 |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
Follow AllBankingSolutions @ 
|
Illegal Denial of 100% DA Neutralisation to Senior Citizens
Ads by Google
by
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
E-mail id-
ramans1938@gmail.com
Co-op
Bank Ltd (Ahmedabad)
Former Director General Maratha Chamber of Commerce
Industries & Agriculture, Pune.
By Speed
Post
To
2nd
March 2013
SHRI S.S.MUNDRA,
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ,
BANK OF BARODA,
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,
G-BLOCK, C-26, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051
DEAR SIR,
RE-
ILLEGAL DENIAL OF 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION TO SENIOR CITIZENS WHO RETIRED FROM
THE BANKS SERVICE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2002 BY THE BANK ON THE WRONG, ILLEGAL,
DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY ADVICE OF INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND INVIOLATION
OF ARTICLES 14 AND16OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
I am pained to
inform you that though I have retired from banks service on 1-4-1997 i.e well
before 1ST Nov ,2002 I am not getting 100% D.A. Neutrlisation . I may bring it
to your kind attention that supreme court has clearly reiterated the principles
relating the pension as under.
a) In
regard to pensioners forming a class computation of pension cannot be by
different. formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground
that some retired earlier and some retired later .If the retiree is eligible for
pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension is subsequently
amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension from the date when the
amendment takes effect. In such a situation the additional benefit under
the amendment ,made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied
to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the
aforesaid additional. benefit was conferred.
b) If the
writ petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of the pension scheme(
I have been enjoying the benefit of the pension scheme) .The relevant
pension scheme was subsequently amended only for the purpose of redefining the
pay for the purpose of re fixation of pension .The impugned was in the nature of
a procedural amendment and as such , I am also entitled to the benefits of the
new formula of computation, without any claim for arrears. I am claiming
the benefit from 27-11-2009 from which date I am getting the pension.
Ads by Google
C) The
bank would be justified in its contention in case I WAS NOT ELEGIBLE FOR THE
PENSION The 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint note has not evolved a new
scheme . The existing scheme continued as such with slight modification with
respect to the payment of dearness relief at the rate of 0.18% of the basic
pension..The bank now wanted the pensioners to be classified into two categories
without any material change introduced in the pension scheme. Even though
re-definition of pay for the purpose of pension was introduced only by the 8th
Bipartite Agreement/Joint note ,dated 2nd June, 2003 the benefit was
extended even to those who have retired during the period 1st April
1998 to 30April.2005.The classification therefore is nothing but artificial And
arbitrary and it was not on the basis of any rational principle. The bank
by restricting the benefits of the new definition of pay for the purpose of
pension to the employees who retired earlier, essentially created a class within
a class
d)The
All India overall Working Class Consumer Price Index remain the same not only
for the employees who have retired subsequent to 6th Bipartite
Agreement/Joint Note but also for others like the petitioners who have retired
before the cut-off date in question. The dearness relief at 0.18% of the basic
pension was introduced taking into account the ALL India Over all Working Class
Consumers Price Index. The prime inflation and price increase are common to all
the retired employees irrespective of the date of retirement . Therefore , the
benefits of such redefinition of pay for the purpose of pension should be given
to all the pensioners without any distinction
THE DISPOSITION OF MADRAS
HIGH COURT ON 14-12-2012 in THE MATTER OF W.P.9952/2007,W.P.14983/2007AND
W.P.6632/2007 FILED BY SOME OF THE OFFICERS OF BANK OF BARODA,CANARA BANK AND
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK IN RESPECT OF DENIAL OF 100%D.A.NEUTRILISATION TO RETIREES
PRIOR TO 1ST NOV,2002.
