This WEDNESDAY VIBRATIONS = of BANK RETIREES since ZERO HOUR & before that

FROM YESTERNIGHT TWITTER, FACEBOOK, GROUPMAILS, MAILS, SMS, WHATSAPP OF BANK RETIREES POURING IN WITH "100% DA CASE JUDGEMENT RESERVED" MESSAGES & NARRATIONS & DISCUSSIONS OPINIONS REG. YESTERDAY DAY LONG PROCEEDINGS 

OVERALL, FROM KNOWLEDGEABLE like M/s.Katari, Goyal, Venugopalan & so on, TO MEDIOCRE, R JUBILANT & EXPRESSING SATISFACTION subject to some doubts on interest and arrears claim, ON PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE YESTERDAY & RAISING POSITIVE HOPES EMANATED BY DINT OF STUFFED ARGUMENTS CAME FORTH FROM THE LEGAL COUNSELS OF RETIREES/ORGNS.

THE ASSNS. DESCRIBE AS "EXCELLENT", "BEST" Etc.

But at this stage, such self exaltation not welcomed as it may irk the final judgement.

THIS IS THE FULL LENGHT FACTUAL ACTUAL INFORMATION BY CBPRO WITHOUT DISTORTION

COORDINATION OF BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES

Circular No.   009/2017                                                                                                                   Date: 01.08.2017

To,
All the General Secretaries of the Constituents of CBPRO.

100% D.A. Neutralization in Pre-November 2002 Retirees’ case
Judgment in Hon’ble Supreme Court reserved

As you are aware the above case is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After few adjournments, it came up for arguments today for disposal. The Senior Advocates of all the parties were heard at length. The arguments by the lawyers representing the Retirees’ Organizations were very well received. Our presence in the Court helped an excellent coordination among the Senior Advocates who represented the Retirees’ Organizations.

The Senior Advocate who represented the Bank Management argued vehemently that there was no discrimination as the employer has a right to restrict the applicability of new benefits/ improvements to the future Retirees and for that purpose the cut-off date in this case being 01.11.2002 was in order. He also argued that making the 100% D.A. neutralization applicable to all past Retirees would involve huge financial burden. His argument was that the quantum of amount mutually agreed at the time of signing the settlement as a load factor to be distributed among various components of pay like Basic pay, D.A., HRA, Medical, other allowances, etc. was a limiting factor which was agreed to by all the Unions representing the Employees and Officers. Hence, it could not be questioned at this stage. These arguments were effectively countered by the Senior Advocates who represented various Organizations of Retirees.

Shri V.K. Bali, Senior Advocate (Former Chief Justice of Kerala High Court and Former Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal), who represented AIBRF, argued the case excellently. His arguments were able to impress the Court about the distinctions made out in Para2(b) of the Bipartite Settlement of May, 2005 in respect of applicability of uniform rate of D.A. and the distortions in its implementations vide IBA Circular dated 28.06.2005 going against the spirit of the Bipartite Settlement. The clauses relating to payment of uniform D.A. from May, 2005 in the Bipartite Settlement and Joint note did not stipulate any cut-off date with regard to exclusion of Pre-November 2002 Retirees from the applicability of 100% D.A. rather it only mentioned about the change in the D.A. formula to  100% D.A. neutralization from 2005. IBA while issuing the circular to the Member Banks unilaterally created artificial classification by wrongly dividing the Retirees into different groups as Pre-01.11.2002 Retirees and post 01.11.2002 Retirees. It was sought to be questioned in the Court by the Senior Advocates representing the Retirees Organizations. The distortion caused by IBA Circular was well explained to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Shri Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate, representing the Petitioners namely United Bank of India Retirees’ Welfare Association strongly supplemented the arguments of Shri Bali while also highlighting the clause 6 of Pension Settlement of 1993.

Shri A.S. Nambiar, renowned Senior Advocate who represented the ARISE, an affiliate of AIBPARC made very valid points invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also argued about the absence of justification and rationale objectives with regard to Artificial Classification made by IBA Circular based on the date of retirement of the Pensioners. He effectively highlighted the ratio laid down in the case of D.S.Nakara.  He also pointed out that the inflation equally hurts all the Pensioners irrespective of their date of Retirement.  D.A. is payable towards part compensation on account of  price-rise and hence there cannot be different rate of D.A. payable to the Retirees merely on the basis of their date of retirement. Mr.Nambiar was ably assisted by Mr. Sewa Ram, Advocate(Former IOBian). Mr.Sewa Ram also argued that the Pension Options were exercised by the Employees in 1993-94 on the basis of the Pension settlement even before the Pension Regulations were finalized on 29.09.1995. He also argued that IBA’s letter dated 17.12.1993 to Sri R.N. Godbole the then General Secretary of AIBOC clearly stated that the Pension Regulations will be finalized on the lines of Pension rules of the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India. The argument of the Management Lawyer about the Pension fund being contributory was well countered by him on the grounds that it is a revenue expenditure which has to be fully met by the Bank in accordance with the actuaries investigation. He also supplemented the arguments of Mr.Nambiar.  Mr.Sewa Ram also actively coordinated the mutual consultations amongst the Senior Advocates so as to ensure effective and fruitful arguments before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Mrs. V. Mohana, Senior Advocate, representing RBONC (Constituent of CBPRO) advanced arguments about discrimination caused by IBA’s Circular dated 28.06.2005 despite there being no such clause in the Bipartite Settlement or Joint Note. She also made a point that the judgment in the case should apply to all the affected Bank Pensioners. She also made a point that the Management’s argument about huge financial burden on account of 100% D.A. Neutralization was without any substance or justification and the number of pre-2002 Retirees is small in number as compared to the large number of Pensioners who have retired after November, 2002.

The arguments in the case started at 10:30 AM and concluded at 03.00 PM. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Hon’ble Court sought some clarifications in the light of the earlier case of 100% D.A. neutralization having been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Judges sought the views of the Advocates representing the Pensioners’ and Retirees’ Organizations about their earlier judgment relating to dismissal of appeals against the Order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras and implications thereof. The Senior Advocates expressed their views in response to the queries raised by the Hon’ble Court. In view of very sound and valid Constitutional points raised by the Senior Advocates representing the Pensioners’ and Retirees’ Organizations, the Hon’ble Court reserved the judgment. We hope for a favourable verdict in the matter. We also hope that the initiative on the part of the Delhi based Leaders of Pensioners’ and Retirees’ Organizations in ensuring excellent coordination amongst the Senior Advocates shall go a long way in further strengthening the Bank Retirees’ Movement.

With Regards, 

Yours Comradely.

 A.Ramesh Babu           K.V. Acharya

Joint Conveners

THIS IS THE HALF STORY SELF-CENTRED FROM AIBRF

AIBRF cir > on 100 pc DA case >
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,
( S.C.JAIN)
GENERAL SECRETARY

BUT ALL RETIREE ORGNS> R APPRECIATED FOR FEEDING WELL ARTICULATED INFORMATION TO LAWYERS WITHOUT WHICH IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR LAYWERS ALSO FOR IMPRESSIVE ARGUMENTS.

= VBV RAMESH