Movement of SBI Employees who were denied Pension for decades, because of SBI not following IBA/GOI/CCS Pension Rules, 1972, and Top Courts now come to the rescue of these Employees..The Members are spread across the Country from Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkotta, Bengaluru, Kerala, Orisa, UP, Punjab, etc.,
Our sincere thanks to WordPress.com, for providing space to this SBIVRS 2001 Pensioners Movement and other Employees who have not been paid Pension for 16 long years..This WordPress.Com, through their web link https://wordpress.com/post/sbivrs15years.wordpress.com/5, enabled us to easily carry the message to the Honourable PM,Govt of India Honouarable FM, SBI Chairman, RBI Governor, IBA Chairman, Attorney General, and requesting our long pending demand of 16 years of pension benefits and putting the sufferings in public domain..
We have been been partially successful in our journey and got Pension for Associate Banks VRS Pensioners 2001Employees.
Affected SBI Employees
Madras HC :
S.Shanmugavel ..Won the case successfully in Madras HC by its landmark verdict of 16.02.2015, and upheld by SC that Date of appointment to be counted for Pensionable service of 20 years.
However, Contempt Petition filed by S.Shanmugavel, in Madras HC, for not disbursing Pension fully..
2. Shri S.Sundararajan..Demand for Pension filed in Madras HC as per above Judgement of Madras High Court in Shanmugavel case.
SBI VRS 2001 Employees demanding Pension through Writ Petition/ Intervening Petition in SBI Vs Radhey Shyam Casein Supreme Court:
SHRI VIPIN KALIA
SHRI SURESH KUMAR ARORA
SHRI K. C. MALIK
SHRI HARJIT LAL SANGAR
SHRI SHIV KUMAR RATTAN
SMT. KIRAN BALA BHAYANA
SHRI BIKRAM SINGH
SHRI ASHOK AGGARWAL
SHRI RAJESH SARAT
SMT. LATA VIJAYA RAGHAVAN
SMT. RADHA PARTHASARATHY
SMT. SHANTHI G KRISHNAN
SHRI P. CHANDRASEKHAR
SMT. S. VAIJAYANTHI
SMT. USHA GOPALAN
SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MAJUMDAR
SMT. RUGMINI GANESH
SMT. SHOBHA SHIRISH HEGISTE
SMT. NEELIMA SANJAY NAIK
SMT. JANHAVI R. JOG
SHRI NIRANJAN BARPANDA
1 to 7 have filed Review Perition on WP and coming up for hearing shortly.
8 to 22 have filed Intervention Petition in SBI Vs Radhey Shyam Case, coming up before 3 Bench Judge.
Other SBI Employees who have filed cases and not filed cases:
1. Shri P.Shanmugam, (Deceased)
2. Shri S.Ramu,
3. Shri L.V.Radhakrishnan,
5. Shri Arun
AsSociate Employees won their VRS 2001 against SBI, and got Pension after 16 years..
Affected SBH, SBT, SBM Employees:(Latest DEVELOMENT as on 05.01.2016: it is understood SBI withdrew the cases and issued a circular with the last date 20.1.16, for payment of Pension to VRS Optees of 2001, who have completed 15 years of service.) and EXit Option Retireesalso. Please refer SBH website for details..SBM Employees:
Shri B.R.Krishna Rao
Ms.Lalitha D Pai
Shri Madhava Murthy
Shri Ramanathan K.G.
Shri p.Mohana Rao
And Many more Unfortunate SBI Group Employees fighting in Courts against SBI for Pensionary benefits.
SBI was enacted in Parliament vide SBI Act 1955 (23 of 1955) and it’s SBI Employees Pension Rules (SBIEPF) was derived from section 50 of SBI Act.
The problem started from then, and the faulty SBIEPF Rules drove their poor Employees to Courts for the past six decades, and some of them may have died, even without getting Judgement or Judgement denied or delayed.
If the mighty SBI through its Muscle power and Protracted legal battle and close proximity to Govt, RBI and IBA may temporarily enjoy the wins and finally time and truth triumphs, as any injustice in the history, will not continue for ever.
The successive SBI Mangament, the Directors who are trustees of SBIEPF who have failed to recognize the lacunae in the simple defect in the SBIEPF Pension Rules, from the day it was enacted, which now puts SBI into an unerasable shame and blot in their history of an unbeatable excellent Employer and Supremacy in HR related activities.
All this six decades problem arises because of SBIEPF Rule didn’t consider the “date of joining” in the service for calculation of “pensionable service” instead followed “date of confirmation, after 6 months Probation”, a old, ill fated, draconian, arbitrary law.
The SBIEPF DEFINES REGULAR VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT (VRS):
“22. (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank’s service –
(a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.5.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years;
(b) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service;
(c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing.
(d) After twenty five years’ pensionable service.
A member who has attained the age of fifty-five years or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate pension.
A member who has been permitted to retire under Clause 1(c) above shall be entitled to proportionate pension.”
The problem point is deficiency in defining “Pensionable Service” in SBI, which instead of considering “Date of Joining” as commencement of service, considered the “Date of Confirmation” after 6 months of Probation.
RECOGNIZED LAWS OF QUALIFYING SERVICE FOR PENSION IN GOVT DEPTs./UNDERTAKINGS/BANKS
What is recognized law in qulaifying service in Govt of India dictionary?
I) Sastry Award 1952 says
(504 Sastry Award)
The period of probation should be added to the years of permanent service for purpose of the Gratuity or Pension, though PF contribution on both sides will commence only from the date of confirmation.
2. What Central Civil Services Pension Rule 1972 , a basic Magna Carta on Pension of Govt and Govt Undertakings, says
Ccs ( pension )rules 1972
15. Counting of service on probation –
Service on probation against a post if followed by confirmation in the same or another post shall qualify.
3. Rounding off to next year while calculating Pensionable Service, if the service exceeds 6 months and above to next year:
3. Rounding off Pensionable Service to the next nearest year, if the service exceeds 6 months in a year..
1. In the High Court of Madras Judgement W.A.111 to 113 of 2007 in the Bench (Govt of Tamil Nadu vs Tamil Nadu Govt Retired Transport Employees Welfare Association), the qualifying Pensionable service to be rounded off to next integer, if it exceeds 6 months in a year.
“13. Determination of Eligible Service The eligible service shall be determined as follows :
(a) In the case of a “New Entrant” entering into service on or after 1.9.1998, the “actual service” shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.”
5. Bank Employees Pension Rules, 1995 and amended from time to time defines Pensionable Service:
14. Qualifying Service – Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension.
15. Commencement of Qualifying Service. – Subject to the provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis.
16. Counting of service on probation. – Service on probation against a post in the Bank if followed by confirmation in the same or any other post shall qualify.”
SBI Regular VRS and method of processing, vide SBI, Chennai LHO Circular No.PER 3 dated 22.04.1994
SBI has introduced regular Voluntary Retirement Scheme (before introduction of SBI VRS 2000 scheme),amended in 1988, for those Officials who have completed 20 years of service, as given in 20(1)(c) above, irrespective of age. Since, there are number of mistakes committed (as per the preamble of the Circular) SBI issued a Circular No.PER No.3 Dated 22.04.1994, of Chennai LHO, which clearly outlined the method of processing of VRS applications in detail, Proforma 1 to 3, and Exit Interview, along with 3 months notice period or cash in lieu of that. The caption of the Circular says “STAFF:SUPERVISING: VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT.” So, there is no ambiguity, once the application is processed under the above Circular, it is clear the Exit Option is through VRS only, and Pension must be payable alongwith PF and Gratuity and other benefits.
FAILURE OF RESPONSIBILITIES BY SBIEPF TRUSTEES:
SBI & SBIEPF with all its might and Govt at their disposal, never took cognisense of this aberration, and acted arbitrarily, and their sadistic win continued for several decades, in Courts also.
