Vijay Kumar vs. Central Bank of India 2025 INSC 848 - Pension Regulations - Central Bank Regulations
Service Law - Pension - Pension is not a discretion of the employer but a valuable right to property and can be denied only through authority of law. When an authority is vested with the discretion to grant pension less than full pension admissible under the Pension Regulations, all procedural safeguards in favour of the employee including prior consultation must be strictly followed. (Para 17)
Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 33- The pension payable to an employee who has been compulsorily retired as a penalty shall not be less than two-third of his full pension or Rs. 375 per mensem, whichever is higher. The word ‘may’ must be read in its proper context, that is to say, it was used in the regulation not to vest discretion in the superior authority to grant pension less than two-third of full pension payable but to clarify that the aforesaid clause will not entitle a compulsorily retired employee to pension if he is not otherwise entitled to such pension on superannuation on that day. For example, if an employee is compulsorily retired without completing ‘qualifying service’ making him eligible to pension under the regulations -Clause (1) and clause (2) of regulation 33 must be read conjointly and in all cases when the full pension admissible to a compulsorily retired employee under the regulations is reduced, a prior consultation with the Board is necessary. (Para 18-19) Award of pension less than full pension is to be done with prior consultation of the Board of Directors. Such prior consultation with the highest authority of the Bank i.e., Board of Directors must be understood as a valuable mandatory safeguard before an employee’s constitutional right to pension is curtailed. In these circumstances, a post facto approval cannot be a substitute of prior consultation with the Board before the decision is made. (Para 21)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 848
Coram (Judges)
- Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Judgment Date
- Date: July 15, 2025
Caselaws and Citations
- Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1953) 2 SCC 111
- Indian Administrative Service (S.C.S.) Association, U.P. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1993) Supp (1) SCC 730
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Central Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995
- Regulation 33 (Compulsory Retirement Pension)
- Central Bank of India (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979
- Regulation 20(3)(iii)
- Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976
- Rule 4(h)
- Constitution of India
- Article 300A (Right to property)
- Article 142 (Powers of the Supreme Court)
Pension is not a discretion of the employer but a valuable right to property and can be denied only through authority of law. #SupremeCourt https://t.co/0YgxQJtQQN pic.twitter.com/1SAX28O8ou
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) July 29, 2025
