Certain section of bank staff is under the impression that pension option has been signed at the cost of staff that had already opted for pension. Their contention is that pension option should have not opened when management had earlier offered the same. Those employees who did not opt for pension should suffer for their folly. Further their contention was that instead of pension option union leaders should have fought for better wages in line with Central/State Government employees.
In this context it is clarified that bank employees get their salary out of profits of banks while Central/State Government employees’ get their salaries from consolidated funds of India. Bargaining power of bank employees has eroded over the years due to computerization, advent of private sector banks and partly due to our self interests. This factor has to b kept in mind while appreciating/criticizing the recently concluded MOU.
For unions it was a fight for survival as interest of about 3 lac employees was involved for another option of pension. Union leaders could not have lost sight of the fact that about 3 lac employees and their families were looking at them for breakthrough in getting pension option. Ministry of finance was also with the demand for granting another option.
If one read the MOU signed on 27.11.2009, it is clear that financial burden of another option will be shared by beneficiaries and not by bank employees who had already opted for pension. They are not to wary with addition load.
There are 4 types of bank employees.
- *Existing bank employees who are in service and opted for pension.
- *Existing bank employees who are in service of the bank and not opted for pension
- Bank employees who had retired and getting pension
- Bank employees who had retired without pension and got their PF( own and bank contribution)
* Existing employees have been defined as bank employees who will be in the service of the bank on the day of signing of Joint note/final agreement. (Joint note/final agreement has to be signed on or before 27.11.2010 as per MOU). Thus bank employees who will retire in Jan 2010 will also be called as retired employees.
The MOU does not cover bank employees who had retired and getting pension (No. 3 above). Their demand of merger of DA is not covered in the MOU. This issue may be taken up in next agreement due in 2012 as at that time each employee will be pension optee and bargaining power will be much more. Members may know that Parliamentary committee has agreed for merger of DA of bank pensioners. Time will definitely come when DA of pensioners will be merged.
Now the remaining cases.
- Existing employees who have opted for pension will share 3% of basic pay and 3% will be shared by banks to bridge the existing gap of pension fund. They have nothing to do with pension option and recovery of any additional amount from them.
- Existing employees who are in service of the bank and not opted for pension will be given another pension option. Number of such employees is about 272000.As per MOU, total financial burden is estimates as Rs. 17190.00 crore out of which Rs. 11532.00 crore is the bank contribution to be refunded by employees who will opt for pension. The gap Rs. 5658.00 crore and Rs. 343.80 as loss on account of incomplete data will be shared by banks and staff who opt for pension in the ratio of 70 and 30. Staff contribution will be Rs. 1800.54 crore. If we divide Rs. 1800.54 crore by 272000, individual employee’s contribution will be Rs. 66196. The unions and management has to divide this amount equitably and the issue will be addressed when final agreement is signed.
- There are about 60000 bank employees who did not opt for pension and got their PF. All bank employees who had retired after last option (1996) will be given another pension option. Total financial burden on this score is estimated as Rs. 4774.29 crore out of which Rs. 1657.79 crore bank contributions will have to be refunded by retirees who opt for pension. Remaining amount of Rs. 3116.50 crore will be shared by banks and new pension optees in the ratio of 70 and 30. Retirees have to share Rs. 934.95 crore. If we divide this amount by 60000, per employee burden comes to Rs. 155825. IBA and unions have to adopt methodology in such a way that amount is shared by each retiree in equitable manner. Tough there is no mention of recovery of interest on bank contribution, yet in my opinion bank contribution may be recovered with interest for the sake of equitable recovery.
During talks held on 9th Dec 2009, it has been clarified that pension option will be given to all the staff members who had retired on account of superannuation, VRS, special VRS. Cases of dismissal, resignation, compulsory retirement way of punishment will not be covered.
Recoveries from bank employees on account of pension option will be made from arrears payable.
There is no mention in MOU about commutation of pension but since pension option will be given under the provisions of existing pension regulations1995, retirees need not to wary about commutation as it will be given if desired.
[The article published above is written by Mr R.P. Agarwal, an ex Bank staff. Sincere gratitude to Mr Agarwal.]
95 comments :
thanks Mr. Agarwal The article is really great and it has its transperency, relieves some real tension as how to share the burden.
"Bank employees get their salary out of profits of banks while Central/State Government employees’ get their salaries from consolidated funds of India" is very much true.But we have to also keep it in mind, that this profit comes from a very imperfect market situation. Otherwise this profit can be double/triple.
"Bargaining power of bank employees has eroded over the years due to computerization, advent of private sector banks and partly due to our self interests". Actually NPA is the real culprit and a day will come when it(NPA) will be beyond control. Manipulation of NPA will one day backfire and our total structure will be collapsed.
The nasty political situation of ours, is certainly responsible for this, not bank employees.
66000 is really a big amount, does it mean i will not get any arrear ? I was not expecting more than 80000/- as arrear.
Will anybody tell me what additional amount has been contributed by the existing pension optees. Both PF oftees and pension optees are contributing their 10% of Basic pay and equal contribution is made by the Employer. I want to know about the use of this fund by the banks both in case of PF option and pension option. I want to know why the gap has arisen any how the existing PF optees are responsible for it?
Please clarify this mathematically if anybody can.
Unveiling truth about Pension Option afresh in Banks
• While Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995 some unions advocated it for all while others propounded that CPF would be beneficial and prevented many from exercising option
• The former wanted to ensure that those who did take their advice never get a chance again
• The latter remained firm on their stand and befooled members saying that CPF was still beneficial
• Both went in parallel lines that would never meet
• Many employees could not join the Scheme because of the infusion of the forfeiture of service clause in the final Pension Regulations
• Some who had opted in terms of draft Regulations quit the scheme when the forfeiture of service clause was infused when banks permitted revocation
• Revocation was null and void since the draft and Government sanctioned Regulations stated that “option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable”
• Banks did not extend and unions did not procure a fresh option to those who could not opt earlier when the penal clause remained in the Regulations upon deletion of the penal clause on 27th February, 1999 which created a legal obligation to do so
• Unions drove all those retired to various courts without extending any help and suits and appeals decided against employees created a formidable obstacle which could not be cleared easily
• Government categorically stated that it would not open the issue of Option again.
• Unions agreed in 2005 with IBA not to open the issue again, virtually selling out the fundamental right.
• Even as option was a legally vested right of all employees in 1999, Unions joined hands with managements and did not perform for it
• Pension Option became a shattered dream of bank men and a stale item with the passage of time and vanished from the charter of demand of all unions by 2005
• My vehement criticisms and a circular letter (dated 10th January, 2006) sent on all India bases explaining the lapse of the Unions and illegality IBA perpetrated brought the issue to lime light once again. But for the prodding and propulsion I did, the issue buried for would never have surfaced out again
• After a series of agitations, a MOU was signed on 25th February, 2008 between IBA and UFBU to the effect that the issue would be settled within three months.
• The time frame of the MOU of 25th February, 2008 was breached as Unions did not evince any interest in concluding things within the time frame.
• The issue got mixed up with wage talks and prolonged to add to the hardships of those retired. Working people suffered for ever since IBA made a foul bargain in the name of Pension burden by offering a low hike to bank employees who toil for six days when government employees who work merely for five days got a hike of 40 percent.
• Unions once again partially sold out the rights of bank men by agreeing to 70:30 sharing formula for the pension burden.
• Even as a final agreement was reached on 7th August 2009 on 17.50 percent hike and Pension Option, the next round of sitting could be arranged only on 27th November, 2009 after lapsiing three and a half months
Those who opposed a fresh option tooth and nail now say that they achieved the “second option” when none has got the first option as per the Regulations sans forfeiture of service clause.
The incredible has happened as a result of the relentless work I did for about eight years. It is the right of each and every bank employee to know how the benefit has reached him again. Unions and IBA which joined hands in taking away the given benefit of employees for about a decade has now surrendered by agreeing to release the benefit again.
For more details surf "C N Venugopalan on Bank Pension"
Story of fresh Pension Option in Banks - A self study
Zeal, enthusiasm and perseverance were three things in his armory while venturing for a solo fight against the brute forces IBA and Trade Unions and Government. All succumbed and unleashed the already given social security benefit, which they took away from the bank employees. The shattered dream of Pension Option afresh is realizing with the eight year long valiant struggle of a one man army.
Bank unions once again betray members by claiming accolade for achieving Pension, an already sanctioned benefit that was taken away from them. Agreeing to the sharing formula of 70:30 by employer and employee the benefit is surrendered to the employer partially. Past three decades witnessed a nose-diving of compensation in banks vis-à-vis other industries thanks to the self-less service of trade unions.
Courts have said that Pension is deferred wages and “not a charity doled out to the retired employee at the sweet will of the employer” and also as an inalienable right earned by the sweat of their brows”. Employees paying their own pension are a queer proposition when it is legitimate establishment expenditure of any business organisation. When the given social security benefit was detained and a number of retired employees got stranded in life, Unions and directors representing employees and officers who decorated bank boards remained inert for more than a decade. Leaders disowned responsibility I respect of the retired and drove all victims to Courts in quest of justice. Courts could not be of assistance as issues were not framed properly and the right of bank employee akin to fundamental right of a citizen was leased by banks. They deserted the people who played a pivotal role in making them what they are.
