Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1462 [Islamabad High Court] Before Muhammad Asif, J ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN and others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and 2 others Writ Petition No.2989 of 2024, decided on 28th July, 2025. (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts.9, 25 & 199---Employment---Denial of payment of commutation amounts (pensionary benefit) to retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), challenge to---Entitlement---Pensionary benefits and entitlements---Fundamental right---Pensionary benefits equated to and are protected as part of right to life under Art. 9 of the Constitution---Right to pension and commutation, grant of---Significance and essence stated---The main issue in the present petition was withholding of commutation amounts (pensionary benefits) by Pakistan Television Corporation from its retired employees---The case revolved around whether the denial in releasing these commutation benefits (pensionary benefits) was lawful and sustainable, and whether such benefits formed part of the retired employees' constitutionally protected right to life and livelihood---Held: The petitioners, though employees of a Corporation, had performed public functions under the substantial administrative and financial control of the State, in such circumstances, the denial of commutation amount (pensionary benefit), by the respondent No.4 (Finance Division) on the pretext that PTVC employees were limited to CPF instead of GPF or statutory pension and by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the pretext of an ongoing financial crisis was also both arbitrary and unjust and it also amounted to unfair discrimination and violated the settled principles of fairness, equality, and legitimate expectation---Stance of the respondents created an unjustified distinction between employees of the Federal Government and those serving in State-owned entities---Such a classification, without reasonable and objective justification, offended the mandate of Art. 25 of the Constitution, which guaranteed equality before law and equal protection of law---Prima facie, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifying service and were duly retired in accordance with the applicable rules---The right to receive pension and its allied benefits, including commutation, was not merely a statutory entitlement but formed part of the fundamental right to life as envisaged under Art.9 of the Constitution---A retired employee, upon superannuation, was ordinarily bereft of alternate sources of income and was wholly dependent on pension for sustenance, dignity, and survival---Pension, much like salary, constituted a continuous and legitimate source of livelihood---As such, it fell squarely within the protective ambit of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 9 of the Constitution as right to life inherently encompassed the right to livelihood---Consequently, this right could not be subjected to the whims, discretion, or arbitrary inclinations of those in positions of authority---Public employment, and the benefits flowing therefrom, was not a charitable concession or bounty granted by the State or its functionaries, nor could its continuity be left to their mercy---Rather, it was a legally enforceable right, grounded in law, justice, and constitutional protections---Upon superannuation or retirement, the pensionary entitlements of an employee, including commutation, must be processed during service and disbursed promptly upon retirement, without any unwarranted delay---Consequently the right of commutation amount vested in favour of the petitioners, and they were entitled to its release---The respondents were directed to process the case of petitioners for grant of commutation amount according to law without any failure of time---However, the remaining relief, in respect of the prayer to restrain the respondents from utilizing the amount received from the encashment of NIT Units, was beyond the purview of the High Court's jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioners had an alternate efficacious remedy available under the Companies Ordinance 1984, having its own Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, therefore, this relief was declined---Present Constitutional petition was partially allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R.2(1)(g)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) claiming commutation amounts (pensionary benefit)---PTVC incorporated as a public limited company but under effective and dominant control of the Federal Government---Federal Government holding majority shareholding and administrative control---Effect---"Person or authority" performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation---Scope---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in affairs of PTVC---Test and criterion---Although PTVC is incorporated as a limited company, it has, since its inception, remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding---The Government exercises pervasive administrative and financial control over PTVC, which functions as a public service broadcaster and performs duties of a public nature---Therefore, PTVC qualifies as a "public sector company" within the ambit of R. 