MUHAMMAD ASIF, J. This Writ Petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), carries the following prayer clause: "In view of the above facts and grounds, it is prayed that:- i) The respondents may graciously be directed to pay the commutation amount to the petitioners without any further delay, immediately, with interest at bank rate, to meet the ends of Justice. ii) The respondents may kindly be restrained from utilizing the amount received from encashment of NIT Units, till decision of the instant writ petition. iii) That respondents may kindly be directed to pay the Costs of Litigation in accordance with the provisions of Costs of Litigation Act 2017.
Any other appropriate relief, which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the matter, may also be awarded."
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of instant petition as averred therein are that the petitioners are retired employees of Pakistan Television Corporation ("PTVC"). After retirement, despite of repeated request, they have not received their commutation amounts. Although some of the petitioners were paid a small portion of their dues in installments, but the same even does not count to 10% of the total of commutation amount due. Consequently, present petition was filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the right to receive pension is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, forming an essential component of the right to life and dignity under Article 9 of the Constitution; that the arbitrary and unlawful act of the respondents in withholding the commutation amount without any legal justification has not only caused the petitioners immense mental agony, frustration, and financial hardship, but also amounts to a gross miscarriage of justice. It was further contended that the respondents, by their inaction and failure to fulfill their statutory obligations, have blatantly violated the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioners as enshrined under Articles 4, 9, 25, and 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Per learned counsel, between the years 1986 to 1995, PTVC had invested in NIT Units worth Rs.18 Million under the employees' Provident Fund.
However, the current management of PTVC has allegedly encashed 50% of those units, amounting to Rs.645 Million, without distributing a single rupee to the rightful beneficiaries, the employees, despite their undeniable legal and equitable entitlement to the said amount. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the cases reported in 2016 PLC (C.S) 653, PLD 2023 LHR 288, 2022 PLC (C.S) 1433, 2024 PLC(C.S) 116, 2023 PLC (C.S) 1133, 2023.
4. On behalf of respondents, Ms. Shaista Tabassum, learned AAG and Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawad, Advocate raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the instant petition, and argued that PTVC is a public limited company, duly incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), it operates independently under its own Memorandum and Articles of Association, and is neither an organ nor a functionary of the Federation of Pakistan. Accordingly, PTVC does not fall within the scope of "person" amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. On merits, it was submitted by them that PTVC has its own Pension Rules, which were duly approved by its Board of Directors in consultation with the Government of Pakistan, and were formulated pursuant to the terms settled with the Collective Bargaining Agent ("CBA"). Under these rules, the Board of Directors is the competent authority to determine and finalize all matters relating to the pension of its retired employees. Hence, the petitioners have no locus standi or enforceable cause of action against the respondents. It was further submitted that employees of autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies, including corporations such as PTVC, are entitled only to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) on a matching contribution basis, which is not equivalent to statutory pension within the scope of Article 260 of the Constitution. Furthermore, under Para 12(16), Schedule II, and Para 12(1) of the Rules of Business, 1973, the Finance Division is the competent authority for framing rules relating to pay, allowances, retirement, and other service benefits. The pension rules of PTVC were never referred to the Finance Division, which is a mandatory requirement under the said Rules. Therefore, the grant of pension under such unapproved rules has no legal sanctity, and is not supported by the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 16-10- 1984. Lastly, the learned AAG as well as learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant petition, being not maintainable.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this petition is fully competent and maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court had already declared the payment of pension amount under Article 9 of the Constitution is a fundamental right. He placed reliance upon the cases Muhammad Yousaf v.
Province of Sindh and other (2024 SCMR 1689) and M. Rafique Vs. VC, AIOU (2023 PLC (C.S) 1143).
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record with their able assistance.
