 |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Follow AllBankingSolutions @ 
|
Denial of 2nd Pension Option - Retired Banking "Generals" Are
Fighting Even At the Age of 74
Ads by Google
by RG [
Main inputs From Mr
S. Ramachandran and Mr
A. Premanand Pai ]
IBA officials are still using all their might and crookedness
to crush the fighting spirit of the retired banking "Generals" - some of whom
are already over 70 years. The kind of response I receive on my
website for each article, really moves me. I am not directly going
to benefit anything if this demand is accepted, but I get moved when I imagine
about my feelings if I had been in their place and at their age with hardly any
support system in our society. We are not living in US where
senior citizens are taken care by government. My dear friends, this
is India, where recent scams, has pushed the inflation to a level which a few
months I had not even imagined. All our top politicians are looting
the country under the leadership of "clean" PM, top bankers are buzy in
collecting their booty by encouraging and promoting juniors with dubious track
records. People talk in hushed tones about the misdeeds of even
those who are the top ranks in Vigilance Commissions. In this
background, IBA officials know that no action will ever be initiated against
them even if they flout the orders of MoF or even Courts. Who has the time
to do this?
Ads by Google
Some of our very senior affected bankers have taken up the
responsibility on their shoulders of fighting this "dharm yudh" . I
am trying to support them as I feel that God has blessed our website to become
so popular across the country so that I can take up their cause.
I am sure with blessings of our seniors and God on our side we will be soon
successful. Now I am giving some of the latest inputs received
by us in this regard so that all the affected bankers are updated.
In the meantime, I feel that if things do not go the way we
wish, all bankers who have been denied 2nd Pension option should be ready for
peaceful direct action / protests. I have discussed this with
some affected bankers and I will share details sometime later on. We will
need the support of few people who have experience of organising dharnas and
other type of peaceful protests. Discuss this among common friends before
we come with this strategy.
(A) A letter sent by
S.Ramachandran Former GM BOB & VRS OPTEE AGE 74 SENIOR CITIZEN.
S. Ramachandran
Kunal Icon, Building no. A8,
Former General Manager Bank of Baroda. Flat no. 104,
Pimple Saudagar,
Former Chairman & CEO - The Sangli Bank Ltd. Aundh Camp, Pune 411027
(Now merged with ICICI Bank Ltd.) Tel: 020
27201012.
Former Administrator Madhavpura Mercantile Email:
ramans1938@gmail.com
Co-op Bank Ltd (Ahmedabad)
Former Director General Maratha Chamber of Commerce
Industries & Agriculture, Pune.
By Speed Post
To,
23rd October 2012
Shri . D.K. Mittal,
Chief Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, Dept of Financial Services,
3rd
floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi, 110001.
Dear Sir,
Sub: Illegal Denial of 2nd
Pension option to VRS Optees under Officers
Service Regulations’ 1979.
This has reference to my earlier letter/e-mail dated 3rd
October under the caption IBA once
again disregards Government Instructions, I have now to bring it to your
specific information that IBA in their circular No.PD/CIR/76/G2/394
dated 1st June, 2000 addressed to all designated officers of
Public Sector Banks (except SBI) have in unambiguous language and
categorically advised as follows :
In terms of Regulation 29 of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, it
is only those officers who had, on or after 1-11-1993 and after
completing 20 years of qualifying service, retired voluntarily, are
eligible for pensionary benefits.
I am enclosing a scanned copy of the above circular for your immediate
reference.
Now after having made this categorical statement giving meaning to the
regulation 29 of Bank Employees’ pension Regulations, how can the IBA,
unprofessionally, illegally and unethically add the word “on
superannuation” in their circular dated
10.8.2010 to PSBs. The persons responsible for this mischief should be
held accountable for putting the employees who retired voluntarily to
untold misery.
In this regard, we now request you order directly to the PSBs
1.
To release the pension option to VRS optees from 27th Nov
2009.
2. Institute
an inquiry into the mischief of IBA and take suitable action against
them.
3.
to
revamp IBA thoroughly as it has people who are highly unprofessional,
who do not know what they are doing.
It
is also astonishing that IBA has not bothered to implement the
Government’s direction conveyed vide its letter no.D.O.No. 10/30/7/2010
–IR dated 25th July, 2012 where you directed IBA to
withdraw the words “on superannuation” as contained in IBA’s circular
letter dated 10.08.2010 issued to PSBs on the subject and advise the
member Banks accordingly. It is further strange and annoying that the
IBA has not responded to MOF letter NO. DO.NO.10/30/7/2010-IR dated 26th
September, 2012.
I have to further state that the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka has
passed a judgment on 30th August, 2012 which is totally in
favour of VRS optees. I must also inform you that the advocate
representing IBA, has committed before the Hon’ble High court of
Karnataka which is reproduced in the last paragraph of the judgment as
follows;
“Learned counsel for the Indian Bank’s Association submits that three
month’s time may be given for compliance. Accordingly three month’s
time is granted for compliance from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.”
