Summary: The Delhi High Court ruled against Canara Bank for taking away one-third of Pankaj Kumar Pathak's pension without following the proper steps. Justice Avneesh Jhingan emphasized the need to be fair and clear when making decisions.
Pankaj Kumar Pathak, who used to work as a Probationary Officer with Syndicate Bank, was shocked when his pension was reduced by a third. After Syndicate Bank merged with Canara Bank, he was forced to retire in 2018 due to disciplinary reasons. However, there was no official explanation for the pension cut.
The bank claimed that according to Rule No. 33 of the 1995 Pension Rules, they could reduce the pension. But the rules require a higher authority to make such decisions, and they must discuss it with the Board of Directors. None of this was done.
"A pension... shall not be less than two-thirds and not more than full pension," states Rule No. 33(1).
Justice Avneesh Jhingan stressed the importance of being open and fair in decisions that affect people's rights. He mentioned a similar case, M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., highlighting that decisions need to be well thought out and explained.
"Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds."
The court found that Canara Bank's actions were unfair. The deduction was canceled, and the bank was told to follow the correct steps if they wanted to address the pension issue.
The bank can still deal with the pension matter, but they must do it properly. Justice Jhingan's decision highlights the need for clear, fair, and transparent actions by big organizations.
