PHC allows two pensions for retired armed forces personnel

PESHAWAR: Allowing the petition of a former Frontier Corps soldier for getting two pensions at a time, the Peshawar High Court has declared that retired armed forces personnel were entitled to two pensions under the provisions of Article 527 Corporate Social Responsibility.

“The impugned orders issued on July 4, 2007 and August 2, 2007 stopping one pension from retired Frontier Corps personnel are set aside and the petitioner is held entitled for getting second pension strictly in accordance with the provisions of Article 526 CSR,” a division bench headed by Justice Roohul Amin Khan declared in a detailed judgment on the issue of two pensions.

The court issued the judgment in the writ petition of Mosam Khan, a retired FC soldier, who had challenged cancellation of his pension from FC as he had got two pensions, one from FC and the second from Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.

By invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Mosam Khan had asked for issuance of a writ to direct the respondents to allow/issue/release his pension in respect of the period of his service in the Frontier Corps.

In essence, the grievance of the petitioner was that, initially in the year 1961 he was inducted in service of Frontier Corps (Pashin) Balochistan. After attaining pension qualifying service, he got retired as Subedar on May 8, 1982 and consequently he was granted pension.

As per the detailed judgment, the petitioner then joined Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) as Security Supervisor against the quota of ex-serviceman on May 8, 1982 on the terms and conditions enumerated therein.

“On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner got retired from PAEC on March 31, 2005. For the second period of his service, he too was granted pension on November 23, 2004 by the PAEC, but PAEC Headquarters Islamabad objected to his pension on the ground that since the petitioner is already receiving pension from FC Balochistan, and as per rules, second
pension was not permissible to Civil Armed Forces, therefore, the case of the petitioner was referred to FC Balochistan by PAEC for clarification and decision on the issue,” it was explained.

It said the PAEC through a letter on July 4, 2007 directed the petitioner to opt for receipt of one of the two pensions. It said that Waseemuddin Khattak, counsel for the petitioner stated that his client has been granted both pensions, but the pension of FC is being deducted by the respondents from his pension which he is receiving from PAEC, thus, the act of the respondents being against the law and clear direction and CSR 356(b) is liable to be struck down.

The respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner for grant of second pension was referred to the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, which clarified that second pension to pensioners of Civil Armed Forces, who got re-employed in strategic organizations is inadmissible, rather they can count their previous service towards new service for enhancing pension for their entire service.

“The case was referred to the office of Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi to furnish views in the matter. On November 21, 2006 the Military Accountant General replied that second pension is not admissible to pensioners of Civil Armed Forces who have got re-employed in strategic organizations, rather they can count their previous service towards new service for enhancing pension for their entire service i.e. combined for both spells after obtaining Government sanction in terms of Article 529 CSR read with Ministry of Finance’s O.M. No.F12 (33) R-I/59 dated 25.04.1960,” it said.

“So far as the relevant rules on the subject are concerned, Rule 9.1 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1963 contemplates that where a person obtains civil re-employment, temporary or permanent, it shall be incumbent upon him to declare before the appointing authority the amount of gratuity, pension etc in respect to previous employment,” the court stated.