Oy India

IndiaOnline. Read. Talk. Share.

Discussion - Page 1 | All Banking Solutions IBA/ AIBEA Wage Revision News - allbankingsolutions.com

Back to main pageResults 1-48 of 48, sorted by date

Advertisements

Re: vrs option

Posted by Anonymous Guest, (2012-07-18 18:44:44)

I have completed 17 years of service in bank. please inform whether I am eleigible for VRS.Also guidelines for transfer policy of banks

Re: Re 2nd pension option not given

Posted by D K PATEL, (2011-06-19 16:04:16)

IMr.D K PATEL PF Optee retired from BOB on 10 4 2010 after putting more than 33 years of service under Bank's vol ret scheme i e BOBOSR 1979 SCHEME.Not given 2nd pension option.

Pl.guide me.

My e mail address is dilipkumarkpatel@yahoo.co.in

Re: unjustice done by union of bank employees

Posted by Anonymous Guest, (2011-05-19 19:01:00)

very pity of bank unions for the sake of old employees nearly to retirement they have done unjustice to new bank employees by abolishing grautity & old defined pension. now new employees are covered under new pension scheme . very sorry affaits of bank union. very pathetic bankers's life today

Re: updation of pension to banKmen

Posted by ashok goel, (2011-05-11 08:44:49)

since introduction of pension scheme to bankers there is no updation of their pensions. what is the reason behind it?
it is also strange that some pensioners are drawing 100 pwercent da neuteralisation and some are not getting it>
all the unions are humbly submitted to take up with iba on priority basis.
i ALSO URGED TO ALL THE RETIRED BANKERS FORUM TO FILE SUITS FOR THE SAME.
ASHOK GOEL

Re: Updation of pension for Bank employees(Retirees)

Posted by V Raghavan, (2011-05-07 12:23:41)

V.Raghavan, 1,3rd Cross Street, Gajalakshmi Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai-600044
Ph: 044-45574023/9884065383

I retired under VRS 2000 from Indian Bank. I was in Scale IV at the time of my retirement. I opted for pension at the very first opportunity.

The matters pertaining to wage revision, pension and neutralization etc are quite complex .Only select few from the Banking trade union movement and IBA can speak with authority and knowledge on the subject. This being so, it is quite common that most of the retirees, including this writer, are in dark as to the factual position on various wages/pension related matters.

The pension regulations of the respective public sector banks were adopted by the Boards of the respective Banks, after the settlement between IBA and the unions. Thereafter the respective pension regulations of the public sector banks were notified by the Government of India in the Government Gazette. The pension schemes for the Bank employees were modeled on the basis of the Central Government Pension scheme applicable to Government employees. As per the earlier settlement, pension was made mandatory for those employees who joined the service after a cut-of-date. For the employees who joined the service prior to the cut-of-date, an opportunity to exercise their option was given. Those who did not exercise option had to continue with the contributory PF scheme without pension. Due to lack of proper awareness about pension benefits and due to the divisive instructions given by the rival trade unions to their members, one in favour of pension option and the other against, the employees were left in the lurch. Those who opted for pension were less in numbers than those who continued with the contributory PF scheme.

The VRS 2000 of the Banks opened a Pandora’s Box. Many employees, both who opted for pension, and those who did not, applied under the VRS scheme. Only after their relief from the services of the Banks under the VRS 2000, the non-pension category of the retirees felt the pinch. The dwindling interest rates on deposits coupled with inflation made it difficult for them to make both the ends meet. Their plight ultimately brought a bipartisan realisation among the Bank trade unions, to fight out the cause for one more option for pension, both to the serving employees as well as to the already retired employees who did not opt for pension. Thanks to the persuasive and prolonged agitation of the Bank Unions, IBA ultimately relented and one more option was given during the year 2010 to the Bank employees ,both serving and retired, to exercise option for pension or otherwise. There was an element of cost loaded into the offer that had to be borne by the employees/retirees opting for pension. Thus the mission to secure pension to all the employees has been accomplished.

Now it is time for the unions to take up the case of updating of pension to the retirees, based on each and every subsequent wage settlement. As and when new pay commission announces its award to the Government employees by way of salary increase, the same is made applicable to all the pensioners also, with the result the pensioners of Government are also getting revised pension after every pay commission award. This is not so in the case of Bank pensioners. The pension scheme for Bank employees was modeled on the lines of the Pension scheme for Government employees and more so the Bank employees’ pension regulations were notified through the Government Gazette. It is quite appropriate that this issue is given serious thought by the Bank Unions to take it to its logical end, so that it brings the benefits of revised wage settlements periodically to the Bank Pensioners also.

Re: Updation of pension for Bank employees(Retirees)

Posted by V Raghavan, (2011-05-07 12:17:54)

V.Raghavan, 1,3rd Cross Street, Gajalakshmi Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai-600044
Ph: 044-45574023/9884065383

I retired under VRS 2000 from Indian Bank. I was in Scale IV at the time of my retirement. I opted for pension at the very first opportunity.

The matters pertaining to wage revision, pension and neutralization etc are quite complex .Only select few from the Banking trade union movement and IBA can speak with authority and knowledge on the subject. This being so, it is quite common that most of the retirees, including this writer, are in dark as to the factual position on various wages/pension related matters.

The pension regulations of the respective public sector banks were adopted by the Boards of the respective Banks, after the settlement between IBA and the unions. Thereafter the respective pension regulations of the public sector banks were notified by the Government of India in the Government Gazette. The pension schemes for the Bank employees were modeled on the basis of the Central Government Pension scheme applicable to Government employees. As per the earlier settlement, pension was made mandatory for those employees who joined the service after a cut-of-date. For the employees who joined the service prior to the cut-of-date, an opportunity to exercise their option was given. Those who did not exercise option had to continue with the contributory PF scheme without pension. Due to lack of proper awareness about pension benefits and due to the divisive instructions given by the rival trade unions to their members, one in favour of pension option and the other against, the employees were left in the lurch. Those who opted for pension were less in numbers than those who continued with the contributory PF scheme.

