Monday, July 12, 2010

AIBEAs Pension Helpline for Retirees

"We are getting anxious queries through letters and emails from retired employees and officers about the implementation of the pension option settlement, the modalities thereof, procedure for refund, how much they have to refund and how much they will be getting as monthly pension, etc.

Implementation :-
Even though the settlement has been signed by the unions, the Pension Regulations also needs to be amended. However, since it will take time to comply with the procedure for such amendments, the IBA has recommended to the Government that pending such formal amendment, the settlement can be implemented by inviting the options, etc.
We learn that Government has considered the IBA’s recommendation favourably and instructions are awaited by IBA from the Government. We may also inform that there are no stay order, etc in any court on implementation of the option for the retired employees. Once the Government approval is received, the IBA will issue instructions.
60 days time limit :-
The 60 days time for submitting the option would be from the date of offer in each Bank ( and not the date of Settlement ). Circulars / Notifications will be issued by the Banks after they receive the instructions from IBA. Only after the offer notification is issued, the retirees have to submit their option letters in the prescribed form.
When to refund :-
The offer of the Banks will be open for 60 days from the date of notification. The refund of PF has to be done within 30 days after completion of the 60 days time from notification. The Banks will inform the retirees about the amount to be refunded.
How much to refund :-
The retired employees will refund the following.
a) Actual amount of Bank’s contribution to PF with interest thereon paid to the employee at the time of retirement (No interest is payable on this amount after the retirement) plus
b) Additional 56% of this amount towards share in the 30% contribution of the gap in the fund required for the option.
What is receivable by the retired employees :- 
a) Commutation amount. 1/3 of Basic pension can be commuted. Commutation amount will be based on factor relating to present age.
b) Arrears of full Basic Pension + DA is payable from 27.11.2009 till monthly pension payment commences.
c) Thereafter 2/3 of Basic Pension will be paid as monthly pension. But DA is payable on full Basic Pension even after commutation. DA will be revised in February & August every year.
d) For Family Pensioners, arrears of Family Pension from 27.11.2009 will be paid.

Period of Arrears :-
Since 60 days time will have to be given for submitting the option letters and thereafter another 30 days time will be given for refund of the amount, it will take minimum of 3 months from the date of notification of offer. This means that pension payments on monthly basis cannot in any case commence before October, 2010. Hence arrears of pension is payable atleast for 10 months from 27.11.2009 till September, 2010.
How much to pay & how much to get :-
Many individual retirees are writing to us asking for the calculations for amount to be refunded by them and amount of commutation/pension arrears and monthly pension receivable by them, etc. Hence we have developed a special software for this purpose. Retirees can write to us the details and we shall send them the worksheet.
Please send us details & we will let you know the worksheet :-
Retirees may send us the following particulars by email or letter and we shall send them the worksheet which will show the amount payable to the Bank and commutation/ pension arrears receivable and the monthly pension.
Details to be furnished :-
1. Name
2. Bank
3. Date of Birth
4. Date of Joining
5. Date of Retirement
6. Designation at the time of retirement
7. Mode of Retirement - on Superannuation or on Special VRS
8. Basic Pay on Retirement ( last 10 months average ) Rs.
9. Spl. Pay/FPP/PQP, if any drawn at the time of retirement ( last 10 months average ) Rs.
10. Bank’s PF contribution received at the time of Retirement Rs.
11. Address for Communication
12. e Mail address

The above details may be sent to our office address or to our exclusive email address If the retirees give the above details, the worksheet will be sent within 48 hours."
Published exactly as per AIBEA website.


ashok said...

Counter to ‘Counter Affidavit of IBA’, before the High Court of Madras to Writ of 244 Bank Employees.

Though the affidavit filed by IBA before the judicature of Madres
is for the consideration of the humble High Court, still it has some open challenges to whole of the Working community of country. The document is full of in self praise and in the spirit and style of a super power. Though it was addressed under compulsion to the highest judicial organ available by the constitution but it is like an oral threat to a student by his teacher that ‘dear petitioner student please understand that I am a teacher and you are a student of my class’. Whatever I have done, done after consultations with some intelligent students of the class. No need to go to Principal now. Even you will show some illegality in my Ruling I will change that with the same group of the intelligent students.