The penal clause contained in Pension Regulations, 1995 enabling banks to forfeit the entire past service of an employee for participation in strike prevented majority from opting for Pension when called upon to do so as forfeiture of service may entail loss of the existing benefit of CPF as also Pension. When the penal clause was deleted in 1999 through Gazette notification banks did not extend fresh chance of option to those could not opt when the deleted clause was present. Inertia of unions for years seven made Pension a stale issue and a shattered dream of the bank employee for ever by 2005. It vanished from the charters of demand of all Unions by that time. Rift and rivalry among Unions with different ideologies buried it deep in grave yard.
Unions that recommended Pension Scheme for all wanted to ensure that those who recommended CPF never get a chance to opt again. Others stuck to their stand and said that CPF was still beneficial, even on knowing things to be otherwise. They went in parallel lines meeting nowhere on Pension. Both schools of though now compete with each other blowing their trumpets on achieving the right after contemplating a virtual sell-out of the cardinal right of the employee by agreeing with IBA not to ask for the benefit again during the course of 8th Bipartite Talks.
continued
In 2001, the apex court turned down the appeals of victims seeking pension option. Government categorically stated that it is not possible to consider a second option on Pension. When Unions too agreed not to open the issue again, the door got finally closed for ever.
To call a spade a spade, Unions united and worked for Pension only on prodding and propulsion by a retired bank officer C N Venugopalan, who fought a valiant struggle against IBA making them his weapon. The historic battle he started in 2001 and lasted for eight years following his VRS from Union Bank. It has no parallel in history since his it ultimately made IBA succumb and unleash the lost social security benefit to nearly seven lakhs of bank men. He unveiled the gross injustice to the bank men across the country highlighting the legal aspects, showing how banks meted out injustice to the employees and unions remained mute spectators. An all India communication he issued to bank men, the letters sent to leaders and thousands of e-mails to bank offices brought the item to limelight making unions perform on it and later achieve the benefit though with permutations and combinations.
Sporadic strike actions resulted in a MOU on 25th February, 2008 between IBA and bank unions to settle Pension issue within three months. The time frame was breached beyond reasonable limits making the independent issue of Pension mixed up with wage revision prolonging hardships to the retired who had no regular income. It gave banks leverage for a foul bargain in the name of pension burden to offer a nominal salary hike of 17.5 percent to the six days working bank employee when government employees got a hike of 40 percent for their five days leisurely work. Unions claim it as the highest ever increase in the industry albeit it is much lower than the hike given to government employees.
IBA and bank unions gifted a series of strikes to the people the last one being on 6th and 7th August, 2009. At the behest of Chief Labour Commissioner, they signed the pact for Pension Option and wage hike of 17.50 percent. Further discussions did not take place for the next 111daysworked out fully.
When IBA extenuated paucity of funds to meet Pension burden, Venugopal pointed out that the extravagant expenditure of the industry which exceeded several times the amount needed to foot pension. He focused attention to “take over mania” and “interest rate war” giving concessions to potent borrowers during the period of 2002 to 2006 in the de regulated interest regime to facilitate cosmetics of the key persons. As a result of his vehement criticisms, the phenomenon vanished substantially from the scene by the end of 2006. Banks in India started making progressive profits consecutively from 2006 – 2007 through his work. The incremental profits over the year 2006 for the next three years of SBI, Associate Banks (other than State Bank of Saurashtra and State Bank of Patiala) and 17 listed public sector banks stood at Rs. 32,148.77 Crores. The amount of write off banks contemplated du\ring the past three years was to the tune of Rs.25000 Crores. The special Agricultural write package in 2008 came to another Rs.60, 000 plus Crores. It is ironical that banks that could splendidly meet the heavy write off and making remarkable profits of huge volume negotiate for a meager Rs.1800 Crores representing 30 percent sharing of the Pension burden from the side of employees. The amount one bank spent on change of its logo was nothing less that Rs.800 Crores when the pension arrears of its entire retired staff come to less that 10 percent of the expenditure.
Unions did not bring all the items to focus while discussing the issues and now claim accolade after surrendering the rights Pension partially to the banks. The work Venugopal did is unique, and leaves an indelible imprint in the history of banking.
Will anybody tell me what additional amount has been contributed by the existing pension optees. Both PF oftees and pension optees are contributing their 10% of Basic pay and equal contribution is made by the Employer. I want to know about the use of this fund by the banks both in case of PF option and pension option. I want to know why the gap has arisen any how the existing PF optees are responsible for it?
Please clarify this mathematically if anybody can.
After reading the version of Mr Venugopal, it is evident how our leaders behave and the perils of believing them blindly. At least from now onwards, let each and very employee make their own study before they take a view on the leaders promises. Hope the updation may materialize in the next settlement taking into steep increase in cost of living.
I am a VRS optee.retired on 30/04/2001,after putting30 years of service inIOB.My date ofbirth is31/05/1952.my last drawn salary:basic:Basic:14620.FPA:385.PQA385
will anybody pl tell my pension amt with full detailed calculation
thanking you,
m.j.jagadheesan
emailid:nangai.jagan29@gmail.com
Mr.Jagadheesan,
Calculation of Pension.
Basic Pension can be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments.
Pay" for the purpose pension shall mean Basic Pay+ Professional Qualification Pay, +Increment component of Fixed Personal Pay
In short, Basic Pay + allowances which are admissible to the extent counted for making contributions to provident fund.
1.Calculate average pay for the past 10 months prior to retirement
2. Average Pay/2 x Total years service/33 = Basic Pension
3.Calculate eligible DA on basic pension.
4. Basic Pension + DA = Total Pension.
Mr.Aggarwal/Venugopal, please tell me when pension option will be given to the existing p.f.optees inas much as it is said that the final agreement on pension is to be signed by 27.11.10. Can an existing p.f. optee seek VRS in Jan.2010?
Mr.R.P.Agarwal states in his note -(Joint note/final agreement has to be signed on or before 27.11.2010 as per MOU).
Any such date given in MOU dt.27.11.2009. as above?
Where as MOU clearly states that “The parties will endeavor to finalise the Memondum of Settlement /Joint Note within a period of ninety days from the date of this minutes”
ponse to Mr. Naresh, it is my view that VRS can be taken in 2010 January. The terminology "resignation" should not figure anywhere in any papers signed. Resignation entails want of Pension though the mode of exit should not matter. What really matters should be the length of service one has. As per Pension Regulations Pension is payable from attaining age of 60 only unless the exit is through a VRS formulated by the Bank and sanctioned by Government in terms of amendment to Regulation 28. The information supplied is without recourse, but based on all logics. The irrational IBA and Banks may take their own view despite what is agreed upon and Unions will remain mute spectators.
i think nobody is interested in satisfying my query.
Please clarify on the following.I took VRS during the month of May 2008. As per the latest MOU i am entitiled to opt for pension. For the purpose of arriving at pension which basic pay i should take whether the old basic pay or revised basic pay since i recd salary in the old basic pay for three months and i will be getting revised salary for seven months.
Mr.Parameswaran,
As per Pension Regulations,1995 the amount of basic pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of the average emoluments.Average amount is arrived by taking the basic pay during the last ten months of service.Old as well as revised.
Referring Parameswaran December 25, 2009 5:52 PM:
We have two types of calculation for retirees during a BPS period.
1)New/Revised DA effect.
2)New/Revised Basic effect
1)Those who are on service as on Dt:01/11/2007 the crucial date of BPS effective, will get their pension updated by simply adding DA of AUG-07 in their basic(average ten months basic as per eight BPS drawn) and their after they will draw new rate of DA from Dt:01/11/2007 as per nineth BPS.
2)Those who will be in service as on date of BPS finally signed say i.e. Dt:20/01/2010 or so, will draw their pension as per revised basic of nineth BPS.
Minutely observing the previous BPS after pension introduction, one can find these effects of crucial dates in this subject.
Thank you Chandan, but still i am not clear about it. As i said i was an employee on the date of bipartite settlement. I took VRS on 25-05-2008 ie subsequent to seven months from the date of settlement effective date. Please inform me whether my basic pension will be fixed on the revised or old basic pay.
Referring Parameswaran December 25, 2009 7:56 PM:
Dear Sir,
your basic for pension will be fixed as per eighth BPS because you have already retired before the date of nineth BPS finally signed(it is yet to be signed). But as you were on service as on Dt: 01/11/2007 (Due date for nineth BPS), as per previous practices noticed in earlier BPS, your last ten months average basic as per eight BPS(though you may draw wages arrears in new basic for seven months)+ DA as on AUG-OCT 2007 quarter will be considered to arrive on a 'new basic pension'. This amount has neither any direct resembles with eighth BPS nor with nineth BPS. However you will get new improved DA as per nineth BPS. This is known as 'UPDATION'.As on date this facility is not available to other retirees who retired during the span of previous BPS.
