Dharna/ Demonstrations at Large Centres throughout the Country CBPRO circular

Circular by CBPRO is reproduced below

Quote

                                                                                                       Dated: 29.11.2018

The General Secretary,

All Constituents of CBPRO & AIBRF

Dear Comrade,

Dharna at Large Centres throughout the Country

We refer to our circular no. 007/2018dated 26.10.2018 advising our constituents about the proceedings of a joint meeting of CBPRO and AIBRF held on 24.10.2018. It was decided in the said meeting to hold massive Dharna and Demonstrations in important cities across the country culminating in big Dharna/Demonstrations in Delhi & Mumbai.  Accordingly it has been decided to hold Dharna/Demonstrations at important centres like (1) Kolkata, (2) Chennai, (3) Bengaluru, (4) Hyderabad, (5) Ahmedabad, (6) Cochin, (7) Thiruvananthapuram, (8) Delhi, (9) Mumbai and other State Capitals.

The date for Dharna / Demonstrations at individual centres maybe mutually decided by the leaders of the constituents of CBPRO & AIBRF at respective centres between 15.12.2018 and 15.01.2019. A list of centre wise leaders/organisers of the constituents of CBPRO & AIBRF will be furnished separately to facilitate mutual contacts to successfully hold Dharna/Demonstrations.

  It is also proposed to submit a Joint Memorandum to the Hon’ble Prime Minister and to the head of local chapters of IBA and the MD & CEO of the Bank having head quarters at respective centres.  A copy of the joint memorandum on Pending Issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees is enclosed for use of the leaders at the designated centres of Dharna & Demonstrations.

We request all our Comrades to participate in Dharna / Demonstrations in large numbers and make it a grand success. The senior leaders at respective centres are specially requested to impart guidance and use their good offices for not only total involvement of the Pensioners & Retirees but also solicit help from all those who are in the position of power and can influence early resolution of our pending issues.

With Comradely regards and best wishes for success of Dharna/Demonstrations.

Yours faithfully,

               

(A.Ramesh Babu)         (K.V. Acharya)                     (S.C. Jain)

             Joint Conveners, CBPRO                General Secretary, AIBRF

Encl: Joint Memorandum

JOINT MEMORANDUM ON PENDING ISSUES OF BANK PENSIONERS AND RETIREES

We wish to introduce ourselves as a Joint Coordination of Coordination of Bank Pensioners’ and Retirees Organisations (CBPRO, having 5 constituents viz Federation of SBI Pensioners’ Organisations, AIBPARC, RBONC, AIRBEA and FORBE) and AIBRF representing 100% of the Bank Pensioners & Retirees numbering about five lacs. We have been taking up the grievances of Bank Pensioners & Retirees with Indian Banks’ Association and Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India.  We are committed to the cause of Bank Pensioners & Retirees so as to bring about happiness and cheers on their faces in the evening of their life.  The following issues remain unresolved despite our several requests, reminders and personal meetings with the competent authorities.  We therefore request you to help us in getting these matters resolved early.

1. Uniform 30% Family Pension :

a.    Family Pension in Banks is payable @ 30%, 20% and 15% of last drawn pay where lower percentage being assigned to higher pay with a specified ceiling on the amount of Basic Family Pension.

b.    The above mythology effectively resulted in the Family Pension working out to nearly 7 to 10% of last drawn pay restricting Basic Family Pension to a meagre sum of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 14000/- after attainment of notional age of 65 years by the deceased employee or 7 years from the date of death whichever is earlier.

c.    Government and RBI Pensioners are paid Family Pension uniformly at 30% of last drawn pay without any ceiling.

d.    Un-affordability of proposed improvement in Family Pension is being arbitrarily quoted to deny the benefit despite there being adequate provision made during the service tenure of the employee by the Bank for payment of full Pension to the employee. Thus Family Pension being lesser than the Pension of the Employee, it would involve a negative cost to the Pension Fund.  Hence the contention of IBA/Government about cost consideration defies logical, economic sense, rationality and above all humane consideration.

e.    Family Pension being a highly emotive issue needs to be resolved urgently as assured at the time of last Wage Settlement vide second issue listed in Record Note dated 25^th May, 2019.