IBA should accept that whimsical action against a single Bank Employee is not permitted by Law. What to say about 244 active members of Canara Bank union –the petitioner at No. 1 of the Petition. It is AN HUMBLE ACT OF IBA that it has to come to Chennai temporarily to affirm something before the Court, chosen by the petitioner No.1.

Para 5 of the counter affidavit cannot help in maintaining the tall status, when it pets its back that The petitioner union is functioning only in Canara Bank and their total strength is only 244 as on 31.3.2010 and the rests are represented by others unions.
IBA should know that this can be claimed, if claimed, by the unions and not by the IBA. Really it is a matter of great importance that the petitioners are facing the IBA and espousing the cause of its members since 1965 by not having affiliation to any of the Federations.

Para 7 is also misleading while involving the matter in quoting Para 414 of shastri Award fully or partly. The reason of its quoting perhaps will be to apprise the Hon’ble High Court that;

‘Even before more than 60 to 62 years, some banks were granting pensions to its employees by their own sources and some were granted pensions on contributory basis. In 1952 Shastri Tribunal awarded that Employees contributions to make pensions should be stopped.

Petitioners perhaps wanted to place it on record that after 60to 62 years at least IBA should not insists for contributions from the employees in the name of funding the Gap in Pension Funding by forcing them with 2.5 times of revised pay for the month of November, 2007.

Right of counter Reply does not mean to wipe out the facts of the petitioner’s affidavit at any cost. The right of counter affidavit clearly means to follow the truth always and place it before the adjudication and wait for the verdict of the adjudication.

It cannot be an honest reply that though petitioner is right in its plea while quoting some rule/ regulation etc. in favor of its claim, but it can be amended by the majority force. In this way nothing can be challenged in the courts of Law.

Did IBA not know that how the courts of the country scrapped/deleted the various rules and regulations made by it with the majority unions?
What happened the Regulation 22 (4) (b) of Pension Regulations by which IBA armed themselves, at their own , that If one participate in strike at any time his pension able full service will be forfeited?

The High Court will certainly see that who incorporated this small worded Rule in the above regulations because Participation in strike was never a crime in 1995 or in 2010.

This provision was no where and never available in any Pension Rules. It was not penned in Memorandum of Settlement dated 29.10.1993.

ashok said...

continueWho did this ‘miscarriage of Justice’ by proposing this regulation? The Supreme Court of the Country quashed it, when there is no date of effect was cited, it clearly means that date of effect will the date of its inception here the date goes back to the year 1993.

The reply vides Para 14 is an insult to the Employees and to all the working unions in banks when it says that averments made in Para 16 (while counter affidavit mention it as Para 14) , of the petitioner’s affidavit, it is submitted that it is true that Regulation 22 contains a clause relating to forfeiture of past service for participation in strike and the same has been amended in the year 1998.It further tarnish the very entity of the employees and the unions when it says “This regulation and its amendments are applicable only to those employees who have opted for pension in terms of Pension Regulations ,1995 and not others.

All the major citizens of the country are humbly invited to search for a piece of truth from the statement of IBA. This was for the all Employees of the bank; this was the regulation which stops the employees to entertain the pension offer. In almost all the replies in the affidavit the current is same that this is optional and if petitioners do not want to opt they can do so. This is not a reply of a body like IBA.

In the name of some optional scheme every thing cannot be done illogically and illegally. Robbery of Justice and offending of the Rules and Regulations are not permitted on the plea of agreement with the majority. If it is allowed, the robbers will also sign a bilateral agreement for a real robbery.

The inclusion of regulation 22(4) (b) in Pension Regulations, 1995 was a grave act of misdeed. Even after its amendment, on the directions of the Judiciary declaring it illegal, cannot the matter cannot be buried so easily. The amendment demanded fresh options to pension in the year 1998-1999 effective from 1993/1995. The deletion of the said regulation still demands fresh options to pension effective from 1993/1995.

IBA should come forward to ask options effective from 1993 with all the relative benefits. IBA should not wait further for the intervention of the courts of the country. Let the courts may please be allowed to do other necessary designing job which are needed to the country.

I humbly pray to all concerned, to all the Operating unions in the Banking Industry and to all the patriots to urge IBA to at least amend the mistake now and start fresh options to Pension effective from 1993 and gift a new morning to the 74 to 75 year olds to get pension.

Hope that some one will come and will ask for Justice.


