Stereo. H C J D A 38.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Case No: W. P. 21545/2011. Ghulam Yasin. Versus

Accountant General Punjab etc.

Date of hearing: Petitioner by:

17.11.2011. Syed Muhammad Saqlain Rizvi, Advocate. Mian Masood Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner in connected writ petition No.6293/2011. Khawaja Salman Mahmood, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Khalid Mehmood, Deputy Secretary (SR), Finance Department. Irfan Ahmad Janjua, Law Officer, Accountant General, Punjab, Lahore M. Mushtaq Qaisrani, Account Officer, Accountant General Officer, Punjab, Lahore.

Respondents by:

Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J:- This judgment will dispose of the instant writ petition, as well as, petitions mentioned in Schedule-A of this judgment, as they raised similar questions of law and facts. 2. Brief facts of the instant petition are that the petitioner retired

from service as a Deputy Project Manager, Education Department, Government of the Punjab on 01.01.1995. After retirement his 50% pension (Rs.4,626.80) was computed for 15 years and he started receiving remaining 50% as monthly pension. The total amount of pension in the year, 1995 was Rs.9,253.60/-. The period of 15 years of commutation came to an end on 01.01.2010. Over the years the pension of the petitioner increased from 5% to 20% and the net 50% pension received by the petitioner in the year 2010 was in the sum of Rs.40,349.01/-.

Lahore v.) 580) whereby a similar question has been decided in favour of the petitioners and increments granted during the period of commutation were allowed to be included in the restored commuted portion of pension at the expiry of the period of commutation. The grievance of the petitioners is that the restored commuted portion of pension should be at par with the 50% of the pension being paid to the petitioners after the expiry of the commuted period of 15 years. the said law is silent regarding the total quantum of restored commuted portion of the pension. It is contended that the petitioners are entitled to pension under section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act.2008 issued by the Finance . He also referred to letter 22.2008 issued by the Finance Department.W. (2011 PLC (C. The petitioners have placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Additional Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue. It is contended that letter dated 22.03. 1955 (“Rules”). Government of the Punjab (much prior to the expiry of the commutation period of the petitioners) wherein increase in pension admissible in the respective financial year is allowed on the restored commuted portion of pension to all Government Servants who retired on or before 30. 21545/2011.06. 2 3.S. A. 1973 (“Constitution”) as “pension” falls within the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. 1974 read with Punjab Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Zuberi. No.2001. Learned law officer on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that the instant petition is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.03. However.A. 4. P.

Establishment Division. 2011 PLC (C. (1991 SCMR 1041). 1955) are silent regarding the quantum of pension (restored commuted portion of the pension) to be granted to the petitioners on the expiry of the commuted period. 1974 (“Act”) against the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that Rules (i. 3 Department amounts to final order for the purposes of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. (1994 SCMR 1033) and Iqan Ahmed Khurram v. Lahore v.S. Government of Pakistan through Secretary. Islamabad and others. the petitioners on the basis of their fundamental rights.. P. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan and others. Punjab Civil Service (Pension) Rules. On merits learned law officer submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the increase in the pension over the period of commutation and are only entitled to the amount of pension at the time of commutation i. Zuberi.A. record perused. (PLD 1980 S. Finance Division.e. 7.W. 15 years ago. Islamabad and 29 others. the judgment of the Division Bench reported as Additional Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue. 6. as well as. 21545/2011.) 580 (petitions against the said judgment have been dismissed by the august Supreme Court of . Therefore.C. Learned law officer has placed reliance on I. No.A. DIG Police v.e. 153). Muhammad Arshad Saeed. A. Government of Pakistan through Secretary. 5.. In attending to the preliminary objection raised by the learned law officer it is important to see the context in which the challenge has been brought by the petitioners. Arguments heard.

held as follows while deciding the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution:- . Learned law officer’s reliance on “I. allows increase in the pension in the financial year in which the said pension is restored and is beneficial to the petitioners.2008 issued by the Finance Department.12. the petitioners claim for more in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court. The said letter issued by the Finance Department. therefore. therefore. 21545/2011.2010 passed in Civil Petition Nos. does not pass as a Final Order by a Departmental Authority under section 4 of the Act. J speaking for the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Hence.03. No. 4 Pakistan vide order dated 10.W. Government of the Punjab is not adverse to the interest of the petitioners and.A. Letter dated 22. mentioned above.2008 issued by the Finance Department. Government of the Punjab is a facility extended to the petitioners for the first time whereby increments in the pension granted in the financial year in which the commuted period expires are admissible and are to be included in the restored commuted portion of the pension. Sharwani and others vs. Finance Division. which also coincidentally deals with pension. Government of Pakistan through Secretary. there is no Final Order passed against the petitioners by any Departmental Authority. P. However. Letter dated 22. Ajmal Mian.03. Islamabad and others” (1991 SCMR 1041) is unfounded as in this case. 2393 and 2394 of 2010) have prayed that the quantum of pension on the expiry of the commuted period should be at par with the remaining 50% of the pension being continuously received by the petitioners.

Islamabad and 29 others” (1994 SCMR 1033). Government of Pakistan and others” (PLD 1980 S. J. held:“All such orders.2008 issued by the Finance Department does not affect the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner.W.” (emphasis supplied). 8. Shafiur Rahman. In “Muhammad Arshad Saeed. I. In “Iqan Ahmed Khurram vs. In the present case. 10.03. P. “Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer. if they affect the terms and conditions of the service of the employee would qualify as departmental orders ex facie issued by the authority within the department empowered to do so. no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner by a departmental authority and letter dated 22. Establishment Division. Lahore held as follows:“15. hence the preliminary objection raised by the learned law officer is overruled. 9.” (emphasis supplied). DIG Police vs. 21545/2011. nor an ex . 153) the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution was applicable because the Rules in the said case altered the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. 5 “We are inclined to hold that if a statutory rule or a notification “adversely” affects the terms and conditions of a civil servant. the same can be treated as an order in terms of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act in order to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal. 11. speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court of Pakistan once again dealing with the scope of Service Tribunals Act. Government of Pakistan through Secretary. No. while speaking for Division Bench of this Court in Additional Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue.C.

[Central Services (Pension) Rules. therefore. This post retirement monetary allowance is geared to comfort and protect a civil servant in the post retirement days when he ordinarily has no other source of income. Pension cannot be a static amount as it has to provide for the rising cost of living and escalating inflation which . 18.” Reliance is placed on D. 21545/2011. therefore. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate. of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment. Pension as a retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. a post retirement benefit of a civil servant which is earned by a civil servant by giving the best years of his life in the service of the country. disablement or similar other cases of underserved want. 1972. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 130. it was held:--“Pension is not merely a statutory right but it is the fulfillment. No. Pension is. therefore. Rule 23]. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC 1196).W. an integral part of his livelihood and perhaps more dearer than the salary received during his service. It is a payment for the past service rendered. In Smt.” 17. It is a social welfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. old-age.S. Pension is a right not a bounty or gratuitous payment. Nakara v. Pension is. 6 gratia payment. It creates a vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Articles 309 and 148(5) of the Constitution. The most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. P. [Labour and Services]. Poonamal v. is infirm and of old age. 16. the very lifeline of a civil servant in the post retirement days and.

. Respondents commuted their 50% pension for a period of 15 years. 20. In the present case the pension of the respondents was increased every year in the range of 5% to 20%. It also fails to meet the test of economic justice which is also an integral part of right to life as provided in the preamble and the Objective Resolution to the Constitution. which means that a lump sum payment of 50% of the pension on the basis of the pension as it stood in the year 1993 was worked out over a future period of 15 years and handed over to the respondents. This offends Article 25 of the Constitution. This means that the respondents are once again entitled to 100% pension as it stands on that day. pension is a real time concept. Such action offends the right to livelihood of the respondents guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. It is preposterous to imagine that a civil servant be given pension in the year 2008 which he was entitled to draw in 1993 (15 years ago). The 50% pension of the respondents in the year 2008 is much higher than the one in the year 1993 as shown in the table above. the pension received by them monthly. The increase most clearly covers for the inflationary tendencies over the years. 7 the retired civil servant has to face and survive in. The best index to gauge the pension due on the said date is the amount of 50% pension being received monthly by the respondents on the said date. Depriving a civil servant of his lawful pension is also discriminatory when compared to equally placed retired civil servants who are drawing the current rate of pension. Therefore like salary.. P. 21545/2011. No civilized system can provide for such an unreasonable and uneconomic post retirement benefit to their employees who have given their golden years for the public service of this country.W. Under the Rules the pension stands RESTORED at the end of the commutation period.e. Therefore. during these 15 years benefit of increase in pension was enjoyed by the respondents only to the extent of 50% i. The pension due will be double the said amount. No. 19.

