Welcome

Readers write here

READERS MAY LOG IN AND CONTRIBUTE THEIR IDEAS HERE. WE WELCOME SUGGESTIONS AND CRITICISM. WE WANT TO GROW.
THOSE WHO WANT TO WRITE, ARE REQUESTED TO CONTRIBUTE IN THE SPACE PROVIDED. IT WILL HELP IF YOU CAN PLEASE MENTION YOUR E MAIL ID, SO THAT READERS CAN ALSO DIRECTLY COMMUNICATE WITH FELLOW PENSIONERS.

Name:
Email:
Website:
Subject:
Icon:
Message:
 
Antispam:
What is the 6th digit in 3623574?
Are you a human?
What is nine minus six ?
 

There are 481 entries available on

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Anil k saxena wrote at 11-05-2015 8:40 pm:

 Latest Developments in respect of our W.P. No.1875 of 2013
Federation has advised regarding our W.P.No.1875/2013, which is
being heard at Delhi High Court, that our application for change of
prayers made on the basis of SBI Employees' Pension Fund
Regulations 2014 has been allowed by the Hon'ble Judges at the
hearing held on 6th May 2015. The Advocates of the Union
Government, R.B.I and our Bank did not raise any objections on our
above application. The Judges have directed us to file an amended
W.P with our revised prayers within a week. There are no material
changes in our revised prayers. A copy of the order dated 6-05-2015 is
enclosed hereto for your information.
Our amended W.P will be filed by our Advocates within time limit
stipulated in the above order. Our W.P will continue to get listed under
Regular Matters for final hearing on every Monday and Tuesday. It
will be taken up within first five items, when Regular Matters are taken
up. After, the hearing of our above W.P. held on 8-04-2015 no Regular
Matter could not be taken up by the Judges as the Senior Judge was
engaged in the Special Bench daily in the afternoon. Although our
W.P would be listed on 11th and 12th of this month, our case may
not be taken up on these dates, in view of the time limit of one week
stipulated on 6-05-2015 for filing our amended W.P.
An important point which may be observed from the above order
dated 6-05-2015 of the Delhi High Court is the direction stating that
there is no need of counter affidavit because substantive
pleadings remain the same. We are therefore hopeful that our W.P
would be taken up for final hearing on 18th/19th/25th/26th of thismonth.
 
Comment: Dear Anil,

Welcome back to our website, after a long gap. We have given an update on this matter, giving the latest status of the case, on 6th May itself. You have added some more inputs. Thanks.

A.R.Chandrasekharan wrote at 11-05-2015 10:18 am:

 1875/2013 case at Delhi
Sir, as advised by you to Venkatachalam the Delhi High Court made it clear that Rule/Regulation No.23(1) is the base for calculation of pension and one example also worked out and accepted by the Bank through the advocate.(Shri Jaipuriar) It is very clear that Rule No.23(1) has been accpted by the Bank. Does this judgement not cover the prayer of 1875/2013. Secondly can the same judges give another Ruling on the same. Please advise.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Chandrasekhasaran,

The case of the individual pensioner from Jharkhand, was for payment of pension to him alone, calculated on the basis of the average salary drawn. Our case is on a representative capacity, and covers pensioners of all Bipartites.

It is reasonably expected that the same Bench will also give a favourable verdict to us.

G>Venkatachalam wrote at 09-05-2015 10:44 pm:

 writ petition 1875/2013
I would request the administrator of this website,to put in a nutshell what is the prayer under this W.P and what is the effect on the SBI Pensioners.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Venkatachalam,

The prayer made initially in Supreme Court, and due to be heard in Delhi High Court Div Bench, after being transferred from Supreme Court, is :
Pension to be paid @ 50% of last average salary drawn, s per Rule 23 (1) and deletion of Rule 23 (2) according to which different ceilings and different percentages ere being imposed.
This will benefit pensioners of all Bipartites and also those who are suffering on account of 40% and 50 % bifurcation.