Here is an exemplary calculation to clear your doubts:
Suppose your basic is 20480/-, say average ten months basic is also 20480/-(I have not taken here FPP & PQP). Your DA amount for 164 slabs 29.52% as on drawn in OCT-07 stands 6046/-. So after adding Basic 20480/- with DA 6046/-(DA as on Dt:31/10/0/2007) it stands 26526/-. You have arrive in your new basic pension as per formula you know 26526/2 x number of years of service(subject to maximum 33)/33.Say it is 13263/- and on that basic you will get revised DA as per nineth BPS. As you retired in May-2008 you will get 28 slabs(pensioner's DA twice in a year i.e. Feb & Aug) and if it will be 0.15 per slab as per nineth BPS(yet to be decided), then new DA will be 4.2% & amount stands(on pension basic 13263/-) 557/-. So total pension will be 13263/- +557/- = 13820/- in June-2008.In old DA rate for 28 slabs you are to receive 5.04% on 10240/-(20480/2) amount stands 516/- in new DA you will get 557/-.When DA will go up the difference between old and new DA will be more in amount wise.This improvement only you will get for nineth BPS not anything else.
Had you been retired on or before Dt:31/10/2007, then you would have been not get any updation or new DA. Please note that, the concept of implemented dates for pension & wages are not the same.It is different from each other.
The doubt in your mind, that you have worked seven months in nine BPS period, so why not you get that effect.Please note it is not the due date of BPS, but the crucial date of BPS signed, from when new basic for pension gets its effect, for those who retired on or after the date(BPS signed).So if someone will be retired on today,he will also not get nineth BPS basic for pension like you, as BPS is yet to be signed.
Ours is a little bit different than 'central govt pension' which is effected from Dt:01/01/2006 from the date of new cpc implemented.In their case ten months average is not necessary. They can draw pension based on last month salary drawn, and it was implemented since fifth cpc long back. Thanks
A CLARIFICATION:
With reference to my comment December 25, 2009 11:05 PM:
Sometime the crucial date for pension to be drawn in revised BPS may be changed a little bit. In eighth BPS the date fixed for revised pension was on & onwards Dt: 01/05/2005, while BPS signed on Dt:02/06/2005.This change also to be taken into account in my earlier comment mentioned above.Someone retired as on date may or may not get new/revised basic for pension, depends on the subject to be signed finally between union & iba.However it must be after date of MOU signed i.e Dt: 27/11/2009.
Thank you Chandan for the excellent clarification. Anything is going with respect wage revision settlement. Silence prevails everywhere.
As per eighth bipartite settlement pension is to be paid on the basis of last pay drawn prior to retirement to death of the employee. No where in the settlement it is mentioned that 10 months avergage basic pay is to be calculated for the purpose of arriving at the basic pension. Can somebody clarify this point for the benefit of blog members.
i was on half pay during the last six months due to sick leave. if i seek vrs in january after 29 years of my service in the bank with b.p of rs.19360 as officer in scale I, how much revised basic pension will be arrived at in view of last six months half pay
Mr.Parameswaran,
As you are aware Pension payments are governed by Bank Pension Regulation 1995.Fund is managed by a trust and not by bank.
All matters related to pension are as defined by the regulation only, including rate of pension. Here comes the definition of Pay and average pay etc.
Since Bipartite Settlements covers wage revision,service condition and super annuation benefits,revision of Basic Pay and DA will have corresponding impact on pension payments. Not any seperate thing contrary to pension rules.
Referring naresh December 26, 2009 7:26 PM:
Though you are on half pay, but for the purpose of pension, notionally full pay will be taken into account for calculation of last ten months average basic for this period.Only on case of loss of pay on some specific grounds, one has to go beyond ten months back for this calculation.
You have not mentioned your left over service. If it is around four years, you will get full pension i.e 50% on total of existing or revised basic(depends on crucial date for revised pension decided in Nineth BPS)+ basic portion of FPP+ PQP if any.
let me know the LIST OF OLD GENERATION PRIVATE BANKS IMPLEMENTING THE IBA NEW WAGE SETTLEMENT AND ONE MORE PENSION OPTION
Chandan Sir, I am Naresh here. I have completed 29 years service as on December 2009 and have 8 years left over service. But I intend to seek VRS in January 2010, will not I get 5 years benefit to arrive at full pension? Please clarify, thanks.
Dear Naresh
Max is 33 years. In your case you may additional weightage of 4 years.
narshji
please wait until signing of bipartite settlement it may take another couple of months i e upto march 10 you will get a little bit more pension
Referring naresh,December 27, 2009 10:30 AM:
Dear Mr. Naresh,
It is very simple.I don't know why are you so confused. To be entitled for full pension .i.e 50% of {basic + basic portion of FPP+ PQP} 33 years of qualifying service is required.In case of VRS there is a provision of adding 1/4 of actual service period or maximum 5 years or left over service which ever is lower. In your case 5 years will be added and your will be 29+5=34 years qualifying service for the purpose of pension.But for your information, beyond 33 years of service say 34,35,36,37,38,39 or 40 all are equivalent to 33 years for the purpose of pension calculation.
So you must get full pension i.e 50% as I already stated above. Please don't be confused further.
Mr.Prasad,
The following old generation private banks were party to 8th bipartite setlement. 1.The Bank of Rajasthan
2.Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.
3.The Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.
4.The Federal Bank Ltd.
5.The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.
6 Karnataka Bank Ltd.
7.The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.
8.The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
9.The Nainital Bank Ltd.
10 The Ratnakar Bank Ltd.
11.The Sangli Bank Ltd.
12.The South Indian Bank Ltd.
13.ING vysya Bank ltd
14 Lord Krishna Bank Ltd.(since mered with HDFC bank)
.
My present Basic Pay is Rs.16010/-and completed 33 Years of service let me know my new Basic Pay and Terminal Benefits (Pension Opted)
Thank u Sir
Hi Friends
Thankful,if any one could clarify my doubt.I took voluntary retirment in Feb 2001 (Under Golden shakehand scheme) after putting in 18 years of service.I have not opted for pension. There was a onetime relaxation under the scheme that employees with 15years of service were eligible for pension,if they had optted for the same.
My question is will I stand to get a option for Pension with 18 years of service? If I had opted for pension originally, then I would have been entitled under the one time exemption given under the scheme.
Thanks
Varaprasad
I reired Decem2007 as Speical asstt.after completion of 38y 6monhs of service as a pension optee.My BasicPay+Stagnation+SplPay+FPP+PQA at the time of reirement was 13210+3360+1600+560+360 respectively. What will be my Revised Basic Pension & DA for Feb2010 &Whether I am elligible to Revised Pension w.e.f 1stJanuary2008 & Difference Commuted Value of Pension & Whether I have to sacrifice anything for Pension Corpus as like us existing employee? Please satisfy me
Referring arunkumarbhattacharyya December 31, 2009 12:21 AM:
Dear Sir,
Please refer my comments on a parallel pension case of yours posted in this headlines on December 25, 2009 11:05 PM & December 26, 2009 7:53 AM(comments sl no: 21 &22).Hope that will enable to reply your quarry. Thanks.
Referring arunkumarbhattacharyya December 31, 2009 12:21 AM:
An addition to previous comment:
"As you are & will be in eighth BPS for pension calculation, there is no chance for you to avail difference Commuted Value of Pension."
Sirs,
I am working as a special assistant (29 years of service completed) in one of the subsidiaries of SBI. I have 9 years of service left. My present basic pay (8th BPS) is Rs.16010/- spl allowance 1600/- FPA(exclg. HRA component}Rs560-and PQA Rs900/- MY sixth and final stag.increment is due in NOV.2011. I am a PF optee. Is it a worthwhile proposition now to goin for pension option now, considering the fact that I have to surrender Bank PF {accumulated with interest} upto Rs.6.00 lacs apart from contribution of Rs.66000/_ and 3% of new BP {as observed in this blog}A detailed clarification is very much appreciated.
Referring partha December 31, 2009 10:42 PM:
No second thought.Must opt pension.
I request Mr.Agarwal write very frequently on the bank wage revision/pension related queries of youngsters who are very much concerned with the state of affairs happening around us in the name of talks with IBA/Govt/aiboa/aibea/aiboc/ncbe etc
I request Mr.Agarwal write very frequently on the bank wage revision/pension related queries of youngsters who are very much concerned with the state of affairs happening around us in the name of talks with IBA/Govt/aiboa/aibea/aiboc/ncbe etc I wish a happy 2010 to all bank employees/pensioners/and young bankmen.
I am a SVRS optee with 17 years of Service in 2000. My pension would be Rs.4500/- after commutation.Asking me to pay Rs.1.5lacs for 30 % gap is not realistic. Hence, the Unions and IBA should be equitable in making the contributions from Retirees for gap
Sundar
Can any one pls clarify what is the exact definition of VRS, Special VRS & resignation?
can we get contact details of Mr. Venugopal or Mr. Agrawal for to get our queries answered?
dear Ratnakarji,
as requested by you i furnish below sri venugopal address
SRI.C.N. VENUGOPALAN,
[EX UNION BANK]
"NANDANAM"
KESARI JUNCTION,
N PARVOOR,
KERALA PIN683513
EMAIL
WITH WARM REGARDS!
[m.j.jagadheesan]
retd iobian cmailid<nangai.jagan29@gmail.com
I am working in one of the nationalized bank as officer in scale-I and completing 28 years of service as on 10.01.2010 (my present age is 53 years) and also PF optee and in terms of MOU dated 27.11.2009, i am eligible for pension option. My query is that if I take VRS after exercising pension option when pension disbursal commences as there are reports that pension shall commence only after attaining 60 years. Please clarify this point as there is total confusion in this aspect and as there are different version on various websites. I wantto leave bank services as early as possible. With kindest regards and Happy makarsankranti greetings
Referring rvs January 13, 2010 9:16 PM:
In your case you will get full pension, 28+5=33 years of qualifying service. No need to be frightened on those base less reports. I am also from a nationalised bank and in our bank there is also a long queue for this purpose.Banking job becomes a failed one due to different reasons.However you can post here the related websites those published different versions ,as you mentioned, for my verification of their authenticity. Thanks.
