Prior consultation requirement for pension reduction under bank regulations cannot be cured by later approval.

Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 was read as a composite safeguard: where pension for a compulsorily retired employee is reduced below full pension, prior consultation with the Board of Directors is required before the order is passed. The consultation requirement applies as a pre-decisional condition and cannot be cured by post facto approval. The employee's pension right was treated as a protected property right, so strict compliance with the regulation was necessary. A reduction made without prior consultation was therefore invalid, though the Bank could take a fresh decision after hearing the employee and consulting the Board.

---

---

Issues: Whether Regulation 33 of the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 requires prior consultation with the Board of Directors before pension payable to a compulsorily retired employee is reduced, and whether a post facto approval can cure the absence of such consultation.

Analysis: Regulation 33 was construed as a composite provision. Clause (1) permits a superior authority to award compulsory retirement pension not below two-thirds of full pension, while clause (2) covers situations where the competent authority, including in appellate or review jurisdiction, awards less than full pension and mandates consultation with the Board before the order is passed. Reading the clauses separately would render the appellate and review language in clause (2) ineffective and would permit circumvention of the safeguard. The right to pension was treated as a valuable property right protected by law, so any reduction below full pension had to comply strictly with the prescribed procedure. The absence of prior consultation could not be validated by subsequent approval, because the regulation contemplates consultation as a pre-decisional safeguard.

Conclusion: The reduction of pension without prior consultation with the Board of Directors was invalid, and the challenge to the High Court's view succeeded. The Bank was left free to take a fresh decision in accordance with Regulation 33 after hearing the employee and consulting the Board.

---