Even after all this, IBA is dilly dallying the matter only because of
their perverse attitude. We therefore request you to interfere and
provide justice to VRS Optees without further delay.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
S.Ramachandran
Former GM BOB
&
VRS OPTEE AGE 74
SENIOR CITIZEN.
Cc
: Honbl. Finance Minister P.Chidambaram.
: Governor RBI – Dr D. Subbarao
: Chairman IBA - Shri K.R. Kamath
(B) A copy of Circular letter from IBA issued to "Designated
Officers of all Public Sector Banks (Except State Bank of India) issued as
back as June1 2000, advising them Quote "In terms of Regulation 29 of
Bank(Emplyoee's) Pension Regulations, it is only those officers who had, on
or after 1-11-1993 and after completing 20 years of qualifying service,
retired voluntarily that are eligible for pensionary benefits."
In the same circular, consequence upon the favourable Judgement from
Apex Court, the IBA clarified that the pensionary benefits has to be
extended even to the voluntarily retired before 1-11-1993 also.
Now it seems that the IBA is conveniently forgotten their own
instructions given to the Public Sector Banks (Except State Bank of India)
that the retirees under Regulation 29 are eligible for pensionary benefits
which we have to remind them now.
Click Here to Download an old letter of 2000 of IBA
(C) A letter by another veteran Mr
A.
Premanand Pai, who too takes up this issue on regular basis with various
authorities. [We are also of the view that two judgments discussed below
are not contradictory but are in favour of retired bankers. The
issue discussed by SC relates to bankers who have retired prior t 01.01. 1993,
who have not been allowed to be at par with others because of some other
infirmities in rules and regulations.].
Place : Udupi
Date : 17/10/2012
To,
Sri D K Mittal
Secretary
Department of Financial Services
Ministry of Finance, Government of India
Regd AD
Jeevan Deep Building
10 Parliament Street,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
Dear Sir,
Sub : Arbitary denial of option for pension by Public Sector Banks to
one group of
its officers who voluntarily retired.
This is further to my letter dated 03/09/2012 addressed to you. I am
still awaiting a positive action from Department of Financial Services.
In the meanwhile an additional development has taken place.
1. It is now learnt that in order to butteress their objections dated
15/09/2012 lodged with you in reply to your Do letter No. 10/30/7/2010/IR
dated 25/07/2012, Indian Banks Association has hurriedly placed before
you a copy of judgement dated 03/10/2012 rendered by Supreme Court of
India in the Civil Appeal Nos. 7188-7191 of 2012 between M R Prabhakar
and others versus Canara Bank.
2. It is true that, in para No. 15 of the said judgment, Supreme
court of India has declared that there is no ambiguity in the definition
clause under Regulation 2(y) which has statutorily brought-in the
"Voluntary retirement" as "retirement". It further declared that
though the concept of "resignation" is well known in service
Jurisprudence the same has not been brought within the definition of
"retirement" under Regulation 2(y) of Bank (employees) Pension
Regulations. Thus Supreme Court of India has expressed its reservation
about the interpretation about "RESIGNATION".
3. The above declaration in its judgment dated 03/10/2012 fully
supports the observation of Supreme court of India made in its earliest
judgment dated 05/04/2000 in the Civil Appeal No. 6959 of 1997 filed by
Union of India, Indian Banks Association, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India
Union Bank of India against Indu Rajgopal and others that there is no
difference between those who voluntarily retired under regulation No. 19
of Bank officers Service Regulation 1979 and those who ordinary retired.
4. What emerges from the above 2 judgments rendered by Supreme Court of
India is that voluntary retirement under regulation No. 19(1) of BOSR
1979 is nothing but retirement is an issue settled once for all right
from 05/04/2000. However Indian Banks Association is trying to mix
up the said settled issue with another fluid issue relating to
Resignation tendered before and after 01/11/1993, Resignation of workmen
employees, Resignations without completion of 20 years of service,
Resignations after completion of 20 years of service, Resignations by
officers of Banks where VRS was existing, Resignations by officers of
Banks where VRS was not existing etc in order to confuse you and to
delay the implementation of directions given on 25/07/2012 and
26/09/2012 to them by Department of Financial Services. The officials
of Indian Banks Association who always succeed in defying your authority
have now delayed the implementation of directions dated 25/07/2012 of
Department of Financial Services by around 3 months. They are confident
to drag on the disbursement of pension not only to resignees but to
retirees who voluntarily retired under Regulation No. 19(1) of Bank
officers Service Regulations 1979 as well unless the Govt. gives
unambiguous directions immediately.
