https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310950 SC dismissed the appeal regarding retrospective withdrawal of pension benefits. The Bank introduced a pension scheme in 1989, with employees opting in and receiving continuous payments until 2010. In 2014, the Bank retrospectively deleted the pension clause citing financial constraints. The Court held that once employees retired under the existing scheme, their pension rights became vested and accrued. Retrospective amendments removing such rights violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Financial difficulties cannot justify divesting employees' vested retirement benefits, as pension represents socio-economic security, not bounty. The Bank must arrange alternative funding sources to honor existing pension obligations. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:09:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310950 SC dismissed the appeal regarding retrospective withdrawal of pension benefits. The Bank introduced a pension scheme in 1989, with employees opting in and receiving continuous payments until 2010. In 2014, the Bank retrospectively deleted the pension clause citing financial constraints. The Court held that once employees retired under the existing scheme, their pension rights became vested and accrued. Retrospective amendments removing such rights violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Financial difficulties cannot justify divesting employees' vested retirement benefits, as pension represents socio-economic security, not bounty. The Bank must arrange alternative funding sources to honor existing pension obligations. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310950