I refer to the query of Mr. RVS whether pension would be granted from the next day of exit. Regulation 28 of Pension Regulations has been amended by adding a new provision with effect from September, 1, 2002. It states " Provided however that with effect from 1st September 2000, Pension shall also be payable to an employee who opts to retire after serving a period of 15 years through any scheme formulated by the Bank and approved by the Government". This was published in 13th July, 2002 in Gazette. The VRS as per Sewrvice/Pensio Regulations, strictly speaking is formulated by Bank and carries with it the approval of the Government. This is the legal position. But what stand the Bank will take is not known. They behave arbitrarily and illegally. They may say that only those who go out on special VRS are eligible.
In your case, if you want to go out for taking up other good/better assignment, why do you worry about getting Pension when you get good compensation outside. The interest you would earn on your terminal benefits would compensate you adequately for the small sacrifice. You will be relieved of unnecessary stress and strain from the bank job.
Yet think thrice and even more weighing your other circumstances. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. If you are so confident that quitting will be better, then do it boldly and do not repent later spoiling peace of mind
As things stand today,finalization by 25.2.1010, ( 90 days from the date of MOU) appears to be a remote possibility in so far as officers are concerned. Would Mr.Venugopal please explain what are the possibilities beyond 25.2.10. Whether the existing MOU would still be valid or a fresh one would have to be concluded. Vasudevan
The only way to elicit action from the so called leaders of UFBU who seem to have slipped into coma like state is to bombard them with messages (mail ID has been provided elsewhere in the site)and demand to know what exactly has transpired so far and what exactly would be the next course of action. In short force the leaders to be transparent and take the members into confidence.
It is reliably learnt that talks with officers union have failed and leaders chose to walk out today owing to inflexible attitude of IBA. Future course not seem to have been decided. Prophecies of many of the members in this blog has turned out to be correct. It was widely anticipated that no results would be achieved.Here is an opportunity for the members to demand transparency and seek full details. Vague statements that many issues could not be clinched etc etc would not cut ice with members. No time should be wasted in deciding upon future course of action. It is really strange that while many sectors could benefit from the munificence of the Govt without any significant contribution to the exchequer, bankers have been reduced to beg for insignificant benefits. Future meetings if an when held should be on a day to day basis and with full committee of negotiating team of IBA to ensure that patience of the members are not put to test any further. Vasudevan
Everything proves to be a Trade Union/Political gimmick and mockery. In spite of having good nexus with Left and Right parties Unions miserably could not get the MOU of 27th November 2009 implemented in time. Mr Nair IBA Chairman was boasting about finishing things within 45 days from the MOU date but failed miserably in carrying out the assurance.
Unions which should have worked for a fresh option from 27th February, 1999 when the amendment to the Regulations took place by deleting the clause enabling forfeiture of past services for participation in strike had abandoned the Pension issue by remaining inert on it till end 1995 and ultimately surrendered it agreeing with IBA not to press for it again during the course of the last bipartite talks in Dec. 1995. Courts could not be of any assistance since Supreme Court had turned down the appeals in respect of fresh option in 2001 itself. Government of India too said that the item would not be opened again. When it ultimately proved that there is no other way than pushing the unions that I issued a four page circular to all P F Optees working in all banks across the country and prodded and propelled the Unions bringing the item into the limelight. This is how the item started figuring in the demand lists of Unions of Officers and Employees, of Left and Right ( Both wrong). Even as subsequent strikes resulted in one MOU on 25th February, 2008 to clear the item within three months from then, Unions did not evince interest to get the MOU implemented. Now another two years elapsed adding hardships to the retired who do not have Pension. Clubbing of Pension with wage pact resulted in giving a leverage to IBA for offering a low pay hike to the working. Working hand in glove with IBA Unions made a sell out of the right partially by agreeing to 70:30 sharing formula of Pension Burden. These leaders and IBA should tell what banks would have done if every body had opted for Pension when it was initially offered. Government, IBA, Leaders and Statesmen should adopt a reasonable approach to the issue and settle everything including wage Revision in a rationalist way by translating into reality the MOU of 27 11 2009 although belatedly so as to rescue banking industry from the dilemma especially in view of the fact that a large number of retired are in crossroads for want of any income amidst spiraling costs
ceeyenvee@gmail.com
The suit on Pension Option filed in Kerala High Court on 1st April, 2003 is coming up for hearing on 12th March, 2010. IT has the number 11108/2003
Sri Venugopal,
I fully agree with you and and appreciate the singleminded devotion with which you had taken up the case.I am one of the many members who used to read your mail messages to bank employees.
I think you willbe a better lader now ,and we invite you to take up the challenge to save the employees from the predicament.
You had once written praising the present set of leaders in taking up the issue. But nw see what they have done?
Why don't you step in?
" Yadaa yadaa hi Dharmasya.....
It is reported that suit filed for pension option is coming up for hearing in Kerala High court on 12.3.10 (re Shri venugopal's post). Would this have any impact on the present settlement as second option has already been agreed to. could this be used to delay the settlement further ? would the enlightened Sh.venugopal clarify, Vasudevan
Please help me to find the pension I will get with following particulars:
Retd from Bank 31.12.06
No of years service 35
Last drawb Basic 16570
Special ASSt Allow 1600
HRA 1622.65
CCA 375
Bank PF contribution 575000
Dear Mr. Venu Gopal
I took VRS in the month of Jan.2001 after 23 year of Service. Please inform me the pension I am entitle after opteing the penion in IX BPS
Mohinder Pal Singh
Once again in dilemma?
Much awaited Pension option has come placing all in a fix whether to go in for it or remain in CPF.
This is the last chance knocking at your door as it will not be coming once again for sure.
Looking at your CPF balance (Bank's share) and its possible growth you may be tempted not to surrender it and stay in CPF. One has to consider that one's counterpart in the Pension Segment also would have identical balance, which he has surrendered to Pension Fund.
The amount to be paid as entry fees i.e. 2.8 times pay and Allowances is the only penalty for gaining entry now. This can be regarded as the punishment for not opting earlier. This is an amount which can be taken away from you if you fall prey to a disease or and accident. This can be borne splendidly when you are earning and you are comfortable. The sum payable shall not bar you from becoming a member of the social security project.
The aforesaid levy of 2.8 times of Pay in the case of the working and 56 percent ( 156 percent of CPF paid at the time of retirement) in the case of those already retired is the only levy that becomes payable for Fresh Option.
Since Pension is paid as per the Pension Regulations which is one and the same for all members the collection becomes illegal and the amount so levied will naturally be payable back. This can be got enforced through the Court. Pay back is guaranteed, 99.9 percent .
Fresh Option was legally mandatory when the clause providing for forfeiture of entire past services which prevented bank men from opting was deleted from the Pension Regulations in February, 1999. For extending it subsequently, no such levy or entry fee can be collected.
The date of commencement of Pension to the retired should, in all fairness, be from the ensuing moth of retirement and not from the 27th November, 2009 arbitrarily fixed by those concerned. In agreeing to the date, the negotiators have surrendered the rights of the retired to their detriment. The compromise made is unauthorized and illegal. This has to be subjected to legal review.
I make the above comments after relentlessly fighting for justice for the past nine years and making the opportunity available to all the victims, of course with your co-operation by agitating with the managements by participating in strike.
The final decision is yours alone and it is up to you to make your destiny. May God Bless all of you.
C N Venugopalan, Ex-Manager, UBI ceeyenvee@gmail.com
I have taken vrs from syndicatebank under svrs -2000 after completing 19 years service.My querry is will i get 5yrs additional service for compution of pension?. MY basic at the time of retirement is RS8000/- ,how much pension Iwill get now ,if opt for pension under second option?.Can some my doubt please?
j.mastan rao
With reference to j.mastan rao i say his position is comfortable. He will have to repay a small amount of Rs.1 lakh maximum for which he will be getting a good amount as pension
Ceeyenvee@gmail.com
Thanking Mr.Venugopalan for your clarification,my basic questions are
1.Since I completed 19 yrs of service will I get additional 5 yrs notional service for calculating pension?
2.I received rs212000/-as bank contribution under pf., what will be the commutation value since ihave retired at the age 44years?
3. I have retired with a basic of rs8000/- in 2001 under svrs what will be my pension approxmately,can any please clarify?
Mr Jarugulab will have to return some Rs.1.00 lakh and will get pension of Rs.12000/-. Rs.1 lakh is net of commutation and Pension from 27 11 2009 to the date of commencement of regular payment. This is only a rough estimate
I have taken SVRS in June 2001 after completing 22years and 6 months. My basic at the time of retirement was 13560, POA 135 and FPA 375. The bank's contribution to the PF and int. thereon received on retirement was around 2.4 lakhs. Can anyone let me know how much I need to contribute to opt for pension and how much pension will I get.