7. Before addressing the prime question involved in this petition, I would like to examine the issue of the maintainability of the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. It is not disputed that the PTVC is public limited Company duly incorporated under the repealed Companies Act, 1913, subsequently replaced by the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and later by the Companies Act, 2017. It is also not disputed that since its inception, the PTVC remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding. In Abdul Wahab and others Y/S HBL and others, (2013 SCMR 1383), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against Habib Bank Limited was not maintainable as the said Bank did not fall within the definition of "person or authority performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation", nor the State / Federation had the majority shareholding therein or majority representation in its Board of Management. Whereas, in the present case, as noted above, although PTVC is incorporated as a limited company, it has, since its inception, remained under the effective and dominant control of the Federal Government, which holds the majority of its shareholding. The Government exercises pervasive administrative and financial control over PTVC, which functions as a public service broadcaster and performs duties of a public nature. Therefore, PTVC qualifies as a "public sector company" within the ambit of Rule 2(1)(g) of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time. It is thereby deemed to be a "person" discharging functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, within the meaning and scope of constitutional jurisprudence. Moreover, appointments to the offices of General Manager and Managing Director of PTVC are made directly by the Federal Government, and the emoluments payable to such officeholders are disbursed from the public exchequer, as such, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere in the subject affairs of PTVC under its Constitutional jurisdiction. On the aforesaid proposition, I am fortified by the decision of the Honorable Supreme held in the case of Pir Imran Sajid and others V/S Managing Director / General Manager (Manager Finance) Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others, (2015 SCMR 1257) and in (2019 SCMR 1) (regarding the appointment of a Director, PTVC), and further supported by the case of Ghulam Haider Badini v. PTV Corporation, Islamabad reported as (NLR 1995 Service 172). Even otherwise, the question of payment of commutation amount (pension), being purely a matter pertaining to fundamental rights of the petitioners, can be looked into in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court irrespective of the fact whether the service rules of PTVC are statutory or not.
8. Having addressed the preliminary objection, now reverting to merits of the case. The prime question involved in this petition is whether the denial of commutation amounts by PTVC to the petitioners, retired employees of the Corporation, is lawful and sustainable in the eyes of law.
9. From the record, it is manifest that the petitioners were retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on various dates and, as per their claim, are entitled to commutation amounts as part of their pensionary benefits. The details are tabulated as under: S#Name Last Held Position Date of Retirement Due Amount of Commutation 1 Zafar Ullah Khan Dir. Admn. & Personnel17.03.2023 Rs.13,923,637/- 2 Ahsan Ul Haq Contr. Eng. Tranining 03.02.2023 Rs.11,448,586/- 3 M. Salam Barlas Sr. Admn. Officer 15.11.2022 Rs.88,29,524/- 4 M. Ayub Admn. Officer 10.01.2023 Rs.88,29,524/- 5 M. Iqbal Falki Eng. Incharge 09.10.2022 Rs.96,18,076/- 6 Liaquat Ali Contr. Finance 03.02.2023 Rs.29,44,779/- 7 S. Ahmed Hassan Sr. Admn. Officer 09.08.2023 Rs.88,55,416/- 8 Asif Ali Head Driver 16.06.2023 Rs.67,26,901/- 9 Sh. Saqib Khan Dept. Contr Statistics 01.11.2023 Rs.14,004,565/- 10 Ashiq Hussain Sr. Driver 14.06.2023 Rs,54,66,997/- 11 Shahzad Ahmed Sr. Eng. Incharge 20.09.2023 Rs.1,04,24,596/- 12 Gulzar Hussain ZiaSr. Admn. Officer 19.08.2023 Rs.83,47,965/- 13 Shaukat Ali Admin. Officer 31.12.2023 Rs.78,04,606/-
10. The respondents have rebutted the claim of the petitioners on the ground that PTVC is governed by its own Pension Rules, which were framed with the approval of its Board of Directors and in consultation with the Government of Pakistan. They asserted that these rules were the outcome of terms settled with the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA), and as such, the Board of Directors of PTVC is the competent authority to determine pension matters. The respondents further asserted that employees of autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies, including corporations like PTVC, are not entitled to statutory pension but are instead governed by the Contributory Provident Fund
(CPF) scheme. As per their stance under Para 12(16), Schedule II, and Para 12(1) of the Rules of Business, 1973, the Finance Division is the competent authority to frame rules related to pay, allowances, and retirement benefits. Since PTVC's Pension Rules were never referred to the Finance Division, the respondents asserted that they lack legal sanctity and are inoperative in view of the Office Memorandum dated 16-10-1984 issued by the Finance Division.
11. This Court, however, finds the above rebuttal to be misconceived and legally untenable. The record unequivocally reflects that the Rules and Regulations governing pensionary and post retirement benefits were duly framed by the competent authority and continued to remain in force at the time of the petitioners' retirement. Any procedural lapse, such as non-referral to the Finance Division, cannot be used to prejudice the accrued rights of the petitioners. The responsibility to fulfill procedural formalities lies squarely with the management of PTVC, and not with the retiring employees. Until such time the Pension Rules are formally repealed or amended in accordance with law, they continue to remain operative and binding upon PTVC.
12. The Finance Division's stance that PTVC employees are limited to CPF instead of GPF or statutory pension creates an unjustified distinction between employees of the Federal Government and those serving in State-owned entities. Such a classification, without reasonable and objective justification, offends the mandate of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. The petitioners, though employees of a corporation, have performed public functions under the substantial administrative and financial control of the State. In such circumstances, the denial of commutation amount (pensionary benefit), by the respondent No.4 (Finance Division) on the above pretext and by the respondent No.2&3 on the pretext of an ongoing financial crisis is also both arbitrary and unjust and it also amounts to unfair discrimination and violates the settled principles of fairness, equality, and legitimate expectation.
