EXCLUSION OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR GRANT OF SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS IS A MANIFEST VIOLATION OF EXPRESS PROVISOS OF 7th BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.

EXCLUSION OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR GRANT OF SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS IS A MANIFEST VIOLATION OF EXPRESS PROVISOS OF 7th BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT.
------------------------------------------------------

Legally, the provisos of any award or rule or regulation or agreement or settlement remain operative till these are expressly abrogated or deleted or superseded or modified.

Shastri Award was given on 21-03-1953. Even though 67 years have elapsed but some of its directions are still in vogue. For example, para 522(1) related to termination of employment and para 536 related to transferability etc.

On 27-03-2000, 7th Bipartite Settlement was signed. In clause 6 of that BPS it was agreed by both the parties that:-

(REPRODUCTION)

"(i) Allowances hitherto termed as Special Allowance, Graduation Allowance, Professional Qualification Allowance and Officiating Allowance which are in the nature of 'pay', attracting Dearness Allowance and ranking for superannuation benefits shall henceforth be termed as Special Pay, Graduation Pay, Professional Qualification Pay and Officiating Pay, respectively.

(ii) In supersession of Clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14th February, 1995 and Clause I of the Bipartite Settlement dated 14th December, 1996, 'Pay' for the purpose of D.A., HRA and Superannuation benefits shall mean Basic Pay, Stagnation Increments, Special Pay, Graduation Pay, Professional Qualification Pay and Officiating Pay, if any."

The above reproduced clause(s) of the 7th BPS have not been abrogated or deleted or superseded or modified in subsequent Settlements. Thus these are very much operative as on date.

WHEN,
IBA and UFBU, both had agreed in 7th BPS that henforth there shall be no nomenclature like 'Special Allowance'.
WHEN,
they had agreed that the Special Allowance would be henceforth termed as 'Special Pay'.
WHEN,
they had agreed that the Special Pay shall rank for superannuation benefits.
THEN,
how, in violation of their own agreement of March 2000, they can re-introduce the term 'Special Allowance' and say that it would not rank for superannuation benefits without modifying their earlier settlement.

Without giving a reference of the earlier settlement, merely a note that " This Special Allowance shall not count for Superannuation benefits" cannot be termed as a lawful modification of earlier settlement.

It was a legal binding on them to specifically write in the 10th BPS dated 25-05-2015 that in partial modification of Clause 6(i) & 6(ii) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 27th March, 2000 it is agreed to re-introduce the term Special Allowance which shall not rank for superannuation benefits.

But since they failed to follow this legal binding, the Special Allowance shall remain Special Pay and would rank for superannuation benefits. They cannot deprive the employees of their legal right conferred on them by 7th BPS (of inclusion of the Special Allowance as 'Pay' for grant of superannuation benefits).

Personally, I am not going to be benefitted by this because I am a pre-November, 2012 retiree. Here the question is not as to who is the gainer or who is loser. The question is of the righteousness, sanctity and propriety of the settlement which they lacked to maintain.

Shailendra Pandya
(Central Bank Of India)
Kanpur
04-03-2020.