2. Updation of Pension:

a.    Pension Regulation 35(1) provided for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension in respect of those Employees/Officers who retired between 01.01.1986 and 31.10.1987 and at the time of introduction of Pension Scheme in Banks during 1995-96 it was so given to them as they alone were eligible for Updation at that stage.

b.    Pension Regulation 35(1) was amended vide Gazette Notification No:9 dated 01.03.2003 providing for Updation of Basic Pension and Additional Pension wherever applicable thus making it an open-ended scheme to provide the benefit of Pension Updation to all Retirees who become eligible on periodical revision of Pay through Industry level Wage Settlements.

c.    IBA/Government has been denying the benefit of Pension Updation despite clear provision in Pension Regulation 35(1) quoting cost consideration.

d.    Pension is a Deferred Wage and a property under Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) of Constitution of India and hence a statutory obligation of the Banks which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of Constituents of India.

e.    Pension including updated Pension and Family Pension become payable out of Pension Fund.  The present Pension Fund of the Public Sector Banks including State Bank of India is quite robust and healthy at more than Rs. 300,000 crores  with potential to afford payment of 3 to 4 times of present disbursements on account of Pension and Family Pension.

f.        In Banks Pension is paid out of Pension Fund which is created by the surrender of the mandated management contribution of Provident fund by the Bank Employees and Officers during their service.  Pension is not paid out of profits but of that fund so created.  Hence payments so to be made as per Pension Regulations will not affect the Balance Sheet of the Banks.  Provision, if any, for Pension Fund is a charge on Profit & Loss A/c and hence is not payable out of net profit of the Banks.  Net profit has to be arrived at only after making all provisions including for payment of Salary and Pension which are statutory in nature.  Statutory payments cannot otherwise also be denied for cost considerations.

g.    Banks have introduced New Pension Scheme for those employees who have been recruited after April 2020 and there is separate Fund created for the same.  This limits the number of Pensioners under Old Pension Scheme and even this number is subject to reduction with every passing year.  Ultimately when all Pensioners die their Pension Fund which is held in Trust shall remain hugely underutilised.  This further strengthens our contention for improvement in pension by periodical updation so that the Pension Fund of the Retired Employees is put to proper and intended use.

3. 100% DA Neutralisation:

a.    Government of India introduced 100% DA Neutralisation in lieu of tapering DA vide 5^thpay Commission (1996).  Subsequently 100% DA neutralisation was extended to all Pensioners of the Banks except those who retired before 01.11.2002.  It was on account of wrong interpretation of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note signed during 2005 between IBA and Unions/Associations.

b.    Aggrieved Employees approached the Hon’ble High Courts and were awarded relief but Management of United Bank of India filed SLP in Hon’ble Supreme Court.  During the final hearing and finding merits in the arguments of the Employees, the Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court observed that they had already passed an adverse order in a similar case and hence reversal of that order could be done only by a larger Bench.  Alternatively the Employees in whose case the adverse order was passed should file a review petition which could be tagged with the case of United Bank after condoning the delay.  Accordingly the review petitions were filed, delay condoned and petitions tagged with the case of United Bank of India.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court yet again passed an adverse order without any justification merely by stating that since earlier appeals of the employees were dismissed, the appeal of United Bank Management is allowed.

The Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court came as a bolt from the blue to the employees.

c.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court based its Judgement on a misplaced ground of arithmetic consideration by stating that the improvement in DA for Pre-November, 2002 Retirees would result in exceeding the Wage Revision load factor of Rs1288 crores and thus may warrant a corresponding downward revision of Basic Pay structure of the employees and Officers which were covered by Wage Revision settlement made effective from 01.11.2002. This was completely wrong consideration as DA did not form part of the components of load factor. The arithmetical error committed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court needs correction.

d.    100% DA Neutralisation to similarlily placed Pensioners is made available to the Pensioners of RBI and LIC of India.  Hence denial to a small section of Bank Pensioners is beyond reasonable comprehension.

e.    Compelling Senior Citizens to knock the doors of judiciary to realise their legitimate claims and aspirations is against the spirit of National Litigation Policy of the Government.

