Friday, 21 June 2019

Uniform 30% Family Pension in Banks - Letter to IBA by CBPRO

Letter by CBPRO to IBA on the above subject is reproduced below



QUOTE :
Dated: 13.06.2019

To
Shri V G Kannan,
Chief Executive,
Indian Banks Association,
Mumbai.

Respected Sir,

Re: UNIFORM 30% FAMILY PENSION IN BANKS

The issue of improvement in family pension at a uniform rate of 30% of last drawn Basic Pay was a subject matter of discussion at the time of last Wage Revision which was concluded during April/May 2015 (effective 01.11.2012). Since the issue remained unresolved it was so listed in the record note signed by IBA and UFBU. There was an assurance given by IBA that the issue of improvement in family pension being a fair and reasonable demand will be resolved in a couple of months’ time. However, despite a lapse of more than four years, the issue remains unresolved. We have been given to understand time and again that IBA is engaged on the issue and it will be resolved shortly.

The merits of the case for improvements in family pension at a uniform rate of 30% are mentioned here-under:

a. Family Pension in Banks is payable @ 30%, 20% and 15% of last drawn pay where lower percentage being assigned to higher pay with a specified ceiling on the amount of Basic Family Pension.

b. The above methodology effectively resulted in the Family Pension working out to nearly 7 to 10% of last drawn pay restricting Basic Family Pension to a meager sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 14000/- after attainment of notional age of 65 years by the deceased employee or 7 years from the date of death, whichever is earlier.

c. Government and RBI Pensioners are paid Family Pension uniformly at 30% of last drawn pay without any ceiling. The pension scheme in Public Sector Banks was introduced on the lines of Central Civil Services Pension Rules and Pension Regulations 56 expressly provided for a reference to these rules in case of any doubt. Hence there is a strong case for uniform family pension @ 30% of last drawn basic pay as available in Government and RBI 

d. Despite all the hopes given by IBA at the time of signing the record note on pending issues of retirees in 2015, the issue remains unresolved on the pretext of the requirements of AS15R, actuaries’ estimates of incremental provision etc. Pension Regulations do not contain any reference to AS15R and the actuaries’ estimates are needed for making adequate provision which cannot be construed as a prohibitive clause to render justice.

e. Un-affordability of proposed improvement in Family Pension is being arbitrarily quoted to deny the benefit despite there being adequate provision made during the service tenure of the employee by the Bank for payment of full Pension to the employee. Thus Family Pension being lesser than the Pension of the Employee, it would involve a negative cost to the Pension Fund. Hence the contention of IBA about cost consideration defies logical, economic sense, rationality and above all humane consideration.

f. Family Pension being a highly emotive issue needs to be resolved urgently as assured at the time of last Wage Settlement vide second issue listed in Record Note dated 25th May, 2015. We request your good self to resolve the issue immediately as it is also an emotive issue consisting of large number of spouses of Retirees who happened to be women in the Super Senior category.

Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely,

(A.RameshBabu) (K.V. Acharya)    (S.C. Jain)
Joint Conveners, CBPRO     General Secretary, AIBRF

