Dear sir,
The 10th BPS wage revision of salaries to the Bank employees was negotiated and settlement reached between United forum of Bank Unions and IBA ( A collective body of Bank Managements). The wage revision is a Bipartite settlement between UFBUand IBA. UFBU is supposed to represent 8 lakh working Bank employees. There are 4 lakh Bank Pensioners who are to be represented by the UFBU only as such the Govt. or the IBA have not given any place to Pensioners forum to represent their grievances. The main pensioners grievances are,1. 100% DA neutralisation to all.2.The increase in Family Pension.3.Revision of Pension with wage revsion pending for the past 22 years.
But UFBU chose to enter into a settlement:
1.To increase the wages of the Bank employees by 15.5% with 60% of DA merger. This is a basic fact on which the pay scales and increments have to be built.
What happened,the facts of the Pensioners case is:
1.The UFBU having agreed and included in its charter of demands have let down the Pensioners very badly.
2.In collusion with IBA they have not passed on the increased wage revision effect to Retiring and Retired employees during the pendancy of this so called 10th BPS which takes effect from 01.11.2012.
The gist of the fact is:1. They have merged 60% of the existing 110% DA into Basic as on the date of settlement signed i.e.21/22,05.2015. only 2% of Basic pay is increased instead of promised and agreed 15.5%. For the purpose they have created another Basic component called Spl. Pay / Grade Pay carrying DA at different rates to different classes of employees ranging from 7.5 % of Basic to 11%.This component of Pay slip-Spl.Pay they have made it not eligible for Superannuation benefits. This has resulted in the reduction of Gratuity and Pension Payment. Further the remaining 50% of the unmerged DA by a formula that is made applicble all has applied which resulted in reduced DA payment from 50% to 33% as on the date of sgning the revision of the Pay scales.
So there is a Basic Pay loss of 7.5% of Basic in the name of Spl.Pay ( Carrying DA) and a reduction of Unmerged DA from 50% to 33%. This had double reduction effect. The contention of the Pensioners is 50% of the revised salary must fo pension. But the settlement says a reduction in Basic pay and Reduction in DA with out passing on the benefits of revision only for Retired employees / Pensioners. Added insult to injury the 10th BPS has accorded one additional stagnation increment. But this was not made available to employees who retired prior to signing of the settlement ie.30.04.2015 even if the whole settlement takes effect from 01.11.2012. This is discriminatory. The seniors are denied and discrimination amongst same rank and same category of employees. Many of the employees have lost Basic Pay ncrease on account of this discriminatory application of the additional stagnation increment.
According to the Pension Rules 1995 agreed and approved by the Govt. all allowances eligible for DA are eligible for Superannuation benefits. This rule they want to amend retrospectively with effect from 01.11.2015 so that the Spl. Pay will not attract any Pension and Gratuity Payment. This has resulted in reduced payment of Pension than which was paid early. But the contention of the UFBU-IBA is the reduction in pension is due to increased Basic commutation. The argument in favour of the Retired employees is the commutation is not a factor which determines the increase and decrease in Pension Payment but for not passing on the full benefit of 13.5% on account of Spl. Pay + Additional Stagnation increment denied. The commutation of Basic Pensio is an option exercised by the Pensioner originally will not come in the way of reduced Pension and it is part of Pension systems and Procedures.
The Pensioners who were eagerly expecting the revision of Pension which is pensding for the past 22 years unrevised have been done a death blow by reduction of Pension. This is inhuman and atrocious. The order f the day is OROP and Revision of Pension-reduction of Pension and recovery of Pension with retrospective effect from 01.11.2012 is against the Pension rules 1995 and the Banks can not pass a retro legislation creating past liabilities.
The above are the brief facts on which the groups of retired employees want to approach Judiciary-please let us know the strength of the case and what else information is needed to make it much stronger.
Inform: gvsramaiah@gmail.com