SBIEPF and SBI handled PF accumulations for more than 15/20 years of an Employee, earned return from the Market and finally deny Pension to its Employees? What an injustice and Breach of Trust? This shows the Trustees of SBIEPF and SBI has been indifferent to these aggrieved group of Pensioners, even though they may be small in number, and warrants the accountability of their act towards monthly contribution to SBIEPF of these Employees. Even one Member of the SBI pension Fund is aggrieved by the faulty Law, that too proved by Top Courts of the Country, It will be construed that SBI is failing not only as a Best Employer but also failing from Social Responsibility.
The Trustees of SBI Employees Pension Fund has scant respect towards the Fundamental Rights, and always forgot and ignored that SBI and SBIEPF is emanated from the enactment of Act from Parliament and would automatically amend the changes made by the Courts, UOI, IBA, RBI, from time to time, warranted by changing times in rendering justice to the SBI Pensioners, to redress disputes arising out of old draconian, arbitrary and anti labour laws. SBIEPF and SBI belligerent action tantamount their rules are not challengeable, and unquestionable and they forget they are Governed by the basic Fundamental Rights of the Constitution of India.
The Trustees of SBIEPF and SBI assume they are not bound by the Law of the Land and World and they are Aliens residing outside the Universe, and never bothered to adhere to the established Pension Laws of the Country and make the rules SBIEPF Rules uniform, simpler and Pensioner friendly. Honble SC and HCs time and again through their various verdicts protected the rights of ordinary Pensioners of various Govt Departments in several landmark judgements.
But, it is a pity, the Trustees of SBIEPF and SBI, neither listened to these Judgements proactively nor reacted to the Pensioners request when pointed out. They always drive their Pensioners to the Courts doorstep, without applying their mind in resolving the problems internally, of their own Employees. Or always they expect the Courts may always favour their erroneous laws for ever because of their being mighty and even though the Law is arbitrary and unreasonable. They don’t understand their repeated lies and denial, can’t become truth. Evolution of Time, till the Earth persists, will render proper and due Justice, even though it is delayed.
The simple and reasonable Basic Pension Laws followed by every Govt dept/Banks and confirmed by Top Courts of the Country is yet to be followed by SBI., viz.,
1. Pensionable service/qualifying service commence from “Date of joining” and not
“Date of Confirmation” and Probationary Period is included for calculating
Pensionable service.(“CHAPTER IV Para14 QUALIFYING SERVICE” of
Employees Pension Rules 1995 in Nationalised Banks)
2. While calculating Pensionable service, period of service over 6 months to be
Rounded off to 1 year, and added to Pensionable Service.(“CHAPTER IV Para 18 . QUALIFYING SERVICE” of Employees Pension Regulations in Nationalised Banks . 1995)
Nationalised Banks and GOI are prudent, when they introduce Pension in Banks, . it is evident they didn’t follow SBI Employee Pension Fund Rules, as it is one sided even though it is enacted In 1955, rather they followed Sastri Award 1952, and Central Civil Service Pension Rules 1972, to clearly define what is Pensionable Service. If SBIEPF Laws are superior, why Nationalised banks didn’t follow this?. Since, they find a hole in SBIEPF, they preferred to go ahead with Govt of India CCS Pension Rules 1972, as a basic document, to define Pensionable Service.
But Still it is a pity, without realizing the mistake, SBI is fighting this out in Courts on these two trivial issues, and rejecting Pension to the Employees on flimsy grounds.
TIME & JUSTICE TURNED IN FAVOUR OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES OF SBI WHO WERE DENIED PENSION BECAUSE OUTDATED, OLD AND DRACONIAN LAW:
It is the year of 2014 and 2015, the Country’s Top Courts came to the rescue, even though it is delayed, started realizing the SBI is knowingly involved in grave mistake in defining the “Pensionable Service”, and gave landmark Judgements in favour of the aggrieved Employees on Pension Issues In Govt of India, including SBI. But, some of the Pensioners may have died without reaping the Pension Benefit, because of the arrogant behavior and adamant attitude of SBI, in understanding a simple point.
