Respected Sir,
Namasthe!
Kindly find an attachment on the above subject sent your perusal.
Kindly help us by taking up the matter with the appropriate
Authorities.
With regards,
N.Harinarayana Sarma
HYDERABAD
14th October 2015
To
The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Government of India,
Dept of Financial Services,
3rd floor,
Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street,
NEW DELHI 110001
Respected Sir/Madam,
I WOULD
LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT
WE ARE PUBLIC SECTOR BANK RETIREES. INDIAN
BANKS’ ASSOCIATION (IBA) THE ASSOCIATION OF BANK MANAGEMENTS, HAD SIGNED ANGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED FORUM OF
BANK UNIONS ON 25th MAY 2015 BUT REFUSED TO DISCUSS AND FINALISE THE ISSUES RELATING TO
PAST BANK RETIREES LIKE UPDATION AND 100% NEUTRALISATION OF DA, IMPROVEMENT IN
FAMILY PENSION, EXTENDING ONE MORE OPTION TO RESIGNEES, ETC. STATING THAT THERE
IS NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BANKS AND BANK RETIREES.
IN THIS CONNECTION, I WOULD LIKE DRAW YOUR
KIND ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS:
PENSION
SCHEME IN BANKS WAS BASED ON THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DT. 29TH
OCTOBER 1993 BETWEEN IBA AND AIBEA AND WAS
AGREED TO BE ON THE PATTERN OBTAINING IN THE GOVERNMENT AND RBI AND BASIC
PENSION IS REVISED FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF EACH PAY
COMMISSION.
PENSION REGULATIONS FOR
BANKS KNOWN AS BANK EMPLOYEES’ PENSION REGULATIONS 1995 HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN BANKS IN CONSULTATION WITH
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND WITH PRIOR SANCTION BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND
ALSO IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED
BY CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 19 OF THE BANKING COMPANIES
(ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 (5 OF 1970). THUS
THESE REGULATIONS BECAME STATUTORY AND AS SUCH
ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE REGULATIONS. THESE PENSION
REGULATIONS ARE ALSO AKIN TO PENSION SCHEME IN RBI AND ALSO THE PENSION SCHEME
APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES OF GOVT. OF
INDIA AS THEY ARE FORMULATED MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF CENTRAL GOVT./RBI PENSION
SCHEME. BUT INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION
(THE REPRESENTATIVE AND NEGOTIATING BODY OF BANKS’ MANAGEMENTS) AND INDIVIDUAL
BANKS ARE MISINTERPRETING THESE
REGULATIONS AND ARE IMPLEMENTING THE
PROVISIONS OF PENSION SCHEME
ARBITRARILY AS PER THEIR WHIMS AND FANCIES AND
ARE DISOBEYING EVEN THE CONTENTS OF THE STATUTORY DOCUMENT OF PENSION
REGULATIONS WHILE THEY ARE
EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THE PENSION REGULATIONS INTOTO.
Officers’
Service Regulations/ Bi-partite Settlement provisions for workmen, inter- alia,
provide for post- retirement benefits including Pension/ PF/ Gratuity etc.
These are in the nature of statutory obligations on the part of Banks. In these
circumstances, how can it be inferred that there is no contractual relationship
between Banks & Retirees/ Pensioners? Moreover in case of officers,
Officers’ Service Regulations/ Disciplinary Rules providing for disciplinary
proceedings after retirement will lose the test of validity before law in the
absence of contractual relationship.
Likewise in the
absence of any contractual relations with Pensioners, clause 48 of the Pension
Regulations 1995 i.e. right to proceed against retired employees will also not
have any sanctity
PENSION FUNDS OF BANKS ARE VERY COMFORTABLE SO AS
TO ABSORB THE COST OF INCREASE IN PENSION BENEFITS TO ALL LIKE 100% DA
NEUTRALISATION, IMPROVEMENT IN FAMILY PENSION, PENSION UPDATION, EXTENDING
ONEMORE PENSION OPTION ALL ELIGIBLE LEFT
OVER CATEGORIES, ETC. A STATEMENT SHOWING BANKWISE POSITION OF PENSION FUNDS AS
ON 31.03.2015 IS ATTACHED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL.
