|
C
N Venugopalan (Former
Director, State Bank of Travancore and Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India)
|
|
“Nandanam”,
Kesari Junction, North Paravoor, Kerala -683 513 Phone: 0484 2447994 Mob: 9447747994
|
No.160611
11th
June, 2016
To: all beneficiaries of
Joint Note and original pensioners
Updation of Pension in Banks
Retired bank employees / organizations
are clamoring for up-dation of pension for years unable to establish that it is
an already sanctioned benefit vide regulation 56 and demanding it as a fresh
claim, thus strengthening the stand of the managements in not giving it.
Regulation 56 viz. Residuary Provision states that “in case
of doubt in the matter of application of these regulations, regard may be had
to the corresponding provisions of Central
Civil Service Rules, 1972 or Central
Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 applicable to Central Government
employees with such exemptions and modifications as the bank, with the previous
sanction of central government, may from time to time, determine. So long as IBA / banks have not sought any
exemption or modification, it is in derogation of regulations that up-dation of
pension is denied so far for years.
The regulation makes limpid,
beyond nay conundrum, that bank pension has invariably to be on the pattern of
pension of central government employees and non-revision of pension with each
bipartite settlement (unlike in the case of revision with each pay commission
in the case of central civil pension) is in gross breach of the Pension Regulations put in place in banks with the nod of
the Parliament. Denial of revision is apparently in derogation of
the pension regulations and rebelliousness to the Indian Parliament.
Regulation 56 is an inbuilt
provision for up-dation of pension; but all are under an impression that it has to be sanctioned by IBA / government not knowing
that it is a statutorily vested benefit.
The demand for it without seeking enforcement of regulation 56 as per
the intentions is preposterous.
In terms of regulation 3, all
categories of employees had to exercise option within 120 days of notification,
i.e. on or before 26.01.1996. Unless the regulation 3 is
amended, no one can be granted an option after 26.01.1996. the option given under the joint note is ultra vires
powers of IBA / banks.
Having granted pension to 50,000 plus retired and conferred the coverage to
about 5,00,000 employees on rolls, IBA
/ banks can have no roll back on this.
Banks granted pension to VRS retirees who had 15 years of service when qualifying service for pension to VRS retired was 20 years in
terms of regulation 29. The pension so paid was
unauthorized by pension regulations and pension fund trust rules.
Pension Fund Trust has no provisions to pay such pension. To escape from the
accountability aspect of the erroneous payments, banks amended regulation 28
relating to superannuation pension by adding to it a clause that “with effect
from 1st sept.2000, pension shall also be payable to an employee who
opts to retire through any scheme formulated y by the bank with the sanction of
the government, after purring in a service of 15 years. The
net result is that regulation 29 on pension on Voluntary
Retirement remains the
same and the pension so paid is still unauthorized. Confusion
was created in regulation 28 on Superannuation
Pension by adding to it
that an employee who has put in 15 years of service can get pension on
superannuation. Are these not stupidities?
Clause 10 of Joint Note stipulates that IBA should
send it to government for its approval and further action in terms of section
19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980. Section
19 (4) of the Act stipulates that the amendment to regulations carried out has to
be laid by the government, as soon as it
is made, in the houses of the Parliament for 30 days and will
have effect only if approved by the Houses
, or be of no effect, if not approved. The Joint Note
framed on 27.04.2010 has not so far laid in the houses albeit lapse of 6 years
and cannot be laid forever immediately on account of passage of six
years. It
is thus obliterated and is void. It
is on the basis of the void joint note that banks denied pension from the date
of retirement to the arbitrary date 27.11.2007 fixed in it to employees retired
prior to the date of the Joint
Note.
Regulation 5 (3) fixes the
banks as sole contributor to Pension Fund. And
the contribution banks make is not a gratuitous one, but is the statutorily
payable EPF contribution,
which the banks were to make pursuant to EPF
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 prior to notification
of Pension Regulations. Any
contribution to Pension Fund is thus the deferred wages
of the employees statutorily payable by banks .