“Since the petitioners
formed a uniform class, the banks concerned in these writ petitions are directed
to extend the benefits of 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint note ,as
given to the employees who have retired between 1st November,2002 to
31 st October,2007,to writ petitioners ,such exercise shall be completed within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
THE DISPOSITION OF
HON’BLE SUPRE COURT OF INDIA ON 17-1-2013 IN THE CASE OF “KALLAKURCHI TALUK
RETIRED OFFFICIAL ASSOCIATION TAMIL NADU ETC WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 8853-8855 OF
2012 IN THE SIMILAR MATTER.
Even the supreme court in above
judgment observed that “the purpose of adding the component of dearness pay to
wage for calculating the pension is to offset the effect of inflation. In our
considered view therefore the instant classification made by the statement
Government in the impugned Government order dated 9-8-1989 ,placing employees
who had earlier retired after 1.6.1988 at a disadvantage , vis –a -vis the
employees who retired prior thereto ,by allowing them a lower component of ‘DEAR
NESS PAY”IS CLEARLY ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY ,AND AS SUCH ,IS LIABLE TO BE
SET ASIDE ,AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.”
In the light of above two
judgment s you will also agree with me that gross injustice has been done to me
and other retirees by the bank and IB A and it does not leave any logical scope
for IBA/or GOI or Bank to deny 100% D.A. neutralization for bankers who have
retired prior to 2002.and who are now more than 72 years of age. If IBA/bank
decides to go to SC based on some flimsy arguments ,it will be merely to buy
time and to harass the senior citizens retired bankers who are mostly above 72
years of age and will be wasting good money of the bank and Govt on the bad case
on account of the wrong interpretation by the I.B.A which has created the above
problem which made the affected retirees to knock the door of HIGH COURTS FOR
JUSTICE without any justification. It also needs I.B.A and GOI to be reminded
of National Litigation Policy
In view of the above I appeal to
you to gracefully resolve the matter by granting 100% D.A neutralization to
bank employees who retired prior to 1st nov,2002
COPIES OF BOTH THE ABOVE
JUDGMENTS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
S.Ramachandran
FORMER GM BOB
And stake holder
c.c to SHRI KAMATH, CHAIRMAN ,I.B.A
MUMBAI, FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY ACTION.
C.C TO CHIEF SECRETARY ,FINANCIAL
SERVICES.,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, FOR INFORMATION AND
NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS TO I.B.A DIRECTING THEM NOT TO GO IN FOR APPEAL AND IF
ALREADY GONE FOR APPEAL TO WITHDRAW THE SAME AND TO GRANT 100%D.A NEUTRLISATION
TO RETIREES PRIOR TO 1ST NOV,2002 AS DIRECTED BY THE HON’BLE MADRAS
HIGH COURT..
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
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 E-mail id- ramans1938@gmail.com Co-op Bank Ltd (Ahmedabad) Former Director General Maratha Chamber of Commerce Industries & Agriculture, Pune. By Speed Post
To 2nd March 2013 SHRI S.S.MUNDRA, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR , BANK OF BARODA, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE, G-BLOCK, C-26, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051
DEAR SIR,
RE- ILLEGAL DENIAL OF 100% D.A. NEUTRALISATION TO SENIOR CITIZENS WHO RETIRED FROM THE BANKS SERVICE PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 2002 BY THE BANK ON THE WRONG, ILLEGAL, DISCRIMINATORY AND ARBITRARY ADVICE OF INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND INVIOLATION OF ARTICLES 14 AND16OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
I am pained to inform you that though I have retired from banks service on 1-4-1997 i.e well before 1ST Nov ,2002 I am not getting 100% D.A. Neutrlisation . I may bring it to your kind attention that supreme court has clearly reiterated the principles relating the pension as under. a) In regard to pensioners forming a class computation of pension cannot be by different. formula thereby applying an unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later .If the retiree is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and the relevant pension is subsequently amended, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension from the date when the amendment takes effect. In such a situation the additional benefit under the amendment ,made available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional. benefit was conferred. b) If the writ petitioners have been enjoying the benefit of the pension scheme( I have been enjoying the benefit of the pension scheme) .The relevant pension scheme was subsequently amended only for the purpose of redefining the pay for the purpose of re fixation of pension .The impugned was in the nature of a procedural amendment and as such , I am also entitled to the benefits of the new formula of computation, without any claim for arrears. I am claiming the benefit from 27-11-2009 from which date I am getting the pension.
