your pension will be reduced after 11th biapartite

 Reduction of Pension

Employees (Award Staff) retired at the stage of attaining 6th stagnation in each of 9th, 10th and 11th BPS will draw Pension as follows:

                     9th.     10th.    11th

B.Pay       24100  39400  59494

B.Pen.     12050. 19700.  29747

Comp.(-)   4016.    6566.   9915

D.A.  (+).  21256. 15267.   6184

Gross

Pension.   29290. 28401 26016

One simple question:

Up to 9th BPS, employees got more computation amount and more Pension than the one who retired in previous/earlier BPS.

Now in 10th and 11th BPS employees get more computation amount, but less Pension than one who retired in the previous/earlier BPS.

Why? What is the reason?

Everybody, except UFBU, knows it is because of loading at a small percentage in Basic Pay.

***************************

Attention those who retired after 01.11.2017!!

Your present pension amount will going to be reduced.

Excess Pension amount paid from your date of retirement to date will be calculated and will be recovered from your arrears payment.

A sample case is as follows:

A special assistant who's B.P.40710+1930+1310+800= 44750 is drawing Pension Rs.32257 (Aug,2020) now,  will draw Pension Rs.29548 only after implementation of 11th BPS.

Good luck for those who are all going to retire in 12 BPS😆😆😆

State Bank of India (SBI), WRITE OFF AMOUNT Rs1.23 lakh crore and recovered just over 7% over the past 8 financial years.

Bank of Baroda (BoB) is the second public sector bank to write off bad loans of several thousand crores, following the foot steps of State Bank of India (SBI), which wrote of Rs1.23 lakh crore and recovered just over 7% over the past eight financial years. Information about BoB’s write offs, like that of SBI was obtained by the bank’s shareholder and Right to Information (RTI) activist Vivek Velankar. 

Document procured by Mr Velankar shows that from 2012 to 2020, BoB technically wrote off 97 accounts with bad debts of Rs100 crore and more. These add up to Rs21,476.89 crore over eight years, while recovery that same period is just 4.91% or Rs1,056.53 crore. Mr Velankar says, “There were lot of heated arguments in the country few months ago on written off loans of big accounts. That time it was clarified by the union finance that technical write off does not mean waiving off loans and efforts are on for recovery of these written off loans. Since banks, especially public sector banks (PSBs), are not revealing any information about written off loans and recovery, I am asking these questions as a shareholder to bring it in public domain." 

 

Mr Velankar, who is also president of Sajag Nagrik Manch of Pune says, "As a shareholder, I had asked BoB about loan accounts worth Rs100 and above that were written off during past eight years. I wanted to ask the question during the bank's annual general meeting (AGM) on 31 July 2020. However, did not provide any information. When I asked the question during the AGM, they could not give proper reply. However, I managed to get an assurance from BoB chairman that they will send me this information in writing. After sending two reminders, finally I received information about loans written off by BoB and the pathetic recovery, which just 5%."

 

However, Mr Velankar says, in this case, Bank of Baroda did not share names of these account holders citing 'confidentiality'. 

 

The letter providing information on written off loans and recovery is sent by PK Agarwal, company secretary of BoB. It states, "As the information requested relates to borrower. account specific details, we regret our inability to share the same with you in terms of our responsibility as a banker to maintain data confidentiality of our borrowers." 

 

"If this indeed is matter of confidentiality, then how SBI gave me entire list with names and why BoB cannot do the same? When common borrower defaults, the same banks publish his name and all details through advertisement in newspapers, why they want to keep names of defaulters hidden. Why the 'confidentiality' clause does not come while publicising names of common borrowers," Mr Velankar asks.

 

According him, despite the strict laws brought in by the central government, Bank of Baroda is not willing to follow it or there may be some vested interests, due to which the bank is not sharing names of big defaulters.

 

Bank of Baroda's reply to Mr Velankar shows that during the eight years from FY12-13 to FY19-20, it has 'fresh technically written off’ a massive sum of Rs21,476.89 crore from its books, but manged to recover only 5% or Rs1,056.53 crore during this period. This entire process makes a mockery of the aggressive claims by a string of high-profile government spokesperson and economic advisors that a ‘technical’ write-off does not stop the recovery process. 

 

 

Technically speaking, when debts are written off, they are removed as assets from the balance sheet because the bank does not expect to recover payment. This practice is frowned upon by experts but is routinely done by banks as part of their tax management clean-up process. The beneficiaries are invariably some of our biggest industrialist defaulters. 

 

In contrast, when a bad debt is written down, some of the bad debt value remains as an asset because the bank expects to recover it. However, as SBI and then BoB has shown, most of the times, there is no recovery or negligible recovery for the amounts written off. 

 

During 2019-20, BoB has written off a massive Rs10457.69 crore while recovering just Rs607.86 crore. A year before, it wrote off Rs6443.8 crore while recovering a paltry Rs316.58. However, when it comes to recovering written off debt, BoB's record is simply awesome. During FY2015-16, the bank recovered just Rs4 lakh while writing off bad debts worth Rs781.81 crore!

