Stagnation Increment and pension issue Joint letter of 4 Officers' Organisatiins* sent to IBA on 7.05.2021.

*Joint letter of 4 Officers' Organisatiins* sent to IBA on 7.05.2021.

*11BPS/-- Joint Note*

 It seems that the signatories to the Joint Note itself are not sure about  the interpretation of various clauses incorporated in the Joint Note they have signed on 11.11.2020.
They are still seeking clarification on various terms used in joint note signed by them about 6 Months back.
This itself shows that they have little freedom to have their own say  in the issues settled at Indusrial Level  and approved by the respective bank boards .

It indicates that IBA officials are *supremo* and what ever they decide and interpret is the *final* verdict 

 It appears that in the absence of access to vital data and information  spread across various banks,  the leaders 
Have to  give nod to each and everything as decided by IBA officials ..

The members are eager to know what are the circumstances that have put them in such an akward situation that they themselves are literally begging for favour from IBA.

Which are the forces that compell them to   become irrelevant and then allege that *IBA is adamant*
The adamant body may refuse your demands and  may not give ascent to few of  demands on some grounds ..How it can be termed as adamant attitude ..

Secondly  once settlement is signed   inorporating  certain benefits or provisions how they can  be denied subsequently and Organisations representing lakhs  of officers working in various banks are not able to demands  implementation.  Of *already agreed* benefits .

It's astonishing  that it took 6 months for *Four Organisations* to seek clarification for  proper implementation of provisions already  incorporated in the  settlement .

*Stagnation Increments*

It appears that *due to ambiguity*  even the officers who are or were in service as on 11.11.2020 are  deprived of benefit of additional stagnation increment  due to them as per Joint Note  Signed  in the month of November 2020.

 The joint letter is not giving any  instance where such increment  has  *already* been released at least by some banks .

If any  bank or some of the banks are  able to interpret the provisions correctly as *deemed appropriate* by the leaders what are the difficulties for other banks to use the same interpretation as a *bench mark* and extend similar benefit  to the officers working in their own bank .

Whether a sincere attempt was made by the   units of  officers organisations working in other banks to follow the same interpretation for  releasing the stagnation eligible officers .

It appears that *none of the banks* have been able to understand the meaning of term used  in Joint Note signed in November 2020 and approved by bank boards.
That itself shows that provisions are Incorporated  without applying proper thought process.

Further in the month of January 2021  itself IBA has already *washed off* it's hand advising all banks to implement similar provision of 10BPS with due approval of their boards ..Thus it's quite clear that even IBA  does not  have  *enough competence*    to interpret the clause as agreed  by them  while finalising  settlement  with OUs.

The other party is also now putting on records that they are *equally (in) competent* to interpret clause incorporated in said settlement .

Further it's not a totally new concept ..It was used in earlier settlements  signed till 2010 where by stagnation increments are released to officers in service  uniformly from a specified  date   effective from a future date *after or near to finalisation of  settlement.*

From 10BPS a major change was made under which periodicity  of earlier released increments was reduced to shorter period making it applicable from retrospective date leading to reworking of time of earlier increments    already released long back   The recalculating due dates of release of  earlier increment and  fixing fresh pay  with additional increments / last stagnation increment was to be released by *notionally* readjusting periodicity of  earlier increments .

It appears that the said provision found  cumbersome and  difficult to implement ..

The  ambiguity of term used in 10BPS might have alrady been faced for 5 years between 2015 to 2020  and *may be* the said benefits  are still pending .(10BPS).

If it's still pending on what basis OUs  agreed for repeating  same blunder once  again in 2020 .
It seems that there is some *invisible hand*  that forces both the parties to incorporate ambiguous provisions  which about *dozen* eminent personalities in banking field  (who finalise settlement terms  including of course IBA officials ) having  thorough knowledge of banking  are struggling hard to implements it on grounds.

*Ignorance is Bliss*   

was told by some one in history