IN THE CASE OF THE LEFT OVER CATEGORIES
CONSISTING OF RESIGNEES, CRS/VRS RETIREES, EXIT OPTEES, ETC. WITH PENSIONABLE
SERVICE, THEY ARE DENIED PENSION OPTION INSPITE OF ELIGIBILITY IN UTTER
DISREGARD TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND INDIAN BANKS’
ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
PENSION
FUND CAN BE USED ONLY FOR PAYMENT OF
BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME. SINCE EMPLOYEES
WHO ARE RECRUITED AFTER 01 - 04 -2010 ARE COVERED BY PENSION SCHEME OF PFRDA,
THE PENSION FUND OF THE BANK WILL NOT HAVE TO SERVICE THEM AND THERE IS NO POINT IN DENYING PENSION AND UPDATION OF
PENSION WHEN THE GROWTH IN PENSION FUND FOR A SINGLE YEAR CAN SERVICE PAYMENT
OF ARREARS OF PENSION TO ALL THE PENSIONERS OF THE BANKS WITHOUT ANY IMPACT ON THE WORKING RESULTS OF
THE BANK. THE CASE WITH OTHER PUBLIC
SECTOR BANKS IS ALSO SIMILAR.
EVEN THE PENSION FUND CREATED IS ONLY OUT OF CONTRIBUTION OF MANAGEMENTS’ SHARE OF
PROVIDENT FUND OF BANK EMPLOYEES (WHICH OTHERWISE IS PAYABLE TO THE RETIREES AT
THE TIME OF THEIR RETIREMENT AND THEIR STATUTORY RIGHT) UNLIKE IN THE CASE OF
CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS FOR WHOM THE PENSION IS PAYABLE OUT OF BUDGETARY
ALLOCATIONS. THUS THE MONEY HELD IN
PENSION FUND TRUST BELONGS TO THE RETIREES MANAGED BY A TRUST LEGALLY
CONSTITUTED.
THE
APEX COURT HAS RECOGNISED PENSION AS DEFERRED WAGE AND AN INALIENABLE RIGHT OF
THE EMPLOYEE EARNED THROUGH LONG AND RELENTLESS SERVICE IN HIS HEYDAYS WITH THE SWEAT OF HIS BROWS AND NOT
AS A CHARITY DOLED OUT TO THE RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND ALSO AS A SOCIAL SECURITY
BENEFIT TO ENABLE HIM MAKE A DECENT LIVING AND THEREBY IT HAS TO BE INVARIABLY
REVISED WITH INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING TO MEET THE INTENDED PURPOSE, LEST IT
AMOUNTS TO NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES.
Periodical
updation/improvement in pension ... ... on the lines of
Central Government.
Pension
Scheme in Banks is the replica of RBI Pension Scheme and Central Civil Services
Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules,1981 as
applicable to Central Government Employees (Reg. 56 of Pension Regulations,
1995). Updation of pension was implemented by Central Government on
the recommendation of V Central Pay Commission as from 01-01-2006 though the
Government was functioning since centuries. As mentioned above it
was agreed in the original pension agreement dated 29-09-1993 and by a Joint
Agreement with IBA and UFBU as per agreement dated 14-03-2010 cited
above. Even in the case of Central Government employees it was
introduced for the first time since 2006.
IN
"D.S. NAKARA:S CASE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ANY IMPROVEMENT
IN PENSION SHOULD RESULT IN BENEFIT TO ALL RETIREES AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY
DISCRIMATION.
THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO HAS CATEGORICALLY
STATED THAT DENIAL OF PENSION/UPDATION OF PENSION FOR ELIGIBLE RETIREES IS AN
INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY UNDER ARTICE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA.
PENSION REGULATIONS OF BANKS APPROVED BY THE
PARLIAMENT OF THE COUNTRY ALSO CONTAIN A SPECIFIC REGULATION REG. 35(1) FOR
UPDATION OF PENSION AND THUS THE POSITION IS A SETTLED ONE.