RECENT LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE SC/HC MADE SBI PENSION RULES CLEAR ON PENSIONABLE SERVICE AND A BECON IN THE LIFE OF UNFORTUNATE PENSIONERS:
1) Honble Supreme Court of India Bench
Assistant G.M. State Bank Of India … vs Radhey Shyam Pandey on 26.02.2015
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2463 OF 2015
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3686 OF 2007]
Pursuant to this suggestion, Regulation 28 of Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 was amended to include the proviso with retrospective effect from 1.9.2000 as under:
“Provided that pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after having served for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for the purpose by the Bank’s Board with the concurrence of the Government.”
This Court, in the case of Bank of India v. K. Mohandas (supra) further clarified the intention behind amendment of Regulation 28 and its retrospective application. The relevant paragraphs read as under: “40………The amendment in Regulation 28, as is reflected from the afore referred communication, was intended to cover the employees who had rendered 15 years’ service but not completed 20 years’ service. ….
41. Even if it be assumed that by insertion of the proviso in Regulation 28 (in the year 2002 with effect from 1-9-2000), all classes of employees under VRS, 2002 were intended to be covered, such amendment in Regulation 28, needs to be harmonized with Regulation 29……”
29. While answering Point no, 2 in favour of the respondents, I held that the State Bank of India should implement the amendment made to Rule 28 of the Employees Pension Regulation in granting pension to the employees seeking voluntary retirement under SBI-VRS.
I therefore, answer point no 3 in favour of the respondents and direct the appellant Bank to grant pension to the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the SBI-VRS after completing 15 years of pensionable service. Therefore, the respondent Radhey Shyam Pandey, having completed 19 years 8 months and 18 days of service, respondent M.P. Hallan, having completed 19 years and 4 months of service and the respondent R.P. Nigam, having completed 16 years and 6 months of service, become eligible for pension as per the amended Regulation 28 of Employees Pension Rules, 1995. (Split verdict-Subject to final judgement of SC)
2) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS-BENCH
DATE OF DECISION : 16.02.2015
W.A.No.1483 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
“14. Thus, pensionable service of the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on 23.2.1987. Computing the period from that day, the writ petitioner had completed more than 20 years pensionable service as required under Rule 22(i) of the SBI Rules, as on the day his request for Exit Option was accepted, i.e., on 15.6.2007.
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner had not completed 20 years of pensionable service, as required under the provisions of law. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is, accordingly, set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. The writ petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits, payable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
This Honorable Madras High Court Divison Bench in this land Mark Judgement on 16.02.2015 ordered SBI to count Pensionable (qualifying) service from Initial date of Appointment and not from date of Confirmation. Hon’ble SC upheld the same and dismissed The SLP filed by SBI on 06.07.2015, paving way for number of SBI Employees to get Pension, which has been denied by SBI for several decades. Hon’ble SC Order is attached..http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%201647815p.txt
3. Honble Madras High Court verdict: 23.03.2014
(Madras HC judgement: OA no.1496 of 2011
“The right of government servants to receive pension is not a bounty. It is a statutory right conferred under the pension rules applicable from the date when the public servant was appointed, either on daily wage/temporary/permanent basis, the Madras High Court has said.
A Division Bench, made the observation while dismissing a writ petition by the Centre represented by the Secretary of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Director of IGCAR, Kalpakkam.”
4. Honble Supreme Court Judgement : October 4, 2014: Union of India Vs Armed Forces Tribunal.
“It is trite law that equals shall be treated as equals and in its application to public service, this simply means that once several persons have become members of one service, whether by promotion or length of service, they stand as equals and cannot, thereafter, be invidiously differentiated for purposes of salary, seniority, promotion or retirement,” the Supreme Court has held.
Giving this ruling, a two Bench of Justices said: “Birthmarks of public servants are obliterated on entry into a common pool and our country does not believe in official casteism or blue blood as assuring preferential treatment in the future.”
M/s C.Narasimhappa and 21 employees of the Bank had filed Writ Petitions No. 24158-24160/2011 & 24162-180/2011 before Hon.Karnataka High Court against Vijaya Bank on denial of pension to them.
