Supreme Court Declares Pension a Vested Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has unequivocally held that pension constitutes a vested constitutional and statutory right of a government servant—not a discretionary concession or act of charity—and cannot be withheld solely on account of delayed application submission or resignation from service.

In its detailed, court-approved judgment, a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb set aside the Federal Service Tribunal’s order dated July 3, 2024, passed in the matter of Muhammad Usman vs Federation of Pakistan.

The apex court recorded that the petitioner, Muhammad Usman, had rendered over 20 years of qualifying service as a Senior Auditor (BS-11) in the Military Accountant General’s office, Rawalpindi, thereby satisfying the pension eligibility threshold. The bench highlighted that the 2001 amendment to the Civil Servants Act, 1973, reduced the minimum qualifying service for pension from 25 years to 20 years—a criterion the petitioner indisputably met.

The Court expressly rejected the contention that a 13-year delay in filing the pension application disentitled the petitioner. It ruled that the right to pension vests immediately upon retirement or acceptance of resignation and is not extinguished or curtailed by mere delay in claiming it. The doctrines of laches and limitation, the judgment clarified, have no application to pensionary entitlements.

The bench further corrected the erroneous reliance on CSR Regulation 418, holding that the provision pertains only to the computation and counting of service periods and does not authorise wholesale forfeiture of pension. Resignation per se does not disentitle an employee who has already completed the prescribed length of service.

Deeming the decisions of both the department and the Federal Service Tribunal to rest on a misconstruction of law, the Supreme Court converted the pending petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the competent authorities to process and disburse full pensionary benefits to Muhammad Usman in accordance with applicable rules and entitlements.

Reaffirming settled judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that pension is a protected, indefeasible right that cannot be defeated on administrative technicalities, procedural lapses, or discretionary considerations.