Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Letter to Chairman on Gr. B Direct Recruitment


NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (NBOA)
        C/O NABARD, HO,   BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
                                
                                                      
No.NBOA.MUM/156B/2011-12                     13 December 2011

The Chairman
NABARD
Mumbai


Dear Sir,

                  Direct Recruitment of Grade 'B' officers

We understand that the bank is reportedly in the process of recruiting direct Grade 'B' officers. In this connection we draw your kind attention to the following facts-

1.        The bank has recruited, through rigorous recruitment process, as many as 415 officers in grade 'A' in the last 3 years and all of them are highly qualified and their capabilities are in consonance with the organisational needs as prescribed and laid down by NABARD. Similarly the remaining 161 grade 'A' officers are not only aptly qualified but also carry with them rich experience of NABARDs' functioning and operations.
2.        That, there are already 843 grade 'B' officers in bank in comparison to 576 grade 'A' officers. Further increasing the Grade 'B' strength will create a still bigger bulge in the hierarchical pyramid structure of the organisation, which is a serious cause of worry for NBOA and management.
3.        It would lead to chocking of career progression prospects of all the 576 grade 'A' officers working in NABARD, of which 75 % are below 30 years of age and would lead to a situation akin to that prevailing today in the organisation which has occurred more or less due to direct recruitment of grade 'B' officers way back during 1984-1987 and the inconsistent recruitment pattern followed by the bank.
4.        While discussing the current wage settlement in the month of October/November 2010, the ex-chairman, Sri U.C. Sarangi and the then MD, Dr. K.G. Karmakar have given a solemn assurance to NBOA that like in the past so many years the lateral entry of officers in grade 'B' and above shall not be resorted to and the recruitment of officers from the open market shall be continued to be at the base level i.e. at grade 'A' level only. As such, any deviation from the agreed upon principles during the tenure of the current charter of demands may please be avoided as a matter of good governance.
NBOA, therefore, once again requests you, not to resort to direct recruitment of officers at Grade 'B' or above levels so as to not jeopardize the career prospects of our own officers. Incidentally, the organisational needs can well be taken care-off by the existing pool of officers or by recruiting officers in grade 'A' of desired level and competence.

Yours Sincerely,

(Dr.D.S.Chauhan)
General Secretary

Appeal to Gr. C officers on PP

APPEAL  
Dear Officer ,

 This has reference to the PPP scheme launched by the bank on 05/12/2011 and which is being made applicable to you. It is an optional scheme and NBOA would like to request to you to give a thought to the following aspects before you opt or do not opt for this particular scheme-


1. The Personal Promotion Policy as introduced by the bank is highly discriminatory in nature, as PP in all other grades of services is grade-tenure based and it also doesn't requires an officer to forgo his/her career progression too. Is it justice that a class of officers who have already suffered the most in NABARD and whose contribution in building NABARD block by block is less to none are being subjected to this ignominy


2. More so, the PP scheme in its present form will not serve any organisational purpose too as neither it would contribute to 'age correction' in grade 'D' nor it would ease the problem of stagnation in grade 'C' , may be it would contribute in creating another category of officers year after year , who would deem themselves to be good for nothing. Sir, will it be Good for 'TEAM NABARD' ?


3. In our opinion and as already submitted to NABARD, HRMD both in written as well as verbal dispositions, the likely solution to this vexed problem is to-
Introduce a one time measure of upgradation of posts in grade 'D' for all those officers who have completed 10 years of services in the grade 'C'. The repestive upgraded post in grade 'D' shall cease to exist as and when the concerned officer demits the office or gets further promotion.
Introduce a VRS scheme in all grades, including, grade 'C' and upwards.
Create additional posts in grade 'D' consequent upon the emerging organisational needs as has been outlined by NBOA and on which basis even the agenda was placed to BoD and board has not turned it down, instead has asked for some more information before taking a decision on the issue. Ironically, the management has chosen not to resubmit the proposal to the BoDs.

4. Furthermore, the scheme intends to give a clear cut message to a set of eligible officer that it has been decided by the bank not to promote them, howsoever good they may be, just because they have languished for too many years in grade 'C' for no fault of theirs ?

5. Will you like to submit to bank that you have accepted that you are not a deserving candidate for promotion in lieu of some meager monetary gains ??

NBOA has already requested the chairman in writing to suitably modify the scheme on lines of the suggestions given above at 3 (A) to (D), bank may accept our request and may not accept it but you as a member do accept our request to give a thought to the above before deciding your fate in the bank which you have so assiduously built over the years.

Yours fraternally,
Sd/-
(General Secretary)

 

Letter to Chairman on introduction of PP to Gr. C


NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
C/O NABARD, HO,
BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX,
MUMBAI
No. NBOA. MUM / 156 A / 2011-12                                          12 December 2011

The Chairman
NABARD
Mumbai

Dear Sir,

Personal Promotion Policy in Grade 'C'

Please refer to HO circular No. PA.6555 dated 05/12/2011 on the captioned subject, a copy of which has been provided to NBOA also . In this connection, we draw your kind attention to the following:

1. The Personal Promotion Policy as introduced by the bank is highly discriminatory in nature , as PP in all other grades of services is grade-tenure based and doesn't requires an officer to forego his/her career progression too. Is it justice that a class of officers who have already suffered the most in NABARD and whose contribution in building NABARD block by block is less to none are being subjected to this ignominy ?

2. The lack of far sight on the part of the bank in recruiting officers in haphazard manner since 1984 onwards (sometimes in 200-300 in one batch and also not recruiting officers for few years at a strech) and resorting to campus recruitment of officers in grade ‘B’ had been the sole reason for officers stagnating at Grade C level for around 12 years.This has been the situation for the last 6/7 years and our frantic appeal to the management to address this issue had not been responded to .The most practicable solution provided by the HR Committee constituted by the bank in 2007 has also not been implemented by the bank despite repeated request by NBOA. Now all on a sudden,the bank decides to make age correction in Grade D by bluntly telling Grade C officers that they are no more desirable in Grade D because they do not have age on their side.The officers community considers this tratment of Grade C officers as most insensitive and devoid of human touch.The officers who have put their best years for this institution are made to feel undesirable and unwanted in this organisation. We strongly resent this sort of treatment to officers.

3. The PP scheme in its present form will not serve any organisational purpose too as neither it would contribute to 'age correction' in grade 'D' nor it would ease the problem of stagnation in grade 'C' , may be it would contribute in creating another category of officers year after year , who would deem themselves to be good for nothing. Sir ,will it be Good for 'TEAM NABARD' ?

4. In our opinion and as already submitted to NABARD , HRMD both in written as well as verbal dispositions , the likely solution to this vexed problem is to-

  1. Introduce a one time measure of up-gradation of posts in grade 'D' for all those officers who have completed 10 years of services in the grade 'C' as recommended by HR Committee with the condition that the respective upgraded post in grade 'D' shall cease to exist as and when the concerned officer demits the office or gets further promotion.
  2. Create additional posts in grade 'D' consequent upon the emerging organisational needs as has been outlined by NBOA and on which basis even the agenda was placed to BoD earlier.Ironically,the management has chosen not to resubmit the proposal to the BoD.
  3. Introduce a VRS scheme in all grades including 'C' and upwards.