Ads by Google
C) The bank would be justified in its contention in case I WAS NOT ELEGIBLE FOR THE PENSION The 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint note has not evolved a new scheme . The existing scheme continued as such with slight modification with respect to the payment of dearness relief at the rate of 0.18% of the basic pension..The bank now wanted the pensioners to be classified into two categories without any material change introduced in the pension scheme. Even though re-definition of pay for the purpose of pension was introduced only by the 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint note ,dated 2nd June, 2003 the benefit was extended even to those who have retired during the period 1st April 1998 to 30April.2005.The classification therefore is nothing but artificial And arbitrary and it was not on the basis of any rational principle. The bank by restricting the benefits of the new definition of pay for the purpose of pension to the employees who retired earlier, essentially created a class within a class d)The All India overall Working Class Consumer Price Index remain the same not only for the employees who have retired subsequent to 6th Bipartite Agreement/Joint Note but also for others like the petitioners who have retired before the cut-off date in question. The dearness relief at 0.18% of the basic pension was introduced taking into account the ALL India Over all Working Class Consumers Price Index. The prime inflation and price increase are common to all the retired employees irrespective of the date of retirement . Therefore , the benefits of such redefinition of pay for the purpose of pension should be given to all the pensioners without any distinction
THE DISPOSITION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ON 14-12-2012 in THE MATTER OF W.P.9952/2007,W.P.14983/2007AND W.P.6632/2007 FILED BY SOME OF THE OFFICERS OF BANK OF BARODA,CANARA BANK AND INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK IN RESPECT OF DENIAL OF 100%D.A.NEUTRILISATION TO RETIREES PRIOR TO 1ST NOV,2002.
“Since the petitioners formed a uniform class, the banks concerned in these writ petitions are directed to extend the benefits of 8th Bipartite Agreement/Joint note ,as given to the employees who have retired between 1st November,2002 to 31 st October,2007,to writ petitioners ,such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
THE DISPOSITION OF HON’BLE SUPRE COURT OF INDIA ON 17-1-2013 IN THE CASE OF “KALLAKURCHI TALUK RETIRED OFFFICIAL ASSOCIATION TAMIL NADU ETC WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO 8853-8855 OF 2012 IN THE SIMILAR MATTER.
Even the supreme court in above judgment observed that “the purpose of adding the component of dearness pay to wage for calculating the pension is to offset the effect of inflation. In our considered view therefore the instant classification made by the statement Government in the impugned Government order dated 9-8-1989 ,placing employees who had earlier retired after 1.6.1988 at a disadvantage , vis –a -vis the employees who retired prior thereto ,by allowing them a lower component of ‘DEAR NESS PAY”IS CLEARLY ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY ,AND AS SUCH ,IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ,AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.”
In the light of above two judgment s you will also agree with me that gross injustice has been done to me and other retirees by the bank and IB A and it does not leave any logical scope for IBA/or GOI or Bank to deny 100% D.A. neutralization for bankers who have retired prior to 2002.and who are now more than 72 years of age. If IBA/bank decides to go to SC based on some flimsy arguments ,it will be merely to buy time and to harass the senior citizens retired bankers who are mostly above 72 years of age and will be wasting good money of the bank and Govt on the bad case on account of the wrong interpretation by the I.B.A which has created the above problem which made the affected retirees to knock the door of HIGH COURTS FOR JUSTICE without any justification. It also needs I.B.A and GOI to be reminded of National Litigation Policy
In view of the above I appeal to you to gracefully resolve the matter by granting 100% D.A neutralization to bank employees who retired prior to 1st nov,2002
COPIES OF BOTH THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
S.Ramachandran FORMER GM BOB And stake holder
c.c to SHRI KAMATH, CHAIRMAN ,I.B.A MUMBAI, FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY ACTION.
C.C TO CHIEF SECRETARY ,FINANCIAL SERVICES.,MINISTRY OF FINANCE, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS TO I.B.A DIRECTING THEM NOT TO GO IN FOR APPEAL AND IF ALREADY GONE FOR APPEAL TO WITHDRAW THE SAME AND TO GRANT 100%D.A NEUTRLISATION TO RETIREES PRIOR TO 1ST NOV,2002 AS DIRECTED BY THE HON’BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT..
|