It is not the money of the banks;
but the money of the employees.
The contribution at 56 percent
of EPF paid on retirement
in the case of retired employees and 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 in the case of employees on rolls raised
by banks on the basis of the Joint
Note for granting second
option is inconsistent with regulation 5.3 and regulation 11. The
boards of banks have no powers to make such regulations / amendments that
prejudice the validity of what is done earlier under a regulation vide section 19 (1) and 19 (4) of the banking
companies ( acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970/1980. as such, the
Joint Note containing such prohibited
covenants can never be placed in the parliament to take its nod. This
is why the Joint Note is not so far laid in the Parliament.
If there is any organization
i.e. union or association that is worth its name and banner and is having
commitment to the members in the industry, it can simply give a notice to the Central Labour Commissioner
pointing out the breach of covenant 10
of the Joint Note which makes the Joint Note
obliterated and void. If so the amount of unlawful collections made by banks to Pension Fund
from retired employees and employees on rolls and the pension denied from the
date of retirement to the date 27.11.2009 will become payable back to all, together with compound interest. Pension
Fund had been earning
income on the unlawful collections at compound rates by way of interest on Pension Fund investments and banks run no loss in making
the refund to those concerned.
The Pension Funds
of all banks have money enough to pay three to four times the present pension
to all their pensioners as the resources are abounding in them and the annual
growth can contain such payment with no impact on profits. To
cite an example the Pension
Fund of union bank had a
growth of Rs.. 6574.01
crores in five years after the date of the Joint
Note. There
are 3,106 retired employees and 17,473 employees on rolls from whom unlawful
contribution of Rs.
134.33 crores had been collected on the basis of the Joint Note.
After repayment of the
amount with interest, which can be contained in a maximum sum of Rs.300.00croes, the five years’
growth will still have a residue of Rs.
6,274.01 crores. This sum can foot payment of arrears
of pension with interest to 3,106 retired employees at Rs..2.02 crores per capita. The
actual arrears payable per capita will be in the range of Rs.15.00 lakhs to Rs.
35.00 lakhs only. When
the amounts can be paid without any pinch either to the bank –as pension is
payable out of pension fund with no impact to it – or to the government by way
of any budgetary allocation, non-payment is totally meaningless and lawlessness. The
present pay out of benefits i.e. pension / family pension is only 23.25 percent
of the annual growth ( year ending 31.03.2015). The
position of other banks is also similar and all of them can pay two to three times
pension to all their pensioners, without affecting profits.
IBA and banks cheated the work
force by not granting an option when the government directed IBA to advise all banks to
scrap the clause for forfeiture of service in regulation 22 (4) (b) and to
give effect to it vide F. No.4/8/4/95-IR dated 24.12.1997 which was
received at IBA on 27.12.1997. Giving
effect to it meant that an option be extended in the wake of the deletion to
those who could not opt when thee deleted clause was present in the
regulations. Banks amended the regulation but did not give
effect to it, duping the target group.
Union Bank amended the regulation on
27.02.1999 and kept it clandestinely in
camera until 08.10.2002 and published it with a delay of 43 months on that
date. There
were no unions/associations who could detect the fraudulent acts / omissions
and challenge it.
Section 10 (7) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 empowers the Board
of a bank to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as reserves in
its books only after making due provisions to superannuation funds. Given that the public sector
banks had, all along been, declaring
dividends to the government, which was applied for paying higher salaries and
pension to government employees and for
paying salaries to Ministers,
MPs etc. all had been
robbing bank employees, the Peter
to pay to government employees, the Pauls.