UNQUOTE

Sunday, 14 April 2019

Banking Ombudsman

Banking Ombudsman is a senior official appointed by the Reserve Bank of India(RBI) or a quasi (nominal) judicial authority functioning under India’s Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. Banking Ombudsman has the responsibility to resolve customer complaints against deficiency in banking services. At present 15 Ombudsmen have been appointed in state capitals by the RBI to settle customer complaints relating to banking services.
Revisions of Banking Ombudsman Scheme
In 2006, the Reserve Bank of India announced the revised Banking Ombudsman Scheme with enlarged scope that included customer complaints on certain new areas, such as- credit card complaints, deficiencies in providing the promised services even by banks’ sales agents, levying service charges without prior notice to the customer and non-adherence to the fair practices code as adopted by individual banks.
Further, under the new scheme, the governance and operations is fully staffed and funded by the Reserve Bank instead of the banks.
Eligible Complaints
The Banking Ombudsman can receive and  consider any complaint relating to a number of deficiencies related to banking operations including internet banking. The following type of the complaints can be taken up by the Banking Ombudsman:
  1. Non-payment or delay in the payment of inward remittances or collection of cheques, drafts, bills, etc.
  2. Non-acceptance, without sufficient cause, of small denomination notes or coins tendered for any purpose and for charging of commission for this service
  3. Failure to issue or delay in issue, of drafts, pay orders or bankers’ cheques
  4. Closure of account without customer concern
  5. Refusal to close or delay in closing the accounts
  6. Non-adherence to the fair practices code as adopted by the bank; and
  7. Financial loss incurred to customer due to wrong information given by bank official
  8. Any other matter relating to the violation of the directives issued by the Reserve Bank in relation to banking or other services
  9. Non-adherence by the bank or its subsidiaries to the instructions of Reserve Bank on ATM/debit card operations or credit card operations
  10. Non-disbursement or delay in disbursement of pension to the extent the grievance can be attributed to the action on the part of the bank concerned but not with regard to its employees
  11. Refusal to accept or delay in accepting payment towards taxes, as required by Reserve Bank/Government
  12. complaints from Non-Resident Indians having accounts in India in relation to their remittances from abroad, deposits and other bank-related matters
  13. Non-adherence to prescribed working hours
  14. Failure to honor guarantee or letter of credit commitments
  15. Failure to provide or delay in providing a banking facility (other than loans and advances) promised in writing by a bank or its direct selling agents
  16. Delays, non-credit of proceeds to parties’ accounts, non-payment of deposit or non-observance of the Reserve Bank directives, if any, applicable to rate of interest on deposits in any savings, current or other account maintained with a bank
  17. Delays in receipt of export proceeds, handling of export bills, collection of bills etc., for exporters provided the said complaints pertain to the bank’s operations in India
  18. Refusal to open deposit accounts without any valid reason for refusal
  19. Levying of charges without adequate prior notice to the customer
  20. Refusal to issue or delay in issuing, or failure to service or delay in servicing or redemption of Government securities
  21. Forced closure of deposit accounts without due notice or without sufficient reason.

Procedure for Filing Complaint

Before making a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, complainant should make a written representation to the bank and the bank should have:
  1. Rejected the complaint; or
  2. No reply within a period of 1 month after the bank received the complainant; or
  3. The complainant is not satisfied with the reply given to him by the bank.
  4. If no reply is received, not later than 1 year and 1 month after the date of the  representation to the bank.
After the above step, any person who has a grievance against a bank on any one or more of the above eligible grounds can himself or through an authorized representative (other than an advocate), make a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman.
Complaint arising out of the operations of credit cards and other types of services with centralized operations, should be filed before the Banking Ombudsman within whose territorial jurisdiction the billing address of the customer is located.
The complaint should be made in writing and should be signed b y the complainant or his authorized representative. In the complaint, the following information should be clearly stated:
  • The name and the address of the complainant.
  • The name and address of the branch or office of the bank against which the complaint is made.
  • The facts giving rise to the complaint.
  • The nature and extent of the loss caused to the complainant and
  • The relief sought for.
The complainant should file along with the complaint, copies of the documents, if any, which he proposes to rely upon and a declaration that the complaint is maintainable. A complaint made through electronic means should also be accepted by the Banking Ombudsman and a print out of the complaint should be taken on the record of the Banking Ombudsman.
On submitting the complaint, the Banking Ombudsman will call for records from the Bank and will initiate hearings to arrive at a conclusion.

Rejection of the Complaint

The compliant can be rejected by the Banking Ombudsman, if it pertain to the same cause of action, for which any proceedings before any court, tribunal or arbitrator or any other forum is pending or a decree or Award or order has been passed. Further, a complaint can also be rejected, if its made without any sufficient cause or not pursued by the complainant with reasonable diligence. Finally, a compliant can be rejected, if in the opinion of the Banking Ombudsman there is no loss or damage or inconvenience caused to the complainant.