Consequent upon the settlement dt.27.4.2010,between Bank Unions and IBA on extending 2nd option on pension the above employees had submitted their option letter for pension within the time frame given. However Bank has rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioners who have resigned are not entitled for pension as per Banks circular on 2nd option on pension.
Court observed that the petitioners have put in more than 20 years of qualifying service and merely because the petitioners have resigned from service is not a ground to deny pension.Petitioners are entitle for pension as per Pension Regulation of the Bank and Writ Petitions were allowed,.on 18th April 2012.
IMPORTANT HIGH COURT/SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF PENSION TO BANK/GENERAL INSURANCE EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RESIGNED FROM THE SERVICE OR RETIRED VOLUNTARY / COMPULSORY
1.In the matter of Sri Sheel Kumar Jain Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Case No. 6013 of 2011), Supreme Court of India have in unambiguous terms delivered a judgement in favour of the petitioners and have averred that the officer who
has resigned from the service of the company after completing 20 years of service and by giving three months notice, is eligible for pension benefits.
2.In the matter of civil appeal No. 6959 of 1987(SLP © 7639/59) Bank of India Vs Indu Rajagopalan and others, the apex court has upheld the verdict of Hon’ble High Court which inter alia reads as under. “All that has happened is in such of the banks
where a scheme for voluntary retirement was available, certain employees retired under that scheme. Now, a comprehensive pension scheme has been framed which came into
force w.e.f.1-11-1993 and applicable uniformly to all Bank employees which provides for voluntary retirement as well. The applicability of these Rules to those employees
who have voluntarily retired w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to 31.10.1993 is raised in these matters. It is not possible for Shri V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel who appeared for the appellants to point out that there is any significant financial or other burden or
difference so far as those who had voluntarily retired and those who had ordinarily retired. In that event where there is no distinction, the authorities having sought to make
a distinction and not applied the regulations framed subsequent to their retirement, the High Court has given appropriate directions. We also notice that the number of employees who have retired in this manner is also very small. (Emphasis added)
Therefore, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.”
3.In the matter of civil appeal No. 307 0f 1987 dated 27-07-1990, the apex court has clearly stated that there is no difference between retirement and resignation. The verdict
inter alia reads as under. “In the present case the employees request contained in the letter of resignation was accepted by the employer and that brought an end to the contract of service. The meaning of term ‘resign’ as found in the Shorter Oxford
Dictionary includes ‘retirement’. Therefore, when an employee voluntarily tenders his resignation it is an act by which he voluntarily gives up his job. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that such a situation would be covered by the expression ‘voluntary retirement’ with in the meaning of Clause (i) of Sec.2(s) of the State Act.”
4.In the matter of the appeal of Satya Srinath of Syndicate Bank in Case No. appeal (civil) 6721 of 2004 in relation to compulsory retirement, the apex court has upheld the appeal of Satya Srinath of Syndicate Bank in case No. Appeal (civil) 6721 of 2004.
The judgment inter alia reads as under. “This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th April, 2003 passed by the Division of the Karnataka High Court whereby the Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ
petition No. 25322 of 1999, quashed the impugned order dated 26th June, 1999 and directed the management of the Appellant Bank to pay the pension to the respondent from 1.11.1993”.
5. WA.NO. 937 OF 2014 IN WP(C)NO.26563/2012
WP(C) 26563/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14-03-2014
STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE
C.M.Paul & 8 and others
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014……
“6. Learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 14.03.2014 allowed the Writ Petitions quashing letters, Ext.P11 and the condition of minimum service period of 20 years mentioned in clause (I)(a)(v) in the Circular dated 17.09.2010 (Ext.P9). Learned Single Judge declared that the petitioners are entitled for pension under Ext.P7 bipartite settlement and also under Scheme, 2001. Bank was directed to pay off the pensionary benefits to the petitioners since they have completed the minimum eligibility criteria of 15 years of service. Aggrieved by the said judgment, Bank has come up in these appeals….
28. In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that the petitioners have clearly made out a case for entitlement of pension consequent to their retirement with effect from 31.03.2001 under Scheme, 2001 read with Regulation, 1995. Learned Single Judge did not commit any error in allowing the Writ Petitions directing for payment of pension to the Writ Petitioners. No ground has been made out to interfere with the judgment in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of W.A. Nos.937 & 947 of 2014 this Court.”
Delay in filing Petition condoned by SC/HC: Case Laws:
A. Mrs.Pramila Kiruba Augustus vs SBI of Madras HC Judgement dated 07.06.2011 (WP 728 of 2011) – condoned 14 years of delay in pension related case.
B. Asger Ibrahim Rahim vs Lic of India Sc Bench verdict dated 12.10.15- (WP 10251 of 2014 in SC)- condoned 12 years delay in pension related case.
Payment of Interest @6% p.a. alongwith arrears for delayed payment of Pension:
Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court Bench Judgement dated 11.12.2014 in Letters of Patent Appeal No.31 of 2912 (o&m), dismissing SBI Appeal in SBI vs Kuldeep Raj, ordering payment of Pension with arrears from date of retirement I.e,30.04.1995, alongwith Interest of 6% p.a.
SBI’s UNREASONABLE, ILLOGICAL, ARROGANT ATTITUDE TO ITS OWN EMPLOYEES:
SBI, despite repeated several reminders/emails/representations through various means of communications on these above points/judgements of inclusion of Probationary Period for arriving at the Pensionable Service, even to the Chairmans Office, Trustees SBI Pension Fund, the “sleeping Elephant” SBI did not undo their outdated Law, neither proactively nor reactively, but replied mechanically without applying their mind and made the Pensioners and their Family to worst sufferings unendingly without Pension, in this material World, just because of the callous and big brother attitude.
a. It is a sadistic pleasure and without any purpose, SBI waging war against its own Employees even at the Highest Court and how many Appeal after Appeal they prefer for a wrong cause, leaving their core Banking Business?
b. If SBI feels changing an old, arbitrary, draconian SBIEPF Law is a violation of ill fetched Policy, the Bank and the Trustees are in denial mode and they are in Policy Paralysis.
c. If they are sure their Law is superior over their Owner GOI and IBA in which SBI is an active Member, are GOI/IBA are erroneous in framing Employee Pension Regulations 1995?.SBI defined as a “State”, under Constitution of India, how can they shirk away from their responsibility as a State.
d. Are they understood, they are continuing their unsuccessful fight not against their Employees, but it is against their own Master/Owner, Govt of India, and their own umbrella Organisation’s IBA’s Policies and RBI (the watchdog) on Pension Policies?.
e. It is a fact that Employees Pension Requlations 1995, is a well tested for almost 2 decades and the Nationalised Banks which implemented almost face zero cases from the Employees, whereas SBI is facing day in and day out litigation from its own employees, and the numbers are bound to swell.
f. SBI’s denial mode to toe GOI/IBA line is a head ache for the GOI/IBA/RBI and it is wasting of Courts’ precious time and the hefty fees paid to SBI Advocates to defend their arbitrary and unreasonable law, is wastage of public exchequer, and who holds accountability for this mistake committed by SBI?
g. GOI and RBI must ensure that the Trustees of SBIEPF must be Independent and not Directors of SBI, who can influence the faulty directions of SBI management in the SBIEPF functioning and framing Laws, required from time to time depending on the changes made by GOI/IBA/RBI/Courts, in GOI/GOI undertakings Pension Rules. While all asks including Sbi Associates implemented the IBA Circlular in letter And spirit, what made Sbi to penalize its employees for more than 16 years without Pension..
h. Filing cases/Appeal against Employees on Pension issues must be decided by the Independent Trustees of SBIEPF and Not by SBI Management.
i. To avoid unnecessary assuming of superlative powers by SBI Management, GOI and RBI being the Owner of the Bank must check these anti labour Policies and issue strict instructions to SBI to stop these irregular practice and ego, that too towards its own employees.
j. SBI must shed its arrogance and stop dreaming Superiority over others and avoid using its muscle power against its poor Employees, instead could show more lenience and magnanimity in accepting the truth and pay Pension without further prolonging the losing battle.
k. It is understood, being a Govt Department, SBI is not transparent and not complied in disclosing the names of VRS 2000 Retirees to a RTI query, who have not been paid Pension in violation of IBA/GOI directions, Employees Pension Regulations 1995.
