Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 9, 14, 25 & 27 – Right to Life, Dignity, Equality and Non-Discrimination Marital status as bar to family pension entitlement—Scope—Held, a daughter’s right to family pension of a deceased civil servant cannot be extinguished merely due to change in marital status after the pensioner’s death—Family pension is not a discretionary grant but a legal and constitutional entitlement grounded in Articles 9 and 14, encompassing both the right to life and to live with dignity—Denial of pension based solely on a woman’s change in marital status, without regard to actual financial need, constitutes systemic gender bias and violates Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution—Presumption that married women are financially secure and unmarried/divorced women are dependent, held, to be a flawed and patriarchal assumption—Eligibility for pension must be based on need, not formal status—Court observed that such restrictive interpretations fail to recognize women as autonomous right-holders and reinforce unconstitutional and discriminatory stereotypes. (b) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 – Rr. 4.7(1), 4.10(2)(B), 4.10(3) Interpretation of “unmarried” and “divorced” daughter—Scope—Held, Rules entitle both unmarried and divorced daughters to family pension without conditioning eligibility on the timing of marital status—Circular dated 05.12.2022 issued by Government of Sindh interpreted Rule 4.10(2)(B) restrictively by linking pension entitlement to status at time of death of the pensioner—Such restriction, held, had no support in the Act or the Rules and unlawfully curtailed an otherwise vested right—Rules confer pensionary entitlement based on category of beneficiary, not time-based marital conditions—Circular found to exceed its administrative scope and struck down as void. (c) Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 – S. 20 Right to pension—Nature and succession—Held, pension is not an ex gratia or charitable benefit but a legally accrued right of a government servant for past service—In case of death, this right devolves onto legal heirs under the Act and must be administered in accordance with law—Delay in disbursement or imposition of arbitrary restrictions amounts to negligence and breach of statutory and constitutional duty—Government departments bound to uphold fair, timely, and lawful distribution of pensionary benefits. (d) Executive Instructions and Circulars – Legal Status Administrative clarifications—Scope—Held, executive instructions or departmental circulars cannot override, amend, or narrow the operation of parent statutes or delegated legislation—Circular dated 05.12.2022 imposed an unauthorised condition that conflicted with the statutory pension framework—Court reaffirmed that executive authorities cannot issue clarifications that create new legal obligations or exclusions absent legislative backing. (e) Gender Equality – International Obligations – CEDAW, ICCPR, ICESCR, ILO Convention No. 111 Discriminatory pension frameworks based on marital status—Effect—Held, Pakistan’s international treaty obligations prohibit laws or practices that deny women access to economic benefits due to sex or marital status—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ICCPR, ICESCR, and ILO Convention No.111 obligate the State to eliminate gender-based legal inequalities and stereotypes—Circular impugned was found to contravene Pakistan’s treaty commitments and reinforced unjust assumptions about women’s dependency and financial security—Court emphasized the need for a needs-based and dignity-affirming pension framework in line with global standards. (f) Comparative Jurisprudence – Pension Entitlement of Daughters Reference to Indian, Bangladeshi, and European legal frameworks—Held, India and Bangladesh have adopted progressive pension frameworks that assess entitlement based on financial need rather than marital status—Indian courts have interpreted “unmarried daughter” to include widowed and divorced daughters, and recognized pension as a constitutional right—European Court of Human Rights has held that denial of social security based on arbitrary classifications violates proportionality and equality principles—Pakistan’s rigid framework found to lag behind global standards and in need of reform. Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused. Circular declared void ab initio for being unconstitutional and contrary to statutory law and international obligations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 9 & 14 –– Right to life and dignity –– Pension as a fundamental right –– Delay in payment of pension amounts to violation of fundamental rights –– Held, right to life under Article 9 includes the right to livelihood, sustenance, and security, particularly for the legal heirs of deceased government employees––Refusal or delay in disbursement of pensionary benefits to a retired employee or their legal heirs amounts to inhumane and degrading treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution––Government departments must ensure timely processing and disbursement of pension and retirement dues