For the above reasons. Respondents are directed to release the pension of the petitioners forthwith in the above terms. In other words. It will be odd for a civil servant to draw two different slabs of pensions i. 50% at the rate prevalent in the year 1993 and the remaining on the current rate inclusive of increments. the petitioners in the instant petition. as well as. in the petitions mentioned in Schedule-A are entitled to all the increments in pension accumulated over the last 15 years. for the above reasons given in the Division Bench judgment of this Court (supra). P.* . these petitions are allowed. 21545/2011. No. 8 21. restored computed portion of the pension must be at par with the remaining 50% net pension as it stands on the day of the expiry of 15 years of the commutation period.” [ 12. (Syed Mansoor Ali Shah) Judge *A.W.e.. Therefore. The interpretation of the appellant on the accounting side also appears to be unreasonable.W. 13.

Muhammad Akram v.20388/2011 W. Accountant General Punjab. Accountant General Punjab. No. No. Accountant General Punjab. P. 9 SCHEDULE-A Sr. 6. 21545/2011. 14. No. Lahore etc. Case No. No. 9. P. v. P. Lahore etc. No. Muhammad Aslam v. 3. P. Accountant General Punjab. Ch. v. Lahore etc. No.20391/2011 Tufail Muhammad Alvi v. Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab. P. P. No. Lahore etc. Title . Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab.20377/2011 W. P. P. 13.20379/2011 W. P. Muhammad Rashid Zafar v. Mian Ahmad Saeed Khan v.20383/2011 W. P.20380/2011 W. Accountant General Punjab. Mukhtar Ahmad v. Lahore etc. P.6293/2011 W. Accountant General Punjab. No. No. Lahore etc. 16. Ch. P. 12. Lahore etc. No. Mumtaz Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif Sabir v. Surriya Ali v. P. Abdul Hameed v. 7. Accountant General Punjab. 5.20386/2011 W.20381/2011 W.20382/2011 W. 8. Fateh Khan Ch. Lahore etc. No. No. 2. Accountant General Punjab. No. Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab. Ch. No. Accountant General Punjab. Muhammad Ali Pir v. Accountant General Punjab. Muhammad Barket Mehmood v. Government of the Punjab etc.20376/2011 W. No. Accountant General Punjab. 1. P. Lahore etc. Lahore etc. Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab. Mrs. No. Lahore etc.20384/2011 W.20385/2011 W. No. Qazi Zafar Ullah Khan v. No.20389/2011 W.20378/2011 W. Lahore etc. P. Muhammad Iqbal Ch. 10.W. 15. Abdul Jalil Najfi v. No. 17. W.20387/2011 W. Sh. Accountant General Punjab. 4.20390/2011 W. 11. Nabi Bakhash Sabir v. P. P. P.

P. P.20394/2011 W. (Syed Mansoor Ali Shah) Judge *A. No. Accountant General Punjab. Muhammad Hafeez Ullah v. P. P. No. 28. Accountant General Punjab.25402/2011 W. Mirza Abdul Aziz v. Ch. No. Lahore etc. No. 25. 21. Accountant General Punjab. No. P. Lahore etc. Lahore etc. 21545/2011. 26.W. No.21551/2011 Anwar Kamal v. 24. Accountant General Punjab. Muhammad Saad Ullah v. Lahore etc. Mian Ahmad Bashir Khan v. 22. No. Accountant General Punjab.21548/2011 W. Accountant General Punjab. No.21546/2011 W. P. Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab.21547/2011 W. Syed Amir Ahmad Shah v. 19. No.20392/2011 W.21549/2011 W. Lahore etc. Accountant General Punjab. Accountant General Punjab. Additional Accountant General Punjab. Mian Muhammad Tufail v. Malik Muhammad Amin Khan v. 10 18. 27. No. Muhammad Aslam Khan Lashari v.21550/2011 W.W. P. Lahore etc. No. Lahore etc.20393/2011 W. P. Accountant General Punjab.25403/2011 W. P. P. Abdul Bari v. Ahmad Saeed Akhter v. No. Lahore etc.* . P. Lahore etc. 20. 23. Lahore etc. P. W.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful