- Three-judge apex court strikes down Federal Service Tribunal’s July 3, 2024 verdict
- Says delay or resignation cannot extinguish pension entitlement, criticizing misreading of CSR Regulation 418
- Declares 20 years’ qualifying service sufficient under law, highlighting laches, limitation not applicable to pension claims
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that pension is neither a concession nor a form of charity but a constitutional and legal right of a government employee, which cannot be denied merely on the grounds of delayed application or resignation.
The observation was made in a detailed judgment issued by a three-member bench of the apex court comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, while setting aside the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision dated July 3, 2024 in the case titled Muhammad Usman vs Federation of Pakistan.
The court noted that Muhammad Usman had rendered more than 20 years of service as a Senior Auditor (BS-11) in the office of the Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi, thereby fulfilling the statutory requirement for pension. It further observed that following the 2001 amendment to the Civil Servants Act, the qualifying service for pension had been reduced from 25 years to 20 years, a condition already satisfied by the petitioner.
Rejecting the contention that the petitioner was not entitled to pension due to a 13-year delay in submitting his application, the Supreme Court held that the right to pension accrues immediately upon retirement or acceptance of resignation and cannot be extinguished merely because of delay. The judgment categorically stated that neither the doctrine of laches nor the law of limitation applies to pension claims.
The bench also criticised the misinterpretation of CSR Regulation 418, clarifying that the provision pertains to the counting of service and does not provide for the complete forfeiture of pension. It ruled that resignation, by itself, does not deprive an employee of pension, particularly where the requisite length of qualifying service has already been completed.
Terming the decisions of the tribunal and the department as being based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, directing the concerned authorities to grant full pensionary benefits to Muhammad Usman in accordance with the law.
Reiterating its earlier precedents, the apex court once again underscored that pension is a vested and protected right, which cannot be taken away on administrative, procedural, or technical grounds.