to uphold dignity and constitutional protections. (b) Service Law –– Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 –– Date of birth –– Rectification –– Scope and limitation –– Date of birth once recorded in official service records at the time of appointment is final and cannot be altered except where a clerical error is proved––No rectification can be made posthumously or after decades of service unless established through timely application by the employee during service––Petitioner, being legal heir, could not seek posthumous correction in deceased husband’s service record after 29 years of service and post-retirement. Relied on: Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan v. Asmatullah Kakar (2020 SCMR 1678) Qamaruddin v. Pakistan (2007 SCMR 66) Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Govt. of Balochistan (2014 SCMR 1723) Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Malik v. Federation of Pakistan (2019 SCMR 1973) Muhammad Khaliq Mandokhail v. Government of Balochistan (C.P. No. 4428 of 2019) (c) Service Law –– Pension and Retirement Benefits –– Entitlement of Legal Heirs –– Delay in processing –– Direction to Government departments –– Legal obligation –– Held, the petitioner (widow of deceased civil servant) was entitled to family pension and other retirement benefits of her late husband––Respondent department failed to process dues despite acknowledgment of employment and retirement––Court directed respondents to release all outstanding pensionary benefits based on service book records within 30 days, along with arrears––Departments directed to establish transparent and efficient mechanisms to avoid bureaucratic delays in future. (d) Government Duty –– Accountability in Pension Processing –– Public servant rights –– Legal and moral responsibility of the State –– Court emphasized that unnecessary procedural hurdles that delay pensions violate principles of justice and governance––Retired civil servants and their families deserve prompt disbursement of pensions as a matter of right, not privilege––Court directed all government departments to avoid systemic inefficiencies and respect the constitutional rights of retirees. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to disburse all pensionary dues within 30 days.

Summary: (a) National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012 –– Ss. 9 & 18 –– Jurisdiction –– Scope of authority –– Limits of intervention –– Pension dispute involving private bank employee –– The National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) is empowered under Section 9 of the NCHR Act, 2012 to inquire into violations of human rights by public servants––The Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend to service or pension disputes of private sector employees––NCHR cannot adjudicate private contractual matters such as pension enhancement of employees of commercial banks like UBL––Such directive is ultra vires and amounts to jurisdictional overreach. (b) Constitutional Law –– Art. 9 –– Right to life –– Human dignity –– Pension as element of livelihood –– Scope and limitation –– While the right to a dignified life under Article 9 includes the right to livelihood and sustenance, disputes regarding pension are governed by statutory and contractual frameworks applicable to the relevant employment––Human rights bodies cannot convert service disputes into human rights violations unless gross abuse or discrimination by public authorities is established. (c) Labour Law –– Private Sector Employment –– UBL employee –– Nature of service rights –– Pension rights –– Contractual nature –– Remedies –– Retired employees of private commercial banks are governed by private employment contracts and labour statutes––Their service grievances, including pension claims, must be adjudicated by labour courts, tribunals, or forums specified under the applicable service or banking laws––Human rights bodies are not appropriate adjudicatory forums for such claims. (d) Jurisdiction –– Human Rights Commission –– Abuse of mandate –– Principles –– Doctrine of institutional competence –– Specialized forums –– NCHR’s attempt to direct a private bank to enhance pension of an employee intrudes into areas reserved for labour courts or civil jurisdiction––Intervention by NCHR in such matters undermines institutional comity and circumvents specialized adjudication––Held, NCHR order not sustainable and rightly set aside by learned Single Judge. Relied on: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416) UBL v. National Commission for Human Rights (Judgment of IHC dated 16.06.2022) 2018 SCMR 736 (relied on in impugned order for scope of jurisdictional limits) (e) Practice and Procedure –– Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) –– Maintainability –– Dismissal in limine –– Appeal barred on jurisdictional grounds –– ICA filed by NCHR challenging the order of the learned Single Judge was found to be without merit––No legal infirmity in the finding that NCHR lacked jurisdiction––ICA dismissed in limine. Disposition: Appeal dismissed in limine; order of Single Judge upheld; remedy, if any, lies before appropriate labour or civil forum.

