Some important points :
Subject: Law and Justice : Pension :.Vijay Kumar (former Chief Manager, Central Bank of India) vs. Central Bank of India Court: Supreme Court of India (Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha & Joymalya Bagchi) Reported as: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713
[category Sup]
Here is some important points :
Parties: Vijay Kumar (former Chief Manager, Central Bank of India) vs. Central Bank of India
Court: Supreme Court of India (Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha & Joymalya Bagchi)
Reported as: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 713
⚖️ Facts
Key Details Explanation
Position Held Chief Manager (Scale IV), Central Bank of India
Inquiry Disciplinary inquiry continued post-retirement under Regulation 20(3)(iii) for sanctioning 12 loans improperly, causing ~₹3.26 crore loss
Action Taken
Bank issued compulsory retirement retroactive to 30 Nov 2014 and reduced his pension by one-third, without prior board consultation under Regulation 33
High Court Patna HC upheld reduction
Appeal
Vijay Kumar approached SC
🗝️ Legal Issues
1. Does pension constitute a constitutional right, protected as property under Article 300A?
2. Is board consultation under Regulation 33 a mandatory safeguard before reducing pension?
3. Can retrospective approval rectify a lack of prior consultation?
📢 Supreme Court’s Observations & Findings
1. Pension = Property Right
Pension is not a bounty; it is a valuable property right protected under Article 300A. It cannot be denied or reduced except by lawful authority .
2. Regulation 33 – A Dual Clause
Clause 1: Authority can award not less than two‑thirds of full pension.
Clause 2: If less than full pension is to be granted, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is mandatory .
3. Mandatory, Not Directory
Board consultation is compulsory. Obtaining approval after the decision does not negate legal invalidity .
4. Procedural Safeguards Required
Reduction without prior board consultation and without a fair hearing is arbitrary, fatally flawed and unlawful .
Judgment Delivered
The Supreme Court set aside the bank’s reduction order and the Patna HC’s judgment.
Ordered the bank to revisit the decision within two months, ensuring:
Proper hearing to Vijay Kumar
Prior board consultation
Adherence to Regulation 33’s procedure
Why This Matters
Clarifies that pension is a constitutional property right, not discretionary.
Reinforces that procedural fairness matters even post-retirement.
Sets precedent for all institutions—government or PSU—under pension regulations: no shortcuts or ex‑post facto approvals permitted.
SC: Pension Is a Constitutional Right| Can’t Be Reduced Without Due Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment