Consequent to introduction of Pension Scheme for Bank Employees & Officers, every bank has constituted Employees Pension Fund in terms of Pension Regulations. These Regulations governs the operations of the Pension Fund. In terms of Pension Regulations the debit in Pension Fund account are permitted for the purposes of enabling the bank to meet the liabilities of Pensionary benefits to the Retired Employees & Officers. The investments out of pension funds are to be made in accordance with the rules framed under the Pension Regulations. The debits other than for the disbursement of Pensionary benefits are permitted only for the purposes of making investments in authorised securities. The shortfall in the fund is made good by the bank after obtaining actuary’s certificate.
It is reported that some banks have been resorting to unauthorised debit to Pension Fund leading to weakening of the fund and impairing its capacity to meet the commitments to their Retired Employees & Officers on account of payment of Pension and other related benefits. It is pertinent to mention that a nationalised bank wrote back Rs2026.26 crores from Pension/Gratuity Fund and appropriated the amount towards provision for Non Performing Assets eventually soaring up the profit of the bank in an unauthorised manner. Similarly another Nationalised bank has defaulted in making adequate provision to the Pension Fund in accordance with the last wage settlement which provided for amortization of the liability. These irregularities were widely reported in media / social media recently. We had also taken up with the Government and IBA to initiate necessary steps for rectification and also for guarding against such misappropriations out of Employees fund which are held in trust. We have not heard anything from Govt/IBA in this regard.
Even when we have been struggling for getting justice to the Bank Pensioners on above counts, another shocking incidents has come to our notice where in a huge amount from the Pension Fund of the Bank was invested in Non Convertible secured debentures of a Private company which also happened to be the borrower to the extent of Rs14000 crores from the entire banking system. The incident would have gone unnoticed if the company had not been identified by RBI among 12 major accounts for the purpose of filing insolvency petition before National Company Law Tribunal. The pension fund of the bank was asked by Insolvency Resolution Professional to submit its claim as a creditor. As we have experienced in the case of another company before NCLT, hardly 6 % of the total dues were realisable. With such an experience, it could be anybody’s guess as to how much amount would be realised through NCLT even in the said case. While the lending bank will take the hit in the form of haircut, it would be atrocious to expect employees pension fund to lose substantial amount on account of such imprudent and impermissible deployment of amount out of Employees Pension Fund.
It is likely that similar or different type of unauthorised transactions would have taken place in other banks too. It therefore assumes greater and more serious significance. To put it simply, these would amount to criminal breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of Employees Funds held in Trust by the Banks.
We as a Coordinating body of more than 400,000 Bank Pensioners & Retirees deem it our bounden duty to ensure safety and security of the funds which belong to our members. With this objective in view, we suggest the following measures to be initiated by the Government and IBA to ensure and protect the interest of Bank Pensioners & Retirees:
1, An immediate independent audit must be ordered for the Funds which are constituted and maintained by the banks to meet different liabilities arising out of retirement of bank Employees & Officers. The present practice of Auditing the Funds immediately after auditing the annual account of the Banks should be substituted by audit of the Employees Funds before audit of annual accounts of the Banks. This will obviate the mall practices in the banks to dress up their Balance Sheets at the cost of Retirees/Employees.
2. The independent auditor must be changed every year with a cooling period of 3 years to ensure that they do not yield to impermissible and manipulative demands by Banks.
3. A copy of independent auditors report should be mandatorily given to Association of Pensioners & Retirees of the concerned Bank for necessary scrutiny.
4. The loss if any sustained by the Funds on account of unauthorised transactions in any bank should be ordered to be made good by the bank forthwith along with interest.
5. A Representative of the Retired employees should be appointed on Pension & Other Funds where the interests of the Retirees are involved.
We shall be grateful if you could bestow your personal attention to look into such serious malpractices in management of Pensioners & Retirees Funds.
(Is it not surprising that I.B.A. is indirectly misutilising the pension fund of bank retirees instead of giving due and long awaited and pending benifits to retirees who are senior citizens.)

On the basis of wrong inputs and information given by Indian Banks’ Association the erstwhile governments were under a wrong impression that improvement in pension to them will affect the profits of banks. Unfortunately, the current government also could not decipher the issues in the right perspective and is reluctant to undo the malady done to bank employees. The senior citizens who
retired from banks are hence denied their legitimate benefits in derogation of the statute. It is pertinent to point out that paying the statutorily granted pension involves no cost either to banks or to the government. The money is payable out of the Pension Funds which comprise their own deferred wages.