SBI Arrogance, arbitrary and unreasonable Pension Policy doing harm to its own Employees in denying Pension, and 2015 being year of hope, Top Courts are coming to the rescue of these unfortunate Employees..this arbitrary, unreasonable Pension Fund Policy they adopted from 1955 and put the Employees into hardship for more than six decades..
SBI & Associate employees, who have come out on VRS 2001, Exit Option 2008, Normal VRS Employees, who have been denied Pension by SBI Top Management having 15 to 25 years of service, are running for justice across the Country in all the High Courts and finally to Honble Supreme Court for decades..The Employees who came on VRS are scattered across the Country, without having any contact among themselves, some filed suit, some did Not file suit, some suits in HC dismissed and not appealed because of poor financial condition of the Employees..and some died. They are all eagerly waiting, one day the Hon’ble SC will in one stroke make SBI and Associates to pay Pension to every Employee, who are denied Pension in all the three VRS Schemes, using Article 142 of Constitution of India..
1) an analysis of why & how SBI, in the name of Policy decision, shows the Legal Department has not properly advised the Top Managmenent that one day or other SBI has to make payment of Pension and SBI Management and SBI Trust failed in their responsibility and now being slammed by Courts to pay Pension. They did not only cheat their own Employees in not paying pension, but also themselves..Had their PPG DEpartment or HR studied carefully the adverse effect of not following IBA/Govt directions on Pension Rules, they could have saved the Top Management from showing a volte face. Only at SBM General Meeting, one of the poor Employee, showed the wrong doings of SBI PensionFund, to the Chairperson and Madam was so compassionate and sympathetic..
2) Till 2014, SBI and SBI Pension Fund had a dream run in denying Pension and achieved whatever they wanted through Court, a sadistic pleasure..
3) Year 2015, Courts started gave them alarm bell, that their Policy is wrong, and they Have to fall in line with IBA/GOI directives under Pension Regulations 1995 and CCS Pension Rules 1972.
4) The final nail in their coffin is expected to be driven shortly, and they don’t have any other go, but to obey the Top Court order..any moment, the order will be pronounced and SBI and SBI Pension Fund Trustees will be ashamed of their unnecessary legal tangle, and for SBI Trustees it will be breach of Trust..
5) Their only policy is go to the Higher Courts through Appeal mechanism and delay the process, and discourage the Employees, as huge cost and time is involved in challenging in SC., and also paying huge legal fees to the SC Councels for getting dismissal of their SLPs.
6) But, since the cases being Covered case or similar case, one of the Hon’ble SC Judge , exercised powers vested in him and invoked Article 142, to pay Pension to every employee, who are denied Pension under VRS 2001, whether they filed suit or not, in a split verdict..This verdict is an eye opener and put to rest all unsuccessful arguments of SBI..Nearly 20 unfortunate Employees joining this case through Intervening Petition, challenging the denial of Pension under SBI VRS Scheme 2001.
6) Number of cases started piling up in Hon’ble SC against SBI, as SBI challenged HC verdict against them and several Hon’ble HC are awaiting to deliver Judgements against SBI Management in various cases, broadly under the above three categories of VRS..
7) Madras HC gave a landmark verdict in Feb 2015, based on landmark SC five Bench verdict of 1988, to start counting from “date of joining” for calculating Pensionable service, and pay Pension..
8) National Consumer Forum gave a verdict to a Women Employee putting in 25 years of service, to pay Pension, by one of the Associates..
9) It is understood, lot of Ex serviceman, women Employees have been persuaded by the Management, to go on VRS under the presumption, that they will get Pension, then denied..
