RBI asks banks to pay 8% interest for delay in crediting pensions

The central bank decided to delink the penal interest levied for delayed credit of pension, revised pension and arrears from the bank rate plus 2% and charge a fixed interest rate of 8% on such delays

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has asked all agency banks to compensate all pensioners, including non-state resident pensioners at a fixed rate of 8% for delay in credit of their pension, revised pension or arrears for the delayed period beyond due date.

Replying to a complaint filed by Commodore Lokesh Batra, the central bank issued these instructions to agency banks. Commodore Batra has complained about the delay in receiving revised pension of pre-2005 to defence commissioned officers and family pensioners.


Recently, the RBI aligned the bank rate, which was kept at 6% to the marginal standing facility (MSF) rate and at present stands at 9.5% and whenever there is an adjustment in MSF rate, the central bank would align bank rate accordingly, RBI said in a notification.

It said, “It has now been decided to delink the penal interest levied for delayed credit of pension, revised pension and arrears from the bank rate plus 2% and charge a fixed interest rate of 8% on such delays. The rate will be subject to review by RBI as considered appropriate”.


The central bank also directed all nationalised banks, IDBI Bank, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and HDFC Bank to implement instructions issued by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions) in circular no500 on 17 January 2013 about revision of pension of pre-2006 defence commissioned officers and family pensioners.



A B Mehta

4 years ago

It is sad that the due has still not been cleared on 29 Apr and old rate pension has been credited. The problem is with the banks, particularly SBI. However to politicise it and ask soldiers and family members not to vote for UPA is ill advised.




In Reply to A B Mehta 4 years ago

dont worry. Even till 18th may,the great SBI has not credited dr arrears. They have no control over their clomputer people

Commander P K Jain

4 years ago

The attitude of the concerned branches is that they have to receive orders from their respective controlling authorities and in this present state of governance when even directives from PM have no meaning as the wait is for the orders from the higher authority.....
Everyone seems helpless when it comes to giving out money to ex servicemen since it is considered as dole from the government due to the attitude of the govt.for the PM by the PM and of the PM

Commander P K Jain

Vinod Thakur

4 years ago

My father is a retired Central Railway Employee,he got retired in the period June 2012, at that time he got his due with arrears are still pending which is not yet been disbursed. So as per this article, my dad is eligible for an additional 8% fixed interest on arrears, which is been declared by RBI. Should I consult Bank Of India who takes care of all transaction related with my dad's account.

Ashok Chhibbar

4 years ago

If this non-payment was related to politicians or the bank personnel, a demand for the resignation of the Chairman of the Banks or perhaps the Finance Minister would have been demanded. Defence personnel are the last priority for anyone in this country. And they continue to suffer in silence.

V Mahalingam

4 years ago

Thanks to Cmde LK Batra he managed to get the RBI expedite the payment of dues to military pensioners. The Indian society’s attitude and apathy towards the Defence Services is visible from the response of the Banks in crediting the sanctioned legitimate dues of the soldiers. If that not be so, why would the banks which are meant to serve the people sit on the dues of the military? Those who fought the 62, 65, 71 and the numerous insurgencies in the country and their widows are today’s pensioners. They are old, some not very healthy, most without the support of their children who are away earning their livelihood. Shouldn’t the country not be sympathetic towards them and save them the ignominy and torcher of running around courts, government offices, unsympathetic bureaucracy and least of all the banks? Will the people of this country including the media take up this issue and do something to change the attitude of the people?


4 years ago

This move is a comfort for pensioners. The principle should be further extended with appropriate modifications in respect of various other categories of depositors and savers. Some banks have an ‘auto renewal’ facility for Fixed Deposits kept with them. Now that the country is moving aggressively towards financial inclusion and everyone having something to do with money will have a bank account, even before AADHAAR, it should be the aim to link any financial transaction to a bank account. Any payment, as and when it becomes due should get credited to the bank account of the client, if s/he has provided details of bank account. Delay in credit after due date and normal reasonable administrative delay (say, seven working days), should entitle the beneficiary to receive interest at rates comparable with those paid on long term savings.

SEBI’s clarification on submission of unaudited accounts creating confusion

As per the October 2011 circular, upon amendment to Clause 41(d) of LA, companies were supposed to file only their audited accounts within 60 days. The April 2012 circular says companies could submit their unaudited results within 45 days and there was no specified period to submit audited results. How do the companies ensure compliance of these circulars?

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had vide its circular on 11 April 2012 over-ridden the effect of the circular dated October 05, 20111 (October 2011 Circular) on Clause 41 of the Listing Agreement (LA). Listed companies now have to submit their last quarter un-audited results within 45 days from the end of the quarter and thereafter the audited accounts as soon as they are approved by the board of directors (BoD).