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 09-05-2015 5:22 am:

 W.P(C) 1875/2013
THE ABOVE NOTED COURT CASE HAS BEEN LISTED ON 11.05.2015 AT SERIAL NO 102 AT DELHI HIGH COURT AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

As we have already explained in our update on the matter, it will continue to figure in the Daily List, till it is heard.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 10:29 pm:

 7th.BPs
Mr.Gopalakrishna Iyer-your post of the 6th.May 2015-The 7th.Bipartite settlement interalia signed by Mr.L Balasubramaniam as a member of the NCBE statesas under 'Restructuring Existing Pension Scheme'--....With effect from 01.11.19.1993,rise in pension ceiling from Rs.2400/ per month to Rs.4250/-per month after adjustment of DA..... .There is no mention of last 12 months basic pay wagera wagera.Thus after the sell out,the Bank/RBI/UOI in their wisdom are sticking to this epoch making 7th.Bipartite agreement.'Be Happy Don't Worry'In the normal course of attrition life will peter itself out!!Cheers,be cheerful and Hopeful and Be Happy.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

Thanks for your post. You must be aware that the 7th Bipartite fiasco was initially an issue concerning all banks, but later all banks except SBI corrected the issue, though with effect from 1st May, 2005. Only our bank's pensioners are still suffering, for the last 13 years
Now that a favourable verdict has been pronounced in an individual case of a 7th Bipartite pensioner, by the same Div Bench of Delhi High Court, which is hearing our collective case, we are very hopeful of a favourable verdict which will benefit over 30,000 pensioners all over the country.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 9:43 pm:

 7th.BPs.DHC-2353/2014-Jaipuriar case.-increase in pension-fitment
M.Tandon and Mr. Parthasarathy--Yourposts of the 7th.May 2015-Admin has reiterated the issue.The Banks lawyer will forward the DHC- Jaipuriar order thru' the LHO to Corporate Center who will the submit their reco. to the RBI and UOI after vetting by the Legal Dept. at Corp.Center.The Bank's Lawyer having conceded is one issue and the views of the Bank/RBI/UOI are another story.We do not know the background situation of the Bank's Lawyer's brief given by the Bank.Was it on the spur of the moment or did he have the Bank's sanction to concede or was it his legal interpretation.Let us wait and see.And the PenFed case at DHC and then SC will determine what is in store for us.Sujoy Ghosh
 

Gopal Ji Tandon (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 7:36 pm:

 Revision of Pension


I appreciate the suggestions of Sri R Parthasarthi wrote on 6-5-2015. Since the Bank has already been conceded in Delhi High Court in case No.2353/2014 all the affected 7th bipartite pensioners can write to the Bank for revision as is done in the normal course. It is right time to claim our rites rite now.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Tandon,

Bank will not be able to pay without Govts concurrence. Govt will not yield without Courts direction. The bench which has given a favourable order in the individual case, is also hearing our collective case. Let us wait for the court to give a verdict. Letters to the bank will not help.

udayan dasgupta wrote at 07-05-2015 6:18 pm:

 commutation factor
I retired on 31st January 2007.As the Factor for Commutation was only 6.6.& strikingly low it has been revised to 9.81 in 9th Bipartite.Whether it will be applicable to 8th bipartite retirees too of course including me ?
 
Comment: Dear Udayan,

The commutation formula in our Bank is very unfair to the pensioners who wish to commute. Unfortunately, the factor prevalent at the time of retirement, will be applied to arrive at the commutation amount.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 07-05-2015 5:35 pm:

 7th bipartite pensioners vis-a-vis Delhi HC case 2353/2014
Dear Mr.Sujoy Ghosh,
The Delhi HC judgment clearly says that the Bank's lawyer has conceded that the basic pension of Mr.Jaipuriar has to be revised on the basis of the revised pay as per the 7th bipartite settlement in respect of his last moth of service. When such a revision has been conceded, it is logically applicable to all the affected pensioners. The Bank will not appeal since it has already conceded. There is no ground for appeal since the Bank has conceded. Hence, we can write to the Bank asking for the revision enclosing a copy of the Judgment and our pension fixation letter. The request may be routed through the Concerned branch/Regional Office and may be addressed to the LHO (PPG Dept).
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Parthasarathy,

We feel and believe that letters to the Bank will not yield any result, and only a direction from the Court to the Govt. to give clearance to the Bank, can resolve the stalemate. The Bank cannot decide on its own, without the concurrence of the Govt.

