Dear Friends,
After hearing in SLP 7368_71/2017 on
1.8.17,SC has reserved for judgment,in above case as informed under this
column[ROP UPLOAED ON THIS BLOG LAST NIGHT-EDITOR], last day.Mean while AIBRF has issued a circular on latest
developments in detail vide their Ref:2017/82 dated:
01.08.2017,the copy of the same is furnished here under for information:
The Office Bearers/ Central Committee
Members/ State Body Chiefs
A.I.B.R.F.
Dear Comrades,
Re: Developments in SLP
in the matter of 100 per cent
DA case in
Supreme Court on 1.08.2017
As informed through our earlier
communication on the subject, the
above SLP of United Bank came for hearing on 01.08.2017 before the honourable
bench of the Justice Adarsh Goyal and Justice U. Lalit for leading the
arguments.
2. Senior Counsel of United Bank of India
commenced the arguments and presented in details about the various
factor/points on which Division Bench of Madras High Court upheld SLP of the
bank managements and details as to how bipartite settlements are held and how
allocations of funds are made to meet cost of the settlements. He pointed out
that judgement of Madras High Court which is already confirmed by the Supreme Court has
dismissed SLP of the retirees.
3. Thereafter, AIBRF Senior Counsel Shri
V.K. Bali initiated arguments on behalf of AIBRF and United Bank of Retired
Employees Association in very forceful and effective manner. During the
arguments, he mainly brought the following important facts before the
honourable bench
(a) AIBRF and bank retirees respect
settlement dated 02.06.2005 introducing improved DA formula. Clause 7(2) of the
settlement gives details of the improved DA formula
(b) The above clause of the settlement does not create division among the pensioners based on the date of retirement.
(c) IBA circular dated 28.06.2005 _ Annexure
III which created separate division
among pensioners for the purpose of DA payment is only administrative
instruction and not settlement in itself.
(d) He also
brought to the notice of the Bench that division bench of Madras High
Court has committed error in treating IBA administrative circular of 28.06.2005
as part of the settlement. Therefore Madras High Court judgment is based on
erroneous facts.
(e) He also made reference of Delhi High
Court decision in the matter of LIC and the points which are in favour of
retirees.
(g) He also made submission that logically
also it looks illogical that senior retirees who need more money get DA at
lower rates while new retirees are paid DA at higher rates.
4. Further another Senior Counsel engaged
by AIBRF Shri Jitender Prasad Sharma submitted before the bench that clause no.
6 of settlement of 1993 on pension scheme is binding on the parties to the
settlement until modified or revoked. Therefore DA should be paid as per
provision of clause no 6 of 1993 settlement.
5. In view of the above submissions of two
senior counsels of AIBRF , the Bench has agreed to examine the above
submissions and has reserved the decision to be delivered shortly.
6. We may mention that AIBRF has approached
to RLC on 100 per cent DA on similar grounds insisting for implementation of
provisions of the settlement.
7. We are happy to find that arguments lead
by our counsels in very forceful manner have gone well before the bench.
8. We assure our membership that AIBRF will
take all possible steps to protect interest of retirees as being done all the
years in the past.
With warm regards,
Yours Sincerely,
Yours Sincerely,
( S.C.JAIN)
GENERAL SECRETARY
--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment