Place : Udupi       

                                                                                            Date   :  03/10/2012

The Central Public Information Officer

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 : Information sought for under Right to Information Act  2005.

1.  I am already aware of the following information in the matter of arbitrary denial of Pension option to a section of Bank Employees.

a)  that Indian Banks Association undertakes negotiations on  behalf of the banks only and not on behalf of Govt. as informed to me vide letter 15/106/2010-IR dated 05/01/2011 of Department of Financial Services.  But the ground reality noticed by me is that IBA is acting as common agent between Bank and Govt. of

India  without the authority of any statute.

b) that department of Financial services communicated to Indian Banks Association alone its approval for the contents of joint note dated 27/04/2010 entered into between Banks and Bank  employees vide its letter DO No. 14/1/1/2007-IR dated 10/08/2010 in the matter of extending one more option for pension to all Banks employees who were in the services of Banks as on 29/09/1995 but did not opt then and continued to be in service any time during the period after 29/09/1995.

c)  that the fact IBA has confirmed to Department of Financial  services that there was no communication from Government to them to deny second option for Pension to officers who voluntarily retired under Bank officers service Regulations 1979 has been noted from the letter F No. 15/22/2012-IR dated 14/03/2012  addressed to one Mr S Ramachandran by DFS.

d) that IBA, as the agent of DFS vide its circular letter No. Cir/HR & IR/G2/665/90/ 2010-11/999 dated 10/08/2010 communicated  the above approval to the Chief Executives of Public Sector Banks with a distortion having serious and devastating raminfication on the officers of Banks who have retired under VRS other than under special scheme of Voluntary retirement.

e)  that DFS after coming to know the mischief played by IBA as its agent sought explanation vide its letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated 10/07/2012 from IBA and received their views vide their letter No. HR & IR/KU/Govt/G2/6223 dated 11/07/2012.

f)  that only after holding prolonged deliberations on the views received from IBA and having regard to the spirit of memorandum of understanding dated 27/11/2009 and joint note dated 27/04/2010, DFS expressed in its letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated 25/07/2012 that the negotiations clearly provide for extending benefit of 2nd option to all those who retired after 29/09/1995 and prior to the date of joint note.

g)  that vide letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated 25/07/2012, DFS has disapproved the action of its agent IBA which incorporated on its own the word "retired on superannuation “(as a deinition of the word "Retired" appearing in the joint note dated 27/04/2010) and said that the same is clearly contrary to the approval of

Govt. given on 10/08/2010.

h)  that after taking into consideration the fact that there has been a huge litigations on the issue of denial of option to one section of officers without any nexus to the objective of  negotiations and after due examination, DFS in its capacity as a Controlling Authority has finally concluded vide its letter No. 10/36/7/2010 dated 25/07/2012 that the benefit of 2nd option should have been extended to all those who retired from the service of the Banks during the prescribed period from 29/09/1995 to 27/04/2010 and not just those who retired on Superannuation and has further directed its agent IBA, to advise member banks accordingly.

1)  that instead of implementing the conclusive decision dated  25/07/2012 of Department of Financial Services, the officials of IBA common agent of Govt. & Banks, on 06/08/2012 with an ulterior motive have raised additional objections to abide by the  directions of its principal but promptly directed the Banks to extend one more option for pension to 9 ex-General Managers who have not retired either on superannuation or under special VRS 2000-2001 before becoming Dxecutive Directors.  By refusing to abide by the direction of the  Govt. in entirity, the  officials of IBA, have shown that an agent is more powerful than the  principal.

j)  that the objections raised by officials of IBA in its letter dated 06/08/2012 addressed to DFS inter alia include that the definition of retirement as given in Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 only is applicable, that only in 17 PSBs rules framed under Bank Service Regulation 19(1) are in inexistence, that the qualifying service for VRS under regualtion 19(1) varies from Bank to Bank, that the inclusion of those who retired on VRS under BOSR 1979 will give rise to demands from others who  resigned or compulsorily retired after putting in 20 years of service, that interpretation of joint note dated 27/04/2010 or change in the contents of joint note can be made only during next Bipartite settlement, that while calculating the cost factor for sharing of pension burden by the employees and the Banks, the Actuaries have not taken into consideration the VRS optees/ resignees etc.

