Summary: Background: The petitioner sought a direction from the court to issue a retirement notification and award pensionary benefits, along with payment of outstanding salaries from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2019. The petitioner was an employee of University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Lahore, but was deputed to the Irrigation Department for 20 years. After repatriation on December 13, 2018, and retirement on September 30, 2019, the petitioner did not receive his retirement notification or pensionary benefits. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner, being a deputationist, had any lien with UET, Lahore, after serving in the Irrigation Department for 20 years. -----2- Whether UET, Lahore, was responsible for issuing the retirement notification and awarding the pensionary benefits. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s pensionary rights were violated due to the delay in issuing his retirement notification and pension benefits. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the petition and directed UET, Lahore, to issue the petitioner’s retirement notification and award pensionary benefits, including outstanding salaries, in accordance with the law. The petitioner was a permanent employee of UET, Lahore, and his lien was not terminated despite his deputation to the Irrigation Department. The court emphasized that even as a deputationist, his lien could not be terminated unless he was permanently absorbed elsewhere, which did not happen. The petitioner’s right to pension is protected under Article 9 of the Constitution, and any delay in its release was a violation of his fundamental rights. Pension is considered a measure of socio-economic justice, and denying or delaying its release is unlawful. UET, Lahore, was directed to collect the necessary pensionary contributions from the Irrigation Department and promptly process the petitioner’s pensionary benefits. The petition was allowed, and UET, Lahore, was instructed to issue the necessary retirement and pension documents and ensure prompt payment of the petitioner’s dues. ------Citations/Precedents: Executive Engineer, Provincial Building Circle, Lahore v. Muzaffar Bil Haq and 2 others (2000 SCMR 656) Chief Secretary, Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Syed Zafarmand Ali (2005 SCMR 1212) Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department and 269 others v. M. Ismail Tayer and 269 others (2014 SCMR 1336) Nasir Kamal v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Islamabad and another [2021 PLC (C.S.) 1226] International Islamic University, Islamabad, through its President, Islamabad v. Jehanzeb Khan & others (Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2013) I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041)

Summary: (a) Service law---- ----Pensionary benefits---Nature---Vested right---Pension is not a bounty, charity or ex gratia payment, but a right earned by employee in consideration of past service---Such right creates legitimate expectation in favour of retiring employee and cannot be arbitrarily withheld, abridged or reduced except in accordance with law. Cited Case: • Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon Advocate Complaint PLD 2007 SC 35 (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Pensionary benefits---Retired employee of ZTBL---Withholding of pension due audit paras---Petitioner retired from ZTBL after rendering 33 years’ service and sought release of pensionary benefits and monthly pension allegedly withheld since May 2017 due non-submission of No Demand Certificate and pending audit objections---High Court held that pensionary claims could not be kept in lurch indefinitely and required lawful consideration through speaking order. (c) Pension---- ----Delay in finalization---Duties of department/employer---Retired employee cannot be made to run from pillar to post for release of pensionary benefits---Unnecessary hurdles or delay in finalizing pension/retirement benefits have been deprecated by Supreme Court, and dereliction in this regard may amount to serious negligence. (d) Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited---- ----Circular No.HRD/3/2018 dated 08.01.2018---Pension cases---No Demand Certificate---Audit paras---Guidelines---Circular required timely finalization of pension cases and preparation of proper No Demand Certificates for retiring/deceased employees---Guidelines classified cases where liability may be recovered, where amount against audit paras may be retained, and where amount against audit paras may not be retained---Petitioner’s case required consideration in light of said circular. (e) Pensionary benefits---- ----No Demand Certificate---Delay of more than two years---Effect---Petitioner asserted that NDC, which ought to have been issued at least one month before retirement, was issued after more than two years and still not acted upon---Such delay in processing retirement dues was inconsistent with obligation of employer to process pensionary benefits expeditiously. (f) Pension---- ----Withholding due audit paras---Personal involvement of employee---Requirement---Withholding pensionary benefits for more than five years merely on basis of unsettled audit paras relating to period of posting is unfair unless personal involvement of employee is established---Audit objections alone, without lawful determination of responsibility, cannot justify indefinite stoppage of vested pensionary rights. (g) Administrative law---- ----Audit paras pending since 2013-2017---Employer’s responsibility---Court noticed with concern that audit paras allegedly involving public exchequer remained unsettled for years---Such delay reflected irresponsible attitude of officials and could attract disciplinary as well as criminal action against responsible persons. (h) Pension---- ----Bank liability/personal loan retained from pensionary dues---Lawful determination required---ZTBL claimed that liability of Rs.19,61,305 and personal agricultural loan of Rs.681,000 were retained from retirement benefits under pension regulations and audit instructions---High Court did not finally adjudicate merits but directed respondent-bank to consider petitioner’s grievance after hearing and by speaking order. (i) Natural justice---- ----Representation regarding pensionary benefits---Right of hearing---Where retired employee disputed withholding of pensionary dues and denied personal liability for audit objections, matter required consideration by competent authority after affording due hearing and opportunity to raise additional grounds. (j) Administrative law---- ----Speaking order---Pension claim---Direction---Competent authority was directed to decide petitioner’s claim by treating matter as representation and passing a speaking order within one month---Reasoned decision was necessary because matter concerned pensionary benefits and could not remain pending indefinitely. (k) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Pensionary benefits---Disposal with direction to department---Scope---Instead of deciding disputed factual liability itself, High Court transmitted matter to respondent-bank for decision in accordance with circular, pension regulations and grounds raised by petitioner, while requiring intimation to Court through Registrar for perusal in Chambers. Disposition: W.P. No.3355 of 2019 was disposed of; matter was transmitted to ZTBL to treat it as petitioner’s representation, afford hearing, permit additional grounds, and decide pensionary benefits dispute through a speaking order within one month under intimation to the Court through Registrar; no order as to costs.