5. Further,as already requested on so many occasions we again reiterate our earnest request to you to hold the discussions with NBOA (which is a recognised representative body of all the officers of NABARD) on all the issues pertaining to service conditions of officers, with specific reference to great many changes which bank is doing/contemplating to initiate in light of the Restructuring/repositioning of NABARD as advised by the BCG.

6. Furthermore , we are sure that introduction , if at all , of PP scheme for grade 'C' officers in any form or format shall not be quoted by the bank as an accepted example of deviation from parity in Pay allowances and other service conditions vis-a-vis our parity with RBI is concerned.

Keeping in view the above we request you to put on hold this scheme and implement a comprehensive scheme , broadly on the lines of suggestions outlined above so as to ensure achieving both the organisational needs and requirements as also a dignified level of satisfaction to the officers concerned.

Thanking you

Yours Sincerely ,

(Dr D S chauhan)
General Secretary

Friday, December 2, 2011

Agitation Programme of NBOA

NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ASSOCIATION
C/O NABARD, HO, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX
MUMBAI
A.  LUNCH HOUR DEMONSTRATION ON 02/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS AND SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM TO BE SIGNED BY ALL THE OFFICERS.
 
B.  LETTER TO BE WRITTEN BY NBOA TO ALL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK BY 09/12/2011.
 
C.  LUNCH HOUR DEMONSTRATION ON 09/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS
 
D.  BLACK BADGE WEARING BY ALL THE OFFICERS FROM 12/12/2011 TO 16/12/2011.
E.  LETTER TO ALL THE HON’BLE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY CENTRAL UNIT OF NBOA LATEST BY 26/12/2011.
 
F.  DHARNA BY THE OFFICE-BEARERS FOR ONE HOUR AFTER THE OFFICE HOURS ON 26/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS

G.  DHARNA BY THE OFFICE-BEARERS FOR ONE HOUR BEFORE THE OFFICE HOURS ON 27/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS

H.  CONVEYING OF NATIONAL COUNCIL AT NEW DELHI ON 10/& 11/ 01/2012 TO TAKE THE STOCK OF THE SITUATION AND CHALK OUT FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION.
(NBOA)

Proceedings of CEC Meeting at Mumbai on 24 and 25 November 2011

NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ASSOCIATION
C/O NABARD, HO, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX
MUMBAI

MINUTES

The CEC meeting of NBOA was held on 24/11 & 25/11/2011 at Mumbai. The meeting was chaired by Sri U.K.Mohanty , President , NBOA and was attended by the following CEC members -

S/Shri
1.    D K Majumdar Vice-President
2.   Dr. D S Chauhan General Secretary
3.   Nitin Nerurkar Organising Secretary
4.  A K S Chauhan Treasurer
5.  M Jha Zonal Secretary (E)
6.  V K Pahwa Zonal Secretary (N)
7.  P Pandey Zonal Secretary (C)
8.  A Lokare Zonal Secretary (W)
9.  A. Bajpai EC Member
10. B V Rao EC Member
11.  A Das EC Member
12. Ms. Swati Randive EC Member
13. N C Pareekh Secretary, J&K
14. Sunil Pandey Secretary, Uttrakhand
15. A Shinde Secretary, Karnataka
16. Shankar Das Vice President, West Bengal
17. S Narshimhan Secretary, AP
18. M K Baruah Secretary, Assam
19. Paras Ram Secretary, HP
20. B K Choudhary Secretary, Jharkhand
21. K Malligaraj Advisor, NBOA

the following business was transacted -
1.  The participants were made aware about the circumstances leading to deferment of our proposed Lunch Hour Demo on 16/11/2011. it was reiterated that the protest was deferred on account of clear cut assurance given by the CGM (HRMD) that Annual discussion will most likely be arranged with Chairman on 25/11/2011 or at the next available date at the earliest but not later than 10/12/2011. It was also very categorically stated that the HRMD shall revert back to NBOA positively by 18/11/2011 and firm up the date. CGM (HRMD) also indicated that the Check-off facility provided to NBOA in respect of deduction and remittance of monthly subscription shall be restored immediately. It was noted that though the bank has restored the cheque-off facility, it has not bothered to firm up the date for the Annual Discussions, as was promised.

2.  Subsequent to this, unit wise details were collected towards the cases pertaining to suspension, memos given, Financial recoveries ordered and cases pertaining to sanctioning of leaves. It was pointed out that in all at least 65-70 cases of such harassment were resorted to by the bank in the last 3 to 4 months.

3.  The cases pertaining to sanctioning of EOL to the officers, LTC recovery cases, punishment transfer cases and suspension cases were discussed in threadbare.

4.  The banks continued stance to skirt a meaningful discussion with NBOA on subjects of great importance such as RESTRUCTURING & REPOSITIONING of NABARD, was also apprised to the participants.

5.  The CEC then passed a resolution demanding the bank to immediately revoke the suspension of Shri Sushil Kumar, AM, HO, Mumbai.

6.  The CEC also decided to convene a gate meeting on 25/11/2011 at Mumbai so as to apprise the members about the recent developments. Subsequent to this the Mumbai unit convened and organised a very well attended and successful gate Meeting on 25/11/2011. The office-bearers of the central unit apprised the members of the latest developments, with specific reference to the management's obstinate stand not to enter into a meaningful discussion with the NBOA on all the issues of importance, specially on Repositioning & Restructuring Exercise and Harassment cases pertaining to the officers.

7.  Subsequent to this, the office bearers went in delegation to CGM (HRMD) and submitted the resolution passed by the CEC and requested him to revoke the suspension of the officer concerned immediately. The office-bearers also requested him to favourably resolve the issues pertaining to EOL, LTC related recoveries and other victimisation cases too. The office-bearers also requested the CGM (HRMD) to give a firm date for conduct of Annual discussions with the chairman. The response of the CGM (HRMD) was as under-

A.  On the issue of revoking the suspension of the officer, he chose to be noncommittal.

B.  On the issues of EOL and LTC related cases he first opined that NBOA should not take-up individual cases to which we humbly responded that Association comprises of Individual members only and we are duty bound to take-up the cases of all the members as and when required with the management.

C.  Subsequent to this, CGM (HRMD) was again non committal on all the issues pertaining to harassment.

D.  Regarding the Annual Discussion, the CGM (HRMD) indicated that NBOA should wait upto January 2012 for getting a date for the discussions as Chairman is too busy in the month of December 2011. We responded by requesting him that NBOA is prepared to have a discussion even on holidays and any venue and time as may be convenient to Chairman. Further to it we also requested that if management wants to resolve the issue, it could give us a written communication on the date of Annual discussions to be held in January 2012, off course that too will be subject to official exigencies of the Chairman on the particular date. In spite of this, the CGM (HRMD) was not in a mood to fix any time frame for the discussions.

E.  In fact at a given point of time he indicated that NBOA need not worry about the organisational matters and just wait and watch for the things to unfold and everything being done by the management is in the best interest of NABARD.

G.  The office-bearers then indicated to him that bank is forcing NBOA to proceed on agitation path and that we are left with no other option. The CGM (HRMD) indicated that in case NBOA proceeds on an agitation path then the bank will act tough. The meeting with CGM (HRMD) ended with NBOA telling him politely that we don't want a confrontation but if it is being thrust upon us and Chairman/Bank is not prepared to even discuss with NBOA about the legitimate concerns affecting the interests of the officers and the organisation then NBOA shall also to perform its duty as entrusted to us by the officers community.