k)  that in the year 1995-1996 when the pension scheme was first introduced in Banks, IBA and Banks successfully dodged for about 4 years the issue of extending option for pension to the then living VRS optees.  However after the dismissal of SLPs filed by Union of India IBA, Syndicate Bank, Bank of India and Union Bank of India wherein the Supreme Court of India observed that there  is no difference between those who voluntarily retired and those who ordinarily retired, the managing Committee of IBA took a decision in its meeting on 26/05/2000 to sanction  pensionary  benefits to all those officers who had voluntarily retired under specific scheme formulated by the Banks Board pursuant to the proviso to Regulation No. 19 of Bank officers Service Regulation 1979.  Such voluntary Retirees were thereafter sanctioned the pensionary benefits by all Public Sector Banks in terms of  Regulation 29 of Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 as directed by IBA vide its circular letter No. PD/CIR/76/G2/394 dated 01/06/2000.  (A copy is enclosed because it is a third party letter).  Thus the eligibility for pension option of VRS optees under Regulation No. 19 of Bank officers Service  Regulations 1979 is already decided by Supreme court of India as back as April 2000.  The feeble attempt by IBA to nullify the same after 12 years is equivalent to contempt of court orders.  Govt. of India was also a party to said SLPs dismissed by Supreme court of India.

e)  that the very same objections were placed by IBA in about 290 Writ Petitions filed by aggrieved VRS optees before High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble court on 30/08/2012 (i.e after the letter dated 06/08/2012 addressed by IBA to Dept of Financial Services) rejected lock, stock and barrel all such silly objections and directed the Banks to extend one more option for pension to all VRS optees.  It is learnt that some Writ Petitioners have brought the above decision dated 26/05/2000 of  IBA to the Kind attention of the court during the course of  proceedings.  In the said writ Petitions Department of Financial  Services are impleaded  as a necessary party to fulfill a mere formality.

m)  that any human mistake or ambiguity in drafting a Memorandum of understanding or settlement cannot be a reason for meddling with the statutory prescriptions.  Such human errors, if any, in any MOU/settlement/Joint Note cannot take away the benefit intendend  to be conferred on a homogenious group of employees by creating artificial divisions without any nexus to the main objectives of achieving maximum good to maximum people.  Such artificail classifications are contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

II.  I am still awaiting certain information in the matter of  denial of pension option to a section of Bank employees.

a) In my letter dated 08/09/2012 addressed to the consultant to Minister of Finance I have sought to know from him the follow up action taken by him after forwarding to IBA my earlier letter dated 27/04/2012 addressed to Minister of Finance under the cover of Departments letter F No. 10/30/IMP/2012-IR dated 24/05/2012 marking it as "IMPORTANT".  Even after the lapse of 5 months I have not received any communication either from IBA or from the consultant, Mr Ram Kanwer.

b)  In my letter dated 03/09/2012 addressed to the Secretary, Mr D K Mittal, Department of Financial Services I have requested him to advise directly the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks to implement on their own without any more delay the  instructions already given by DFS to IBA vide letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated 25/07/2012.  I have also requested him to advise directly the Chief Executives of all Public Services for filing appeals against the judgment of any High court in service matters.  I am in dark about the action taken by the Secretary, of DFS.

c)  In my letter dated 23/08/2012 addressed to the Minister of Finance, Mr P Chidambaram, Department of Financial Services, I have brought to his notice the arrogancy displayed by the  officials of IBA towards the directives issued by Govt. of India vide letter dated 25/07/2012 in the matter of extension of second option for pension to all Bank employees who are/were in service  as on 29/09/1995 for becoming member of existing scheme of  pension.  I had requested him to intervene in the matter and ensure that the writ of the Government is always honoured by every citizen, Association corporate  body and others however much he/they are high in status.  I am in dark about the action taken by the Ministry.

d)  In the letter No. 2012/08/12 dated 19/09/2012 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Financial Services by All India  Nationalised Bank officers Federation a subsidiary unit of AIBOC  which signed the joint note dated 27/04/2010 has categorically denied that the said note discriminate between the officers who retired on superannuation or by VRS or by any other mode and  further said that the definition of "Retirement" as given in Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations was not discussed during  negotiations.  In the aforesaid letter dated 19/09/2012, the Federation has also alleged that the discrimination between "retired on superannuation" and "retired under Regulation 19(1) of Bank officers Service Regulation 1979" is a creation of IBA through their circular dated 10/08/2010 and clarified that those who retired voluntarily in terms of Regulation 19(1) of Bank officers Service Regulation 1979 have not been banned any where in the joint note dated 27/04/2010 from the benefit of pension scheme.

III.  I am well aware that above lengthy version falls outside the domain of the provisions of RTI Act 2005.  At the same time I am also aware that the rank of the person holding the post of CPIO in the very same department is reasonably higher and he would be able to convince the concerned higher authority the need for ending arrogant approach of IBA officials.  Though all the VRS optees who are senior citizens with  poor health and poor financial position are simply struggling for their survival, the egoistic officials of IBA appears to be at war with the VRS optees.  Every public servant is a trustee of the society and in all facets.  The Secretary of the Department ought to have taken the officials of IBA to task with firmness of his earlier decision as soon as he received the letter dated 06/08/2012 from IBA since the law places an obligation on him in the discharge of his official duty as a Public servant to avoid injury to any other persons on account of his inaction.  An impression has now gained ground among the Bank employees that the officials of IBA are more powerful than the officials of Department of Financial Services.  This trend should not be allowed to grow any more. Because of soft approach and liberty given to IBA by Department of Financial Services on HR matters over the years, its officials are viewing every claim by Bank employees (retired/existing) as illegal and advising the Govt. to fight upto the highest court of the land knowing fully well that the courts would due to compliance with procedural formalities take more than several years to give a decision and on the belief that during the interagnum period at least fresh claims are avoided.  Precisely for the above reasons above lengthy  version is given by me.

IV.  Now coming to the main purpose, I seek from you the following information under the provisions of section 6 of RTI Act 2005.

A)  about the specific action taken by the consultant to Minister of Finance, Department of Financial Services on my letter dated 08/09/2012.  A copy of said letter sent by Regd Post is enclosed.  I am holding a postal acknowledgement.

B)  about the specific action by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance on my letter dated 03/09/2012.  A copy of said letter sent by me by registered Post is enclosed.  I am holding postal acknowledgement.

C)  about the specific action taken by the Minister of Finance, Govt. of India on my letter dated 23/08/2012.  A copy of said letter sent by me by Registered Post is enclosed.  I am holding a postal acknowledgement.

D)  about the specific action taken by the Secretary Department of Financial Services on the letter No. 2012/08/12/ dated  19/09/2012 addressed by All India Nationalised Bank officers Federation, New Delhi.  A copy of said letter dated 19/09/2012 is enclosed. 

E) A certified copy of letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated  25/07/2012 addressed by Department of Financial Services to Mr Ashok K Mushira, the chairman of Indian Banks Association may be furnished to me.  I am now holding a  xerox  copy of the said letter.

F)  about the specific directions given by Department of  Financial Services to Indian Banks Association in reply to the letter dated 06/08/2012 of IBA in which additional objections are raised.

G)  about whether the directions given by Department of Financial Services vide letter No. 10/30/7/2010-IR dated 25/07/2012 to Indian Banks Association have been withdrawn any time thereafter.

H)  I am enclosing herewith a Postal order bearing No. 05F 694292 for Rs. 10/- drawn in favour of Govt. of India payable at New Delhi.

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.

ontent content content