Thanks to all of you, with the earnest request to please DO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO IN this matter.

With best of luck and west wishes,

One of your mates,

Ashok goel

d from the above post.....

kavya said...

whose help line and for whom.

Parameswaran said...

AIBEA is prepared to give the details only for retirees on super annuations and SVRS people. No where in the pension agreement retirees on super annuation is there. Unions were clamouring that pension option were made to all. Now i do not understand why they are restricting to SVRS and retirees on super annuation. Learned block members can interpret the agreement and inform the members about the eligibility.

Shridhar said...

From AIBEAS website we retiree came to know that still Govt has not given clearance for pension option for retirees.The news came that Govt has cleared 2nd option pension in last week of june or so and case is filed in MADRAS highcourt and waiting for its vacating so we were under impression that gove has given clearance. What a shameful thing on the part of great ufbu leaders misguiding the reitrees it is really harmful to them as still it has no clearance so they have made one website to rpovide pension arrears ect so that they can keep quite and wait for some more months after seeing the worksheet of pension arrears ect wow leaders one shpuld appreciate you by diverting mind of retirees a very good idea.Keep it up and ask them to wait for another how many months.God bless you.

Ramachandran said...

Sridhar has probably misunderstood that Govt has not given clearance for pension option.

Govt has definitely given clearance for 2nd option.

What AIBEA has written is that it will take time to amend the pension regulations at Govt level and therefore IBA requested the govt to implement the 2nd option for the retired employees pending the amendment of pension regulation for which the govt has agreed and IBA is awaiting for confirmation in writing from Govt.

As soon as the confirmation as above from Govt reaches IBA, IBA will take steps to implement the 2nd option process so far as the retirees are concerned.

This is what I understood by going through the AIBEA circular.

chandan said...





Bank, traditionally looks after its employees well, entitlement of perquisites as per extant.

Instructions applicable from time to time, include the following:

- HTC/LFC, Medical aid for self and dependents.

- Non Contributory Provident Fund

- Pension as per "Defined Contributory Pension Scheme" as applicable at the time of joining.


chandan said...






Courtesy: State Bank of India Staff Association (S.B.I.S.A.) Non-Political Trade Union of workman employees in State Bank Of India, covering the States of Bengal, Sikkim, Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Punjab, Himanchal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Jharkhand & Delhi, and Union Territories of Chandigarh , Andaman & Nicobar islands

.S.B.I.S.A. is the biggest constituent of All India State Bank of India Staff Federation”(A.I.S.B.I.S.F.), which is the apex Trade Union Organisation in State Bank of India.

At industry level, it is affiliated to the “National Confederation of Bank Employees” through A.I.S.B.I.S.F.

ashok said...

Bank Employees Pension Scheme.


Dear Friends,

Though the Bank employees are fighting against the recently written document signed on 27.4.2010 over the extension of one more option to Pension Scheme, to them, who could not opt when it was offered, due to the presence of an illegal clause in the Pension Regulations, 1995 vides Regulation 22(4) (b).

Cases on this pension settlement dated 27.4.2010 already covered the handsome space of various High Court’s of the ‘Socialistic Union’. There are so many points left by the Parties to the settlement to be legally interpreted by the already overloaded judicial machinery of the country.

The Selection of the Pension/ Family Pension payment date as 27.11.2009 is totally illegal, arbitrary and against all the basics of the legal values established, by placing brick by brick, by the humble and honorable courts of the country. It was advised by the courts more than several thousand times that each action of the State and or any of the Authority should be free from arbitrariness and bias.

How the IBA engineered the date 27.11.2009, why it was not settled at the previous stages of the talks, under what compulsions it was created, what is the importance of this date and what stops to the parties concerned to protest it?
There were so many legal dates were waiting to come on surface to substitute this unhistorical date of 27.11.2009. It was like a perverse excavation. Every one had to work hard to know the reasons for its selection. Some of the vital dates can be summarized as follows for the payment of pension;-

(A) 29.10.1993 ---- This is the important date which can be selected for starting the pension. On this historical Day a MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ON PENSION WAS PENNED FIRST TIME IN THE INDIAN BANKING INDUSRY AFTER THE PROTRACTED NEGOTIATIONS, LOTS OF AGITATIONS.

