No. The revaluation is designed to keep pension amounts (i.e. future annual entitlements e.g. €5,000 per annum) in line with inflation. It's a relatively recent thing (last 10/15 years?) - before that, pensions were fixed at the time an employee left/changed jobs. In times of high inflation or with many years to go to retirement, pension entitlements could lose a lot of real value by the time the ex-employee retired. So revaluation is a very fair process to have. I don't think anyone ever expected a negative adjustment though. In the crash/post-crash years, revaluation was still upwards even when generally wages were static/down so I don't have a big problem with this now - overall over the past 10 years, my deferred pension has probably increased more than salaries at my old workplace so I'm ahead of where I could reasonably expect to be despite the 0.3% negative adjustment.
This isn't a raid like the pension levy (and if it is, there have been reverse raids for many years...) This is a cost/saving for employers, not the government. I thought the Indo's headline was a bit sensationalist - they didn't have headlines in previous years saying that thousands of workers would see increases from Joan B signing the revaluation statutory instrument... She signs a revaluation order every year.
Just had a read again of the Indo - it's actually incorrect as well as sensationalist. It refers in several places to JB ordering a reduction in the value of funds (hence the OP's question) when it is a reduction in the value of the pension that has been ordered. The fund amount stays the same, she can't order a fund to be reduced - it will just have a slightly lower deficit than before (or higher surplus in the unlikely event it has a surplus).