Saturday, 2 February 2019

Dearness Relief to Pensioners for the months Feb.2019 to July 2019



Dearness Relief to Pensioners
70 Slabs more for the months Feb.2019 to July 2019
Average CPI 6885
AVERAGE INDEX :6885 – INCREASE IN DA -70 SLABS
RETIRED PRIOR TO 01-11-1992 - 1571 SLABS OVER 600 POINTS
UPTO 1250
1251-2000
2001-2130
ABOVE 2130
1052.57%
864.05%
518.43%
267.07%
AFTER 01-11-1992 UPTO 31-03-1998 - 1434 SLABS OVER 1148 POINTS
UPTO 2400
2401-3850
3851-4100
ABOVE 4100
501.90%
415.86%
243.78%
129.06%
AFTER 01-04-1998 UPTO 31-10-2002 - 1300 SLABS OVER 1684 POINTS
UPTO 3550
3551-5650
5651-6010
ABOVE 6010
312.00%
260.00%
156.00%
78.00%
RETIRED ON OR AFTER  1-11-2002 - 1149 SLABS OVER 2288 POINTS
                      FOR FULL BASIC PENSION – 206.82%
RETIRED ON OR AFTER  1-11-2007 - 1012 SLABS OVER 2836 POINTS
                      FOR FULL BASIC PENSION – 151.80%
RETIRED ON OR AFTER  1-11-2012 - 611 SLABS OVER 4440 POINTS
                      FOR FULL BASIC PENSION – 61.10%


DA Calculator

Wednesday, 30 January 2019

Is Legal heir and Nominee the same?

I wonder how many of us are aware of this legal twist.
Will your Nominee get the money on your death ?

Did you think that your nominee is the person, who will get all the money legally from your Life Insurance Policy and Mutual funds investments ?
Ha! That is exactly what you think if you are not aware of the legal aspects.
We assume a lot of things which sounds like they are obvious, but are not true from the legal point of view.

Today, we all concentrate on nominations in financial products.

For whom are we earning ?
For whom are we investing ?

Who, do we want to leave all our wealth to, in case something happens to us ?

It might be your children, your spouse, parents, siblings etc., or just a subset of these.
You also might want to exclude some people from your list of beneficiaries!.
So you think you will nominate person X in your Insurance policy, and when you are dead and gone, all the money goes to person X and he/she becomes the sole owner ?
You are wrong !
It does not work that way.

Let us see how it actually does!

Who is a Nominee ?
According to law, a nominee is a trustee, not the owner of the assets.
In other words, he is only a caretaker of your assets.
The nominee will only hold your money/asset as a trustee and will be legally bound to transfer it to the legal heirs.
For most investments, a legal heir is entitled to the deceased’s assets.

For instance, Section 39 of the Insurance Act says the appointed nominee will be paid, though he may not be the legal heir.
The nominee, in turn, is supposed to hold the proceeds in trust and the legal heir can claim the money.
A legal heir will be the one who is mentioned in the will.
However, if a will is not made, then the legal heirs of the assets are decided according to the succession laws, where the structure is predefined on who gets how much.
For example, if a man during his lifetime executes a will... In the will, he mentions his wife and children as legal heirs, then after his death, his wife and children are the legal owners of his assets.
It is essential that one needs to execute a will.
It is the ultimate source of truth and replaces the succession law.

Nominee can also be one of the legal heirs.
Important :
Mention the Full Name, Address, age, relationship to yourself of the nominee.
Do not write the nomination in favour of wife and children as a class.
Give their specific names and particulars existing at that moment.
If the nominee is a minor, appoint a person who is a major as an appointee giving his full name, age, address and relationship to the nominee.

Why is the concept of Nominee ?
So you might be wondering, if the nominee does not become the sole owner, why does such a concept of a nominee exist at all ?

It is pretty simple. When you die, you want to make sure that the Insurance company, Mutual fund or your Shares should at least get out of the companies and go to someone you trust, and who can further help, in process of passing it to your legal heirs.

Otherwise, if a person dies and has not nominated anyone, your legal heirs will have to go through the process of producing all kind of certificates like death certificates, proof of relation etc., not to mention that the whole process is really cumbersome! (For each legal entity! The insurance company, the mutual funds, for the shares, for the real estate..) .
So, to simplify, if a nominee exists, these hassles do not happen, since the company is bound to transfer all your money or assets to the nominee.
The company then goes out of scene & then, it is between nominee and legal heirs.

Example of Nomination :
Ajay was 58 years old who died recently in an accident. As his children were settled, he wanted to make sure that his wife is the sole owner of all the monetary assets. This includes his insurance policy and mutual funds. So during his lifetime, he nominated his wife as a nominee in his term insurance policy and mutual funds investments. However, after Ajay’s death things did not turn up the way he wanted. The reason being Ajay did not leave a will. Though his wife was the nominee in all his movable assets, as per the law, his wife, along with children, were the legal heirs and all of them had equal right to Ajay’s assets.

