New Model Google Ad

Friday, September 22, 2017

Good Initiative By Ex-Banker

C N VENUGOPALAN  Former Director ( GOI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore & Ex Manager Union Bank of India
 “Nandanam”, Kesari Junction, North Paravur, Kerala -683 513   
Mob: 9447747994    
E – Mail:
No.170826                                                                                                                26th August, 2017

The Hon’ble Minister of State for Finance,
Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi – 110 001

Through: State President, Bharatiya Janatha Party, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 

Respected Minister, 

A better lease of life for bankers and retired bankers in India by the government

Bankers and bank pensioners in India had been a deprived lot for the past many years. Though they are the people who translate all financial policies of the government into reality thus  actively participating in the process of nation building, they are denied adequate compensation for labour and pension. Even the statutorily vested benefits and pension are denied to them though the payment is out of their own money. 

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.


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.


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.   


Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Are Bank Staff Cheated ?

Present status of Insurance Policy and Renewal :
We find that there is no consistency in the approach of this insurance company/ broking firm  in dealing with retirees.
In the first year they refused to honour their commitment to give domiciliary benefits to the retirees despite signing specific settlement with IBA to do so.
In the second year they introduced domiciliary benefits scheme   on restorative basis that too for extra premium unlike employees where domiciliary benefits continued to be unlimited with no extra premium while it is specifically written in the settlement that group insurance policy will be available to retirees on same terms and conditions and on  same premium.
Now in third year, they have increased the premium by 400 hindered per cent. We are also  unable to understand and appreciate business policy of insurance company/ broking firm not to discuss/ take feedback from our organisation who represent more than 1.6 lakhs retirees who use the scheme  and pay for it before finalising renewal.
In coming years, Insurance company may increase premium again by 200 or 400
After all , who will stop them ?
Rise in Premiums – One problem with cashless policies stems from their requiring no payment from the policyholder. As a result, the policyholder tends to go not merely to a good hospital, but to an expensive one. The idea is that since he is not required to make any payment, he might as well get the best (or most expensive) treatment. The disadvantage is that this could lead to the insurer saddling the insured with higher premiums in the future. This risk does not hold for reimbursement policies, where the insured chooses affordable healthcare providers because the initial payments come from his own pocket.
I had warned when medical insurance scheme in lieu of bank's own Hospitalisation scheme was in proposal stage in 2013 -14 . Now insurance company is demanding 400% rise in premium from retirees and reportedly 200% jump in that of working staff. It means retirees are facing the worst outcome of mischievous medical insurance policy and there is no doubt to me that in near future, even working staff as well as their parent bank will face and experience the evil consequences of said medical health insurance scheme. Premium will undoubtedly be increased every year by insurer to make difficult for bank and bank staff to bear with the burden and inherent evil acts under the umbrella of insurance.
Blunder was committed during last bipartite settlement. Now every year, insurance companies will increase premium rate and force you to come out of it. Insurer will get business at the cost of bank staff. Hospitals will prepare bill for nothing, inflate amount of bill to great extent. Staff will be operated without need of it. Hospitals will get huge business at the cost of bank staff. All these nuisance will surface as monster as time passes.
Bank management i.e the employer itself has become careless of its own staff, they themselves became looters of their staff , how it is imaginable that hospitals and insurers will take care if bank staff. When protectors become destructor, damage is certain. This was told by great writer Munsi Premchand long ago.
Trade union leaders who signed on suicidal bipartite settlement last time i.e. in the year 2014- 15 now shed Crocodile tears in sympathy of suffering staff.
They experience little pain because retirees are the most sufferer of whimsical and sharp rise in premium announced by insurance companies . They are not going to be affected even if retirees die crying in pain. They will face the music only when they themselves or working staff or senior officials become victim of mischievous insurer and mischievous hospitals working in nexus with each other.
It is not too late even now. If we forget we are retiree or working, bank staff altogether raise a protest against this culture of mediclaim type insurance scheme currently in force , our union leaders called as our well-wishers and protectors may insist for restoration of erstwhile hospitalisation scheme in ongoing Bipartite Settlement talks with Indian Bank Association IBA. In such case, many staff will save them from unwarranted surgical operation on their body and get justified and unavoidable surgery only, bank will save crores of rupees.
As of now bank management , working staff and trade union leaders think that they are gainer because they need not pay the premiums even if it is increased or decreased. Their time and mental energy is not consumed in processing of hospital bills submitted by staff. But when they will witness cruelty of doctors in hi-fi hospitals and mischievous act of insurer they will realise their guilt, but when it is too late.
Let us pray God that they ( bank management and trade union leaders both acting as protectors ) are blessed with sound wisdom .
This is time that a national level, bank level and branch level discussion starts to assess pros and cons of present health insurance scheme imposed on bank staff by bank management during last bipartite settlement .