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time---It is thereby deemed to be a "person" discharging functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within the meaning and scope of constitutional jurisprudence---Moreover, appointments to the offices of General Manager and Managing Director of PTVC are made directly by the Federal Government, and the emoluments payable to such officeholders are disbursed from the public exchequer, as such, High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the subject affairs of PTVC under its Constitutional jurisdiction. Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others 2013 SCMR 1383; Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director / General Manager (Manager Finance) Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others 2015 SCMR 1257 and 2019 SCMR 1 rel. Ghulam Haider Badini v. PTV Corporation, Islamabad NLR 1995 Service 172 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC) claiming commutation amounts (pension)---Service rules of PTVC being non-statutory---Effect---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Scope---The question of payment of commutation amount (pension), being purely a matter pertaining to fundamental rights of the petitioners (retired employees of PTVC), can be looked into in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court irrespective of the fact whether the service rules of PTVC are statutory or not. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.9---Right to pension---Scope---Denial of pension amounts to infringement of right to life---Pension is a right which the Government servants or employees in different positions and different capacities earn in terms of the relevant statutory provisions applicable to their case, mostly depending upon their length of service; and, in any case it is not a State bounty which could be awarded as a favour to any individual outside the scope of the applicable statute---Pension is integral to a retired employee's sustenance and dignity, and denial thereof amounts to infringement of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and Re : Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of Superior Courts PLD 2013 SC 829 rel. Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1689 ref. Muhammad Waqas Malik for Petitioner. Ms. Shaista Tabbasum, A.A.G for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Muhammad Nazir Jawad for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. Date of hearing: 30th April, 2025. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ASIF, J.---This Writ Petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), carries the following prayer clause: "In view of the above facts and grounds, it is prayed that:- (i) The respondents may graciously be directed to pay the commutation amount to the petitioners without any further delay, immediately, with interest at bank rate, to meet the ends of Justice. (ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from utilizing the amount received from encashment of NIT Units, till decision of the instant writ petition. (iii) That respondents may kindly be directed to pay the Costs of Litigation in accordance with the provisions of Costs of Litigation Act, 2017. Any other appropriate relief, which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the matter, may also be awarded." 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of instant petition as averred therein are that the petitioners are retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation ("PTVC"). After retirement, despite of repeated request, they have not received their commutation amounts. Although some of the petitioners were paid a small portion of their dues in installments, but the same even does not count to 10% of the total of commutation amount due. Consequently, present petition was filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the right to receive pension is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, forming an essential component of the right to life and dignity under Article 9 of the Constitution; that the arbitrary and unlawful act of the respondents in withholding the commutation amount without any legal justification has not only caused the petitioners immense mental agony, frustration, and financial hardship, but also amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice. It was further contended that the respondents, by their inaction and failure to fulfill their statutory obligations, have blatantly violated the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners as enshrined under Articles 4, 9, 25, and 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Per learned counsel, between the years 1986 to 1995, PTVC had invested in NIT Units worth Rs.18 Million under the employees' Provident Fund. However, the current management of PTVC has allegedly encashed 50% of those units, amounting to Rs.645 Million, without distributing a single rupee to the rightful beneficiaries, the employees, despite their undeniable legal and equitable entitlement to the said amount. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the cases reported in 2016 PLC (C.S.) 653, PLD 2023 LHR 288, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1433, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 116 and 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1133, 2023. 4. On behalf of respondents, Ms. Shaista Tabassum, learned AAG and Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawad, Advocate raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the instant petition, and argued that PTVC is a public limited company, duly incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), it operates independently under its own Memorandum and Articles of Association, and is neither an organ nor a functionary of the Federation of Pakistan. Accordingly, PTVC does not fall within the scope of "person" amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. On merits, it was submitted by them that PTVC has its own Pension Rules, which were duly approved by its Board of Directors in consultation with the Government of Pakistan, and were formulated pursuant to the terms settled with the Collective Bargaining Agent ("CBA"). Under these rules, the Board of Directors is the competent authority to determine and finalize all matters relating to the pension of its retired employees. Hence, the petitioners have no locus standi or enforceable cause of action against the respondents. It was further submitted that employees of autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies, including corporations such as PTVC, are entitled only to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) on a matching contribution basis, which is not equivalent to statutory pension within the scope of Article 260 of the Constitution. Furthermore, under Para 12(16), Schedule II, and Para 12(1) of the Rules of Business, 1973, the Finance Division is the competent authority for framing rules relating to pay, allowances, retirement, and other service benefits. The pension rules of PTVC were never referred to the Finance Division, which is a mandatory requirement under the said Rules. Therefore, the grant of pension under such unapproved rules has no legal sanctity, and is not supported by the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 16-10-1984. Lastly, the learned AAG as well as learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant petition, being not maintainable. 5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this petition is fully competent and maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court had already declared the payment of pension amount under Article 9 of the Constitution is a fundamental right. He placed reliance upon the cases Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1689) and M. Rafique v. VC, AIOU (2023 PLC (C.S) 1143). 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 7. Before addressing the prime question involved in this petition, I would like to examine the issue of the maintainability of the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the PTVC is public limited Company duly incorporated under the repealed Companies Act, 1913, subsequently replaced by the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and later by the Companies Act, 2017. It is also not disputed that since its inception, the PTVC remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding. In Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others (2013 SCMR 1383), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against Habib Bank Limited was not maintainable as the said Bank did not fall within the definition of "person or authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation", nor the State / Federation had the majority shareholding therein or majority representation in its Board of Management. Whereas, in the present case, as noted above, although PTVC is incorporated as a limited company, it has, since its inception, remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding. The Government exercises pervasive administrative and financial control over PTVC, which functions as a public service broadcaster and performs duties of a public nature. Therefore, PTVC qualifies as a "public sector company" within the ambit of Rule 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time. It is thereby deemed to be a "person" discharging functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within the meaning and scope of constitutional jurisprudence. Moreover, appointments to the offices of General Manager and Managing Director of PTVC are made directly by the Federal Government, and the emoluments payable to such office-holders are disbursed from the public exchequer, as such, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the subject affairs of PTVC under its Constitutional jurisdiction. On the aforesaid proposition, I am fortified by the decision of the Honorable Supreme held in the case of Pir Imran Sajid and others v. Managing Director / General Manager (Manager Finance) Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others (2015 SCMR 1257) and in (2019 SCMR 1) (regarding the appointment of a Director, PTVC), and further supported by the case of Ghulam Haider Badini v. PTV Corporation, Islamabad reported as (NLR 1995 Service 172). Even otherwise, the question of payment of commutation amount (pension), being purely a matter pertaining to fundamental rights of the petitioners, can be looked into in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court irrespective of the fact whether the service rules of PTVC are statutory or not. 8. Having addressed the preliminary objection, now reverting to merits of the case. The prime question involved in this petition is whether the denial of commutation amounts by PTVC to the petitioners, retired employees of the Corporation, is lawful and sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. From the record, it is manifest that the petitioners were retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on various dates and, as per their claim, are entitled to commutation amounts as part of their pensionary benefits. The details are tabulated as under:

S#

Name

Last Held Position

Date of Retirement

Due Amount of Commutation

1

Zafar Ullah Khan

Dir. Admn. and Personnel

17.03.2023

Rs.13,923,637/-

2

Ahsan Ul Haq

Contr. Eng. Training

03.02.2023

Rs.11,448,586/-

3

M. Salam Barlas

Sr. Admn. Officer

15.11.2022

Rs.88,29,524/-

4

M. Ayub

Admn. Officer

10.01.2023

Rs.88,29,524/-

5

M. Iqbal Falki

Eng. Incharge

09.10.2022

Rs.96,18,076/-

6

Liaquat Ali

Contr. Finance

03.02.2023

Rs.29,44,779/-

7

S. Ahmed Hassan

Sr. Admn. Officer

09.08.2023

Rs.88,55,416/-

8

Asif Ali

Head Driver

16.06.2023

Rs.67,26,901/-

9

Sh. Saqib Khan

Dept. Contr Statistics

01.11.2023

Rs.14,004,565/-

10

Ashiq Hussain

Sr. Driver

14.06.2023

Rs,54,66,997/-

11

Shahzad Ahmed

Sr. Eng. Incharge

20.09.2023

Rs.1,04,24,596/-

12

Gulzar Hussain Zia

Sr. Admn. Officer

19.08.2023

Rs.83,47,965/-

13

Shaukat Ali

Admin. Officer

31.12.2023

Rs.78,04,606/-

10. The respondents have rebutted the claim of the petitioners on the ground that PTVC is governed by its own Pension Rules, which were framed with the approval of its Board of Directors and in consultation with the Government of Pakistan. They asserted that these rules were the outcome of terms settled with the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA), and as such, the Board of Directors of PTVC is the competent authority to determine pension matters. The respondents further asserted that employees of autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies, including corporations like PTVC, are not entitled to statutory pension but are instead governed by the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. As per their stance under Para 12(16), Schedule II, and Para 12(1) of the Rules of Business, 1973, the Finance Division is the competent authority to frame rules related to pay, allowances, and retirement benefits. Since PTVC's Pension Rules were never referred to the Finance Division, the respondents asserted that they lack legal sanctity and are inoperative in view of the Office Memorandum dated 16-10-1984 issued by the Finance Division. 11. This Court, however, finds the above rebuttal to be misconceived and legally untenable. The record unequivocally reflects that the Rules and Regulations governing pensionary and post-retirement benefits were duly framed by the competent authority and continued to remain in force at the time of the petitioners' retirement. Any procedural lapse, such as non-referral to the Finance Division, cannot be used to prejudice the accrued rights of the petitioners. The responsibility to fulfill procedural formalities lies squarely with the management of PTVC, and not with the retiring employees. Until such time the Pension Rules are formally repealed or amended in accordance with law, they continue to remain operative and binding upon PTVC. 12. The Finance Division's stance that PTVC employees are limited to CPF instead of GPF or statutory pension creates an unjustified distinction between employees of the Federal Government and those serving in State-owned entities. Such a classification, without reasonable and objective justification, offends the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. The petitioners, though employees of a corporation, have performed public functions under the substantial administrative and financial control of the State. In such circumstances, the denial of commutation amount (pensionary benefit), by the respondent No.4 (Finance Division) on the above pretext and by the respondents Nos.2 & 3 on the pretext of an ongoing financial crisis is also both arbitrary and unjust and it also amounts to unfair discrimination and violates the settled principles of fairness, equality, and legitimate expectation. 13. Prima facie, the petitioners possess the requisite qualifying service and were duly retired in accordance with the applicable rules. In their written submissions, respondents Nos.2 & 3 themselves conceded that some partial payments were made to a few petitioners, which implicitly affirms the liability. This selective disbursement further supports the petitioners' claim. 14. The right to receive pension and its allied benefits, including commutation, is not merely a statutory entitlement but forms part of the fundamental right to life as envisaged under Article 9 of the Constitution. A retired employee, upon superannuation, is ordinarily bereft of alternate sources of income and is wholly dependent on pension for sustenance, dignity, and survival. 15. At this juncture, it is quite pertinent to have a look at the definition and legal character of the term "pension", as well as the nature of the rights associated therewith. These aspects were comprehensively examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark case of I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041). The relevant excerpt from the said case is reproduced below for reference: "A person who enters Government service has also something to look forward after his retirement, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such benefits. Pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period. A fortiori, it cannot be reduced or refused arbitrarily except to the extent and in the manner provided in the relevant rules. Conversely full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course unless the service rendered has been duly approved. lf the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension is empowered to make such reduction in the amount as it may deem proper. This power is however exercisable only before pension is actually sanctioned." 16. In the case of Re : Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of Superior Courts, (PLD 2013 SC 829), it was held, inter alia, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a right which the Government servants or employees in different positions and different capacities earn in terms of the relevant statutory provisions applicable to their case, mostly depending upon their length of service ; and, in any case it is not a State bounty which could be awarded as a favour to any individual outside the scope of the applicable statute. In the above-cited case, the "right to pension" and the true connotation and concept of pension was again examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring, inter alia, to the following definitions: Law Laxicon : "A periodical payment made by a Government, company or any employer or labour in consideration of past services or the relinquishment of rights, claims or emoluments ; regular payments to persons in order that they may maintain themselves." Black's Law Dictionary : "Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally monthly) with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner ; Deferred compensation for services rendered." New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol.9, 15th Edition at page 266: "Series of periodic money payments made to a person who retires from employment because of age, disability or completion of an agreed span of service. The payments generally continue for the remainder of the natural life of the recipient, and sometimes to a widow or other survivor." 17. Same view was further affirmed in the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and others (2024 SCMR 1689), wherein it was reiterated that pension is integral to a retired employee's sustenance and dignity, and denial thereof…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Islamabad High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant