The latest amendment to the scheme also not covers the retirees under VRS & EXIT policy. The scheme provides Rs.7 lacks medical benefit for those who contribute Rs.62000 or pay the difference amount for those already members of any other scheme.
The VRS retirees are eligible for medical benefits at that time if they have completed 30 years of service and become members of the scheme by remitting one month pension. This scheme provided equal benefit of 2 lacs even if they have remitted one month pension according to their eligible pension (lesser pension for sub-ordinate staff and higher pension for officers). Now in the amended scheme uniform amount of Rs.62000 is fixed after studying the viability and the scheme extended to all regular retirees.

The question of excluding VRS retirees who are otherwise eligible as per VRS circular i.e. after completion of 30 years of service when uniform amount is fixed for joining the medical scheme. The Bank gives lame excuse that under VRS Scheme large number of members retired and hence the scheme nonviable. The scheme already excluded the VRS retirees below 30 years of service. The question of viability does not exist now after fixing a fixed amount of Rs.62000 for joining scheme irrespective of the cadre. The Bank can make the scheme more viable by allowing the VRS retirees to pay the difference amount who have opted for the scheme of 2 lacks after putting in 30 years of service by paying variable amount according to the cadre they belong. In the year April 2001 the amount of pension for JMG is around 8000 and they paid the amount and become members of the scheme and eligible for 2 lacs. Now to get the benefit of Rs.7 lacs they have to remit Rs.54000 extra and the Bank can permit them to get the benefit of the scheme. In the original scheme a JMG retiree paid Rs.4000 per lac and now he has to pay Rs.8850 per lack to get the benefit of Rs.7 lacs.

The Bank should reconsider their decision and both the Award staff federation and Officers federation should impress upon the management to extend the benefit to all retirees. Being a welfare scheme the Bank should not shut the doors for the retired employees and what is the use in projecting itself to serve the society through community banking. The Bank should also realize that VRS retirees helped the Bank to rearrange the staff strength and the bank also gained by way of Medical bills, LFC bills ect. The Pensioners Associations also should take up the matter. The VRS retirees can also explore the possibility to proceed legally in the matter.

THERE MAY SOME VOLUNTEERS TO WORK OUT THE ARREARS PAYABLE TO 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES. A GROUP OF PENSIONERS CAN JOIN TOGETHER AND PURSUE THE MATTER.
IF WE WIN THE BENEFIT SHALL GO TO OTHER ELIGIBLE PENSIONERS. NOTHING IS GOING TO BE LOST IF WE LOOSE THE CASE AS WE ARE BY NOW MATURED TO ACCEPT ANY
VERDICT

However, during the year 2000, the Government Of India unilaterally brought amendments again by substituting sub rule ( 2 ) of Rule 23, thus introducing the formula of 5o% of Basic Pension for those who draw upto Rs. 8500 & 40% for those who draw above Rs. 8500 with a minimum of Rs. 4250 by means of a proviso specifying that w.e.f. 01/ 03 / 1999, the maximum amount of Pension for the members who retired / retire drawing subtantive salary in the Pay Scales effective from 01 / 11 / 1992 ( Award Staff } / 01 / 07 / 1993 ( Supervising Staff ) AND THEREAFTER shall be computed TILL AMENDMENTS in this regard. The Gazettee Notification of the year 2000 does not envisage any modification in the sub rule 6 ( iii ) of Rule 23 as regards Dearness Relief payable for those who retire on or after 01 / 11 / 1993.

I am of the cosidered veiw that the amendment brought in the year 2000 has AN IN-BUILT STOP- GAP ARRANGEMENT in the matter of Adhoc Pension calculation based on the last drawn salary for those who draw the salary in the Pay Scales effective from 01 / 11 / 1997 ( Award Staff ) / 01 / 04 / 1998 ( Supervising Staff ) and so on until further amendments are made in veiw of the subsequent Wage Revisions. I feel that any short fall in the case of Award Staff on account of reduced percentage of Basic Pension ( Adhoc ) from 50% to 40% in the said stop-gap arrangement as regards payment on such calculations will be compensated to some extent by the Dearness Relief payable in terms of sub rule (6 ) (iii ) of Rule 23 and later on can be adjusted when the amendments are made subsequent to the relative Wage Revisions. It is pertinent to note that the words “THEREAFTER ” is omitted in the proposal of the Bank submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras for further amendment as regards Maximum Pension for the 7th & 8th Bipartite Retirees. It is to be nored that the Dearness Relief payable are modified in said proposal for them..

It is unfortunate that the Bank for reasons best known to them giving a go-bye to the spirit of the above amendment in question made in the year 2000, decided to pay pension calculated on the basis of the Pre- revised Scales of Pay against the laid down principles in this regard and Bank’s such wrong decision has caused huge loss not only in the Basic Pension but also in the Commutation ifor 7th Bipartite retirees till this moment and also 8th BP retirees until 01/ 05 / 2005.

The 7th & 8th BP retirees are entitled to get Pension calculated on the basis of Last Drawn Pay from the date of their retirement even as per the existing provisions of sub rule ( 2 ) of Rule 23 read with sub rule ( 6 ) ( iii ). Therfore such of those retirees can take up the matter with the Bank to calculate their Basic Pension ( Adhoc ) on their last drawn salary quoting the existing provisions of sub rules ( 2 ) & ( 6 ) ( iii ) of Rule 23.and force the Bank to make legitimate payments until amendments are made in this regard. If the Bank fails, they can prefer individual claims with proper worksheet on arrears of such Adhoc Pension and also commutation, before the Labour Court under ID Act.