The VRS 2000 of the Banks opened a Pandora’s Box. Many employees, both who opted for pension, and those who did not, applied under the VRS scheme. Only after their relief from the services of the Banks under the VRS 2000, the non-pension category of the retirees felt the pinch. The dwindling interest rates on deposits coupled with inflation made it difficult for them to make both the ends meet. Their plight ultimately brought a bipartisan realisation among the Bank trade unions, to fight out the cause for one more option for pension, both to the serving employees as well as to the already retired employees who did not opt for pension. Thanks to the persuasive and prolonged agitation of the Bank Unions, IBA ultimately relented and one more option was given during the year 2010 to the Bank employees ,both serving and retired, to exercise option for pension or otherwise. There was an element of cost loaded into the offer that had to be borne by the employees/retirees opting for pension. Thus the mission to secure pension to all the employees has been accomplished.

Now it is time for the unions to take up the case of updating of pension to the retirees, based on each and every subsequent wage settlement. As and when new pay commission announces its award to the Government employees by way of salary increase, the same is made applicable to all the pensioners also, with the result the pensioners of Government are also getting revised pension after every pay commission award. This is not so in the case of Bank pensioners. The pension scheme for Bank employees was modeled on the lines of the Pension scheme for Government employees and more so the Bank employees’ pension regulations were notified through the Government Gazette. It is quite appropriate that this issue is given serious thought by the Bank Unions to take it to its logical end, so that it brings the benefits of revised wage settlements periodically to the Bank Pensioners also.

Re: Pension second option

Posted by S.H.S. Mani, (2010-11-18 19:11:14)

If the amount 56% or 2.8@ recovery cannot be said as Interest on CPF how it can be said Pension Fund Gap? Apt term will be corruption to GOI for getting something.

Re: DA formula -merging of index at various settlements

Posted by V.R>Sridharan, (2010-11-13 17:43:59)

Details about merger of points for calculation of Dearness Allowance in different Settlements:-
Working Class Consumer Price Index (CPI) 1960 base as 100 during various settlement periods were as under:

============================================================

Relevant Date CPI Index at that time



1.11.1992 1202

1.4.1998 1888

1.11.2002 2410

1.11.2007 3058

When taken for settlement Average for the past six/ three months were taken.

They are: respectively 1148, 1684, 2288 and 2836 in that order.

Now coming to the question of how the merger points were arrived at different periods- the same was purely arrived by mutual consent at the time of negotiation. But the broad hint one can arrive at is in each settlement an average of 137 slabs or Index points (average) of 548 points have been left uncovered-for payment of DA.

Another picture emerges from each settlement date is as under:-

Relevant Date: 1.11.1992:- Average CPI index:- 1148

Merged points 600

Balance 548/4= 137

The highest Per cent point at that time was (0.67) Hence

For 137 slabs @ 0.67 comes to 91.79 Plus 100 it is 191.79

If for 191.79 the factor is 0.67 then for 100 it is 100 X 0.67 divided by 191.79

The answer is 0.349 rounded off to nearest point is 0.35% thus come the slab at 0.35%.

Similarly for the relevant date 1.4.1998 1684 minus 1148 comes to 536/4 =134

134 x 0.35 = 46.9 Base 100 plus 46.9 = 146.9

If for 146.9 the rate is 0.35 then for 100-- 100 x 0.35 divided by 146.9

That is 0.238 rounded off to nearest double digit is 0.24%

Relevant date 1.11.2002 2288 minus 1684 that 604 /4 =151 slabs

151 x previous slab rate 0.24 = 36.24 Based rate of 100 +36.24 = 136.24

If for 136.24 it is 0.24 then for 100 it is 100/0.24 divided by 136.24 =0.1761 .That is rounded off to nearest doubt digit 0.18%

Settlement w.e.f 1.11.2007 Index point 2836 minus merger points 2288

Balance 548 points divided by 4 is 137 slabs x 0.18 = 24.66

100 plus 24.66 = 124.66. If for 124.66 the rate is 0.18 then for 100

100 x 0.18 divided by 124.66 that is 0.1443 rounded off figure is 0.15%

From the above methodology one can arrive at even better formula in detail. My ability to further clarify the point is limited.

The crux of all problems is the tapering DA formula is removed w.e.f 1.2.2005 for the beneficiaries of the settlement coming into effect from 1.11.2002.

Hence all the retirees after 1.11.2002 are benefited by the 100% of neutralisation of DA. If the tapering DA formula is removed for the earlier retirees also, as is required and as is made applicable to RBI pensioners ( without differentiating the same class of pensioners) all those pensioners who had retired from the bank’s service prior to 1.11.2002 would also become eligible to get 100% neutralisation in DA.

For further clarification you may contact the author of the above article, Sri.V.V.Venkiraramani(k_ramani@vsnl.net

Re: pension option denial

Posted by v.k narayanan, (2010-10-28 16:18:50)

i request all to give support to c n venugopalan in his mission in exposing the arbitrary and unjust stand of iba. i am sure the govt of india is unaware of sleight of hand trick played by iba and ufbu leaders caught unawares. why this denial has not been highlighted in the print and visual media. can a pil be filed in the high/supreme court. the clc in new delhi must be approached. if only the serving union leaders gave a collective thought while rejoicing and laughing all the way to the banks on levy collection.

Re: Joint Notes on Pension

Posted by C N Venugopalan, (2010-10-27 18:54:13)

C N Venugopalan
Ex-Manager, Union Bank of India
Nandanam
Kesari Junction,
N Parvoor,
Kerala – 683 513
Phone. 0484 2447994 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              0484 2447994      end_of_the_skype_highlighting Mob: 9447747994 E-Mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
No.101026 26th October, 2010

The Chairman,
Indian Banks Association,
World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai.

Most Respected Sir,

IBA with its handicapped child

I write you since I am yet to get a reply to my letter No.20100619 dated 19th June, 2010 appraising you the various anomalies founded in the Joint Note dated 27th April 2010 on Pension Option in banks that makes it a nonsense note.

It was addressed to Shri. O P Bhat who might have treated replying or not as his prerogative and adopted a hiccough mode without answering. My presumption is propounded on the thinking that the Chairman of IBA is not an irresponsible person so as not to send a reply to the letter containing pertinent things. Hence I am once again requesting the Chairman IBA in his official address to give a reply with the hope that the “organization of bankers committed to promotion and development of sound and progressive banking principles in India” will pay due attention to the points I had raised for addressing the issues properly. I was blinking at the Joint Notes which is a handicapped child of the eminent bankers’ conclave. The original letter I mentioned is available in the internet and can be accessed with the key “Letter to Shri. OP Bhat by C N Venugopal” and hence hard copy is not sent again.

The Joint Notes prima facie lacks a logic touch entirely and projects a mentally retarded state of its architects who applied mere negotiating skills in it. A cock tail atmosphere at the fag end of the talks can also be responsible for instilling so much irrationality in it. In the process of rectifying one anomaly that of not granting a fresh option when it was due in February, 1999 to those who missed it earlier in 1995, five fresh anomalies are infused in it in gross disregard to natural justice and law of the land. IBA appears as having carved out a territory of its own within the democratic India where the law of the land is irrelevant and it can arbitrarily fix its own rules for breaking all inked agreements relating to compensation to work force.

Fresh option was to be extended to all victims when the clause providing for forfeiture of entire past service incorporated in the Final Regulations (which prevented them from opting when called for) was scrapped in February, 1999. There was aberration on the part of banks from the usual way of publishing all amendments among the employees with a statement that it will have effect from the date it is published in the gazette of India. The amendment which was published in February, 1999 in the Gazette was not circulated among employees prior to Gazette Notification and it was kept in camera for about 43 months and published in July, 2001. Banks were aware of the imperative need of issuing the circular ( as is evident from its issuance) and it is not known what prevented them from circulating it before the notification as per the usual practice. The option that was to be extended afresh in compliance with law of the land when the amendment radically changed the Pension Scheme from its very inception was not at all given.

Option once exercised was “final and irrevocable” in terms of the Draft Regulations and also the (Government sanctioned and Board adopted) Final Regulations. Both documents did not contain a provision for revocation of an exercised option. After infusing the clause providing for forfeiture of service for participation in strike, banks, at the behest of IBA and without the Regulations containing an enabling clause for revocation of an option, extended to the employees a chance to cancel the options they exercised in terms of draft regulations which were valid as per final regulations too. They thus revoked the options of a good number of employees sans an enabling provision in the Regulations and albeit the irrevocable character of the option. The process was null and void as IBA has no powers to thwart the Government sanctioned and Board adopted Regulations. Even assuming that the process of revocation was valid, such options ought to have been reinstated when the particular penal clause which prompted the exit was later scrapped.

Banks which evolved and function on the premises of law for each and every operation thus resorted to non-compliance with the legal requirement of giving fresh chance for option and deceived the work force by illegally denied the already sanctioned benefit of a subsisting nature in a callous way. The Public Sector Banks which are under the control of the Government too resorting to the deceit creates an utmost bad situation. Take one simple example of notional service of five years to be added to qualifying service for reckoning Pension. Though offer terms of VRS 2000 stated that pension will be payable as per the Pension Regulations to those who were in pension segment, Public Sector Banks denied the benefit and drove all victims up to Supreme Court and counted the notional service when the Court directed to do so. The deceit prevailed for nine years and IBA and Banks knowingly thwarted the sanctity of Courts which are institutions meant to deliver justice to the citizens by misusing them for preventing the quick flow of justice to citizens.

Coming back to the Joint Note, banks recovering 2.8 times pay apart from surrender of CPF Balance (employer’s share) from those presently on rolls as on 27th April, 2010 who seeks fresh option is not justified to the extent their counterparts who opted earlier are not subjected to such a levy. Besides, an employee who retired on or before 31st March, 2010 will have to pay back the entire amount of CPF received together with 56 percent of such amount which means that he will have to pay Rs.10.00 lakhs to Rs.15.00 lakhs to gain fresh option. This is a felony and a great offence to him. The Regulations do not envisage any such collection and hence it is illegal. The Apex Court has made it clear in several judgments that Pension is not a charity doled out to the retired employee by the employer and that it is an inalienable right earned through relentless service and referred to it also as deferred wages. It is a legitimate establishment expenditure of the employer which is not to be borne by the employee at any rate. Any recovery from the employee towards Pension Fund would constitute a robbery of the employee by the employer. The precedence in the matter had been that those who retired on or after 01 01 1986 were extended coverage of the scheme on paying back the CPF together with simple interest at six percent from the date of payment of CPF to the date of option. As per the joint note, one who retired ten years back and has enjoyed the benefits of possession of money as also one who retired now who has just received the CPF (without enjoying such benefits) are subjected to an identical levy of 56 percent which totally lacks scientific backing and natural justice. It should also be considered that the option is beyond the reach of the widows of deceased employees as they will have to shell out huge money to get a meager family pension in terms of the Joint Note. Whereas the employees who passed away after retirement were to receive commutation benefit on retirement, this benefit is not available to them now. Any Court will take a strong exception on the loot banks perpetrate on widows senior citizens through the heavy recovery.

The Joint Notes further takes away the right to Pension of the retired from the date of retirement to an arbitrarily fixed date of 27th November, 2009. While any settlement can confer any benefit on any one, it can not take away a subsisting and already sanctioned benefit without the consent of such beneficiary. The retired had not authorized any Union to surrender his right to pension and the consent to such forfeiture of Pension given by the signatories has no legal backing. In my own case, the amount of commutation based on the age of 60 falls short of the CPF paid to me on retirement by a mere Rs.2,221/- . For this petty difference paid, the Bank has stranded me without Pension for past nine + years. The amount the employer seeks to defraud me through the Joint Note for the period from date of retirement (21 04 2001) to 27th November, 2009 is to the tune of Rs.9.00 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs by disentitling me to Pension for the period.

Regulation No.28 of the Pension Regulations has been amended on13th July, 2002 which reads as: “Superannuation Pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or Settlements. Provided that , with effect from 1st day of September, 2000, pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government”. Your Joint Note dated 27 04 2010 with Bank Unions seeks to take away the benefit of pension payable to the retirees in terms of the aforesaid amendment published in the Gazette which is adopted by the Bank Boards and sanctioned by the Government of India. I request you to please clarify whether IBA has got such powers to override the Government Notification and Board decision. Since my employer Bank viz. Union Bank of India is denying me pension from 21st April, 2001 to 26 November, 2009 because of your Joint Note, you may state reasons, if any, as to why I should not proceed against IBA for recovering the loss.

The deficit in Pension Fund arrived at in the actuarial exercise is purely a fictitious one or the product of the Banks themselves through a Banking Scam of an extreme nature. Instead of making enough provisions as stipulated under Regulations, profits have been inflated and amounts distributed as dividends for the mere cosmetics of the key men of banks at the cost of retired senior citizens and widows of deceased employees. Recovery from the employees to fill the gap is shifting of the employer’s burden to the employee. Street robbery by unscrupulous people carries justification since they resort to it for existence, but eminent bankers attempting such thefts lacks propriety. Besides, the recovery based on mere hypothetical assumptions and not actual numbers renders the process of recovery from employees illegal altogether.

In the 8th and 9th Bipartite Settlements, a load factor for pension was considered and claimed by banks and the balance alone was distributed as wage hike to work force. There is no transparency as to as to whether proportionate amounts in tune with the amount of residual hike given to the employees was placed by banks into the Pension Funds from time to time. Pension Regulations envisaged on the part of banks a payment of 10 percent of the Pay and Allowances qualifying for CPF into the Pension Fund in respect of all those who joined the scheme as it was the recognized way for building up Pension Fund. The contribution was all the more imperative since Pension was a replacement of CPF at 10 percent payable by banks to employees. Apparently, this has not been done by any bank on a monthly basis. Now a deficit is alleged and IBA is acting unscrupulously by collecting amounts from employees. Can IBA take a confirmation from all member banks and inform that there has not been a scam on Pension Funds by Banks before imposing the levies for the alleged deficit?

The simple question as to what banks would have done if all employees had opted for pension when initially offered is reverberating the banking horizon when banks are extenuating paucity of funds and deficit in Pension Funds for paying the legitimate establishment expenses. The Pension Scheme was launched while some banks were reeling under pressure through low surpluses and the present negative approach is adopted when all banks are making progressive profits quarter after quarter. Management of Pension Funds by banks is definitely the area where the biggest ever banking scam exists since Banks have not complied with the provisions of Pension Regulations as also of the Bipartite Settlements.

`
Associate Banks of State Bank of India are refusing to pay Pension Option under the Joint Note to those who took exit through their Exit Option Scheme which was on all fours with the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000-2001. This is yet another absurdity since pension coverage is given to those who were paid compensation of up to 60 months pay on Voluntary Retirement and it is denied to those who have served the banks for longer period and are paid lesser compensation in respect of future wages for 36 months only. Exit Option is also a Scheme framed by the concerned Bank and its carries Government sanction since it is approved by the Board which includes Government of India representatives. Amendment dated 13th July, 2002 to Regulation No.28 makes them well eligible to Pension since they went out through a Government sanctioned scheme.

Voluntary Retirement, Resignation and normal retirement are all processes which have the same effect on the employer as also on the employee. Denial of Pension to any category on the basis of mere nomenclature of the mode of exit is discrimination. What should be material is acquisition of qualifying service for Pension which at present is 15 years. IBA is playing a foul and insidious game that may upset all legal nitty-gritty by adopting separate yardstick to each category. The action of IBA results in unwanted and avoidable litigation across the country and poses a challenge to the substantive law, Courts (that are saddled with unbearable number of suits) and to the Constitution of India.

IBA is also aware that even as the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000-2001 specifically stated that the benefit of notional service of five years will be extended to those who retire under it, banks flouted the inked offer and denied the benefit to the retired, driving them all up to the Apex Court and considered the benefit only after direction from Supreme Court came recently. IBA and public sector banks that function solely on the premises of law for each and every transaction and are expected to live at the zenith of law are blatantly violating all law in an abject manner, cutting a low profile for themselves.

If the general public of India becomes aware of the ridiculous way IBA and Public Sector banks upset the provisions of the Constitution and of Indian Law in labour matters, it will take every one to shame and they may treat the Indian Bankers as brutal killers of the working class who disregard all ethos of law.