4. Pension for those who Resigned after completing 20 years of Service:

a.    IBA had been denying Pension option to those who had resigned from the service of the Bank after completing minimum qualifying Pensionable service in the Bank. Aggrieved resignees sought judicial remedy and ultimately in case of the Employees of Vijaya Bank the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered extension of the benefit of Pension option to the petitioners who were allowed to opt for Pension.

b.    IBA has refused to extend the benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to similarly placed persons in Vijaya Bank and also in other Banks. Expecting every individual to go to Supreme Court and struggle for several years for final judgement is unfair and also against the spirit of Litigation Policy of the Government.

c.    IBA was kind enough to extend the similar benefit to all the compulsorily retired people after few of the compulsorily retired people got favourable judgement from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.  Hence denial of Pension option to resignees is unfair and illogical.

5. National Litigation Policy:

The policy is a good initiative of Government of India.  But various instrumentalities of the Government including Public Sector Banks which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India have been driving their Employees/Pensioners to seek legal remedy on settled issues, thereby defying the spirit of Nation Litigation Policy.  Such a situation causes a huge drain on the resources (judicial) of the Government while forcing avoidable financial burden on the Employees/Pensioners.  It is requested to ensure creation of a mechanism for resolving the anomalies created by wrong interpretation of the settlements or the provisions of settlements or wrong implementation and interpretation of various Regulations despite their being subordinate legislation – statutory in nature.

6. Demand for Negotiating rights with IBA:

          

 It is requested to ensure creation of a mechanism for resolving the anomalies created by wrong interpretation of the settlements or the provisions of settlements or wrong implementation and interpretation of various Regulations despite their being subordinate legislation – statutory in nature. It will also help the Retirees to strive for further improvements wherever necessary.

To obviate and resolve such anomalous situations, we demand the following:

i)        The Organisations of Bank Pensioners and Retirees should be provided a structured forum to discuss their issues with Indian Banks’ Association.

ii)       Anomaly Resolution Committee should be constituted to look into the grievances of Bank Pensioners and Retirees.

We also demand that IBA calls us for formal discussion / negotiations for resolution of Pending issues of Bank Pensioners & Retirees before sighing of 11^th BPS with the constituents of UFBU.

7:   Reckoning of Special Allowance for Pension & Gratuity:

Last wage settlement dated 25^th May, 2019 provided for introduction of a new special allowance carrying DA as applicable on Basic Pay. However the settlement also provided for a negative clause that special allowance shall not be considered for calculation of superannuation benefit viz Pension & Gratuity. This negative clause is illegal and cannot be used to the detriment of Retirees. Not reckoning special allowance for the purpose of calculating superannuation benefit is violative of Pension regulation 2 (s)(a)(ii) which provides that all allowances counted for the purpose of making contribution to the provident fund and for the payment of dearness allowance shall be included as a component of pay. It is pertinent to mention hear that provident fund not being contributory does not constitute a benefit to an employee. It leads the payment of dearness allowance as the only benefit available to employees on special allowance as in case of Basic Pay. Under such circumstances a negative clause in the 10^thBipartite Settlement to the effect that special allowance will attract DA but shall not reckon for calculation of superannuation benefits is illegal and contrary to the provision of Pension Regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). The only purpose of this negative clause was to take away the right conferred under pension regulation 2(s)(a)(ii). It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pension Civil No:5525 of 2012 filed by Bank of Baroda that by signing a settlement or a joint note there is  no estoppel  as against the enforcement of statutory provisions(Pension Regulations) which could not have been tinkered with in an  arbitrary manner. Extending the same rule of law, the negative clause in the 10^th Bipartite settlement/Joint Note about not reckoning special allowance for calculating superannuation benefit is violative of existing pension regulations and hence arbitrary and illegal.