Summary: (a) Succession Act, 1925: ---- Sections 372 & 373—Issuance of multiple succession certificates—Bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC not applicable ----- The petitioner, the eldest unmarried daughter of a deceased government officer, filed a second application for a succession certificate claiming her share in the family monthly pension. The respondents contested the application, arguing it was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the petitioner had previously obtained a certificate for an amount left in the deceased's bank account. The Supreme Court held that the Succession Act, 1925, being a special law, provides a specific procedure for granting certificates, which does not impose a bar on filing successive applications. The provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC are inapplicable in matters governed by the Act. The court further emphasized that a certificate issued under the Act is limited in scope and does not preclude subsequent claims or proceedings. ----Cited Cases: Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo 2006 SCMR 434 (b) Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989: ---- Rule 4.10(2) (as amended in 1999)—Entitlement of eldest unmarried daughter to family pension The petitioner claimed entitlement to a share in her late father’s family pension under the amended Rule 4.10(2) of the Balochistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1989, which provides that the eldest surviving unmarried daughter of a deceased government officer is entitled to receive the family pension until her marriage. The High Court dismissed her claim based on unamended Rules, failing to consider the 1999 amendment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision, relying on outdated rules, constituted an illegality. The case was remanded to the Trial Court to determine the petitioner’s status and entitlement in light of the amended Rules, ensuring the rights of other legal heirs were considered. (c) Succession Act, 1925—Procedural principles: ---- Section 373—Summary proceedings—Determination of prima facie entitlement The Supreme Court highlighted the simplified procedure under Section 373 of the Succession Act, 1925, for granting certificates. Courts must conduct summary proceedings to determine the prima facie entitlement of an applicant while maintaining principles of natural justice. A succession certificate is limited in scope and does not constitute a final adjudication of the parties' rights, allowing subsequent claims. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the matter and decide within 60 days. ----Disposition: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the judgments of the High Court, Appellate Court, and Trial Court. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to determine the petitioner’s entitlement and share in the family pension through summary proceedings.

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute between an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIA) and the airline regarding the non-payment of post-retirement benefits, including provident fund, gratuity, pension, and damages. The employee, after serving PIA for over 37 years, sought early retirement but faced delays in receiving his retirement benefits due to an inquiry initiated by PIA alleging abuse of power and wrongful inductions. The employee filed a suit seeking recovery of his retirement benefits and damages for the mental agony caused by the delay. The Civil Court ruled in favor of the employee, awarding him retirement benefits and damages, which PIA subsequently challenged in this appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Civil Court's judgment in favor of the respondent for recovery of post-retirement benefits and damages was justified. ----2- Whether the inquiry initiated against the respondent justified the withholding of his retirement benefits. ----3- Whether the award of Rs. 3 million in damages for mental agony and delay in payment was appropriate, given the lack of specific evidence regarding the loss suffered. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the Civil Court’s judgment, concluding that the respondent was entitled to post-retirement benefits, and the withholding of these benefits by PIA was unlawful. The inquiry against the respondent was found to be unjustified, as there was no evidence proving his involvement in any wrongdoing. It was also established that PIA could not conduct an inquiry against a retired employee under the terms of employment. Regarding the damages, the Court ruled that general damages for mental agony and suffering could be granted even in the absence of specific evidence. The awarded sum of Rs. 3 million was deemed reasonable, considering the financial and emotional impact on the respondent due to the delay in receiving his benefits. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court further ordered that interest be paid on the damages and the decretal amount from the date of judgment until the final payment. Additionally, the respondent was awarded litigation costs of Rs. 500,000. -----Citations/Precedents: A. Ismailjee & Sons Ltd. Vs. Pakistan (PLD 1986 SC 499) Miss Irshad Jehan vs. P.N.S.C (1999 CLC 192) Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Syed Ali Raza Rizvi (1996 CLC 627) Abdul Qadir vs. S. K. Abbas Hussain (PLD 1997 Karachi 566) M/s Emirates Airline vs. Daoud Shami (PLD 2003 Lahore 358) Mrs. Zahra Zaidi vs. M. Anwar Khan Ghauri (2004 CLC 223) Muhammad Sharif vs. Nawab Din (PLD 1957 (W.P) Lahore 283) Abdul Majeed Khan vs. Tawseen Abdul Haleem (2012 PLC (C.S) 574) Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs. Sh. Nawab Din (2003 CLC 991) Gohar Ali vs. M/s Hoechst Pakistan Limited (PLJ 2009 SC 303) Habib Bank Limited vs. Mehboob Rabbani (2023 SCMR 1189) Sufi Muhammad Ishaque vs. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 737)