I feel that just in the way the Chairman of State Bank of India took somersault and withdrew the circular restricting “Tractor Loans” when Government interfered, it would be a befitting act on the part of IBA to revisit the illegal and restrictive provisions of the Joint Notes forthwith and advise the concerned banks immediately for preserving righteousness. The specific areas to be focused for review are:

1. Recovery of 2.8 times November, 2007 Pay from existing employees
2. Recovery of 56 percent of CPF in addition to 100 percent from retired.
3. Denial of Pension from date of retirement to 26th November, 2009 to the retired
4. Commutation based on date of fresh option in lieu of date of retirement
5. Payment of Pension to the normal VRS retirees, resigned etc.
6. Exit option cases of retirement in Associate Banks

You may feel free to let me know cogent reasons, if any, for not revisiting the Joint Notes on the above items or in case there are no valid reasons, please make necessary amendments forthwith as is expected of a sensible and law abiding organization that is expected to function in line with the provisions of the magnificent Constitution of India and ethos of Indian legal system.

Thanks and Regards

Yours faithfully,

C N Venugopalan

Re: pension option denial

Posted by vk narayanan , (2010-10-11 16:47:47)

the ex bankers on vrs/ resignation are left in the lurch with only legal remedy to bank on. the ufbu did not care to define the retirement in mou and iba interpreted it as superannuation. what happens when after minimum pension service one is permanently incapacitated ? for that person also pensionis denied.... what logic.... the absence of left leaders of clout and clarity is felt now that they do not have power at the centre. i feel sad that this blatant denial has not found any mention in any print or visual media. so much for the financial sector back bone of the nation with the economy on their shoulders

Re: Addition of 5 yrs for Pension calculation

Posted by Rasik Deodhar, (2010-10-10 21:12:04)

Dear sir,
I joined BOI on 18/02/1983 and Opted for VRS as on 30/12/2000.Effective service being 18years. Pl let me know whether I will get benefit of addition of 5 yrs to 18 yrs for my pension calculation and also commutation.
Rasik Deodhar. Goa.

Re: pension option

Posted by v k narayanan , (2010-10-09 14:00:53)

when in any state/central govt setup any employee who has put in the minimum pensionable service has the right to resign to get the pension why this was denied to bank employyes who had taken vrs when the scheme was in force? retirement in all forms w/o superannuation clause is what is required. the existing employees are not even aware of the denial to ex employyes. such goes the communication of the union leaders

Re: 10 months salary particulars of II pension optees

Posted by Sridharan V R, (2010-09-28 17:04:02)


Bangalore
27th Sept 2010

From:
V.R.Sridharan
1262, 25th ‘|A’ Main, 41st Cross,
Jayanagar 9th Block, Bangalore – 560 069
(Cell: 09886884162)

Dear Sir,
Reg: 10th Months salary in Annexure F for IInd pension optees.

Branches are required to furnish last 10 months’ salary particulars in Annexure ‘F’ to each employee opting for II nd Pension Option.
Considering the practical difficulty in locating a 10 year old salary record at individual branch level, I have the following suggestion to offer.
1. Head Office, PF Department has the month-wise Provident Fund details employee-wise and branch-wise.
2. Since the amount mentioned in members’contribution and or Banks contribution to PF is 10% of Basic Salary (plus admissible allowances, which also ranks for Pension calculation), Basic salary of each employee, for the 10 month period can be arrived by multiplying the Banks’ contribution to PF by 10.
3. Head Office (PF Department), can convey these details in Annexure’F’to these retirees as well as branches, based on the Option form submitted by the retired employees as per Annexure A,B & C submitted by the retirees.
4. Based on these HO generated Annexure ‘F’, branches can fill up other relevant details and issue the form in Annexure ‘F’, duly countersigned by the pension optees. Those of the branches which have the salary records, can cross check the details, if they so desire.
I request you to please take up the matter at the appropriate level and study the feasibility of implementing my suggestion.

Yours sincerely,
V.R.Sridharan

Re: pension for resignees on medical grounds

Posted by gerard edward meyers, (2010-09-21 22:14:08)

I have resigned on medical grounds on 20/06/2006
due to medical reasons after 19 yrs 6 mths will I be eligible for 2nd option I am from Indian bank

Re: What is the fate of Scale IV and above in the Private Sector Banks

Posted by Dr M Prasada Rao, Bangalore, (2010-09-15 15:08:41)

This current Wage revision is totally confused the senoir officers those who are with the Banking Industry for more than 20 years.Pl see the Point No.4 in the JOINT NOTE of the Salary revision for Officers- states that "IBA shall take steps to recommend to the Private Sector Banks whcih are listed in Annexure II and which have authorised the IBA in this regard, to give effect to the salary revision for their officers up to Scale III on the same linesas mentioned in Annexure I." What is this ? The officers above scale IV are not covered under this salary revision or what. Why this descrimination between Nationalised banks and Pvt. sector Banks. Both are working for the same cause under RBI guide lines and members in the IBA. But this is again using Britishers devide and rule policy. I feel this should be corrected immediately and revised recommendations shold send to the Pvt sector Banks.

Re: SOME POINTS FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING PENSION PAYMENT TO BANK EMPLOYEES RETIRED MAINLY PRIOR TO 1.11.2002

Posted by V.V.Venkiraramani, (2010-08-28 20:40:41)

SOME POINTS FOR DISCUSSION REGARDING PENSION PAYMENT TO BANK EMPLOYEES RETIRED MAINLY PRIOR TO 1.11.2002.

From the beginning neither IBA nor in-service employees/officers - unions/associations have shown any consideration or attention for the retired employees, who have opted for pension.

