MAQSUD AHMAD vs THE ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, PAKISTAN REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for the recalculation of his pension. The appellant, a retired Audit Officer, contended that paragraph 4 of the Finance Division's Office Memorandum dated 3-10-1991, which stated that pension shall be calculated for all pensioners from time to time in accordance with the latest rules, entitled him to have his pension recomputed based on the salary and fringe benefits currently applicable to serving civil servants of his former grade. The core legal question was whether this memorandum allowed for the notional revision of pension amounts for already retired civil servants whenever pay scales for serving employees are revised. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the memorandum. Relying on the principle established in I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan, the Court held that retired civil servants and serving civil servants constitute separate classes. Consequently, pensioners cannot claim a right to the notional revision of their pension amounts based on subsequent pay scale revisions applicable to serving employees, as pension is computed according to the rules in force at the date of retirement.
- Are retired civil servants and serving civil servants considered the same class for the purpose of pension calculation?
- Does the phrase 'from time to time' in pension rules entitle retired civil servants to the recalculation of their pension based on revised pay scales of serving employees?
- Is a retired civil servant entitled to the notional revision of their pension amount when pay scales for serving civil servants are revised?
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is an appeal with leave of this Court against a judgment dated 1-2-1993 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,113(L) of 1992 filed by the appellant for claiming the re-calculation of his pension amount in terms of para. 4 of the Memorandum No,F.6(4)/Reg(6)/91, dated 3-10-1991, dismissing the same.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the appellant retired from service on 25-7-1970 as Audit Officer and his pension was calculated in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of his retirement. It seems that after the judgment of this Court in the case of I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad (1991 SCM R 1041) which was rendered in the first quarter of 1991), in late 1991 the Finance Division issued aforesaid office memorandum providing the formula for calculating the pension. Para. 4 of the above O.M. Provides that "Pension shall be calculated for all pensioners from time to time in accordance with the latest rules". On the basis of the above para. The appellant agitated the matter before the department and contended that his basic pension calculated on 25-7-1970 on the date of his retirement should be recalculated on the basis of the salary and other fringes benefits which a Civil servant equally placed in the same position and holding same office would be getting after the issuance of the above memorandum. The above claim of the appellant was rejected by the department.
3. Thereupon, he filed the above appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed for the following reasons:-- "(5) It is obvious that the decision of the appeal depends upon correct interpretation of the provision of paragraph 4 of O.M. Dated 3-10-1991. They are to the effect that ' Pension shall be calculated for all pensioners from time to time in accordance with the latest rules.' We agree with the interpretation made by the Accountant-General Pakistan Revenue in his letter dated 26-1-1992.
4. The expression from time to time means on different occasions at the retirement of a civil servant; whereas the words 'latest rules' are clearly suggestive of the rules obtaining at the time of the retirement of a particular individual.
(6) In this view of the matter, we hold that the provisions of paragraph 4 of the O.M. Dated 3-10-1991 have been rightly interpreted and understood by the respondents and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief."
5. Against the above judgment he filed a petition for leave to appeal before this Court, which was granted to consider whether the interpretation of above para. 4 by the Tribunal is correct.
6. ' In support of the above appeal the appellant has appeared in person and has vehemently contended that by virtue of above para. 4 of the above memorandum, he is entitled to the recalculation of his basic pension on the basis of the salary and fringe benefits payable to an Audit Officer of his grade. The above contention was also urged in the case of I.A. Sharwani v.
7. Government of Pakistan (1991 SCM R 1041) (supra) but the same was repelled as follows: ".... We are unable to subscribe to Mr. Samdani's above submission that civil servants who have already retired and who will retire in future, are to be treated as one class nor we are inclined to agree with the above submission of the learned Attorney-General. In our view, reasonable classification will be that all the pensioners as a group are to be treated as one class and all serving civil servants as a group are to be treated as a separate class. In this view of the matter, if the pay scales of serving civil servants are revised, the civil servants, 'who have by then already retired cannot have any legitimate grievance to agitate for notional revision of their pay scales for re-computing their pension amounts for any purpose as the pension amount is to be computed as above C.S.R. 4 on the basis of the pension rules in force on the date of retirement of a civil servant.
8. The pension rules contain formula as to the method of computation of pension amount with reference to the salary drawn by him till the date of retirement and, therefore, there cannot be uniformity in the amounts of pension among the civil servants despite of having equal rank and equal length of service, if they retire not on one date but on different dates and in-between such dates pay scales are revised."
9. ' The above extract from the above judgment is a complete answer to the appellant's claim. The appeal has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. ' However, it may be observed that the appellant had pointed out that he was awarded Rs,1,000 as costs by the Court which the respondent had not yet paid. Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, learned Deputy Attorney-General who was representing the respondents undertook to ensure that the above amount is paid to the appellant.