4/18/2015

CourtOnceAgainSlapsUnionBankandIBAforFramingAPolicyDenying2ndPensionOptiontoCompulsoryRetiredBankers

AllBankingSolutions.com

......our

answertoallyourbankingneeds

Search
Home

Recruitments

Links

Calculators

IncomeTax

LatestData

BankingTutor

Ready
Recknors

ContactUs

AboutUs

Deposits

NRI

MutualFunds

Insurance

PressReleases

HotTalks

LatestArticles

Disclaimer

WageRevision

BookStore

FollowAllBankingSolutions

CourtOnceAgainSlapsUnionBankandIBAforFramingA
PolicyDenying2ndPensionOptiontoCompulsoryRetired
Bankers

by

Like

Share 62peoplelikethis.

RajeshGoyal

In one of the latest judgments in the case of D.Kalaichelvan

AdsbyGoogle
(Petitioner) vs. Union Bank of India (Respondents), Madras High
CourthasonceagainslappedthetopmanagementofUnionBankof
India and IBA for framing policies in contravention of the
PensionRegulations1995,whicharestatutoryinnature.
ThisisablotontheHRpoliciesofbankswhicharemainlyguidedby
themisinformedIBAtopbrass,whotakeantiemployeestandjusttopleasetheirbosses,so
that they can enjoy the luxurious life even after retirement at the age of 60 years, from the
bankingservice.

In the past also we have exposed the antiemployee attitude of IBA on number of occasions
wheretheyhavegivenwrongsuggestionstoBanksandaskedthetopmanagementtodragthe
casesuptoSupremeCourt,thoughtheywerewellawarethattheirargumentsarefaultyand
willnotstandthescrutinyoftheCourts.Theirattitudehasbeentodragtheseniorcitizens
totheextentwherenumberofthemdieduringtheirfightsintheCourts.

The worst part of this whole fight is the attitude of the leaders of UFBU, who have never
supportedtheseniorcitizenswhohavemeagerresourcestofighttheircasesintheCourts.
http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/WageRevision/2ndPensionOptionDenial/UBIMadrasHCJudgmentPensionCRbankers.htm

1/4

4/18/2015

CourtOnceAgainSlapsUnionBankandIBAforFramingAPolicyDenying2ndPensionOptiontoCompulsoryRetiredBankers

Rather UFBU leaders have indirectly supported the bank management and IBA in such
cases.Recently,oneoftheexAIBOCofficialhasgonetoCourtagainsttheGoIsdecisionto
appointMDsbyanopencompetitionfromprivateandpublicsectorofficials.Whyhenever
botheredaboutthefateoftheretiredbankerswhoarerunningfrompillartoposttoget2nd
Pension Option and for 100% DA neutralization. There is strong perception among the
bankersthatthisexAIBOCofficialhadfiledPILformotivatedpersonalissues.Lotofpeople
wouldhavecometosupporthimeveninthisfight,ifhehadeverfoughtforbankersafterthe
lastBPS.Now,everybodyistreatingthePILbyhimtobeonlymotivatedtogetafootholdas
hehasbeenuprootedbyanothersetofleadersinPNB.Forlast5years,noUFBUleaderhas
filedorfoughtanyCourtcase on the obnoxious clauses introduced by IBA in its circular of
2nd Pension option. Inspite of all the Court judgments favouring the retired bankers,
neither UFBU leaders nor IBA top brass has felt ashamed for doing injustice to senior
citizen.

AdsbyGoogle

Coming back to the present case, the Court in its verdict has
concludedanddirectedtheBankthefollowing:

Consequently direct the respondent to grant pension to

thepetitionerintermsofUnionBankofIndia(Employees)
Pension Regulation, 1995 from 27.11.2009 along with
arrearsandinterest@18%p.a.
I was stunned to read the above para as the judgment clearly shows how the Court was
anguishedwiththestandoftheBank(whichisbasedontheoverallpolicydirectionsgivenby
IBA) in denying PENSION. This is clear from allowing the petitioner the pension from
27.11.2009(thatiswithretrospectiveeffect)andpayhimtheinterestattherateof18%p.a.I
haverarelyseenthejudgementswhereCourtpenaliesthebankstopayinterest@18%.This
is a kind of penal interest and seems to have been granted as Court must have been very
angrywiththeattitudeofBank/IBApolicies,whichtheyframekeepinginmind their own
whims and fancies. Who knows still IBA / Union Bank may go to Supreme Court to satisfy
theirpersonalegosandteachingalessontohalfdeadseniorcitizens.

