 |
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Follow AllBankingSolutions @ 
|
IBA, Union Leaders Fully Exposed - Both Are Hand-in-Glove and Working Against Interests of Bankers
Ads by Google
I have been restraining myself for a long time to write against the attitude of IBA and Union leaders towards bankers - serving
as well as retirees. Although, on number of occasions, AllBankingSolutions.com has
exposed the callous attitude of IBA and hollowness attitude of union leaders, yet
we have avoided to directly blame them as we felt that both of them have certain constraints
and were not aware of the implications. The recent Court judgments, IBA's
stand on various issues, the dilly-dally position taken by union leaders have convinced us that IBA and Union leaders are hand-in-glove
and are hell bent upon to ensure that the bankers do not get even what has been agreed in the last Bipartite Settlement. We have been receiving
a feedback which shows the anger and helplessness of the bankers - specially the retirees. We have a strong feeling that had there
been no courts in India, IBA and Union leaders would just like politicians would have denied even the basic facilities agreed in the
Bipartite Settlement. Let us now discuss some of the major developments that have taken place in recent times. (We are giving links
to support our arguments. We would like the bankers to ponder upon these and take a vow to fight against IBA and question their union
leaders, so that at least in the forthcoming Settlement they again do not cheat the bankers in the name of 5 days week or so.
The Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 clearly stated and intended that all those in the service of Bank prior to 29th September, 1995 in case
of nationalized banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Baks of SBI and continue in the service of the Bank on the date of the Joint
Note will be eligibel for 2nd Pension Option. However, IBA distorted the intentions of the Joint Note and excluded certain class of
bankers from 2nd pension option.
In an earlier case also Banks have denied the VRS optees the benefit of 5 years service by interpreting it wrongly. Finally, it was only
when Supreme Court upheld the right of the VRS optees for additional 5 years service, it was released. Some banks even tried to deny
the same inspite of the SC decision. Now, number of cases have been filed in various HCs / SC and senior citizens have been fighting with
their own money against the mighty IBA whose officers are enjoying fat salaries at the expense of public money, to get their rights
restored.
Recently Andhra High Court has clearly indicated that even a Compulsorily retired officer is eligible for pension option
(
Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules that even a Compulsorily Retired Officer is eligible for 2nd Pension Option under Joint Note
(uploaded on 04/04/2012).
In another case
(Sheel Kumar Jain Vs India Assurance Co)
relating to denial of pension to an officer who in his application for retirement used the word "resign",
instead of VRS, Supreme Court in July 2011, clearly held that he is entitled to pension benefits as it is not material what word has been
used, but the important thing is that whether the officer has completed the number of years of service he is required to fulfill to
eligibility for pension. The full judgement can be downloaded by clicking on the above link. Inspite of Supreme Court's clear cut directions,
New India Assurance, taking a clue from IBA appealed in Supreme Court by paying from public money and delaying the benefits for which
the said officer was eligible. Now Supreme Court on 15th March, 2012 has even dismissed this Review Petition of New India Assurance Co.
(You can download the judgement by clicking on this link : Supreme Court dismisses the review petition of New India Assurance Co to deny
the pensionary benefits to officer who used the word "resign" in his letter rather than voluntary retirement)
Ads by Google
A plain reading of various recent judgments clearly indicates that Courts are taking a liberal view and not narrow meaning for cases
which relate to social security of the senior citizens / retirees. However, as a matter of prestige, IBA and its officials are finding
it extremely difficult to support the correct stand as they have already committed to a wrong interpretation and are now in a bind. The
recent replies of RBI and GoI also indicate that they are not ready to share any blame for the wrongs done by IBA and union leaders.
They have washed their hands off and denied that they ever asked IBA to give such an interpretation. I am of the opinion, that in
the Court cases, bankers must ask for personal liability of the officers who have tried to distort the facts and thereby put the senior
citizens in problems.
Union leaders on their part have done NOTHING - they have not sought any information through RTI as to on whose instructions
such an interpretation was given nor they have gone to court against IBA / Finance Ministry. Rather in some cases, they are taking a stand
which is against the interests of the bankers / retirees. It was owing to their hand in glove policy with IBA that 2nd pension optees
had to pay for their own pension option by contributing part of the same.
Now some of our readers have been able to extract some information through RTI (which Finance Ministry and RBI were till date
denying). RBI in a query "Whether RBI has given any concurrence to Public Sector Banks to deny one more option to the officers
voluntarily retired under the first scheme" has replied that "We have not issued any specific instructions in this regard".