While concluding settlements, (specifically prior to 1.11.2002) many discrepancies were left unsolved. To say, that they were not having knowledge about them-may be a green lie. By arbitrarily fixing a cut of date for payment of quantum of pension, gratuity amount etc. the retired employees have to seek court intervention to get their grievances redressed. Again in the settlement which came into effect w.e.f. 1.11.97; instead of allowing pension against the last 10 months salary drawn- an arbitrary clause was included reducing the merging points from 1684 to 1616. In effect this affected all pensioners who had retired between 1.11.1997 to 31.10.2002. As the amount deprived was huge, again some pensioners filed suits in many High Courts in India-. For each anomaly – arbitrarily created during settlements-pensioners have to seek legal intervention. Unless the highest court in India give a judgment in employees favor- IBA would never listen to us .In getting a favorable judgment it may take a minimum of 10 to 15 years. Considering the fact that most of the retirees are Senior Citizens- it suggested that IBA should be forced to institute Tribunal at appropriated level to redress the grievances of pensioners.

In the 8th Settlement which came into effect from 1.11.2002 -100 per cent neutralization of DA was given effect w.e.f 1.5.2005 those who have retired after 1.11.2002.. This arbitrarily fixing of DA formula has created huge differences in the quantum of pension drawn by the earlier retirees. For Example officers retiring/retired at the 20th Stage in the last 3 settlements are highlighted here.
1.11.97 to 31.10.02 1.11.02 to 31.10.07 1.11.07 to current.

DA formula Tapering DA 100% @0.18% 100% @ 0.15%
Basic Pay 13560 19920 28100
FPA 380 620 900
TOTAL 13940 20540 29000

Pension 6970 10270 14500
Commutation 2323 3423 4833
Net Basic Pen 4647 6847 9667
DA/3924 points 7688 7560 5916 (Aug 10)
Total 12335 14407 15583
With 100% DA 14014 14407 15583
Difference 1679 NIL -NIL- ( per month)
Note: The difference would be increasing with every increase in DA slabs.
Proportionate to the higher Basic Pension again, the variance would be very higher.


In the 9th Settlement major portion of employees who have never opted for pension were offered another pension option – without settling the grievances of earlier retirees. Thus the discriminations against earlier retirees ( prior to 1.11.2002) continued in this settlement also. Whether the actuaries have taken into account the difference in the amount of pension payable for the earlier retirees- if we win all the cases.? While IBA has agreed for huge outlay of funds to honor the 9th settlement commitments, why they are not prepared to agree the rightful dues of earlier retirees.

In various settlements DA has been merged with Basic pay by taking into account different merger points. This has also affected the basic pension at the time of fixation.

It is observed that IBA has taken legal opinions prior to implementation of 8th wage revision. This fact has been mentioned in their own circular. One of the legal points referred was relating to anomalies in the merger of DA to Basic in the previous settlement. That is regarding definition of “pay” for the purpose of pension. At the time of reference cases relating to this point were pending in various High Courts ( for arbitrarily fixation of Basic Pension by merging only 1616 points instead of 1684 points).Knowing well that IBA cannot win the case through the back door they conceded this point w.e.f 1.5.2005 and paid the arrears of pension from that date. But as the cases were filed before that date we have to get arrears from the date of retirement. IBA is conspicuously silent about this matter. The question here is

Whether it would be possible for us to get the legal opinions obtained by IBA( in this matter) through RTI act. If we could get the same all our cases can made in our favour very easily.

Whether it would be possible to get one cadre one pension for bank employees ?

Even Central Pay commission has opined and insisted that there should not be any different formula for payment of DA among the existing and already retired employees of Central Govt. staff. A recent judgement in Rajasthan High Court ( Case: LIC Vs. Govt- regarding different rate of DA for the recently retired employees and already retired employees) , it has been decreed that there should not be any differentiation in the payment of DA.

In view of the above we should get 100% neutralisation DA for those who have retired prior to 1.11.2002 and opted for pension. We should also get arrears of pension- for those who had retired between 1.11.1997 and 31.10.2002 .

Please mail your suggestions and comments to vv.venkitaramani@gmail.com

Dated 28.8.2010.

Re: pension option

Posted by sanjeev kundra, (2010-08-28 20:16:12)

I RESIGNED FROM NATIONALISED BANK IN 2005
AFTER 26 YEARS OF SERVICE.WHY HAS THE PENSION OPTION TO THE RESIGNED OFFICER NOT BEEN MADE APPLICABLE? IT SEEMS THAT THERE ARE NO UNION LEADERS WHO RESIGNED FROM BANKS. BECAUSE OF THAT THEY HAVE NOT INCLUDED THE RESIGNED BANK OFFICER FOR PENSION BENEFITS. SHAME FOR UNION LEADERS.

Re: reg pension eligibility

Posted by ramamurthy, (2010-08-26 21:59:53)

i am dismissed employee. i have received my P.F and gratuity.
There is no monetary loss to the bank on account of me.
I would like to know, whether i am eligible for pension.

Re: wage revision and pension option

Posted by K. Natarajan, (2010-08-17 16:15:30)

The popular saying is ' The horse not only pushed down the rider but also dug his grave'. So is our great union leaders - say great cheaters. What prevented them from going on indefinite strike? Great considerations that cannot be revealed!

Re: pension option

Posted by lakshmi, (2010-08-14 12:33:46)

Pl inform whether my husband can opt for pension who has taken VRS from a nationalised bank after 31st March but befor 27th April on health grounds.

He is very very depressed and dejected.

lakshmi

Re: demand for pay commission

Posted by A.K.Srivastava, (2010-07-27 23:58:13)

Friends,
This is time to unite.Ignore the union leaders.Stop to pay Union contribution.Union leaders are of no use.Unite to demand pay commission for bank employees.This is the only way to get justice. After this cheating settlement our leaders are now exposed.Do not accept this settlement.

