Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.25 seconds)
R. K. Bansal vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors on 12 May, 2026 cites

Vijay Kumar Agarwal vs Chairman And Managing Director Central ... on 26 July, 2021

20. This position now stands settled by the Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. Central Bank of India,1 while construing Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, a provision materially similar to the one involved here. The Supreme Court held that sub-regulations (1) and (2) of Regulation 33 must be read together, and that whenever pension lower than the full pension admissible is awarded to an employee compulsorily retired as a penalty, prior consultation with the Board is mandatory. The Court rejected the contention that consultation is necessary only in a limited class of cases, and treated prior Board Signature Not Verified Dgitally Signed W.P.(C) 683/2020 Page 8 of 16 By:AKANSHA SINGH Signing Date:16.05.2026 15:29:16 consultation as a substantive safeguard before a pensionary entitlement, protected as property under Article 300A, is curtailed. Post-decisional approval cannot cure the absence of prior consultation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Sawhney vs Central Bank Of India & Anr on 16 May, 2019

21. This Court, in Ashok Kumar Sawhney v. Central Bank of India,2 had also examined a reduction of pension by one-third after compulsory retirement. The Division Bench treated Regulation 33 as requiring strict adherence where the Bank seeks to pay less than full pension. That decision rests on a simple but important principle: a pension cut after compulsory retirement is not a mechanical sequel to the penalty. It is a distinct decision under the Pension Regulations and must satisfy the procedure prescribed by those Regulations.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1