FOP VS Zafar Ullah Khan etc

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

ICA No.416-2025 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan Versus Zafar Ullah Khan and another S. No. of Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel order/ proceedings where necessary.

proceedings 25.11.2025 Mr. Asif Jadoon, AAG.

Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J: Listed appeal in terms of Section 3 (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance-1972, (‘Ordinance 1972’) stems from judgment dated 28.07.2025, passed by the learned Judge in Chambers, whereby WP No.2989-2024, filed by respondents 1 to 13, was allowed in following terms:-

“19. Sequel to the above discussion in light of the authoritative dictas laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as cited above, I am persuaded to hold that the core grievance of the petitioners appears to be well-founded. It is a settled principle that upon superannuation or retirement, the pensionary entitlements of any employee, including commutation, must be processed during service and disbursed promptly upon retirement, without any unwarranted delay. Consequently the right of commutation amount is now vested in favor of the petitioners and they are entitled to its release. The respondents are directed to process the case of petitioners for grant of commutation amount according to law without any failure of time and complete the same within a period of two months form the date of this judgment.

20.However, the remaining relief, in respect of the prayer to restrain the respondents from utilizing the amount received from the encashment of NIT Units, is beyond the purview of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available under the Companies Ordinance 1984, having its own Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, therefore, this relief is declined.

2.Heard. It is well settled that the jurisdiction in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution, vested in this Court, can be exercised on an application of aggrieved person for a direction to a public functionary to do any act which it is bound by law to do. The PTV, for all intents and purposes, is a person performing state functionaries, and, therefore, is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed upon H.R Case No.3654-2018, in the matter of appointment of MD, PTC, reported in 2019 SCMR-01.

3.Adverting to the objection regarding entitlement of private respondents to commutation, it is necessary to mention that the commutation is a part of pension, paid lump sum at one time in exchange of portion of the regular, ongoing pension. The catchword “pension” articulates the payment of a fixed amount according to the scheme of pension in accordance with the law, rules, and regulations or the pension scheme in vogue, which is recompensed on a regular basis to a person on his superannuation. The foremost and predominant strength of mind is to afford and safeguard economic refuge and shelter and to recuperate old-age security. In general phenomena, superannuation or stepping down is considered a second innings in which a retired person aspires to live up to his highly anticipated imaginings or dreams and devote time to his kith and kin and friends. After retirement, the timely payment of pension is considered the main source of income for livelihood. If the service is pensionable and the payment of pensionary benefits is protected under the law, rules, and regulations then it becomes a vested right and not charity, alms, or donation but compensation for services. Guidance may be taken from the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex

Court vide judgment dated 12.06.2025 in the case of Qazi Khalid Ali v. Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of Pakistan (CPLA No.147-K/2023).

4.The appellant is a public functionary and the matter agitated by the private respondents directly relates to fundamental right, therefore, petition in terms of Article 199 was maintainable. The objection that the rules have not yet been approved by the Finance Division in presence of appellant own stance as reveals through interim order dated 23.12.2024 passed in main case W.P.No.2989-2024 retains no worth. Paragraph-1 of said interim order is reproduced for ready reference:-

“1. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 acknowledges that the amount claimed is indeed due to the petitioners, however, he has clarified that the claimed amount is not for the purposes of pension as monthly pension is being paid to the petitioners undisputedly. The claimed amount pertains to commutation which too has been paid partially and the balance is neither denied nor the quantum disputed and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioners as soon as funds are made available by the Finance Department which are currently not available.”

5.In presence of above specific stance, the objections being raised as to the entitlement of private respondents to receive pensionary benefits, appear to be an attempt to evade obligation either under the garb of legal impediment or on account of financial constraints .

6.The pension or pensionary benefits is not ex gratia grant or bounty but is a vested right which an employee earns after putting in hard working and long-standing service. Suffice to observe, there exist no justification to

put the respondents on notice and to proceed further with the listed petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Copy of this order shall be sent to the respondents with direction to comply with the impugned judgment within shortest possible time.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR)

JUDGE JUDGE

Shafqat