Several mails / messages are being shared on the social media about the various pronouncements/ judgements of courts favouring pensioners, including SUPREME COURT DECISION DATED 1.07.15 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 1123 of 2015. Some of those who are advancing the mails are seeking answers as to why the Government/ IBA/ RBI / Bank managements etc. are not taking action in terms of these judgements which are also favourable to the bank pensioners. Some others feel that such pro-pensioners judgements, once brought to the notice of the managements, are bound to result in action favourable to pensioners. We wish it were so!
Needless to say, in our system, judicial decisions pronounced even by the apex court are made applicable to only those who approach the court for remedy. Executive-Central/ State governments/ and others that fall into the meaning of 'state' as defined by courts- never issues remedial executive orders for implementation to such 'others' (wronged persons/ institutions etc.) although the 'others' may be suffering the same unfairness or discrimination. The various supreme court judgements - right from Nakara's case in 1982 to the present DECISION DATED 1.07.15 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 1123 , can only be used as supportive citations, in case, someone amongst the Bank Pensioners moves the court, the possibility of which in RBI seems remote. In this regard, a suitable response has been given by AIBRF in their post dated 11-9-15
It is evident in the above case that Supreme court has decided the correct interpretation of updation formula given in 6th Pay Commission ; whereas, RBI retirees pension is based on RBI pension regulations 1990 and PSBs pension is based on Pension Regulations 0f 1995. It is a part of history that none of these regulations contain a specific regulation regarding 'updation of pension with every wage revision.' Even LIC's Pension regulations / rules do not contain such a regulation. How the framers of the regulations omitted such a vital regulation at the time of introduction of pension is inexplicable, whatever may have been the circumstances. AIBRF claims in their post dated 11-09-2015 that "updation clause was the part of settlement of 1993 as well as part of the details worked out by the sub-committee. However, the updation clause did not find any mention or place in the Pension Regulations 0f 1995 and were dropped from the regulations on the objection taken by the government.(may be as it did not exist in RBI pension regulations 1990)."
Some veterans often quote RBI's circular issued after the introduction of the scheme in 1990 that assures the pension optees that as per the scheme the pension would be updated on every wage revision. A reference is also cited to Regulation 5(2) of RBI pension regulations which - as per legal opinion (yet to be tested)- enables the Bank to grant pension updation of its own. But, here we should not overlook the fact that reliance on bank's circular or Regulation 5(2) would have become redundant had there been a specific regulation regarding updation of pension.Those who opt for legal recourse should not pass over or evade the historical fact. Moreover, Supreme Court Bar Associations offer relates to OROP and to derive that the offer is extendable to bank retirees seems far fetched.
(Courtesy: By wdtom all india rbi oers pensioners forum)