Gopal Ji Tandon (Website) wrote at 07-05-2015 3:26 am:

 Delhi High Court case No.1875/20123
Delhi High Court Case W.P. 1875/2013
Please let us know as to what transpired in the above case on 6th & 7th May 2015
 
Comment: Dear Shri Tandon,

Hearing has not commenced in our case, on 6th May, but our amended prayer in view of the change of Pension Fund Rules into Regulations, has been accepted by the Court The matter will continue to figure in the Daily list, till it is heard.

Please go to the Current News page of this website, where we have already posted an update.

Jayakrishnan T V wrote at 07-05-2015 3:04 am:

 LIC CASE AT SUPREME COURT - 07/05/2015
I am sure that members are aware that LIC Pensioners' have filed a case against LIC regarding discrimanatory in payment of DA to them. They have got favourable orders at Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana and Delhi High Court. As usual LIC management went on appeal to Supreme Court. After a long, very long wait it was heard today. Supreme Court ordered for payment of 20 % to all the affected persons with in a period of six weeks, irrespective of the fact whether they were petitioners or not. Full details will be known only when the written order of the court is released which is expected any time now.

It may also be noted that,the back ground of LIC pensioners case before Hon. SC is different and the above case need not have relevance to SBI Pensioners' demands
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 06-05-2015 10:06 pm:

 7th.BPs- DHC - Jaipuriar case.2353/2014
7th.BPs-Mr. R.Parthasarathy--Your suggestion of the 6th.May 2015 is well said.On this I have shared with some others such as mr.Srinivasan,Mr. Pannicker and others of the neighbouring Circles that the Bank is unlikely to take a decision without the consent of the UOI/RBI, whether to comply or to appeal.Thus a wait of about 3 months may be necessary.You may like to offer your opinion on this.Sujoy Ghosh
 

M. Gopalakrishna Iyer wrote at 06-05-2015 5:27 am:

 INCREASE IN PENSION FOR 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES
Dear friend,

This has reference to the letter of Shri R.Parthasarathy in these columns. I voluntarily retired from Ernakulam Zonal Office on 30.04.1998. At that time my basic pay was Rs.15,000/- in the revised scale and Rs.9700/- in the previous one. Accordingly my basic pension should have been Rs.7,500/- as the agreement was effective from 01.04.1998. But I am still drawing a basic pension of Rs.4250/- and D.P. thereon. To get the revised basic pension whom should I contact. I retired from zonal ernakulam, then under chennai LHO and presently the zonal office is under Kerala LHO. Kindly enlighten me as to whom I should put up a claim. Also let me know what are the supporting documents to be produced.

Yours very sincerely,

M.Gopalakrishna Iyer
 
Comment: Dear Mr Iyer,

You belong to 7th Bipartite, and hence you have, like 33,000 other fellow pensioners, suffered. It is mainly about this, that our Delhi High Court case is deliberating on.
Please wait for the outcome.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 06-05-2015 4:13 am:

 7th bipartite pensioners vis-a-vis Delhi HC case 2353/2014
Revision of pension on the basis of the last drawn pay has already been conceded by the Bank in Delhi HC case 2353/2014. As such, it is suggested that all the affected 7th bipartite pensioners write to the Bank requesting for revision as is done in the normal course. In case the Federation gets us 50% instead of 50/40% (unsure prospects in terms of final judgment and further duration), we shall welcome it. Already thousands of pensioners have perished. It will be better if we claim our rights right now.
 

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 06-05-2015 2:43 am:

 REVISION OF PENSION
SIR ,THANKS FOR REPLY GIVEN BY YOU OF THE QUIRY RAISED BY SHRI VENKATACHALAM ON 5.5.2015.I SHALL BE GLAD IF YOU KINDLY ADVISE US THE PRESENT STATUS OF BANK'S PROPOSAL TO M.O.F BECAUSE THIS WAS THE REPLY OF THE BANK ON 22ND JANUARY 2015 WHEN STRUCTURED MEETING WAS HELD ON 22.1.2015 AT HYDERABAD.
K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

We shall update information in this regard, as soon as it is available to us.

Jayakrishnan T.V. wrote at 05-05-2015 10:08 pm:

 /DELHI HIGH COURT CASE - SBI PENSIONERS' FEDERATION vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - W.P. 1875/2013
Application for change of prayers alone being taken up today (6th May 2015). Final arguments will not commence today. FULL DETAILS AWAITED
 
Comment: Dear Mr Jayakrishnan,

Additionally, it is learnt that our case will continue to figure in the daily list, and will be taken up by the Bench, as soon as it is able to.

G>Venkatachalam wrote at 05-05-2015 9:14 am:

 revision of pension
Under latest news in SBI Pensioners Assn Mumbai website there is a news item appearing for the pas8/9 months of proposal by Central Board of the Bank increasing the 5th abd 6 th bipartite pensioners to Rs3775 and 50% and 40% on Rs 8500. xan anyone exlain the correctness of yhis itrm ?
 
Comment: Dear Mr Venkatachalam,
The Bank has sought clearance from the Govt. for removal of anomalies affecting pensioners of 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Bipartites. Certain clarifications sought for, by the Govt, have since been furnished by the bank. This is in keeping with the assurances given by Corporate Centre, recently, at the structured meeting with our Federation.

ROSHAN LAL wrote at 05-05-2015 7:58 am:

 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT TO THE VRS/RESIGNEE RETIREE
SIR,
PLEASE CLARIFY THAT ANY SCHEME FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL BILL IS AVAILABLE FOR VRS/RESIGNEE RETIREE.
 
Comment: Dear Shri Lal,
If such a pensioner has been a member of EMWS, then only he or she is entitled to get reimbursement of medical bills under the scheme. However, such pensioners are not entitled to REMBS, except for the Rs 2 lacs scheme, available for the VRS optees of 2000-01.

udayan dasgupta wrote at 05-05-2015 4:43 am:

 UPDATION OF PENSION-COURT DECISION
I AM SURE THAT TOMORROW OR IN NEAR FUTURE
I.B.A. & GOI WILL CRY()
TO LOSE THE MATCH '"THE UP DATION OF PENSION" &
WE RETIREES WILL WIN THE MATCH & LAUGH ()
 
Comment: Dear Udayan,

Hopefully, things will brighten up in the days to come.

B.S.Chahal wrote at 05-05-2015 3:01 am:

 pension updation for 7th BPS
Can anybody confirm if anything cocrete is going to be decided reg. 100% DA and pension updation and if so what is expected time
 
Comment: Dear Mr Chahal,

Pension updation is a demand in the entire banking industry. But this is dependent upon acceptance of UFBU of Bipartites at intervals of 10 years, instead of 5 years.
100% DR neutralization is expected for pre Nov 2002 retirees, after the implementation of 10th Bipartite settlement.

Unknown wrote at 03-05-2015 2:01 am:

 second Innings
 

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 02-05-2015 8:01 pm:

 W.P(C)1875/2013
RECTIFICATION
KINDLY READ DATE OF LISTING AS 6TH MAY,2015 INSTEAD OF 6TH APRIL,2015 WRONGLY MENTIONED IN MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE.I REGRET THE INCONVIENCE CAUSED TO READERS IN THIS REGARD.
K.R.SAINI
 

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 02-05-2015 7:34 pm:

 W.P(C) 1875/2013 AT DELHI HIGH COURT
AS PER WEB SITE OF DELHI HIGH COURT ADVANCED CAUSE LIST DATED 6TH APRIL,2015 THE ABOVE NOTED CASE HAS BEEN LISTED ON 6TH APRIL,2015 AT SERIAL NO 3 IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT BEFORE A DOUBLE BENCH.
K.R.SAINI
 

Ravindra Kumar. syal wrote at 02-05-2015 12:47 am:

 Medical facility
I a for reply of my my massage of 21-4-2015. Enhancement in M.W.S. amount from Rs.2000/- to Rs. at least Rs.4000/-Because , those are not getting medical facility they should be provided the Medical facility to all the pensioners, whatsoever be the reason. Because Every person has the right to alive. Thanks.
 