BUT,
THERE HAD BEEN NO REVISION OF PENSION IN THE CASE OF BANK EMPLOYEES WHICH IS
CONTRARY TO THE ORIGINAL PENSION AGREEMENT, A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE ORIGINAL
PENSION SETTLEMENT BY IBA AND IS ALSO IN FLAGRANT BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF
EQUALITY ENSHRINED IN THE MAGNIFICENT CONSTITUTION AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO BE
ADDRESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT
FAILURE
TO REVISE PENSION IN TUNE WITH INFLATION AND COST OF LIVING IS DENIAL OF RIGHT
TO THE RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEES (WHO ARE SENIOR CITIZENS), TO LIVE A DECENT
LIFE. WHEN PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF
EMPLOYEES ON ROLLS OF BANKS ARE REVISED WITH EACH PAY REVISION THROUGH
BIPARTITE SETTLEMENTS AND THE PENSION OF PAST RETIREES IS NOT AT ALL REVISED,
THE RETIRED ARE EXTREMELY DISCRIMINATED AND THEY SUFFER AS COMMODITY PRICES ARE
COMMON FOR EMPLOYEES AND THE RETIRED ALIKE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS BEING IGNORED AND TWISTED BY IBA TO SUIT THEIR ARGUMENTS CITING COST
FACTOR AND FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS WHILE IT IS MANDATORY ON THEIR PART. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT IBA/BANKS HAVE NO
RESPECT TO THE PARLIAMENT OF THIS COUNTRY ALSO WHILE THEY ARE UNDER OBLIGATION
TO IMPLEMENT PENSION REGULATIONS/STATUTORY PROVISIONS AS INSTRUMENTALITIES OF
THE STATE.
HERE IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO BRING TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THE VITAL LAPSE ON
THE PART OF IBA IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE UNDERTAKING IT HAS GIVEN UNDER
CONCLUSION NO.(10) OF JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010 THAT READS:
"(10) THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AND
RECORDED IN THE ABOVE CLAUSES TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE SCHEME OF
PENSION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE GOVERNMENT BY IBA FOR THEIR APPROVAL AND FURTHER ACTION
IN TERMS OF SECTION 19 OF THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER
OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970/1980 BY COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR
AMENDMENT OF THE RELEVANT PENSION REGULATIONS.."
BUT SO FAR , NO PENSION AMENDMENT
SCHEME,2010 WAS GOT PREPARED BY IBA TO BE ADOPTED BY THE BOARDS OF ITS
MEMBER PS BANKS AND HENCE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAD ON 01
04 2015 RULED THAT WITH OUT CARRYING OUT THE TERMS OF THE JOINT NOTE
DATED 27 04 2010 AS AMENDMENTS TO THE CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS IT IS NOT
POSSIBLE FOR THE MEMBER BANKS TO IMPLEMENT ACCORDING TO LAW , SUCH
OF THOSE TERMS OF THE JOINT NOTE WHICH ARE IN VARIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS IN
THE CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS AND HENCE WHILE UPHOLDING EXTENSION OF
SECOND OPTION UNDER THE JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010, THE HON'BLE MADRAS
HIGH COURT HAD ON 01 04 2015 DIRECTED THAT THE REGULATIONS IN
FORCE ON THE DATE OF SUCH EXTENSION OF OFFER FOR SECOND OPTION SHALL
ALONE BE ENFORCED AND HENCE THOSE PETITIONERS WHO HAD RETIRED UNDER CRS
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE OFFERED WITH ONE MORE OPTION AS PER THE SAID REGULATIONS
NOTIFIED ON 29 09 1995 AND IN FORCE.
THIS IS A VITAL ASPECT OF IMMENSE
IMPORTANCE BY WHICH IT BECOMES VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT ALL THE
UNTENABLE TERMS OF THE SAID JOINT NOTE DATED 27 04 2010 LIKE 56%
LUMP SUM PAYMENT BY RETIREES IN PLACE OF 6% P.A SIMPLE INTEREST, 2.8
MONTHS NOV.2007 PAY AS CONTRIBUTION BY EMPLOYEES ON ROLLS AND CUT-OFF DATE 27 11 2009 FOR THOSE WHO
RETIRED BETWEEN 29 09 09 1995 AND 26 11 2009 CAN NOT BE ENFORCED
AS THEY LACK THE AUTHORITY FROM THE PARLIAMENT IN THE FORM OF
APPROVAL FOR THE REQUISITE PROPOSED PENSION AMENDMENT SCHEME, 2010
INCORPORATING THE PROPOSED TERMS OF JOINT NOTE AS AMENDMENTS TO THE
CORRESPONDING REGULATIONS.
