The Supreme Court has held that pension is a constitutional and legal right of a government employee and not a concession or charity. The court ruled that pension cannot be refused solely because of a delay in filing an application or due to resignation.
In a detailed judgment released for reporting, a three member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb overturned the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision dated July 3, 2024, in the case of Muhammad Usman versus the Federation of Pakistan.
The court recorded that Muhammad Usman served for more than 20 years as a senior auditor in BS 11 at the office of the Military Accountant General in Rawalpindi, thereby meeting the statutory pension requirement.
It stated that following the 2001 amendment to the Civil Servants Act, the required qualifying service for pension was reduced from 25 years to 20 years, a requirement already fulfilled by the petitioner.
The Supreme Court dismissed the claim that the petitioner was ineligible for pension because he submitted his application after a delay of 13 years.
The judgment stated that entitlement to pension arises immediately upon retirement or acceptance of resignation and does not lapse due to delay. It further stated that the doctrine of laches and the law of limitation do not apply to pension cases.
The bench observed that CSR Regulation 418 was incorrectly applied and clarified that the regulation concerns the counting of service rather than complete forfeiture of pension.
The court held that resignation alone does not bar an employee from receiving pension when the required length of service has been completed.
Terming the decisions of the tribunal and the department as based on a misunderstanding of the law, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it. The court directed the authorities to grant Muhammad Usman full pensionary benefits in accordance with the law.