Sudhir Suman Kumaria (Chandigarh Circle) (Website) wrote at 01-05-2015 7:50 am:

 Pensioners’ Mail for the month of May 2015
We have uploaded the Chandigarh Circles’ Monthly Bulletin Pensioners’ Mail for the month of May 2015, which you can be view/download from SBI Pensioners’ Association (Chandigarh Circle) official website: http://www.sbipensionerschd.com/

Please note that we upload Pensioners’ Mail on 1st of every month for that month.

Jai Ram Gupta
General Secretary
SBI Pensioners' Association
(Chandigarh Circle)
 

manotosh Samajpati wrote at 30-04-2015 12:17 am:

 up-dation of Main menu topics
It is observed that some topics of main menu, like 'STOP PRESS','COPIES OF IMPORTANT LETTERS' were not updated for long time.please look into the matter.
 
Comment: Dear Manotosh.

Thanks for trying to keep old people like us, on our toes. We do need to be pushed, at times. We will try to follow your advice. Please keep in touch.

jwala prasad tiwari wrote at 29-04-2015 9:57 pm:

 htm portal not responding when new password used
Changed pass word in pensioner portal not effective in openining plz advise in the matter THANKS
 

RAM . M wrote at 27-04-2015 10:41 pm:

 CUT OFF POINT FOR PENSION
IN 'E' CIRCULAR NO. P&HRD SL.NO.57/2008 - 09==CDO/P&HRD-PM/8/2008-09 DATED 03/05/2008, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 3 AS FOLLOWS:
" IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IN RESPECT OF RETIREES COVERED BY 8TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT WHO WERE DRAWING SALARY ABOVE RS.21,040/-+FPP+PQP WOULD BE AS UNDER:
40% OF AVERAGE BASIC PAY + 1/2 OF PQP(IF ANY) + 1/2 OF FPP (SUBJECT TO A MINIMUM OF RS.10,520/- + 1/2 OF PQP (IF ANY) + 1/2 OF FPP )"
BASED ON THE SALARY DRAWN THE CUT OFF POINT IS ARRIVED AT AND PENSION CALCULATION IS DONE ACCORDINGLY.
WILL ANYBODY TELL ME THE UPDATED POSTION IN RESPECT OF 9TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AND THE CIRCULAR NUMBER ALSO.
 

n.Subramanian (Website) wrote at 27-04-2015 5:21 am:

 Updation
My view is that let UFBU take up the issue reg Updation of pension for every 10 years the first such thing to be from the date of implementaion of the 10th BP agrrement and pension updation every 10 years thereafter. Let the wage settlement every 5 years remain. Why can't they take up with IBA the matter of updation on these lines.
 

Shripad Gudi wrote at 27-04-2015 2:25 am:

 In response to the "Comments" to Mr. Dhanabalan's anguish on behalf of 7th B.P. Pensioners dtd. 30.09.2014
Both under the extant SBI Pension Fund Rules 1955 and SBI Pension Fund Regulations 2014, we are not eligible for updation of pension.
 

dhanabalan wrote at 27-04-2015 2:02 am:

 pension updation
I request any one to inform whether we are eligible for updation of pension as per either pension act or regulation. If so section number please. With regards
 
Comment: Dear Mr Dhanabalan,

As of now, we are not eligible for updation of pension. It is there for Govt employees, where in every Pay Commission wage hikes, the pensions are also increased But IBA will consider it only if UFBU agrees to Bipartites at 10 year intervals.

Jayakrishnan T V wrote at 27-04-2015 1:57 am:

 INSURANCE POLICIES - EFFECT OF NOMINATION - NEW LAW
Shri Perumal Maruthu, Canara Bank Pensioner, has posted the following message in Facebook. Whether it is applicable only for LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES or applicable to General Insurance Policies also (i.e) Personal Accident Policies - is not known.
In the new insurance law, if an immediate family member such as spouse is made the nominee, then the death benefit will be paid to that person and other legal heirs will not have a claim on the money. This is good because it makes the nomination process more meaningful and clear. A policyholder knows that the immediate family member nominated by him will get the benefit. This will be applicable for all insurances that have a maturity date after March 2015
 

M. Gopalakrishna Iyer wrote at 25-04-2015 9:16 pm:

 PENSIONERS' GENUINE GRIEVANCES
Dear Friend,

There are two main issues lying before the Government of India for their stamp of approval and they are:-

1. Improvement in the case of 7th BPA retiring where pension will be paid @ 40% extra for basic pension above Rs.4w50/-. This is pending before the goverment since September2013.

