The Supreme Court heard the M.C. Singla petition yesterday, seeking pension updation for retired bank employees under clause 35(1) of the BEPR .

Summary of proceedings

• Hearing: Court No. 2, around 12:30 pm. Senior counsel for the petitioners opened by summarizing that the petition seeks pension updation under clause 35(1), which banks have not applied since 1.11.1992.
• Pension funds and finances: Petitioners’ counsel told the Court that bank pension funds stood at approximately Rs. 4,57,000 crore as of 31.2.25, likely exceeding Rs. 5,00,000 crore as on 31.3.26, with annual contributions/income near Rs. 70,000 crore versus annual pension liability of about Rs. 38,000 crore. That leaves an annual surplus of around Rs. 30,000 crore, while the estimated annual cost to implement pension updation would be about Rs. 5,000 crore.
• Legal issues raised: The Court asked about the statutory basis for updation. Petitioners’ counsel explained the pension-fund clauses and clause 35(1) specifically.
• Respondent’s arguments (IBA/PNB): Senior counsel for the banks, Mr. Dhruv Mehta, argued the Punjab & Haryana High Court proceedings showed the petitioners had not relied on clause 35(1) earlier. The High Court decisions (Single Judge, 16.4.2012; Division Bench, 09.09.2015) considered clause 12 of the settlement and clause 56 of the Pension Regulations, concluding clause 56 did not provide for updation; those judgments therefore did not address clause 35(1).
• One‑time measure contention: The IBA/PNB argued that the original clause 35(1) was intended as a one‑time measure for retirees between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1987, and that introducing clause 35(1) now — with documents not placed before the High Court — is impermissible in the present appeal.
• Court’s observations and questions: The Court queried why clause 35(1) was amended in 2003 and made open‑ended if it were truly a one‑time provision. The banks responded that Appendix‑1 concerned only “additional pension” updation and had not been amended to allow general pension updation. The IBA/PNB further relied on clause 35(2) and Appendix‑1 entries that they say provide updation for certain post‑1992 retirees.
• Factual clarification sought: The Court examined pension computation charts filed by PNB and noted the claimed updation did not appear in those charts. The Court has asked the bank to file an affidavit explaining whether, after pay revisions and DA merger since 2002, the bank (a) arrived at new pay scales by merging DA and (b) merged Dearness Allowance into basic pension for pensioners — and if not, why.
• Petitioners’ view: The petitioners consider the bank’s line of argument unsupportable. Arguments will resume on 12.08.2026; petitioners are confident of securing pension updation. The Court’s written order for yesterday’s hearing is awaited and will be circulated when issued.

Source: AIBPARC circular dated 22.07.2026