13th Bipartite Settlement - Key Charter Demands

1. Salary & Benefits

- 30–35% increase in pay slip components 

- Merger of Special Allowance with Basic Pay for better pension/retirement benefits

- 100% DA neutralization for inflation protection

- Transparent & uniform performance incentives

- Higher HRA & Transport Allowance especially for metro and semi-urban areas

2. Working Hours & Work-Life Balance

- Immediate 5-day banking in all PSBs

- Fixed working hours - no routine work beyond office hours

- Mandatory 45-minute lunch break for all staff

- Automatic EOD closure after business hours except in emergencies

3. Staffing & Workload

- Minimum staffing norm: 3 Officers + 3 Clerks per branch

- Immediate recruitment to fill all vacancies  

- Reduce non-banking work and unnecessary reporting

4. Transfers & Career Progression

- Transparent transfer policy with priority for spouse, medical, disability, compassionate grounds

- Posting within 30 km of hometown after specified service

- Time-bound promotions with adequate vacancies

- Extra benefits for CAIIB/JAIIB qualified - faster progression

5. Leave & Welfare

- Encashment of all unavailed leave at retirement

- Better medical insurance - cashless + higher coverage for staff & pensioners

- Mental health counselling and stress management support

- Education assistance for employees' children

6. Safety & Technology

- Zero tolerance for abuse/assault on bank staff with legal protection

- Better cybersecurity & digital infra to reduce operational load

- AI-based automation for repetitive tasks to focus on customer service

7. Pension & Retirement

- Pension updation for retirees

- Improved family pension and post-retirement medical benefits

- Enhanced gratuity & superannuation in line with inflation

8. Other Key Demands

- Overtime pay / Compensatory off for work beyond hours

- Uniform leave rules l across all PSBs

- Realistic business targets that don’t compromise well-being

- Regular consultation with unions before major policy changes

Read More

Big PSU Bank Disinvestment Move: Govt Eyes OFS for Some PSBs

According to official sources who spoke to NDTV Profit, the Center intends to implement an Offer for Sale (OFS) in Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) as part of its strategy to decrease its stake in public sector banks and adhere to minimum public shareholding requirements. The OFS is anticipated to be launched shortly in order to reduce the government's 92.44% ownership of Indian Overseas Bank.

This comes after the government successfully sold a 2.17% share in IOB through an OFS in December 2025, which was well appreciated by investors.

In order to satisfy public float requirements, the government is anticipated to continue selling stakes in public sector banks in the upcoming months, according to official sources.

The next banks to be considered for stake dilution are probably Punjab & Sind Bank and UCO Bank.

Currently, the government controls 90.95% of UCO Bank and 93.85% of Punjab & Sind Bank, both of which are substantially more than the minimum public shareholding requirement for listed businesses.

The Center's larger disinvestment policy, which aims to increase market liquidity in state-owned businesses while retaining majority control, includes the proposed stake sales.

The Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) has so far raised Rs 20,272 crore through disinvestment in FY27, according to official sources.

Separately, in an effort to raise funds through strategic share sales and the monetization of public assets, the government has set an asset monetization target of Rs 80,000 crore for the current fiscal year.

Source - NDTV Profit

Read More

One More Step Towards Privatisation? Government to Sell Stakes in 6 PSUs, Targets ₹80,000 Crore in FY27

During the current fiscal year 2026–2027, the Central Government expanded its disinvestment activities by lowering its ownership of six Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs). In addition to banks, the government is reducing its ownership of other public sector businesses. Through disinvestment, the government has so far raised almost ₹20,000 crore. This now exceeds the ₹16,885 crore that was collected during the course of the previous fiscal year.

The Central Government has raised a total of ₹18,561 crore by selling shares in the Central Bank of India, Coal India, NHPC, NLC India, General Insurance Corporation (GIC), and Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC). The government raised the following approximate sum from the sale of PSU stakes:

Company / Organisation	Amount Raised Through OFS
Central Bank of India	Over ₹2,200 crore
Coal India	Over ₹5,500 crore
NHPC	Over ₹4,300 crore
NLC	Over ₹1,200 crore
GIC	Over ₹3,000 crore
IRFC	Over ₹2,000 crore
Cochin Shipyard	Over ₹1,700 crore

This amount is just in 3 months of the financial year. This amount is higher than the total amount raised by the Government in the last few years. It seems the Government has increased the speed of disinvestment. The government raised ₹16,885 crore in FY 2025-26 and ₹10,163 crore in FY 2024-25. The government had collected ₹16,507 crore in FY 2023-24, ₹35,293 crore in FY 2022-23, ₹13,534 crore in FY 2021-22 and ₹32,886 crore in FY 2020-21.