2. Nutralisation of DA @ 100% to all pensioners.

We must arrange to have a permanent Liaison Officer posted at Delhi, preferably one among us with legal qualification and background like a retired law officer to follow up the matters with officials of the finance ministry at regular intervals.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Iyer,

Thanks for your suggestions. Actually, the basic demands of pensioners can be classified as follows.
1. Pension at 50% of last average basic salary drawn, for pensioners of all Bipartites. The court case in Delhi High Court Div Bench, is in support of this basic demand, and will benefit all pensioners.
2. Dearness Relief neutralization @ 100 % for all pensioners, including those who retired prior to 1st Nov, 2002. Those who retired after that, i.e. from 8t Bipartite onwards, are already getting DR at 100%.
3. Automatic updation of pension, like Govt. pensioners.
4. Family pension at 30% for all family pensioners.

suresh chhatre pf 1330381 wrote at 22-04-2015 5:47 pm:

 REMBS
Whether Ayurvedic treatment in hospital is reimbursable under the scheme(Hospitalization for Ayurvedic treatment, just like Shri Kejariwal)
 
Comment: Dear Suresh,

Ayurvedic treatment or Unani treatment is not covered under REMBS for pensioners.

MENINO FURTADO wrote at 22-04-2015 7:39 am:

 hi
I appreciate the reasoned "comments" made explaining the correct position and the expectations in the Court cases and other matters without getting into any controversies or biting the baits thrown by some. Very clever, well read / informed and matured person who is making these "comments". Congrats to him and wish him well.
 
Comment: Dear Menino,

Thanks once again, for your reasoned appreciation. Encouragement, honest criticism and appreciation are the only food that keeps us strong and energetic.

Ravindra Kumar Syal wrote at 21-04-2015 11:05 pm:

 Medical facilityr
Will u pl. refer to my request dot. 10-4-15',I am sure u will be equally worry about the provision of medical facility to all the pensioners, what soever be the case. Because every pensioner is pensioner , there should not be ant discrimation.However, pl. try to get Rs.4000/- instead of Rs.2000/- because basic treatment has gone up, which is insufficient amount Rs.2000/-. Pl. look into it. Thanks.e
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 21-04-2015 10:45 pm:

 ITR-Accrued interest
Admin: The accrued interest covers the relevant financial year for which the ITR is being submitted.What could be the technical error?Since tax is being paid in the relevant assessment year,at the time of encashment it need not be shown,having included in the ITR in the relevant FY-01.04 to 31.03 of that FY and AY-Sujoy Ghosh
 

M. Gopalakrishna Iyer wrote at 21-04-2015 10:44 pm:

 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CASE.
Dear Friend,

With reference to the concern expressed by Shri Arora, I feel that filing an Earlyn Posting Petition (EPP) before the CHC will help in getting speedy disposal of the case.

The SBIPABC may, therefore, kindly seek the opinion of our lawyers in the matter.
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 21-04-2015 6:24 am:

 7th.BPs-Lina Ghosh vs SBI-CHC-DHC caseWP(C)2353/2014&CM no.17063/2014
Mr.Arora-your post of 21.04.2015-The DHC case of the Division Bench and the Single Bench order of Late Salil Ghosh in CHC are quite similar.The lawyer in the appeal case at CHC had opined sometime back that he will seek upholding the judgement of the single Judge bench of CHC.The only problem with the CHC case is that delayed dates of listing and within the listing the serial number being way too below for it to be taken up on that day before the Court adjourns for the day.There is a way out which I am exploring in consultation with another colleague in Bengaluru.Sujoy Ghosh
 

v k arora wrote at 21-04-2015 3:20 am:

 7thBP's CASE in DHC
From the judgement of DHC in case 2353 of 2014 pronounced on 06/04/2015 should we become hopeful of positive results on 06/05/2015 in our case also. Pl. enlighten me on the issue. Anybody is welcome for this.
 