In an article in March 2015, under the heading UFBULeaders Needs to Discuss Matters
RelatingtoRetireesWithRetiredBankerGroups,Ihaveclearlymentionedasfollows:
The above demands (i.e. demand of 2nd pension option to left over bankers, 100% DA
neutralization) are absolutely genuine and has legal sanctity and needs to be implemented
withoutfail.IfUFBUstickstoitsguns,thereisnoreasonthatIBAwillnotagreeforthese
two demands. Thus, with minimal efforts, UFBU can take credit for getting the above two
demandsmetbyIBA.IncaseIBArefusestoconcedeanyofthesedemands,UFBUshould
clearlymentionthatitreservesitrighttogotoCourtonbehalfoftheretireesasitperceives
thatdenialofthesetwodemandsisillegal.
However,neitherIBAnorUFBUleadersseemstobeinterestedtohelpthepensioners.Now
only Courts have come to the rescue of retired bankers, and now they will have no moral
groundeventotakecreditevenifthesameareagreedbyIBA. Remember,nowUFBU

hasnotonlytofight2ndpensionoptionforleftoverwithretrospectiveeffecti.e.
November2009,butalsowithaninterestattherateof18%onarrears.IfUFBU
agreeswithlessthanthis,itwillbeviolativeoftheCourtguidelinesandisaopentreachery
withtheretiredleftoverbankers.NowUFBUhasnoauthoritytoenterintoanagreement
that abrogates these rights of the left over pensioners. If IBA insists on any lower rate of
interest,UFBUmustmakeitclearthatithastherighttogotoCourtandwillnotbebinding
bytheagreementtothisextent.Ithink,IBAandBanksmustsharethisadditionalburdenfor
the harassment they have forced on the poor retired bankers, some of whom must have
alreadydiedinthehopethattheywillgetpension.
http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/WageRevision/2ndPensionOptionDenial/UBIMadrasHCJudgmentPensionCRbankers.htm

2/4

4/18/2015

CourtOnceAgainSlapsUnionBankandIBAforFramingAPolicyDenying2ndPensionOptiontoCompulsoryRetiredBankers

For those people who are interested to know exactly the reasons for allowing this
retrospectivepensiontocompulsoryretiredbankers,Iamgivingbelowthequotesfromthe
judgment,whichareofgreatimportance:

Union Bank of India issued circular no.5690 dated 27 August 2010. The Circular has to be
read in the light of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The circular is only for the purpose of
giving another option to join the scheme. The pension scheme remained the same viz., is
noneotherthanUnionBankofIndia(Employees)PensionRegulations,1995,whichprovides
forcompulsoryretirementpension.

EventhoughClause7ofthecircularrestrictedthebenefitsofthosewhoretiredvoluntarilyin
terms of regulation 19, the fact remains that pension regulation has not been amended
correspondingly.Therefore,asontoday,thereisavalidregulationprovidingforpensionto
thecompulsoryretirees.

In case the Bank is of the view that pension should be restricted to those who have retired
voluntarily,theyshouldmakecorrespondingamendmenttothepensionregulations.

ThePensionRegulations,1995,isstatutoryinnature.Thecircularwasissuedonlypursuant
tothesaidregulation.Thecircularcannotoverridetheprovisionsoftheregulations.It was
only to give one more option to the employees, the circular was issued. Thecircularcannot
thereforerestrictthebenefitsofoptiontoasetofemployeesnotwithstandingexistenceofthe
regulationwhichprovidesforpensioneventocompulsorilyretiredemployees.

Thepetitionerisentitledtocertainservicebenefitsonaccountofhiscompulsoryretirement.

In fact, in the earlier round of litigation, this Court made it very clear that the
petitioner should not lose benefits which accrued to him for the service
rendered by him, till the date of compulsory retirement. Such being the case, the
Bank was not correct in incorporating Clause 7 for the purpose of denying benefits to
compulsorilyretiredemployees.IamthereforeoftheviewthatClause7shouldbequashed
insofarasitrestrictsoptiontojointhepensionschemebycompulsorilyretiredemployees.

Fulljudgementcanberead/downloadedbyClickingHere

AreUFBUleadersnowlisteningthevoiceofretiredbankers?
TheymustensurethatIBAnowgivestheduesharetoretired
bankers.

P.S:WearegratefultoMrRKPathakfromPune,whokeepsusupdated on this issue. He

hasinformedthatwithaviewtofoiltheattemptofUnionBankofIndiaoffilingWAagainst
thesaidorderbeforeDivisionBenchMadrasHighCourt,hehadthroughMr.B.G.Raithatha,
General Secretary of Union Bank Retired Employees Association and there counter part in
http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/WageRevision/2ndPensionOptionDenial/UBIMadrasHCJudgmentPensionCRbankers.htm

3/4

4/18/2015

CourtOnceAgainSlapsUnionBankandIBAforFramingAPolicyDenying2ndPensionOptiontoCompulsoryRetiredBankers

Tamilnadu&Mr.T.VinayakestablishedthecontactwithPetitionerandadvisedtofileCaveat
beforetheDivisionBenchofMadrasHighCourt,beforeBankfilesWAandpleadsforstayto
theorderdated01/04/2015.
Youcangiveyourfeedback/commentsaboutthisArticle.Pleasegiveonlyrelevantcommentsasirrelevant
commentsarewasteoftimeforyourselfandourotherreaders.

Home

Recruitments

Deposits

NRI

Links

Calculators

IncomeTax

LatestData

Mutual
Funds

Insurance

Press
Releases

HotTalks

Banking
Tutor
Latest
Articles

Ready
Recknors

ContactUs

AboutUs

Disclaimer

http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/WageRevision/2ndPensionOptionDenial/UBIMadrasHCJudgmentPensionCRbankers.htm

4/4