MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD ASLAM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD ASLAM VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department art.9---Civil service---Pensionary benefits, entitlement to---Fundamental right---Scope---Question of payment of pensionery benefits is purely a matter pertaining to fundamental rights---Pension is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life---Person who enters the Government /public service has also something to look forward to after his retirement viz. his retirement benefits; the grant of pension being the most valuable of such benefits---Pension is like a salary and is no longer a bounty or an ex-gratia payment , but isa right acquired after putting in satisfactory service for the prescribed minimum period---Right to pension has been conferred by law and cannot be arbitrarily abridged or reduced or refused except to the extent and in the manner provided in the relevant rules and it becomes the property of the retiring employee or civil / public servant as a matter of right upon the termination of his / her service---Pension, like salary, is a regular source of livelihood, and thus, is protected by the right to life enshrined in and guaranteed by the art. 9 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD ASLAM VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department S.3---Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer by order of Vice-Chancellor, University of Engineering and Technology Lahore ('UET Lahore'), but was posted at University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila Campus ('UET Taxila Campus'), however, later he served on deputation to Irrigation Department---On superannuation petitioner was denied issuance of his retirement notification and pensionary benefits---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court seeking directions for award of his pensionary benefits---Contention of the respondent/UET Lahore was that the petitioner had no lien with UET, Lahore---Validity---Record reflected that UET, Taxila Campus, was made University of Engineering and Technology Taxila ('UET Taxila') in the year 1994---Under S. 3(6) of the University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila Act, 1994, regular employees of UET Lahore serving at UET Taxila Campus were declared employees of the UET Taxila---Petitioner was, admittedly, not virtually serving in UET Taxila Campus when the same was converted into independent University, rather he was deputed in Irrigation Department being the employee of UET, Lahore---Civil servant / deputationist, who had never been absorbed permanently in the borrowing department would continue to be on deputation and his lien could not be terminated in his parent department---Even his lien could not be terminated with his consent, unless he had been confirmed against some other permanent post---Respondent/ UET Lahore shall be finally responsible to pay the pension / pensionary benefits to the petitioner , however, for the period he worked in the Irrigation Department, respondent / UET Lahore shall collect the pensionary contribution for that period as its own---Petitioner could not be denied the right of pension rather UET Lahore was obliged to pay the petitioner within shortest possible time---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances .

MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD ASLAM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department art — 2024 PLC(CS) 116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC