By Maninder Singh Bhatia on Bank Pension Updating
However, the most crucial aspect of this agreement is Clause 12. It stated that provisions should be made in the pension scheme for the "updating" of pension, alongside other terms, and that these provisions should align with those prevailing in the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Furthermore, the 1993 agreement specified that Dearness Relief for pensioners should follow the Dearness Allowance formula in effect at the RBI. This clearly demonstrates that the RBI pension model served as a vital reference point for the architects of the bank pension framework at that time.
Subsequently, the Bank Employees' Pension Regulations were framed in 1995. From this point onward, the legal interpretation of pension updation grew increasingly complex. Later, Regulation 35(1) was amended in 2002, stating that basic pension and, wherever applicable, additional pension "shall be updated" as per the formula provided in Appendix-I.
This became the main point of legal contention between pensioners and bank management/the government. Pensioners argued that if the 1993 agreement envisioned pension updation on the lines of the RBI and the 2002 amendment used mandatory phrasing like "shall be updated," the benefits ought to extend broadly to all pensioners. On the other hand, differing judicial opinions emerged across various court levels regarding its legal interpretation and scope.
![]() |
| Writer M S Bhatia |
As of September 2026, the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court. The case was listed on September 9, but the hearing could not take place; according to information released by pensioner associations, efforts are underway to have it re-listed for the next hearing. Therefore, it would be premature to claim that the Supreme Court has delivered any final verdict in favor of pension updation.
To fully understand this entire matter, the document of October 29, 1993, serves as a crucial historical piece of evidence. It clearly shows that "updating" was not excluded during the formulation of the pension scheme, but was explicitly incorporated into Clause 12 of the settlement.
Today, with massive structural shifts in bank salary and pension calculations, the vital question for thousands of veteran pensioners is whether their pensions should also be updated periodically. The definitive legal answer now rests with the pending proceedings in the Supreme Court.
Hence, the 1993 agreement is not merely a founding document for bank pensions, but a foundational pillar of the ongoing legal discourse on pension updation.
(The author is a former banker, trade unionist, and social activist.)







.jpeg)