C N Venugopalan
Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India
Nandanam
Kesari Junction,
N Paravoor,
Kerala – 683 513
Phone. 0484 2447994 Mob: 9447747994 E-Mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
No.20100511 11th May, 2010
The Principal Secretary,
Office of the Prime Minister,
Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001
Kind Personal Attention: Shri. T K A Nair,
Respected Sir,
I am very much inspired by the speech of our Hon'ble Prime Minister on 8th May, 2010 addressing the Golden jubilee National Conference on Law & Governance of the Bar Association of India wherein he called upon Indian legal fraternity to become an integral part of the system of administration of justice in the country. The worthy Prime Minister stressed that justice shall not only be in the strictest legal sense and should focus, social, economic and political justice as set out in the preamble of our magnificent Constitution. The Prime Minister was seen elated to say that the Cabinet consisted of several outstanding legal luminaries making it capable of giving good governance to the country. Affordable litigation and reduction in number of suits were his aspirations.
It became obligatory on my part to bring to the attention of the Hon'ble Prime Minister an event which took place against the laudable objective with which he is functioning in line with the magnificent Constitution. While concluding the wage pact of the Bank Employees and extension of fresh Option of Pension to those bank men who could not opt when the scheme was launched initially in 1995, the Hon'ble Finance Minister, a member of the Cabinet and a legal luminary has advised the parties to the agreement viz. IBA and Bank Unions to extend the benefit of Pension to the retired employees with effect from the date 27th November, 2009 when they are in the legal and socio economic grounds entitled to Pension from the ensuing day of their retirement. The act of depriving them the benefit from the date of retirement is, in letter and spirit, against the Constitution of India. While fixing an arbitrary date which was irrelevant in the context, the action of the Hon'ble Finance Minister was vitiated by breach of the oath of office he took while swearing in, to treat people of all manners alike.
The following anomalies had crept in the wage agreement in the key industry of India:-
1. Those who are already retired and are now in financial distress have to pay back 56 percent of the CPF which banks paid to them on retirement as penalty albeit the fact that Payment of Pension is under one and the same Pension Regulations and identical people who opted earlier had not to pay such a contribution
continued
2. The Pension for the period from their date of retirement to the date 27th November, 2009 arbitrarily fixed at the behest of the Union Finance Minister is denied to the retired which is prima facie illegal.
3. The existing bank employers in the CPF segment who have to enroll under Pension Scheme have to pay back from the arrears 2.8 times their Revised Pay for November, 2007 in addition to surrender of employers' share of CPF as entry fees when their counterparts who opted earlier had not to pay it
Pension is declared as the right of an employee which is akin to Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court and making the employees share it is shame to the Financial Sector and to the nation. In short IBA and Banks are imposing irrational penalty to all the new entrants to Pension Scheme. In the case of those now working, Banks are taking back with the other hand a lion share of the salary arrears paid through one hand. Whereas the arrears attract Income Tax, and the recovery does not attract tax rebate, a further penalty is also imposed indirectly by way of tax. Gross discrimination is meted out to all those are to be encompassed under Pension Scheme albeit the fact that the Pension Scheme is one and the same for all. It is learnt that the decision for recovery of money to finance the alleged short fall in Pension Fund and denial of pension from the date of retirement etc have stirred bank employees creating a turmoil and turbulence throughout the nation.
Identical lots are not given uniform treatment in spite of the fact that all are doing the same work when the salary and perquisites and retirement benefits for SBI employees totally differ from that of the Public Sector Banks and SBI subsidiaries. When Government gave a pay hike of 40 percent to its employees who work for five days a week, the Bank Employees who work six days are given a hike of 17.5 only, a major portion of which too is taken back in the name of the Pension burden. The denial of Pension from the date of retirement up to the arbitrary date, recovery of 56 percent of CPF as levy from them and penalty of 2.8 times Pay from the working etc. take things to the nadir of ethics. I earnestly request you to please place the matter before the Hon'ble Prime Minister and to advise MOF to issue fresh directions to ensure that perfect justice is made available to retired bank employees including me in line with the aspirations and vision of the great Prime Minister as also to ensure that the Cabinet does not become a party to give rise to fresh Court cases coming up in relation to Pension of Bank employees.
Waiting to hear from you, I remain.
Thanks and regards,
Yours faithfully,
C N Venugopalan
2. The Pension for the period from their date of retirement to the date 27th November, 2009 arbitrarily fixed at the behest of the Union Finance Minister is denied to the retired which is prima facie illegal.
3. The existing bank employers in the CPF segment who have to enroll under Pension Scheme have to pay back from the arrears 2.8 times their Revised Pay for November, 2007 in addition to surrender of employers' share of CPF as entry fees when their counterparts who opted earlier had not to pay it
Pension is declared as the right of an employee which is akin to Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court and making the employees share it is shame to the Financial Sector and to the nation. In short IBA and Banks are imposing irrational penalty to all the new entrants to Pension Scheme. In the case of those now working, Banks are taking back with the other hand a lion share of the salary arrears paid through one hand. Whereas the arrears attract Income Tax, and the recovery does not attract tax rebate, a further penalty is also imposed indirectly by way of tax. Gross discrimination is meted out to all those are to be encompassed under Pension Scheme albeit the fact that the Pension Scheme is one and the same for all. It is learnt that the decision for recovery of money to finance the alleged short fall in Pension Fund and denial of pension from the date of retirement etc have stirred bank employees creating a turmoil and turbulence throughout the nation.
Identical lots are not given uniform treatment in spite of the fact that all are doing the same work when the salary and perquisites and retirement benefits for SBI employees totally differ from that of the Public Sector Banks and SBI subsidiaries. When Government gave a pay hike of 40 percent to its employees who work for five days a week, the Bank Employees who work six days are given a hike of 17.5 only, a major portion of which too is taken back in the name of the Pension burden. The denial of Pension from the date of retirement up to the arbitrary date, recovery of 56 percent of CPF as levy from them and penalty of 2.8 times Pay from the working etc. take things to the nadir of ethics. I earnestly request you to please place the matter before the Hon'ble Prime Minister and to advise MOF to issue fresh directions to ensure that perfect justice is made available to retired bank employees including me in line with the aspirations and vision of the great Prime Minister as also to ensure that the Cabinet does not become a party to give rise to fresh Court cases coming up in relation to Pension of Bank employees.
Waiting to hear from you, I remain.
Thanks and regards,
Yours faithfully,
C N Venugopalan
C N Venugopalan
Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India
Nandanam
Kesari Junction,
N Parvoor,
Kerala – 683 513
Phone. 0484 2447994 Mob: 9447747994 E-Mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
No.20100611 11th June, 2010
The Hon'ble Minister for Finance,
Govt. of India,
New Delhi
Sir,
Fresh Pension Option to Bank Employees –
Government shall not offend the Constitution and substantive law
I invite your kind attention to letter No. PMO ID No.9 3 2010 – PMP4 164953 and 164954, both dated 2nd June, 2010 from the Prime Minister's Office, forwarding my letter Nos. 20100511 and 20100511 (a) dated 11th May, 2010 to your office for appropriate action.
The Government that evolves out of the magnificent Constitution of the nation has the responsibility of conserving and protecting its grandeur by ensuring various guarantees like right to equality of the citizens besides its own sanctity. For the very same reason, the Government has to secure the various assurances and guarantees relating to equality of the people of all manners to place itself at the pinnacle of glory. The Government itself becoming a party to creating circumstances in which a certain community feels totally aggrieved will not be able to retain its sheen. The aggrieved will tend to make a hue and cry and will ultimately be driven to Courts of Justice for redressing their grievance resulting in huge influx of petitions in Courts that are already saddled with heavy backlog of cases.
IBA and Bank Unions have concluded an agreement to extend a fresh Option for Pension to those who could not exercise it when offered in 1995 because of the presence of an adverse chapter providing for forfeiture of entire past service of an employee in case one participated in strike any time. Though fresh option was legally mandatory to be extended to them when the particular clause was scrapped from the Pension Regulations in February, 1999, Public Sector Banks fraudulently kept the amendment in camera and failed to comply with the legal requirement and deprived majority of bank men of their legitimate right. Albeit the fact that the draft Pension Regulations of 1993 and the Final Pension Regulations sanctioned by the Government categorically stated that "an option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable", banks revoked the options of some employees (including me) exercised in response to the draft Regulations. This was done at the behest of IBA which is a mere voluntary organization of banks and had no powers to overstep the authority of the Government. IBA and Bank Unions, through their whimsical actions, evolved several queer banking equations, proving themselves as totally incompetent to address wage related issues of bank men. If the government goes by the recommendations of IBA – to be better called Indian Blunder Arcade- its very image will be get tarnished soon. It has become imperative that the Government set up a separate Pay commission for the Bank employees for determining the compensation for labour in the industry as in the case of Government servants.
Now that the Government is examining the modalities of extending fresh Option for Pension, it is inevitable that the absurdities are eliminated and full justice is rendered to the people who have been stranded in life for want of income after serving the banks for making what they are now. I felt is desirable that proper feed back on items of strategic importance be given to MOF as otherwise, the wrong implementation of the scheme may generate an impression among the banking community that the MOF and the Hon'ble Minister heading it are devoid of the requisite faculties of mind. With a view to preventing fresh anomalies in the process of implementation, the following items deserve special attention:-
1. Banks are alleging deficit in Pension Funds and lack of financial muscles and make an attempt to recover from the beneficiaries of Pension Scheme a substantial amount from their wages. This has no locus-standi. The simple question that pops up is "what banks and Government would have done if every one had opted for Pension when offered initially?"
1. The recovery of Provident Fund (employer's share) paid at the time of retirement together with 56 percent on it from the retired is a gross anomaly. While commissioning the Pension Scheme in 1995, all those who retired from 01 01 1986 were given its coverage on refund of the CPF paid on retirement along with 6 percent simple interest. This is having precedence and if it is done, it will bring in some amount of fair play. One who retired 10 years back paying 56 percent of the CPF ( say on Rs.2.50 to Rs.3.5 lakhs) may not be suffering much, but one who retired recently say in 2009 also paying back the same 56 percent ( say on Rs.7.00 to Rs.9.00 lakhs ) will be the worst victim of the stipulation. The former must have at least enjoyed the interest on the amount while the latter has not at all. Subjecting the latter to such an irrational payment is vitiated by gross injustice. The envisaged recovery as also its modality is equally not maintainable.
2. Pension is payable under one and the same Pension Regulations. Recovery of a levy from one segment is illegal as another set of employees are paid pension without the levy.
3. While concluding the pact on Pension, the date from which Pension is payable to the already retired is reportedly fixed as 27th November 2009, the date of signing the pact. This deprives the beneficiaries of the Pension payable to them from the date of retirement to such arbitrary date, albeit their legal eligibility to get the same. In my own case, the amount of Pension forfeited through the pact would be Rs.9.00 to Rs.10.00 lakhs for the past eight years. If the bank and the government are to snatch away the pittance payable to an employee on retirement for its functioning, it poses a big shame to the great nation. The wage pact was one to be signed much earlier and the undue delay in signing the same has also put the beneficiaries to the loss of pension for the delayed period as per the "black pact". When one set of people who have done the same work for the organization are paid pension from the date of their retirement, denying the pension payable to the others till the arbitrary date is quite unfair from legal and social angles. It is heard that the date is agreed upon at the instance of the Hon'ble Finance Minister after the parties to the pact consulted him. If so, it can cast a shadow on the reputation of the Minister who himself is a legal luminary and a versatile genius and the decision takes things to the nadir of ethics.
4. As per the Pension Pact, the commutation will be allowed as on the date of the option and not on the basis of the age at the time of retirement. This runs counter to Pension Regulations as subsequent amendment of the Regulations in any manner infusing fresh conditions will be as futile as patching a hole with darkness. Commutation is, in all fairness to be reckoned on the basis of the age at the time of retirement and not from the date of option as there is no enabling provision so far in the Pension Regulations.
.
5. Recovery of 2.8 times the revised pay of November, 2007 from those who are in services is also not justified in any way as their counterparts who are already in Pension Segment are not made to pay the levy. Fact remains that when pay revision took place every time, a portion of the load factor was taken from the PF Optees and Pension Optees uniformly and placed in Pension Fund of Banks. Courts have viewed Pension as deferred wages and once again taking a fresh levy, that too from CPF optees alone for placing them in Pension Scheme is irrational. A number of suits are already filed in different parts of the country already by the victims.
6. The key industry is perpetrating inequality in compensating labour since three retirement benefits viz. Pension Gratuity and CPF are paid to employees in government run Allahabad Bank while those in other stronger PSBs banks paid two benefits only. The position obtaining in State Bank of India is also similar to that in Allahabad Bank. How can one reconcile if pay and allowances in MOF is different from that obtained in another Ministry.
The various legal aspects relating to the fresh option are reportedly being examined by the MOF in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice now. In order that righteousness is established in the process of implementation and the possible huge influx of petitions in various High Courts are prevented, it is felt essential that the recovery of 56 percent from the retired, 2.8 times pay from the working etc. are dispensed with and commutation is permitted on the basis of age at the time of retirement while extending fresh option. It is my humble submission that the Government shall not inflict an injury to the Constitution of the Country and to substantive law placing itself on Achilles' heels while dealing with the banking community that has contributed their mite to the Financial Sector in a great way. If instructions have already been issued, they may please be revised in a befitting way.
5. Recovery of 2.8 times the revised pay of November, 2007 from those who are in services is also not justified in any way as their counterparts who are already in Pension Segment are not made to pay the levy. Fact remains that when pay revision took place every time, a portion of the load factor was taken from the PF Optees and Pension Optees uniformly and placed in Pension Fund of Banks. Courts have viewed Pension as deferred wages and once again taking a fresh levy, that too from CPF optees alone for placing them in Pension Scheme is irrational. A number of suits are already filed in different parts of the country already by the victims.
6. The key industry is perpetrating inequality in compensating labour since three retirement benefits viz. Pension Gratuity and CPF are paid to employees in government run Allahabad Bank while those in other stronger PSBs banks paid two benefits only. The position obtaining in State Bank of India is also similar to that in Allahabad Bank. How can one reconcile if pay and allowances in MOF is different from that obtained in another Ministry.
The various legal aspects relating to the fresh option are reportedly being examined by the MOF in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice now. In order that righteousness is established in the process of implementation and the possible huge influx of petitions in various High Courts are prevented, it is felt essential that the recovery of 56 percent from the retired, 2.8 times pay from the working etc. are dispensed with and commutation is permitted on the basis of age at the time of retirement while extending fresh option. It is my humble submission that the Government shall not inflict an injury to the Constitution of the Country and to substantive law placing itself on Achilles' heels while dealing with the banking community that has contributed their mite to the Financial Sector in a great way. If instructions have already been issued, they may please be revised in a befitting way.
It is also pertinent to say here that the six days working bank men are paid a pay hike of 17.5 percent alone when the five days working government employees were paid 40 percent hike which is 229 percent higher than that of bank men. The proposed variable pay in baking industry is also fraught with serious repercussions as it will result in erosion in income when those who pleased the immediate boss will be paid lavishly.
.
I am enclosing a copy of the letter, Former Justice of Supreme Court Mr. Krishna Iyer had addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister in relation to fresh Option of Pension to be extended to bank men. A copy of my letter is also marked to the Ministry of Law for their information for doing the needful. It is my earnest desire to roar the slogan "Bharat Mata Kee Jai" as done hitherto and not "Weep, Weep Mother India".
I earnestly request you to consider the various matters at length and to have me a line in reply.
Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,
C N Venugopalan
cc.to:-
The Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice,
Government of India, New Delhi
C N Venugopalan
Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India
Nandanam
Kesari Junction,
N Parvoor,
Kerala – 683 513
Phone. 0484 2447994 Mob: 9447747994 E-Mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
No.20100619 19th June, 2010
Shri. O P Bhat,
Chairman,
Indian Banks Association,
Mumbai.
Respected Sir,
Good Morning
I introduce myself as an Ex-Manager of Union Bank who went out through VRS in 2001. We have met once at Guruvayoor when SBT offered the "Ekadasi Vilakku" to the Lord.
I am immensely glad IBA has elected you as its Chairman. Hearty congratulations to you on being enthroned in the office. The installation of the great banker of the country in the pinnacle position gives hopes for a thorough revamping of the policies of IBA which had been bad and unfair. It is my wish that banks in India may set the house in order before venturing out to make the entire nation better. I thought of addressing to you since I am sure that your deft hands will fine tune the functioning of IBA with good amount of dexterity to make legality and righteousness rule in the banking scenario for the good of the industry and to the people who toil all along for it and ultimately take banks in India to glory. Let your tenure get inscribed in history in letters of gold for washing away the past sins of IBA in perpetrating inequality among the work force in the key industry.
Past experience had been that banks that evolved and function entirely on the premises of the law of the land were found to be flouting fundamental laws with utter disregard to them, especially in the matter of compensation for labor. There was a time when talents from Universities, Colleges and Civil Service took up careers in banks for better compensation. Pillai Committee Recommendations were implemented in banks in 1979 to stagger the compensation by keeping it on a level not exceeding that of the Class I Officers. During the past three decades, employment in banks lost sheen entirely as pay packets in banks shrinked in relation to Government offices. Besides, anomalies of a glaring nature continued in the compensation paid in different banks. Some instances are cited below for your immediate attention and rectification:
1. SBI and Allahabad Bank pay to its employees three retirement benefits whereas rest of the public sector banks pay only two benefits. In other PSBs, apart from gratuity, only Pension or PF was so far given. This challenges the directives of state policy enshrined in the Constitution of India that guaranteed "Equality" treatment of people of all manners alike and also challenge the accepted dictum "Equal Pay for Equal work".
2. Though the recently concluded ninth Bipartite Settlement provided for a fresh option for Pension to all those whom banks deprived the benefit, a number or irrational conditions have been included for extension of the benefit. While addressing one anomaly, IBA fielded a multiplicity of fresh anomalies opening a large field for litigation.
3. Raising a levy for granting pension is like making the employee himself pay his pension. Pension is a legitimate establishment expense of the employer which has to be borne by the employer and not by raising 2.8 times pay of the working employees and 56 percent of CPF from the retired. It is a shame to the banking industry. The Apex Court has acknowledged Pension as a right akin to Fundamental Right of the citizen guaranteed by Constitution.
contd........
5. Commutation of Pension has to be invariably reckoned on the basis of age on the date of retirement and not on the basis of the age at the time of option. Whereas the benefit has been given to identical people who retired earlier from Pension segment, denying it to the counterpart poses a challenge to law.