This amendment was made after receiving numerous representations from the companies as well as auditors, to reduce the burden on the companies due to the Revised Schedule VI requirements. But there is a confusion on the applicability of both the October 2011 and April 2012 circulars.


As per the October 2011 circular, upon amendment to Clause 41(d) of LA, companies were supposed to file only their audited accounts within period of 60 days and there was no scope for filing of unaudited results. The figures of the last quarter in this case were supposed to be the balancing amount of the three quarter deducted from the annual figure.


Whilst the Clause 41(d) amended by the October 2011 Circular still exists, a new Clause 41 (eaa) was inserted by the April 2012 Circular that read as follows:


“Submit limited reviewed Q4 results within 45 days from end of the quarter and thereafter submit annual audited results as soon as they are approved by the Board.




Submit annual audited results within 60 days from the end of fourth quarter along with Q4 results which would be a balancing figure.”


The April 2012 Circular clearly stated that such provision inserted as Clause 41(eaa) was only a one-time measure and that the position will be reviewed at a later stage. The amendment was brought in concurrence with the provisions appearing even before the October 2011 Circular where the companies had the option to submit their unaudited accounts within 45 days or audited accounts within 60 days of the end of the quarter.


However, with the amendment brought vide April 2012 Circular, companies could submit their unaudited results within 45 days and thereafter there was no specified period to submit their audited results as the same was subject to time when the board approves the same. Hence, the companies were relaxed to the extent of first time hassle being caused due to implementation of Revised Schedule VI. Therefore, it appears that the aforesaid Clause 41 (eaa) was inserted as an alternative to Clause 41 (d) for FY 2-11-12.


The moot question is whether the April 2012 Circular still holds relevance? If the answer is yes, then how do companies ensure compliance of the same? In the absence of any review that was to happen at a ‘later stage’, this becomes a critical question as the companies may default in compliance with the requirement to submit accounts in due time i.e. submit audited accounts within 60 days at the end of the quarter.


Clearly, the review of the April 2012 Circular missed the attention of the regulator, as there was no sunset clause in the LA. The present LA still refers to the April 2012 Circular, which may be argued to not be in effect due to its intent of limited introduction as a “one-time measure”. In essence therefore, the April 2012 Circular is no more relevant and effective and hence there is no question of submission on un-audited accounts for the FY 2013 onwards unless the regulator brings in any further amendments to the same.


Why then is it at all important to discuss the issue? Assuming a case where a company opts to change its accounting year, say for a period of nine months ending on 31st March after elapse of such date i.e. 31st March. In such a case assuming the April 2012 Circular was still effective, one would have submitted un-audited accounts for the quarter ended 31st March within 45 days i.e. by 15th May and thereafter post deciding such change in the accounting year would have published its audited results as soon as approved by the board. But, due to the inadvertence of the regulator, companies may fail to analyse that the April 2012 Circular is no more applicable and hence, in this situation what the company could possibly do is to change its accounting year and thereafter it may possibly file the audited accounts itself for the period ending 31st March.


Interestingly, the regulator has sought to send reminders to companies for compliance of the Clause 41 (d) pursuant to October 2011 Circular but, on the other hand, has completely missed on the review of the amendment brought in vide April 2012 Circular. Well at least with this reminder mail either one can be sure of the legal position that the audited accounts have to be submitted within 60 days only. This is now a buzzing issue for several corporates but hopefully this phase of confusion will fade soon, irrespective of regulator’s correction of the slip.



Correlation between gold prices and demand

Brokerage firm Nomura believes that the recent spike in demand for gold in India as a temporary anomaly given the positive correlation between the gold price and demand since 2009

The correlation between the gold price and gold demand (import volume) in India has shifted from being negative pre-2008 to positive since 2009. This means that in recent years a rising gold price was accompanied by rising demand, and vice-versa. These observations were made by brokerage firm Nomura in its report on gold prices and demand in India.



The change in correlation reflects a change in perception, away from demand being

mainly for consumption and traditional purposes (weddings and religious ceremonies) towards a growing affinity for gold as an investment asset class—where rising prices fuelled even larger investment demand (post 2009), according to Nomura.


The recent fall in gold price led to a sharp demand spike, seemingly reversing the correlation, but the brokerage believes this is only a temporary blip as consumers bring forward demand viewing this as a buy-on-dip opportunity. However, if the gold price continues to fall, we would expect the recent surge in demand to falter as investment demand declines, adds the brokerage.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)