Please read my recent blog which highlight how insurance companies have announced sharp rise in premiums recoverable from bank staff , working as well as retirees.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Insurance Premium Increased 400%

AIBRF letter to IBA.
                                                                                                                        Ref:2017/98                                                     Date:18.09.2017

    The Chief Executive
    Indian Banks’ Association

    Dear Sir
                   Re: Renewal Premium for UIICL Group Policy covering
                          Domiciliary Benefits for Retirees for 2017-18
                  Re: Steep Increase
    We find from UIICL Letter no UIIC/ACELL/PCS/803/2017 dated
    13.09.2017 addressed to you advising the renewal premium to be
    charged to the retirees for 2017-18.

2. We are shocked to find to there is almost 400 per cent hike in insurance premium for domiciliary facility for retirees . According to insurance company own  statement claim ratio for domiciliary facility has gone up to 200 per cent. We are unable to understand as how insurance company can increase premium by 400 per cent for domiciliary when claim  has only doubled. Many of the retirees , in particular family pensioners, pre-1986 retirees and those retired prior to 2002 can just not afford payment of hefty premium of 36998/ 277750 for renewal of policy. It is beyond their capacity. We are also unable to understand as to why such steep increase in case of retirees only  when there is no increase in premium for employees with domiciliary benefits that too for entire family for 2107-2018.

3. We find that there is no consistency in the approach of this insurance company/ broking firm  in dealing with retirees. As you are aware, in the first year they refused to honour their commitment to give domiciliary benefits to the retirees despite signing specific settlement with IBA to do so. Second year they introduced domiciliary benefits scheme   on restorative basis that too for extra premium unlike employees where domiciliary benefits continued to be unlimited with no extra premium while it is specifically written in the settlement that group insurance policy will be available to retirees on same terms and conditions and on  same premium. Now in third year, they have increased the premium by 400 hindered per cent. We are also  unable to understand and appreciate business policy of insurance company/ broking firm not to discuss/ take feedback from our organisation who represent more than 1.6 lakhs retirees who use the scheme  and pay for it before finalising renewal.

4. We humbly request you  to prevail upon UIICL to withdraw increase in premium for domiciliary benefits before you advise member banks to implement the renewal scheme.
                        With Warm Regards,    
                                                                          Yours Sincerely,

                                                                       ( S.C.JAIN)
                                                                GENERAL SECRETARY

Monday, September 18, 2017

Progress In Renewal Of Insurance


(Affiliated to AIBEA)
PNB House, Sir. P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
Mobile : 9821 227 337 Phone no: 2266 1263 / 2262 7566


Dear Comrades,

We reproduce herebelow full text of the letter dtd 18th Sept 2017 addressed to Chairman IBA regarding Group Medical Insurance Policy by Com C H Venkatachalam, General Secretary, AIBEA for the information of our members.
With greetings,
Yours comradely,
(Anil V Prabhu)
General Secretary _______________

AIBEA/GS/2017/88                             18-9-2017
Indian Banks' Association

Dear Sir,
Reg: Group Medical Insurance Policy

As you are aware, the Group Medical Insurance Policy for the employees and officers is due for renewal from 1st October, 2017 and we learn that IBA has already advised the Banks for remitting the premium to UIIC for this purpose.  We note that there is no change in the premium charged by UIIC.

Similarly, the Policy for the retirees is due for renewal from 1-11-2017.  We learn that UIIC has advised IBA in this regard and while there is no change in the premium for the retirees' Policy (without OPD), the premium for the Policy with OPD has been increased substantially as under. 

For Retirees' Policy   Premium          Premium

with OPD                    for 2016-17    for 2017-18

Workman retirees      Rs. 14,950       Rs. 27,750

Officer Retirees          Rs. 20,010       Rs. 36,998

We feel that this hike in premium rate by UIIC is not only arbitrary but also very steep.  Matter needs to be taken up by IBA with UIIC for review and reconsideration.  We seek your intervention in the matter.