The following needs special mention:-
1. Pension in banks is payable out of Pension Funds and hence the payment does not affect the profitability of banks nor does it require any budgetary allocation on the part of the government.
2. Pension Funds are built up of contributions which banks were previously to make to CPF of employees as statutory contribution pursuant to EPF and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Hence Pension Funds are the statutorily deferred wages of employees and not the money of banks.
3. Money in Pension Funds cannot be utilized for any purpose other than payment of pension / family pension in accordance with the regulations. ( regulation 5.2 )
4. Pension Funds of all Public Sector Banks (PSBs) are abounding in resources. All banks have annual growth in Pension Funds which can easily foot two to four times the present pension to all their pensioners. Government can collect the data from all PSBs in the accompanying format and ensure that the statutorily defined pension can be paid with improvement.
5. In spite of truth contained under clauses 01 to 04 above, in relation to unstarred question No.2444 by Prof. M V Rajeev Gowda, based on malicious and mischievous information from Indian Banks’ Association, your good office gave a wrong reply on 08.08.2017 in Rajya Sabha, that improvement in pension would directly affect the profits of banks. The further statement that pension is payable based on Bipartite Settlement between IBA and Unions of employees/associations of officers also was inaccurate as the payment is statutory, on the basis of the Bank ( Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995
6. Total Pension Fund of all banks is reportedly around Rs. 2,00,000 Crores now and the pay out of benefits is only 25 to 35 percent of the annual growth in Pension Funds. Payment of higher pension as mandated by Pension Regulations is well sustainable.
7. Employees recruited after 31.03.2010 need not be serviced out of Pension Funds as they are covered by PFRDA Scheme of government. Mortality of pensioners is also reducing the pension liability of banks.
DEROGATIONS OF PENSION REGULATIONS BY IBA / ERSTWHILE GOVERNMENT:
a) When the Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 was notified in the gazette on 29.09.1995 calling for options for pension, majority of employees were kept out of it through a rigorous clause in regulation 22 (4) (b) providing for forfeiture of entire past service for participation in strike which would entail loss of Pension as also the earlier benefit of CPF in case of forfeiture of service.
b) When government directed IBA to advise member banks to delete the penal clause and to give effect to it vide its letter dated 24.12.1997, though banks amended the regulation, they did not give effect to it by offering chance of option afresh in the wake of the amendment thus disobeying the direction of the government, defeating the very purpose of the amendment. Employees did not get the option mandatorily to be given.
c) A Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 was later signed by IBA with Bank Unions / Associations after thirteen years for granting an option afresh; but on purely unlawful conditions. The unlawful conclusions included :
Employees on rolls paying 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 to the Pension Fund of Banks. This was discriminatory as those who opted earlier had no such contribution. Those who opted under the Joint Note and those who opted earlier are similar manner of people.
Retired employees had to pay back the CPF paid on retirement and 56 percent of it to Pension Fund of banks for getting pension from 27.11.2009, an arbitrary date in the settlement, in lieu of from the date of retirement.
This was in conflict with regulation 52 (1) of Pension Regulations in force as it provided for payment of pension from the date of retirement. This apart, when CPF is paid back, pension the benefit in lieu of it shall flow from the date of retirement and not from the arbitrary date of 27.11.2009. This was discriminatory and opposed to Constitution as similar people who retired on different dates lost their pension for different periods from their dates of retirement to 27.11 2009.
Another glaring anomaly was that the contribution raised from employees at 2.8 times pay and 56 percent of CPF from retired were unlawful as the bank is the contributor to Pension Fund in terms of regulations 5 (3) and 11. Though the bank appears to be the contributor, the real contributor is the employee himself as the amounts are the statutorily deferred wages entitled as management contribution to CPF.
d) The Joint Note was unlawful and has no force of law for the following reasons:
It was in the nature of amending the Pension Regulations to which it related.
Amendment to a regulation could be done only through notification in the gazette (section 19.1 of Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980). The Joint Note is not notified so far in gazette.
In terms of section 19.1.and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 no amendment which prejudice what is earlier done under a regulation could be made.