This is a clear indication that RBI has played no role in this regard.
(click here to see original reply of RBI (2pages);
Page 1 ;
Page 2 : )
Similarly, in a RTI reply, Ministry of Finance to a similar question has replied that "IBA has confirmed that there was no
communication from Government to IBA to deny second option of pension to officers who voluntarily retired under Officer’s
Service Regulation 1979". (Click here to see original reply of Ministry of Finance). Alongwith RTI reply has been received a letter
dated 10/08/2010, of Mr Alok Nigam, Joint Secretary. The letter does not talk of denial of 2nd pension option to any category of
serving / retired employees except those who joined after 1st April 2010 i.e. those who are covered by new pension scheme.
(click here to
see copy of the original letter -
Page 1;
Page 2 )
The above clearly indicates that it was the interpretation of the IBA officials and not supported either by RBI or Ministry of Fiance.
Union leaders have failed to take up the issue with the IBA in right perspective and not taken any strong action although the issue is
now over 2 years old and thousands of bankers are running from pillar to post to get their due share and had paid for getting 2nd
pension option. Union leaders have merely written one or two letters and are not supporting the bankers in the court cases which
have arisen on account of wrong interpretation by IBA of the Agreement to which all these union leaders have been a party. As a party to
such an agreement, are they not supposed to fight alongwith the bankers who have remained members of such unions through out their career.
Another area of concern to which union leaders have failed to respond is the method of calculation of the load for pension optees and
non pension optees. This issue is being dealt in detail in a separate article which itself is an eye opener. In depth study of that
article reveals as to how bankers have been cheated all over these years but shifting the load of pension to employees by deducting 50%
of such costs to be deducted from the raise in salaries at the time of bipartite settlement.
Another interesting aspect of the whole episode is that Ministry of Finance letter which also reads "The cost of another option of pension for
the serving employees and the grant of option to the retirees assessed by the Actuaries, based on the estimates of each Bank,
will be closely supervised by the Monitoring Committee. The Banks which exceed the cost than the Actuarial report, would need to
explain to the Government. The monitoring in this regard may be carried out every quarter at the Board level".
I am not sure as to how
many banks have been doing this exercise on quarterly basis and what have been the results. Are union leaders every tried to get the
details of the same as they can be critical during the wage talks? If they have already obtained the same, let them make it public as to when they obtained and what is the status of
each bank. I am sure, union leaders will not do anything, but some of our readers will ask the details under RTI and supply the same to union leaders or they will be able to
download the same from AllBankingSolultions.com in near future. The copies of such exercises will give the inside story as to whether
the cost calculated by actuarial were exaggerated or under estimated? All this will have a bearing on the next Settlement
due wef 01/11/2012.
I am sure that next settlement will be more transparent with watchdogs like AllBankingSolutions.com and our readers who are continuously
trying to get and compile various data so that bankers are not cheated this time or chances of such cheating are
minimized.
|
Ads by Google
I have been restraining myself for a long time to write against the attitude of IBA and Union leaders towards bankers - serving as well as retirees. Although, on number of occasions, AllBankingSolutions.com has exposed the callous attitude of IBA and hollowness attitude of union leaders, yet we have avoided to directly blame them as we felt that both of them have certain constraints and were not aware of the implications. The recent Court judgments, IBA's stand on various issues, the dilly-dally position taken by union leaders have convinced us that IBA and Union leaders are hand-in-glove and are hell bent upon to ensure that the bankers do not get even what has been agreed in the last Bipartite Settlement. We have been receiving a feedback which shows the anger and helplessness of the bankers - specially the retirees. We have a strong feeling that had there been no courts in India, IBA and Union leaders would just like politicians would have denied even the basic facilities agreed in the Bipartite Settlement. Let us now discuss some of the major developments that have taken place in recent times. (We are giving links to support our arguments. We would like the bankers to ponder upon these and take a vow to fight against IBA and question their union leaders, so that at least in the forthcoming Settlement they again do not cheat the bankers in the name of 5 days week or so. The Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 clearly stated and intended that all those in the service of Bank prior to 29th September, 1995 in case of nationalized banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Baks of SBI and continue in the service of the Bank on the date of the Joint Note will be eligibel for 2nd Pension Option. However, IBA distorted the intentions of the Joint Note and excluded certain class of bankers from 2nd pension option. In an earlier case also Banks have denied the VRS optees the benefit of 5 years service by interpreting it wrongly. Finally, it was only when Supreme Court upheld the right of the VRS optees for additional 5 years service, it