Letter to Rajya Sabha 6th June, 2006

C N Venugopalan Ex- Manager, Union Bank of India	“ Nandanam” Kesari Junction North Paravoor Kerala – 683 513
Phone No. 0484 2447994 Mobile: 9447747994

The Secretary General, 6^th June, 2005

Council of States (Rajya Sabha),

Parliament Street,

New Delhi- 100 001

Sir,

Petition against Discrimination

I am enclosing a Petition dated 5^th April 2005 against infringement of Fundamental Right involving discrimination of a section of employee in Banking Industry for screening and for making appropriate recommendations to the concerned Ministry for remedial action. The victims were living a decent standard of life during their tenure as Bank Employees / Officers. They are now deserted in life on retirement sans regular Income as they donot get their legimimate Pension, a right the Constitution guaranantees as Fundamental Right. The escalating cost of living and spiralling prices render them at cross roads. They are unable to make both ends meet when the institutions they nurtured are flourighing well as a result of their endeavours and ignore the contributions they made. They are denied Pension in the name of an option, which the Employers made them to exercise. Shri. Thennala G Balakrishna Pillai, Member of Rajya Sabha has countersigned the petition, certifying it as a matter appropriate for consideration of the House. The matter in nutshell is as follows:

1. Managements of Banks asked the employees to exercise option, once while circulating the draft Pension Scheme and later while circulating stabilised Pension Scheme, before the year 1995.
2. Stabililised Pension Scheme, in variance with the draft Pension Scheme, contained a penal clause providing for forfeiture of past service for participation in strike even for a single day.
3. On account of the penal clause, many who exercised Irrevocable Option for Pension Scheme in response to draft Pension Scheme came out of the Scheme and others who wanted to join the Pension Scheme did not join it before the time frame fixed for option because of the penal clause.
4. The penal clause was removed from Pension Regulations on 27 02 1999. The Banks, which had a legal onus of extending a fresh chance of option in the wake of the deletion of the said clause to those who did not join the scheme solely because of the penal clause, did not extend the same so far.
5. Banks inflicted gross injutice upon employees who remained in PF Scheme by not granting them fresh option and Pension. Pension therefore happened to be a consideration for exercising an option and not for past services rendered.
6. The Pension, which the Banks pay now, is also in gross variance of the Pension Regulations. The penal clause, which was removed from the Pension Regulations on 27 02 1999 with prospective effect only, was in full force and effect from the commencement of the Scheme till the time of its deletion. The retired employees who are now given pension have participated in several strike actions during the period from 01 01 1986, entailing forfeiture of service for participation in strike in terms of Pension Regulations. The Pensions Banks make now is hence inconsistent with the Pension Regulations.
7. Creation of two segments of employees with two different pay packets – One with Pension benefits and the other with Contributory Provident benefit - among employees doing the same work without any intelligent intrepretation resulted in gross discrimination of a section of employees. This discrimination is opposed to statute and to natural justice

I request that the petition may kindly be examined and placed before the House for discussion and forwarding to the concerned Ministry for removal of the injustice. I eanestly request you to kindly acknolwedge the petition and itnimate the status / disposal in due course.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully,

C N Venugopalan