(B) 1.11.1993 ------ This was another acceptable date because it was enumerated in the settlement Dated 29.10.1993 (as mentioned under Para (A) above). Para 11 of the Settlement clearly mandates that ;-

“Actual Payment of Pension in all cases SHALL commence on 1.11.1993”

Parties to the settlement dated 27.4.2010 deeply understand the grammatical meaning of the word SHALL specifically in the legal terminology. It was the legal date and could be an acceptable date for the parties.

(C) February, 1998 when the BLACK CLAUSE WAS DECLARED ILLEGAL, which was cleverly inserted in the Pension Regulations, I may please be permitted to again mention the said Para as 22(4) (b). The particular date of February, 1998 was the date when the amendment was become effective. One day courts of the country will ask from the Union of India that how it was happened and continued to happen for the long 22 to 23 years.

(D) Due to insertion of this draconian clause Majority of the Bank Employees could not dare to embrace the pension scheme because this Para says that whole of the pension service will be forfeited if one participates in the strike at any time. Only about 30 percent of the employees could opt. It was the legal mandatory date which could be selected for the payment of pension in all cases and not as arbitrarily selected as 27.11.2009.

Runtrailblog said...

Urgent need to file writ on behalf of serving Pension Optees,Why?

01. That, for the first time in the year 1993 the Indian Bank Association and majority unions of the Bank Employees entered into a settlement on 29.10.1993 (Hereinafter referred as Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993) in respect of The Pension Scheme. Here it is important to highlight that prior to 1993 there was no general scheme of Pension for Bank Employees and there was no Pension Agreement and in Banks. In the Banks there was only contributory Provident Fund Scheme in which The Banks’ and Employees made contributions equally at effective rate i.e. 8.33% or 10%.

02. That, in the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.93 in Cl 2.ii it was provided that the Pension Fund will be constituted by transferring Bank’s Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest there on to the Pension Fund and there was no Provision that they shall have to pay any amount other than the one as provided in Clause 2.ii.

03. That, after the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 the Govt. of India issued Notification and thereafter all the member Banks of Indian Banks Association published Pension Regulations for their employees which are known as Pension Regulations, 1995, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

04. That, the Chapter three of the aforesaid Regulations provide for provisions for Composition of the Pension Fund wherein Regulation 7 provides as under:
“The Fund shall consist of the following, namely:-
a) the contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten per cent per month of the pay of the employee;

b) the accumulated contributions of the bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of the employees;

c) the amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations;

d) the investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;

e) amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund;

f) the additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these regulations;

g) any income from investments of the amounts credited to the Fund;

h) the amount consisting of contribution of the bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.”

05. That, from a perusal of the Regulation 7 of Pension Regulation it is clear that there is no provision for contribution of any amount other than the Banks’ Contribution to P.F. Account along with accrued interest thereon.

06. That, in pursuance of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and the Pension Regulations 1995 a number of employees opted for Pension and they became member of the Pension Scheme and they had to surrender Banks’ Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with Interest accrued thereon, to the Pension Fund.


Runtrailblog said...

07. That during the course of 7th Bipartite Settlement an undisclosed understanding reached between United Forum of Bank Unions and IBA according to which United Forum of Bank Unions gave its consent to IBA to share cost of Pension. An exercise was undertaken behind the back and the pension cost of 26.5% was shared at 10% + 8.25% from all the bank employees and balance 8. 25% additionally by banks.

08. That in the similar manner during the course of 8th Bipartite Settlement, the pension cost of 30.5% was shared at 10% + 9.25% from all the employees of the banks and balance 11.25% by banks.

09. That Pension Cost as discussed here in above in Para 07 and 08 were diverted towards the Pension Fund without altering/amending the relevant clause in Pension Settlement dated 29.11.1993 or the Pension Regulation 1995. Bank employees were not informed by the UFBU either through organizational meetings or through issuance of Circular, about this nefarious game. These understandings were not incorporated either in 7th or 8th BPS. Thus, it can be seen that Bank employees had not mandated the UFBU or its constituent unions to share the cost of Pension at the best of IBA.