It seems the NDA-led government has put disinvestment on top of its agenda. Almost all PSU stake sales during the current financial year have been carried out through the Offer for Sale route. 

The government is also planning to strategically disinvest in a number of other Central Public Sector Enterprises. Among them are Air India Engineering Services Ltd. (AIESL), Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (RINL), and Container Corporation of India (CONCOR).

On stock exchanges, 68 CPSEs are listed. The government owns shares in these businesses worth more than ₹22.80 lakh crore. In addition, 16 public financial institutions, including banks and insurance firms, are listed; the government owns shares in these organizations worth around ₹19 lakh crore. As a result, the government can readily sell a portion of these businesses.

The government’s strategic disinvestment programme is also continuing, although the process has been slow. The Expression of Interest process has been completed for the strategic sale of six CPSEs. These include IDBI Bank, NMDC Steel, HLL Lifecare, Projects & Development India Ltd (PDIL), BEML and Shipping Corporation of India (SCI). 

According to Finance Ministry officials, the strategic sale of IDBI Bank is likely to be revived soon. The process had earlier been put on hold because of valuation concerns and limited interest from investors. The government is now expected to move ahead with the stake sale process again.

Read More

Court Sentences Bank of India(BOI) Senior Manager to 7 Years Jail in Major Fraud Case

 

In a bank fraud case, the CBI Court in Bhopal convicted two defendants, Mohan Singh Solanki (a private individual) and Piyush Chaturvedi (then Senior Branch Manager, Bank of India, Misrod Branch, Bhopal), to seven years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 60,000.

Based on a written complaint submitted by the then-Dy. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhopal, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered the case on January 25, 2016. On November 21, 2013, a term loan and cash credit limit of Rs. 30,00,000 were allegedly illegally and dishonestly approved in the name of M/s Sunny Enterprises by accused Piyush Chaturvedi, the Senior Branch Manager of the Bank of India, Misrod Branch, Bhopal.

On the same day, an RTGS transaction was used to fraudulently debit Rs. 22,00,000 from the account of M/s Sunny Enterprises based on a forged and fabricated RTGS form and voucher. The money was then transferred to the account of accused Mohan Singh Solanki's M/s Gold Fly Aish, and both accused misappropriated it in order to further their criminal conspiracy.

The Bank suffered a large loss as a result. After conducting an investigation, the CBI brought charges against Mohan Singh Solanki and Piyush Chaturvedi. Following the trial, the Hon'ble Court found the accused guilty and punished them appropriately.

Read More

SBI Ordered to Pay ₹25,000 for Sharing Customer’s Bank Details Without Consent

The State Bank of India (SBI) has been held accountable for a defect in service by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lakhimpur Kheri, for disclosing a customer's personal bank account information to his employer without that customer's permission.

According to the Commission, a bank cannot give a third party access to a customer's personal banking information without the customer's permission. According to the ruling, this kind of unapproved disclosure is against banking standards and constitutes a service defect.

The complainant, Pankaj Kumar Shukla, had a savings account with SBI’s Hargaon Branch in Sitapur. He was working with Govind Sugar Mill.

A labour dispute was pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. During the case, Govind Sugar Mill filed a counter affidavit containing details of Shukla’s savings account.

Shukla alleged that SBI had shared his bank account details with his employer without his consent. He also claimed that the account statement contained some incorrect entries, which were later corrected by the bank.

The complainant said that the unauthorized disclosure of his personal banking information and the incorrect entries caused him mental agony, physical hardship and financial loss. He approached the bank and sought an explanation and correction of the account details.

However, he was not satisfied with the bank’s explanation regarding the disclosure of his account information. He then filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lakhimpur Kheri.