One simple step which could have saved the situation was that Ajay should have made a will which clearly stated that only his wife was entitled to get all the money and not his children.

Nomination in Life Insurance :
A policyholder can appoint multiple nominees and can also specify their shares in the policy proceeds. Nomination in life insurance has one limitation, as insurance policies are bought to secure your financial dependents, your first choice of nominee has to be your family members. In case you want to nominate a non-family member like a friend or third party, you will have to show/ prove the insurance company that there is some insurable interest for the person. This happens because of a Clause called PRINCIPAL OF INSURABLE INTEREST in insurance. Provision of nomination in life insurance is related to Section 39 of the Insurance Act.

As per LIC website ...
Nomination is a right conferred on the holder of a Policy of Life Assurance on his own life to appoint a person/s to receive policy moneys in the event of the policy becoming a claim by the assured’s death. The Nominee does not get any other benefit except to receive the policy money's on the death of the Life Assured.
A nomination may be changed or cancelled by the life assured whenever he likes without the consent of the Nominee.

Make sure, you have a nominee for your policy for easy settlement of the claim, if you do not have any nominee mentioned in the policy, it can turn out to be a disaster for your dependents to get a claim.

Nomination in Mutual Funds :
In case of mutual funds, you can nominate up to three people, who can be registered at the time of purchasing the units. While filling in the application form, there is a provision to fill in the nomination details.
Even a minor can be a nominee, provided the guardian is specified in the nomination form.
You can also change nomination later by filling up a form which is available on the mutual fund company website.
Nomination in mutual funds is at folio level and all units in the folio will be transferred to the nominee(s). If an investor makes a further investment in the same folio, the nomination is applicable to the new units also.
A non-resident Indian can be a nominee, subject to the exchange control regulations in force from time to time.

Nomination in Shares :
Now you know what a Nominee means and who actually gets the money.
So if there is a husband H, with wife W and nephew N, and he has nominated his nephew N to be the nominee of his shares in demat account, who will have the legal right to own the shares after husband’s death ? If you answer is wife, you are wrong in this case!
In case of stocks, it does not work the usual way, if a will does not exist. Section 72(3) of  The Companies Act.2013 reads as under:-
# 72(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of the securities of a company, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to vest the securities of the company, the nominee shall, on the death of the holder of securities or, as the case may be, on the death of the joint holders, become entitled to all the rights in the securities, of the holder or, as the case may be, of all the joint holders, in relation to such securities, to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner.

It means that if you have not written a will, anyone who has been nominated by you for your shares will be the ultimate owner of those stocks... The succession laws on inheritance will not be applicable... but, in case, you have made a will, that will be the source of truth.

Nomination in PPF :
You can nominate one or more persons as nominee in PPF. Form F can be used to change or cancel a nomination for PPF.
Also note that you cannot nominate anyone if you open an account for a minor.

Nomination in Saving/Current/FD/RD Account in Banks :
FD’s also come with nomination facility. While opening a new account, there is a column for nomination in the same form and you should fill it. You can nominate two persons with first and second option. Note that in case you have not done any nomination till now, you should request Form No DA-1 from your Bank which is used to assign a nominee in future.
In the same way to change/cancel the nomination, you need to fill up Form no DA-2.

Read about Corporate Fixed Deposits :
As per a famous case, A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha in an order said that the money lying deposited in the account of the original depositor should be distributed among the claimants in accordance with the Succession Act of the respective community and the nominee cannot claim any absolute right over it.
Section 45ZA(2)(Banking Regulation Act) merely put the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositors so far as the depositor’s account is concerned. But, it by no stretch of imagination make the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account, the Bench observed.

CONCLUSION :
Now you know!
Taking Personal finance for granted can be fatal.
Just investing knowledge, is not enough to have a great financial life.
You also need to be well versed with basic legal aspects and make sure you carry out all due arrangement .
Nomination is one important aspect you should seriously consider, when checking for the financial products you have bought or plan to buy in future.
It’s important to make sure that your loved ones do not face legal issues and only say and by think lovely thoughts about you when you are not around, rather than crib & grumble.
One can simplify the matter of writing will for financial assets by adding the following in the will for  one's immovable assets.

“In the last I bestow my financial assets inclusive of shares / mutual funds / bank accounts / post office accounts / insurance policies / tax saving instruments such as NPS, PPF, NSC etc. & valuables kept in the bank’s lockers etc. etc. to the person(s) nominated in the concerned account(s) / insurance policies / bank’s locker etc. etc. at the time of my death.”

'Disclaimer: The sole purpose of this blog is of  creating awareness on the subject and must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must do his own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this blog

Wednesday, 12 December 2018

Joint Memorandum on Pending Issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees



We wish to introduce ourselves as a Joint Coordination of Coordination of Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations (CBPRO, having 5 constituents viz Federation of SBI Pensioners’ Organisations, AIBPARC, RBONC, AIRBEA and FORBE) and AIBRF representing 100% of the Bank Pensioners & Retirees numbering about five lacs. We have been taking up the grievances of Bank Pensioners & Retirees with Indian Banks’ Association and Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India.  We are committed to the cause of Bank Pensioners & Retirees so as to bring about happiness and cheers on their faces in the evening of their life.  The following issues remain unresolved despite our several requests, reminders and personal meetings with the competent authorities.  We therefore request you to help us in getting these matters resolved early.

  1. Uniform 30% Family Pension :
a.    Family Pension in Banks is payable @ 30%, 20% and 15% of last drawn pay where lower percentage being assigned to higher pay with a specified ceiling on the amount of Basic Family Pension.

b.    The above mythology effectively resulted in the Family Pension working out to nearly 7 to 10% of last drawn pay restricting Basic Family Pension to a meagre sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 14000/- after attainment of notional age of 65 years by the deceased employee or 7 years from the date of death whichever is earlier.

c.    Government and RBI Pensioners are paid Family Pension uniformly at 30% of last drawn pay without any ceiling.

d.    Un-affordability of proposed improvement in Family Pension is being arbitrarily quoted to deny the benefit despite there being adequate provision made during the service tenure of the employee by the Bank for payment of full Pension to the employee. Thus Family Pension being lesser than the Pension of the Employee, it would involve a negative cost to the Pension Fund.  Hence the contention of IBA/Government about cost consideration defies logical, economic sense, rationality and above all humane consideration.

e.    Family Pension being a highly emotive issue needs to be resolved urgently as assured at the time of last Wage Settlement vide second issue listed in Record Note dated 25th May, 2015.



  1.     Updation of Pension:

a.    Pension Regulation 35(1) provided for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension in respect of those Employees/Officers who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987 and at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme in Banks during 1995-96 it was so given to them as they alone were eligible for Updation at that stage.

b.    Pension Regulation 35(1) was amended vide Gazette Notification No:9 dated 01.03.2003 providing for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension wherever applicable thus making it an open-ended scheme to provide the benefit of Pension Updation to all Retirees who become eligible on periodical revision of Pay through Industry level Wage Settlements.

c.    IBA/Government has been denying the benefit of Pension Updation despite clear provision in Pension Regulation 35(1) quoting cost consideration.

d.    Pension is a Deferred Wage and a property under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of Constitution of India and hence a statutory obligation of the Banks which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constituents of India.

e.    Pension including updated Pension and Family Pension become payable out of Pension Fund.  The present Pension Fund of the Public Sector Banks including State Bank of India is quite robust and healthy at more than Rs. 300,000 crores  with potential to afford payment of 3 to 4 times of present disbursements on account of Pension and Family Pension.

f.        In Banks Pension is paid out of Pension Fund which is created by the surrender of the mandated management contribution of Provident fund by the Bank Employees and Officers during their service.  Pension is not paid out of profits but of that fund so created.  Hence payments so to be made as per Pension Regulations will not affect the Balance Sheet of the Banks. Provision, if any, for Pension Fund is a charge on Profit & Loss A/c and hence is not payable out of net profit of the Banks.  Net profit has to be arrived at only after making all provisions including for payment of Salary and Pension which are statutory in nature. Statutory payments cannot otherwise also be denied for cost considerations.

g.    Banks have introduced New Pension Scheme for those employees who have been recruited after April 2010 and there is separate Fund created for the same.  This limits the number of Pensioners under Old Pension Scheme and even this number is subject to reduction with every passing year.  Ultimately when all Pensioners die their Pension Fund which is held in Trust shall remain hugely underutilised.  This further strengthens our contention for improvement in pension by periodical updation so that the Pension Fund of the Retired Employees is put to proper and intended use.