Summary: ----Quote: (1) The constitutional importance of the implementation of Orders of the Supreme Court by individuals and entities. (2) Contempt and the role of the law of contempt in this context. ----Background: This case involves an appeal filed by a petitioner against a respondent in relation to the payment of pensions to retired employees of a national bank. The Supreme Court had previously issued a judgment on 25.09.2017, directing the bank to pay pensions to over 11,000 pensioners. Despite the court's order, there was a significant delay in the payment process. The petitioner sought enforcement of this judgment, leading to the current proceedings where the court reviewed the implementation status and the bank’s compliance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent bank had complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order to pay pensions to retired employees. 2- Whether the delay in the payment of pensions constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court's order. 3- What measures should be taken to ensure full and timely compliance with the court’s directives. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of complying with its orders, emphasizing that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law is paramount. The court noted that non-compliance with its orders threatens the integrity of the judiciary and the entire legal system. The court acknowledged that the bank had begun the payment process but expressed concern over the delay and the need for verification of certain pensioners’ records. The court directed the President of the national bank to appoint a senior officer as a focal person to oversee the implementation of the court’s order. This officer is tasked with ensuring that all pensioners receive their due payments and resolving any issues that may arise during the verification process. The court ordered that a compliance report be submitted by the next hearing date to ensure that the directive is being followed promptly and thoroughly. ----Citations/Precedents: 25.09.2017 Judgment - Supreme Court’s directive on pension payments. The case highlights the broader constitutional principles of rule of law, judicial authority, and compliance with court orders.

Summary: Background: The petitioner a retired Junior Clerk from Girls High School Nalian, District Sudhnoti, filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974. He sought a direction for the issuance of his Pension Payment Order (PPO) and the payment of his monthly pension along with all related benefits, alleging undue delay and administrative negligence by the respondents. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents unlawfully delayed the issuance of the petitioner's Pension Payment Order. 2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of his pension along with all benefits. 3- Whether the petitioner's fundamental right to pension has been violated due to the delay. 4- Whether the statutory provisions governing the timely processing of pensions have been ignored. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unlawful Delay by Respondents: The court found that the respondents had indeed unlawfully delayed the issuance of the petitioner's Pension Payment Order, resulting in undue hardship and financial distress for the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's repeated applications and the submission of the required affidavit, the respondents failed to take timely action. --Entitlement to Pension: The court reaffirmed that the petitioner, having retired on 26.02.2017, is entitled to his pension and all associated benefits as per the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that pension is not a bounty but a vested right accruing from past service. --Violation of Fundamental Right: The court noted that the delay in processing the petitioner's pension contravened the principles of good governance and administrative justice. The statutory obligation to process pension applications promptly was not met, thereby violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation of timely pension payments. --Ignored Statutory Provisions: The court highlighted the relevant statutory provisions under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, which mandate the initiation and completion of pension papers well before the retirement date. The failure to adhere to these rules resulted in the undue delay. The court accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to take immediate action to finalize the petitioner's pension matter within one month. The Education Department was also ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the undue delay and administrative negligence. ----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to various precedents emphasizing the right to pension, including Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1971 SC 1409) and Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust v. Muhammad Arif (2015 SCMR 1412), among others. The statutory provisions under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Pension) Rules, 1971, were also cited to underline the mandatory nature of timely pension processing.

