' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J.--- Respondent No,1 ("respondent") was an employee of Daily 'lmroze' which was a newspaper owned and controlled by the Progressive Papers Limited ("PPL"). PPL was in turns fully owned and controlled by the National Press Trust (Private) Limited, that is a body administered and controlled by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Federal Government. The services of the respondent were terminated on 1-1-1991 due to privatization of his employer establishment. He was at the time paid an amount equal to five years of his pension.
Accordingly, the respondent has a claim for pensionary arrears pertaining to the post 1996 period.
2. In the year 2005, the respondent approached the Federal Service Tribunal for grant of his pensionary rights. In the light of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Mubeen us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others (PLD 2006 SC 602) the learned Tribunal directed the respondent to claim his relief before the competent court. Accordingly, the respondent sought relief of pension before the learned Punjab Labour Court in the year 2006. This prayer was resisted by the appellant PPL but ultimately on 7-5-2011 the learned Punjab Labour Court allowed the respondent's plea. An amount of Rs,539,400 was paid to the respondent on 17-6-2011 by the PPL in respect of the period following 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2012 through a writ petition for payment of increments in pension granted from time to time by the Federal Government since, 1996. The said claim is based on the premise that pension is paid to the respondent under rules applicable to retired civil servants. The learned Single Judge allowed the said petition on 18-4-2012.
Hence, this Intra-Court Appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has refuted that the respondent falls within the meaning of 'civil servant' as defined in section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 reproduced as follows:--- "Civil servant means a person who is a member of an All-Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence, but does not include---
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority;
(ii) a person who is employed on contract, or on work-charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies; or
(iii) a person who is "worker" or "workman" as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923); ' He contends that the respondent did not belong to any service of Pakistan but was an employee of an establishment owned and controlled by PPL, a company incorporated under law, which is owned by the Federal Government. His terms and conditions of service are not regulated by any law. More specifically the entitlement of PPL employees to pension is governed by the Progressive Papers Pension Rules, 1985 ("Rules") which are of non-statutory character. The payment of pension to the respondent was made under the said Rules. The appellant maintains that for the foregoing reason the respondent cannot be classified as a civil servant.
4. The controversy between the parties is more specifically whether the respondent can rightfully claim periodic increases in pension as granted to retired civil servants from time to time by the Finance Ministry of the Government of Pakistan. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record Office Memorandum dated 4-7-2011 which notifies Presidential sanction to the revision of basic pay and pension w.e.f, 1-7-2011 for civil servants of the Federal Government. He submits that by no means can the respondent claim benefit of the afore-noted revision of pension rates which is confined to civil servants of the Federal Government.
5. In opposition the learned counsel has referred to the entire ownership and control of the PPL by the Federal Government to entitle the respondent to be treated as a civil servant.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan thoroughly examined the scope of the term 'civil servant' in the case of Muhammad Mubeen-us- Salam (supra). Employees whose terms and conditions of service are not governed by statutory law do not qualify as civil servants. Accordingly, under the PPL Pension Rules, the respondent does not have any statutory or vested legal right to claim pension in the status of a civil servant. As an employee of PPL, the respondent was entitled to receive pension according to the Rules. Any higher right claimed under an inapplicable status cannot sustain. The claim for increment in pension given to civil servants lacks legal force. An amount of Rs,539,400 was paid as past pension to the respondent by the appellant on 17-6-2011 under the Rules. However, that payment was made with a delay of more than 16-years after the respondent's employment was terminated.
7. The question that arises is whether an employer can with impunity deny or withhold a financial right of its employee for 16-years. In the present case, the respondent's suffering was aggravated by lung cancer of which ailment he has died recently. That is one of the grounds which persuaded the learned Single Judge to grant the relief that is now under challenge before this Court.
8. Although we find that the respondent is not entitled to receive pension as a civil servant, however, we also notice that the appellant has for 16 long years denied the legal right to receive pension admittedly guaranteed to the respondent. The delay in payment of such entitlement is without cause and merits redress by payment of compensation by the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that compensation ought to be paid for the period of deprivation of the said right, namely, 16-1/2-years. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that, if at all, such relief should not extend to the period prior to the year 2005 when the respondent approached a court of law for the first time to claim pensionary relief.
9. To our minds, the appellant employer of the respondent avoided and failed to perform its duty to grant a legal right guaranteed to its employee, the respondent. The appellant thereby withheld means of sustenance of the respondent after his termination from service. The right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution includes the right to livelihood and hence sustenance. Reference is made to Suo Motu case No,13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan interpreted Article 9 of the Constitution as follows:--- "Article 9 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life to all persons. Right to life has been explained and interpreted by the Superior Courts in a large number of cases. It includes right to livelihood, right to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and right to acquire suitable accommodation, which could not hang on to fancies of individuals in authority, and includes all those aspects of life which go to make a man's life meaningful, complete and worth living. It implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter."
10. As the period for which the respondent was deprived of pensionary dues according to the appellant is 1-1-1996 to 17-6-2011, therefore, it is appropriate that the appellant should compensate the respondent for the said period of 16-years, 5-months and 17-days @ 10% per annum accruing on the principal amount of Rs,539,400 paid as past pension to the respondent on 17-6-2011 by the appellant in acknowledgment of its obligation to discharge the said obligation.
11. Allowed in the above terms.