AS SUCH ALL THE UNITS ARE ADVISED TO CONVEY GENERAL BODY MEETINGS AT THE RESPECTIVE UNITS AND APPRISE THE MEMBERSHIP WITH THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE CEC AND ENSURE FULL AND PROPER IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGITATION PROGRAM AS CHALKED ABOVE.
The meeting ended with a vote of Thanks proposed by the Vice President.

            Sd/-
(Dr D.S.Chauhan)
General Secretary
Place: Bhopal
Date: 28/11/2011
8. The CEC was then briefed by the GS about the contents of the meeting held with CGM (HRMD) and the CEC has then unanimously resolved to proceed on an agitation path as per the following program-
 
A. LUNCH HOUR DEMONSTRATION ON 02/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS AND SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM TO BE SIGNED BY ALL THE OFFICERS.
 
B. LETTER TO BE WRITTEN BY NBOA TO ALL THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BANK BY 09/12/2011 (the letter shall be finalised by office-bearers of the central unit and forwarded to BODs by the stipulated time frame)
 
C. LUNCH HOUR DEMONSTRATION ON 09/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS
 
D. BLACK BADGE WEARING BY ALL THE OFFICERS FROM 12/12/2011 TO 16/12/2011.
 
E. LETTER TO ALL THE HON’BLE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY CENTRAL UNIT OF NBOA LATEST BY 26/12/2011.
 
F. DHARNA BY THE OFFICE-BEARERS FOR ONE HOUR AFTER THE OFFICE HOURS ON 26/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS
 
G. DHARNA BY THE OFFICE-BEARERS FOR ONE HOUR BEFORE THE OFFICE HOURS ON 27/12/2011 AT ALL THE UNITS
 
H. CONVEYING OF NATIONAL COUNCIL AT NEW DELHI ON 10/& 11/ 01/2012 TO TAKE THE STOCK OF THE SITUATION AND CHALK OUT FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION.
9. OTHER DECISIONS -
Mr Amlan was authorised to operate the blog within the overall supervision of the President NBOA and GS, NBOA. It was decided that only that correspondence which is marked to the blog by President and GS shall be put up on the blog and Mr Amlan shall take adequate measures to publicize the address of the blog among all the members at Mumbai. All the unit secretaries are requested to publicize the address among its membership and request them to hit the blog regularly to have the updates.

i.  It was decided that in order to have adequate communication with the members Mr Amlan Das, CEC member, shall administration the blog of NBOA having the address www.ainboa.blogspot.com .

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Change in the system of PAR Recording


NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
c/o NABARD, HO, Bandra Kurla Complex, MUMBAI

12/10/2011


Chairman
NABARD
Head Office
Mumbai

Dear Sir,

Change in the system of PAR Recording

Please refer to our earlier letter dated 03/10/2011 on the captioned subject requesting you to put on hold the new system of PAR recording. In the meanwhile we have received communication/feedback from most of our units that officers have, by and large, expressed their dissatisfaction/reservation on the new PAR system.

Primarily, the reservations expressed on the issue arises out of the following-
  1. Well laid out job profile assigning specific , target based , roles and responsibilities to each grade of officers has not been done in the organisation.
  2. TEAM NABARDs’ corporate job profile is more of the nature of TEAM WORK and as such demarcating specific Key Parameters and Deliverables against it is confusing and misleading in nature.
  3. The requirement of converting Key Parameters into ‘Units or Lakh of Rupees’ is ambiguous in nature and as such it would not be a true reflection of work/job accomplished or attended to by an officer at various levels of hierarchy.
Incidentally, you will agree that a similar looking exercise in the name of ‘PERFORMANCE TASK APPRAISAL’ in the past attempted to in our bank has failed to take off.

Keeping in view the above we once again request you to put the entire exercise on hold and discuss the entire gamut of PAR exercise with NBOA urgently.

Thanking You
Yours Sincerely

       Sd/-
(Dr.D.S.Chauhan)
General Secretary
12/10/2011

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Agitation - Future Course of Action

Dear Office Bearers,

As you may be aware that GM (HRMD) has called upon the office-bearers of NBOA located at Mumbai on 05/10/2011 and requested them to put-off the lunch hour demonstration slated on 07/10/2011. We told him that its not possible to do so at the last minute as it not only involves NBOA, but also NABARD Retired Officers Association and SIDBI officers Association too. Further to it our main demand is to initiate a meaningful dialogue on restructuring & repositioning exercise currently underway at NABARD as also the revising the DDMs package and stopping of all cases of harassment of officers.

Subsequent to this, all of you may be aware that Hon'ble Chairman himself has acknowledged, in his NABNET message dated 05/10/2011, addressed to all the employees, that rumour mongering and a state of confusion has set in in the organisation in so far as certain aspects of service conditions and new business operations of NABARD is concerned. Albiet, he has chosen to dwell only on VRS and went on to say that 'he intends to locate the black sheep/s' and so called 'saviour/s of NABARD', such oblique references on the eve of lunch hour demonstration and that too after our discussions with GM (HRMD), could be a pointer towards Chairman's attitude towards NBOA. though NBOA shall be more than happy to assist the top management in locating the rumour monger/s or the black sheep/s (as he puts it) the mute question remains that who is responsible for such a sorry state of affairs....the management itself....as it has chosen a path to curtail communication with a recognised representative body on all important issues pertaining to our organisation and in the absence of an assurance from NBOA to its members about the safety and security of their service conditions in an era of 'Organisational Change' - the speculations and rumours will definitely found their way in a corporate buzz. as far as 'saviors of NABARD' is concerned, we are of the view that each and every employee of NABARD has got a responsibility and mandate to safeguard the interest of NABARD - although the prime responsibility on this account vests with the BoDs and top management and followed by bodies like NBOA & AINBEA and Chairman Sir should not be unduly concerned about this aspect. Ironically, Chairman's internal communication to his employees has found its way to the press (Business Standard) giving an impression to the outside world that 'all is not well' in the organisation and also probably for the first time the world has been unwittingly told that there are black sheep/s and vested interest/s in NABARD.

INSPITE OF ALL THIS NBOA AS A RESPONSIBLE BODY, HAS DESISTED AS OF NOW, TO GO PUBLIC ON THE ISSUE, BUT A TIME MAY COME WHEN WE WILL BE FORCED TO TELL OUR STAND TO THE WORLD TOO. WE ALSO HOPED THAT BETTER SENSE WILL PREVAIL TO THE MANAGEMENT AND NBOA SHALL BE CALLED FOR A DIALOGUE, HOWEVER NO SUCH INITIATIVE SEEMS TO BE FORTHCOMING AND AS SUCH AFTER DISCUSSING THE THINGS WITH PRESIDENT, VP, OS & ADVISOR , THE FOLLOWING COURSE OF ACTION IS PROPOSED-
  1. TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE MANAGEMENT FOR HOLDING ANOTHER LUNCH TIME DEMONSTRATION ON 17/10/2011 ALONGWITH A SUBMISSION OF MEMORANDUM TO CHAIRMAN SIGNED BY ALL THE OFFICERS ON THE SAME DAY.
  2. ALL THE OFFICE-BEARERS MAY REACH MUMBAI TO ADDRESS THE GATE MEETING ON 16/10/2011. THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL UNIT OFFICE BEARERS MAY TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ORGANISE THE DEMO & SUBMIT THE MEMORANDUM ON 17/10/2011.
  3. WRITE A LETTER TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS ON THE ISSUE
  4. ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE ON 13/10/2011 TO CLARIFY OUR STAND AND CONVENE A PRESS CONFERENCE ON 16/10/2011
PLEASE CONFIRM AND GIVE YOUR VIEWS IMMEDIATELY SO THAT A DECISION COULD BE TAKEN AND UNITS MAY BE COMMUNICATED ACCORDINGLY.

