Pension a right, not alms or charity: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Tuesday held that pension was a right and not charity, alms or donation but compensation for services.

A three-member bench of the apex court — headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar — gave this judgment in a case titled Qazi Khalid Ali verses Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice.

The petitioner Qazi Khalid Ali had filed an appeal against the judgment passed by the Sindh High Court on January 23, 2023.

The court had heard the case on June 12, 2025.

“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,” says a 7-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

According to the judgment, the petitioner had approached the High Court on the ground that he performed his duties as chairman FST and was appointed vide Notification dated 22.04.2019, issued by the Ministry of Law & Justice, for a non-extendable period of three years, with effect from the date of assuming charge of the post. After completing his tenure, he applied for grant of pensionary benefits, but the request was declined by the Ministry of Law & Justice vide letter dated 22.01.2020.

The main reason for denial of the pensionary benefit was that the petitioner was appointed as chairman FST, Islamabad for a non-extendable period of three years vide Notification dated 22.04.2019, being an advocate qualified to be a Judge of the High Court.

However, his appointment as a Judge of the High Court, Sindh, was declared unconstitutional, void ab initio, and having no legal effect in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 2009 SC 879 (“Judges case”).

One of the reasons of refusal was that the terms/contract of appointment of a certain length of service could not be construed as regular service for pensionary benefit,” says the judgment.

The court noted that if the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits, then delay in finalizing the case or claim of pension was totally unjustified.

The court declared that the High Court, while rendering the impugned order, followed an altogether different pathway to decline the claim and also failed to consider the impact and effect of Rule 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal (Chairman and Members) Service Rules, 1983, which could not be made inconsequential or redundant, and which unambiguously articulated that if a person, who was neither a judge or retired judge of a High Court, nor was or had been in the service of Pakistan, was appointed as chairman, he shall be entitled to such salary, allowances, and privileges as were admissible to a judge of a high court.

Apparently, the rejection of the representation or denial of the claim of pension is primarily based on the tenure of the petitioner as a High Court Judge. However, while declining the request, the Federal Service Tribunal (Chairman and Members) Service Rules, 1983, were not taken into consideration with its actual spirit, in particular Rule 5 of the said Rules.

The court held that while declining the pensionary benefit, the Ministry of Law & Justice should have considered the Federal Services Tribunal (Chairman and Members) Service Rules, 1983, especially Rule 5.

“In our discernment, this is a fit case for remand for de novo consideration, on which the learned additional attorney general also concedes,” says the judgment.

Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal and disposed of the matter after remanding it to the Ministry of Law & Justice for de novo consideration on the representation filed by the petitioner which is deemed to be pending.