Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Update on Madras High Court Bank pension case : Hearing today(08.07.10).Pakistan Government employees, pensioners get raise

Update at 7.45 P.M.(09/07/10) : Case not heard today on July 09, 2010 at Hon'ble Chennai High Court. Stay continues.

Update at 8.40 P.M (08/07/2010) : Only the first 30 cases could be taken up in today's hearing. Rest of the cases(including bank pension) could not be heard today. The cause list for tomorrow is awaited.
Update on Bank Pension, Madras High Court : It has been reported that the court case filed at Madras High Court is listed at SNo. 74 in  COURT NO. 17 of     HON'BLE  MR JUSTICE D.  HARIPARANTHAMAN TO BE HEARD ON THURSDAY THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2010  AT 10.30 A.M

News from Pakistan :

The government notified on Tuesday a special increase in the pay, allowances and pension of its employees with effect from July 1. 

The finance ministry issued office memorandums announcing that the president had sanctioned revision of rates of special pay and allowances; grant of ad hoc allowance and medical allowance; increase in pension of retired civilian and armed forces’ personnel; increase in family pension; minimum pension; and grant of medical allowance to civilian pensioners. 

The night duty allowance for assistants and clerks has been increased from Rs10 to Rs40 and for staff car drivers, dispatch riders and naib qasids from Rs5 to Rs25 per night. 

The conveyance charges for late sitting employees in BPS 1 to 15 and 16 (non-gazetted), excluding drivers and dispatch riders, on working days has been increased from Rs12 to Rs50 per day. The allowance for holidays has been increased from Rs18 to Rs75. 

The special pays of private secretaries and personal assistants have also been increased. According to a memorandum, a private secretary to a federal minister or minister of state will now get Rs1,000 instead of Rs500 per month. 

A private secretary to a ministry’s secretary will get Rs800 per month instead of Rs400 and private secretary to additional secretary Rs600 instead of Rs300. 

The special pay of personal assistants to ministers, ministers of state, secretaries and additional secretary had been increased from Rs200 to Rs400 of personal assistants to joint secretaries from Rs160 to Rs320. 

The daily allowance within the country for BPS 12 to 16 has been increased from Rs280 to Rs500 (ordinary) and Rs365 to Rs600 (special) and for BPS 5 to 11 from Rs155 to Rs220 (ordinary) and Rs200 to Rs440 (special). 

Pensioners who retired before Dec 1, 2001, will get a raise of 20 per cent and those who retired later of 15 per cent. 

The president has sanctioned an increase in the rate of family pension from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. 

Medical allowance has been introduced for all civilian pensioners of the federal government, including civilians paid from the defence budget. 

Those who retired or will retire in BPS 1 to15 will get 25 per cent and those in BPS 16 to 22 20 per cent of their pension as medical allowance. 

The ministry announced that the president had sanctioned an ad hoc allowance of 50 per cent of the basic pay of Rs24,465, included in a package of Rs31,500, to the section officers re-employed against civil posts on a contract basis. 

An ad hoc allowance equivalent to 50 per cent of the existing basic pay of the scales of 2008 for all civilian employees of the government and civilians paid from the defence budget, including contingent paid staff and contract employees employed against civilian posts in basic pay scales on standard terms and conditions or contract appointment has also been sanctioned. 

On recommendation of the Pay and Pension Commission, medical allowance in lieu of outdoor treatment and reimbursement of medical expenses has been granted at the rate of Rs1,000 per month, up from Rs500, for BPS 1 to 15 and 16 (non-gazetted) and 15 per cent of the basic pay for officials in BPS 16 to 22. 

The facility of reimbursement of amounts spent on purchase of medicines by government servants and local purchase of medicines by government hospitals for outdoor patient will be discontinued. 

However, the existing facilities for consultation and diagnostic investigations at out-patient departments will continue. 

Reimbursement and local purchase will be admissible for OPD patients of cancer, hepatitis B and C and insulin-dependent diabetes. 

