 |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Follow AllBankingSolutions @ 
|
BackGround and Status of 1st Pension Options and 2nd Pension Option in Banks
|
Ads by Google by
Satyanarayana Katari
(We are giving below a brief of the background for pension in India which was uploaded by Mr Katari as comment in one of our articles. We found the same informative and decided to keep this on our website as a separate article so that it can be referred by our readers as and when needed for specific purposes)
Government had liberalised pension Scheme w.e.f. 1 1 1986.RBI introduced Pension
Scheme in 1990. In Banks Pension scheme was introduced w.e.f. 1.11.1993.But
Regulations were notified through the Official Gazette on 29 09 1995.
A provision was made for those who retired between 1.11.1993 and 29 09 1995 to
opt for pension refunding PF+ Interest with further 6% simple interest from date
of settlement of PF account till date of refund to Pension Fund to be eligible
for the payment of benefits of pension as per provisions under Regulation 52 ,
i.e., from the date following the date of retirement(Retirees). Due to the presence of "Strike" clause in Regulation 22, fearing forfeiture of qualifying service many employees did not opt for 1 st time option. Consequent to Bi-partite settlement dated 11 11 1997 "Strike " clause was removed amending the Regulation 22 on 2.1.1998 which was duly notified in the Official Gazette on 16 03 2000. The intendment in the above amendment as notified on 16 03 2000 was to extend the 2nd option for the Existing Pension Scheme,1995( as it is , without any proposed amendments) to the left out employees/retirees consequent to the said Bi-Partite Settlement dated 11 11 1997 entered into between IBA and UFBU that could not be extended till a further Settlement and Joint Note dated 27 04 2010 .The Government of India through its Ministry of Finance has the obligation to execute the provisions of the Statute Governing the Public Sector Banks as per Act 5 of 1970/1980, and before bringing out any amendment to/annulment of the existing provisions of the Regulations , as per the provisions under Section 19 of the said Act ,It has invariably got the authority to implement the existing provisions of the Regulations without prejudice to the interest of the subjects governed by such Statute.
Ads by Google
Though the Government had accorded an approval for a cut-off date 27 11 2009 arbitrarily/artificially fixed through the Joint Note besides bringing out controversial amendments to other procedural provisions under Regulations 3, 7, 11, etc., it is the legitimate expectation of the left out employees/retirees who had opted for the 2nd option and became members of the Pension Fund, that ultimately they shall be governed by the Statute that is in force and effect on the date of their joining the Pension Fund as a Member. Since no amendments as proposed in the joint Note dated 27 10 2010 could be brought to the Statute even by now, it is the legitimate expectation for the second time optees( including the prospective Resignees/ VRS (OSR 1979) retirees etc., who are eligible to join the Pension Fund) for
1.Payment of only 6% simple interest with PF+ Inyt. instead of Paying 56% with
PF+ Interest.
It is any body's guess how this matter could be so far and would be hereafter in
the light of the emerging decisions of various Hon'ble courts and the
Government's own instructions above be viewed by
a) Reserve Bank of India when it has got to give its consultative advice to
Government /concurrence to the policies being adopted by the Banks keeping in
view of the notification of the amendment to Pension Regulation 22 as notified
on 16 03 2000 for advising the Banks to initiate steps for according the 2nd
option as per statute then and there so that necessary provisions could be made
by them in conformity with the Regulation 7 and 11 in fulfilling its obligation
under Act 5 of 1970. This could have been done on an annual basis by the RBI
through its regulatory functions like approval of audited balance sheets of the
public sector banks.
b) Securities and Exchange Board of India by examining the statutory liability
accrued due to vested rights conferred upon the constituents out of the
enforceable Pension Regulations of the Banks before according permission to the
Public Sector Banks to go for public subscription to equity etc,( It ought to
have examined the right of the Bank to postpone any of its obligation arising
out of the beneficial amendment to Regulation 22 as notified on 16 03 2000 in
the Official Gazette ) for enabling the intending subscribers from the public to
let know the actual/ contingent liability that may arise for the said bank in
case the provisions under the Statute are to be implemented and assess the
actual/prospective net worth of the Bank before becoming its subscriberfor the
equity etc., .
c) Indian Bank's Association which is a voluntary association of the Managements
of the Banks without any legal entity supposed to represent only the views of
the Banks without having any vested powers of giving directions to its members.
It represents the views of the Banks to the Government and conveys the Orders of
the Government which in turn consults with RBI as per Act 5 of 1970.- It has
lost its face in the light of Government's letter dated 25 07 2012.
d) UFBU - It had self inflicted restrictions to enter into any matter pertaining
to the Joint Note dated 27 04 2010 vide its clause 13 leave alone think about
the irregularities set in through the said Joint Note in consonance with the IBA
in an apparent furtherance of its negotiations for wage revision..
e) The Government of India which is directly responsible for the procrastination
in according the second option having got the intended amendment to Regulation
22 notified on 16 03 2000 but subjecting the matter unnecessarily to
negotiations between IBA and UFBU which do not virtually have got any role what
so ever to play for the bringing out constitutional changes to the fundamental
rights conferred through the procedures already adopted for implementation of
Pension in lieu of CPF. Along with the notification dated 16 03 2000 it could have got the Banks indicated with the implementation of the pension scheme to left out employees in consultation with RBI.It is the responsibility of the Government only to make necessary provisions for the due payment of the arrears of benefits of pension that had arisen out of its procrastination only. At the best the Joint Note can be used as a special purpose vehicle for arriving at the modalities for implementation of the 2nd option within the confinements of the Statutory provisions as laid down without affecting the Fundamental rights conferred upon the subject employees under articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution following the guidelines under Regulation 56 only , but not for amendment/annulment or overriding of the existing procedural provisions. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the Government to see that the provisions under the Statute are implemented in fulfillment of the objectives of Parliamentary Democracy.Let us hope that day arrives very soon for the hapless Bank Employees.
|
