Dear commoncasuse kerala,
your topic is regarding 2 nd pension option. your point may be valid but for that resort to court is only path. If the procedure is violated under constitutional law, you can file directly in supreme court. But there many boomeranging points in your message. And your call to banking friends to be supplemented by provoking them not to pay arrears till the 2nd option and pension updation settled. And as it take long time and the issue is already in mess, there may be possibility that acc. to latest trend, court may compensate lumpsumly your category under powers of sec.142 of constitution
your topic is regarding 2 nd pension option. your point may be valid but for that resort to court is only path. If the procedure is violated under constitutional law, you can file directly in supreme court. But there many boomeranging points in your message. And your call to banking friends to be supplemented by provoking them not to pay arrears till the 2nd option and pension updation settled. And as it take long time and the issue is already in mess, there may be possibility that acc. to latest trend, court may compensate lumpsumly your category under powers of sec.142 of constitution
AND THEY ARE (your boomeranging pleas)
Reg. paucity of funds, dont give vague comment that there sufficient in pension funds. And, it is not our concern about funds position. If u say like this, the case will be boomeranged on retirees to provie how sufficient and that is not our concern again.
BUT THE OTHER CORRECT WAY is -
1. from 1993 to atleast 8 years upto 2001, banks not provided properly for pension funds as not much claims/retirements during that period. Had they channeled atleast upto level of PF expenses incurred till then to Pension Funds, there would have been burgeoning balances in Pension Funds more than suffiient. And, with special vrs some burden came, since then nominal provisios made without proper acturial investigatiojn. In 2005, many financial magazines made to headlines that PSBs are not making pension provisions though unburdened by PF provisions since 1995 o/a pension scheme introduced a decade back.
The increased profiits thus (o/a of lessened PF expenses) used for hefty dividends and substantial reserves.
2. Another malady is siphoning out banks good money/profits by way of hefty NPA provisions and write offs. Otherwise there is no paucity for proper pension provisions to retirees and employees.
3. and you are pointing out rule 56 which also vague and it is regarding pension procedures, not about pension regulations in civil services. AND NOWHERE IN CENTRAL PENSION RULES ALSO THERE NO PROVISION FOR PERIODICAL REVISION ALONGWITH PAY REVISION. THE REVISION IS BY PRACTICE.
And the practice is further supported with Court rulings thast pension and wages are inseparable and pension is a deferred wage.
4. THE STRESS SHOULD BE ON ANNEXURE II where THE FORMULA WAS GIVEN FOR PENSION UPDATION for the PREVIOUS PENSIONERS TO 1995 WHEN PENSION WAS INTRODUCED,
THIS ANNEXURE II IS A STRONG POINT TO MAKE BELIEVE/CREATING TRUST AMOMG APPLYING PENSIONERS THAT PENSION WILL BE UPDATED PERIODICALLY.
5. Further paucity of funds is not correct as banks to make every year acturial investigation to provide for pension funds. And it is an incorrect opinion that pension payments are only from out of earnings of Pension Funds.
The total Pension Funds are to be absorbed by way of amortization as the Fund is for present category of pensioners who will be vanished by another certain period acc. to mortality rates.. Thus there no Q, of 'paucity of funds' and last rupee of the Fund to be spent for retirees.
6. As there no proper provisions for Pension Funds, and the excess incomes siphoned out by way of hefty dividends and NPA provisons and write offs, even if there is any dearth in funds, they to be made good by government and reserves.
From these angles, we to defend our case.
No comments:
Post a Comment