The facility of re-imbursement of expenditure on indoor medical treatment will continue as before.

Source : The Dawn.


Parameswaran said...

Any idea about outcome of the court case.

Murthy said...

Counter affidavit has been filed by Union India, Banking division. Stay has not been vacated. No news about next hearing. Gist of the Counter affidavit. a. A bunch of 244 persons representing Canara Bank Union has soungt stay. b. 2nd option pension is only Option and if any one does not want , they can remail with SPF. The lengthy affidavit is available AIBEA website.

subrata banerjee said...

It is reported some bankmen have moved to Madras High court defying their largest union organisation and High court has stayed their petition looking the prima face of the aiifidavit. But mentime nearly more than 99% of present working bankmen have not denied the offer and allowed their repective bank authorities to deduct 2.8 times of their total arrear out of their 9th bipartite. Then I would like to enquire how many people are left with revelutionery organisation to fight against their own union and IBA. I hope sincerely that the Honbl'e high court will have no hesitation to vacate the case looking such huge acceptance of the 2nd pension option.

Runtrailblog said...

@subrata banerjee July 10, 2010 3:38 PM.
Do you think all the PF optees accepted this 2.8 with wholehearted?In most of the banks 2.8 is already deducted before the court case and parked in suspense A/c.Most of the PF optees want pension option.But it doesn't mean all are agree with 2.8 penalty imposed by Unions&IBA

kavya said...

The actual protest should come from retirees who retired between 1.11.2007 to 27.4.2010. They are the real sufferers.For existing employees they should not grumble at all. It is a very small penalty for the for the wrong choice they have made in the the earlier years.

Vasu said...

Refer Kavya"s comment.The comment appears to be reasonable. In any case
they were ready to shell out 1.6 times basic pay and the additional burden amounts to 1.2 times of basic pay and this one time payment should be viewed in the context of long terms benefits likely to accrue. I hasten to add here that I am not passing any comments on the merits/demerits of arguments advanced by PF optees. Vasudevan

Vasu said...

The court case is listed at sr.No 102 on 12/7/10 and even then it may not be heard on that day as normally only 30 to 35 cases are being heard daily.(Source the case is being listed always at serial numbers above 70, chances of early hearing appears remote.The advocates should plead for early hearing in view of urgency of the matter. Or is it that both the parties are interested in derailing the whole process ? Vasudevan

vatsan said...

dear great friends (madame kavya and mr. vasu)
It is not question of 2.8 or 1.6 times . the QUESTION IS why? they have to shell out. The Law speaks if one benefit(may be it is of on option) is extended to any employee for one reason it should be extended to all at a later date for the same reason.The reason is here PENSION (OPTION). Can you do away your arrears to employee who is really suffering for want of money for some good reason.If so contribute liberally towards your share to pension fund. so that it is reduce the burden on others.It is not the mistake of the employees not opt for pension OPTION earlier but it is the mistake of the union could not fight for good cause for the earlier. It is sad state of UFBU.

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

Dear Vatsan,
There is no meaning to convince the Pension optees in this regard.We cant expect it, becoz they are only concerned about them.They not at all bothered whether the 2.8/156 % factor is legal or not.All of these people simply forgot all these turmoil is only becoz of the UFBU.Already bank employees are divided in to 2 ( actually more than 2).So divide & rule agenda is working superbly..

Ramachandran said...

The case of retirees should be taken up by IBA and UFBU with Chennai High court to speed up the vacation. Unless some such a thing happens the case will never come up for hearing seeing the listing of the case for the past 3 or 4 days.

Since IBA is not recognising any retirees association it is the bounden duty of UFBU to see that speedy action is taken and the stay is vacated immediately.

If IBA and UFBU want they can do this very much and the stay can be vacated within a week.