was released. Some banks even tried to deny the same inspite of the SC decision. Now, number of cases have been filed in various HCs / SC and senior citizens have been fighting with their own money against the mighty IBA whose officers are enjoying fat salaries at the expense of public money, to get their rights restored. Recently Andhra High Court has clearly indicated that even a Compulsorily retired officer is eligible for pension option ( Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules that even a Compulsorily Retired Officer is eligible for 2nd Pension Option under Joint Note (uploaded on 04/04/2012). In another case (Sheel Kumar Jain Vs India Assurance Co) relating to denial of pension to an officer who in his application for retirement used the word "resign", instead of VRS, Supreme Court in July 2011, clearly held that he is entitled to pension benefits as it is not material what word has been used, but the important thing is that whether the officer has completed the number of years of service he is required to fulfill to eligibility for pension. The full judgement can be downloaded by clicking on the above link. Inspite of Supreme Court's clear cut directions, New India Assurance, taking a clue from IBA appealed in Supreme Court by paying from public money and delaying the benefits for which the said officer was eligible. Now Supreme Court on 15th March, 2012 has even dismissed this Review Petition of New India Assurance Co. (You can download the judgement by clicking on this link : Supreme Court dismisses the review petition of New India Assurance Co to deny the pensionary benefits to officer who used the word "resign" in his letter rather than voluntary retirement)Ads by Google
Now some of our readers have been able to extract some information through RTI (which Finance Ministry and RBI were till date denying). RBI in a query "Whether RBI has given any concurrence to Public Sector Banks to deny one more option to the officers voluntarily retired under the first scheme" has replied that "We have not issued any specific instructions in this regard". This is a clear indication that RBI has played no role in this regard. (click here to see original reply of RBI (2pages); Page 1 ; Page 2 : ) Similarly, in a RTI reply, Ministry of Finance to a similar question has replied that "IBA has confirmed that there was no communication from Government to IBA to deny second option of pension to officers who voluntarily retired under Officer’s Service Regulation 1979". (Click here to see original reply of Ministry of Finance). Alongwith RTI reply has been received a letter dated 10/08/2010, of Mr Alok Nigam, Joint Secretary. The letter does not talk of denial of 2nd pension option to any category of serving / retired employees except those who joined after 1st April 2010 i.e. those who are covered by new pension scheme. (click here to see copy of the original letter - Page 1; Page 2 ) The above clearly indicates that it was the interpretation of the IBA officials and not supported either by RBI or Ministry of Fiance. Union leaders have failed to take up the issue with the IBA in right perspective and not taken any strong action although the issue is now over 2 years old and thousands of bankers are running from pillar to post to get their due share and had paid for getting 2nd pension option. Union leaders have merely written one or two letters and are not supporting the bankers in the court cases which have arisen on account of wrong interpretation by IBA of the Agreement to which all these union leaders have been a party. As a party to such an agreement, are they not supposed to fight alongwith the bankers who have remained members of such unions through out their career. Another area of concern to which union leaders have failed to respond is the method of calculation of the load for pension optees and non pension optees. This issue is being dealt in detail in a separate article which itself is an eye opener. In depth study of that article reveals as to how bankers have been cheated all over these years but shifting the load of pension to employees by deducting 50% of such costs to be deducted from the raise in salaries at the time of bipartite settlement. Another interesting aspect of the whole episode is that Ministry of Finance letter which also reads "The cost of another option of pension for the serving employees and the grant of option to the retirees assessed by the Actuaries, based on the estimates of each Bank, will be closely supervised by the Monitoring Committee. The Banks which exceed the cost than the Actuarial report, would need to explain to the Government. The monitoring in this regard may be carried out every quarter at the Board level". I am not sure as to how many banks have been doing this exercise on quarterly basis and what have been the results. Are union leaders every tried to get the details of the same as they can be critical during the wage talks? If they have already obtained the same, let them make it public as to when they obtained and what is the status of each bank. I am sure, union leaders will not do anything, but some of our readers will ask the details under RTI and supply the same to union leaders or they will be able to download the same from AllBankingSolultions.com in near future. The copies of such exercises will give the inside story as to whether the cost calculated by actuarial were exaggerated or under estimated? All this will have a bearing on the next Settlement due wef 01/11/2012. I am sure that next settlement will be more transparent with watchdogs like AllBankingSolutions.com and our readers who are continuously trying to get and compile various data so that bankers are not cheated this time or chances of such cheating are minimized.
|