10. That when certain employees came to know about Pension Cost sharing through Negotiating Leaders during the course of 8th BPS, they filed a Writ Petition No. 4048/2005 before the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, judicature at Jabalpur. The said petition was filed by Shri Anil Kumar Chouhan and I.D. Kelwani of Central Bank of India who were PF optees. There case was that since they are not beneficiary of the Pension Fund, it is unreasonable and illegal to transfer their funds towards the Pension Fund. They prayed that either bank should offer them one more option to join Pension Scheme in view of the changes made in the year 1998 or this amount must be credited in their PF account or else it must be paid to them additionally. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to issue injunction order restraining the Central Bank of India to transfer 9.25% amount towards Pension Fund.

11. That during the course of 9th BPS, for the first time, UFBU-IBA brought the sharing of Pension Cost on records. The news coming through circulars about UFBU agreeing to share a portion of the cost of Pension created resentment amongst the bank employees irrespective of their union affiliation and a debate started on this point.


Runtrailblog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Runtrailblog said...

12. That on 27.11.1999, UFBU signed MOU with IBA agreeing to share the additional cost of Pension which was arrived as 36% on the basis of actuarial valuation. This cost was to be shared @ 13% by all the bank employees and balance 23% by IBA which includes statutory contribution of 10%. In the MOU it was mentioned that all the existing bank employees will contribute 1.6 times of the November 2007 revised pay whereas employees retired between 01.11.1997 will contribute 56% of their Provident Fund contribution besides returning the management share of Provident fund along with interest.

13. That consequent upon signing of the above MOU, a writ petition No. 10606 of 2010 was filed by bank employees before Hon’ble Andhra High Court judicature at Hyderabad. There case was that since neither in the Pension Settlement dated 29.11.1993 nor in Pension Regulation 1995 there is any clause by which employees who have opted pension in 1993 and 1995 are under any obligation to contribute anything other than management’s contribution towards provident fund along with interest. Hon’ble High Court heard their grievance and passed order that any bipartite settlement would be subject to further orders of the Court.

14. That above action of the bank employees took IBA and UFBU by surprise because till then they were under the proud feeling that no bank employee would dare to challenge their unconstitutional action. Their plan got disturbed. They realized there mistake and on 27.04.2010, they decided not to take any contribution from pension optees and the amount to be recovered from pension optees was added in the amount to be recovered from PF optees to make it 2.8 times of the revised salary of 2007.

15. That thus it is evidently clear that no amount could have been recovered from employees who have opted pension in 1993 and 1995 other than management’s contribution towards provident fund along with interest thereon. IBA-UFBU too have accepted that in as much as that they realized the mistake committed by them in MOU dated 27.11.2007 which was entered into same line pension cost was shared during 7th and 8th BPS and they changed their mind and decided not to take any contribution from such employees.

Thus, the amount recovered from such employees who had opted pension in 1993 and 1995 @ 8.25% from 1.11.1997 and 9.25% from 1.11.2002 was illegal being in utter violation of pension settlement dated 29.11.1993 and Pension Regulation 1995 and such amount is liable to be computed along with interest and refunded to Pension Optees

Vasu said...

The case at Madras High Court likely to be delayed indefinitely as the Honorable Judge seems to have suggested that counter from all respondents should be received. ( source:
At this rate retirees may not see any immediate relief except to hope that they would live long to realize their dreams. Vasudevan

Shanmuganathan said...

There is utter confusion prevailing among the retirees now about their eligibiilty after this helpline for retirees. All along unions/associations were telling that all will be given one more option. In this help line AIBEA is restricting only to SVRS and retirees on super annuation. Where from this retirees on super annuation has come. Several banks have VRS scheme for officers. In the interest of blog members some body can clarify whether VRS officer employees are entitled to opt for pension.

Parameswaran said...

I have sent one mail to requesting them to provide pension details for me. I am yet to get details.

Parameswaran said...

I have sent one mail to requesting them to provide pension details for me. I am yet to get details.

ashok said...

2010, 18th July.


Sharing of Pension Cost by Pension Opted

-Ashok goel


Seasons reaches us because of the revolution of earth round the Sun. Day and night are caused by the rotation of earth on its axis. If someone considers it that it is because of him, it may look preposterous. If one completes reading the epic Ramayana and asks who Sita to Rama is, we have to be left with no comment at all. When Existing Pension opted start thinking that they are bearing the burden of fresh option, the situation is identical.

