Observations and Reservations of AIRRBEA on Govt's affidavit on pension scheme!

மத்திய அரசு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில், கிராம வங்கி ஊழியர்களுக்கும், அலுவலர்களுக்கும் வணிக வங்கியில் உள்ளது போலபென்ஷன் வழங்க வேண்டும் என தொடுக்கப்பட்ட வழக்கில், தன் தரப்பில் affidavit ஐ இந்த மாதம் ஜூலை 5ம் தேதி தாக்கல் செய்திருந்தது. இந்த வழக்கில் யூனியன்களின் affidavitகளை தாக்கல் செய்ய அனுமதித்து, செப்டமபர் 11ம் தேதிக்கு வழக்கு ஒத்தி வைக்கப்பட்டு உள்ளது. இவ்விஷயங்களை அறிவித்து, மத்திய அரசின் affidavitஐயும் நமது இணையதளத்தில் வெளியிட்டு இருந்தோம்.

அதில், கிராம வங்கி ஊழியர்களுக்கும் அலுவலர்களுக்கும் பென்ஷன் திட்டத்தை வழங்க மத்திய அரசு principle ஆக ஒப்புக்கொண்டு இருப்பது சாதகமான விஷயம் என்றும், அதே வேளையில் பல பாதகமான அம்சங்கள் இருப்பதையும் சுட்டிக்காட்டி இருந்தோம்.

நமது அகில இந்திய சங்கம், மத்திய அரசின் affidavitஐ, அலசி, ஆராய்ந்து, அதுகுறித்து தங்கள் பார்வையை முன்வைத்திருக்கிறது. AIRRBEAவின் அகில இந்திய பொதுச்செயலாளர் தோழர்.சையீது கான அதனை பதிவு செய்திருக்கிறார். அதனை தோழர்களின் பார்வைக்கு அப்படியே முன் வைக்கிறோம்,

---

The affidavit is mainly relating to imposition of impermissible and unlawful precondition in the matter of implementation of Pension scheme to be introduced in RRBs at par with the Scheme as introduced in Commercial Banks/Banking Industry in terms of the settlement dated 29.10.1993. The affidavit contains   some figures and statements which are not relevant and not based on the relevant calculation too. Following facts will reveal the same.  

1.      Firstly there was no clause or condition or precondition of Profit or profitability in the settlement dated 29.10.1993 though there were some loss making big Banks with accumulated losses. 

2.      The pension scheme in banking Industry is simply based on the principle that the Pension will be allowed to the employees on their option in lieu of Bank’s contribution to Provident Fund. 

3.      Pension corpus fund was created out of total contribution of management to the PF account since inception of the service of employee/officer and the respective banks had set up Trustee to manage the fund/corpus, evaluate the fund position every year at the time of bank closing and to provide needed amount, if so required considering the actuarial calculation. 

4.      Further provisions were made at the time of salary revisions through Bipartite Settlement such as at the time of 7th, 8th and 9th BP settlements, thereby providing additional contributions from the agreed wage load by both the sides. 

5.      The Government affidavit has shown the shortfall amount for RRBs calculated not taking into account the amount that is required to be contributed by the management of RRBs at the rate of commercial banks since inception of service of the employees/officers. 

6.      In RRB, management contribution is restricted to 12% on ceiling of salary to the extent of Rs 6,500/- only as against the amount of 10% of entire Basic Pay in case of Commercial/Sponsor Banks. So, the calculation of shortfall/needed corpus fund is totally misleading. 

7.      There are three parts in RRB sector to be extracted to make it equal to the amount of Bank contribution to PF as in case of scheme of Commercial/Sponsor Banks -

  (i) Amount lying with RPFC (i.e. Regional PF Commissioner) - Rs.541/- per month per head out of Rs.780/ - i.e. 8.33%of Rs.6500/-

  (ii)  Amount lying with individual staff - Rs.239/- per month per head out of Rs.780/-

 (iii) Amount payable by bank management @ 10% of B.P as at present (-) (minus) Rs.780/- per month per head.

P.F. deduction in RRB has to be changed to make it 10% of B.P. from the date of implementation of scheme of Commercial Banks after apportionment of fund as shown above. 

The calculation shown in the affidavit has not taken into account the above items to assess the present position vis-à-vis shortfall in the corpus fund, thus the calculation is faulty and intended to confuse the Hon’ble Court. 

Now coming to other areas of deviation from the Pension Scheme of Commercial Banks: 

The matter of contribution of 30% of shortfall of pension case was linked with allowing 2nd time option for pension through 9th Bipartite Settlement in 2010, and the shortfall amount for 2nd option was properly  defined and calculated, agreed to by both sides. It has nothing to do in case of introduction of pension scheme first time in line with scheme out of settlement dated 29.10.1993 in the RRBs.  

·        Date of coverage:- As per the Scheme in terms of the settlement dated 29.10.1993, all employees/officers who were in service and retired or died on or after 01.01.1986 are covered under the Scheme. But in the Scheme intended for the RRBs as per affidavit, the cutoff date has been fixed on 01.09.1987, with the gap of few months only creating the difference and the deviation. 

·        Date of effect/cash flow: - In case of the Scheme of Commercial/Sponsor Banks, the effective date is 01.11.1992, i.e. date of implementation of 6th Bipartite Settlement, though the Scheme was implemented in September 1995 and March 1996, with such retrospective date. But in case of RRB, proposed date of effect is 01.04.2012, having no justification or logic. 

If we look to the above it will be clear that:– 

Even if the clause of Profit and Loss or Profitability is quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the NIT Award dated 30.04.1990, repeated orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2001 and 2002, orders of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in 2011, orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur in 2011 and 2012, there will still be deviations in the above areas as pointed out here in above. 

So we have to point out the above factual information to our Advocates well ahead of next date of hearing on 11.09.2013.

- A. Sayeed Khan,  secretary General, AIRRBEA