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its appellate jurisdiction, addressed Civil Petitions challenging the judgments from the Islamabad High Court dated 27.04.2021, among others, related to the interpretation of Section 22(1) and (2) of the Employees? Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976. The main issue revolved around the entitlement of insured persons to old-age pension, specifically the applicability of an exception under Section 22(2) regarding the required years of contributions based on the age of the insured persons at specific cut-off dates.----Issues:The determination of the stage at which the exception under Section 22(2) of the Employees? Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 becomes applicable.Whether the exception is contingent upon the age of the insured person at the time of entering insurable employment or at the specific cut-off dates provided in the Act.-----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court held that the exception under Section 22(2) of the Act is not universally applicable based on the age of the insured person upon entering insurable employment. Instead, the exception applies strictly in relation to the age of the insured person at two specific cut-off dates: (i) the first day of July 1976, when the Act was implemented, and (ii) the date on which the Act became applicable to the industry or establishment in question. The Court clarified that the age of the insured person alone does not trigger the exception under Section 22(2); the age criterion must coincide with the relevant cut-off dates. Therefore, an insured person employed after these dates, irrespective of their age, would not qualify for the reduced years of contribution exception provided in Section 22(2). The petitions filed by the Employees? Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) were allowed, converting them into appeals, while those filed by the insured persons were dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:The Court?s decision was informed by the principle that statutory provisions, especially in welfare legislation like the Employees? Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, should be interpreted liberally to fulfill the objective of the statute. The Court referenced its duty under Article 38 of the Constitution to promote social and economic well-being through compulsory social insurance, emphasizing the Act?s role in providing security and benefits to employees. The judgment reconciled conflicting interpretations from different High Courts by emphasizing the importance of the specific cut-off dates in the application of Section 22(2)?s exception.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a retired Private Secretary (BS-18) from Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST), sought the release of his entire pension, leave encashment, and other outstanding emoluments after retiring. He alleged that despite the transfer of pension contributions from the Electricity Department to MUST, the university had not released his pension due to personal grudges and unsubstantiated allegations. The petitioner had been transferred from the Electricity Department to MUST in 2010 and promoted to higher grades during his tenure. MUST banned his entry to the university premises and did not process his pension and other retirement benefits. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his entire pension and other retirement benefits from MUST. 2- Whether the inquiry conducted by MUST after the petitioner's retirement was valid. 3- Whether the petitioner's transfer and subsequent promotions at MUST were legitimate. 4- Whether the university acted with malice and mala-fide intention by not processing the petitioner's retirement benefits. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the release of his pension and other retirement benefits. The Vice Chancellor's approval of the petitioner's retirement and the absence of any outstanding dues against him, as confirmed by the university, supported this entitlement. The court determined that the inquiry conducted by MUST after the petitioner's retirement was without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, as he was no longer an employee of the university when the inquiry was initiated. The petitioner's transfer and promotions were found to be legitimate, as they were approved by the respective selection committee and the syndicate. The petitioner could not be penalized for any faults committed by the authority during his promotions. The court observed that the university officials acted with malice and mala-fide intention in not processing the petitioner's retirement benefits. This view was supported by the precedents cited. The court directed MUST to release the entire pension of the petitioner, including contributions from the Electricity Department and other outstanding emoluments, and to pay leave encashment. The impugned order was set aside. ----Citations/Precedents: 2020 SCR 834 2016 SCR 360 Black’s Law Dictionary definitions for "employee" and "civil servant"

Summary: PLJ 2024 AJK 47 Present Sadaqat Hussain Raja CJ IJAZ SALEEM RETIRED PRIVATE SECRETARY BS - 18 MIRPUR - - Petitioner versus VICE - CHANCELLOR MIRPUR UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MUST) MIRPUR and 3 others - - Respondents WP No 1921 of 2023 decided on 21122023 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 44 - - Retirement - - Non - releasing of pension - - Inquiry - - Allegation of - - Issuance of NOC for payment of pension - - Upgradation of post of petitioner - - Recommendations of selection committee - - Malafide intension - - Entitlement for pension - - Direction to - - The post of petitioner was upgraded as per recommendations of selection committee and his promotion was made due to act of authority he could be penalized for fault if any committed by authority - - The petitioner was not employee of University when inquiry was initiated against him - - Impugned order of inquiry was without jurisdiction and nullity in eye of law - - Official of University with malice and mala - fide intention was not completing retirement file of petitioner - - The petitioner was entitled to release pension and other shares - - Petition accepted [Pp 51 52 53 54] A B C D 2020 SCR 834 and 2016 SCR 360 ref Raja Gul Majeed Khan Advocate for Petitioner Mr Naeem Ahmed Mughal Advocate on behalf of MUSTJudgement Result:Petition accepted