It had to be laid in the Houses of the Parliament for their nod soon after it was signed, to give it force of law. The Joint Note signed on 27.04.2010 is not laid in the Houses so far in spite of the passage of seven years as mandated by section 19.4 of the Act.
Clause 10 of the Joint Note stipulated compliance with the due procedure for amending the Pension Regulations pursuant to section 19 of the Act, but the condition is breached.
It is on the basis of this Joint Note which the makers themselves breached and did not have force of law that banks raised the unlawful contributions to Pension Funds and denied pension from the date of retirement to 27.11.2009 to retired employees.
e) The sanction of MoF given on 10.08.2010 to implement the unlawful Joint Note was ultra vires as MoF has no authority to circumvent the Pension Regulations which was statutory being a dispensation of the Legislature. The Joint Note is to be rolled back in any parlance to establish the equilibrium in the
exercise of authority by the organs of democracy and for restoring the dignity of the Houses of the Parliament.
f) The amounts unlawfully collected and pension denied and detained had been lying in the Pension Funds of banks and earning interest income to them in the form of compound interest with the result that the PSBs stands in a position to repay them with such compound interest with no cost to banks.
BREACH OF REGULAION 56 of PENSION REGULATIONS
Regulation 56 of Pension Regulations clearly states that Pension Regulations in banks is exactly on the premises of the Central Civil Pension Rules, 1972 and departure can be had only with specific sanction of Central Government. The government has not so far permitted any deviation from regulation 56. But pension in banks is never revised ever since its inception when Central Civil Pension gets revised with each Pay Commission. This is in apparent derogation of the regulation and is done when Pension Funds of PSBs can pay two to four times pension to all with no cost either to banks or to government. A General Manager who retired 15 years back gets a pension lower than that payable to his Clerk retiring now. The former is denied a life with dignity and in his case, the very purpose of pension ids defeated. The denial of statutorily defined pension has no raison-d’etre especially when it has no cost implication to banks. What is all the more significant is that the bank employees had a better pay than in government during the seventies of last century when Pillai Committee Recommendations was implemented in banks on 01.07.1979 to stagger pay to establish parity with government pay. The earlier higher pay was in view of added financial risks and extended working hours. But the present plight is that pay of officers in banks is now lesser by Rs.40,000 to Rs.50,000 than that of the corresponding scales in government. Since pension is linked to pay for employees on rolls and is never revised, bank pensioners are very much forced to walls. This aspect deserves to be taken care of in the wake of the OROP sanctioned to
defense pensioners. It all indicates the imperative need for a Pay Commission for banks to determine compensation without any bias.
Last, but not the least, employees of nationalized banks are employees of government because of government ownership and they are the people who implement the policies of the government. Though their pay and allowances could hence be paid out of the exchequer, as per the system, such expenses get adjusted against the profits they make in banks by themselves. Section 10 (7) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 gives a prior charge to salaries and superannuation funds over the profits of banks by permitting the Board of Directors to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as reserves only after making due provision for them. Whereas banks had been declaring dividends regularly without paying due compensation in banks and the erstwhile government was utilizing it to pay higher pay and allowances in other sectors, bank employees were continuously being exploited.
(C.N. VENUGOPALAN Former Director(GOI Nominee)State Bank of Travancore & Ex Manager Union Bank of India).