13. Prima facie, the petitioners possess the requisite qualifying service and were duly retired in accordance with the applicable rules. In their written submissions, respondents No.2&3 themselves conceded that some partial payments were made to a few petitioners, which implicitly affirms the liability. This selective disbursement further supports the petitioners' claim.
14. The right to receive pension and its allied benefits, including commutation, is not merely a statutory entitlement but forms part of the fundamental right to life as envisaged under Article 9 of the Constitution. A retired employee, upon superannuation, is ordinarily bereft of alternate sources of income and is wholly dependent on pension for sustenance, dignity, and survival.
15. At this juncture, it is quite pertinent to have a look at the definition and legal character of the term "pension", as well as the nature of the rights associated therewith. These aspects were comprehensively examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the landmark case of I.A.
Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1041). The relevant excerpt from the said case is reproduced below for reference: "A person who enters Government service has also something to look forward after his retirement, to what are called retirement benefits, grant of pension being the most valuable of such benefits.
Pension like salary of a civil servant is no longer a bounty but is a right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period. A fortiori, it cannot be reduced or refused arbitrarily except to the extent and in the manner provided in the relevant rules. Conversely full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course unless the service rendered has been duly approved. lf the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension is empowered to make such reduction in the amount as it may deem proper. This power is however exercisable only before pension is actually sanctioned."
16. In the case of Re : Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of Superior Courts, (PLD 2013 SC 829), it was held, inter alia, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that pension is a right which the Government servants or employees in different positions and different capacities earn in terms of the relevant statutory provisions applicable to their case, mostly depending upon their length of service ; and, in any case it is not a State bounty which could be awarded as a favour to any individual outside the scope of the applicable statute. In the above-cited case, the "right to pension" and the true connotation and concept of pension was again examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring, inter alia, to the following definitions: Law Laxicon : "A periodical payment made by a Government, company or any employer or labour in consideration of past services or the relinquishment of rights, claims or emoluments ; regular payments to persons in order that they may maintain themselves."
Black's Law Dictionary : "Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally monthly) with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner ; Deferred compensation for services rendered."
New Encyclopedia Britannica Vol.9, 15th Edition at page 266: "Series of periodic money payments made to a person who retires from employment because of age, disability or completion of an agreed span of service. The payments generally continue for the remainder of the natural life of the recipient, and sometimes to a widow or other survivor."
17. Same view was further affirmed in the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh and other (2024 SCMR 1689), wherein it was reiterated that pension is integral to a retired employee's sustenance and dignity, and denial thereof amounts to infringement of the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. It would be conducive to reproduce the relevant excerpt, which is delineated hereunder:- "According to Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen and (a) no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law; (b) no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and (c) no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do. In the case of Shahla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693), this Court held that the word "life" is very significant as it covers all facets of human existence. The word "life" does not mean, nor can it be restricted to, only vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. The word "life" includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and constitutionally. According to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, while under Article 23, everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment; everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work; everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection and everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. In our view, right of accrued pension in accordance with law is also an integral part of one's lifeline for sustenance and salvation and after serving a long period, its denial without any lawful justification amounts to denying the right to life of a retired person who, on attaining the age of superannuation, solely depends on his pension for his livelihood as a source of income. The immensity of the expression "life" embedded in the Constitution under Article 9 has a manifold and multifarious understanding and interpretation, and it cannot be read in a restricted or limited sense, rather it should be read in its wholeness with all the fundamental rights, privileges, and obligations, and in case of any deprivation of lawful or accrued right, it amounts to cause serious impairment and defacement to the right to life.
9. In the case of Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon (PLD 2007 SC 35), this Court observed in paragraph 07 that it is a pathetic condition that Government servants, after having served for a considerable long period during which they give their blood and sweat to the department, had to die in a miserable condition on account of nonpayment of pension/pensionary benefits, etc. Thus, everyone who is responsible in any manner in delaying the case of such retired officers/official or widows or orphan children for the recovery of pension/gratuity and G.P. Fund has to be penalized.
In the end, this Court issued strict directions that all the Government Departments, Agencies, and Officers deployed to serve the general public within the limit by the Constitution as well as by the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary/retirement benefits cases in future and violation of these directions shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them.