SIMPLE LAWS OF CONTRACT AND JURISPRUDENCE TELL US THAT WHILE ANY
TWO PARTIES CAN AGREE MUTUALLY TO CONFER A BENEFIT ON A
THIRD PARTY, THEY CAN NOT CONSPIRE AND CONFISCATE ANYTHING FROM SUCH THIRD
PARTY LEST IT SHOULD CONSTITUTE A ROBBERY. THE RETIRED BANK
EMPLOYEES WERE NOT MEMBERS OF ANY TRADE UNIONS OR OF IBA IN ORDER TO AGREE ANYTHING ON THEIR
BEHALF. BUT THE IBA AND UNIONS AGREED MUTUALLY TO APPARENTLY SNATCH AWAY THE PENSION RIGHTS WHICH ARE ANALOGICAL TO LOOTING AND
THIS IS WHAT IBA DID IN THE RECENTLY CONCLUDED X BP SETTLEMENT SIGNED ON
25.05.2015.
PLEASE PONDER OVER WHAT IS HAPPENING .
WE DO NOT REQUIRE ANY THING TO BE ACCORDED AS A MEASURE OF CHARITY AT THE COST
OF OUR DIGNITY.WE DON'T REQUIRE ANY SUCH BOUNTY. WE NEED EXACTLY WHAT IS
DESERVED BY US ACCORDING TO THE ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT DATED 29 10 1993
AND THE LAW IN FORCE EQUITABLY.
ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA STRIKES AT
ARBITRARINESS IN STATE ACTION AND ENSURES FAIRNESS AND EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO
ALL. IT IS ATTRACTED WHERE EQUALS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY WITHOUT ANY
REASONABLE BASIS. THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING THE GUARANTEE IS THAT ALL PERSONS
SIMILARLY CIRCUMSTANCED SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE BOTH IN PRIVILEGES CONFERRED AND
LIABILITIES IMPOSED. EQUAL LAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL IN THE SAME
SITUATION AND THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER
IF AS REGARDS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE LEGISLATION THEIR POSITION IS
SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME.
ARTICLE 14 FORBIDS
CLASS DIVISION. THE CLASSIFICATION IS FOUNDED ON AN INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA
WHICH DISTINGUISHES PERSONS OR THINGS THAT ARE GROUPED TOGETHER FROM THOSE THAT
ARE LEFT OUT OF THE GROUP AND THAT DIFFERENTIA MUST HAVE A RATIONAL NEXUS TO
THE OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE STATUTE IN QUESTION.
IT ONLY MEANS THAT ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY
CIRCUMSTANCED SHALL BE TREATED ALIKE BOTH IN PRIVILEGES AND LIABILITIES
IMPOSED. EQUAL LAWS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPLIED TO ALL IN THE SAME SITUATION, AND
THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN ONE PERSON AND ANOTHER IF AS REGARDS
TO THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.
THE POINT TO BE NOTED HERE
IS ‘THE BENEFIT OF REVISED SCALES OF PAY IN THE PAY BANDS AND GRADE PAY
IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE WHO ENTER SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE FIXED FOR
INTRODUCING REVISED SCALES BUT IS EXTENDED TO ALL THOSE IN SERVICE PRIOR TO
THAT DATE’. EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE NEW RETIREES; THE BENEFIT OF GRATUITY UNDER
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972, PAST SERVICE WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
IT IS THEREFORE EMPHASIZED THAT THE SCHEME OF WAGE REVISION IS NOT FOR NEW
RETIREES BENEFIT ONLY. PENSION HAS CORRELATION TO AVERAGE EMOLUMENTS AND THE
LENGTH OF QUALIFYING SERVICE AND THE REVISION IS NOT MEANT MERELY FOR THE
FUTURE RETIREES AFTER A SPECIFIC DATE.
AS A CONSEQUENCE, FOR OVER 15 YEARS WE ARE GETTING THE SAME
PENSION, EVEN THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN THREE BIPARTITE AGREEMENTS SIGNED ON WAGE REVISION, NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IN
THE CASE OF BANK RETIREES. A GENERAL MANAGER OF A BANK RETIRED LONG BACK GETS
LESSER PENSION THAN A PEON RETIRING NOW.
WHAT MORE INJNUSTICE THAN THIS IS NEEDED?
IN THE CASE OF RESIGNEES, CRS/VRS RETIREES,
EXIT OPTEES, ETC. WITH PENSIONABLE SERVICE, THEY ARE DENIED PENSION OPTION
INSPITE OF ELIGIBILITY IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVT. OF
INDIA AND INDIAN BANKS’ ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
WE MAY FURTHER POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD OF LIC
AS WELL AS RBI HAVE CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF UPDATION OF PENSION TO THEIR PAST
RETIREES AND HAVE RECOMMENDED TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONSIDERATION. DOES
IT MEAN THAT LIC BOARD AND RBI ARE NOVICE AND
HAVE ACTED WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING
THE ISSUE OF “CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP”?