10) Vijaya Bank paid Pension to their Employees, based on Karnataka HC Bench verdict..Associate Employees of SBT finally got their Pension, thanks to Kerala High Court. SBM Employees are awaiting the Judgement from HC, as it is challenged by SBI and Associates..
11) SBI didn’t understand all these Employees claim their due right of Pension, only after completing the required Pension, as similarly placed Employees in other Banks get Pension..
12) I understand several State/ Central Govt Depts, they don’t proceed further, if the HC Bench gave the verdict in favour of the Employees, and don’t waste money by going to SC, as they are aware, mere challenging HC Bench Verdict is not going to serve any useful purpose..But, SBI is not aware of this simple rationale and goes appeal after appeal, without knowing that the Truth and Time will always win, even though delayed..
WHAT SBI HAVE TO DO NOW PROACTIVELY WITH HUMANITARIAN APPROACH:
1. SBI now have to undertake quickly and proactively, make payment of Pension to Employees, whether they have represented or not, who have completed 20 years/15 years of service respectively, from date of Joining, shedding their ego, big brother attitude, without further going for any Appeal, respecting the Employees’ genuine plight. Finance Ministry, GOI and RBI and IBA must advise SBI and monitor this and arrange for payment of Pension alongwith Penal Interest of 18% p.a. for prolonging the case unnecessarily and causing mental agony, monetary loss to these Employees. SBI must pay Pension with Interest at the earliest even without any claim from these Employees group proactively, some of may have died and their family is suffering, some are physically challenged, some of them are in their 70s and 80s, some of them are women, some of them are Ex-Servicemen and some of them even lost their address.
GODS REIGNED IN UNFORTUNATE SBI PENSIONERS IN THE FORM OF THE ABOVE JUDGES WHO HELD THAT THE “TRUTH ALONE WILL TRIUMPH”:
If these Pensioners are alive today, to see the Landmark Judgements of TOP COURTS, who lashed out at the Country’s Premier Bank heavily, in not following IBA/Govt Directives, that too to its own Employees, who worked sincerely for almost 2 decades, in the hope of getting Pension, which is not a Gift..
The Honble Judges of Top Courts of the Country, are the Demi Gods for these Pensioners, who opened not only the eyes of SBI, but also opened to The benevolence of the Pensioners, otherwise it would have been a closed chapter.
Had SBI proactively noticed the importance of these Land Mark Judgements of Constitution Benches of Honble SC and Honble Madras High Court, in the above 5 judgements, has thrown out 3 important doctrines of GOI/IBA Pension Rules as under, it would have helped past and future SBI Employees:
“1) Those who put in 15 years service in Bank, as per Employees Pension Regulations 1995 VRS 2000 scheme, to be paid Pension as per IBA Directive Employees Pension Regulations 1995:
2) “Date of joining” only to be counted for pensionable service and “not date of confirmation” and Probationary period to be included, for calculating Pensionable Service.(“CHAPTER IV para 14 of QUALIFYING SERVICE of Employees Pension Regulations 1995), and Pension to be paid for such Employees, either normal VRS or VRS 2000:
3) Those who served above 14 years and 6 months, or 19 years and 6 months, as the case may be, to be rounded off to 15/20 years and eligible for Pension(“CHAPTER IV para 18 of QUALIFYING SERVICE of Employees Pension Regulations 1995);”Pension to be paid either under normal VRS or VRS 2000.
It will be unfair, if we don’t appreciate the Poor Pensioners who took up the case to the Top Court by spending money, time and energy and their Advocates’ sustained efforts, to win a landmark Judgement which will pave the way for other such unfortunate Pensioners, to get the benefits of Pension, who are otherwise denied Pension, for decades together..
Finally, one line from Maha Kavi Barathiyars Tamil Poem:
“Dharmathin Vazhvu dhanai Soodhu Kavvum, irudhiyil dharmame vellum”
English meaning: Dharma may be seem loosing to Adharma, but at the end only Dharma will triumph..