     

8.    IBA’s Medical Insurance Scheme:

In pursuance of the directives issued by Dept of Financial Services, Govt of India on 24.02.2012, IBA was expected to evolve a Medical Insurance Scheme both for Serving and Retired employees. However IBA evolved a Medical Insurance Scheme for Serving employees providing for its cost to be borne by the Banks where as in case of Retired employees the premium was passed on to the Retirees though there was no such directive in the government communication. The medical insurance premium was quite reasonable and also subsidized by many Banks initially but with every successive renewal the premium was increased and subsidy from Banks disappeared. The premium amount which was Rs7500/- in the first year has gone beyond Rs90,000/- for the current year.  The Retirees and Pensioners are rendered helpless to suffer injustice and cannot also go back to their own individual medical insurance policy discontinued after introduction of IBA scheme as they have crossed the minimum prescribed age for obtaining fresh medical insurance cover.

There is urgent need for Banks to bear the entire medical insurance scheme premium charged on IBAs Medical Insurance Scheme and also wave such premium from levy of GST so as to reduce the burden on Banks.

9.    Effective Date of Gratuity Enhancement:

The recommendations of 7^th Central Pay Commission to enhance Gratuity from Rs10 lacs to Rs20 lacs for Central Government Employees was accepted and implemented wef:01.01.2018 whereas the payment of gratuity act was amended at a later date and enhanced amount of Rs20 lacs was made effective from 29.03.2018 for the employees other than those working in Central Government. It astonishes that the Ministry of Labour & Employment has notified 29.03.2018 as the date of effect of enhanced gratuity despite a clear legal opinion from Ministry of Law & Justice, Dept of Legal Affairs that enhancement of gratuity and its admissibility/eligibility from particular date are issues relatable to social beneficial legislation and are to be construed liberally. It was further opined that according parity for quantum as well as effective date for employees governed by Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 vis a vis Central Government Employees has rationale and reasonable nexus and hence there appears to be no legal objection if said parity is allowed by Ministry of Labour & Employment. In this background the decision of the government to make the enhancement effective from 29.03.2018 thus hurting the interest of Senior Citizens is beyond comprehension.

There are other pending issues agitating the minds of Bank Pensioners and Retirees and the same are being actively taken up with Indian Banks’ Association for early resolution.  Such issues include grant of stagnation increment to those who retired between 01.11.2012 to 30.04.2019 in terms of 10^thBipartite settlement/Joint Note dated 25.05.2019 as has been allowed to the employees and officers of State Bank of India vide circular dated 18.07.2018 issued by CGM(HR) of State Bank of India, Corporate Office, Mumbai.

We request you to extend necessary help for resolution of these issues by Indian Banks Association/ Dept of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt of India at the earliest.

                  

(A.Ramesh Babu)       (K.V. Acharya)                     (S.C. Jain)

             Joint Conveners, CBPRO                General Secretary, AIBRF

Unquote

Discrepancies in the ( Amendment ) Regulations, 2018 notified on 6th November, 2018 in the Gazette of India

We reproduce below the letter on the above subject.
Quote
C N VENUGOPALAN
 Former Director (GOI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore & Ex Manager Union Bank of India
 “Nandanam”  Kesari Junction, North Paravur, Kerala -683 513   Mob: 9447747994
 E – Mail: ceeyenvee@gmail.com
 No. MOF :171113                                                                 13th November, 2018

The Secretary (Banking),
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
Jeevan Deep Building, New Delhi – 110 001

Sir,

Notification No. 428 in the gazette dated 6th November, 2018 –
Union Bank of India (Employees’) Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 2018

I write to bring to your attention the discrepancies in the above Pension ( Amendment ) Regulations, 2018 notified on 6th November, 2018 in the Gazette of India for doing appropriate corrigendum notification as the contents are unlawful besides being disastrous and detrimental to the subjects of the regulations and infringes their fundamental rights on the following grounds:
1.    The notification is issued in the name of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services and it bears the authorization of Shri. R R Mohanty, General Manager (HR).  Whereas there is no such designation in the Department of Financial Services, the matter is to be regularized.

