Dear Shri. S K Kakkar,   Great!  You did it. You made the Indian Banks’ Association into Indian Blunder Association.  It could win you a title “FOOL OF AN ASS”.  You proved that you are a Senior Consultant with no grey matter in the skull.  The Indian Public Sector Banks are now garlands in the hands of monkeys prompted by the great consultant.  If the mischief could command the huge compensation you earn, banking Industry is in blunder-land. Under your blind guidance IBA could grant options on the basis of the Joint Note after 27.04.2010 when regulation 3 of Pension Regulations determined the last date for options as 26.01.1996, i.e. within 120 days of the notification of the Pension Regulations.  Now, all pension paid on the basis of the Joint Note from 27.11.2009 are conversion of the Pension Fund for which the Core Managements of banks and government are responsible.  The Pension Fund can pay pension in accordance with the Regulations only in terms of regulation 5 (2) and IBA misapplied the Pension Fund for paying pension in accordance with the Joint Note.  Payment of pension to those opted after 26.01.1996 is not a payment in accordance with the Regulations.

  As per your expert advice only the banks amended Pension Regulations  notifications for authenticating the “contributions” 2.8 times revised pay for November, 2007 and 56 percent of CPF paid on retirement contemplated on the basis of the Joint Note.   The joint Note was a handicapped child born to you with deformities alone.  In terms of regulation 5 (3) and 11, the Bank is the sole contributor to Pension Fund and the contributions were inconsistent with the Pension Scheme. The notification dated 06.11.2017 of Union Bank of India evidences that there were no provisions for such a contribution till its date and the provision for the contribution cannot be made into law forever as any amendment to a regulation inconsistent with the Pension Scheme is impermissible under section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980.  The new sub regulations 11 to 14 opening with the words “were in service of the bank” are hanging in the air without   being connected with the previous sub regulation which relates to something else.  They are like four new hands protruding from your body.  Strangely, the employees listed in the new sub regulations to whom the compliance with “meeting the requirement and compliance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement” are those finding a place in the earlier sub regulations who do not have to meet the requirement and comply with the terms and conditions in the Settlement” with the result that the same set of employees become eligible to join pension scheme   “with” and “without”  compliance of the terms and conditions.  Your skull could command a hefty price for display in a museum after your death.

  The original regulation 3 was a partial blunder. Regulation 3 (4) was providing for blanket admission to pension scheme to all who joined service of the banks after the notified date.   But the other sub regulations were prescribing other terms for the different category of employees/retired employees who joined the services prior to and after the notified date.  Now with the substitution of the sub regulation 3 (4) with 3 (4) (a)   the employees who joined service after 31.03.2010 became ineligible for joining pension scheme, which is impermissible under sections 19(1) and 19 (4) of the Act and the regulation 3 (4) (a) is without regulation 3 (4) preceding it.   In the notification also, clause 3(b) is without clause 3 (a) preceding it.

  Again, payment of pension from 27.11.2009 was an innovation of Indian Blunder Association under your stewardship. Yes, a gap between the date of retirement and date of commencement of pension cannot be seen elsewhere in the universe than in the Indian Banking System.   The regulation 52 (3) providing for payment of pension from 27.11.2009 is inconsistent with regulation 52 (1) which postulated that a pension shall become payable from the date following the date on which an employee retires and is hence impermissible altogether.   When another sub regulation 3 was pre-existing under the regulations 52, now there are two sub regulations 52 (3) and the new sub regulation relating to the date of commencement having been placed beneath the pre existing sub regulation which deals with the date of cessation of pension, the provisions mismatch and the new sub regulations makes no sense at the place.    Now the sub regulation looks like an elephant with two trunks.

  Under regulation 52 (1) the pre-existing proviso is substituted with a new proviso that “Except in the case of an employee to whom provisions of regulations 34 or regulation apply, a pension other than family pension shall become payable from the date following the date on which an employee retires.” Though the new proviso brings in a change from the “43” mentioned in the pre existing regulation to “34”, the new regulation makes it explicit that all employees to whom provisions of regulation 34 or 46 are inapplicable shall invariably be paid pension from the date following the date of their retirement.   But you have not cared to ensure that the banks are paying pension to such employees to whom provisions of regulation 34 or 46 do not apply.  The new sub regulation, not being inconsistent with the Pension Scheme is valid and creates an onus on the part of the bank to pay pension from the date of retirement to the concerned employees.  And when pension is paid from the date of retirement, the contributions levied on the basis of the Joint Note becomes refundable to them.

  Your expert advice was amending regulation 28 on “superannuation pension” with the new proviso postulating that all employees who ceased to be in service on account of Voluntary Retirement Scheme shall be entitled to join Pension Fund effective from 29.09.1995 which makes such employees eligible to superannuation pension from the date following the date of their retirement.  The amendment makes it explicit that as a consequential benefit, all employees who retired through VRS shall be entitled to superannuation pension from the date following their date of retirement making imperative the refund of the contributions raised to the Pension Fund back by the Bank. The averment made in the explanatory memorandum to the effect that the retrospective effect to the amendments shall not adversely affect the interest of any person is also mandating that the clauses 3 (b) and clause 8 (b) of the notification shall not be operative.

You are aware that banks had not implemented the Bank Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 1998  notified with the sole purpose of granting options to those who missed it when the regulation  22 (4) (b) contained the  penal clause for forfeiture of past service.  This amendment is in force and cannot be repealed as it had become part of the Pension Scheme and it was when an option was remaining due that another option on unlawful terms were granted through the Joint Note, duping all the beneficiaries of the Pension Amendment Regulations 1998.

Now, in spite of Supreme Court ruling dated 13.02.2018 ruled in Civil Appeal No.5525 of 2012 viz. Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. G Palani & Ors where it was held that the Joint Note has no basis and the Regulations are binding and also that the Joint Note could not have supplanted any of the provisions of the Regulations, you are sitting like a donkey without advising the IBA to pay heed to the ruling, exposing it to the wrath of the Courts for contempt of Court too. I am starting to compile a book on you and IBA and will be coming out with it to make it a best seller and can be given to all in the banking circle.   I can also publish a write up in the social media also so that people come to know your exemplary service to your fellow beings and to the society.  In the meantime, as a gesture of good will, I give you a chance to let me know if you have any intentions to undo the wrongs done and to get transformed into a regular human being. Dated this the 10th day of February, 2019 Thanks and regards,
Yours faithfully,
  C N VENUGOPALAN
To
Mr. S K KAKKAR , SENIOR CONSULTANT, INDIAN B_____ ASSOCIATION
MUMBAI