Comment: Dear Shri Arora,

Even for pessimist people like us, who have been cheated repeatedly, it seems that the positive outcome of the single 7th Bipartite case in the same bench, which is hearing the collective case, is likely to tilt the scales in our favour Let us hope for the best.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 20-04-2015 8:35 pm:

 Accrued Interest-to be included in the total income for the FY
Mr.Chhatre-Your post of 20.04.2015-Yes
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

While we agree with your contention, there seems to be some technical error in the issuance of these interest certificates, as the entire accrued interest for the entire term is being shown as the interest income for the elapsed financial year. This aspect needs re examination.

suresh chhatre pf 1330381 wrote at 20-04-2015 7:51 pm:

 INTT CERTIFICATE
INTEREST CERTIFICATE RECEIVED FROM THE BANK CONTAINS INTEREST PAID AND ACCRUED , PLEASE ANY ONE CAN GUIDE ME ACCRUED INTT. IS PART OF OUR INCOME FOR THE YEAR
 
Comment: Dear Suresh,

This is perhaps not the only anomaly in the Interest certificate. For STDs, the total accrued interest for the entire tenure, is possibly being shown as the interest accrued and earned for the financial year. The matter is being examined at some of the local branches here. We shall get back soon. Please do not act on the certificates issued.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 20-04-2015 5:12 am:

 7th.BPs-Lina Ghosh vs SBI-CHC-DHC caseWP(C)2353/2014&CM no.17063/2014
Mr.Parthasarathy-your post of 19th.April 2015--Earlier the Penfed had filed a case and withdrawn it.They would not do it again because the basis of the two cases are different.The Penfed case is based on the Constitution/discrimination and 50%.The 7th.BP as won by Jaipurer is on 12months and 40%/50% which satisfies the 7th.BPs.If the Bank seeks the sanction of the GOI we have a chance as the Bank has conceded the position in the DHC.The PenFed can, at the least, find out the Bank's present position after the Bank receives the DHC judgment in re:2353/2014 from it's Advocate.In any case the outcome of the PenFed case in the DHC is not very certain and we have to wait only a few days more to know the position,unless it is postponed, as usual Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

Let us not give up hope. The single 7th Bipartite case decided by the same bench, in favour of the pensioner, is a pointer to the possible outcome of our collective case. Our case will not only benefit the 33000 7th Bipartite pensioners, but also pensioners of all other Bipartites, as our basic demand is payment of pension @ 50% of average salary drawn at time of retirement and purging of Sec 23(2) of the Rules, which permits arbitrary fixation of pension and imposition of ceilings.
We are hopeful that the case will be heard every week, in its final stage, from 6th May, onwards. Keeping fingers crossed.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 19-04-2015 7:27 pm:

 7th bipartite pensioners vis-a-vis Delhi HC case 2353/2104
SBI owes the 7th bipartite settlement pensioners the debt of revision of pension on the basis of their genuine basic salary. Unfortunately, SBI does not even acknowledge the debt - even after 17 years.In the case No.2353/2014 of Delhi HC the Bank Lawyer has acknowledged the debt by conceding the request of Mr.Jaipurar. Instead of wasting more time in the Indian legal labyrinth , the Pensioners' Fedefration should go for a compromise settlement with the Bank. It has to offer withdrawal of its case in Delhi HC in exchange for the Bank's commitment to revise the pension for the 7th Bipartite pensioners just as they have done for all others.
 
Comment: Dear Mr. Parthasarathy,

The question of withdrawing our case in the Delhi High Court, does not arise. We have fought so far, and we shall see the fight till the end. Compromise on this issue affecting thousands of pensioners (including the blatantly cheated 7th Bipartite pensioners) is out of question. The favourable verdict given in the single case by the same bench, is a very hopeful development. Let us hope for the best in our case.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 19-04-2015 5:39 pm:

 Delhi HC case 2353 of 2014- Mr.Jaipurar
Dear Mr.Sujoy Ghosh, Let me thank you for the response to my mail. The possibility of the SBI filing an appeal is remote. 1. The Bank's Lawyer, according to the Judgement, has conceded the request.2.It is a Bench judgement which should carry weight. It is very surprising and painful that the top men in our organisation do not act according to the situation. It is high time they became more pragmatic and less dogmatic.
 
Comment: Dear Mr Parthasarathy,

we wish to add to what you have shared about the case of the pensioner from Jharkhand. The case was disposed of in his favour, by the same bench which is hearing the case filed by our Federation. We are hopeful that the verdict given in the single case, is likely to help in our Federation's case. We are waiting for 6th May.

Ravindra Kumar syal wrote at 19-04-2015 6:35 am:

 Medical facility
I am thankful to receive the reply of my request dot.15-04-15 in respect of medical facility to all pensioners irrespective of the reason whatsoever.In this connection, my submissions are that those pensioners are getting Rs.2000/- P.A. Under M.F.S., at least they should be increased with at least Rs. 4000/- P.A. and if Bank desire for any contribution to it every employee will be ready for it.Pl. explore it with the Bank. Thanks.
 

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 19-04-2015 6:25 am:

 Recent AGM
I understand from a member who attended the recent meeting at the Calcutta University Institute centenary hall that the president,Sri R.N Bannerjee had requested for contributions for a case filed by an individual in a High Court.That is welcome if it is true.But can it be clarified with details of the case.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,

First there was no AGM, this time, thanks to a Court order. Ther was only a Pensioners' Meet and Pension Adalat followed by felicitation of pensioners attaining the age of 75 years. The AGM will be held after completion of election of Governing Body.
Second, we are not aware of any such remarks made by Shri Banerjee, in the Pensioners' Meet.

Sujoy Ghosh (Website) wrote at 19-04-2015 6:17 am:

 7th.BPs-Lina Ghosh vs SBI-CHC-DHC caseWP(C)2353/2014&CM no.17063/2014
Mr.Parthasarathy-Your post of 19th.April.I agree with you.But who is bothered except for paying lip service.Least of all are the PenFed and the Penasses.Has the Bank gone on appeal to the Supreme Court in the Jaipurar case.We the 7th.BPs are nobodys child.Sujoy Ghosh
 
Comment: Dear Sujoy,
We again request you to kindly refrain from making such pessimistic comments and uncharitable and incorrect remarks about the role of Associations and Federation of Pensioners. If the collective case before the same bench of Delhi High Court, which decided recently in favour of the single pensioner, is decided in our favour, pensioners of all Bipartites, but mainly those of 7th Bipartite will gain, even though belatedly.

R.Parthasarathy wrote at 19-04-2015 5:11 am:

 7th Bipartite Pensioners
In case 2353 of 2014 at Delhi HC, Mr.Jaipurar (Jharkand) , SBI Lawyer conceded that the Bank has to revise his pension, taking into account the 12th month pay for April 1998 as the one revised as per 7th Bipartite settlement.He will be paid arrears from the date of retirement. Now all the 7th Bipartite pensioners of SBI can expect a similar revision and settlement of the long pending issue of being paid pension on the basis of 1993 pay. Mr.Jaipurar dropped his challenge of Section 23(2) of Pension regulations and got the verdict. We request the SBI Pen Federation also to drop all other demands in their case except a plain revision of the pension on the basis of 7th bipartite pay on 50/40 basis and expedite judgement. All will get the benefit even though for the high end pensioners(who will be a very few) there will be a marginal loss due to 50/40 basis. We expect the Federation to be prudent. We hope that the Bank will at least now stop harassing the 7th bipartite pensioners.
 

KESHAV RAI SAINI (Website) wrote at 19-04-2015 4:06 am:

 OUT COME OF STRUCTURED MEETING HELD ON THE 22ND JANUARY,2015
FOR SHRI R,N,BANNERJEE, PRESIDENT SBIPENSIONERS'FEDERATION.
KINDLY ADVISE US THE OUTCOME OF STRUCTURED MEETING FOR REMOVING THE ANOMALIES IN PENSION IN REGARD TO 5TH,6TH,7TH AND 8TH BIPARTITE RETIREES AS PROMISED BY THE BANK.K.R.SAINI
 
Comment: Dear Mr Saini,

After discussing the matter with Shri R N Banerjee, we wish to inform you and others, that necessary correspondence has been initiated by the Bank management, under instruction from the Chairman, and Government's approval is awaited. We understand that the bank is pursuing the issue with the Govt.

< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >


go to top