WITH FIGHTING GREETINGS

Sd/-
DR D S CHAUHAN
GEN SECRETARY

Monday, October 10, 2011

Modification in PAR System


General Secretary






Chief Patron
SHRI ANIL SHASTRI

President
U K MOHANTY

Vice President

D K MAZUMDAR

General Secretary

DR D. S. CHAUHAN

Organising Secretary

N P NERURKAR
Treasurer
A K S CHAUHAN

Zonal Secretary (W)

A LOKARE

Zonal Secretary (N)

V K PAHWA

Zonal Secretary (C)

P PANDEY

Zonal Secretary (S)

K P PADMAKUMAR

Zonal Secretary (E)

M JHA

Committee Members

B V RAO
AMLAN DASH
S JOHNSON
A BAJPAI
MS. SWATI RANDIVE

Advisor
K MALLIGARAJ

NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
C/O NABARD, HO, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
                                                                               03/10/2011

Chairman
NABARD
Head Office
Mumbai

Dear Sir,


Change in the system of PAR Recording



We have come to know that the bank has decided to effect sweeping changes in the system to be adopted for recording of PAR  recording.

It is ironic to note that though the proposed change shall be directly affecting the career prospects of the officers and it may lead to certain ambiguities too, the bank has not deemed necessary to even mark a copy of the circular to NBOA for its information and internal debate. In fact , NBOA expected that it would have been consulted even before a decision was made so that a wider consensus on the issue could have been arrived at. Though the final parameters of PAR recordings are yet to be finalised by the bank, going by the format devised by the bank to undertake the ‘mid term review’, we are constrained to note that the system adopted doesn’t augurs well with the corporate profile governing the operations at NABARD.

We, therefore, request you to discuss with NBOA the proposed changes and till that time put the proposal PAR recording on hold.

Thanking You

Yours Sincerely

Sd/-

(Dr. D.S.Chauhan)
General Secretary

Mail received from General Secretary AINBOA

Dear Secretary,

Please find attached a letter written to chairman, NABARD on the captioned subject. It is for your and your members information.

You are further advised to convene a general body meeting immediately but not later than 10/11/2011 and discuss with members about the acceptability of-
  1. New PAR system being introduced with specific reference to mid term review and the parameters indicated for the review and also that it has not been discussed by management with NBOA.
  2. About the sketchy package announced for the DDMs. Since the DDMs may not be able to attend the GB you may seperately take their feedback thru phone , email etc.
AS PER THE FEED BACK RECEIVED IMMEDIATELY COMMUNICATE BACK TO THE UNDERSIGNED AND PRESIDENT ABOUT THE ACTION SOUGHT FOR FROM THE NBOA ON THE ISSUE.... IS BOYCOTTING THE NEW PAR SYSTEM AS WAS DONE WHILE FIGHTING AGAINST THE PT EXERCISE WAY BACK IS REQUIRED AND IF YES WHETHER IT WOULD BE SUCCESSFULL IN YOUR UNIT ???

SIMILARLY , IS BOYCOTTING THE SO CALLED ENHANCEMENTS INDICATED IN THE NEW DDM PACKAGE BY THE DDMS A FEASIBLE PROPOSITION IN YOUR UNIT ??

YOU MAY ALSO INDICATE ANY OTHER MODE OF PROTESTS WHICH YOUR UNIT MAY SUGGEST ON THIS TWIN ISSUE OF IMMEDIATE IMPORTANCE

Dr D.S.Chauhan

Friday, October 7, 2011

Minutes of Meeting with regard to Revision of Pension


NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION
C/O NABARD, HO, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT MUMBAI ON 26/08/2011

 

A MEETING WAS CONVENED BY NBOA ON 26/08/2011 WITH AN OBJECTIVE TO FORGE AN ALLIANCE WITH NABARD RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, SIDBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND RBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION SO AS TO JOINTLY TAKE-UP THE CASE OF PENSION REVISION AND UPGRADATION OF PENSION & FAMILY PENSION.
THE MEETING WAS ATTENDED BY THE FOLLOWING-
S/SHRI
1. T.K KASHIVISHWANATHAN, PRESIDENT, ALL INDIA NROA
2. S.C.WADHWA, SECRETARY, ALL INDIA NROA
3. B.I CHANDAK, PRESIDENT, SIDBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
4. A.K. RASTOGI, SECRETARY, SIDBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
5. U.K. MOHANTY, PRESIDENT, NBOA
6. D.K. MAZUMDAR, VICE-PRESIDENT, NBOA
7. DR. D.S CHAUHAN, GEN. SECRETARY, NBOA
8. A.K.S. CHAUHAN, TREASURER, NBOA
9. A. LOKARE, ZONAL SECRETARY (W) , NBOA
10. SAMUEL JOHNSON, EXEC.MEMBER, NBOA
THE MEETING STARTED WITH NBOA WELCOMING THE NABARD RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND SIDBI OFFICER ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVES AND THEREAFTER THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS WAS TRANSACTED-
A) SRI U. K. MOHANTY INFORMED THE HOUSE THAT THE RBI PROMOTE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE A PART OF THE JOINT FORUM BUT DUE TO CERTAIN PREOCCUPATION THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. IT WAS DECIDED THAT SRI U.K.MOHANTY SHALL BRIEF THEM ABOUT THE MEETING AND TAKE FURTHER STEPS AS REQUIRED TOWARDS THIS ASPECT.
B) THEREAFTER, SRI KASHIVISWANATHAN BRIEFED THE HOUSE ABOUT THE GENESIS OF NABARD’S PENSION SCHEME AND ITS HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND HE UNDERLINED THE PLIGHT OF RETIREE OFFICERS DUE TO NO N REVISION & NON UPGRADATION OF PENSION IN RBI, NABARD AND SIDBI. HE FURTHER OUTLINED THE NEED FOR AN ACTIVE ROLE TO BE PLAYED BY NBOA AND OTHER SISTER CONCERNS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF LEGITIMATE DEMANDS OF THE RETIREE OFFICERS. HE ALSO WELCOMED THE INITIATIVE TAKEN BY NBOA IN TAKING-UP THE ISSUE IN RIGHT EARNEST AND EXPRESSED HIS HOPES THAT THE INITIATIVE OF JOINT FORUM WILL BE ABLE TO CLINCH THE ISSUE IN DUE COURSE OF TIME.
C) SRI S.C. WADHWA THEREAFTER BRIEFED THE HOUSE ABOUT THE VARIOUS STEPS INITIATED BY THE NABARD RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FOR FIGHTING THIS JUST CAUSE AND HE ALSO BRIEFED THE HOUSE ABOUT VARIOUS ORDERS ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE COURTS OF JUSTICE IN INDIA ON THE PENSION ISSUE. THE GIST OF ALL SUCH COURT INTERVENTION IS THAT ‘SENIOR CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH DIGNITY AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ORGANISATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO EKE OUT AN HONORABLE AND COMFORTABLE LIFE WITH THE HELP OF THE PENSION THEY ARE BEING PROVIDED TO.
D) SRI RASTOGI & SRI CHANDAK THEN APPRISED THE HOUSE OF THE STATUS OF THINGS IN SIDBI AND ALSO THE NEED FOR SIDBI & NABARD OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONS TO COME TOGETHER NOT ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF PENSION BUT IF REQUIRED , IN FUTURE , THEN ALSO ON OTHER SERVICE CONDITION RELATED ISSUES. SRI CHANDAK INFORMED THE HOUSE THAT SINCE SIDBI’S PAY & ALLOWANCES ARE NOW LINKED AT PAR WITH THAT IN NABARD, IT HAS BECOME MORE IMPERATIVE FOR THE TWO ASSOCIATIONS TO COME TOGETHER. HE FURTHER OPINED THAT THOUGH THE NUMBER OF RETIRED OFFICERS IN SIDBI IS FAR LESS THAN THAT IN RBI & NABARD BUT THE ISSUE OF PENSION IS RELEVANT FOR EVEN FOR THE PRESENT DAY WORKING EMPLOYEES AS ALL OF US HAVE TO RETIRE ON A PARTICULAR DAY. SRI RASTOGI ASSURED THAT SIDBI OFFICERS ASSOCIATION SHALL EXTEND ALL COOPERATION IN THIS COORDINATED EFFORT.
E) SRI U.K. MOHANTY AND THE UNDERSIGNED THEN BRIEFED THE HOUSE TOWARDS THE INITIATIVES TAKEN BY NBOA ON THE ASPECT OF PENSION & FAMILY PENSION REVISION AND CALLED UPON ALL THE PARTICIPANTS TO UNTIDILY FIGHT FOR THIS IMPORTANT AND JUST ISSUE.
F) IT WAS THEREAFTER DECIDED TO FORM A COORDINATION COMMITTEE COMPRISING OF -
1. SRI T.K.A. KASHIVISHWANATHAN
2. SRI S.C. WADHWA
3. SRI A.K. RASTOGI
4. SRI B.I CHANDAK
5. SRI U.K. MOHANTY, AND
6. DR D.S.CHAUHAN AS CONVENER
IT WAS DECIDED TO INITIATE ORGANISATIONAL MOVES BY ALL THE THREE ASSOCIATIONS JOINTLY ON THE ISSUE OF PENSION AND IT WAS FURTHER DECIDED THAT TO START WITH A LUNCH HOUR DEMONSTRATION MAY BE ORGANISED PREFERABLY IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER TO LODGE A STRONG PROTEST ON THE ISSUE. IT WAS FURTHER DECIDED THAT THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THE FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION.
THE MEETING ENDED WITH A VOTE OF THANKS PROPOSED BY SRI D.K. MAZUMDAR.
Sd/-
(DR. D.S. CHAUHAN)
28/09/2011

