflict of interest in the subject matter discussed viz DR neutralisation in Pension and Pension upgradation at least till the dates of the retirement of their members. No  representative body of existing Bank pensioners are signatories to this Note when the decisions recorded adversely affect them. The Record Note has conspicuously been agreed to behind the back of the real stakeholders. Cannot such a bipartite settlement be deemed illegal?

    The Record Note is just like a trial and conviction of an innocent  person by a court  without the affected person  committing any offence and without hearing  him (  and not even ex parte after summoning him)!


    C H Mahadevan

    Joint working front

    Dear Editor,

    A Record Note read by all of us available with details of 10th Bipartite Agreement signed yesterday in Banking Industry in fact has become A Caution Note for various L.I.C. pensioners associations.

    We say GOI, L.I.C. Management and all Unions working for L.I.C. Staff are against just and fair demands like Pension Upgradation being taken up by many L.I.C. pensioners associations for last many years.

    Million Dollar Question is when all Unions for workmen and Officers in Banking Industry have been working together for last many years and recently we learn that all Unions for all classes of L.I.C working employees have also formed a joint working front, why it can not happen with L.I.C. pensioners associations ?


    Wish, born a Pensioner next life !



    Calculation Chart for calculating arrears of award staff in Salary Revision

        We forward herewith calculation charts and some other attachments which may be useful to our members retired from award staff cadres after November,'12.

    Yours sincerely,
    General Secretary

    Bipartite Settlement in the Banking Industry - what does it mean to us?‏

    Dear Editor, 

    I read the Post of Sri B Ganga Raju on the subject.  As usual, he gave his views after taking a quick but close look at the BPS especially the Record Note, signed by all, a totally new practice significant for its potential to play havoc with the interests of Retirees as a whole.

    Mr Ganga Raju is very right when he sees (in the recent developments in Banking industry leading to signing of the latest Wage Settlement) a new and alarming trend. Although he left a few questions open, the answers are known to him and all of us. Retirees are in for more and more rude shocks. They are looked at, as an unwanted burden by all Employers and the Government so far. In LIC they have been an unwanted burden for the serving employee Associations, all through. LIC as an Employer, acts as if it does not like the pensioners to 'exist'.  In Banks till recently, there was certain 'owning' of the pensioners, especially by the employee Associations and to that extent Banks were obliged not to 'disown' their retirees. 

    The trend in Banks has undergone a sudden and dangerous change now. Banks have succeeded in convincing their employee Associations 'you are carrying an unproductive load'. 'Sooner you shed the burden, better for you'. I don't fault them. There is a popular saying in Telugu - very difficult to translate but it means something like 

    'pursuing something other than your own cause, 
    will hit at the root of your interests'.
    LIC Employee Associations are much wiser - they always disowned their former colleagues, much to the comfort of the Management. Bank employee associations also fell in line now. Better late than never. Banks have gone a step further - they have recorded their success trough the 'notorious Note' - the ugly head of the Retirees can not rise in future too. History rewritten. 

    We need not reconcile and keep quiet. Should not feel helpless too. We strongly believe we have a just case. The employee associations, the managements and the Government are firmly against us. But our only hope is Judiciary. Unfortunately we have a different type of problem. Pensioner groups are a divided house. Subject is too well known to continue now.   


    Thanks and regards,
    M Sreenivasa Murty