The major problem of UFBU is now over because the employees got their arrears and got the new pay fixation. They do not have much pressure from the working PF optees who want to opt for pension as many of them want to opt for pension and they do not have any objection for deduction of 2.8 times of their November 2007 pay because majority of them will not be retiring immediately.

The only group which is suffering is retired PF optees who want to opt for pension even by paying 156% of Banks' contribution of PF received by them with interest.

My humble reqest therefore to UFBU leaders and IBA is that they should not lose sight of the retirees who were their earst-while collegues/employees and are helpless spectators now.

I am sure UFBU and IBA will be doing something fast so that retirees who have opted for PF will be heaving a sigh of relief. Until then the situation is very tense for these old people.

Runtrailblog said...

@Ramachandran July 11, 2010 2:27 PM
".......they do not have any objection for deduction of 2.8 times of their November 2007 pay because majority of them will not be retiring immediately"

Dont be a HMV of unions.Who told you there is no objection? Are you dreaming?Then why all these court case? You mean if majority not retiring immediately, then any penality can be impose on PF Optees?

Ramachandran said...

I seems by seeing what I have written rutrailblog got annoyed. He has not probably understood under what context I have written .

Let me explain that working PF optees have got enough time for fighting their case i.e even rectifying the injustice done to them during their service itself which is not the case with retirees.

I hope I have clarified myself and I never have any intention of speaking for anybody or hurting the feelings of anybody.

Shridhar said...

The court case at Madras High court is postponing day by day as it was fixed on 6th not heard once it is listed next day it should have been continue to finish up the cases which were listed previous day.Again on next day same case will list and again its number is 76,96,106 like that and again it will not heard if such is going on then when it will be come up for hearing because it pertains to Govt body so advocates should have pressed the court to take the case at once because it is benefiting 3-5 lacs bank emp who want to opt for pension particularly retirees who are very much eager to take pension after 15 years and to after paying huge amt 156%.So I request our UFBU leaders to at chennai and press upon advocates to get the vacated at once and give relief to retirees as those who are on establishment they got salary as per new pay foe the month of June and getting arrears by 15th July and need not bother for pension because they are yet to retire.So do fast.

chandan said...

In earlier BPS in nineties I witness court cases by individual/unrecognised union that delayed our revised payment for a month or two. But those court cases didn't have any real impact on minutes of settlement.Today, here is also a mirror image at Madras High Court. Matter will be solved within a month.

@Runtrailblog July 11, 2010 3:16 PM:

I am not happy with the constitution of India, but I have to go with it, if I want to stay in this country.I don't agree with many court decisions even at apex court, but I have to obey it.So what to do?

Learn from it.When the settlement has been already signed and carried out, there is very little chance to change the wheel.Where was this so called Canara Bank Workers Union, when the settlement was on progress and was to be signed?


Vasu said...

The views expressed by some of the members should be viewed in proper perspective.While those in service may not feel the pinch even there is a delay in the final judgment to be delivered,those who have retired long back , cannot afford to wait indefinitely as their days literally numbered. It is the responsibility of UFBU to strive for early end to the suspense. Vasudevan

Runtrailblog said...

It is not clear on which court stay order, retirees pension option stayed?Many comments pointing out it like that.
Also some our friends blaming CanaraWorkers Union is the main cause of all these problems -like blind person seeing the elephant.It is only AIBEA & others are the main cause of all these mess-up.
The court case may win or loose.But it doesnt mean UFBU done the settlement in properway.In your view we have to accept the decision taken by the majority (UFBU) eventhough it is harmful to PF opteees and retirees.
Still I couldnt understand why people like you are against PF optees?Anything we are depriving from your pension/rights?

chandan said...

@Runtrailblog July 12, 2010 8:51 AM:

Still I couldnt understand why people like you are against PF optees?Anything we are depriving from your pension/rights?

As because for you smart guys, we lose 6% load in BPS and the gap between the salaries of SBI and Nationalised is widened further. I joined here not last year, but in 1992 and witnessed all the over smart activities of non pension optees during first option.


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.