PAR System



SRI ANIL SHASTRI
Chief Patron

President
U. K. MOHANTY
Vice President

D.K.MAZUMDAR
General Secretary

DR D. S. CHAUHAN
Organising Secretary

N. P. NERURKAR Treasurer
A.K.S.CHAUHAN
Zonal
Secretary (W) A .LOKARE
Zonal Secretary

V.K.PAHWA
Zonal Secretary

P.PANDEY
Zonal Secretary

K.P.PADMAKUMAR
Zonal Secretary
M. JHA
Committee Members

B. V. RAO
AMLAN DASH
S.JOHNSON
A.BAJPAI
MS. SWATI RANDIVE

Advisor
K. MALLIGARAJ
C/O NABARD, HO, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX , MUMBAI


Change in the system of PAR Recording

We have come to know that the bank has decided to effect sweeping changes in the system to be adopted for recording of PAR recording.

It is ironic to note that though the proposed change shall be directly affecting the career prospects of the officers and it may lead to certain ambiguities too , the bank has not deemed necessary to even mark a copy of the circular to NBOA for its information and internal debate. In fact , NBOA expected that it would have been consulted even before a decision was made so that a wider consensus on the issue could have been arrived at. Though the final parameters of PAR recordings are yet to be finalised by the bank , going by the format devised by the bank to undertake the ‘mid term review’ , we are constrained to note that the system adopted doesn’t augurs well with the corporate profile governing the operations at NABARD.

We , therefore , request you to discuss with NBOA the proposed changes and till that time put the proposal PAR recording on hold.
Thanking You

Yours Sincerely
Sd/-
(Dr. D.S.Chauhan)
General Secretary
Chairman 03/10/2011
NABARD
Head Office
Mumbai

Dear Sir ,
(NBOA)
NATIONAL BANK OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION

Revision in Pension


Substantive salary p.m.

Rate of family pension p.m.

Rs. 5720/- and below

30% of the substantive salary subject to
minimum of Rs.1435/- p.m.

Rs. 5721/- to Rs.11,440/-

20% of the substantive salary subject to minimum of Rs.1715/- p.m.

Above Rs. 11,440/-

15% of the substantive salary subject to minimum of Rs.2292/- p.m. and maximum of Rs.4784/- p.m.

NOTE: In the case of part time employees, the minimum and maximum amount of family pension shall be in proportion to the rate of scale wages drawn by the employee.
Those retired/died on or after 1.11.2002 and on or after 1.5.2005:

Substantive salary p.m.


Rate of family pension p.m.

Rs. 5720/- and below

30% of the substantive salary subject to minimum of Rs.1435/- p.m.

Rs. 5721/- to Rs.11,440/-

20% of the substantive salary subject to minimum of Rs.1715/- p.m.

Above Rs. 11,440/-

15% of the substantive salary subject to minimum of Rs.2292/- p.m. and maximum of Rs.4784/- p.m.

In that letter NABARD in support of its demand for raising the ceiling to rs 2400/- stated as under: " Family pension recipients of NABARD are put under a disadvantageous position vis –a vis their counterparts in RBI and commercial banks. This has disturbed the internal relativity and a situation has come where the dependents of deceased senior executives and subordinate staff ( with the same length of service of 20 years or more) receive more or less the same amount of family pension. This is particularly due to the upper ceiling of rs 1250 on the ordinary rate of family pension not having been revised" ( please note the underlined sentences)
What has not been emphasized but should have been done is the comparison with corresponding position of GOI family pensioners who got their family pensions updated on the basis of 5th CPC with uniform norm of 30% and no ceiling and again on the basis of 6th CPC from 1-1-2006. Mere raising of the ceiling to rs 2400/- has only benefitted slightly those family pensioners who retired on or after 1-11-1992 leaving the family pensioners of earlier retirees as well as the family pensioners of later retirees high and dry as explained below.

Age of pensioner

Additional pension

From 80 years to less than 85 years

20% of basic pension.

From 85 years to less than 90 years

30% of basic pension.

From 90 years to less than 95 years

40% of basic pension.

From 95 years to less than 100 years

50% of basic pension.

100 years or more

100% of basic pension
EXPLANATION. - The expression one year of continuous service' wherever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include' less than one year of continuous service' as defined in clause (ii)."; (b) after sub-rule (2A), the following shall be inserted, namely :--
"(28) In addition to family pension admissible in accordance with sub- rules (2), (2A) and (3), after completion of eighty years of age or above, additional family pension shall be payable in the following manner:-


Age of family pensioner

Additional family pension

From 80 years to less than 85 years

20% of basic family pension.