Top Up Policy for employees in service:  

Similarly, the UIIC letter to IBA also includes a Top Up scheme for the serving employees. The top Up Policy for the retirees is understandable as the scheme does not provide any buffer cover. 

But you are aware that UIIC Policy for serving employees/officers also includes a buffer coverage amount (Rs.70 crores for the year 2016-17) beyond the sum assured and the proposed Top Up facility will dilute the scheme to that extent.  Proper clarity and understanding is required on this aspect.

Since the Scheme is bilaterally settled, we urge upon you to inform UIIC that such unilateral decisions are not acceptable and any change in the Scheme needs to be mutually discussed and finalised between IBA and Unions before UIIC can make any change in the same. 

Seeking your personal attention and urgent intervention.

Yours faithfully,

⁠⁠⁠I am posting copy of message received by me on social sites 

Fwd: Medical Insurance Renewal
From: S.S.Vasan
Date: Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 9:56 PM
Subject: Medical Insurance Renewal
*You are all aware that the Retiree Medical Policies are due for renewal on
1st November 2017.*

*The letter of UIIC Ltd., addressed to IBA detailing the renewal quotes is
attached for your benefit.*
*Kindly go through completely and decide your requirements. The options
should be communicated to the Bank  (as prescribed by them)once the
circular is received. (In the coming few days).*

The Gist of the Circular is given below for your ready reference:

*Renewal premium for *
1. Hospitalization Policy (without Domiciliary) Rs. 16443/-
*2. Renewal Quotes for policy with Domiciliary cover  Rs.31354 +GST=Rs.
3. Top-up Policy of Rs 5/- lacs premium Rs. 3225+GST=3806/-
4. One more option to  retirees only for hospitalisation policy.
*5. Retirees who opted for Domiciliary Cover last year can opt out now, if
they so desire.*
*6. Retirees who have not opted for Domicilairy Cover last year cannot opt
for now.*
*7. Existing Employees who retired during 2016-17 can opt for policy with
or without Domiciliary cover*

*Sri R Rajendra Babu, our Governing Council Member has prepared a good
Insight into the Medical Insurance Renewal.*
*The  same is reproduced below which will be of immense help in firming up
your decision in this regard:*


*In insurance cover, particularly while opting for Health Policy, we should
not calculate whether the payment of Premium is profitable for us or not.
With advancing age, the chances of falling sickness (whether domiciliary or
hospitalisation) is greater in future. So let us all be practical. *

*Another point is, if you have already the Domiciliary cover and if you
don't renew it now, due to cost factor, then you will not get this cover
again if required on a later date. The condition to be eligible for
Domiciliary Cover is to ensure its continuous renewal without a break.*

*Similarly, with regard to Top-up cover, as the medical expenses are
becoming too expensive for availing a decent and best treatment by
specialists, the present Hospitalisation cover of Rs. 4 lakhs is definitely
inadequate. If we can opt for Top-up Policy (that too from the same
Insurance Company), settling medical bills will be less cumbersome in
future to claim reimbursement.*

*There are some Retirees, particularly VRS Retirees, who may be already
having some other Policy (under Baroda Health or similar Policy), beside
the current Hospitalisation Policy of UIIC for Retirees, since they are not
eligible for contributory Medical Scheme of our bank. Now question arises
whether to continue with such Policy or not, if opted for Top-up Policy
also. This decision is left to the individual concerned. Now if the Retiree
feels present Hospitalisation cover of Rs.4 lakhs PLUS Top up Policy of Rs
5 lakhs (ie totally a cover of Rs.9 lakhs under Hospitalisation) is more
than enough for future hospitalisation expenses, they need not renew the
Baroda Health or similar Policy AFTER opting for Top up Policy.*

*However, there is a Ryder here. If there is an assurance from IBA / Bank
that the present Medical Scheme for Bank Retirees along with Top up cover
WILL CONTINUE FOREVER, then we can boldly take a decision of discontinuing
Baroda Health or similar Policy. However since the present Medical
Insurance  Scheme to Retirees is subject to renewal every year, the
uncertainty of renewal as well as the uncertainty in likely 'future'
premium amount hang on our heads forever. For argument sake, in case, UIIC
or any other Insurance Company refuses to come forward to extend this
Scheme to Bank Retirees, we cannot thereafter approach any Insurance
Company for a fresh Medical Policy since (i) 85% - 90% of us would have
crossed the age limit to be eligible for a fresh Policy by then, (ii) the
premium will be prohibitively very high for individuals AND (iii) there
will be a 'pre-existing disease' clause which may make the Policy useless
for a few years when we require reimbursement  desperately.*