In his complaint, Shukla sought compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and litigation costs.

SBI contended that the complaint was unmaintainable and denied any service deficiencies. According to the bank, Shukla worked at Govind Sugar Mill, and his pay was credited to the employer's bank account.

SBI claims that the account statement was solely given to the employer in order to balance salary payments. According to the bank, the information was disclosed in compliance with banking procedures and at the employer's request.

Additionally, SBI asserted that the complainant's account included no inaccurate entries. The bank asked the Commission to reject the complaint and denied disclosing any private information without permission.

However, the Consumer Commission observed that Shukla’s savings account was his personal bank account. The bank had shared details of the account with his employer without obtaining his consent.

The Commission held that a bank cannot disclose a customer’s personal banking information to a third party without the customer’s permission.

It concluded that the unauthorized disclosure was a clear violation of banking norms and amounted to deficiency in service.

Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed SBI to pay ₹20,000 as compensation for the mental agony and physical hardship caused to the complainant.

The Commission also directed the bank to pay 6% annual interest on the compensation amount from the date the complaint was filed until the amount is paid.

In addition, SBI was directed to pay ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. The complaint against the remaining opposite parties was dismissed.

The order draws attention to a significant problem with bank clients' privacy. Even if a company pays salaries into a customer's savings account, the account is still the customer's personal account.

The Commission's conclusions in this case state that an employer does not automatically have the right to access an employee's personal account information just because they deposit their salary into the employee's bank account.

The case also demonstrates the necessity for banks to exercise caution when answering consumer information requests. Customers may file a complaint with the relevant forum if personal banking information is disclosed without their consent or legal authority.

Read More

NaBFID Recruitment 2026 Out for Chief Investment Officer, Compliance Officer & Chief Executive Officer Posts

The National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development (NaBFID) has invited applications for the recruitment of senior executives under NaBFID Recruitment 2026. The recruitment drive includes vacancies for Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Investment Officer (CIO), and Compliance Officer (CO) in the Fund Management Entity (FME).

Candidates with qualifications such as CA, MBA, CS, CFA, FRM, or a Postgraduate Degree/Diploma in Management with a specialization in Finance can apply, depending on the post. Interested candidates must submit their applications through email before the last date.

NaBFID Recruitment 2026 Overview

Particulars	Details
Organization	National Bank for Financing Infrastructure and Development (NaBFID)
Recruitment Year	2026
Posts	Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Investment Officer (CIO), Compliance Officer (CO)
Total Vacancies	3
Job Type	Contractual
Application Mode	Email
Notification Release Date	3 July 2026
Last Date to Apply	24 July 2026
Official Website	https://nabfid.org

Important Dates

Candidates should complete the application process before the closing date.

Event	Date
Notification Released	3 July 2026
Application Start Date	3 July 2026
Last Date to Apply	24 July 2026

Educational Qualification

The educational qualifications vary according to the post.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO)

Candidates should possess:

• CA, MBA, or Postgraduate Degree/Diploma in Management with specialization in Finance.
• Degree from a recognized university or reputed overseas institution.
• CFA or FRM qualification will be preferred.
• More than 20 years of experience in fund management, including infrastructure fund management.

Chief Investment Officer (CIO)

Applicants should have:

• CA, MBA, or Postgraduate Degree/Diploma in Management with specialization in Finance.
• CFA or FRM qualification is desirable.
• More than 20 years of experience in investments with a strong track record in infrastructure or real assets.

Compliance Officer (CO)

Candidates should possess:

• CA, CS, MBA, or regular full-time Postgraduate Degree/Diploma in Management with Finance specialization.
• LL.B. degree or certifications in compliance or risk management will be an added advantage.
• Minimum eight years of experience in compliance, legal, or company secretarial functions.

Official Notification and Application Link

• Download Notification PDF
• Click Here to Apply Online

Read More

RBI imposes Monetary Penalty on this PSU Bank

Bank of Baroda(BOB) has been fined ₹63.60 lakh (Rupees sixty-three lakh sixty thousand only) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as follows:

the bank had collected interest, higher than the contracted rate of interest, in certain loan accounts.

the bank did not upload KYC records of certain customers onto Central KYC Records Registry (CKYCR) within the prescribed timeline.