6. As per the absurd settlement, Pension from the date of retirement to the arbitrarily fixed date of 27th November, 2009 will not be payable to those retired up to October, 2009. This is totally illegal. In fact they are eligible to get monthly Pension together with interest on each payment. Since the pension payable has been denied and detained by banks and utilized for lending activity, banks have made substantial undue and illegitimate income out of the amounts. Now that more than 10 years have elapsed after pension amounts accrued to them, reckoning the interest factor, banks have gained more than the gross arrears payable to the retired employees by this time.
7. Resigned employees are not recognized for Pension in the Agreement. Minimum qualifying service ought to be the sole criterion for paying Pension and mode of exit (unless it be on disciplinary grounds) should be irrelevant. "Resignation" is real Voluntary Retirement in the strictest meaning of the term in sharp contrast with the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was an induced one through incentives offered. It is strange that even as VRS people who got the special package are considered for Pension, resignees are left out. Their inclusion is a must for removing the controversy and for avoiding time and expense on unnecessary litigation. This category comprises people to whom banks denied VRS citing exigency of service and hence were compelled to take exit through resignation for personal reasons. They have not committed any sin. Forgetting their contribution to the industry is improper and they should be encompassed under Pension Scheme in all fairness. They should not be penalized for the defective drafting and implementation of the Pension Regulations. It anyone deserves punishment, it is the mentally retarded experts who lacked essential faculties of mind while drafting the Magna Carta of Pension. They just copied down things from some other pension regulations without applying their minds and reasoning.
8. Not but the least, there had been enormous delay in implementing fresh option, though primary matters were sorted out as late as on November 2009. Extension of option is prolonging even after six months from then resulting in a hue and cry among the victims. Though an earlier MOU was reached on 28th February, 2008 between IBA and Unions to clear the item within three months from then, it got breached. More than and two years passed by quietly without anything happening. The sufferings of those who are stranded in life amidst spiraling costs continue indefinitely as they are devoid of Pension, the pittance payable to them for subsistence on cessation of employment and regular income.
Hello,The article has lot of information, i wish to have a clarification in my case.i am on leave without pay from jan 2008 and if i now take retirement from service , am i entitled to pension. i joined bank in jan 1991 and i am in scale II now . my date of birth is 11.8.1968
I am one of those lucky persons who had opted for Pension in 1995 and am aware of the benefits. It can be seen that all bank employees and officers who didnot opt for pension, when first offered in 1993/1996 (or whatever the relevant dates were), are now being another chance to opt for Pension. But why the class of retirees/resignees ? In my concerted opinion all bank staff who where then (in 1995) in service and either continue to be in service or have ceased to be in service (in whatever manner)after completing 15/20 years of service should be given the right to choose for Pension, if they are agreeable to return to their banks the bank's share of Provident Fund given to them. After all no one is now being given Pension free of cost and everyone has to return to their Bank the bank's share of PF credited or paid to them plus an additional amount as decided in the settlement signed on 27 th April, 2010. I wish all deserving brethren in banks get their right to opt for Pension (including those now being denied pension by their banks at the instance of IBA letter dated 10 August, 2010 addressed to Banks).
A Clarification.....Please refer my above comment. In line 5 thereof I have written "Why the class of retirees/resignees ?" By this I mean "Why should the IBA now be classifying the type of retirees/resignees eligible to opt for Pension second time". The original Bank employees Pension Regulations 1995, presumably, approved by the Govt of India had already covered voluntarily retired, compulsorily retired (of course with some clarification then issued on the category of compulsorily retired staff), Invalid Persons leaving the bank, etc. etc as eligible for Pension. Why, then, has IBA vide it's letter dated 10 August, 2010 written to CEOs of member banks to restrict to offer the second option of Pension only to those who retired on Superannuation or those who retired under only a special voluntary retirement scheme and not to those who voluntarily left the bank after completing 20 years of service and those who were retired by the banks compulsorily.
sk070707@rediffmail.com
My comments appearing hereinabove and sent by be on 9th sept 2010 at 1.55 am and appearing as "skmutreja2008 said..." and at 2.05 am appearing as "Sunil said..." Both skmutreja2008 and sunil are one and same and it is not known as to why two different names appear hereinabove..best wishes sender sunil mail id skmutreja2008@rediffmail.com and also sk070707@rediffmail.com
Bank Pension second option:
The recent bank wage revision agreement proved once again as anamalous as the ones signed in the past. There are several inaccuracies in the settlement leading as feeder coaster of the courts with avoidable litigants. The second option clause in the agreement precludes the retirees under VRS of the bank Offiers' Service Regulations (OSR) to exercise the option where as it makes retirees under VRS of 2001eligible for second option. This is the result of the agreement naming the VRS of 2001 as 'Special' VRS. There is no mention of this word 'Special' either in the original Govt Guidelines as to implementation of VRS in Public Sector Enterprises OR in the IBA guidelines to banks which were issed on the basis of the said Govt Guidelines OR in the circulars issued by each bank. It is common experience that such words are being used / misused, quoted / misquoted, interpreted / misinterpreted as per one's level of knowledge, interests, authority or lack of these. BUT, THE ULTIMATE AFFECTED ARE INNOCENT OFFICERS WHO ARE BEING DENIED THE SECOND OPTION FOR PENSION EVEN AFTER SERVICING THE BANKS FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND TOOK VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS PROVIDED IN THEIR SERVICE REGULATIONS. THESE OFFICERS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ALL RETIRAL BENEFITS ON PART WITH THOSE WHO RETIRE AFTER SUPERANNUATION. BUT STILL, SECOND OPTION IS NOT BEING MADE AVAILABLE. The culprit is arrogance of those who frame guidelines or those interpret the same. Pray God that good sense prevail among Bank Officers, Officers' Associations and the IBA that they are serving or cheating themselves if settlement clauses are made or read out of context / out of sense.
Mr. Varadaraj Rao has perceived things in a proper way and it should be taken care of by the authorities
C N Venugopalan
I have one doubt. Rather a relevant-to-life scenario.
My dad (DOB:03/03/1950) was working under PSU bank since 1981. He deceased while on duty in last quarter of FY2001-2002. As per the PF rules then, my family received a dual PF. Also my mother was absorbed in a same bank's service on compassionate ground. Now we received a letter from bank stating that if we want to opt for the pension, we need to return the employer's contribution of PF and 56% of initial funding gap total of which is close to 3,00,000/-. Now we are not able to decide whether to opt for the pension or not, because it wasn't made clear by the bank, that from which date pension will be paid? Is it effective from the date of sad demise of my father (i.e. arrears till date) or will it be effective from the current date? Depending upon which we can make a decision.
Awaiting your response.
-Pankaj
Dear Pankaj,
Since your mother got a job in the bank you are much fortunate.
For getting Pension, you will have to refund the Bank's share of PF Plus 56 percent of it as per the Joint Note on Pension between IBA and Unions.
Your mother will get Family Pension from 27 November, 2009.
The funding gap and its collection are illegal measures. It will later come
back to you (56 percent). The remaining 100 percent is payable to bank since Pension is in lieu of CPF.
Arrears of Pension also can come to you later since Pension is payable from the date of retirement and not from an arbitrary date of 27 11 2009
Efforts are afoot on this from my side
For more particulars and assistance you can contact ceeyenvee@gmail.com
C N Venugopalan Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India
20101006
6th October, 2010
The convener,
United Forum of Bank Unions,
Care AIBEA,
Prabhat niwas, Singapore Plaza
164, Linghee chetty road,
Chennai 600 001
Respected Comrade,
Reg. Extended Pension Settlement dated 27th April. 2010 over one more option to pension - some give and take is necessary seeing the wishes of the Bankers.
Comrade
From the deep core of my heart I am thankful to all the trade unions operating in the developed Banking sector of the country and also to some less known hilarious comrades who continuously fought for the cause and also pursued and pushed the trade union leaders to vigorously take up the demand of one more option for pension to the bankers – working as well as Retirees, who could not opt earlier due to presence of the draconian clause (b) of sub regulation (4) of regulation 22 in the holy Book of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 – which provided that whole of the qualifying service will be forfeited and pension payable will be converted to zero if at any time bankers dare to participate in the strike. Comrade kindly recollect those days when about 75 percent bankers could not opt for the pension due to this clause and also on the ground of hefty interest rates on their deposits.
As per pension pact recently penned in the suffocated conditions after long and long years, in a deep smoky pressures from the bankers and visible threats from the IBA and Govt. combine, there exists some unbelievable terms about uncalled for tolls for entry in to the fold of pension again. The recovery clause can easily be termed as forcible loot under the state of illusion and in high degree of hypnotism. The party-IBA- who once cleverly deprived the option of pension earlier now partially hypnotized the umbrella organization of the Bank unions which covers the 100 percent working bankers in its powerful fold. Unions by its virtue derive fighting powers from itself on the other hand IBA derives its powers from the banks and government. The fight between the Capital and Labour is like the fight between the Lion and the Lamb. UFBU fights on behalf the Lambs. Every one knows that it is not an easy task to tackle the lion according to our wishes. Being the matured people we should always keep in our mind the boundaries of the unions while facing and bargaining with the powerful opponent. It is also right that no settlement can please to every individual member. It should be weighed considering the present circumstances, prevailing pressures, levels of tolerance and forbearance; parameters of patience, the visible threats from the vested quarters and various invisible equations are responsible for the materialization for any wage settlement.