PENSION FUND WHICH IS
PRIMARILY FOR THE BENEFIT OF PENSIONERS IS BEING MANAGED WITHOUT ANY
REPRESENTATION FROM PENSIONER. SOMETIMES THE PENSION FUND YIELDED NEGATIVE
RETURN DUE TO WRONG INVESTMENT STRATEGY ADOPTED BY TRUSTEES AND WHO IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS IRRESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT STRATEGY? IF THERE IS NO
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THEN WHY OUR (RETIREES) DEMANDS WERE INCLUDED UNDER
‘”CHARTER OF DEMANDS” BY UFBU AND OFFICERS CONFEDERATION?
FURTHER, COST OF LIVING AND INFLATION AFFECT
ALL RETIREES AS WELL AS PEOPLE IN
SERVICE EQUALLY. ALL PENSIONERS ARE EQUALS AND THE EQUALS HAVE BEEN CATEGORISED
INTO SIX CATEGORIES OF UNEQUALS. MANY OF THE PENSIONERS HAVE FILED WRIT
PETITIONS IN VAROUS HIGH COURTS IN THE COUNTRY. SEVERAL HIGH COURTS HAVE GIVEN
JUDGEMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RETIREES. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS
BEEN DISCRIMINATION, BLATANT VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO EQUALITY. BUT,
IBA HAS CHOSEN TO PREFER APPEALS JUST TO DELAY THE MATTER EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW
FULLY WELL THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THEIR APPEALS THEREBY INCURRING AVOIDABLE
EXPENDITURE ON LITIGATIONS. THE LATEST ONE SUCH JUDGMENT IS FROM KOLKATA HIGH
COURT IN RESPECT OF PARITY IN DA NEUTRALISATION TO PRE NOV 2002 RETIREES OF
BANKS ALONG WITH OTHERS IN LINE WITH RBI PENSIONERS.
THEREFORE IBA OWES ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE BANK
RETIREES/PENSIONERS TO ANSWER FOR ALL THEIR MISDEEDS AND MISCHIEVOUS DECISIONS
POINTED OUT ABOVE.
IBA IS
DENYING THE LEGITIMATE BENEFITS TO BANK PENSIONERS AND BANK RESIGNEES,
COMPULSORILY RETIRED WITH PENSIONABLE SERVICE, EXIT OPTEES, ETC.BY DENYING THEM PENSION AND IS THUS SHOWING APATHY TO BANK RETIREES
TOTALLY.
LITIGATION MEANS DELAY AND COSTS. YOU WILL
KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT "DELAY DEFEATS JUSTICE" AND JUSTICE DELAYED IS
JUSTICE DENIED. ALL THE RETIREES ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AGED 70 YEARS AND ABOVE.
MANY OF THEM HAVE PASSED AWAY AND BY THE TIME THE JUSTICE IS DONE, EVEN THE
SURVIVING RETIREES ALSO MAY LEAVE THIS WORLD. NATURALLY, THE RETIREES WANT TO
AVAIL THEIR LEGALLY ENTITLED AND LEGITIMATELY DUE BENEFITS DURING THEIR LIFE TIME INSTEAD OF THEIR LEGAL
HEIRS GETTING IT.
IN
VIEW OF THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE ABOVE, IT IS HUMBLY APPEALED THAT A PRACTICAL AND POSITIVE MINDSET ON THE PART
OF THE EXECUTIVE ALONE CAN SET RIGHT THE INJUSTICE DONE TO THE BANK
RETIREES/PENSIONERS FOR OVER TWO DECADES NOW.
I THEREFORE HUMBLY REQUEST YOUR GOODSELVES
KINDLY TO LOOK INTO OUR ISSUES AND TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE TO US . I ALSO PRAY
THAT YOUR INTERVENTION WILL RENDER JUSTICE TO THE HAPLESS RETIREES WHO HAVE
BEEN FACING INJUSTICE FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES.
WITH REGARDS,
YOURS RESPECTFULLY,
N.HARINARAYANA
SARMA
RETIREE FROM ANDHRA BANK
DATE OF RETIREMENT: 19.03.2001
Flat No.105, Block VII, SILICON RIDGE, Attapur,
Hyderguda Post, HYDERABAD-500 048
15TH OCTOBER 2015