2.    Regulation 3.4 originally stood as :
3.  Application: These regulations shall apply to employees who:
    (4) join the services of the Bank on or after the notified date
          This was substituted vide clause 3 of the notification as:
    (4) join the services of the Bank on or after the notified date and on or before the 31st day of March, 2020.
All employees who joined after the notified date were entitled to the benefit of pension vide sub-regulation 3 (4).  This statutory benefit was cut away with retrospective effect in respect of employees who joined after 31st March 2020 through the amendment without the approval of the Legislature.  This is in gross derogation of section.19.1. and 19.4 of the Act,  pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were made, which are cited under clause 5 below.
THE SUBSTITUTION VIDE CLAUSE 3 OF THE NOTIFICATION HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM CONTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATION THAT “INTEREST OF NO PERSON SHALL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SUCH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT” FALSE AS THE INTEREST OF EMPLOYEES WHO JOINED AFTER 31.03.2020 IS DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED BY CUTTING AWAY THE RIGHT TO PENSION.

3.    Sub-regulation 10 of regulation 3 reads as :
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (2), (5), (6) and (8), in cases where an employee had retired /died after retirement on or after the 1st day November, 1993, but on or before the 1st day of April,1995, or where an employee had died while in service of the bank on or after the 1st day of November,1993, but on or before 1st day of April, 1995, such an employee or the family of the deceased employee, as the case may be, shall refund within the period specified in aforesaid sub-regulation the entire amount of the bank contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum on the said amount from the date of settlement of the provident fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the bank or till the 1st day of April, 1995, whichever is earlier.
The notification states that after sub-regulation 10, the following sub-regulations shall be inserted namely:
(11) were in the service of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and continue in the services of the Bank as on the 27th April, 2020 provided such employee meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement;
(12) were in the service of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and retired after that date and prior to 27th April, 2020 provided such employee meets the requirements and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement;
(13) were in the service of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and retired after that date and had died in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations, if the family of the deceased meets the requirements and complies with the conditions laid down in the settlement;
(14) were in the service of the Bank prior to the 29th September, 1995 and died while in service of the Bank after that date in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations, if the family of the deceased meet the requirement and comply with the conditions laid down in the settlement.
In the first place, the newly notified sub-regulations 11 to 14 are not co-related to regulation 3 or to sub-regulation 10 and fail to convey any sense.  This apart, there is no mention of any settlement  in the preamble, definitions or in any regulations, linking the “settlement” to any regulation. 
Secondly, if regulations 11 to 14 are linked to regulation 10, and the Joint Note dated 27.04.2020 is presumed as the settlement, it has the following effects:
a)    In terms of sub regulation 10, retired employee had to pay back CPF along with simple interest at six percent till its refund or till 01.04.1995, whoever was earlier to opt for pension.
b)    In terms of sub-regulations 11 to 14, they have to pay back the CPF paid on retirement along with 56 percent of it to opt for pension.

