DA CASE OF BANK EMPLOYEES

This ,I am forwarding with the consent of Mr Sekar Kumaraswamy from whom the write up emanated.

This has a parallel for the issue of  100% DR neutralisation for pre-August 1997 retirees.

C H Mahadevan 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rangarajan T.N.C. <tncrangarajan@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023, 17:25
Subject: DA case of bank employees
To: Kalyanaraman A.S <askalyan29@gmail.com>, Sekar Kumaraswamy <ku.sekar@gmail.com>

Reading paras 22 to 25 of the judgement https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123342452/ it seems the decision of the court cannot be assailed.

On Friday, 3 November, 2023 at 07:52:56 am IST, Sekar Kumaraswamy <ku.sekar@gmail.com> wrote:

Sairam.  I am sharing a post for your kind perusal and judgement. I am one of the affected, having retired in June 2002.

A CRITIQUE ON 100% DR NEUTRALISATION TO THE PRE-NOVEMBER 2002 BANK PENSIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER 2023 

***********************

Show your power by creating problems for others, by keeping the problems alive as long as possible, by resisting opposition with all your might, and by voluntarily solving the problem to some degree. This is what the trio - the DFS, the IBA and the Trade Unions  - have done to the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners. They have demonstrated to the pre-November 2002 pensioners a brazen display of absolute power.

Firstly, they knowingly set off a discrimination among  pensioners by agreeing for 100% DR neutralization to the post-November 2002 pensioners with effect from May 2005 and by leaving out the pre-November 2002 pensioners from the benefit, for no rhyme or reason. It is difficult to understand how and why the mighty trade unions backed this unpardonable discrimination forsaking its past members. 

The question which the mighty trade unions will have to answer is: Will they allow  a situation in which the serving employees who joined later are given higher DA Neutralisation compared to serving employees who joined earlier. Is not the judgment of the Supreme Court in the 100% DR neutralization case, likely to be construed as an implied authorisation for such a discriminatory dispensation? What is the guarantee that the DFS and the IBA will not use this judgment to apply higher DA neutralization rate to a section of the serving employees who joined later and lower DR neutralization rate to another section of serving employees who joined earlier. Will the mighty unions meekly agree to such a discrimination if it is applied to serving employees? Will the mighty unions not go to the Court? Will the mighty union keep away from raising the issue just because a serving employee agitates the matter in a Court? Are not disputes referred to Courts settled outside the Courts?

The IBA issues guidelines to banks on Fair Banking Practices Code. This presupposes that the men at the helm of the IBA know what is fair, what is unfair, what is ethical, and what is unrighteous. And, as the apex body representing  all the member banks in India, it is not unfair to expect fairness from the IBA in the way they deal with bank personnel, both serving and retired. Certainly, it is not possible to meet all the demands of bank-men both past and present. But, at the same time everyone would agree that it is unfair and unethical to divide and rule,  treat equals as unequals and prefer one set of pensioners  and disprefer another set especially in matters like dearness relief which is meant to protect the purchasing power of the basic pension. Fairness is what justice really is. Not that those in charge at the DFS and the IBA did not know this. Not that they did not know what they did  was wrong, absolutely wrong. Yet they wronged, puffed with power, and inflicted pain and pangs on the pre-November 2002 pensioners for reasons best known to them. 

What wrong did the pre-November 2002 pensioners do to the DFS, the IBA and the Unions to attract a discriminatory treatment in the matter of dearness relief neutralization for 18 long years? Fairness should pervade all our acts and deeds. Despite the undeniable truth that inflation is neutral to retirement dates, one cannot understand how the IBA, which is credited with the responsibility for issuing guidelines to banks on fair practices relating to business, consciously chose to be unfair to the pre-November 2002 pensioners by denying them the benefit of 100% DR neutralization with effect from May 2005 even though they thought it fair to extend the benefit  to the post-November 2002 pensioners 

Secondly, the IBA-DFS combine vehemently resisted all Court cases for 100% DA neutralization from pre-November 2002 retirees though they knew well that they were ethically on a weak wicket on the issue. The Unions too did not support the cause of the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners at this stage as well. How can you expect an aggressor to come to your protection? The Unions took a stand which was perfunctory and ambivalent. The Unions attributed their inability to be of help in the matter by blaming the retirees for resorting to litigation, as though it is a vice to approach courts for justice. 

Thirdly, the DFS and the IBA  opposed 100% DR neutralization to the pre-November 2002 pensioners in courtrooms with force and ferocity. The leadership of the Unions covertly sided with the Management and chose to neglect the genuine grievance of its  past members who built the edifice of the Unions brick by brick. They could not have acted otherwise given their part ownership of the discrimination.

Finally, the trio turned Good Samaritans - half hearted though - by agreeing to 100% DR neutralization for the pre-November 2002 pensioners with effect from October 2023. The pre-November 2002 bank pensioners must thank the triumvirate  for dispensing a favor by ceding 100% DR neutralization to them by  calling off, with effect from October 2023, a well orchestrated and long drawn-out joint invasion of their right, dating back to May 2005, for DR neutralization on par with subsequent retirees.

What has changed between then and now to justify 100% DR neutralization to the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners with effect from October 2023 which the trio withheld from them for more than 18 years? What is the newfound justification for taking a U-Turn in the matter after years of oppressive treatment? Only the threesome knows the answer. 

Whatever may be the answer, the fact remains that the trio has treated the pre-November 2002 bank pensioners as the children of a lesser god in the matter of DR neutralization. The trio has hit the pre-November 2002 pensioners below the belt by denying equality in DR neutralization for nearly two decades. The cumulative loss caused to them over this period is very large - from high six digit to low seven digit figures.  Who is responsible for this? Who will compensate them for the loss suffered?

The trio may tout the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to defend their stand. 

It is often said that the "Supreme Court is final not because it is right and Supreme Court is right because it is final"  No one, including judges, can claim infallibility. We respectfully submit the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5252 - 5255 of 2018 [ United Bank of India & Ors. - Appellants Vs. United Bank of India Retirees Welfare Association [UBIRWA] & Others -  Respondents ] was erroneous both in terms of law and known facts. 

It is true that the denial of a favor is not an invasion of a right.  But, when someone invades your right, and later on, after having tormented you to their heart's content,  retracts the invasion either out of fatigue and / or out of realization of having wronged the victim, does it amount to a favor? You be the judge.

C N VENUGOPALAN