Apart from Bank of Baroda, RBI has also imposed monetary penalty on GIC Housing Finance Limited.

In an order dated June 24, 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) fined GIC Housing Finance Limited ₹3.10 lakh (Rupees Three lakh Ten thousand only) for failing to implement a system of periodic review of risk categorization of accounts, with such periodicity being at least once every six months.

Read More

Another Currency Chest Incident: ₹1 Crore Cash Goes Missing from Currency Chest in Madhya Pradesh

At the Punjab National Bank Currency Chest in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, a cash discrepancy of Rs. 1 crore has been recorded. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has received a plea from the officer assigned to the currency chest. An independent probe of a purported ₹1 crore cash disparity in the bank's currency chest in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh, has been requested by the officer.

The petitioner has claimed that attempts were made to place the blame for the disparity on him, that official records were manipulated, and that the true cash position was concealed.

According to the petition, the bank officer joined the Punjab National Bank, Mandsaur branch, as the Branch Manager and took charge of the currency chest on May 6, 2025. The charge of the currency chest was formally handed over to him by O.P. Sharma, who continued to work at the same branch until June 2, 2025. The petition has been filed by Bank Officer Anuj Sharma, who is currently under suspension.

The petition states that he was placed under suspension despite being the officer who first detected and reported the discrepancy. He has approached the Court claiming protection as a whistleblower and alleging apprehension of retaliatory action.

After taking charge, the petitioner examined the currency chest records and allegedly found serious differences between the actual cash records maintained in Bin Cards and the figures shown in the daily currency chest reports that were sent to the bank’s higher authorities.

According to the petition, the disparities were part of an ongoing pattern of official record falsification rather than being coincidental. The petitioner claims that by creating false daily reports, the true cash position in the currency chest was hidden. He has claimed that the true cash shortage was concealed by these reports.

According to the petitioner, discrepancies in Bin Cards, Bin Registers, and Daily Currency Chest Reports kept for the chest were discovered. According to the plea, irregularities in the data persisted for several months and were connected to a bin containing ₹500 denomination notes. The timeline presented before the Court states that the abnormalities started to appear in records in January 2025 and persisted after that.

After discovering the alleged shortage, the petitioner informed the Circle Head of Punjab National Bank, Ujjain, through a detailed communication dated May 13, 2025. In his report, he disclosed an alleged cash discrepancy of ₹1 crore. The matter was also brought to the notice of other concerned bank officials, including O.P. Sharma.

The petition further alleges that before the scheduled audit on September 22, 2025, the petitioner was repeatedly told that the issue would be managed.

Later, he allegedly discovered that ₹1 crore was temporarily arranged from Smriti Nagrik Sahakari Bank, a local cooperative bank, only for the purpose of the audit. According to the petition, the money was returned after the audit was completed.

The petitioner has claimed that these allegations require a detailed investigation by examining bank records, cash transactions, and statements of the officials involved. He also informed another branch employee who was serving as the Joint Custodian of the currency chest.

The petitioner stated that on May 19, 2025, he received an email from the PNB Zonal Audit Office, Bhopal, asking him to explain certain issues. A second email was sent on May 26, 2025, referring to a supplementary investigation. According to the petition, these communications raised issues such as the non-maintenance of the takeover register for temporary joint custodians and the storage of duplicate vault keys.

The petitioner has claimed that despite reporting the ₹1 crore discrepancy to senior officials, the bank later attempted to hold him responsible for the alleged manipulation of records. He argued that instead of investigating the reported shortage, the focus shifted towards questioning his conduct.

The petition states that the officer submitted a representation to the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on June 8, 2026, requesting an independent inquiry into the alleged cash discrepancy. He also filed a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, but according to the petition, no effective action was taken.

Following the hearing, the Madhya Pradesh High Court sent out a notice on the writ petition and asked the parties involved to respond. The High Court is currently considering the matter for additional proceedings.

The respondents were given time to submit their responses by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt, who heard the case at the Indore Bench. The Central Bureau of Investigation's attorney requested time to react, and the Punjab National Bank authorities' attorney wanted time to record their vakalatnama, according to the court. The Court listed the case right away after instructing the respondents to submit their responses within three weeks.

Read More