 

As per the data provided by SBI to Mr Velankar, Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, IRVCL Ltd and Videocon Industries Ltd are its biggest defaulters, and had not re-paid a single penny. Alok Industries Ltd is the biggest borrower in this list with a written off loan of Rs8,098.05 but has repaid Rs1,703.57 crore to SBI. 

 

Earlier in April, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had said that Indian banks have technically written off a staggering amount of Rs68,607 crore due from 50 top wilful defaulters, including absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi. RBI had revealed this information in reply to an RTI filed by Saket Gokhale.

 

RBI said that this amount (Rs68,607 crore) comprising outstanding and the amounts technically or prudentially written off till 30 September 2019.

RBI asks banks not to open current accounts for customers having cash credit, overdraft facilities

With a view to improve credit discipline, the Reserve Bank on Thursday barred banks from opening current accounts for customers who have availed cash credit or overdraft facilities, stressing that there is a "need for discipline" on this front.

In a notification, the central bank said that rather than opening a new current account, all transactions should be routed through Cash Credit (CC) or OverDraft (OD) account.

However, the RBI did not specify the exact reasons for initiating such a move. It can be noted that in recent instances of fraud like the over Rs 4,000 crore PMC co-operative Bank scam, it was discovered that multiple accounts were opened.

Officials in the know said the move will avoid hoodwinking of the system and reduce the blind spots, which will ultimately lead to protection of depositors' money.

On Thursday, RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das said it is "necessary to take appropriate measures for strengthening credit discipline" and said there are concerns emanating from the use of multiple accounts by borrowers which calls for the need for safeguards for opening of such accounts by borrowers availing credit facilities from multiple banks.

Stating that there is a "need for discipline" by the banks in opening current accounts, the RBI said, "no bank shall open current accounts for accounts for customers who have availed credit facilities in the form of Cash Credit (CC)/ OverDraft (OD) from the banking system and all transactions shall be routed through the CC/ OD account".

"Banks should not route drawal from term loans through current accounts. Since term loans are meant for specific purposes, the funds should be remitted directly to the supplier of goods and services. Expenses incurred by the borrower for day to day operations should be routed through CC/ OD account, if the borrower has a CC/ OD account, else through a current account," it added.

It can also be noted that there is a project to have a single customer ID for every entity's banking needs which will help in the monitoring, but the same is not fully in place.

If a customer opens multiple accounts and there is no monitoring of end use of funds, there is a possibility that the same customer could indulge in maleficence by drawing down money from the same bank through a different account. There is also a possibility that the money could be used to repay the first  credit facility and keep using the same modus operandi which can potentially lead to a wider concern.

 

FAMILY PENSION +DA FOR THE MONTH OF JULY 2020 AS PER 11TH BIPARTITE MOU

 

BANK SANCTIONED TOTAL 137586.54 CR LOAN UNDER 100% Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme

As of 03 Aug 2020, the total amount sanctioned under the 100% Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme by #PSBs and private banks stands at Rs 1,37,586.54 crore, of which Rs 92,090.24 crore has already been disbursed. Here is the break-up:

 

SC ruling will slash your take home pay if your basic salary is less than Rs 15000 pm

The recent Supreme Court decision on what constitutes wages for the purpose of Provident Fund (PF) contributions has far reaching consequences on the industry at large as well on your take home pay.

The Supreme Court has ruled on 28 February, 2019 in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners by concluding that allowances in question such as special, conveyance, education, canteen, medical, etc, paid to employees, are required to be treated as wages for the purpose of PF such payments are:

"Variable in nature, or are linked to incentives for production resulting in greater output by the employee;
"Not paid across the board to all employees in a particular category;
"Being paid especially to those who avail the opportunity.

Now that the SC has defined the meaning of wages for the purpose of calculating PF contribution from your salary as well as matching contribution from the employer's side, the question arises how thisdecision is going to impact your take home salary. This decision is likely to impact only those domestic workers whose basic salary is or was (at an earlier point in time) less than Rs 15,000.

 

Special allowance part of basic salary for PF calculations: SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court has held that special allowances paid by an employer to its employees have to be included in "basic wage" for deduction towards provident fund.

The top court said this while dealing with a question on whether special allowances paid by an establishment to its employees would fall within the expression "basic wages" under the provision of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for computation of deduction towards provident fund.

Act, 1952 for computation of deduction towards provident fund.

A bench comprising justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha dismissed the appeals filed by several companies challenging the decision of the Provident Fund Commissioner clubbing basic pay with special allowances for deduction towards provident fund.

It, however, allowed the appeal filed by West Bengal's regional provident fund commissioner (II) against the order of a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had held that since special allowance was not linked to consumer price index, it did not fall within the definition of "basic wage".

"The wage structure and the components of salary have been examined on facts, both by the authority and the appellate authority under the Act, who have arrived at a factual conclusion that the allowances in question (special allowance) were essentially a part of the basic wage, camouflaged as part of an allowance, so as to avoid deduction and contribution accordingly to the provident fund account of the employees. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the concurrent conclusions of facts," the apex court said in its verdict.

The top court observed that no material was placed by the companies "to demonstrate that the allowances in question being paid to its employees were either variable or were linked to any incentive for production, resulting in greater output by an employee, and that the allowances in question were not paid across the board to all employees in a particular category or were being paid especially to those who avail the opportunity".