The reasons why the CPF opted were entitled to a fresh option were found in a nutshell in "Banking on Consensus" which appeared in Hindu Business Line on 8th Sept.2008. It is at the finger tips of every one and can be had at the click of a mouse in the net. It is neither the love nor affection of IBA and Unions to CPF opted that led to the re-penning of Pension Option, but the legal lacuna which persisted for years together by taking away the legally vested right through the wrong implementation of the Regulations. The vital one was Regulation 22(4) (b) of Pension Regulations, 1995. This rule was in the face of a Cobra Snake in the regulations. Due to presence of this cobra at the main entry of the Pension Scheme, 70 to 75 percent bank employees could not dare to take entry in to the pension scheme. This was the lacuna which caused serious pains to the parties to the settlement dated 29.10.1993 and force them to re-penning the settlement.

Unions were astonished when it was seen by them in regulations after it was gazette. This cobra rule was declared illegal in 1998 but legally it had an effect from the date when it was wrongfully inserted in the Pension Regulations. This was the LEGAL LACUNA which was persisted for years together from 1998 to the date of signing the pension settlement on 27.04.2010. Parties felt that now the mistake has been rectified now but it is not so. Majority of the bank employees are not happy with the settlement. There was a time for Victory Celebrations but time has been converted in to a sad moment. Pension is not the consideration for an option exercised on a piece of paper, and is looked upon even by Courts as deferred wages and as an inalienable right earned by an employee through relentless service.

The low pay hike may generate an impression in the minds of existing Pension Opted that they are put to bear the burnt of the burden of fresh Pension Option.

There was an MOU between the IBA and Unions on 25th February, 2008 to logically conclude Pension Issue within three months from then. The time frame was breached by another two years with the result that the issue got mixed up with Wage revision, affecting both items.

CPF opted cannot be blamed for the delay and the consequent impact, if any. Settlements used to be concluded earlier once in every four years. Citing delay in concluding each settlement after the period of the agreement in force, the period of agreement was extended to five years. If arguments are concluded within the extended time frame of one year, there has to be no arrears and consequently no "levy" too. Levy is the product of the delay in the negotiation process and is hence unavoidable. Though Levy is not the proper word for it, the word levy should be substituted by optional contributions.

continued----Ashok goel

chandan said...

@ashok July 17, 2010 2:53 PM:

Happy unhappy doesn't matter in re-option for pension. Note this re-option we get in lieu of NPS for new recruitees.Nothing else.


Runtrailblog said...

The lengths to which a government body can go to harass a whistleblower is evident from an RTI reply that discloses it paid Rs 69.24 lakh in lawyers' fees over an 18-month period and the bulk of the money went to Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Responding to whistleblower Abhijit Ghosh, Central Bank of India disclosed on July 1 that it had spent the money on lawyers from October 2008 to April 2010 in order to defend itself against a writ petition filed by Ghosh in the Delhi high court.

Of the Rs 69.24 lakh spent on lawyers for about 20 hearings, Rs 48.50 lakh went to Singhvi, Rs 7.92 lakh to Ashok Bhasin and Rs 9.64 lakh to Vinay Sharma.

Central Bank said its then chairman and managing director H A Daruwalla “approved” engaging the lawyers. It was against Daruwalla that Ghosh, then a general manager, complained about, among other things, putting pressure on borrowers to make huge donations to her alma mater.

Runtrailblog said...

@chandan July 17, 2010 9:12 PM

Mr.Chandan is more happy now!!

chandan said...

@Runtrailblog July 18, 2010 9:34 AM:

more happy is not a correct expression. It is happy, happier, happiest.


Skumar said...

AIBOA Website flash letter of Supreme court Advocate Mr.N. Pradeepkumar. Its cleanly indicate that something preplanned in it.Because AIBEA or AIBOA never uploaded any matters from and

Please take note.

Runtrailblog said...

Yes, it is very interesting . you can check his earlier article here

Runtrailblog said...

News Report from Tamil Tabloid
Bank Employees Boiling with Anger due to Venkatachalam. Click here for details.

Contact Us

Viewers may share any information with the administrator in this email
Any news, if approved, may be published in this blog under his /her name.
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Blog Archive

Bookmark This Page

Bookmark and Share
All the information published in this webpage is submitted by users or free to download on the internet. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this page and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. All the other pages you visit through the hyper links may have different privacy policies. If anybody feels that his/her data has been illegally put in this webpage, or if you are the rightful owner of any material and want it removed please email me at "" and I will remove it immediately on demand. All the other standard disclaimers also apply.