Summary: Background: The petitioner sought a share in the family pension of her late father who was a government servant. After his death, both his wives (Jan Bibi, the petitioner's mother, and Lal Bibi, Respondent No. 1) were receiving an equal share of his pension. After the death of the petitioner's mother, the entire pension was transferred to Lal Bibi. The petitioner, who was divorced in 2018, filed for her rightful share in her late father's pension under the Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner, as a divorced daughter of Abdul Hayee, is entitled to a share in his monthly pension after her mother’s death. -----2- Whether the appellate court misread the law by setting aside the trial court’s decision in favor of the petitioner. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to receive half of her late father's pension under the Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989. According to Rule 4.10(2)(ii), a divorced daughter is eligible for a share in the family pension. The trial court had correctly granted the petitioner her rightful share after the death of her mother, which the appellate court had wrongly set aside. The court emphasized that the pension rules clearly supported the petitioner's claim and that she was eligible to receive her mother's half share of the pension, as long as she remains unmarried. The petition was allowed, and the appellate court’s decision was set aside, reinstating the trial court's ruling in favor of the petitioner. -----Citations/Precedents: Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, Rule 4.10(2)(ii) – Entitles a divorced daughter to receive a share of the pension of a deceased government servant. The appellate court’s decision was found to be a misreading and misappreciation of the law, thus the petitioner's claim was upheld.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, sought a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment regarding the validity of his appointment and his entitlement to pensionary benefits and privileges after retirement. The original judgment had not adequately considered the nature of the appointment to the office of Chief Justice. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appointment to the office of Chief Justice of the High Court is a promotion or an independent appointment. 2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits and other privileges as a retired Chief Justice of the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Nature of Appointment: The Court unanimously held that the appointment to the office of Chief Justice of the High Court is not a promotion but an independent appointment. The process, including consultation, advice, and oath, is distinct and different from the appointment of other judges. The original judgment had overlooked this crucial point. --Entitlement to Benefits: Consequently, the Court accepted the review petition partially, affirming that the petitioner’s appointment as Chief Justice was valid. The petitioner is therefore entitled to the pensionary benefits, perks, and privileges accorded to a retired Chief Justice from the date of his retirement. The review petition was partially accepted, validating the petitioner’s appointment as Chief Justice and entitling him to the pensionary benefits and privileges of a retired Chief Justice from the date of his retirement.