पैंशनर वर्ग के लिए असमानता क्यों? जबकि सेवानिवृति के बाद पैंशन प्राप्त करना उसका मौलिक अधिकार है। यह तथ्य सुप्रीम कोर्ट मे दायर निर्णय के लिए लंबित एक मुकदमे में भी स्वीकृत किया जा चुका है। पिछले दो दषक से ज़्यादा समय से बैंक पैंशनरों के साथ लगातार किए जा रहे अन्याय के प्रति सरकार और कर्मचारी यूनियनस या एसोसियेषनो की उदासीनता हैरान करने वाली है। सीमित समय के उपरान्त पैंषन का अपडेषन किया जाना वैसे ही लाज़िमी है जैसे नियमित कर्मचारियों का किया जाता है। अफसोस की बात है कि सरकार ने पिछले 10 साला वेतन आयोगो में कर्मचारी और रिटायरिज़ दोनो के वेतनों में संषोधन किए परन्तु बैंको में पिछले 5 साला अवधि के बाईपरटाईट के अंर्तगत हुए 4 वेतन संमझोतो में नियमित स्टाफ का तो ध्यान रखा परन्तु पैंशनरों को इस लाभ से वंचित कर दिया । बैंक रिटायरीज़ के लिए भारतीय कानून अंधा कैसे बन गया।
बैंको मे पैंशन,पैंशन अधिनियम 1995 के अंतर्गत लागू की गई जिसका नोटिफिकेशन सभी बैंकों द्वारा स्वीकृत भी किया गया । फिर इन नियमों की लगातार अवहेलना क्यों की जा रही हैं। अपने पैंशन फंड से उन्हें लाभ क्योकर नहीं दिए जा रहे। पैंशन अधिनियम 1995 के अंतर्गत सेवानिवृति के बाद कर्मचारी को उसके मूल वेतन,विषेष भत्ता एंव महंगाई भत्ता (आधार 1684 पवाईंटस) के पिछले 10 माह की औसत की आधार पर पैंशन तय की जानी हैै जो कभी भी नही की गई और यह आज तक विसंगति बनी हुई है।
आज बैंक रिटायरीस में बडा रोष है,न्याय के लिए दर दर भटक रहा है,देष की अदालतों मे मुकदमें दायर हो रहे हैं और बुढापे में उनके साथ अपनाया जा रहा रवैया खल रहा है। अपने ही जमा कोष से उन्हें सही पैंशन नही मिल रही है।
हल एक ही है कि नवम्बर 97 से हुए अब तक के पिछले चार बैंक के द्विपक्षीय वेतन संमझोतो के अनुसार उनकी पैंशन पुर्ननिर्धारित की जाए ताकि उनका जीवन यापन सही हो सके । फैमिली पैंशन का प्रतिषत बढाया जाए। चिकित्सा सुविधा मुफत या कम खर्चे वाली की जाए।
आज स्थिति यह है कि इस विसंगति के कारण सरकार का चपरासी बैंक के उच्चाधिकारी से भी ज्यादा पैंशन ले रहा है। सरकार पैंशनरों को पैंशन आम आदमी के टैक्स से चुकाती है जबकि बैंक पैंशनरों को पैंशन उसके अपने पैंशन फंड से ही मिलती है जिससे बैंक की लाभ हानि का कोई सरोकार नहीं।
स्थिति बहुत गंभीर हो चुकी है और सरकार को फैसला ष्षीघ्र ही लेना पडेगा, कहीं ऐसा न हो की बैंक पैंशनर सड़कों पर उतरकर इन्साफ ही न मांगने लग जाएं ।

Indian Banks’ Association ( IBA ), is a voluntary association of banks management in the country consisting of 201 members comprising of Public Sector Banks, Private Sector Banks, Foreign Banks having offices in India and Urban Co-operative banks. IBA is not a legal entity, as it is registered neither under Trade Union Act, 1926 nor under Registration of Societies Act, 1860.and further it is not a professional nor statutory body.
In spite of the above it has been collecting huge monies from its member banks as membership fees, expenses, donations etc, in crores of rupees and spending the collected monies without under any provisions of the law. It is not a statutory body and is not under any control of law and is coming under any of provisions of law. And also not defined as employer under Industrial Dispute ACT 1947.Recently, this unregistered body IBA has issued a circularNoHR&IR/76/H7/E9/755 dated 11.05.2015 on the matter of Encashment of Leave on Compulsory Retirement. It says that some of the affected officers have got relief from the courts and Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training vide O M No. 14028/1/2004-Estt(L) dated 13.01.2006 had also decided that in such cases where the Government servants are compulsorily retired as a measure of punishment and in whose case, if a cut in pension (including gratuity) has been ordered, the benefit of encashment of earned leave at the time of such retirement shall be allowed.
•This matter has been taken up by IBA in its HR committee meeting held on 06.04.2015 and decided to allow encashment leave from 30.04.2015, as the managing committee of IBA decided to allow such encashment.
•IBA is not statutory body, its HR committee or Managing Committee have no force of law, as they are not the committees of statutory body.They cannot amend the Regulation Officer Employees( Discipline and Appeal ) regulations 1976/1982 of PSU banks. Further the effective date can be that of 13.01.2006 of DOPT and not that of managing committees meeting date. IBA has opened its eyes after 9 years, it does not mean if IBA does not take action on this, the position of law change.