From 85 years to less than 90 years

30% of basic family pension.

From 90 years to less than 95 years

40% of basic family pension.

From 95 years to less than 100 years

50% of basic family pension.

100 years or more

100% of basic family pension

(c) in sub-rule (3), for clause (a), the following shall be substitute, viz., :-
"(a) (i) Where a Government servant, who is not governed by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), dies while in service after having rendered not less than seven years' continuous service, the rate of family pension payable to the family shall be equal to 50 per cent of the pay last drawn and the amount so admissible shall be payable from the date following the date of death of the Government servant for a period of ten years.
(ii) In the event of death of a Government servant after retirement, the family pension as determined under sub-clause (i) shall be payable for a period of seven years, or for a period up to the date on which the retired deceased Government servant would have attained the age of 67 years had he survived, whichever is less, Provided that in no case the amount of family pension determined under sub-clause (ii) shall exceed the pension authorised on retirement from Government service, Provided further that where the amount of pension authorised on retirement is less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2), the amount of family pension determined under this clause shall be limited to the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2).
EXPLANATION - For the purpose of this sub-clause, pension authorised on retirement includes the part of the pension which the retired Government servant may have commuted before death."; (d) for sub-rule (4), the following shall be substituted, viz.,;-- "(4) Where an award under the Central Civil Services (Extraordinary Pension) Rules 1939, is admissible, no family pension under this rule shall be authorised during the currency of award.";
(e) for sub-rule (6), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
"(6) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows:-
subject to first proviso, in the case of a widow or widower, up to the date of death or re-marriage, whichever is earlier;
subject to second proviso, in the case of an unmarried son, until he attains the age of twerlty-five years or until he gets married or until he starts earning his livelihood, whichever is the earliest;
subject to second and third provisos, in the case of an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, until she gets married or remarried or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is earlier;
subject to sub-rule (10-A), in the case of parents, who were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before the death of the Government servant, for life;
Subject to sub-rule 10(8) and the fourth proviso, in the case of disabled siblings (i.e. brother and sister) who were dependent on the Page 6 of 13Government Servant immediately before the death of Government servant, for life:
Provided that family pension shall continue to be payable to a childless widow on re-marriage, if her income from all other sources is less than the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon:
Provided further that if the son or daughter of a Government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty- five years, the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely :-
(i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last child attains the age of twenty-five and thereafter the family pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind, including the mentally retarded, 01" who is physically crippled or disabled and shall be payable to him or her, for life;
(ii) if there are more than one such children suffering from disorder or disability of mind including the mentally retarded or who are physically crippled or disabled, the family pension shall be paid in the order of their birth and the younger of them will get the family pension only after the elder next above him or her ceases to be eligible:
Provided that where the family pension is payable to such twin children it shall be paid in the manner set out in clause (d) of sub-rule
(iii) the family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor except in the case of the physically crippled son or daughter who has attained the age of majority;
(iv) before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the appointing authority shall satisfy that the handicap is of such a nature so as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a Specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child;
(v) the person receiving the family pension as guardian of such son or daughter or such son or daughter not receiving the family pension through a guardian shall produce a certificate, from a Medical Board comprising of a Medical Superintendent or a Principal or a Director or Head of the Institution or his nominee as Chairman and two other members, out of which at least one shall be a Specialist in the particular area of mental or physical disability including mental retardation, once, if the disability is permanent and if the disability is temporary, once in every five years to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continues to be physically crippled or disabled;
(vi) in the case of a mentally retarded son or daughter, the family pension shall be payable to a person nominated by the Government servant or the pensioner, as the case may be, and in case no such nomination has been furnished to the Head of Office by such Government servant or pensioner during his lifetime, to the person nominated by the spouse of such Government servant or family pensioner, as the case may be, later on and the Guardianship Certificate issued under section 14 of the National Trust Act,1999 (No.44 of 1999), by a local level Committee, shall also be accepted for nomination or appointment of guardian for grant of family pension in respect of person(s) suffering from Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities as indicated in the said Act:
Provided also that the grant or continuance of family pension to an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter beyond the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married or re-married or until she starts earning her livelihood, whichever is the earliest, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children (mentioned in clause (ii) or clause (iii) of this sub-rule) in the order set out in clause (iii) of sub-rule (8) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five years; and
(ii) there is no disabled child eligible to receive family pension in accordance with the second proviso of this sub-rule:
Provided also that such disabled siblings shall be eligible for family pension for life in the same manner and following the same disability criteria, as laid down in this rule in the case of son or daughter of the Government employees or pensioners suffering from any disorder or disability of mind (including mentally retarded) or physically crippled or disabled, so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years.
EXPLANATION 1 .- An unmarried son or an unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter shall become ineligible for family pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she gets married or remarried.
EXPLANATION 2 .- The family pension payable to such a son or a daughter or parents or siblings shall be stopped if he or she or they start earning his or her or their livelihood.
EXPLANATION 3.- It shall be the duty of son or daughter or siblings or the guardian to furnish a certificate to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that, (i) he or she has not started earning his or her livelihood, and (ii) he or she has not yet married or remarried and a similar certificate shall be furnished by a childless widow after her re-marriage or parents to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, once in a year that she or he or they have not started earning her or his or their livelihood.
EXPLANATION 4 .- For the purpose of this sub-rule, a member of the family shall be deemed to be earning his or her livelihood if his or her income from other sources is equal to or more than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon.
EXPLANATION 5 .- Parent shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government servant if their combined income is less than the minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon.
EXPLANATION 6.- Disabled sibling shall be deemed to be dependent on the Government servant if their income is less than the minimum family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of this rule and dearness relief thereon.
EXPLANATION 7 .- Family pension payable to a childless widow shall be stopped if, after re-marriage, her income from all other sources becomes equal to or exceeds the amount of minimum family pension under sub-rule (2) of this rule and the dearness relief admissible thereon";
(f) after sub-rule (10), the following shall be inserted, namely:-
"(10-A)(a) Family pension to the parents shall be payable if the parents were wholly dependent on the Government servant immediately before his or her death and the deceased Government servant is not survived by a widow or an eligible child.
(b) The family pension, wherever admissible to parents, will be payable to the mother of the deceased Government servant failing which to the father of the deceased Government servant.
(10-8) Family pension to the dependent disabled siblings shall be payable if the siblings were wholly dependent upon the Government servant immediately before his or her death and deceased Government servant is not survived by a widow or an eligible child or eligible parents.";
(g) in sub-rule 11, for clauses (a) and (b) the following shall be substituted, namely: -
"(a)(i) if the surviving child or children is or are eligible to draw two family pensions at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (3),the amount of both the family pensions shall be limited to forty-five thousand rupees per mensem ;
(ii) if one of the family pensions ceases to be payable at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (3), and in lieu thereof the family pension at the rate mentioned in sub-rule (2) becomes payable, the amount of both the pensions shall also be limited to forty-five thousand rupees per mensem;
(b) if both the family pensions are payable at the rates mentioned in sub-rule (2), the amount of two family pensions shall be limited to twenty-seven thousand rupees per mensem.";
(h) in sub-rule (11-8), after clause (b), the following shall be inserted,
namely;-- .
"(c) Subject to the proviso to or of sub-rule (11-A), after the child or children cease to be eligible for family pension under this rule, such family pension shall become payable to the surviving judicially separated spouse of the deceased Government Servant till his or her death or remarriage, whichever is earlier.";
(i) in sub-rule (12), in clause (b), the word 'female' shall be omitted;
(j) in sub-rule (138), for the second proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely;--
"Provided further that the family pension admissible under these rules shall be allowed in addition to the family pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and the Family Pension Scheme, 1971, where ever applicable.";
(k) in sub-rule (14), in clause (b) for sub-clause (ii), the following sub- clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
"(ii) unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and Unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally;
(iii) dependent parents;
(iv) dependent disabled siblings (i.e. brother or sister) of a Government servant.";
*******************************************************************