Summary: Allowances--medical allowance was to be calculated based on the pension drawn----The case involved a pension issue concerning a retired individual who had worked for Pakistan Railways. The appellant, Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, challenged the Tribunal's decision to grant a 25% increase in pension to the respondent (deceased individual) based on their substantive Grade-15 at the time of retirement, as per an Office Memorandum dated 23.07.1999. The appellant argued that the respondent had retired from a Grade-16 position and was only entitled to a 20% increase in medical allowance as per a 2010 Office Memorandum. The Tribunal's decision was based on interpreting the 2010 Office Memorandum and considering the respondent's substantive grade.The Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation of the law. The Court ruled that the medical allowance was to be calculated based on the pension drawn, and since the respondent had retired at a Grade-16 position and received a pension based on that grade, the correct rate of medical allowance was 20% according to the 2010 Office Memorandum. The Court found that the Tribunal had misconstrued the Office Memorandum and had allowed the respondent to claim two benefits simultaneously. The Court also criticized the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided for doing so were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the appeal. A related civil review petition was also disposed of based on the same reasoning.

Summary: Background: The Petitioner, a retired government servant, served as a Primary School Teacher for nearly four decades and retired on 25.09.2017. Despite being issued all necessary retirement certificates by the Education Department, her pension was withheld based on the claim that her Matriculation certificate from 1976 was found to be bogus. The Petitioner was never confronted with this allegation during her service or before her retirement. After multiple legal proceedings, the Petitioner sought the Court's intervention to release her pension, arguing that the withholding of pensionary benefits violated her fundamental rights. -----Issues: 1- Whether the pension of a retired government employee can be withheld based on post-retirement allegations of a fake educational certificate. ----2- Whether the government can raise such allegations and withhold pension without conducting departmental proceedings during the employee’s service or immediately after retirement. ----3- Whether the withholding of pension without providing the Petitioner an opportunity to defend herself violates her fundamental rights under the Constitution. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that pension is not a state bounty but a constitutionally protected right that the Petitioner earned through her long service. It is directly tied to the right to life, property, and dignity under the Constitution. The government’s delay in raising the allegation of a bogus certificate after retirement, without initiating any departmental proceedings during the Petitioner’s service or within one year of her retirement, was deemed arbitrary and unlawful. The Court found that no inquiry or due process was conducted, and the Petitioner was denied her right to a fair trial. Withholding pension without proper legal proceedings was a violation of her constitutional rights. The Court ordered the Education Department to release the Petitioner’s pensionary benefits within 15 days, warning of possible contempt proceedings if the order was not complied with. -----Citations/Precedents: Haji Muhammad Ismail, Advocate (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 35) Government of N.W.F.P. vs. Mohammad Said Khan (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 514) D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India (AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130) Regional Operation Chief, National Bank of Pakistan vs. Mst. Nusrat Perveen and Others (2021 SCMR 702) Province of Punjab vs. Javed Iqbal (PLJ 2021 SC 175) Syed Raza Mehdi Baqari vs. Province of Punjab (2016 PLC (C.S.) 1046)