The bank officer had a higher pay than
the government office in the 1970s. When the bank officer drew Rs.500/- the government officer
had Rs.450 only. With
the nationalisation, an ethnic prejudice
that set in the minds of government
officials resulted in staggering bank pay on a level with government pay at Rs..725/-. Though
parity of reasoning requires that bank pay ought to be protected at the level
of pay in government, it is now lesser by
Rs..30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-
a month. The
bank employee worked for six days a week in hectic mode while the government
employee worked for five days only in a casual manner. All
policies of government are implemented through banks. The
government employees merely watch / monitor.
The process of
nation building was done by bank employees while the government employees are
merely regulating and monitoring.
with nationalisation of banks
and government ownership, bank employees became quasi-government employees
whose salaries are reasonably to be foot by the government. But
they draw their compensation out of the profits they make and not from exchequer.
They do not pass on the burden to the government. Yet
they are given a step motherly treatment by the government, in the matter of compensation for work.
The leaders who have raised hefty
subscriptions from members have never lived up to the expectations of members. In signing the Joint Note too, they surrendered even the statutorily vested
rights of the members. Their have to be more loyal to the
managements that regularly collect subscriptions / levies from members through
check off and give it to them. The Leaders of various organizations were of the view
that fresh option is not viable in the industry. Much
was their concern in not securing fresh option. After fighting for option for some five
years after my voluntary retirement at the age of 49, I had to issue a Circular
on 10th January,
2006 , country-wide, to appraise the victims who missed the option for
pension about the follies of the organizations. The following link will furnish testimony : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_UI4pgwLPCjYU9zVHd1azdEdWc/edit?usp=sharing
. Please click on it. The issue of option which was
dormant till then came into limelight only through this. This only forced organizations, that were
silent on it for years to make a demand for it. Though
a MOU was signed on
25.02.2008 after three to four agitations to conclude the matter within three
months, it took another 26 months to sign the Joint
Note on 27.04.2010.
And while signing it, the statutorily vested rights of the
employees were surrendered. It was the silent, solo, valiant
struggle I conducted for
a decade that brought 5,00,000 employees on rolls within the abmit of pension
again and secured pension to about 50,000 retired bankers who were on cross
roads. It is this work that redeemed the
right of pension that was lost forever for the bank employees and brought about
a renaissance in the industry. Retiree organizations got so much members as a result of second option as otherwise,
they would have got scattered away.
Time is not late even now for
us and for organizations too. The
unions can merely appraise the CLC and ask to set aside the Joint Note on the ground that clause 10 of it is
remaining undone and also make a demand for proper compliance with regulation
56. It can take care of refund of the
unlawful contributions with interest to all, pension from the date of
retirement to all those who are denied it till 27.11.2009 and also up-dation of Pension.
If the banking barons numbering
some 100 to 200 can act in derogation of rules and regulations and deceive the
vast number of pensioners and employees on rolls with their money power, the
deceived have to defend themselves by remaining united and proving their
might. If
all the victims join together and take
legal recourse, nothing is impossible for them.
We may be able to
hire Prasanth Bhushan, Jethmalani etc also, if needed.
We have a strong case and
we can fight legally engaging prominent counsels up to the level of Apex Court, in a different way. Sometimes,
three to four suits may be required to make claim in each one simple, sharp and
indefeasible. If
versatile decisions are emerging at High
Court level itself, there
will be no scope for IBA
to fight it in appeal and take it beyond it.
THOSE BENEFICIARIES OF THE JOINT NOTE AND ORIGINAL PENSIONERS SEEKING UP-DATION OF PENSION WHO WANT TO SUPPORT THE CAUSE AND
CAN MAKE A REMITTANCE NOT EXCEEDING
RS.5,000/- FOR CREDIT OF SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO. 33750 20700 15075 - C N VENUGOPALAN WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA , ALUVA, IFSE CODE UBIN0533751 WHICH IS A SEPARATE ACCOUNTFOR THE PURPOSE,
UNDER INTIMATION TO ceeyenvee@gmail.com
. It is not necessary for all to join
the writ petitions.
Thanks
and Regards
Yours sincerely,
C N
VENUGOPALAN
No comments:
Post a Comment