Here also the pitiable plight of the family pensioners of those who retired prior to 1-11-1992 was not focused and taken for granted as if they do not deserve any updation just as the pensioners also suffered for want of updation of pensions.
Secondly the decision of NB as approved by the GOI for updation of ceiling on family pensions for those who retired on or after 1-11-1992 to only Rs2400/- is also equally harsh on them and much more on family pensioners of later retirees as will be seen below. For drawing the maximum of rs 2400/- as family pension at 15% of pay, the pensioner should have drawn a basic pay of rs 16,000/ at the time of retirement.
When we take the scales of pay introduced from 1-11-2002 ie from Rs 11,250- 22,500 for A grade, the widow of even an A grade officer would be stuck at the ceiling of family pension, if the deceased officer before retirement had put in more than 7 years in that grade . THUS THERE IS NO BENEFIT OVER RS16,000 OF BASIC PAY TOWARDS FAMILY PENSION for an officer even in that grade The B grade officer similarly would have crossed Rs 16,000 after four years of service in that grade assuming he starts at that scale as a direct recruit. The officer promoted from A grade would have crossed the above threshold at the time of his promotion to Grade B As the starting basic pay of C grade and above is higher than rs 16,000/- all the family pensioners of such officers will not get more than rs 2400/- as basic family pension and will be stuck up at that level, though they are entitled to higher family pensions as per GOI revised norms @ 30% of last pay drawn.
The scales of pay of officers have been substantially revised with effect from 1-11-2007 and the A grade now starts from Rs 17,100/- and hence more than Rs 16,000/- in other words all the family pensioners of those who retired from the above scales of pay after 1-11-2007 will get only rs 2400/- as the basic family pension, except for the period for which higher family pension will be paid as per the regulations. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO POINT OUT THAT AS IN (I) ABOVE ALL THOSE WHOSE BASIC PAY ABOVE RS 16,000/- WILL BE STUCK UP AT THIS CEILING and will draw the same family pension irrespective of the higher basic pay and grade in which they retired .
One more aspect to be borne in mind is that the pensioners who retired in the scales of pay effective from 1-11-2002 or1-11-2007 would have drawn much higher pensions after retirement during their life as the rate of pension is fixed uniformly at 50% of average emoluments drawn by them during the last ten months of their service. There is thus a very precipitous fall in the amount of pension payable to their widows as compared to the amount of pension they drew after retirement, if the officer had reached beyond 65 years. This is very harsh and it is more poignant when their basic pay at the time of their retirement is much higher in each grade and hence they would have drawn much higher pensions. In contrast in GOI there is uniform norm of 30% of last pay drawn and there is minimum family pension which is much higher than what our family pensioners are entitled to.
There is another disadvantage to these hapless family pensioners. The family pensioners of later retirees will also draw lesser total family pension than those who retired in the previous scales of pay, because of the difference in DA percentages. The DA payable, we understand is determined with reference to date of retirement of the pensioner or death while in service. As there is a merger of DA upto specified points with basic pay in each pay revision the rates of DA payable on pension and hence on corresponding family pension will be the same rates as being paid to those who retired during the effectiveness of the respective pay scales, which operate for five years . For instance as per the latest DA circular the rate of DA paid is 89.4% for those who retired on or after 1-11-1997 but before 1-11-2002 and 54% for those who retired on or after 1-11-2007. Thus the amount of DA payable to family pensioners also gets drastically reduced while the basic family pension remains constant at Rs 2400/- for ones who retired between 1-11-2002 and 1-11-2007 and thereafter for no fault of theirs. One can imagine the substantial fall in amount of family pension in such cases as compared to pension drawn by the spouses while alive..
The 18th May 2011 circular raising the ceiling on family pension to Rs 2400/- says as under:
3. At the time of paying interim relief from October 2005, it was clarified to the Family Pensioners that "the amount presently being paid is only by way of interim relief and necessary adjustments would be made as and when approval of Government is received for our proposal for revision in Family Pension". In this connection, we advise as under:
The ineligible amount of interim relief paid from October 2005 to 15 May 2009 has to be recovered fully from the arrears payable now from 16 May2009 to May 2011.
In case the ineligible amount of interim relief paid is higher than the arrears payable on account of the above revised rate of family pension, the balance amount may be recovered in suitable instalments from the monthly family pension payable. The summary position of such cases may be communicated to HO [HRMD-PPD].
In cases where it is not possible to recover the ineligible amount of interim relief partly/fully due to death of family pensioners or other reasons, such cases are to be referred to HO[HRMD-PPD].
We undestand that in HO some preliminary check was done and there are some cases where there should be recoveries of the family pension already paid after implementing the revised ceiling and a final decision is yet to be taken.
Since the revision of ceiling @ 2400 is appropriate for only those who retired on or after 1-11-1992 and before 1-11-1997, the sensible approach is to pay DA at the rates payable for them and also for the rest of the later family pensioners.
As it is they are suffering from unreasonable ceiling and hence they should not suffer further by paying them lower Da which will mean that later family pensioners will draw less family pension than their earlier counterparts. I understand that this solution is being thought of to aovid recovering amounts paid by way of interim relief.
But the other hardships to be endured by family pensioners cannot be sorted out unless the family pensions are revised for all the family pensioners on the same basis as was done by GOI along with uniform norm of 30% of last pay drawn and removal of ceiling on family pension except in relation to highest pay in NABARD. Since the 6th CPC had endorsed the same norms as were adopted after the 5th CPC report it is essential that the revision of family pensions of all the past family pensioners of NABARD on the same lines as were done by GOI is taken up with GOI at the earliest. There should be atleast two revisions of family pensions , once as on 1-11-1997 and again as on 1-11-2007 if the revision is to be done once in ten years as in GOI.
As mentioned earlier GOI is paying additional family pensions for those above the age of 80 years of age as under:

It is necessary that same norms are adopted for paying higher family pensions for those above the age of 80 years.
Other refinements in family pension norms effected by GOI
In the light of decisions taken on the basis of recommendations of the 6th CPC the following additional changes have been made by GOI in their family pension rules . I enclose the relevant extract from the notification of GOI dated June 2011 in this regard as annexure. It is essential that similar amendments are also made in our family pension regulations in line with GOI changes.
Amendment to pension regulations
These changes would require amendment to the corresponding regulations relating to family pension contained in Chapter VI of NABARD pension regulations. This also calls for urgent action on the part of management of NABARD to mitigate as early as possible the hardships being endured by the family pensioners.