The new sub-regulations 11 to 14 prejudice the Principle Regulations thus and render them unwarranted in terms of section 19.1.and 19.4 of the Act pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were put in place.
THIS TOO HAS THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM CONTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATION FALSE AS THE INTEREST OF THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES IS DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED.
Thirdly, the last date of option for pension in terms of regulation 3 for any category of employee / family of employee was 120 days from the notification of the principle regulations on 29.09.1995 which ended on 26.01.1996.  In other words no one can be given an option in terms of the settlement, after the last date of option viz. 26.01.1996 without amending regulation 3 suitably. The options given under the settlement and pension paid on their basis from 27.11.2009 continues to be unlawful, thus affecting the interest of the members of the Pension Fund who opted before 26.01.1996.
4.    Per clause 4 of the notification, after the proviso of the regulation 28 of the said regulations, the following proviso is inserted,  namely:
“Provided further that employees who ceased to be in service on or after 29th September, 1995 on account of voluntary retirement before attaining the age of superannuation but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in accordance with the Scheme framed in this regard by the Board with the approval of the Government, shall be entitled to join the Pension Fund, subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Scheme”.
In terms of gazette notification dated 13th July, 2002, conveyed by Staff Circular No.4904 dated 8th October, 2002 of the Bank, the following clause was inserted below regulation 28 earlier, namely:
“Provided that, with effect from 1st day of September, 2000, pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government.”.
It is not known as to whether the insertion in terms of clause 4 of the notification is meant to be inserted before the insertion of 13th July, 2002 or after it.  Whereas pension also became payable with effect from 1st September, 2000 through insertion dated 13th July, 2002 to employees retired through voluntary retirement without complying with the “terms and conditions mentioned in the scheme”, compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme sought through the new insertion is prejudicial to the regulation in force.  THOUGH EMPLOYEES WHO OPTED AND RETIRED THROUGH VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT BECAME ELIGIBLE TO PENSION FROM 01.09.2002, PENSION WAS NOT PAID TO THEM IN DEROGATION OF THE AMENDMENT OF 13.07.2002.
5.    In terms of regulation 7 of the regulations notified on 29.09.1995, the Pension Fund can receive only the components specified in it which excludes a contribution from the employee other than the initial transfer of his CPF balance. Regulations 5.3 mandates that the Bank shall ensure that sufficient sums are placed in it to enable the trustees to make due payments to the beneficiaries under the regulations besides regulation 11 stipulating additional annual contributions to the Fund by the Bank on the basis of an Actuarial valuation.  Evidently, the terms and conditions of the settlement referred to in the notification dated 6th November, 2018 prejudice all the regulations viz. 7, 5.3 and 11 and prescribes contributions to Pension Fund to the tune of 2.8 times salary for November, 2007 in the case of employees in service and 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement in the case of retired employees their detriment. THIS IS YET ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION MAKING THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM CONTAINED IN THE NOTIFICATION FALSE AS THE INTEREST OF THE RETIRED EMPLOYEES IS DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED.  The settlement prejudice the extant regulations and make it unfit to be laid in the Houses of the Parliament vide section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 pursuant to which the Pension Regulations were stamped by the Parliament.  The relative sections of the Act violated are reproduced in clause 5 infra.

6.    Per clause 8 (a) of the notification,  sub-regulation 52 (1) was substituted with the following:

“Except in the case of an employee to whom provisions of regulation 34 or regulation 46 apply, a pension other than family pension shall become payable from the date following the date on which an employee retires”  

Per clause 8 (b) in the notification in relation to regulation 52, it is stated that in sub-regulation (3), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“Provided that pension including family pension to those who opted to join the Bank Employees’ Pension Scheme on or after the 27th April, 2020 shall be payable with effect from the 27th November, 2009”.
Sub-regulation 3 of regulation 52 reads as:
“Pension including family pension shall be payable for the day on which its recipient dies”.
The new insertion in terms of the notification has no relevance to the sub-regulation 3 which pertains to and delineates the day till which pension is payable.
Even after carrying out the clause 8 (a) substitution, a pension other than family pension shall become payable from the date following the date on which an employee retires and this has not been paid to employee to whom provisions of regulation 34 or regulation 46 apply.  This apart, the clause 8 (b) insertion in sub-regulation 3 serves no useful purpose as it relates to the last day for which pension is payable. 
7.    Relative sections of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 referred to earlier lays down as follows:
Section 19.1
The Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank may, after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette make regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any scheme made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
Section 19.4
Every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of Directors of a corresponding new bank, be forwarded to the Central Government and that government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should. not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation.

8.    As the Board of Directors of the Bank has no powers to make amendments inconsistent with the Act and any modification or amendment to a regulation shall only be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the regulation in terms of sections 19.1.and 19.4 of the Act, the terms of the settlement with special reference to clause 3 and 4 supra are unsustainable.  Hence the notification dated 6th November, 2018 which constitutes an affront to the Legislature and to the Constitution of India is to be repealed.


Unquote
Click here to view Notification in Gazette of India
Click here to view letter to Secretary (Banking),MOF, GOI

BOB clears reimbursement of domiciliary treatment for the year 1/11/2019-31/10/2018

Bank of Baroda has issued circular  (No.HO:BR:108:182)  on 19/11/2018  advising / agreeing reimbursement of domiciliary treatment expenses for the year 1/11/2019 to 31/10/2018.
 
The credit for the issue is absolutely to Shri. S Ramchandran, Former GM of BOB,  who roped in DFS to force bank to consider the issue.


Click here to view circular by Bank of Baroda