It will be a very immature analysis if one concludes that while signing pension pact on 27.04.2010 some thing was sold out by some one. It also does not the mean that one party embraced the Victory and the other had lost the game on the round table negotiations. The priorities before the unions were clear that first of all options to pension again should be opened, may be without the air-conditioned passage, the other terms will certainly depends on this primary demand. We are not worried about the passage chosen by our unions, our serious grievances oscillates specifically over the irrational setting of the formula for unscientific recovery, tailor made selection of date of payment of pension/family pension, illegal penal recovery from the working bankers and on account that there exists no provision for fixation of some notional dates for other important purposes related to the pension option. There is no basis for unlawful excavation of 56% of the CPF from all the retirees at par whether they were retired either in 2000 or in 2010.
Cont.. A COMMUNICATION TO CHV < UFBU
. The rule of Equality and Natural Justice demands that such recovery should be based on some well founded principles and logics. The wage negotiation is both a Science and Art. Science always demands the reply of each question by putting the question ‘Why’. The better way was also there that a simple 6% per annum Interest/ compensation should have been agreed upon. Bankers are agree with the views of the unions that IBA was not agreeable to the preposition of Interest because the very word of charging Interest on CPF entails the legal liability to pay pension from the respective dates of retirements of the new optees.
Still there remains possibility to pursue IBA for opening the settlement again (as it was happened on some occasions) and the terms can be amended and settled that pensions shall be effective from the respective retirements dates of the retirees but monetary benefits will be released say from the date of wage settlement i.e. 1.11.2007 or say 1.04.2008 because this was the date when Actuaries taken in to consideration while calculating the Gap in Pension Funding. By this exercise at least the retirees can ask commutation on the factor available at the next birth day from the dates of retirement or death or cessation of employment. In result optees can get back their commuted portion after lapse of 15 years from the dates of retirement.
There seems no logic in the term of agreement which empowers the banks to ask 2.8 times of Revised Pay for the month of November, 2007. The both categories of the working employees who either are in pension segment or in the CPF segment are on the same footings. The employees who opted earlier authorized the banks to transfer their Bank’s contributions towards Provident Fund to the Trustees Pension Fund like wise new working employees can also be asked to do the same with out any additional penalties. To ask pension option now is not the crime and calling for such penalties is an act of Basic Wrong and the action will be void ab-initio. Comrade union should not allow such illegal tolls in case of the working bank employees.
A moot question remains to be verified by the UFBU to cause investigations by the group comprising union’s representatives and the chartered Accountants to go through the Receipt and Disbursement statements, from the date of implementation of the pension scheme, of Pension Trusts of all the banks who are party to the Pension settlement. It should be investigated by the proposed group that whether each Bank had deposited @ 10% of Pay and allowances per month to the pension trusts as was done in case of Provident Fund. It is legal requirement because the Pension Scheme was come in to existence in lieu of the CPF. Further the yearly reports of the Actuaries needs to be thoroughly studied on this point as well as on the topic of Gap in funding of the pension fund every year. I doubt that banks made regular monthly contributions to pension fund @ 10 percent per month of the Eligible Pay and components as done in case of Provident Fund.
Contd Message to UFBU
When we were on the Bank’s roll we used to debit the Profit and loss account at branch level (Bank’s Contributions towards Provident Fund) @ 10 percent of Pay every month for the employees who were in the provident Fund segment. But we never made any similar entry to the debit of P/L account (Bank’s contributions towards pension Fund) either on monthly basis or on half yearly basis or even on yearly basis. The accounting system will mean it that Branch Profit and Loss Account were not representing true state of affairs about the profit and loss of the branches. The Establishment Expenditure of the branches of every bank should include the Expenditure on account of Employer’s contributions towards Pension Fund like Employer’s contributions to provident fund. The audited accounts of the Trustees Pension Funds shall also disclose that there are credit entries in its Income and Expenditure accounts.
Before rushing for unlawful recovery of the heavy tolls from the working and retired bankers the wisdom casts the responsibility on the Public Sector Employer of the Banks to have a authenticated report about these legal credits. Pension Regulations clearly debars the banks to collect such illegal funds from the beneficiaries/pensioners in the name of Gap in managing the pension funds. If the Board of trustees to the pension fund arrives to some shortfall in pension funding even after properly receiving the monthly contributions @ 10 percent per months from the banks then it should be borne by the banks by debiting to their fatty P/L Accounts. As another pension option specifically in case of retirees will certainly require some additional finance, the just tolls can rightly be advocated to some extent. But it will be very difficult to convince the bankers that how this so-called Gap in funding of the Pension Fund was linked to the bipartite settlements on each time. At the time of 6th to 8th Wage settlement why the Gap was targeted and it was adjusted out of the portion meant for ordinary wage hike. On these occasions there was no question for opening the pension options again. It clearly shows that unlawfully banks posed such funding problems on each time of wage negotiations.
Unions cannot be made party for such Gaps in pension funding and this gap cannot be linked with the wage negotiations. It is the routine expenditure of the banks like other routine expenditures of the banks like electricity, rent, repairs and renewals and depreciation etc. Unions should not accede the bank’s illegal demand of bearing gap in pension funding even for a moment because it is routine and legal expenditure like maintenance of the computerization set up of the bank and banks are bound to shoulder it solo. The gap in pension funding, if any, is the necessary expenses to maintain the flow of pension smoothly for their retired work force who already parted their CPF with accrued interests.
The VRS retirees under OSR and any other rules should be covered under the scheme. Comrade General Secretary will kindly agree that eligibility of pension should be based on certain years of service and not on the mode of Exit from the service of the bank. Even a dismissed employee should be granted pensions because banks had already taken away their CPF, if grant in the name of pension cannot be imparted than they should be paid their CPF with accrued interest thereon. Any subsisting right cannot be withdrawn for the unlimited period. Even life imprisonment lasts for maximum 14 years. Forfeiture of pension and denying the right to opt pension in case of the dismissed employees for their full life is contravention of his fundamental right ‘Right to live’ which was bestowed by the constitution.
.
Ashok has done an excellent job excavating realities through his posting
Keep it up especially since all have to be on the job of securing justice in full
From the previous page askok goel
______________________
In short I summarize the submissions as follows:
a) Working Bankers should be freed from any penalty for entry in the pension segment.
b) Retirees should be asked to fund the so called gap in pension funding @ 6 percent per annum for the full completed years after retirement. This levy can be termed as Gap funding if parties deems fit and proper.
c) Resigned and voluntary retired under Rules and service conditions, if otherwise fulfill the criteria, should be allowed to pension option.
d) Dismissed employees should be allowed entry with some nominal conditions agreed by the parties.
e) All type of pensions should be agreed from the actual date of retirements notionally and it can be further negotiated that actual payments will start from 1.11.2007.
f) The commutation of pension should be calculated from the actual dates of retirements. The widows who opt the pension now should be given the right of commutation.
g) There should be no medical Examination for sanctioning the commutation amount.
h) All the dates for pension i.e. application date , computation of 60 days for option, 30 days to refund the old CPF by the retirees and dates of implementation should be the same in all the banks, because the settlement is on industry level settlement.
i) It should be agreed before hand that how the pension will be fixed if 10 months of average period falls between 8th and 9th bi partite settlements.
j) There should be a clear term that now onwards employees will not be asked for funding the Gap, if any.
k) It should be ensured that on monthly basis there should be regular payment @10 percent to the pension fund by all the bank’s branches. There should a monthly certificate issued by the trustees of the Pension Funds of all the banks that they have properly and timely received the 10 percent contributions from all the branches of their bank.
l) Kindly Cause investigations that how the clause (b) of Sub regulation(4) of Regulation 22 entered in to the body of the Pension Regulations, 1995 because there was no implied term even in the pension settlement dated 29th September, 1993 which was the foundation stone for pension regulations.
All the unions from the central level to branch level should monitor it carefully. If there is any lacuna in implementing this part it should be clearly discussed and agreed upon and the fresh term should be included in the terms of settlement and in the Pension Regulations in BOLD LETTERS.
Kindly knock the doors of IBA and government again for the re opening the talks again and help the retired as well as working members.
We hope that a new chapter will be opened at the corridors of the IBA without any smoke of suffocations, with zero pressures from the bankers and in the atmosphere free from visible and/or invisible threats from any other quarter. We the bankers appeal to each and every office bearer of the unions to extend a helping hand to the united forum of Bank Unions.
With greetings,
Thanking you,
(Ashok Kumar Goel)
Thank you Mr. Venugopal. I didn't understand the following lines in your reply.
"The funding gap and its collection are illegal measures. It will later come back to you (56 percent)."
Can you please elaborate on this point?
Also, what will be the basis of the calculation of the family pension? retirement of my father was due in March-2010. His basic pay was around 10,000/- at the time of his demise in Feb-2002.
I will keep following this link and comments to read more from you about the issue.
Thanks Mr.Ashok Kumar Goel for your posting dated 20th October, 2010. Please also bring to the notice of UFBU /IBA that few banks are not adding 5 years service while calculating pension of retirees who have served above 20 years and less than 33 years.
how earliest could one seek VRS from the bank after the deadline for submitting second option, is over?
Post a Comment