THE PROPOSED 2ND JUNE MEETING OF AIBRF FAST APPROACHING ALREADY SINCE LAST WEEK WHEN IT GIVEN NOTICE AND NOW ONLY ONE DAY LEFT.
DURING THIS WEEK, THE DEVELOPMENTS AS FOLLOWS IN AIBRF CIRCLE WHEN AIBPRC/CBPRO AND OTHER PARTIES SILENT OR NO NEWS FROM THEM ALL THESE DAYS
HIGHLIGHTS >
***After the recent Supreme Court judgment in the UBI case, there are suggestions from pensioners that UFBU should be approached and requested for getting 100% DA, at least from a prospective date. (pl refer item 3 of the following links)
Comment: DANGEROUS PROPOSITION & LEADS TO FURTHER VICTIMIZATION, WITH CROCODILE TEARS BY UFBU & iba NOW ADAMENTLY SAY REFERRING COURT JUDGEMENT
*** -
??? when We find that out of 39 office bearers and 120 central committee members a very few response have come on this important issue. & Most of the responses are general demanding convening urgent central committee without giving specific reason for it. - WHAT FOR??? CLAIMING TA BATTA FLIGHTS AND ENJOYING TRIP!!!!
NOW THOSE INTERESTED CAN GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINKS - A DETAILED FACTS FOR PROCEEDING IN THE CASE FURTHER PROPOSED BY AIBRF LED BY SRI SC JAIN AND APBRF LED BY SRI VENKATARATNAM. 
IN THE FIRST NOTE BY APBRF, PARA/PAGEWISE ANALYSIS AND REMEDIAL EXPLANATIONS GIVEN, FURTHER VITAL POINTS APART FROM THEREIN NOT RAISED.
1. THE MAJOR CAUSE OF FAILURE OF THE CASE WAS THAT DIFFERENT PARTIES - RETIREES SIDE - GIVEN DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS/VERSIONS & MAINLY DIFFERENT FIGURES BY ALL THE RETIREE PETITIONERS WHEN THE JUDGE ASKED FOR COST FACTOR. TO THE FACT, AS SRI KATARI SATYANARAYANA POINTED OUT SUCH FIGURES NEED NOT, RATHER SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN, "WHETHER ASKED IN 1616 1684 CASE - NO", BUT THE REGULATIONS 6, 11 & 13 of pension regulations & ref. to relevant Banking Regulation Act as suggested by him, should have been shown, and if the judge insists, THE MANIPULATIONS IN PENSION FUNDS BY Banks like PNB 2,000 crores case also to be brought to the notice of judges.
2. THE GOVT SPEAKING ORDER FOR RBI CASE SHOULD BE REFERRED TO JUDGE, WHEREIN THE GOVT PLEADED THAT IF GIVEN TO RBI RETIREES THE SAME OUGHT TO BE EXTENDED TO BANK RETIREES - A VERY POSITIVE ARGUMENT FOR THIS CASE. mr.sidhu who propagating this point may be invited for favourable conclusion of the discussions on this point for the case,
3. IN UNION BANK OF INDIA PENSION REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS OF LAST YEAR, IN FOOT NOTE IT WAS GIVEN THAT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT GIVEN WITH CONSENT OF ALL PARTIES. THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG AND BANK RETIREES ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE JOINT NOTE / RECORD NOTE OF 2010. FURTHER IN LATEST 1616-1684 CASE ALSO IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ANY BENEFIT CANT BE WITHDRAWN WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT.
3. many aspects same for this case and 1616-1684 case.
so, that case lawyers or retirees/retiree organisations dealt with that case may be invited to discuss for further proceedings in this case.
4. liasion with other parties - all to shed ego and come forward for common and coherent arguments. particularly AIBPRC all the time imitating AIBRF actions, should come down and cooperate. Better to deal with CBPRO.
5. As time is there upto 2nd july to file review petition (pl refer item 4 of the above links which said time available upto 2nd july o/a court holidays), weekly reviews with inviting/updating suggestions for the best.
= VBV Ramesh
No comments:
Post a Comment