*Hence my sincere suggestion is: (i) Please continue with the present
Policy with Domiciliary cover as long as it is in force (whatever may be
the premium for Domiciliary cover). (ii) DON'T HESITATE to opt for Top-up
cover when offered by the present Insurance Company. (iii) If you are
having any Policy under Baroda Health Scheme or similar Policy, DON'T
discontinue altogether after taking Top-up Policy. Due to factors explained
above, you can continue the existing Policy with some minimum Policy amount
of say, Rs 2 or 3 lakhs as a cushion to fall back upon, if any contingency

*My assessment is that UIIC will continue to extend Top up Policy, since
the claims will likely be very much less under this category and will be
naturally  profitable to UIIC.*

*Finally in conclusion, please remember, we cannot avoid payment of Medical
Insurance Premium out of Pension altogether as a wasteful expenditure and
discontinue hastily, since it is an unavoidable one considering our age,
living conditions and future uncertainty with anyone's health issues.*
*The members in this group can take this debate forward for the common
benefit of all so that all can have clear cut idea and make up their minds
by the time the Bank issues the Circular for renewal."*

Rest in Next,
With Regards,
Let Us be in TOUCH,
With Regards,

Post the merger with SBI, discontent brewing among associate bank staff-Hindu Business Line

Stata Bank of India’s mega merger with its associate banks, announced on April 1 this year, has been anything but smooth for some of the latter’s employees. Officers and clerks working for the erstwhile associate banks feel they have been given a raw deal with several instances of arbitrary transfers and many officers losing out on their seniority post the transfer.
“We are being treated as second-class citizens at SBI. The management has not been hearing the issues being raised by us. We are hopeful of a solution with the management without having to go to the courts,” said KS Krishna, former General Secretary, State Bank of Travancore Employees Union.The Associate Bank Officer’s Association (ABOA), Hyderabad unit, had moved the court in April this year highlighting issues related to PF, allowances, increments, and rate of interest benefit (staff loans) not being extended to associate bank employees.
A senior official of the association said the employees are facing increased working hours as the servers at SBI are unable to handle the traffic, and they (the staff) are still adjusting to the new working conditions.The Hyderabad High Court, in its interim order dated April 10, 2017, had directed State Bank of India not to finalise options available to the employees till June 15.
To read more 

No hike in base premium for group medical insurance for bank staff-01.9.2017indu Business Line 

( This news differs with what has been mentioned in above two mail/letter)

The managing committee of the Indian Banks' Association (IBA) has approved a proposal for renewal of the group medical insurance scheme for award staff and officers.The renewed policy with United India Insurance will be effective for another one year from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018 on the existing terms and conditions and without an increase in base premium.
This was stated in a communication from the Human Resources and Industrial Relations Department of IBA to chief executives of member banks, which are parties to the 10th bipartite settlement /joint note dated May 25, 2015.This was after United India Insurance agreed to the proposal after taking into consideration the expected incurred claims ratio (ICR) as on September 30, 2017, which would be around 107 per cent.
As such, the premium for renewal of employees would be as under:
Award staff: Sum insured - Rs. 3 lakh; premium without GST - Rs. 10,452; GST@18 per cent - Rs. 1,881; gross premium payable per family (inclusive of GST) - Rs. 12,333.
Officers: Sum insured - Rs. 4 lakh; premium without GST - Rs. 13,935; GST@18 per cent - Rs. 2,508; gross premium payable per family (inclusive of GST) - Rs. 16,443.
Link to News item Published in Hindu Business Line


Union Petroleum, Natural Gas and Skill Development Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on Wednesday wrote a letter to Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, requesting him to implement pension scheme for retirees of the Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) of India like the ones in other commercial banks.

Pradhan in his letter said that as per the petitioner a tribunal award in this respect in 1991 has not been implemented. The Jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and the Karnataka High Court have passed orders in favour of the RRB staff in the year 2011 and 2012 respectively with regard to pension and a writ petition has also been filed in the Supreme Court.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Breaking News On Payment Of Gratuity

The Union Cabinet Chaired by Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi has cleared / approved the introduction of the payment of Gratuity Bill (amendment ) 2017 in the Parliament.

The amendment proposed by cabinet will increase the maximum limit of gratuity for government employees from Rs.10.00 lac to Rs.20 lacs and also revise the ceiling for employees in the private sector, in PSU  / autonomous organisations under the government who are not covered under CCS(pension) rules, at par with the central government employees.

Before the implementation of the 7th Central Pay Commission, the ceiling under CCS (pension) rules 1972 was Rs.10.lacs. However with the implementation of 7th Central Pay Commission , in case of government servants , the ceiling now is Rs.20 lacs effective from 1.1.2016

Now the process of increasing the ceiling has been initiated and we have to wait till it is passed by the Parliament and it becomes an act .

Details of the bill is not yet clear and hence it is not crystal clear whether the proposed amendment will be w.e.f. 01.01.2016 or it will be from a later date .We are not yet clear whether tax exemption limit will also be increased simultaneously .Let us however remain positive till its final picture emerges.

Economic Times news writes following line 
The Centre today approved an amendment bill that seeks to double tax-free gratuity for formal sector employees to Rs 20 lakh. 

In addition to it , GOI cleared a 1% increase in Dearness Allowance to central government employees and pensioners . The government increased Dearness Allowance and Dearness Relief to 5% from 4%, which will benefit around 49.26 lakh central government employees and 61.17 lakh pensioners.

Link To Hindustan Times

Another similar message on Facebook is as follows 

Ministry of Labour & Employment12-September, 2017 16:54 IST
Cabinet approves introduction of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2017 in the Parliament
The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given its approval for introduction of the Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Bill, 2017 in the Parliament.
The Amendment will increase the maximum limit of gratuity of employees, in the private sector and in Public Sector Undertakings/ Autonomous Organizations under Government who are not covered under CCS (Pension) Rules, at par with Central Government employees.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 applies to establishments employing 10 or more persons. The main purpose for enacting this Act is to provide social security to workmen after retirement, whether retirement is a result of the rules of superannuation, or physical disablement or impairment of vital part of the body. Therefore, the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is an important social security legislation to wage earning population in industries, factories and establishments.
The present upper ceiling on gratuity amount under the Act is Rs. 10 Lakh. The provisions for Central Government employees under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with regard to gratuity are also similar. Before implementation of 7th Central Pay Commission, the ceiling under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was Rs. 10 Lakh. However, with implementation of 7th Central Pay Commission, in case of Government servants, the ceiling now is Rs. 20 Lakhs effective from 1.1.2016.
Therefore, considering the inflation and wage increase even in case of employees engaged in private sector, the Government is of the view that the entitlement of gratuity should be revised for employees who are covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Accordingly, the Government initiated the process for amendment to Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

LiveMint says
Accordingly, the government initiated the process for amendment to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which applies to establishments employing 10 or more persons. The main purpose for enacting this Act is to provide social security to workmen after retirement, whether it is because of rules of superannuation, or physical disablement or impairment of vital parts of the body. Therefore, the Gratuity Act serves as a key social security legislation to wage earners in industries, factories and establishments

Monday, September 11, 2017

Think About Importance of Education System

I am once again submitting my letter written to many offices in August 2015 . Subject of the letter was that Allahabad High Court order had given order  to the then government in the state of Uttar Pradesh in the month of August 2015  that the Chief Secretary should ensure that children of all government officials are admitted to government run school within a time frame of six months. This ruling of the court had given rise to several debates and prolonged discussions to assess whether court order was proper , or court crossed its limit etc. 

Had our government taken required steps to bring about changes in the education system in the country , we could not have witnessed incident like killing of Class 2 student Praduman in Ryan International School Gurgaon or cases of rapes of minor students in other schools or that of giving higher marks to students who write nothing on copy and giving zero to students who write correct answer. We could have changed the culture of students . 

Merely distributing degrees without imparting proper knowledge and moral values, will spoil the future of India if not proper steps are taken immediately to stop further erosion in values.

UP Government had terminated the services of the teacher  in August 2015 who had filed PIL in Allahabad Court against pathetic position of primary education in the state of Uttar Pradesh and based on which the High Court issued order to UP government to ensure that wards of all public servants are admitted only in Government Schools within a timeframe of six months. This historic order of High Court  has brought the Government in a worrisome and awkward  situation where Compliance of court order is equally dangerous than non-compliance of the same. 

Government had taken a suicidal step by terminating the teacher who had filed PIL against government. This step tantamount to not only contempt of court but absolute disregard of court. It proves that the government is neither worried about poor quality of education nor about the moral duty of putting court order in action in true spirit. 

I think this step will prove to be a last nail in the coffin  of UP government led by Samajwadi Party. I of strong view that parent of children of UP state who are real victim of pathetic position of primary or higher education in the state should revolt and teach a lesson to UP government . The may unite and come out with a mass rally or vote against the party in coming election.

If people of UP remain silent spectator of wrong step taken by UP government , there is no doubt that clever politicians ruling the state will opt for knocking the door of Supreme Court or pass a law nullifying court order. Already state of UP is victim of law and order problem and UP police has completely failed to protect the life of common men . 

Political transfers, unabated killings of innocent by mafia, beating by police at behest of political masters  ,inaction on rising incidents of rapes have already made the public sufferer and looser  by giving SP power to rule. 
I am fully confident that voters will not commit blunder by re-electing SP to power in forthcoming election.

Here it is proper to mention that voters of UP has removed SP from power and given power in the hands of BJP. I hope position of educational institute will improve not only in UP but also in other states. And this is possible if central government learn lesson from all past incidents which shook the confidence of parent of children admitted in these schools, private or government.

In the year 2015 I had written to all offices following lines but no one took care of it. 

Allahabad High Court has given order to Uttar Pradesh Government to ensure that children of Government servants are admitted only in government run schools. Some people who want to take care of their children are treating this order of Apex court as encroachment in their fundamental right of choosing place of education as per their will and choice. Some legal experts consider the said order as judicial outreach. 

Public servants think that career of their children will be spoiled if they are forced to send them in government run schools only. These clever, corrupt and immoral persons know very well that it is they who have looted these temples of education in the name of freedom , in the name of democracy, in the name of caste, in the name of minority or secularism and in the name of fundamental rights. 

Half a century ago, there used to be government run schools, hospitals and airlines only and comparatively these institutions used to serve better then . Because options of private schools used to be negligible. People used to trust only government run schools, hospitals and all .Trust level of these institutions have faced severe erosion since 1991 when our own government started giving more value to private sector in the name of privatisation and to conceal their evil work. These people propagated a line of privatisation so that their evil work and loot of public money is not exposed . Otherwise Government run schools were not as bad as they are now.

Logically it is rightly suggested by a class of intelligent people that court should make effort first to reform the existing system . They say that court should first give order for improving the quality of these schools and then force their child to be admitted in such schools. Otherwise it is encroachment in their fundamental right. 

But the question is who will come first. First egg will come or first Hen will come. It is true that wards of judges should also be admitted in government run schools. Here essence of the judgement is that if children of public servants as also that of politicians are admitted in such schools, they will honestly work for good quality education in these schools. On a broader spectrum , if these servants treat entire country as own family, entire system will improve .We find pathetic position all where , in all offices , in all schools and colleges wherever government has control , directly or indirectly , partially or fully. Because there is no patriotism anywhere . 

People in government job or politicians who rule this country treat all these places as scope for earning wealth for their family. Heavy fund is spent on such Government schools on papers , but major chunk of it is lost in pilferage and taken away by public servants including politicians.

Appointment of teachers and supporting staff are done not on the basis of merit but on the basis of underhand dealings or value of recommendation the candidate is able to bring to ensure selection for the post. If a teacher is appointed, , merit is not seen in him , potential and capacity of teaching in the person is not assessed, , only thing in mind of selector team remains who has recommended for his appointment and what money he is ready to offer in lieu of job. Quality is not given any significance in any of government  offices. 

This is why private schools, private hospitals , private airlines , private banks are getting recognition in the minds of all parents. And government t run places are meant and used for parking poor and weaker persons only. 

As such when public servants are forced to send their child to government run schools, these public servants will definitely take all possible care to provide education better in government schools than that provided by private schools. 

Further it is to be kept in mind that in our country , it is only judiciary outreach which helps in improving condition in any sphere of life. Politicians and public servants do not have time for giving value to their moral and religious duty towards citizen of India . They play caste or communal cards to win the election . They are least bothered of poor or quality of performance. And it is ironical that their such cards get success many times in election. .Even religion has failed to motivate these greedy people to serve mankind honestly . People fight in the name of religion, fight for saving religion, riot in the name of religious pundits or temples or masjids but do not follow preaching and principles of religion honestly and truely. 