5. The pre-existing statutory right, vested in all the Bank employees
as per Pension Regulation 1995 duly gazetted, for opting or rejecting
pension scheme and which could not be exercised by around 2 lakhs of
employees as on 29/09/1995 for want of clarity was simply restored by
Govt. of India by an administrative order. Rest of the process for
sanction / rejection of pension will be taken care of by the Statute
itself i.e. Pension Regulations 1995. None of the signatories to the
joint note/ settlement have any jurisdiction to deny the said statutory
right which has been restored by Govt. of India having regard to the
decision dated 05/04/2000 of Supreme court of India.
6. Because of some what conflicting decision, of Supreme court in the
matter of "Resignations" in civil Appeal No. 6013 of 2011 review
petition No. 425 of 2012) between Sheel Kumar Jain Versus New India
Insurance Company and now in Civil Appeal Nos. 7188-7191 of 2012 between
M R Prabhakar versus Canara Bank, I feel
that the pension shall not be denied to the group of Bank officers
"retired" voluntarily under Regulation No. 19(1) of Bank Officers
Service Regulations 1979 as the Apex court has already settled the issue
more than once consistently. I therefore request you to direct Indian
Banks Association immediately in an appropriate words without giving
them any chance to mis-interpret your directions. Alternatively it is
better to give instructions directly to Public Sector Banks from
Department of Financial services without delay. Because of my seniority
of age and physical inability and pride of honesty and self respect
maintained during my 40 years of service I am unable to bend my body
before IBA OFFICIALS SEEKING materialistic comforts. I shall be
personally thankful to you if a line of reply is received by me early.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
(Shri A. Premanand Pai)
S/o A Panduranga Pai
"ANJANA" Ist Cross
5th Main Road
V.P.Nagar
Udupi - 576 102
Karnataka.
Mobile No. 94490 49041.
You can give your feedback / comments
about this Article. Please give only
relevant comments as irrelevant comments are
waste of time for yourself and our other
readers.
blog comments powered by Disqus
|
Ads by Google by RG [ Main inputs From Mr S. Ramachandran and Mr A. Premanand Pai ]
IBA officials are still using all their might and crookedness to crush the fighting spirit of the retired banking "Generals" - some of whom are already over 70 years. The kind of response I receive on my website for each article, really moves me. I am not directly going to benefit anything if this demand is accepted, but I get moved when I imagine about my feelings if I had been in their place and at their age with hardly any support system in our society. We are not living in US where senior citizens are taken care by government. My dear friends, this is India, where recent scams, has pushed the inflation to a level which a few months I had not even imagined. All our top politicians are looting the country under the leadership of "clean" PM, top bankers are buzy in collecting their booty by encouraging and promoting juniors with dubious track records. People talk in hushed tones about the misdeeds of even those who are the top ranks in Vigilance Commissions. In this background, IBA officials know that no action will ever be initiated against them even if they flout the orders of MoF or even Courts. Who has the time to do this?
Ads by Google Some of our very senior affected bankers have taken up the responsibility on their shoulders of fighting this "dharm yudh" . I am trying to support them as I feel that God has blessed our website to become so popular across the country so that I can take up their cause. I am sure with blessings of our seniors and God on our side we will be soon successful. Now I am giving some of the latest inputs received by us in this regard so that all the affected bankers are updated.
In the meantime, I feel that if things do not go the way we wish, all bankers who have been denied 2nd Pension option should be ready for peaceful direct action / protests. I have discussed this with some affected bankers and I will share details sometime later on. We will need the support of few people who have experience of organising dharnas and other type of peaceful protests. Discuss this among common friends before we come with this strategy.
(A) A letter sent by S.Ramachandran Former GM BOB & VRS OPTEE AGE 74 SENIOR CITIZEN.
(B) A copy of Circular letter from IBA issued to "Designated
Officers of all Public Sector Banks (Except State Bank of India) issued as
back as June1 2000, advising them Quote "In terms of Regulation 29 of
Bank(Emplyoee's) Pension Regulations, it is only those officers who had, on
or after 1-11-1993 and after completing 20 years of qualifying service,
retired voluntarily that are eligible for pensionary benefits."
In the same circular, consequence upon the favourable Judgement from
Apex Court, the IBA clarified that the pensionary benefits has to be
extended even to the voluntarily retired before 1-11-1993 also.
Now it seems that the IBA is conveniently forgotten their own
instructions given to the Public Sector Banks (Except State Bank of India)
that the retirees under Regulation 29 are eligible for pensionary benefits
which we have to remind them now.
Click Here to Download an old letter of 2000 of IBA
(C) A letter by another veteran Mr A. Premanand Pai, who too takes up this issue on regular basis with various authorities. [We are also of the view that two judgments discussed below are not contradictory but are in favour of retired bankers. The issue discussed by SC relates to bankers who have retired prior t 01.01. 1993, who have not been allowed to be at par with others because of some other infirmities in rules and regulations.].
|