पेंशन फंड बैंक रिटायरी के रिटायरमैंट के बाद उसको मिलने वाले बैंक अंषदान का वह हिस्सा होता है जो उसको भविष्य में पेंशन देने के लिए संचित किया जाता है। इससे बैंक की लाभ हानि से कोई सरोकार नही होता जबकि सरकारी वेतन आयोग से पेंशनरों की पेंशन वृद्वि के लिए सरकार को लोकसभा से पारित करने के स्वीकृति लेनी पडती है। यह सारा भार आम आदमी करों द्वारा ही संचित राजस्व से चुकाया जाता है।
नीचे दी गई तालिका सभी बैंको द्वारा समायोजित पेंशन फंड 31 मार्च 2017 तक 2,34,531.23 लाख करोड़ की राषि दर्षा रहा है,इसके बावजूद भी पेंषन अधिनियम 1995 से लेकर अब तक भारत के सभी बैंक पेंशनरों का अपडेशन नही किया गया। नतीजा यह है कि आज सरकारी वर्ग के चपरासी की पेंशन बैंक के उच्चअधिकारी से भी बहुत ज़्यादा है। उसे स्तरीय फैमली पेंषन,चिकित्सा सुविधा प्राप्त है परन्तु बैंक पेंशनर को नही। ये भेदभाव नहीं अपितु उनके साथ बर्बरता पूर्ण व्यवहार क्यों किया जा रहा है। सरकारी कर्मचारी होने के बावजूद भी उनके साथ भेदभाव क्यों?

Pension scheme was introduced in the year 1995 as second benefit in lieu of PF broadly on the lines of pension scheme of the Government. It is not mere understanding but every part of pension scheme that was framed was made identical to the Central Government Pension Scheme.Evenafter two decades of introduction, still the following issues are not in line wiith the Government pension scheme. It may be observed that PSB pension is paid out of the pension funds created by the banks themselves not from the consolidated fund of the Govt. Pension Updation – Pension is revised with every Pay Commission for Govt. employees whereby the pension of retirees of past years are brought to closer to the pension of current retirees having the benefit of latest pay commission. Similar updation was agreed to be provided in the pension settlement signed in 1993. This was duly incorporated in the Pension Regulations under Reg.35 which provides for updating pension as per formula given in appendix-1. The formula given in appendix 1 is nothing but the formula obtaining in Central Government in 1986. As the only persons who required updation at the time of implementation of pension in 1995 were those who retired under IV Bipartite Settlement and their pension was updated by notionally revising their pay in line with V Bipartite Settlement Pay. However the pension updation that was agreed, provided for and implemented was discontinued unilaterally. However the government is updating the pension of their retirees at every Pay Commission and have also started upgrading their pension after the age of 80 where a pensioner reaching the age of 100 years get his full pay updated as pension. Bank retirees are not even getting pension updation, not to speak of pension upgradation though the bank’s pension scheme was framed on the lines of government pension scheme. Family Pension – When bank pension is framed on the lines of Government pension scheme Uniform family pension at 30% of pay without ceiling as obtaining in Government and in RBI should be extended to banks too. As the scheme exists, family pension payable to wards will be too negligible because it is very rare for pensioners to have wards drawing family pension. So mostly the spouses would only be family pensioners and in fact many pensioners would have no spouse alive or wards eligible to draw family pension. Even the spouses alive may not have long life expectancy which on an average may be less than 10 years. Inasmuch as pension ( at 50% of pay) itself is provided for the full life span of every employee as per AS 15(R) standards and family pension sought at 30% without ceiling should not entail any additional cost. With every death the provision already made at 50% of pay becomes excess and banks would be able to write back the excess provision. So only a portion that would be written back has to be spent to give family pension at uniform 30% without ceiling which will not impact the profits of the bank in any way. Further the number is too low and it is also inequitable to have discriminatory percentage for family pension alone while pension for every pensioner is a uniform 50% of pay without ceiling. In current scenario, the family pension of general manager of the bank will be less than the family pension of clerk of central government. It is not out of place to mention, RBI had amended the family pension in line with Central Government, but the same is being denied to PSB retirees. It is absolute necessity to introduce uniform 30% pay without ceiling as family pension in line with Government and RBI. Further the unmarried and financially dependent daughters of pensioners should be made eligible to get family pension in line with the provisions of central government pension.