Summary: Background: The appellants and respondent both sought succession certificates under Section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925, to claim the pension and pensionary benefits of Abdul Khaliq, a deceased public servant. The respondent, being the widow of the deceased, filed for the certificate, while the appellants, who are distant relatives of the deceased, also filed a separate claim. The trial court dismissed the appellants' application and issued the succession certificate to the respondent (widow), granting her the right to receive the pension and other service-related benefits of the deceased. -----Issues: 1- Whether the pension and pensionary benefits of the deceased form part of his "tarka" (estate) and can be claimed by distant relatives under Islamic inheritance law. -----2- Whether the widow of the deceased has exclusive rights to the pension and related benefits. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that pension and pensionary benefits do not constitute "tarka" or heritable property under Islamic law. Citing precedents, the court reasoned that these benefits are governed by specific statutes or rules and are not considered part of the deceased’s estate. Therefore, these benefits are to be granted to the next-of-kin as prescribed by the relevant laws and rules, which in this case was the widow. The court relied on the precedent that pension benefits are not subject to inheritance laws, but rather they cease upon the pensioner's death. After death, these benefits are treated as a grant to the family of the deceased according to the governing statutes. As such, the appellants, being distant relatives, had no right to claim a share in these benefits. The court dismissed the appellants' claims and upheld the trial court's decision to grant the succession certificate to the widow of the deceased, as she was the legitimate next-of-kin according to the governing laws. -----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. Hina Mumtaz Soomro and others v. Abdul Sami Soomro and others (PLD 2018 Sindh 671) – Pension does not form part of the heritable estate of a deceased individual. Wafaqi Hakoomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunnas (PLD 1991 SC 731) – Pension ceases upon the death of the pensioner and is governed by statutory provisions for the benefit of the next-of-kin. Dr. Safdar Hussain and another v. Flt. Lt. Nadia Latif and others (2014 YLR 1553) – Pension and benefits that accrue after death are treated as grants and are not part of the deceased's estate.

Summary: The case arose from an accident on 26th September 2002, where a train derailed, resulting in fatalities and significant damage to railway property. The respondent, Shah Mohammad, was employed as a Permanent Way Inspector (BPS-16) in Pakistan Railways at the time.Following the accident, the appellants conducted disciplinary proceedings against Shah Mohammad, and he was penalized by being reverted from the post of Permanent Way Inspector to that of Assistant Way Inspector (BPS-11) and transferred to Multan Division. Later, Shah Mohammad retired on 8th October 2005, and he began receiving a pension from the appellants.However, in October 2006, the payment of his pension was abruptly stopped by the appellants, claiming that it was due to his conviction in a criminal court for the accident that occurred on 26th September 2002. Shah Mohammad challenged this decision by filing a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench).The main issue in this case was whether the appellants were justified in stopping the payment of pension to Shah Mohammad based on his conviction in the criminal case related to the train accident. The relevant rule, Rule 2307 of General Conditions Governing Pension (C.S.R. 351), stated that the Governor General reserves the right to withhold or withdraw a pension, in whole or in part, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime.The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 1st June 2021, held that Shah Mohammad's pension could be withheld or withdrawn under Rule 2307 due to his conviction in the criminal case. The court emphasized that pension is not a bounty but a right acquired after satisfactory service, and a pensioner must maintain good conduct before, during, and after retirement to be entitled to receive it. As Shah Mohammad was convicted of a serious crime with a sentence of five years' imprisonment, his pension could be rightfully stopped under the said rule.The court also ruled that no formal notice was required to stop the pension, as Shah Mohammad was aware of his conviction, and the stoppage itself served as a notice. The judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had directed the appellants to pay the pension and arrears to Shah Mohammad, was set aside, and the appeal of the appellants was allowed.

Summary: The High Court had initially granted Atta Muhammad Zafar a 20% increase in pension after he challenged a decision denying him the increase. However, the Court found that Atta Muhammad Zafar had already opted for the revised pay and pension package of 2001, which offered better financial benefits, and thus, he was not entitled to an additional 20% increase in pension.Similarly, Surriya Begum Qureshi, in Civil Petition No. 912 of 2019, had challenged a similar decision regarding her pension increase. The Punjab Service Tribunal upheld the denial of her 20% pension increase, as she had also opted for the revised pay and pension package of 2001.The Supreme Court ruled that both Atta Muhammad Zafar and Surriya Begum Qureshi had voluntarily chosen the revised pay and pension package of 2001, and their pensions were accordingly calculated. Consequently, they were not entitled to an additional 20% increase in pension, as granted by the High Court. Instead, the Court determined that they were only eligible for a 15% increase in pension, as per the notifications issued in 2009 and 2010.Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the principle of "locus poenitentiae" did not apply in this case, and the authorities were justified in refusing the additional increase in pension based on a correct interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal.

Summary: Not approved for reporting.