UPDATION OF PENSION
Presentation of Mr. Nageswara Rao, Party-in-Person,
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Mr. Nageswara Rao appeared as a party-in-person in I.A. No. 3731 of 2026. He sought to draw the attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to what he considered crucial documentary evidence in support of the claim for pension updation, the Minutes of the Small Committee meeting held on 26 March 1994 and a subsequent communication confirming that the changes recorded under Items 1 to 4 of those minutes had been incorporated into the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations.
When Mr. Nageswara Rao began making submissions concerning the MoU, the Bench observed that the issue had already been argued by other counsel and asked him what additional submissions he wished to make. He responded that he wanted to bring an important document to the Court’s attention. When asked to identify it, he directed the Bench to the relevant pages of the record and identified the Minutes of the Small Committee meeting. Rather than repeat the general arguments on pension updation, he sought to establish his case through this specific documentary evidence.
Mr. Nageswara Rao explained that the Small Committee had considered four aspects, which were classified under different categories, including matters submitted, substituted, accepted and those requiring further discussion or clarification. Referring to the relevant pages of the record, including pages 11, 17 and 4, he highlighted the statement that the draft circulated had been mutually accepted by the parties and referred to the points subsequently discussed and accepted.
He then drew attention to two matters recorded in the minutes. The first concerned part-time employees and scale wages, including the treatment of the relevant service for pension purposes. When he referred to this point, the Bench observed that it was not relevant to his case. He accordingly proceeded to the second point, which he considered central to the pension-updation issue.
Mr. Nageswara Rao highlighted the proposal that the formula for updating pension should be on the lines of the formula applicable under the Reserve Bank of India pension scheme. He also referred to the accompanying words concerning any change in that formula. He emphasised that this was an accepted proposal directly concerning the method of pension updation and submitted that its significance had to be examined in the context of the subsequent documents and the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations.
His central question was whether the accepted proposal concerning the RBI pension-updation formula had been incorporated into the governing regulations and, if so, what legal consequences followed from that incorporation.
Mr. Nageswara Rao next addressed the legal significance of the Small Committee Minutes. He referred to the previous agreement, the settlement and joint note involving the Indian Banks’ Association and the bank employees’ organisations, and the role of the Small Committee in the process leading to the pension regulations.
Invoking the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the provisions governing settlements and conciliation proceedings, he argued that the minutes had statutory significance and could not be treated merely as an informal record of discussions. He also referred to the applicable industrial rules and the role of the conciliation officer.
His submission was that the conciliation officer had transmitted the relevant report together with the minutes and associated documents. On that basis, he contended that the Union of India could not simply ignore the documentary record without examining its origin, the circumstances in which it had been prepared and transmitted, and its relationship with the governing pension regulations.
Mr. Nageswara Rao further relied on the signatures appearing on the Small Committee Minutes to support his argument concerning their authenticity and significance. He identified representatives associated with the IBA, including S/Shri B.D. Chiswitra, A.K. Bakshi, K.V. Krishnamurthy, K. Ganesh and K. Purnanand Sethi. He also referred to representatives of the bank employees’ unions, including Mr. Chakravarty of the All India Bank Employees’ Association (AIBEA) and Mr. P. Lakshminarsaiah of the National Confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE).
He pointed out that, despite the signatures of the IBA’s representatives appearing on the minutes, the IBA denied having signed the document. He contended that the IBA could not disown a document bearing the signatures of its representatives. He maintained that the document’s origin, the signatures of the parties and its connection with the relevant proceedings were material to determining its authenticity and legal effect.
The most significant part of Mr. Nageswara Rao’s presentation concerned the subsequent communication to which he directed the Bench’s attention on page 90. He referred to the General Secretary of AIBEA, who, according to his submission, was also the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Bank Employees’ Association. He relied on the communication concerning the Small Committee meeting held on 26 March 1994, which stated that the minutes and the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations had to be read together to understand the regulations.
He then submitted about the concluding note at the bottom of the page, which stated:
“The changes under item 1 to 4 of the minutes have been duly incorporated in the regulations.”
The Bench acknowledged the passage and invited attention to its concluding line. Mr. Nageswara Rao relied on this statement as an express documentary link between the decisions recorded in the Small Committee Minutes and the provisions of the pension regulations.
At the conclusion of the proceedings, Mr. Nageswara Rao again emphasised that the Small Committee should not be undermined or its significance disregarded. The Bench responded by describing the Small Committee as the “clinching committee.” This exchange underscored the importance he attached to the minutes and their relationship with the regulations.
Overall significance of his presentation
The distinctive feature of Mr. Nageswara Rao’s intervention was his attempt to establish the pension-updation claim through specific documentary evidence rather than merely repeat the general submissions already advanced by other counsel. He highlighted the accepted proposal concerning the RBI pension-updation formula, relied on the signatures of representatives of the IBA and the bank employees’ organisations, invoked the statutory framework governing settlements and conciliation proceedings, and drew attention to the AIBEA General Secretary’s communication stating that the minutes and the regulations had to be read together.
The central issue raised by his intervention was whether the claim for pension updation could be properly determined without examining the Small Committee Minutes dated 26 March 1994, the subsequent communication and the relevant provisions of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations together.
His presentation sought to establish that the Small Committee was the crucial documentary link between the accepted proposal concerning pension updation and the regulatory framework governing bank employees’ pensions. The legal effect of that documentary link would depend on the precise wording of the minutes, the changes actually incorporated into the regulations and the applicable law.
*****