  1. 100% DA Neutralisation:

a.    Government of India introduced 100% DA Neutralisation in lieu of tapering DA vide 5th pay Commission (1996). Subsequently 100% DA neutralisation was extended to all Pensioners of the Banks except those who retired before 01.11.2002.  It was on account of wrong interpretation of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note signed during 2005 between IBA and Unions/Associations.

b.    Aggrieved Employees approached the Hon’ble High Courts and were awarded relief but Management of United Bank of India filed SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court.  During the final hearing and finding merits in the arguments of the Employees, the Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court observed that they had already passed an adverse order in a similar case and hence reversal of that order could be done only by a larger Bench.  Alternatively the Employees in whose case the adverse order was passed should file a review petition which could be tagged with the case of United Bank after condoning the delay.  Accordingly the review petitions were filed, delay condoned and petitions tagged with the case of United Bank of India.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court yet again passed an adverse order without any justification merely by stating that since earlier appeals of the employees were dismissed, the appeal of United Bank Management is allowed.

The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court came as a bolt from the blue to the employees.

c.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court based its Judgement on a misplaced ground of arithmetic consideration by stating that the improvement in DA for Pre-November, 2002 Retirees would result in exceeding the Wage Revision load factor of Rs1288 crores and thus may warrant a corresponding downward revision of Basic Pay structure of the employees and Officers which were covered by Wage Revision settlement made effective from 01.11.2002. This was completely wrong consideration as DA did not form part of the components of load factor. The arithmetical error committed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court needs correction.

d.    100% DA Neutralisation to similarlily placed Pensioners is made available to the Pensioners of RBI and LIC of India. Hence denial to a small section of Bank Pensioners is beyond reasonable comprehension.

e.    Compelling Senior Citizens to knock the doors of judiciary to realise their legitimate claims and aspirations is against the spirit of National Litigation Policy of the Government.



  1. Pension for those who Resigned after completing 20 years of Service:

a.    IBA had been denying Pension option to those who had resigned from the service of the Bank after completing minimum qualifying Pensionable service in the Bank. Aggrieved resignees sought judicial remedy and ultimately in case of the Employees of Vijaya Bank the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered extension of the benefit of Pension option to the petitioners who were allowed to opt for Pension.

b.    IBA has refused to extend the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to similarly placed persons in Vijaya Bank and also in other Banks. Expecting every individual to go to Supreme Court and struggle for several years for final judgement is unfair and also against the spirit of Litigation Policy of the Government.

c.    IBA was kind enough to extend the similar benefit to all the compulsorily retired people after few of the compulsorily retired people got favourable judgement from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Hence denial of Pension option to resignees is unfair and illogical.

  1. National Litigation Policy:

The policy is a good initiative of Government of India.  But various instrumentalities of the Government including Public Sector Banks which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India have been driving their Employees/Pensioners to seek legal remedy on settled issues, thereby defying the spirit of Nation Litigation Policy.  Such a situation causes a huge drain on the resources (judicial) of the Government while forcing avoidable financial burden on the Employees/Pensioners.  It is requested to ensure creation of a mechanism for resolving the anomalies created by wrong interpretation of the settlements or the provisions of settlements or wrong implementation and interpretation of various Regulations despite their being subordinate legislation – statutory in nature.

  1. Demand for Negotiating rights with IBA:
          
 It is requested to ensure creation of a mechanism for resolving the anomalies created by wrong interpretation of the settlements or the provisions of settlements or wrong implementation and interpretation of various Regulations despite their being subordinate legislation – statutory in nature. It will also help the Retirees to strive for further improvements wherever necessary.

To obviate and resolve such anomalous situations, we demand the following:

i)        The Organisations of Bank Pensioners and Retirees should be provided a structured forum to discuss their issues with Indian Banks’ Association.

ii)       Anomaly Resolution Committee should be constituted to look into the grievances of Bank Pensioners and Retirees.

We also demand that IBA calls us for formal discussion / negotiations for resolution of Pending issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees before sighing of 11th BPS with the constituents of UFBU.

7:   Reckoning of Special Allowance for Pension & Gratuity:

Last wage settlement dated 25th May, 2015 provided for introduction of a new special allowance carrying DA as applicable on Basic Pay. However the settlement also provided for a negative clause that special allowance shall not be considered for calculation of superannuation benefit viz Pension & Gratuity. This negative clause is illegal and cannot be used to the detriment of Retirees. Not reckoning special allowance for the purpose of calculating superannuation benefit is violative of Pension regulation 2 (s)(a)(ii) which provides that all allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the provident fund and for the payment of dearness allowance shall be included as a component of pay. It is pertinent to mention hear that provident fund not being contributory does not constitute a benefit to an employee. It leads the payment of dearness allowance as the only benefit available to employees on special allowance as in case of Basic Pay. Under such circumstances a negative clause in the 10th Bipartite Settlement to the effect that special allowance will attract DA but shall not reckon for calculation of superannuation benefits is illegal and contrary to the provision of Pension Regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). The only purpose of this negative clause was to take away the right conferred under pension regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pension Civil No:5525 of 2012 filed by Bank of Baroda that by signing a settlement or a joint note there is  no estoppel  as against the enforcement of statutory provisions(Pension Regulations) which could not have been tinkered with in an  arbitrary manner. Extending the same rule of law, the negative clause in the 10th Bipartite settlement/Joint Note about not reckoning special allowance for calculating superannuation benefit is violative of existing pension regulations and hence arbitrary and illegal.
     
           8    IBA’s Medical Insurance Scheme:

In pursuance of the directives issued by Dept of Financial Services, Govt of India on 24.02.2012, IBA was expected to evolve a Medical Insurance Scheme both for Serving and Retired employees. However IBA evolved a Medical Insurance Scheme for Serving employees providing for its cost to be borne by the Banks where as in case of Retired employees the premium was passed on to the Retirees though there was no such directive in the government communication. The medical insurance premium was quite reasonable and also subsidized by many Banks initially but with every successive renewal the premium was increased and subsidy from Banks disappeared. The premium amount which was Rs7500/- in the first year has gone beyond Rs90,000/- for the current year. The Retirees and Pensioners are rendered helpless to suffer injustice and cannot also go back to their own individual medical insurance policy discontinued after introduction of IBA scheme as they have crossed the minimum prescribed age for obtaining fresh medical insurance cover.

There is urgent need for Banks to bear the entire medical insurance scheme premium charged on IBAs Medical Insurance Scheme and also wave such premium from levy of GST so as to reduce the burden on Banks.

          9.    Effective Date of Gratuity Enhancement:

The recommendations of 7th Central Pay Commission to enhance Gratuity from Rs10 lacs to Rs20 lacs for Central Government Employees was accepted and implemented wef:01.01.2016 whereas the payment of gratuity act was amended at a later date and enhanced amount of Rs20 lacs was made effective from 29.03.2018 for the employees other than those working in Central Government. It astonishes that the Ministry of Labour & Employment has notified 29.03.2018 as the date of effect of enhanced gratuity despite a clear legal opinion from Ministry of Law & Justice, Dept of Legal Affairs that enhancement of gratuity and its admissibility/eligibility from particular date are issues relatable to social beneficial legislation and are to be construed liberally. It was further opined that according parity for quantum as well as effective date for employees governed by Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 vis a vis Central Government Employees has rationale and reasonable nexus and hence there appears to be no legal objection if said parity is allowed by Ministry of Labour & Employment. In this background the decision of the government to make the enhancement effective from 29.03.2018 thus hurting the interest of Senior Citizens is beyond comprehension.

There are other pending issues agitating the minds of Bank Pensioners and Retirees and the same are being actively taken up with Indian Banks’ Association for early resolution.  Such issues include grant of stagnation increment to those who retired between 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2015 in terms of 10th Bipartite settlement/Joint Note dated 25.05.2015 as has been allowed to the employees and officers of State Bank of India vide circular dated 18.07.2018 issued by CGM(HR) of State Bank of India, Corporate Office, Mumbai.

We request you to extend necessary help for resolution of these issues by Indian Banks Association/ Dept of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India at the earliest.
                  
(A.Ramesh Babu)       (K.V. Acharya)                     (S.C. Jain)
             Joint Conveners, CBPRO                General Secretary, AIBRF