( T. K Kasiviswanathan) ( S C Wadhwa)
President General Secretary
3-10-2011


Annexure
The additional changes made in the family pension norms for GOI family pensioners. Extract from GOI notification of 8th June 2011:
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 13-8 and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies -
after completion of one year of continuous service; or
before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service; or
after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules,the family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, the amount of which shall be determined at a uniform rate of 30% of basic pay subject to a minirilum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven thousand rupees per mensem.
,
ALL INDIA NABARD RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Mumbai
ISSUES RELATING TO FAMILY PENSION
We had earlier given detailed representation on the issues relating to pension payable to family pensioners of NABARD. We would like to specifically highlight some of the hardships being faced by the family pensioners, into account the revision of the ceiling on family pension to Rs 2400/- effected recently.
2. Under the Pension regulations of NABARD the family pension is paid as per the tapering slab system of 30,20,15% of last pay drawn and with a minimum of Rs 375/- and a ceiling on the family pension payable, earlier pegged at Rs 1250/pm, in terms of Regulation no 32(5) of the Regulations. As we had pointed out in our detailed earlier representation on this issue the 5th CPC found the slab system of family pension to be harsh and inequitable and hence recommended its abolition and replacement with a uniform norm of 30% of the last pay drawn, and also removal of ceiling on family pension but related to maximum pay in GOI.
3. We again reproduce for ready reference, what the 5th CPC said while recommending the above changes. Para 134.8 of 5th pay commission report says that " the existing rates of family pension on a slab basis would appear to be inadequate to cater to the needs of the family of the deceased employee/ pensioner." "Revision thereof is justified because there are certain fixed costs of an establishment, which do not get halved and the family continues to incur them even after the demise of the pensioner. There would also appear to be no rationale for prescribing different percentages of family pension with reference to different pay slabs because all families suffer equal hardships on the death of a breadwinner. Taking the above and other relevant factors into account we recommend the existing varying rates of family pension (30%,20% and 15%) may be replaced by a uniform rate of 30% of pay for all categories of employees."
4. Para 134.14 the Fifth Pay Commission report dealt with removal of the earlier ceiling of Rs 1250/- pm on family pension. This is in keeping with its stand on not having any ceiling on pension. It states as under :
" It is one of the fundamental tenets of social security scheme that the beneficiary should have the assurance that in the event of death, his widow and children would have the necessary wherewithal to live in reasonable comfort. However, with meager amount of family pension this last desire of the deceased employee can hardly be met. The old assumption that the civil servants in higher grades could save a great deal is no longer valid , with the substantial increase in cost of living. Considering the fact that the number of employees against whom the existing ceiling operates harshly is not very significant , we are inclined to accept the suggestion for removal of ceiling on family pension and recommend accordingly."
5. GOI accepted both these recommendations and implemented them with effect from 1-1-1996. Further such family pensions were updated on the basis of modified parity formula on the same lines as for pensioners who retired prior to 1-1-1986 and thereafter for all who retired prior to 1-1-1996 with a rider that minimum family pension shall not be less than Rs 1275/-pm and also not less than 30% of revised starting pay introduced from 1-1-1996 for the post last occupied by the pensioner at the time of retirement. This was further updated on the basis of recommendations of the 6th CPC with effect from 1-1-2006 by merger of DA up to specified points and additional fitment weightage of 40% of basic pension. The merger of DA and fitment weightage suggested were the same as for serving employees and hence the same treatment as for serving employees and in keeping with the principle recommended by the 5th CPC that pensions should be revised in a manner not dissimilar to pay revision of serving staff. Unlike the 5th CPC there was no stipulation regarding minimum guaranteed family pension at 30% of revised starting pay for the post last occupied by the retiree in relation to revised pay scales as from 1-1-2006. The minimum family pension was also enhanced to Rs 3500/- pm from Rs 1275/-. Family pension is being paid on an uniform basis of 30% of last pay drawn for all .The maximum is 30% of the highest pay in GOI ie 27,000/- being 30% of Rs 90,000/-, being the salary of Cabinet Secretary. In other words, the ceiling is related to maximum pay in the GOI.
Additional family pension for those above the age of 80 years is to be paid on the same percentage basis as was recommended for the corresponding pensioners. These measures increased significantly the amount of family pensions being paid with effect from 1-1-2006 for all the GOI family pensioners. Railways also updated the family pensions of its own family pensioners on the same lines.
6. However, in our case the above slab system of family pension and ceiling on family pension continue to operate and without any updation of basic family pensions. They are therefore at a considerable disadvantage as compared to GOI pensioners, as explained below :-
.
The family pensioners of those who retired prior to 1-11-1992 including those in future of the surviving pensioners who retired prior to that date are the worst sufferers as they are drawing very poor family pensions because the minimum family pension continues to be Rs 375/- only whereas the minimum family pension in the case of GOI family pensioners is now Rs 3500/- wef 1-1-2006.. With present DA the minimum family pension is around rs 2625 only for Nabard family pensioners under this category, whereas the minimum family pension drawn by the GOI family pensioner is around Rs5250/- ie nearly double the amount paid in our case.
Secondly for these categories of family pensioners the ceiling on family pension is still Rs 1250/- as the recent revision of the above ceiling to Rs 2400 as from May 2009 is not applicable to them. Secondly, at the higher pay slabs ( which are very small as compared to the scales now in force for officers as from 1-11-2007) the rate of family pension at 20% and then at 15% of pay is very harsh. If one translates the ceiling on family pension of Rs 1250/- in terms of pay which will give that family pension, it works out to Rs 8333/ @15% . Thus even in the case of an F grade officer who retired from NABARD prior to 1-11-1992 on the then maximum basic pay of rs 7000/- or so in the scales of pay then existing, the family pension for his widow is only around rs1050or1100/- and it will not even be equal to the ceiling amount.. The same situation holds good for still surviving pensioners who retired before that date as their spouses, in the event of their death will get only the above amount of family pension which even at the highest level is a pittance, in these days of high inflation. Most of the family pensioners are over 65 years old in this category and hence the enhanced family pension would not be payable to them as provided in terms of regulation no 32(3).
An out of box solution was the sanction by NABARD of interim relief to these family pensioners but the same was applied only to those who retired on or after 1-11-1992, ignoring the plight of the family pensioners of those who retired earlier to that date , whereas in GOI any revision in family pension was applied to all the family pensioners irrespective of the dates of retirement of the pensioner. This is again great injustice to these pensioners.
It is true that NABARD made a proposal some years back for raising the rate of family pension uniformly to 30% as in GOI and also raising the minimum pension to Rs 1275/- but it was rejected . It is unfortunate that NABARD did not effectively represent against the above unreasonable and unjust decision of GOI by quoting the very same arguments of the 5th CPC for uniform norm and removal of ceiling and accepted by GOI. It is also surprising that GOI , while accepting the recommendations of the 5th CPC for removal of slab system and ceiling did not care about the same plight of the family pensioners of financial institutions but was prepared to tinker with the pay slabs in line with revised pay scales and raise the ceiling accordingly but retaining the same slab system of family pension. This is despite the fact that at the time of sanction of pension scheme same norms as were being applied to GOI pensioners were incorporated in all the pension schemes.
Instead in its letter no NB.HRMD.PPD/546/Pen pol/2005-6 asked only for revision of family pension slabs as were revised for nationalized banks in view of the suffering of these later retirees. As against two upward revisions already sanctioned to nationalized banks, and one more subsequently NABARD asked for only one revision for raising the ceiling to Rs 2400. even in the case of SBI where the pension is a third benefit three updations of family pensions had taken place and last two revisions are as under:
Those retired/died on or after 1.11.2002 and on or after 1.5.2005: