Pension – Compulsory Retirement – Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 33 – Constitutional Right – Article 300A – Prior Consultation – Board of Directors – Disciplinary Proceedings.
2025 INSC 848 : (2025) 7 SCD 31
Supreme Court of India
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. of 2025, D No. 39502/2024)
Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025
Held:
-
Pension is a constitutionally protected property right under Article 300A and cannot be curtailed without clear legal authority and adherence to procedural safeguards.
-
Regulation 33(1) and 33(2) of the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, must be read conjointly. When a compulsorily retired employee’s pension is reduced below the full admissible amount, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory, irrespective of whether the reduction is made by a superior authority under clause (1) or a competent authority exercising original, appellate, or review powers under clause (2).
-
The word “may” in Regulation 33(1) does not confer discretion to deny pension below two-thirds of the full pension but clarifies that pension eligibility depends on qualifying service under the regulations.
-
The High Court erred in holding that a compulsorily retired employee is not entitled to any pension unless an order is passed under Regulation 33(1), and in upholding the reduction of one-third of the appellant’s pension without prior consultation with the Board.
-
Prior consultation with the Board of Directors is a mandatory safeguard, and ex-post facto approval cannot substitute it. The reduction of pension without such consultation and without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing was invalid.
-
The Supreme Court declined to exercise its powers under Article 142 to uphold the pension reduction, as no evidence supported the alleged financial loss to the bank, and no exceptional circumstances were established.
-
The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order and the Field General Manager’s order dated 07.08.2015 reducing the pension were set aside. The Bank was directed to take a fresh decision on pension reduction after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing and with prior consultation with the Board within two months, failing which the appellant would be entitled to full pension from the date of superannuation.
