VRS retirees' writs in High Courts

by

Ananth Shree Vas  [ shreevasanunth@gmail.com ]

I have tabulated the so called objections raised by IBA/Banks in the case of Option denial for pension to VRS retirees. Points have been taken from RBONC's communications and Mr Premanand Pai's letter. This is time to speed up the issue and preferably consolidate the matter at Supreme Court. Please see below.Time is running out.
 

 

S No	“Objections by IBA/Bank”	Explanation
1	In the WP against Syndicate Banks and Ors in the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka - An Officer Employee, by exercising an option may retire voluntarily before attaining the age of "Superannuation" under proviso 4 of Regulation No, 19 (1) of SBOSR 1979. Such retirement is not at the instance of the Bank. The provision under 1980 VRS rule framed under Regulation No. 19 of SBOSR that "all such benefits as are available to officers retiring on Completion of the age of the retirement" does not entitle them for exercise 2nd pension option to the existing scheme as pension scheme was not in vogue during the year 1980.	word “Superannuation" which is not there under Proviso 4 is imported by the Bank in the circular for a mischievous purpose. The word "Superannuation" is not found any where in the entire SBOSR 1979 or in the Pension Regulations. It is implied that superannuation means and includes officer retired in accordance with Govt. guidelines and also those retired under VRS of the bank framed in accordance with the rules under regulation No. 19 of BOSR. In the year 1980 when VRS was framed, ‘retirement’ means and include voluntary retirement also. The phrase that "all such benefits as are available to officer retiring on completion of the age of retirement does not mean" "all such benefits available as on 25/01/80 (date of bank circular) only" but it is an on-going phrase. Hence whatever changes made in the benefits, adverse or beneficial from time to time, are applicable to Voluntarily retirees also. Retirement under VRS 2001 is also not at the instance of the Bank. If 1980 VRS Retirees are not eligible for 2nd option on the plea that pension scheme was not in vogue during the year 1980,it is hereby submitted that special 2001 VRS retirees are also not eligible on the plea that under the said scheme also there was no assurance that such retiree will be allowed to opt for pension subsequently when any joint note is signed by banks and employees for giving 2nd option.
2	The purpose of modification made in circular No. 224/99 is limited to reduce the qualifying service at 20 yrs instead of 30 yrs for seeking voluntary retirement to 15 years for seeking Voluntary retirement under Special Scheme. However the modification does not provide for payment of pension to employees opting for voluntary retirement under Regulation No. 19 of SBOSR 1979 unless they had opted for pension scheme earlier in the year 1995 itself.	Similarly the special VRS 2001 circulated vide circular No. 194/ 2000/BC issued by the Bank though reduces the qualifying service of 15 years for those seeking voluntary retirement, it does not provide for payment of pension to employees opting for voluntary retirement under special VRS 2001 unless they had opted for pension scheme earlier in the year 1995 itself. As on 29/09/1995 officers including all types of retirees were entitled to opt for pension from 01/01/1986.
3	In the Writ Petition No.32475 to 32602/2010 between Dada Peer & ors and Canara Bank & ors wherein in Para 17 the “retirement” as defined in Reg. 2(y) of Pension Regulations,1995 is reproduced reading: “2(y) “retirement” means cessation from Bank's service - ( c ) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement;” At the same breath in Para 18 it is said “From the above definition of the term retirement, it is clear that those who have retired earlier to superannuation like the petitioners in terms of the rules of the bank are not treated as 'retired' and hence they are not eligible for another option for Pension”.	Even on a plain reading of the definition even a layman can come to the conclusion that those who retired before superannuation specified in Service Regulations (here Reg. 19 of Officers' Service Regulations,1976 enacted a decade prior to the introduction of Pension Regulations, 1995) are covered by the definition as above in Pension Regulations, 1995. It clearly shows the lack of legal knowledge on the part of the administration specifically who filed the statement of objections in respect of the Writ Petition referred above. In fact, the superimposition of the words “ on Superannuation” by IBA, before the agreed term of “retired thereafter”, in their circular to Banks, issued on 10th August 2010, in itself was not simply mischievous but was criminal in intent, tampering with an agreement, entailing severe punishment. The concerned officials of IBA should be made accountable for causing untold misery to the hapless Senior Citizens and the cost of suit –incurred by IBA as well as plaintiffs- be recovered from their emoluments, besides getting severe reprimands from the Hon’ble High Court.
4	One negotiating union written a letter to IBA on some misunderstanding cannot be taken as a reason for the Petitioner claiming for eligibility for another option to join the Pension Scheme. The fact was explained orally to the Association who wrote the letter and the very fact that they did not pursue the matter further itself as confirmed “They are made with an intention to mislead the Hon'ble High Court with ulterior motive. ….... The circular (of IBA) issued is in total conformity with the terms of Settlement/Joint Note.” That is to say, the clause for clearing doubts on interpretation was not invoked by the negotiating Unions.	It is strongly and vehemently opposed that the statement in Para 19 when it is referred to the letter of the General Secretary, AIBOC ( No. 1452/281/11 dated 25.0.2011), speaks the truth in volumes as otherwise there could not have been any cause for him to raise objections and to threaten to take legal action against the IBA. It is difficult to understand why it was not got cleared and the letter was not replied suitably? Why IBA was silent for nearly one year without responding to any of the letters of AIBOC? Whether such oral explanation said to have been conveyed will test the veracity at the court? Is it not misleading the court by suppressing the facts by an evasive reply saying it was orally conveyed? AIBOC as well as AIBOA had clearly called for a meeting with IBA, invoking the relevant clause for getting the matter sorted out, as both had blamed IBA for the misinterpretation, as early as in August 2010 itself.