VICTORY for the 100% DA Neutralization denied pre-1/11/2002
retired bank Pensioners
Kolkata High Court Judgment in the WP507/2012
United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and Others
Vs.
United Bank of India and Others
"I direct the Board of the respondent bank in consultation with the Central
government and the Reserve Bank of India to take a reasoned decision, in
the light of the above observations and findings regarding payment of 100%
dearness relief to the pre November-2002 retirees’ of the respondent bank by
30th June, 2015." ....Justice I.P. MUKERJI,
A TIMELY Judgment upholding SC's dictum in D S Nakara Case!
Let IBA not dither any further to implement 100% DR as directed by the Court!
retired bank Pensioners
Kolkata High Court Judgment in the WP507/2012
United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association and Others
Vs.
United Bank of India and Others
"I direct the Board of the respondent bank in consultation with the Central
government and the Reserve Bank of India to take a reasoned decision, in
the light of the above observations and findings regarding payment of 100%
dearness relief to the pre November-2002 retirees’ of the respondent bank by
30th June, 2015." ....Justice I.P. MUKERJI,
A TIMELY Judgment upholding SC's dictum in D S Nakara Case!
Let IBA not dither any further to implement 100% DR as directed by the Court!
*
Judge's IMPORTANT observations:
"Payment of dearness relief is a policy decision. This Court cannot rewrite by
an order the policy of the respondent-bank. But this Court in entitled to
make observations on an existing Policy or rule. This Court does observe
that the policy and service conditions of the respondent bank for payment of
dearness relief to its post November, 2002 retirees is arbitrary and
discriminatory of the pre November, 2002 class of retirees. This Court makes
a declaration to this effect".....Judge Justice I P Mukerjee
"once the bank chooses to bestow the benefit of full compensation on a certain
category of employees,that is to say, those who retired after 1st November, 2002,
then the bank became guilty of making an artificial and unreasonable
classification between employees who retired before 1st November, 2002 and
those who retired thereafter. This is arbitrary and discriminatory. This is clearly
impermissible and against the dicta of the Supreme Court laid down in the
case of DS Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 1983 (1) SCC
305."...Justice I P Mukerjee
category of employees,that is to say, those who retired after 1st November, 2002,
then the bank became guilty of making an artificial and unreasonable
classification between employees who retired before 1st November, 2002 and
those who retired thereafter. This is arbitrary and discriminatory. This is clearly
impermissible and against the dicta of the Supreme Court laid down in the
case of DS Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 1983 (1) SCC
305."...Justice I P Mukerjee
"Being under the control of the Reserve Bank of India it was incumbent on
the first respondent No.1 to follow its policy with regard to payment of
dearness relief because regulations of the Reserve Bank of India in this
behalf had been accepted by the respondent-bank in the 1993 regulations
and the 1995 regulations did not expressly repeal that principle.
The respondent bank has all the more reason to follow the above circulars of the
Reserve Bank of India because it had decided to grant full compensation to the pre
November 1, 2002 employees. Standing on this premise the bank could not
have denied dearness relief to pre 1st November, 2002 retirees’.
It is only enough that this Court knows that from 1st February, 2005, the
respondent-bank started making dearness relief payment to those employees
who had retired after 1st November, 2002, ignoring those who retired prior to
that date."....Judge Justice I P Mukerjee
the first respondent No.1 to follow its policy with regard to payment of
dearness relief because regulations of the Reserve Bank of India in this
behalf had been accepted by the respondent-bank in the 1993 regulations
and the 1995 regulations did not expressly repeal that principle.
The respondent bank has all the more reason to follow the above circulars of the
Reserve Bank of India because it had decided to grant full compensation to the pre
November 1, 2002 employees. Standing on this premise the bank could not
have denied dearness relief to pre 1st November, 2002 retirees’.
It is only enough that this Court knows that from 1st February, 2005, the
respondent-bank started making dearness relief payment to those employees
who had retired after 1st November, 2002, ignoring those who retired prior to
that date."....Judge Justice I P Mukerjee
*
For detailed Judgment, pl go through the attached file!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/BankPensioners/
CLICK HERE TO READ KOLKATA HC JUDGMENT
CLICK HERE TO READ KOLKATA HC JUDGMENT
RECEIVED THROUGH
G.Ramachandran
CB-SVRS