As such when court has given a ruling , even if it appears that judiciary has surpassed its jurisdiction , it must be honoured , respected and given all weightage. 

Why not we think , Why court has thought it better to go beyond their judicial area , why do they think it necessary to encroach in legislative and administrative powers . Do you think that judges who deliver such orders do not know the law and do not understand the spirit of these laws. They know what the Constitution say and they know the condition prevalent in outside world. It is good luck that at least court has taken cognizance of pathetic position of government run schools and suggested a small step which in the long run may help in improvement of these poorly run schools, hospitals, and other offices.

Those who are engaged in debate to decide whether the court order is good or bad, constitutional or unconstitutional, within power or outreach should think why there is continuous deterioration in quality of teachings in government run schools. Why educated youth do not want to accept the job of a teacher if he or she has other option available . Why there is a mad rush to become an engineer or a doctor or a management expert? Why a educated person prefer even a job of a peon or waiter in a hotel or a cleaner in an office than to become teacher? Why youth who do not get job elsewhere and who is constrained to go for teaching, he or she try to go for teaching in a private school? 

Further , those who are engaged in debate over said court order ,do not think that cost of education in private schools right from kids schools to schools for higher studies has gone up to such a high extent that poor or even upper middle class cannot afford. It is hardly five percent of population who can afford costly education for their wards in reputed private schools. Why do they not talk of their fundamental right of education because admission in private schools is slowly and gradually going beyond their reach and affordability. 

Million dollar question is after all why people do not want to send their children to government schools for education? 
Why do they no like to get treatment of their sick kith and kin in government hospitals? 
Why do they not like to fly by Indian airlines? 
Why do they not like to have account and business in public bank? 
Why do they not like to buy goods produced by Indian companies and prefer imported goods? 
Why do Indian talent prefer working in USA , UK and abroad but not for Indian Companies? And so on..

I therefore not only justify the judicial order of Allahabad Court directing UP government to force public servants to send their children to Government schools only, I like to request courts to give order directing public servants to get treatment of them and their family embers only in Government run hospitals. Bills pertaining to treatment in private nursing homes or private hospitals should not be paid from Government fund. Rather public servants opting for treatment in private hospitals should be punished and penalised.

I like to request courts to direct all public servants, ministers and politicians to fly by Indian Airlines only and to buy goods produced by public sector undertakings in preference to multi-national companies.

Last but not the least , media men who are wasting time in conducting debates on their TV channels to decide whether the said court order in as per Constitution or not should stop such debates on focus on point whether the said court order is helpful and good for common men? 

Media men should debate why political class who ruled this country for seven decades failed to protect the quality of public utility services like education, medical care , transportation , roads etc ? They should debate whether rulers of this country who ruled this country for seven long decades performed their duty as per wishes and ambitions of our great Constitution and great Constitution makers. 

Media men should debate whether executive and legislative wing of the country is performing well and whether they are not encroaching fundamental rights of common men? 

And lastly whether media men are made and meant for projecting only negative sides of all events, all acts , all individuals, all institutions and all rules, laws and policies.

Whey media men point out their accusing fingers towards Allahabad court order directly or through participants chosen by them , they should also try to know what is happening in other developed countries like USA.

Education in the United States is provided by public schools and private schools.About 87% of school-age children attend public schools, about 10% attend private schools, and more than 3% are homeschooled. 

State governments set overall educational standards, often mandate standardized tests for K-12 public school systems, and supervise, usually through a board of regents, state colleges and universities. Funding comes from the state, local, and federal government. Education provided to all American s is not only free but also mandatory and of high quality standards.

Education in USA is compulsory over an age range starting between five and eight and ending somewhere between ages sixteen and eighteen, depending on the state. This requirement can be satisfied in public schools, state-certified private schools, or an approved home school program. 

The United States spends more per student on education than any other country. American students rank 14th worldwide in cognitive skills, just behind Russia.On the other hand, of the top ten colleges and universities in the world, eight are American. (The other two are Oxford and Cambridge, in the United Kingdom.)

Why India spend so little on education and why the government is so much negligent on performance and teaching standard in these schools which forced Allahabad High Court to go beyond their jurisdiction .

Use This Safe Link To Buy Goods Of Your Choice