Re: TREACHERY BY IBA

Posted by s.ghosh, (2010-07-23 14:24:14)

all bankers are aware that two set of rules are in force in banks for disbursement of salary , one for substaff to general manager which is governed by the bipartite settlements and for ED & CMD by the central govt. as per the central pay commissions.Just because the cmd's are the members of the managing commitee of IBA they cared a hoot for the early signing of the bipartite settlements because they were not affected by the delay and they were drawing salary in the scale of joint secy. of central govt.Is this not an injustice that two set of pay scales are in vogue in the same institution. If A GENERAL MANAGER is promoted as E.D.and then to CMD he should draw the salary as applicable to bank employees and not central govt. officers because he has been promoted from the ranks. but when a central govt officer is posted in bank as ED or CMD he should salary of his parent dept.just because a banker is promoted as ED or CMD he forgets his past and how the unions/ associations have fought for his salary revision, and they play havoc by denying us our legitimate dues. So all members and unions/associations should put forward to govt to bring them under central pay commission as the govt has put ED and CMD or depute central govt officers as ED and CMD. members are requested to seek the help of their local MP/MLA in highlighting this matter to the govt of india and also seek help of courts in this double standards of the govt in the same industry or else you will not get justice from this set of management

Re: challange to aibea leaders

Posted by bakshi, (2010-07-18 12:36:26)

dear colleagues [all old and new ],please do not pay union fee or any other money collected by CHEATER ie:union leaders, in the name of levy, donation etc, and remember, the settlement signed by them will HAVE NO BINDING ON US. UNITEDLY WE SHALL OVERCOME.bakshi, state bank of patiala, shiv nagar, delhi

Re: Pension for resigned employees

Posted by D V RAJA RAO, (2010-07-14 19:00:45)

Why has the Pension Option not been made applicable to Resigned Bank employees ALSO? Why the Unions did not include them also in the settlement?

Probably, there are no union leaders who resigned from banks. So, they have not included resigned bank employees for the settlement benefit.

The resigned bank employees were also members of some unions and must have paid union subscription each month. What did they get in return for their membership till resignation.

I was paying Rs.100/- each month to Officers Union till April 2007 and I spoke to the Officers Union Leader about the problem of my branch before submitting my resignation from my Public Sector Bank job. As he said I should tackle the problem myself, I submitted my resignation to the shameless, unscrupulous and SUBSTANDARD organization where one of its executives said to me in my branch "Convert the existing NPAs to Standard Assets by getting fresh documents executed by the defaulting borrowers". This executive ALSO said he himself did this as a branch manager.The date on which he said this was 9.12.2003.

What for the union leaders exist? Is it for listening silently when the Bank executives use such words as "commit suicide" to branch managers?

The union leaders are a shameless lot. They do not hesitate to take favours from you and forget that they are recipients of favours from you.

Union Leaders! Have some shame and take up to see that the resigned employees also get pension benefits.

Re: bonus

Posted by m rajagoplal, (2010-07-06 14:39:03)

our industry is profit making. bonus is paid by the employer to its employees for his recognition to their hardwork. many industries though they do not make profit pay bonus to its employees. why the banking industry has stopped paying bonus to it employees. our dead stock leaders have no courage to fight this injustice. they have their own agenda which they want to promote for the cost of just demands of the employees. they should be kicked out. after retiring why should they continue? get lost.

Re: bad in taste

Posted by Bhrigu Sah, (2010-06-25 08:03:37)

Call of conscience would make sense if it was heard at the time of signing of the settlement. There's no point in crying after the damage is done. SHP Singh should have reacted earlier. Although we do not intend paying any levy, his request is absurd. He sounds hypocritical and has no right to give this call at all. He is trying to fool us by making this uncalled for call.

Re: Call of conscience

Posted by SHP Singh, PNB, Patna, (2010-06-20 16:32:36)

In response to the call of conscience, I have decided to request the members of my state not to authorize any payment of levy to the association. I like to keep my conscience clean and wish to assure the members that I am not a party to this settlement that is forced on all of us.

Re: what now?

Posted by M.S.Nayan, (2010-06-18 11:39:03)

Deceived, true. Defeated, untrue. These blood sucking union leaders have now requested the individual bank managements (PNB, for instance)to directly debit levy from individual's arrears and remit the money to them. Be careful, do not give 'no objection' or 'authorization letter'. They not only want Rs. 1500 from each beneficiary, they also want 4% from those pf optees who may now opt for pension. These shameless pachyderms will go to any extent to suck your blood. Just do not fall prey. Stop monthly subscriptions too. Since they cannot give you protection, why should you pay them for their personal comforts? They could be rendered ineffective if money (the only thing these mercenaries covet) is denied to them. Its now our turn to give them a tit for tat.

Re: Is Pension Option available to resignee officers

Posted by Ashwani Malhotra, (2010-05-29 20:04:44)

I resigned from bank in Sept.2004 after putting in 21 years of service. I opted for for VRS in 2002 but was denied as min. age fixed for officers was 52 and I was only 44 at that time. I want to know whether I am eligible for opting pension under the present wage settlement. Please clarify.
Thanks,
Regards,
Ashwani

Re: deception played on us

Posted by NC Sinha, (2010-05-29 17:55:11)

It is now clear that we have been cheated and deceived by our predators the union leaders. But what's point in merely discussing things that lead us no where. Please give us a platform from where we can meaningfully raise the banner of revolt and right the wrong. Mere clearing of thraots is of no use. Please suggest a way out and lead us out of this pitfall where our union leaders have shoved us.

Re: Wage Revision of Bankers.

Posted by Anil Suri,Allahabad Bank,Meerut, (2010-05-29 17:35:36)

When there is a huge increse in the salary of state and central govt employees,due to the VI th pay commission,then why the leaders of bank unions accepted this settlement,which is on a very lower side.Will any of our leader come forward to cl;arify the confusion.

Re: pensionoption

Posted by r ananthakrishnan, (2010-05-12 21:05:22)

world wide pension is diminishing ufbeutried best for equal share difeential share but could not succeed due to legal complications to save pension and pensionoption as a last resort agreed to pf optees share cost. only pf opteeds who were miguided by the present signatories for this situation aibea and aiboa cannot be blamed if option is given it is only because of aibea and aiboa

Re: Pensiion for VRS employee after 01.11.07

Posted by Satish Agrawal, (2010-05-11 22:26:45)

I have taken VRS on 31.03.08. Please let me know whether I am eligible for revised pension, commutation, ARB, gratuity, leave encashment or not

Re: pension for retired officers

Posted by sujan ghosh, (2010-05-10 23:12:53)

i retired from banks service on 1-4-2009 on superannuation. the ufbu and iba delayed wage revision and pension for bank employees. why should i refund 156% of pf when i have not enjoyed before retirement. what will a person retiring on 31-3-2010 pay . will he have to refund 156% because agreement has been signed on 27-4-2010. the ufbu and iba have cheated the retired employees by taking more amount from them. all retired employees opting pension must be prepared for going to court against unjust recovery. it means we cannot enjoy the commutation amount. TO HELL WITH UFBU AND IBA.ALL LEADERS WHO TOLD US NOT TO OPT PENSION EARLIER SHOULD BE EXPOSED FOR THEIR NEGATIVE THINKING AND HARMING US PERMANENTLY

Re: 9th B.P.S.

Posted by pankaj kumar sinha , uco bank ,mamudpur (1610), (2010-05-03 22:50:01)

The brute and trecherous union leaders should be punished in the court of the new pension optees.

Re: Availability of Pension to resigned employees

Posted by D INDIRA, (2010-05-02 10:24:34)

I resigned from bank service in 2007 after putting over 30 years of service without opting for VRS.

Do I get pension ?

Re:

Posted by ANJANA , TRIVANDRUM, (2010-05-02 09:58:43)

PF OPTEES HAVE BEEN CHEATED BY UNIONS. IN THE PAST TWO SETTLEMENTS BOTH PENSION & PF OPTEES GAVE 5% OF ARREARS TOWARDS_PENSION FUND. NOW 2.8 TIMES FROM PF OPTEES ONLY?

Re: Eligibility for pension

Posted by Mrs.R.Mallika, (2010-05-02 08:14:27)

I took VRS under the scheme in 2000. I had put in 16 years and 10 months of service at that point of time including 822 days of Extraordinary Leave (LOP) (sanctioned).

Am I now eligible for pension now?

Re: pensioners

Posted by mulbagal vijaya vittal, (2010-04-30 08:03:12)

The state and central govt. pensioners get the revised pay automatically whenver there is wgae revision by the Pay Commn. But why there is no such facility / benifit for the pensioners of Banks???

Re: arrear for retiree's revised pension

Posted by lalit, (2010-04-29 23:43:43)

Is it not unfair that the retirees are not being paid the arrears from the effective date of settlement? why this discrimination? is it because that the retirees have none of the representative to the wage revision talk? but the leader have set a wrong precedent. they will also be paying the price for the rest of their life. The present instance of not paying areears will be cited when they have retired and are up for considertion for wage revision and payment of arrears.

Re: PENSION FOR RESIGNEE

Posted by MEHUL, (2010-04-29 22:59:20)

I HAVE RESIGNED FROM NATIONALISED BANK AFTER 15 YEARS OF SERVICE ON DATE-22/07/2008,DATE OF JOINING 5/12/1991.I AM ELIGIBLE FOR NEW PENSION SCHEME OR NOT?

Re: Wage revision and pension options

Posted by K B Malhotra, (2010-04-29 20:52:57)

The retired officers have been cheated by the unions. They have been sacrificed for the sake of serving officers.
What is the fate of officers who retired after 01-11-2007 and after 01-04-2010. What amt they have to refund if they opt for pension. Whether it will @ 156% or 2.80

Re: Wage revision and pension options

Posted by K B Malhotra, (2010-04-29 20:33:48)

The retired officers have been cheated by the unions. They have been sacrificed for the sake 0v.,2007

Re: view on 2nd pension option

Posted by n.n.parmar, (2010-04-29 18:50:50)

pf opties are cheated in 9th wage revision.
unions have tried to give more benifit to only retired employees.thay have neglected existing
PF employees.why pf opties give cotribution in pension from getting arears and sacrify to retired employee as thay have taken willingly vrs

Re: Pention option

Posted by gopalsinh, (2010-04-28 12:19:03)

Pention option to be given to all I am BOB bank officers put in service of 24 years 1973 to 1997. Was offerred pention option during 1995/1996 but not opted and continued with PF. Subsequently put separation papers with bank putting word as RESIGN instead RETIRE. Does it mean, will not get petion option? Though put service of 24 years.Given 3 months notice. Having always worked as A & B grade score in performance rating. The definition as retiree/resignee as treated as retiree only, its nothing but a jugglery of word only.

Re: Pention option

Posted by gopalsinh, (2010-04-28 12:14:00)

Pention option to be given to all I am BOB bank officers put in service of 24 years 1973 to 1997. Was offerred pention option during 1995/1996 but not opted and continued with PF. Subsequently put separation papers with bank putting word as RESIGN instead RETIRE. Does it mean, will not get petion option? Though put service of 24 years.Given 3 months notice. Having always worked as A & B grade score in performance rating. The definition as retiree/resignee as treated as retiree only, its nothing but a jugglery of word only.

Re: wage revision in banks

Posted by vinod,ludhiana, (2010-04-27 22:50:04)

9th wage revision & 2nd pension option are great cheating with bank employees
previous | next