MUHAMMAD FAHEEM WALI, J. Petitioner through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking issuance of direction to respondents to release the pension of her deceased husband namely Shah-e-Room along with any other appropriate relief in this context.
2. According to petitioner her husband was initially appointed as Mate on work-charge basis on 05.09.1988, later-on he was selected as Beldar on daily wages basis on 11.05.1990 followed by his regular adjustment against the post of PPC operator on 29.06.2007. However, he met with his natural death on 16.10.2015 during the service of WAPDA, however, the authority is not releasing her the pension of her deceased husband despite the fact that she is entitled for pensionary benefits of her husband in view of the Judgment dated 18.10.2012 of this Court in W.P. No.841-D/2010, titled "Parizada Vs. S.E. CRBC etc", which was upheld by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan vide Judgment dated 11.07.2018 in Civil Appeal No.1203 of 2014.
3. Respondents No.3 & 4 were directed to tile their para wise comments which they did wherein they opposed the issuance of desired writ.
4. Arguments of the learned counsel for parties heard and record gone through with their valuable assistance but for the sake of brevity, without reproducing the arguments of the counsels, same will be adequately dealt with at appropriate stages in this judgment.
5. There is no cavil with the proposition that according to `Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority Pension Rules, 1977' the minimum length of qualifying service for the purpose of pension entitlement is 10 years regular service, whereas, the husband of petitioner was appointed on regular basis on 29.06.2007 and died on 16.10.2015, hence, he could render 08Years_03Months_17Days regular service; and as such, the pensionary benefits were denied to petitioner.
6. During arguments, the main emphasis of learned counsel for petitioner was that Regulation 371- A of Civil Service Regulations provides for counting of the period served by a government servant on contract basis, and if contract employment of the husband of petitioner is counted in his service career, the same would entitle her to get pensionary benefits of her husband.
7. There is no cavil with the provisions of Regulation 371-A of CSR which provides for inclusion of the temporary or officiating service period for the purpose of pension & gratuity; but with certain conditions; and same cannot be used as a tool to bypass the conditions for qualifying service of pensionary benefits, rather a government servant has to fulfil the minimum number of years for grant of pension. In other words, period of service rendered on contract or temporary basis, as contemplated by Regulation 371-A ibid would only be added, included, or taken into account for the purposes of pensionary benefits, if a government servant is otherwise entitled for pension.
While rendering this view, we are fortified by the dictum laid down by the worthy Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others Vs. Shah Jehan Shah" (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 534), wherein the Apex Court was pleased to hold: "The appellant's main grievance is that the eighteen years she spent at the Commissionerate be counted towards her service at the department for the purposes of the grant of pensionary benefits as per Article 371-A of the CSR, suffice it to say that the Commissionerate for Afghan Refugees does not in any way fall within the meaning of "temporary establishment" as defined in Civil Appeal No.1072/2005 above to mean an 'organisation or institution which is not permanent, rather effective for a certain period only as described. Even otherwise, the appellant's service with the department was temporary and on a contract basis, and there is nothing on the record which suggests that she was subsequently confirmed or made permanent within the department.
Therefore keeping in view the interpretation of Article 371-A of the CSR explained above with regard to Civil Appeal No.1072/2005 in that the said article would not ipso facto allow government servants rendering temporary service in a temporary establishment for more than five years to be entitled to grant of pension, rather such period would only be counted towards such government servants' pension if otherwise entitled to pension, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not entitled to pensionary benefits as claimed by her."
8. Same view was further affirmed in the recent judgment by the august Apex Court in the case titled "Ministry of Finance through Secretary and others Vs. Syed Afroz Akhtar Rizvi and others"
(2022 PLC (C.S.) 202), wherein apex Court was of the view: As such, the view consistently taken by this Court in a situation where the services of a contractual employee are converted into regular employment is that although the period spent in contractual employment subject to a minimum of five years can be included in calculating pensionary benefits but only and only in a situation where the employee is otherwise entitled/eligible to receive pension subject to having rendered qualifying service (10 years) in permanent employment. Unless he meets the criteria of having served for the duration of the qualifying period, the period spent in contractual employment cannot be added to make up for any deficiency in qual6ing service for the purpose of eligibility to receive pension.
9. Admittedly in this case the husband of petitioner died before completing his ten years' service which was a statutory requirement of period under the Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority Pension Rules, 1977, to make the family of any employee entitled to pensionary benefits.
10. For what has been discussed above, this petition is devoid of merits, hence dismissed.