10. It is well-known that the catchword "pension" articulates the payment of a fix amount according to the scheme of pension in accordance with the law, rules and regulations or the pension scheme in vogue which is recompensed on a regular basis to a person on his superannuation. The foremost and predominant strength of mind is to afford and safeguard the economic refuge and shelter and recuperate old-age security. In general phenomena, the superannuation or stepping down is considered a second inning in which a retired person aspires to live up to his highly anticipated imaginings or dreams and devote time to his kith and kin and friends. After retirement, the timely payment of pension is considered as the main source of income for livelihood. Despite serving for a long time with sheer commitment, if the pensionary benefits are delayed or denied without any lawful justification or without assigning any reason or providing any opportunity of hearing, it would be a very sorry state of affairs, rather an appalling and deplorable situation for a person who performed his duties with utmost dedication and enthusiasm throughout his career but at the eve of his retirement, he is treated inhumanly, coldheartedly and gets nothing as done in this case, on the pretext of totally misconceived interpretation of some rule, even then, the pension could not have been denied without issuing show cause notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Quite the reverse, the unfortunate petitioner has been deprived of the pensionary benefits despite serving the department for at least 24 years, 05 months and 15 days without adjustment of his earned leaves.
11. The payment of pensionary benefits are protected under the law, rules and regulations even in the private sector, where the scheme of pension in vogue is according to the organizational/management policy, so in all fairness, where the pension is payable, it is a vested right and not charity, alms or donation by the employer but a compensation of services rendered assiduously by giving blood, sweat, toil, and tears. It is time and again seen in Court in various cases that after serving for a long period, when a person reaches his superannuation and submits his papers for starting pension, instead of fulfilling the requirements and helping out the past employee, the department started raising unwarranted glitches or complications to delay the pensionary benefits resting on unmerited or trivial pretexts including financial crunch, which has nothing to do with a retired employee. Even the widows and orphans of retired employees are faced with such a terrible and disgraceful situation for the payment of family pension which is a right and not charity. On the contrary, the employer is bound to process the pension claim as soon as the pension papers are filed after fulfilling all the requisite formalities but due to inordinate delay, this Court shows displeasure and observed in the case of Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon (supra) that everyone who is responsible in any manner in delaying the case of such retired officers/official or widows or orphan children for the recovery of pension/gratuity and G.P.
Fund has to be penalized. Under the exactitudes of pension rules and regulations, the concerned department is obligated to immediately process the pension papers without putting it on hold or throwing it in shelves for an unlimited period of time. At the same time, it is also the onerous duty and obligation of the head of the department/competent authority and all other persons in the department who are engaged in the completion process to keep a vigilant eye in order to ensure the swift payment of pensionary benefits without unreasonable delay for protecting and safeguarding the interest of the retired employees and their families. They should also remember that in the near future, they will also relish the flavor of retirement and file their own papers for pension and step into the shoes of retired employees. In the self-accountability process with the honest motto of not dragging the payment of pensionary benefits of others, the persons responsible in order to change the culture of making delays should maintain a clearheaded policy to complete the process for pension fairly within a sensible time. If a swift process really comes into fashion by means of their sincere efforts then hopefully, at the time of their retirement, they may not face the same problems and hindrances that their past colleagues faces. As the saying goes, "as you sow, so shall you reap"."
18. In view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it stands conclusively established that pension, much like salary, constitutes a continuous and legitimate source of livelihood. As such, it falls squarely within the protective ambit of the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is a settled proposition of constitutional jurisprudence that the right to life inherently encompasses the right to livelihood. Consequently, this right cannot be subjected to the whims, discretion, or arbitrary inclinations of those in positions of authority. Public employment, and the benefits flowing therefrom, is not a charitable concession or bounty granted by the State or its functionaries, nor can its continuity be left to their mercy. Rather, it is a legally enforceable right, grounded in law, justice, and constitutional protections.
19. Sequel to the above discussion in light of the authoritative dictas laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as cited above, I am persuaded to hold that the core grievance of the petitioners appears to be well-founded. It is a settled principle that upon superannuation or retirement, the pensionary entitlements of an employee, including commutation, must be processed during service and disbursed promptly upon retirement, without any unwarranted delay. Consequently the right of commutation amount is now vested in favour of the petitioners, and they are entitled to its release. The respondents are directed to process the case of petitioners for grant of commutation amount according to law without any failure of time and complete the same within a period of two months from the date of this judgment.
20. However, the remaining relief, in respect of the prayer to restrain the respondents from utilizing the amount received from the encashment of NIT Units, is beyond the purview of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the petitioners have an alternate efficacious remedy available under the Companies Ordinance 1984, having its own Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, therefore, this relief is declined.
21. Instant writ petition is partially allowed to the above-stated effect. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman, Pakistan Television Corporation, Islamabad and the Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad for compliance.